Almquist v. Synergo, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79261
Posted: August 20, 2016 Filed under: Challenge or Ropes Course, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Legal Case, Oregon | Tags: ACCT, Association for Challenge Course Technology, Giant Swing, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Oregon, paraplegic, Synergo Leave a commentAlmquist v. Synergo, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79261
Cassidy Almquist, Plaintiff, v. Synergo, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Synergo, an Oregon corporation; Association For Challenge Course Technology, a Delaware non-profit corporation, Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-01281-SB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79261
May 20, 2016, Decided
May 20, 2016, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Adopted by, Motion denied by Almquist v. Synergo, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79002 (D. Or., June 9, 2016)
CORE TERMS: website, personal jurisdiction, swing, purposeful, forum state, weigh, http, www, inspector, jurisdictional, purposefully, inspection, acctinfo, visited, org, exercise of jurisdiction, interactive, prong, resident, direction’ test, alternative forum, quotation, consumers, litigate, comport, accreditation, adhere–, prima facie, citation omitted, general jurisdiction
COUNSEL: [*1] For Cassidy Almquist, Plaintiff: James E. Horne, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gordon Thomas Honeywell, LLP, Seattle, WA; Mario Interiano, Norma Rodriguez, Scott E. Rodgers, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Rodriguez Interiano Hanson Rodgers PLLC, Kennewick, WA; Reuben Schutz, Salvador A. Mungia, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP, Tacoma, WA.
For Synergo, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Synergo, an Oregon corporation, Defendants, ThirdParty Plaintiffs: Jennifer L. Crow, LEAD ATTORNEY, Scheer & Zehnder, Portland, OR; Mark P. Scheer, Robert P. Schulhof , Jr, Scheer & Zehnder LLP, Portland, OR.
For Association for Challenge Course Technology, a Delaware non-profit corporation, Defendant: Matthew C. Casey, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Portland, OR.
JUDGES: STACIE F. BECKERMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION BY: STACIE F. BECKERMAN
OPINION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
BECKERMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Cassidy Almquist (“Almquist”) filed an Amended Complaint against Synergo, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Synergo, an Oregon corporation (collectively “Synergo”), and the Association for Challenge Course Technology, a Delaware non-profit corporation (“ACCT”), alleging claims for negligence. Almquist’s [*2] action arises from an accident at the Bar-M-Ranch, in which she fell from a Giant Swing and was paralyzed. With respect to ACCT, Almquist alleges that ACCT was negligent (1) in promulgating standards for its certified inspectors, that allow them to certify challenge courses as safe when the inspector knows that untrained challenge course workers will operate the course, and (2) by failing to include in the inspection standards a provision directing an inspector to recommend that a course be closed until workers receive proper training. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17 and 26.)
Synergo filed an Answer to Almquist’s Amended Complaint, and ACCT filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 5, 2016, this Court heard oral argument on ACCT’s request for dismissal. For the reasons set forth below, the district judge should deny ACCT’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion.
I. BACKGROUND
ACCT, a professional trade association for the challenge course industry, develops and publishes standards for installing, inspecting, and maintaining challenge courses. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25.) ACCT trains and certifies professional challenge course inspectors. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) Synergo relied on ACCT’s standards [*3] in inspecting the Giant Swing at issue in this litigation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.)
Synergo is in the business of, among other things, inspecting challenge courses. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) Synergo is located in Tigard, Oregon, and is a dues-paying member of ACCT. Synergo is the only accredited Professional Vendor Member (“PVM”) of ACCT in Oregon.1 Synergo’s founder and manager, Erik Marter, served on the Board of Directors of ACCT, and is the only certified ACCT professional inspector in Oregon. http://www.teamsynergo.com/our-story/ ; and http://www.acctinfo.org/?PVMList%20 (lasted visited May 20, 2016). Synergo conducts inspections of challenge courses according to ACCT standards. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.)
1 According to ACCT, “[a] PVM of ACCT is a company which has successfully completed the Professional Vendor Member Application, including the Accreditation, process. The process includes a stringent review which determines an applicant’s adherence to ACCT Accreditation Policies and Procedures and its good faith commitment to ACCT Standards. Successful completion of this process distinguishes a PVM from other vendors, identifying the PVM as having been found to be highly experienced and competent.” http://www.acctinfo.org/?PVMList (last visited May 20, 2016).
In February 2012, Cavalry Church Tri-Cities (“Cavalry”) [*4] constructed an “adventure course” on its Bar-M-Ranch property located in Richland, Oregon that included a Giant Swing. (Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) Calvary hired Synergo to inspect the Giant Swing after construction of the challenge course was complete. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) Synergo sent an employee to inspect the Giant Swing in June 2012. (Am. Compl.¶ 12.) During the inspection, Synergo discovered that the Cavalry and Bar-M-Ranch staffs were not trained to operate the swing. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16.) Synergo did not direct or recommend that Calvary close the Giant Swing until the operators of the swing were trained. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17.) If recommended by Synergo, Calvary would have closed the Giant Swing. (Am. Compl ¶ 19.)
During the week of July 15, 2013, Calvary hosted a summer camp at the Bar-M-Ranch. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20.) Almquist was a counselor at the summer camp. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22.) The camp director asked Almquist to demonstrate the use of the Giant Swing for the children attending the camp. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22.) Almquist agreed to do so and a camp employee, who was not trained to operate the Giant Swing, improperly connected her to the Giant Swing. Almquist fell 50 feet to the ground, paralyzing her from [*5] the waist down. (Am. Compl. ¶ 23.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“In opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008)). “Where, as here, the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.'” Id. (quoting Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010)). “Although the plaintiff cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint, uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true[,] [and] [c]onflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
ACCT moves to dismiss Almquist’s Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. ACCT argues that it lacks sufficient contacts with Oregon to permit the Court’s exercise of either general or specific jurisdiction. Almquist acknowledges that general jurisdiction is not present here, but contends that the extent and nature of ACCT’s contacts with Oregon permit the Court to exercise specific jurisdiction over ACCT. [*6]
A. Constitutional Personal Jurisdiction Standards
“Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over [defendant].” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014). Oregon law authorizes personal jurisdiction over defendants to the full extent permitted by the United States Constitution. See Or. R. Civ. P. 4(L); Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Mach. Co., Inc., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Oregon’s long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to the extent permitted by due process.”). The Court must therefore inquire whether its exercise of jurisdiction over ACCT “comports with the limits imposed by federal due process.” Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 753.
“Due process requires that defendants ‘have certain minimum contacts’ with the forum state ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'” Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)). “The strength of contacts required depends on which of the two categories of personal jurisdiction a litigant invokes: specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015). Specific jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as “case-specific” or “case-linked” jurisdiction, meaning it depends on an affiliation between the forum state and the underlying controversy, whereas general jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as “all-purpose” jurisdiction, [*7] meaning the court may assert jurisdiction over a defendant based on a forum connection unrelated to the underlying lawsuit (e.g., domicile, place of incorporation, or principal place of business). Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 n.6, 188 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2014). Almquist argues that specific jurisdiction exists over ACCT.
The Ninth Circuit employs the following three-prong test to determine if a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to be subject to specific jurisdiction:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable.
Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211 (quotations and citation omitted). Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs. CollegeSource, 653 F.3d at 1076. The burden then shifts to the moving defendant to present “a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985)) [*8] .
“The exact form of [a court’s] jurisdictional inquiry depends on the nature of the claim at issue.” Picot, 780 F.3d at 1212. For claims sounding in contract, courts in this circuit “generally apply a ‘purposeful availment’ analysis and ask whether a defendant has ‘purposefully avail[ed] [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'” Id. (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). For claims sounding in tort, courts in this circuit “instead apply a ‘purposeful direction’ test and look to evidence that the defendant has directed his actions at the forum state, even if those actions took place elsewhere.” Id. Almquist asserts a tort claim against ACCT. Accordingly, ACCT’s motion to dismiss implicates only the purposeful direction test.
B. Specific Jurisdiction over ACCT
1. Purposeful Direction Test2
2 Almquist alleges a state negligence action against ACCT. As such, the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89, 104 S. Ct. 1482, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804 (1984), is inapplicable to the Court’s purposeful direction analysis in this case. See Holland America Line Inc. v. Wartsila North America, Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “it is well established that the Calder test applies only to intentional torts, not to the breach of contract and negligence claims presented here” (citing Calder, 465 U.S. at 789)); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasizing that Calder requires [*9] the defendant to individually and wrongfully target the plaintiff).
“A showing that a defendant purposefully directed his conduct toward a forum state . . . usually consists of evidence of the defendant’s actions outside the forum state that are directed at the forum, such as the distribution in the forum state of goods originating elsewhere.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803; see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980) (“The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.”). Due process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “purposefully direct[s]” his activities at residents of a forum, even in the “absence of physical contacts” with the forum. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476.
ACCT argues that it did not purposefully direct its activities toward Oregon.3 By Declaration, Todd Domeck, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors with ACCT, informed the Court that ACCT is a Delaware non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. (Todd Domeck Decl. ¶ 3, Oct. 4, 2015.) ACCT has no office or registered agent in Oregon, and no employees who reside in Oregon. [*10] (Domeck Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.) Domeck also states that “ACCT was not consulted during the construction of the ‘Giant Swing,'” nor did ACCT provide training for “any employees of the Bar-M-Ranch who were to be operators of the ‘Giant Swing.'” (Domeck Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)
3 ACCT also argues that “there has been absolutely no evidence submitted that plaintiff, the camp, or the specific ride operator . . . ever had any interaction with ACCT . . . or that they in any way relied on any information promulgated by ACCT.” (Def.’s Reply 10.) With regard to ACCT’s claim that Almquist cannot show that ACCT directed activity toward the people involved in the accident, this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden. 134 S. Ct. at 1122 (“[O]ur “minimum contacts” analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.”) With regard to ACCT’s contention that Almquist has not shown reliance on the “information promulgated by ACCT,” that evidence is relevant to the merits of Almquist’s claim for negligence, and not to the jurisdictional question presently before the Court.
In light of those facts, the jurisdictional analysis here turns on the extent [*11] to which ACCT, as a non-profit trade association, acted by way of its website and its certification of Synergo to create a presence in Oregon. In aid of the Court’s analysis of ACCT’s purposeful direction in Oregon, the Court relies on the uncontroverted allegations of the Amended Complaint, the Micah Henderson Declaration, and the Internet websites of ACCT and Synergo.4 See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015 (“plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts” (quotations and citation omitted)).
4 ACCT argues that the websites are not authenticated and, thus, should not be considered by the Court. ACCT’s and Synergo’s websites were created and are maintained by Defendants in this case. Further, there is no challenge to the accuracy of the content presented on the websites. The parties dispute the sufficiency of ACCT’s contacts with Oregon, including contacts made through ACCT’s website. In the context of Almquist’s prima facie showing on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court may consider the information provided by ACCT and Synergo on their commercial websites. See, e.g., West Marine, Inc. v. Watercraft Superstore, Inc., No. C11-04459 HRL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18973, 2012 WL 479677, at *10 (Feb. 14, 2012) (“Courts have taken notice of defendants’ [*12] websites or characteristics thereof when determining personal jurisdiction.”); Coremetrics, Inc. v. Atomic Park.com, LLC, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (taking judicial notice of defendants’ website in personal jurisdiction analysis).
a. ACCT’s Website
The Ninth Circuit has established a sliding scale analysis to consider how interactive an Internet website is for the purpose of determining its jurisdictional effect. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997) (“In sum, the common thread, well stated by the district court in Zippo, is that the ‘likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of the commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.'”) (quoting Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997)); see also ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that a state may assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “when that person (1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable to the State’s courts”).
On its website, ACCT describes itself as “the world’s leading and largest American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Developer focused specifically and solely on the [*13] challenge course industry.” http://www.acctinfo.org (last visited May 20, 2016). Through its website, ACCT represents that it “develops, refines, and publishes standards for installing, maintaining, and managing challenge courses; provides forums for education and professional development; and advocates for the challenge course and adventure industry.” Id. ACCT’s website is an interactive commercial website, and ACCT uses it to advertise and sell its services and merchandise. Specifically, individuals and businesses may purchase memberships and ACCT’s standards book, apply and register for inspector certification courses and exams, and access challenge course related employment listings.
As of November 2015, ACCT had 2,524 total members, with 136 of those members located in Oregon. (Micah Henderson Decl. ¶ 7, Jan. 7, 2016.) As such, slightly over 5% of ACCT’s worldwide members are located in Oregon. In addition, three of ACCT’s 129 certified inspectors (2.3%) are located in Oregon. (Henderson Decl. ¶ 9.) During the period from June 1, 2014 through November 24, 2015, seven of the 200 standards (3.5%) sold by ACCT were delivered within Oregon. (Henderson Decl. ¶ 10.) ACCT attributes less than one percent of [*14] its 2015 annual dues to members located in Oregon. (Henderson Decl. ¶ 8.) Finally, as of November 12, 2015, two of the 100 job postings (2%) on ACCT’s website were related to jobs in Oregon. (Henderson Decl. ¶ 11.) ACCT solicited and transacted these sales and services through its website.
Although the business ACCT conducts in Oregon is not overwhelming, the Court concludes that the nature and quality of ACCT’s contacts with Oregon via its website are sufficient to satisfy the purposeful direction test. See Tech Heads, Inc. v. Desktop Serv. Cntr., Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1150-51 (D. Or. 2000) (finding personal jurisdiction proper where plaintiff presented evidence of a transaction involving an Oregon resident made through the defendant’s interactive website); see also Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 891-892 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that quantity and specifically a “‘percentage of business’ analysis” is not the proper test for personal jurisdiction; rather the proper test is “whether the absolute amount of business conducted . . . [in the forum state] represents something more than ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts’ with the state”) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475); Zippo Mfg. Co., 952 F. Supp. at 1126-1127 (recognizing that 3,000 subscriptions, or 2 percent of total subscriptions, was a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because the Supreme Court emphasizes the nature and [*15] quality of contacts with the forum rather than the quantity of contacts); cf. Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907, 923 (D. Or. 1999) (declining to find personal jurisdiction based on an interactive website when there was no evidence of transactions with forum residents or evidence that the forum was targeted).
In any event, even if ACCT’s reach into Oregon via its website was not sufficient, standing alone, to confer personal jurisdiction, the Court finds that ACCT’s reach into Oregon went beyond mere solicitation of members and sales through its website. See Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1129 (“operating even a passive website in conjunction with something more — conduct directly targeting the forum — is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction” (quotations and citation omitted)).
b. ACCT’s Contacts Directed at Synergo
The Court finds that ACCT directly targeted Oregon through the following actions: ACCT’s certification of Oregon-based Synergo as a PVM, advertising Oregon-based Synergo as a PVM (including recommending that consumers hire Synergo), and setting standards for the inspection of challenge courses, to which ACCT required Synergo to adhere. Specifically, ACCT established and promoted PVM designations for companies, including Synergo, that successfully complete [*16] the application and accreditation process, which can take up to 18 months to complete, and includes a site visit of one-to-three days in duration. http://www.acctinfo.org/page/PVMApplication (last visited May 20, 2016). ACCT describes the process as “a stringent review which determines an applicant’s adherence to ACCT Accreditation Policies and Procedures and its good faith commitment to ACCT Standards.” Id. After the stringent review process and onsite visit, ACCT endorses the PVMs as ” highly experienced and competent . ” http://www.acctinfo.org/?page=PVMList (last visited May 20, 2016). ACCT’s website directs consumers to PVMs, including providing a link to Synergo’s website. In turn, Synergo prominently displays its ACCT membership on its website, and advertises its ACCT-certified services, including inspection services in Oregon. http://www.teamsynergo.com (last visited May 20, 2016). Finally, ACCT has utilized Oregon-based Synergo personnel in the ranks of its leadership, including Synergo’s owner, Marter (ACCT’s Board of Directors), and Lindsay Wiseman James (ACCT’s Chair of the Public Relations/Marketing Committee). http://www.acctinfo.org/?92; http://www.acctinfo.org/?page=140&hhSearchTerms=%22 synergo%22 (last visited May 20, 2016).
The Court finds that ACCT’s close relationship with and promotion of Oregon-based Synergo establishes purposeful direction [*17] into Oregon, especially when considered in conjunction with the reach of ACCT’s interactive website to Oregon members and consumers. Accordingly, the first prong of the specific jurisdiction test (purposeful direction), is satisfied here.
2. Arising out of or Relating to the Forum Activities
The second prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the claims arise out of, or are related to, defendant’s forum-related activities. Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts apply a “but for” test — that is, a showing that the claims would not have arisen but for ACCT’s contacts with Oregon. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2001); Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We rely on a ‘but for’ test to determine whether a particular claim arises out of forum-related activities and thereby satisfies the second requirement for specific jurisdiction.”).
Almquist contends that ACCT “sent Synergo its standards book in Oregon and understood that, as a certified ACCT professional inspector, Synergo would adhere to ACCT standards when it inspected challenge courses.” (Pl.’s Opp. 7.) Almquist alleges that Synergo did adhere to ACCT standards and, as a result, she was injured. (Pl.’s Opp. 7-8.) Conversely, ACCT argues that Almquist’s negligence claim is barred by Oregon [*18] statutes and administrative rules that regulate the duties owed, and by whom, when operating an amusement ride in this state. (Def.’s Reply 5-6.) ACCT contends that, under Oregon law, it does not owe a duty to Almquist. As such, her negligence claim cannot arise from ACCT’s activities in the forum as a matter of law.
Whether Almquist may prevail on the merits of her negligence claim against ACCT is not before the Court at this time. For the purpose of the Court’s jurisdictional analysis, Almquist’s claims, as alleged, arise from ACCT’s contacts with Oregon. Almquist has alleged that “but for” ACCT promulgating deficient safety standards, she would not have fallen and sustained injuries in Oregon. Thus, the contacts ACCT had with Oregon–i.e., certifying Synergo and allegedly setting inadequate course inspection standards to which Synergo was required to adhere–are also the conduct that give rise to Almquist’s claims. Accordingly, the second prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test is satisfied here.
3. Reasonableness
The third prong of the Ninth Circuit’s specific personal jurisdiction test “requires a finding that assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable,” meaning “the court must [*19] determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with traditional notions of ‘fair play and substantial justice.'” Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d at 925 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 326). To determine reasonableness, courts analyze seven fairness factors:
(1) the extent of a defendant’s purposeful interjection [into the forum]; (2) the burden on the defendant in defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state; (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.
Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476-77. No one factor is dispositive; a court must balance all seven. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1993).
ACCT argues that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable because it has not reached out to Oregon in any way, defending in Oregon would be a burden since it is based in Illinois, and Almquist cannot show that alternative forums are unavailable. (Mot. Dismiss 12-13.)
a. Purposeful Interjection
As discussed above, ACCT purposefully directed itself into Oregon by maintaining an interactive commercial website and by certifying and promoting [*20] Synergo. The Court finds the purposeful interjection factor weighs in favor of Almquist.
b. Burden on ACCT
Next, the court considers ACCT’s burden of litigating in Oregon. However, “unless the inconvenience is so great as to constitute a deprivation of due process, it will not overcome clear justifications for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Caruth v. Int’l Psychoanalytical Ass’n., 59 F.3d 126, 128-29 (9th Cir. 1995). This is a high standard to meet, as courts have consistently held that modern technological advances reduce the burden of litigating in remote jurisdictions. See, e.g., Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998); Autobidmaster, LLC. V. Alpine Auto Gallery, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-1083-AC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65202, 2015 WL 2381611, at * 11 (D. Or. May 19, 2015) (“modern technological advances greatly reduce the burden of litigating in remote jurisdictions”).
ACCT is located in Illinois and does not have offices in Oregon. As such, there is some burden on ACCT to litigate in Oregon. However, ACCT does not contend the burden is so significant as to violate Due Process. The Court finds this factor weighs only slightly in favor of ACCT.
c. Conflict with Illinois Law
The parties agree this factor is neutral.
d. Oregon’s Interest
Oregon has a significant interest in providing a forum for people who are tortiously injured while working in the state. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 776, 104 S. Ct. 1473, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790 (1984) (“It is beyond dispute that [*21] New Hampshire has a significant interest in redressing injuries that actually occur within the State.”) This interest extends to actions brought by nonresidents. Id.
Almquist was working in Oregon at the time of her injury. This factor weighs in favor of Almquist.
e. Efficient Judicial Resolution
The Court must also consider which forum can most efficiently resolve the dispute. To make this determination, the Court focuses on the location of the evidence and witnesses. Caruth, 59 F.3d at 129. The evidence and potential witnesses reside in Oregon, Washington, California, and Illinois. As such, one party must litigate in a foreign venue. While ACCT argues that its witnesses are located in “other states,” it does not contend that its burden is greater than Almquist’s were she forced to litigate elsewhere. In addition, this factor is “no longer weighed heavily given the modern advances in communication and transportation.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003).
Conversely, Almquist argues that almost all of the witnesses and evidence are located in Oregon or Washington. In addition, the accident occurred in Oregon, and the witnesses who ran the challenge course are likely residents of Oregon. Synergo is based in Oregon and performed its inspection [*22] of the Bar-M-Ranch in Oregon. The initial healthcare providers who treated Almquist are located in Oregon. Moreover, this action will go forward regardless of the outcome of the motion to dismiss because Synergo remains a defendant in this litigation. See Core-Vent Corp., 11 F.3d at 1489 (finding that efficiency factor tipped in plaintiff’s favor because the lawsuit would continue in the forum state with other parties); see also Washington State University Foundation v. Oswald, No. 3:99-cv-907-AS, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21232, 2000 WL 251661, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 3, 2000) (exercising personal jurisdiction where the forum state “appeare[d] to be the only jurisdiction in which the parties may totally resolve the action”).
This factor weighs in favor of Almquist.
f. Convenience and Effective Relief for Almquist
The Court next considers the importance of the forum to Almquist’s interests in convenient and effective relief. If Oregon is not a proper forum, Almquist will be forced to litigate its claim against ACCT in Illinois or Delaware, which presents inconvenience for Almquist in light of her medical condition and her claim against Synergo that will be litigated in this Court.
Traditionally, courts have not given a lot weight to this factor. See Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 476. However, the factor must be considered and it weighs in favor [*23] of Almquist.
g. Existence of an Alternative Forum
Finally, the Court must determine whether an adequate alternative forum exists. Almquist acknowledges that Illinois and Delaware are appropriate forums.5 This factor weighs in favor of ACCT.
5 At oral argument, counsel for Almquist informed the Court that the statute of limitations in both those forums likely foreclose the opportunity for Almquist to refile her negligence claim against ACCT in either Illinois or Delaware. The Court notes that savings statutes in both Illinois and Delaware may toll the statute of limitations, if this Court were to dismiss the claims against ACCT for lack of personal jurisdiction. See 10 Del. C. § 8118; 735 ILCS 5/13-217.
h. Balance of the Reasonableness Factors
Applying the seven-factor test, the Court concludes that exercising personal jurisdiction over ACCT is reasonable, and comports with fair play and substantial justice. The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth factors weigh in favor of Almquist, although the sixth factor is given little weight. The second and seventh factors weigh in favor of ACCT. The third factor is neutral. Although some factors weigh in favor of ACCT, it did not present a “compelling case” that exercising jurisdiction in [*24] this Court is unreasonable. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016 (“If the plaintiff establishes both prongs one and two, the defendant must come forward with a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.”)
All of the requirements for specific jurisdiction are satisfied here. Accordingly, the district judge should deny ACCT’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the district judge should DENY ACCT’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 31).
V. SCHEDULING ORDER
The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a response is due fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.
Dated this 20th day of May 2016.
/s/ Stacie F. Beckerman
STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Poorly written release on a sign-in sheet barely passes protecting Ohio defendant swimming area from suit.
Posted: August 15, 2016 Filed under: Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Swimming | Tags: drowning, Lifeguard, Ohio, Reckless, Release, Sign in Sheet, swimming, Willful & Wanton Leave a commentWillful and Wanton actions by a defendant are hard to prove unless the defendant actually did something. Mere failure to do something is rarely a willful and wanton act; it requires an act to prove.
Bishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504
State: Ohio, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Portage County
Plaintiff: Robert Bishop, Executor of the Estate of Eric E. Bishop, Deceased, et al.,
Defendant: Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al.,
Plaintiff Claims: The trial court erred in failing to apply the standards for determination of motions for summary judgment. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Ltd. based on alleged lack of possession or control of leased premises. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for appellees on the ground that a valid release executed by Eric Bishop released appellees from liability.”
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the Defendant
Year: 2005
The deceased was an 18-year-old man who went swimming at the plaintiff’s swimming area with several other friends. Nelson Ledges is like many swimming “holes” in Ohio, old quarries that have flooded or dammed areas that are privately owned and turned into swimming, camping and boating recreation areas. They are open to the public, like this one, for a fee. Here the fee was $5.00 per person.
Upon arriving at the defendants, the decedent and his friends paid their fee and signed a release. From the description, the release might have been on a sign-in sheet. Besides being on a sign-in sheet with multiple signatures, it was poorly written.
The deceased and his friends skipped the beach where a life guard was located and went to another area that people did swim. The deceased and a few friends swam out to an island; however, the deceased did not make it, drowning 15’ from the island shore.
The decedent’s estate sued. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The trial court held:
That, even when reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including the report of Tom Griffiths, defendants’ conduct did not rise to a level of reckless, willful or wanton conduct, but at most, suggested there may be a genuine issue of material fact as to negligence. 3) The waiver was valid, as a matter of law, thus, Eric waived all claims of negligence, and Bishop was barred from recovering on the wrongful death claim.
The plaintiff’s appealed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court first set forth the requirements to prove a wrongful-death claim.
1) a wrongful act, neglect or default of defendant which proximately caused the death and which would have entitled the decedent to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued; 2) that a decedent was survived by a spouse, children, parents, or other next of kin; and 3) that the survivors suffered damages by reasons of the wrongful death.
Than the Court took the arguments out of order, from the plaintiff’s appeal, starting with the validity of the release. (Ohio’s law is probably the most supportive of all states on release law.)
It is well-settled in Ohio that participants in recreational activities and the proprietor of a venue for such an activity are free to enter into contracts designed to relieve the proprietor from responsibility to the participant for the proprietor’s acts of negligence, but not for his willful or wanton misconduct.
Clauses limiting liability shall ordinarily be construed strictly against the drafting party. Moreover, matters involving the interpretation of contract terms, when such terms are unambiguous, are questions of law.
The issue then was whether the acts of the defendants were willful and wanton, which would void the release. The court first looked at the release which it found wanting to an extent. “While inartfully drafted, the sheet Eric signed is clearly labeled at the top as a “Liability Waiver Form” in bold type.”
The court followed up a review of the release with this statement.
…although “the better practice would certainly be to expressly state the word ‘negligence’ somewhere in the exculpatory provision the absence of that term does not automatically render the provision fatally flawed.
The plaintiff also argued the release was no clear because the type was small. However, the court found this argument not to be valid under Ohio’s law and not an issue in this case.
Ohio has no such provisions. While we agree in broad principle that contract provisions, particularly those which purport to waive liability, should be printed in type large enough for a person of normal vision to read easily, the waiver in the case at bar satisfies these requirements. As we already mentioned, we find the terms of the waiver in this case were sufficiently clear to put the person signing it on notice. We agree with the trial court that Eric effectively waived all claims based on negligence by signing the waiver form. Thus, Bishop’s third assignment of error is without merit.
The court found the release to be valid and blocked the negligence claims of the plaintiff’s. The court then looked at the plaintiff’s argument that the actions of the defendants were willful and wanton.
Willful and wanton misconduct has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as the equivalent to reckless conduct. An actor’s conduct is reckless when “he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty *** to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which could lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.” “An act is negligent if it ‘falls below a standard established by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.” While the act must be intended by the actor to be reckless, “the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it.”
Consequently, the court found the actions did not rise to the level of being willful and wanton.
The plaintiff also argued, through its expert witness that the release was void for violating several state and county rules and regulations. The court spent a fair amount of time reviewing this and basically said not a chance.
The first regulations were not in place at the time of the accident, so they could not be used to prove negligence. “This court has held that “subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event at issue.”
The next issue was the health department of the county where the accident occurred, based upon a state statute issued regulations requiring additional lifeguards and life boats. The court again through this out because the statute did not require it, and the health department did not have statutory requirement to issue safety rules. (This section seemed down right fishy!)
A plain reading of both statutes clearly indicates that neither expressly delegates to public health departments the authority to regulate public swimming areas. Moreover, even if we were to presume that public swimming areas fell under the ambit of the more general authority of R.C. 3709.21, the authority to regulate under this statute is limited only to public health matters, and not matters of public safety.
The court then when back and looked at the willful and wanton conduct issue because the decedent was a business invitee under Ohio’s Land Owner Liability laws.
The threshold issue in determining willful and wanton misconduct is to determine what legal duty Kelley owed Eric as a visitor to the park. Since Eric paid an admission charge to Kelley for the purpose of swimming at the park, it is clear that Eric was a business invitee on the day of his drowning. The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined a business invitee as “one rightfully on the premises of another for the purposes in which the possessor of the premises has a beneficial interest.”
A landowner owes a business invitee the duty to exercise ordinary care and to maintain the premises in a safe condition.
Under common law, the duty owed by an owner of a premises to a business invitee is to “exercise ordinary care and to protect [the invitee] by maintaining the premises in a safe condition.
Again, the court could not find the actions of the defendants amounted to willful and wanton care.
The difference between negligence and willfulness is a difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree *** in order to establish wantonness; the conduct must be supported by evidence that shows a disposition to perversity, such as acts of stubbornness, obstinacy or persistency in opposing that which is right, reasonable, correct or generally accepted as a course to follow in protecting the safety of others”) (emphasis added). Though the circumstances surrounding Eric’s death are, indeed, unfortunate, “willful conduct implies design, set purpose, intention, or deliberation,” and “wanton conduct comprehends an entire absence of all care for the safety of others and a complete indifference to the consequences of the allegedly negligent act.”
There were two dissenting opinions in the case. Both dissenting judges approved the majority’s reasoning in counts one and three of the opinion. However, they both found fault with the second count. The second issue was the requirements by the state to have more lifeguards and a boat on the water. One found the way the argument was raised was insufficient; the second found that there was a genuine issue of fact.
So Now What?
You know you have a bad release when an appellate court tells you so. In this case the defendant squeaked by and still won. The release language needed to be corrected, by an attorney. The release needed to be in larger print and now as a sign-in sheet but as a proper release. The decision also mentioned the decedent, and his friends were not given a copy of the release.
The other issue was the rules adopted by the county and the state. It does not matter who adopts the rules, State, County or if labeled standards groups of people, if they require you to operate a different way, you better change your ways. Here two judges felt the case should be sent back to trial, even though the way the rules were implemented was declared invalid by the majority.
You may not have the luxury of having a court tell you those rules you can ignore. If it is issued by someone with a seal in the letterhead, you better follow it.
The defendant got luck in this one.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Ohio, Release, Sign In Sheet, Drowning, Swimming, Lifeguard, Willful & Wanton, Reckless,
Bishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504
Posted: August 14, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Swimming | Tags: drowning, Lifeguard, Ohio, Reckless, Release, Sign in Sheet, swimming, Willful & Wanton Leave a commentBishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504
Robert Bishop, Executor of the Estate of Eric E. Bishop, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, – vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CASE NO. 2004-P-0008
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, PORTAGE COUNTY
2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504
May 27, 2005, Decided
COUNSEL: J. W. Fodor, Warren, OH (For Plaintiffs-Appellants).
James T. Millican, II, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Cleveland, OH (For Defendants-Appellees).
JUDGES: DIANE V. GRENDELL, J. DONALD R. FORD, P.J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion. CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with a Concurring/Dissenting Opinion.
