Case Name: Agustin CARVAJAL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rodolfo Carvajal, a minor, for the Benefit of Agustin CARVAJAL, individually, and Irmina Carvajal, Appellant, v. Rafael ALVAREZ, Sr., Elvira Alvarez, Rafael Alvarez, Jr., Osvaldo Alvarez, a minor, and Southeastern Fire Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-11-13
Citations: 462 So. 2d 1156
Docket Number: No. 83-2532
Parties: Agustin CARVAJAL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rodolfo Carvajal, a minor, for the Benefit of Agustin CARVAJAL, individually, and Irmina Carvajal, Appellant, v. Rafael ALVAREZ, Sr., Elvira Alvarez, Rafael Alvarez, Jr., Osvaldo Alvarez, a minor, and Southeastern Fire Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARK-DULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 462
Pages: 1156–1157

Head Matter:
Agustin CARVAJAL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rodolfo Carvajal, a minor, for the Benefit of Agustin CARVAJAL, individually, and Irmina Carvajal, Appellant, v. Rafael ALVAREZ, Sr., Elvira Alvarez, Rafael Alvarez, Jr., Osvaldo Alvarez, a minor, and Southeastern Fire Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
No. 83-2532.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 13, 1984.
Magill, Reid, Lewis & Ricca and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, for appellant.
Leland E. Stansell, Jr. and Joel E. Bernstein, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARK-DULL and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff-appellant's decedent, a fifteen year-old boy, fell off a horse as a result of riding in an allegedly dangerous fashion behind another rider on a single saddle. The sole point on appeal claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the question of whether the boy had assumed the risk of injury so as to bar recovery. Since the jury could properly have concluded that his conduct constituted an "aberrant" form of the sport of horseback riding, the dangers of which the decedent voluntarily encountered and which were the very ones which caused the accident in question, we reject this contention. Gary v. Party Time Company, Inc., 434 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); O'Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So.2d 444, 447-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Strickland v. Roberts, 382 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), review denied, 389 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1980); see Kuehner v. Green, 436 So.2d 78 (Fla.1983); Leahy v. School Board of Hernando County, 450 So.2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The judgment under review entered for the defendants pursuant to the affirmative answer to the special interrogatory on that issue is therefore
Affirmed.
. It is unnecessary to treat the appellees' contention on cross-appeal that they were entitled to a directed verdict on the ground that no breach of duty had been established as to any of the defendants.