Oldja v.Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966
Posted: April 16, 2012 Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Washington, Youth Camps, Zip Line | Tags: Camp, SEATTLE, Summer Camp, zip line Leave a commentOldja v.Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966
Ted Oldja, Plaintiff, v. Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, Defendant.
CASE NO. C09-0122-JCC
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966
June 24, 2011, Decided
June 24, 2011, Filed
COUNSEL: [**1] For Ted Oldja, Plaintiff: Kenneth R Friedman, LEAD ATTORNEY, FRIEDMAN RUBIN, BREMERTON, WA; Michael N White, FRIEDMAN RUBIN, (BREMERTON), BREMERTON, WA.
For Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, Defendant: David R Goodnight, Vanessa Soriano Power, STOEL RIVES (WA), SEATTLE, WA; Francis S Floyd, Nicholas L Jenkins, FLOYD PFLUEGER & RINGER PS, SEATTLE, WA.
JUDGES: John C. Coughenour, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: John C. Coughenour
OPINION
[*1209] ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49), Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 53), and Defendant’s reply. (Dkt. No. 59.) Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.
I. BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2007, Ted Oldja attended a camp at Warm Beach Christian Camp (“Warm Beach”) in Stanwood, Washington. Mr. and Mrs. Oldja decided to ride on the zip line operated by Warm Beach. The zip line carried riders in a harness suspended from a cable by two ropes: a white rope, which acts as the primary connection between the harness and the cable, and bears the load of the rider’s weight; and [**2] a black rope, which acts as a secondary connection between the harness and the cable, and can be used as a safety line to slow the rider down.
Before a user rides the zip line, it is the job of the launch facilitator to follow a safety procedure. First, the facilitator tells the rider that they can hold on to either the white and black ropes during the ride, or just the white rope. The facilitator instructs riders not to hold only the black secondary line, because it will slow them down or stop them completely. The facilitator then double-checks the harness configuration, pulley attachments, safety helmet, and carabiners. The launch facilitator calls “zip clear” to the landing facilitator to communicate that the rider is ready, and the landing facilitator responds “zip clear” to communicate that the path is clear for the rider.
After watching his wife on the ride, it was Mr. Oldja’s turn. The launch facilitator, Paul Matthewson, testified that he followed the proper safety procedures. (Dkt. No. 49 Ex. 2 at 51- 53.) Matthewson testified that he did not see Oldja wrap his fingers in the white primary rope, and that Oldja’s fingers were not wrapped in the rope when Matthewson cleared him [**3] to go. (Id. at 60.) Sometime after Matthewson called “zip clear,” Mr. Oldja, a mechanical engineer, wrapped his fingers in the white primary rope, and stepped off the platform. The load-bearing rope tightened [*1210] around his hand and crushed his fingers. Mr. Oldja was rushed to a hospital and has had several surgeries on his hand. Plaintiff filed suit against Warm Beach for negligence, product liability, and negligence per se under a variety of theories. Defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissal of all three of these claims. Plaintiff does not oppose summary judgment on the product liability claim.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
[HN1] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) mandates that a motion for summary judgment be granted when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). There exists a genuine issue as to a particular fact–and hence that fact “can be resolved only by a finder of fact” at trial–when “[it] may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party”; conversely, there exists no genuine issue when reasonable [**4] minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Whether a particular fact is material, in turn, is determined by the substantive law of the case: “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. at 248. Summary judgment, then, demands an inquiry into “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law”; if applying the relevant law to those facts about which no two reasonable factfinders could disagree dictates that the moving party must prevail, then a motion for summary judgment must be granted. Id. at 250-52.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Duty of Ordinary Care
Plaintiff argues that it is well established that every business has a duty to use ordinary care in keeping its premises reasonably safe for use by business invitees. (Dkt. No. 53 at 10.) Defendant argues that Section 388 of the Second Restatement of Torts should govern the analysis. [**5] The Court addresses Section 388 below, but Section 388 governs only the duty to disclose and does not govern the duty of ordinary care. Defendant has not shown an absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to its alleged breach of the duty of ordinary care. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissal of this claim is denied.
B. Duty to Disclose
[HN2] With reference to a duty to disclose, The Supreme Court of Washington has adopted Section 388 of the Second Restatement of Torts, which states that the supplier is liable if he:
a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and
b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and
c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.
Fleming v. Stoddard Wendle Motor Co., 70 Wn.2d 465, 423 P.2d 926, 928 (Wash. 1967).
Plaintiff argues that he is choosing not to pursue his claims under Section 388. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the Court [*1211] should consider Section 343A, which creates a duty to protect invitees from known or obvious dangers when the [**6] landowner should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge and obviousness.
Plaintiff is misguided. [HN3] He may choose the claims he brings, but he cannot choose the standard the Court will apply to those claims. Section 343 governs liability for an activity or condition on the land. Section 388 governs liability for use of a chattel. “Chattel” means movable or transferable property. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Defendant argues that the zip line is movable property, and Plaintiff does not challenge this characterization. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s injury was caused by equipment on the land, not the land itself. Accordingly, Section 388 governs Plaintiff’s claims. Lunt v. Mt. Spokane Skiing Corp., 62 Wn. App. 353, 814 P.2d 1189, 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (where injury arises from equipment not land, Section 388 not Section 343 governs).
[HN4] Each of the three criteria in Section 388 must be satisfied. The Court will begin with consideration of the second criterion. To prevail on this element at the summary judgment phase, Plaintiff must show some evidence that Defendant had no reason to believe that riders of the zip line would realize the dangerous condition. This is a dense piece of legal language, [**7] so an illustration is helpful.
In Fleming v. Stoddard Wendle Motor Co., 70 Wn.2d 465, 423 P.2d 926 (Wash. 1967), a man disabled a safety feature on a truck that was designed to prevent the motor from starting if the car was in gear. He sold the truck to a mechanic and did not disclose that the safety feature had been disabled. When the purchaser started the truck, it lurched forward, striking and injuring the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Washington noted that the man who had sold the car had no reason to believe that any future operator of the car would know that the safety feature had been disabled. Id. at 928. Because the seller had no reason to believe the defect would be discovered, he had a duty to warn of that defect. The defect was latent and no amount of common sense or automotive knowledge could inform a driver about that particular hazard. Dismissal of the seller was reversed.
In contrast, Mele v. Turner, 106 Wn.2d 73, 720 P.2d 787 (Wash. 1986) concerns a case where a young man borrowed a lawn mower from his neighbors, inserted his hand into the mower housing to clean out some wet grass, and injured four fingers. The young man admitted in an affidavit: “I obviously realized that one should not put [**8] his hand under the machine where the blade runs . . . .” Id. at 790. The Court held that because the dangerous condition was obvious and known, defendants had no legal duty to warn. Id. There was nothing latent about the defect, and common sense would inform the user of the hazard.
The present case is much closer to Mele than Fleming. Plaintiff’s injury was the natural result of wrapping a rope around one’s hand and then suspending one’s body from that rope. This was not a latent or hidden condition that only Defendant could know. Common sense of a capable adult is sufficient to inform a rider of this danger. Plaintiff admitted as much in his deposition:
Q. Did you know that if you wrapped the rope around your fingers and then you put weight on the rope, that that would tighten and cinch around your fingers?
A. The thought did not cross my mind.
Q. Okay. You didn’t think about that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But if you had thought about it, you would have been able to figure that out, correct?
[*1212] A. If someone asked me?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
(Dkt. No. 50 at Ex. A 196:14-197:1.) Given Plaintiff’s admission that he would have realized the danger if he had thought about it, Plaintiff cannot credibly argue [**9] that Defendant had no reason to believe that he would realize the danger.
The only evidence Plaintiff offers on this point is the testimony of Dr. Richard Gill, a Human Factors Engineering consultant. Dr. Gill was disclosed as a rebuttal expert, and testified that the scope of his work was to provide rebuttal testimony to the three defense experts. (Dkt. No. 60 at Ex. 1, Ex 2 16:8-9.) Dr. Gill’s expert report provides a series of conclusions about the behavior of zip line riders that does not rebut any of the testimony of Defendant’s experts. Rather, this type of testimony should have been disclosed in the initial expert discovery responses and is therefore untimely. Accordingly, Dr. Gill’s testimony regarding the behavioral tendencies of zip line or challenge course participants is STRICKEN. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s liability under Section 388.
C. Liability for violation of state regulations
Plaintiff’s next argument is that Defendant was negligent pursuant to RCW 5.40.050 for violation of a state statute. [HN5] WAC 296-403A-190 states that amusement rides must be inspected by certified inspectors. RCW 67.42.010 and [**10] WAC 296-403A-100(2) provide the definition of amusement rides, but do not mention zip lines. Plaintiff argues that these definitions do include zip lines, and relies on a series of communications with the State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) in 2009 and 2010 in support of this contention. (Dkt. No. 50 at Ex. 11.)
The Court interprets these communications very differently from Plaintiff. It is clear from these emails that the decision to include zip lines in the definition of “amusement ride” under WAC 296-403A-100(2) was not made until late 2009 or early 2010, more than two years after Plaintiff injured his hand on Defendant’s zip line. (Dkt. No. 50 at Ex. 11.) Plaintiff does not address this chronology in his briefing. It is misleading in the extreme for Plaintiff to characterize Defendant’s zip line as “unlicensed” when the licensing body had not yet decided that a license was required. Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s failure to comply with licensing requirements.
D. Common Carrier Liability
Plaintiff’s third argument is that Defendant is subject to common carrier liability. [HN6] Under Washington law, the duty [**11] of a common carrier to safeguard passengers from injury requires the carrier to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its business or its type of transportation. Benjamin v. Seattle, 74 Wn.2d 832, 447 P.2d 172 (1968). Plaintiff acknowledges that there is no Washington caselaw addressing the issue of whether a zip line qualifies as a “common carrier,” but argues that this Court should expand the definition to include zip lines and similar amusement rides. In support of this argument, Plaintiff mentions a series of California decisions holding that a higher standard of care applies to amusement rides. Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 4th 1125, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352, 113 P.3d 41, 47 (Cal. 2005) (holding that the same high standard of care applied to carriers of passengers should also apply to operators of roller [*1213] coasters); Neubauer v. Disneyland, 875 F. Supp. 672, 673 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (holding that under California’s broad common carrier statute, a Disneyland amusement ride may be a common carrier).
This argument stumbles into the yawning gap between the Washington and California common-carrier statutes. [HN7] California’s common carrier statute is broad: Everyone who offers to the public to carry persons, [**12] property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages, is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry. Cal Civ Code § 2168. Washington’s common carrier statute is narrow and exhaustive:
“Common carrier” includes all railroads, railroad companies, street railroads, street railroad companies, commercial ferries, motor freight carriers, auto transportation companies, charter party carriers and excursion service carriers, private nonprofit transportation providers, solid waste collection companies, household goods carriers, hazardous liquid pipeline companies, and every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, partnership, and person, their lessees, trustees, or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever, and every city or town, owning, operating, managing, or controlling any such agency for public use in the conveyance of persons or property for hire within this state.
RCW 81.04.010(11). Plaintiff offers no argument or evidence for the proposition that this definition includes a zip line. Again, Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s liability as an alleged common carrier.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion [**13] for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the duty of ordinary care survive summary judgment. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the duty to disclose, claims relating to the violation of the WAC, and claims relating to common carrier liability are DISMISSED.
DATED this 24th day of June 2011.
/s/ John C. Coughenour
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Delaware holds that mothers signature on contract forces change of venue for minors claims.
Posted: April 2, 2012 Filed under: California, Delaware, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Summer Camp | Tags: American Arbitration Association, Arbitration, California, Minor, Summer Camp, Youth Camp Leave a commentDoe v. Cedars Academy, LLC, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559
Court recognizes that you can’t argue rights under the contract and void other parts of the contract in the same lawsuit.
This case alleges that the minor was assaulted at a school for students who have a need for academic and social skills development. To be enrolled in the school the mother had to sign a substantial contract. The contract included a release of liability (pre-injury release) and a venue and jurisdiction clause.
The minor was allegedly threatened and sexually assaulted by another student. The mother and son sued for.
“….negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness; one count raises a breach of contract claim, and one count raises a claim that Defendants violated John Doe’s substantive due process right to bodily integrity.”
The defendants, the school and the parent company of the school moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. This means the contract says the jurisdiction is located in another state, therefor this court does not have the legal right to hear the claim. i.e. the jurisdiction clause in the contract between the parties.
Summary of the case
The school was located in Delaware; however, the agreement required arbitration in California. The venue and jurisdiction clause was extensive in the contract.
21. Governing Law/Venue: This Agreement, and all matters relating hereto, including any matter or dispute arising between the parties out of this Agreement, tort or otherwise, shall be interpreted, governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California; and the parties consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the California Courts in Los Angeles County, California, and any qualified (American Arbitration Association-approved) arbitration service in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to enforce this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement constitutes a business transaction within the State of California. 10
The court looked at four issues in reviewing the contract and the claims of the plaintiffs:
(A) whether the Agreement is binding as to Jane Doe; [the mother]
(B) whether the Agreement is binding as to John Doe; [the son]
(C) whether the pre-injury release provision renders the entire Agreement unenforceable; and, if not
(D) whether the choice of law, choice of forum, and/or arbitration provisions of the Agreement are controlling.
The issue of whether the contract is binding on the mother. The court found it was because the mother also sued for damages under the contract. Here the court found if you are suing for damages under the contract, you cannot claim you are not part of the contract.
The court also held, in what was one of the clearest statements on this issue I’ve read, that the mother could not avail herself of the services of the defendant and put her son in the school and then claim the contract did not apply to her. If the contract allowed her to put her son in the school, then the contract applied to her.
But for the right to contact as a mother, there would be no services for children.
This same analysis was applied to whether or not the minor was bound by the agreement. If the minor could attend the school, based on the contract, then the minor had to be bound by the contract.
To conclude that John Doe is not bound by the Agreements otherwise enforceable terms, as Plaintiffs contend, simply because he is a minor would be tantamount to concluding that a parent can never contract with a private school (or any other service provider) on behalf and for the benefit of her child. As a practical matter, no service provider would ever agree to a contract with a parent if a child could ignore the provisions of the contract that pertain to him without recourse.
The court did not determine or decided if a parent can bind a minor to a pre-injury release. The court held that the contract allowed the court to exclude for the sake of argument, any part of the contract that it felt was unenforceable and therefore, the court could decide the issue without deciding the release issue.
The court then found the jurisdiction and venue clause were valid, and the case must be sent to California. Whether that was going to be a California court or arbitration, as required by the contract, in California was up to the California court.
At this point, the plaintiff argued the minute aspects of the contract did not force the case to be sent to California. This forced the court to scrutinize the agreement, down to the placement of a semi-colon. The court determined the jurisdiction and venue portion of the agreement applied.
Unless the forum selection clause “is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances,” such clauses are prima facie valid. A choice of forum provision will be deemed “unreasonable” only when its enforcement would seriously impair the plaintiff’s ability to pursue its cause of action.” Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not sufficient evidence of unreasonableness.
So Now What?
Over and over I have stressed the importance of a well-written jurisdiction and venue (choice of forums) clause in your release and in all documents. Here again, this clause will make litigation more difficult for the plaintiff.
You want the lawsuit in your community. Most of the witnesses are usually located there, the business is there, and you are better prepared to defend a claim there.
Another issue that was not brought up the court, but is present in the case is the decision on arbitration. Arbitration may be a great item for you to use if you are dealing with minors for several reasons.
Arbitration is cheaper and quicker than a trial. The rules governing arbitration have a shorter time frame and do not allow as much time for discovery.
Arbitrators, by statute, are usually limited on the type of amount of damages that they can award. As such, punitive or other excessive damages may not be awarded by an arbitrator.
However, arbitration is not necessarily the way to go in every case. Arbitration does not allow, normally for motions for summary judgment. If you have a well-written release in a state that allows the use of releases, you will have a faster and better result going to court and filing a motion for summary judgment.
Whether or not to put arbitration in a release or other contract is one to be carefully reviewed based on your state, your state law and your situation with your attorney.
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
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
 X, Formerly Twitter |
 Facebook Logo |
 Threads |
 Recreation Law |
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
@2012-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC
G-YQ06K3L262
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #arbitration,
WordPress Tags: Delaware,signature,venue,Cedars,Academy,Super,LEXIS,Court,lawsuit,students,skills,development,injury,jurisdiction,clause,student,negligence,Defendants,John,complaint,Summary,agreement,arbitration,California,tort,laws,State,Courts,Angeles,American,Association,transaction,plaintiffs,Jane,provision,forum,Here,statements,avail,defendant,analysis,Agreements,provider,recourse,argument,Whether,plaintiff,aspects,placement,selection,clauses,enforcement,action,Mere,expense,Over,importance,forums,litigation,Most,Another,decision,item,minors,discovery,Arbitrators,statute,arbitrator,judgment,situation,attorney,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,unenforceable
Doe v. Cedars Academy, LLC, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559
Posted: April 2, 2012 Filed under: California, Delaware, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Legal Case, Summer Camp | Tags: Aspen Education Group, California, Delaware, Minor, Parol evidence rule, Summer Camp, Youth Camp Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see
Delaware holds that mothers signature on contract forces change of venue for minors claims.
Doe v. Cedars Academy, LLC, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559
John Doe and Jane Doe, individually, and as Guardian and Next Friend of John Doe, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. Cedars Academy, LLC, and Aspen Education Group, Inc., Defendants.
C.A. No. 09C-09-136 JRS
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559
July 20, 2010, Submitted
October 27, 2010, Decided
Notice:
This opinion has not been released for publication. Until released, it is subject to revision or withdrawal.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reargument denied by Doe v. Cedars Acad., LLC, 2011 Del. Super. LEXIS 18 (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 19, 2011)
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
Upon Consideration of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
DISPOSITION: GRANTED.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The court considered a motion to dismiss (Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by the defendants, a limited liability company (LLC) and a corporation, seeking an order dismissing a complaint filed by plaintiffs, a mother and her son, in which plaintiffs alleged the mother entered into a contract with the LLC to enroll her son in a boarding school and that, while a student there, he was sexually assaulted and threatened by a fellow student.
OVERVIEW: A fair reading of the complaint indicated plaintiffs alleged defendants were liable for damages for breach of the contract and for breach of common law duties of care. The court found a reasonable person would conclude that the mother objectively manifested her assent to be bound by the terms of the contract by paying tuition to the school and entrusting her son to the school as contemplated by the contract. The son, a minor, was also bound by the agreement, entered into on his behalf. Even if a pre-injury release was invalid, it would not render the entire agreement unenforceable. After reviewing the provisions within the four corners of the contract, the court concluded the parties intended to consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of California courts or arbitration panels to litigate their claims, based on a forum selection clause. Other than arguing that the contract was invalid because it was unconscionable, plaintiffs did not provide any support for their claim that the court should ignore the forum selection clause. Given the law in Delaware that choice of forum provisions were enforceable absent a showing of unreasonableness, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
OUTCOME: The motion to dismiss was granted.
COUNSEL: Joseph J. Rhoades, Esquire, Stephen T. Morrow, Esquire, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH J. RHOADES, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Norman H. Brooks, Jr., MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants.
JUDGES: Joseph R. Slights, III, Judge.
OPINION BY: Joseph R. Slights, III
OPINION
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SLIGHTS, J.
I.
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, Cedars Academy, LLC (“Cedars”) and Aspen Education Group, Inc. (“Aspen”) (collectively “the Defendants”). The motion seeks an order dismissing the Complaint filed by John Doe and his mother Jane Doe (collectively “Plaintiffs”), 1 in which Plaintiffs allege that Jane Doe entered into a contract with Cedars to enroll her son in the Cedars Academy Boarding School (“Cedars Academy”) and that, while a student there, John Doe was sexually assaulted and threatened by a fellow student. 2
1 Plaintiffs have used pseudonyms, presumably because of the sensitive nature of the allegations.
2 Compl. ¶ 7.
The Complaint contains five counts: three counts raise tort-based claims including negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness; 3 one count raises a [*2] breach of contract claim, 4 and one count raises a claim that Defendants violated John Doe’s substantive due process right to bodily integrity. 5 Defendants move to dismiss all counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue, and also based on a pre-injury release signed by Jane Doe. Defendant Aspen also moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review of the motion, and the responses thereto, the Court determines that the forum selection clause of the operative contract (selecting California as the exclusive forum) is enforceable as to all of the parties and, as such, the motion to dismiss this action must be GRANTED.
3 Compl. ¶¶ 11-20, 26-29, 30-31.
4 Compl. ¶¶ 21-25.
5 Compl. ¶¶ 32-39.
II.
On September 15, 2007, Jane Doe entered into a contract with Cedars (hereinafter “the Agreement”) to enroll her minor son, John Doe, as a full time student at the Cedars Academy in Bridgeville, Delaware. 6 Cedars Academy is a private preparatory boarding school for students who demonstrate a need for academic and social skill development. 7 The Agreement between Ms. Doe and Cedars contained the following provisions relevant to the controversy sub judice:
5. Assumption of [*3] the Risks; Releases and Indemnities: Sponsor acknowledges serious hazards and dangers, known and unknown, inherent in the Program, including but not limited to vocational activities, emotional and physical injuries, illness or death that may arise from strenuous hiking, climbing, camping in a natural environment, exposure to the elements, plants and animals, running away from the Program, “acts of God” (nature), physical education activities, water sports, stress, involvement with other students, self-inflicted injuries, and transportation to and from activities. Sponsor understands that in participating in the Program Student will be in locations and using facilities where many hazards exist and is aware of and appreciates the risks, [sic] which may result. Sponsor understands that accidents occur during such activities due to the negligence of others, which may result in death or serious injury. Sponsor and Student are voluntarily participating in the Program with knowledge of the dangers involved and agree to accept any and all risks. In consideration for being permitted to participate in the Program, Sponsor agrees to not sue, to assume all risks and to release, hold harmless, [*4] and indemnify Cedars and any and all of its predecessors, successors, officers, directors, trustees, insurers, employees … including, but not limited to, Aspen Education Group, Inc. (collectively all of these above persons and entities shall be referred to as the “Released Parties” hereafter) who, through negligence, carelessness or any other cause might otherwise be liable to Sponsor or Student under theories of contract or tort law. Sponsor intends by this Waiver and Release to release, in advance, and to waive his or her rights and discharge each and every one of the Released Parties, from any and all claims for damages for death, personal injury or property damage which Sponsor may have, or which may hereafter accrue as a result of Student’s participation in any aspect of the Program, even though that liability may arise from negligence or carelessness on the part of the persons or entities being released, from dangerous or defective property or equipment owned, maintained, or controlled by them, or because of their possible liability without fault. Additionally, Sponsor covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties based upon their breach of any duty owed to Sponsor or Student [*5] as a result of their participation in any aspect of the Program. Sponsor understands and agrees that this Waiver and Release is binding on his or her heirs, assigns and legal representatives. 8
15. Binding Arbitration: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, except at Cedars’ option the collection of monies owed by Sponsor to Cedars, shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted in the State of California in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association; 9 and
21. Governing Law/Venue: This Agreement, and all matters relating hereto, including any matter or dispute arising between the parties out of this Agreement, tort or otherwise, shall be interpreted, governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California; and the parties consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the California Courts in Los Angeles County, California, and any qualified (American Arbitration Association-approved) arbitration service in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to enforce this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement constitutes a business transaction within the State of California. 10
6 Compl. [*6] ¶ 2.
7 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A.
8 Agreement ¶ 5.
9 Agreement ¶ 15.
10 Agreement ¶ 21.
On September 21, 2007, John Doe began attending Cedars Academy and residing in one of its dormitories. 11 While there, John Doe was propositioned by another student to perform sexual acts. According to the Complaint, on one or more occasion, the other student (not named as a defendant or otherwise in the Complaint) entered John Doe’s dormitory room, threatened him and sexually assaulted him. 12 Plaintiffs allege that these sexual assaults resulted in physical and emotional injuries to John Doe and economic damages to both Plaintiffs. 13 A fair reading of the Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs allege Defendants are liable for their damages both as a result of having breached the Agreement and having breached common law duties of care. 14
11 Compl. ¶ 7.
12 Id.
13 Compl. ¶¶ 7-10.
14 See Id. (Counts I through IV).
III.
In support of their motion, Defendants argue that the Agreement is enforceable against Jane Doe as the signatory and John Doe as a third party beneficiary. 15 Because both parties are bound by the Agreement, Defendants argue that Delaware’s preference for enforcing choice of forum provisions [*7] should prevail when, as here, the selected jurisdiction (California) has a “material connection” with the transaction. 16 Finally, Defendants assert that the arbitration provision of the Agreement should be honored because Jane Doe freely entered into the Agreement for the benefit of her minor son and John Doe received the benefit of the Agreement in the form of student housing, meals, and education. 17 According to the Defendants, he “who accepts the benefits of the contract, is also bound by any burdens or restrictions created by it.” 18
15 Defs.’ Letter Mem. pgs. 1-4.
16 Id. at 5.
17 Id. at 4.
18 Id.
In response, Plaintiffs first argue that the Agreement is not enforceable as to Jane Doe or John Doe because its “assumption of the risks; releases and indemnities” provision is invalid as a matter of law. According to Plaintiffs, Delaware courts look with disfavor upon clauses which exculpate a party from the consequences of that party’s own negligence. 19 Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that parents do not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of their children. Such pre-injury releases “deprive children of the legal relief necessary to redress negligently inflicted injuries,” [*8] according to Plaintiffs, and are thus void as against public policy. 20 Because the Agreement contains a pre-injury release provision that purports to release a minor’s claim, and an invalid indemnification provision, Plaintiffs contend that the entire Agreement is unenforceable. 21
19 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Letter Mem. pg. 2.
