A horse can stumble or rear or suddenly break into a gallop, any of which may throw the rider. But this does not necessarily mean the commercial operator of the horseriding facility owes no duty of care to those who rent its horses and can never be liable for injuries suffered because a horse stumbles, rears, or suddenly breaks into a gallop. The commercial operator has a duty to supply horses which are not unduly dangerous. Furthermore, the operator owes the duty to warn the patrons renting a given horse if that horse has evidenced a predisposition to behave in ways which add to the ordinary risk of horse riding. This level of duty is consistent with duties owed by commercial operators of other forms of recreational facilities such as ski resorts.
Skiing is an inherently dangerous sport.
But this does not mean ski resort operators avoid owing a duty to skiers to supply them with nondefective ski lifts and trails. Nor does the inherent danger which goes along with participating in or watching other sports mean the commercial operators of facilities offering these activities owe no duty of care toward participants or spectators. We view sudden movements of a horse just as inherent in horseback riding as the presence of moguls on a ski slope are to skiers. However, the one prior incident of the subject horse having spooked does not rise to the level of a dangerous propensity, in our opinion. We might add that here there indeed was evidence plaintiff rider had been contributorily negligent.