KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of two defendants in a lawsuit filed by a volunteer injured while working with a rescue horse in 2019.
The court ruled that the liability waivers Cristina Raybourn signed and Missouri’s Equine Liability Act shield the defendants from legal responsibility, according to the Dec. 10 opinion filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District.
Raybourn began volunteering at Changing Leads Equine Rescue (CLER), a Kansas City nonprofit that cares for and rehomes rescue horses, in June 2019.
Despite limited prior experience with horses, Raybourn received hands-on training and signed liability waivers on two occasions.
The waivers explicitly stated that her volunteer work constituted participation in "equine activities" under Missouri law, which limits liability for inherent risks associated with such activities.
On Dec. 25, 2019, Raybourn was volunteering with only one other worker. During her shift, she was asked to walk a horse named Paradise from CLER’s corral to a neighboring stable, a task she deemed outside her comfort zone, the opinion states.
After expressing this to her colleague, the colleague took the reins. Moments later, Paradise kicked Raybourn in the face, causing severe injuries, including a brain injury and a broken jaw.
Raybourn sued CLER and its landlord, Woodson Hill Equestrian Center, for negligence, premises liability, and misrepresentation, alleging the organizations failed to properly train her and exposed her to undue risk.
Raybourn’s appeal focused on two arguments. She claimed the liability waivers she signed were invalid and she argued that the Equine Liability Act did not apply to her injuries because they stemmed from the defendants’ negligence rather than the inherent risks of equine activities.
The court rejected both arguments. It found the waivers to be valid and concluded that Raybourn’s injuries arose from the inherent risks of working with horses, as defined under Missouri’s Equine Liability Act.
The court concluded that the Equine Liability Act shields equine activity sponsors from liability for inherent risks unless negligence increases those risks.
While Raybourn argued that the defendants failed to provide adequate training and improperly managed the horse, the court noted that she had been cleared to handle horses and had prior experience walking Paradise.
The court also pointed out that Paradise had shown no signs of dangerous behavior on the day of the incident.
Additionally, the court found no evidence that the defendants had acted negligently in a way that enhanced the risks beyond those inherent to handling horses.
When Raybourn expressed discomfort with the task, the other volunteer took over, meaning Raybourn was not alone or performing the specific activity she had claimed was outside her ability at the time of the injury.
The court upheld the protections afforded by the Equine Liability Act and the enforceability of the signed waivers.
The appellate court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that the defendants were not liable for Raybourn’s injuries.
The Appellant is represented by Anthony Bonuchi in Kansas City.
The respondent is represented by Michael Hufft and Joseph Roper in Kansas City.
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD86708