## Facts

- Troy Joseph Burke, an 18-year-old and highly experienced bareback rider, competed in numerous rodeos and was the defending Nebraska high school state champion in bareback riding.
- The Nebraska High School Rodeo Association sanctioned a high school rodeo in Madison, Nebraska; a local committee sponsored the event, and McKay Rodeo Company, owned by Robert McKay, supplied the stock.
- Before competing, Troy and his father signed a release in favor of rodeo organizers and contractors.
- Troy was assigned to ride horse No. 18 and recognized it from a prior rodeo where it bucked backward, flipped, and injured another rider.
- Despite apprehension, Troy did not withdraw or request another mount; after asking another contestant about the horse, he chose to ride.
- When the chute opened, horse No. 18 bucked backward and flipped, crushing Troy and causing serious injuries.
- Troy’s mother sued McKay, McKay Rodeo Company, and the Nebraska High School Rodeo Association for negligence related to the selection and use of the stock and conduct of the event.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper because Troy assumed the risk of his injury as a matter of law under Nebraska’s statutory definition of assumption of risk.
2. Whether the undisputed record established that Troy (a) knew and understood the specific danger posed by horse No. 18, (b) voluntarily exposed himself to that danger, and (c) was injured as a result.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held that, even viewing the record in the plaintiff’s favor, the evidence established statutory assumption of risk as a matter of law.
- The court concluded Troy subjectively knew and understood the specific danger that horse No. 18 could buck backward and flip, creating a crushing risk.
- The court found Troy voluntarily exposed himself to that danger by choosing to ride the horse despite his prior observation and apprehension.
- The court held Troy’s injuries resulted from the exact danger he knowingly accepted when the horse bucked backward and flipped.
- Because assumption of risk resolved the case, the court did not decide other asserted defenses such as release or statutory immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact or of the ultimate inferences from those facts, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review views evidence favorably to the nonmovant and draws reasonable inferences for that party.
- Under Nebraska’s codified assumption-of-risk defense, a defendant must show: (1) the plaintiff knew of and understood the specific danger, (2) the plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger, and (3) injury occurred as a result of that exposure.
- Assumption of risk is evaluated under a subjective standard focused on the plaintiff’s actual comprehension and appreciation of the specific danger.
- A participant’s experience and prior observation of the same hazard can establish knowledge and understanding of the specific danger, supporting judgment as a matter of law when the injury is the realized, known risk.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the undisputed evidence showed that an experienced bareback rider, aware of a particular horse’s prior backward-flipping behavior, voluntarily chose to ride it and was injured by that same specific risk, satisfying Nebraska’s statutory assumption-of-risk defense as a matter of law.


Burke v. McKay, 268 Neb. 14, 679 N.W.2d 418 (Neb. 2004)