Diodato, etc., v. Islamorada Asset Management, Inc., etc., et al., 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6254

Posted: June 8, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Florida, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Scuba Diving | Tags: Civil procedure, Diodato, Exculpatory evidence, Florida, Florida Keys, Islamorada, Release, scuba diving, Shallow Water Dive, Summary judgment, Wreck Diving | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

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.

Diodato, etc., v. Islamorada Asset Management, Inc., etc., et al., 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6254

Dominic James Diodato, etc., Appellant, vs. Islamorada Asset Management, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 3D12-3393 & 3D12-2276

COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT

2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6254

April 30, 2014, Opinion Filed

NOTICE:

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Lower Tribunal No. 11-552-P. Luis M. Garcia, Judge.

COUNSEL: Thomas A. Culmo; Elizabeth K. Russo, for appellant.

Steven G. Schwartz and Mark A. Hruska, for appellees.

JUDGES: Before SUAREZ, ROTHENBERG and SALTER, JJ.

OPINION BY: SALTER

OPINION

SALTER, J.

Dominic Diodato, as personal representative of the estate of his late wife, Aviva Diodato, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the defendants/appellees, owners and participants in a recreational scuba diving operation known as “Key Dives” in Monroe County, Florida. Mrs. Diodato drowned on April 15, 2010, returning to a dive boat off Islamorada. This occurred at the very beginning of what was to have been an advanced open water dive to the wreck of the Eagle.

The final summary judgment in favor of the defendants was based on printed releases¹ signed by Mr. and Mrs. Diodato during a prior visit to the Keys in 2009 and again for a shallow reef dive the day before the tragedy. The trial court rejected Mr. Diodato’s argument and evidence that the dive operators had failed to follow their own standard practice of procuring a different form of release for the more advanced dive and the boat trip to be undertaken on the day [*2] of the tragedy.

1 Though captioned and referred to as “releases,” the provisions at issue here are actually pre-claim exculpatory clauses.

Applying well-settled Florida law disfavoring and narrowly construing exculpatory clauses, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The scope and duration of the “activity” to which the signed exculpatory provisions applied is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.

Facts

The trial court’s order recounts the primary elements of Mrs. Diodato’s tragic accidental drowning:

It was the practice of Key Dives to require their customers to sign a release immediately prior to a day’s dive. Each of the Diodatos signed a release in favor of Key Dives, and those connected with Key Dives, on August 29, 2009.² On the reverse side of the releases, they initialed boxes stating, “[t]his release is valid for one year from the date of this release.” On April 14, 2010, again before a dive, the Diodatos signed other releases; this time they did not initial the box providing for the one-year operative period. They dove that day. On the morning of the April 15, 2010, dive, the dive fatal to Aviva, the Diodatos were late in arriving, and did not [*3] sign a release. This final dive was to be a wreck dive to a ship called the Eagle. It was to be an advanced open water dive, a dive for which, according to the Plaintiff, dive industry standards dictated a particular form of release must be used.

On the morning of the dive, Aviva Diodato showed apprehension about diving. Though the reason for her apprehension will never be known, ocean swells were estimated to be between four and five feet. Dive instructor, now defendant, Leslie Peaker, and Dominic Diodato entered the water first. Aviva followed, but, after only submerging to a depth of approximately ten feet, she signaled to Peaker that she wanted to surface. She surfaced with Peaker accompanying her. He did not help her on board. Aviva reached for and held on to the boat’s granny line, but lost her hold and drifted away from the boat. The boat’s captain, and now defendant, Scott Alan Lorenc[e], sounded an alarm. After a brief search, she was found floating, but drowned.

2 The actual date on these releases was August 25, 2009.

There are additional facts in the record, including the specific language of the three forms of printed release (August 25, 2009; April 14, 2010; and the form Key [*4] Dives intended to obtain before the wreck dive on April 15, 2010), that affect the analysis. The Diodatos were residents of Arizona and obtained their initial PADI certification³ there. Their scuba training and four open water certification dives were in an Arizona lake in August 2009, a few days before their first reef dives in the Florida Keys.

3 PADI is the acronym for the Professional Association of Dive Instructors.

The August 25, 2009, release was signed by Mrs. Diodato in connection with a series of six open water dives over a period of four days:

LIABILITY RELEASE & EXPRESS ASSUMPTION OF RISK

Please read carefully, fill in all blanks and initial each paragraph before signing.

I, (printed name) Aviva Diodato, HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM A CERTIFIED SCUBA DIVER, TRAINED IN SAFE DIVING PRACTICES, AND AM AWARE OF THE INHERENT HAZARDS OF SKIN AND SCUBA DIVING.

[Initials] I understand and agree that neither Islamorada Asset Mgmt., Inc. dba KEY DIVES; nor the dive supervision staff; nor International PADI, Inc., nor any of their respective employees, officers, agents or assigns (hereinafter referred to as “Released Parties”), may be held liable or responsible in any way for any injury, death [*5] or other damages to me or my family, heirs, or assigns that may occur as a result of my participation in this activity, or as a result of product liability or the negligence of any party, including the Released Parties, whether passive or active.

[Initials] I understand that diving with compressed air involves certain inherent risks, including but not limited to, air expansion injuries, decompression sickness, embolism and drowning. Hyperbaric injuries can occur that require treatment in a recompression chamber. I further understand that this activity may be conducted at a site that is remote, either by time or distance or both, from such a recompression chamber. I still choose to proceed with such activity in spite of the possible absence of a recompression chamber in proximity to the dive site.

[Initials] I declare that I am in good mental and physical fitness for diving, and that I am not under the influence of alcohol, nor am I under the influence of any drugs that are contra-indicatory to diving. If I am taking medication, I declare that I have seen a physician and have approval to dive while under the influence of the medication/drugs.

[Initials] I understand that skin and scuba [*6] diving are physically strenuous activities and that I will be exerting myself during this activity and that if I am injured as a result of heart attack, panic, hyperventilation, etc., that I assume the risk of said injuries and that I will not hold the Released Parties responsible for the same.

[Initials] I will inspect all of my equipment prior to the activity. I will not hold the Released Parties responsible for my failure to inspect my equipment prior to diving.

[Initials] In consideration of being allowed to participate in this activity, I hereby personally assume all risks in connection with the dive(s) for any harm, injury or damage that may befall me while I am a participant, including all risks connected therewith, whether foreseen or unforeseen.

[Initials] I further save and hold harmless said activity and Released Parties from any claim or lawsuit for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, by me, my family, estate, heirs, or assigns, arising out of my participation in this activity, including both claims arising during the activity or after I complete the activity.

[Initials] I further declare that I am of lawful age and legally competent to sign this liability [*7] release, or that I have acquired the written consent of my parent or guardian.

[Initials] I understand that the terms herein are contractual and not a mere recital, that this instrument is a legally binding document, and that I have signed this document of my own free act.

I, (printed name) Aviva Diodato, BY THIS INSTRUMENT DO HEREBY EXEMPT AND RELEASE ISLAMORADA ASSET MGMT., INC. d/b/a KEY DIVES, AND THE DIVE SUPERVISION STAFF, AND INTERNATIONAL PADI, INC., AND ALL RELATED ENTITIES AS DEFINED ABOVE, FROM ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR WRONGFUL DEATH, HOWEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRODUCT LIABILITY OR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASED PARTIES, WHETHER PASSIVE OR ACTIVE.

I HAVE FULLY INFORMED MYSELF OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS LIABILITY RELEASE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY READING IT BEFORE I SIGNED IT ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MY HEIRS.

(Aviva Diodato signature)

Signature of Participant

8/25/09

Date

As already noted, Mrs. Diodato also initialed a provision on the reverse side of the form which stated: “This release is valid for one (1) year from the date of this release.” Although the record on this point is not explicit, it appears that [*8] the “activity,” referred to ten times in the body of the release, contemplated and paid for by the Diodatos in August 2009, was a series of six open water reef dives (maximum depths ranging from twenty to thirty-five feet) over four days, August 25-28, 2009. There is no summary judgment evidence indicating that, at the time the Diodatos signed the 2009 form, they contemplated (much less made payment for) the 2010 advanced open water dive.

Following the August 2009 dives, Mrs. Diodato’s dive manual next recorded three more lake dives in Arizona. On April 14, 2010, the Diodatos returned to Key Dives and Islamorada for additional dives. The April 14, 2010 release signed by Mrs. Diodato was the same printed form as she had signed on August 25, 2009, but this time she did not sign or initial the “valid for one year” provision on the back of the form. According to the instructor, the dive in question was a recreational “shallow reef” dive to prepare them to participate in an advanced open water, much deeper dive the following day.

For the April 15, 2010, wreck dive, Key Dives procedures required a different form of release. The caption of the form included “boat travel,” and the scope of the [*9] release referred to an “Excursion” (consisting of “scuba diving including those hazards occurring during boat travel to and from the dive site”) rather than an “activity.” The April 15 form included specific reference to additional hazards that were not a part of the August 25, 2009, or April 14, 2010, releases: “slipping or falling while on board, being cut or struck by a boat while in the water; injuries occurring while getting on or off a boat, and other perils of the sea; all of which can result in serious injury or death.” The form also included spaces to indicate whether the passenger/diver had diver accident insurance and, if so, the policy number.

The parties are on common ground that the Diodatos’ instructor for the April 15 advanced open water dive intended to have the Diodatos sign the “Excursion” form of release, but did not do so because they were twenty minutes late arriving at the dock. The instructor testified that two other participants in the dive were waiting on the boat, and “It takes about half an hour to go through the knowledge review, plus the paperwork.” He intended to have the Diodatos sign the papers “when we got back.” And in contrast to the “recreational” [*10] reef dive the preceding day, the April 15 wreck dive was characterized by the instructor as a “deep dive.” The instructor testified at his deposition that “There is no reference, except for the [descent] line. Sometimes people get a little bit unnerved by that, and that is what I felt happened to [Mrs. Diodato].”

The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for final summary judgment based on the language of the August 25, 2009, release (including the “valid for one year” provision on the back of the form) and the April 14, 2010, release. These appeals⁴ followed.

4 Mr. Diodato appealed the order granting the defendants’ motion for final summary judgment, Case No. 3D12-2276, and later the final judgment itself, which included a provision taxing costs, Case No. 3D12-3393. The appeals were consolidated for all purposes.

