The Michigan EALA became effective on March 30, 1995. There are no reported decisions under it. Prior to EALA, Michigan courts followed the traditional common law rule that riders on horses assumed the risk that horses might throw them. Elias v. Hess, 327 Mich. 323, 41 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 1950). For non-Michigan cases indicative of the more recent pre-EALA trend toward imposing liability on equine operators, see Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, 20 Cal.Rptr. 270, 16 Cal.App. 4th 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) and Mounts v. Knodel, 83 Or.App. 90, 730 P.2d 594 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). The facts in Mount are similar to the facts in the present case. The rider was injured from a fall due to a broken left stirrup on the saddle. Elias is a weak precedent for operators to rely on in view of the above developments.Krystnya M. Carmel, The Equine Activity Liability Acts: A Discussion of Those in Existence and Suggestions for a Model Act, 83 Ky.L.J., (1994/1995), 157-196. n is one of more than 30 states which have adopted statutes designed to limit the liability of owners and operators of equine facilities. The enactment of EALAs in Michigan and elsewhere reflects a strong public policy "to encourage equine activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities, in light of the reality that rising insurance costs and increased litigation would put many equine professionals . . . out of business." EALAs put the concept of assumption of risk back into cases involving injuries related to horses. Carmel says that "the replacement of the assumption of risk doctrine with that of comparative negligence has resulted in more litigation for injuries related to equine activity." Michigan abolished the assumption of risk doctrine in Felgner v. Anderson, 375 Mich. 23, 133 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 1965). Since 1980 comparative negligence has been applicable to Michigan negligence actions. Douglas v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 765 (D. Mich. 1980), an |
