Taylor v. Hankin

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEALS from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 18STCV03133, Michael P. Linfield, Judge. Reversed.

Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Walter J. Lack and Brian J. Leinbach for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Wallace, Brown & Schwartz, George M. Wallace and Lisa J. Brown for Defendant and Respondent.

LAVIN, J.

2

INTRODUCTION

Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor (Taylors)^[1] sued Lisa Hankin for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment after a horse that Hankin leased from the Taylors was permanently injured while in Hankin's care. The trial court granted summary judgment in Hankin's favor after finding all of the Taylors' claims arose out of the underlying lease agreement, which contained no provision, express or implied, contemplating that the horse would be returned to the Taylors in any particular condition. The court awarded Hankin more than $215, 000 in attorney fees and costs.

The Taylors appeal from the judgment and subsequent fees and costs awards. Because Hankin did not meet her burden to show no triable issues of fact exist as to any of the Taylors' claims, we reverse the judgment and fees and costs awards entered in her favor.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Lease Agreement

The Taylors own a show horse named Bravado, who they call Bravo. In late July 2017, the Taylors and Hankin executed a lease agreement (Lease Agreement) through which Hankin agreed to lease Bravo for one year for a single payment of $45, 000.

Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, Hankin could use Bravo for "pleasure riding and for showing in the Hunters and Equitation" competition, with restrictions on the number and

3

type of events in which Hankin could ride Bravo. The agreement also provided that only Hankin, Hankin's trainer, or a rider appointed by Hankin's trainer could ride Bravo.

The Lease Agreement required Hankin to keep Bravo at a specific stable and use the Taylors' farrier to shod the horse. Hankin was solely responsible for most costs related to Bravo's care during the term of the lease, including stabling, veterinary, and any other maintenance costs.

The Lease Agreement also required Hankin to immediately notify the Taylors "of any accident or health problems, injury or unsoundness issues that may arise regarding" Bravo during the term of the lease, "particularly if such accident or health problem reasonably requires veterinary treatment." If Bravo became ill or injured such that he couldn't be used for the purposes outlined in the Lease Agreement, Hankin was required to "continue to care for the horse and remain[ed] financially responsible until such time as the horse [was] returned to the same serviceably sound condition as at [the] start of [the] lease, or at [the] end of [the lease term]."

The Lease Agreement included an integration clause, stating that the terms of the agreement "represent[] the entire Agreement between the parties and may not be amended except in writing."

2. Bravo's Injuries

In early July 2018, a few weeks before the end of the Lease Agreement, Maia Aerni, a veterinarian, examined Bravo. Dr. Aerni determined that Bravo was "three out of five lame on the right hind limb on a straight line" and referred the horse to be examined by Carter Judy, a veterinary surgeon.

4

Around the time Dr. Aerni examined Bravo, Krista visited the stables where Hankin kept the horse. According to Krista, Bravo's "condition was deplorable. He was overheated, covered in flies and exhibited a depressed mood. [¶] … [T]he stall in which Bravo was being kept was filthy. It had not been cleaned and the floor was covered in urine-soaked shavings."

Around late July 2018, Dr. Judy examined Bravo. Dr. Judy determined the horse had "suspensory ligament injury moderate on the right hind," including "moderate to severe chronic active suspensory desmitis with tearing and reactive bone edema at the origin of suspensory." As for the horse's left hind, Dr. Judy found "chronic likely inactive suspensory injury with similar reactive bone edema on the cannon bone."

According to Dr. Judy, Bravo's injuries were "very common" and "typical" in "sport horses." Horses that have previously suffered "some sort" of ligament damage are likely to reactivate the injury in the future. Horses with existing ligament damage can perform normally for months or years before showing signs of lameness. But, in Dr. Judy's opinion, the event that aggravated Bravo's chronic leg injuries likely occurred not long before the horse was examined in early July 2018.

