|
4638 The risk created by a trail guide employed by a riding stable in allegedly making his horse gallop without warning riders that their horses would do the same was not inherent in the activity of trail riding, so an action by a rider injured as a result was not barred by implied assumption of the risk; a hold-harmless agreement (i.e., pre-accident release; express assumption of the risk) in which plaintiff acknowledged that horses may bolt without warning and assumed this risk as well as all other unspecified risks of trail riding was ambiguous and must therefore be construed against the drafter, so it does not bar action for injury arising from the alleged negligence of the drafter’s employee.CitationCOHEN v FIVE BROOKS STABLE (Galloping Guide) 159 CA4 1476 [See: Knight v Jewett 3 C4 296, T/AT 10/92; Avila v Citrus 38 C4 148, T/AT 5/06; Solis v Kirkwood 94 CA4 354, T/AT 1/02; Benedek v PLC 104 CA4 1351, T/AT 2/03; Harrold v Rolling J 19 CA4 578, T/AT 12/93]
|
|