20 Id. at 7.
21 Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiffs next argue that even if the Agreement is enforceable against Jane Doe, it is not enforceable against John Doe because he is not a party to the Agreement. In this regard, Plaintiffs contend that the Agreement fails to identify John Doe as a party to the Agreement, that John Doe is not a signatory to the Agreement, and that there is no language in the Agreement to suggest that Jane Doe was contracting on John Doe’s behalf. 22 Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the Agreement is between Jane Doe and Cedars only and does not bind John Doe. 23 Plaintiffs further contend that even if John Doe is considered a third party beneficiary, he is still not bound to the Agreement because he did not sign it. 24
22 Id. at 4.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 6.
Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the choice of forum and arbitration provisions of the Agreement are unenforceable [*9] against both Plaintiffs because the Agreement is over-broad and unconscionable. 25 The Plaintiffs contend that the Agreement is too broad because there is no evidence that the parties contemplated “Cedars’ common law duty to prevent sexual assaults on John Doe or the manner in which breaches of that duty would be redressed when they entered into the Agreement.” 26 In addition, they argue that the Agreement is unconscionable because “John Doe was in need of specialized care and Cedars purported to be uniquely qualified to render such care,” leaving Jane Doe with little choice but to “sign on the dotted line.” 27
25 Id. at 8-10.
26 Id. at 9.
27 Id. at 10.
IV.
[HN1] In evaluating a Motion to Dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must assume all well plead facts in the complaint to be true. 28 A complaint will not be dismissed unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonable set of circumstances susceptible of proof. 29 Stated differently, a complaint may not be dismissed unless it is clearly not viable, which may be determined as a matter of law or fact. 30
28 Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998).
29 Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407, 410 (Del. Super. 1983).
30 Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Univ. of Del., 269 A.2d 52, 58 (Del. 1970).
V.
Plaintiffs’ [*10] Motion and the Defendants’ response implicate the following issues, which the Court will address seriatim: (A) whether the Agreement is binding as to Jane Doe; (B) whether the Agreement is binding as to John Doe; (C) whether the pre-injury release provision renders the entire Agreement unenforceable; and, if not (D) whether the choice of law, choice of forum, and/or arbitration provisions of the Agreement are controlling.
A. Jane Doe Is Bound By The Agreement She Entered Into With Cedars On Behalf Of Her Son
[HN2] Both Delaware and California measure the formation of a contract by an objective test. 31 Specifically, a contract is formed if “a reasonable person would conclude, based on the objective manifestations of assent and the surrounding circumstances, that the parties intended to be bound to their agreement on all essential terms.” 32 At the outset, the Court notes that [HN3] it is counter-intuitive to seek enforcement of an agreement that one alleges to be invalid. Stated differently, a party cannot “simultaneously seek to avoid the contract … and at the same time sue for damages for breach of [that] contract ….” 33 And yet, this is precisely what the Plaintiffs are attempting to do in [*11] this case. 34
31 The Court has considered both Delaware and California law in construing the Agreement given the Agreement’s choice of California law. See Leeds v. First Allied Conn. Corp., 521 A.2d 1095, 1097 (Del. Ch. 1986); Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 944, 955, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
32 Leeds, 521 A.2d at 1101. See also Founding Members, 109 Cal. App. 4th at 955 (“California recognizes the objective theory of contracts, under which [it] is the objective intent, as evidenced by the words of the contract, rather than the subjective intent of one of the parties, that controls interpretation.”).
33 In re Verilink Corp., 405 B.R. 356, 378 (N.D. Ala. 2009).
34 Compl. ¶¶ 21-25.
Moreover, a reasonable person would conclude that Jane Doe objectively manifested her assent to be bound by the terms of the Agreement by paying tuition to Cedars Academy as required by the Agreement and entrusting her son to the school as contemplated by the Agreement. 35 As a person with the capacity to contract, and in the absence of allegations of fraud, duress, or undue influence, Jane Doe is bound to the Agreement she signed with Cedars so that [*12] her son could attend Cedars Academy. 36
35 Compl. ¶¶ 5 and 22.
36 2 Williston on Contracts § 6:44 (4th ed.) (“Because the offeree’s action naturally indicates assent, at least in the absence of an invalidating cause such as fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or unconscionability, where an offeree signs a document it is generally held to be bound by the document’s terms, even if the offeree signs in ignorance of those terms.”). See, e.g., Indus. Am., Inc v. Fulton Indus., Inc., 285 A.2d 412, 415 (Del. 1971) (“Where an offeror requests an act in return for his promise and the act is performed, the act performed becomes the requisite overt manifestation of assent if the act is done intentionally; i.e., if there is a ‘conscious will’ to do it.”); Main Storage & Trucking Inc. v. Benco Contracting and Eng’g Inc., 89 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 1049, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)( [HN4] “Every contract requires mutual assent or consent, and ordinarily one who signs an instrument which on its face is a contract is deemed to assent to all its terms.”).
B. John Doe Is Bound By The Agreement Entered Into On His Behalf By His Mother
The parties focused much of their energy on whether John Doe should be considered a third party [*13] beneficiary of the Agreement. This focus, however, misses the mark in that it ignores the realities of the relationship between parent and child. As a matter of law, and as a practical matter, John Doe, a minor, could not obtain a private boarding school education from a facility like Cedars Academy without his mother contracting for such services on his behalf. 37 As the guardian of John Doe, Jane Doe was authorized to provide for her minor son’s education in the manner she saw fit. 38
37 6 Del. C. § 2705 ( [HN5] A person does not have the capacity to contract until he or she reaches the age of majority); Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 6700 (West 1994)(“A minor may make a contract … subject to the power of disaffirmance.”); Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 6500 (“A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age.”).
38 Ide v. Brown, 178 N.Y. 26, 70 N.E. 101, 102 ( N.Y.1904) (“As guardian, we assume that [father] had the power to provide for her support and maintenance during [daughter’s] minority.”); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070 (1925) (Parents have the liberty “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”); Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1559, 1565, 274 Cal. Rptr. 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)(same).
To [*14] conclude that John Doe is not bound by the Agreement’s otherwise enforceable terms, as Plaintiffs contend, simply because he is a minor would be tantamount to concluding that a parent can never contract with a private school (or any other service provider) on behalf and for the benefit of her child. As a practical matter, no service provider would ever agree to a contract with a parent if a child could ignore the provisions of the contract that pertain to him without recourse. 39 Such a result is inconsistent with the law’s concept of the family which “rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.” 40 In this case, as a parent, Jane Doe was authorized to enter into the Agreement with Cedars on behalf of her minor son and to bind him to its enforceable terms.
39 For instance, in this case, Cedars reserved the right to terminate John Doe’s enrollment in Cedars Academy if he engaged in “illegal, uncontrollable, or dangerous behavior” or “for any other reason … deem[ed] necessary for the protection of [John Doe], any other student(s) or the integrity of Cedar’s program.” [*15] Agreement, ¶ 9. This provision implicitly imposes upon John Doe certain obligations to behave in an appropriate manner. If this obligation was deemed by the Court to be non-binding upon John Doe simply because he is a minor, then Cedars, in turn, would lose its authority to discharge him or any other student whose behavior justified termination from the program. No private school would ever enroll a student under such circumstances.
40 Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S. Ct. 2493, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1979).
C. Even If The Pre-Injury Release Provision Is Invalid, It is Severable and Does Not Affect The Overall Enforceability Of The Agreement
Plaintiffs argue that parents do not possess the authority to bind their children to pre-injury releases. 41 According to Plaintiffs, the pre-injury release is invalid, 42 and, therefore, John Doe should not be bound by the balance of the Agreement’s terms. 43
41 Agreement ¶ 5.
42 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Letter Mem. pg. 7.
43 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 8.
It appears that no Delaware court has specifically addressed whether parents can bind their children to a pre-injury release. Further, it appears that there is a split among those jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. 44 This [*16] Court need not weigh in on behalf of Delaware, however, because even if the pre-injury release is invalid, the presence of the provision would not render the entire Agreement unenforceable. 45 [HN6] When “determining whether a contract is divisible … the essential question … is ‘did the parties give a single assent to the whole transaction, or did they assent separately to several things?'” 46 If there is evidence that clearly shows that the parties intended to enter into an integrated contract, then the contract should be read in its entirety. 47 In this regard, Delaware courts recognize that “[t]he parties’ intent to enter into a divisible contract may be expressed in the contract directly, through a severability clause.” 48 The Agreement between the parties in this case contains a clear and unambiguous severability clause. 49 Accordingly, the invalidity of the pre-injury release would not render the remainder of the Agreement unenforceable.
44 Compare Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002)(holding that Colorado’s public policy affords minors significant protections which preclude parents or guardians from releasing a minor’s own prospective claim for negligence); Hawkins ex rel. Hawkins v. Peart, 2001 UT 94, 37 P.3d 1062 (Utah 2001)(holding [*17] that a parent cannot release a child’s causes of action against a third party before or after an injury); with Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99, 769 N.E.2d 738 (Mass. 2002)(holding that releases of liability for ordinary negligence involving private parties are valid as a general proposition in the Commonwealth and, thus, it was not contrary to the purposes of the Tort Claims Act to allow city to use releases as a precondition for student’s participation in voluntary, nonessential activities, such as cheerleading at public school activities); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1998) (Holding that mother had authority to bind her minor child to exculpatory agreement in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit soccer organization, where cause of action sounded in negligence; agreement could not be disaffirmed by child on whose behalf it was executed).
45 See McInerney v. Slights, 1988 Del. Ch. LEXIS 47, 1988 WL 34528, *7 (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 1988)(“… where a contract as negotiated cannot be enforced by reason of a legally-recognized policy, a court should simply [imply] a severability clause in the contract if to enforce such an implied term may be done sensibly.”); Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. 115 Cal. App. 4th 638, 658-59, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)(“Where [*18] a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest.”).
46 Orenstein v. Kahn, 13 Del. Ch. 376, 119 A. 444, 446 (Del. Ch. 1922) (“Although the consideration is apportioned on the face of a contract, if there be a special agreement to take the whole or nothing, or if the evidence clearly shows that such was the purpose of the parties, the contract should be entire.”).
47 Id.
48 15 Williston on Contracts § 45:6 (4th ed.). See also Evans, 872 A.2d at 552 (“Generally, a severability clause is enforceable.”).
49 Agreement ¶ 22 (“In the event that any provision of this agreement, or any operation contemplated hereunder, is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be inconsistent with or contrary to any law, ordinance, or regulation, the latter shall be deemed to control and the Agreement shall be regarded as modified accordingly and, in any event, the remainder of this agreement shall continue in full force and effect.”).
D. The Choice of Forum Provision is Controlling
Having determined that the pre-injury release provision may be excised, the Court now turns to the balance of [*19] the Agreement to determine if any remaining provisions support the Defendants’ motion. In this regard, the Court’s attention is drawn immediately to provisions of the Agreement which suggest that the parties intended to resolve their disputes in California, not Delaware. Not surprisingly, Defendants interpret these provisions as requiring the Court to dismiss this action so that Plaintiffs’ claims may be brought in California as intended. Plaintiffs, not surprisingly, argue that the Agreement’s arbitration and choice of forum provisions do not apply here. The parties’ differing views of these provisions require the Court to interpret the Agreement and to determine in which forum this controversy belongs.
[HN7] Both Delaware and California courts honor the parol evidence rule. 50 This rule provides that “[w]hen two parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as to the complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence . . . of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.” 51 To ensure compliance with the parol evidence rule, the court first must determine [*20] whether the terms of the contract it has been asked to construe clearly state the parties’ agreement. 52 In this regard, the court must remember that a contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties disagree as to the meaning of its terms. 53 “Rather, a contract is ambiguous only when the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings.” 54 Upon concluding that the contract clearly and unambiguously reflects the parties’ intent, the court’s interpretation of the contract must be confined to the document’s “four corners.” 55 The court will interpret the contract’s terms according to the meaning that would be ascribed to them by a reasonable third party. 56
50 See Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chem. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Del. 1992); Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1107, 1126, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
51 26 Corbin on Contracts § 573 (1960).
52 Comrie v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 837 A.2d 1, 13 (Del. Ch. 2003)(citing In Re. Explorer Pipeline Co., 781 A.2d 705, 713 (Del. Ch. 2001)); Wolf, 162 Cal. App. 4th at 1126 (“[w]hen a contract is reduced [*21] to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible….”)(citation omitted).
53 See Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chem. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Del. 1992)(“A contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree upon its proper construction.”); Curry v. Moody, 40 Cal. App. 4th 1547, 1552, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)(“When the parties dispute the meaning of a contract term, the trial court’s first step is to determine whether the term is ambiguous … “).
54 Id. (citation omitted).
55 See O’Brien v. Progressive Northern, Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281, 288-89 (Del. 2001); Wolf, 162 Cal. App.4th at 1126.
56 Comrie, 837 A.2d at 13 (citations omitted); Wolf, 162 Cal. App. 4th at 1126.
As directed by the parol evidence rule, the Court looks first to the Agreement itself (the text within the “four corners”) to determine if it unambiguously reflects the parties’ intent with respect to choice of forum. To discern the parties’ intent, the Court has utilized certain settled tenets of contract interpretation. 57 The first, and [HN8] perhaps most fundamental, tenet of contract interpretation requires the court to render a “reasonable, [*22] fair and practical” interpretation of the contract’s clear and unambiguous terms. 58 In addition, the court must be mindful that “[a] contract should be read as a whole and every part should be interpreted with reference to the whole, and if possible should be so interpreted as to give effect to its general purpose.” 59 In this regard, the court must interpret the contract “so as to conform to an evident consistent purpose” and “in a manner that makes the contract internally consistent.” 60
57 “An abstract distinction exists between ‘construction’ and ‘interpretation,’ in that ‘construction’ is the drawing of conclusions from elements known from, given in, and indicated by the language used, while ‘interpretation’ is the art of finding the true sense of the language itself ….” 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts §328.
58 Id. at §338.
59 Id. at §376.
60 Id.
Here, the Agreement’s choice of law and choice of forum provisions are combined in one paragraph, and together they state, in pertinent part, as follows: “This Agreement, and all matters pertaining hereto, including any matter or dispute arising between the parties out of this Agreement, tort or otherwise, shall be interpreted, governed and enforced [*23] according to the laws of the State of California; and the Parties consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the California Courts … to enforce this Agreement.” 61 After reading this provision, the Court can mine only two sources of possible ambiguity in relation to the facts sub judice: (1) whether the choice of forum provision applies only to actions “to enforce the Agreement;” and, if not (2) whether Plaintiffs’ claims, including their tort claims, “aris[e] out of the Agreement” such that they implicate the choice of law and choice of forum provisions. As discussed below, neither of these phrases render the Agreement ambiguous.
61 Agreement ¶ 21.
As the Court considers whether Plaintiffs’ claims implicate the Agreement’s choice of forum provision, the Court takes notice of the placement of the semicolon to separate the choice of law and choice of forum provisions. At first glance, the semicolon might suggest an intent to separate the two provisions such that one will not modify the other. And, if the provisions are separated, one might read the choice of forum provision as applying only to actions “to enforce the Agreement.” But this reading would run counter to [*24] the theme of the entire Agreement, which is designed to ground all aspects of the parties’ relationship in California. For instance, the Agreement provides that payments, notices, and correspondence between Jane Doe and Cedars are to be mailed to a California location; 62 disputes between the parties are to be resolved by arbitration that must occur in California; and California law is to apply to all disputes between the parties, whether based in tort or contract. 63 Given the parties’ clear intent to base their relationship in California, the Court will not read the placement of a semicolon as an intent to limit the scope of the choice of forum provision. 64
62 Id. at ¶ 17.
63 Id. at ¶ 21.
64 See Reliance-Grant Elevator Equipment Corp. v. Reliance Ball-Bearing Door Hanger Co., 205 A.D. 320, 199 N.Y.S. 476, 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923) (“If for the comma we substitute a period, and make the phrase an independent sentence, all ambiguity will disappear, and the cancellation proviso will clearly refer to the duration of the agreement, and not to the making of extensions.”). See also 11 Williston on Contracts § 32:9 (4th ed.) (“Attention is often paid to grammar and punctuation in determining the proper interpretation [*25] of a contract, but a court will disregard both grammatical constructs and the punctuation used in the written agreement where the context of the contract shows that grammatical or punctuation errors have occurred.”); 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 365 ( [HN9] “while a court, in construing a contract, will give due force to the grammatical arrangement of the clauses, it will disregard the grammatical construction if it is at variance with the intent of the parties as indicated by the contract as a whole.”).
The semicolon issue aside, the choice of law/choice of forum paragraph, according to its terms, applies to all actions that “aris[e] out of the Agreement.” The question, then, is whether Plaintiffs’ tort and contract claims may properly be said to “aris[e] out of the Agreement.” [HN10] “Where there is a contractual relationship between the parties, a cause of action in tort may sometimes arise out of the negligent manner in which the contractual duty is performed, or out of a failure to perform such duty.” 65 The Agreement mandates that “[o]n the arrival date, [Jane Doe] shall transfer, by a Power of Attorney … temporary custody of the Student [John Doe] to Cedars ….” 66 From the moment Jane Doe [*26] dropped her son off at Cedars Academy, therefore, the school was entrusted with “duties correspondent to the role of a caregiver.” 67 All of Plaintiffs’ claims, based as they are on an alleged failure to protect John Doe while he resided in a Cedars Academy dormitory, directly involve Cedars’ contractual undertaking to care for John Doe as “temporary custod[ian].” As such, the Court is satisfied that the claims “aris[e] out of the Agreement.”
65 Eads v. Marks, 39 Cal. 2d 807, 810-11, 249 P.2d 257 (Cal.1952). See also N. Am. Chem. Co. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 764, 775, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466(Cal. Ct. App. 1997); Southgate Recreation & Park Dist. v. California Assn. for Park & Recreation Ins., 106 Cal. App. 4th 293, 301-02, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
66 Agreement ¶ 3.
67 People v. Toney, 76 Cal. App. 4th 618, 621-22, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)(citing People v. Cochran, 62 Cal.App. 4th 826, 832, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998))(” The terms ‘care or custody’ do not imply a familial relationship but only a willingness to assume duties correspondent to the role of a caregiver.”).
After reviewing all of the provisions within the four corners of the Agreement, the Court concludes that the parties intended to consent to the exclusive jurisdiction [*27] of California courts or arbitration panels to litigate their claims. [HN11] When “there is a forum selection clause in a contract, even when the venue where the suit is filed is proper, the court should decline to proceed when the parties freely agreed that litigation should be conducted in another forum.” 68 Unless the forum selection clause “is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances,” such clauses are prima facie valid. 69 A choice of forum provision will be deemed “unreasonable” only when its enforcement would seriously impair the plaintiff’s ability to pursue its cause of action.” 70 Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not sufficient evidence of unreasonableness. 71
68 Eisenmann Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2000 Del. Super. LEXIS 25, 2000 WL 140781, *7 (Del. Super. Jan. 28, 2000) (citing Elia Corp. v. Paul N. Howard Co., 391 A.2d 214, 216 (Del. Super. 1978)).
69 Id. (citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S. Ct. 1907, 32 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1972)). Defendants have argued that the forum selection provision should be enforced if California has a “material connection” to the controversy. This inquiry is implicated by a choice of law analysis, but not by a choice of forum analysis. See Weil v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 877 A.2d 1024 (Del. Ch. 2005).
70 Id.
71 Elia Corp., 391 A.2d at 216.
Other [*28] than arguing that the Agreement is invalid in its entirety because it is unconscionable, Plaintiffs do not provide any support for their contention that the Court should ignore the forum selection clause. 72 They have not, for instance, pointed to any circumstance that would suggest that litigating their claims in California “would seriously impair [their] ability to pursue [their] cause of action.” 73 Having determined that the Agreement is valid and enforceable as to both Jane Doe and John Doe, the Court is left with no basis in fact or law to suggest that the forum selection clause seriously impairs the Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their cause of action. 74 Accordingly, given the well settled law [HN12] in Delaware that choice of forum provisions are enforceable absent a showing of unreasonableness, the Court must enforce the provision here and decline to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.
72 Beyond the pre-injury release provision, Plaintiffs have pointed to nothing in the Agreement to support an unconscionability argument, and the Court has discerned no basis for the argument on its own.
73 Eisenmann Corp., 2000 Del. Super. LEXIS 25, 2000 WL 140781 at 7 (citing M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. 1 at 10, 92 S. Ct. 1907, 32 L. Ed. 2d 513).
74 Here again, Plaintiffs [*29] have not argued that their ability to pursue their claims in California would be “seriously impaired,” e.g. by virtue of a statute of limitations that would bar their claims there or otherwise, and the Court can fathom no reason why the identical claims sub judice could not be raised in California.
Since the Court has determined that it should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over this dispute for the reasons set forth above, the Court need not decide the validity of the mandatory arbitration provision, nor whether Aspen should be dismissed based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction. These questions will be left to the California forum (be it a court or arbitration panel) that ultimately decides this case.
VI.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph R. Slights, III
Joseph R. Slights, III, Judge
Summer Camp not liable for injuries of camper inflicted by another camper.
Posted: March 26, 2012 Filed under: Summer Camp | Tags: Camp, first aid, Injury, Medical Care, New York, Plaintiff, Recreation, summer camp Leave a commentMurawski v. Camp Nageela, 4 Misc. 3d 1025A; 798 N.Y.S.2d 346; 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1542; 2004 NY Slip Op 51045U
No advance knowledge of the possible assault does not make camp liable.
The plaintiff was a ten-year-old boy attending a multi-week summer camp. The plaintiff was attached by a smaller camper causing minor injuries and a broken finger. The plaintiff sued for “improper supervision and a failure to provide proper medical care after the assault.”
The defendants were the camp, camp employees and church officials who ran the camp. The defendants raised the defense of a spontaneous altercation that could not have been anticipated, and any delay in medical treatment caused no adverse effect upon the plaintiff.
The plaintiff shared a cabin with the camper who assaulted him. There had been a yelling altercation between the two boys prior to this incident. Generally, the two boys did not get along. The plaintiff was in the cabin looking for something. The smaller camper thought that the plaintiff was holding something of his when the two started yelling. The smaller camper eventually hit the plaintiff with a hockey stick.
The plaintiff did not complain to anyone about the other camper. The camp had no record of any problems and no one who saw the prior exchanges between thought those exchanges amounted to a major problem.
After the assault, the camp nurse splinted the finger of the plaintiff and followed up with the plaintiff twice. Each time the plaintiff informed the nurse his finger was feeling better. Two days later the plaintiff’s mother came to camp and took the plaintiff away for several hours. When she came back she asked the plaintiff’s finger be x-rayed. (For some reason, some reason this seems like a red flag to me.)
So?
For camps, the first hurdle that is always misunderstood by parents, rarely understood by camps and sometimes missed by courts is the standard of care that a camp owes to a camper. That standard is that of a reasonably prudent parent. That standard does not require constant supervision. The court found that constant supervision would not be a desirable situation because it would not foster self-reliance in the campers.
Camps, like schools are not insurers of safety for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of the campers. . . .. In order to establish a breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision a plaintiff must show that the camp authorities had sufficient specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused the injury; that is, that the third-party acts could have reasonably been anticipated
Because constant supervision is not required, to be liable under New York law, the plaintiff must prove the camp was on notice that there was a problem or that a camper had exhibited dangerous conduct.
….there is no factual basis to conclude either that the camp’s agents had knowledge constituting notice of a particular danger to the infant plaintiff prior to the incident or that the incident that caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries was anything other than a sudden, unanticipated independent act by a fellow camper.
Thus without knowledge of prior bad acts or an intent on the part of the attacking camper, the camp is not liable for the acts of the smaller camper.
The next issue the court reviewed was the medical care. Several issues supported the camps’ defense.
The camper was inspected by a nurse initially and twice with follow ups. Each time the plaintiff told the nurse he was getting better. There was also no long-term damage to the plaintiff’s finger which would give rise to a claim or greater damages. Also, the plaintiff could not prove that the failure to provide immediate care did not cause injury upon the plaintiff.
So Now What?
You cannot rely on courts to inform parents of the standard of care that you must use with their children. That will eventually lead to insurance premiums you cannot afford.
Nor can you tell parents that you will treat their child with the same care they would. Again, parents never do anything that injures their child and any injury will create a problem for you.
What you can do is inform the parents of two things.
· How hard you work to keep kids safe.
· Kids get hurt.
As I have said repeatedly, absent foam rubber on every tree and trial, kids are going to find a way to get hurt. You need to make sure that parents know that the adventures and excitement that draw kids to your camp are the same things that may issue them. Like riding a bike, it takes a few crashes to learn how to ride a bike, and as you get better you push your limits more and crash some more.
If you do not get this idea across to parents, every time a kid is hurt, you may have to have a judge prove to the parent you are not liable. That is costs too much time and money.
The scary aspect of this case is the issue of medical care. Twenty years ago when I first started looking at cases in the outdoor recreation community, I never saw any allegations concerning medical care or first aid. Recently, I’ve written about two cases where it was an issue, and it seems to be a growing issue.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport, managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, summer camp, youth camp, #camper, #kids, #minors, Minor Camper.