After examining Bravo, Dr. Judy submitted a form veterinarian's report for the Taylors to submit to their insurance company for reimbursement of the horse's veterinarian fees. In the report, Dr. Judy checked a box stating that Bravo's injuries appeared to be "entirely new" and not a recurrence of old injuries. Dr. Judy also stated in his report that he believed Bravo had received "proper care" before and after suffering its injuries, and that the horse's injuries had not been accelerated or caused by "lack of care, neglect, overwork, or improper housing."

5

When he was later deposed, Dr. Judy testified that when he examined Bravo, he believed the horse's injuries were new because they hadn't been documented before the examination in early July 2018. Dr. Judy also testified that by checking the box that the horse had received proper care and that there was no evidence of neglect or other wrongdoing, he only meant that because the horse had been brought in for examination in early July 2018, he believed it was receiving proper care. He didn't know anything about how the horse was cared for before it was brought in for examination and had "no idea" how the horse suffered the injury that caused lameness in both of its hind legs.

In August 2018, after the Lease Agreement had expired, Dr. Judy performed surgery on both of Bravo's hind legs. According to Krista, Bravo "had to be retired" and could no longer be "ridden, jumped or showed" after the surgery.

3. The Lawsuit

The Taylors filed a lawsuit against Hankin and others, ^[2]asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment. Relevant here, the Taylors claimed Bravo suffered permanent injuries during the term of the Lease Agreement that were negligently caused by Hankin. Specifically, the Taylors claimed Bravo was injured in early 2018. Instead of notifying the Taylors of the horse's injuries, Hankin tried to mask them by having a veterinarian administer various injections that allowed Hankin to continue riding the horse, which exacerbated the horse's injuries. The Taylors also alleged Hankin stabled Bravo in poor conditions, allowed unauthorized people to ride the horse, and used an unauthorized farrier to shod the horse.

6

As for the breach of contract claim, the Taylors alleged it included an implied provision requiring Hankin to return Bravo in "the same physical condition as [the horse] was [in] at the beginning of the Lease [Agreement]." The Taylors alleged Hankin breached the Lease Agreement by: (1) failing to notify the Taylors that Bravo suffered an injury in January 2018; (2) failing to notify the Taylors that Bravo's condition continued to deteriorate after suffering the injury in early 2018; (3) allowing an unauthorized person to ride the horse; (4) allowing an unauthorized farrier to shod the horse; and (5) failing to return the horse at the end of the lease term in the same condition that the horse was in at the beginning of the lease term. For the negligence and breach of bailment claims, the Taylors alleged that Hankin negligently cared for Bravo in such a manner that she permanently injured the horse.

Hankin moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of each of the Taylors' claims. Hankin argued that for all of the Taylors' claims, the parties' rights and duties were governed by the Lease Agreement, and since that agreement didn't contain a provision requiring Hankin to return Bravo to the Taylors in any particular condition, the Taylors couldn't prevail on any of their claims at trial. In any event, Hankin argued, all of the Taylors' claims failed on the element of causation because Dr. Judy's testimony established that Bravo's underlying injuries were not caused by any specific act or omission on Hankin's part. Hankin otherwise presented no arguments or evidence addressing the Taylors' various theories of breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment. The Taylors opposed Hankin's summary judgment motion.

7

The court granted summary judgment in Hankin's favor. The court found that each of the Taylors' claims arose from an allegation in the first amended complaint that there "was 'an implied agreement that [Bravo] would be returned in the same physical condition as it was at the beginning of the Lease.'" In the court's view, the parties didn't contemplate an implied term in the Lease Agreement addressing Bravo's health at the end of the lease period because the agreement "specifically provides for the allocation of duties and financial responsibility in the event of an injury or health issues during the term of the lease." The court found the Taylors could not prevail on any of their claims at trial.

The court entered judgment in Hankin's favor. The court later awarded Hankin more than $215, 000 in attorney fees and costs.

The Taylors filed separate, timely appeals from the judgment, the order awarding Hankin attorney fees, and the order awarding Hankin costs. We consolidated the Taylors' appeals.

DISCUSSION

1. Principles of Summary Judgment and Standard of Review

A court may grant summary judgment...