Nasserziayee v. Ruggles

FAROOQ NASSERZIAYEE AND LENORE SUPNET, husband and wife, on their own behalf, and on behalf of their daughter, M.N., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. JACK RUGGLES and JANE DOE RUGGLES, husband and wife; ZION CANYON TRAIL RIDES AT JACOB'S RANCH, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; JOSHUA RUGGLES; CLAY DOE, Defendants.

No. 4:19-cv-00022-DN-PK

United States District Court, D. Utah

January 7, 2022

Paul Kohler, Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

• DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND

• GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

David Nuffer United States District Judge

This case arises out of an alleged accident at Zion Canyon Trail Rides at Jacob's Ranch (“Jacob's Ranch”) a recreational horseback riding facility. Plaintiffs Farooq Nasserziayee (“Nasserziayee”) and Lenore Supnet (“Supnet”) filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and their daughter, M.N., alleging that M.N. was injured during a horse-riding accident due to the actions of Defendants.

Defendants Zion Canyon Trail Rides at Jacob's Ranch, Jack Ruggles and Jane Doe Ruggles (collectively “Moving Defendants”) moved for summary judgment. They allege that summary judgment is appropriate because (1); no reasonable factfinder could find gross negligence; (2) Plaintiffs assumed the risk of injury; (3) no reasonable fact finder could find negligent infliction of emotional distress and (4) no reasonable fact finder could find intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the following reasons the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Contents

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2

A Prior Ruling Eliminated Some Claims ............................................................................ 3

This Motion for Summary Judgment .................................................................................. 3

Undisputed Material Facts .............................................................................................................. 4

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Defendant's Motion to Strike is Denied ............................................................................. 6

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Will be Granted in Part and Denied in Part 8 A Reasonable Factfinder Could Conclude Defendants Were Grossly Negligent ... 9

Assumption of Risk Does Not Bar Plaintiffs' Negligence Claims ....................... 13

The Prior Ruling Granted Summary Judgment on the Negligent Infliction of Emotional

Distress Claim ....................................................................................................... 16

Summary Judgment Will be Granted on the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Claim ..................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion and Order ................................................................................................................... 18

BACKGROUND

On March 4, 2020, Nasserziayee and Supnet filed a complaint alleging their minor daughter, M.N., was badly injured in a March 21, 2016, fall off of a horse at Jacob's Ranch.^[1] The complaint asserted claims for negligence, gross negligence, infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Jacob's Ranch, Jack Ruggles, and Jane Doe Ruggles.^[2] In April 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added identical claims against Joshua Ruggles and Clay Doe, and alleged, “[b]ased on the statements of Defendant Jack (“Pappy”) Ruggles and Defendant Jacobs Ranch, ” that Joshua Ruggles and Clay Doe were independent contractors.^[3]

A Prior Ruling Eliminated Some Claims

In October 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment^[4], which was granted in part and denied in part (“Prior Ruling”).^[5] The Prior Ruling granted summary judgment for Defendants on the claims for ordinary negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on the Release Plaintiffs signed prior to the horseback ride.^[6]However, the Prior Ruling denied summary judgment on the claims for gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress because those claims were not barred by the Release.^[7]The Prior Ruling also found there was sufficient evidence to support a claim for gross negligence, because there were disputed facts not amendable to resolution based on the record at the time. Specifically, the Prior Ruling noted that Plaintiffs had submitted evidence that helmets were not made available to the group, and the horses were at one point encouraged to go faster, even though they were carrying inexperienced riders. The Prior Ruling concluded that this evidence, if believed by a jury, could support a finding of gross negligence against Jack Ruggles, Jane Doe Ruggles, and Jacob's Ranch.^[8]

This Motion for Summary Judgment

On September 16, 2021, Moving Defendants Jack Ruggles, Jane Doe Ruggles, and Zion Canyon Trail Rides at Jacob's Ranch, LLC filed this motion for summary judgment on all remaining issues (“Motion”), which is resolved in this ruling.^[9] Plaintiffs filed a response on October 14 (“Response”), ^[10] and a supplemental response on October 28, 2021 (“Supplemental Response”).^[11] Moving Defendants filed a reply on October 28, 2021(“Reply').^[12]

On November 3, 2021, Moving Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response, arguing it was untimely filed.^[13] Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Strike on November 15, 2021.^[14] On November 17, 2021, a docket text order was entered construing the opposition as a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and directing Defendants to file a further reply.^[15] Defendants did so on November 29, 2021.^[16]

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs Farooq Nasserziayee, Lenore Supnet, and their daughter M.N. went horseback riding at Jacob's Ranch.^[17]

2. Prior to the start of the ride, Supnet signed a liability waiver (the “Release”) on behalf of her Nasserziayee, and M.N.^[18]

3. The Release contained the following relevant language:

INHERENT RISKS/ASSUMPTION OF RISKS: I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT Horseback riding is classified as RUGGED ADVENTURE RECREATIONAL SPORT ACTIVITY & that risks, conditions, & dangers are inherent in (meaning an integral part of) horse/equine/animal activities regardless of all feasible safety measures which can be taken & I agree to assume them. The inherent risks include, but are not limited to any of the following: The propensity of an animal to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, death, or loss to persons on or around the animal. The unpredictability of an equine's reaction to sounds, sudden movement, unfamiliar objects, persons, or other animals. Hazards including but not limited to surface or subsurface conditions. A collision, encounter and/or confrontation with another equine, another animal, a person or an object. The potential of an equine activity participant to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to injury, harm, death, or loss to the participant or to other persons, including but not limited to failing to maintain control over an equine and/or failing to act within the ability of the participant . . . . I also acknowledge that these are just some of the risks & I agree to assume others not mentioned above.

. . .

I/WE AGREE THAT: I for myself & on behalf of my child and/or legal ward have been fully warned & advised by THIS STABLE that protective headgear/helmet, which meets or exceeds the quality standards of the SEI CERTIFIED ASTM STANDARD F 1163 Equestrian Helmet should be worn while riding, handling and/or being near horses & I understand that the wearing of such headgear/helmet at these times may reduce severity of some of the wearer's head injuries & possibly prevent the wearer's death from happening as the result of a fall & other occurrences. I/WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT: THIS STABLE has offered me, & my child and/or legal ward if applicable, protective headgear/helmet that meets or exceeds the quality standards of the SEI CERTIFIED ASTM STANDARD F 1163 Equestrian Helmet. I/WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT: Once provided, if I choose to wear the protective headgear/helmet offered that I/WE will be responsible for properly securing the headgear/helmet on the participant's head at all times. I am not relying on THIS STABLE and/or its associates to check any headgear/helmet strap that I may wear, or to monitor my compliance with this suggestion at any time now or in the future.

. . .

I AGREE THAT [i]n consideration of THIS STABLE allowing my participation in this activity, under the terms set forth herein, I for myself and on behalf of my child and/or legal ward, heirs, administrators, personal representatives or assigns, do agree to release, hold harmless, and discharge THIS STABLE, its owners, agents, employees, officers, directors, representatives, assigns, members, owners of premises and trails, affiliated organizations, and Insurers, and others acting on their behalf (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Associates”), of and from all claims, demands, causes of action and legal liability, whether the same be known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, due to THIS STABLE'S and/or ITS ASSOCIATE'S ordinary negligence or legal liability; and I do further agree that except in the event of THIS STABLE'S gross negligence and/or willful and/or wanton misconduct, I shall not bring any claims, demands, legal actions and causes of action, against THIS STABLE and ITS ASSOCIATES

...