Girasole v. Paws Up: Inherent Risk Defines Duty—No Liability Without Atypical Hazards or Statutory Exception Under Montana’s Equine Activities Act

Introduction

In Girasole v. Paws Up, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed summary judgment in favor of an equine activity sponsor after a guest was injured when his horse stumbled during a guided trail ride. The decision clarifies how Montana’s Equine Activities Act shapes negligence claims in equine cases: when the injury arises from risks inherent in horseback riding, the equine provider owes no duty to protect the participant from those risks. The case draws a sharp line between “inherent risks” and risks that are “atypical” or introduced by negligent conduct that fits within statutory exceptions. It also addresses whether a plaintiff may survive summary judgment by characterizing a provider’s conduct as contributing to an “inherent” event and underscores a demanding standard for the Act’s “willful or wanton” exception.

Parties and posture:

Plaintiff–Appellant: Gerard Girasole, a guest at The Resort at Paws Up.
Defendant–Appellee: Paws Up Ranch, LLC, an “equine activity sponsor” under the Act.
Claim: Negligence-based claims after Girasole’s pelvis and sacroiliac injuries from a stumble by “Reba,” the horse he was riding on a guided ride.
Procedural posture: The district court granted summary judgment to Paws Up under Montana’s Equine Activities Act; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Key issue on appeal: Whether the record raised genuine disputes of material fact that Girasole’s injuries were caused by non-inherent risks or conduct fitting a statutory exception (including willful or wanton disregard), such that Paws Up owed a duty and could be liable in negligence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that a horse’s stumble and the imprecision in cinching a saddle are risks “inherent in equine activities” within the meaning of the Act (see § 27-1-726(7), MCA). The operator owed no duty to protect the participant from those inherent risks.
The plaintiff did not present material evidence that Paws Up’s conduct transformed the inherent risk into an atypical, non-inherent hazard, nor did he establish any statutory exception (equipment failure from negligent inspection; failure to match horse to rider; latent dangerous land condition; willful or wanton disregard) under § 27-1-727(3)(a), MCA.
The “willful or wanton” exception requires proof of purposeful or reckless indifference to likely disastrous consequences. The record did not support such a finding as a matter of law.
The Court reaffirmed that pre-ride acknowledgment/assumption-of-risk agreements are admissible to show the participant’s notice of inherent risks (though not to waive negligence), supporting the conclusion that the risk was expected.
Accordingly, the injury was not legally “foreseeable” in the duty sense because it resulted from an inherent risk; without foreseeability, there is no duty and thus no negligence. Summary judgment for Paws Up was affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

1) Statutory Framework and the Court’s Lens

Montana’s Equine Activities Act expresses two policies:

No liability “solely as a result of risks inherent in equine activities,” and
Liability for negligence that causes foreseeable injury according to other law.

The operative immunity provision states that an equine sponsor “is not liable” for injury “resulting from risks inherent in equine activities,” subject to enumerated exceptions (§ 27-1-727(1), (3)(a), MCA). The statute defines “inherent risks” to include, among others, the propensity of horses to behave in ways that cause injury; unpredictability of reactions to stimuli; surface/subsurface hazards; collisions; and other participants’ loss of control (§ 27-1-726(7), MCA).

The Court frames “duty” largely through foreseeability, and—critically—“through the lens” of the Act. The Act has a “practical effect” (via McDermott v. Carie) of removing any duty to protect participants from inherent risks that the participant is or should be aware of. If the event is inherent, the injury is not legally foreseeable in the duty sense; no duty means no negligence.

2) Precedents and How They Shaped the Decision

a) Montana authorities

McDermott v. Carie, LLC, 2005 MT 293: The Court reprises McDermott’s core holding—equine sponsors do not owe a duty to protect participants from inherent risks they expect. This principle anchors the analysis here: the stumble and cinch imprecision are inherent; duty is negated.
Fishman v. GRBR, Inc., 2017 MT 245: A slipping saddle, even after wrangler checks, underscores an inherent danger. The Court applies Fishman to reject liability premised on post-mount cinch adjustments—the imprecision of cinching persists as an inherent aspect.
Mullee v. Winter Sports, Inc., 2025 MT 113: Duty/foreseeability are legal questions. Summary judgment is proper when the plaintiff fails on any negligence element, including duty.
B.Y.O.B., Inc. v. State, 2021 MT 191: Reaffirms summary judgment standards—nonmovant must offer material, substantial evidence; conclusory assertions are insufficient.
Becker v. Rosebud Operating Servs., 2008 MT 285: A party cannot create a genuine issue by contradicting their own sworn testimony. The Court relies on Becker to discount interrogatory claims that conflicted with Girasole’s deposition on the “repeated warnings” point.
Jobe v. City of Polson, 2004 MT 183 and Wollaston v. Burlington Northern: Define “willful or wanton” (akin to reckless) as conduct showing indifference to a consequence likely to prove disastrous. Invoked to hold the record does not meet the statutory exception in § 27-1-727(3)(a)(iv), MCA.

