April 6, 2010
Written By Attorneys: John M. Clark and Erin Nulty
This article is an interpretation of current law and is offered for informational purposes only. This material is not legal advice and should not be construed or used as a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
A New Jersey Appellate Court recently upheld the enforceability of a liability release for personal injuries caused by a horse at a boarding and training facility. In Polechek v. Schina, the plaintiff brought an action for negligence against the owners of a horse farm, but did not include any allegations of intentional conduct or liability under the Equine Activities Liability Act. No. A-5875-08T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 30, 2010)(unpublished decision). In holding that the broad liability release executed by the plaintiff was enforceable, the Court found that the disclaimer of liability was reasonable and not offensive to public policy in light of the plaintiff's allegations of mere negligence. In addition, due to plaintiff's failure to include allegations of liability under the Equine Act in the Complaint, the court refused to address arguments plaintiff presented on appeal regarding the applicability of the Act's immunity exceptions.
In Polechek, the plaintiff, a licensed horse trainer, brought an action for negligence against the owners of a horse farm after she was injured while trying to stop a runaway horse. Plaintiff's allegations of negligence focused on the failure of the facility to maintain the rail of the track so that horses could not escape. Id. at 4. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff executed a Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (the "Release"), in which she voluntarily agreed to release the farm from "any liability whatsoever" and acknowledged that the Release was "a waiver of any and all liability[ies]." Id. at 3-4. The plaintiff argued that the Release should not be enforced because it did not discharge the farm from liability for its own negligence. Id. at 6-7.
The court examined the language of the Release and found that its broad provisions were legally enforceable since plaintiff had only alleged ordinary negligence against the farm. Id. at 7. While public policy normally dictates that disclaimers can be voided in the presence of intentional or reckless conduct, the court found that no such allegations were made by the plaintiff. Id. With respect to plaintiff's arguments regarding the applicability of liability under the Equine Activities Liability Act, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to raise the issue at the trial level precluded the court from addressing it on appeal. Id. While the court did not provide any in-depth analysis regarding the Equine Act, it did note that the release of liability for negligence was consistent with the Act, which grants limited immunity to the operators of horse farms. Id.
The enforceability of the Release resulted in the dismissal of the suit against the farm owners. This case demonstrates that liability releases for owners of equine facilities can be effective tools in defending negligence actions. Liability carriers insuring such properties should ensure that equine facilities use releases in their daily business routine.
