You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this horseback-riding-lesson accident should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ expert raised questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risk of riding:

The expert opined that defendant unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding by numerous acts and omissions, including selecting an inappropriate horse for a novice rider such as plaintiff; providing an unsafe riding space that had ground poles; and failing, prior to bringing the horse to a trot, to ensure that plaintiff knew how to control the horse’s speed and dismount in the event of an emergency. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law… , we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding … . Enos-Groff v Schumacher. 2018 NY Slip Op 02960, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSEBACK RIDING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSEBACK RIDING,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (ASSUMPTION OF RISK,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH FATHER, WHO HAD BEEN IN THE MILITARY, HAD NOT PROCURED HOUSING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS UNDER-SIX-MONTH-OLD SON, HE DEMONSTRATED HE WAS WILLING AND ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD; THEREFORE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS WAS REQUIRED AND CUSTODY WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO HIM; THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER’S FAILURE TO PROCURE HOUSING RENDERED HIM UNABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER MOTHER VALIDLY WAIVED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS APPEALABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS CONTESTED BEFORE MOTHER DEFAULTED BY FAILING TO APPEAR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOTHER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HERSELF WAS GRANTED; MOTHER WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP (FOURTH DEPT). ​
IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BY THE DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE EVE OF TRIAL “IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY” BASED UPON PERCEIVED EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCIES (FOURTH DEPT).
INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND LAWSUIT BY RESIDENTS WHICH ALLEGED THE INSURED CONTAMINATED THE AREA WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, THE ALLEGATION OF A MALODOROUS CONDITION WAS DEEMED NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
PLAINTIFF CORPORATION’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY BASED UPON OVERCHARGING HER EMPLOYER; THE RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE LABOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYER FOR INVESTIGATING THE CRIME OR THE TRAVEL COSTS FOR WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO FOLLOW A THIRD DEPARTMENT DECISION RE: TRAVEL EXPENSES AND LOST WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TESTIFYING AT TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Unlawful Imprisonment Charge Merged With Assault Charge

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE OFF... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM...