380 P.3d 3
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- On Aug. 1, 2007, Lisa Penunuri joined a guided horseback trail ride run by Rocky Mountain Outfitters at Sundance; riders signed liability releases and received guide instruction.
- During the ride, two riders (an eight‑year‑old child and Penunuri) repeatedly allowed their horses to graze, producing several gaps between horses in the single‑file line.
- The guide testified she had been slowing the group, planned to take the child’s reins at a clearing about 100 feet ahead, and intended to close gaps after passing hikers and reaching that clearing.
- As the group climbed a steep, bendy section with hikers present, Penunuri’s horse suddenly accelerated and she fell, suffering injury.
- Plaintiffs sued for ordinary negligence and gross negligence; a signed release barred the ordinary negligence claim (affirmed on appeal), and on remand the district court granted summary judgment dismissing the gross negligence claim and awarded deposition costs to Rocky Mountain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because the standard of care for closing gaps is not "fixed by law" | Berry test prevents summary judgment unless standard fixed by law; court must leave issue to jury | Summary judgment is proper where no genuine dispute of material fact; Berry does not bar summary judgment when reasonable minds cannot differ | Court: Berry’s formulation is not a bar; summary judgment appropriate under Rule 56 where no material factual dispute supports gross negligence |
| Whether facts support gross negligence (utter indifference/ failure to observe even slight care) | Employee manual and testimony show guide knew gaps were hazardous and waited to close them — supports gross negligence | Guide exercised at least slight care (gave instructions, slowed ride, planned to pony child’s horse at clearing); evidence cannot show utter indifference | Court: Undisputed facts show guide took some care; evidence cannot support gross negligence as a matter of law |
| Whether summary judgment rested on one disputed fact (guide slowing) or mischaracterized deposition testimony on causation | Court relied on contested testimony and mischaracterized expert testimony about causation and gaps | Court considered multiple undisputed facts and expert testimony; causation testimony speculative | Court: Summary judgment did not rest on a single disputed fact; even if causation were contested, lack of gross negligence is dispositive |
| Whether awarding deposition costs was an abuse of discretion | Costs were unnecessary; depositions could have been obtained more cheaply | Depositions were taken in good faith and used meaningfully in summary judgment; costs allowable under Rule 54 | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; deposition costs were reasonable and used meaningfully |
Key Cases Cited
- Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 301 P.3d 984 (Utah 2013) (previous appeals affirming enforceability of release)
- Berry v. Greater Park City Co., 171 P.3d 442 (Utah 2007) (articulates summary‑judgment guidance in negligence cases)
- Pearce v. Utah Athletic Found., 179 P.3d 760 (Utah 2008) (defines gross negligence as failure to observe even slight care)
- Blaisdell v. Dentrix Dental Sys., Inc., 284 P.3d 616 (Utah 2012) (affirmed summary judgment on gross negligence despite no statutory "fixed" standard)
- Wycalis v. Guardian Title of Utah, 780 P.2d 821 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (source of fixed‑by‑law formulation)
- Elmer v. Vanderford, 445 P.2d 612 (Wash. 1968) (explains disjunctive classes where negligence may be decided as a matter of law)
- Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 201 P.3d 966 (Utah 2009) (deferential review of award of costs)
- Young v. State, 16 P.3d 549 (Utah 2000) (depositio ns recoverable if used meaningfully or necessary for case development)