Soloman v. Taylor

Summary

The court held that a horseback rider assumed the risk of injury when her horse was startled by dogs, because the risk was known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable based on her experience and prior awareness of the dogs. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s strict-liability claim based on the horse’s purported vicious propensities and affirmed the lower court’s order.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury because the sudden and unintended actions of a horse, including shying or spooking and causing a rider to be thrown or fall, were known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable to her under the circumstances.
2. Plaintiff's strict-liability theory based on purported vicious propensities was unavailing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury associated with the horse's sudden and unintended actions under the circumstances.
2. Whether plaintiff could recover under a strict-liability theory based on the horse's purported vicious propensities.

Disposition

affirmed