Riverbend Stables, LLC has only two members, Michael Daniel and Stephen Daniel. 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

January 9, 2008 Session

HOLLY THRASHER v. RIVERBEND STABLES, LLC, ET AL.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 06C-97 Walter Kurtz, Judge

No. M2007-01237-COA-R3-CV - Filed May 21, 2008

Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her complaint arising out of the death of her Tennessee

Walking Horse while the horse was being trained at Riverbend Stables, LLC. Plaintiff filed suit

claiming the horse died as a result of the defendants’ negligence and gross negligence. The trial

court dismissed the complaint upon a finding that the claims of negligence were barred by the

exculpatory provisions in the parties’ written agreement and Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima

facie claim of gross negligence. Finding the exculpatory agreement enforceable and the evidence

fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning the claims for gross negligence or

recklessness, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

FRANK G.CLEMENT,JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which PATRICIA J.COTTRELL,P.J.,

M.S., and ANDY D. BENNETT, J., joined.

Kirk L. Clements, Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Holly Thrasher.

Michael H. Johnson and M. Kristin Selph, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Riverbend

Stables, LLC, Stephen Daniel and Michael Daniel.

OPINION

In February of 2004, Holly Thrasher (“Plaintiff”) began boarding her Tennessee Walking

Horse, Lola, at Riverbend Stables, LLC for training purposes. When Plaintiff began boarding Lola 1

at Riverbend, she executed an Agreement that contained the following clause:

6. Riverbend and its employees, owners and agents shall not be liable to Owner

or any of Owner’s guests for any negligent conduct or malfeasance of any

sort, including any personal injury or property damage (including the injury

or death of a horse). Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
-2-

Riverbend from any such liability. In the event a claim is filed against

Riverbend, Owner agrees to indemnify Riverbend for all loss and damages,

including reasonable attorney fees, resulting from the filing of any such

claim.

On August 18, 2005, Michael Daniel, a Riverbend trainer and member of the LLC, attached

Lola to an equine exercise machine known as a “hot walker.” Riverbend had purchased this machine

two weeks earlier from Robert Nelms, who had used the machine with approximately thirty horses

per day prior to the sale. While attached to the machine, Lola became spooked and lunged forward,

impaling herself with a lead bar that extended from the machine. Tragically, Lola died as a result.

Plaintiff filed suit on January 13, 2006, against Riverbend Stables, LLC, Steven Daniel, and

Michael Daniel (collectively, “Defendants”) claiming that Defendants were negligent, grossly

negligent, and reckless in the training and boarding of her horse. Following discovery, Defendants

filed a motion for summary judgment claiming, inter alia, that the exculpatory clause relieved them

of liability. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion, summarily

dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, the trial court found that “[r]elying on the factors

enumerated in Olson v. Molzen, 558 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tenn. 1977), [t]he Exculpatory Clause in the

Defendants’ contract relieves them from all negligence.” Further, “[t]he contract also is not void as

against public policy.” As to gross negligence, the trial court held that there was no evidence that

the Defendants’ actions were wanton, willful, or showed a conscious disregard for the safety of

others and therefore Plaintiff had failed to show that the alleged acts or omissions of Defendants

constituted gross negligence. Accordingly, the claim of gross negligence was summarily dismissed.

This appeal followed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issues were resolved in the trial court upon summary judgment. Summary judgments

do not enjoy a presumption of correctness on appeal. BellSouth Adver. & Publ’g Co. v. Johnson, 100

S.W.3d 202, 205 (Tenn. 2003). This court must make a fresh determination that the requirements

of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied. Hunter v. Brown, 955 S.W.2d 49, 50-51 (Tenn. 1997).

We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve all

inferences in that party’s favor. Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tenn. 2003); Godfrey v.

Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d 692, 695 (Tenn. 2002). When reviewing the evidence, we first determine whether

factual disputes exist. If a factual dispute exists, we then determine whether the fact is material to

the claim or defense upon which the summary judgment is predicated and whether the disputed fact

creates a genuine issue for trial. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993); Rutherford v.

