Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's Equine Act invalidate liability waivers for horseback riding? Penunuri v. Sundance Explained
Summary
Lisa Penunuri was injured during a guided horseback ride at Sundance Resort and had signed a waiver releasing Sundance from liability for ordinary negligence. She argued the waiver was unenforceable under the Equine and Livestock Activities Act and violated public policy similar to the court’s holding in Rothstein regarding ski waivers.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Penunuri v. Sundance, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether the Equine and Livestock Activities Act invalidates preinjury liability releases for ordinary negligence in horseback riding accidents.
Background and Facts
Lisa Penunuri was injured during a guided horseback ride at Sundance Resort when her horse suddenly accelerated to catch up with other horses in the group. Before the ride, she had signed a waiver releasing Sundance from liability for injuries resulting from any negligence. After her injury, Penunuri sued for negligence, arguing the waiver was unenforceable under Utah’s Equine and Livestock Activities Act.
Key Legal Issues
The court faced two primary questions: (1) whether the Equine Act invalidates preinjury releases for ordinary negligence, and (2) whether such releases violate public policy under the Act, similar to the court’s holding in Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp. regarding ski resort liability waivers.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, focusing on the plain language of the Equine Act. The Act eliminates sponsor liability for inherent risks of equine activities but retains liability for injuries caused by sponsor negligence. However, the court found no language suggesting the Legislature intended to invalidate contractual waivers for ordinary negligence. The court distinguished Rothstein, noting that unlike the Skiing Act’s explicit public policy statement about insurance affordability, the Equine Act contains no similar public policy bargain. Section 203 of the Act specifically contemplates that sponsors may provide a “release” for participants to sign, supporting the enforceability of such waivers.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that recreational activity liability statutes must be analyzed individually to determine their impact on preinjury releases. The absence of explicit public policy language in a statute makes it difficult to invalidate otherwise valid contractual waivers. Practitioners should carefully examine the specific statutory framework governing each recreational activity when advising clients on liability release enforceability.
Case Details
Case Name
Penunuri v. Sundance
Citation
2013 UT 22
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20110565
Date Decided
April 9, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Equine and Livestock Activities Act does not invalidate preinjury releases for ordinary negligence and does not establish a public policy that renders such releases unenforceable.
Standard of Review
Correctness for statutory interpretation questions
Practice Tip
When drafting preinjury releases for recreational activities, carefully analyze the specific statutory framework governing that activity, as different recreational statutes may have different implications for enforceability.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.