Recreation Law

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Almquist v. Synergo, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79261

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, New York, New York City, Central Park, Triathalon, Para-Athlete, race,

Hines v. City of New York, Korff Enterprises, Inc., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1015; 2016 NY Slip Op 30504(U)

Posted: September 11, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Cycling, Legal Case, New York, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Central Park, New York City, NYC, Triathlon | Leave a comment

Hines v. City of New York, Korff Enterprises, Inc., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1015; 2016 NY Slip Op 30504(U)

[**1] Helene Hines and George Hines, Plaintiffs, -against- City of New York, Korff Enterprises, Inc., and Central Park Conservancy, Defendants. Index No. 151542-2012

151542-2012

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY

2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1015; 2016 NY Slip Op 30504(U)

March 24, 2016, Decided

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRINTED OFFICIAL REPORTS.

CORE TERMS: triathlon, cones, marshal, issues of fact, non-participant, collision, summary judgment, participating, placement, signature, triable, expert’s opinion, prima facie, enforceable, admissible, proponent, sport, feet, matter of law, personal injuries, party opposing, causes of action, grossly negligent, intentional wrongdoing, inherent risk, unanticipated, collectively, para-athlete, experienced, entitlement

JUDGES: [*1] HON. GEORGE J. SILVER, J.S.C.

OPINION

DECISION/ORDER

HON. GEORGE J. SILVER, J.S.C.

In this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Helene Hines (Hines) in the 2011 Nautical New York City Triathlon (triathlon) defendants City of New York, Korpff Enterprises, Inc. and Central Park Conservancy (collectively defendants) move pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for an order granting them summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Hines and her husband, plaintiff George Hines (collectively plaintiffs), who asserts a derivative claim, oppose the motion.

Hines, an experienced para-athlete, claims she was injured during the running portion of the triathlon when she was operating a push-rim racer and was struck by an alleged non-participant jogger. The accident occurred in Central Park at or around West 100th Street and West Drive. The bill of particulars alleges that the defendants were negligent in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, control and supervision of the incident location in that defendants negligently permitted and/or allowed a non-participant jogger to enter upon the race course and violently collide with Hines. Prior to the triathlon, all participants were required [*2] to sign a liability waiver in person before receiving their race packet and race bibs. Defendants argue that Hines signed the waiver and by doing so expressly assumed the risk of a collision. The waiver, entitled “Event Registration, Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement”, states:

[**2] I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND ASSUME ALL OF THE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS EVENT. . . . I also assume any and all other risks associated with participating in this Event, including but not limited to the following: falls, dangers of collisions with vehicles, pedestrians, other participants and fixed objects; the dangers arising from surface hazards, tides, equipment failure, inadequate safety equipment; and hazard that may be posed by spectators or volunteers; and weather conditions. I further acknowledge that these risks include risks that may be the result of ordinary negligent acts, omissions, and/or carelessness of the Released Parties, as defined herein. I understand that I will be participating in the Event at my own risk, that I am responsible for the risk of participation in the Event.

The waiver further states:

I WAIVE, RELEASE AND FOREVER DISCHARGE Event Producer, [*3] World Triathlon Corporation, the Race Director, USA Triathlon . . . the City of New York, Event sponsors, Event Organizers, Event promoters, Event producers, race directors . . . all other persons or entities involved with the Event, and all state, city, town, county, and other governmental bodies, and/or municipal agencies whose property and/or personnel are used and/or in any way assist in locations in which the Event or segments of the Event take place . . . from any and all claims, liabilities of every kind, demands, damages . . . , losses . . . and causes of action, of any kind or any nature, which I have or may have in future . . . that may arise out of, result from, or relate to my participation in the Event . . . including my death, personal injury, partial or permanent disability, negligence, property damage and damages of any kind, . . . even if any of such claims Claims are caused by the ordinary negligent acts, omissions, or the carelessness of the Released Parties.

Hines denies signing the waiver and argues in the alternative that the waiver violates General Obligations Law § 5-326 because she paid a fee to participate in the triathlon. Hines also contends that defendants created and enhanced an unanticipated [*4] risk within the running portion of the triathlon by inappropriately situating cones and improperly stationing marshals in the area of her accident. Hines argues that she expected, based upon her past triathlon experience, that cones would be separated 20 feet apart and that marshals would be readily apparent within the areas between the cones. Instead, plaintiff claims the cones were separated 70 feet apart and there were no marshals present in the area where her accident occurred. Hines contends that defendants, through there setup of the race course, heightened the risk of non-participants interfering with the race and that she did not assume such heightened risks when she entered the triathlon. According to Hines’ athletic administration and safety management expert, [**3] the placement of cones 70 feet apart limited the sight lines of bystanders walking toward the race and increased the probability of confusion and misapprehension. Hines’ expert also contends that on a race course that traverses a highly populated area marshals must be easily seen and heard on the course. According to Hines’ expert, defendants’ failure to properly delineate the race course with appropriately spaced [*5] cones and to properly position marshals between the cones were deviations from accepted sports safety practices which proximately caused Hines’ accident.

To obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish its cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in its favor (CPLR § 3212 [b]; Bendik v Dybowski, 227 AD2d 228, 642 N.Y.S.2d 284 [1st Dept 1996]). This standard requires that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by advancing sufficient “evidentiary proof in admissible form” to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853, 476 NE2d 642, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562, 404 NE2d 718, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]; Silverman v Perlbinder, 307 AD2d 230, 762 N.Y.S.2d 386 [1st Dept 2003]; Thomas v Holzberg, 300 AD2d 10, 11, 751 N.Y.S.2d 433 [1st Dept 2002]). Thus, the motion must be supported “by affidavit [from a person having knowledge of the facts], by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions” (CPLR § 3212 [b]).