Analysis

[HN1] Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) and Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000), the appellees were entitled to summary judgment only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, discovery responses, and other evidence in the record establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, such that the appellees [*11] were entitled to such a judgment as a matter of law. Our review is de novo.

We review the exculpatory provisions in the August 25, 2009, and April 14, 2010, releases under the well-settled principle that such clauses are disfavored and are narrowly construed:

[HN2] Exculpatory clauses are disfavored and are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved from liability was made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away. Gayon v. Bally’s Total Fitness Corp., 802 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Raveson v. Walt Disney World Co., 793 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Cain v. Banka, 932 So. 2d 575, 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

In the case at hand, another aspect of contract interpretation comes into play as well. [HN3] A release containing exculpatory language is part of a commercial transaction having a discernible scope and term. “Scope” would reasonably address the hazardous activity which the releasor has paid the releasee to allow him or her to undertake, and which the releasee insists must be at the releasor’s own risk if the activity is to proceed. “Term” would reasonably [*12] address the anticipated duration of the hazardous activity for which the release has been required and obtained. The scope and term of one hazardous activity may naturally vary significantly in the level of risk assumed by the releasor when compared to another hazardous activity.

A pre-printed release signed for an introductory scuba certification class in shallow water would ordinarily have a different scope, level of risk, and cost than a deep water cave dive or offshore wreck dive, for example. The pre-activity “knowledge review” described in the instructor’s testimony in this case was plainly calculated to communicate the risk of an advanced activity to the participant about to be asked to initial and sign a form of release. The textual question is whether a particular exculpation clause extends to any and all scuba dives, irrespective of risk and skill level, or whether that clause is limited to the instruction and activity for which payment has been made and risks disclosed.

Examining the two releases signed by Mrs. Diodato in this case (and reprinted in full above), it is apparent that each refers to an “activity” ten times:

…any injury, death, or other damages to me…that may [*13] occur as a result of my participation in this activity, or as a result of product liability or the negligence of any party…

I further understand that this activity may be conducted at a site that is remote… I still choose to proceed with such activity in spite of the possible absence of a recompression chamber in proximity to the dive site.

I understand that skin and scuba diving are physically strenuous activities and that I will be exerting myself during this activity…

I will inspect all of my equipment prior to the activity…

In consideration of my being allowed to participate in this activity, I hereby personally assume all risks in connection with the dive(s) for any harm, injury or damage that may befall me while I am a participant….

I further save and hold harmless said activity and Released Parties from any claim or lawsuit … arising out of my participation in this activity, including both claims arising during the activity or after I complete the activity.

“Activity” [*14] is not defined in the releases signed by Mrs. Diodato, but the record does demonstrate that the August 25, 2009, release was signed in connection with six open water reef dives over the course of four days.⁵ Similarly, the April 14, 2010, release involved a “shallow reef” or “regular” dive led by an instructor to prepare for the following day’s deep water wreck dive.

5 This explains the logic or necessity for checking the “valid for one year” clause on the back of the form. That provision eliminated the necessity for signing a separate form for each of the six open water dives. It does not necessarily follow that it applied to any then-uncontracted-for, higher-risk, separately-purchased deep water dives ten months later. By inference (and inferences must be indulged in favor of the non-movant), this is why Key Dives required a new release on April 14, 2010, on the return visit within the one-year period, instead of relying on the “valid for one year” provision in the August 2009 release.

The April 15 dive was to be a qualifying dive for the higher-level “advanced open water” PADI certification. Thus the “activity” that is the subject of the April 14 release is different from the definition [*15] of “Excursion” in the form of release that Key Dives procedure specified was to be executed by the Diodatos before the April 15 boat trip and offshore “deep dive.” The “Excursion” form also would have permitted the parties to state in writing whether “diver accident insurance” had been purchased.

Recognizing these differences in the signed and unsigned forms of release at issue here, we turn next to the case law relied upon by the parties. At the outset, we are unpersuaded by the “abandonment by conduct” case law advanced by Mr. Diodato. Cases such as Painter v. Painter, 823 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Klosters Rederi A/S v. Arison Shipping Co., 280 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1973), hold that a party may waive or abandon contract rights by taking action inconsistent with those rights,⁶ but in the case at hand there is no indication that Key Dives waived or abandoned the signed releases to the extent of the “activity” encompassed by each. Had the April 15, 2010, dive been a continuation of the basic open water instruction contracted for by the Diodatos in 2009 (and thus a part of the “activity” knowingly contracted for by the parties at that time), the scope and term (because of the one-year [*16] clause) of the 2009 release would apply. Had the April 15, 2010, advanced open water dive involved the same “activity” and level of risk inherent in the “regular” and “shallow reef” dive of April 14, 2010, the scope and term of that release would apply.

6 In those cases, the party entitled to enforce a contractual provision unequivocally revoked or waived its right to enforce the provision. In the present case, the appellees never suggested by word or deed that the signed releases had expired or been superseded. The question is whether those releases applied to every aspect of the Diodatos’ different “activity” on April 15th.

Instead, the defendants’ April 15 form recognized a different activity and level of risk, expressly defining this activity as an “Excursion” and including within it the hazards of scuba diving as well as “injuries occurring while getting on or off a boat, and other perils of the sea,”⁷ a category of harm not addressed in the signed releases. And because the defendants’ prescribed form was not presented or signed, we will never know whether Mrs. Diodato might have inquired about diver accident insurance, or obtained it, as contemplated by the separate PADI form.

7 We [*17] must respectfully disagree with the conclusion in the order granting summary judgment that the form intended by the defendants to be obtained (but not obtained) for the April 15, 2010, boat travel and dive involves only “a distinction without a substantial difference” when compared to the earlier, signed releases. It is certainly a factual issue, and for a jury to consider, whether Mrs. Diodato’s drowning actually occurred as a result of scuba diving alone, or from “getting on or off a boat, and other perils of the sea” (in this case, significantly-higher waves and current).

We conclude that the analysis in this case turns on: the ambiguity in the term “activity” as used (in the singular) to cabin the scope of the signed releases; the appellees’ concession that a more extensive definition was necessary for the April 15 boat trip and dive; and the settled Florida law that such [HN4] pre-claim exculpatory clauses “are disfavored and thus enforceable only to the extent that the intention to be relieved from liability is made clear and unequivocal.” Hackett v. Grand Seas Resort Owner’s Ass’n, Inc., 93 So. 3d 378, 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing summary judgment because the “level of ambiguity” [*18] in an exculpatory clause was simply “too great to permit enforcement”).

The trial court’s order granting final summary judgment cited Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 4th 748, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). In that case, the decedent had signed a skydiving release approximately three years before a tragic accident in which he fell to his death in the Pacific Ocean. The decedent’s estate and daughter argued that the release made no reference to jumps involving heightened risk “over large bodies of water or in particular weather conditions.” The California Court of Appeal found the release to be enforceable. The exculpatory provisions in that case, however, involved “parachuting activities” (plural in each reference) without limitation, and the record demonstrated that the decedent was “a highly qualified and licensed skydiver who had made over 900 skydives prior to the fatal jump which gave rise to this action.” The record also showed he had jumped over the same area (near the coastline) a year before the fatal jump. There was no testimony or documentary evidence to suggest that the releasee in Paralift required different forms for different types of jumps involving different levels [*19] of certification and risk.

Finally, it is apparent that the signed 2009 and 2010 releases in the present case could be slightly modified to be “clear and unequivocal,” using words “so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away,” Cain, 932 So. 2d at 578, by expanding the scope from the “activity” at the time the release is executed to include, for example, any and all future courses of instruction, programs, scuba dives, certification levels, and dive-related boat travel, undertaken by the releasor.

Conclusion

Floridians and visitors to our State are generally free to engage in hazardous recreations such as jet-skiing, para-sailing, skydiving, scuba diving, rodeo competitions, and auto races (to name a few), and to assume contractually all risks associated with those recreations before engaging in them. It remains the case, however, that we disfavor and narrowly construe such pre-claim exculpatory terms. Applying that rule of construction to the record in this case, and under the rigorous standards applicable to our de novo review of a summary judgment, we are constrained to reverse the final summary judgment and the judgment [*20] for costs.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

Good Samaritan Laws by state

Posted: May 28, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: First Aid | Tags: Emergency Medical Systems, EMS, first aid, Good Samaritan, Parable of the Good Samaritan, Samaritan | 38 Comments

You need to understand whether or not you will be protected and what you can and cannot do to afford yourself of the protection.

The statutes that are quoted below are just part of the statute. Consequently you should find the entire law and find out how it affects you.

Yellow highlight is interesting language

Green highlights are very interesting language in the statute

Red Text is important language defining whether it is only medical care or medical and emergency/rescue care.

Pink highlight is where must the first aid training come from or the standard of first aid training that the Samaritan must use.

Red highlight is language that is restrictive or of major concern.

Turquoise highlighting is restrictive language.

Blue highlighting is language covering AED’s

Gray Highlighting is language covering epinephrine

Good Samaritan State Laws

State	Statute	Interesting Section
Alabama	§ 6-5-332. Good Samaritans.	(e) A person or entity, who in good faith and without compensation renders emergency care or treatment to a person suffering or appearing to suffer from cardiac arrest, which may include the use of an automated external defibrillator, shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances, except damages that may result from the gross negligence of the person rendering emergency care. This immunity shall extend to the licensed physician or medical authority who is involved in automated external defibrillator site placement, the person who provides training in CPR and the use of the automated external defibrillator, and the person or entity responsible for the site where the automated external defibrillator is located. This subsection specifically excludes from the provision of immunity any designers, manufacturers, or sellers of automated external defibrillators for any claims that may be brought against such entities based upon current Alabama law.
Alaska	Sec. 09.65.090. Civil liability for emergency aid	(a) A person at a hospital or any other location who renders emergency care or emergency counseling to an injured, ill, or emotionally distraught person` who reasonably appears to the person rendering the aid to be in immediate need of emergency aid in order to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. (b) A member of an organization that exists for the purpose of providing emergency services is not liable for civil damages for injury to a person that results from an act or omission in providing first aid, search, rescue, or other emergency services to the person, regardless of whether the member is under a preexisting duty to render assistance, if the member provided the service while acting as a volunteer member of the organization; in this subsection, “volunteer” means a person who is paid not more than $ 10 a day and a total of not more than $ 500 a year, not including ski lift tickets and reimbursement for expenses actually incurred, for providing emergency services. (c) The immunity provided under (b) of this section does not apply to civil damages that result from providing or attempting to provide any of the following advanced life support techniques unless the person who provided them was authorized by law to provide them: (1) manual electric cardiac defibrillation; (2) administration of antiarrhythmic agents; (3) intravenous therapy; (4) intramuscular therapy; or (5) use of endotracheal intubation devices. (d) This section does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.
Alaska	Sec. 09.65.090. Civil liability for emergency aid	(a) A person at a hospital or any other location who renders emergency care or emergency counseling to an injured, ill, or emotionally distraught person who reasonably appears to the person rendering the aid to be in immediate need of emergency aid in order to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. (b) A member of an organization that exists for the purpose of providing emergency services is not liable for civil damages for injury to a person that results from an act or omission in providing first aid, search, rescue, or other emergency services to the person, regardless of whether the member is under a preexisting duty to render assistance, if the member provided the service while acting as a volunteer member of the organization; in this subsection, “volunteer” means a person who is paid not more than $ 10 a day and a total of not more than $ 500 a year, not including ski lift tickets and reimbursement for expenses actually incurred, for providing emergency services. (c) The immunity provided under (b) of this section does not apply to civil damages that result from providing or attempting to provide any of the following advanced life support techniques unless the person who provided them was authorized by law to provide them: (1) manual electric cardiac defibrillation; (2) administration of antiarrhythmic agents; (3) intravenous therapy; (4) intramuscular therapy; or (5) use of endotracheal intubation devices. (d) This section does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.
Arizona	§ 32-1471. Health care provider and any other person; emergency aid; nonliability	Any health care provider licensed or certified to practice as such in this state or elsewhere, or a licensed ambulance attendant, driver or pilot as defined in section 41-1831, or any other person who renders emergency care at a public gathering or at the scene of an emergency occurrence gratuitously and in good faith shall not be liable for any civil or other damages as the result of any act or omission by such person rendering the emergency care, or as the result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured persons, unless such person, while rendering such emergency care, is guilty of gross negligence.
	§ 32-1472. Limited liability for emergency health care at amateur athletic events	A health care provider licensed or certified pursuant to title 32 who agrees with any person or school to voluntarily attend an amateur athletic practice, contest or other event to be available to render emergency health care within the provider’s authorized scope of practice and without compensation to an athlete injured during such event is not liable for any civil or other damages as the result of any act or omission by the provider rendering the emergency care, or as the result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured athlete, if the provider acts in good faith without gross negligence.
Arkansas	17-95-101. “Good Samaritan” law.	(a) Any health care professional under the laws of the State of Arkansas who in good faith lends emergency care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions performed in good faith so long as any act or omission resulting from the rendering of emergency assistance or services was not grossly negligent or willful misconduct. (b) Any person who is not a health care professional who is present at an emergency or accident scene and who: (1) Believes that the life, health, and safety of an injured person or a person who is under imminent threat of danger could be aided by reasonable and accessible emergency procedures under the circumstances existing at the scene thereof; and (2) Proceeds to lend emergency assistance or service in a manner calculated in good faith to lessen or remove the immediate threat to the life, health, or safety of such a person, shall not be held liable in civil damages in any action in this state for any act or omission resulting from the rendering of emergency assistance or services unless the act or omission was not in good faith and was the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (c) No health care professional who in good faith and without compensation renders voluntary emergency assistance to a participant in a school athletic event or contest at the site thereof or during transportation to a health care facility for an injury suffered in the course of the event or contest shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by that health care professional in rendering the emergency care. The immunity granted by this subsection shall not apply in the event of an act or omission constituting gross negligence. (d) For the purposes of this section, “health care professional” means a licensed physician, chiropractic physician, dentist, optometric physician, podiatric physician, and any other licensed health care professional.
California	§ 1799.102. Emergency care at scene of emergency	(a) No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered. This subdivision applies only to the medical, law enforcement, and emergency personnel specified in this chapter. (b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage other individuals to volunteer, without compensation, to assist others in need during an emergency, while ensuring that those volunteers who provide care or assistance act responsibly. (2) Except for those persons specified in subdivision (a), no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered. This subdivision shall not be construed to alter existing protections from liability for licensed medical or other personnel specified in subdivision (a) or any other law. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to change any existing legal duties or obligations, nor does anything in this section in any way affect the provisions in Section 1714.5 of the Civil Code, as proposed to be amended by Senate Bill 39 of the 2009-10 Regular Session of the Legislature. (d) The amendments to this section made by the act adding subdivisions (b) and (c) shall apply exclusively to any legal action filed on or after the effective date of that act.
	§ 1799.108. Emergency field care treatment by certificate holder	Any person who has a certificate issued pursuant to this division from a certifying agency to provide prehospital emergency field care treatment at the scene of an emergency, as defined in Section 1799.102, shall be liable for civil damages only for acts or omissions performed in a grossly negligent manner or acts or omissions not performed in good faith.
	§ 50086. Voluntary emergency services; Immunity from liability	No person who is summoned by a county sheriff, city police department, fire department, park ranger, or other local agency to voluntarily assist in a search or rescue operation, who possesses first aid training equivalent to the Red Cross advanced first aid and emergency care training standards, and who in good faith renders emergency services to a victim prior to or during the evacuation or extrication of the victim, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering such emergency services. For the purposes of this section, “emergency services” includes, but is not limited to, first aid and medical services, rescue procedures, and transportation or other related activities necessary to insure the safety of the victim who is the object of the search or rescue operation.
Colorado	13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from civil liability	(1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or any other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover. (2) Any person while acting as a volunteer member of a rescue unit, as defined in section 25-3.5-103 (11), C.R.S., notwithstanding the fact that such organization may recover actual costs incurred in the rendering of emergency care or assistance to a person, who in good faithrenders emergency care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions in good faith. (3) Any person, including a licensed physician, surgeon, or other medical personnel, while acting as a volunteer member of a ski patrol or ski area rescue unit, notwithstanding the fact that such person may receive free skiing privileges or other benefits as a result of his volunteer status, who in good faith renders emergency care or assistance without other compensation at the place of an emergency or accident shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions in good faith. (5) An employer shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made by an employee while rendering emergency care or emergency assistance if the employee: (a) Renders the emergency care or emergency assistance in the course of his or her employment for the employer; and (b) Is personally exempt from liability for civil damages for the acts or omissions under subsection (1) of this section.
Connecticut	§ 52-557b. “Good Samaritan law”. Immunity from liability for emergency medical assistance, first aid or medication by injection. School personnel not required to administer or render.	(a) A person licensed to practice medicine and surgery under the provisions of chapter 370 or dentistry under the provisions of section 20-106 or members of the same professions licensed to practice in any other state of the United States, a person licensed as a registered nurse under section 20-93 or 20-94 or certified as a licensed practical nurse under section 20-96 or 20-97, a medical technician or any person operating a cardiopulmonary resuscitator or an automatic external defibrillator, or a person trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation or in the use of an automatic external defibrillator in accordance with the standards set forth by the American Red Cross or American Heart Association, who, voluntarily and gratuitously and other than in the ordinary course of such person’s employment or practice, renders emergency medical or professional assistance to a person in need thereof, shall not be liable to such person assisted for civil damages for any personal injuries which result from acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care, which may constitute ordinary negligence. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, wilful or wanton negligence. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt paid or volunteer firefighters, police officers or emergency medical services personnel from completing training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation or in the use of an automatic external defibrillator in accordance with the standard set forth by the American Red Cross or American Heart Association. For the purposes of this subsection, “automatic external defibrillator” means a device that: (1) Is used to administer an electric shock through the chest wall to the heart; (2) contains internal decision-making electronics, microcomputers or special software that allows it to interpret physiologic signals, make medical diagnosis and, if necessary, apply therapy; (3) guides the user through the process of using the device by audible or visual prompts; and (4) does not require the user to employ any discretion or judgment in its use. (b) A paid or volunteer firefighter or police officer, a teacher or other school personnel on the school grounds or in the school building or at a school function, a member of a ski patrol, a lifeguard, a conservation officer, patrol officer or special police officer of the Department of Environmental Protection, or emergency medical service personnel, who has completed a course in first aid offered by the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, the National Ski Patrol, the Department of Public Health or any director of health, as certified by the agency or director of health offering the course, and who renders emergency first aid to a person in need thereof, shall not be liable to such person assisted for civil damages for any personal injuries which result from acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency first aid, which may constitute ordinary negligence. No paid or volunteer firefighter, police officer or emergency medical service personnel who forcibly enters the residence of any person in order to render emergency first aid to a person whom such firefighter, police officer or emergency medical service personnel reasonably believes to be in need thereof shall be liable to such person for civil damages incurred as a result of such entry. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, wilful or wanton negligence. (e) (1) For purposes of this subsection, “cartridge injector” means an automatic prefilled cartridge injector or similar automatic injectable equipment used to deliver epinephrine in a standard dose for emergency first aid response to allergic reactions. (2) Any volunteer worker associated with, or any person employed to work for, a program offered to children sixteen years of age or younger by a corporation, other than a licensed health care provider, that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended, who (A) has been trained in the use of a cartridge injector by a licensed physician, physician assistant, advanced practice registered nurse or registered nurse, (B) has obtained the consent of a parent or legal guardian to use a cartridge injector on his or her child, and (C) uses a cartridge injector on such child in apparent need thereof participating in such program, shall not be liable to such child assisted or to such child’s parent or guardian for civil damages for any personal injury or death which results from acts or omissions by such worker in using a cartridge injector which may constitute ordinary negligence. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, wilful or wanton negligence. (h) Any person who has completed a course in first aid offered by the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, the National Ski Patrol, the Department of Public Health or any director of health, as certified by the agency or director of health offering the course, or has been trained in the use of a cartridge injector by a licensed physician, physician assistant, advanced practice registered nurse or registered nurse, and who, voluntarily and gratuitously and other than in the ordinary course of such person’s employment or practice, renders emergency assistance by using a cartridge injector on another person in need thereof, or any person who is an identified staff member of a before or after school program, day camp or day care facility, as provided in section 19a-900, and who renders emergency assistance by using a cartridge injector on another person in need thereof, shall not be liable to such person assisted for civil damages for any personal injuries which result from acts or omissions by such person in using a cartridge injector, which may constitute ordinary negligence. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, wilful or wanton negligence. For the purposes of this subsection, “cartridge injector” has the same meaning as provided in subdivision (1) of subsection (e) of this section.
Delaware	§ 6801. Persons rendering emergency care exempt from liability; Advanced Life Support Standards Committee	(a) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any public or private and special law, any person who voluntarily, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation from the person aided or treated, renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a person who is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance, or any person in obvious physical distress or discomfort shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance, unless it is established that such injuries or such death were caused wilfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such person. This section shall apply to members or employees of nonprofit volunteer or governmental ambulance, rescue or emergency units, whether or not a user or service fee may be charged by the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity and whether or not the members or employees receive salaries or other compensation from the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity. This section shall not be construed to require a person who is ill or injured to be administered first aid or emergency treatment if such person objects thereto on religious grounds. This section shall not apply if such first aid or emergency treatment or assistance is rendered on the premises of a hospital or clinic.
Florida	§ 768.13. Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability	(1) This act shall be known and cited as the “Good Samaritan Act.” (2) (a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. (b) 1. Any health care provider, including a hospital licensed under chapter 395, providing emergency services pursuant to obligations imposed by 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd,s. 395.1041, s. 395.401, or s. 401.45 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another. 2. The immunity provided by this paragraph applies to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment, including diagnosis: a. Which occurs prior to the time the patient is stabilized and is capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient, unless surgery is required as a result of the emergency within a reasonable time after the patient is stabilized, in which case the immunity provided by this paragraph applies to any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment which occurs prior to the stabilization of the patient following the surgery. b. Which is related to the original medical emergency. 3. For purposes of this paragraph, “reckless disregard” as it applies to a given health care provider rendering emergency medical services shall be such conduct that a health care provider knew or should have known, at the time such services were rendered, created an unreasonable risk of injury so as to affect the life or health of another, and such risk was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the conduct negligent. 4. Every emergency care facility granted immunity under this paragraph shall accept and treat all emergency care patients within the operational capacity of such facility without regard to ability to pay, including patients transferred from another emergency care facility or other health care provider pursuant to Pub. L. No. 99-272, s. 9121. The failure of an emergency care facility to comply with this subparagraph constitutes grounds for the department to initiate disciplinary action against the facility pursuant to chapter 395. (c) 1. Any health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001(4) who is in a hospital attending to a patient of his or her practice or for business or personal reasons unrelated to direct patient care, and who voluntarily responds to provide care or treatment to a patient with whom at that time the practitioner does not have a then-existing health care patient-practitioner relationship, and when such care or treatment is necessitated by a sudden or unexpected situation or by an occurrence that demands immediate medical attention, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission relative to that care or treatment, unless that care or treatment is proven to amount to conduct that is willful and wanton and would likely result in injury so as to affect the life or health of another. 2. The immunity provided by this paragraph does not apply to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment unrelated to the original situation that demanded immediate medical attention. 3. For purposes of this paragraph, the Legislature’s intent is to encourage health care practitioners to provide necessary emergency care to all persons without fear of litigation as described in this paragraph. (d) Any person whose acts or omissions are not otherwise covered by this section and who participates in emergency response activities under the direction of or in connection with a community emergency response team, local emergency management agencies, the Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Community Affairs, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency is not liable for any civil damages as a result of care, treatment, or services provided gratuitously in such capacity and resulting from any act or failure to act in such capacity in providing or arranging further care, treatment, or services, if such person acts as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. (3) Any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
Georgia	§ 51-1-29. Liability of persons rendering emergency care	Any person, including any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 and including any person licensed to render services ancillary thereto, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof without making any charge therefor shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.
Hawaii	§ 663-1.5. Exception to liability.	(a) Any person who in good faith renders emergency care, without remuneration or expectation of remuneration, at the scene of an accident or emergency to a victim of the accident or emergency shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from the person’s acts or omissions, except for such damages as may result from the person’s gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions. (c) Any physician licensed to practice under the laws of this State or any other state who in good faith renders emergency medical care in a hospital to a person, who is in immediate danger of loss of life, without remuneration or expectation of remuneration, shall not be liable for any civil damages, if the physician exercises that standard of care expected of similar physicians under similar circumstances. (d) Any person or other entity who as a public service publishes written general first aid information dealing with emergency first aid treatment, without remuneration or expectation of remuneration for providing this public service, shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from the written publication of such first aid information except as may result from its gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions. (e) Any person who in good faith, without remuneration or expectation of remuneration, attempts to resuscitate a person in immediate danger of loss of life when administering any automated external defibrillator, regardless of where the automated external defibrillator that is used is located, shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission except as may result from the person’s gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions. Any person, including an employer, who provides for an automated external defibrillator shall not be vicariously liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission of the persons or employees who, in good faith and without remuneration or the expectation of remuneration, attempt to resuscitate a person in immediate danger of loss of life by administering an automated external defibrillator, except as may result from a person’s or employer’s gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions. (f) Any physician who administers an automated external defibrillator program without remuneration or expectation of remuneration shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission involving the use of an automated external defibrillator, except as may result from the physician’s gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions. (g) This section shall not relieve any person, physician, or employer of: (1) Any other duty imposed by law regarding the designation and training of persons or employees; (2) Any other duty imposed by provisions regarding the maintenance of equipment to be used for resuscitation; or (3) Liability for any damages resulting from gross negligence, or wanton acts or omissions. (h) For the purposes of this section: “Automated external defibrillator program” means an appropriate training course that includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation and proficiency in the use of an automated external defibrillator. “Good faith” includes but is not limited to a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the rendering of care should not be postponed. “Rescue team” means a special group of physicians, basic life support personnel, advanced life support personnel, surgeons, nurses, volunteers, or employees of the owners or operators of the hospital or authorized emergency vehicle who have been trained in basic or advanced life support and have been designated by the owners or operators of the hospital or authorized emergency vehicle to attempt to provide such support and resuscitate persons who are in immediate danger of loss of life in cases of emergency.
Idaho	§ 5-330. Immunity of persons giving first aid from damage claim	That no action shall lie or be maintained for civil damages in any court of this state against any person or persons, or group of persons, who in good faith, being at, or stopping at the scene of an accident, offers and administers first aid or medical attention to any person or persons injured in such accident unless it can be shown that the person or persons offering or administering first aid, is guilty of gross negligence in the care or treatment of said injured person or persons or has treated them in a grossly negligent manner. The immunity described herein shall cease upon delivery of the injured person to either a generally recognized hospital for treatment of ill or injured persons, or upon assumption of treatment in the office or facility of any person undertaking to treat said injured person or persons, or upon delivery of said injured person or persons into custody of an ambulance attendant.
Illinois	§ 745 ILCS 49/67. First aid providers; exemption for first aid	Sec. 67. First aid providers; exemption for first aid. Any person who is currently certified in first aid by the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, or the National Safety Council and who in good faith provides first aid without fee to any person shall not, as a result of his or her acts or omissions, except willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the person in providing the aid, be liable to a person to whom such aid is provided for civil damages. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any health care facility as defined in Section 8-2001 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/8-2001] or to any practitioner as defined in Section 8-2003 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/8-2003] providing services in a hospital or health care facility.
	§ 745 ILCS 49/75. Employers and employees under the Health and Safety Act; exemption from civil liability for emergency care	Immunity for Employees and Employers for first aid at work
	§ 745 ILCS 49/2. Legislative purpose	Sec. 2. Legislative purpose. The General Assembly has established numerous protections for the generous and compassionate acts of its citizens who volunteer their time and talents to help others. These protections or good Samaritan provisions have been codified in many Acts of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. This Act recodifies existing good Samaritan provisions. Further, without limitation the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to encourage persons to volunteer their time and talents.
	§ 745 ILCS 49/10. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; exemption from civil liability for emergency care	Sec. 10. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; exemption from civil liability for emergency care. Any person currently certified in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation who complies with generally recognized standards, and who in good faith, not for compensation, provides emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a person who is an apparent victim of acute cardiopulmonary insufficiency shall not, as the result of his or her acts or omissions in providing resuscitation, be liable for civil damages, unless the acts or omissions constitute willful and wanton misconduct.
	§ 745 ILCS 49/12. Use of an automated external defibrillator; exemption from civil liability for emergency care	Sec. 12. Use of an automated external defibrillator; exemption from civil liability for emergency care. As provided in Section 30 of the Automated External Defibrillator Act, any automated external defibrillator user who in good faith and without fee or compensation renders emergency medical care involving the use of an automated external defibrillator in accordance with his or her training is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, except for willful and wanton misconduct, by that person in rendering that care.
	§ 745 ILCS 49/65. Choking victim at food-service establishment; exemption from civil liability for emergency assistance	Sec. 65. Choking victim at food-service establishment; exemption from civil liability for emergency assistance. Except as provided by law, no person shall be obligated to remove, assist in removing, or attempt to remove, food from another person’s throat, nor shall any person who in good faith removes or attempts to remove food in an emergency occurring at a food-service establishment as defined in the Choke-Saving Methods Act [410 ILCS 10/1 et seq.] be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by that person in rendering emergency assistance.
	§ 745 ILCS 49/67. First aid providers; exemption for first aid	Sec. 67. First aid providers; exemption for first aid. Any person who is currently certified in first aid by the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, or the National Safety Council and who in good faith provides first aid without fee to any person shall not, as a result of his or her acts or omissions, except willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the person in providing the aid, be liable to a person to whom such aid is provided for civil damages. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any health care facility as defined in Section 8-2001 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/8-2001] or to any practitioner as defined in Section 8-2003 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/8-2003] providing services in a hospital or health care facility.
Indiana	34-30-12-1. Immunity for providing emergency care.	(a) This section does not apply to services rendered by a health care provider (as defined in IC 34-18-2-14 or IC 27-12-2-14 before its repeal) to a patient in a health care facility (as defined in IC 27-8-10-1). (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who comes upon the scene of an emergency or accident or is summoned to the scene of an emergency or accident and, in good faith, gratuitously renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency or accident is immune from civil liability for any personal injury that results from: (1) any act or omission by the person in rendering the emergency care; or (2) any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person; except for acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. (c) This subsection applies to a person to whom IC 16-31-6.5 applies. A person who gratuitously renders emergency care involving the use of an automatic external defibrillator is immune from liability for any act or omission not amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct if the person fulfills the requirements set forth in IC 16-31-6.5. (d) This subsection applies to an individual, business, or organization to which IC 16-31-6.5 applies. An individual, business, or organization that allows a person who is an expected user to use an automatic external defibrillator of the individual, business, or organization to in good faith gratuitously render emergency care is immune from civil liability for any damages resulting from an act or omission not amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct by the user or for acquiring or providing the automatic external defibrillator to the user for the purpose of rendering the emergency care if the individual, business, or organization and the user fulfill the requirements set forth in IC 16-31-6.5. (e) A licensed physician who gives medical direction in the use of a defibrillator or a national or state approved defibrillator instructor of a person who gratuitously renders emergency care involving the use of an automatic external defibrillator is immune from civil liability for any act or omission of the licensed physician or instructor if the act or omission of the licensed physician or instructor: (1) involves the training for or use of an automatic external defibrillator; and (2) does not amount to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Iowa	613.17 Emergency assistance in an accident.	A person, who in good faith renders emergency care or assistance without compensation, shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions occurring at the place of an emergency or accident or while the person is in transit to or from the emergency or accident or while the person is at or being moved to or from an emergency shelter unless such acts or omissions constitute recklessness. For purposes of this section, if a volunteer fire fighter, a volunteer operator or attendant of an ambulance or rescue squad service, a volunteer paramedic, a volunteer emergency medical technician, or a volunteer registered member of the national ski patrol system receives nominal compensation not based upon the value of the services performed, that person shall be considered to be receiving no compensation. The operation of a motor vehicle in compliance with section 321.231 by a volunteer fire fighter, volunteer operator, or attendant of an ambulance or rescue squad service, a volunteer paramedic, or volunteer emergency medical technician shall be considered rendering emergency care or assistance for purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, a person rendering emergency care or assistance includes a person involved in a workplace rescue arising out of an emergency or accident.
Kansas	65-2891. Emergency care by health care providers; liability; standards of care applicable.	(a) Any health care provider who in good faith renders emergency care or assistance at the scene of an emergency or accident including treatment of a minor without first obtaining the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by willful or wanton acts or omissions by such person in rendering such emergency care. (b) Any health care provider may render in good faith emergency care or assistance, without compensation, to any minor requiring such care or assistance as a result of having engaged in competitive sports, without first obtaining the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor. Such health care provider shall not be liable for any civil damages other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by willful or wanton acts or omissions by such person in rendering such emergency care. (c) Any health care provider may in good faith render emergency care or assistance during an emergency which occurs within a hospital or elsewhere, with or without compensation, until such time as the physician employed by the patient or by the patient’s family or by guardian assumes responsibility for such patient’s professional care. The health care provider rendering such emergency care shall not be held liable for any civil damages other than damages occasioned by negligence. (d) Any provision herein contained notwithstanding, the ordinary standards of care and rules of negligence shall apply in those cases wherein emergency care and assistance is rendered in any physician’s or dentist’s office, clinic, emergency room or hospital with or without compensation. (e) As used in this section the term “health care provider” means any person licensed to practice any branch of the healing arts, licensed dentist, licensed optometrist, licensed professional nurse, licensed practical nurse, licensed podiatrist, licensed pharmacist, licensed physical therapist, and any physician assistant who has successfully completed an American medical association approved training program and has successfully completed the national board examination for physician assistants of the American board of medical examiners, any licensed athletic trainer, any licensed occupational therapist, any licensed respiratory therapist, any person who holds a valid attendant’s certificate under K.S.A. 65-6129, and amendments thereto, any person who holds a valid certificate for the successful completion of a course in first aid offered or approved by the American red cross, by the American heart association, by the mining enforcement and safety administration of the bureau of mines of the department of interior, by the national safety council or by any instructor-coordinator, as defined in K.S.A. 65-6112, and amendments thereto, and any person engaged in a postgraduate training program approved by the state board of healing arts.
Kentucky	KRS § 311.667 (2009)	311.667. Requirements for person or entity acquiring an automated external defibrillator. In order to ensure public health and safety: (1) A person or entity who acquires an AED shall ensure that: (a) Expected AED users receive American Heart Association or American Red Cross training in CPR and AED use, or an equivalent nationally recognized course in CPR and AED use; (b) The AED is maintained and tested according to the manufacturer’s operational guidelines; (c) There is medical oversight of the AED program by a physician licensed in Kentucky to ensure compliance with requirements for training, maintenance, notification, and communication with the local emergency medical services system. The physician providing oversight shall also work with the AED site to establish protocols for AED deployment and conduct a review of each use of an AED; and (d) Any person who renders emergency care or treatment on a person in cardiac arrest by using an AED activates the local emergency medical services system as soon as possible and, if an entity with an AED program, reports any clinical use of the AED to the licensed physician. (2) Any person or entity who acquires an AED shall notify an agent of the local emergency medical services system and the local emergency communications or vehicle dispatch center of the existence, location, and type of AED acquired.
	KRS § 311.668 (2009)	311.668. Immunity from civil liability for user of automated external defibrillator — Exemption from KRS 311.667 for Good Samaritan. (1) Any person or entity who, in good faith and without compensation, renders emergency care or treatment by the use of an AED shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of the care or treatment, or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment, where the person acts as an ordinary, reasonable prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. (2) The immunity from civil liability for any personal injury under subsection (1) of this section includes the licensed physician who is involved with AED site placement, the person or entity who provides the CPR and AED site placement, the person or entity who provides the CPR and AED training, and the person or entity responsible for the site where the AED is located. (3) The immunity from civil liability under subsection (1) of this section does not apply if the personal injury results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person rendering the emergency care. (4) The requirements of KRS 311.667 shall not apply to any individual using an AED in an emergency setting if that individual is acting as a Good Samaritan under KRS 411.148 and KRS 313.257.
	KRS § 313.257 (2009)	313.257. Nonliability of licensees for emergency care. No person licensed under this chapter, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care.
	KRS § 411.148 (2009)	411.148. Nonliability of licensees and certified technicians for emergency care. (1) No physician licensed under KRS Chapter 311, registered or practical nurse licensed under KRS Chapter 314, person certified as an emergency medical technician by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, person certified by the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or employee of any board of education established pursuant to the provision of KRS 160.160, who has completed a course in first aid and who maintains current certification therein in accordance with the standards set forth by the American Red Cross shall be liable in civil damages for administering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper medical equipment excluding house calls, for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, unless such acts constitute willful or wanton misconduct. (2) Nothing in this section applies to the administering of such care or treatment where the same is rendered for remuneration or with the expectation of remuneration. (3) The administering of emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency by employees of a board of education shall not be considered to be rendered for remuneration or with the expectation of remuneration because such personnel perform such care as part of their regular professional or work responsibilities for which they receive their regular salaries from the school board which is their employer.
Louisiana	§ 9:2793. Gratuitous service at scene of emergency; limitation on liability	A. No person who in good faith gratuitously renders emergency care, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency, or moves a person receiving such care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission in rendering the care or services or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the person involved in the said emergency; provided, however, such care or services or transportation shall not be considered gratuitous, and this Section shall not apply when rendered incidental to a business relationship, including but not limited to that of employer-employee, existing between the person rendering such care or service or transportation and the person receiving the same, or when incidental to a business relationship existing between the employer or principal of the person rendering such care, service or transportation and the employer or principal of the person receiving such care, service or transportation. This Section shall not exempt from liability those individuals who intentionally or by grossly negligent acts or omissions cause damages to another individual. B. The immunity herein granted shall be personal to the individual rendering such care or service or furnishing such transportation and shall not inure to the benefit of any employer or other person legally responsible for the acts or omissions of such individual, nor shall it inure to the benefit of any insurer.
	§ 9:2793.2. Gratuitous emergency services rendered by American Red Cross volunteers; limitation of liability	A. No person who in good faith gratuitously renders any emergency service as a volunteer on behalf of the American Red Cross shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission in rendering such care or services or as a result of any act or failure to act or failure to provide or arrange for further services. B. The limitation of liability provided in Subsection A shall not apply if any of the following exists: (1) The emergency service provided was inconsistent with or a breach of policies or procedures taught in the current and most advanced national American Red Cross First Aid Training Course or American Red Cross Disaster Nursing Course, or both. (2) The emergency service provided was not supervised by a duly qualified employee or agent of the American Red Cross, as required by the policy and procedures of the American Red Cross. (3) The damages were caused by the intentional act or omission or gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the volunteer. C. As used in this Section: (1) “Emergency service” means the immediate and temporary care rendered to a victim of injury or sudden illness consistent with the policies and procedures taught in the current and most advanced American Red Cross First Aid Training Course or the American Red Cross Disaster Nursing Course, or both. (2) “Volunteer” means a person who has successfully completed first aid training by the American Red Cross or other recognized emergency medical training program and whose certification is current.
