Utah’s Supreme Court has decided the case of Penunuri v. Sundance Ltd., 2017 UT 54. This was a case involving a personal injury sustained by a woman who participated in a horseback riding activity at the Sundance resort in Utah. When her horse fell behind because she could not stop it from grazing, the tour guide continued to a clearing, then turned to go back to take the reins of her horse. When the tour guide turned around, Ms. Penunuri fell off the back of the horse, sustaining injuries.
The district court, upheld by the Utah Court of Appeals, had dismissed Ms. Penunuri’s claims for ordinary negligence and gross negligence on a motion for summary judgment. Ms. Penunuri had signed a release, which advised riders of inherent risks associated with horseback riding. Sundance had also posted signs at various places warning of the inherent risks of horseback riding.
The district court had held that Ms. Penunuri had released Sundance from ordinary negligence with respect to her injuries. With respect to her gross negligence claim, the district court held that there was insufficient evidence to show that Sundance was grossly negligent or that Sundance’s gross negligence had caused Ms. Penunuri’s injuries. These results were upheld by the Utah Court of Appeals.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case. In making its holding, the Court noted that there was tension in some of its prior case law. Some cases seemed to hold that, in order to dismiss a claim of gross negligence on a motion for summary judgment, the court needed to find two elements; namely: 1) that the standard of care was not fixed by law, and 2) that there was insufficient evidence for reasonable minds to conclude that there was gross negligence on the part of the defendant.
The Court expressly repudiated the cases that set forth this two-pronged test, holding that these cases had misinterpreted early case law and, more importantly, that the test was inconsistent with Rule 56 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs motions for summary judgments.
In a motion for summary judgment, the court looks at all the facts that have been developed, including pleadings, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and so forth, and determines whether or not sufficient evidence exists to allow the case to proceed to trial. In deciding a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, the court views the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
If there are no genuine disputes as to material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (i.e., there is insufficient evidence upon which reasonable minds could enter a verdict in favor of the non-moving party), then summary judgment is granted. It is an exacting standard to meet, but when it is met, summary judgment is appropriate. The purpose of summary judgment is to prevent non-meritorious cases from going to trial, thus preventing a potential waste of judicial and other resources.
The Court ruled that it was not necessary to show that the standard of care was not fixed by law in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment. It was sufficient to show that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (i.e., no reasonable fact finder could conclude that there had been gross negligence).
The Court upheld the district court and Court of Appeals’ rulings that summary judgment was appropriate because there was insufficient evidence of gross negligence.
A concern I have about the case is that the tour guide continued to proceed forward about 100 feet to a clearing even after she knew that Ms. Penunuri and another rider had fallen significantly behind. There was evidence that when a horse falls behind the pack by 32 feet or more, it is likely to suddenly accelerate, thus increasing the risk to the rider. Ms. Penunuri’s horse has fallen behind by more than 100 feet.
However, unfortunately for Ms. Penunuri, she did not present any evidence that the risk increased the further her horse fell behind. There was no evidence that there was a bigger risk of danger with her horse being 100 feet behind the pack as opposed to merely 32 feet behind. Thus, there was no evidence that the tour guide behaved in a grossly negligent manner in proceeding to the clearing before she turned around to take the reins of Ms. Penunuri’s horse.
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.