Polar Tank Trailer, Inc., 978 S.W.2d 102, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Summary judgment is appropriate where a party establishes that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that a judgment may be rendered as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04;

Stovall, 113 S.W.3d 721. Moreover, it is proper in virtually all civil cases that can be resolved on

the basis of legal issues alone, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 210; Pendleton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115,
-3-

121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); however, it is not appropriate when genuine disputes regarding material

facts exist. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. The party seeking a summary judgment bears the burden of

demonstrating that no genuine disputes of material fact exist and that the party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Godfrey v. Ruiz, 90 S.W.3d at 695. Summary judgment should be

granted at the trial court level when the undisputed facts, and the inferences reasonably drawn from

the undisputed facts, support one conclusion, which is the party seeking the summary judgment is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Pero’s Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614,

620 (Tenn. 2002); Webber v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 S.W.3d 265, 269 (Tenn. 2001). The

court must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, allow

all reasonable inferences in favor of that party, discard all countervailing evidence, and, if there is

a dispute as to any material fact or if there is any doubt as to the existence of a material fact,

summary judgment cannot be granted. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 210; EVCO Corp. v. Ross, 528

S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. 1975). To be entitled to summary judgment, the moving party must affirmatively

negate an essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or establish an affirmative defense that

conclusively defeats the non-moving party’s claim. Cherry v. Williams, 36 S.W.3d 78, 82-83 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 2000).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff presents two issues. First, Plaintiff contends the exculpatory clause is void as

against public policy. Second, Plaintiff contends genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether

Defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence. 

EXCULPATORY CLAUSE

It is well established in Tennessee that “subject to certain exceptions, parties may contract

that one shall not be liable for his negligence to another.” Olson v. Molzen, 558 S.W.2d 429, 430

(Tenn. 1977) (citing Moss v. Fortune, 340 S.W.2d 902 (Tenn. 1960)). There are, however, public

policy exceptions to this general rule. Id. As the Supreme Court explained in Olson, certain

professional relationships, such as those with doctors or lawyers, require a greater responsibility and,

therefore, a release from liability of the professional’s negligence would be “obnoxious.” Henderson

v. Quest Expeditions, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Olson, 558 S.W.2d at 430).

The Supreme Court identified criteria to consider when determining whether an exculpatory

provision is contrary to public policy. Henderson, 174 S.W.3d at 732 (citing Olson, 558 S.W.2d at

431). Criteria to be considered include:

[a.] It concerns a business of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation.

[b.] The party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great

importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity for some

members of the public.
-4-

[c.] The party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member of

the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established

standards.

[d.] As a result of the essential nature of the service, in the economic setting of the

transaction, the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of

bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services.

[e.] In exercising a superior bargaining power the party confronts the public with a

standardized adhesion contract of exculpation, and makes no provision whereby a

purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against

negligence.

[f.] Finally, as a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is

placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller

or his agents.

Olson, 558 S.W.2d at 431. It is not necessary that all six criteria be present. Russell v. Bray, 116

S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). An exculpatory agreement may be deemed offensive, and thus

void, if less than all six of the criteria are present. Id. (citing Olson, 558 S.W.2d at 431). 

The application of the foregoing criteria, however, is to be “limited to situations involving

a contract with a professional person, rather than a tradesman.” Id. (citing Olson, 558 S.W.2d at 430;

Parton v. Mark Pirtle Oldsmobile-Cadillac-Isuzu, Inc., 730 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)

(stating “we do not think the Supreme Court intended the [Olson] rule to be applied to transactions

by what the Court termed ‘tradesmen in the market place.’”)). 

Plaintiff contends the Olson public policy exception to the enforceability of an exculpatory

provision applies in this case because Defendants are professionals. This contention is based

primarily on the holding in Russell v. Bray that a “home inspector” is a professional, not a tradesman,

and the exculpatory provision was held to be unenforceable. 116 S.W.3d at 6. The Russell court

concluded that home inspectors were not like automobile mechanics or other tradesmen because, as

the courtstated, home inspectors “are not performing hands-on tasks to create or repair a product.”

Id. (emphasis added.) The court went on to conclude that home inspectors, like many professionals,

“sell their expert analysis and opinion.” Id. (emphasis added.) The court also found it significant

that Tennessee regulates home inspectors and requires home inspectors to hold “a contractor’s

license or a proper certification or membership.” Id. 

We, however, believe the public policy exception does not apply to this case. Although

Defendants may possess a great deal of expertise in boarding and training horses, we find the duty

owed by Defendants for the services at issue here is not equivalent to the public duty a doctor owes

her patient or a lawyer owes his client. 
-5-

The Federal District Court in the matter of Teles v. Big Rock Stables, L.P., 419 F. Supp. 2d

1003, 1008 (E.D. Tenn. 2006) came to a similar conclusion. The District Court found that owners

and operators of horse stables do not fall under the public policy exception prohibiting exculpatory

clauses. As the court explained:

It is well settled in Tennessee that parties may contract that one shall not be liable for

his negligence to another but that such other shall assume the risk incident to such

negligence. Moss v. Fortune, 340 S.W.2d 902 (Tenn. 1960). This rule is subject to

exception. A party cannot contract away his liability for willful or gross negligence.