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact (CPLR § 3212 [b]). Thus, where the proponent of the motion makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action, or to tender an acceptable [*6] excuse for his or her failure to do so (Vermette v Kenworth Truck Co., 68 NY2d 714, 717, 497 NE2d 680, 506 NYS2d 313 [1986]; Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 560, 562; Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 309 AD2d 546, 765 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1st Dept 2003]). Like the proponent of the motion, the party opposing the motion must set forth evidentiary proof in admissible form in support of his or her claim that material triable issues of fact exist (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562). The opponent “must assemble and lay bare [its] affirmative proof to demonstrate that genuine issues of fact exist” and “the issue must be shown to be real, not feigned, since a sham or frivolous issue will not preclude summary relief” (Kornfeld v NRX Technologies, Inc., 93 AD2d 772, 461 N.Y.S.2d 342 [1st Dept 1983], affd, 62 NY2d 686, 465 NE2d 30, 476 NYS2d 523 [1984]). Mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient (Alvord and Swift v Stewart M Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 281-82, 385 NE2d 1238, 413 NYS2d 309 [1978]; Fried v Bower & Gardner, 46 NY2d 765, 767, 386 NE2d 258, 413 NYS2d 650 [1978]; Plantamura v Penske Truck Leasing, Inc., 246 AD2d 347, 668 N.Y.S.2d 157 [1st Dept 1998]). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that should only be employed where no doubt exists as to the absence of triable issues (Leighton v Leighton, 46 AD3d 264, 847 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1st Dept 2007]). The key to such procedure is issue-finding, rather than issue-determination (id.).

Contractual agreements to waive liability for a party’s negligence, although frowned upon, are generally enforceable where not expressly prohibited by law (Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 105, 400 NE2d 306, 424 NYS2d 365 [1979]). Language relieving one from liability must be unmistakable and easily understood. (id. at 107). The waiver at issue here clearly and [**4] unequivocally expresses the intention of the parties to relieve defendants of liability for their own negligence (Schwartz v Martin, 82 AD3d 1201, 919 N.Y.S.2d 217 [2d Dept 2011]) and [*7] because the entry fee paid by Hines was for her participation in the triathlon, not an admission fee allowing her to use the public park and roadway where her accident allegedly occurred, the waiver does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-326 (see Brookner v New York Roadrunners Club, Inc., 51 AD3d 841, 858 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2d Dept 2008]).

With respect to the signature on the waiver, while the opinion of defendants’ forensic expert is inadmissible, an expert’s opinion is not required to establish that the signature on the waiver is Hines’ (see John Deere Ins. Co. v GBE/Alasia Corp., 57 AD3d 620, 869 N.Y.S.2d 198 [2d Dept 2008] [defendant failed to submit an affidavit of a handwriting expert or of a lay witness familiar with defendant’s handwriting to establish that the signature on the agreement was not hers]). George Hines, who as a party to the action is an interested witness, testified that he believed the signature on the waiver was Hines’. Moreover, as defendants point out, athletes could not participate in the triathlon without signing the waiver in person and presenting photographic identification at a pre-race expo and Hines was seen by non-party witness Kathleen Bateman of Achilles International, Inc. at the expo waiting in line with her handlers to pick up her race bib. In opposition to defendants’ prima facie showing that Hines signed the enforceable waiver, Hines’ bald, [*8] self-serving claim that she did not sign it, which is not supported by an expert’s opinion, does not raise a triable issue of fact (see Abrons v 149 Fifth Ave. Corp., 45 AD3d 384, 845 N.Y.S.2d 299 [1st Dept 2007]; Peyton v State of Newburgh, Inc., 14 AD3d 51, 786 N.Y.S.2d 458 [Pt Dept 2004]).

Although an enforceable release will not insulate a party from grossly negligent conduct, the alleged acts of defendants with respect to the placement of cones and the stationing of marshals in the area where Hines’ accident occurred do not rise to the level of intentional wrongdoing or evince a reckless indifference to the rights of others (Schwartz, 82 AD3d at 1202 [alleged acts of negligence did not rise to the level of intentional wrongdoing where a marshal at a bicycle race was injured by a non-participant bicyclist]). Hines’ expert expressly states that defendants’ actions with respect to the placement of cones and marshals were deviations from accepted sports safety practices. Thus, Hines’ expert’s opinion is that defendants were merely negligent, not grossly negligent.

Hines has also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the placement of cones and marshals by defendants improperly enhanced an unanticipated risk of collision. Hines’ expert’s affidavit fails to establish the foundation or source of the standards underlying the expert’s conclusion that [*9] the placement and positioning of cones and marshals along the running portion of the triathlon was negligent and, as such, the affidavit lacks probative value (see David v County of Suffolk, 1 NY3d 525, 526, 807 NE2d 278, 775 NYS2d 229 [2003]). Moreover, the primary assumption of the risk doctrine provides that a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” (Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484, 685 NE2d 202, 662 NYS2d 421 [1997]) and it is “not necessary to the application of [the doctrine] that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as the he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” (Maddox, 66 NY2d 270, 278, 487 NE2d 553, 496 NYS2d 726 [1985]). Awareness of risk, including risks created by less than optimal conditions [**5] (Latimer v City of New York, 118 AD3d 420, 987 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept 2014]), “is not to be determined in a vacuum” (Morgan, 90 NY2d at 486) but, rather, “against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” (id.). Hines is a highly decorated and highly experienced para-athlete who participated in dozens races over her career, many of which took place in Central Park. Hines’ testimony that other race courses in Central Park were set up differently and delineated with [*10] cones and marshals differently than the way in which defendants allegedly set up the triathlon course establishes that Hines was aware that collisions with non-participants were an inherent risk in participating in a triathlon in Central Park. Hines also testified that she was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, further proof that she was aware that collisions of some type, whether with participants, non-participants or objects, were an inherent risk of participating in the race. “Inherency is the sine qua non” (Morgan, 90 NY2d at 484-486) and regardless of how defendants situated cones and marshals along the race course, Hines was fully aware of and fully appreciated the inherent risk of injury resulting from a collision during the triathlon. Defendants, therefore, are entitled to summary dismissal of the complaint.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

ORDERED that movants are to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon plaintiffs within 20 days of entry.

Dated: 3/24/16

New York County

/s/ [*11] George J. Silver

George J. Silver, J.S.C.

Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), a DE corporation is being sued in Oregon for “promulgating deficient safety standards.” Issue is where the trial should be held, in Oregon where the plaintiff lives and was injured or in DE or IL where ACCT is located and does business

Posted: August 22, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Challenge or Ropes Course, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Oregon | Tags: ACCT, Association of Challenge Course Technology, challenge course, Giant Swing, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Professional Vendor Member, PVM, Ropes course, Vendor | Leave a comment

This case is still ongoing so who knows where it will go and how it will end. However, the relevant Jurisdiction and Venue issues are pretty clear. If you sell yourself or services online and deliver product or services in a state, expecting your name to be used with the services, you are probably doing enough business to be sued in that state.