WordPress Tags: Summer,Camp,injuries,camper,Murawski,Nageela,Misc,LEXIS,Slip,knowledge,plaintiff,supervision,failure,defendants,employees,officials,altercation,treatment,cabin,boys,incident,hours,parents,situation,self,reliance,campers,Camps,insurers,injury,York,basis,agents,danger,infant,Thus,Several,Also,insurance,premiums,Again,Kids,rubber,tree,adventures,excitement,bike,money,aspect,recreation,allegations,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,minors,Minor,upon
Murawski v. Camp Nageela, 4 Misc. 3d 1025A; 798 N.Y.S.2d 346; 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1542; 2004 NY Slip Op 51045U
Posted: March 26, 2012 Filed under: Legal Case, Summer Camp | Tags: Camp, Long Island, New York, New York City, Recreation, Summary judgment, Summer Camp Leave a commentMurawski v. Camp Nageela, 4 Misc. 3d 1025A; 798 N.Y.S.2d 346; 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1542; 2004 NY Slip Op 51045U
[***1] Nina Murawski, individually and as parent and Natural Guardian of Adam Murawski, an Infant, Plaintiffs, v. Camp Nageela, Camp Shevtai Yisroel, Jewish Education Program (JEP) of Long Island, rabbi shenker, rabbi glustein, jeffrey y. Arshravan and Eric Arshravan, an infant, Defendants.
01-2959
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, SUFFOLK COUNTY
4 Misc. 3d 1025A; 798 N.Y.S.2d 346; 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1542; 2004 NY Slip Op 51045U
June 10, 2004, Decided
NOTICE: [**1] THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRINTED OFFICIAL REPORTS.
DISPOSITION: Defendants motion for summary judgment granted; complaint dismissed.
CORE TERMS: infant, supervision, summary judgment, camper, bunkhouse, altercation, personnel, notice, finger, nurse, summer camp, anticipated, fellow, failure to provide, medical care, medical report, counselor, residual, dropped, sworn, mitt
HEADNOTES
[*1025A] Negligence–Duty.
COUNSEL: MALLILO & GROSSMAN, ESQS., Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Flushing, NY.
MOLOD, SPITZ & DeSANTIS, PC, Attorneys for Defendants Camp Nageela, JEP, Rabbi Shenker and Rabbi Glustein, New York, NY.
JUDGES: Denise F. Molia, J.
OPINION BY: Denise F. Molia
OPINION
Denise F. Molia, J.
ORDERED that this motion by defendants Camp Nageela, Jewish Education Program of Long Island, Rabbi Shenker and Rabbi Glustein for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them is granted.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiff, Adam Murawski, then ten years old, when on August 11, 2000, he was assaulted by a fellow camper, defendant Eric Arshravan, in the bunkhouse they shared at defendant Camp Nageela, [**2] a sleep away summer camp operated by defendant Jewish Education Program of Long Island [JEP]. Defendant Rabbi Shenker is the director of JEP and defendant Rabbi Glustein is another employee of JEP. A derivative cause of action is asserted on behalf of infant plaintiff’s mother, plaintiff Nina Murawski.
Plaintiffs seek recovery from the camp defendants on two grounds – improper supervision and a failure to provide proper medical care after the assault. The camp defendants now move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the infant plaintiff’s injuries were the result of a spontaneous altercation that could not have been anticipated by camp officials. Defendants also contend that there was no adverse affect upon the infant plaintiff as a result of any delay in obtaining medical treatment for him. In support, defendants submit, inter alia, copies of the pleadings, a copy of the transcript of the testimony given by the infant plaintiff at his examination before trial, the personal affidavit of defendant Rabbi Shenker, and the sworn medical report of defendants’ examining physician, Dr. Leon Sultan.
At his examination before trial the infant plaintiff Adam [**3] Murawski testified to the effect that he shared a bunkhouse with four or five other boys at the camp, including the infant defendant Eric Arshravan, and a counselor. Adam also testified that Eric was somewhat smaller than him and that the two generally did not “get along well”. Adam stated that he and Eric had once had a previous argument during a kick ball game but that the disagreement did not go beyond Eric’s yelling at him. Adam testified that he that he could not remember whether he had complained about Eric to any of the camp counselors during the two week period prior to the subject incident and that the boys had not engaged in any physical altercations during that time period. Adam further testified that the incident occurred when the two boys were alone in the bunkhouse, that he had gone into the bunkhouse in order to get his baseball mitt and that Eric came in after him. While Adam was looking for his mitt he dropped something and then picked up something of Eric’s because he thought the item he dropped might be underneath or near it. Eric then told Adam to “put it down” and he did so. Adam further testified that the two boys had agreed to share a table and that he thought [**4] Eric became angry because he believed that Adam [***2] had moved one of Eric’s belongings. Shortly thereafter, Eric hit Adam with a hockey stick.
By his personal affidavit, defendant Rabbi Shenker states that at no time prior to the subject incident were the camp personnel advised that Adam had complained of any problems with the infant defendant and that the camp had no written reports of any incidents involving the boys from Adam’s bunkhouse other than the nurse’s report of the subject incident. As for the plaintiffs’ claim that the camp failed to provide proper medical attention for the infant plaintiff, Rabbi Shenker states that Adam was seen by the camp nurse after the incident and she determined that the Adam’s finger should be placed in a splint and that he should be followed, that the camp nurse twice followed up with Adam the next day and was told by Adam that his finger was feeling better. Rabbi Shenker further states that plaintiff Nina Murawski came to the camp two days after the incident to visit Adam and she took him off the camp grounds for several hours. When she brought Adam back to camp, she asked the camp personnel to arrange for an x-ray of Adam’s finger which was later [**5] taken at the emergency room at the local hospital.
The standard of care for persons having children entrusted to their care in a summer camp setting is that of a reasonably prudent parent. In such a setting, constant supervision is neither feasible nor desirable because one of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which an overly protective supervision would destroy (Gustin v Association of Camps Farthest Out, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 1001, 700 N.Y.S.2d 327 [1999]). Camps, like schools are not insurers of safety for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of the campers (Lesser v Camp Wildwood, 282 F. Supp. 2d 139 [2003]). In order to establish a breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision a plaintiff must show that the camp authorities had sufficient specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused the injury; that is, that the third-party acts could have reasonably been anticipated (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 637 N.E.2d 263, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1994].
Here, viewing the record in a light [**6] most favorable to the plaintiffs (see, J. Rosen Furs, Inc. v Sigma Plumbing & Heating Corp., 249 A.D.2d 276, 670 N.Y.S.2d 596 [1998]), there is no factual basis to conclude either that the camp’s agents had knowledge constituting notice of a particular danger to the infant plaintiff prior to the incident or that the incident that caused the infant plaintiff’s injuries was anything other than a sudden, unanticipated independent act by a fellow camper (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra; Foster v New Berlin Central School Dist., 246 A.D.2d 880, 667 N.Y.S.2d 994 [1998]; Schlecker v Connetquot Central School Dist. of Islip, supra). There is also no evidence that the camp’s agents had any actual or constructive notice that the infant defendant was engaged in a prohibited activity or that they had a reasonable opportunity to prevent its continuance prior to the subject altercation (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra; Totan v Bd. of Educ., 133 A.D.2d 366, 519 N.Y.S.2d 374 [1978] app den 70 N.Y.2d 614, 524 N.Y.S.2d 432, 519 N.E.2d 343). The infant plaintiff, [**7] by his own admission, concedes that he notified none of the camp’s personnel concerning his fears of an impeding confrontation with the infant [***3] defendant. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that an issue of fact exists regarding the adequacy of the supervision, the need for additional supervision of the infant defendant prior to the incident could not have been apprehended (see, Nocilla v Middle Country School District, 302 A.D.2d 573, 757 N.Y.S.2d 300 [2003]; Foster v New Berlin Central School Dist., supra; McGregor v City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 609, 602 N.Y.S.2d 669 [1993] app den 84 N.Y.2d 802, 617 N.Y.S.2d 136, 641 N.E.2d 157; Schlecker v Connetquot Central School Dist. of Islip, supra).
In opposition, plaintiffs rely upon counsel’s affidavit and the purported affidavit of another camper. Counsel’s affidavit is without probative value as counsel professes no first hand knowledge of the fact and circumstances relating to plaintiffs’ claims (see, Siagkris v K & E Mechanical, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 458, 669 N.Y.S.2d 375 [1998]). The affidavit by the non party infant witness [**8] is also inadmissible as it has not been signed by him. 1 Plaintiff has thus failed to meet the burden of producing proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (Papadopoulos Gardner’s Village, 198 A.D.2d 216, 604 N.Y.S.2d 570 [1984]). The moving defendants are therefore granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ improper supervision claims.
1 Nor has the Court has considered the affidavit of another non party infant witness attached to the defendants’ Reply papers as that affidavit is not signed by the affiant.
The moving defendants are also entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ remaining claim the gravamen of which is that defendants’ failure to provide the infant plaintiff with prompt medical care for his injuries has resulted in residual injuries. Dr. Leon Sultan, by his sworn medical report, affirms that he is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who examined Adam Murawski for the defendants. Dr. Sultan opines [**9] that Adam’s left hand is unremarkable in that he is orthopedically stable and neurologically intact, and that the 5th metacarpal fracture is healed without any residual functional impairment. Plaintiffs having come forward with no medical proof to sustain their enhanced injury claim, defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
Accordingly, the motion by defendants Camp Nageela, Jewish Education Program of Long Island, Rabbi Shenker and Rabbi Glustein for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed as to these defendants. The Court’s computerized records reflect that the action was previously discontinued as to defendants Arshravan by stipulation filed with the County Clerk on August 28, 2001. In addition, plaintiffs’ failure to move for a default within one year after service of the complaint warrants a dismissal of the complaint as against the sole remaining defendant, Camp Shevtai Yisroel (CPLR 3215[c]). The complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety.
[***4] X FINAL DISPOSITION NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
Is there a duty to notify parents when an investigation is being conducted by the state to protect campers?
Posted: February 27, 2012 Filed under: Florida, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp | Tags: Florida, Jurisdiction, Long-Arm Jurisdiction, Motion (legal), North Carolina, Parental Responsibility, summer camp, Youth Camp Leave a commentCamp Illahee Investors, Inc., v. Blackman, 870 So. 2d 80; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17549; 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 2672
Parents claim the camp was negligent in not informing them the state department of social services was going to or had interviewed their kids.
The problem is the case does not answer the question. This again, is a jurisdiction and venue motion that was appealed. The defendant camp was located in North Carolina. The plaintiffs were Florida’s residents. The only contact the camp had with Florida was 22% of its campers came from Florida, and one of the owners would spend a week in Florida every year drumming up business for the next summer.
The initial allegations giving rise to the litigation are very interesting. The plaintiff’s claim, the camp and the owners were negligent because the:
…Defendants had a duty, after being informed that the North Carolina County Department of Social Services desired to interview the Plaintiffs’ minor children, to notify the Plaintiffs of the fact that the minor children were to be interviewed by the North Carolina County Department of Social Services about possible child abuse….
There was a second allegation that a junior counselor had injured one of the plaintiff’s when he stepped on her feet. (Where they dancing?) This claim was not resolved in this appeal either.
Summary of the case
The plaintiff’s sued in Florida, and the defendants moved to dismiss. The trial court did not dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the defendants appealed. The defendants argued that they were:
…not subject to the jurisdiction of a Florida court and, even if jurisdiction existed in Florida, that North Carolina was an adequate alternative forum. Camp Illahee further argued that it was immune from suit under North Carolina law and that Florida’s impact rule required dismissal.
To support their argument the defendant must show the facts that prove their allegations. That is usually done by affidavits of the defendants and possibly others to prove the issue, or really, the lack of contact with the state.
Camp Illahee is a North Carolina corporation; the summer camp is located in North Carolina; Camp Illahee has no offices in Florida; it has no employees in Florida, although some of the employees who work at the camp during the summer are from Florida; Camp Illahee does no advertising in Florida by newspapers, radio, or television, but it has a one and one-half page posting on its internet website advising of “fall reunion and video shows.”
The court must then look at the State Long Arm Statute to determine if the facts make the defendant subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Under Florida’s law that analysis is:
…whether (1) there are sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the purview of the long-arm statute; and (2) the nonresident defendant involved has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
The Florida Long Arm Statute sets forth the minimum requirements to establish jurisdiction over out of state parties.
Section 48.193(1)(a)
(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts:
(a) Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.
Section 48.193(2):
A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.
The court then applies the information presented by the parties to the requirements of the statutes to see if the defendant has the necessary minimum contacts with the state to be sued in that state and subject to the laws of that state.
So Now What?
The trend from the courts is to allow you to be brought into distant states and their judicial system. This case is a rarity. This is another example of where the agreement between the camp and the parents or any parties to any outdoor recreation, should agree in advance to where any litigation will be developed.
As far as notifying parents of an interview by social services for possible child abuse, I think I would always lean towards notifying the parents. In fact, I think I would notify the parents immediately. A parent must believe that their child is safe. Whether the child is safe is put into question, if social services is investigating your camp.
This may be a PR nightmare or disaster for any camp or program dealing with minors. You will need to make sure you bring in PR professionals and probably your attorney if this situation arises.
You should also set up a program and working relationship where anyone can come and talk to you about problems. Hopefully, before social services had been called, you are on top of the issue and have dealt with it.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Camp Illahee, summer camp, camp, camper, social services, North Carolina, Florida, FL, NC,
WordPress Tags: parents,investigation,campers,Camp,Illahee,Investors,Blackman,LEXIS,department,jurisdiction,venue,defendant,North,Carolina,plaintiffs,Florida,residents,owners,allegations,litigation,plaintiff,Defendants,Social,Services,fact,allegation,counselor,feet,Where,Summary,forum,impact,dismissal,argument,affidavits,corporation,offices,employees,newspapers,radio,television,reunion,State,Long,Statute,Under,analysis,action,requirements,Section,person,citizen,agent,subsection,office,agency,information,statutes,laws,trend,system,example,agreement,recreation,Whether,disaster,minors,professionals,attorney,situation,relationship,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,camper
Camp Illahee Investors, Inc., v. Blackman, 870 So. 2d 80; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17549; 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 2672
Posted: February 27, 2012 Filed under: Florida, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp | Tags: Camp, Florida, Long-Arm Jurisdiction, Motion (legal), North Carolina, Recreation, summer camp Leave a commentCamp Illahee Investors, Inc., v. Blackman, 870 So. 2d 80; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17549; 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 2672
Camp Illahee Investors, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, Appellant, v. Michael Blackman and Patrice Blackman, Individually and as the Parents, Natural Guardians and next best friends of Olivia Blackman and Sophie Blackman, minor children, and Frank Tindall and Elizabeth Tindall, Appellees.
Case No. 2D02-4324
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT
870 So. 2d 80; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17549; 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 2672
November 19, 2003, Opinion Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from nonfinal order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daniel E. Gallagher, Senior Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded with directions.
COUNSEL: J. Gregory Giannuzzi of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Blau, Tampa, for Appellees Michael Blackman and Patrice Blackman, Individually and as the Parents, Natural Guardians and next best friends of Olivia Blackman and Sophie Blackman, minor children.
No appearance for Appellees, Frank Tindall and Elizabeth Tindall.
JUDGES: SILBERMAN, Judge. STRINGER, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
OPINION BY: SILBERMAN
OPINION
[*82] SILBERMAN, Judge.
Camp Illahee Investors, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, appeals a nonfinal [*83] order that denied its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because jurisdiction was not established under Florida’s long-arm statute, we reverse.
Appellees Michael and Patrice Blackman, individually and on behalf of their minor daughters, sued Camp Illahee and its owners, Frank and Elizabeth Tindall, for alleged torts committed in North Carolina while [**2] the Blackmans’ two daughters were attending summer camp in 2001. 1 In their first amended complaint, the Blackmans alleged that while their daughters were at the camp, someone placed an “anonymous child abuse call” to a county department of social services in North Carolina, whose representatives then interviewed the Blackmans’ daughters. The Blackmans alleged that the “Defendants had a duty, after being informed that the North Carolina County Department of Social Services desired to interview the Plaintiffs’ minor children, to notify the Plaintiffs of the fact that the minor children were to be interviewed by the North Carolina County Department of Social Services about possible child abuse.” The Blackmans also alleged that a junior counselor battered one of the daughters “by stepping on her feet and inflicting other physical injuries and mental abuse” on her.
1 The trial court dismissed the Tindalls from the litigation, and the Blackmans have not appealed that ruling.
Camp Illahee filed a motion to dismiss [**3] and asserted, among other grounds, that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of a Florida court and, even if jurisdiction existed in Florida, that North Carolina was an adequate alternative forum. Camp Illahee further argued that it was immune from suit under North Carolina law and that Florida’s impact rule required dismissal.
Camp Illahee submitted affidavits from the Tindalls, the owners and operators of the camp. The affidavits reflect that Camp Illahee is a North Carolina corporation; the summer camp is located in North Carolina; Camp Illahee has no offices in Florida; it has no employees in Florida, although some of the employees who work at the camp during the summer are from Florida; Camp Illahee does no advertising in Florida by newspapers, radio, or television, but it has a one and one-half page posting on its internet website advising of “fall reunion and video shows.”
Mrs. Tindall’s affidavit also reflects that she travels to various states to engage in the reunion and video shows, which are designed to have “the children get together to talk about Camp, and to become excited for camp the next summer.” The reunions take place in the homes of camp families, and the [**4] families receive a discount in the camp fee for hosting the reunions. The discounts amounted to .15% of Camp Illahee’s gross revenues in 2000 and .08% in 2001. In 2000 and 2001, 22% of the campers were from Florida.
Although Camp Illahee argues that its motion to dismiss could properly have been granted on any of the grounds raised in its motion, the key issue is whether the trial court had long-arm jurisdiction over Camp Illahee. [HN1] Our standard of review on the issue of personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation is de novo. See Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co., 752 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 2000). [HN2] Additionally, we are required to strictly construe Florida’s long-arm statute. See Esberger v. First Fla. Bus. Consultants, Inc., 338 So. 2d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The pertinent facts relating to jurisdiction are not in dispute. [HN3] The determination [*84] of whether the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Camp Illahee turns on “whether (1) there are sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the purview of the long-arm statute; and (2) the nonresident defendant involved has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to [**5] satisfy constitutional due process requirements.” Kin Yong Lung Indus. Co. v. Temple, 816 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989).
In its order denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court did not discuss this two-prong test. Instead, it simply stated, “Jurisdiction as to Camp Illahee Investors, Inc. will remain in Florida pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as set forth in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061.” However, [HN4] before reaching the issue of forum non conveniens under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061, the trial court was required to first determine whether it had in personam jurisdiction in accordance with the two-prong test. See La Reunion Francaise, S.A. v. La Costena, 818 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (concluding that there was no personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant and, therefore, no need to reach other issues raised in the motion to dismiss, including the issue of forum non conveniens).
After reviewing the record and the applicable statutory language in light of the required two-prong jurisdictional analysis, we conclude [**6] that the trial court should have dismissed the Blackmans’ first amended complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The allegations of the first amended complaint establish that the only possible bases for jurisdiction are under sections 48.193(1)(a) or 48.193(2) of the long-arm statute. Section 48.193(1)(a) [HN5] provides as follows:
(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts:
(a) Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.
Section 48.193(2) [HN6] states as follows:
A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.
In the trial [**7] court, the Blackmans asserted that because Mrs. Tindall came to Florida one week a year for the reunion and video shows, Camp Illahee was conducting business in Florida. They also argued that the families that hosted the reunions were agents of Camp Illahee.
Concerning the agency argument, nothing in the record reflects that either an apparent or actual agency relationship existed between the host families and Camp Illahee. In particular, there was no showing that Camp Illahee made any representations that the host families were the agents of Camp Illahee, or that Camp Illahee, as principal, exercised control over the families, as agents. See Ilgen v. Henderson Props., Inc., 683 So. 2d 513, 514-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (discussing the elements necessary to establish apparent or actual agency); State v. Am. Tobacco Co., 707 So. 2d 851, 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating that control by the principal [*85] over the agent is a necessary element of agency).
The Blackmans’ second argument is premised on section 48.193(1), which confers jurisdiction for “any cause of action arising from the doing of” any of the enumerated items, such as conducting business in Florida. [**8] [HN7] By its terms, section 48.193(1) requires connexity between the defendant’s activities and the cause of action. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 1260 (Fla. 2002). Here, the record reflects that the connexity requirement has not been met because the Blackmans’ claims did not arise from the reunions and video shows that took place in Florida during one week per year. Rather, the claims arose out of alleged torts that occurred in North Carolina while the Blackmans’ daughters attended the camp.
Even if the undisputed facts fell within the ambit of section 48.193(1), Camp Illahee must have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process requirements. See Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 500. [HN8] The test is whether Camp Illahee’s conduct is such that it “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in Florida. See Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 500 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559 (1980)); see also Emerson v. Cole, 847 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We agree with Camp Illahee that the limited contact between it [**9] and Florida as a result of the yearly reunion and video shows is insufficient to establish that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Florida for the allegedly tortious conduct occurring in North Carolina.
A second potential basis for jurisdiction is section 48.193(2), which provides that a defendant is subject to a Florida court’s jurisdiction when the defendant “is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state . . . whether or not the claim arises from that activity.” [HN9] This section “does not require connexity between a defendant’s activities and the cause of action.” Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Additionally, if the defendant’s activities meet the requirements of this section, the due process requirement of minimum contacts is fulfilled. Id. However, the record before us does not support a conclusion that Camp Ilahee’s conduct constitutes substantial activity in Florida. See deMco Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Engineered Castings, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating that sporadic sales in Florida could not provide jurisdiction for litigation regarding [**10] an unrelated promissory note); Price v. Point Marine, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (noting that sporadic activities or visits to Florida consisting of the occasional solicitation of business in Florida do not constitute “substantial and not isolated activity”).
Because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a basis for jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court dismiss the Blackmans’ claims without prejudice to their refiling the claims in the appropriate jurisdiction. In light of our conclusion regarding the lack of in personam jurisdiction, the other grounds asserted by Camp Illahee in support of reversal are moot.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
STRINGER, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
Information, Education and knowledge prevent a mother from suing a camp and the Girl Scouts
Posted: February 20, 2012 Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Mississippi, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: Bedroom, Bunk bed, Cabin, Camp, Child, Girl Scouts, Girl Scouts of America, Recreation, Summer Camp Leave a commentBuck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141
Besides top bunk of a bunk bed is just not a dangerous instrumentality.
The mother of a thirteen-year old girl sued the Girl Scouts of Gulf Pine Council, Inc., the troop leader of her daughter’s unit and the camp when the girl fell off the top bunk of a bunk bed injuring her. The basis of the suit was the defendant’s actions caused or contributed to the thirteen-year olds fall. After the defendants were dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court the mother appealed claiming the lower court failed to determine the following:
(1) in failing to follow existing standards in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (2) in finding no merit to Buck’s argument that a causal relationship existed between Boozer’s temporary absence at the time of the accident and Jamie’s falling from the bed, and in applying the wrong standard when considering Boozer and the Girl Scouts’s lack of supervision, and (3) in ruling as a matter of law that a bunk bed is not a dangerous instrumentality and that Appellees‘ use of bunk beds did not amount to a failure on their part to use reasonable care in providing Jamie a reasonably safe place to sleep.
The entire case revolved around what did the injured girl’s mother know?
The mother took her daughter to camp and helped set up her bed the first night. The second night the group moved to another cabin because the first cabin did not have a working refrigerator. The mother was not there for the move or the remaining nights. The girls decided to sleep on the top bunks, even though lower bunks were available.
The second night after the move the third night in total, the thirteen-year old rolled off the bunk and fell suffering injuries.
So?
The first argument was dismissed because there was no legal (causal) relationship between the defendant leader leaving for an errand and the girl falling out of the bunk. No supervision when the girl fell would have prevented her from falling.
The plaintiff then argued, as part of the first appeal argument that the girls should not have been allowed to sleep on the top bunk. However, the court found the plaintiff presented no evidence that bunk beds or sleeping on the top bunk by thirteen-year old girls were dangerous.
The court then looked at whether bunk beds were a dangerous instrumentality. This means that in and of themselves, bunk beds are dangerous. Guns are probably the best example of a dangerous instrumentality. However, the court found that there was no evidence the beds where dangerous on their face. The mother during her deposition testified that she knew her daughter might be sleeping on a bunk bed, expressed no concerns about that fact and did not inform anyone that she did not want her daughter sleeping on the bed.
The court referred to a New York decision that held that an innkeeper is not responsible for the beds, when the parent is the one who chooses whether or not their child can sleep in it.
Finally, the court looked at the failure to warn issue. A land owner owes a duty of care to someone on the land based on the relationship between the land owner and the person. Here, the thirteen-year old was an invitee. A landowner’s duty to an invitee is “exercising reasonable care to keep its premise’s safe, or to warn Jamie [the injured girl] of any hidden or concealed perils of which it knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care.”
Here again the court had no evidence in front of it showing that bunk beds were dangerous so that the landowner, the camp, needed to inform the mother of the dangers.
So Now What?
What stands out in this case is the fact the mother, and probably the daughter, knew what the daughter was going to do and did not stop those acts. If a parent and a child know and understand what the risk of the activity is, then it is difficult for them to prove that the risks were dangerous. If the risks were dangerous, then why didn’t the mother inform the daughter or the troop leader that she did not want her daughter participating in the particular risks?
Here, the proof came out in a deposition. However, I believe that is relying on luck to hope that discovery will save your case. Better to point out all the risks of the activity to the parents and children and be able to prove that you did point them out.
There are two ways of doing that. The first is to put the risks in a release and have the parents sign the release. This works for single day activities were the risks can be easily identified…..to some extent.
Better to put everything you can on your website. A movie of the cabins showing bunk beds would have also proven the points to the parents and the court. If each cabin is different have the parents look at the cabins that their child is staying in. Always point out that cabins are different and some have other features and numerate the risks.
Do the same with the dining hall, health club, paths and all buildings and activity areas. Give the parents every opportunity to experience the camp without leaving their computer. No matter what you show it will help sell the camp and keep parents informed of the risks.
Proving the parent watched the videos is easy. On all of your literature tell the parents to go to the website and look around. On the release, have the parents agree that they did go to the website and look around.
If you think, the videos are difficult to do, then don’t. Turn it into a project and have the kids make them!
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, camp, Girl Scouts, bunk beds, GSA,
WordPress Tags: Information,Education,knowledge,Girl,Scouts,Buck,Camp,Wilkes,Miss,LEXIS,Besides,bunk,Gulf,Pine,Council,leader,daughter,unit,basis,defendant,defendants,judgment,argument,relationship,Boozer,absence,accident,Jamie,supervision,Appellees,beds,failure,cabin,refrigerator,nights,girls,bunks,injuries,errand,plaintiff,Guns,example,fact,York,decision,innkeeper,owner,person,Here,landowner,premise,perils,dangers,luck,discovery,Better,parents,extent,movie,cabins,hall,health,paths,buildings,areas,Give,computer,literature,Turn,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,whether,invitee,website
Buck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141
Posted: February 20, 2012 Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: Appeal, Appellant, Bunk bed, Cabin, Camp, Girl Scouts, Girl Scouts of America, Law, MISSISSIPPI, Summary judgment, United States district court Leave a commentBuck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141
Debbie Buck, as mother and natural guardian of Jamie Buck, Appellant, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc.; Girl Scouts of Gulf Pines Council, Inc.; and Deborah Boozer, Appellees.
NO. 2003-CA-01065-COA
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI
906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141
December 14, 2004, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 4/17/2003. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JERRY O. TERRY, SR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: TRIAL JUDGE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS DEBORAH BOOZER AND GIRL SCOUTS OF GULF PINES COUNCIL, INC. AND DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
COUNSEL: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JAMES CLAYTON GARDNER, DAVID C. FRAZIER, and WILLIAM L. DENTON.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DORRANCE DEE AULTMAN, ROGER T. CLARK, PATRICK R. BUCHANAN, KIMBERLY DAWN SAUCIER ROSETTI, and SAMUEL TRENT FAVRE.
JUDGES: BEFORE KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., AND IRVING, J. KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. MYERS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
OPINION BY: IRVING
OPINION
[*779] NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL – PERSONAL INJURY
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
P1. Debbie Buck filed a personal injury action on behalf of her minor daughter, Jamie, against Camp Wilkes, Girl Scouts of Gulf Pine Council, Inc., and troop leader Deborah Boozer, for injuries sustained when the child fell out of a bunk bed at camp. In her complaint, Buck alleged that the defendants’ negligent conduct caused Jamie to sustain multiple damages. [**2] In response, Boozer filed a motion for summary judgment, and Girl Scouts filed a joinder, adopting Boozer’s motion. On April 17, 2003, after a hearing on the matter, the trial judge granted Boozer and Girl Scouts’s motion and found that Buck failed to show that the defendants’ actions caused or contributed to Jamie’s fall. On May 14, Buck filed a notice of appeal of the judge’s grant of Boozer and Girl Scouts’s motion.
P2. On May 28, Camp Wilkes filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered a final judgment of dismissal, granting Camp Wilkes’s motion, and Buck again filed a notice of appeal. Buck’s first and second appeal were consolidated.
P3. In this appeal, Buck seeks review of whether the trial court committed reversible error (1) in failing to follow existing standards in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (2) in finding no merit to Buck’s argument that a causal relationship existed between Boozer’s temporary absence at the time of the accident and Jamie’s falling from the bed, and in applying the wrong standard when considering Boozer and the Girl Scouts’s lack of supervision, and (3) in ruling as a matter of law that a bunk bed is [**3] not a dangerous instrumentality and that Appellees’ use of bunk beds did not amount to a failure on their part to use reasonable care in providing Jamie a reasonably safe place to sleep.
[*780] P4. We find no reversible error; therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.
FACTS
P5. In June 2000, thirteen-year-old Jamie Buck attended a Girl Scouts camping trip with her troop at Camp Wilkes. The chaperones for the trip were troop leader, Deborah Boozer, and assistant leader, Jenny White. Upon arriving at the camp, Jamie’s mother helped Jamie set up Jamie’s bed. 1 The next day, however, the troop moved to another cabin because their refrigerator was not working. 2 That night, all of the girls decided to sleep on the top bunks, and everyone, except Jamie, pulled their beds together to make a single bed. The following night, Jamie was asleep on the top bunk when she rolled out of her bed and sustained injuries to her face. Boozer was not present at the time of the accident because she had gone to retrieve supplies but had left the troop’s assistant leader with the girls while she was gone. Additional facts will be related during our discussion [**4] of the issues.
1 The camp furnished bunk beds for the girls to sleep on. The beds did not have any guard rails.
2 The second cabin had a similar layout as the first cabin and also had bunk beds for the girls to sleep on.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES
(1)Standard of Review
P6. Buck first contends that by granting the defendants’ summary judgment motions, the trial judge failed to view the facts and issues in the light most favorable to her.
P7. The law is well established with respect to the grant or denial of summary judgments. [HN1] A summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” M.R.C.P. 56(c). “All that is required of an opposing party to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a genuine issue of material fact by the means available under [**5] the rule.” Lowery v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., 592 So. 2d 79, 81 (Miss. 1991) (citing Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co., 515 So. 2d 678, 682 (Miss. 1987)). [HN2] “In determining whether the entry of summary judgment [is] appropriate, [the appellate court] reviews the judgment de novo, making its own determination on the motion, separate and apart from that of the trial court.” Lowery, 592 So. 2d at 81. “The evidentiary matters are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. “If after this examination, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then summary judgment is affirmed, but if after examining the evidentiary matters there is a genuine issue of material fact, the grant of summary judgment is reversed.” Lowery, 592 So. 2d at 81 (citing Newell v. Hinton, 556 So. 2d 1037, 1041 (Miss. 1990)).
P8. A thorough examination of the record reveals that Buck failed to meet her burden of producing significant evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Buck also produced [**6] no evidence to show that the defendants’ breached the established standard of care and that such breach was the cause of Jamie’s injuries. As a result, the trial judge appropriately granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions.
[*781] (2) Breach of Duty
P9. Buck argues that the trial court erred in finding that there was no causal relationship between Boozer’s temporary absence at the time of the accident and Jamie’s falling from the bed. Buck also argues that Boozer and Girl Scouts failed to properly supervise Jamie and the other minor children by not requiring the children to sleep on the bottom bunks, or at least, on bunk beds with side rail protectors. 3
3 Buck argues that the beds were donated by the U.S. Navy, and therefore the beds were designed for adults, not minors.
P10. [HN3] “In this negligence action, [Buck] bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish the existence of [a] duty, breach, proximate causation, and damages.” Simpson v. Boyd, 880 So. 2d 1047, 1050 [**7] (P 12) (Miss. 2004) (citing Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass’n, 656 So. 2d 790, 794 (Miss. 1995)).
P11. At the conclusion of the motion hearing, the trial judge found that Buck did not produce any evidence to indicate negligence by Boozer or Girl Scouts. We agree with the trial judge’s findings. However, assuming arguendo that Boozer was negligent in leaving the troop with the assistant troop leader, Buck has failed to demonstrate how Boozer’s absence contributed to Jamie’s injuries.
P12. Similarly, Buck has presented no authority that would substantiate her claim that the troop should not have been allowed to sleep on the beds without guard rails, or at least should have been made to sleep on the bottom bunks. Therefore, this argument is without merit.
(3) Dangerous Instrumentality
P13. Buck’s next allegation of error concerns the trial judge’s failure to find that a bunk bed constituted a dangerous instrumentality. The trial judge, relying on the New York case of Rueben v. Olympic Resort, Inc., 24 Misc. 2d 131, 198 N.Y.S. 2d 408 (N.Y. 1960), coupled with Buck’s lack of proof, found no merit in Buck’s contention [**8] that a bunk bed is a dangerous instrumentality. In Reuben, a six-year-old child was vacationing with her family at a hotel when she fell out of the top bunk and was injured. Id. at 409. The bunk bed had no guard rails. Id. Although the court denied the child’s parents recovery on other grounds, it commented that:
This Court is not prepared to state that a bunk bed without a guard rail is a dangerous instrumentality in and of itself. Such a bed, even with a guard rail, might be very dangerous to a child six months of age. Without a guard rail such a bed may be entirely safe for a child of fourteen years. It is for the parents of the child to determine what equipment is necessary or suitable for their own children. The hotel keeper cannot be presumed to know.
Id. at 409-10.
P14. We, like the trial judge and the Reuben court, [HN4] are not prepared to say that a bunk bed being used by a thirteen-year old without guard rails is a dangerous instrumentality. As noted by Camp Wilkes, Buck has failed to show any defect in the design of the bed or offered any evidence that the bed failed to comply with applicable standards, regulations, or guidelines. [**9] Buck even testified in a deposition that she knew what type bed her daughter was sleeping on and that she had no concerns about her daughter sleeping on the top bunk. Buck further stated that she did not inform anyone that she did not want her daughter sleeping on the top [*782] bunk. For the forgoing reasons, we find this issue to be without merit.
P15. Buck also argues that Camp Wilkes, by its use of bunk beds, failed to use reasonable care in providing a safe place for Jamie to sleep and also failed to adequately maintain and inspect its premises in a reasonably prudent manner. Buck further contends that Camp Wilkes failed to warn Jamie of a dangerous condition which the camp knew, or should have known, existed on their premises.
P16. [HN5] Camp Wilkes properly advances that it owed Jamie, as an invitee, the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep its premises safe, or to warn Jamie of any hidden or concealed perils of which it knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care. Lucas v. Buddy Jones Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 518 So. 2d 646, 648 (Miss. 1988) (citing Downs v. Corder, 377 So. 2d 603, 605 (Miss. 1979)). However, Camp [**10] Wilkes argues that a bunk bed is an item normally encountered on the business premises of camps like Camp Wilkes and that a bunk bed is not a hidden or concealed peril.
P17. We have already found that a bunk bed is not an inherently dangerous instrumentality. We now find that Buck has failed to demonstrate or show that the bunk bed in question was in any way defective. Therefore, we find no merit in Buck’s argument that Camp Wilkes, by its use of bunk beds, failed to use reasonable care in providing a safe place for Jamie to sleep.
P18. Finally, Buck asserts that the Appellees’ actions constituted negligence per se because Jamie was less than fourteen years old at the time of the accident. The record reveals that Buck failed to cite any case law in support of this proposition. [HN6] “Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone.” Pulphus v. State, 782 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 2001) (P 15) (citing Robinson v. State, 662 So. 2d 1100, 1104 (Miss. 1995)). Similarly, a failure to cite legal authority in support of a proposition precludes this Court from considering the issue on appeal. Grey v. Grey, 638 So. 2d 488, 491 (Miss. 1994) [**11] (citing Matter of Estate of Mason v. Fort, 616 So. 2d 322, 327 (Miss. 1993)).
P19. However, notwithstanding Buck’s failure to supply any authority in support of her proposition that allowing a thirteen-year old to sleep in a bunk bed not equipped with guard rails constitutes negligence per se, we refuse to embrace such a proposition. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the Appellees.
P20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. MYERS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
This case is a summer camp lawsuit and the decision looks at venue and jurisdiction; however the complaint alleges medical malpractice against a camp!
Posted: February 13, 2012 Filed under: Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), New York, Pennsylvania, Summer Camp | Tags: American Camp Association, Camp, Lawsuit, Medical Malpractice, New York, parent, Physician, summer camp, United States Leave a commentI really wish I could find out how this case resolved
This case covers a fact pattern that probably occurs weekly during the summer. The camper started suffering some illness. The camper was treated at camp by the camp physician and camp nurse then sent to a local hospital.
The parents sued the camp, camp physician, camp nurse and the treating physicians at the hospital for medical malpractice. The specific claim against the camp and its nurse and physician was a failure to “…timely recognize and properly care for and treat Jordan’s condition.”
In order to enroll the child in the camp, the parents were required to sign a camp contract. The contract covered many different details but was never identified by the court as a release.
The mother sued the camp in New York for the alleged injuries to her son.
So?
The second paragraph of the camp contract gave the camp permission to treat the child for any medical surgical or dental issues.
If it is necessary to obtain off-camp medical/surgical/dental services for the camper, such as expenses shall be paid by the parent except the portion supplied by the camp medical staff. Authority is granted without limitation to the camp/assigns in all medical matters to hospitalize/treat/order injections/anesthesia/surgery for the camper. The parent is responsible for all pre-existing medical conditions, out of camp medical/surgical/hospital/pharmaceutical/allergy expenses and for providing adequate quantities of necessary medications and allergy serums to camp in pharmacy containers with doctor’s instructions. The parent(s) or legal guardian(s) hereby states that the camper is in good, normal health and has no abnormal physical, emotional, or mental handicaps”.
(For other articles looking at the medical issues of camps and outdoor activities see Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear, North Carolina may allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue for injuries when the minor is engaged in non-profit activities sponsored by schools, volunteers, or community organizations, ACA Standards are used by Expert for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit against a Camp, Adult volunteer responsibility ends when the minor is delivered back to his parents.)
The basis of the legal arguments on appeal were the jurisdiction and venue of the lawsuit. (For more articles on venue and jurisdiction see Four releases signed and all of them thrown out because they lacked one simple sentence!, A Recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision lowers the requirements to be brought into the state to defend a lawsuit., Jurisdiction in Massachusetts allows a plaintiff to bring in Salomon France to the local court., The legal relationship created between manufactures and US consumers.). The camp was located in Pennsylvania and the jurisdiction and venue clause required any suit to be in Pennsylvania.
The venue of any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party shall be either the local District Justice Court or the Court of Common Pleas, Wayne County, Pennsylvania”
The camp operated out of an office in Pennsylvania in the summer where the camp was located, but it had an office in New York during the winter. When the child was ill, he was taken to a hospital which was located in New York.
The camp, camp nurse and camp physician filed motions to dismiss the complaint based on the jurisdiction and venue clause in the contract. The hospital and other physicians being sued also filed motions to dismiss based on the jurisdiction and venue clause in the contract. The contract stated, “the forum selection clause applies to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party”
To void a jurisdiction and/or venue clause the party opposing it must prove that the clause is:
…unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.
Without proof of such an issue, then jurisdiction and venue clause are valid and enforceable and will not be set aside. The plaintiff did not prove to the court any of the necessary elements to have the clause set aside.
Thus, the contract allowed the court to dismiss the camp, camp nurse and camp physician’s as defendant and force the plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit in the Wayne County Pennsylvania court. “Accordingly, since the forum selection clause addresses jurisdiction and contains mandatory venue language, the clause fixing venue is enforceable…”
Third Parties – non camp employees
The physicians and hospital argued the language in the contact and the relationship between themselves and the camp then extended the jurisdiction and venue of the contact to them. As such they should be sued in the Common Pleas court of Wayne County Pennsylvania. However, the court found the parties to the original contract, the camp and the parents did not foresee the contract extending that far to third parties.
To reach to third parties in such a case the contract must.
…there are three sets of circumstances under which a non-party may invoke a forum selection clause: First, it is well settled that an entity or individual that is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement may enforce a forum selection clause found within the agreement. Second, parties to a ‘global transaction’ who are not signatories to a specific agreement within that transaction may nonetheless benefit from a forum selection clause contained in such agreement if the agreements are executed at the same time, by the same parties or for the same purpose. Third, a nonparty that is ‘closely related’ to one of the signatories can enforce a forum selection clause. The relationship between the nonparty and the signatory in such cases must be sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between them.
Because the parties to the original contract did not contemplate in their formation of the contract, that hospital and physicians would be part of the agreement, the court could not extend the agreement to them in the suit.
So Now What?
This is a good discussion and points out the importance of having a forum selection clause in your documents and especially your release.
The scary and still unanswered part of the decision is the claims of medical malpractice can still be raised against the camp in Pennsylvania.
Make sure you contact your insurance agent and verify that you would be covered if a medical-malpractice claim is brought against you in a case like this. If you have or employee physicians, nurses or other licensed health care providers, you will need to have specific medical-malpractice coverage to cover them if you are sued. However, coverage for a non-entity such as a camp is rarely written into a policy.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, camp, summer camp, medical, first aid, medical malpractice, camp nurse, camp physician, camp doctor, jurisdiction, venue, Pennsylvania, New York, PA, NY,
WordPress Tags: lawsuit,decision,venue,jurisdiction,complaint,malpractice,Bernstein,Wysoki,LEXIS,Slip,fact,camper,physician,hospital,parents,physicians,failure,Jordan,York,injuries,paragraph,permission,limitation,injections,surgery,allergy,quantities,medications,pharmacy,instructions,guardian,health,Texas,North,Carolina,Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,Camp,Adult,basis,arguments,Four,Recent,Colorado,Supreme,Court,requirements,Massachusetts,Salomon,France,relationship,consumers,Pennsylvania,clause,agreement,agents,District,Justice,Common,Pleas,Wayne,office,winter,forum,selection,contravention,policy,fraud,purposes,Thus,defendant,Third,Parties,employees,beneficiary,Second,transaction,signatories,agreements,purpose,signatory,enforcement,virtue,formation,discussion,importance,Make,insurance,agent,employee,providers,coverage,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,managers,helmet,accidents,dental,enforceable
Bernstein v Wysoki et al., 77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43
Posted: February 13, 2012 Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, New York, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: Camp, Contract, Forum selection clause, LexisNexis, Medical Malpractice, Motion (legal), New York, New York Supreme Court, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Summer Camp, Supreme Court 1 CommentBernstein v Wysoki et al., 77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43
Jordan Bernstein, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Malka Bernstein, et al., Respondents, v Randee Wysoki et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Index No. 20686/07)
2008-06606, 2008-09740
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43
August 24, 2010, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas P. Phelan, J.), entered June 13, 2008 and September 30, 2008. The order entered June 13, 2008, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the cross motion of defendants Randee Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell and Gregory Scagnelli to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on a forum selection clause. The order entered September 30, 2008, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination and denied that branch of the cross motion of defendant Julie Higgins which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause.
Bernstein v. Wysoki, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10774 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2008)
Bernstein v. Wysoki, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9483 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 10, 2008)
COUNSEL: [***1] Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, New York City (William P. Brady, Timothy M. Smith and Stewart G. Milch of counsel), for appellants.
Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP, New York City (Denise A. Rubin of counsel), for respondents.
JUDGES: REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ. RIVERA, J.P., MILLER and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
OPINION BY: DICKERSON, J.
OPINION
[*243] [***2] [**51] Dickerson, J.
Factual Background and the Camp Contract
On or about June 25, 2007 the plaintiff Malka Bernstein (hereinafter Malka) entered into a contract (hereinafter the Camp Contract) with the defendant Camp Island Lake (hereinafter the Camp) for her then 13-year-old son, the plaintiff Jordan Bernstein (hereinafter Jordan), to attend the Camp during summer 2007. The Camp is located in Starrucca, Wayne County, Pennsylvania, where it also maintains a summer office. The Camp maintains a winter office in New York City.
The second paragraph of the Camp Contract provided:
“If it is necessary to obtain off-camp medical/surgical/dental services for the camper, such expenses shall be paid by the parent except the portion supplied by the camp medical staff. Authority is granted without limitation to the camp/assigns in all medical matters to hospitalize/treat/order injections/anesthesia/surgery for the camper. The parent is responsible for all pre-existing medical conditions, out of camp medical/surgical/hospital/pharmaceutical/allergy expenses and for providing [*244] adequate quantities [***3] of necessary medications and allergy serums to camp in pharmacy containers with doctor’s instructions. The parent(s) or legal guardian(s) hereby states that the camper is in good, normal health and has no abnormal physical, emotional, or mental handicaps” (emphasis added).
The Camp Contract also contained a forum selection clause. The sixth paragraph of the Camp Contract provided:
“Enclosed with this agreement is $ 1000 per child enrolled in program. Payments on account of tuition (less $ 100 registration fee) will be refunded if requested before January 1st. Cancellations of sessions will not be accepted after January 1st. Thereafter, no refunds will be made. All refunds will be made on or about May 1st. Installments on the balance will be due on January 1st, March 1st, & May 1st. A returned check fee of $ 25 will be applied to all returned checks. These rates are subject to change without notice. Any outstanding balance precludes admission to camp. The [***4] venue of any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party shall be either the local District Justice Court or the Court of Common Pleas, Wayne County, Pennsylvania” (emphasis added).
The eighth and final paragraph of the Camp Contract provided, in part, “[t]he parent represents that he/she has full authority [**52] to enroll the camper/to authorize participation in activities/medical care and to contract the aforesaid.”
On or about August 8, 2007, while enrolled at the Camp, Jordan developed a pain in his lower abdomen. The defendants Randee Wysoki and Jill Tschinkel, who were the doctor and registered nurse, respectively, working at the Camp at the time, allegedly cared for Jordan at the Camp before taking him to the defendant Wilson Memorial Regional Medical Center (hereinafter Wilson Memorial), in Johnson City, Broome County, New York, in the vicinity of the Camp. While at Wilson Memorial from August 8, 2007 through August 10, 2007, Jordan allegedly received care and treatment from the defendants Dina Farrell, M.D., Michael Farrell, M.D., Gregory Scagnelli, M.D., Julie Higgins, R.P.A., Patricia Grant, R.N., and [***5] William Kazalski, R.N. Allegedly due to the failure of the defendants to timely recognize and properly care for and treat Jordan’s condition, he sustained various injuries.
[*245] The Instant Action
In November 2007, Jordan and Malka, both as Jordan’s guardian and in her individual capacity, commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, against, among others, the Camp, Wilson Memorial, “Randy ‘Doe,’ M.D.,” ” ‘Jane Doe’ R.N.,” Dina Farrell, and Michael Farrell. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to substitute Wysoki for the defendant Randy “Doe,” and to add Scagnelli as a defendant.
After joinder of issue, the Camp moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause in the Camp Contract.
The plaintiffs moved for leave to serve an amended summons and complaint to add Higgins and Jill Tschinkel, R.N., as defendants.
The defendants Grant, Kazalski, and Wilson Memorial jointly cross-moved to change the venue of the action from Nassau County to Broome County pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 (a) on the grounds that the defendants [***6] Grant, Kazalski, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins worked and/or resided in, or within approximately 10 minutes of, Broome County, and also because Wilson Memorial was located in Broome County.
The defendants Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Scagnelli (hereinafter collectively the doctor defendants) jointly cross-moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause in the Camp Contract. The doctor defendants observed that, pursuant to the last paragraph of the Camp Contract, Malka represented that she had the authority to bind Jordan to the Camp Contract. The doctor defendants further pointed out that the Camp Contract “outlined the terms and conditions of [Jordan’s] attendance at the Camp, including any necessary medical care and treatment or care and treatment decisions for [Jordan].” In that regard, according to the doctor defendants, “as all the parties to the instant action either provided care and treatment to [Jordan] at the Camp or at [Wilson Memorial] based on the Camp’s decision as to what care and treatment [Jordan] needed to receive, any litigation [***7] between the parties in this matter is subject to the terms and conditions of the [Camp Contract].”
[*246] Specifically, the doctor defendants argued that Wysoki was covered by the Camp Contract because she “was the physician working at the Camp who sent [Jordan] to [Wilson Memorial]” and thus “is part of this lawsuit through her work at [**53] the Camp.” The doctor defendants further argued that Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Scagnelli were covered by the Camp Contract because they “treated [Jordan] at [Wilson Memorial] pursuant to the Camp’s decision as ‘in loco parentis’ and with the authority granted to the Camp . . . to have [Jordan] treated at a hospital” and thus “became involved in the care and treatment of [Jordan] based on the decision made of the Camp to take [Jordan] to [Wilson Memorial].”
The doctor defendants also argued that the Camp Contract contained a prima facie valid forum selection clause that should be enforced “absent a strong showing that it should be set aside.” The doctor defendants further argued that the forum selection clause, which by its terms applied to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents [***8] is a party,” applied to the instant action, since the plaintiffs’ tort claims depended on the existence of the Camp Contract. In that regard, the doctor defendants noted that “there would be no [tort claims] had [Jordan] not been a camper at the Camp during the Summer of 2007,” and that Jordan “would not have been a camper at the Camp without the terms and conditions of the [Camp Contract] being accepted and agreed to by [Malka].” Finally, the doctor defendants “noted that the Courts have held that [HN1] non-parties to an agreement containing a forum selection clause may be entitled to enforce a forum selection clause where the relationship to the signatory is sufficiently close or where the liability of a corporation and an officer is based on the same alleged acts” (citations omitted).
In an order entered June 13, 2008, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the Camp’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the forum selection clause, denied that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the forum selection clause, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for [***9] leave to serve an amended summons and complaint (2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS, 9483, 2008 NY Slip Op 31711[U]).
The doctor defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the foregoing order as denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint based on the forum selection clause.
[*247] The Camp moved for leave to reargue that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the forum selection clause. The Camp argued that the Supreme Court “blurred the distinctions between [a parent’s] legal ability to bind an infant plaintiff to the terms of a forum selection clause as opposed to a release of liability,” and that, “contrary to a release of liability, the law permits a parent of a minor child who signs a contract with a forum selection clause to bind the minor child to the terms and agreements set forth by the forum selection clause.”
The doctor defendants moved, inter alia, for leave to reargue that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the forum selection clause. The doctor defendants argued that the Supreme Court erred in finding that Malka could not bind Jordan to the terms of the Camp Contract, [***10] including the forum selection clause, stating, “[t]he Courts have consistently held that non-signatory infants, who are the subject of and obtain benefit from an agreement signed by the parent, such as a camp enrollment contract, are considered to be third-party beneficiaries for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the contract.” Therefore, according to the doctor defendants, because Jordan “was a [**54] third-party beneficiary of the [Camp Contract] and as the forum selection clause in the [Camp Contract] is valid, the forum selection clause must be found to be applicable to [Jordan’s] claims as well as [Malka’s claims].”
The doctor defendants further argued that the Supreme Court erred in finding “that there was no factual predicate for the foreseeable enforcement [of the forum selection clause in the Camp Contract] by the non-signatory [doctor defendants].” Specifically, noting that the Camp Contract granted authority ” ‘without limitation to the camp/assigns in all medical matters to hospitalize/treat/order injections/anesthesia/surgery for the camper,’ ” the doctor defendants argued that the Camp “contract itself contemplated and provided the factual predicate for the medical treatment [***11] at issue.”
The doctor defendants argued that they “are exactly the ‘assigns’ that were contemplated by the [Camp Contract], as the same sentence in the contract states that the assigns may ‘hospitalize/treat’ [Jordan] and/or ‘order injections/anesthesia/surgery’ for [Jordan].” Thus, according to the doctor defendants, “the [Camp Contract] is the only mechanism by which [they as non-signatories] were able to ‘hospitalize/treat’ [Jordan] [*248] and, thus, the [Camp Contract] is the only mechanism by which there are claims for the non-signatory hospitalization and treatment at issue.”
The doctor defendants further argued that “there was a sufficiently ‘close relationship’ between the signatories to the [Camp Contract] and the non-signatory [doctor] defendants, to reasonably foresee that [the doctor defendants] or noted ‘assigns’ in the contract would seek to enforce the terms of the contract” (emphasis omitted).
Finally, regarding Wysoki in particular, the doctor defendants argued that the Supreme Court erred in finding “that the same acts are not alleged with regard to the claimed liability of the Camp and Dr. Wysoki.”
At some point in time, the plaintiffs served a supplemental summons and a second [***12] amended summons and complaint, inter alia, adding Higgins as a defendant. Higgins moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the forum selection clause.
In an order entered September 30, 2008, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted leave to reargue to both the Camp and the doctor defendants, and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the respective branches of the Camp’s motion and the doctor defendants’ cross motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the forum selection clause (2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS,10774, 2008 NY Slip Op 33610[U]). The Supreme Court also denied that branch of Higgins’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the forum selection clause.
The doctor defendants appeal from so much of the second order as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint based on the forum selection clause, and Higgins jointly appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of her motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the forum selection clause.
Discussion
[HN2] ” ‘A [***13] contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the [*249] selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, [**55] for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” (Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736, 835 NYS2d 606 [2007], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395, 817 NYS2d 657 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 765, 861 NYS2d 820 [2008]; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d 535, 790 NYS2d 684 [2005]).
[HN3] ” ‘Absent a strong showing that it should be set aside, a forum selection agreement will control’ ” (Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., 62 AD3d 836, 836, 878 NYS2d 793 [2009], quoting Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino, 163 AD2d 270, 272, 557 NYS2d 140 [1990]).
The Forum Selection Clause Is Prima Facie Valid and Enforceable
In Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. (62 AD3d 836-837, 878 NYS2d 793 [2009]), considering a forum selection clause under similar circumstances, we concluded,
“Here, the plaintiff failed to make the requisite ‘strong showing’ that the forum selection clause in her employment [***14] agreement, which requires disputes to be decided in the courts of the State of Missouri, should be set aside. Although the plaintiff averred that she is a single mother who resides with her teenaged daughter in Dutchess County, New York, this claim was insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unjust. The plaintiff offered no evidence that the cost of commencing a wrongful discharge action in Missouri would be so financially prohibitive that, for all practical purposes, she would be deprived of her day in court. Moreover, the plaintiff did not allege that the inclusion of a forum selection clause in her employment contract was the product of overreaching, and she did not demonstrate that the clause is unconscionable.” (Citations omitted.)
[1] Similarly, here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the forum selection clause is unreasonable or unjust, or that a trial in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, would be so gravely difficult that, for all practical purposes, they would be deprived of their day in court. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to allege, let [*250] alone demonstrate, that the forum selection clause was the [***15] result of fraud or overreaching. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs failed to make any showing, let alone a strong showing, that the forum selection clause should be set aside on such bases (id.; see Trump v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 65 AD3d 1329, 1331-1332, 887 NYS2d 121 [2009]; compare Yoshida v PC Tech U.S.A. & You-Ri, Inc., 22 AD3d 373, 803 NYS2d 48 [2005] [the Supreme Court properly declined to enforce a contractual forum selection clause fixing Tokyo as the forum for any litigation between the parties, since the plaintiff made “a strong showing that a trial in Tokyo would be so impracticable and inconvenient that she would be deprived of her day in court”]).
The Forum Selection Clause Applies to this Action
[2] Further, the forum selection clause applies to the instant tort action. Notwithstanding the placement of the forum selection clause in the sixth paragraph of the Camp Contract, which otherwise pertains to fees, tuition, and refund policies, the applicability of the forum selection clause does not turn on the type or nature of the dispute between the parties. Rather, by its express language, the forum selection clause applies to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the [***16] parties to which the camp or its agents is a party” (see [**56] Tourtellot v Harza Architects, Engrs. & Constr. Mgrs., 55 AD3d 1096, 1097-1098, 866 NYS2d 793 [2008] [rejecting the defendant’s claim that the subject forum selection clause in its agreement with the third-party defendant ” ‘was never intended to apply to third-party claims in personal injury and products liability actions such as . . . plaintiff’s action here,’ (since) under its broad and unequivocal terms, the applicability of the subject forum selection clause does not turn on the type or nature of the dispute between them; rather, it applies to ‘any dispute arising under or in connection with’ their agreement”]; see also Buhler v French Woods Festival of Performing Arts, 154 AD2d 303, 304, 546 NYS2d 591 [1989] [in a personal injury action to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs were bound by a forum selection clause in a camp enrollment contract which provided that “(t)he venue of any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party shall be either the Village of Hancock, N.Y. Justice Court or the County or State Supreme Court in Delaware County”]).
Jurisdiction and Venue
[3] Moreover, the forum [***17] selection clause is enforceable as a general matter even though it does not include any language [*251] expressly providing that the plaintiffs and the Camp intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction to Pennsylvania. The forum selection clause relates to both jurisdiction and venue, and employs mandatory venue language, providing that the venue of any dispute arising out of the agreement or otherwise between the parties “shall be either the local District Justice Court or the Court of Common Pleas, Wayne County, Pennsylvania.” Accordingly, since the forum selection clause addresses jurisdiction and contains mandatory venue language, the clause fixing venue is enforceable (see Fear & Fear, Inc. v N.I.I. Brokerage, L.L.C., 50 AD3d 185, 187, 851 NYS2d 311 [2008]; John Boutari & Son, Wines & Spirits, S.A. v Attiki Importers & Distribs. Inc., 22 F3d 51, 52 [1994]).
Enforceability of Forum Selection Clause by Nonsignatories
Notwithstanding the fact that the forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable and applicable to the instant tort action as a general matter, this Court must further determine whether the defendant doctors and Higgins, who are not signatories to the Camp Contract, may enforce the forum selection clause.
[HN4] As [***18] a general rule, “only parties in privity of contract may enforce terms of the contract such as a forum selection clause found within the agreement” (Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d 32, 38, 857 NYS2d 62 [2008]; see ComJet Aviation Mgt. v Aviation Invs. Holdings, 303 AD2d 272, 758 NYS2d 607 [2003]). However,
[HN5] “there are three sets of circumstances under which a non-party may invoke a forum selection clause: First, it is well settled that an entity or individual that is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement may enforce a forum selection clause found within the agreement. Second, parties to a ‘global transaction’ who are not signatories to a specific agreement within that transaction may nonetheless benefit from a forum selection clause contained in such agreement if the agreements are executed at the same time, by the same parties or for the same purpose. Third, a nonparty that is ‘closely related’ to one of the signatories can enforce a forum selection clause. The relationship between the nonparty and the signatory in such cases must be sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause is foreseeable by [**57] virtue of the relationship between them.” (Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d at 38-39 [citations [*252] omitted]; see Direct Mail Prod. Servs. v MBNA Corp., 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12945, *8, 2000 WL 1277597,*3 [SD NY 2000]; [***19] cf. EPIX Holding Corp. v Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 410 NJ Super 453, 463, 982 A2d 1194, 1200 [2009] [“It is clear that in certain situations, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may compel a signatory to arbitrate. Since arbitration agreements are analyzed under traditional principles of state law, such principles allow a contract to be enforced by or against nonparties to the contract through assumption, piercing the corporate veil, alter ego, incorporation by reference, third-party beneficiary theories, waiver and estoppel” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)].)
[4] Here, relying on the provision in the Camp Contract by which the plaintiffs granted authority to the Camp and to its “assigns” in all medical matters, inter alia, to hospitalize and treat Jordan, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins claim to have a sufficiently close relationship with the Camp such that enforcement of the forum selection clause by them was foreseeable to the plaintiffs by virtue of that relationship. Significantly, however, there is nothing in the Camp Contract indicating that the Camp intended to use Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins in particular in [***20] the event Jordan required “off-camp” medical services. In fact, there is nothing in the Camp Contract indicating that the Camp intended to use Wilson Memorial–located in a different state from the Camp–and its physicians and physician assistants in the event Jordan required medical services.
Under these circumstances, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins do not have a sufficiently close relationship with the Camp such that enforcement of the forum selection clause by them was foreseeable to the plaintiffs by virtue of that relationship (cf. Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d at 40-41 [“Even a cursory examination of these two agreements makes clear that (defendants) Lane Pendleton and Cairnwood Management had every reason to foresee that (plaintiff) Freeford would seek to enforce the forum selection clause against them”]; Dogmoch Intl. Corp. v Dresdner Bank, 304 AD2d 396, 397, 757 NYS2d 557 [2003] [“(a)lthough defendant was a nonsignatory to the account agreements, it was reasonably foreseeable that it would seek to enforce the forum selection clause given the close relationship between itself and its (signatory) subsidiary”]; Direct [*253] Mail Prod. Servs. v MBNA Corp., 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12945, *10-14, 2000 WL 1277597, *4-5 [***21] [where “a number of . . . clauses in the Agreement between (plaintiff) Direct Mail and (nonparty) MBNA Direct indicate that the signatories intended the contract to benefit related (nonsignatory defendant) MBNA companies,” MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A., were sufficiently closely related to MBNA Direct such that it was foreseeable that they would seek to enforce a forum selection clause contained in the subject agreement]).
[5] Conversely, however, we conclude that Wysoki, as an employee of the Camp, is entitled to enforce the forum selection clause despite her status as a nonsignatory to the Camp Contract. The forum selection clause itself applies to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party” (emphasis added). Moreover, we find that the [**58] Camp’s relationship with Wysoki, its on-site medical employee, was “sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause [was] foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between them” (Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d at 39). Thus, Wysoki, despite being a nonsignatory to the Camp Contract, was entitled to enforce the valid forum selection clause. Accordingly, [***22] the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Wysoki based on the forum selection clause.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Higgins’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause. However, the Supreme Court improperly, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause.
Accordingly, the appeal from the order entered June 13, 2008 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered September 30, 2008, made upon reargument. The order entered September 30, 2008 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon reargument, adhering to the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008, denying that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) [***23] and 501 based on the forum selection clause and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument, vacating the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008 denying that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint [*254] insofar as asserted against Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause and thereupon granting that branch of the cross motion. As so modified, the order entered September 30, 2008 is affirmed insofar as appealed from.
Rivera, J.P., Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered June 13, 2008 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered September 30, 2008, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered September 30, 2008 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon reargument, adhering to the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008, denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Randee Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Gregory Scagnelli which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Randee Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and [***24] 501 based on a forum selection clause and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument, vacating the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008, denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Randee Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Gregory Scagnelli which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Randee Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on a forum selection clause and thereupon granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order entered September 30, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Illinois lawsuit filed over drowning death of a man at a summer camp.
Posted: December 20, 2011 Filed under: Michigan, Summer Camp, Swimming, Youth Camps | Tags: Adventure travel, Law, Outdoor recreation, Recreation, summer camp 1 CommentClaims seem to be based on whether or not there was lighting to swim at night.
The deceased was a fifteen year-old person who drowned while attending a summer camp. Supposedly, he was swimming after dark, after 9:00 PM. The allegations claim that there must be adequate lighting to swim after dark.
What lighting has to do with finding someone after dark in a lake is a little confusing. However, it does not matter if the rule or law makes no sense, you must abide by it.
Most of the information for the article seems to come from the attorney for the plaintiffs. Obviously, the information is slightly slanted……
But?
What can you as the defendant do then? If you respond to the allegations, you can harm a defense, and for sure you will just start a PR war with the plaintiff’s.
Worse you will be caught off guard because the plaintiff will spend days preparing their press release to be given at a press conference, and you will be contacted on the phone by a reporter and given 15 seconds to respond.
Don’t.
Tell the reporter you will look at the press release and review the press conference, and you will have a response. Whatever else the reporter may say, do not worry about it. They’ll argue deadlines; you need to respond, and you can have them read the press release to you. It is all a setup, don’t take the bait.
The only people you really have to make sure understand the truth is the jury from a liability perspective.
However, you also have a business to run, and you need to make sure the plaintiff’s allegations don’t sink your business. Hire an attorney and a PR team and respond. Have your attorney set up a press conference and refute the plaintiff’s allegations.
You have to take a beating, and maybe you’ll have nothing to say at a press conference. If that is the case, you’ll suffer through the slings and arrows of the plaintiff and the press.
However, you do not have the skills, education, training or temperament to deal with a response or the press.
Don’t.
To read the article see Buffalo Grove family sues campground for son’s drowning death.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #BuffaloGrove, #GreenwoodCamp, #LakeoftheWoods, #FamilyCamps, #Press, #PressConference, #PressRelease,
WordPress Tags: Illinois,lawsuit,death,Claims,person,allegations,Most,information,article,attorney,plaintiffs,defendant,plaintiff,Worse,conference,reporter,Tell,response,deadlines,setup,truth,jury,perspective,Hire,team,arrows,skills,education,temperament,Buffalo,Grove,campground,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,BuffaloGrove,GreenwoodCamp,LakeoftheWoods,FamilyCamps,PressConference,PressRelease
Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
Posted: December 19, 2011 Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Summer Camp, Texas, Youth Camps, Zip Line | Tags: Charitable Immunity Act, Charity, Release, Salvation Army 2 CommentsGalvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
Bruce Galvan, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Salvation Army, Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3365
United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston Division
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
May 3, 2011, Decided
May 3, 2011, Filed
CORE TERMS: Charitable Immunity Act, summary judgment, Charitable, amount of damages, conspicuousness, premature, matter of law, own negligence, settlement, affirmative defense, font, charitable organization, liability insurance coverage, per person, per occurrence, notice requirements, bodily injury, jury verdict, conscious indifference, reckless disregard, self-insurance, conspicuous, discovery, retention, qualify, cap, insurance coverage, enforceable, undisputed, attended
COUNSEL: [*1] For Bruce Galvan, Individually and as Next Friend, Cynthia Perez, Individually And as Next Friend, Plaintiffs: John Paul Venzke, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Venzke Law Firm LLP, Houston, TX; Michael Andrew Fisher, Dyment & Fisher, Houston, TX.
For Salvation Army, Defendant: Teresa Jones Del Valle, LEAD ATTORNEY, Del Valle Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX.
JUDGES: Nancy F. Atlas, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: Nancy F. Atlas
OPINION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This personal injury case is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Release (“Release Motion”) [Doc. # 23] filed by Plaintiffs Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez. Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 27], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 28]. Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Defense of The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Motion”), to which Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 29], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 34]. Having reviewed the full record and having considered relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Release Motion and denies without prejudice the Charitable Immunity Motion.
I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs [*2] Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez are parents of Plaintiff Christopher Galvan. Christopher was eleven years old when he attended Camp Hoblitzelle, a facility owned and operated by Defendant The Salvation Army. In June 2010, while at Camp Hoblitzelle, Christopher Galvan fell 40-50 feet from a zip-line and was seriously injured. Before Christopher attended Camp Hoblitzelle, Cynthia Perez signed a “Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps.” See Exh. A to Release Motion.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to recover from The Salvation Army for the injury to Christopher Galvan. Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release as an affirmative defense. Defendant has asserted also that The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Act”) limits its liability in this case to $500,000.00 per person and $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on each of these arguments. The motions have been fully briefed.
II.STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing [*3] of the existence of an element essential to the party’s case for which that party will bear the burden at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2002). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for resolving issues of law arising from a materially complete factual record. See Trevino v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 882 F.2d 182, 184 (5th Cir. 1989).
III.RELEASE MOTION
Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release signed by Cynthia Perez as an affirmative defense. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the release defense because the Release in this case fails to satisfy the [*4] requirements for it to be enforceable.
Under Texas law, there are two fair notice requirements for release agreements: (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement. See Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes, 134 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. 2004); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex. 1993). The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document. See Fisk Elec. Co. v. Constructors & Assocs., Inc., 888 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1994); Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1987). The conspicuousness requirement provides that the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. See Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself. See Reyes, 134 S.W.3d at 192 (citing Littlefield v. Schaefer, 955 S.W.2d 272, 274-75 (Tex. 1997)); Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511.
Compliance with [*5] the fair notice requirements is a question of law for the Court. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 509. A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law. Storage & Processors, 134 S.W.3d at 192. In this case, the Court concludes that the Release asserted by Defendant does not satisfy either requirement.
The Release provides that the signer “hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” See Release, Exh. 1 to Release Motion. As an initial matter, the Release purports to release Defendant from liability for injury suffered while participating in any “Activity.” The “Activity” is to be identified by filling in a blank line on the Release form. On the Release at issue in this case, the “Activity” line contains no identified activity but, instead, has “Cynthia Perez” written in as the “Activity.”
More importantly, the Release language does not specifically state that Defendant is being released from liability for its own future negligence. Indeed, there is no express mention of negligence at all. Although there is no requirement that [*6] the release contain the specific word “negligence,” the intent to release a party from liability for its own negligence must be clearly expressed. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Personnel, Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tex. 1989); Silsbee Hosp., Inc. v. George, 163 S.W.3d 284, 290 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2005, review denied). In the Release at issue in this case, there is no clear expression of an intent to release Defendant from its own negligence in connection with Christopher Galvan’s participation in zip-lining.
The Release fails also to satisfy the conspicuousness requirement. The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.
The Court concludes that the Release in this case does not satisfy the express negligence or conspicuousness requirements and, as a result, the Release is not enforceable as a matter of law.
IV.CHARITABLE IMMUNITY MOTION
The Charitable Immunity Act limits liability of a qualified charitable organization to $500,000.00 per person and [*7] $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.006. To qualify for the limitation, the charitable organization must have liability insurance coverage “in the amount of at least $500,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each single occurrence for death or bodily injury . . ..” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(g). The Charitable Immunity Act provides that the liability insurance coverage “may be provided under a contract of insurance or other plan of insurance authorized by statute and may be satisfied by the purchase of a $1,000,000 bodily injury and property damage combined single limit policy.” See id.
Defendant asserts that it is entitled to the damages limitation of the Charitable Immunity Act. It is undisputed that Defendant has over $35,000,000.00 of insurance coverage. It is also undisputed, however, that the first $500,000.00 is in the form of a self-insurance retention and the next $4,500,000.00 is in the form of The Salvation Army’s Risk Trust. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is not entitled to the damages limitation because Defendant is self-insured and self insurance does not meet the statutory requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act. 1
1 Plaintiffs [*8] also argue that Defendant is judicially estopped to assert the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation because a different Salvation Army entity in Maine asserted in a lawsuit in 1997 that the Salvation Army entity in Maine did not have insurance coverage. The Court concludes on this limited record that Plaintiffs have not established an adequate factual basis for judicial estoppel to apply.
Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged an amount of damages. They allege that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00. See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege also that Christopher Galvan’s medical bills exceed $200,000.00. See id., ¶ 5. Thus, on this record, the specific amounts alleged by Plaintiffs do not exceed the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. Moreover, the amount of damages has not been established by either settlement or a jury award to be in excess of the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. As a result, the Court concludes that a decision on whether the limitation applies to a fully-funded self insurance retention is premature at this stage of the proceedings. See, e.g., Morgan v. Fellini’s Pizza, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1316, n.6 (N.D. Ga. 1999) [*9] (noting that a request for summary judgment as to whether a damages cap applies was premature); Rafferty v. Howard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98423, 2010 WL 3768142, *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 20, 2010) (holding that preliminary ruling on whether statutory cap applies was premature). If there is a settlement or jury verdict for more than $1,000,000.00 in this case, the Court will at that time decide whether Defendant qualifies for the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation.
Additionally, the Charitable Immunity Act provides that its limitations do not apply “to an act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(a). Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendant’s actions in this case were “intentional, willfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Christopher Galvan and others.” See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 12. Should the jury find that Defendant’s actions were as alleged by Plaintiffs in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, the issue regarding whether self-insurance satisfies the insurance requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act [*10] would become moot.
V.CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The release relied upon by Defendant satisfies neither the express negligence doctrine nor the conspicuousness requirement. As a result, there has been no effective release of Defendant for its alleged negligence in this case. Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount of damages and no amount of damages has been determined either through settlement or by jury verdict. As a result, it is premature to decide whether the Act limits the amount of damages recoverable in this case. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Release Motion [Doc. # 23] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Charitable Immunity Motion [Doc. # 26] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 3rd day of May, 2011.
/s/ Nancy F. Atlas
Nancy F. Atlas
United States District Judge
Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.
Posted: December 19, 2011 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Texas, Youth Camps, Zip Line | Tags: charitable immunity, Charitable Immunity Act, Charity, Negligence, Salvation Army, Summary judgment, Summer Camp, Texas, United States district court, zip line 1 CommentGalvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
Too bad no one read the law to the Salvation Army in this case.
This case was filed in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas. The decision was based on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff to throw out the defendant’s defense of release. Normally, these types of motions are filed by the defendants to end the litigation not by the plaintiff. There was also an issue of whether the charitable immunity statute applied to limit the damages in the case.
The facts which gave rise to the case are the defendants were parents of an eleven year-old boy who attended Camp Hoblitzelle which was owned and operated by the Salvation Army of Texas. While attending the camp the minor was riding a zip line when he fell 40-50’ suffering unnamed injuries.
There was a blank in the release where the activity the parties were releasing was to be filled in. The blank line in this case was filled in with the plaintiff’s name Cynthia Perez written in as the activity. The court took delight in pointing this out.
Summary of the case
The plaintiff filed their motion for summary judgment to eliminate the defense of release. The minor’s mother signed the Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps prior to the minor attending camp.
Under Texas law, there are two tests to determine if a release is valid; (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement test.
“A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law.”
The Express Negligence Doctrine is:
The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document.
The release in this case used the language “…hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” This language was not strict enough to place the signor on notice that they were giving up their legal rights according to the court.
The release was not clear. It did not state that the defendant was being released for its future negligence. Although there is no requirement that the word negligence be in the release and referenced, it is clear the release would be difficult to write without the word negligence. The court held the release at issue had no clear expression or language showing intent to release the defendant from its own negligence.
Consequently, the release failed the Express Negligence Doctrine.
The Conspicuousness requirement test requires.
… the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself.
With regard to the conspicuousness, requirement test the court stated.
The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.
Here is a great example that your release cannot hide the important legal language from anyone signing it.
The court also looked into the Charitable Immunity Act and held the issue was not ripe because whether or not the defendant was subject to the limitation of damages would not be an issue unless the plaintiff was able to recover an amount greater than the limitation of $500,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence.
The court also stated the Charitable Immunity Act did not apply to defendants whose “act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” The plaintiff had plead actions of the defendant in almost identical language which was another issue making the issue not ripe for decision.
So Now What?
This decision is a road map on what not to do with a release in Texas.
1. Make sure your release states that it is a release and the person signing it is giving up their legal rights.
2. Make sure the language in the release is clear. The plaintiff is releasing you from liability for your negligence in advance of any injury. You are going to have to use the word negligence in your release.
