Louisiana Court Revives Horseback Riding Injury Case Against Stable

Washington v. American National General Insurance Co., No. 56,888-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. June 24, 2026).

What Happened

In April 2022, Daphne Washington and her husband Jimmy went on a guided horseback trail ride at a Lincoln Parish stable called Camp Collins. During the ride, Daphne’s horse stumbled, and she was thrown to the ground and seriously injured. The Washingtons later sued the stable’s owners and their insurance company, alleging that the horse had stepped into a hidden hole created by burrowing animals such as moles. The Washingtons alleged that hidden holes created by burrowing animals posed a known danger and that adequate warning signs were not conspicuously posted. The stable’s owners disputed that account: there was testimony that molehills were pointed out during the ride and that an equine liability warning sign was visibly posted at the stable. The court did not resolve those conflicts.

What the Court Decided

The stable’s owners asked the trial court to dismiss the case before it ever reached a jury. They argued that Louisiana law shields horseback-riding businesses from lawsuits when someone is hurt by an “inherent risk” of riding, such as a horse simply stumbling. A trial court judge in Lincoln Parish agreed and dismissed the Washingtons’ case through summary judgment, a ruling made without a full trial when a judge decides there’s no real factual dispute left for a jury to resolve.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, disagreed. It found a genuine factual dispute over what caused the horse to stumble — including conflicting testimony about whether it stepped into a preexisting hole, and the evidentiary value of a photograph the stable owner took several days later that he believed showed an indentation where the horse stubbed its hoof. (He also testified that the nearest molehill was 150 to 200 yards away.) Because those questions turn on credibility and the weight of the evidence, they belong to the factfinder rather than to a judge on summary judgment. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. It did not decide that a hole existed, that the owners knew of any hazard, that anyone is liable, or that the case must be tried to a jury.

Why It Matters

Louisiana’s equine activity statute, La. R.S. 9:2795.3, generally limits a stable’s liability for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities — but it contains exceptions. One of them, La. R.S. 9:2795.3(C)(3), may apply where the sponsor owned, leased, rented, or otherwise lawfully possessed and controlled the land or facility; a dangerous latent condition caused the injury; the sponsor knew or should have known about that condition; and appropriate warning signs were not conspicuously posted. This decision illustrates that equine activity immunity will not support summary judgment when the evidence creates a genuine dispute about whether such an exception applies.

Could This Affect Someone Similar

If you or someone you love was hurt while horseback riding, on a guided tour, or during a similar recreational activity, this ruling is worth knowing about. It shows that equine activity immunity does not justify summary judgment when material facts about a statutory exception remain genuinely disputed. Every case depends on its own facts: a fall allegedly caused by a dangerous latent condition may implicate an exception to that immunity, but the result turns on the evidence and on the statute’s specific requirements — including whether the sponsor knew or should have known of the condition, whether it controlled the premises, causation, and the warning sign requirement.

Where to Read the Opinion

You can read the full opinion, Washington v. American National General Insurance Co., No. 56,888-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. June 24, 2026), here:

Read the full opinion (PDF)

What to Do Next

If you’ve been injured in a horseback riding accident or another recreational activity, and you believe the property owner or business knew about a hazard they didn’t warn you about, it’s worth having your case reviewed by an attorney. These cases often turn on specific facts, like whether a danger was hidden and whether the business knew or should have known about it, that benefit from careful legal review.

For more on recreational injury claims, see how a Louisiana personal injury lawyer evaluates a case and what types of damages Louisiana law allows.

Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and the outcome of any legal matter depends on its specific facts. If you have questions about a potential legal claim, please contact a licensed attorney in your state.