by Doyice Cotten

Sylvia Rieff and her two children visited Jesse James Riding Stables, Inc. and took a guided horseback riding tour. Ms. Rieff signed  a “Horse Rental Agreement” which included a release of liability. The 2022 case (Rieff v. Jesse James Riding Stables, Inc.) was handled by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

This case, with a parent and two minor participants, did not go the way I expected. Here, the parent was injured and the issue was not whether an injured minor was covered in the waiver; the issue was whether the parent had signed the waiver on behalf of her kids or on behalf of the parent and the kids. A little different!

The preamble of the Release stated that the agreement was “by and between Sylvia Rieff [who had written her name in the blank space provided] who will sign below for and on behalf of all under-age family members, and those for whom I am guardian, hereinafter referred to as ‘I/WE,’ and [JJ Stables] ….”[bold added.] The waiver stated that the company was not liable except in the case of gross negligence. One section included:

I/WE understand and agree that except in event of THIS STABLES’S gross negligence, I/WE accept full responsibility for bodily injury, property damage, death, medical and other financial loss expenses to include, but not limited to, time lost from school or work or disability, which are sustained by any member of my group so listed above, on or in relationship to the premises and operations of THIS STABLE and/or while riding or handling horses or other animals owned by same; and that I/WE hereby, for myself, my heirs, administrators and assigns, do hereby release and discharge the owners, operators, sponsors of the premises and their respective servants, agents, officers and all other participants of and from all claims, demands, actions and causes of action for same injuries, damages, and death ….

Finally, in Section IV, “Closing Statement and Signatures,” the Release stated that “THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WAIVER” and provided three lines for signatures…. [Bold added.] She signed the second line.

About 20 minutes into the tour, her saddle loosened and caused her to fall from the horse. She had significant injuries. About a year later, Ms. Rieff sued JJ Stables for negligence. The stables moved for summary judgment based on the waiver. The summary judgment was granted.

She appealed claiming the waiver did not meet the Hargis test and that she was not a party to the waiver – that she was signing on behalf of the two children, but not for herself. The Hargis court had held that “the text of the release must be “so clear and understandable that an ordinarily prudent and knowledgeable party to it will know what he or she is contracting away; it must be unmistakable.” The court provided a four-part test for waiver enforceability, of which a waiver must pass only one:

(1) it explicitly expresses an intention to exonerate by using the word “negligence;” or

(2) it clearly and specifically indicates an intent to release a party from liability for a personal injury caused by that party’s own conduct; or

(3) protection against negligence is the only reasonable construction of the contract language; or

(4) the hazard experienced was clearly within the contemplation of the provision.

A key element in the case was the clarity and meaning of the following sentences: 1) …[.] I/WE hereby, for myself, my heirs, administrators and assigns, do hereby release and discharge the owners, operators, sponsors of the premises and their respective servants, agents, officers and all other participants of and from all claims, demands, actions and causes of action for same injuries, damages, and death[.]  and 2)  “By this agreement, made and entered into this day, by and between Sylvia Rieff [bold added][who had written her own name on the blank line] who will sign below for and on behalf of all under-age family members, and those for whom I am guardian, hereinafter referred to as ‘I/WE,’ and [JJ Stables] hereinafter referred to as ‘THIS STABLE[.]’ ”

The court stated:

Here, Ms. Rieff testified that she signed the Release, but offered no other explanation during her deposition. She did not assert that although she signed it, she did not sign it on her own behalf, or that she signed it only for her children. Now, failing to cite to affirmative evidence in the record, she claims she was not actually a party to the Release. Instead, she relies on her beliefs regarding a 22-word sliver of the Release to establish ambiguity. That is not enough; belief alone is insufficient. O’Bryan, 202 S.W.3d at 588 (citation omitted). As such, we find the Release had only one realistic interpretation – that it bound Ms. Rieff, individually – and therefore, it was not ambiguous.

The court ruled that the waiver was enforceable and the court affirmed the summary judgment ruling of the trial court. In so doing the waiver provided protection for the JJ Stables. Some of the arguments are worth reading; click here for the entire case.

Photo Credit: Thanks to Virginia State Parks via Flickr.