State: Oregon

Plaintiff: Cassidy Almquist

Defendant: Synergo, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Synergo, an Oregon corporation; Association for Challenge Course Technology, a Delaware non-profit corporation

Plaintiff Claims: (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

Defendant Defenses: Jurisdiction and Venue

Holding: for the Plaintiff

Year: 2016

This is not a final decision. The basis of this analysis may change or be changed at a later time by the trial court or an appellate court. This analysis is based on the facts and appellate opinion of this intermediate motion. However, the analysis and issues are relevant and important no matter the outcome.

Remember, any case where the plaintiff is rendered a paraplegic or quadriplegic by the accident is probably going to involve litigation because of the medical bills and future medical care. On top of that, worker’s compensation insurance companies are directed both by subrogation clauses and state law sometimes to recoup money paid out for injuries. The plaintiff in this case was working at the time of her injury so the likelihood of a lawsuit was probably absolute.

The decision is based on a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT). The motion is based on the ACCT being sued in a state where they have no business presence so it is requesting a dismissal because it is the wrong jurisdiction and venue to sue ACCT under the law.

The plaintiff was working at the Bar-M-Ranch in Oregon as a camp counselor. Who she was working for was not really identified, and the Bar-M-Ranch is not identified as a defendant. Guessing, that means she was working for the Bar-M-Ranch, and they were not sued because they had worker’s compensation insurance, which protects them; actually prohibits an injured employee from suing the employer.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell from a “giant swing” and was paralyzed.

The Calvary Church Tri-Cities constructed the adventure course at the Bar-M-Ranch in Richmond Oregon. The camp director asked the plaintiff to demonstrate the Giant Swing. A camp employee, who was not trained to operate the Giant Swing, improperly connected the plaintiff to the swing. She fell 50’ to the ground.

Synergo, a defendant was an ACCT member and professional vendor member, PVM.

Synergo is in the business of, among other things, inspecting challenge courses. 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. 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.)

Synergo was hired by Calvary Church Tri-Cities to inspect the challenge course, described by the court as an adventure course. Approximately a month before the accident defendant Synergo had sent an employee to inspect the course and giant swing. During the inspection, Synergo had discovered the Church, and the Bar-M-Ranch employees had not been trained in how to operate the giant swing. Synergo did not act on this information.

Synergo did not direct or recommend that Calvary close the Giant Swing until the operators of the swing were trained. If recommended by Synergo, Calvary would have closed the Giant Swing.

The lawsuit was filed against Synergo and ACCT. ACCT filed a motion to dismiss based on improper jurisdiction. The District Court’s denial of that motion is analyzed below.

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

In a jurisdiction fight, the plaintiff has to prove the court where the plaintiff chose to file the case has the legal right to hear the case. The term personal jurisdiction is used because the courts look at the defendants, even though a corporation, as an individual in who they deal with the state where the case is filed.

Jurisdiction is also a constitutional issue and controlled by US Supreme Court decisions and the States Long Arm Statute. Meaning the state passes a law, the long-arm statute that defines what is necessary to be bringing an out of state defendant into a local court within the state. The federal law is then applied to see if the state long arm statute violates federal law and as in this case.

The entire discussion is based on the constitutional right to due process. “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.'”

Oregon Federal Courts are part of the 9^th circuit. The ninth circuit employs a three-prong test to determine if the defendant has had the minimum contacts to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court at issue.

(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.

Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs. The burden then shifts to the moving defendant to present “a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.”

For tort claims the court applies a purposeful direction test when looking at the evidence.

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

To prove the purposeful direction test the plaintiff must show the defendant purposefully directed his conduct toward residents in the state at issue. In the past that has meant the defendant placed his products in the stream of commerce with the expectation they would be purchased in the state at issue. That was easier to determine when catalogs were sent out from a warehouse, and products were mailed from the business warehouse to the state.

Now with services that are delivered over the Internet or based on webpages the test is complicated.

ACCT argued it did not direct its activities to Oregon.

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. ACCT has no office or registered agent in Oregon, and no employees who reside in Oregon. 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.'”

Based on the ACCT affidavit, the test then looks at other actions of the ACCT.

In light of those facts, the jurisdictional analysis here turns on the extent 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.

The court then examined the ACCT website. The analysis is based on a sliding scale” “…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.”

…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”.

ACCT described itself, as any company would. However, that description the court found stated that ACCT intended to sell its services in Oregon.

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 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.” 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.

The court also found that 5% of ACCT membership was located in Oregon and 2.4% of its inspectors are based in Oregon, and over the past ten months 3.5% of its standards had been sold to Oregon residents.

The court summed up its analysis this way.

The court then looked at the relationship between the two defendants Synergo and ACCT.

ACCT even had a link on its website to the Synergo website. Synergo, in turn prominently displayed its membership in the ACCT on its website. The court found this relationship and promotion of Synergo established purposeful direction into Oregon. Thus the first prong of the test was met.

The second prong, the Relating to the Forum test was scrutinized next. This test looks at “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.” The courts analyze this prong with a “butt for test.”

This was a simple analysis in this case.

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.

Courts and many long-arm statures give deference to the state where the accident occurred in tort claims. Consequently, this test is superfluous if the accident occurred in the state.

The final prong is a reasonableness test. This is a simple test that balances the needs of both parties and the costs, both in terms of time and money, in having the trial in one location or another. One way of looking at this was argued by the ACCT, that other forums are just as reasonable as Oregon to conduct the trial.

The court looked at the burden of litigating in Oregon to the ACCT. This test is very difficult to overcome if the court has found that the defendant has a relationship with the forum state. “…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.” Consequently, the modern conveniences that allow companies to sell to the forum state are also such that allow litigation in the forum state to be easier.

The major hurdle that the ACCT could not overcome is the accident occurred in Oregon, and the injured plaintiff lived in Oregon.

The court then looked at Oregon’s (the people of the state of Oregon) in litigating in Oregon.

To make this determination, the Court focuses on the location of the evidence and witnesses. Caruth,. 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.”

The next analysis is the convenience of litigating in Oregon. The fact that the plaintiff was a paraplegic would sufficiently increase the burden and cost of litigating in a foreign state. The court also must look at whether or not an alternative forum exists that would have a fair trial. Both Delaware and Illinois would meet this requirement.

However, looking at all the tests, the stronger requirements to litigate were in Oregon and the greatest burden would be placed on the plaintiff if she were forced to litigate out of Oregon.

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 this Court is unreasonable.

The ACCT motion was denied.

So Now What?

This case is far from over. Discovery is just starting and many more motions will be filed, and may be appealed before a settlement or trial. When faced with a paraplegic as a plaintiff, settlement is usually the preferred result because a jury can give unlimited an almost unlimited amount of money. On top of that the settlement can be structured to provide the best benefits to the plaintiff.

However, this case is another example of the cost of creating standards rather than best practices or something other forms of help. The idea would have also been a lot easier if ACCT had not “qualified” people to inspect courses. No one is “qualified” by anyone to inspect highways, buildings, ball parks, except by state law.

State law means an Engineer, etc., licensed by the state to inspect. This is the second case in three years where an inspector has been sued for allegedly missing something during an inspection. See Bad luck or about time; however, you look at this decision, you will change the way you work in the Outdoor Recreation Industry.

If you are inspecting, you better identify every issue and let the client know. You cannot say it’s not that important it because it will become important. After that it is up to the client to deal with your inspection. Which may the cost the client a lot. See Serious Disconnect: Why people sue.

This case was not an “if” case, but a when a case. You make standards not based upon a national organization such as ANSI or ASTM; you can expect to be sued for how you created the standards and what the standards say.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Bishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504

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, ACCT, PVM, Association of Challenge Course Technology, Ropes Course, Challenge Course, Giant Swing, Jurisdiction and Venue, Jurisdiction, Vendor, Professional Vendor Member,

Almquist v. Synergo, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79261

Posted: August 20, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Almquist 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:

(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

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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Willful 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.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

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

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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Bishop 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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

A 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.

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 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.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Instructional Colorado decision Negligence, Negligence Per Se and Premises Liability http://rec-law.us/wEIvAW

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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Negligence 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:

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Bergin, et al., v. Wild Mountain, Inc. 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212

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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

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

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.

Knarr v. Chapman School Of Seamanship, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5351

Posted: July 26, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Knarr 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).

[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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Since 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.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, 2016 Del. LEXIS 19

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 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Delaware, Health Club, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Delaware, Health club, Planet Fitness, Public Policy, Release, Unequivocal | Leave a comment

The decision is very short and very clear. Write a clear and direct release and it will be upheld in Delaware.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

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)

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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 Comment

A 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.

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.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Gillette v. All Pro Sports, LLC., 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19432; 38 Fla. L. Weekly D 2573

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,

Release fails under Florida’s law because it is only an assumption of risk form, not a release in a Go-Kart case.

Posted: July 3, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Florida, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Contract, Go Kart, Negligence, Release | Leave a comment

Release probably not written by an attorney and never had specific language that stated that the plaintiff’s claims for negligence would be barred by signing the agreement.

State: Florida, Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Plaintiff: Carol Ann Gillette

Defendant: All Pro Sports, LLC., D/B/A Family Fun Town

Plaintiff Claims: negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: for the Plaintiff

Year: 2013

This is a very short decision by the Florida appellate court about a release used in a Go Kart case.

The plaintiff crashed into the barrier suffering injuries. She claimed, “Appellee’s employee negligently increased the Go-Kart speed during a race, causing her to lose control of the Go-Kart and crash into the railing.”

Prior to riding the Go-Karts the plaintiff signed a release. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because of the release. The plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court reversed finding the release did not meet the necessary requirements under Florida’s law.

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

The court put the entire release in its opinion and said under Florida, as in all other states, a contract is construed against the person who wrote it, or a release is construed against the person the release is supposed to protect. “Clauses that purport to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from another who negligently causes injury are strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.”

That means that the author bears the burden and the loss if the contract is written poorly. That applies to all contracts and releases. What that means, unless the parties agree in advance in the document, any mistakes in the document are held against the person who wrote the document.

Under Florida’s law, a release, a release must clearly state that the person signing it is giving up their legal right to sue. “To be effective, the wording of such clauses must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting away.”

There was no language in the alleged release that specifically states the plaintiff is giving up their legal rights.

Here, the release does not expressly state that it includes Appellee’s negligence and, when the document is considered in its totality, it is not clear that negligence of the sort here was intended to be within the scope of the release.

There is language pointing out to the plaintiff that she cannot sue if she is injured due to the negligence of the defendant.

So Now What?

This was a simple case. The release was not a release. It did not have the necessary language to provide notice to people signing it that they were giving up their legal right to sue.

At the trial court, the defendant might still be able to win by using the failed release as an assumption of risk document. The assumption of risk document will be effective if the injury the plaintiff complains of is identified in the assumption of risk document as a risk the plaintiff agreed to assume.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Stolting, et al., v. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26572

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

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

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 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Maryland, Swimming | Tags: assumption of the risk, knowledge and appreciation, Risk, Water Park, Water Slide | Leave a comment

An 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.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Download a copy of the bill here: 1034_enr

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,

Providing First Aid in Colorado just got screwy. New law allows voluntary registration, but also places requirements on EMT’S & First Responders.

Posted: June 21, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, First Aid, Medical | Tags: Colorado, EMT, First Responder, Registration, Voluntary | Leave a comment

I’m not sure of the reasoning behind this law, it really does not do anything other than track EMT’s and “First Responders.”

House Bill 16-1034 was signed into law by the governor. I’ve attached a copy of the bill if you want to read it.

I’m not sure why the bill was needed. Until things shake out, I would advise my clients not to register. The only benefit to registering is you can say you are a registered EMT or registered first responder rather than saying you are an EMT or first responder?

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Xu v Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263; 668 N.W.2d 166; 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1505

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, Colorado, EMT, First Responder, Voluntary, Registration,

Sign-in sheet language at Michigan’s health club was not sufficient to create a release.

Posted: June 20, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Ignorant health club faces negligence and wrongful-death claim for failing to have a release that meets the requirements of Michigan’s law.

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.

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

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,

Stolting, et al., v. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26572

Posted: June 19, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, Maryland, Swimming | Tags: Acknowledgement of Risk, assumption of the risk, Water Park, Water Slide, Waterslide | Leave a comment

Stolting, et al., v. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26572

Beth Stolting, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc. d/b/a Splash Mountain Water Park et al, Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-00-299

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26572

August 24, 2001, Decided

August 24, 2001, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion granted by Stolting v. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26573 (D. Md., Aug. 24, 2001)

Affirmed by Stolting v. Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., 37 Fed. Appx. 80, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11925 (4th Cir. Md., 2002)

CORE TERMS: slide, pool, exit, patrons, ride, riding, water slides, warning, bottom, summary judgment, amusement park, feet, legs, intelligence, splash, depth, posted, notice, bent, risk of injury, moving party, reasonable jury, appreciated, disclaimer, non-moving, shallow, warned, owed, dangerousness, negligently

COUNSEL: [*1] For Beth Stolting, Plaintiff: Paul D Bekman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Salsbury Clements Bekman Marder and Adkins LLC, Baltimore, MD; Andrew M. Moskowitz, William D. Sanders, Alpert Butler and Sanders, P.C., West Orange, NJ.

