Memo on Legal Question

Whether Grand River Stables (GRS) and its owner and operator, Mr. Church, are insulated from liability to Allison Wing under the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act, M.C.L.A section 691.1661 et seq. (EALA), and if not, whether GRS is liable to Ms. Wing under a negligence cause of action.

Our client, Mr. Church, wants to know whether he and/or GRS have legal liability to Allison Wing in connection with injuries suffered by Ms. Wing as a result of her falling from a horse which was provided by GRS to three girls, one of whom was Ms. Wing, who were being given a group riding lesson on July 24 of this year. Ms. Wing allegedly suffered various injuries from the fall, including a broken arm and broken collar bone and a possible concussion from hitting her head on a rock in the area of the fall.

GRS offers English riding lessons on its horses and horses owned by riders to people of all ages and stages of riding experience, including beginners. GRS supplies riders with tack or horse equipment used in horseback riding. GRS has been in operation for about 10 years. It also boards horses and breeding services for mares.

According to Mr. Church, the owner and operator of GRS, Ms. Wing told him that she was almost as good a rider as her sister, Krista, who, he says, is a good intermediate rider. Mr. Church had never seen Ms. Wing ride before. He did not start her on a l

. . .
y posted by them in their office does not conform to the terms of the mandatory warning set forth in section 691.1666. Unilateral attempts by providers of goods and services to disclaim liability are generally unenforceable even under EALAS. GRS and Mr. Church may cross-complain against the manufacturer of the saddle but they must prove that it was defectively manufactured. Strict liability would not not apply since saddles are not inherently dangerous. 2. Negligence. In order to prevail on a negligence cause of action, Ms. Wing would have to prove that: (a) defendants owed her a legal duty of care; (b) that duty was breached by defendants; (c) that breach or negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries; and (d) actual injury or other damages occurred. (d) is not at issue in this case. Ms. Wing could sue for damages including pain and suffering, and may include a count for negligent infliction of mental suffering. (a) Existence of a legal duty to care for plaintiff. It is well established in Michigan that "there can be no actionable negligence where there is no legal duty" Clark v. Grover, 132 Mich.App. 476, 347 N.W.2d 748, 749, 750 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) and Klimek v. Drzewiecki, 135 Mich.App. 115, 352 N.W.2d 361 (Mich
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Ms Wing, Ct App, Ms Wing's, Sup Ct, GRS Church, EALAs Michigan, Clark Dalman, Act MCLA, EALA Michigan, Court Gowdy, ct app, mich ct app, mich ct, ms wing, mich sup ct, sup ct, mich sup, equine activity, proximate cause, ms wing's, legal duty, grs church, sup ct 1965, ct app 1986, 375 mich 85,
Approximate Word count = 2831
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Memo on Legal Question