Negligence action arising from a horse-drawn carriage accident; Immunity under the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA); Amburgey v Sauder; MCL 691.1663; MCL 691.1665; “Participant” in an equine activity; MCL 691.1662; Statutory interpretation; Manuel v Gill

Holding that a passenger on a horse-drawn carriage is “engaging in an equine activity” for purposes of the EALA, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants based on EALA immunity. Plaintiff was injured when riding in a horse-drawn carriage after one of the horses bolted and the carriage driver had to steer into a lamp post to stop the runaway. She argued on appeal that as a passenger in the carriage, she did “not qualify as a ‘participant’ in an equine activity as defined under the EALA.” After reviewing the statutory provisions and case precedent, the court considered the issue of “whether a passenger on a horse-drawn carriage is ‘[e]ngage[d] in an equine activity’ for purposes of the EALA.” Among other things, it noted that “the statutory definition of ‘engaging in an equine activity’ includes the act of ‘being a passenger upon’ (MCL 691.1662(a)).” It found it significant “that the term ‘equine’ in this context is grammatically associated with the subsequent clause, regarding ‘providing or assisting in veterinary treatment of an equine.’ Therefore, ‘being a passenger upon’ does not narrowly apply only to individuals physically seated on an equine.” As a result, it found “that ‘being a passenger upon’ encompasses those riding in a horse-drawn carriage.” It determined that this interpretation aligned with the “Legislature’s comprehensive definition of what constitutes engagement in equine activities under the EALA, as well as” its prior decision in Amburgey and the Supreme Court’s holding in Manuel. Thus, the court concluded plaintiff failed to show the trial court erred in granting defendants summary disposition based on the EALA’s immunity provisions.