For Rohan Cassells, Plaintiff: Andrew M. Moskowitz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alpert Butler and Sanders, P.C., West Orange, NJ.

For Jollyroger Amusement Park, Inc., doing business as Splash Mountain Water Park, Defendant: J Paul Mullen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Phoenix, MD; Kathleen M Bustraan, Ward and Bustraan LLC, Towson, MD.

JUDGES: Marvin J. Garbis, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Marvin J. Garbis

OPINION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court has before it Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the materials submitted by the parties relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Injury on the Shotgun Slide

On June 2, 1999, Plaintiffs Beth Stolting (hereinafter “Stolting”) and Rohan Cassells ¹ (hereinafter “Cassells”), went to the Jolly Roger Amusement Park/Splash Mountain Park (hereinafter the “Park”) in Ocean City, Maryland. Stolting had been to water parks on “fifteen to twenty ” separate occasions and had been on water slides “hundreds of times,” [*2] but had never visited the Park. Stolting Dep. 29.

1 Now her husband and a plaintiff in the case.

At the entrance of the amusement park, a prominent disclaimer was posted. The sign read as follows:

The attractions contained within the Splash Mountain Water[]park 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.

Stolting read the sign upon entering the amusement park. She went on several water slides before arriving at the “Shotgun” ² water slide (hereinafter “slide” or “ride”), which is the slide at issue in the instant case. Stolting Dep. 37. There were no posted instructions on how to ride the slide or any signs warning of the possible dangers posed by the slide. However, there were signs containing height restrictions, signs banning the use of inner tubes, and depth markers displaying the depth of the entry pool ³. Prior to riding the slide, Stolting watched others go down it. As Stolting prepared to go down the slide, she imitated the body positioning of those people who had previously been on the slide. With her knees bent at a “forty degree angle,” Stolting [*3] descended down the slide, hitting the bottom of the exit pool with her feet. Stolting Dep. 39- 40. Stolting does not remember how she landed or the positioning of her legs as she hit the water. Stolting Dep. 40- 41. However, she does allege that she felt her feet “hit the bottom of the pool . . . immediately” upon entering the exit pool. Stolting Dep. 44.

2 Also known as “the Cannonball Slide.”

3 The pool of water at the bottom of the slide is also referred to as the “entry” or “splash” pool.

At that point, Stolting lost her breath. She went to the side of the exit pool and was helped out of the pool and into a chair by lifeguards. At that time, Stolting complained of pain in her back, feet, and legs. The lifeguards gave Stolting ice and suggested that she should go to a hospital.

After resting for ten minutes, Stolting asked Cassells to take her to the Atlantic General Hospital in Ocean City, Maryland. ⁴ Stolting told the attending physician at the hospital that she was experiencing back and heal pain. The doctor took x-rays of Stolting’s heals, and then “told [her that] if [she] could walk out on crutches that [she] could leave.” ⁵ [*4] Stolting Dep. 50. Stolting was not given any medication.

4 Stolting never requested an ambulance.

5 No diagnosis was given.

During the next few days, she continued to rest and take Advil. Approximately one week later, Stolting was still experiencing pain and so, she decided to see Dr. Fischer (hereinafter “Fischer”). Fischer diagnosed Stolting with three fractured vertebrae. Stolting was told to remain on Advil and to continue bed rest. Fischer stated that it would take at least six months for her back to heal.

B. Prior Injuries on the Shotgun Slide

In recent years, several other patrons have complained of injuries allegedly sustained while riding the Shotgun slide. In 1997, Myron Custer (hereinafter “Custer”) reported a bruised heel from contacting the bottom of the exit pool of the Shotgun slide. Custer accused the Park of maintaining an unsafe ride.

In 1998, Michael Agnello Jr.(hereinafter “Agnello”), reported receiving injuries from riding the slide. Agnello Affi. After contacting the bottom of the exit pool, Michael complained of bruised legs and walking with a limp for a few days. The Park responded to complaints by stating that a licensed inspector from the Department of Labor Safety [*5] Inspection had investigated the slide and concluded that the slide met all of Maryland’s standards of safety.

C. Procedural Posture

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs sue Defendants, Jolly Roger Amusement Park, Inc., Splash Mountain Water Park, and Bayshore Development Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ negligence caused Stolting’s injuries. The Defendants deny negligence and assert an affirmative defense of the assumption of risk doctrine. By the instant motion, Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims.

II LEGAL STANDARD

In order for the Court to grant a motion for summary judgment, the evidence submitted to the Court must “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact is one which might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).

The burden of proof weighs heavily on the moving party to establish that there is a lack of evidence in support of the non-moving party’s claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The moving party [*6] must demonstrate to the Court that, viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable jury could not find in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If the moving party has carried its burden of proof, then the non-moving party must produce more than a “mere scintilla of evidence in support of an essential element” in order to prevent the court from granting summary judgment. Id. at 251.

III DISCUSSION

A. Negligence claim

The Plaintiffs’ claim is based on three purported acts of negligence:

1) After being put on notice that patrons had been injured on the Shotgun slide, Defendants negligently failed to post signs warning of the dangerousness of the ride;

2) Defendants negligently failed to post instructions on how patrons should position their bodies when riding the slide; and,

3) Defendants negligently provided too shallow an exit pool at the bottom of the slide.

Under Maryland ⁶ law, 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 [*7] and the harm suffered; and 4) that damages were sustained. Yousef v. Trustbank Sav., F.S.B., 81 Md.App. 527, 536-36, 568 A.2d 1134 (1990).

6 This case is a diversity action. Since Stolting’s cause of action took place in Maryland, that state’s substantive law applies. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938).

1) Failure to Warn of Dangerousness

The Plaintiffs contend that the Park was on notice of the dangerousness of the Shotgun slide and should have posted signs warning of the dangers because other patrons had been injured on the slide. In support of their claim, Plaintiffs rely on prior injuries received by Custer and Agnello while they were on the Shotgun slide. The Plaintiffs maintain that notice of such injuries imposed a duty on the Park to post warning signs next to the ride.

