Does Utah's Equine Activities Act invalidate liability waivers for negligence? Penunuri v. Sundance Partners Explained

In Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether Utah’s Limitations on Liability for Equine and Livestock Activities Act prevents equine activity sponsors from using pre-injury releases to waive liability for ordinary negligence.

Background and Facts

Lisa Penunuri participated in a guided horseback ride at Sundance Resort. During the ride, her horse suddenly accelerated to catch up with other horses when gaps formed in the riding group, causing her to fall and suffer serious injuries. Before the ride, Penunuri had signed a release agreement waiving claims against Sundance for injuries “resulting from any negligence.” She subsequently sued Sundance for negligence, gross negligence, and vicarious liability, arguing that the Equine Activities Act rendered the release unenforceable.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Utah Code Section 78B-4-202, which protects equine sponsors from liability for inherent risks unless they engage in negligence, gross negligence, or intentional misconduct, invalidates pre-injury releases for ordinary negligence. Penunuri also argued that the Equine Act established a public policy against such releases, similar to the Utah Supreme Court’s holding regarding ski resort releases in Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the release was enforceable. The court found that the Equine Act’s “unless” clause defining exceptions to statutory immunity merely circumscribes the Act’s protections—it does not mandate liability or invalidate common law defenses including contractual releases. The court distinguished Rothstein, noting that Utah’s Skiing Act contained an explicit public policy declaration supporting affordable insurance for ski operators, while the Equine Act lacks any similar policy statement.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah generally permits parties to contract away liability for ordinary negligence in recreational activities. When challenging such releases, practitioners must identify explicit statutory language or clear legislative policy statements prohibiting them. The absence of a public policy declaration in a recreational immunity statute significantly weakens arguments that the statute implicitly invalidates liability waivers. The court’s analysis also demonstrates the importance of examining related statutory sections, as Section 203’s reference to “releases” supported the conclusion that the legislature contemplated their continued use.