FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE
SIDELINES JUNE 2012 13
Continued from page 11
the lower court’s decision that there were no facts supporting her
negligence claim against the defendant. 1. That the lower court
erred in determining that there was no evidence that Bar-U was
negligent; 2. That the lower court failed to address the issue of
Bar–U’s negligence as the agent and the trail guide leader; 3.
That the lower court failed to determine that DeShields raising
the doctrine of “Res Ipsa Loquitur” was inappropriate based on
the opinion that DeShields failed to produce any evidence of
negligence; and 4. That no issues of material fact existed.
Res Ipsa Loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, is a legal rule
under which the negligence of the alleged wrongdoer may
be inferred from the mere fact that the accident happened.
However in order to successfully prevail under this legal theory,
the Plaintiff must show that “but for the absence of the alleged
negligence, the injury would not have occurred”- in other words
there obviously must have been some sort of negligence which
caused the injury.
Negligence Argument not raised during the Trial Court
Proceeding
The trial court specifcally noted that Plaintiff had failed to
present any evidence that the Defendants had been negligent
by having her ride the horse she was given or that Defendants
were negligent based on any conduct which they took or failed
to take. The court also found that the Plaintiff had not put forth
any evidence that the trail
was negligently maintained by
the defendants. Specifcally,
Plaintiff raised on appeal
her objection to the lower
court dismissing the case on
summary judgment based on
her claim that there was a bees
nest in the vicinity of the trail
and that bees had caused the
horse to speed up and cause
the injury. The Appeals Court
specifcally stated that if there
was factual evidence upon
which Plaintiff could base her
claim that the Defendant had
failed to maintain the trail in a
safe manner and that this failure
had caused the accident, the
Plaintiff should have directed
the District Court’s attention to
those facts. In essence, each
party is responsible for making
their own case and adequately
presenting the evidence and
facts to the trial court not the
appeals court. The appeals
court is not in a position to hear
or make decisions regarding
evidence not submitted at the
trial court level.
Plaintiff also attempted
to assert a new theory of
negligence on appeal, one
which had not been asserted at
the trial court level. This new
claim of negligence was that the
trail guide had been negligent
when she allowed the Plaintiff
to proceed frst during the trail
ride. The appeals court found
that since the Plaintiff did not raise this theory of negligence
in front of the trial court, the appeals court could not now
consider it when it was raised for the frst time on appeal.
Again, what may have been a valid theory upon which to
fnd negligence had to be dismissed on the bases that it had
not been raised at the trial court proceeding.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
The trial court determined that riding a horse is an
inherently dangerous activity and as such a rider can fall
off a horse even if no one has been negligent. As a result,
the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is inapplicable and, as
a result, this particular argument which has been raised
by the plaintiff must fail. Because all of the plaintiff’s
arguments on appeal failed, the appeals court affrmed the
lower court’s decision.
Conclusion
When consulting with your counsel as to the strategy of how
to proceed and what arguments should be made make sure
your attorney is aware of all of the facts. Similarly, make
sure that your attorney listens to the facts and considers
them carefully when formulating your case. Remember, it
is your case, you have the most at stake and while your
attorney understands the law, you have the most vested in
the outcome.