Maine	§ 164. Immunity from civil liability	Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any public or private and special law, any person who voluntarily, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation from the person aided or treated, renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a person who is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person nor for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance, unless it is established that such injuries or such death were caused willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such person. This section shall apply to members or employees of nonprofit volunteer or governmental ambulance, rescue or emergency units, whether or not a user or service fee may be charged by the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity and whether or not the members or employees receive salaries or other compensation from the nonprofit unit or the governmental entity. This section shall not be construed to require a person who is ill or injured to be administered first aid or emergency treatment if such person objects thereto on religious grounds. This section shall not apply if such first aid or emergency treatment or assistance is rendered on the premises of a hospital or clinic.
Maryland	§ 5-603. Emergency medical care	(a) In general. — A person described in subsection (b) of this section is not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any assistance or medical care, if: (1) The act or omission is not one of gross negligence; (2) The assistance or medical care is provided without fee or other compensation; and (3) The assistance or medical care is provided: (i) At the scene of an emergency; (ii) In transit to a medical facility; or (iii) Through communications with personnel providing emergency assistance. (b) Applicability. — Subsection (a) of this section applies to the following: (1) An individual who is licensed by this State to provide medical care; (2) A member of any State, county, municipal, or volunteer fire department, ambulance and rescue squad or law enforcement agency or of the National Ski Patrol System, or a corporate fire department responding to a call outside of its corporate premises, if the member: (i) Has completed an American Red Cross course in advanced first aid and has a current card showing that status; (ii) Has completed an equivalent of an American Red Cross course in advanced first aid, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene; or (iii) Is certified or licensed by this State as an emergency medical services provider; (3) A volunteer fire department, ambulance and rescue squad whose members have immunity; and (4) A corporation when its fire department personnel are immune under paragraph (2) of this subsection. (c) Immunity for individual not covered by this section. — An individual who is not covered otherwise by this section is not civilly liable for any act or omission in providing assistance or medical aid to a victim at the scene of an emergency, if: (1) The assistance or aid is provided in a reasonably prudent manner; (2) The assistance or aid is provided without fee or other compensation; and (3) The individual relinquishes care of the victim when someone who is licensed or certified by this State to provide medical care or services becomes available to take responsibility.
Massachusetts	§ 12V. Exemption From Civil Liability for Rendering Emergency Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.	Any person, whose usual and regular duties do not include the provision of emergency medical care, and who, in good faith, attempts to render emergency care including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or defibrillation, and does so without compensation, shall not be liable for acts or omissions, other than gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, resulting from the attempt to render such emergency care.
Michigan	§ 41.711a. Rendition of emergency care; civil liability.	§ 41.711a. Rendition of emergency care; civil liability. Sec. 1 a. Any municipal or private ambulance driver or attendant or policeman or fireman engaged in emergency first aid service, who, in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions in rendering the emergency care, except acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
	§ 691.1501. Physicians, physician’s assistant, or nurses rendering emergency care or determining fitness to engage in competitive sports; liability for acts or omissions; definitions.	Sec. 1. (1) A physician, physician’s assistant, registered professional nurse, or licensed practical nurse who in good faith renders emergency care without compensation at the scene of an emergency, if a physician-patient relationship, physician’s assistant-patient relationship, registered professional nurse-patient relationship, or licensed practical nurse-patient relationship did not exist before the emergency, is not liable for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by the physician, physician’s assistant, registered professional nurse, or licensed practical nurse in rendering the emergency care, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. (2) A physician or physician’s assistant who in good faith performs a physical examination without compensation upon an individual to determine the individual’s fitness to engage in competitive sports and who has obtained a form described in this subsection signed by the individual or, if the individual is a minor, by the parent or guardian of the minor, is not liable for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by the physician or physician’s assistant in performing the physical examination, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct or which are outside the scope of the license held by the physician or physician’s assistant. The form required by this subsection shall contain a statement indicating that the person signing the form knows that the physician or physician’s assistant is not necessarily performing a complete physical examination and is not liable under this section for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by the physician or physician’s assistant in performing the physical examination, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct or which are outside the scope of the license held by the physician or physician’s assistant. (3) A physician, physician’s assistant, registered professional nurse, or licensed practical nurse who in good faith renders emergency care without compensation to an individual requiring emergency care as a result of having engaged in competitive sports is not liable for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by the physician, physician’s assistant, registered professional nurse, or licensed practical nurse in rendering the emergency care, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct and except acts or omissions that are outside the scope of the license held by the physician, physician’s assistant, registered professional nurse, or licensed practical nurse. This subsection applies to the rendering of emergency care to a minor even if the physician, physician’s assistant, registered professional nurse, or licensed practical nurse does not obtain the consent of the parent or guardian of the minor before the emergency care is rendered. (4) As used in this act: (a) “Competitive sports” means sports conducted as part of a program sponsored by a public or private school that provides instruction in grades kindergarten through 12 or a charitable or volunteer organization. Competitive sports do not include sports conducted as part of a program sponsored by a public or private college or university. (b) “Licensed practical nurse” means an individual licensed to engage in the practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838. (c) “Physician” means an individual licensed to engage in the practice of medicine or the practice of osteopathic medicine and surgery under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838. (d) “Physician’s assistant” means an individual licensed to engage in the practice of medicine or the practice of osteopathic medicine and surgery performed under the supervision of a physician as provided in article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838. (e) “Registered professional nurse” means an individual licensed to engage in the practice of nursing under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
	§ 691.1502. Emergency care; exemption of certain persons from civil liability; exception; staffing hospital emergency facilities	Sec. 2. (1) If an individual’s actual hospital duty does not require a response to the emergency situation, a physician, physician’s assistant, dentist, podiatrist, intern, resident, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, registered physical therapist, clinical laboratory technologist, inhalation therapist, certified registered nurse anesthetist, x-ray technician, or paramedic, who in good faith responds to a life threatening emergency or responds to a request for emergency assistance in a life threatening emergency within a hospital or other licensed medical care facility, is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in the rendering of emergency care, except an act or omission amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. (2) The exemption from liability under subsection (1) does not apply to a physician if a physician-patient relationship, to a physician’s assistant if a physician’s assistant-patient relationship, or to a licensed nurse if a nurse-patient relationship existed before the emergency. (3) The exemption from liability under subsection (1) does not apply to a physician’s assistant unless the response by the physician’s assistant is within the scope of the license held by the physician’s assistant or within the expertise or training of the physician’s assistant. (4) This act does not diminish a hospital’s responsibility to reasonably and adequately staff hospital emergency facilities if the hospital maintains or holds out to the general public that it maintains emergency room facilities.
	§ 691.1504. Rendering of cardiopulmonary resuscitation; applicability of subsection (1) to civil actions; use of automated external defibrillator; applicability of subsections (3) and (4).	Sec. 4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual who having no duty to do so in good faith voluntarily renders cardiopulmonary resuscitation to another individual is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from an act or omission in rendering the cardiopulmonary resuscitation, except an act or omission that constitutes gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. (2) Subsection (1) applies only to a civil action that is filed or pending on or after May 1, 1986. (3) Subject to subsection (5), an individual who having no duty to do so in good faith voluntarily renders emergency services to another individual using an automated external defibrillator is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from an act or omission in rendering the emergency services using the automated external defibrillator, except an act or omission that constitutes gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. (4) Subject to subsection (5), the following persons are not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from an act or omission of an individual rendering emergency services using an automated external defibrillator as described in subsection (3), except if the person’s actions constitute gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct: (a) A physician who provides medical authorization for use of an automated external defibrillator. (b) An individual who instructs others in the use of an automated external defibrillator. (c) An individual or entity that owns, occupies, or manages the premises where an automated external defibrillator is located or used. (5) Subsections (3) and (4) apply only to a civil action that is filed or pending on or after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection.
	§ 691.1505. Liability of block parent volunteer; definitions.	Sec. 5. (1) A block parent volunteer who in good faith and while acting as a block parent volunteer renders assistance to a minor during an emergency shall not be liable for civil damages resulting from an act or omission in the rendering of that assistance, except an act or omission amounting to gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct. (2) As used in this section: (a) “Block parent volunteer” means a person who is a member of a nonprofit volunteer organization which has as its primary function assisting minors in getting safely to and from school. (b) “Minor” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
	§ 691.1507. Member of national ski patrol system rendering emergency care; liability for acts or omissions.	Sec. 7. A person who is a registered member of the national ski patrol system and who, in good faith and while on patrol as a member of the national ski patrol system, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall not be liable for civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by the person in rendering the emergency care, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
Minnesota	604A.01 Good Samaritan Law	Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Subd. 2. General immunity from liability. (a) A person who, without compensation or the expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by that person in rendering the emergency care, advice, or assistance, unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance. This subdivision does not apply to a person rendering emergency care, advice, or assistance during the course of regular employment, and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering the care, advice, or assistance. (b) For the purposes of this section, the scene of an emergency is an area outside the confines of a hospital or other institution that has hospital facilities, or an office of a person licensed to practice one or more of the healing arts under chapter 147, 147A, 148, 150A, or 153. The scene of an emergency includes areas threatened by or exposed to spillage, seepage, fire, explosion, or other release of hazardous materials, and includes ski areas and trails. (c) For the purposes of this section, “person” includes a public or private nonprofit volunteer firefighter, volunteer police officer, volunteer ambulance attendant, volunteer first provider of emergency medical services, volunteer ski patroller, and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity. (d) For the purposes of this section, “compensation” does not include payments, reimbursement for expenses, or pension benefits paid to members of volunteer organizations. (e) For purposes of this section, “emergency care” includes providing emergency medical care by using or providing an automatic external defibrillator, unless the person on whom the device is to be used objects; or unless the person is rendering this care during the course of regular employment, the person is receiving or expects to receive compensation for rendering this care, and the usual and regular duties of the person include the provision of emergency medical care. “Automatic external defibrillator” means a medical device heart monitor and defibrillator that: (1) has received approval of its premarket notification, filed pursuant to United States Code, title 21, section 360(k), from the United States Food and Drug Administration; (2) is capable of recognizing the presence or absence of ventricular fibrillation or rapid ventricular tachycardia, and is capable of determining, without intervention by an operator, whether defibrillation should be performed; and (3) upon determining that defibrillation should be performed, automatically charges and requests delivery of an electrical impulse to an individual’s heart.
