Holcomb v. Long

The defendant was entitled to civil immunity under the Equine Activities Act, since the plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendant provided faulty equipment or that the defendant willfully disregarded the plaintiff's safety.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Michael Holcomb filed a civil action against Charles Long d/b/a Charles Long Farms “Long”, alleging that Long’s negligence in saddling one of the horses that he owned and a faulty saddle resulted in Holcomb falling from the horse and suffering serious injuries. Long moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Holcomb now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that Long was entitled to civil immunity under Georgia’s Injuries From Equine Or Llama Activities Act1 “Equine Activities Act” because none of the exceptions to immunity outlined in the statute applied. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,2 the record shows that Holcomb and Long were acquaintances through their membership in a local civic organization, and Holcomb had previously mentioned that he and his granddaughter were interested in riding the horses at Long’s farm. Long extended an invitation to Holcomb and his granddaughter and, consequently, on April 7, 2011, they went to Long’s farm to ride horses. Upon their arrival, Long inquired as to their riding experience, and Holcomb stated that he had ridden horses often as a young man while his granddaughter had very little riding experience. Subsequently, Long first saddled a horse named “Elvis” for Holcomb’s granddaughter and then saddled a very docile horse named “Tumbleweed” for Holcomb to ride. Next, he directed Holcomb and his granddaughter to first ride within the fenced corral so that he could assess their respective levels of competency.

Holcomb v. Long

The defendant was entitled to civil immunity under the Equine Activities Act, since the plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendant provided faulty equipment or that the defendant willfully disregarded the plaintiff's safety.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report