3. The release language cannot be hidden. It must be set out in such a way that it is identifiable as something important that the signor needs to know about.
4. All blanks in the document need to be located in one place so it only takes a quick scan to make sure everything is completed properly.
5. Anything that can be completed by the defendant or filled in must be completed by the defendant.
6. Have an attorney that knows and understands your operation and the law affecting your business write your release.
Writing a release is not like cooking. When you cook you have to really screw up to make something that is not edible. (I’ve been single my entire life so my definition of edible may be different from yours……) Writing a release is a much more precise endeavor.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #TheSalvationArmy, #zipline, #Galvan, #TX, #Texas, #FederalCourt, #SummaryJudgment, #CampHoblitzelle, #ExpressNegligenceDoctrine, #ConspicuousnessRequirement,
WordPress Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor
Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.
Posted: November 21, 2011 Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: Minor, Releases / Waivers, Summer Camp, Texas Leave a commentGalvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
Too bad no one read the law to the Salvation Army in this case.
This case was filed in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas. The decision was based on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff to throw out the defendant’s defense of release. Normally, these types of motions are filed by the defendants to end the litigation not by the plaintiff. There was also an issue of whether the charitable immunity statute applied to limit the damages in the case.
The facts which gave rise to the case are the defendants were parents of an eleven year-old boy who attended Camp Hoblitzelle which was owned and operated by the Salvation Army of Texas. While attending the camp the minor was riding a zip line when he fell 40-50’ suffering unnamed injuries.
There was a blank in the release where the activity the parties were releasing was to be filled in. The blank line in this case was filled in with the plaintiff’s name Cynthia Perez written in as the activity. The court took delight in pointing this out.
Summary of the case
The plaintiff filed their motion for summary judgment to eliminate the defense of release. The minor’s mother signed the Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps prior to the minor attending camp.
Under Texas law, there are two tests to determine if a release is valid; (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement test.
“A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law.”
The Express Negligence Doctrine is:
The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document.
The release in this case used the language “…hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” This language was not strict enough to place the signor on notice that they were giving up their legal rights according to the court.
The release was not clear. It did not state that the defendant was being released for its future negligence. Although there is no requirement that the word negligence be in the release and referenced, it is clear the release would be difficult to write without the word negligence. The court held the release at issue had no clear expression or language showing intent to release the defendant from its own negligence.
Consequently, the release failed the Express Negligence Doctrine.
The Conspicuousness requirement test requires.
… the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself.
With regard to the conspicuousness, requirement test the court stated.
The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.
Here is a great example that your release cannot hide the important legal language from anyone signing it.
The court also looked into the Charitable Immunity Act and held the issue was not ripe because whether or not the defendant was subject to the limitation of damages would not be an issue unless the plaintiff was able to recover an amount greater than the limitation of $500,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence.
The court also stated the Charitable Immunity Act did not apply to defendants whose “act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” The plaintiff had plead actions of the defendant in almost identical language which was another issue making the issue not ripe for decision.
So Now What?
This decision is a road map on what not to do with a release in Texas.
1. Make sure your release states that it is a release and the person signing it is giving up their legal rights.
2. Make sure the language in the release is clear. The plaintiff is releasing you from liability for your negligence in advance of any injury. You are going to have to use the word negligence in your release.
3. The release language cannot be hidden. It must be set out in such a way that it is identifiable as something important that the signor needs to know about.
4. All blanks in the document need to be located in one place so it only takes a quick scan to make sure everything is completed properly.
5. Anything that can be completed by the defendant or filled in must be completed by the defendant.
6. Have an attorney that knows and understands your operation and the law affecting your business write your release.
Writing a release is not like cooking. When you cook you have to really screw up to make something that is not edible. (I’ve been single my entire life so my definition of edible may be different from yours……) Writing a release is a much more precise endeavor.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #TheSalvationArmy, #zipline, #Galvan, #TX, #Texas, #FederalCourt, #SummaryJudgment, #CampHoblitzelle, #ExpressNegligenceDoctrine, #ConspicuousnessRequirement,
Technorati Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor
Windows Live Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor
WordPress Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor
Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
Posted: November 21, 2011 Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Texas, Youth Camps | Tags: Minor, Releases / Waivers, Summer Camp 2 CommentsGalvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
To read the analysis of this case see: Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.
Bruce Galvan, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Salvation Army, Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3365
United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston Division
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257
May 3, 2011, Decided
May 3, 2011, Filed
CORE TERMS: Charitable Immunity Act, summary judgment, Charitable, amount of damages, conspicuousness, premature, matter of law, own negligence, settlement, affirmative defense, font, charitable organization, liability insurance coverage, per person, per occurrence, notice requirements, bodily injury, jury verdict, conscious indifference, reckless disregard, self-insurance, conspicuous, discovery, retention, qualify, cap, insurance coverage, enforceable, undisputed, attended
COUNSEL: [*1] For Bruce Galvan, Individually and as Next Friend, Cynthia Perez, Individually And as Next Friend, Plaintiffs: John Paul Venzke, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Venzke Law Firm LLP, Houston, TX; Michael Andrew Fisher, Dyment & Fisher, Houston, TX.
For Salvation Army, Defendant: Teresa Jones Del Valle, LEAD ATTORNEY, Del Valle Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX.
JUDGES: Nancy F. Atlas, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: Nancy F. Atlas
OPINION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This personal injury case is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Release (“Release Motion”) [Doc. # 23] filed by Plaintiffs Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez. Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 27], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 28]. Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Defense of The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Motion”), to which Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 29], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 34]. Having reviewed the full record and having considered relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Release Motion and denies without prejudice the Charitable Immunity Motion.
I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs [*2] Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez are parents of Plaintiff Christopher Galvan. Christopher was eleven years old when he attended Camp Hoblitzelle, a facility owned and operated by Defendant The Salvation Army. In June 2010, while at Camp Hoblitzelle, Christopher Galvan fell 40-50 feet from a zip-line and was seriously injured. Before Christopher attended Camp Hoblitzelle, Cynthia Perez signed a “Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps.” See Exh. A to Release Motion.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to recover from The Salvation Army for the injury to Christopher Galvan. Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release as an affirmative defense. Defendant has asserted also that The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Act”) limits its liability in this case to $500,000.00 per person and $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on each of these arguments. The motions have been fully briefed.
II.STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing [*3] of the existence of an element essential to the party’s case for which that party will bear the burden at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2002). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for resolving issues of law arising from a materially complete factual record. See Trevino v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 882 F.2d 182, 184 (5th Cir. 1989).
III.RELEASE MOTION
Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release signed by Cynthia Perez as an affirmative defense. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the release defense because the Release in this case fails to satisfy the [*4] requirements for it to be enforceable.
Under Texas law, there are two fair notice requirements for release agreements: (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement. See Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes, 134 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. 2004); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex. 1993). The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document. See Fisk Elec. Co. v. Constructors & Assocs., Inc., 888 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1994); Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1987). The conspicuousness requirement provides that the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. See Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself. See Reyes, 134 S.W.3d at 192 (citing Littlefield v. Schaefer, 955 S.W.2d 272, 274-75 (Tex. 1997)); Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511.
Compliance with [*5] the fair notice requirements is a question of law for the Court. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 509. A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law. Storage & Processors, 134 S.W.3d at 192. In this case, the Court concludes that the Release asserted by Defendant does not satisfy either requirement.
The Release provides that the signer “hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” See Release, Exh. 1 to Release Motion. As an initial matter, the Release purports to release Defendant from liability for injury suffered while participating in any “Activity.” The “Activity” is to be identified by filling in a blank line on the Release form. On the Release at issue in this case, the “Activity” line contains no identified activity but, instead, has “Cynthia Perez” written in as the “Activity.”
More importantly, the Release language does not specifically state that Defendant is being released from liability for its own future negligence. Indeed, there is no express mention of negligence at all. Although there is no requirement that [*6] the release contain the specific word “negligence,” the intent to release a party from liability for its own negligence must be clearly expressed. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Personnel, Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tex. 1989); Silsbee Hosp., Inc. v. George, 163 S.W.3d 284, 290 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2005, review denied). In the Release at issue in this case, there is no clear expression of an intent to release Defendant from its own negligence in connection with Christopher Galvan’s participation in zip-lining.
The Release fails also to satisfy the conspicuousness requirement. The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.
The Court concludes that the Release in this case does not satisfy the express negligence or conspicuousness requirements and, as a result, the Release is not enforceable as a matter of law.
IV.CHARITABLE IMMUNITY MOTION
The Charitable Immunity Act limits liability of a qualified charitable organization to $500,000.00 per person and [*7] $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.006. To qualify for the limitation, the charitable organization must have liability insurance coverage “in the amount of at least $500,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each single occurrence for death or bodily injury . . ..” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(g). The Charitable Immunity Act provides that the liability insurance coverage “may be provided under a contract of insurance or other plan of insurance authorized by statute and may be satisfied by the purchase of a $1,000,000 bodily injury and property damage combined single limit policy.” See id.
Defendant asserts that it is entitled to the damages limitation of the Charitable Immunity Act. It is undisputed that Defendant has over $35,000,000.00 of insurance coverage. It is also undisputed, however, that the first $500,000.00 is in the form of a self-insurance retention and the next $4,500,000.00 is in the form of The Salvation Army’s Risk Trust. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is not entitled to the damages limitation because Defendant is self-insured and self insurance does not meet the statutory requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act. 1
1 Plaintiffs [*8] also argue that Defendant is judicially estopped to assert the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation because a different Salvation Army entity in Maine asserted in a lawsuit in 1997 that the Salvation Army entity in Maine did not have insurance coverage. The Court concludes on this limited record that Plaintiffs have not established an adequate factual basis for judicial estoppel to apply.
Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged an amount of damages. They allege that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00. See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege also that Christopher Galvan’s medical bills exceed $200,000.00. See id., ¶ 5. Thus, on this record, the specific amounts alleged by Plaintiffs do not exceed the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. Moreover, the amount of damages has not been established by either settlement or a jury award to be in excess of the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. As a result, the Court concludes that a decision on whether the limitation applies to a fully-funded self insurance retention is premature at this stage of the proceedings. See, e.g., Morgan v. Fellini’s Pizza, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1316, n.6 (N.D. Ga. 1999) [*9] (noting that a request for summary judgment as to whether a damages cap applies was premature); Rafferty v. Howard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98423, 2010 WL 3768142, *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 20, 2010) (holding that preliminary ruling on whether statutory cap applies was premature). If there is a settlement or jury verdict for more than $1,000,000.00 in this case, the Court will at that time decide whether Defendant qualifies for the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation.
Additionally, the Charitable Immunity Act provides that its limitations do not apply “to an act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(a). Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendant’s actions in this case were “intentional, willfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Christopher Galvan and others.” See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 12. Should the jury find that Defendant’s actions were as alleged by Plaintiffs in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, the issue regarding whether self-insurance satisfies the insurance requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act [*10] would become moot.
V.CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The release relied upon by Defendant satisfies neither the express negligence doctrine nor the conspicuousness requirement. As a result, there has been no effective release of Defendant for its alleged negligence in this case. Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount of damages and no amount of damages has been determined either through settlement or by jury verdict. As a result, it is premature to decide whether the Act limits the amount of damages recoverable in this case. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Release Motion [Doc. # 23] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Charitable Immunity Motion [Doc. # 26] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 3rd day of May, 2011.
/s/ Nancy F. Atlas
Nancy F. Atlas
United States District Judge
States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue
Posted: November 2, 2011 Filed under: Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Summer Camp Leave a commentIf your state is not listed here, you should assume a parent cannot waive a minor’s right to sue in your state.
|
State
|
By Statute
|
Restrictions
|
| Alaska | Alaska: Sec. 09.65.292 | Sec. 05.45.120 does not allow using a release by ski areas for ski injuries |
| Arizona | ARS § 12-553 | Limited to Equine Activities |
| Colorado | C.R.S. §§13-22-107 | Some commentators consider the statute a little weak |
| Florida | Florida Statute § 744.301 (3) | |
|
By Case Law
|
||
| California | Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal.App.3d 1559, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1990) | |
| Florida | Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1454 | Allows a release signed by a parent to require arbitration of the minor’s claims |
| Florida | Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So.2d 1067, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1147 | Release can be used for volunteer activities and by government entities |
| Massachusetts | Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99; 769 N.E.2d 738; 2002 Mass. LEXIS 384 | |
| Minnesota | Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299 | |
| North Dakota | McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3 | |
| Ohio | Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) | Maybe only for non-profits |
| Wisconsin | Osborn v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 546, 259 Wis. 2d 481, 2002 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1216, 2003 WI App 1 | However the decision in Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2 voided all releases in the state |
|
On the Edge, but not enough to really rely on
|
||
| North Carolina | Kelly v. United States of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89741 | Ruling is by the Federal District Court and only a preliminary motion |
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog:www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
Keywords: #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #minor, #release, #ParentSignature, #NC, #NorthCarolina, #Alaska, #AK, #AZ, #Arizona, #CO, #Colorado, #Florida, #FL, #CA, #California, #MA, #Massachusetts, #Minnesota, #MN, #ND, #NorthDakota, #OH, #Ohio, #WI, #Wisconsin, #Hohe, #SanDiego, #SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict, #GlobalTravelMarketing, #Shea, #Gonzalez, #CityOfCoralGables, #Sharon, #CityofNewton, #Moore, #MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool, #McPhail, #BismarkParkDistrict, #Zivich, #MentorSoccerClub, #Osborn, #CascadeMountain, #Atkins, #SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter,
Technorati Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Some,commentators,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Maybe,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter
Windows Live Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Some,commentators,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Maybe,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter
WordPress Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Some,commentators,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Maybe,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter
As long as there are laws, there will be people trying to get around them.
Posted: June 15, 2011 Filed under: Summer Camp Leave a commentPersonal responsibility cannot be replaced by a law. If you are going to put your kid in day care or a summer camp, check it out.
An article titled Classic kid’s games like kickball deemed unsafe by state in an effort to increase summer camp regulation had the greatest photograph so far this year. A mother sending a kid out to play with a helmet and wrapped in bubble wrap. The article described a new law aimed at getting day care centers to register in New York.
The summer camps were avoiding registration because they claimed they were day care centers. So the state made a list of risk recreational activities. If you allow the kids in your charge to play two games, one of which is on the list then you must register. The list of risk recreational games includes:
| Freeze tag | Wiffle Ball | Kickball |
| Red Rover | Kickball | Dodgeball |
| Capture the Flag | Steal the Bacon |
This is the hilarious part. Frisbee, tug of war and sack races are safe.
It makes Colorado’s problems with mountain boarding look minor.
Response
The overall effect is the state is saying we can do a better job of protecting your kids then you can, so you don’t have to. Instead of investigating whether the place you are dropping off your kid is well staffed, has a medical plan and is registered, we are doing that for you. Instead of finding out if the place is a disaster and a pit, we will do that for you.
Of course the state won’t, and kids will get hurt and parents will scream and the people who tried to get around the law will get away with the money.
See Classic kids games like kickball deemed unsafe by state in effort to increase summer camp regulation
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com
Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #summer camp, #New York #NY, #kids, #games, #kickball, #summer, #day care, #,
Technorati Tags: laws,Personal,article,Classic,effort,regulation,helmet,York,registration,Freeze,Wiffle,Ball,Kickball,Rover,Dodgeball,Capture,Flag,Steal,Bacon,Frisbee,Colorado,mountain,Response,Instead,disaster,parents,money,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
Windows Live Tags: laws,Personal,article,Classic,effort,regulation,helmet,York,registration,Freeze,Wiffle,Ball,Kickball,Rover,Dodgeball,Capture,Flag,Steal,Bacon,Frisbee,Colorado,mountain,Response,Instead,disaster,parents,money,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
WordPress Tags: laws,Personal,article,Classic,effort,regulation,helmet,York,registration,Freeze,Wiffle,Ball,Kickball,Rover,Dodgeball,Capture,Flag,Steal,Bacon,Frisbee,Colorado,mountain,Response,Instead,disaster,parents,money,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
Blogger Labels: laws,Personal,article,Classic,effort,regulation,helmet,York,registration,Freeze,Wiffle,Ball,Kickball,Rover,Dodgeball,Capture,Flag,Steal,Bacon,Frisbee,Colorado,mountain,Response,Instead,disaster,parents,money,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
If you have an accident or injury you are closed down!
Posted: June 8, 2011 Filed under: Summer Camp Leave a commentYou beat the government bureaucrat, and they get mad and basically promise to get back at you.
Remember the article I wrote about the State of Colorado trying to tell a camp, they could not mountainboard? Supreme Court says if Parents OK it kids can do it, except in Colorado were bureaucrats know more than parents or the rest of us! Well, the state has gone ahead and allowed the camp to have mountainboarding with a few caveats.
First some history: The State of Colorado said mountainboarding was too dangerous of an activity for kids. The state used pictures of mountain boarding on its tourism website and promoted the activity to tourists, but it was too dangerous for kids.
Educo Leadership Adventures appealed against the ruling and got it overturned. The letter granting him the right to mountain board stated that he would lose that right if he had any injuries due to negligence or lack of supervision. If an injury occurs the permission would be withdrawn.
The entire letter is below.
Now, first of all, how is the state going to determine if something was unsupervised let alone negligent?
However, here is the kicker.
The bureaucrat responsible for this operation told my friend verbally that “if they had any accidents or injuries” the letter allowing mountainboarding would be revoked. That is a major difference from the letter. The letter says one thing, but you are verbally threatened with another. This act reminds me of the mob as portrayed in movies. You and the mobster are smiling for the camera, but there is a gun in the back of your head.
As Brian, of Educo said “That said, if that same logic applied to tag or basketball or even lanyards and kumbayah, no camp in the country would have any activity left to do!”
An angry bureaucrat wants to run your life and everyone else’s, so when they lose, they threaten you.
Response
It was always amazing how IRS audits would change when a tape recorder was on the table. Digital recorders are cheap and most smartphones have a recording feature. In many states only one person of the two on the phone has to know the call is being recorded. Several stores offer gadgets to allow your phone calls on land lines to be recorded.
When dealing with the state in this situation, record the conversations.
Scary when we have to resort to this type of activity, but this bureaucrat needs fired. The state’s position is in the letter. This article will document the bureaucrat’s actions and hopefully protect the camp.
I have to applaud the state for listening to Brian Sense and Educo Leadership Adventures and allowing mountain boarding. However, any good that has been accomplished is tainted by the petty acts of the bureaucrat involved.
I’m starting to sound like an anti-government person, even scares me.
So protect yourself from people who want to sue you and those who want to make you kids play in bubblewrap!
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com
Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #mountainboarding, #mountain board, #camp, #summer camp, #Colorado, #Educo Leadership Adventures,
Technorati Tags: accident,injury,government,bureaucrat,Remember,article,State,Colorado,Supreme,Court,Parents,bureaucrats,caveats,history,mountain,tourism,tourists,Educo,Leadership,Adventures,letter,injuries,negligence,supervision,permission,friend,accidents,difference,movies,mobster,Brian,logic,lanyards,life,Response,recorder,Digital,recorders,person,Several,gadgets,situation,conversations,Scary,resort,Sense,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,management,Human,youth,areas
Windows Live Tags: accident,injury,government,bureaucrat,Remember,article,State,Colorado,Supreme,Court,Parents,bureaucrats,caveats,history,mountain,tourism,tourists,Educo,Leadership,Adventures,letter,injuries,negligence,supervision,permission,friend,accidents,difference,movies,mobster,Brian,logic,lanyards,life,Response,recorder,Digital,recorders,person,Several,gadgets,situation,conversations,Scary,resort,Sense,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,management,Human,youth,areas
WordPress Tags: accident,injury,government,bureaucrat,Remember,article,State,Colorado,Supreme,Court,Parents,bureaucrats,caveats,history,mountain,tourism,tourists,Educo,Leadership,Adventures,letter,injuries,negligence,supervision,permission,friend,accidents,difference,movies,mobster,Brian,logic,lanyards,life,Response,recorder,Digital,recorders,person,Several,gadgets,situation,conversations,Scary,resort,Sense,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,management,Human,youth,areas
Blogger Labels: accident,injury,government,bureaucrat,Remember,article,State,Colorado,Supreme,Court,Parents,bureaucrats,caveats,history,mountain,tourism,tourists,Educo,Leadership,Adventures,letter,injuries,negligence,supervision,permission,friend,accidents,difference,movies,mobster,Brian,logic,lanyards,life,Response,recorder,Digital,recorders,person,Several,gadgets,situation,conversations,Scary,resort,Sense,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,management,Human,youth,areas
Summer camp supervision issues are always part of any lawsuit and tough to determine in New York.
Posted: May 2, 2011 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Summer Camp | Tags: Adventure travel, Child, JimMoss, Minor, New York, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Prank, Rock climbing, Ropes course, Summer Camp Leave a commentKosok v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, 24 A.D.2d 113; 264 N.Y.S.2d 123; 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042
As long as there was no notice of a problem and no rule of the camp or standard for the camp, assumption of the risk is a valid defense against minors claim.
New York had dozens of decisions concerning lawsuits by injured campers. It is going to take months to figure out if there is any discernable rule or idea on how to run a camp in New York. This decision is a start.
At this camp groups of boys were divided into cabins by age groups. After lunch “camp regulations” required a rest period. Younger campers had to rest on their beds; older boys were just required to do sedentary activities. (Why you don’t want to wear out kids, by the time they go to bed at camp is beyond me?)
During one of the rest periods, a group of boys threaded a fishing line over a rafter and attached a galvanized bucket to it. When someone would walk underneath the bucket, they would lower it where it would hit the unsuspecting camper making a pop. After another camper had the prank played on them the plaintiff was enticed into the cabin where the bucket was dropped. The plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries.
The plaintiff sued the camp and the two boys involved in the prank. The two boys were dismissed from the lawsuit by the trial court. The plaintiff sued for “improper supervision and a failure to provide proper medical care after the accident.” The case went to trial and the jury found for the plaintiff on the supervision claim and for the defendant camp for the medical care claim. The camp appealed.
This decision has great quotes, which have been quoted in numerous other New York decisions, and then, to some extent, seems to be ignored. However, the court found that boys at camp have fun.
Summer camp, it will be seen that constant supervision is not feasible.
[constant supervision] Nor is it desirable. One of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which on overly protective supervision would destroy.
A certain amount of horseplay is almost always to be found in gatherings of young people, and is generally associated with children’s camps. It is only to be discouraged when it becomes dangerous. Nothing in the incident itself or the surrounding circumstances indicates any notice to defendant that such was likely to result here.
The court did find that the standard of care for a camp was that of a reasonable prudent parent. That standard though varies with the age of the child.
The court held the jury verdict should be reversed, and the case dismissed because the court found no negligence on the part of the defendant.
So?
This case is 52 years old. It is a still relevant law in New York. However, I believe that based on other New York decisions and the standard of care for campers in New York has changed. Many decisions quote the language of this case, and then find a difference in the facts to hold the camp liable.
So Now What?
To work within the boundaries of these and other cases the best result would be to inform parents and campers of the risk. Pictures, videos, brochures and the website are a start. Have the parents and campers to acknowledge that there is horseplay when kids get together and have them acknowledge the kids get hurt.
This should be in a written document that refers to the website as the source of more information or even better information they have reviewed. An assumption of the risk form for the minors and a release for the parents should do more than just have the simple legal language of a release. Each document, or the same document, if written correctly, should identify the activities the minors will be engaging in and the possible risks for all of those activities.
When you are creating your website, don’t be afraid to show kids being unsuccessful as well as successful. Kids fall while playing sports, kids get tagged out running bases and canoes tip over throwing kids in the water. Follow the old Clint Eastwood movie; show the good and the bad, maybe the ugly.
A scrape on a camper is a good way to show parents that you have a medical team on hand. It also lets parents realize that kids are outdoors, having fun and probably getting hurt.
The more you can prove you informed the parents and the campers of the risks the greater your chances at success in keeping everyone happy and out of court.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com
Kosok v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, 24 A.D.2d 113; 264 N.Y.S.2d 123; 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042
Posted: May 2, 2011 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Summer Camp Leave a commentKosok v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, 24 A.D.2d 113; 264 N.Y.S.2d 123; 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042
Karl Kosok, an Infant, by Rose W. Otto, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, Appellant, and John Peterson et al., Respondents
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
24 A.D.2d 113; 264 N.Y.S.2d 123; 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042
November 9, 1965
COUNSEL: John Nielsen of counsel (Thomas O. Perrell with him on the brief; Perrell, Nielsen & Stephens, attorneys), for appellant.
Michael M. Matis of counsel (Winnie & Matis, attorneys), for Karl Kosok and another, respondents.
James M. McLaughlin, Jr., of counsel (Terhune, Gibbons & Mulvehill, attorneys), for Richard Jones, respondent.
JUDGES: Steuer, J. Rabin, J. P., Stevens and Staley, JJ., concur.
OPINION BY: STEUER
OPINION
[*114] [**124] The defendant operated a Summer camp for boys in Orange County, New York. About 200 boys were accommodated at a time. The supervisory staff consisted of some 43 counsellors (33 being in attendance at any one time) who were in turn supervised by four unit directors. The camp was physically divided into units, each unit consisting of a group of cabins with accessory buildings. Each cabin accommodated seven boys and a counsellor. The boys were divided into age groups — there were two [***4] groups of younger boys, ranging up from 11 years, and two of older boys, ranging down from 15 1/2. Each group occupied a unit.
