KENNETH L. BUETTENER, Presiding Judge.
T1 Appellant/Plaintiff Tanya Brown (Brown) sued Appellees/Defendants Kenneth Beets and Misty Beets, individually, and doing business as Bar B Farm (the Beets), for negligence after Brown was kicked by a horse on a trail ride led by Misty Beets. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Beets. Brown appeals. After de novo review, we hold that there are material facts in dispute as to whether the Beets are exempt from liability under the Release signed by Brown and the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act, and the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We reverse and remand.
T 2 Misty Beets occasionally led horseback trail rides at Bar B Farms, property owned by her and her husband, Kenneth Beets. Brown hired Misty Beets to lead a group trail ride for her daughter's birthday on [194]*194April 9, 2010. There were approximately ten (10) people in the group. Brown signed the "Bar 'B' Farms Release from Liability" (the Release) one day before the trail ride. The Beets provided the horses to Brown's group. Rosie Ferrell (Ferrell), an eleven-year-old girl, was riding a horse named Honey, and Brown was riding a horse named Quiney. Ferrell and Honey trotted up beside Brown and Quincy, and Honey kicked backward, striking Brown and breaking her leg.
{ 3 Brown filed her petition alleging negligence September 14, 2010. The Beets filed a motion for summary judgment August 11, 2011. The Beets asserted that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) Brown waived her right to sue by signing the Release, and (2) Brown's claim was barred by the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Beets, and Brown appeals.
T4 We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 12, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. We, like the trial court, will examine the pleadings and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id.
15 Summary judgment proceedings are governed by Rule 18, Rules for District Courts, 12 0.8.2011, Ch. 2, App. 1. Summary Judgment is appropriate where the record establishes no substantial controversy of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group, 1999 OK 7, 17, 976 P.2d 1043, 1045. Summary judgment is not proper where reasonable minds could draw different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. Id. Further, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Vance v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 1999 OK 78, ¶ 6, 988 P2d 1275, 1278. Where, as here, the defendants move for summary judgment on the basis of an affirmative defense, they must show that there is no substantial controversy as to the facts that are material to the affirmative defense, and that the facts and inferences that may be reasonably drawn from them are in their favor. Daugherty v. Farmers Coop. Ass'n, 1984 OK 72, ¶ 5, 689 P.2d 947, 949.
T 6 There are two issues on appeal. First, whether the Release prevents Brown from suing the Beets for negligence. Second, whether the Beets are exempt from liability based on the Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act.
THE RELEASE
17 In their motion for summary judgment, the Beets argue that the Release signed by Brown extended the waiver of liability pursuant to the Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act.1 See 76 O.S.Supp. [195]*1952002 § 50.4. The Beets note that according to the Release, the only cireumstances under which Brown could recover were if the Beets committed an act with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the riders, and that act caused Brown's injury, or the Beets failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the abilities of the riders to manage the horses provided based on their representations. The Beets assert that because they did not commit gross negligence and they made more than a reasonable effort to ascertain the abilities of the riders, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the Release.
¶ 8 In her response to the Beets' motion for summary judgment, Brown provided evidence that Misty Beets failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage the horse Honey based on her representations of her ability.2 Brown attached affidavits from the trail ride participants, including Ferrell, which stated that Misty Beets asked the kids who had the most experience riding. Ferrell represented that she had the most experience. Misty Beets paired Ferrell with Honey. According to the affidavits, Misty Beets told Ferrell that Honey was just broken and had bucked her off. Misty Beets testified that was all she did to determine the participants' abilities and she put the children on the older, more laid back horses.3 Brown also attached an affidavit from Jim Baldwin, DVM, in which he stated that the standards of trail riding were not met because Misty Beets failed to determine the participants' abilities to manage the horses provided.
¶ 9 The Beets concede that if Misty did not make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of the riders to manage the horses based upon the riders' representations, Brown may recover under the Release. We hold that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Misty Beets made a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage the horse provided based upon her representations. Therefore, the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the Release.