The Plaintiffs argue that, as patrons of the Park, they were owed the highest standard of care. Tennant v. Shoppers Food Warehouse MD Corp., 115 Md.App. 381, 388, 693 A.2d 370 (1997), (citing Casper v. Chas F. Smith & Son, Inc., 71 Md.App. 445, 457, 526 A.2d 87 (1987), aff’d, 316 Md. 573, 578, 560 A.2d 1130 (1989)). According to Casper, however, reasonable or ordinary care is the highest standard of care owed to a business invitee. 71 Md. App. at 457. “The general [*8] 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.” Hawkins v. Southern Maryland Agricultural Fair Ass’n, 237 Md. 90, 94 (1964), 205 A.2d 286. 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. See Carlin v. Krout, 142 Md. 140, 147, 120 A. 232 (1923). 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.” Id. at 146.

At issue is whether the Park breached this duty to provide “ordinary and diligent care” by not posting signs warning of the dangerousness of the Shotgun slide. The Plaintiffs contend that reports of injuries sustained from former patrons who used the ride put the Park on notice that the slide was dangerous. The Plaintiffs base their claim particularly on the testimony of Custer, who was allegedly injured from riding the Shotgun slide in 1997.

When Custer reported his injuries to the Park, he insisted that the slide [*9] was dangerous because the angle of slope was too steep. Custer’s claim is unsubstantiated. Indeed, a licensed inspector from Maryland investigated the ride and found that the Shotgun slide met the safety standards set out by Maryland law. In any event, Custer is by no means qualified to provide admissible opinion testimony that the angle of the slide was “too steep.” Moreover, his opinion is not based on any scientific principles and is no more than his grossly unqualified ipse dixit.

Although the Plaintiffs correctly state that “Maryland has gone almost as far as any state in holding that meager evidence of negligence is sufficient to submit the case to a jury,” the opinion offered by Custer is not enough to take the issue to a jury. State v. Thurston, 128 Md. App. 656, 662, 739 A.2d 940 (1999). 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 did all it need have done by having the slide evaluated and vouched for by a licensed professional. Moreover, even if the Park were on notice of a dangerous condition posed by the Shotgun slide, the Park adequately warned [*10] patrons of the dangers of water slides by posting a disclaimer at the entrance of the amusement park. Stolting admitted in her deposition that she saw the disclaimer and that although she did not remember what it said, she read it. Stolting Dep. 90. The sign posted at the entrance of the Park expressly warned patrons that all rides within the Water park “carr[ied] with them an inherent risk of injury.” There is no evidence adequate to establish that a pertinent standard of care required additional warnings. Defs.’ Reply to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 4.

2) No Posted Instructions

The Plaintiffs argue that the Park had an obligation to post instructions on how to ride the Shotgun slide. They offered Hanst’s purported “expert” opinion in support of this contention that patrons should have been told to keep their knees bent when riding down the slide ⁷. For the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order re: Motion In Limine, issued this date, Hanst’s “expert” opinion has been held inadmissible.

7 Plaintiffs claim that riding with straight legs as opposed to bent knees caused the accident.

Moreover, even if Hanst’s opinion were considered, and there has been a duty to warn Plaintiff to keep her [*11] legs bent, the “negligent” failure to give the advice would be irrelevant. Stolting cannot establish causation. Stolting testified that her legs were bent at a “forty-degree angle” as she slid down the slide. Stolting Dep. 39-40. Thus, even if Plaintiffs had established a duty to instruct a breach of that duty, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the failure to instruct was a proximate cause of her injuries.

3) Depth of the Exit Pool

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants were negligent because the exit pool at the bottom of the Shotgun slide was too shallow. Plaintiffs base this claim on the opinion of Hanst who asserted that the exit pool should have been eight to ten feet. ⁸ As held in the Memorandum and Order re: Motion in Limine issued this date, Hanst’s expert opinion is inadmissible.

8 The exit pool is four to five feet deep. Hanst opined that it should have been four to five feet deeper than it was.

Additionally, both Olsen, the engineer, and the inspector from the Department of Inspection and Safety verified that the slide met the safety standards enforced by the state of Maryland. Even Hanst verified in his deposition that there was nothing in the inspector’s or the engineer’s [*12] reports with which he disagreed. In fact, Hanst’s own investigation of the slide, which consisted of riding the slide himself and watching others on the slide, did not produce any findings contradictory to those of the Defendants. Neither Hanst nor any of the people he watched on the slide were injured after making contact with the bottom of the exit pool.

There is no evidence sufficient to prove to a reasonable fact finder that Defendants negligently provided too shallow an exit pool. No reasonable jury could find that the Park was negligent by virtue of having an exit pool with a depth of “only” between four and five feet. ⁹

9 Indeed, a reasonable jury might even find that an eight to ten foot deep exit pool, as suggested by Hanst, could create a danger of drowning.

B, Assumption of Risk

The Court notes that even if Plaintiffs were able to establish that some negligence by Defendants caused the accident at issue, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment.

In Maryland, assumption of risk is an affirmative defense to a claim of negligence. ADM P’ship v. Martin, 348 Md. 84, 91, 702 A.2d 730 (1997). To establish an assumption of risk defense, the Defendants have the burden of demonstrating [*13] that the Plaintiffs: 1) had knowledge of the risk of danger; 2) appreciated the risk; and 3) voluntarily confronted the risk of danger. Id. at 90-91. 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.” Id. (quoting Gibson v. Beaver, 245 Md. 418, 421, 226 A.2d 273 (1967)). 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.” Schroyer v. McNeal, 323 Md. 275, 283-84, 592 A.2d 1119 (1991).

1) Knowledge of the Risk of Danger

Stolting’s experience riding water slides establishes that Stolting had knowledge of the risks she faced when she chose to ride the Shotgun 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 . . . .” Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 68, at 485-86 (5th ed. 1984). [*14] Moreover, Stolting in fact read the sign warning of the danger.

2) Appreciation of the Risk

If any person of normal intelligence in [one’s same] position would have understood the danger one faced, then one has appreciated the risk. Leakas v. Columbia Country Club, 831 F.Supp. 1231, 1236 (D. Md. 1993). The Court determined in Leakas that a “twenty-six year old, experienced swimmer,” had the “knowledge and appreciation of the risk of diving into shallow water because any person of normal intelligence in Leakas’ position must have understood the danger.” Leakas, 831 F.Supp. at 1236. Moreover in Casper, the court held that a stream covered over by a sheet of ice was an “open and obvious danger,” which every child could understand and appreciate. Casper v. Chas F. Smith & Son, Inc., 71 Md.App. 445, 458, 526 A.2d 87 (1987), aff’d, 316 Md. 573, 578, 560 A.2d 1130 (1989).

In the case at Bar, Stolting’s age, education and experience on water slides clearly establishes that she was able to appreciate the risk.