Memphis & Charleston R.R. Co. v. Jones, 39 Tenn. 517 (1859). Neither can a party

contract away liability if the duty under which he acts is a public one. Cincinnati,

New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Saulsbury, 90 S.W. 624, 626 (Tenn.1905);

Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Unaka Springs Lumber Co., 170 S.W. 591

594 (Tenn.1914); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.,

175 U.S. 91 (1899).

The existence of a public duty which would disallow giving effect to an exculpatory

provision is determined by looking at several factors. If the service provided is the

type which may generally be subject to public regulation then the duty probably

exists. Smith v. Southern Bell, 364 S.W.2d 952, 958 (Tenn. Ct. App.1962). Other

factors include the degree to which the service is of practical necessity for some

members of the public, whether the service is offered to any member of the public

who seeks it or qualifies for it, whether one party has greater bargaining power than

members of the general public, whether in exercising that bargaining power, the party

presents a standardized “adhesion” contract making no provision whereby protection

against negligence may be obtained, or whether the person or property of one party

is placed under the control of the other. Olson v. Molzen, 558 S.W.2d 429, 431

(Tenn. 1977). Particularlyoffensive in Tennessee are exculpation contracts executed

by persons in professional vocations. Id. at 432.

Analyzing the facts of this case under the foregoing rules, the court finds that a horse

stable generally, and the services provided in this case specifically, are governed by

the general rule and do not fall under the exception prohibiting exculpatory clauses.

Teles, 419 F. Supp. 2d at 1007-08 (emphasis added.)

We, therefore, conclude that the services at issue here do not fall under the exception

prohibiting exculpatory clauses. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the

exculpatory clause contained in the agreement between Plaintiff and Riverbend Stables, LLC, is

enforceable. As a consequence, Plaintiff’s claim of ordinary negligence is barred by the parties’s

agreement. 
-6-

GROSS NEGLIGENCE 

In addition to asserting a claim of ordinary negligence, Plaintiff asserted a claim that

Defendants were “grossly negligent, and reckless in the training and boarding of her horse.” The

parties’ agreement bars Plaintiff’s claim of ordinary or general negligence, however, it does not bar

a claim of gross negligence. See Jones v. Tenn. Riders Instruction Program, No. M2006-01087-

COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 393630, at *1 n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2007) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11

application filed) (citing Buckner v. Varner, 793 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (stating that

an exculpatory clause in a contract “will not operate to protect a party who is guilty of gross

negligence”)). 

The trial court summarily dismissed the claim of gross negligence based on the following

finding:

The Plaintiff failed to show that the alleged acts or omissions of Riverbend Stables

constitute gross negligence and that the Plaintiff . . . failed to show a conscious

neglect of duty. Further there is no evidence that the Defendants’ actions were

wanton, willful, or showed a conscious disregard for safety of others. 

The Court particularly also relies upon the new case of Jones v. Tennessee Riders

Instruction Program, Inc., 2007 WL 393630 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Therefore,

pursuant to T.R.C.P. 56, the Defendants have demonstrated that there are no genuine

issues of material fact . . . .” 

Plaintiff contends the summary dismissal of her claim of gross negligence was error because

there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants’ conduct constituted gross

negligence.

In order to prevail on a claim of gross negligence, a plaintiff must first establish that the

defendant engaged in conduct that amounts to ordinary negligence. See Menuskin v. Williams, 145

F.3d 755, 766 (6th Cir. 1998). In addition to proving that the defendant has committed a negligent

act, the plaintiff must prove that the act was “done with utter unconcern for the safety of others, or

one done with such a reckless disregard for the rights of others that a conscious indifference to

consequences is implied in law.” Ruff v. Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Div., 619 S.W.2d 526, 528

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (quoting Odum v. Haynes, 494 S.W.2d 795, 807 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972)).

Gross negligence is defined as “a conscious neglect of duty or a callous indifference to

consequences” or “such entire want of care as would raise a presumption of a conscious indifference

to consequences.” Jones, 2007 WL 393630, at *2 (citing Buckner v. Varner, 793 S.W.2d 939, 941

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1990); Thomason v. Wayne County, 611 S.W.2d 585 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980);

Sampley v. Aulabaugh, 589 S.W.2d 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)). 