The camp regulations provided for a rest period after the midday meal. For the younger boys this consisted of bed rest. For the older boys this was not required, sedentary activity being allowed. The cabin counsellor enforced the regulation. As far as the older boys were concerned, his presence in the cabin was neither essential nor required, and such counsellors frequently stayed on the cabin porch or elsewhere in the vicinity.
On August 15, 1957, an accident occurred during this rest period in Cabin 28, occupied by boys of the older group, all being about 15 years of age. One of these boys had a fishing rod. Some one or more of the boys passed the line attached to this rod over a rafter and tied a galvanized pail to the end of the line. The pail would be hoisted up toward the roof of the cabin. Any boy passing by would be called into the cabin and when he came under the spot where the pail was suspended, one of the boys let out the line and the pail would descend. When it struck the victim’s head, the thin concave bottom of the pail would give [***5] forth a popping sound, which would startle or frighten the boy struck and amuse the perpetrators. This prank had been played on another boy some five minutes or so before the plaintiff, a younger boy, passed by. He was called [*115] in. He was suspicious of some trick, but finally went into the [**125] cabin. The pail was lowered, struck him, and caused the injury complained of.
Plaintiff brought action against the defendant and two of the boys involved in playing the prank. The jury found in favor of the boys and against the defendant. The defendant cross-claimed against these boys, and those claims were dismissed by the court. The plaintiff sought recovery against the defendant on two grounds — improper supervision and a failure to provide proper medical care after the accident. The court had the jury specify whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover on either ground. The jury found for the plaintiff on the first ground and for the defendant on the second.
We fail to find any negligence on the part of the defendant. The only suggested negligence is an alleged failure to supervise the activities of the boys in Cabin 28. It is not claimed that any breach [***6] of duty resulted from a failure to provide protection to the plaintiff in his walk through the unit. Remembering that this is [HN1] a Summer camp, it will be seen that constant supervision is not feasible ( Weinstein v. Tunis Lake Props., 15 Misc 2d 432, affd. sub nom. Derwin v. Tunis Lake Props., 9 A D 2d 960). Nor is it desirable. One of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which on overly protective supervision would destroy. Of course, the situation is different where very young children are involved ( Heim v. Mitchell-Harlee Camps, 262 N. Y. 523). The standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent parent ( Hoose v. Drumm, 281 N. Y. 54), and this naturally varies with the age of the child (see Weitzen v. Camp Mooween, 163 Misc. 312).
Here the sole charge of negligence is a failure to supervise the rest period of boys of high-school age for a short period. Assuming that the boys were reasonably quiet — and there is no indication that they were not — no occasion for looking in on them was presented. Even if the cabin counslor had been within earshot of the cabin, it is difficult to see how the [***7] accident would have been prevented. Without such a showing, any failure in regard to supervision is not actionable ( Ohman v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 300 N. Y. 306).
A certain amount of horseplay is almost always to be found in gatherings of young people, and is generally associated with children’s camps. It is only to be discouraged when it becomes dangerous. Nothing in the incident itself or the surrounding circumstances indicates any notice to defendant that such was likely to result here.
[*116] Judgment should be reversed on the law and the facts and the complaint dismissed, with costs and disbursements.
Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $ 50 costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed.
Hamill v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495
Posted: April 18, 2011 Filed under: Colorado, Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Summer Camp | Tags: Cheley Camps, Equine Activities, horseback riding, Release, Star Wars, Summer Camp Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see: Release stops suit for falling off horse at Colorado summer Camp.
Hamill v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495
Chelsea E. Hamill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. 10CA0138
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495
March 31, 2011, Decided
NOTICE:
THIS OPINION IS NOT THE FINAL VERSION AND SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON FINAL PUBLICATION
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
City and County of Denver District Court No. 08CV6587. Honorable Herbert L. Stern, III, Judge.
DISPOSITION: JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
COUNSEL: Roberts, Levin, Rosenberg, PC, Ross B.H. Buchanan, Bradley A. Levin, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
White and Steele, P.C., John M. Lesback, John P. Craver, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.
JUDGES: Opinion by JUDGE FOX. Casebolt and Loeb, JJ., concur.
OPINION BY: FOX
OPINION
Plaintiff, Chelsea E. Hamill (Hamill), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc. (Cheley). We affirm the judgment.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Hamill attended summer camp at Cheley in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Before attending camp each summer, Hamill and her parents signed a Liability/Risk Form (the agreement).
In July 2004, when Hamill was fifteen years old, she fell off a Cheley horse and broke her arm. Hamill sued Cheley for negligence and gross negligence, arguing that a Cheley wrangler had inappropriately saddled the horse she rode. The district court granted Cheley’s motion for summary judgment on the two negligence claims, ruling that although Hamill was a minor, the agreement barred her claims and that there was no gross negligence as a matter [*2] of law. 1
1 In addition, the district court determined that whether a saddle can slip due to negligence, or because of animal behavior, presented issues of fact under section 13-21-119, C.R.S. 2010, the equine immunity act. Because of its ruling on the agreement, however, the court also ruled that the equine act claim need not be submitted to a jury.
Hamill appeals the district court’s judgment, claiming that because she was a minor and her mother did not make an informed decision, the agreement did not extinguish her negligence claims and that disputed material facts preclude the grant of summary judgment on her gross negligence claim. We disagree and therefore affirm the judgment.
II. Standard of Review
[HN1] Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits confirm that no genuine issue of material fact exists and judgment should be entered as a matter of law. C.R.C.P. 56(c); Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 373 (Colo. 1981). When asked to grant summary judgment, the district court “must resolve all doubts as to whether an issue of fact exists against the moving party.” Jones, 623 P.2d at 373. [HN2] We review a summary judgment [*3] ruling de novo. Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251, 1256 (Colo. 1995).
Exculpatory agreements are construed strictly against the party seeking to limit its liability. Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 784 (Colo. 1989). However, the validity of such waivers is a question of law, which we review de novo. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376; Stanley v. Creighton Co., 911 P.2d 705, 707 (Colo. App. 1996).
III. Parental Consent to Exculpatory Agreements Affecting Minors
Hamill argues that the exculpatory clauses in the agreement do not bar her negligence claims. She reasons that the agreement is invalid under the four-part test articulated in Jones, 623 P.2d at 376, and that her mother did not make an informed decision under section 13-22-107, C.R.S. 2010, to release her prospective negligence claims. This statute states that [HN3] “[s]o long as [a parent’s] decision [to waive the child’s claims] is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education.” § 13-22-107(1)(a)(V), C.R.S. 2010 (emphasis added).
We disagree with Hamill’s position.
The agreement, and [*4] our interpretation of section 13-22-107(1)(a)(V), direct our decision.
The release language in the agreement states:
Release, Waiver of Liability and Indemnification
I, on behalf of myself and my child, hereby release and waive any claim of liability against Cheley . . . with respect to any injury . . . occurring to my child while he/she participates in any and all camp programs and activities.
I hereby agree to indemnify and hold harmless Cheley . . . with respect to any claim asserted by or on behalf of my child as a result of injury . . . .
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS DOCUMENT.
(Emphasis by italics added.)
Another section of the agreement, labeled “Acknowledgment & Assumption of Risks and Waiver of Claims for Minors,” states:
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING. THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES A RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND WAIVER OF CERTAIN LEGAL RIGHTS.
. . . .
Acknowledgment of Risks
I understand there are numerous risks associated with participation in any camping activities, including . . . horseback riding . . . . Many, but not all of these risks are inherent in these and other activities. . . .
Equipment used in the activity may break, fail or [*5] malfunction, despite reasonable maintenance and use. Some of the equipment used in activities may inflict injuries even when used as intended. Persons using equipment may lose control of such equipment and cause injury to themselves and to others.
. . . .
Counselors and guides use their best judgment in determining how to react to circumstances including . . . animal character . . . . The counselors and guides may misjudge such circumstances, an individual’s capabilities and the like.
. . . .
These are some, but not all, of the risks inherent in camping activities; a complete listing of inherent and other risks is not possible. There are also risks which cannot be anticipated.
I give my permission for my child to participate in all camp activities, including those described above. I acknowledge and assume the risks involved in these activities, and for any damages, illness, injury or death . . . resulting from such risks for myself and my child.
(Emphasis by italics added.)
Before deciding whether the agreement adequately “informed” Hamill’s mother under section 13-22-107 regarding prospective negligence claims, we first address the validity of the agreement.
A. Validity of an Exculpatory [*6] Agreement Under Jones
[HN4] We analyze the validity of an exculpatory agreement, including those involving a minor child, by examining four factors: (1) the existence of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 136 (Colo. 1998) (citing Jones, 623 P.2d at 376).
1. First and Second Jones Factors: Duty and Nature of the Services
[HN5] The first Jones factor requires that we determine whether a duty to the public existed in the instant case. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376. Our supreme court has held that businesses engaged in recreational activities that are not practically necessary, such as equine activities, do not perform services implicating a public duty. Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465, 469 (Colo. 2004).
[HN6] The second Jones factor examines the nature of the service performed. Jones, 623 P.2d at 376. Here, Cheley provided recreational camping services, including horseback riding. The services were “not a matter of practical necessity for even some members of the public,” because horseback [*7] riding is not “an essential service.” Jones, 623 P.2d at 377-78; see also Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467; Day v. Snowmass Stables, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 289, 294 (D. Colo. 1993) (recreational equine services offered by the stable were not essential); cf. Stanley, 911 P.2d 705 (residential lease was matter of public interest, and exculpatory clause was void). The General Assembly’s enactment of section 13-21-119, C.R.S. 2010, limiting the civil liability of those involved in equine activities, underscores the fact that horseback riding is a matter of choice rather than necessity. Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467-68.
2. Third Jones Factor: Fairness
[HN7] A contract is fairly entered into if one party is not so obviously disadvantaged with respect to bargaining power that the resulting contract essentially places him at the mercy of the other party’s negligence. Heil Valley Ranch, Inc., 784 P.2d at 784; accord Mincin v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 308 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 2002) (the second and third prongs of Jones inquire into the respective bargaining power of each party created by the “practical necessity” of the activity). Because horseback riding is not an essential activity, Hamill’s mother was not “at [*8] the mercy” of Cheley’s negligence when signing the agreement. See Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 469; see also Mincin, 308 F.3d at 1111 (because mountain biking was not an essential activity, no inferior bargaining power was identified); Day, 810 F. Supp. at 294 (defendants did not enjoy an unfair bargaining advantage in offering equine services).
By her own admission, Hamill’s mother voluntarily chose to sign the agreement expressly giving permission for Hamill to participate in horseback riding activities. Cf. Wycoff v. Grace Community Church, P.3d, (Colo. App. Nos. 09CA1151, 09CA1200 & 09CA1222, Dec. 9, 2010) (a waiver was insufficient to allow parents to assess the degree of risk involved and extent of possible injuries because it did not describe the activity that resulted in injury).
[HN8] In assessing fairness, courts may also examine whether the services provided could have been obtained elsewhere. See Jones, 623 P.2d at 375 (that a contract is offered on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis does not, by itself, cause it to be an adhesion contract). The availability of other camps and other providers of horseback riding excursions is highlighted by Hamill’s mother’s deposition testimony [*9] that Hamill previously attended other camps. The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the agreement was entered into fairly.
3. Fourth Jones Factor: Intention of the Parties
Next, Hamill contends that the parties’ intention was not clearly stated in the agreement. Her claim that she only intended to release claims for “things that Cheley would have no control over” does not create a fact issue and is contradicted by the record.
[HN9] In reviewing a contract, we must enforce the plain meaning of the contract terms. USI Properties East, Inc. v. Simpson, 938 P.2d 168, 172 (Colo. 1997); B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 136. We must also determine whether its terms are ambiguous, that is, susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation. B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 136. The parties’ disagreement over the meaning does not in and of itself create an ambiguity in the contract. Kuta v. Joint Dist. No. 50(J), 799 P.2d 379, 382 (Colo. 1990).
The language of the agreement here is unambiguous, and we give effect to its plain meaning. USI Properties East, Inc., 938 P.2d at 172; Kuta, 799 P.2d at 382 [HN10] (courts establish the meaning of a contract by examining the entire instrument as [*10] a whole, and not by viewing clauses or phrases in isolation).
Decisions of our supreme court also guide our examination of whether exculpatory agreements clearly evidence the parties’ intention. The Colorado Supreme Court enforced exculpatory agreements in B & B Livery, Inc. and Chadwick, which were similar to the agreement here, concluding that they clearly expressed the parties’ intent.
In B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d 134, the plaintiff sued B & B to recover for injuries sustained when she fell from a rented horse. The plaintiff signed an exculpatory agreement containing the equine act’s mandatory release language warning that an equine professional is not liable for injury or death resulting from inherent risks of equine activities. See § 13-21-119(5)(b), C.R.S. 2010. The release also contained broad exculpatory language, releasing the company from “any liability in the event of any injury or damage of any nature (or perhaps even death) to [her] or anyone else caused by [her] electing to mount and then ride a horse owned or operated by B & B Livery, Inc.” B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 135.
The plaintiff argued that the inclusion of this broad language created an ambiguity. Id. The [*11] supreme court disagreed, ruling that the agreement was written in simple and clear terms, it was not inordinately long, and the plaintiff admitted that she “really didn’t read” the release before she signed it, but was aware she was signing a release. Id. at 138 n.5. The supreme court held, based on the language of the agreement, “while we cannot be certain that if . . . [the plaintiff] had read and studied the agreement she would have signed it, there can be no dispute she intended to grant a general release to B & B.” Id. at 138.
In Chadwick, 100 P.3d 465, a participant in a back-country hunting trip sued the organizers of the trip when he was thrown off a mule and injured. Along with the equine act’s release language, the release also contained a “RELEASE FROM ANY LEGAL LIABILTY . . . for any injury or death caused by or resulting from [his] participation in the activities.” 100 P.3d at 468. In upholding the exculpatory agreement, the supreme court held that, while the agreement did not specifically include the word “negligence,” it nonetheless barred the plaintiff’s negligence claims. Id. The court reasoned that the release (1) was not inordinately long; (2) did not contain legal [*12] jargon; and (3) included the statutory release for inherent risks, but also included language releasing the defendant from “any legal liability.” Id. Therefore, the supreme court held the exculpatory language “cannot reasonably be understood as expressing anything other than an intent to release from ‘any’ liability for injuries ’caused by or resulting from'” the plaintiff’s participation in the activity. Id.
[HN11] In accordance with the public policy stated in section 13-21-119(4)(b), C.R.S. 2010, the supreme court held that parties may contract to release activity sponsors “even from negligent conduct, as long as the intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the contract.” Id.; see B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 138.
As in Chadwick and B & B Livery, Inc., the agreement here is not inordinately long — three and a half pages. The legal jargon is minimal. Along with the statutory release language of section 13-21-119(5)(b), the agreement identifies many risks associated with camping activities, including horseback riding. The agreement, like that in Chadwick, broadly states an intent to release claims of liability for “any injury,” and like that in B & B Livery, Inc., it includes all degrees [*13] of potential injury, including the “death” of the participant. Hamill and both of her parents signed the agreement on April 27, 2004. Indeed, they also signed agreements containing the same language each of the two previous years.
The agreement covers “inherent and other risks,” noting that “[m]any, but not all, of these risks are inherent,” and stating that it is impossible to delineate a full list of risks, inherent or otherwise. Finally, the agreement repeatedly states that, by signing, Hamill’s mother agreed to release prospective claims against Cheley for “any legal liability,” “any injury,” and “any claim.” (Emphasis added by italics.) The agreement sufficiently placed Hamill’s mother on notice that the “[e]quipment used . . . may break, fail or malfunction” and that “counselors . . . may misjudge . . . circumstances.” The breadth of the release persuades us that the parties intended to disclaim legal liability for negligence claims. Indeed, misjudging a situation can amount to negligence. See Heil Valley Ranch, Inc., 784 P.2d at 781-82 [HN12] (valid exculpatory agreement need not invariably contain the word “negligence”).
To hold, as Hamill now argues, that the release did not provide [*14] greater protection than the release from liability of inherent risks provided by the equine act, section 13-21-119, would render large portions of the agreement meaningless. Heil Valley Ranch, Inc., 784 P.2d at 785 [HN13] (it is unreasonable to interpret an exculpatory agreement for an equine provider in such a way as to provide virtually no protection for the provider and render the release essentially meaningless); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 469 (interpreting release provisions to be contingent upon satisfactory fulfillment by the provider of contractual obligations would render the release essentially meaningless). An agreement with such plain and unambiguous terms will not fail because one of the parties, in hindsight, now claims to have misunderstood the scope of that agreement — to govern only conduct outside of Cheley’s control — based on ambiguities not readily apparent within the four corners of the agreement.
Because the agreement did not implicate a public duty, did not involve an essential service, was fairly entered into, and it plainly expressed the intent to release prospective negligence claims, we hold that the agreement is valid.
B. Informed Consent Under Section 13-22-107
We next [*15] examine Hamill’s claim that her mother’s consent to release prospective negligence claims was not “informed,” as required by section 13-22-107, because she did not understand the scope of the agreement.
In 2002, the Colorado Supreme Court held that it was against public policy for parents to prospectively waive liability on behalf of minor children. Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002). The following year, the General Assembly superseded Cooper by enacting [HN14] section 13-22-107(3), C.R.S. 2010, which allows parents to “release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence.” The statute declares “that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions on behalf of their children, including deciding whether the children should participate in risky activities.” Wycoff , P.3d at , 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832 at *5; see § 13-22-107(1)(a)(I)-(V). The statute states that “[s]o long as the [parent’s] decision is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education.” § 13-22-107(1)(a)(V) (emphasis added). However, the statute does not allow a parent to waive a child’s prospective claim for “willful and wanton, [*16] . . . reckless, . . . [or] grossly negligent” acts or omissions. § 13-22-107(4), C.R.S. 2010; Wycoff, P.3d at , 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832 at *6.
Relying on the “informed” language of the statute, Hamill asserts that Cheley’s failure to identify the possibility that she might fall from a horse in the manner she did invalidates her mother’s consent.
We assume that the General Assembly was aware of the Jones test when it enacted section 13-22-107(1)(a)(V), Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 408 (Colo. 1997), but required something more for the waiver of a minor’s prospective negligence claims. Wycoff, P.3d at , 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832 at *46 (concluding that the statutory requirement to “inform” parents under section 13-22-107(1)(a)(V), requires something more than meeting the Jones factors). The General Assembly required that the consent to waiver by a parent be “voluntary and informed.” Wycoff, P.3d at , 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832 at *6; Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo. 2004); Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc., 223 P.3d 724, 725 (Colo. 2010) (noting that the supreme court invalidated an exculpatory agreement without regard to the Jones factors in Cooper, 48 P.3d at 1236). 2 A parent’s decision is informed when the parent has sufficient information to assess [*17] the potential degree of risks involved, and the extent of possible injury. Wycoff, P.3d at , 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832 at *11; see also Black’s Law Dictionary 346 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “informed consent” as “agreement to allow something to happen, made with full knowledge of the risks involved and the alternatives”).
2 In Boles, our supreme court addressed the effectiveness of exculpatory agreements with regard to strict products liability. The supreme court cited Cooper for the proposition that the court may invalidate such agreements based on public policy considerations, without regard to the Jones test. However, we do not read Boles as invalidating the Jones test.
In Wycoff, a minor was injured while being pulled behind an ATV on an inner tube over a frozen lake. The mother did not know her child would engage in the activity. The exculpatory agreement the mother signed in advance made no reference to the activity. Wycoff, P.3d at , 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832 at *10. Thus, the mother was unable to assess the risks, or the degree of possible injury, before signing the release. Id. Accordingly, a majority of the division in Wycoff found that release legally insufficient to bar the daughter’s personal injury claims. Id. The instant case [*18] is unlike Wycoff.
1. Degree of Risk
In contrast to Wycoff, the undisputed facts in the record show that Hamill’s mother knew the activities Cheley offered. Hamill had attended Cheley and ridden the camp horses for two years before the accident. The agreement clearly indicated that horseback riding was an activity available to campers. The agreement described many of the risks associated with horseback riding at camp, and notified Hamill’s mother that it was impossible to list all risks. See, e.g., Mallett v. Pirkey, 171 Colo. 271, 285, 466 P.2d 466, 473 (1970) (recognizing that while it is impossible for a physician to advise a patient of all conceivable risks, disclosure of substantial medical risks associated with surgical decision yields valid informed consent).
The agreement included language that informed Hamill’s mother that the equipment used by Cheley could fail and that the wranglers might “misjudge” situations. Both of these possibilities envision forms of negligence. As discussed above, the agreement itself directly contradicts Hamill’s mother’s objectively unreasonable interpretation of the contract that prospective negligence claims were not waived. See Crum v. April Corp., 62 P.3d 1039, 1041 (Colo. App. 2002) [*19] [HN15] (contracts generally will be interpreted to impose objectively reasonable standards, unless the contract involves matters of fancy or taste).
Hamill’s mother testified at her deposition that she voluntarily signed the release after having “skimmed” it. She had signed the same agreement in 2002 and 2003 and agreed that, by signing the waiver, she understood that she was accepting certain risks of injury to her child. See Rasmussen v. Freehling, 159 Colo. 414, 417, 412 P.2d 217, 219 (1966) [HN16] (if a person signs a contract without reading it, she is barred from claiming she is not bound by what it says); Day, 810 F. Supp. at 294 (a party signing a contract without reading it cannot deny knowledge of its contents, and is bound by what it says). She never contacted Cheley to discuss the release form, and had no questions about the language of the release form when she signed it. Hamill’s mother further agreed that “when you sign a document, you understand you’re agreeing to the terms in that document.” See B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 141 (plaintiff admitted she had signed other releases in the past and was familiar with the fact that some activities required releases). Hamill’s mother admitted [*20] that the first time she had read through the agreement “thoroughly” was in her attorney’s office on June 2, 2009, well after the accident. Hamill’s mother’s signature communicated to Cheley that she had read and understood the terms of the contract and agreed to be bound by them.
That Hamill’s mother may not have contemplated the precise mechanics of her daughter’s fall does not invalidate the release and does not create a genuine issue of material fact. She knew her daughter would be riding horses and she was advised that there were risks, known and unknown, associated with the activity. Indeed, Hamill’s mother acknowledged in her deposition testimony that when horseback riding, there is “a risk of a child being thrown or falling off a horse.” Hamill’s argument that her mother did not give informed consent, despite her signature on the agreement and the language in the agreement indicating the contrary, is not persuasive and does not create a genuine issue of material fact. As a matter of law, the agreement sufficiently informed Hamill’s mother about the risks involved in horseback riding.
2. Extent of Injury
The broad release language in the agreement waiving “any claims of liability,” [*21] for “any injury,” even “death,” evidences that Hamill’s mother was informed that she was waving Hamill’s prospective claims, including negligence, and had sufficient information to assess the extent of possible injuries to Hamill. At her deposition, Hamill’s mother testified as follows:
Attorney: And, you know, you knew that someone such as Christopher Reeve had been tragically injured falling off a horse?
Ms. Hamill: Yes.
Attorney: Did you personally know Mr. Reeve?
Ms. Hamill: Yes.
Attorney: And so you were aware that there were significant risks associated with horseback riding?
Ms. Hamill: Yes.
Attorney: And you were aware that your daughter was going to be doing a significant amount of horseback riding?
Ms. Hamill: Yes.
The agreement did not need to include an exhaustive list of particularized injury scenarios to be effective.
Our review of the entire record leads us to conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Hamill’s mother had more than sufficient information to allow her to assess the extent of injury possible in horseback riding, and to make an “informed” decision before signing the release. See Black’s Law Dictionary 346 (definition of informed consent).
We conclude [*22] that the agreement adequately disclosed the extent of potential injuries. Moreover, because the agreement was fairly entered into and the language clearly and unambiguously presents no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hamill’s mother was informed of the agreement’s intent to release “all claims,” including prospective negligence claims, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Cheley.
IV. Public Policy
Hamill next argues that public policy considerations render the agreement invalid. According to Hamill, the General Assembly’s post-Cooper enactment of section 13-22-107 is in derogation of the common law, and, as such, the agreement must be strictly construed against Cheley. While we construe the agreement against Cheley because it is the party seeking to limit its liability, Heil Valley Ranch, 784 P.2d at 784, we cannot invalidate the agreement for public policy reasons.
[HN17] The General Assembly is the branch of government charged with implementing public policies. Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 553 (Colo. 1997). The judiciary’s role is to recognize and enforce such implementation. Id. By enacting section 13-22-107(1)(b), [*23] the General Assembly expressly superseded Cooper, 48 P.3d 1229, and empowered parents to weigh the risks and benefits of their children’s activities. Appellate courts have a fundamental responsibility to “interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to the General Assembly’s intent in enacting that particular statute.” Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504, 508 (Colo. 2003); accord People v. Luther, 58 P.3d 1013, 1015 (Colo. 2002). The General Assembly has the authority to abrogate the common law, as it did in enacting section 13-22-107(1)(b), which directly superseded Cooper, 48 P.3d 1229. See Vaughan, 945 P.2d at 408 (if the legislature wishes to abrogate rights otherwise available under the common law, it must manifest its intent either expressly or by clear implication).
The governing statute promotes children’s involvement in horseback riding and approves the informed release of prospective negligence claims. Thus, Hamill’s public policy argument is unavailing.