OPINION BY: DIANE V. GRENDELL
OPINION
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
[*P1] Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Bishop (“Bishop”), appeals from the judgment of the Portage County Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Ltd. (“Nelson Ledges”) and Evan Kelley (“Kelley”). We affirm the decision of the trial court.
[*P2] The appeal before this court arises from the tragic drowning death of Eric Bishop (“Eric”), which occurred at Nelson Ledges Quarry Park (“the park”) on July 31, 2000.
[*P3] The park is a campground, situated on approximately 110 acres, and includes a 30 acre swimming lake for its patrons. The park is owned by Nelson Ledges, an Ohio Limited Liability Corporation, owned by Joretta (“Joretta”) [**2] and Glenn (“Glenn”) Frohring. The park is operated by J&E Management, (“J&E”), a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Kelley, Joretta’s son and Glenn’s stepson.
[*P4] The relevant facts of the incident are as follows. On the afternoon of July 31, 2000, Eric and five of his friends came to Nelson Ledges to swim. Upon entry to the park, each vehicle is stopped at the gate. A fee of $ 5 is collected from each visitor and each visitor is required by a park employee to sign a sign-in sheet, containing a waiver of liability clause, before entry to the park is granted. If some of the visitors are children, their parent, or another responsible adult, is required to sign the form.
[*P5] The top portion of the sign-in sheet contains a waiver of liability statement in print which fits within the top approximately two-and-a-half to three inches of the sheet, including margin spaces, with rectangular spaces for the signatures of park patrons contained below. The sign-in sheet is kept with park employees. The waiver language at the top of the sign-in sheet, states as follows:
NELSON LEDGES QUARRY PARK LIABILITY WAIVER FORM
Persons under 18 years of age must have an adult/guardian [**3] sign for them
CUSTOMERS AND COMPANY AGREE: When you enter Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, LLC, you agree that it is at your sole risk; that you will abide by all the park rules; that you will retain care and control of your car: its parts and contents. Company is not responsible for your car, articles left in your car, loss of use; all liability for any loss including but not limited to, any loss arising from bodily injury, personal injury or drowning. (Emphasis added). We the company do not accept responsibility of any personal injury or loss caused due to the influence of alcohol or other mind altering substances, or food consumed from private vendors. NO ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ARE PERMITTED IN THE CAMPGROUND. I/We hearby (sic) release Nelson Ledges Quarry Park LLC and J&E Management from any liability whatsoever arising from use of the park. No employee may modify any of the terms herein. 1
1 The language of the waiver is reproduced verbatim. No attempt is made herein to reproduce the type or font size as they actually appear on the sign-in sheet. This is a matter of argument in the respective briefs submitted to this court.
[*P6] [**4] It is undisputed that Eric, who was eighteen years of age, and his friends all signed the sheet prior to their admission to the park on the day of the incident. Once inside the park, Eric and his friends decided not to go to the designated beach area, but instead decided to go to another area, called the “stony outcropping” or alternatively, the “drive-down area”. There is a small island located in the water about 40 to 50 yards from the shore of the “drive down” area. Shortly after arriving, Eric and two of his friends decided to swim out to the island.
[*P7] Eric began to experience difficulty about 10 to 15 feet short of the island, and began thrashing about and calling for help. His friends, who had reached the island before Eric, at first thought that he was goofing around. When they realized he was serious, his friends dove into the water to try to save him. Despite his friends’ efforts to save him, Eric slipped under the water. People on the shore who witnessed the incident ran off to summon park personnel for help.
[*P8] Within a few minutes after arriving, park personnel, who were certified in lifesaving, located Eric about 10-15 feet away from the spot where [**5] he had initially gone under the water. Park personnel then took Eric back toward the island, so that they could try to resuscitate him, but they were unsuccessful. All of these events, from the time Eric began to experience trouble, to the time park personnel attempted to revive him, took place within the span of 17 to 20 minutes.
[*P9] On June 10, 2002, Bishop and his wife Janine, as co-executors of their son Eric’s estate, filed wrongful death action, pursuant to R.C. 2125.01 et. seq. against Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, LLC, Glenn and Joretta, and Kelley, alleging that all named defendants were negligent, and that their negligence was the direct and proximate cause of Eric’s death.
[*P10] On October 1, 2003, Nelson Ledges, Glenn and Joretta, and Kelley collectively moved for summary judgment.
[*P11] Bishop then filed a memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, attaching as support an affidavit from Tom Griffiths, Ed.D. (“Griffiths”), an aquatic safety expert, along with a report, incorporated by reference, in which Griffiths testified to “a high degree of aquatic certainty,” that “the conduct of allowing swimming in unrestricted areas, given the [**6] numerous instances highlighted in this report regarding the failure of the defendants to comply with even the most basic water safety requirements *** created a risk that was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make their conduct simply negligent.”
[*P12] On January 12, 2004, the trial court, after reviewing all of the pleadings, motions, and evidence filed, issued a four page order and judgment entry granting summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants. After setting forth the standards for summary judgment, the court made the following conclusions of law: 1) That defendants Glenn and Joretta Frohring are entitled to summary judgment, pursuant to R.C. 1705.48(A) and (B), since they are principals of a limited liability company 2. 2) That, even when reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including the report of Tom Griffiths, defendants’ conduct did not rise to a level of reckless, willful or wanton conduct, but at most, suggested there may be a genuine issue of material fact as to negligence. 3) The waiver was valid, as a matter of law, thus, Eric waived all claims of negligence, and Bishop [**7] was barred from recovering on the wrongful death claim.
2 On appeal, Bishop’s counsel admitted at oral argument and in their brief that Glenn and Joretta Frohring would not be personally liable as principals of a limited liability company under R.C. 1705.48 (A). Therefore, this court, sua sponte, formally dismisses the Frohrings as parties to this appeal.
[*P13] Bishop timely appealed and raised the following assignments of error:
[*P14] “[1.] The trial court erred in failing to apply the standards for determination of motions for summary judgment.
[*P15] “[2.] The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Ltd. based on alleged lack of possession or control of leased premises.
[*P16] “[3.] The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for appellees on the ground that a valid release executed by Eric Bishop released appellees from liability.”
[*P17] As all of Bishop’s assignments of error question the propriety [**8] of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we will first address the applicable standards of review.
[*P18] [HN1] “Summary judgment is a procedural device to terminate litigation and to avoid formal trial when there is nothing to try. It must be awarded with caution.” Murphy v. Reynoldsburg (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 1992 Ohio 95, 604 N.E.2d 138. Summary judgment is proper when three conditions are satisfied: 1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; 2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and 3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion form summary judgment is made. See, Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1976), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46; Civ.R. 56(C). [HN2] “If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R.56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if the nonmovant does not so respond, summary judgment, [**9] if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party.” Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 1996 Ohio 107, 662 N.E.2d 264. [HN3] In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390, 2000 Ohio 186, 738 N.E.2d 1243. Moreover, an appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Id. Thus, we, as an appellate court, owe no deference to the conclusions of the trial court.
[*P19] [HN4] In order to prevail in a wrongful death cause of action, the personal representative of the decedent must prove these elements: “1) a wrongful act, neglect or default of defendant which proximately caused the death and which would have entitled the decedent to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued; 2) that a decedent was survived by a spouse, children, parents, or other next of kin; and 3) that the survivors suffered damages by reasons of the wrongful death.” McCormac, Wrongful Death in Ohio § 2.02. Bishop’s assignments of error challenge the court’s conclusions related to the first element, which may sound in either [**10] negligence or willful misconduct.
[*P20] For the purposes of judicial economy, Bishop’s assignments of error will be discussed out of order.
[*P21] In his third assignment of error, Bishop claims that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment, because there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the validity of the release executed by Eric on the day he drowned. We note at the outset, that Bishop does not argue that Eric did not sign the waiver form. However, Bishop does argue that if the exculpatory provisions in this waiver were strictly construed, the waiver would fail as a matter of law, because the intent to release the party was not expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. We disagree.
[*P22] [HN5] It is well-settled in Ohio that participants in recreational activities and the proprietor of a venue for such an activity are free to enter into contracts designed to relieve the proprietor from responsibility to the participant for the proprietor’s acts of negligence, but not for his willful or wanton misconduct. See, Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384 (auto racing); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201 [**11] (soccer); King v. United Skates of America (Nov. 10, 1994), 11th Dist. No. 93-L-199, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5089 (roller skating); Cain v. Cleveland Parachute Training Ctr. (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 27, 9 Ohio B. 28, 457 N.E.2d 1185 (skydiving); Schwartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp. (1997), 117 Ohio App. 3d 420, 690 N.E.2d 941 (horseback riding). Clauses limiting liability shall ordinarily be construed strictly against the drafting party. Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co. (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 44, 29 Ohio B. 393, 505 N.E.2d 264 at paragraph one of syllabus, ; Cain, 9 Ohio App.3d at 28. Moreover, [HN6] matters involving the interpretation of contract terms, when such terms are unambiguous, are questions of law. See, Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107, 108, 1995 Ohio 214, 652 N.E.2d 684.
[*P23] Reviewing the terms of the waiver language in the light most favorable to Bishop, we hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact related to the validity of the waiver that Eric signed. While inartfully drafted, the sheet Eric signed is clearly labeled at the top as a “Liability Waiver Form” in bold type. Moreover, the form states, in relevant part, that the company and [**12] customers agree that the company is not responsible for, “all liability for any loss, including, *** any loss arising from *** drowning.” (Emphasis added). Thus, any person signing the waiver sheet was on notice that the company was attempting to disclaim all liability for drowning, which is certainly a foreseeable risk of the activity. The term, “all liability” in this case is sufficient to encompass a loss from drowning due to any alleged negligence on the part of Nelson Ledges or Kelley. See, e.g. Schwartzentruber, 117 Ohio App.3d at 425 [HN7] (although “the better practice would certainly be to expressly state the word ‘negligence’ somewhere in the exculpatory provision *** the absence of that term does not automatically render the provision fatally flawed.”) For the reasons mentioned in Bowen, such a broad disclaimer of liability would not, as a matter of law, operate to relieve them from willful or wanton misconduct. Moreover, the obvious purpose of the writing on the document was to release Nelson Ledges and Kelley, d.b.a. J&E, from liability. This argument is not well-taken.
[*P24] Bishop additionally argues that the waiver cannot pass [**13] the test of clarity, since the exculpatory provisions appear in extremely small type. We disagree. Bishop, relying on the California case, Link v. NASCAR, Inc., (Cal.App.1984), 158 Cal. App. 3d 138, 205 Cal. Rptr. 513, argues that if an express release is not easily readable, then it is not enforceable. Bishop’s reliance on Link is misplaced.
[*P25] We first note that [HN8] the rules of law from other states are not controlling in Ohio, but may be used as persuasive authority, particularly when deciding a case of first impression. Certain facts of Link are similar to the instant case, in that the suit was brought for wrongful death as the result of injuries the deceased received after he had signed a waiver sheet which had places for multiple signatures. However, the purported releases that the deceased in Link signed were printed in five-and-one-half point type and could not easily be read by persons of ordinary vision. Furthermore, the court in Link found that the language was so lengthy and convoluted, it was almost incomprehensible to the average person. In deciding the case, the court in Link relied heavily on numerous provisions of the California Civil Code, which [**14] regulate the size of the type to be used in contract provisions, to support their argument. [HN9] Ohio has no such provisions. While we agree in broad principle that contract provisions, particularly those which purport to waive liability, should be printed in type large enough for a person of normal vision to read easily, the waiver in the case at bar satisfies these requirements. As we already mentioned, we find the terms of the waiver in this case were sufficiently clear to put the person signing it on notice. We agree with the trial court that Eric effectively waived all claims based on negligence by signing the waiver form. Thus, Bishop’s third assignment of error is without merit.
[*P26] Under Bishop’s first assignment of error, he argues that even if the court was correct in declaring that the waiver is valid as a matter of law, summary judgment should not have been granted, since the report of Bishop’s aquatic safety expert raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kelley and Nelson Ledges engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. We disagree.
[*P27] We note at the outset, that since we have found Eric’s waiver of liability to be effective against negligence claims, [**15] Griffiths’ report may only be used to demonstrate willful and wanton misconduct. [HN10] Willful and wanton misconduct has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as the equivalent to reckless conduct. Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 104 n.1, 559 N.E.2d 705. An actor’s conduct is reckless when “he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty *** to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which could lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.” Id. at 104-105 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). [HN11] “An act is negligent if it ‘falls below a standard established by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.” Id. at 103 (citation omitted). While the act must be intended by the actor to be reckless, “the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it.” Id. at 105 (citation omitted). Moreover, the risk itself must be “an unreasonable one under the circumstances.” Id. (emphasis sic).
[*P28] [**16] [HN12] An expert opinion may be incorporated by reference into a motion for summary judgment by means of a properly framed affidavit. See, e.g., Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977. However, it is axiomatic that facts presented in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment must be of the type which would be admissible at trial. Civ.R. 56(E); Nu-Trend Homes, Inc. v. Law Offices of DeLibera, Lyons, & Bibbo, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1137, 2003 Ohio 1633, at P71.
[*P29] Griffiths’ report makes reference to recommendations made by the Portage County Health Department (“the Department”), which is responsible for establishing licensing and health requirements for bathing beaches in the county. Kelley’s duty as operator of the park is predicated by regulations set by the Department. The referenced recommendations were suggested improvements made by the Department in 2001, almost an entire year after Eric’s accident, and a major portion of Griffiths’ report is devoted to Kelley’s response to these recommendations.
[*P30] This court has held that [HN13] “subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence [**17] or culpable conduct in connection with the event at issue.” DiCesare v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Dec. 19, 1986), 11th Dist. Nos. 3620 & 3622, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 9404, at *6, citing Evid.R. 407. Thus, none of the evidence of subsequent measures in Griffiths’ report is admissible under Evid.R. 407 to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with Eric’s drowning.
[*P31] Griffiths’ report also bases its conclusion, in part, on Resolution 95-01, which was promulgated by the Department and in effect at the time of the accident. Specifically, Griffiths’ points to the provisions of Resolution 95-01 which called for “one or more qualified lifeguards for each 300 linear feet of occupied bathing beach” to be on duty and “when swimming outside of designated swimming and diving areas *** is permitted *** at least one rescue boat, or rescue board shall be provided and manned with a qualified lifeguard.”
[*P32] Kelley and Nelson Ledges do not dispute that there was only one lifeguard on the beach and no one patrolling in a kayak, at the time of the accident, even though there were staff working at the park [**18] that day who were certified lifeguards. The reason given for only one lifeguard on duty that day was that it was a slow day, as it had rained earlier that morning. The sole lifeguard on duty that day was stationed at the beach, watching over children who were swimming in the designated swimming area.
[*P33] However, the absence of a rescue boat on duty on the date of Eric’s drowning, as required by Resolution 95-01 does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kelley’s or Nelson Ledges’ conduct was willful and wanton. To hold otherwise would misconstrue the meaning of the term “standard established by law for the protection of others,” pursuant to Thompson.
[*P34] The threshold issue in determining willful and wanton misconduct is to determine what legal duty Kelley owed Eric as a visitor to the park. Since Eric paid an admission charge to Kelley for the purpose of swimming at the park, it is clear that Eric was a business invitee on the day of his drowning. [HN14] The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined a business invitee as “one rightfully on the premises of another for the purposes in which the possessor of the premises has a beneficial interest.” Scheibel v. Lipton (1951), 156 Ohio St. 308, 102 N.E.2d 453, [**19] at paragraph one of the syllabus; Monaco v. Red Fox Gun Club, Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2000-P-0064, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 6008, at *21, 2001 Ohio 4040.
[*P35] [HN15] Under common law, the duty owed by an owner of a premises to a business invitee is to “exercise ordinary care and to protect [the invitee] by maintaining the premises in a safe condition.” Id. at *21-*22. Thus, the next question then becomes, whether Resolution 95-01 imposes an additional legal duty on Kelley over and above the common-law duty of ordinary care.
[*P36] [HN16] Courts in Ohio uniformly recognize that the violation of legislative enactments which create a specific and mandatory duty for the protection of others constitutes negligence per se. Klyn v. Aruta (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 152, 154, 517 N.E.2d 992; Tome v. Berea Pewter Mug, Inc. (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 98, 103, 4 Ohio B. 181, 446 N.E.2d 848; Parker v. Copey’s Butcher Shop (Dec. 14, 1992), 2nd Dist. No. 2820, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 6496, at *6; Starost v. Bradley (Jan. 29, 1999), 2nd Dist. No. 17319, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 324, at *12 (“proof of negligence per se means that the Defendant possessed a duty imposed by statute [**20] and breached that duty”). Thus, in cases where a mandatory legal duty is imposed by statute, the “specific requirements of the statute or ordinance replace the rule of ordinary care.” Kehrer v. McKittrick (1964), 176 Ohio St. 192, 198 N.E.2d 669. (emphasis sic).
[*P37] [HN17] According to their express terms, Resolution 95-01 and the regulations created thereunder were adopted by the Portage County Department of Health for the licensing and health requirements of bathing beaches. The resolution purportedly derives its power to adopt regulations under the authority of R.C. 3707.01 and R.C. 3709.21, as well as under Ohio Administrative Code 3701-31-10.
[*P38] [HN18] R.C. 3707.01 charges boards of health of cities or general health districts with the obligation of “abating and removing all nuisances within its jurisdiction,” granting such boards the authority to “regulate the location, construction, and repair *** of yards, pens, and stables, and of water closets, privies, cesspools, sinks, plumbing and drains.”
[*P39] R.C. 3709.21 provides, in relevant part, that [HN19] “the board of health [**21] of a general health district may make such orders and regulations as are necessary for *** the public health, the prevention and restriction of disease, and the prevention, abatement, or suppression of nuisances.”
[*P40] [HN20] A plain reading of both statutes clearly indicates that neither expressly delegates to public health departments the authority to regulate public swimming areas. Moreover, even if we were to presume that public swimming areas fell under the ambit of the more general authority of R.C. 3709.21, the authority to regulate under this statute is limited only to public health matters, and not matters of public safety. Jackson v. City of Franklin (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 431, 446, 594 N.E.2d 1018 (“R.C. 3709.21 does not authorize a board of health to regulate matters pertaining to public safety.”) Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the regulation also purports to rely on [HN21] former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-31-10 3, regulating “other public bathing places,” which was repealed in January of 1996, over four years before the current incident occurred. See 1995-1996 Ohio Monthly Record 1-1110, eff. Jan. 1, 1996. Thus, any attempt [**22] by the Portage County Board of Health to promulgate and enforce safety regulations under either of the aforementioned statutes or the administrative code section, would be without legal effect.
3 [HN22] Ohio Adm. Code 3701-31-01 et. seq. is authorized by R.C. Chapter 3749.02, which was enacted in 1987. R.C. 3749.02 grants public health departments the right to regulate “the issuance of licenses, *** sanitation, safety, and operation of public swimming pools, public spas, and special use pools.” R.C. 3749.02 (emphasis added). We note, however, that according to R.C. 3749.01, “public swimming pools”, “spas,” and “special purpose pools” have specifically defined meanings. Although 3749.01(J) defines “public bathing areas” as “an impounding reservoir, basin, lake, pond, creek, river, or other similar natural body of water,” no other section within R.C. Chapter 3749 makes any mention of “public bathing areas.” Thus, we can only conclude that a public health department’s regulation of “public bathing areas” is not specifically authorized by this chapter. See also, 1994 Ohio Atty. Gen. Ops. No. 94-044. (“A public bathing beach *** is not subject to regulation under R.C. Chapter 3749, unless such beach constitutes a ‘public swimming pool,’ as defined in R.C. 3749.01(G), a ‘public spa,’ as defined in R.C. 3749.01(H), or a ‘special use pool,’ as defined in R.C. 3749.01(I).”
[*P41] [**23] Even if we were to assume that the administrative code section to which Resolution 95-01 cites was a valid means of enacting sufficiently specific safety regulations, [HN23] administrative code sections cannot, as a matter of law, be used to support a finding of negligence per se. Jaworowski v. Medical Radiation Consultants (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 320, 329, 594 N.E.2d 9 (“The only ‘laws’ in Ohio which historically have been held to create specific and mandatory duties the violation of which constitutes negligence per se are legislative enactments, not administrative regulations.”) (citations omitted); see also, Whitener v. Firwood Investment Co. (Sep. 13, 1995), 2nd Dist. No. 14938, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 3986, at *22. Thus, we find that in the absence of valid and enforceable safety regulations, Kelley’s legal duty was one of ordinary care, i.e., an ordinary negligence standard of care.
[*P42] Since we have already determined that Eric validly waived all claims sounding in negligence, we see no conceivable means by which the requirements of Resolution 95-01 may be used, to find that Kelley’s conduct rose to the level of willful and wanton misconduct. See [**24] Roszman v. Sammett, (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 94, 96-97, 269 N.E.2d 420 [HN24] (“The difference between negligence and willfulness is a difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree *** in order to establish wantonness, the conduct must be supported by evidence that shows a disposition to perversity, such as acts of stubbornness, obstinacy or persistency in opposing that which is right, reasonable, correct or generally accepted as a course to follow in protecting the safety of others”) (emphasis added). Though the circumstances surrounding Eric’s death are, indeed, unfortunate, [HN25] “willful conduct implies design, set purpose, intention, or deliberation,” and “wanton conduct comprehends an entire absence of all care for the safety of others and a complete indifference to the consequences of the allegedly negligent act.” Rinehart v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Assn. (1993), 91 Ohio App. 3d 222, 229, 632 N.E.2d 539 (citations omitted). Since there is nothing in the record supporting a finding that Kelley’s conduct was willful or wanton as a matter of law, Bishop’s first assignment of error is without merit.
[*P43] In his second assignment of error, Bishop alleges that Nelson Ledges maintained [**25] significant possession and control over the park as lessor and is therefore liable for Eric’s death. Since we determined in assignments of error one and three that Eric validly waived all claims sounding in negligence, and Kelley’s conduct as operator and lessee of the park did not rise to the level of willful and wanton misconduct, there is no liability to be imputed to Nelson Ledges. Bishop’s second assignment of error is without merit.
[*P44] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.
DONALD R. FORD, P.J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with a Concurring/Dissenting Opinion.
CONCUR BY: DONALD R. FORD; CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE (In Part)
CONCUR
DONALD R. FORD, P.J., concurring.
[*P45] Although I concur with the majority, I believe that the following language cited in the opinion is subject to further qualification. The majority states that: “an expert opinion may be incorporated by reference into a motion for summary judgment by means of a properly framed affidavit. See e.g., Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977. However, it is axiomatic that [**26] facts presented in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment must be of the type which would be admissible at trial. Civ.R. 56(E), Nu-Trend Homes, Inc. v. Law Offices of DeLibera, Lyons, and Bibbo, 10th Dist. No. 01AO-1137, 2003 Ohio 1633, at 71.”
[*P46] This writer notes that when there is no timely objection to submissions that otherwise could be excluded, the trial court might include such material in its analysis regarding a decision on a motion for summary judgment. Rodger v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Ohio, Inc. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 256, 8 Ohio B. 347, 456 N.E.2d 1262, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Chiles v. Cuyahoga Community College (Dec. 5, 1996), 8th Dist. No. 70658, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5466, at *4; Christe v. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App. 3d 84, 90, 705 N.E.2d 691; Sreshta v. Kaydan (May 6, 1999), 8th Dist. No. 74081, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2066, at *6-*7; Jarrell v. Englefield (Mar. 17, 2000), 11th Dist. No. 98-P-0105, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1076, at *2; Ryser v. Conrad (Mar. 31, 2000), 11th Dist. No. 98-T-0088, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1428, at *8; Kanu v. George Dev., Inc., 6th Dist. Nos. L-02-1140 and L-02-1139, 2002 Ohio 6356, at P13. [**27] (Citations omitted.)
DISSENT BY: CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE (In Part)
DISSENT
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
[*P47] I concur with the majority’s resolution of appellant’s first and third assignments of error as they relate to the validity of the waiver Eric signed and its release of appellees from claims sounding in negligence. I dissent with respect to the resolution of appellant’s second assignment of error.
[*P48] As Judge Ford correctly notes in his concurring opinion, “when there is no timely objection to submissions that might otherwise be excluded, the trial court might include such material in its analysis regarding a decision on a motion for summary judgment.”
[*P49] Here, appellees failed to raise any objection to Griffith’s reference to recommendations made by the Portage County Health Department and the trial court could include such material in its analysis.
[*P50] Further, the majority concedes appellees were in violation of Resolution 95-01 at the time Eric drowned, yet summarily conclude that this evidence, “while likely sufficient to support a finding of negligence per se *** [is] insufficient as a matter of law, to find Kelly’s conduct [**28] rose to the level of willful and wanton misconduct.”
[*P51] The majority defines willful and wanton conduct as equivalent to reckless conduct and then states:
[*P52] “An actor’s conduct is reckless when ‘he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty *** to do knowing or having reason to know of facts which could lead a reasonable man to realize not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.’ *** An act is negligent if it ‘falls below a standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.’ *** While the act must be intended by the actor to be reckless, ‘the actor must not intend to cause the harm which results from it.’ *** Moreover, the risk itself must be ‘an unreasonable one under the circumstances.‘” (Emphasis sic.) Supra, at 10.
[*P53] Here, Resolution 95-01 required a manned rescue boat to be on duty. Appellees concede no manned rescue boat was on duty and this decision was an intentional one. Thus, appellees concede they intentionally failed to do an act they were [**29] required by law to do. Appellant’s expert opined that appellees’ failure “to comply with even the most basic water safety requirements *** created a risk that was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make their conduct simple negligence.”
[*P54] Appellant’s expert’s opinion establishes a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellees’ conduct was willful or wanton. For these reasons, I find appellant’s second assignment of error has merit.
This California decision looks at assumption of the risk as it applies to non-competitive long distance bicycle rides and also determines that assumption of the risk also overcomes a violation of a statute (negligence per se).
Posted: August 8, 2016 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, California, Cycling | Tags: assumption of the risk, Bicycling, Cycling, Express Assumption of the Risk, Negligence per se, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Secondary Assumption of the Risk Leave a commentA negligence per se claim can be stopped if the plaintiff assumed the risk under California law. This is probably a rare look at negligence per se in the fifty states.
State: California, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five
Plaintiff: Christian Moser
Defendant: Joanne Ratinoff
Plaintiff Claims: negligently, recklessly and carelessly operated, owned, controlled and maintained” her bicycle “so as to collide with the defendant.
Defendant Defenses: Primary Assumption of the Risk and Secondary Assumption of the Risk
Holding: for the defendant
Year: 2003
The plaintiff and the defendant participated in an “organized long-distance bicycle ride on public highways involving hundreds of participants.” The ride, the Death Valley Double Century was a 200-mile ride (double century). During the ride, the defendant swerved from the right side along the curb to the left into the plaintiff causing a collision. The plaintiff suffered injuries.
Prior to the ride, both participants signed releases. The releases explained several of the risks of the activity, but did not protect participants from claims of other participants. “The document does not purport to be a release of anyone other than the “event holders, sponsors and organizers.”
The case was dismissed at the trial court level because collisions are an inherent risk of cycling. The plaintiff appealed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court first looked at the requirements for the defendant to prove assumption of the risk by motion.
When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of implied assumption of the risk, he or she has the burden of establishing the plaintiff’s primary assumption of the risk by demonstrating that the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the harm of which the plaintiff complains.
Under California law, a participant is generally responsible for their own injuries caused by the ordinary care or skill of another.
The court then looked at whether the plaintiff expressly assumed the risk of his injuries.
When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of implied assumption of the risk, he or she has the burden of establishing the plaintiff’s primary assumption of the risk by demonstrating that the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the harm of which the plaintiff complains.
Express assumption of the risk is usually considered a written assumption of the risk. The court set out the definitions that must be met to prove express assumption of the risk in California.
The doctrine of express assumption of the risk is founded on express agreement. ‘Although in the academic literature “express assumption of risk” often has been designated as a separate, contract-based species of assumption of risk . . ., cases involving express assumption of risk are concerned with instances in which, as the result of an express agreement, the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from an injury-causing risk.’ Such an agreement, if valid, ‘operates to relieve the defendant of a legal duty to the plaintiff with respect to the risks encompassed by the agreement. . . .’ That express assumption of risk is founded on an express agreement undercuts the distributor defendants’ claim that it is good as against the world.
The court found that express assumption of the risk could not be applied to this case, as the defendants failed to prove that she was entitled to use the release signed by both parties before entering the race. However, the court found there could still be some value to the defendant from the release. “A person’s written acknowledgment of the risks inherent in an activity may, however, have an effect on determinations concerning implied assumption of risk.”
The court then looked at implied assumption of the risk, also known as secondary assumption of the risk, and whether it could be proved in this case. Under California law, implied assumption of the risk “embodies a legal conclusion that there is ‘no duty’ on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk”
Implied assumption of the risk was defined by the California Supreme Court as:
…a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against the risks inherent in a particular competitive sport (in that case, an informal touch football game) voluntarily played by the plaintiff, absent some reckless or intentional misconduct, but does owe a duty not to increase the risk of harm above that inherent in the sport. The court said that “[i]n some situations . . . the careless conduct of others is treated as an ‘inherent risk’ of a sport, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff.”
The reasoning for this is to impose a duty would place a chill on most sporting activities so that participants would not vigorously compete.
The test for implied assumption of the risk is not whether the defendant must protect the plaintiff from a known risk, but the nature of the activity.
The court then looked to determine if prior decisions had applied the defense of implied assumption of the risk to “organized non-competitive recreational bicycle riding.” However, the court did find that the risks and other factors made this type of cycling the same as other sports that implied assumption of the risk had been applied too by other California courts.
Nevertheless, this sport appears to fall within those activities to which these cases apply the assumption of risk doctrine. As the court said upon “[c]ompiling all of the distinguishing factors” from the cases, an activity is a “sport” to which the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies if that activity “is done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion as well as elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury.” That delineation is a useful one and covers the bicycle ride here.
The court also found that although bicycles are vehicles under California law, this type of activity was not the same as driving a car. This was done for enjoyment and physical activity.
However, the assumption of risk is not a blanket defense to all claims.
The primary assumption of risk rule “does not grant unbridled legal immunity to all defendants participating in sporting activity. The Supreme Court has stated that ‘. . . it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.’
Defendants have no legal duty to eliminate the risk or protect a plaintiff to the risks inherent in a sport. The next issue becomes what then are the inherent risks of a sport.
Conduct is not inherent in the sport if that conduct is “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport . . . [and] if the prohibition of that conduct would neither deter vigorous participation in the sport nor otherwise fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.” A participant injured in a sporting activity by another participant may recover from that coparticipant for intentional infliction of injury or tortious behavior “so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport” but not for mere negligence.
The court then gave examples of non-inherent risks and inherent risks in sports as determined by other California courts.
Certain activities have been held not to be inherent in a sport and thus not subject to the primary assumption of risk doctrine. For example, drinking alcoholic beverages is not an activity inherent in the sport of skiing. On the other hand, in various sports, going too fast, making sharp turns, not taking certain precautions, or proceeding beyond one’s abilities are actions held not to be totally outside the range of ordinary activities involved in those sports.
The court then found that two riders riding side by side, a collision between the two, or one rider riding into the other was an inherent risk of cycling.
The analogies derived from the risks in other sports suggest that one cyclist riding alongside another cyclist and swerving into the latter is a risk that is inherent in a long-distance, recreational group bicycle ride. The release Moser signed warns of the risk of accidents caused by the participants, thus indicating that such accidents are an inherent risk of the activity.
The defendant in this case the court determined was negligent, but was not wanton or reckless or conduct so totally outside of the range of ordinary activity involved in cycling.
The final issue the court looked at is whether the claim of negligence per se is barred by express or implied assumption of the risk. Court looked at precedent, prior case law, to determine the issue and found none. There were several California Supreme Court decisions that looked at the issue but did not rule on it. On the court today, this court determined from those prior decisions that a majority, four, of the justices on the court would argue that a negligence per se claim is blocked by express assumption of the risk. “Nevertheless, a majority of the present California Supreme courts have expressed the view that a violation of a statute such as involved here does not displace the primary assumption of risk doctrine.”
The court upheld the ruling of the trial court, and the case was dismissed.
So Now What?
First do not assume that assumption of the risk, in any form can bar a negligence per se claim. There are several states were this would not be true.
Second, the court’s analysis of the facts and the law are easily understood and supported by the case law quoted. This is a great case to understand the two types of assumption of the risk allowed in California.
Finally, in California of two or more people riding together is that one of those people assumes the inherent risk of colliding with the other.
![clip_image002[4]](https://recreation-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clip_image0024_thumb1.jpg?w=244&h=348 "clip_image002[4]")
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Cycling, Bicycling, Assumption of the Risk, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Secondary Assumption of the Risk, Express Assumption of the Risk, Negligence per se,
Motion for Summary Judgment failed because the plaintiff’s claim was based upon a failure to follow a statute or rule creating a negligence per se defense to the release in this Pennsylvania sailing case.
Posted: August 1, 2016 Filed under: Florida, Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Rivers and Waterways | Tags: Diversity, Florida, Negligence per se, Release, Sailing, Seamanship, Vessel for Hire, Waiver Leave a commentNegligence per se is an elusive legal issue that generally prevents a release to be effective as in this case. Understanding the issue for your state is important.
Citation Knarr v. Chapman School of Seamanship, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5351
State: Pennsylvania, United States District Court for the eastern District of Pennsylvania
Plaintiff: Jean Knarr & Lester Knarr
Defendant: Chapman School of Seamanship
Plaintiff Claims: negligence per se
Defendant Defenses: release and plaintiff failed to plead enough facts to establish a negligence per se case
Holding: for the plaintiff
Year: 2000
Negligence per se cases are arising with more frequency. They are a way the plaintiff can beat the release in recreational activities. In most states, a successful negligence per se claim is not dismissed because of a release, and the plaintiff can go to trial. On top of that, Juries take a dim view of a defendant who did not follow the law or rules for his industry.
In this case, the plaintiff (wife) enrolled in a seamanship school with the defendant in Florida. (Thus the reason why the Federal District Court was hearing the case.)
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the release; the plaintiff had signed and argued the negligence per se claims of the plaintiff should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant had violated a rule or statute. This was the second motion for summary judgement; the first was over the issues of the release and the simple or ordinary negligence claims.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
Florida’s law allows a release to stop a negligence claim. (See Release fails under Florida’s law because it is only an assumption of risk form, not a release in a Go-Kart case.; Trifecta of stupidity sinks this dive operation. Too many releases, operation standards and dive industry standards, along with an employee failing to get releases signed, sunk this ship on appeal.; Release for bicycle tour wins on appeal but barely; Electronic release upheld in Florida federal court for surfing on a cruise ship, Florida statute that allows a parent to release a minor’s right to sue)
However, Florida does not allow a release to stop a negligence per se claim.
In denying an earlier motion for summary judgment, the Honorable Marvin Katz concluded that although the indemnification agreement protected the Defendant from liability arising from mere negligence, it could not protect itself from claims arising from negligence per se.
Under Florida’s law, negligence per se is defined as:
According to the Supreme Court of Florida, negligence per se is established if there is “a violation of any … statute which establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury.”
Negligence per se under Florida’s law was defined broadly: Florida’s state courts have concluded that violations of other legal pronouncements, other than statutes, amount to negligence per se. Negligence per se was applied to violation of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service Rules, violations of administrative regulations, and FAA regulations. (Compare this to the limited application of negligence per se in a Colorado rafting case in 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Colorado law concerning releases in a whitewater rafting fatality.)
The issue here was whether any US Coast Guard regulation applied to this defendant and the ship the injury occurred upon and whether the regulation applied to the ladder, specifically.
Here the court found that the boat was of the size the regulation was applied to. The court also found the boat was “for hire” because the plaintiff had paid to be on the boat to take the seamanship course. The final issue was whether the regulation, which was a standard created by ANSI, (American National Standards Institute) applied in this case.
The court found the regulation was specifically adopted for situations, specifically like this:
One could hardly imagine a set of ship regulations more specifically written for the benefit of passengers for hire than ones dealing with escape, as evidenced by certain events that occurred 88 years ago today in the North Atlantic.
The reference was to the sinking of the Titanic.
The final issue was whether the claims of the plaintiff, as plead, fit the requirement for negligence per se, an injury the regulations were designed to prevent. Here again, the court found the pleadings were not specific, but outlined enough of the issues to meet the definitions of a ladder that was dangerous. This was based more on the failure of the defendant to show the ladder met the ANSI and subsequent US Coast Guard regulations.
Our conclusion would be different, of course, if the record contained either some specific information on the ladder’s actual set-back distance, or on the precise features of the ladder that allegedly caused the accident. At this point, however, we have neither. It thus appears that the case will turn on a resolution of disputed facts, some of which will, no doubt, be the subject of expert opinions.
Consequently, the case was allowed to proceed.
So Now What?
If you were to speculate, this boat was probably a sail boat created for some owner. It has been converted to a vessel for hire when the classes were offered by the owner. As such, no standard applied to the vessel as a pleasure vessel, when it was being built; however, now that it fit the regulations, it had to meet the regulations.
Another scenario could be the vessel was old enough that it was built before the regulations were in effect.
Both scenarios can be found in outdoor programs daily. Land is purchased for a recreation program with buildings already on the land. No emergency exit from the second floor, no fire alarms, all could lead to losing a law suit.
A release is a great line of defense against claims, but fraud, gross negligence and as seen here, negligence per se will not be stopped by a release. Consequently, risk management and education is a never-ending requirement for a recreation provider to be on the lookout for.
For other articles, looking at Negligence per se issues see:
Instructional Colorado decision Negligence, Negligence Per Se and Premises Liability http://rec-law.us/wEIvAW
10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Colorado law concerning releases in a whitewater rafting fatality. http://rec-law.us/1njzlhf
If you really are bad, a judge will figure out a way to void your release http://rec-law.us/Xyu8CZ
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Vessel for Hire, Sailing, Seamanship, Negligence per se, Release, Waiver, Diversity, Florida,
Moser v. Ratinoff, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1211; 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198; 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 138; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 987; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1320
Posted: July 31, 2016 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, California, Cycling, Legal Case | Tags: assumption of the risk, Bicycling, Cycling, Express Assumption of the Risk, Negligence per se, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Secondary Assumption of the Risk Leave a commentMoser v. Ratinoff, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1211; 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198; 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 138; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 987; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1320
Christian Moser, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Joanne Ratinoff, Defendant and Respondent.
No. B153258.
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE
January 31, 2003, Decided
January 31, 2003, Filed
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY A participant in an organized, long-distance bicycle ride on public highways brought an action against a coparticipant, alleging that defendant was negligent in swerving into him and causing him to fall off his bicycle and sustain injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on the basis of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC225431, Gregory C. O’Brien, Judge.)
A participant in an organized, long-distance bicycle ride on public highways brought an action against a coparticipant, alleging that defendant was negligent in swerving into him and causing him to fall off his bicycle and sustain injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on the basis of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC225431, Gregory C. O’Brien, Judge.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that a waiver, signed by plaintiff prior to participating in the ride, that released the event holders, sponsors, and organizers and acknowledged the risks of the ride, including those caused by other participants, did not inure to the benefit of defendant. However, the court held, the primary assumption of the risk doctrine was applicable. Organized, long-distance bicycle rides are an activity to which the doctrine applies, since they are engaged in for enjoyment or thrill, require physical exertion and skill, and involve a challenge containing a risk of injury. Further, the risk that one cyclist will swerve into another is inherent in such rides. The court also held that the fact that defendant’s movements may have violated various Vehicle Code sections did not preclude application of the doctrine. (Opinion by Mosk, J., with Turner, P.J., and Grignon, J., concurring.)
HEADNOTES
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
Classified to California Digest of Official Reports
(1) Summary Judgment § 26–Appellate Review–Scope of Review. — –A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. The appellate court makes an independent assessment of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, applying the same legal standard as the trial court in determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact or whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2), a defendant moving for summary judgment meets its burden of showing that there is no merit to a cause of action by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or as to a defense to the cause of action.
(2) Negligence § 98–Actions–Trial and Judgment–Questions of Law and Fact–Assumption of Risk–Summary Judgment. — –When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of implied assumption of the risk, he or she has the burden of establishing the plaintiff’s primary assumption of the risk by demonstrating that the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the harm of which the plaintiff complains. Determining whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies is a legal question to be decided by the court.
(3) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk. — –A defense to a claim of negligence is that the plaintiff either expressly or impliedly assumed the risk.
(4) Negligence § 38–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Effect of Express Waiver. — –A participant in an organized, long-distance bicycle ride on public highways did not assume the risk of negligence by a coparticipant in the ride by signing, prior to taking part in the ride, a waiver that released the event holders, sponsors, and organizers and acknowledged the risks of the ride, including those caused by other participants. An express assumption of risk agreement does not inure to the benefit of those not parties to that agreement.
(5) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Particular persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Effect. — –The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk embodies a legal conclusion that there is no duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk. Where the doctrine applies, the plaintiff’s assumption of the risk acts as a complete bar to liability.
(6) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons-Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Competitive Sports. — –Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against the risks inherent in a particular competitive sport voluntarily played by the plaintiff, absent some reckless or intentional misconduct, but does owe a duty not to increase the risk of harm above that inherent in the sport. Whether the doctrine applies depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties’ general relationship to the activity. The overriding consideration in the application of the doctrine is to avoid imposing a duty that might chill vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature.
(7) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Analytical Frameword. — –In assumption of the risk analysis, the question whether the defendant owed a legal duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk of harm does not turn on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, but rather on the nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport.
(8a) (8b) Negligence § 38–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Orgainzed Bicycle Ride. — –In an action by a participant in an organized, long-distance bicycle ride on public highways, in which plaintiff alleged that defendant, a coparticipant, was negligent in swerving into him and causing him to fall off his bicycle and sustain injuries, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on the basis of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. Such organized, long-distance bicycle rides are an activity to which the doctrine applies, since they are engaged in for enjoyment or thrill, require physical exertion and skill, and involve a challenge containing a risk of injury. Further, the risk that one cyclist will swerve into another is inherent in such rides. Defendant’s movements may have been negligent, but they were not intentional, wanton, or reckless, nor were they totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport. Thus, the accident was within the risks assumed by plaintiff and defendant when they chose to participate.
[See 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 1090C.]
(9) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Risks Not Assumed. — –Even if an activity is one to which the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies, there are certain risks that are deemed not assumed and certain injury-causing actions that are not considered assumed risks of the activity. An activity that is not inherent in the sport is not subject to the doctrine. Drinking alcoholic beverages, for example, is not an activity inherent in the sport of skiing. On the other hand, in various sports, going too fast, making sharp turns, not taking certain precautions, and proceeding beyond one’s abilities are actions held not to be totally outside the range of ordinary activities involved in those sports.
(10) Negligence § 40–Exercise of Care by Particular Persons–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Violation of Safety Law–Vehicle Code Provisions Applicable to Bicycle Riding. — –In an action by a participant in an organized, long-distance bicycle ride on public highways, in which plaintiff alleged that defendant, a coparticipant, was negligent in swerving into him and causing him to fall off his bicycle and sustain injuries, the fact that defendant’s movements may have violated various Vehicle Code sections did not preclude application of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. The doctrine is not displaced by a violation of a statute that does not evince legislative intent to eliminate the assumption of the risk defense.
COUNSEL: Law Offices of Michael L. Oran, Michael L. Oran, Kathy B. Seuthe; Law Offices of Garry S. Malin and Garry S. Malin for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Barry Bartholomew & Associates, Michael A. Nork and Kathryn Albarian for Defendant and Respondent.
JUDGES: (Opinion by Mosk, J., with Turner, P. J., and Grignon, J., concurring.)
OPINION BY: MOSK
OPINION
[*1214] [**200] MOSK, J.
Plaintiff and appellant Christian Moser (Moser) and defendant and respondent Joanne Ratinoff (Ratinoff) participated in an organized, long-distance bicycle ride on public highways involving hundreds of participants. Moser signed an “Accident Waiver and Release of Liability” form for the benefit of the event holders, sponsors and organizers in which Moser expressly assumed the risk of various injuries, including those caused by other participants. During the ride, Ratinoff swerved into Moser, causing him to crash and sustain injuries. Moser sued Ratinoff for general negligence. Ratinoff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that a collision between bicycle riders was an inherent risk in the ride, and [*1215] therefore the action was barred by [***2] the primary assumption of risk doctrine enunciated in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 834 P.2d 696] (Knight). Moser opposed the motion on the grounds that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply because the collision was not an inherent risk of the activity and because Ratinoff’s violation of provisions of the California Vehicle Code precluded application of the doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment in Ratinoff’s favor. We hold that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to the organized bicycle ride, and that a violation of a statute does not displace that doctrine. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1
1 We state the facts in accordance with the standard of review stated post.
Moser and Ratinoff collide during a bicycle ride
In February 1999, Moser registered to participate in the Death Valley Double Century bicycle ride, a 200-mile, noncompetitive bicycle ride on public [***3] highways. Hugh Murphy Productions organized the ride in which approximately 600 bicycle riders participated. 2 Before participating in the ride, Moser signed a document provided by the organizers entitled “Accident Waiver and Release of Liability” (the release), releasing the organizers and stating, “I acknowledge that this athletic event is an extreme test of a person’s physical and mental limits and carries with it the potential for death, serious injury and property loss. The risks include, but are not limited to those caused by . . . actions of other people including but not limited to participants. . . . I hereby assume all of the risks of participating &/or volunteering in this event.” The organizer required riders to wear helmets and to have bicycle lights.
2 One of the forms refers to the promoter as “Badwater Adventure Sports.”
The ride had no designated start time. On the day of the accident, Moser and his friend, David Warshawsky (Warshawsky), began the ride at 4:00 a.m. At a rest stop, [***4] Moser and Warshawsky encountered Ratinoff, another participant in the ride. The three cyclists left the rest stop together, with Warshawsky and Ratinoff riding side-by-side and Moser riding behind them. At some point, they began riding single file.
Moser was cycling close to the right-hand side of the road. Ratinoff said that she came from behind Moser’s left side and passed him or rode at his left side. Moser said Ratinoff came up from behind him and rode next to him on his left side. While she was riding on Moser’s left side, an Inyo County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled his car approximately four or five car lengths behind [*1216] them and stayed there for several minutes. Ratinoff turned to look at the [**201] police car, and she then told Moser, “I have to come over.” According to Ratinoff, a “split second” later, she moved to her right toward Moser.
As Ratinoff moved to her right, she made contact with Moser, who nevertheless was able to retain control of his bicycle. Within seconds, Ratinoff again collided with Moser, causing him to fall off his bike and to sustain injuries. At the time of the collision, Ratinoff and Moser were riding at an approximate speed of 15 to 20 miles per hour.
Moser [***5] sues Ratinoff, and Ratinoff files a motion for summary judgment
Moser commenced an action against Ratinoff and in his complaint alleged that Ratinoff “negligently, recklessly and carelessly operated, owned, controlled and maintained” her bicycle “so as to collide with” Moser’s bicycle. Ratinoff alleged assumption of risk as an affirmative defense.
Ratinoff filed a motion for summary judgment in which she contended that she was not liable to Moser because under the primary assumption of risk doctrine she did not breach a duty of care owed to him. Moser, in opposition to the motion, argued that the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not apply to noncompetitive bicycle riding and that Ratinoff violated Vehicle Code sections 21202, subdivision (a) (operating a bicycle as close “as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway”), and 22107 (moving a vehicle to the left or right “with reasonable safety”), thereby giving rise to a presumption of negligence and rendering the primary assumption of risk doctrine inapplicable.
The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and entered judgment against Moser. The trial court denied Moser’s motion [***6] for new trial. Moser does not raise the denial of his new trial motion as a basis for his appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
(1) [HN1] We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. (Szadolci v. Hollywood Park Operating Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 16, 19 [17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356].) We make “an independent assessment of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, applying the same legal standard as the trial court in determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact or whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Iverson v. Muroc Unified School Dist. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 218, 222 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 35].) A defendant moving for summary judgment meets its burden of showing that [*1217] there is no merit to a cause of action by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or as to a defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, 853 [107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841, 24 P.3d 493].) [***7] (2))
[HN2] “When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of implied assumption of the risk, he or she has the burden of establishing the plaintiff’s primary assumption of the risk by demonstrating that the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the harm of which the plaintiff complains.” (Freeman v. Hale (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1395 [36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418].) Determining whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies is a legal question to be decided by the court. (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 313; Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 479 [86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547].) [**202]
DISCUSSION
[HN3] A person is generally responsible “for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.” (Civ. Code, § 1714.(3)) But a defense to a claim of negligence is that the plaintiff either expressly or impliedly assumed the risk. (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 308, fn. 4, 309-321.)
I. Express assumption of risk
Before reaching the issue of implied assumption of risk, we must determine if Moser expressly assumed the risk of a collision based [***8] on the release he signed. [HN4] An express assumption of risk is a complete defense to a negligence claim. (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 308, fn. 4; Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1372 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 813]; Allabach v. Santa Clara County Fair Assn. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1012 [54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330].) Moser released the “event holders, sponsors and organizers,” and also acknowledged the risks of the ride, including those caused by other participants. The document does not purport to be a release of anyone other than the “event holders, sponsors and organizers.”
In Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715 [22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 781] (Westlye), the plaintiff, who was injured skiing, filed an action against the ski shop from which he rented allegedly defective ski [*1218] equipment and the distributors of the equipment. He had signed a written agreement with the ski shop in which he accepted the equipment for use “as is”; agreed that he understood that there ” ‘are no guarantee[s] for the user’s safety’ “; acknowledged that there is ” ‘an inherent risk of injury in the sport of skiing, and the use of any ski equipment, and expressly assume[d] the risks for any [***9] damages to any persons or property resulting from the use of this equipment’ “; and released the ski shop from any liability. (Id. at p. 1725.)
The distributors of the equipment contended that “as a matter of law an express assumption of risk is good as against the whole world” and therefore precluded any liability against the distributors. (Westlye, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 1729.) In holding that the plaintiff had not released the distributors of the equipment, the court said, “defendants fail to submit, and we have not discovered, any authority for [the distributors’] proposition. The doctrine of express assumption of the risk is founded on express agreement. [Citations.] ‘Although in the academic literature “express assumption of risk” often has been designated as a separate, contract-based species of assumption of risk . . ., cases involving express assumption of risk are concerned with instances in which, as the result of an express agreement, the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from an injury-causing risk.’ [Citations.] Such an agreement, if valid, ‘operates to relieve the defendant of a legal duty to the plaintiff with respect [***10] to the risks encompassed by the agreement. . . .’ [Citation.] That express assumption of risk is founded on an express agreement undercuts the distributor defendants’ claim that it is good as against the world. [P] . . . [P] We conclude the distributor defendants have failed to establish that they are entitled to the benefit of the written agreement between plaintiff and [the ski shop].” (Id. at pp. 1729-1730.)(4))
Westlye, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1715, states the existing law that [HN5] an express assumption of risk agreement does not inure to the benefit of those not parties to that agreement. Accordingly, [**203] Moser did not expressly assume the risk of negligence by a coparticipant in the ride. A person’s written acknowledgment of the risks inherent in an activity may, however, have an effect on determinations concerning implied assumption of risk. (See discussion post.)
II. Implied assumption of risk
The subject of implied assumption of risk has generated much judicial attention. Its modern history began when California eliminated contributory negligence and adopted a comparative negligence system in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [119 Cal. Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226].. [***11] [*1219] Thereafter, the California Supreme Court–in two companion cases, Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, and Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal.4th 339 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30, 834 P.2d 724] (Ford)–considered the “proper application of the ‘assumption of risk’ doctrine in light of [the] court’s adoption of comparative fault principles.” (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 300.) (5))
In Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, the Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, set forth the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. That doctrine, which is now established as “the controlling law” (Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063, 1067 [68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859, 946 P.2d 817] (Cheong)), “embodies a legal conclusion that [HN6] there is ‘no duty’ on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk. . . .” (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 308.) When the doctrine applies, the plaintiff’s assumption of the risk acts as a complete bar to liability. (Ibid.) 3
3 But see the Restatement Third of Torts, section 2 and comment i, pages 19, 25 (“Most courts have abandoned implied assumptions of risk as an absolute bar to a plaintiff’s recovery”).
[***12] (6) In Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, the court concluded that a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against the risks inherent in a particular competitive sport (in that case, an informal touch football game) voluntarily played by the plaintiff, absent some reckless or intentional misconduct, but does owe a duty not to increase the risk of harm above that inherent in the sport. The court said that “[i]n some situations . . . the careless conduct of others is treated as an ‘inherent risk’ of a sport, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff.” (Id. at p. 316.) In Ford, the court applied the rule to noncompetitive, non-team-sporting activities–in that case waterskiing. (Ford, supra, 3 Cal.4th 339.)
[HN7] Whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies–which issue is, as noted above, a question of law–“depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties’ general relationship to the activity.” (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 313.) “The overriding consideration in the application of primary assumption of risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the implicated [***13] activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature.” (Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 248, 253 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65].)
III. Activity subject to primary assumption of risk
(7) In Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at page 309, the court said that “whether the defendant owed a legal duty to protect the plaintiff from a [**204] particular risk [*1220] of harm does not turn on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, but rather on the nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport.” The court suggested that generally, the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies in a “sports setting.” (Id. at pp. 309-310, fn. 5.) (8a)) Thus, the issue in the instant case is whether an organized, noncompetitive, long-distance bicycle ride is one of those sports activities to which the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies.
The court in Staten v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1628, 1635 [53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 657], stated, “Knight may require a court to determine a question of duty in sports settings while factually uninformed of how the sport is [***14] played and the precise nature of its inherent risks.” To make a decision concerning duty we must know the nature of a particular sport, and even if we do have such knowledge, we still may have no idea how imposing liability will affect or “chill” the sport–which is a major factor in making a determination of duty. (See American Golf Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 30, 37 [93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 683] [court said “expert opinion may inform the court on these questions”].) Nevertheless, under the current state of the law established by Knight, we must somehow make such a determination.
As guidance, there are cases in which courts have determined whether or not the primary assumption of risk applies to a particular activity. There are a number of cases involving sports activities in which the court found a primary assumption of risk. (Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th 1063 [snow skiing]; Ford, supra, 3 Cal.4th 339 [waterskiing]; Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296 [touch football]; Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 703 [128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 529] [collegiate baseball]; Distefano v. Forester (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 [102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 813] [***15] (Distefano) [off-roading]; Calhoon v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 108 [96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 394] [skateboarding]; American Golf Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 30 [golf]; Lupash v. City of Seal Beach (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1428 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 920] [lifeguard training]; Record v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th 472 [tubing behind a motorboat]; Lilley v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 939 [80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 638] [wrestling]; Aaris v. Las Virgenes Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1112 [75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801] [gymnastics stunt during cheerleading]; Balthazor v. Little League Baseball, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 47 [72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 337] [little league baseball]; Domenghini v. Evans (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 118 [70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 917] [cattle roundup]; Mosca v. Lichtenwalter (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 551 [68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58] [sport fishing]; Staten v. Superior Court, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th 1628 [ice skating]; [*1221] Fortier v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 430 [52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 812] [football practice drill]; Bushnell v. Japanese-American Religious & Cultural Center (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 525 [50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671] [***16] [judo]; Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1040 [48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 922] [rock climbing]; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th 248 [river rafting]; O’Donoghue v. Bear Mountain Ski Resort (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 188 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467] [snow skiing]; Stimson v. Carlson (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1201 [14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 670] [sailing].) In some other recreational activities, [**205] courts have held that there was no primary assumption of risk. (Shannon v. Rhodes (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 792 [112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217] [boating passenger]; Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322 [21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178] [recreational dancing].)
We have found no case that considers primary assumption of risk in connection with organized, noncompetitive, recreational bicycle riding. Nevertheless, this sport appears to fall within those activities to which these cases apply the assumption of risk doctrine. As the court in Record v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at page 482, said upon “[c]ompiling all of the distinguishing factors” from the cases, [HN8] an activity is a “sport” to which the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies if that [***17] activity “is done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion as well as elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury.” That delineation is a useful one and covers the bicycle ride here.
It is true that bicycle riding is a means of transportation–as is automobile driving. Normal automobile driving, which obviously is not an activity covered by the assumption of risk doctrine, requires skill, can be done for enjoyment, and entails risks of injury. But [HN9] organized, long-distance bicycle rides on public highways with large numbers of riders involve physical exertion and athletic risks not generally associated with automobile driving or individual bicycle riding on public streets or on bicycle lanes or paths. 4 Bicycle rides of the nature engaged in by the parties here are activities done for enjoyment and a physical challenge. Moser acknowledged in the release he signed that the activity is “an athletic event that is an extreme test of a person’s physical and mental limits and carries with it the potential for death, serious injury and property loss.” In view of these considerations, the organized, long-distance, group bicycle ride qualifies [***18] as a “sport” for purposes of the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
4 We express no opinion as to such other forms of recreational bicycle riding.
IV. Inherent risk
(9) [HN10] Even if the activity is one to which the primary assumption of risk applies, there are certain risks that are deemed not assumed, and certain [*1222] injury-causing actions that are not considered assumed risks of the activity. The primary assumption of risk rule “does not grant unbridled legal immunity to all defendants participating in sporting activity. The Supreme Court has stated that ‘. . . it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.’ ([Knight, supra,] 3 Cal.4th at pp. 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even though ‘defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself,’ they may not increase the likelihood [***19] of injury above that which is inherent. (Id. at p. 315.)” (Campbell v. Derylo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519].) Conduct is not inherent in the sport if that conduct is “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport . . . [and] if the prohibition of that conduct would neither deter vigorous participation in the sport nor otherwise fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.” (Freeman v. Hale, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394.) A participant injured in a sporting activity by another participant may recover from that coparticipant for intentional infliction of injury or tortious behavior “so [**206] reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport” but not for mere negligence. (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 320-321.)
[HN11] Certain activities have been held not to be inherent in a sport and thus not subject to the primary assumption of risk doctrine. For example, drinking alcoholic beverages is not an activity inherent in the sport of skiing. (Freeman v. Hale, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388.) On the other hand, in various sports, going too fast, [***20] making sharp turns, not taking certain precautions, or proceeding beyond one’s abilities are actions held not to be totally outside the range of ordinary activities involved in those sports. (See Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th 1063; Distefano, supra, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1249; Record v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th 472.)(8b))
The analogies derived from the risks in other sports suggest that one cyclist riding alongside another cyclist and swerving into the latter is a risk that is inherent in a long-distance, recreational group bicycle ride. 5 The release Moser signed warns of the risk of accidents caused by the participants, thus indicating that such accidents are an inherent risk of the activity. If liability attached to entanglements and collisions among 600 bicycle riders, the recreational sport of an organized bicycle ride likely would be adversely affected.
5 Compare Mark v. Moser (Ind. Ct.App. 2001) 746 N.E.2d 410 (inherent risk in a competitive cycling race is that a competitor may attempt to cut in front of a coparticipant to advance position).
[***21] Ratinoff’s movements toward the right side of the road that caused her to collide with Moser may have been negligent, but they were not intentional, [*1223] wanton or reckless or conduct “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.” (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 320-321.) Therefore, the accident at issue in this case is within the assumed risks of the organized bicycle ride in which Moser and Ratinoff were engaged. 6
6 There are traffic-related risks that might not be considered inherent in the activity involved here, such as those involving automobile negligence. (See Story v. Howes (N.Y. App. Div. 1973) 41 A.D.2d 925 [344 N.Y.S.2d 10] [“mere riding of a bicycle does not mean the assumption of risk by the rider that he may be hit by a car”]; Bell v. Chawkins (Tenn. Ct.App. 1970) 62 Tenn. App. 213 [460 S.W.2d 850] [bicyclist did not assume risk dog would bite her].)
V. Effect of statute
Moser asserts that the primary [***22] assumption of risk doctrine does not bar a claim when, as here, Ratinoff has violated statutes.
A. Pleading requirement
Moser’s failure to allege in his complaint that defendant’s conduct violated any statutory duties owed to plaintiff would, under Distefano, supra, 85 Cal. App. 4th at page 1266, procedurally bar plaintiff from raising the effect of a statutory violation in opposing a motion for summary judgment. Although this holding in Distefano appears inconsistent with long-standing authority that a plaintiff’s allegations of negligence include statutory violations that constitute negligence per se (Brooks v. E. J. Willig Truck Transp. Co. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 669, 680 [255 P.2d 802]; Karl v. C. A. Reed Lumber Co. (1969) 275 Cal. App. 2d 358, 361-362 [79 Cal. Rptr. 852]), we need not determine this procedural issue because of our conclusion that the statutory violations do not, under present [**207] law, preclude the assumption of risk doctrine.
B. Statutory violations do not displace the Knight rule
(10) Moser contends that defendant’s violations of various Vehicle Code sections constitute negligence per se, and thus preclude the application [***23] of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The California Supreme Court has addressed this issue in two cases–Ford, supra, 3 Cal.4th 339, and Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th 1063–and has produced a number of opinions, leading one court to say “there appears to be no clear consensus on the high court about this issue.” (Campbell v. Derylo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 829, fn. 3.) Nevertheless, a majority of the present California Supreme Court have expressed the view that a violation of a statute such as involved here does not displace the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
[*1224] The lead opinion in Ford, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 339, which case involved a waterskiing accident, dealt with whether Harbors and Navigation Code section 658, subdivision (d), 7 coupled with the negligence per se doctrine (as codified in Evid. Code, § 669), 8 established a rebuttable presumption that the defendant breached his duty of care to the plaintiff. That opinion concluded that the violation of Harbors and Navigation Code section 658 was inapplicable because the plaintiff [***24] did not fall within the statute’s protected class. (Id. 3 Cal.4th at p. 350.) Three of the justices found that the plaintiff was within the class of persons Harbors and Navigation Code section 658 was intended to protect, and therefore, under Evidence Code section 669, the defendant violated a legal duty of care to the plaintiff. (Id. at pp. 364-369 (conc. & dis. opn. of George, J.); id. at p. 369 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) 9 Three other justices who had disagreed with the Knight plurality opinion and would have “adhere[d] to the traditional consent approach” to assumption of risk (id. at p. 351, fn. 1 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.)), stated that the statute is not “the type of safety enactment that would preclude defendant . . . from asserting assumption of risk as a defense barring plaintiff . . . from recovering damages in his negligence action.” (Id. at p. 363 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).)
7 Harbors and Navigation Code section 658 provides that no person shall operate a vessel so as to cause, among other things, water skis to collide with any object or person.
[***25]
8 Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a), provides: “The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: [P] (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; [P] (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; [P] (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and [P] (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.” (See also Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164-165 [95 Cal. Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151].)
9 “Justice Arabian’s [lead] opinion in Ford implicitly assumed, and the opinions of Justice George, joined by Chief Justice Lucas, and Justice Mosk expressly concluded, that if the four elements of section 669(a) were satisfied, that statute creates tort liability between coparticipants in an active sport despite the Knight doctrine of primary assumption of risk.” (Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1071.)
[***26] In Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th 1063, two friends were skiing together and collided, resulting [**208] in litigation. The trial court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor on the ground that a collision is an inherent risk of downhill skiing. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s violation of a county ordinance delineating the duties of skiers resulted in liability under Evidence Code section 669 and foreclosed the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The ordinance expressly provided that a skier assumes the “inherent risks” of skiing, including the risk of collision with other skiers. (Id. at pp. 1069-1070.) The majority held that the ordinance did not create any duty other than that available under common law. The court said that “a number of the justices who have signed this [*1225] majority opinion” in Cheong questioned the conclusion of four justices in Ford that if the elements of Evidence Code section 669 were satisfied, a “statute creates tort liability between coparticipants in an active sport despite the Knight doctrine of primary assumption of risk.” (Id. at p. 1071.) [***27] The court added that the point need not be resolved because the elements of Evidence Code section 669 had not been met–the plaintiff had “not demonstrated that he is one of the class of persons the ordinance was intended to protect.” (Ibid.) The court therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
A concurring opinion, joined by two justices, expressed the view that “[t]he Knight standard of primary assumption of risk still applies even if the violation of an ordinance or statute, combined with Evidence Code section 669, creates a presumption of negligence.” (Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1079 (conc. opn. of Chin, J., 10 joined by Baxter, J. and Brown, J.).) A fourth justice stated that statutory obligation along with Evidence Code section 669 did not impose a duty of care when Knight eliminated a sports participant’s duty of care. (Id. at p. 1074 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).) Three justices took a contrary view, with one stating that the violation of a statute displaces the “no-duty rule of Knight” (id. at p. 1073 & fn. 1 (conc. opn. of [***28] Mosk, J.)) and the others stating that Evidence Code section 669 “may transform an appropriate statute into a legal duty of due care upon the defendant.” (Id. at p. 1077 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J., joined by George, C. J.).)
10 Justice Chin also authored the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court has not conclusively determined whether or not a violation of law can displace the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Nevertheless, four justices presently sitting on the California Supreme Court 11 –a majority–expressed the view that Evidence Code section 669 does not itself override Knight, but rather that one must ascertain whether the violated statute was intended to do so. Only two justices now on the court 12 have concluded that the violation of a safety statute or ordinance designed to protect persons in the position of a plaintiff precludes the application of the implied assumption of risk doctrine.
11 Justices Baxter, Kennard, Chin and Brown.
[***29]
12 Chief Justice George and Justice Werdegar.
The appellate court in Distefano, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th 1249, addressed this question. In that case, two men, one on a motorcycle and another in a dune buggy, were “off-roading.” After [**209] coming up opposite sides of a blind hill, they collided. Plaintiff contended that the Knight rule did not bar his action because defendant owed him statutory duties under Vehicle Code sections 38305 (proscribing driving off-road vehicles at an unreasonable or [*1226] imprudent speed) and 38316 (proscribing driving off-road vehicles with a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of other persons or property). (Id at p. 1265.)
Although the court held that a claim based on a violation of a statute was barred for procedural reasons, the court proceeded to address the merits of the contention that the Vehicle Code, along with Evidence Code section 669, imposed a tort duty that rendered the primary assumption of risk doctrine unavailable. (Distefano, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1266-1267.) [***30] The court stated that Vehicle Code sections 38305 and 38316, which provisions were enacted before the Supreme Court’s decision in Knight, did not evince any legislative intent to supersede or modify an assumption of risk doctrine later declared by Knight. (Distefano, at p. 1273.) The court therefore concluded that the statutory provisions “do not abrogate the Knight primary assumption of the risk doctrine, and thus do not impose on participants in the sport of off-roading a higher or different duty in tort than is established under Knight.” (Id. at p. 1274.)
Because a majority of the current Supreme Court justices have expressed the view that [HN12] a violation of a statute that indicates no legislative intent to eliminate the assumption of risk defense does not displace the primary assumption of risk doctrine, and because there are no cases inconsistent with that view, we adopt the Distefano court’s conclusion. (Distefano, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th 1249.) Although the facts show that Ratinoff violated provisions of the Vehicle Code designed to protect persons using public roads, based on our conclusion [***31] as to the present state of the law, such violations do not nullify Moser’s assumption of the risk.
CONCLUSION
Under the present state of the law, as applied here, the result is reasonable. By knowingly participating in a sporting event in which what occurred is an evident risk, Moser is not entitled to a recovery from Ratinoff.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal.
Turner, P. J., and Grignon, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 23, 2003.
Schlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30484
Posted: July 30, 2016 Filed under: Colorado, Legal Case, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Colorado Skier Safety Act, Snowmobile, Steamboat, Steamboat Ski Area Leave a commentSchlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30484
Linda Schlumbrecht-Muniz, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation, a Delaware Corporation d/b/a STEAMBOAT, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00191-MSK-NYW
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30484
February 23, 2015, Decided
February 23, 2015, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rejected by, Motion denied by Schlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30447 (D. Colo., Mar. 11, 2015)
Summary judgment granted, in part, summary judgment denied, in part by Schlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125899 (D. Colo., Sept. 21, 2015)
CORE TERMS: snowmobile, skiing, inherent dangers, ski, skier, parked, collision, recommendation, slope, trail, snow, ski areas, respondeat superior, terrain, Ski Safety Act, ski resort, sport, lamp, avalanche, man-made, feet, ski run, negligence per se, inherent risks, right to appeal, statutory definition, de novo review, deceleration, enlargement, exhaustive
COUNSEL: [*1] For Linda Schlumbrecht-Muniz, M.D., Plaintiff: Mark P. Martens, Martens & Associates, P.C., Denver, CO.
For Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, a Delaware Corporation doing business as Steamboat, Defendant: Kimberly A. Viergever, Peter W. Rietz, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Brian Alan Birenbach, Rietz Law Firm, LLC, Dillon, CO.
JUDGES: Nina Y. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION BY: Nina Y. Wang
OPINION
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Magistrate Judge Wang
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation’s (“Steamboat”) Motion to Dismiss [#14], filed on April 7, 2014. Steamboat seeks to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Dr. Linda Schlumbrecht-Muniz (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Muniz”) on January 23, 2014. The Motion was referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order of Reference dated February 6, 2014 [#9] and memorandum dated May 6, 2014 [#24]. After carefully considering the Motion and related briefing, the entire case file, and the applicable case law, I respectfully RECOMMEND that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Dr. Muniz filed this lawsuit asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, and respondeat superior [*2] against Steamboat and seeking damages for injuries incurred while skiing at Steamboat Ski Resort. The court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The following is a statement of Dr. Muniz’ allegations as pled. On January 24, 2012, Dr. Muniz was skiing on a marked and open ski run known as “Bashor Bowl.” [#7 at ¶ 7]. Earlier in the day, a Steamboat employee had parked a snowmobile at the bottom of Bashor Bowl. The vehicle was not visible for 100 feet. [Id. at ¶ 9]. Dr. Muniz collided with the snowmobile and sustained personal injuries for which she now seeks compensatory damages.
Dr. Muniz filed her original Complaint on January 23, 2014, naming Steamboat and IRCE, Inc. a/k/a Intrawest Resorts, Inc (“IRCE). [#1]. She amended her Complaint on February 3, 2014 to dismiss IRCE as a defendant. [#7]. Steamboat waived service on February 5, 2014 [#10], filed the pending Motion to Dismiss on April 7, 2014 [#14], and filed a Motion to Stay Discovery on April 25, 2014. [#16]. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss on April 28, 2014 [#17], and filed a Response to the Motion to Stay on May 5, 2014 [#19], stating she did not object to the request. Steamboat filed a Reply in support [*3] of its Motion to Dismiss on May 12, 2014. [#26]. On October 28, 2014, the court denied Steamboat’s Motion to Stay. [#36].
Steamboat filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 5, 2015. [#41]. Dr. Muniz filed her Response on January 26, 2015 [#45], and Steamboat filed its Reply on February 9, 2015. [#47]. This action was reassigned to this Magistrate Judge the same day. [#46].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive such a motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court views factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1124 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009)).
However, a plaintiff may not rely on mere labels or conclusions to carry its burden, “and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). As the Tenth Circuit explained in Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007), “the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable [*4] likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.” The ultimate duty of the court is to “determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed.” Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
Steamboat argues that Dr. Muniz fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because, pursuant to the Colorado Ski Safety Act (“Ski Safety Act” or “Act”), C.R.S. § 33-44-101 to 114, it is immune from any claim for damages resulting from “the inherent dangers and risks of skiing,” and Plaintiff’s collision with a parked snowmobile qualifies as such. Steamboat further argues that Dr. Muniz failed to plead a violation of any section of the Act, and that her respondeat superior claim must fail as derivative of the other two Claims.
The Ski Safety Act sets forth safety standards for the operation of ski areas and for the skiers using them, and defines the rights and liabilities existing between the skier and the ski area operator. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-102. See also Doering ex el Barrett v. Copper Mountain, 259 F.3d 1202, 1212 (10th Cir. 2001).1 “Notwithstanding any judicial decision or any other law or statute to the contrary, … no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury [*5] resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-112. The definition of “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” specifically excludes “the negligence of a ski operator as set forth in section 33-44-104(2),” which provides that “a ski operator’s violation of any requirement under the Ski Safety Act that results in injury to any person constitutes negligence.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 33-44-104(2), -112. Accordingly, Steamboat may be liable under one of two theories: a skier may recover if her injury resulted from an occurrence not considered an inherent danger or risk of skiing; or a skier may recover if the ski operator violated a provision of the Act and that violation resulted in injury. See Kumar v. Copper Mountain, Inc., 431 Fed. Appx. 736, 737, 738 (10th Cir. 2011). A claim arising under the first instance would fall outside of the Act and be governed by common-law negligence principles. Id. (citing Graven v. Vail Assocs., 909 P.2d 514, 520 (1995), partially abrogated on other grounds by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-112). Dr. Muniz asserts claims under both theories of liability.
1 No one contests that Steamboat is a “ski area operator” and Plaintiff is a “skier” as defined in the Act.
A. Negligence
The Ski Safety Act defines “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” to mean:
those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow [*6] conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-103(3.5). Steamboat argues that the list presented in this section is not exhaustive, and should be read to include collisions with snowmobiles.
In Graven v. Vail Associates, Inc., the Colorado Supreme Court reserved the issue of whether the list in section 33-44-103(3.5) is exclusive, though indicated that “[t]he word ‘include’ [ ] ordinarily signifies extension or enlargement and is not definitionally equivalent to the word ‘mean.'” [*7] Graven, 909 P.2d at 519 n. 4. See also Colo. Common Cause v. Meyer, 758 P.2d 153, 163-64 (Colo. 1988) (en banc) (“The word ‘includes’ has been found by the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions to be a term of extension or enlargement when used in a statutory definition. The use of ‘includes’ in the statutory definition of ‘political committee,’ therefore, connotes that something else is encompassed by the definition beyond what was previously covered by the immediately preceding language.”) (citations omitted).
More recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals held in Fleury v. Intrawest Winter Park Operations Corp., that the list of inherent dangers contained in section 33-44-103(3.5) is not exhaustive. 2014 COA 13, — P.3d –, 2014 WL 554237 (Colo. App. 2014). In Fleury, the court considered whether an avalanche that had caused the death of appellant’s husband qualified as an “inherent danger or risk of skiing” even though that specific hazard is not listed in section 33-44-103(3.5). By giving effect to the plain meaning of the words and reviewing the legislative intent surrounding the Act, the court concluded that an avalanche fits into the definition of inherent danger or risk. 2014 COA 13, [WL] at *2-3. First, the court reasoned that section 33-44-103(3.5) uses the word “including,” which indicates the list “is illustrative and not, as [appellant] argues, confined to the identified dangers.” 2014 COA 13, [WL] at *2 (“Because the General [*8] Assembly typically uses “include” as a word of extension or enlargement, listing examples in a statutory definition does not restrict the term’s meaning.”). (citations omitted). Next, the court considered the Colorado General Assembly’s decision in 2004 to alter the definition of inherent dangers and risks of skiing. The revision changed “dangers or conditions which are an integral part of the sport of skiing” to “dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing,” thereby broadening the types of inherent risks covered by the Act and decreasing the liability of ski area operators. 2014 COA 13, [WL] at *4 (citing Ch. 341, sec. 1, § 33-44-103(3.5), 2004 Colo. Sess. Laws. 1393). Finally, the court determined that an avalanche, “a large mass of snow, ice, earth, rock, or other material in swift motion down a mountainside or over a precipice” fits one or more of the statutory examples of inherent dangers or risks of skiing. 2014 COA 13, [WL] at 3 (citing Kumar, 431 Fed. Appx. at 738) (resolving that cornice falls “within the section relating to snow conditions as they exist or change, or the provision covering variations in steepness or terrain.”). In concluding, the Fleury court stated, “the inclusion of an avalanche as an inherent danger or risk of skiing is consistent with [*9] the General Assembly’s intent, as evidenced by the evolution of the Act.” Id. Justice Navarro concurred in the ruling and Justice J. Jones filed a dissent.2 One month following that decision, a court in this District noted in passing that “the Act’s list of ‘inherent dangers,’ [ ] is nonexclusive.” Bazarewski v. Vail Corp., 23 F. Supp. 3d 1327, 1331 (D. Colo. 2014) (determining that resort was immune under the Act for damages resulting from injuries caused by impact of rubber tube against rubber deceleration mats because deceleration mats are an inherent part of the snow tubing activity) (emphasis in original).
2 On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court of Colorado granted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari as to whether, for the purposes of the Ski Safety Act, “the term inherent dangers and risk of skiing, as defined in section 33-44-103(3.5), C.R.S. (2014) encompasses avalanches that occur within the bounds of a ski resort, in areas open to skiers at the time in question.” Fleury v. IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corp., No. 14SC224, 2014 Colo. LEXIS 1074, 2014 WL 6883934 (Colo. December 8, 2014).
This court finds the reasoning of Fleury persuasive and that the list in section 33-44-103(3.5) is not exhaustive. I am also persuaded that the presence of a parked snow mobile at the end of a ski run is an inherent risk of the sport of skiing. While Steamboat cites Fleury for that court’s description of the “common understanding of [*10] a ‘danger,'” and analogizes the presence of a snowmobile to cornices, avalanches, and rubber deceleration mats for tubing [#14 at 5], I find that a parked snowmobile is not analogous to those examples because a snowmobile is not part of the on-course terrain of the sport. However, the other provisions of the Act are more instructive. For instance, as Steamboat notes, section 33-44-109(4) of the Ski Safety Act provides, in pertinent part: “Each skier shall stay clear of snow-grooming equipment, all vehicles, lift towers, signs, and any other equipment on the ski slopes and trails.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-109(4). This section demonstrates the General Assembly’s intent to hold the skier, rather than the ski operator, responsible for avoiding vehicles on the ski slopes and trails. And section 33-44-108(3) mandates that snowmobiles operating on ski slopes and trails be equipped with certain visibility-related accessories. These provisions indicate that the General Assembly expects that snowmobiles are present in ski areas — both on the slopes and trails — and pose a risk to skiers.
Similarly, this court has previously held that plaintiff’s collision with a snowmobile while skiing was included as a “risk of skiing/riding.” Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Co., LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093, *2 (D. Colo. 2009), aff’d 363 Fed. Appx. 547 (10th Cir. 2010). In Robinette, Chief Judge [*11] Krieger held that “the specific risk of colliding with a snowmobile being operated by a ski resort employee is necessarily within the ‘risks of skiing/riding,'” and cited section 33-44-108(3) for support that skier-snowmobile collisions are a known potential risk. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, [WL] at *3. While the court was interpreting a particular ski resort release rather than the statute, the analysis remains the same. The fact that the snowmobile was parked near the end of the ski run, rather than moving, also does not alter conclusion.
Accordingly, I find that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligence that is plausible on its face, and I recommend granting Steamboat’s Motion to Dismiss as to this claim.
B. Negligence Per Se
Steamboat argues that Plaintiff’s Second Claim should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) for failure to specify the provision of the Act that Steamboat allegedly violated. Steamboat further argues that if Plaintiff intended to claim a violation of section 33-44-107(7), that general provision is inapplicable because section 33-44-108(3) of the Act pertains specifically to snowmobiles.
Plaintiff clarifies in her Response that the negligence per se claim is for violation of section 33-44-108(3), which requires snowmobiles operated “on the ski slopes or trails of a ski area” to [*12] be equipped with “[o]ne lighted headlamp, one lighted red tail lamp, a brake system maintained in operable condition, and a fluorescent flag at least forty square inches mounted at least six feet above the bottom of the tracks.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-108(3). Plaintiff also posits that because the snowmobile was parked, Steamboat is in violation of section 33-44-107(7), which requires that man-made structures be visible from at least 100 feet away. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-107(7)). Plaintiff offers that a question exists as to whether a parked snowmobile is governed under section 33-44-108(3), requiring it to have an illuminated head lamp or trail lamp, or under section 33-44-107(7), requiring that it be visible from 100 feet.
Neither approach leads Plaintiff to her desired result. Steamboat correctly asserts that if the snowmobile is characterized as a man-made object, Plaintiff’s impact with it was an inherent danger and risk pursuant to section 33-44-103(3.5), and Steamboat is immune to liability for the resulting injuries. See Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70, 74 (Colo. 1998) (holding that inherent risks of skiing include “collisions with natural and man-made objects.”). If Plaintiff intends for her Claim to proceed under the theory that Steamboat violated section 33-44-108(3) by failing to equip the snowmobile with the proper lighting, she did not plead that the parked vehicle lacked the [*13] required items, and mentions only in passing in her Response that the vehicle “did not have an illuminated head lamp or trail lamp because it was not operating.” [#17 at 10]. Indeed, there is no section of the Act that requires any marking of the stationary snowmobile.
C. Respondeat Superior
Steamboat argues that Dr. Muniz’s Third Claim should be dismissed as derivative of her other Claims. An employer may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior if damage results from the employee’s actions that were taken on behalf of the employer. Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, 130 P.3d 1011, 1019 (Colo. 2006) (citing Grease Monkey Int’l, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 473 (Colo. 1995)). Plaintiff has alleged that the Steamboat employee was acting within the scope of her employment when she parked the snowmobile at the base of Bashor Bowl. See id. (“Under the theory of respondeat superior, the question of whether an employee is acting within the scope of the employment is a question of fact”) (citation omitted). Because I have found that a collision with a snowmobile located on a ski slope is an inherent danger or risk of skiing, Dr. Muniz’s claim for respondeat superior must also fail.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully RECOMMEND that Defendant Steamboat’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #14) be GRANTED. [*14] 3
3 Within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1995). A general objection that does not put the District Court on notice of the basis for the objection will not preserve the objection for de novo review. “[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Failure to make timely objections may bar de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations and will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 579-80 (10th Cir. 1999) (District Court’s decision to review a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo despite the lack of an objection does not preclude application of the “firm waiver rule”); International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Wyoming Coal Refining Systems, Inc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 1995) (by failing to object to certain portions of [*15] the Magistrate Judge’s order, cross-claimant had waived its right to appeal those portions of the ruling); Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (by their failure to file objections, plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s ruling). But see, Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require review).
DATED: February 23, 2015
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Nina Y. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge
Summer 2016 Commercial Fatalities
Posted: July 27, 2016 Filed under: Camping, Paddlesports, Whitewater Rafting | Tags: avalanche, Boundary Waters, Boy Scouts, BSA, Canoeing, Cat Skiing, Oregon, tality, Whitewater Rafting Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of July 20, 2016. Thanks.
Rafting, Mountaineering, Skiing out of bounds and other sports are probably still safer than your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from any activity but to help you understand the risks and to study.
Red is a probable death due to medical issues unrelated to the activity
Blue is an employee fatality
Dark blue is a death of an employee while working
|
Date |
Activity |
State |
Location |
What |
Age |
Sex |
Location 2 |
Reference |
Ref 2 |
Company |
|
3/22 |
Cat Skiing |
OR |
Mt. Bailey |
Avalanche hit tree |
|
M |
|
|
||
|
5/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
WA |
Wenatchee River |
Raft Flipped |
53 |
M |
Dryden |
|
Orion River |
|
|
|
Whitewater Rafting |
ME |
Dead River |
Fell out |
52 |
M |
|
North Country Rivers |
||
|
5/22 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
61 |
F |
Parkdale |
Echo Canyon River Expeditions |
||
|
6/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Lowe River |
Fell out |
48 |
F |
|
|
|
|
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Roaring Fork |
Flip |
50 |
M |
Slaughterhouse section |
Aspen Whitewater Rafting |
||
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
69 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
67 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
|
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
63 |
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
|
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
|
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
|
6/24/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Green River |
|
63 |
F |
Disaster Falls |
Adrift Adventures |
||
|
7/2/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
51 |
F |
Zoom Flume |
River Runners |
||
|
7/17 |
Inflatable Kayak |
OR |
Rogue River |
Fell out & trapped unwater |
57 |
M |
Wildcat Rapid |
|
|
|
|
7/21 |
Canoe Trip |
MN |
Boundary Waters |
Lighting Strike |
39 |
F |
Basswood Lake |
BSA Northern Tier High Adventure Base |
||
|
7/21 |
Canoe Trip |
MN |
Boundary Waters |
Lighting Strike |
13 |
M |
Basswood Lake |
BSA Northern Tier High Adventure Base |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you would like a PDF of this chart please click here.
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Fatality, Avalanche, Cat Skiing, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting,
Registration is Open for the Colorado Environmental Film Festival
Posted: July 26, 2016 Filed under: Youth Camps, Zip Line | Tags: CEFF, Colorado Environmental Film Festival, Environmental Film Festival, Film Festival Leave a commentDear CEFF friends and filmmakers,
The Colorado Environmental Film Festival (CEFF) is an exciting, inspiring, and energizing event that includes world-class environmental films with representatives from local, national and international organizations. We are thrilled to announce our Call for Entries for our 11th annual CEFF is now OPEN for submission!
CEFF seeks unique and meaningful films that aim to inspire, educate, and call to action. The largest environmental film festival between the coasts, CEFF celebrates our 11th annual festival taking place February 23-25, 2017 in downtown Golden, Colorado. Filmmakers of all abilities and backgrounds are invited to submit their films in the categories of Short Films, Feature Length Films and Youth Films (Submission open to for filmmakers under 19 years of age). True to the spirit of Colorado, this event is supported and attended by people who value the natural world and share a passion for the power and beauty of film.
We welcome and encourage you to submit your films today! Early bird registration ends August 15, 2016 so submit your film early for the best value!
Colorado Environmental Film Festival prefers online entries submitted via Withoutabox.com, which provides cost-saving, paperless submission to film festivals around the world. Deadlines and entry fees:
● Early bird – August 15th, 2016 – Price: Regular $30.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $20.00
● Regular – September 15th, 2016 – Price: Regular $40.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $25.00
● Late – October 30th, 2016 – Price: Regular $50.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $30.00
● Extended – November 15th, 2016 – Price: Regular $60.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $45.00
Enter today!
https://www.withoutabox.com/03film/03t_fin/03t_fin_fest_01over.php?festival_id=5513
If you have questions please visit go to our website at www.ceff.net
or drop me a note dave.steinke
About CEFF
CEFF hosts local and national feature length and short films for all ages, thought-provoking dialogue, festival celebrations for both filmmakers and audience members, children’s films, a filmmaker forum, and information from a variety of environmental groups. The festival presents informative and entertaining films that explore interconnected ecological, social, and economic themes. Audiences have the opportunity to be more than passive viewers – they will leave inspired, surprised, motivated, entertained, and transformed.
Knarr v. Chapman School Of Seamanship, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5351
Posted: July 26, 2016 Filed under: Florida, Legal Case, Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Rivers and Waterways | Tags: Diversity, Florida, Negligence per se, Release, Sailing, Seamanship, Vessel for Hire, Waiver Leave a commentKnarr v. Chapman School Of Seamanship, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5351
Jean Knarr & Lester Knarr v. Chapman School Of Seamanship
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-952
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5351
April 14, 2000, Decided
April 14, 2000, Filed
COUNSEL: For JEAN KNARR, LESTER KNARR, PLAINTIFFS: DAVID S. KATZ, DAVID S. KATZ, ESQ., P.C., NORRISTOWN, PA USA.
For CHAMPMAN SCHOOL OF SEAMANSHIP, DEFENDANT: ANDREW P. MOORE, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, DOYLESTOWN, PA USA.
JUDGES: JACOB P. HART, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION BY: JACOB P. HART
OPINION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JACOB P. HART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
April 14, 2000
The Defendant in this personal injury action has filed a motion for summary judgment. It argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to present any expert testimony to support their contention that the Defendant violated Coast Guard regulations and Florida state laws and codes that would constitute negligence per se pursuant to Florida law. Without the ability to prove negligence per se, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are all barred by the release Mrs. Knarr signed.
[HN1] Summary judgment is warranted where the pleadings and discovery, as well as any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 56. [HN2] The moving [*2] party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). [HN3] When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must construe the evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from it in favor of the non-moving party. Tigg Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp., 822 F.2d 358, 361 (3d Cir. 1987).
Construing the evidence in favor of the Plaintiffs, as we are required to do at this stage of the proceedings, reveals the following. Plaintiff, Jean Knarr, was a student at the Chapman School of Seamanship, (“Chapman”). In March of 1997, Mrs. Knarr slipped and fell on one of the wet, wooden ladder steps, while disembarking from a ship, owned and operated by Chapman. To stop her fall, she attempted to reach for a railing on the right side of the ladder. Unfortunately, there was no railing on the right side of the ladder. As a result of the fall, Mrs. Knarr fractured her right foot, ankle, and leg, and suffered other bruises and lacerations.
Before the accident took place, Mrs. Knarr signed an agreement to indemnify Chapman for any suit or claim arising [*3] from the use of Chapman’s equipment.
I, the undersigned, for myself … and all those claiming by, through or under me, for and in consideration of being allowed to use the equipment, motors and vessels … owned by … the Chapman School of Seamanship, Inc. … hereby forever release and indemnify said Chapman School of Seamanship, Inc. from any … bodily injury … suit or claim arising out of the use of any equipment, motors or vessels, whether or not such … bodily injury … is based upon the sole negligence of Chapman School of Seamanship … .
(Chapman Application/Registration Form).
In denying an earlier motion for summary judgment, the Honorable Marvin Katz concluded that although the indemnification agreement protected the Defendant from liability arising from mere negligence, it could not protect itself from claims arising from negligence per se.
[HN4] While, under Florida law, contracts indemnifying a party against its own negligence will be enforced if the language of the contract is clear and unequivocal, see Charles Poe Masonry v. Spring Lock Scaffolding Rental Equip. Co., 374 So. 2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1979)(citation omitted), a party [*4] cannot indemnify itself against negligence per se. See John’s Pass Seafood Co. v. Weber, 369 So. 2d 616, 618 (Fl. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1979)(holding such indemnification is against public policy).
(Order, 9/9/99). Judge Katz found that there were unresolved issues of fact regarding Chapman’s conduct and whether such conduct constituted negligence per se.
Chapman has now filed a second motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to present any expert testimony supporting their contention that certain conditions on the ship constituted statutory violations, establishing negligence per se. In response, the Plaintiffs present the court with a report and a letter from the engineering firm of Goedken, Liss. Specifically, Harold A. Schwartz, P.E., states that Chapman violated Coast Guard Regulations, Florida laws and codes, and the rules of the State Boating Law Administrators for safe boating certification.
In the report, however, Mr. Schwartz fails to identify any specific statute, regulation, or rule, that Chapman violated. In a follow-up letter, Mr. Schwartz refers to a standard adopted by the American National Standards Institute [*5] (“ANSI”), applying to ladders. He opines that the ladder in question fails to comply with the ANSI standard in three respects. First, the top rung is not level with the landing platform. Second, the side rails failed to extend the required 3 feet 6 inches above the top of the landing platform. Finally, the ladder did not have sufficient step across distance (the distance from the centerline of the rungs to the nearest edge of the structure). (Letter of Schwartz, 12/9/99).
The court is left to answer the questions of whether a violation of these ANSI standards is sufficient to constitute negligence per se under Florida law, and if not, are these standards embodied in any governing statutes, a violation of which would constitute negligence per se.
We answer the first question in the negative. [HN5] According to ANSI, it is the “coordinator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system.” <<UNDERLINE>http://web.ansi.org/public/about.html, 4/11/00> As such, the ANSI standards do not have the force of law, absent adoption by statute, ordinance, or regulation. See Jackson v. H.L. Bouton Co., 630 So. 2d 1173, 1174-75 (Dist. Ct.App.Fl. 1994)(violation [*6] of ANSI standard is “merely evidence of negligence.”); Evans v. Dugger, 908 F.2d 801, 807 (11th Cir. 1990)(ANSI standards regarding handicapped access adopted by Florida regulation); Nicosia v. Otis Elevator Co., 548 So. 2d 854, 855 (Dist. Ct.App.Fl. 1989)(Florida adopted ANSI standard for elevator safety by statute).
However, our own search of Coast Guard regulations reveals that the Coast Guard has adopted the specific ANSI standard regarding the step off space (minimum of 7 inches) for escape ladders on small passenger vessels. 46 C.F.R. § 177.500(k). Therefore, we must determine whether a violation of this Coast Guard regulation constitutes negligence per se pursuant to Florida law.
[HN6] According to the Supreme Court of Florida, negligence per se is established if there is “a violation of any … statute which establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury.” DeJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 281 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla. 1973). Although we have been unable to find any case arising out of the state courts in Florida which concludes that a violation [*7] of a Coast Guard regulation amounts to negligence per se, [HN7] the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have concluded that such a violation does constitute negligence per se. Reyes v. Vantage Steamship Co., Inc., 609 F.2d 140, 143 (5th Cir. 1980)(“the failure to follow any Coast Guard regulation which is a cause of an injury establishes negligence per se.”); Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426, 2 L. Ed. 2d 382, 78 S. Ct. 394 (1958). [HN8] Similarly, Florida state courts have concluded that violations of other legal pronouncements, other than statutes, amount to negligence per se. See First Overseas Investment Corp. v. Cotton, 491 So. 2d 293, 295 (Dist.Ct.App.Fl. 1986)(violation of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service Rule constitutes negligence per se); Underwriters at La Concorde v. Airtech Services, Inc., 493 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 1986)(Boyd, J. concurring)(acknowledging expansion of negligence per se concept to include violations of administrative regulations); H.K. Corporation v. Miller, 405 So. 2d 218 (Dist.Ct.App.Fl. 1981)(violation of state administrative [*8] regulation constituted negligence per se); Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Dist.Ct.App.Fl. 1978)(violation of FAA regulation constitutes negligence per se). But see Murray v. Briggs, 569 So. 2d 476, 480 (Dist.Ct.App.Fl. 1990)(violation of Interstate Commerce Commission regulation not negligence per se); Jupiter Inlet Corp. v. Brocard, 546 So. 2d 1 (Dist.Ct.App.Fl. 1989)(violation of OSHA regulation does not constitute negligence per se). 1 Therefore, we conclude that a violation of a Coast Guard regulation will constitute negligence per se if the plaintiff is a member of the particular class of persons that the regulation sought to protect and she suffered an injury that the regulation was designed to prevent.
1 In Jones v. Spentonbush-Red Star Co., 155 F.3d 587 (2nd Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit distinguished violations of OSHA and Coast Guard regulations. The court explained that OSHA, itself, states that it should not be construed “to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees.” Jones, at 595 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4)). Relying on this language, the court explained that imposing negligence per se for an OSHA violation would “enlarge or diminish or affect … the liability of a maritime employer.” Jones, at 595.
[*9] As indicated above, the only ANSI standard relevant to the issues in this case that has actually been adopted by the Coast Guard, is the one dealing with the minimum distance that must be observed between the rungs of the ladder and the nearest permanent object in back of the ladder (here the side of the cabin). 46 C.F.R. § 177.500(k) requires that this distance be at least 7 inches.
The first question we must answer about this regulation is whether the plaintiff is a member of the particular class of persons that the regulation sought to protect. We have little trouble concluding that she is. The regulation appears at Subchapter T of the Coast Guard regulations. This subchapter specifically covers “Small Passenger Vessels (Under 100 Tons).” There is no dispute here that defendant’s boat is such a vessel. The general provisions of subchapter T state that the provisions of the subchapter apply, inter alia, if the vessel carries less than 150 passengers, but more than 6, so long as at least one of the six passengers is “for hire.” Since she was a student of defendant, using defendant’s boat for instruction, clearly Mrs. Knarr was a passenger “for hire.” Finally, the specific ladder [*10] regulation in question appears under the heading “Escape Requirements.” One could hardly imagine a set of ship regulations more specifically written for the benefit of passengers for hire than ones dealing with escape, as evidenced by certain events that occurred 88 years ago today in the North Atlantic. Cf. The Titanic, 233 U.S. 718, 34 S. Ct. 754, 58 L. Ed. 1171 (1914).
The next question — whether plaintiff suffered an injury that the regulation was designed to prevent — is a bit more difficult to answer. We nevertheless conclude that there are present here at least some genuine issues of material fact that prevent the court from ruling, as a matter of law, that Mrs. Knarr’s injuries could not have been avoided had the ladder complied with this regulation.
Defendant urges us to give a literal reading to plaintiffs’ complaint, and to find from such a reading that Mrs. Knarr has not alleged any fact from which a jury could conclude that the distance between the cabin wall and the ladder step could have proximately caused her fall. We decline to do so. In addition to the well known principle of federal pleading that [HN9] the facts alleged in a complaint need only put the defendant on notice of the [*11] plaintiff’s theories of recovery and need not state each element of proof with specificity, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), we have here at least two specific allegations that could relate to the ladder’s set back distance.
In paragraph 10 a. of the complaint, Mrs. Knarr alleges that “the step upon which she was standing was in an unsafe condition.” In the next subparagraph, 10 b., she claims that “there were slippery substances on the steps which were not visible to the plaintiff.” While neither of these allegations specifically attributes negligence to the ladder set-back distance, we think it would be improper, at this point, to preclude plaintiff’s expert from testifying that the setback distance was related to the general “unsafe condition” allegation, or to the plaintiff’s alleged inability to see the condition of the ladder steps themselves.
Our conclusion would be different, of course, if the record contained either some specific information on the ladder’s actual set-back distance, or on the precise features of the ladder that allegedly caused the accident. At this point, however, we have neither. It thus appears that the case will turn on a resolution of disputed facts, some [*12] of which will, no doubt, be the subject of expert opinions. Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate at this time.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14 day of April, 2000, upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs’ response, thereto, including the attached reports of his expert engineer, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
JACOB P. HART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff argues under Minnesota law, the language on the back of the season pass created an ambiguity which should void the season pass release for a ski area.
Posted: July 25, 2016 Filed under: Minnesota, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Ambiguous, Inc., Mogul, Release, Season Pass, ski area, Wild Mountain, Wild Mountain Ski Area Leave a commentSince the language was not an “offer” no new contract was being offered by the ski area to skiers, and the language did not create any conflict with the release language.
Bergin, et al., v. Wild Mountain, Inc. 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212
State: Minnesota, Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Plaintiff: Lee and Cathy Bergin
Defendant: Wild Mountain, Inc. d/b/a Wild Mountain Ski Area
Plaintiff Claims: negligence,
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding:
Year: 2014
This is a lawsuit by a husband and wife against a ski area for the injuries husband received skiing. A friend purchased season passes online for himself and the defendants. As part of that online purchase, the friend agreed to a release online.
Interesting that just five years ago the issue would have been whether the release signed electronically was valid, now the courts do not even look at that issue.
The friend did not discuss the season pass with the defendants before agreeing to it for them. In a deposition, the husband agreed that he had the friend purchase the passes and had purchased season passes online for the past eleven years and agreed to the release all those years. The defendants wrote a check to the friend for the cost of the season passes.
The trial court held that the friend bound the defendants to the season pass release. The defendants did not argue this issue on appeal.
Seven months later, the defendants picked up their season passes and went skiing. On the back of the season pass was disclaimer language.
The defendants skied “the Wall” a double black diamond trail. The wall had a bump run on the right, and the husband skied the left side. Near the bottom of the run, he hit a bump (mogul?) and went airborne landing on his back. The defendant husband is paralyzed.
This was the only incident the defendant ski area had recorded concerning that run that year. The plaintiff’s sued, and the trial court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
During or prior to the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s moved to amend their complaint to add a claim for reckless, willful or wanton conduct of the defendant. The trial court denied this, and the appellate court looked at this issue on appeal.
In order to support a claim for more than ordinary negligence, the rules of civil procedure required a short and plaint statement describing facts supporting their claim.
The court reviewed the requirements to prove the amended allegations. “Willful and wanton conduct is the failure to exercise ordinary care after discovering a person or property in a position of peril.” The plaintiff’s argued their two expert’s affidavits supported these new claims.
Because the defendant had no other notice of the issues, the defendant had no notice of the problem in advance of the plaintiff’s injuries. A requirement under Minnesota law to prove reckless, willful or wanton conduct.
Because the evidence is insufficient to establish that Wild Mountain engaged in conduct constituting greater-than-ordinary negligence, the district court correctly determined that a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence would not survive a motion for summary judgment.
The next issue the court looked at was the validity of the release.
A clause exonerating a party from liability,” known as an exculpatory clause, is enforceable if it: (1) is “unambiguous”; (2) is “limited to a release of liability arising out of negligence only”; and (3) does not violate public policy.
An ambiguous clause in Minnesota is one that is “susceptible to more than one reasonable construction.” The trial court held the release was valid because the release was unambiguous and barred only ordinary negligence.
The plaintiff argued the release was ambiguous because they argued the language on the back of the season pass created questions concerning the release. The plaintiff argued the season pass warning was part of the release and therefore, created issues of how the language of the release could be interpreted.
An ambiguity exists only in the language of the document.
Because a contract ambiguity exists only if it is “found in the language of the document itself,” we consider whether the season-pass card is a part of the season-pass agreement between Lee and Wild Mountain.
The court found the season pass was not a contract or part of the release. The language on the season pass emphasized the inherent risk of skiing. The language on the season pass was not a new offer by the defendant, to enter a new or modified contract with the plaintiffs.
As the district court correctly concluded, the season-pass card, itself is not a contract. Although the season-pass card contains language emphasizing the inherent risk of skiing, it does not contain an offer by Wild Mountain to be legally bound to any terms.
Even if the language on the season pass was part of the release contract, it still did not create an ambiguity.
Accordingly, the season-pass agreement’s specific language excluding greater-than-ordinary negligence from the scope of the exculpatory clause supersedes the season-pass card’s general language on the inherent risks of skiing. The district court correctly determined that the exculpatory clause is limited to a release of liability arising out of negligence only and granted summary judgment in favor of Wild Mountain.
Because the release was valid, and the plaintiff’s failed to establish the factual issues supporting a greater than the ordinary negligence claim the appellate court upheld the release and the trial court’s dismissal of the case.
So Now What?
When the plaintiff is paralyzed there is going to be a lawsuit. Either a subrogation claim by a health insurance company or a simple negligence claim will be filed because the possible recovery is so large. The amount of money involved is just too much not to try a lawsuit.
Here innovative thinking looked at the release and the language on the back of the plastic season pass card and found a new way to argue the release should be void.
At the same time, the obvious issue, there was no contract because the plaintiff did not purchase the pass from the defendant was missed.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Wild Mountain, Inc, Wild Mountain Ski Area, Season Pass, Release, Ambiguous, Ski Area, Mogul,
Delaware Supreme Court decision quickly determines a health club release is not void because of public policy issues and is clear and unequivocal.
Posted: July 18, 2016 Filed under: Delaware, Health Club, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Delaware, Health club, Planet Fitness, Public Policy, Release, Unequivocal Leave a commentThe decision is very short and very clear. Write a clear and direct release and it will be upheld in Delaware.
Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, 2016 Del. LEXIS 19
State: Delaware, Supreme Court of Delaware
Plaintiff: Deshaun Ketler and Brittany Ketler
Defendant: PFPA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a Planet Fitness
Plaintiff Claims: negligence
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the defendant
Year: 2016
This is a Delaware Supreme Court decision on release law in Delaware from a lawsuit against a health club.
The plaintiff sued the defendant Planet Fitness because she was injured at the health club, a cable broke on a seated rowing machine she was using.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings finding the release stopped the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The Delaware Supreme Court did not waste a single sentence in this very short very instructive decision.
Releases are valid in Delaware. They must be clear and unequivocal if a release is to be valid.
This Court has previously recognized that a release of prospective negligence may be valid. Such a release must be “‘clear and unequivocal’ to insulate a party from liability
The court looked to the language of the release, and without comment stated the language was clear and unequivocal. The court then looked at the other issues that may void a release.
The release may not be unconscionable.
Unconscionability is a concept that is used sparingly. Traditionally, an unconscionable contract is one which “no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest or fair man would accept, on the other.”
Unconscionable in Delaware means more than a just a disparity between the party’s ability to bargain. There must be no real choice for the party being offered the release or agreement.
But mere disparity between the bargaining powers of parties to a contract will not support a finding of unconscionability.” “[T]here must be an absence of meaningful choice and contract terms unreasonably favorable to one of the parties.” There is no deprivation of meaningful choice if a party can walk away from the contract. Here, DeShaun was free to accept the Planet Fitness membership or not. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the release is not unconscionable.
Because the plaintiff was not being forced to sign the contract and a health club contract was not a necessity, the plaintiff could have walked away from the release. Thus the release was not unconscionable.
The next issue was whether the release violated public policy. In Delaware to violate public policy, there must be a statute specifically saying that a release for this activity violates public policy.
The public policy of this state is typically determined by the Delaware General Assembly. No Delaware statute has been identified which bears on the validity of a release of prospective negligence.
The statute must not only look at the issues identified in the release, but must specifically say a release is void for these issues.
However, a general release by its nature releases a party from a potential liability otherwise imposed by law. The public policy involved must be one which disapproves of the release.
The judgement of the lower court was affirmed.
So Now What?
There is very little instructional language in this decision. However, what information is provided is very clear and very easy to understand. Releases in Delaware if they are clear and unequivocal will be upheld in the state.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Delaware, Health Club, Planet Fitness, Release, Public Policy, Unequivocal,
New York Summer Camp cases are examples of helicopter parenting; I gave you a perfect child, and no injuries shall occur to my child in your care, if one occurs, I will sue.
Posted: July 11, 2016 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Camping, Minors, Youth, Children, New York, Youth Camps | Tags: Adequate Supervision, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Headlamp, negligent supervision, Shower House, Supervision, Youth, YPP, YPT 1 CommentA minor at a Scout camp runs out of a shower house and falls down. The parents sue for his injuries claiming he was not supervised. At the same time, the BSA Youth Protection Training prevented adults in showers with youth. The court in this case realized the absurdity of the plaintiff’s claims and held for the defendants.
State: New York, Supreme Court of New York, New York County
Plaintiff: Davide E. Gomes
Defendant: Northern New Jersey Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America (Council) and Boy Scout Troop 141 (troop)
Plaintiff Claims: negligent supervision
Defendant Defenses: assumption of the risk, no duty
Holding: for the defendants
Year: 2016
The thirteen-year-old plaintiff was a Boy Scout. He and his troop from New Jersey were at a Scout Camp in the Adirondacks of New York for a canoe trip. While at the camp, the youth walked a few minutes to a bath house. While in the bath house, the plaintiff was fooling around and ran out of the bath house and fell suffering a head injury.
According to plaintiff, the main purpose of the trip to Floodwood was to take a 15-mile canoe trip. On the day of the accident, the scouts and the Troop leaders spent time outside in their campsite within the camp, where “there was a little bit of horsing around,” “a little bit of pushing, playing around,” and all of the scouts were pushing and shoving each other during and after a game of touch football, which the leaders told them to stop. As he walked to the shower house the night of his accident, plaintiff wore a functioning headlamp; the area around the shower house was dark. He does not recall what happened from the time the group walked to the shower house to when he regained consciousness on the ground, bleeding from his head.
The plaintiff does not remember the incidence.
Other Scouts at the shower house reported the incident this way.
It is undisputed that other scouts reported that while they were in the shower house, plaintiff took a water pump from the wall and squirted water on them. When one of the scouts told him to stop, plaintiff ran out of the shower house and fell to the ground. None of the scouts knew what had caused the fall.
The plaintiff had been in Scouting since he was 9. He participated in monthly camp outs with his scout troop.
The plaintiffs brought claims against the troop, the New Jersey Boy Scout council where the troop was chartered and who owned the camp and the Boy Scouts of America and the individual unit leaders.
The claims where the youth were not properly supervised, and the area around the shower house were full of roots, sticks, rocks, etc.
One issue that runs throughout the decision which is not explained is the BSA Youth Protection Program. The program requires youth to always do things in groups or at least two and prohibit adults from actively being in a position where they can observe the youth in the shower. Even if an adult was with the youth, there would have to be two adults.
This program was put in place to protect both the youth and the adults in the Scouting program.
Another issue in this case is the camp was located in New York. The New York State Department of Health (DOH) had massive and strict rules for children’s camps and substantial ability to issue sanctions for violations of those rules. Some of those rules violate or make conforming to the BSA Youth Protection Program difficult.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court first looked at the New York State Department of Health (DOH) rules concerning this case.
As pertinent here, the regulations require adequate supervision, and that “as a minimum . . . there shall exist visual or verbal communications capabilities between camper and counselor during activities and a method of accounting for the camper’s whereabouts at all times.”
The council had a written plan to confirm to the DOH rules.
Council’s written plan for Floodwood requires that supervision of campers “be maintained for the duration (24/7) of their stay at the camp.” Council’s Leaders Guide for Floodwood provides that “running and horseplay have no place at Scout Camps,” and all scout units must have two adult leaders with the unit at all times.
DOH did find issues with the camp’s plan. The Camp and DOH reached a settlement on those issues. However, by law the information and the settlement cannot be entered into evidence in court.
DOH investigated the incident, after which it and Council entered into a stipulation providing that DOH had alleged that Council had violated various camp regulations, including those relating to the supervision of scouts, and that the parties were thereby settling the matter by Council agreeing not to contest it, paying a fine, and submitting a revised camp safety plan. Additionally, by its terms, the stipulation is
not intended for use in any other forum, tribunal or court, including any civil or criminal proceeding in which the issues or burden of proof may differ, and is made without prejudice to [Council’s] rights, defenses and/or claims in any other matter, proceeding, action, hearing or litigation not involving [DOH] [and] is not intended to be dispositive of any allegations of negligence that may be made in a civil action for monetary damages.
The DOH requires that after any incident, a form be completed. In this case, the form was completed by a camp staffer who had no training in completing the form and had never completed a form before. DOH requires that after any incident a form be completed. In this case the form was completed by a camp staffer who had no training in completing the form and had never completed a form before.
Richard Saunders testified at an EBT that at the time of plaintiff’s accident, he was 18 years old and employed at Floodwood as a camp health officer. He described Floodwood as a “high-adventure base” for scouts older than 13 to do back-country exploring. After the accident, he completed a form as required by the DOH, on which he noted, under the category “Supervision During Incident,” that the “activity was inadequately addressed in the written plan,” by which he intended to convey that he had reviewed the scout’s written plan for the trip and saw nothing therein related to super-vision of the scouts while in the shower house. He also wrote that no camp staff was present when the accident occurred. Although Saunders had first written that the supervision was “adequate,” he changed it to “inadequate” based on the absence of an adult when plaintiff was injured. Saunders had never before filled out such a form, nor was it part of his job.
The plaintiff argued that because he was unable to remember the accident, a relaxed standard of care applied to the plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff argues that his inability to remember the accident permits a relaxed standard of proof on summary judgment, and contends that there are two possible explanations for his accident: (1) that he was struck over the head with a blunt object by a fellow scout, or (2) that he tripped and fell while running over the uneven and non-illuminated area around the shower house, and that in either scenario, the accident would not have happened if defendants had adequately supervised that night.
The court found issues with this.
A plaintiff who, due to a failure of memory, cannot describe what led to his injury is not held to as high a degree of proof on his or her cause of action.
However, even when a plaintiff suffers from amnesia, he is not relieved of the obligation to provide “some proof from which negligence can be reasonably inferred.”
The court then looked at the duty owed by the defendants.
A “summer camp is duty-bound to supervise its campers as would a parent of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances” And, while the degree of supervision required depends on the surrounding circumstances, “constant supervision in a camp setting is neither feasible nor desirable.”
The New York requirement for supervision allowed for reality in not requiring constant supervision. The court then looked at the applicable standard of care.
The standard for determining whether a duty to supervise a minor has been breached is “whether a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the identical situation and armed with the same information would invariably have provided greater supervision.”
Moreover, this standard requires prior knowledge on the part of the camp of dangerous conduct.
Moreover, “in determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow [campers], it must be established that [camp] authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused the injury, that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.”
Lack of supervision alone is not enough to create a cause of action. The court found the supervision was adequate. The scouts walked to the shower house as a group without incident. Until the plaintiff started horsing around, there were no supervision issues.
The court then looked at why kids go to camps and how parents should deal with those issues.
Moreover, a parent who permits his or her child to attend an overnight camping trip in the woods where the child will be taught skills related to understanding and surviving outdoor conditions, is presumably aware of the hazards and risks of injury associated with such conditions, and it would be illogical for that same parent to require or believe it necessary for the child to be escorted personally to and from every area within the camp. Such a degree of supervision “in a camp setting is neither feasible nor desirable” and camps “cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of [the campers] movements and activities”
Quoting another case the court stated:
The Court observed that ” [r]emembering that this is a Summer camp, it will be seen that constant supervision is not feasible . . . Nor is it desirable. One of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which an overly protective supervision would destroy.”
The DOH report was also dismissed by the court because the person who had completed the report:
…because he had no authority to bind defendants to his conclusion, but also based on the circumstances that he was an 18-year old who had never before filled out or even seen a DOH report, and who had received no training or guidance as to how it should be filled out or the meanings of the terms therein.
The court reasoned. The DOH report also had failures because it stated there lacked supervision just because an adult was not present. Supervision is not only based on an adult’s presence.
Reliance on the DOH requirement of “visual or verbal communication” between campers and counselors and Council’s plan for Floodwood which required the supervision of campers “24/7” is misplaced as neither requires that the Troop leaders be constantly present with the scouts
At the same time, the supervision issue was irrelevant if the accident was not foreseeable. There was no evidence presented that the scouts would engage in dangerous conduct or misbehave. Even if some of the misbehavior was foreseeable, there was no evidence that, and it was not foreseeable that the plaintiff would bolt from the shower house, trip and fall and receive an injury.
As it is undisputed that defendants had no notice of the possibility of misbehavior among the scouts, they have established that plaintiff’s accident was not foreseeable.
Even if the Troop leaders had escorted the scouts to the shower house and stood outside while they showered, the alleged misbehavior occurred inside the shower house, and thus the leaders would neither have observed it nor been in a position to stop it. And unless the leaders blocked the entrance, they would not have been able to stop plaintiff from running out of the shower house and falling down.
On top of all of that, even if leaders were present the accident happened too quickly for anyone to have stopped it. Besides, the acts leading to the injury were solely done by the plaintiff, without interference or prodding from anyone other youth or leader. “Moreover, it was plaintiff’s own impulsive and reckless conduct in squirting the other scouts with the water pump and then running out of the shower house, that led to his injury.”
Thus, as the accident occurred in a very short time span and as plaintiff’s own impulsive conduct led to his injury, defendants have demonstrated that there is no proximate cause between their allegedly inadequate supervision and plaintiff’s accident.
The final issue tackled by the courts was the lighting and conditions of the area where the shower house was located. Because the plaintiff could not identify what caused him to fall, it could not be said the fall was caused by inadequate lighting.
Thus, as the accident occurred in a very short time span and as plaintiff’s own impulsive conduct led to his injury, defendants have demonstrated that there is no proximate cause between their allegedly inadequate supervision and plaintiff’s accident.
On top of that, the plaintiff was wearing a headlamp at the time of the accident so even if lighting were to blame the plaintiff had brought his own. Identifying the area around the shower house without being able to identify which of those conditions caused his injury is not enough to argue a legal claim.
Plaintiff was able, however, to recall the conditions outside of the shower house, which consisted of typical conditions in any wooded or camp area, i.e., rocks, dirt, branches, etc., and having been on several camp trips, was presumably aware of the existence and risks of such conditions. He did not identify or recall any unusual, unexpected, or dangerous conditions, nor have any such conditions been alleged.
The decision of the trial court was upheld, and the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
So Now What?
First, more information needs to be given to parents to try to educate them of the risks of any youth activity. On top of this, programs designed to protect kids need to be explained both to why they are used and what the adults can and cannot do, like the BSA YPT program.
On top of that, you need to develop proof that your parents knew the risks of the activity. New York does not allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue. (See States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.) As such the only real defense you would have would be assumption of the risk. (See Assumption of the Risk and Assumption of Risk — Checklist)
I would include in that assumption of the risk form statements about the kid’s age and prior camping/outdoor experience as in this case. Ask the parents to relate or checkbox their outdoor experience.
You can use the form to determine who else can help your unit or program, and you can use the form to prove the parents knew and assumed the risk.
![clip_image002[4]](https://recreation-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clip_image0024_thumb.jpg?w=244&h=348 "clip_image002[4]")
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, BSA, Boy Scouts of America, Youth, YPT, YPP, Headlamp, Shower House, Supervision, Adequate Supervision, Negligent Supervision,
VeloSwap is Growing and Expanding
Posted: July 7, 2016 Filed under: Cycling | Tags: Consumer Bike Expo, National Western Complex, Subaru VeloSwap, Velo, Veloswap Leave a comment
|
2016 Climbing for Kids with Bigger Mountains to Climb
Posted: July 2, 2016 Filed under: Youth Camps, Zip Line | Tags: x, y, z Leave a comment2016 Climbing for Kids
What: Each year we climb 14,000 feet to the summit of Mt. Bierstadt to honor children with much bigger mountains to climb
When: August 12th, 2016
Where: Mt. Beirstadt
Beneficiaries:Children’s Hospital Colorado Learning Services and Pediatric Mental Health Institute
Registration:
Team Children’s
Summer 2016 Commercial Fatalities
Posted: June 29, 2016 Filed under: Whitewater Rafting | Tags: avalanche, Cat Skiing, fatality, Oregon Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of June 15, 2016. Thanks.
Rafting, Mountaineering, Skiing out of bounds and other sports are probably still safer than your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from any activity but to help you understand the risks and to study.
Red is a probable death due to medical issues unrelated to the activity
Blue is an employee fatality
Dark blue is a death of an employee while working
|
Date |
Activity |
State |
Location |
What |
Age |
Sex |
Location 2 |
Reference |
Ref 2 |
Company |
|
3/22 |
Cat Skiing |
OR |
Mt. Bailey |
Avalanche, hit tree |
|
M |
|
|
||
|
5/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
WA |
Wenatchee River |
Raft Flipped |
53 |
M |
Dryden |
|
Orion River |
|
|
|
Whitewater Rafting |
ME |
Dead River |
Fell out |
52 |
M |
|
North Country Rivers |
||
|
5/22 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
61 |
F |
Parkdale |
Echo Canyon River Expeditions |
||
|
6/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Lowe River |
Fell out |
48 |
F |
|
|
|
|
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Roaring Fork |
Flip |
50 |
M |
Slaughterhouse section |
Aspen Whitewater Rafting |
||
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
69 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
67 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
If you would like a PDF of this chart please click here: 2016 Summer Commercial Fatalities
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Fatality, Avalanche, Cat Skiing, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting,
Plaintiff failed to prove her injuries were due to the construction of the water park slide, and she also assumed the risk.
Posted: June 27, 2016 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Maryland, Swimming | Tags: assumption of the risk, knowledge and appreciation, Risk, Water Park, Water Slide Leave a commentAn injury is not enough; you must be able to relate your injury to the exact cause, and that cause must be based on a failure to do or not do a duty by the defendant.
Stolting, et al., v. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26572
State: Maryland, United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Plaintiff: Beth Stolting, et al.
Defendant: Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc. d/b/a Splash Mountain Water Park et al
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence
Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk
Holding: Defendant
Year: 2001
The plaintiff and a boyfriend, who eventually became her husband, went to the defendant’s water park. She had been to water parks 15-20 times over the years, and ridden water slides hundreds of times. However, she had never visited this park.
At the entrance of the park was a sign which warned of the risks of the park.
The attractions contained within the Splash Mountain Waterpark are of a participatory nature and, as such, carry with them an inherent risk of injury. All guests agree, as a condition of admission, to use these facilities at their own risk.
The plaintiff admitted that she read the sign when she entered the park. After entering the park the plaintiff went on several water slides before going down the slide that injured her. Before riding that slide, she watched others go down the slide.
There were no warning signs posted at the slide. Nor were there instructions on how to ride the slide. As the plaintiff prepared to go down the slide, she placed herself in the positions; she had seen other riders with her knees bent about 40 degrees.
After exiting the slide, she hit the bottom of the pool. The plaintiff was assisted out of the pool by a lifeguard who suggested she go to a hospital. The plaintiff transported herself to the hospital. Eventually, she was diagnosed with several broke vertebrae, which required several months of recovery.
The plaintiff sued for her injuries.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
Under Maryland law, to prove negligence the plaintiff must prove:
Plaintiffs must establish four elements in order to prevail on a negligence claim: 1) that a duty was owed to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants; 2) a breach of that duty owed by the Defendants; 3) a causal relationship between the breach of that duty and the harm suffered; and 4) that damages were sustained.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition because two prior claims had been filed for similar injuries on the same water slide. The plaintiff then claimed that notice of those injuries created a duty on the part of the defendant to post warning signs.
The next issue was the standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The rule in Maryland is a water park owes business invitees a duty to use ordinary care.
The general rule is that the operator of a place of amusement owes to business invitees a non-delegable duty to use ordinary care and caution to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition.” An amusement park is not an insurer of the safety of persons using devices at the place of amusement, but only a proprietor bound to use ordinary care for the safety and protection of its patrons. Hence, the Park’s duty towards its patrons is only to provide “ordinary and diligent care” in keeping the Shotgun slide in a “reasonabl[y] safe condition.”
The plaintiff then argued the defendant breached its duty to provide ordinary and diligent care by not posting warning signs informing patrons of the danger of the slide.
The plaintiff failed on this claim because she presented no admissible evidence that the angle of the slide was too steep. The plaintiff relied upon the opinion of the other injured patrons on the same slide. “The Plaintiffs have not presented evidence sufficient to establish that the Defendants had reason to believe the slide was so dangerous as to require a special warning next to it.”
The park had the slide evaluated after the prior injuries by a licensed professional from the state. Since the plaintiff could not present any evidence of the dangerousness of the slide, the review by the professional was sufficient to defeat this claim. “There is no evidence adequate to establish that a pertinent standard of care required additional warnings.”
On top of that, the plaintiff had read the warnings at the entrance of the park which placed the plaintiff on notice of the dangerous condition, required by the duty owed to business-invitees.
The plaintiff hired an expert witness to assist in her case; however, the expert’s opinion was ruled inadmissible in a prior motion. Consequently, she could not provide any evidence to support here claim that the defendant breached its duty by not posting instructions on how to ride the slide.
Even if her expert’s opinion had been admissible, there was no evidence posted that the way the plaintiff rode the slide was the cause of her injury. There was no connection between riding the slide and riding the slide a specific way that might have caused or would not have caused her injuries.
The final issue was the depth of the pool at the bottom of the slide. Again, she could offer not expert testimony to support that claim. The engineer from the state had inspected the pool and found that its depth was adequate. “There is no evidence sufficient to prove to a reasonable fact finder that Defendants negligently pro-vided too shallow an exit pool.”
The court then found the plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries. In Maryland, assumption of the risk is a complete bar to a negligence claim. To prove assumption of the risk the defendant must prove:
To establish an assumption of risk defense, the Defendants have the burden of demonstrating that the Plaintiffs: 1) had knowledge of the risk of danger; 2) appreciated the risk; and 3) voluntarily confronted the risk of danger.
To determine if the plaintiff knew, appreciated and voluntarily confronted the risk, the court used an objective standard.
An objective standard must be used in deciding “whether a plaintiff had knowledge and appreciation of the risk, . . . and a plaintiff . . . [cannot] say that he did not comprehend a risk which must have been obvious to him.” Overall, the question of whether the plaintiff assumed the risk is usually a question for the jury, however, when it is clear that by using an objective test, “a person of normal intelligence in the position of the plaintiff must have understood the danger, the issue is for the court.”
The defendant met this standard based on the plaintiff’s experience in riding other water slides and watching people ride this slide. “Those who participate or sit as spectators at sports and amusements may be taken to assume the known risks of being hurt by roller coasters, flying baseballs, [or] hockey pucks . . . .“
Additionally, the plaintiff’s a person of normal intelligence would have understood the risks of this slide. “In the case at Bar, Stolting’s age, education and experience on water slides clearly establishes that she was able to appreciate the risk.”
Finally, the plaintiff voluntarily confronted the risk.
After reading the disclaimer at the front of the Park, watching other patrons maneuver themselves down the slide, and relying on her prior experiences on water slides, Stolting chose to ride the Shotgun slide. Of her own free will, Stolting voluntarily made the decision to go on the ride and take her chances even though, as she was specifically warned, the rides in the Park “carry with them an inherent risk of injury.”
The court found that any reasonable jury would find the plaintiff assumed the risk.
The court concludes that any reasonable jury would have to find that Stolting assumed the risk of injury on the Shotgun slide by having knowledge of the risk, appreciating the risk, and voluntarily confronting the risk of danger. Hence, Stolting’s negligence claim, even if viable, would be barred by the assumption of risk doctrine.
In a rare issue in a decision, the court found two complete and valid defenses to the plaintiff’s claims. Normally, courts only find one reason to support or over throw a decision and stop there.
So Now What?
A lot of this win for the defendant was based on three things. The plaintiff admitted having gone to water parks and down water slides before, she admitted reading the warning sign at the entrance, and she watched other riders before going down the slide herself. That proved she has knowledge and appreciation of the risk and voluntarily assumed the risk.