LIVESTOCK ACTIVITIES LIABILITY LIMITATION ACT
¶ 10 The Beets assert that even if they are not released from liability based on the Release, they are exempt from liability and entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Brown's injury comes within the scope of the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. See 76 O.S.Supp. 2009 § 50.1-50.4. According to the Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act, "a livestock activity sponsor, a participant or a livestock professional acting in good faith and pursuant to the standards of the livestock industry shall not be liable for injuries to any person engaged in livestock activities when such injuries result from the inherent risks of livestock activities." 76 O.S. § 50.8(A). Equine are livestock, 76 0.8. § 50.2(8), and riding horses is considered "engaging in a livestock activity." 76 0.8. § 50.2(1), (4)(e). A "livestock activity sponsor" includes an individual who organizes or provides the facilities for riding horses. 76 0.8. § 50.2(5). A "livestock professional" means a person [196]*196engaged for compensation in renting a horse to someone for the purpose of engaging in a livestock activity, such as riding, or renting equipment or tack. 76 O.S. § 50.2(6). "Inherent risks of livestock activities" mean those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of livestock activities, including but not limited to the propensity of livestock to behave in ways that may result in injury to persons on or around them and the unpredictability of livestock's reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement and unfamiliar objects, persons or other animals. 76 0.8. § 50.2(T).
T 11 However, the Act does not prevent or limit the liability of a livestock activity sponsor or professional if the sponsor or professional:
a.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KENNETH L. BUETTENER, Presiding Judge.
T1 Appellant/Plaintiff Tanya Brown (Brown) sued Appellees/Defendants Kenneth Beets and Misty Beets, individually, and doing business as Bar B Farm (the Beets), for negligence after Brown was kicked by a horse on a trail ride led by Misty Beets. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Beets. Brown appeals. After de novo review, we hold that there are material facts in dispute as to whether the Beets are exempt from liability under the Release signed by Brown and the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act, and the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We reverse and remand.
T 2 Misty Beets occasionally led horseback trail rides at Bar B Farms, property owned by her and her husband, Kenneth Beets. Brown hired Misty Beets to lead a group trail ride for her daughter's birthday on [194]*194April 9, 2010. There were approximately ten (10) people in the group. Brown signed the "Bar 'B' Farms Release from Liability" (the Release) one day before the trail ride. The Beets provided the horses to Brown's group. Rosie Ferrell (Ferrell), an eleven-year-old girl, was riding a horse named Honey, and Brown was riding a horse named Quiney. Ferrell and Honey trotted up beside Brown and Quincy, and Honey kicked backward, striking Brown and breaking her leg.
{ 3 Brown filed her petition alleging negligence September 14, 2010. The Beets filed a motion for summary judgment August 11, 2011. The Beets asserted that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) Brown waived her right to sue by signing the Release, and (2) Brown's claim was barred by the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Beets, and Brown appeals.
T4 We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 12, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. We, like the trial court, will examine the pleadings and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id.
15 Summary judgment proceedings are governed by Rule 18, Rules for District Courts, 12 0.8.2011, Ch. 2, App. 1. Summary Judgment is appropriate where the record establishes no substantial controversy of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group, 1999 OK 7, 17, 976 P.2d 1043, 1045. Summary judgment is not proper where reasonable minds could draw different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. Id. Further, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Vance v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 1999 OK 78, ¶ 6, 988 P2d 1275, 1278. Where, as here, the defendants move for summary judgment on the basis of an affirmative defense, they must show that there is no substantial controversy as to the facts that are material to the affirmative defense, and that the facts and inferences that may be reasonably drawn from them are in their favor. Daugherty v. Farmers Coop. Ass'n, 1984 OK 72, ¶ 5, 689 P.2d 947, 949.
T 6 There are two issues on appeal. First, whether the Release prevents Brown from suing the Beets for negligence. Second, whether the Beets are exempt from liability based on the Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act.
THE RELEASE
17 In their motion for summary judgment, the Beets argue that the Release signed by Brown extended the waiver of liability pursuant to the Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act.1 See 76 O.S.Supp. [195]*1952002 § 50.4. The Beets note that according to the Release, the only cireumstances under which Brown could recover were if the Beets committed an act with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the riders, and that act caused Brown's injury, or the Beets failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the abilities of the riders to manage the horses provided based on their representations. The Beets assert that because they did not commit gross negligence and they made more than a reasonable effort to ascertain the abilities of the riders, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the Release.
¶ 8 In her response to the Beets' motion for summary judgment, Brown provided evidence that Misty Beets failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage the horse Honey based on her representations of her ability.2 Brown attached affidavits from the trail ride participants, including Ferrell, which stated that Misty Beets asked the kids who had the most experience riding. Ferrell represented that she had the most experience. Misty Beets paired Ferrell with Honey. According to the affidavits, Misty Beets told Ferrell that Honey was just broken and had bucked her off. Misty Beets testified that was all she did to determine the participants' abilities and she put the children on the older, more laid back horses.3 Brown also attached an affidavit from Jim Baldwin, DVM, in which he stated that the standards of trail riding were not met because Misty Beets failed to determine the participants' abilities to manage the horses provided.
