Legal Opinion · Dissent

McNichol v. South Florida Trotting Center, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 6, 2010No. 4D09-1663Published

1DissentMay, J.

I respectfully dissent. The trial court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant based on both the statutory immunity of section 773.02, Florida Statutes (2004) and the plaintiffs express assumption of risk due to the open and obvious nature of the dirt mounds inside the track. I would affirm.

The plaintiff was an equine professional. He worked as a trainer at the defendant’s track. The defendant was an “equine activity sponsor.” The plaintiff sustained his injury when the horse he was training spooked at a truck. The horse ran across the training track and into a mound of dirt and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of St. Petersburg v. SieboldSupreme Court of Florida · 1950
  2. Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1986
  3. Tilson v. RussoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  4. McGraw v. R and R Investments, Ltd.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
  5. Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API