The evidence upon which Plaintiff relies is found in the affidavits of her two expert

witnesses, Paul Walker and Richard Moores. Paul Walker testified that he had not “seen a hot
Pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520, Abnormally Dangerous Activities, the following factors are

2

to be considered to determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous: (a) existence of a high degree of risk of some

harm to the person, land or chattels of others; (b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; (c) inability

to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;

(e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and (f) extent to which its value to the community

is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (1977).

-7-

walker that has a lead bar at chest level that is less than forty (40) years old.” He further stated that

“[a] hot walker that has a bar below head level is very dangerous” and that “[g]iven the facts

surrounding the death of Lola, her death was a foreseeable result and should have been foreseeable

to any professional trainer.” Plaintiff’s other expert, Richard Moores, testified that he had never seen

a hot walker, other than the one at issue, that had a lead bar at chest level. Moores also stated that

he would never put a horse on this hot walker and, in his professional opinion, the hot walker was

“inherently dangerous.” 

The fact the hot walker was forty or more years old is neither relevant nor material to the

issue of gross negligence. The fact neither expert would use this hot walker is also of no

consequence to the issue of gross negligence. The experts’ testimony that the hot walker was very

dangerous or inherently dangerous is relevant and material to the issue of gross negligence. Whether

the experts’ opinions as to the inherent danger of this hot walker is sufficient to prove a claim of

gross negligence requires further examination. 

An act which otherwise would be nothing more than simple negligence may amount to gross

negligence if the defendant’s negligent conduct also involves a dangerous instrumentality. Cook v.

Spinnaker's of Rivergate, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 934, 938 (Tenn. 1994) (driving while intoxicated);

accord Phelps v. Magnavox Co., 497 S.W.2d 898, 906 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972) (supplying electricity).

Here, Plaintiff has presented proof that the hot walker was inherently dangerous. There is, however,

no proof in the record that Defendants conduct, other than the mere use of the hot walker, was

negligent in any manner. Thus, Plaintiff contends that Defendants were grossly negligent because

they used the hot walker to train Lola. Thus, Plaintiff is asking this court to hold, as a matter of law,

that Defendants’ non-negligent use of an inherently dangerous device constitutes gross negligence.

If we obliged Plaintiff in this manner, we would set a precedent that persons are strictly liable for

injuries resulting from the non-negligent use of an inherently dangerous device. We decline the

invitation to establish such a precedent. 

In Tennessee, a person who engages in an “ultrahazardous activity” is strictly liable to those 2

who are injured as a result of such activity, without the need of proof that the defendant’s conduct

constituted gross negligence. See England v. Burns Stone Co., Inc., 874 S.W.2d 32, 37 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1993); see also Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that

if the defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity, “[t]he negligence or care exercised by the

defendant in carrying outsaid activity is irrelevant”) (citing Miller v. Alman Constr. Co., 666 S.W.2d

466, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)). There is, however, no known authority in Tennessee that stands

for the proposition that a person is strictly liable to those injured as a result of the defendant’s nonnegligent use of an inherently dangerous device. 
-8-

Power tools, such as an electric saw, are inherently dangerous but the mere fact someone is

injured by another’s use of an electric saw is not sufficient to sustain a claim that the defendant’s

non-negligent use of the dangerous tool constituted gross negligence. Moreover, weapons, such as

guns or knives, can be dangerous devices if not properly used, however, the mere fact one is injured

by another’s use of a gun or knife is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that the defendant’s use

of the gun or knife constituted gross negligence.

An act which otherwise would be nothingmore than simple negligence may amount to gross

negligence if the defendant’s negligent conduct also involves a dangerous or lethal instrumentality.

See Cook, 878 S.W.2d at 938; see also Phelps, 497 S.W.2d at 906. Plaintiff has presented sufficient

evidence to create a dispute of material fact concerning the inherent danger posed by Defendants’

use of the hot walker to train Lola; however, Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any other

negligent conduct by Defendants. As we stated earlier, to prevail on her claim of gross negligence,

Plaintiff must first establish, or in this case create a dispute of fact, that the defendant engaged in

conduct that amounts to ordinary negligence. See Menuskin, 145 F.3d at 766. Because Plaintiff has

failed to create a dispute of fact concerning the first element of a claim of gross negligence, by failing

to provide evidence upon which to base a finding that Defendants engaged in negligent conduct,

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the summary

dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim of gross negligence.

IN CONCLUSION 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and this matter is remanded with costs of appeal

assessed against Plaintiff.

___________________________________ 

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., JUDGE