Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 351 of 1994
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665 (2026)

Liability not prevented or limited; conditions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

EQUINE ACTIVITY LIABILITY ACT


Act 351 of 1994


691.1665 Liability not prevented or limited; conditions.

Sec. 5.

    Section 3 does not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or another person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person does any of the following:

    (a) Provides equipment or tack and knows or should know that the equipment or tack is faulty, and the equipment or tack is faulty to the extent that it is a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

    (b) Provides an equine and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity and to determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine. A person shall not rely upon a participant's representations of his or her ability unless these representations are supported by reasonably sufficient detail.

    (c) Owns, leases, rents, has authorized use of, or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of land or facilities on which the participant sustained injury because of a dangerous latent condition of the land or facilities that is known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person and for which warning signs are not conspicuously posted.

    (d) If the person is an equine activity sponsor or equine professional, commits an act or omission that constitutes a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that is a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

    (e) If the person is not an equine activity sponsor or equine professional, commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

History: 1994, Act 351, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 87, Eff. Sept. 21, 2015

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 4× “1663 provides: Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 691.1665], an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant or property damage resulting from an inherent risk of an equine activity.”
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “6304(8), MCL 691.1665(a); MSA 12.418(5)(a), and MCL 750.”
Beattie v. MICKALICH, 784 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 11× “Finally, given that the plaintiff offered documentary evidence to support her argument that the defendant was negligent and the content or substance of such documentary *39 evidence would be admissible at trial, the lower courts erred in granting the defendant's motion for…”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “6304(8), MCL 691.1665(a); MSA 12.418(5)(a), and MCL 750.”
Amburgey v. Sauder, 605 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “[MCL 691.1665; MSA 12.418(5).] 6 MCR 2.118(C)(1) provides: When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they are treated as if they had been raised by the pleadings.”
Beattie v. Mickalich, 773 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “In plaintiffs view, § 5 of the EALA, MCL 691.1665, permits certain types of *571 negligence claims, including a general claim of negligence, to be brought against defendants defined in the act.”
Perry v. Whitley Cnty. 4-H Clubs Inc., 931 N.E.2d 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “[clommits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate ecause of the injury'" (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665 )). Because it is as important to recognize what a statute does not say as what it does say, City of Evansville v.”
Jeff Britten v. Circle H Stables Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 19× “In his complaint, plaintiff acknowledged that the EALA grants broad immunity to entities like defendant, but argued that his claims fell into the EALA’s exemptions to immunity in MCL 691.1665. As relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary disposition on all of…”
Samantha Johnson v. Outback Lodge & Equestrian Ctr. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “nother person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant or 2 The manager of Outback testified that a typical question on the quiz might be as follows: when approaching a horse, “should you A, run up to them really fast and scream[?]” -2- property damage…”
20230202_C359740_50_359740.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “, MCL 691.1665], an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant .”
Gardner v. Simon, 445 F. Supp. 2d 786 (W.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 4× “As the language quoted above reveals, however, the bar to liability articulated in section 3 of the EALA is subject to the provisions of “section 5” ( Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665 ). Section 5 provides (in pertinent part) as follows: Section 3 does not prevent or limit the…”
Violet Lapeer v. Otsego Cnty. Fair Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred by holding that no exceptions to the immunity from liability granted by the EALA, set forth under MCL 691.1665, apply. A. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary disposition.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665(a) — 5 cases
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). “6304(8), MCL 691.1665(a); MSA 12.418(5)(a), and MCL 750.”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “6304(8), MCL 691.1665(a); MSA 12.418(5)(a), and MCL 750.”
Beattie v. Mickalich, 773 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In plaintiffs view, § 5 of the EALA, MCL 691.1665, permits certain types of *571 negligence claims, including a general claim of negligence, to be brought against defendants defined in the act.”
Samantha Johnson v. Outback Lodge & Equestrian Ctr. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “nother person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant or 2 The manager of Outback testified that a typical question on the quiz might be as follows: when approaching a horse, “should you A, run up to them really fast and scream[?]” -2- property damage…”
Jeff Britten v. Circle H Stables Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “In his complaint, plaintiff acknowledged that the EALA grants broad immunity to entities like defendant, but argued that his claims fell into the EALA’s exemptions to immunity in MCL 691.1665. As relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary disposition on all of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665(b) — 2 cases
Beattie v. Mickalich, 773 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In plaintiffs view, § 5 of the EALA, MCL 691.1665, permits certain types of *571 negligence claims, including a general claim of negligence, to be brought against defendants defined in the act.”
20230202_C359740_50_359740.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “, MCL 691.1665], an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665(c) — 2 cases
Beattie v. Mickalich, 773 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In plaintiffs view, § 5 of the EALA, MCL 691.1665, permits certain types of *571 negligence claims, including a general claim of negligence, to be brought against defendants defined in the act.”
Violet Lapeer v. Otsego Cnty. Fair Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred by holding that no exceptions to the immunity from liability granted by the EALA, set forth under MCL 691.1665, apply. A. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary disposition.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665(d) — 6 cases
Beattie v. MICKALICH, 784 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. 2010). “Finally, given that the plaintiff offered documentary evidence to support her argument that the defendant was negligent and the content or substance of such documentary *39 evidence would be admissible at trial, the lower courts erred in granting the defendant's motion for…”
Amburgey v. Sauder, 605 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “[MCL 691.1665; MSA 12.418(5).] 6 MCR 2.118(C)(1) provides: When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they are treated as if they had been raised by the pleadings.”
Beattie v. Mickalich, 773 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “In plaintiffs view, § 5 of the EALA, MCL 691.1665, permits certain types of *571 negligence claims, including a general claim of negligence, to be brought against defendants defined in the act.”
Jeff Britten v. Circle H Stables Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “In his complaint, plaintiff acknowledged that the EALA grants broad immunity to entities like defendant, but argued that his claims fell into the EALA’s exemptions to immunity in MCL 691.1665. As relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary disposition on all of…”
20230202_C359740_50_359740.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “, MCL 691.1665], an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1665(e) — 2 cases
20230202_C359740_50_359740.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “, MCL 691.1665], an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant .”
Jeff Britten v. Circle H Stables Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “In his complaint, plaintiff acknowledged that the EALA grants broad immunity to entities like defendant, but argued that his claims fell into the EALA’s exemptions to immunity in MCL 691.1665. As relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary disposition on all of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.