The second issue was the defendant hired an expert after just a few incidents to check out its slide. Again, acting prior to the lawsuit was better and probably a lot cheaper in the long run to see if the problem was real or isolated incidents.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Water Park, Water Slide, Assumption of the Risk, knowledge and appreciation, risk,
Final: 2015-2016 In bound ski/board fatalities
Posted: June 22, 2016 Filed under: Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Aspen, Bear Valley, Blue Mountain, Blue Mountain Ski Area, Burke Mountain, Burke Mountain Ski Area, Cascade Mountain, Cascade Mountain Ski Hill, Chair Lift, fatality, Heavenly Mountain, Jackson Hole, Mount Snow, Mt. Waterman, Park City, Park City Mtn Resort, ski area, skiing, Snoqualmie Pass, Snowbasin, snowboarding, Solider Mountain, Squaw Valley resort, Steamboat Springs Ski Resort, Tubing, Vail, Whiteface, Winter Park Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of April 21, 2016. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Tye is Employee or Ski Patroller
2015 – 2016 Ski Season Fatalities
|
# |
Date |
State |
Resort |
Where |
Trail Difficulty |
How |
Cause |
Ski/ Board |
Age |
Sex |
Home town |
Helmet |
Reference |
Ref # 2 |
|
1 |
11/29/15 |
CA |
Bear Mountain |
|
|
she collided with a metal stairway |
|
Ski |
21 |
F |
Jackson Township CA |
|
||
|
2 |
12/7/15 |
WY |
Jackson Hole |
Moran Run |
Blue |
Hit tree |
|
Board |
23 |
F |
Boston, MA |
Y |
||
|
3 |
12/15/15 |
CO |
Steamboat |
|
|
fell, landing face down in the snow |
|
Ski |
70 |
M |
Louisville CO |
|
||
|
4 |
12/19/15 |
WA |
Snoqualmie Pass |
Silver Fir |
|
tree-well |
|
Ski |
50 |
M |
North Bend, WA |
|
||
|
5 |
12/22/15 |
WY |
Jackson Hole |
Sundance run |
|
found inverted in a tree well |
|
Ski |
25 |
F |
Jackson Hole, WY |
Y |
||
|
6 |
12/23/15 |
NY |
Whiteface Lake Placid |
Summit Express |
Blue |
fell and struck his head |
blunt impact to the head |
Board |
26 |
M |
Litiz, PA |
N |
|
|
|
7 |
12/23/15 |
CA |
Bear Valley |
|
|
|
|
Ski |
71 |
M |
|
|
||
|
8 |
1/6/16 |
CO |
Vail |
|
|
|
tree well |
Board |
25 |
M |
Avon, CO |
|
||
|
9 |
1/12/16 |
UT |
Park City |
|
Intermediate |
|
|
|
60 |
M |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
1/20 |
CO |
Keystone |
Elk Run |
|
Hit a tree |
|
|
27 |
M |
Boulder, CO |
|
||
|
11 |
1/24/16 |
VT |
Mount Snow |
Ripcord |
Double Diamond |
Hit Tree |
Blunt Force Trauma |
Board |
57 |
M |
Simsbury CT |
Yes |
||
|
12 |
1/28/16 |
CO |
Winter Park |
|
|
|
|
Skier |
24 |
M |
Kalamazoo, MI |
|
|
|
|
13 |
1/30/16 |
ID |
Solider Mountain |
|
|
Hit building |
|
Ski |
14 |
F |
Twin Falls, ID |
Yes |
||
|
14 |
2/3/16 |
PA |
Blue Mountain Ski Area |
|
|
|
blunt-force trauma |
|
35 |
M |
Tacoma, WA |
|
||
|
15 |
2/6 |
CA |
Mt. Waterman |
|
|
struck a tree |
|
|
60 |
M |
Winnetka, CA |
|
||
|
16 |
2/6 |
WI |
Cascade Mountain Ski Hill |
|
|
struck a tree |
|
|
24 |
F |
Oconto Falls, WI |
No |
||
|
17 |
2/6 |
UT |
Park City Mtn Resort |
Tombstone |
|
collapsed |
|
|
67 |
M |
UT |
|
|
|
|
18 |
2/15/16 |
VT |
Burke Mountain Ski Area |
Big Dipper Trail |
|
collided with a tree |
|
|
58 |
M |
Watertown |
No |
||
|
19 |
2/16 |
NV |
Heavenly Mountain Resort |
Crossover and Comet ski runs |
|
striking a tree |
|
|
77 |
F |
Madison, WI |
|
||
|
20 |
2/22/16 |
UT |
Snowbasin Ski |
Janis’ trail |
|
crashing into a tree, |
|
|
56 |
M |
NJ |
N |
|
|
|
21 |
2/22/16 (2/15) |
CO |
Aspen |
|
Taking Lesson |
Fell down |
Head injury |
|
68 |
M |
CO, |
|
||
|
22 |
2/22/16 |
NY |
Gore Mountain Ski Center |
|
Double Black Diamond |
struck several trees |
|
|
65 |
M |
Minerva, NY |
Y |
||
|
23 |
2/25 |
CO |
Beaver Creek |
|
Intermediate |
Hit a sign attached to a wooden post between runs |
blunt force trauma to the chest |
|
39 |
M |
Knoxville, TN |
Y |
||
|
24 |
2/26 |
MI |
Crystal Mountain |
Cheers Race Course |
Intermediate |
Lost control & slid backward |
|
|
58 |
M |
Traverse City, MI |
Y |
||
|
25 |
2/27 |
PA |
Seven Springs |
Wagner Trail |
|
Skier v. Skier Collision |
|
|
51 |
M |
Delmont |
|
||
|
26 |
2/27 |
|
Squaw Valley resort |
Headwall |
|
fell and slid down the slope through a stand of trees, suffering multiple injuries |
|
|
62 |
F |
Olympic Valley |
Y |
||
|
27 |
3/1 |
CO |
Breckenridge Ski Resort |
Sundown |
intermediate |
he collided with another skier, lost control and ran into a tree |
blunt force trauma injuries |
|
26 |
M |
Breckenridge, CO |
N |
||
|
28 |
|
|
Beaver Mountain Ski Resort |
|
|
struck a tree |
|
|
18 |
M |
Camano Island, WA |
|
||
|
|
3/6 |
WI |
Cascade Mountain Ski Hill |
|
|
running into a tree |
|
|
|
F |
Oconto Falls, WI |
N |
|
|
|
30 |
3/6 |
NV |
Mt. Rose Ski Tahoe |
Galena run |
|
reportedly fallen or collapsed |
|
|
43 |
M |
Reno, NV |
|
||
|
31 |
3/9 |
CO |
Telluride Ski Resort |
Gold Hill |
|
lost his skis and tumbled down a steep, wooded terrain |
|
|
49 |
M |
Colorado Springs, CO |
|
|
|
|
32 |
3/9 |
CO |
Copper Mountain |
American Flyer |
Intermediate |
hit a tree |
blunt force trauma injuries |
|
19 |
M |
Arlington, VA |
Y |
||
|
33 |
|
MT |
|
|
|
in some trees near a ski lift |
|
|
82 |
M |
CA |
|
|
|
|
34 |
3/19 |
CO |
Telluride |
Coonskin |
Black Diamond |
skis detached from his boots |
crashed into trees |
|
69 |
M |
Greenwood, S.C. |
|
||
|
35 |
3/20 |
UT |
Snowbird |
Chip’s Run |
|
|
hit a rock before losing control and colliding with the tree |
|
57 |
M |
|
|
||
|
36 |
3/24 |
CO |
Steamboat Ski Area |
Nastar Course |
|
Fell |
|
|
|
M |
|
|
||
|
37 |
3/27 |
NH |
Cannon Mtn |
Upper Ravine Trail |
|
sharp turn and struck a tree |
Massive head trauma |
|
29 |
M |
Holden, MA |
N |
||
|
38 |
4/2 |
UT |
Park City |
|
Advanced |
collided with a tree |
|
|
48 |
M |
Aspen, CO |
|
||
|
39 |
4/4 |
CO |
Breckenridge |
Tiger |
Expert |
Collided with another skier |
|
|
43 |
M |
Randolph, NJ |
|
||
|
40 |
4/6 |
CO |
Breckenridge |
Claimjumper |
Intermediate |
snowboarder collided with a tree |
blunt force trauma |
Board |
32 |
M |
|
Y |
||
|
41 |
4/9 |
ID |
Bald Mountain Ski Area |
Upper Greyhawk |
|
speed flying |
|
Ski |
24 |
M |
|
|
||
|
42 |
4/20 |
CO |
Breckenridge Ski Area |
Monte Cristo |
|
hitting a tree |
blunt force trauma injuries |
Ski |
20 |
F |
Denver, CO |
Y |
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tubing, Chair Lift, Jackson Hole, Steamboat Springs Ski Resort, Snoqualmie Pass, Mount Snow, Park City, Vail, Bear Valley, Whiteface, Snoqualmie Pass, Burke Mountain Ski Area, Park City Mtn Resort, Cascade Mountain Ski Hill, Mt. Waterman, Blue Mountain Ski Area, Solider Mountain, Solider Mountain, Winter Park, Aspen, Snowbasin, Heavenly Mountain, Burke Mountain, Park City, Cascade Mountain, Blue Mountain, Mt. Waterman, Squaw Valley resort,
Sign-in sheet language at Michigan’s health club was not sufficient to create a release.
Posted: June 20, 2016 Filed under: Health Club, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Health club, Release, Release Language, Sign in Sheet, Treadmill, Wrongful Death Leave a commentIgnorant health club faces negligence and wrongful-death claim for failing to have a release that meets the requirements of Michigan’s law.
Xu v Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263; 668 N.W.2d 166; 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1505
State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan
Plaintiff: Junyi Xu and Haini Hou
Defendant: Hiedi Gay, d/b/a Vital Power Fitness Center
Plaintiff Claims: ordinary negligence by defendant, loss of consortium, and wrongful death and later gross negligence
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the Plaintiff
Year: 2003
This is a health club case. The deceased was visiting the defendant health club on a one-week complimentary pass. Each time he visited the club he was required to sign in. Signing in, consisted of signing a “sign in” sheet. The sign-in sheet had at the top had a paragraph titled release.
While using the treadmill the defendant fell and hit his head. The plaintiff contended the deceased stumbled and was thrown off the treadmill hitting his head on a window ledge that was 2.5 feet behind the treadmill. The defendant claims the deceased became ill and fell. No one saw the plaintiff fall or the accident.
The personal representative of the deceased sued the health club for negligence and wrongful death. The defendant filed a motion for summary disposition (motion for summary judgment) arguing the release should stop the claims. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants motion for summary disposition. At the same time, trial court allowed the plaintiff to amend their pleading, which had been filed earlier. The new pleading argued the defendant was also guilty of gross negligence.
Later, the defendant renewed their motion for summary disposition to dismiss the gross negligence and wrongful-death claims. The trial court found there was insufficient evidence to support a claim for gross negligence, and the wrongful-death claim failed because it was a derivative claim.
A derivative claim is one where the second claim is solely based upon the success of the first claim. If the first claim fails, as in this case, then the second claim, which is derivative automatically, fails.
This appeal followed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court started its analysis by defining some of the issues under Michigan’s law. At the time of the decision, Gross Negligence was being redefined by the courts. “Common-law gross negligence is not a higher degree of negligence, but rather ordinary negligence of the defendant that follows the negligence of the plaintiff.”
In this case, the definition was adapted from a statute that had a similar intent. “Gross negligence is defined in the GTLA as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” [GTLA is the Government Tort Claims Liability Act]. The court then redefined the definition to state:
Therefore, applying this definition, the question becomes whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendant’s conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to the decedent.
Looking at the facts, the court found that although the plaintiff’s expert witness stated the defendant had to be “the worst, poorly educated owner/operator of a health club” the facts pointed only to the fact the defendant was ignorant, not grossly negligent. “…mere ignorance does not constitute conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to Yan.”
The court then looked at the requirements for a release to be valid in Michigan. The first issue was the validity. A release is valid if it was fairly and knowingly made. The scope was the next issue, how far the release was to extend or what the release was to cover.
A release of liability is valid if it is fairly and knowingly made. The scope of a release is governed by the intent of the parties as it is expressed in the release.
The next step is whether the release was unambiguous.
A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. If the terms of the release are unambiguous, contradictory inferences become “subjective, and irrelevant,” and the legal effect of the language is a question of law to be resolved summarily.
A release is knowingly made even if it is not labeled a “release,” or the releasor fails to read its terms, or thought the terms were different, absent fraud or intentional misrepresentation designed to induce the releasor to sign the release through a strategy of trickery. A release is not fairly made if “(1) the releasor was dazed, in shock, or under the influence of drugs, (2) the nature of the instrument was misrepresented, or (3) there was other fraudulent or overreaching conduct.”
The first issue on the list, the “releaser was dazed in shock” is a new issue I’ve not seen in contract law. Generally, when someone enters into a contract, they have to have their full faculty, although there as some exceptions if you are high or drunk. Contract then and you can still be on the hook.
Applying these issues, the court found the release language on the sign-in sheet was insufficient to stop a claim by the plaintiff.
With these cases as guidance, we simply cannot read the purported release in the instant case as releasing defendant from liability stemming from its own negligence. We find that the language in the alleged release is unambiguous, and clearly states that defendant would not assume responsibility for “any injuries and/or sicknesses incurred to [sic] me or any accompanying minor person as a result of entering the premises and/or using any of the facilities.” However, this provision does not inform the reader that he is solely responsible for injuries incurred or that he waives defendant’s liability by relinquishing his right to sue, nor does it contain the words “waiver,” “disclaim,” or similar language that would clearly indicate to the reader that by accepting its terms he is giving up the right to assert a negligence claim. While such words are not necessary to create a release, we believe that, at a minimum, a release should explicitly inform the reader regarding the effect of the release.
The release failed to inform the reader/signor that he would be responsible for his or her own injuries, a requirement under Michigan’s law. Nor did the release have language indicating the signor was giving up any legal rights or releasing the defendant from liability.
Specific wording is not required for a release to be valid in Michigan. However, the court found that the release should explicitly inform the reader of what the reader is giving up, what the effect of the release will be when signed.
Simply put, the paragraph at the top of a sign-in sheet does not have the necessary language to be a release and stop a claim for negligence. Since the negligence claim could proceed, then wrongful-death claim could proceed. The necessary superseding claim supporting the wrongful-death claim was back, supporting the wrongful-death claim.
Here, because Yan, had he survived, would have been able to maintain an ordinary-negligence claim against the defendant, on the basis of our decision above, plaintiff can maintain an action for damages on the basis of the ordinary negligence of the defendant.
So Now What?
Sign in sheets are simply that. They are a record of who came into the facility and maybe at what time. A release is a contract written to meet the specific requirements of the state the release will be used in.
That language might be found by stealing someone else’s release, searching the internet, or getting lucky. However, in this case the health club was did not get lucky. In fact, I suspect a big check was written to settle this case.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com
Google+: +Recreation
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
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Health Club, Treadmill, Wrongful Death, Sign in Sheet, Release, Release Language,
Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, 2016 Del. LEXIS 19
Posted: June 17, 2016 Filed under: Delaware, Health Club, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Delaware, Health club, Planet Fitness, Public Policy, Release, Unequivocal Leave a commentKetler v. PFPA, LLC, 2016 Del. LEXIS 19
Deshaun Ketler and Brittany Ketler, his wife, Plaintiff-Below, Appellant, v. PFPA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a Planet Fitness, Defendant-Below, Appellee.
No. 319, 2015
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
2016 Del. LEXIS 19
December 2, 2015, Submitted
January 15, 2016, Decided
NOTICE:
THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware. C.A. No. N14C-12-235.
Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 270 (Del. Super. Ct., June 3, 2015)
DISPOSITION: Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
COUNSEL: Edward T. Ciconte, Esquire, Adam F. Wasserman, Esquire, Ciconte, Scerba & Kerrick, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant.
Gary H. Kaplan, Esquire, Jessica L. Tyler, Esquire, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee.
JUDGES: Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
OPINION BY: VAUGHN
OPINION
VAUGHN, Justice:
Plaintiffs-Below/Appellants DeShaun Ketler and Brittany Ketler appeal from a Superior Court order granting Defendant-Below/Appellee PFPA, LLC’s (“Planet Fitness”) motion for judgment on the pleadings. DeShaun Ketler was injured while using exercise equipment in a Planet Fitness facility. The Ketlers claim that the injuries were caused by negligence on the part of Planet Fitness. The Superior Court found that the Ketlers claim was barred by a signed release of liability. It determined that a release which allows a party to avoid liability for its own negligence is permissible under Delaware Law if the release is unambiguous, not unconscionable, and not against public policy. It further determined that the release satisfied all three criteria. [*2] On appeal, the Ketlers contend that the Superior Court erred because the release is ambiguous, unconscionable, and against public policy. We approve the Superior Court’s determinations and affirm.
In 2010, DeShaun joined Planet Fitness at a cost of $10 per month.1 DeShaun signed a membership agreement, which contained the following:
I understand and expressly agree that my use of this Planet Fitness facility . . . involves the risk of injury to me or my guest whether caused by me or not. I understand that these risks can range from minor injuries to major injuries including death. In consideration of my participation in the activities and use of the facilities offered by Planet Fitness, I understand and voluntarily accept this risk and agree that Planet Fitness . . . will not be liable for any injury, including, without limitation, personal, bodily, or mental injury. . . resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness or anyone on Planet Fitness’ behalf whether related to exercise or not. Accordingly, I do hereby forever release and discharge Planet Fitness from any and all claims, demands, injuries, damages, actions or causes of action. I further understand and acknowledge that Planet [*3] Fitness does not manufacture fitness or other equipment in its facilities, but purchases and/or leases equipment, and therefore Planet Fitness may not be held liable for defective products.2
In April 2013, DeShaun was injured when a cable broke on a seated rowing machine that he was using at Planet Fitness.
1 Devana Fitness, LLC was the franchisee of the Planet Fitness location on the date the Membership Agreement was executed. On July 31, 2012, prior to Ketler’s incident, Devana Fitness, LLC assigned its rights and interests in, and under, all Membership Agreements to PFPA, LLC.
2 Appellant’s Op. Br. App. at A8.
This Court has previously recognized that [HN1] a release of prospective negligence may be valid.3 Such a release must be “‘clear and unequivocal’ to insulate a party from liability . . . .”4 The release provision involved here expressly releases Planet Fitness from any liability for any injury resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness, whether related to exercise or not. It expressly releases Planet Fitness from any and all claims or causes of action. The provision’s language is clear and unequivocal.
3 Riverbend Cmty., LLC v. Green Stone Eng’g, LLC, 55 A.3d 330, 336 (Del. 2012).
4 Id. (quoting State v. Interstate Amiesite Corp., 297 A.2d 41, 44 (Del. 1972)).
[HN2] It must also not be unconscionable. Unconscionability is a concept that [*4] is used sparingly.5 Traditionally, an unconscionable contract is one which “no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest or fair man would accept, on the other.”6 “But mere disparity between the bargaining powers of parties to a contract will not support a finding of unconscionability.”7 “[T]here must be an absence of meaningful choice and contract terms unreasonably favorable to one of the parties.”8 There is no deprivation of meaningful choice if a party can walk away from the contract.9 Here, DeShaun was free to accept the Planet Fitness membership or not. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the release is not unconscionable.
5 See Progressive Int’l Corp. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2002 Del. Ch. LEXIS 91, 2002 WL 1558382, at *11 (Del. Ch. July 9, 2002) (discussing the reluctance of courts to apply the doctrine).
6 Reserves Mgmt., LLC v. Am. Acquisition Prop., LLC, 86 A.3d 1119, 2014 WL 823407, at *9 (Del. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).
7 Id.
8 Tulowitzki v. Atl. Richfield Co., 396 A.2d 956, 960 (Del. 1978).
9 See Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 A.2d 908, 913 (Del. 1989) (finding the doctrine of unconscionability inapplicable, in part, because the plaintiffs had the opportunity to cancel the insurance policy); Progressive, 2002 Del. Ch. LEXIS 91, 2002 WL 1558382, at *11 (rejecting the plaintiff’s unconscionability argument, in part, because nothing had prevented the plaintiff from walking away from a contract with allegedly unfavorable terms).
Finally, [HN3] the release must not violate public policy. The public policy of this state is typically [*5] determined by the Delaware General Assembly. No Delaware statute has been identified which bears on the validity of a release of prospective negligence. The Ketlers argue that the release violates the public policy embodied in the principle that a property owner has a duty to make his property safe for business invitees. However, a general release by its nature releases a party from a potential liability otherwise imposed by law. The public policy involved must be one which disapproves of the release.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
Gomes v. Boy Scouts of America, et al., 51 Misc. 3d 1206(A); 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1088; 2016 NY Slip Op 50444(U)
Posted: June 17, 2016 Filed under: Camping, Legal Case, New York | Tags: Adequate Supervision, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Headlamp, negligent supervision, Shower House, Supervision, Youth, YPP, YPT Leave a commentGomes v. Boy Scouts of America, et al., 51 Misc. 3d 1206(A); 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1088; 2016 NY Slip Op 50444(U)
Davide E. Gomes, Plaintiff, against Boy Scouts of America, et al., Defendants.
115435/10
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
51 Misc. 3d 1206(A); 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1088; 2016 NY Slip Op 50444(U)
March 10, 2016, Decided
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRINTED OFFICIAL REPORTS.
PRIOR HISTORY: Gomes v. Boy Scouts of America, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4622 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 9, 2013)
COUNSEL: [*1] For plaintiff: Scott W. Epstein, Esq., Antich, Erlich & Epstein, LLP, New York, NY.
For Council and Troop 141: Brian P. Morrissey, Esq., Connell Foley, LLP, New York, NY.
JUDGES: Barbara Jaffe, JSC.
OPINION BY: Barbara Jaffe
OPINION
Barbara Jaffe, J.
By notice of motion, defendants Northern New Jersey Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America (Council) and Boy Scout Troop 141 (troop) (collectively, defendants) move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for an order granting them summary dismissal of the complaint against them. Plaintiff opposes.
I. PERTINENT BACKGROUND
By decision and order dated October 8, 2013 (NYSCEF 110), I granted defendant Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) motion for an order summarily dismissing the complaint against it. As set forth therein, the background of the case is as follows:
On July 24, 2005, plaintiff, then a 13-year-old Boy Scout, was participating in a Boy Scout excursion at Floodwood Mountain Scout Reservation in the Adirondacks. Plaintiff was a member of Boy Scout Troop 141. He and other scouts were accompanied by volunteer [**2] adult leaders. Near or in the shower house at the Reservation, plaintiff sustained head injuries.
In accident and witness reports created after the accident, the other scouts who were at the showers [*2] at the time of plaintiff’s accident stated that they saw plaintiff run from the shower area and discovered him lying prone on the ground and bleeding. None of them saw him fall.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that as he was walking along the common area and/or grassy area at or near the showers, he fell due to defendants’ failure to keep the area safe, in good repair, well-lit and free from obstruction or defect and supervise him and the other scouts.
In plaintiff’s supplemental verified bill of particulars, he describes the dangerous condition which caused his fall as follows: “that the area in front of the showers where the [ ] accident occurred was not lit, and/or was poorly lit, and/or was inadequately lit; was raised and un-leveled, and had rocks and/or tree limbs/branches strewn about it,” all of which defendants had constructive notice.
At an examination before trial held on December 16, 2011, plaintiff testified that he did not recall his accident or what had caused his fall, and that his last memory before falling was of walking to the showers. At the time of his accident, it was dark outside and there was no lighting outside the showers, although it was lit inside, [*3] and he noticed that there were many rocks on the ground around the shower house. He was wearing a working head lamp as he approached the showers.
(NYSCEF 110).
On this motion, the following relevant facts are undisputed:
(1)Council owns and operates Floodwood and Troop made reservations to attend camp there;
(2)plaintiff had been a scout for several years and had attended previous camping trips;
(3)defendants Lopes and Figueiredo were the two adult Troop leaders in charge of plaintiff’s troop at Floodwood;
(4)the night of plaintiff’s accident, he and the other Troop members were told to put equipment into the Troop’s van and take showers at the camp’s shower house;
(5)of the five other Troop members that accompanied plaintiff to the shower house that night, one was 14 years old, one was 15 years old, and three were 16 years [**3] old;
(6)the adult leaders did not accompany them to the van or the shower house;
(7)the shower house was used by both female and males at alternating hours, and the Troop members had to wait until 10 pm to use it; and
(8)there had been no prior incidents of misbehavior during the trip or among the Troop members.
(NYSCEF 151).
The New York State Department of Health (DOH) promulgates [*4] specific rules for children’s camps. (10 NYCRR § 7-2 et al.). As pertinent here, the regulations require adequate supervision, and that “as a minimum . . . there shall exist visual or verbal communications capabilities between camper and counselor during activities and a method of accounting for the camper’s whereabouts at all times.” (10 NYCRR § 7-2.5[o]).
Council’s written plan for Floodwood requires that supervision of campers “be maintained for the duration (24/7) of their stay at the camp.” (NYSCEF 174). Council’s Leaders Guide for Floodwood provides that “running and horseplay have no place at Scout Camps,” and all scout units must have two adult leaders with the unit at all times. (NYSCEF 175).
At a deposition held on December 16, 2011, plaintiff testified that he had been a scout since age nine, and that while a scout he participated in monthly weekend scout camping trips. During the trips, the Troop leaders would show the scouts how to use tools, and gather firewood; when gathering firewood, the scouts would go into the woods using the buddy system, which requires that scouts be accompanied by at least one other scout. When the scouts went to the bathroom, they also used the buddy system. At a camp attended [*5] by the Troop the week before the one at Floodwood, plaintiff visited the shower facilities using the buddy system or with several scouts. At Floodwood too, the buddy system was used. (NYSCEF 162).
According to plaintiff, the main purpose of the trip to Floodwood was to take a 15-mile canoe trip. On the day of the accident, the scouts and the Troop leaders spent time outside in their campsite within the camp, where “there was a little bit of horsing around,” “a little bit of pushing, playing around,” and all of the scouts were pushing and shoving each other during and after a game of touch football, which the leaders told them to stop. As he walked to the shower house the night of his accident, plaintiff wore a functioning headlamp; the area around the shower house was dark. He does not recall what happened from the time the group walked to the shower house to when he regained consciousness on the ground, bleeding from his head. (NYSCEF 162).
It is undisputed that other scouts reported that while they were in the shower house, plaintiff took a water pump from the wall and squirted water on them. When one of the scouts told him to stop, plaintiff ran out of the shower house and fell to [*6] the ground. None of the scouts knew what had caused the fall. (NYSCEF 167-171, 176).
Pictures taken by the parties at Floodwood after the accident depict the shower house as a building stationed in a large clearing or space in front of a wooded area. (NYSCEF 161; 192).
According to the Troop leaders present that day, it was not scouts’ practice to have adult leaders accompany scouts to camp showers. Both leaders testified that they had known plaintiff and the other scouts for several years, had been with them at another camp the week before they went to Floodwood, and had had no disciplinary issues or previous incidents of misbehavior between them. The leaders testified that Scout protocol differentiated between active activities, such as swimming or rock climbing, and passive activities, such as going to shower or the bathroom or retrieving firewood, and that active activities required adults to be present while passive activities did not necessarily require an adult presence. (NYSCEF 163, 164).
Lopes testified that they defined supervision as permitting the scouts to travel throughout the camp as long as the leaders knew their whereabouts, and that he believed that Scout guidelines [*7] prohibited the leaders from walking the scouts to the shower house and waiting outside while they showered in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. He testified that it was a three to five-minute walk from the Troop’s campsite to the shower house. (NYSCEF 164).
Figueiredo testified that the Troop’s campsite was located approximately a three-minute walk from the parking lot, that the shower house was located in the general camp, and that it was a three to four-minute walk from the Troop’s campsite to the shower house. He found out about plaintiff’s accident when two of the scouts found him at their campsite, and when he arrived at the shower house, he found plaintiff sitting on the ground in front of the shower house. He investigated the incident by interviewing the other scouts, and concluded that the other scouts were inside the shower house when plaintiff fell outside the shower house. (NYSCEF 163).
Figueiredo testified that although they did not accompany the scouts to the bathroom or shower, they had them use the buddy system and knew their whereabouts and when to expect them to return, which he defined as their supervision of the scouts:
[t]hey were not in a vast wilderness, they [*8] were in a camp. So there are other people in camp, so they’re within earshot of a number of people that are in camp. It is not like . . . I sent them out into the African plains; there were other people around. They were reasonably within earshot to a bunch of people and I knew their whereabouts.
(NYSCEF 163).
At an examination before trial held on March 16, 2012, Grey Rolland, Council’s director of support services, testified, as pertinent here, that he was unaware of any other injuries to scouts at Floodwood before or after plaintiff’s accident, and that plaintiff and the other scouts used the buddy system, which Rolland considers adequate. He did not believe that the adult Troop leaders should have accompanied the scouts to the shower house given the BSA prohibition against permitting adults and youths in shower houses together, and he asserted that it would not be considered “appropriate” for the adults to escort the scouts to the shower house. He acknowledged that if a Troop leader observed scouts running around or engaging in horseplay, it was incumbent upon the leader to tell them to stop. (NYSCEF 165).
Richard Saunders testified at an EBT that at the time of plaintiff’s accident, [*9] he was 18 years old and employed at Floodwood as a camp health officer. He described Floodwood as a “high-adventure base” for scouts older than 13 to do back-country exploring. After the accident, he completed a form as required by the DOH, on which he noted, under the category “Supervision During Incident,” that the “activity was inadequately addressed in the written plan,” by which he intended to convey that he had reviewed the scout’s written plan for the trip and saw [**4] nothing therein related to supervision of the scouts while in the shower house. He also wrote that no camp staff was present when the accident occurred. Although Saunders had first written that the supervision was “adequate,” he changed it to “inadequate” based on the absence of an adult when plaintiff was injured. Saunders had never before filled out such a form, nor was it part of his job.
Saunders described Floodwood as consisting of a main camp area, which includes the buildings where food is organized and meetings occur, and the individual campsites which are approximately a five-minute walk away. The shower house was located between the campsites and the camp buildings. He estimated that the shower house was [*10] a two-minute walk from the Troop’s campsite and in “an area where boys don’t want to have adults and it would be illegal to have them being watched while showering.” As a scout and troop member attending camps like Floodwood, Saunders recalled that adult leaders did not escort scouts to the showers or stand outside while the scouts showered. (NYSCEF 166).
DOH investigated the incident, after which it and Council entered into a stipulation providing that DOH had alleged that Council had violated various camp regulations, including those relating to the supervision of scouts, and that the parties were thereby settling the matter by Council agreeing not to contest it, paying a fine, and submitting a revised camp safety plan. Additionally, by its terms, the stipulation is
not intended for use in any other forum, tribunal or court, including any civil or criminal proceeding in which the issues or burden of proof may differ, and is made without prejudice to [Council’s] rights, defenses and/or claims in any other matter, proceeding, action, hearing or litigation not involving [DOH] [and] is not intended to be dispositive of any allegations of negligence that may be made in a civil action for [*11] monetary damages.
(NYSCEF 177).
By affidavit dated August 3, 2015, Michael J. Peterson states that he is an expert on camp and conference center management, and opines, based on his experience and review of relevant documentation in this case, that defendants violated the DOH regulation which requires, at a minimum, visual or verbal communications capabilities between a camper and a counselor, and that plaintiff’s accident was reasonably foreseeable as the scouts were allowed to remain “totally unsupervised and unregulated for a lengthy period of time in a potentially dangerous/hazardous environment.” He also posits that if the Troop leaders had accompanied the scouts to the shower house, “the level of horse play outside the shower house would have been minimal to non-existent, the boys would have taken their showers without incident, and safely returned to their camp site.” He also states that the defendants should have provided adequate lighting around the shower house. (NYSCEF 193).
II. CONTENTIONS
Defendants deny that they were negligent in any manner related to the physical conditions outside the shower house as they were the ordinary and expected conditions present in a wooded camp. [*12] Troop denies having had any obligation to maintain the area. Defendants also deny having breached a duty to supervise plaintiff absent any prior incidents between plaintiff and any [**5] other Troop member that would have put them on notice of the need to supervise them more closely, and argue that plaintiff’s injury or misbehavior was not reasonably foreseeable. They observe that plaintiff cannot remember how he was injured or whether his injuries were caused by a premises condition or an assault by another scout, and deny having had notice of any prior incidents or accidents around the shower house. (NYSCEF 151).