Plaintiffs, relying on Maryland State Fair and Agricultural Society, Inc., argue that even though Stolting might have had knowledge of a risk based on her experience, she did not appreciate the risk posed by the Shotgun [*15] slide. Md. State Fair and Agric. Soc’y, Inc. v. Lee, 29 Md.App. 374, 380-81, 348 A.2d 44 (1964) (holding that racetrack owners’ negligence in leaving track sandy created a hidden and unforeseeable danger, which caused plaintiff’s injuries). The facts of Maryland State Fair and Agricultural Society, Inc., however, are distinguishable from those in the instant case.

In Maryland State Fair and Agricultural Society, Inc., the Court held that the dangers posed by the negligent conditions (in particular a sandy track) would not necessarily have been comprehended by “any person of normal intelligence in [the plaintiff’s] position.” 29 Md.App. at 381. In the instant case, there is no danger that a person of ordinary intelligence could not have fully appreciated. There is no evidence of any hidden or unforeseeable dangerous condition that caused Stolting’s injuries. In fact, the evidence establishes that the risk posed by the water slide was an open and obvious risk of which Plaintiff (and all other park patrons) was expressly warned. The risk could be, and should have been, appreciated by Stolting and any other reasonable person.

3) Voluntarily Confronted the Risk of Danger

Finally, the Defendants argue that [*16] in addition to knowing and appreciating the risk, Stolting voluntarily confronted the risk. The Defendants rely on the decision in Leakas in which the Court determined that Leakas assumed the risk when he chose to dive into a pool “of unknown depth.” 831 F.Supp. at 1237. Like the plaintiff in Leakas, Stolting “voluntarily encounter[ed] the danger.” Id. 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.”

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons:

1. [*17] Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

2. Judgment shall be entered by separate ORDER.

SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2001.

/s/ Marvin J. Garbis

Marvin J. Garbis

United States District Judge

JUDGMENT ORDER

By separate Order issued this date, the Court has granted summary judgment to the Defendants.

Accordingly:

1. Judgment shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor of Defendants JOLLY ROGER AMUSEMENT PARK, INC. d/b/a SPLASH MOUNTAIN WATER PARK and Bayshore Development Corporation against Plaintiffs Beth Stolting and Rohan Cassells dismissing all claims with prejudice with costs.

2. Any and all prior rulings disposing of any claims against any parties are incorporated by reference herein.

3. This Order shall be deemed to be a final judgment within the meaning of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2001.

/s/ Marvin J. Garbis

Marvin J. Garbis

United States District Judge

Gillette v. All Pro Sports, LLC., 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19432; 38 Fla. L. Weekly D 2573

Posted: June 19, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Florida, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Assumption of the Risk Form, Florida, Go Kart, Negligence, Release | Leave a comment

Gillette v. All Pro Sports, LLC., 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19432; 38 Fla. L. Weekly D 2573

Carol Ann Gillette, Appellant, v. All Pro Sports, LLC., D/B/A Family Fun Town, Appellee.

Case No. 5D12-1527

COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT

2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19432; 38 Fla. L. Weekly D 2573

December 6, 2013, Opinion Filed

NOTICE:

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Terence R. Perkins, Judge.

COUNSEL: D. Paul McCaskill of David & Philpot, P.A., and J. Michael Matthews of J. Michael Matthews, P.A. Maitland, for Appellant.

Bruce R. Bogan of Hilyard, Bogan & Palmer, PA, Orlando, for Appellee.

JUDGES: TORPY, C.J., LAWSON and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a summary final judgment in favor of Appellee on her complaint for injuries she received in a Go-Kart accident at a facility operated by Appellee. Appellant contends that Appellee’s employee negligently increased the Go-Kart speed during a race, causing her to lose control of the Go-Kart and crash into the railing. The lower court held that a waiver and release form signed by Appellant precluded her negligence action. We reverse.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the waiver and release signed by Appellant effectively precludes an action based on Appellee’s purported negligence. The document provides in material part as follows:

WAIVER AND RELEASE FROM LIABILITY FOR GO CARTS AND TRACK

In consideration for being permitted to drive Go Karts at Family Fun Town, 401 S. Volusia Avenue, Orange City, Florida, I acknowledge and agree as follows:

1. I HAVE READ [*2] THE RULES FOR OPERATING THE Go Karts, and accept full responsibility for obeying the rules and all other posted rules and warning signs;

2. I understand that the course of [sic] which the Go Karts operate has curves, which require a degree of skill and responsibility to navigate safely. I have the necessary skill and will exercise the responsibility necessary to operate the Go Karts and navigate the course safely;

3. The Go Karts are controlled by individual drivers, who are capable of making mistakes and intentionally causing harm to others. I could be potentially injured, disabled, or killed, whether by my own actions (or inactions) or the actions or inactions of another driver. I freely and knowingly assume this risk. I take full responsibility for any claims or personal injury, death, or damage to personal property arising out of my use of the G [sic] Karts and/or the Go Kart track, whether to me or to other people. On behalf of myself, my heirs, my assigns and my next of kin, I waive all claims for damages, injuries and death sustained to me or property that I may have against Family Fun Town, and its members, managers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns (each a “Released [*3] Party”).

4. I have been provided the opportunity to inspect the Go Karts and the track prior to signing this Waiver AND Release, and the conditions of each is completely satisfactory to me. If they were not, I would not sign this document or operate or ride in the Go Karts and the track are [sic] completely satisfactory to me.

5. I understand that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital, and that I have signed this document of my own free act.

I have read this waiver and release in its entirety. I understand that I am assuming all the risk inherent in operating and/or riding the Go Karts on the track. I understand that it is a release of all claims that I may have against any released part [sic]. I understand that this is the entire agreement between me and any released party and that it cannot be modified or changed in any way by the representation or statements by any released party or by me. I voluntarily sign my name as evidence of my acceptance of all the provisions in this waiver and release and my agreement to be bound by them.

Clauses that purport to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from another who negligently causes injury are strictly [*4] construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability. UCF Athletics Ass’n v. Plancher, 121 So. 3d 1097, 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Cain v. Banka, 932 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Sunny Isles Marina, Inc. v. Adulami, 706 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). To be effective, the wording of such clauses must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting away. Raveson v. Walt Disney World Co., 793 So. 2d 1171, 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Lantz v. Iron Horse Saloon, Inc., 717 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., LAWSON and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, 2016 Del. LEXIS 19

Posted: June 17, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Ketler 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.

