18-CIV-01163 DIANE M. DOOLITTLE VS. BARBARA PHILLIPS, ET AL.

DIANE M. DOOLITTLE BARBARA PHILLIPS
MARK J. SOLOMON CARY S. SMITH

DEFENDANT BARBARA PHILLIPS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant BARBARA PHILLIPS’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED in its entirety.

Defendant fails to demonstrate that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c). Specifically, Defendant is unable to establish the assumption of risk doctrine as a complete defense to Plaintiff’s First cause of action for negligence. Defendant contends that her admitted conduct of cutting across the jumping lanes in the warm-up arena, approaching Plaintiff from behind without warning, and bringing her horse into close proximity with Plaintiff’s horse was within the range of ordinary activity involved in horse jumping competitions. Defendant further contends that her conduct did not increase the risks to Plaintiff over and above those inherent in the sport of show jumping, and that such conduct cannot be prohibited without discouraging vigorous participation in the sport or otherwise fundamentally changing it. See CACI 470.

In support of these contentions, Defendant introduces deposition testimony from her trainer, Hugh Mutch, who testified that Defendant’s conduct was “on the verge of reckless”; that Defendant committed a “cardinal sin”, e.g. “something more than a mistake”; and that such conduct could be characterized as that of someone who is “brain dead”. (Decl. Carlson, Exh. A at 36:2-37:7 and 41:11-13.) Given this testimony from her own trainer, Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff assumed the risk of such “brain dead”, “reckless” behavior from other riders is untenable.

Moreover, there are multiple triable issues of material fact that preclude summary adjudication of either Plaintiff’s First cause of action for negligence or Second cause of action for strict liability. These triable issues include UMF Nos. 10, 17-22, and 24-28, which are repeated throughout Defendant’s Separate Statement under each cause of action for which summary adjudication is sought. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED as to Objection Nos. 1-13.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.