b) Persuasive out-of-state authorities

Cooperman v. David (10th Cir. 2000): The inherent risk inquiry must be specific to the factual setting. Cinching is done by hand; imprecision is inherent. The Montana Court uses Cooperman’s “atypical, uncharacteristic, not intrinsic” litmus to ask whether plaintiff showed something non-inherent. He did not.
Loftin v. Lee (Tex. 2011): Trail selection that includes mud/vines is itself inherent; the Texas Supreme Court rejected liability premised on choosing a trail where horses might spook. Montana adopts the same logic—“new” or “ill-defined” trails are, without more, part of the inherent ground hazards covered by § 27-1-726(7)(c), MCA.
Dullmaier v. Xanterra Parks & Resorts (10th Cir. 2018) and Perry v. Whitley County 4-H (Ind. App. 2010): Providers are not required to eliminate or minimize inherent risks; alleged omissions that merely “heighten” inherent risks do not remove the case from statutory protection.
Carden v. Kelly (D. Wyo. 2001) and Sapone v. Grand Targhee (10th Cir. 2002): Instances where summary judgment was denied because the providers arguably introduced non-inherent risks or failed in instruction/supervision, rendering injury foreseeable. The Montana Court distinguishes these because Girasole did not show comparable non-inherent conduct.

3) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Inherent risks conclusively established on this record. Horses stumble; reactions to unfamiliar stimuli are unpredictable; trail conditions involve surface and subsurface hazards; and the cinch/girth adjustment is an imprecise, judgment-based task. All of these are enumerated or well-recognized as “inherent.”
Foreseeability and duty collapse when the risk is inherent. Because the ride’s risks were inherent and known to the participant (bolstered by the signed assumption-of-risk agreement, admissible to show notice per McDermott), the injury is not legally foreseeable, and the sponsor owes no duty to prevent it.
No material evidence of a statutory exception.
- Equipment/tack inspection causing injury: No evidence that any negligent inspection “caused” the injury; saddle imprecision remains inherent.
- Failure to match rider to horse: No evidence Reba was unsuitable for a rider of Girasole’s size/ability; Reba had a history of suitability for all kinds of riders.
- Latent land condition: Plaintiff did not allege a dangerous latent condition known or that should have been known by Paws Up.
- Willful or wanton disregard: The record showed, at most, a single complaint about the horse “not wanting to go,” followed “within a short period of time” by the stumble. This did not show purposeful indifference to a likely disastrous outcome. Conflicting interrogatory/deposition accounts could not create a triable dispute under Becker.
Provider’s choices that merely “fail to minimize” inherent risk do not negate immunity. Claims about riding formation (side-by-side versus single file), using a newly cut trail, and not re-cinching after mounting were either immaterial to foreseeability or still within inherent-risk territory. Absent atypical hazards or a statutory exception, such choices do not create duty.
Policy statement does not expand liability beyond statutory limits. The majority explicitly cautions that the Act’s policy clause does not enlarge liability where the event is inherent and no exception applies. This responds to plaintiff’s and the dissents’ emphasis on the word “solely” in § 27-1-725, MCA.

4) The Dissents and the Contested Reading of “Solely”

Two dissents would have sent the case to a jury.

Justice Shea’s dissent: Emphasizes jury function on foreseeability and suggests the record (including plaintiff’s expert and Paws Up’s own manual language) could support a finding that the stumble was foreseeable and that the provider disregarded warning signs—thus potentially within the “willful or wanton” exception.
Justice Bidegaray’s separate dissent: Focuses on § 27-1-725’s “solely” clause, arguing immunity applies only when an inherent risk is the exclusive cause; where negligence also contributes, ordinary negligence principles should apply beyond the enumerated exceptions. She urges that “inherent or not” be fact-specific (Cooperman) and that, on this record, reasonable minds could differ.

The majority rejects these views in practical effect, holding that the policy statement does not expand the liability scheme beyond § 27-1-727’s specific immunity and exceptions, and that, on these facts, the risk remained inherent with no triable evidence of a statutory exception or atypical hazard.

5) Impact and Practical Consequences

a) Litigation posture in equine cases

Summary judgment is viable where the event is inherently equine. Plaintiffs must marshal specific, non-conclusory facts showing either a statutory exception or that the provider introduced an “atypical, uncharacteristic, not intrinsic” risk. General complaints about trail quality, ride formation, or one-off horse behavior are unlikely to carry the burden without more.
Foreseeability requires more than post hoc inference from injury. Courts may decide foreseeability as a matter of law when the only reasonable view of the evidence is that the risk is inherent.
Discovery discipline matters. Contradictions between interrogatories and deposition testimony can be fatal under Becker; plaintiffs should ensure consistency and specificity about warnings given, frequency, timing, and the guide’s response.