Mississippi	§ 41-60-33. Requirements and training for use of automated external defibrillator	Any person may use an automated external defibrillator for the purpose of saving the life of another person in sudden cardiac death, subject to the following requirements: (a) A Mississippi licensed physician must exercise medical control authority over the person using the AED to ensure compliance with requirements for training, emergency medical services (EMS) notification and maintenance; (b) The person using the AED must have received appropriate training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and in the use of an AED by the American Heart Association, American Red Cross, National Safety Council or other nationally recognized course in CPR and AED use; (c) The AED must not operate in a manual mode except when access control devices are in place or when appropriately licensed individuals such as registered nurses, physicians or emergency medical technician-paramedics utilize the AED; and (d) Any person who renders emergency care or treatment on a person in sudden cardiac death by using an AED must activate the EMS system as soon as possible, and report any clinical use of the AED to the licensed physician.
	§ 73-25-37. Liability of physician, dentist, nurse, emergency medical technician, etc., for rendering emergency care; immunity from civil liability for good faith use of automated external defibrillator by person untrained in its use	(1) No duly licensed, practicing physician, physician assistant, dentist, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, certified registered emergency medical technician, or any other person who, in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable care, renders emergency care to any injured person at the scene of an emergency, or in transporting the injured person to a point where medical assistance can be reasonably expected, shall be liable for any civil damages to the injured person as a result of any acts committed in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable care or omissions in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable care by such persons in rendering the emergency care to the injured person. (2) (a) Any person who in good faith, with or without compensation, renders emergency care or treatment by the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) in accordance with the provisions of Sections 41-60-31 through 41-60-35, as well as the person responsible for the site where the AED is located if the person has provided for compliance with the provisions of Sections 41-60-31 through 41-60-35, shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of that care or treatment, or as a result of any act, or failure to act, in providing or arranging further medical treatment, where the person acts as an ordinary, reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances and the person’s actions or failure to act does not amount to willful or wanton misconduct or gross negligence. (b) A person who has not complied with the provisions of Sections 41-60-31 through 41-60-35, but who has access to an AED and uses it in good faith in an emergency as an ordinary prudent person would have done in the same or similar circumstances, shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury as a result of an act or omission related to the operation of or failure to operate an AED if the person’s actions or failure to act do not amount to willful or wanton misconduct or gross negligence. (3) The immunity from civil liability for any personal injury under subsection (2) of this section includes the licensed physician who authorizes, directs or supervises the installation or provision of AED equipment in or on any premises or conveyance other than a medical facility, the owner of the premises where an AED is used, the purchaser of the AED, a person who uses an AED during an emergency for the purpose of attempting to save the life of another person who is or who appears to be in cardiac arrest, and the person who provides the CPR and AED training. (4) The immunity from civil liability under subsection (2) of this section does not apply if the personal injury results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person rendering the emergency care.
Missouri	§ 537.037. Emergency care, no civil liability, exceptions (Good Samaritan law)	2. Any other person who has been trained to provide first aid in a standard recognized training program may, without compensation, render emergency care or assistance to the level for which he or she has been trained, at the scene of an emergency or accident, and shall not be liable for civil damages for acts or omissions other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by willful or wanton acts or omissions by such person in rendering such emergency care.
Montana	27-1-714 Limits on liability for emergency care rendered at scene of accident or emergency.	(1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Montana, any volunteer firefighter or officer of any nonprofit volunteer fire company, or any other person who in good faith renders emergency care or assistance without compensation except as provided in subsection (2) at the scene of an emergency or accident is not liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by willful or wanton acts or omissions by such person in rendering such emergency care or assistance. (2) Subsection (1) includes a person properly trained under the laws of this state who operates an ambulance to and from the scene of an emergency or renders emergency medical treatment on a volunteer basis so long as the total reimbursement received for such volunteer services does not exceed 25% of his gross annual income or $ 3,000 a calendar year, whichever is greater. (3) If a nonprofit subscription fire company refuses to fight a fire on nonsubscriber property, such refusal does not constitute gross negligence or a willful or wanton act or omission.
Nebraska	25-21,186. Emergency care at scene of emergency; persons relieved of civil liability, when	No person who renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or other emergency gratuitously, shall be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering the emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for medical treatment or care for the injured person.
Nevada	41.500. General rule; volunteers; members of search and rescue organization; persons rendering cardiopulmonary resuscitation or using defibrillator; presumptions relating to emergency care rendered on public school grounds or in connection with public school activities; business or organization that has defibrillator for use on premises.	1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 41.505, any person in this state who renders emergency care or assistance in an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, not amounting to gross negligence, by him in rendering the emergency care or assistance or as a result of any act or failure to act, not amounting to gross negligence, to provide or arrange for further medical treatment for the injured person. 4. Any person who is a member of a search and rescue organization in this state under the direct supervision of any county sheriff who in good faith renders care or assistance in an emergency to any injured or ill person, whether at the scene of an emergency or while transporting an injured or ill person to or from any clinic, doctor’s office or other medical facility, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, not amounting to gross negligence, by him in rendering the emergency care or assistance, or as a result of any act or failure to act, not amounting to gross negligence, to provide or arrange for further medical treatment for the injured or ill person. 6. Any person who: (a) Has successfully completed a course in cardiopulmonary resuscitation according to the guidelines of the American National Red Cross or American Heart Association; (b) Has successfully completed the training requirements of a course in basic emergency care of a person in cardiac arrest conducted in accordance with the standards of the American Heart Association; or (c) Is directed by the instructions of a dispatcher for an ambulance, air ambulance or other agency that provides emergency medical services before its arrival at the scene of the emergency, and who in good faith renders cardiopulmonary resuscitation in accordance with his training or the direction, other than in the course of his regular employment or profession, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, not amounting to gross negligence, by that person in rendering that care. 7. For the purposes of subsection 6, a person who: (a) Is required to be certified in the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation pursuant to NRS 391.092; and (b) In good faith renders cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the property of a public school or in connection with a transportation of pupils to or from a public school or while on activities that are part of the program of a public school, shall be presumed to have acted other than in the course of his regular employment or profession. 8. Any person who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency medical care involving the use of an automated external defibrillator is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, not amounting to gross negligence, by that person in rendering that care. 9. A business or organization that has placed an automated external defibrillator for use on its premises is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, not amounting to gross negligence, by the person rendering such care or for providing the automated external defibrillator to the person for the purpose of rendering such care if the business or organization: (a) Complies with all current federal and state regulations governing the use and placement of an automated external defibrillator; (b) Ensures that the automated external defibrillator is maintained and tested according to the operational guidelines established by the manufacturer; and (c) Establishes requirements for the notification of emergency medical assistance and guidelines for the maintenance of the equipment. 10. As used in this section, “gratuitously” means that the person receiving care or assistance is not required or expected to pay any compensation or other remuneration for receiving the care or assistance.
New Hampshire	508:12 Aid at Scene of Emergency or to Victim of Crime.	I. If any person in good faith renders emergency care at the place of the happening of an emergency or to a victim of a crime or delinquent act or while in transit in an ambulance or rescue vehicle, to a person who is in urgent need of care as a result of the emergency or crime or a delinquent act, and if the acts of care are made in good faith and without willful or wanton negligence, the person who renders the care is not liable in civil damages for his acts or omissions in rendering the care, as long as he receives no direct compensation for the care from or on behalf of the person cared for. Any person rendering emergency care shall have the duty to place the injured person under the care of a physician, nurse, or other person qualified to care for such person as soon as possible and to obey the instructions of such qualified person. II. Nothing in this section shall be used to construe that the perpetrator of a crime or a delinquent act or his accomplice shall be rendered innocent of liability. III. A law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty who in good faith and without negligence renders emergency care or transport pursuant to paragraph I is exempt from civil liability under the provisions of paragraph I.
New Jersey	§ 2A:62A-1. Civil immunity for emergency care	Any individual, including a person licensed to practice any method of treatment of human ailments, disease, pain, injury, deformity, mental or physical condition, or licensed to render services ancillary thereto, or any person who is a volunteer member of a duly incorporated first aid and emergency or volunteer ambulance or rescue squad association, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim or victims thereof, or while transporting the victim or victims thereof to a hospital or other facility where treatment or care is to be rendered, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care.
New Mexico	§ 24-10-3. Persons coming to aid or rescue of another rendering emergency care; release from liability	No person who comes to the aid or rescue of another person by providing care or assistance in good faith at or near the scene of an emergency, as defined in Section 24-10-4 NMSA 1978, shall be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any action or omission by that person in providing that care or assistance, except when liable for an act of gross negligence; but nothing in this section applies to the provision of emergency care or assistance when it is rendered for remuneration or with the expectation of remuneration or is rendered by a person or agent of a principal who was at the scene of the accident or emergency because he or his principal was soliciting business or performing or seeking to perform some services for remuneration.
New York	§ 6547. Emergency services rendered by physician assistant	Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general, special or local law, any physician assistant properly registered in this state who voluntarily and without the expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency, outside a hospital, doctor’s office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid or emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such physician assistant. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to relieve a licensed physician assistant from liability for damages for injuries or death caused by an act or omission on the part of a physician assistant while rendering professional services in the normal and ordinary course of his practice.
	NY CLS Educ § 6909 (2009) § 6909. Special provision	1. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general, special, or local law, any licensed registered professional nurse or licensed practical nurse who voluntarily and without the expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency, outside a hospital, doctor’s office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid or emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such registered professional nurse or licensed practical nurse. Nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed or construed to relieve a licensed registered professional nurse or licensed practical nurse from liability for damages for injuries or death caused by an act or omission on the part of such nurse while rendering professional services in the normal and ordinary course of her practice. 2. Nothing in this article shall be construed to confer the authority to practice medicine or dentistry. 3. An applicant for a license as a registered professional nurse or licensed practical nurse by endorsement of a license of another state, province or country whose application was filed with the department under the laws in effect prior to August thirty-first, nineteen hundred seventy-one shall be licensed only upon successful completion of the appropriate licensing examination unless satisfactory evidence of the completion of all educational requirements is submitted to the department prior to September one, nineteen hundred seventy-seven. 4. A certified nurse practitioner may prescribe and order a non-patient specific regimen to a registered professional nurse, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the commissioner, consistent with subdivision three of section six thousand nine hundred two of this article, and consistent with the public health law, for: (a) administering immunizations. (b) the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. (c) administering purified protein derivative (PPD) tests. (d) administering tests to determine the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus. 5. A registered professional nurse may execute a non-patient specific regimen prescribed or ordered by a licensed physician or certified nurse practitioner, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the commissioner. 6. A registered professional nurse defined under subdivision one of section sixty-nine hundred two of this article may use accepted classifications of signs, symptoms, dysfunctions and disorders, including, but not limited to, classifications used in the practice setting for the purpose of providing mental health services. 7. [Expires and repealed March 31, 2012] A certified nurse practitioner may prescribe and order a non-patient specific regimen to a licensed pharmacist, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the commissioner, and consistent with the public health law, for administering immunizations. Nothing in this subdivision shall authorize unlicensed persons to administer immunizations, vaccines or other drugs.