¶ 9 The Beets concede that if Misty did not make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of the riders to manage the horses based upon the riders' representations, Brown may recover under the Release. We hold that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Misty Beets made a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage the horse provided based upon her representations. Therefore, the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the Release.
LIVESTOCK ACTIVITIES LIABILITY LIMITATION ACT
¶ 10 The Beets assert that even if they are not released from liability based on the Release, they are exempt from liability and entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Brown's injury comes within the scope of the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. See 76 O.S.Supp. 2009 § 50.1-50.4. According to the Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act, "a livestock activity sponsor, a participant or a livestock professional acting in good faith and pursuant to the standards of the livestock industry shall not be liable for injuries to any person engaged in livestock activities when such injuries result from the inherent risks of livestock activities." 76 O.S. § 50.8(A). Equine are livestock, 76 0.8. § 50.2(8), and riding horses is considered "engaging in a livestock activity." 76 0.8. § 50.2(1), (4)(e). A "livestock activity sponsor" includes an individual who organizes or provides the facilities for riding horses. 76 0.8. § 50.2(5). A "livestock professional" means a person [196]*196engaged for compensation in renting a horse to someone for the purpose of engaging in a livestock activity, such as riding, or renting equipment or tack. 76 O.S. § 50.2(6). "Inherent risks of livestock activities" mean those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of livestock activities, including but not limited to the propensity of livestock to behave in ways that may result in injury to persons on or around them and the unpredictability of livestock's reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement and unfamiliar objects, persons or other animals. 76 0.8. § 50.2(T).
T 11 However, the Act does not prevent or limit the liability of a livestock activity sponsor or professional if the sponsor or professional:
a. commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of any person engaged in livestock activities, and that act or omission caused the injury,
[[Image here]]
c. provided the equipment or tack, which was faulty, and such equipment or tack was faulty to the extent that it did cause the injury,
[[Image here]]
d. provided the livestock and failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of the participant to manage the particular livestock based upon the participant's representations of such participant's ability,
[[Image here]]
76 0.8. § 50.3(B)(2).
{12 The Beets argue that Misty was a livestock activity sponsor or professional acting in good faith and pursuant to industry standards, that a horse kicking backward is an inherent risk on a trail ride, and Brown's injury resulted from that inherent risk.
13 In her response, Brown argued that the livestock activity sponsor or professional is only exempt from liability under the Act if the sponsor or professional is acting in good faith and pursuant to industry standards, and the Beets were not. Brown attached to her response an affidavit from Dr. Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin opined:
9. That based upon my review of [the deposition testimony of Kenneth Beets, Misty Beets and Tanya Brown] I am of the opinion that the standards of trail riding were not met by:
a. Failing to instruct the participants properly and determine their ability to manage the horses that were provided.
b. Failing to make a reasonable effort to provide horses that were suitable for novice riders.
c. Failing to provide the proper equipment or tack to properly control the horse "Honey" that kicked the Plaintiff Tanya Brown.
d. Having a stallion in close proximity to several mares in this trail riding activity created a dangerous condition.
e. The presence of a stallion in close proximity with mares will cause the mares to become agitated and highly unpredictable which is a fact that was known or should have been known by the Defendant Misty Beets.
If Misty Beets was not acting according to industry standards, she is not exempt from liability under the Act. We hold that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Misty Beets acted pursuant to industry standards, and the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
114 Brown also asserts that Misty Beets committed several acts described in § 50.3(B)(2) and, therefore, the Beets were not exempt from liability. Brown argued, inter alia, that Misty Beets provided the horse Honey to Ferrell and failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage Honey based upon her representations of her ability.4 See 75 O.S. [197]*197§ 50.3(B)(2)(d). As previously «discussed, Brown has produced evidence that Misty Beets did not make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage Honey based upon Ferrell's representations of her ability. If Misty Beets failed to make a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage Honey, the Beets are not exempt from liability under the Act. We hold that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Misty Beets made a reasonable effort to determine the ability of Ferrell to manage Honey based upon her representations. Therefore, the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the Act.
T 15 There are genuine issues of fact material to determining whether Brown waived her right to sue by signing the Release and whether the Beets are exempt from liability based on the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. Therefore, the Beets are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
{16 REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JOPLIN, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J. (sitting by designation), concur.