Plaintiff argues that his inability to remember the accident permits a relaxed standard of proof on summary judgment, and contends that there are two possible explanations for his accident: (1) that he was struck over the head with a blunt object by a fellow scout, or (2) that he tripped and fell while running over the uneven and non-illuminated area around the shower house, and that in either scenario, the accident would not have happened if defendants had adequately supervised that night. He asserts that a jury could conclude that a reasonably prudent parent would not permit [*13] six minors “to wander around the woods at 10:00 pm, for an indefinite period of time, without any adult supervision whatsoever,” and maintains that any “horseplay” should have and would have been discouraged by the Troop leaders. He also observes that defendants violated their own policies by failing to have a troop leader with the troop “at all times” or “for the duration (24/7)” of their trip. (NYSCEF 190).
Plaintiff relies on the stipulation entered into between defendants and DOH, Saunders’s conclusion that factors contributing to the incident included inadequate supervision, and Peterson’s opinion, to demonstrate the lack of adequate supervision. He also argues that Council had a duty to illuminate the area around the shower house, which he characterizes as a “rugged” and “uneven and unpaved camp area containing, inter alia, grass, dirt, rocks, trees, and tree roots.” (Id.).
In reply, defendants maintain that they established, prima facie, their lack of prior knowledge or notice of any scout misbehavior at the camp or any dangerous condition around the shower house. They deny that plaintiff offers evidence that he suffers from any medical condition causing a failure of memory, and [*14] assert that his inability to remember the incident does not warrant relieving him of his burden of proof. They also dispute that the scouts were “traipsing or wandering” through the woods, observing that both Troop leaders testified that they were within the camp, not the woods, where they were within earshot, and were directed to go to the shower house, which they did. (NYSCEF 200).
Defendants also contend that Peterson’s expert affidavit is based on speculation, and that his reliance on the DOH requirement of visual or verbal communication capabilities during “activities” is inapplicable as showering or walking to the shower house is not an activity within the meaning of the rule. They observe that Peterson cites no regulations that defendants allegedly violated relating to the lighting around the shower house, that Peterson never inspected the area, and that in any event, the conditions alleged are ordinary elements of a wooded area. They also deny that Saunders’s statements in the DOH form constitute party admissions, as his completion of the form was not within the scope of his authority at Floodwood. (Id.).
III. ANALYSIS
“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima [*15] facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.” (Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1062, 619 N.E.2d 400, 601 N.Y.S.2d 463 [1993] [citation [**6] omitted]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 476 N.E.2d 642, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1985]). “Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.” (Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853; see also Lesocovich v 180 Madison Ave. Corp., 81 NY2d 982, 985, 615 N.E.2d 1010, 599 N.Y.S.2d 526 [1993]).
Once the proponent’s prima facie burden is satisfied, the opposing party bears the burden of presenting evidentiary facts sufficient to raise triable issues of fact. (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562, 404 N.E.2d 718, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595 [1980]; CitiFinancial Co. [DE] v McKinney, 27 AD3d 224, 226, 811 N.Y.S.2d 359 [1st Dept 2006]). Summary judgment may be granted only when it is clear that no triable issues of fact exist (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324, 501 N.E.2d 572, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 [1986]), and “should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue” of fact (Am. Home Assur. Co. v Amerford Intl. Corp., 200 AD2d 472, 473, 606 N.Y.S.2d 229 [1st Dept 1994]; see also Color by Pergament, Inc. v Pergament, 241 AD2d 418, 420, 660 N.Y.S.2d 431 [1st Dept 1997] [“Summary judgment is an exercise in issue-finding, not issue determination, and may not be granted when material and triable issues of fact are presented”]). The court must examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Martin v Briggs, 235 AD2d 192, 196, 663 N.Y.S.2d 184 [1st Dept 1997]).
A plaintiff who, due to a failure of memory, cannot describe what led to his injury is not held to as high a degree of proof on his or her cause of action. (Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80 N.E.2d 744 [1948]; see Bah v Benton, 92 AD3d 133, 936 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1st Dept 2012] [plaintiff who presented medical evidence establishing loss of memory due [*16] to accident at issue entitled to lesser standard of proof applicable to party unable to present party’s version of facts]). However, even when a plaintiff suffers from amnesia, he is not relieved of the obligation to provide “some proof from which negligence can be reasonably inferred.” (Alotta v Diaz, 130 AD3d 660, 11 N.Y.S.3d 868 [2d Dept 2015]; see Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228, 269 N.E.2d 812, 321 N.Y.S.2d 99 [1971] [even if amnesiac plaintiff is held to lesser degree of proof, it does not “shift the burden of proof or eliminate the need for plaintiffs to introduce evidence of a prima facie case”]; Santiago v Quattrociocchi, 91 AD3d 747, 937 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2d Dept 2012] [same]).
A. Did defendants breach their duty to supervise plaintiff?
A person, other than a parent, who undertakes to control, care for, or supervise an infant, is required to use reasonable care to protect the infant . . . Such a person may be liable for any injury sustained by the infant which was proximately caused by his or her negligence. While a person caring for entrusted children is not cast in the role of an insurer, such an individual is obligated to provide adequate supervision and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately resulting from the negligent failure to do so.
(Alotta v Diaz, 130 AD3d 660, 11 N.Y.S.3d 868 [2d Dept 2015], quoting Appell v Mandel, 296 AD2d 514, 745 N.Y.S.2d 491 [2d Dept 2002]).
A “summer camp is duty-bound to supervise its campers as would a parent of ordinary prudence in comparable [*17] circumstances.” (Phelps v Boy Scouts of Am., 305 AD2d 335, 762 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept 2003]). And, while the degree of supervision required depends on the surrounding circumstances, “constant supervision in a camp setting is neither feasible nor desirable.” (Id. at 335-6).
The standard for determining whether a duty to supervise a minor has been breached is “whether a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the identical situation and armed with the same [**7] information would invariably have provided greater supervision.” (Mayo v New York City Tr. Auth., 124 AD3d 606, 3 N.Y.S.3d 36 [2d Dept 2015], quoting Mary KK v Jack LL, 203 AD2d 840, 611 N.Y.S.2d 347 [3d Dept 1994]).
Moreover, “in determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow [campers], it must be established that [camp] authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused the injury, that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.” (Ragusa v Town of Huntington, 54 AD3d 743, 864 N.Y.S.2d 441 [2d Dept 2008], quoting Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 637 N.E.2d 263, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1994]). Although if an accident occurs in “so short a span in time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the . . . defendants is warranted.'” (Atehortua v Lewin, 90 AD3d 794, 935 N.Y.S.2d 102 [2d Dept 2011], quoting Nash v Port Wash. Union Free School Dist., 83 AD3d 136, 922 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2d Dept 2011]).
1. Was the supervision adequate?
Even though plaintiff does not remember the accident, the [*18] other boys’ versions of it are consistent and uniform, and present the following picture: Plaintiff and the other scouts walked to the shower house and went inside without incident, whereupon plaintiff obtained a water pump and started spraying water on them. When one of the scouts told plaintiff to stop, he ran out of the shower house, and fell.
Plaintiff’s contention is that for defendants’ supervision to have been adequate that night, the Troop leaders should have escorted or walked the scouts to the shower house, waited outside while they showered, and then walked them back to their campsite. As it is undisputed that the scouts ranged in age from 13 to 16, that they were at Floodwood to learn skills related to survival in the woods and to partake in a 15-mile canoe trip, that the scouts utilized a buddy system when at various camps and that Troop leaders never escorted them to the bathrooms or showers, that the shower house was approximately a three to five-minute walk from their campsite, and that the shower house was located within the camp area where other campers and adults were present and within earshot, defendants have demonstrated that a parent of ordinary prudence placed [*19] in the identical situation and armed with the same information would not have provided greater supervision than that provided by defendants.
Moreover, a parent who permits his or her child to attend an overnight camping trip in the woods where the child will be taught skills related to understanding and surviving outdoor conditions, is presumably aware of the hazards and risks of injury associated with such conditions, and it would be illogical for that same parent to require or believe it necessary for the child to be escorted personally to and from every area within the camp. Such a degree of supervision “in a camp setting is neither feasible nor desirable” (Phelps v Boy Scouts of Am., 305 AD2d 335, 762 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept 2003]), and camps “cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of [the campers] movements and activities” (Harris v Five Point Mission – Camp Olmstedt, 73 AD3d 1127, 901 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2d Dept 2010]).
On point is Kosok v Young Men’s Christian Assn. of Greater New York, where a group of boys at a summer camp injured the plaintiff while playing a prank involving attaching a pail to a fishing rod and letting it descend onto the heads of other unsuspecting boys. The group of boys, ranging in age from 12 to 15, occupied a cabin by themselves; the camp counselor did not stay [*20] in [**8] the cabin with them during the midday break. The Court dismissed the case, finding that there was no negligence by defendants in failing to supervise “the rest period of boys of high-school age for a short period.” (24 AD2d 113, 264 N.Y.S.2d 123 [1st Dept 1965], affd 19 NY2d 935, 228 N.E.2d 398, 281 N.Y.S.2d 341 [1967]). The Court observed that ” [r]emembering that this is a Summer camp, it will be seen that constant supervision is not feasible . . . Nor is it desirable. One of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which an overly protective supervision would destroy.” (24 AD2d at 115; see also Gustin v Assn. of Camps Farthest Out, Inc., 267 AD2d 1001, 700 N.Y.S.2d 327 [4th Dept 1999] [same]).
Plaintiff’s reliance on Phelps v Boy Scouts of Am. is misplaced. As I held in granting summary judgment to Boy Scouts of America:
In Phelps . . . “very young campers” were placed in bunks at a camp with “much older campers,” who allegedly assaulted the young campers . . . The court also allowed that very young campers often require closer supervision than older campers, and that placing the younger campers in the bunks with the older campers was an apparent violation of camp policy.
Here, there is no issue of very young campers being unsupervised or placed in risky circumstances as plaintiff and his fellow scouts were all teenagers and there is no evidence that [*21] any camp policy was violated . . .
(305 AD2d 335, 762 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept 2003]).
Moreover, plaintiff’s reliance on Saunders’s conclusion or opinion in the DOH report that the accident was caused by inadequate supervision is not conclusive here, not only because he had no authority to bind defendants to his conclusion, but also based on the circumstances that he was an 18-year old who had never before filled out or even seen a DOH report, and who had received no training or guidance as to how it should be filled out or the meanings of the terms therein. In any event, Saunders testified that he wrote that there was inadequate supervision based only on the fact that the Troop leaders were not physically present at the time of the accident, which is an insufficient basis for the conclusion.
Plaintiff’s submission of the stipulation between DOH and defendants to establish that there was inadequate supervision is barred by the stipulation’s own terms.
Peterson’s expert opinion is based on speculation and is conclusory, and he cites no regulation or requirement that specifies that adequate supervision in this context means that the Troop leaders were required to escort the scouts to the shower house and wait outside until they finished [*22] showering. Indeed, any claim that such supervision is required in camps is undermined by the undisputed fact that at the camp that the scouts attended a week before going to Floodwood, the scouts went to the shower house unescorted and used only the buddy system. Reliance on the DOH requirement of “visual or verbal communication” between campers and counselors and Council’s plan for Floodwood which required the supervision of campers “24/7” is misplaced as neither requires that the Troop leaders be constantly present with the scouts. (See eg, Harris v Five Point Mission – Camp Olmstedt, 73 AD3d 1127, 901 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2d Dept 2010] [while expert concluded that camp was negligent in failing to provide plaintiff with shin guards during soccer game in which he was injured, he failed to allege that camps generally provide shin guards during games or that rules requiring use of shin guards in soccer leagues have been implemented by or [**9] accepted as accepted practice at camps]; Cherry v State of New York, 42 AD2d 671, 344 N.Y.S.2d 545 [4th Dept 1973], affd 34 NY2d 872, 316 N.E.2d 713, 359 N.Y.S.2d 276 [1974] [where camper was injured when nail he struck with hammer while building tent platform struck him, expert’s opinion that the camp was required to provide campers with safety goggles was expert’s personal opinion and neither statute nor regulations required goggles]). [*23]
References to the “traipsing” or “wandering” in the woods unsupervised have no basis in the record; the scouts remained in the camp and never went into the woods. Moreover, the accident did not occur in the woods, and there is no correlation between the woods and plaintiff’s accident.
In any event, whether or not defendants’ supervision of plaintiff was adequate is irrelevant if the accident was not foreseeable or was not proximately caused by the allegedly inadequate supervision.
2. Was plaintiff’s accident foreseeable?
As it is reasonably inferred that the accident occurred as described by the other scouts, there is no evidence suggesting that defendants were on notice that plaintiff and/or the scouts would engage in any dangerous conduct or misbehavior at the shower house. Moreover, even if some of the behavior was foreseeable, plaintiff’s bolting from the shower house, and subsequent fall, was not a foreseeable consequence of any misbehavior.
Kosok is again on point here, with the Court finding that “[a]ssuming that the boys were reasonably quiet – and there is no indication that they were not – no occasion for looking in on them was presented.” The Court also observed that:
[a] certain amount [*24] 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 surrounding circumstances indicates any notice to defendant that such was likely to result here.
(24 AD2d at 115; see also Gibbud v Camp Shane, Inc., 30 AD3d 865, 817 N.Y.S.2d 435 [3d Dept 2006] [same]).
Even if plaintiff had been assaulted by a fellow scout rather than having tripped and fallen, there is no evidence that defendants were on notice of the possibility of an assault. (See eg Alvero v Allen, 262 AD2d 434, 692 N.Y.S.2d 116 [2d Dept 1999] [boy scout sued troop leader for injury caused by snowball fight; absent proof that leader had notice of ongoing and dangerous snowball fight, plaintiff could not prevail on inadequate supervision claim]; see also Osmanzai v Sports and Arts in Schools Foundation, Inc., 116 AD3d 937, 983 N.Y.S.2d 848 [2d Dept 2014] [injury caused by impulsive, unanticipated act of fellow camper ordinarily will not give rise to negligence claim absent proof of prior conduct that would have given notice to protect against injury-causing act]).
As it is undisputed that defendants had no notice of the possibility of misbehavior among the scouts, they have established that plaintiff’s accident was not foreseeable.
3. Was plaintiff’s accident proximately caused by defendants’ allegedly inadequate [*25] supervision?
Even if the Troop leaders had escorted the scouts to the shower house and stood outside while they showered, the alleged misbehavior occurred inside the shower house, and thus the leaders would neither have observed it nor been in a position to stop it. And unless the leaders blocked the entrance, they would not have been able to stop plaintiff from running out of the shower house and falling down.
Plaintiff’s and Peterson’s belief that the mere presence of the Troop leaders outside the shower house would have been sufficient to stop any horseplay from taking place inside is not only speculative, but unwarranted as the scouts had engaged in horseplay earlier that day while the leaders were with them. (See eg, Stephenson v City of New York, 85 AD3d 523, 925 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 1031, 978 N.E.2d 1251, 954 N.Y.S.2d 782 [2012] [suggestion that student’s assault on plaintiff would have been prevented by his mother accompanying her almost 14-year-old son to school every day did not rise above speculation]; see also Lizardo v Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 77 AD3d 437, 908 N.Y.S.2d 395 [1st Dept 2010] [rejecting plaintiff’s expert’s assertion that collision between children would have been preventable by teacher watching play more closely, and opinion that incident might have been prevented by closer supervision valid only in retrospect]; Walsh v City School Dist. of Albany, 237 AD2d 811, 654 N.Y.S.2d 859 [3d Dept 1997] [finding unpersuasive allegation [*26] that presence of supervisor could have kept plaintiff and fellow student attentive and injury would have been prevented]).
In any event, the accident occurred too quickly to enable the Troop leaders to prevent it had they been outside the shower house. As in Kosok, “[e]ven if the cabin counsellor had been within earshot of the cabin, it is difficult to see how the accident would have been prevented.” (24 AD2d at 115; see Harris v Five Point Mission – Camp Olmstedt, 73 AD3d 1127, 901 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2d Dept 2010] [as plaintiff was injured at camp during 15-second time span, camp established that it did not negligently supervise him]; see also Jorge C. v City of New York, 128 AD3d 410, 8 N.Y.S.3d 307 [1st Dept 2015] [defendant established that student’s injury did not arise from inadequate supervision, but from impulsive and unanticipated acts of fellow student of finding balloon, filling it with water, and attempting to throw it at plaintiff, and plaintiff running away and looking backwards rather than ahead]).
Moreover, it was plaintiff’s own impulsive and reckless conduct in squirting the other scouts with the water pump and then running out of the shower house, that led to his injury. (See Gibbud v Camp Shane, Inc., 30 AD3d 865, 817 N.Y.S.2d 435 [3d Dept 2006] [plaintiff’s own impulsive and reckless act in grabbing camp counselor from behind, causing counselor to drop plaintiff and fracture plaintiff’s [*27] ankle, led to his injury]).
Thus, as the accident occurred in a very short time span and as plaintiff’s own impulsive conduct led to his injury, defendants have demonstrated that there is no proximate cause between their allegedly inadequate supervision and plaintiff’s accident.
B. Did Council breach their duty to illuminate adequately the area around the shower house?
Plaintiff has not identified what caused him to fall, whether it was part of the shower house or something on the ground, either a rock or tree branch or uneven patch of dirt. Absent any such evidence and even if plaintiff is unable to recall, there is no basis on which it may be found that plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by the lack of lighting around the area. (See Lynn v Lynn, 216 AD2d 194, 628 N.Y.S.2d 667 [1st Dept 1995] [plaintiff’s amnesia did not reduce her burden of proving that allegedly defective condition of stairway was proximate cause of fall]).
Moreover, plaintiff was wearing a working headlamp at the time of the incident, and neither plaintiff nor his expert identified a regulation or rule requiring defendants to light the area around the shower house at all or in any particular manner.
Plaintiff was able, however, to recall the conditions outside of the [*28] shower house, which consisted of typical conditions in any wooded or camp area, i.e., rocks, dirt, branches, etc., and [**10] having been on several camp trips, was presumably aware of the existence and risks of such conditions. He did not identify or recall any unusual, unexpected, or dangerous conditions, nor have any such conditions been alleged.
In Kimbar v Estis, a young camper had wandered off a camp path at night and hit a tree. The Court found that the camp owners had no duty to illuminate the path in the absence of any particular danger on the path, finding:
We have before us a simple camper-camp relationship and the rustic, outdoor camp life that is the very raison d’e tre [sic] of summer establishments such as defendants’. There are certain risks incidental to camping, but these are part of an adventurous summer camp life, and are necessarily assumed by those who would participate therein . . .
Indeed, it is expected that a camp will have trees, that paths will lead through woods and that woods will be dark at night. It is not to be anticipated that floodlights will be supplied for campers through woodland paths. One naturally assumes many ordinary risks when in the woods and in [*29] the country trails are not smooth sidewalks, paths are not paved, trees, brush and insects are to be expected, and even snakes may appear occasionally. These and more are all a part of accepted camp life.
To hold summer camps to a duty of floodlighting woods would not only impose upon them a condition almost impracticable under many circumstances but would be unfair, as well, to the youth who seek the adventure of living closer to nature, participating in outdoor astronomical study at night or bird study before dawn, or when overnight hikes take them for study and adventure far from any source of electrical power. Such a duty, in short, would frequently compel camps to keep boys confined after dark and thereby effectively spell the end of some of the most desirable activities of real camping life.
1 NY2d 399, 135 N.E.2d 708, 153 N.Y.S.2d 197 [1956]).
Defendants thus establish that they breached no duty to illuminate the area around the shower house and that, in any event, the area did not constitute a dangerous condition for which they may be held liable. (See Torres v State of New York, 18 AD3d 739, 795 N.Y.S.2d 710 [2d Dept 2005] [park owner not liable for injury sustained when plaintiff tripped over tree stump in park; “landowners will not be held liable for injuries arising from a condition on the property [*30] that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it”]; Mazzola v Mazzola, 16 AD3d 629, 793 N.Y.S.2d 59 [2d Dept 2005] [dismissing claim by infant plaintiff who tripped and fell over exposed tree roots in backyard as alleged defect was inherent to nature of land]; Moriello v Stormville Airport Antique Show & Flea Market, Inc., 271 AD2d 664, 706 N.Y.S.2d 463 [2d Dept 2000] [owner of field not liable for injuries to plaintiff who tripped on flat rock while walking on unpaved roadway; rock was inherent to nature of unpaved roadway]; Csukardi v Bishop McDonnell Camp, 148 AD2d 657, 539 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2d Dept 1989] [campground owner not liable to person who tripped over grass-covered stump in wooded area, as stump was incidental to nature of campground and could be reasonably anticipated by persons traversing wooded area]; Alcantara v Fed. Girl Scout Councils of Nassau County, Inc., 24 AD2d 585, 262 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2d Dept 1965] [plaintiff could not recover for injury sustained at camp when she tripped over tree stump; [**11] defendant conducted rustic outdoor camp and paths were unpaved, and condition of premises was thus incidental to nature of camp and to be ordinarily expected by plaintiff]).
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the motion of defendants Northern New Jersey Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America and Boy Scout Troop 141 for summary judgment dismissing the action against them is granted, and the complaint is dismissed as against them, [*31] with costs and disbursements to said defendants as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs, and is further
ORDERED, that the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
ENTER:
Barbara Jaffe, JSC
DATED: March 10, 2016
New York, New York
Bergin, et al., v. Wild Mountain, Inc. 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212
Posted: June 17, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Ambiguous, Inc., Mogul, Release, Season Pass, ski area, Wild Mountain, Wild Mountain Ski Area Leave a commentBergin, et al., v. Wild Mountain, Inc. 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212
Lee Bergin, et al., Appellants, vs. Wild Mountain, Inc. d/b/a Wild Mountain Ski Area, Respondent.
A13-1050
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA
2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212
March 17, 2014, Filed
NOTICE: THIS OPINION WILL BE UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES.
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
Chisago County District Court File No. 13-CV-11-695.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
CASE SUMMARY:
COUNSEL: For Appellants: James P. Carey, Marcia K. Miller, Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum & Carey, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
For Respondent: Brian N. Johnson, John J. Wackman, Peter Gray, Nilan Johnson Lewis, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
JUDGES: Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.
OPINION BY: HOOTEN
OPINION
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
In this personal-injury action, appellants-skiers sued respondent-ski resort for damages resulting from a skiing accident. Appellants challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent, arguing that the district court erred by (1) denying their motion to amend the complaint to add allegations of reckless, willful, or wanton conduct; (2) determining that an exculpatory clause bars their claim of ordinary negligence; and (3) applying the doctrine of primary assumption of risk to bar their claim of ordinary negligence. Because respondent’s conduct does not give rise to a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence, and because the exculpatory clause is enforceable to bar a claim of ordinary negligence, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellants Lee and Cathy Bergin sued respondent [*2] Wild Mountain, Inc. d/b/a Wild Mountain Ski Area for injuries that Lee sustained while skiing at Wild Mountain. The Bergins sought damages for Lee’s physical injuries, loss of wages and earning ability, loss of property, and medical expenses, as well as for Cathy’s loss of services, companionship, and consortium. Following discovery, Wild Mountain moved for summary judgment. The pleadings and discovery reveal the following.
In March 2010, Robert Knight purchased over the internet 2010-2011 season passes to Wild Mountain for himself, the Bergins, and another individual. To complete the purchase, Knight agreed to a season-pass agreement which included a release of liability:
I understand and accept the fact that alpine skiing and snowboarding in its various forms is a hazardous sport that has many dangers and risks. I realize that injuries are a common and ordinary occurrence of this sport. I agree, as a condition of being allowed to use the area facility and premises, that I freely accept and voluntarily assume all risks of personal injury, death or property damage, and release Wild Mountain Ski & Snowboard Area . . . and its agents, employees, directors, officers and shareholders from [*3] any and all liability for personal injury or property damage which results in any way from negligence, conditions on or about the premises and facilities, the operations, actions or omissions of employees or agents of the area, or my participation in skiing or other activities at the area, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage of injury of any kind which may result.
In accordance with Minnesota law, nothing in this Release of Liability should be construed as releasing, discharging or waiving claims I may have for reckless, willful, wanton, or intentional acts on the part of Wild Mountain Ski & Snowboard Area, or its owners, officers, shareholders, agents or employees.
Knight [*4] did not ask Lee about the release of liability before agreeing to it. Lee wrote a check to Knight for the Bergins’ season passes. In his deposition, Lee admitted that he authorized Knight to purchase the season passes, that he had purchased season passes to Wild Mountain since 2001 and had agreed to a release of liability each year, that he understood the release of liability, and that he would have authorized Knight to purchase the season passes had he known about the release of liability.1
1 The Bergins do not appeal the district court’s determination that Lee is bound by the season-pass agreement even though he did not execute it himself.
On the morning of November 28, 2010, the Bergins arrived at Wild Mountain to pick up their season passes and ski. The season pass is a wallet-sized card with Lee’s name and picture on the front and the following language on the back:
I agree and understand that skiing and snowboarding involve the risk of personal injury and death. I agree to assume those risks. These risks include trail conditions that vary due to changing weather and skier use, ice, variations in terrain and snow, moguls, rocks, forest growth, debris, lift towers, fences, mazes, snow [*5] grooming, and snowmaking equipment, other skiers, and other man-made objects. I agree to always ski and snowboard in control and to avoid these objects and other skiers. I agree to learn and obey the skier personal responsibility code.
The Bergins and their friends skied “The Wall,” a double-black-diamond trail. At the top of The Wall, Lee observed that there were mounds of snow on the skiers’ left side of the run. Thinking that the left side was not skiable terrain, Lee skied down the right side. Then, at the bottom of the hill in the flat transition or run-out area, Lee encountered a “mound of snow” that he could not avoid. He hit the snow mound, flew up six to ten feet in the air, and landed on his back and the tails of his skis. Lee estimated that the snow mound was “maybe a little bigger” and “maybe a little taller” than a sofa, and that “there was no sharp edges defining” it. After the fall, Lee underwent surgery on his back and is partially paralyzed.
Daniel Raedeke, the president of Wild Mountain, testified by affidavit that Wild Mountain started making snow on The Wall on November 25, three days before Lee’s accident. On the morning of November 26, snowmaking ceased and The [*6] Wall was opened for skiing. According to Raedeke, “hundreds of skiers took thousands of runs down The Wall prior to” Lee’s accident. Raedeke added:
At the completion of snowmaking activities, there were some terrain variations at various points throughout the entire Wall run from top to bottom and side to side. Terrain variations from snowmaking are common at Minnesota (and Midwest) ski areas, particularly early in the season as ski areas rely on machine-made snow to get the areas open. It is very common for terrain variation to be encountered by skiers in Minnesota and elsewhere and they are generally well-liked, particularly by expert level skiers like [Lee].
Raedeke testified that “Wild Mountain received no reports of anything being hazardous or even out-of-the ordinary on The Wall.”
The Bergins submitted the affidavits of two ski-safety experts, Seth Bayer and Richard Penniman. Bayer testified that Wild Mountain “engaged in snow-making activity, intentionally created the hazard [Lee] encountered by creating large mounds of man-made snow . . . then intentionally left the snow-making mound in the run-out or transition area.” According to Bayer, Wild Mountain “knew or should have known [*7] that the snow-making mound in the transition area created a hazard and should have groomed out the mound or further identified the mound as a hazard.” He added that Wild Mountain failed to follow professional safety standards in making and grooming the snow.
Similarly, Penniman testified that complying with professional safety standards “would have entailed grooming out the snow making mounds; putting fencing around the snow making mounds; and warning skiers of the mounds with a rope barricade and caution signs.” He testified that “Wild Mountain’s failure to have a consistent and structured snow making and grooming policy, which specifically addressed the [professional safety standard], caused or contributed to the unsafe decision to leave a large mound of man-made snow in the transition area between the bottom of The Wall ski trail and the chair lift.” According to Penniman, “snow making mounds are not an inherent risk to the sport of skiing.”
Following discovery and Wild Mountain’s motion for summary judgment, the Bergins moved to amend their complaint to add a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. In April 2013, the district court denied the Bergins’ motion and granted summary [*8] judgment in favor of Wild Mountain. This appeal follows.
DECISION
I.
[HN1] After a responsive pleading is served, “a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. [HN2] “We review a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op. Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693, 714 (Minn. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1249, 185 L. Ed. 2d 180 (2013). [HN3] “A district court should allow amendment unless the adverse party would be prejudiced, but the court does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment.” Id. (citations omitted).
[HN4] 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 either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. [HN5] A genuine issue of material fact does not exist “when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt [*9] as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997). [HN6] On appeal, “[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted. We review de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. We also review de novo whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).
The Bergins moved to amend their complaint to add the allegation that Lee’s accident “was a result of the reckless, willful, or wanton conduct” of Wild Mountain. They assert that Wild Mountain “knew or should have known that a large, un-marked, un-groomed, mound of snow in the transition area between ‘The Wall’ and a chair lift . . . created a significant risk of physical harm to skiers.” The district court concluded that, although Wild Mountain would not be prejudiced if the motion to amend was granted,2 the motion must still be denied because the proposed claim “would not survive [*10] summary judgment, as [Wild Mountain’s] conduct does not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of reckless, willful or wanton.”
2 Wild Mountain does not challenge this finding on appeal.
The Bergins argue that the district court erred as a matter of law by “[r]equiring [them] to move to amend the [c]omplaint.” They assert that “Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 9.02 does not require plaintiffs to plead allegations of reckless, willful, or wanton conduct with particularity.” See Minn. R. Civ. P. 9.02 (stating that “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally”). Accordingly, they contend that the district court should have examined whether Wild Mountain committed greater-than-ordinary negligence based on the complaint and discovery.
The Bergins’ reliance on rule 9.02 is misplaced. [HN7] Although the Bergins were not required to plead a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence with particularity under rule 9.02, they still had to plead it with “a short and plain statement . . . showing that [they are] entitled to relief” under Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01, which they failed to do by pleading only a claim of “negligence and carelessness.” See L.K. v. Gregg, 425 N.W.2d 813, 819 (Minn. 1988) [*11] (stating that pleadings are liberally construed to “give[] adequate notice of the claim” against the defending party); cf. State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296, 299-300, 70 N.W.2d 110, 113 (1955) (concluding that “both at common law and by virtue of long-established usage,” the term “carelessness” in a criminal statute is “synonymous with ordinary negligence”).3
3 We also note that the district court did not require the Bergins to move to amend their complaint. Following a hearing on the summary judgment motion, the district court sent a letter to the parties, stating that “[a]t the Summary Judgment Motion Hearing, [the Bergins] moved the Court to amend the Complaint” and that “[t]he Court will leave the record open” for them to file the motion. The district court simply responded to the Bergins’ desire to amend the complaint without requiring them to do so.
Turning to the Bergins’ substantive argument, they assert that “there are questions of fact regarding whether Wild Mountain engaged in reckless or willful or wanton conduct that . . . preclude summary judgment.” [HN8] “[R]eckless conduct includes willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others . . . .” Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co., 370 N.W.2d 414, 421 (Minn. 1985).
The [*12] actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (1965) (emphasis added); see also 4 Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 25.37 (2006). “Willful and wanton conduct is the failure to exercise ordinary care after discovering a person or property in a position of peril.” Beehner v. Cragun Corp., 636 N.W.2d 821, 829 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 2002).
The Bergins argue that their expert affidavits support their claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. We are not persuaded for three reasons.
First, [HN9] “[a]ffidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment do not create issues of fact if they merely recite conclusions without any specific factual support.” Grandnorthern, Inc. v. W. Mall P’ship, 359 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Minn. App. 1984). Bayer’s testimony that Wild [*13] Mountain “knew” that the snow mound was hazardous is speculation because there is no evidence that Bayer knew Wild Mountain employees’ state of mind before Lee’s fall and injury.
