Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp.
134 N.M. 341, 76 P.3d 1098, 2003 NMSC 024 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While exculpatory clauses for negligence are generally enforceable, a liability release for personal injury in a commercial recreational equine activity is unenforceable as contrary to public policy when statutory provisions indicate a legislative intent for accountability for negligence and the Tunkl factors weigh against enforceability.
Facts:
- Running Elk Corporation operated 'The Lodge at Chama,' a recreational resort offering activities such as horseback riding.
- On May 29, 1996, Nicholas Berlangieri, an employee of Honeywell Corp., stayed as a guest at the Lodge with a group of colleagues.
- Berlangieri arranged to participate in a guided horseback trail ride on that day.
- The Lodge manager determined Berlangieri and his group were novice riders, selected gentle horses for them, and informed them that horseback riding entailed unavoidable risks of injury.
- The Lodge manager gave Berlangieri and the other guests a copy of the Lodge’s 'Agreement for Release and Assumption of Risk' and asked them to read and sign it, and asked if they understood its terms.
- Berlangieri signed the release, though he later had no memory of this discussion or signing due to the injuries he sustained.
- A Lodge employee with twenty years of experience working with horses saddled Berlangieri’s horse, attesting that the saddle, equipment, and tack were in good, serviceable condition and properly positioned.
- During the trail ride, another guest noticed that Berlangieri’s horse constantly tried to move to the head of the group and move faster than the other horses.
- At the end of the ride, as the group neared the barn, Berlangieri’s horse began to gallop, and Berlangieri fell off to the right side, striking his head and shoulder.
- Two other group members witnessed the fall, and stated that Berlangieri's fall appeared consistent with the saddle sliding to the side.
Procedural Posture:
- Nicholas Berlangieri sued Running Elk Corp. in the Santa Fe County district court, alleging that Running Elk’s employees failed to properly install the tack on the horse and that Running Elk either knew or should have known the tack was faulty or improperly installed, constituting negligence, carelessness, and recklessness.
- Running Elk Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was insulated from liability by the Equine Liability Act and that the release signed by Berlangieri exculpated it from all liability for negligence.
- The district court denied summary judgment on the Equine Liability Act ground but granted the motion based on the release, holding it enforceable because there was no relevant exception to the general rule that releases for negligence are enforceable.
- Berlangieri appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, arguing that the liability release should not be enforced on public policy grounds.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order, holding that liability releases for commercial operators of recreational premises are invalid as a matter of law because such operators owe a non-disclaimable duty to exercise ordinary care to protect patrons from foreseeable risks of physical injury or death.
- Running Elk Corp. petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a liability release signed by a guest participating in a commercial guided horseback trail ride, which purports to exculpate the recreational facility from liability for its own negligence resulting in personal injury, violate public policy and thus render the release unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Minzner, Justice
Yes, the liability release signed by Nicholas Berlangieri is unenforceable because, while the Court does not adopt a broad rule invalidating all liability releases in the recreational context, this specific release is contrary to public policy due to legislative intent expressed in the Equine Liability Act and other public interest factors. The Court affirmed that exculpatory clauses are generally enforced unless 'violative of law or contrary to some rule of public policy' (citing Sw. Pub. Serv. Co. and Lynch). However, it rejected the Court of Appeals' broad rule invalidating all recreational releases for personal injury, instead opting for a case-by-case analysis using factors from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. The Court found the Equine Liability Act, specifically Section 42-13-4(B) which qualifies that liability for equine behavior does not apply if an operator's acts or omissions constitute negligence, expresses a legislative policy that equine operators should be accountable for their own negligence. This legislative intent, the Court reasoned, complements common law public policy. Applying the Tunkl factors, the Court noted that the Lodge is a business open to the public without requiring specific patron criteria, did not offer a way for Berlangieri to purchase additional protection against negligence, and placed Berlangieri (a novice rider who could not independently verify saddle safety) under the control and risk of carelessness of Running Elk's employees. While recreational horseback riding was not a service of 'practical necessity' and Berlangieri was not subject to superior bargaining power, the combined weight of the legislative policy articulated in the Equine Liability Act and the applicable Tunkl factors rendered the release unenforceable. The Court also strictly construed the release, finding that despite some unintelligible language, the final sentence clearly conveyed an intent to release liability for negligence, which was not ambiguous on its face.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines New Mexico's jurisprudence on the enforceability of liability waivers in recreational settings. By rejecting a blanket invalidation of all such releases for personal injury (as proposed by the Court of Appeals) in favor of a case-by-case public policy analysis, the Supreme Court provides a more nuanced framework. The decision emphasizes that statutory expressions of public policy, even if not explicitly prohibiting waivers, can create a public interest exception to the general enforceability of exculpatory clauses. Furthermore, the court's adoption and application of the Tunkl factors, alongside strict construction requirements for releases, provides a comprehensive analytical tool for future cases. This ruling will likely prompt recreational businesses to carefully review and redraft their liability waivers to ensure clarity for laypersons and to consider whether their operations align with any legislative policies that might restrict exculpatory agreements, particularly where patrons are placed under the operator's care for potentially dangerous activities.