Bergin, et al., v. Wild Mountain, Inc. 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212

Posted: June 17, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Bergin, 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

[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.

Latest Wilderness Medical Society Journal Articles Jun-2016 (Volume 27, Issue 2)

Posted: June 16, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: First Aid, Medical | Tags: First Ai, Wilderness Medical Society, WMS | Leave a comment

New Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Drowning. If you have a pool, beach, swimming area as part of your program you need to know this!!!

You need to be a member to keep up to date with the latest medical and first aid issues.

Viewpoint

VIEW: Is Drinking to Thirst Adequate to Appropriately Maintain Hydration Status During Prolonged Endurance Exercise? Yes

Martin D. Hoffman, James D. Cotter, Éric D. Goulet, Paul B. Laursen

COUNTERVIEW: Is Drinking to Thirst Adequate to Appropriately Maintain Hydration Status During Prolonged Endurance Exercise? No

Lawrence E. Armstrong, Evan C. Johnson, Michael F. Bergeron

REBUTTAL from “Yes”

Martin D. Hoffman, James D. Cotter, Éric D. Goulet, Paul B. Laursen

REBUTTAL from “No”

Lawrence E. Armstrong, Evan C. Johnson, Michael F. Bergeron

Original Research

Risk of Avalanche Involvement in Winter Backcountry Recreation: The Advantage of Small Groups

Benjamin Zweifel, Emily Procter, Frank Techel, Giacomo Strapazzon, Roman Boutellier

Pulley Ruptures in Rock Climbers: Outcome of Conservative Treatment With the Pulley-Protection Splint—A Series of 47 Cases

Micha Schneeberger, Andreas Schweizer

An Analysis of Media-Reported Venomous Snakebites in the United States, 2011–2013

Dennis K. Wasko, Stephan G. Bullard

Outdoor Activity and High Altitude Exposure During Pregnancy: A Survey of 459 Pregnancies

Linda E. Keyes, Peter H. Hackett, Andrew M. Luks

Practice Guidelines

Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Drowning

Andrew C. Schmidt, Justin R. Sempsrott, Seth C. Hawkins, Ali S. Arastu, Tracy A. Cushing, Paul S. Auerbach

Concepts

Novel Technique for Epinephrine Removal in New Generation Autoinjectors

Patrick E. Robinson, Stephanie A. Lareau

Case Report

Subtle Cognitive Dysfunction in Resolving High Altitude Cerebral Edema Revealed by a Clock Drawing Test

Ian Quigley, Ken Zafren

Twostriped Walkingstick Targets Human Eye With Chemical Defense Spray

Ashley N. Ferrara, John B. Luck, Mark C. Chappell

First Reported Case of Fatal Stinging by the Large Carpenter Bee Xylocopa tranquebarica

Senanayake A.M. Kularatne, Sathasivam Raveendran, Jayanthi Edirisinghe, Inoka Karunaratne, Kosala Weerakoon

Snakebite by the Shore Pit Viper (Trimeresurus purpureomaculatus) Treated With Polyvalent Antivenom

Rupeng Mong, Hock Heng Tan

Fatal Honey Poisoning Caused by Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F in Southwest China: A Case Series

Qiang Zhang, Xinguang Chen, Shunan Chen, Zhitao Liu, Rong Wan, Juanjuan Li

Corneal Opacity in a Participant of a 161-km Mountain Bike Race at High Altitude

Morteza Khodaee, David R. Torres

Traumatic Amputation of Finger From an Alligator Snapping Turtle Bite

Robert D. Johnson, Cynthia L. Nielsen

Avalanche Survival After Rescue With the RECCO Rescue System: A Case Report

Katharina Grasegger, Giacomo Strapazzon, Emily Procter, Hermann Brugger, Inigo Soteras

Lightning Strike in Pregnancy With Fetal Injury

Kellen Galster, Ryan Hodnick, Ross P. Berkeley

Bitten by a Dragon

Stephen D. Ducey, Jeffrey S. Cooper, Michael C. Wadman

Case Series

The “Heel Hook”—A Climbing-Specific Technique to Injure the Leg

Volker Schöffl, Christoph Lutter, Dominik Popp

Brief Report

Acute Interstitial Nephritis Following Snake Envenomation: A Single-Center Experience

P.S. Priyamvada, Vijay Shankar, B.H. Srinivas, N.G. Rajesh, Sreejith Parameswaran

Sildenafil and Exercise Capacity in the Elderly at Moderate Altitude

George W. Rodway, Anne J. Lovelace, Michael J. Lanspa, Scott E. McIntosh, James Bell, Ben Briggs, Lindell K. Weaver, Frank Yanowitz, Colin K. Grissom

Cycling Injuries in Southwest Colorado: A Comparison of Road vs Trail Riding Injury Patterns

Simon Kotlyar

Body Positioning of Buried Avalanche Victims

Daniel K. Kornhall, Spencer Logan, Thomas Dolven

Clinical Images

A Wasp Sting and a Broken Heart

James H. Diaz

Mistaken Mushroom Poisonings

James H. Diaz

A Broken Leg in the Bugs

Alexander J. Martin-Bates

Letter to the Editor

Expanding Wilderness Medicine Fellowship Eligibility Beyond Emergency Medicine

Derek J. Meyer, Megann Young

In Response to ACE I/D Polymorphism and HAPE by Bhagi et al

Gaurav Sikri, Srinivasa A.B., Bikalp Thapa

In Reply to Dr Sikri et al

Swati Srivastava

Pitviper Envenomation Guidelines Should Address Choice Between FDA-approved Treatments for Cases at Risk of Late Coagulopathy

Leslie V. Boyer, Anne-Michelle Ruha

In Reply to Drs Boyer and Ruha

Nicholas C. Kanaan, Jeremiah Ray, Matthew Stewart, Matthew Fuller, E. Martin Caravati, Katie W. Russell, Sean P. Bush, Michael D. Cardwell, Robert L. Norris, Scott A. Weinstein

In response to Epidemiology of Search and Rescue in Baxter State Park: Dangers of Descent and Fatigue

Aaron Brillhart, Scott McIntosh, Jennifer Dow, Colin Grissom

In reply to Brillhart et al.

Chris R. Welter, J. Matthew Sholl, Tania D. Strout, Ben Woodard

Book Review

Book review

Aaron D. Campbell

Book review

Christopher Van Tilburg

Book review

Christopher Van Tilburg

Wilderness Image

Calotropis gigantea

Tanuj Kanchan, Alok Atreya

Erratum

Erratum

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

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law