b) Standards for exceptions—what likely will and won’t suffice

Equipment/tack exception. Requires evidence that negligent inspection/maintenance caused the injury, not just that the saddle shifted. Without a mechanical failure or clear negligent cinching causing the fall, courts may deem the risk inherent.
Matching rider to horse. Evidence that the horse was clearly unsuitable for the rider’s ability/size, or known prior behavioral red flags, could create triable issues. The absence of such evidence weighed heavily here.
Latent land condition. Alleging that a trail was “new” or “ill-defined” is insufficient without proof of a hidden, dangerous condition known or reasonably knowable to the provider.
Willful or wanton disregard. Plaintiffs will need to show repeated, ignored warnings or glaring, imminent risks, coupled with conscious indifference—something akin to “this is likely to end disastrously” and the provider proceeded anyway. One generalized complaint and a quick stumble did not meet this threshold.

c) Operational guidance for equine sponsors

Documentation helps. Written pre-ride acknowledgments of inherent risk are admissible to show notice. Keep accurate logs of pre-ride checks (including cinch checks), rider experience assessments, and instructions given.
Training manuals can cut both ways. Manuals that instruct wranglers to respond to rider issues may be used by plaintiffs as evidence of the standard of care. Balance aspirational best practices with realistic, defensible protocols.
Instruction and matching. Though the Act does not require minimizing inherent risks, prudent instruction and careful matching of horse-to-rider reduce exposure under the exceptions, and reduce the chance a jury sees the risk as “atypical.”
Trail selection and formation. Choosing a new or narrow trail or a side-by-side formation is not per se negligent; however, document the rationale and observations (e.g., visibility, rider monitoring). Avoid latent hazards and record hazard assessments when feasible.

d) Doctrinal takeaways

“Inherent risk” is both definitional and functional. It defines the conduct shielded by the Act and functionally eliminates duty and foreseeability when the participant knows or should know of such risks.
Policy clause versus operative exemptions. The majority effectively subordinates the “solely” policy language to the Act’s specific immunity and enumerated exceptions; plaintiffs arguing a broader, co-causation reading will likely face an uphill battle absent legislative clarification.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inherent risk: A danger that is a normal, unavoidable part of an activity—here, horses stumbling, reacting unpredictably to stimuli, ground irregularities, and imprecision in saddle cinching.
Foreseeability (for duty): A legal test asking whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would anticipate harm from the conduct. If the harm arises from an inherent risk known to the participant, Montana courts treat it as not legally foreseeable for purposes of imposing a duty.
Summary judgment: A procedural decision made without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The nonmovant must bring forward concrete, material evidence—not speculation or contradictions—to proceed to trial.
Willful or wanton (reckless) disregard: More than negligence; it is acting (or failing to act) with conscious indifference to a risk that is likely to cause serious harm. It requires something close to “you knew this could be disastrous and you proceeded anyway.”
Latent condition: A hidden defect or danger that is not obvious upon reasonable inspection, known or that should have been known by the provider. It is different from ordinary, visible trail roughness.
Cinch/girth imprecision: Cinching is done by hand and requires judgment; there is no precise measure of “tight enough” for every horse and circumstance. That uncertainty is part of horseback riding’s inherent risk.

Key Precedent-Specific Illustrations

Fishman (Montana): A saddle shifting despite checks is inherent risk; no liability.
Cooperman (10th Cir.): Courts assess inherent risk in context; cinch loosened under normal riding remained inherent; plaintiff failed to show atypical, non-inherent causes.
Loftin (Texas): Choosing a muddy/vined trail where a horse might spook is inherent; no liability.
Dullmaier (10th Cir.) and Perry (Indiana): Providers are not obligated to eliminate or minimize inherent risks; failing to do so does not create liability absent atypical hazards.
Carden and Sapone (Wyoming line): Claims survived where plaintiffs offered substantial evidence the provider introduced non-inherent risks (e.g., compelling tired horses up steep, rocky, untrailed slopes; inadequate instruction and supervision of small children; unsuitable horses).

Conclusion

Girasole v. Paws Up reinforces a clear rule for Montana: when a participant’s injury stems from an inherent risk of horseback riding—like a horse stumbling or the imprecision of cinching—a sponsor’s duty to the participant is negated, and negligence claims fail absent a statutory exception or evidence that the provider introduced an atypical, non-inherent hazard. The decision also clarifies the stringent standard for the “willful or wanton” exception and underscores the importance of consistent, material evidence to defeat summary judgment.

While the dissents highlight an alternative reading of the Act’s “solely” policy language and urge jury resolution of foreseeability on a more generous record, the majority centers the operative immunity provision and exceptions, keeping Montana aligned with jurisdictions that treat horseback riding’s unpredictabilities as inherent and non-actionable unless the provider’s conduct materially departs from the ordinary risks of the activity.

Going forward, plaintiffs must present concrete, case-specific facts that the sponsor either triggered a non-inherent danger or squarely fell within a statutory exception. Equine providers should continue to document pre-ride practices, instructions, rider assessment, and trail decisions—not because the law compels minimization of inherent risks, but because sound practices reduce exposure to claims that a known inherent risk was made atypical by negligent conduct. The opinion delivers a structured, predictable framework for courts and litigants in Montana’s equine liability cases.