h or under strapping on the saddle had a broken buckle. The saddle was GRS' regular school saddle. Mr. Church believes that no one checked the saddle, which had been on Salt during a previous lesson, before Ms. Wing began her lesson. GRS did not have Ms. Wing sign a waiver form from its insurance carrier. GRS posted in its office on the premises a sign from the carrier which stated that GRS would not be responsible for any injuries.
1. Whether EALA successfully limits GRS' and Mr. Church's liability; and
2. Whether GRS and/or Mr. Church were negligent toward Ms. Wing and were the proximate cause of her fall and her injuries.
The answer to the first question is probably not. EALA does not render the owner or operator of a riding stable immune from liability for negligence. The answer to the second question is less clear. It will depend on the facts adduced at trial.
1. Applicability of EALA. Michigan is one of more than 30 states which have adopted statutes designed to limit the liability of owners and operators of equine facilities. The enactment of EALAs in Michigan and elsewhere reflects a strong public policy "to encourage equine activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities, in light of the reality that rising insurance costs and increased litigation would put many equine professionals . . . out of business." EALAs put the concept of assumption of risk back into cases involving injuries related to horses. Carmel says that "the replacement of the assumption of risk doctrine with that of comparative negligence has resulted in more litigation for injuries related to equine activity." Michigan abolished the assumption of risk doctrine in Felgner v. Anderson, 375 Mich. 23, 133 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 1965). Since 1980 comparative negligence has been applicable to Michigan negligence actions. Douglas v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 765 (D. Mich. 1980), and Vining v. Detroit, 1...