consistent with the Legislature’s concern about the dangers associated with horses in general and the problem of allowing these cases to be governed by ordinary principles of negligence. Id. The court went on to say that by adopting G.L.c. 128, §2D, the Legislature established that such dangers were understood to be widely known and especially obvious to experienced riders. Id. Similarly, in Fraumeni v. Aleppo Temple Shriners Activities, 6 Mass. L. Rep. 644, Middlesex Sup.Ct. No. 95-0204 (Mass.Super.Ct. 1997), this court suggested that the Legislature specifically sought to grant immuniiy to equine professionals regarding injuiy relating to the inherent risks of equine activities, because they recognized the unpredictable nature of horses, and wanted to protect those in the industiy (<HOLDING>). Considering the Legislature’s intent in
holding a landlord liable for injuries sustained in the laundry room of an apartment complex holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest holding individual standing not available where inter alia there is no claim that plaintiff sustained a loss disproportionate to that sustained by the corporation holding the defendant temple wasnt liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff rider after he was thrown by the defendants horse holding a landlord liable for injuries sustained by a tenant who slipped on an icy sidewalk