Release signed while checking in at a resort stopped heir’s claims when the decedent drowned while canoeing.

Compare the release and what the court said it covered in this case to the narrow interpretation of a release by Wisconsin law.

Estate of Johnson v. Mayacamas Holdings LLC (Cal. App. 2021)

State: California: California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Plaintiff: Estate of Lamerle Johnson, Sr., Danielle Martin Johnson, LaMerle Johnson, Jr., and Deja Thomas

Defendant: Mayacamas Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Claims: general negligence, premises liability, and wrongful death, alleging that Mayacamas Ranch LLC negligently owned, possessed, leased, maintained, operated, designed, inspected, supervised, managed, and controlled the resort premises

Defendant Defenses: Release and Assumption of the Rik

Holding: For the defendants

Year: 2021

Summary

The deceased signed a release when checking into the resort. During a hike, the deceased and others found a lake and canoes. They parties canoed on the lake with the deceased eventually falling out of his canoe and drowning.

The plaintiffs claim the release did not name and thus did not cover all the defendants and did not identify canoeing as a risk. The court found the release was written broadly enough to cover the defendants and the risks the decedent encountered.

Facts

Mayacamas Ranch was a resort in Calistoga. The property included a “Building Parcel,” with guest cottages, a man-made pool, and other structures, and a “Lake Parcel,” with a pond called Hidden Lake. On the shore of Hidden Lake were at least two 12-foot fiberglass canoes. An unmarked white bin, containing life vests, was nearby.

At the time relevant to this case, the Building Parcel of Mayacamas Ranch was owned by respondent Mayacamas Holdings LLC (Mayacamas Holdings), and the Lake Parcel was owned by respondent Profit Recovery Center. Both parcels were operated and managed by respondent Paradise With Purpose, a hospitality management company.[1]

In December 2016, Johnson attended a retreat at Mayacamas Ranch hosted by Rockwood Leadership Institute. Upon his arrival, he received a “Release & Waiver of Liability,” which the resort required guests to review and sign before they were assigned rooms and given keys. Johnson signed the release on December 5, 2016.

On December 6, 2016, Johnson and another guest, Troy Williams, went hiking and “stumbled upon” Hidden Lake. Johnson took one of the canoes onto the water, apparently without incident.

On December 7, 2016, Johnson, Williams, and two other guests (Heracio Ray Harts and Eddy Zheng) went hiking before the day’s scheduled activities. They arrived at Hidden Lake and took turns taking the two canoes onto the water. They did not locate any life vests; although they found the white bin, they could not open it.

While Johnson and Williams were in their respective canoes on Hidden Lake, Johnson began “horsing around” and rocking Williams’s canoe. Williams started to return to shore. When he looked back, he saw that Johnson’s canoe had flipped over and Johnson was in the water. Williams saw “panic in [Johnson’s] face.”

As Williams tried to help Johnson, Williams fell into the water, which was so cold that he had to swim to shore. Zheng entered the water to look for Johnson, and Harts ran to get help. Darlene Nipper, the chief executive officer of Rockwood Leadership Institute, arrived at the scene and unsuccessfully tried to find Johnson. First responders later found Johnson’s deceased body.

On the day of the incident, the canoes were unsecured; previously, they had been secured with a chain and a lock. The water temperature in Hidden Lake was about 40 degrees, and the air temperature was roughly 38 degrees. Respondents had no policies, procedures, or practices to warn guests about specific safety hazards associated with cold water shock and swimming or canoeing at Hidden Lake.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

Under California law, a release is an express assumption of the risk document which negates the defendant’s duty of care.

If the plaintiff signed a release of all liability, the release applies to any ordinary negligence of the defendant, so long as the act of negligence that resulted in the plaintiff’s injury is reasonably related to the purpose for which the release was given. The release must be” ‘” ‘clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties.

In this case, the appellate court found the release was clear, unambiguous and explicit in expressing the parties (both the defendant and the decedent’s) intent that the decedent assumed the risk of his possible injury.

The release was entitled “Release & Waiver of Liability,” communicating to Johnson that he was releasing claims and waiving liability. It explicitly stated that he would “assume full responsibility for all risks of bodily injury, death or property damage,” and that he would “hold harmless Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property.” It further stated that Johnson would “waive, release, and discharge any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which [he] now ha[s] or which may arise out of or in connection with [his] presence at Mayacamas Ranch.” (Italics added.) In short, the release applied to any ordinary negligence liability arising out of Johnson’s stay at the ranch, which would include his use of the canoe on Hidden Lake at the resort.

The court then looked at whether the release identified all the named defendants. The release only identified “Mayacamas Ranch,
its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property.” It did not identify by name “Paradise With Purpose, Profit Recovery Center, or Mayacamas Holdings.” The plaintiff argued because those three defendants were named in the release they were not covered by the release.

