211 A.3d 1157
Me.2019Background
- On July 7, 2010, McCandless was struck and injured by a horse ridden by the Ramseys’ 10‑year‑old daughter inside an indoor arena after the rider passed her three prior times and on the fourth circuit the horse contacted McCandless, fracturing her wrist.
- The arena had a worn circular track; horses were not limited to the track and rode throughout the arena and near barn doors.
- Spectators had an observation room with a plexiglass window and folding chairs placed along the interior wall; McCandless had been seated in a folding chair but stood and walked toward an exit, passing into an area where horses were being ridden.
- McCandless sued the child (through her parents) for negligence; the Ramseys moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under Maine’s equine‑activity statute, 7 M.R.S. § 4103‑A.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the Ramseys; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the injury arose from the defined “inherent risks of equine activities” and that no statutory exception to immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | McCandless’s Argument | Ramseys’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4103‑A(1) immunity applies | Injury did not arise from an inherent equine risk; fact question | Injury arose from inherent risks of equine activity (horse’s unpredictable behavior in arena) | Immunity applies as a matter of law; injury fits statute’s defined inherent risks |
| Whether the reckless‑disregard exception (§ 4103‑A(2)(C)) applies | Rider acted negligently/recklessly causing injury | No evidence of conscious disregard; rider was a child having trouble controlling an unfamiliar horse | Exception not shown; no facts permit inference of subjective conscious disregard |
| Whether the spectator‑location exceptions (§ 4103‑A(4)(A) or (B)) apply | McCandless was in an area where a reasonable person would not expect horses when pedestrians were present and/or in an area designated for spectators | McCandless stood in an area where horses were ridden and had observed the rider pass three times; not in designated observation room | Court held, viewing facts for plaintiff, that the record still shows she stood where equine activity occurred and was not in the designated observation room; no exception applied |
| Standard/burden on summary judgment regarding immunity | Ramseys must establish applicability of immunity; disputes as to location and expectation create material fact issues | Ramseys argued facts (three prior passes, arena use) established immunity as a matter of law | Court applied de novo review and concluded, on the record and legislative intent, immunity established; concurring judges would have found triable issues on location questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC v. Burrill, 187 A.3d 583 (Me. 2018) (standard for viewing facts on summary judgment)
- Hilderbrand v. Wash. Cty. Comm’rs, 33 A.3d 425 (Me. 2011) (burden on party asserting immunity at summary judgment)
- Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp., 698 A.2d 1042 (Me. 1997) (questions whether injury arises from inherent sport risks may be factual)
- Zuckerman v. Coastal Camps, Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Me. 2010) (federal decision discussing equine‑activity immunity and factual disputes precluding summary judgment)
- Curtis v. Porter, 784 A.2d 18 (Me. 2001) (material factual disputes must be resolved by fact‑finder)