Second, the Bergins misunderstand the “had reason to know” standard for establishing a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. The Bergins contend that they need not prove knowledge to establish a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence and that it is enough that Wild Mountain “should have known” that the snow mound was hazardous. But [HN10] knowledge separates the “had reason to know” standard from the “should have known” standard:
(1) The words “reason to know” . . . denote the fact that the actor has information from which a person of reasonable intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the actor would infer that the fact in question exists, or that such person would govern his conduct upon the assumption that such fact exists.
(2) The words “should know” . . . denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the actor would ascertain the fact in question in the performance of his duty to another, or would govern his conduct upon the assumption that [*14] such fact exists.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 12 (1965) (emphases added). Accordingly, Bayer’s testimony that Wild Mountain “should have known” that the snow mound was hazardous is insufficient to establish the state of mind necessary to establish a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence.
Finally, the expert affidavits are insufficient to establish that Wild Mountain had reason to know that the snow mound was hazardous. According to Bayer and Penniman, the snow mound was hazardous because skiers do not expect a snow mound in the transition run-out area and because the lighting condition obscured the snow mound. Assuming that these alleged facts are true, nothing in the record suggests that Wild Mountain had knowledge of these facts from which to infer that the snow mound was hazardous. Rather, Raedeke’s testimony shows that Wild Mountain received no complaints from hundreds of skiers who skied The Wall before Lee’s accident. The expert affidavits are, at most, evidence that a reasonable person managing the ski operation would not have created, or would have marked, the snow mound in the run-out area. This evidence shows only ordinary negligence.
Because the evidence is insufficient [*15] to establish that Wild Mountain engaged in conduct constituting greater-than-ordinary negligence, the district court correctly determined that a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence would not survive a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion by denying the Bergins’ motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. See Johnson, 817 N.W.2d at 714 (stating that [HN11] a district court “does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment”).
The Bergins also argue that the district court “did not address the evidence that created questions of material fact regarding Wild Mountain’s reckless, willful, or wanton conduct.” But the district court examined Wild Mountain’s conduct and concluded that it “does not meet the standards for gross negligence, willful and wanton conduct, or reckless conduct (as defined by both parties).” The district court’s discussion of Lee’s knowledge of the inherent risks of skiing–while perhaps extraneous–does not indicate that the district court failed to analyze Wild Mountain’s conduct.
II.
The Bergins argue [*16] that the district court erred by determining that the exculpatory clause bars the Bergins’ claim of ordinary negligence. [HN12] The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law reviewed de novo. Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 729 N.W.2d 619, 625 (Minn. App. 2007). [HN13] Under certain circumstances, “parties to a contract may . . . protect themselves against liability resulting from their own negligence.” See Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Minn. 1982) (considering exculpatory clauses in construction contracts and commercial leases). “A clause exonerating a party from liability,” known as an exculpatory clause, is enforceable if it: (1) is “unambiguous”; (2) is “limited to a release of liability arising out of negligence only”; and (3) does not violate public policy. See id. at 923. “An exculpatory clause is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction.” Beehner, 636 N.W.2d at 827.
The district court concluded that Wild Mountain’s exculpatory clause is enforceable because it is unambiguous and bars only ordinary-negligence claims. The Bergins contend that the exculpatory clause is ambiguous because “there are questions of fact [*17] regarding whether the [season-pass card] was part of the exculpatory contract.” They assert that the exculpatory clause and the language on the season-pass card “construed together are overly broad and ambiguous” because the season-pass card contains a non-exhaustive list of risks while the season-pass agreement expressly excludes greater-than-ordinary negligence from the scope of the exculpatory clause. We are not persuaded.
Because [HN14] a contract ambiguity exists only if it is “found in the language of the document itself,” we consider whether the season-pass card is a part of the season-pass agreement between Lee and Wild Mountain. See Instrumentation Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Res. Corp., 283 N.W.2d 902, 908 (Minn. 1979). [HN15] “It is well established that where contracts relating to the same transaction are put into several instruments they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the other.” Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc., 249 Minn. 137, 146, 82 N.W.2d 48, 54 (1957). Here, the contractual relationship between Lee and Wild Mountain was formed when the online season-pass agreement was executed more than eight months before Lee picked up the season-pass card. [*18] As the district court correctly concluded, the season-pass card itself is not a contract. Although the season-pass card contains language emphasizing the inherent risk of skiing, it does not contain an offer by Wild Mountain to be legally bound to any terms. See Glass Serv. Co., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 867, 870 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1995). And as a corollary, Lee could not have accepted an offer that did not exist. The season-pass card is an extrinsic document that does not create an ambiguity in the season-pass agreement.
The Bergins rely on Hackel v. Whitecap Recreations, 120 Wis. 2d 681, 357 N.W.2d 565 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984) (Westlaw). There, a skier was injured when he was “caught in a depression apparently caused by the natural drainage of water.” 120 Wis. 2d 681, at *1. The ski resort “denied liability on the basis of language printed on the lift ticket purchased by” the skier. Id. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that summary judgment was improper because “[w]hether the printed language on the ski ticket was part of the contractual agreement between the parties is a question of fact.” Id. Based on Hackel, the Bergins argue that “there are [*19] questions of fact regarding whether the [season-pass card] was part of the exculpatory contract.”
The Bergins’ reliance on Hackel is misplaced. As an unpublished opinion issued before 2009, Hackel has neither precedential nor persuasive value in Wisconsin. See Wis. R. App. P. 809.23(3) (Supp. 2013). Even if it were, Wisconsin’s adoption of a common-law rule is “not binding on us as authority.” See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co., 344 N.W.2d 856, 861 (Minn. 1984) (examining other jurisdictions’ standards of tort liability). Substantively, the questions of fact that precluded summary judgment in Hackel are absent here. In Hackel, the only language alleged to be exculpatory was printed on the back of a lift ticket, which the skier did not sign. 120 Wis. 2d 681, at *1. This language did not expressly release the ski resort from liability, but it listed the risks that the skier agreed to assume. Id. The Wisconsin court concluded that a fact issue exists as to whether the language could be construed to mean “that skiers assume inherent risks of the sport without relieving [the ski company] of its own negligence” or that “[t]he language might also be construed as an exculpatory clause.” 120 Wis. 2d 681, Id. at *2. Another [*20] question of fact that precluded summary judgment was “whether the [unsigned] ticket was intended as part of the contract.” 120 Wis. 2d 681, Id. at *1 n.1. Here, unlike in Hackel, neither the existence of an exculpatory clause nor the intention that it be a part of the contract is in question. It is undisputed that Lee agreed to the exculpatory clause in the season-pass agreement before receiving the season-pass card.
Even if the season-pass card and season-pass agreement are construed together, they do not create an ambiguity. [HN16] “Terms in a contract should be read together and harmonized where possible,” and “the specific in a writing governs over the general.” Burgi v. Eckes, 354 N.W.2d 514, 518-19 (Minn. App. 1984). Accordingly, the season-pass agreement’s specific language excluding greater-than-ordinary negligence from the scope of the exculpatory clause supersedes the season-pass card’s general language on the inherent risks of skiing. The district court correctly determined that the exculpatory clause is limited to a release of liability arising out of negligence only and granted summary judgment in favor of Wild Mountain.
Because we conclude that an unambiguous and enforceable exculpatory clause [*21] bars the Bergins’ claim of ordinary negligence, we decline to reach the issue of whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk also bars the claim of ordinary negligence.
Affirmed.
Xu v Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263; 668 N.W.2d 166; 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1505
Posted: June 15, 2016 Filed under: Health Club, Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Health club, Release, Release Language, Sign in Sheet, Treadmill, Wrongful Death Leave a commentXu v Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263; 668 N.W.2d 166; 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1505
Junyi Xu, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Haini Hou, Plaintiff, v Hiedi Gay, d/b/a Vital Power Fitness Center, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 237520
COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
257 Mich. App. 263; 668 N.W.2d 166; 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1505
March 4, 2003, Submitted
June 24, 2003, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Oakland Circuit Court. LC No. 1999-016321-NO.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
COUNSEL: Mark Granzotto, P.C. (by Mark Granzotto) and Donald L. Bramlage, Jr., P.C. (by Donald L. Bramlage, Jr.), for the plaintiff, Detroit, Farmington Hills.
Coticchio & Associates, P.C. (by Stephen A. Coticchio), for the defendant, Mt. Clemens.
JUDGES: Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Smolenski and Fort Hood, JJ.
OPINION BY: Michael R. Smolenski
OPINION
[*264] [**167] SMOLENSKI, J.
In this wrongful-death action, plaintiff Junyi Xu, as personal representative for the estate of decedent Ning Yan, appeals as of right the trial court’s entry of two orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Hiedi Gay, doing business as Vital Power Fitness Center. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
[*265] I
In February 1999, Ning Yan went to defendant’s fitness center to use a one-week complimentary pass. Yan visited the fitness center on February 16 and 18, 1999. Each time he visited he was required [**168] to sign-in and did so. At the top of the sign-in sheet was a paragraph that purportedly constituted a release of liability.
On February 18, 1999, while using one of the treadmills, Yan fell and hit his head. The head injury Yan sustained was severe, and he died on March 12, 1999. The parties dispute the circumstances of Yan’s fall. Plaintiff contends that Yan stumbled while jogging and that the belt of the treadmill threw Yan back into the wall or [***2] the window ledge, which were only 2-1/2 feet behind him. Defendant asserts that Yan was ill and fell down, hitting his head on the floor. No one actually saw Yan hit the wall, floor, or window ledge.
On July 22, 1999, plaintiff filed this suit alleging ordinary negligence by defendant, loss of consortium, and wrongful death. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that the release at the top of the sign-in sheet that Yan signed precluded any claims of ordinary negligence against defendant. Following a hearing on May 10, 2000, the trial court agreed with defendant, and on May 19, 2000, the Court granted defendant’s motion regarding the claim of ordinary negligence, but also granted plaintiff leave to file his second amended complaint, which was actually filed on April 5, 2000, without the court’s permission, and alleged a claim of gross negligence against defendant. 1
1 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2000, and added Unisen, Inc, the manufacturer of the treadmill as a defendant. The claims against Unisen were dismissed on October 4, 2001, pursuant to a settlement agreement, and it is not a party to this appeal.
[***3] [*266] In July 2001, defendant renewed her motion for summary disposition to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of gross negligence and wrongful death. 2 On September 12, 2001, following a hearing, the trial court concluded that reasonable minds could not differ and there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of gross negligence. Therefore, because the wrongful-death claim was derivative, both claims failed. On September 24, 2001, the trial court entered an order granting defendant summary disposition on plaintiff’s remaining claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10).
2 Defendant originally filed her second motion for summary disposition in June 2000. The trial court denied the motion in August 2000, with the option to renew the motion at the completion of discovery. The motion for summary disposition in July 2001 was actually the third such motion.
II
[HN1] Summary disposition against a plaintiff’s complaint is proper if there is a valid release of liability between the parties. MCR 2.116(C)(7). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) [***4] tests the factual support for a claim. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337; 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998). We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Id.
When reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), an appellate court accepts all the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true, and construes them most favorably to the plaintiff, unless specifically contradicted by documentary evidence. Sewell v Southfield Public Schools, 456 Mich. 670, 674; 576 N.W.2d 153 (1998). The court must consider all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and [*267] documentary evidence filed or submitted, and the motion should be granted only if no factual development could provide a basis for recovery. Skotak v Vic Tanny Int’l, Inc, 203 Mich. App. 616, 617; 513 N.W.2d 428, mod on other [**169] grounds Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich. 429, 526 N.W.2d 879 (1994).
Similarly, when deciding a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, [***5] and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ritchie-Gamester v City of Berkley, 461 Mich. 73, 76; 597 N.W.2d 517 (1999). If the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999).
III
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his gross-negligence claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff asserts that, on the basis of the facts of this case, it was possible for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant was grossly negligent, and, thus, summary disposition was inappropriate. We disagree.
Historically, for a claim of gross negligence to survive under Michigan common law, the plaintiff had to show that defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff’s precedent negligence, and by defendant’s subsequent negligence caused injury to the plaintiff. Gibbard v Cursan, 225 Mich. 311, 319; 196 NW 398 (1923); Fuga v Comerica Bank-Detroit, 202 Mich. App. 380, 383; 509 N.W.2d 778 (1993). [***6] Common-law gross negligence is not a higher degree of [*268] negligence, but rather ordinary negligence of the defendant that follows the negligence of the plaintiff. Jennings v Southwood, 446 Mich. 125, 130; 521 N.W.2d 230 (1994).
However, this common-law definition was rejected by our Supreme Court in Jennings, supra. The Jennings Court reasoned,
Gibbard’s formulation of gross negligence is really the doctrine of last clear chance in disguise; accordingly, its usefulness is dubious at best in light of our holding in Petrove [v Grand Trunk W R Co, 437 Mich. 31, 33; 464 N.W.2d 711 (1991)].
* * *
This is an instance in which precedent fails to promote justice. We have repudiated the traditional justification for Gibbard’s gross negligence. [HN2] Contributory negligence no longer holds a place in Michigan jurisprudence, compelling the demise of its attendant legal theories. “The reasons for the old rule no longer obtaining, the rule falls with it.” Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich. 33, 49; 101 N.W.2d 227 (1960). [ Jennings, supra at 132-133.]
The [***7] Jennings Court acknowledged that it needed to adopt a new definition of gross negligence, and noted that most jurisdictions did not agree on an exact definition. Id. at 135-136.
Jennings involved the applicability of gross negligence in the context of the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901 et seq. Therefore, instead of embarking on an analysis of the various standards used in different jurisdictions, the Court turned to the definition of gross negligence provided in the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. Because the EMSA and the GTLA shared the same purpose–insulating employees from ordinary negligence liability, the Court adopted the [HN3] GTLA [*269] definition as the standard for gross negligence under the EMSA Id. at 136-137. Gross negligence is defined in the GTLA as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of [**170] concern for whether an injury results.” Id. at 136. See also MCL 691.1407(2)(c).
This definition is used in many other Michigan statutes that provide limited immunity to certain groups, but allow liability for gross negligence. [***8] See MCL 257.606a (Michigan Vehicle Code); MCL 324.81131 and MCL 324.81124 (Recreational Use Act); MCL 500.214 (Insurance Code); MCL 600.2945 (Revised Judicature Act). Additionally, Michigan’s standard jury instruction for gross negligence also incorporated the GTLA’s definition. M Civ. SJI2d 14.10.
[HN4] A contractual waiver of liability also serves to insulate against ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. Lamp v Reynolds, 249 Mich. App. 591, 594; 645 N.W.2d 311 (2002). Thus, because the underlying purpose is the same, we adopt the statutory definition of gross negligence as defined in the GTLA and incorporated into the EMSA by the Jennings Court. Therefore, applying this definition, the question becomes whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendant’s conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to decedent. Jennings, supra; Vermilya v Dunham, 195 Mich. App. 79, 83; 489 N.W.2d 496 (1992). We find that [***9] reasonable minds could not. 3
3 We note that the parties and case law often use the terms “gross negligence” and “willful and wanton misconduct” interchangeably, and often the terms are misused or misapplied. Thone v Nicholson, 84 Mich. App. 538, 546-552; 269 N.W.2d 665 (1975). On appeal, plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in dismissing his gross negligence and/or willful and wanton misconduct claim. However, these terms are separate concepts. Id. Common-law gross negligence referred to the last-chance doctrine. Id. [HN5] While willful and wanton misconduct is established “‘if the conduct alleged shows an intent to harm or, if not that, such indifference to whether harm will result as to be the equivalent of a willingness that it does.'” Jennings, supra at 138, quoting Burnett v City of Adrian, 414 Mich. 448, 455; 326 N.W.2d 810 (1982).
[*270] As evidence of defendant’s gross negligence, plaintiff offered the testimony of Dr. Mark Rabinoff, [***10] an expert in recreational safety. Rabinoff testified with respect to the industry’s standard of care regarding the safety distance behind treadmills, which should be a minimum of five feet. Rabinoff admitted that these are only recommended standards and are not mandatory. Rabinoff also stated that a similar accident was sure to happen again if the treadmill was not moved farther from the wall. However, we note that there was no evidence establishing that Yan actually hit his head on the wall, as opposed to the floor.
Defendant admitted that she knew a treadmill user could stumble while on the moving belt. However, defendant denied knowing that such a loss of balance could cause the user to be propelled backwards off the treadmill. Rabinoff testified that defendant’s statement was “the dumbest statement I have ever heard from anyone I think in thirty years who had anything to do with the fitness field about a treadmill.” Further, Rabinoff found defendant’s lack of knowledge regarding safety standards for a fitness club to be incredulous, stating that defendant was “the worst, poorly educated owner/operator of a health club I have ever seen in twenty-five years . . . .” The evidence [***11] also indicated that the treadmills were placed in their current positions by the fitness club’s previous owner. Defendant bought the club approximately one year before the accident, and did not move the treadmills.
[*271] Plaintiff also asserted that the manufacturer recommended that the treadmill be [**171] placed at least five to six feet from a wall. However, plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to establish this point. Maiden, supra at 123. In fact, the evidence showed that the manufacturer of this treadmill had no setback recommendation in its operator’s manual for the model of treadmill involved in this case.
Essentially, plaintiff argues that there were industry standards, that defendant should have known about these standards, and that defendant’s ignorance of and failure to implement these standards constituted gross negligence. However, this establishes a case of ordinary negligence, not gross negligence. [HN6] Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a question of fact regarding gross negligence. Maiden, supra at 122-123. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that reasonable minds could not differ; defendant’s [***12] mere ignorance does not constitute conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to Yan. Jennings, supra; Vermilya, supra. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s gross-negligence claim.
IV
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his ordinary-negligence claim against defendant because the language at the top of the sign-in sheet did not constitute a release of liability. We agree.
The top of defendant’s sign-in sheet reads as follows:
[*272] I understand that Vital Power Fitness Center reserves the right to revoke my membership for failure to respect the center’s rules and policies. I also understand that Vital Power Fitness Center assumes no responsibility for any injuries and/or sicknesses incurred to me or any accompanying minor person as a result of entering the premises and/or using any of the facilities. I additionally understand that I am not entitled to [a] refund on my membership fee or daily visit. MEMBERSHIP AND DAILY FEES ARE NEITHER REFUNDABLE NOR TRANSFERABLE.
The parties do not dispute that Yan [***13] signed this sheet on February 16, 1999, his first visit, and on February 18, 1999, the day of his accident.
This Court outlined the applicable law in Wyrembelski v St Clair Shores, 218 Mich. App. 125, 127; 553 N.W.2d 651 (1996), stating:
” [HN7] A release of liability is valid if it is fairly and knowingly made. The scope of a release is governed by the intent of the parties as it is expressed in the release. [ Adell v Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, PC, 170 Mich. App. 196, 201; 428 N.W.2d 26 (1988) (citations omitted).]
If the text in the release is unambiguous, we must ascertain the parties’ intentions from the plain, ordinary meaning of the language of the release. The fact that the parties dispute the meaning of a release does not, in itself, establish an ambiguity. A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. If the terms of the release are unambiguous, contradictory inferences become “subjective, and irrelevant,” and the legal effect of the language is a question of law to be resolved summarily. [quoting Gortney v Norfolk & W R Co, 216 Mich. App. 535, 540; 549 N.W.2d 612 (1996).]
A release is knowingly made even if it is not labeled a “release,” or the releasor fails to read its terms, or thought [***14] the [**172] terms were different, absent fraud or intentional misrepresentation designed to induce the [*273] releasor to sign the release through a strategy of trickery. Dombrowski v City of Omer, 199 Mich. App. 705, 709-710; 502 N.W.2d 707 (1993). A release is not fairly made if “(1) the releasor was dazed, in shock, or under the influence of drugs, (2) the nature of the instrument was misrepresented, or (3) there was other fraudulent or overreaching conduct.” Skotak, supra at 618.
Plaintiff asserts that the meaning of the second sentence turns on the word “assume.” Plaintiff contends that because “assume” means to voluntarily take on, the meaning of the sentence is that defendant would not voluntarily take responsibility for decedent’s injuries, not that decedent was waiving his right to sue for injuries sustained. Plaintiff also argued below that the release was not effective because it did not contain the word “release” or another word with a similar meaning. Defendant argues that the language of the release is clear and subject to only one interpretation, i.e., defendant will not assume responsibility for any injuries and thus, will [***15] not be held liable for them. Therefore, we must first determine whether the language at the top of the sign-in sheet constitutes a release by unambiguously expressing defendant’s intent to disclaim liability for its own negligence. [HN8] “The fact that the parties dispute the meaning of a release does not, in itself, establish an ambiguity.” Cole v Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc, 241 Mich. App. 1, 14; 614 N.W.2d 169 (2000).
In Skotak, supra, the plaintiff alleged that James Skotak died after suffering a heart attack while sitting in the defendant’s steam room and that the defendant was negligent in not ensuring that its staff was properly trained in responding to such emergencies. The [*274] decedent’s membership agreement included a release that stated:
“F. By the use of the facilities of Seller and/or by the attendance at any of the gymnasiums owned by Seller, the Member expressly agrees that Seller shall not be liable for any damages arising from personal injuries sustained by the Member or his guest in, on or about the premises of the said gymnasiums or as a result of their using the facilities and the equipment therein. By the execution of this [***16] agreement Member accepts full responsibility of [sic] any such injuries or damages which may occur to the Member or guest in, on or about the premises of the said gymnasiums and further agrees that Seller shall not be liable for any loss or theft of personal property. Member assumes full responsibility for any injuries, damages or losses which may occur to Member or guest, in, on or about the premises of said gymnasiums and does hereby fully and forever release and discharge Seller and all associated gymnasiums, their owners, employees and agents from any and all claims, demands, damages, rights of action, or causes of action, present or future, whether the same be known or unknown, anticipated, or unanticipated, resulting from or arising out of the Member’s or his guests [sic] use or intended use of the said gymnasiums or the facilities and equipment thereof.” [ Id. at 618-619.]
This Court found that the release “clearly expresses defendant’s intention to disclaim liability for all negligence, including its own.” Id. at 619.
Similarly, in Cole, supra at 14, this Court held that the release the plaintiff signed “clearly [***17] expressed defendant’s intention to disclaim liability for all injuries, including those attributable to its own negligence.” In that case, the pertinent part of the release read:
[**173] “The undersigned acknowledges that due to the unique combination of dangerous factors in the restricted area [*275] associated with the stabling, exercising and training of a large number of horses, and the presence of tradespeople, jockeys, owner and other personnel in the area, there are inherent dangers in the restricted area which Ladbroke cannot eliminate after exercising reasonable care.
“In acknowledgment of the dangerous conditions and inherent risks associated with the restricted area, the undersigned hereby voluntarily assumes all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises of Ladbroke and hereby waives all liability against Ladbroke, its officers, employees and agents.” [ Id. at 4-5.]
With these cases as guidance, we simply cannot read the purported release in the instant case as releasing defendant from liability stemming from its own negligence. We find that the language in the alleged release is unambiguous, and clearly states that defendant would not [***18] assume responsibility for “any injuries and/or sicknesses incurred to [sic] me or any accompanying minor person as a result of entering the premises and/or using any of the facilities.” However, this provision does not inform the reader that he is solely responsible for injuries incurred or that he waives defendant’s liability by relinquishing his right to sue, nor does it contain the words “waiver,” “disclaim,” or similar language that would clearly indicate to the reader that by accepting its terms he is giving up the right to assert a negligence claim. While such words are not necessary to create a release, Klann v Hess Cartage Co, 50 Mich. App. 703, 705; 214 N.W.2d 63 (1973), we believe that, [HN9] at a minimum, a release should explicitly inform the reader regarding the effect of the release. 4 Therefore, we find [*276] that the language at the top of defendant’s sign-in sheet was insufficient to operate as a release, absolving defendant of any liability for its own negligence, and plaintiff is not barred from pursuing his ordinary-negligence claim against defendant. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition in regards [***19] to plaintiff’s ordinary-negligence claim.
4 We note that this Court held that the release in Hall v Joseph, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 2, 1999 (Docket No. 206282), “plainly and unambiguously provided that AAA was not to be liable for any actions of the third-party contractors providing emergency road service,” and, therefore, the plaintiffs were barred from seeking damages from AAA for the third-party’s actions. The release provision stated:
Understandably, in providing Emergency Road Service, AAA Michigan cannot and does not assume responsibility for the actions of independent service facility personnel. These facilities serve as independent contractors and are not employees or agents of AAA Michigan. Any damages resulting from their actions are the sole responsibility of the facility and should be reported immediately to the service facility owner before repairs are made.
The first sentence contains language similar to that at issue in this case–the defendant “does not assume responsibility . . . .” However, the release in Hall continues and provides clarification regarding the effect of this phrase–the third-party was solely responsible for any damages–while the alleged release in this case did not. We recognize that this case provides no precedential value, MCR 7.215(A)(1), and cite it only as an example of the additional language defendant could have included in her release to clearly convey that defendant was disclaiming liability.
[***20] V
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on [**174] his wrongful-death claim because the release, even if valid, only precluded a cause of action by Yan, not his family members. We agree that plaintiff’s wrongful-death claim is not barred, but for a different reason.
MCL 600.2922(1) provides:
[HN10] [*277] Whenever the death of a person or injuries resulting in death shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages, the person who or the corporation that would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death was caused under circumstances that constitute a felony.
The language of the statute is clear. [HN11] If a decedent could not have maintained the claim, his family members cannot recover under the wrongful-death statute.
Indeed, this Court recently stated:
” [HN12] The personal representative . . . who asserts a cause of action on behalf of a deceased stands in the [***21] deceased’s place for all purposes incident to the enforcement of that claim, including the rights and privileges personal to the decedent in his lifetime.”
Even though the wrongful death act is for the benefit of certain persons, the cause of action is a derivative one whereby the personal representative of the deceased stands in the latter’s shoes. [ Allstate Ins Co v Muszynski, 253 Mich. App. 138, 142; 655 N.W.2d 260 (2002) (citations omitted).]
Here, because Yan, had he survived, would have been able to maintain an ordinary-negligence claim against defendant, on the basis of our decision above, plaintiff can maintain an action for damages on the basis of the ordinary negligence of defendant. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition and dismissing plaintiff’s wrongful-death claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
Colorado Supreme Court rules that an inbounds Avalanche is an inherent risk assumed by skiers based upon the Colorado Skier Safety Act.
Posted: June 13, 2016 Filed under: Avalanche, Colorado, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: #Avalanche, avalanche, Colorado Skier Safety Act, CSSA, Inherent Risk, Skier Safety Act, Winter Park Leave a commentThe decision came down as generally expected, an avalanche is snow and any type of snow is an inherent risk assumed by skiers and boarders as defined by the Colorado Skier Safety Act.
Fleury v. IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corporation, 2016 CO 41; 2016 Colo. LEXIS 532
State: Colorado, Supreme Court of Colorado
Plaintiff: Salynda E. Fleury, individually on behalf of Indyka Norris and Sage Norris, and as surviving spouse of Christopher H. Norris
Defendant: IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corporation
Plaintiff Claims: negligence and wrongful death
Defendant Defenses: Colorado Skier Safety Act
Holding: for the defendant
Year: 2016
The deceased went skiing at Winter Park. While skiing he rode a lift to Trestle Trees Run, an inbounds run at Winter Park. An avalanche occurred, and the skier was killed.
The Colorado Avalanche Information Center, (CAIC) had been issuing warnings about avalanches based on new heavy snows. Winter Park admitted knowing about the warnings and knowing that there was the possibility of unstable snow on Trestle Trees run. Winter Park also never posted warning signs about the avalanche risk or closed runs.
Side comment: What would you do if you saw a sign that said warning, increased likelihood of avalanches today?
The plaintiff sued, and the trial court dismissed the case based on the Colorado Skier Safety Act (CSSA). The appellate court in a split decision upheld the trial court ruling. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard the case.
Certiorari is granted when an appeal to an appellate court to hear a case is approved. There is no automatic right of appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court for civil cases (most of the time) so the party that wants to appeal has to file an argument why the Supreme Court should hear their appeal. If the appeal is granted, then a Writ of Certiorari is issued telling the parties to bring their case to the court. Certiorari is Latin for “to be informed of, or to be made certain in regard to.”
When a Writ of Certiorari is granted, most times the arguments to be presented to the court are defined by the court. Here the writ was issued to:
Whether, for the purposes of the Ski Safety Act (“SSA”) of 1979, codified at sections C.R.S. 33-44-101 to -114 (2014), the term “inherent dangers and risks of skiing,” as defined in C.R.S. 33-44-103(3.5) (2014), encompasses avalanches that occur within the bounds of a ski resort, in areas open to skiers at the time in question.
Probably, because of the value of the decision to the state, skiing is a big economic driver and because of the split decision at the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court heard the case and issued this decision.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The entire issue revolves around interpreting one section of the CSSA. The words or phrases the Court liked are highlighted.
C.R.S. §§ 33-44-103. Definitions.
(3.5) “Inherent dangers and risks of skiing” means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities. The term “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” does not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth in section 33-44-104 (2). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.
If an avalanche is an inherent risk as defined by the CSSA, then a skier/boarder/tele skier, etc., assumes the risk and cannot sue the ski area for any injury or claim.
Do the phrases weather conditions and snow conditions as they exist or may change encompass or the term Avalanche or can an Avalanche be defined by such phrases.
One obvious way in which a snow condition “may change” is through movement of the snow, including by wind and gravity. And at its core, an avalanche is moving snow caused by gravity. The dictionary definition of “avalanche” is “a large mass of snow, ice, earth, rock, or other material in swift motion down a mountainside or over a precipice.”
The court found that the phrases in the CSSA defined an avalanche.
At bottom, then, an avalanche is one way in which snow conditions may change. As alleged here, snow conditions started with fresh snow on unstable snowpack, and, within moments, changed to a mound of snow at the bottom of the incline. We therefore, conclude that Norris’s death is alleged to have been caused by changing snow conditions.
The decision was fairly simple for the court to reach.
Because an avalanche is, at its essence, the movement of snow, and is therefore, a way in which snow conditions may change, we hold that section 33-44-103(3.5) covers in-bounds avalanches. It follows that section 33-44-112 precludes skiers from suing operators to recover for injuries resulting from in-bounds avalanches.
There was a dissent to this opinion joined by one other judge who interpreted the issues along with the arguments made by the plaintiff. An avalanche was not a snow condition but was an event. As such, it does not fall within the inherent risks of the CSSA.
The dissent was further supported by the idea that the statute was broad but the inherent risks were narrow in scope. If the legislature wanted avalanches to be included as an inherent risk, the legislature would have placed it in the statute when enacted, or anytime it has been modified since enactment.
So Now What?
Under the CSSA, an inbound movement of snow, an avalanche is an inherent risk of skiing and as such, a skier injured or killed by such snow assumes the risk of the injury.
The decision also provides some insight into how the court may interpret the risks of skiing in the future. In general, the CSSA is to be interpreted broadly. Skiing is a risky sport, and the CSSA was enacted to promote skiing and to identify, in advance the risk a skier must assume in Colorado.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
 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 |
Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law
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, and Law. To Purchase Go Here:
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
If you are interested in having me write your release, download the form and return it to me.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter, or LinkedIn
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC
G-YQ06K3L262
 Threads |
 X (formerly known as Twitter) logo |
 Recreation Law logo |
 Stimulus |
 |
 |
 Blue Sky Logo |
 Mastodon |
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, CSSA, Colorado Skier Safety Act, Skier Safety Act, Avalanche, #Avalanche, Winter Park, Inherent Risk,
Recreation Law 