The appellate court found that all the parties were covered by the release. The parties and the land those parties controlled were all managed by the named defendant and the language identifying other parties was sufficient to cover the non-named parties.

Although the release did not identify the Mayacamas Defendants by name, a reasonable person in Johnson’s position-signing a release and waiver of liability for all claims arising from his presence at Mayacamas Ranch-would necessarily expect the phrase “Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees” to include the entity that was operating, and doing business as, “Mayacamas Ranch.”

The plaintiff argued the scope of the release was ambiguous. The release mentioned swimming so the release could only be applied to the swimming pool not canoeing on a lake.

The court did not buy it. “An ambiguity exists only”‘ “when a party can identify an alternative, semantically reasonable, candidate of meaning of a writing.” The language of the release covered swimming, it also covered “any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which I now have or which may arise out of or in connection with my presence at Mayacamas Ranch.” That language alone in the release would cover canoeing in a lake while on the property.

The court summed up the release in this statement.

Here, the purpose of the release was for guests to waive all future claims arising out of their presence at the ranch and their use of its property and facilities, which necessarily included canoeing on Hidden Lake.

The plaintiff then argued the actions of the defendant were grossly negligent.

‘Gross negligence'” is a” ‘” ‘want of even scant care'” ‘” or” ‘” ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” ‘” [“‘ “such a lack of care as may be presumed to indicate a passive and indifferent attitude toward results”‘ “].) By contrast, ordinary negligence is “a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm.” [“‘ “[M]ere nonfeasance, such as the failure to discover a dangerous condition or to perform a duty,”‘ amounts to ordinary negligence.”].) Thus, while “[e]vidence of conduct that evinces an extreme departure from safety directions or an industry standard could demonstrate gross negligence,” “conduct demonstrating the failure to guard against, or warn of, a dangerous condition typically does not rise to the level of gross negligence.”

The plaintiff’s argued that

Here, appellants claim that the Mayacamas Defendants were grossly negligent because they did not lock up the canoes, post signs, provide a flotation device and life vests, or warn guests about “cold water shock” and canoeing at the lake, including admonishing them that canoes can capsize and life vests should be worn.

However, the court found these actions were not gross negligence but simply malfeasance, which is covered by ordinary negligence and as such, the release.

Assumption of the risk was also raised as a defense to the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that drowning while canoeing was not an inherent risk of canoeing. The court found otherwise.

In addition to contending that the release negated the element of duty under an express assumption of risk theory, the Mayacamas Defendants contended in the trial court that they had no liability based on the primary assumption of risk theory. Under that theory, “operators, instructors and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” Whether a given risk is inherent in the sport is a question of law to be answered by the court.

The court did not go into that issue with any greater detail because its decision on the release meant the issue was resolved without looking at assumption of the risk.

The release, as flawed as it might appear to be, was written broadly enough under California law, to deny the claims of the plaintiff.

So Now What?

Compare this case, and how the release was interpreted to the decision in Schabelski v. Nova Cas. Co. (Wis. App. 2022) discussed in Wisconsin finding more ways to invalidate releases, which makes writing a release difficult. There is no way this release would have survived under Wisconsin law.

This release did not name the defendants properly, did not identify the risks with any specificity yet was written broadly enough to meet the requirements of a release under California law.

In Wisconsin, a release cannot be written broadly and must specifically identify the risks the release is being used to prevent.

That does not mean you can write releases in some states and not care about how they are written. A poorly written release is always the best example to teach or write about because they are always appealed. Good releases never get to court because the plaintiffs cannot find the holes necessary to make a claim.

Get your release written by an attorney, not a sports professor, who knows the law and knows your land, business or activity.

Other California Cases looking at Releases.

Allegations of fraud inducing a non-English speaking client to sign a release are enough to void the release in California.

Balloon ride in California is not a common carrier, and the release signed by the plaintiff bars the plaintiff’s claims even though she did not read or speak English

California decision imposes three specific requirements for a release to be valid. On requirement is a release must be understood by a person untrained in the law

Defendants awarded attorney fees in California cycling race. One unique argument was raised; the plaintiff signed the release on the wrong line

Most references in case law to assumption of the risk are to this California decision

The actual risk causing the injury to the plaintiff was explicitly identified in the release and used by the court as proof it was a risk of skiing and snowboarding. If it was in the release, then it was a risk.

This California decision looks at assumption of the risk as it applies to non-competitive long distance bicycle rides and also determines that assumption of the risk also overcomes a violation of a statute (negligence per se).

What do you think? Leave a comment.

James H. “Jim” Moss

Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, and outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufacturers, and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us

Jim is the author or co-author of eight books about legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management,

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

and Law. To Purchase Go Here:

To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.

If you are interested in having me write your release, download the form and return it to me.

Connect

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter, or LinkedIn

Threads

Facebook Logo

X, Formerly Twitter

Recreation Law

Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law   Rec-law@recreation-law.com       James H. Moss

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

#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,