V. Gross Negligence
Finally, Hamill contends genuine issues of material fact exist regarding her gross negligence claim. We disagree.
Both parties concede that [HN18] exculpatory agreements are not a bar to civil liability for gross negligence. [*24] Jones, 623 P.2d at 376; Forman v. Brown, 944 P.2d 559, 564 (Colo. App. 1996). Gross negligence is willful and wanton conduct, that is, action committed recklessly, with conscious disregard for the safety of others. Forman, 944 P.2d at 564. Whether a defendant’s conduct is purposeful or reckless is ordinarily a question of fact; however, “if the record is devoid of sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue, then the question may be resolved by the court as a matter of law.” Id.
The record shows that a Cheley wrangler checked Hamill’s saddle two to three times before the ride. Hamill’s deposition testimony indicates that a wrangler assisted in saddling her horse. Consistent with Cheley’s standard procedure, the wrangler checked the saddle again before giving the camper permission to mount the horse. Hamill testified at deposition that once she was mounted, a Cheley wrangler asked her to dismount so the wrangler could, again, adjust the saddle and stirrups. Thus, the uncontradicted deposition testimony is that the saddle was properly cinched when the ride started and that the wranglers exercised care in making sure it was done appropriately. A Cheley wrangler on foot then led the riders [*25] on a path toward a riding ring while another wrangler followed. The wrangler leading the group stopped to check for traffic before allowing the campers and their horses to walk across the road to the ring. Hamill rode approximately 100 yards from where her saddle was last checked before she fell off the horse.
While Hamill asserts that the shape of the horse and its claimed propensity to bloat its stomach made saddle slippage more likely, she did not demonstrate that, before her accident, simply tightening the girth would not address the issue. There is no evidence that Cheley’s wrangler was “willfully” incompetent, purposefully caused the saddle to slip, or recklessly disregarded the appropriate way to tack the horse. Hamill’s mother testified that she thought “Cheley has the utmost care in what they do, but mistakes happen.” Under these circumstances, we perceive no genuine issue of material fact. Hence, the district court was correct in dismissing the gross negligence claim on summary judgment. 3
3 Because we find that the agreement barred Hamill’s negligence claims, we do not need to address, as the district court did, whether saddle slippage is an inherent risk of horseback riding [*26] that implicates the equine act.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE CASEBOLT and JUDGE LOEB concur.
Wrong release for the activity almost sinks YMCA
Posted: March 14, 2011 Filed under: California, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Summer Camp | Tags: Adventure travel, Baseball Bat, Child, Day Camp, James H. Moss, JimMoss, Minor, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Rock climbing, YMCA 1 CommentA release must apply to the activity and the person who you want to make sure cannot sue you.
McGowan et al v. West End YMCA, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3018
Image via Wikipedia
In this case, a mother signed her son up to attend a day camp sponsored by the YMCA. While attending the day camp, the child was accidentally hit in the head by another child with a baseball bat. The mother sued for the child’s injuries.
The YMCA argued that the mother had signed a release, and therefore, the YMCA should be dismissed. The mother argued that the release only applied to her, not her child because the release was unclear as to who was being released in the document. (The mother argued the release was required for her to walk around the YMCA to sign her son up for the camp.)
In this case, the YMCA used its general release for people on the premises of the YMCA as a fitness facility, for its day camp. The release did not indicate a parent would be signing for the child nor did the release look to the issues the child would encounter, only an adult using the YMCA or any other gym.
The mother argued because the release did not identify her son, the injured party, as who the release applied to the release only applied to her while she was on the premises. Nothing in the document indicated that the mother was signing a release on behalf of her son.
Like most releases used in gyms and fitness centers it is written for the adult signing up to use the gym.
Under the law, “An agreement exculpating the drafter from liability for his or her own future negligence must clearly and explicitly express that this is the intent of the parties.”
What saved the YMCA was a technicality in the language of the release. To go to the day camp, the child attending must be a member of the YMCA. The mother of the injured child was not a member of the YMCA. However, her son was. Because the release referred to the YMCA member as the person giving up their right to sue, the court held the release applied to the child not the mother. This language allowed the court to find for the YMCA.
So?
Releases are not documents you can merely find on the internet or put together based on language that sounds good. Think about the contract you used to purchase your house. It was a 10 to 20 page document used to buy something of value greater than $100,000 or so.
If someone is suing you for several million dollars do you want to rely on a document that you put together or worse stole from the business down the street.
Here again you have to make sure your release is properly written. You may have several different releases for different parties or activities. I commonly suggest that people use different paper to print the different release forms. Here the YMCA should have had a general release for use of its fitness and other facilities and a release for its day camp. One could have been printed on white paper and the other on green. Even better, put the release online and save paper.
Your release must identify who is protected by the release and who the release is going to stop from suing. In many cases, one parent will sign on behalf of a child. However, in some states, unless the language is clear, that parent may not be preventing the other parent from suing. Identify every person who can sue in the release as well as every person who cannot be sued. When in doubt, have both parents sign the release.
For information on other states where a parent can sign away a minor’s right to sue see: States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue–Updated 2011
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com
McGowan et al v. West End YMCA, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3018
Posted: March 14, 2011 Filed under: California, Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Summer Camp Leave a commentMcGowan et al v. West End YMCA, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3018
Denitra McGowan et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. West End YMCA, Defendant and Respondent.
E029450
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3018
March 15, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [*1] NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 977(a), PROHIBITS COURTS AND PARTIES FROM CITING OR RELYING ON OPINIONS NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BY RULE 977(B). THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED PUBLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 977.
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Super.Ct.No. RCV 42286. Ben T. Kayashima, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
CORE TERMS: summary judgment, extrinsic evidence, ambiguous, uncontradicted, matter of law, undersigned, parol evidence, inadvertently omitted, membership, executing, daycare, lawsuit, notice, physical injuries, financial assistance, indemnity agreement, unenforceable, unambiguous, negligently, undisputed, enrollment, pertained, signature, enrolling, absurdity, enrolled, construe, supplied, pertain, signing
COUNSEL: Ritchie, Klinkert & McCallion, James E. Klinkert, James McCallion and Ralph Harrison for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Allie & Schuster, James P. Allie and Coreen R. Walson for Defendant and Respondent.
JUDGES: Gaut, J. We concur: Ramirez, P.J., Hollenhorst, J.
OPINION BY: Gaut
OPINION
1. Introduction
Plaintiffs Denitra McGowan and Deshon McGowan, a minor, (plaintiffs) appeal judgment entered against them following summary judgment entered in favor of defendant West End YMCA (the YMCA).
Denitra McGowan enrolled her son, Deshon McGowan, in the YMCA’s summer camp daycare program. In the process of doing so, she signed various documents, including a release of liability. Deshon was injured while participating [*2] in the program. Plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit against the YMCA. The trial court granted the YMCA’s motion for summary judgment on the ground plaintiffs’ lawsuit was barred by the release.
Ms. McGowan contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the release only applied to physical injuries she sustained while on the YMCA premises, and did not pertain to Deshon since the release makes no reference to him and does not state that she signed the release on his behalf. She further argues that the trial court should not have considered parol evidence in determining the release applied to Deshon because the release was unambiguous. Even if it was ambiguous, plaintiffs argue, the court should have denied summary judgment because there was a triable issue as to whether the parties to the release intended it to apply to Deshon and an ambiguous release is unenforceable.
We conclude the trial court properly granted summary judgment. The release indicated it pertained to YMCA members. Since Ms. McGowan was not a YMCA member, but signed the release, it was unclear as to whom the release affected. The court appropriately considered parol evidence to [*3] determine this matter. Uncontradicted extrinsic evidence established that Deshon was the subject of the release and Ms. McGowan executed the release on his behalf. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the YMCA.
2. Facts and Procedural Background
The following facts are undisputed. Ms. McGowan submitted an application for YMCA financial assistance to assist her in paying for Deshon to attend the summer daycare program. In May 1998, the YMCA notified Ms. McGowan that it had approved her request for financial assistance.
On June 10, 1998, Ms. McGowan filled out and signed various YMCA forms, including a membership application for Deshon to become a member and a registration form for summer day camp. When Ms. McGowan returned the completed forms on June 12, 1998, a staff member requested Ms. McGowan to execute two additional forms, which included a general policies statement regarding YMCA members and a form release and waiver of liability and indemnity agreement. Ms. McGowan signed and returned the two forms.
On August 19, 1998, while Deshon was at summer day camp, another child accidentally struck Deshon in the head with a baseball bat. In their lawsuit, [*4] plaintiffs alleged the YMCA negligently operated the daycare center and negligently supervised Deshon and the other children enrolled in the program.
Ms. McGowan acknowledged during her deposition that her signature was on the release, but claimed she did not remember signing it. She admitted that she was not a YMCA member. Ms. McGowan further stated that she was aware she was enrolling Deshon as a YMCA member and this was done for the purpose of having Deshon attend the program while she worked.
The YMCA filed a summary judgment motion based on the theory plaintiffs’ action was barred by the release of liability. Plaintiffs filed opposition arguing that the release did not pertain to Deshon since the release did not state it applied to Deshon or that is was signed on his behalf.
The trial court granted the YMCA’s summary judgment motion on the ground it was undisputed Ms. McGowan signed the release on behalf of Deshon and therefore plaintiffs’ action was barred.
3. Discussion
Plaintiffs argue the release did not bar their action because the release does not state that Ms. McGowan signed the release on Deshon’s behalf. The release states that “THE UNDERSIGNED [*5] HEREBY RELEASES, WAIVES, DISCHARGES AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE the YMCA.” Plaintiffs claim that the release was limited to a waiver of liability as to physical injuries sustained by Ms. McGowan while on the YMCA premises.
The goal of contractual interpretation is “to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting . . . .” 1 When, as here, “a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible . . . .” 2 Accordingly, if the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous, and is not reasonably susceptible of a different meaning, no extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove that the parties intended a different interpretation. 3 Under those circumstances, the proper interpretation is purely a matter of law, 4 which may be resolved by summary judgment. 5
1 Civil Code section 1636. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Civil Code.
2 Section 1639.
3 Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33, 37-40, 69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641.
[*6]
4 Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865, 44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839.
5 Niederer v. Ferreira (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 1485, 1499, 234 Cal. Rptr. 779.
On the other hand, extrinsic evidence may be admitted and considered if the contract is ambiguous. 6 If extrinsic evidence is admitted but is not in conflict, then the issue remains one of law, even though the uncontradicted extrinsic evidence may give rise to conflicting inferences. 7
6 Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co., supra, 69 Cal.2d at page 40; Niederer v. Ferreira, supra, 189 Cal. App. 3d at pages 1499-1500.
7 Garcia v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1984) 36 Cal.3d 426, 439, 204 Cal. Rptr. 435, 682 P.2d 1100; Parsons v. Bristol Development Co., supra, 62 Cal.2d at page 866, footnote 2.
[*7] “When a contract is in any of its terms or provisions ambiguous or uncertain, ‘it is primarily the duty of the trial court to construe it after a full opportunity afforded all the parties in the case to produce evidence of the facts, circumstances and conditions surrounding its execution and the conduct of the parties relative thereto.'” 8
8 Walsh v. Walsh (1941) 18 Cal.2d 439, 443, 116 P.2d 62, quoting Barlow v. Frink (1915) 171 Cal. 165, 172-173, 152 P. 290.
“‘An agreement exculpating the drafter from liability for his or her own future negligence must clearly and explicitly express that this is the intent of the parties.’ [Citation.] But ‘to be effective, a release need not achieve perfection; only on Draftsman’s Olympus is it feasible to combine the elegance of a trust indenture with the brevity of a stop sign.’ [Citation].” 9 Whether a release is ambiguous is a question of law which we review de novo. 10
9 Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 158, 162.
[*8]
10 Baker Pacific Corp. v. Suttles (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 1148, 1153, 269 Cal. Rptr. 709.
We first consider whether the release is ambiguous. We conclude the release language is clear and explicit as to its terms 11 but unclear as to whose right to sue was waived since Ms. McGowan was not a YMCA member and the release stated it pertained to members.
11 Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at page 163.
The first paragraph of the release is entitled “CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP,” and states, among other things, that members must present their membership cards when using the YMCA’s facilities and “As a member of the YMCA you are agreeing to follow the policies, procedures and appropriate behaviors for the safety and comfort of all members and guests.” 12 The release further states, under the heading, “RELEASE AND WAIVER [*9] OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT,” that, as a condition of the “undersigned’s” use of the YMCA facilities or equipment or participation in any way, that the undersigned release the YMCA from all liability in the event the undersigned is physically injured while using the YMCA facilities or equipment. Such language clearly is directed toward members. Therefore the release did not apply to Ms. McGowan.
12 Italics added.
Since the release does not state who was the member affected by the release, we look to the extrinsic evidence. “It has been held repeatedly, that it is not a violation of the parol evidence rule to prove by extrinsic evidence the identity of the parties to an agreement.” 13 “‘Parol evidence is competent to show whom the parties intended should be bound or benefited.'” 14 The uncontradicted extrinsic evidence in this case establishes that the release applied to Deshon.
13 Maulhardt v. Cal. Director of Public Works (1959) 168 Cal. App. 2d 723, 735, 336 P.2d 631; Branch v. Bekins Van and Storage Company (1930) 106 Cal.App. 623, 635, 290 P. 146.
[*10]
14 Maulhardt v. Cal. Director of Public Works, supra, 168 Cal. App. 2d at page 735, quoting Escondido Oil etc. Co. v. Glaser (1904) 144 Cal. 494, 499, 77 P. 1040; Branch Bekins Van and Storage Company, supra, 106 Cal.App. at page 635.
Section 1638 states that “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.” Construing the release as applied to Ms. McGowan rather than Deshon involves an absurdity since Ms. McGowan was not a YMCA member, whereas Deshon was, and Ms. McGowan executed the other enrollment documents at the same time she was either returning or executing other documents on Deshon’s behalf for the purpose of enrolling him in day camp. Since Ms. McGowan was not a YMCA member and the other YMCA enrollment documents indicated they were signed on Deshon’s behalf, it would be absurd to construe the release as applying to Ms. McGowan rather than Deshon.
Thus, while in Hohe v. San Diego Unified School District 15 the court [*11] held the issue of the parties’ intent in executing an ambiguous release was a jury question, here the uncontradicted extrinsic evidence established as a matter of law that the release was executed by Ms. McGowan on Deshon’s behalf and applied to him. It should be obvious to all reasonable persons that language indicating Ms. McGowan was executing the release on Deshon’s behalf was inadvertently omitted from the signature line. 16 “Were we to adopt respondent’s strict interpretation of words we would be subverting the only reasonable interpretation of the instrument as a whole.” 17
15 Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 1559, 274 Cal. Rptr. 647.
16 Heidlebaugh v. Miller (1954) 126 Cal. App. 2d 35, 40, 271 P.2d 557.
17 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d at page 40.
In Heidlebaugh v. Miller, 18 the contract in question contained the phrase, “seller may, if [*12] he so desires, but shall not be obliged so to do, sell said property at public or private sale, with or with notice to Purchaser . . . .” 19 The court upheld nonsuit on the ground no notice of the sale was required. 20 The Heidlebaugh court concluded as a matter of law that the parties intended that the contract state “with or without notice,” and that the word, “out,” had been inadvertently omitted from the contract. 21
18 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d 35.
19 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d at page 36.
20 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d at page 41.
21 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d at page 40.
The Heidlebaugh court stated that, “‘Where, by inadvertence, words are plainly omitted from a contract, they may be supplied by construction if the context indicates what they are.'” 22 Such [*13] alteration of the contract is permitted because, “‘The court will if possible give effect to all parts of the instrument and an interpretation which gives a reasonable meaning to all its provisions will be preferred to one which leaves a portion of the writing useless or inexplicable; and if this is impossible an interpretation which gives effect to the main apparent purpose of the contract will be favored. Indeed, in giving effect to the general meaning of a writing, particular words are sometimes wholly disregarded, or supplied, or transposed. . . .'” 23
22 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d at page 38.
23 Heidlebaugh v. Miller, supra, 126 Cal. App. 2d at page 38.
Here, uncontradicted evidence establishes that words indicating Ms. McGowan was signing the release on Deshon’s behalf were inadvertently omitted from the release. “A contract may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it was made, and the matter [*14] to which it relates.” 24 Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of law the release barred plaintiffs’ action against the YMCA.
24 Section 1647.
Plaintiffs also argue the release is unenforceable because it affects public policy. Plaintiffs did not raise this argument in the trial court and thus it is waived on appeal. 25
25 In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846.
4. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. The YMCA is awarded its costs on appeal.
Gaut, J.
We concur:
Ramirez, P.J.
Hollenhorst, J.
ACA Standards are used by Expert for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit against a Camp
Posted: March 7, 2011 Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: Church Camp, Expert Witness, Helmets, Litigation, Standards, Youth Camp 2 CommentsThis case shows how standards, written by a great organization with good intentions can be used to help, encourage and support lawsuits against its own members.
This case was settled, but it is full of information that everyone who may be a defendant needs to understand.
This case was started by a woman, the plaintiff, more than five years after she had spent a couple of weeks at a summer camp. She was not a camper nor was she working at the camp. She had been invited out by a staff member to give her a break from home. Allegedly, she was (consensually although there may have been statutory issues) sexually assaulted by an older staff member. She sued the staff member and the camp.
The plaintiff, to support her position, hired an expert witness. This is a common practice to support a claim. The expert witness’s job is to prove the defendant camp had acted in violation of the standard of care for camps. The plaintiff’s expert was an ACA standards visitor. The Expert Opinion by the ACA standards visitor was used in the plaintiff’s motion to support a claim that the defendant Camps actions warranted an award of Punitive Damages.
Punitive damages, are damages awarded by the jury above and beyond actual or compensatory damages. The damages are meant to punish the defendant. Punitive damages are not covered by insurance, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and are in addition to any other damages. The defendant must pay punitive damages, if awarded, no matter what. Consequently, if the court approves the motion to ask for punitive damages in a case, it almost always forces the defendant to settle for fear of having to pay money out of their own pocket. The facts are never thoroughly litigated because they fear of the punitive is overriding. Even if you are 100% right, you may still settle in if punitive damages is a real threat.
The expert for the plaintiff (no relationship to me) was listed as an expert because she was an American Camp Association Accreditation Standards visitor. The experts Resume listed her ACA membership and her ACA Associate Visitor status second only to her education. The “Standards” allegedly violated were the 1998 ACA Accreditation Standards for Camp Programs and Services.
The expert opinion listed five areas that the camp had violated the standard of care for camps. Those areas are listed in the report as Opinion 1 through 5. ACA standards were used to support the expert’s opinion in three of the violations.
The first opinion rendered was the defendant camp violated the then ACA Accreditation Standards – HR-10. HR-10 states no camp staff member is to be under 16 years of age. The plaintiff at the time she was visiting camp was 14.
The first issue is the standard was applied to a fact situation that really had nothing to do with the claim. However, because there was a standard that could be linked to the claim, no matter how remote, the standard was alleged to be violated by the defendant. The plaintiff in this case was not a camp staff member, was not a volunteer, and was not getting paid. She was there for a break from her family. Nevertheless, the standard was applied to show the defendant camp should be held liable for punitive damages.
The second issue is the standard created by the trade association that the camp was a member of, was used to show the camp was negligent. That is just wrong!
Opinion 4 stated that 4 ACA Camp Standards were violated:
HR-11 requires six days of pre-camp staff training of employees.
HR-12 required late hire training for employees.
HR-13 requires implementation of in-service training for employees.
HR-19 requires specific training for staff supervisors to maintain staff performance and address inappropriate staff behavior.
The plaintiff had not received any training. I’ve never seen a camp train any visitor. (Although I’m sure you wish you could sometimes!)
All four “Standards” were violated because the plaintiff did not receive any of the training required by the ACA “Standards”. Again, visitors to camp need to go through training? Late hire camp staff training? Hire usually means someone is employed, consequently, paid, which never occurred here.
Opinion No. 5 stated the defendant camp violated ACA Standard HW-19 and ACA Standard HW-20 on the proper system of health care camp record keeping. This was alleged because a cut the plaintiff received was not recorded in the nurse’s log.
What is so interesting about this issue was there was no allegation that the cut the plaintiff had received was received or treated negligently. Nothing in the lawsuit claimed the way the plaintiff received the cut, the first aid or treatment was negligent. The complaint just stated she received a cut and was taken home by her parents. The suit claimed that an older camp staff employee had sexual relations with the plaintiff.
However, this is a perfect example of how plaintiffs use any violation of the standard, whether or not it has anything to do with the claim, to make the defendant look bad in the eyes of the court and the jury. Good defendants do not violate standards. Here the defendant was obviously bad because the standard was not met.
There is no way that any camp can operate and not violate one of the “Standards” at some time during the camp season! 1998 there were just too many of them. In 2011 there are even more.
To support the allegations made in the plaintiff’s expert report copies of the “Standards” were attached to the report. The following pages were attached to the report:
Cover Page
Title Page
Table of Contents vii
Table of Contents viii
Page 92 HR-10 Staff Age Requirements
Page 93 continuation of HR-10 and HR-11
Page 94 continuation of HR-11, HR-12 and HR-13
Page 97 HR-18 and HR-19
Page 98 continuation of HR-19 and HR-20
Page 67 HW-19 Recordkeeping
Page 68 HW-20 and HW-21
Why only those pages? Because those are the important pages the plaintiff wants the judge to see. There are limits to how big motions can be how many pages the judge will read, pages, etc. Those are all valid arguments and are real for only putting in the important documents as exhibits.
However “standards” are written with disclaimers and limitations and definitions, none of which are ever given to the court. The court is never shown that there may be limitations to what the “Standards” mean or how they are applied.
Even if those were supplied, the court must apply the definitions that are in the statute or by law first and then as used in the community or industry second. See Words: You cannot change a legal definition.
Trade Associations write standards with the mistaken believe that the plaintiff’s experts and the court will apply the standards exactly the way the standards are intended to be written. The facts are once the standards are printed the trade association loses all control no matter how many pages of disclaimers are put in the information.
So the judge in this case, who is pressed for time, reads the report and has a list of standards that are violated. A standard is the optimum word. The camp was below the minimum level of acting or not acting that was set by the camps own trade association. That is all that is needed to keep the case moving forward. Standards were violated. Therefore, there may be negligence. That must go to a jury, there must be a trial and the cost to the defendant (and its insurance company) climbs even higher. (Consequently, your premiums increase also. See Insurance 101 if you don’t fully understand this.)
Even if the additional documentation is put into evidence, the legal definition of the words is going to be used, not how the word is defined in the standards book. See Words: You cannot change a legal definition.
Nor does the court have the opportunity to delve into the standards to find out that most of them are not really standards but suggestions, ideas or just good practices. However, by identifying the book as standard there is a legal definition applied to the work that is just as dangerous as it may be helpful.
Some might say that if the camp was bad then lawsuits get rid of bad camps (or other defendants). However, that never works. This camp did not close up. In fact, in my opinion, this camp was sued because it tried to help out a confused young woman. The end effect is there will be no more attempts to help anyone in the future.
The only real consequence of this lawsuit was the amount of time that spent working on the case. Some money might have moved between the parties, and the attorneys and expert witnesses made money.
Let’s look at the opinion no 1 of the plaintiff’s expert witness. The standard says that employees should not be under the age of 16. Most camps are run by families. Many times there may be two or three generations at the camp. If a staff member sends their 15 year old son to the tool shed to get a tool and in the process the son accidentally knocks over a camper, injuring the camper, the camp has violated that standard. No 16 year olds should be hired by a camp. However, he wasn’t hired. Well, we’ve seen how that does not work, and he was working, providing a benefit for the camp.
The camp has a couple of options.
1. Not allow their children at camp until they are 16.
2. Violate the standard.
You are going to take your kids to camp and have them play video games and watch TV or are you going to put them to work. If you put them to work before they reach the age of 16 you are violating a standard created by a trade association for your benefit.
Say you are an organization that works to install leadership, training and teamwork into the youth. It is common in your organization for the youth to be responsible for other members. (Sound like any organization you know?) Your camps are staffed predominantly by youth because of the training and goals of the organization. Every single one of those camps is in violation of the standard HR-10 (as it was in 1998).
If your youth organization is focused in leadership training and does that by helping youth move up to more advanced and important leadership positions, the entire program will fail if you say to the 14 year olds, wait two years until you turn 16 to move up to the next level, camp staff.
These are just two scenarios where the standard set forth in HR-10 (which is almost identical in the latest version) can be used to sue a camp every single day of the year. However, in both scenarios, nothing has been done wrong other than taking your kid to work and following your youth program guidelines.
Are all standards bad? No, standards for things are great. Concrete “acts” the same way every day. A fight with a spouse, traffic on the way to work, rain, none of this affects concrete. It is going to support XX thousands of pounds of weight. Standards for things work. People and how people operate are subject to millions of things, weather and other people. We don’t’ react the same way. We aren’t affected the same way. We don’t respond the same way, who can you write something down that says we will, no matter what.
For other articles about standards see:
This is how a standard in the industry changes…..but….
Can a Standard Impede Inventions?
Words: You cannot change a legal definition
Trade Association Standards sink a Summer Camp when plaintiff uses them to prove Camp was negligent
The motion where the expert witness’ report was filed is here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com
Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #ACA, #American Camp Association, #standards,
Technorati Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds
Windows Live Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds
WordPress Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds
Recreation Law 