Twenty Years ago, releases were void in New York, here; a release stopped a claim for an injury from a plaintiff playing flag footballPosted: January 29, 2018 | |
New York has a statute that voids releases if used by places of amusement where you pay to enter. Issue in this case was, did the plaintiff pay to enter the field or pay the league.
By paying the league, he did not pay a place of amusement, and the release stopped his claims.
State: New York: Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County
Plaintiff: Murat Marcf
Defendant: Middle Country Center School District, Long Island Flag Foot-Ball League, Inc. and Long Island Flag Football, Inc.,
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: for the Defendant
Year: December 2017
This case is one of many showing how release law has changed over the years. New York was a state that once barred releases and now easily enforces them. If you use releases, you must stay current on the law affecting your release. You probably also need to have your release updated. Contact me if you need your release checked.
New York GOL § 5-326 states that in New York places of amusement, where the patrons pay to enter or play are void. Here the place of amusement was a football field owned by the defendant. However, the plaintiff did not pay the defendant to play on the field; he paid the flag football league so the release he signed was valid and stopped his claims.
The plaintiff was injured playing flag football. His flag football game was part of a league. The plaintiff paid the league to play, and the league organized games and places to play.
The plaintiff jumped to receive a pass and landed on a concealed sprinkler head inuring is foot. He sued to recover for his injuries. The field he was playing on was owned by the defendant school district.
Before playing the plaintiff signed a release. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff claims based upon the release. The following is the court’s analysis and dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court thoroughly went through release law in New York. The court referred to the release as documentary evidence that must resolve all factual issues if the motion was to be granted.
For the release to be valid, the terms of the release must be clear, unambiguous and conclusively dispose of the matter. A release is a contract and will be governed by contract law. If the release is not void by statute or public policy a release absolving a party of negligence will be enforced.
The court found the language of the release was clear and unambiguous and thus enforceable and binding upon the parties. The release is valid and enforceable unless the plaintiff claims duress, illegality, fraud or mutual mistake. Here the plaintiff did not plead any of those.
Plaintiff in this matter makes no claim of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake in the signing of the subject Release. Instead, plaintiff alleges in opposition to the motion that the Release is void as against public policy pursuant to GOL § 5-326, and that defendant is, therefore, barred from relying on the Release in seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. GOL § 5-326 renders void and unenforceable agreements that exempt certain places of public amusement, recreation and similar establishments from liability.
General Obligations Law § 5-326 was enacted to stop gyms from using a release. The courts have not looked at the statute from stopping places of amusement from using a release.
In general, when a participant pays a fee to use recreational facilities, or pays league fees and the league pays for use of those facilities, a waiver and release of liability signed by the participant is void pursuant to GOL § 5-326 To void a release of liability executed by a user of a recreational facility pursuant to GOL § 5-326, there must be an evidentiary showing that the individual paid a fee for use of the facility…
Here the plaintiff did not pay to use the field, the place of amusement. The plaintiff paid to join the league. The field was used for free by the league.
A plaintiff’s complaint will be properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) where the plaintiff claims that the Release is void pursuant to GOL §5-326, but fails to establish that he or she paid a fee directly to the owner or operator of the recreational facility for use of the facility where the alleged injury occurred…
Because the plaintiff did not pay the “place of amusement” the owner of the field, GOL §5-326 did not apply.
So Now What?
Release law evolves, constantly. The evolution of releases in New York went from they were void because of GOL §5-326, to unless the plaintiff can prove an exact relationship to the defendant and the statute the release will be valid.
If you use a release, you must stay current on release law. Read these articles and if your release has not been updated in a while contact me.
Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
By Recreation Law Recemail@example.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,