	NY CLS Gen Bus § 627-a (2009) § 627-a. Automated external defibrillator requirements	1. Every health club as defined under paragraph b of subdivision one of section three thousand-d of the public health law whose membership is five hundred persons or more shall have on the premises at least one automated external defibrillator and shall have in attendance, at all times during business hours, at least one individual performing employment or individual acting as an authorized volunteer who holds a valid certification of completion of a course in the study of the operation of AEDs and a valid certification of the completion of a course in the training of cardiopulmonary resuscitation provided by a nationally recognized organization or association. 2. Health clubs and staff pursuant to subdivision one of this section shall be deemed a “public access defibrillation provider” as defined in paragraph (c) of subdivision one of section three thousand-b of the public health law and shall be subject to the requirements and limitation of such section. 3. Pursuant to sections three thousand-a and three thousand-b of the public health law, any public access defibrillation provider, or any employee or other agent of the provider who, in accordance with the provisions of this section, voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders emergency medical or first aid treatment using an AED which has been made available pursuant to this section, to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured, shall be liable only pursuant to section three thousand-a of the public health law.
	NY CLS Pub Health § 3000-a (2009) § 3000-a. Emergency medical treatment	1. Except as provided in subdivision six of section six thousand six hundred eleven, subdivision two of section six thousand five hundred twenty-seven, subdivision one of section six thousand nine hundred nine and sections six thousand five hundred forty-seven and six thousand seven hundred thirty-seven of the education law, any person who voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency outside a hospital, doctor’s office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill, or injured, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such person. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to relieve a licensed physician, dentist, nurse, physical therapist or registered physician’s assistant from liability for damages for injuries or death caused by an act or omission on the part of such person while rendering professional services in the normal and ordinary course of his or her practice. 2. (i) A person who, or entity, partnership, corporation, firm or society that, purchases or makes available resuscitation equipment that facilitates first aid, [fig 1] an automated external defibrillator or an epinephrine auto-injector device [fig 2] as required by or pursuant to law or local law, or (ii) [fig 3] an emergency health care provider [fig 4] under a collaborative agreement [fig 5] pursuant to section three thousand-b of this article with respect to an automated external defibrillator, [fig 6] or (iii) the emergency health care provider with a collaborative agreement under section three thousand-c of this article with respect to use of an epinephrine auto-injector device, [fig 7] shall not be liable for damages arising either from the use of that equipment by a person who voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or medical emergency, or from the use of defectively manufactured equipment; provided that this subdivision shall not limit the person’s or entity’s, partnership’s, corporation’s, firm’s society’s or the emergency health care provider’s liability for his, her or its own negligence, gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
	NY CLS Unconsol Ch 211-A, § 1 (2009) § 1. [Immunity from liability]	Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general, special or local law, any person who is registered as a member of the ski patrol with the National Ski Patrol System and who voluntarily and without the expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid, initial emergency medical aid procedures, or emergency treatment at a ski area to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such first aid, initial emergency medical aid procedures or emergency treatment, unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such person.
North Carolina	§ 20-166. Duty to stop in event of accident or collision; furnishing information or assistance to injured person, etc.; persons assisting exempt from civil liability	(d) Any person who renders first aid or emergency assistance at the scene of a motor vehicle accident on any street or highway to any person injured as a result of the accident, shall not be liable in civil damages for any acts or omissions relating to the services rendered, unless the acts or omissions amount to wanton conduct or intentional wrongdoing.
	§ 90-21.14. First aid or emergency treatment; liability limitation	(a) Any person, including a volunteer medical or health care provider at a facility of a local health department as defined in G.S. 130A-2 or at a nonprofit community health center or a volunteer member of a rescue squad, who receives no compensation for his services as an emergency medical care provider, who renders first aid or emergency health care treatment to a person who is unconscious, ill or injured, (1) When the reasonably apparent circumstances require prompt decisions and actions in medical or other health care, and (2) When the necessity of immediate health care treatment is so reasonably apparent that any delay in the rendering of the treatment would seriously worsen the physical condition or endanger the life of the person, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the person or for damages for the death of the person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of the treatment unless it is established that the injuries were or the death was caused by gross negligence, wanton conduct or intentional wrongdoing on the part of the person rendering the treatment. (b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to relieve any person from liability for damages for injury or death caused by an act or omission on the part of such person while rendering health care services in the normal and ordinary course of his business or profession. Services provided by a volunteer health care provider who receives no compensation for his services and who renders first aid or emergency treatment to members of athletic teams are deemed not to be in the normal and ordinary course of the volunteer health care provider’s business or profession.
North Dakota	32-03.1-02. Actions barred.	No person, or the person’s employer, subject to the exceptions in sections 32-03.1-03, 32-03.1-04, and 32-03.1-08, who renders aid or assistance necessary or helpful in the circumstances to other persons who have been injured or are ill as the result of an accident or illness, or any mechanical, external or organic trauma, may be named as a defendant or held liable in any personal injury civil action by any party in this state for acts or omissions arising out of a situation in which emergency aid or assistance is rendered, unless it is plainly alleged in the complaint and later proven that such person’s acts or omissions constituted intentional misconduct or gross negligence.
	32-03.1-07. Costs and fees.	Notwithstanding any other provision in the laws of this state, or any court rules, if a party names a defendant in a suit alleging intentional misconduct or gross negligence, as described in section 32-03.1-01, and the trial judge dismisses the complaint or grants a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, or directs a verdict for a defendant, or grants a defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or at any point in the proceedings grants a plaintiff’s motion to discontinue the action against the defendant, the defendant shall be entitled to full costs and reasonable attorneys fees expended in connection with the defendant’s defense of the action. If good reason is shown, the trial judge may suspend the operation of this section.
Ohio	§ 2305.23. Liability for emergency care	No person shall be liable in civil damages for administering emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper medical equipment, for acts performed at the scene of such emergency, unless such acts constitute willful or wanton misconduct. Nothing in this section applies to the administering of such care or treatment where the same is rendered for remuneration, or with the expectation of remuneration, from the recipient of such care or treatment or someone on his behalf. The administering of such care or treatment by one as a part of his duties as a paid member of any organization of law enforcement officers or fire fighters does not cause such to be a rendering for remuneration or expectation of remuneration.
Oklahoma	§ 5. Responsibility for negligence–“Good Samaritan Act”	(a) Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself, and except as hereinafter provided. (1) Where no prior contractual relationship exists, any person licensed to practice any method of treatment of human ailments, disease, pain, injury, deformity, mental or physical condition, or licensed to render services ancillary thereto, including licensed registered and practical nurses, who, under emergency circumstances that suggest the giving of aid is the only alternative to probable death or serious bodily injury, in good faith, voluntarily and without compensation, renders or attempts to render emergency care to an injured person or any person who is in need of immediate medical aid, wherever required, shall not be liable for damages as a result of any acts or omissions except for committing gross negligence or willful or wanton wrongs in rendering the emergency care. (2) Where no prior contractual relationship exists, any person who in good faith renders or attempts to render emergency care consisting of artificial respiration, restoration of breathing, or preventing or retarding the loss of blood, or aiding or restoring heart action or circulation of blood to the victim or victims of an accident or emergency, wherever required, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care. (3) Where no prior contractual relationship exists, any person licensed to perform surgery or dentistry in this state who in good faith renders emergency care requiring the performance of an operation or other form of surgery upon any individual who was the victim of an accidental act shall not be liable for any civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution as the result of nonconsent whereby such person renders or attempts to render the emergency surgery or operation voluntarily and without compensation, wherever required, except for gross negligence or willful or wanton wrongs committed in rendering the care; provided, however, that the exemption granted by this subsection shall not attach if the victim is an adult who is conscious and capable of giving or refusing his consent; or if the victim’s spouse, or parent, or guardian in the case of a minor or incompetent person, can be reached in a reasonable time considering the condition of the victim and consistent with good medical practice, and unless concurrence is obtained for such emergency surgery or operation from one other person licensed to perform surgery in this state. (4) Where no contractual relationship exists, any person, or any member of his immediate family or household, who has been approved by the local P.T.A. or other local sponsoring agency or organization, who has registered with the local municipal police chief or the county sheriff, and who has been granted appropriate authorization by either the police chief or the county sheriff to indicate by sign in the window of his home or in any other tangible or identifiable manner that he will extend aid and refuge to persons on the streets in apparent danger, or in need of aid, by inviting those persons into the person’s home, or onto premises thereof, and in good faith provides such refuge or aid without objection of the endangered or needy person, whether child or adult, neither the person extending the aid and refuge nor the homeowner or head of household shall be liable for civil damages as a result of actions or omissions in rendering emergency physical care to the body of the aided person; nor shall they be liable for civil damages for any other injury in the home, or on premises thereof, to the person aided, nor for any failure to provide or arrange for his police protection or other protection or medical treatment, when the actions or omissions were those of an ordinarily reasonably prudent person under the circumstances without want of ordinary care or skill. (b) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Good Samaritan Act.”
Oregon	30.800. Liability for emergency medical assistance.	(1) As used in this section, “emergency medical assistance” means: (a) Medical or dental care not provided in a place where emergency medical or dental care is regularly available, including but not limited to a hospital, industrial first-aid station or a physician’s or dentist’s office, given voluntarily and without the expectation of compensation to an injured person who is in need of immediate medical or dental care and under emergency circumstances that suggest that the giving of assistance is the only alternative to death or serious physical after effects; or (b) Medical care provided voluntarily in good faith and without expectation of compensation by a physician licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon in the physician’s professional capacity as a team physician at a public or private school or college athletic event or as a volunteer physician at other athletic events. (2) No person may maintain an action for damages for injury, death or loss that results from acts or omissions of a person while rendering emergency medical assistance unless it is alleged and proved by the complaining party that the person was grossly negligent in rendering the emergency medical assistance. (3) The giving of emergency medical assistance by a person does not, of itself, establish the relationship of physician and patient, dentist and patient or nurse and patient between the person giving the assistance and the person receiving the assistance insofar as the relationship carries with it any duty to provide or arrange for further medical care for the injured person after the giving of emergency medical assistance.
Pennsylvania	§ 8331. Medical good Samaritan civil immunity	(a) GENERAL RULE.– Any physician or any other practitioner of the healing arts or any registered nurse, licensed by any state, who happens by chance upon the scene of an emergency or who arrives on the scene of an emergency by reason of serving on an emergency call panel or similar committee of a county medical society or who is called to the scene of an emergency by the police or other duly constituted officers of a government unit or who is present when an emergency occurs and who, in good faith, renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such physician or practitioner or registered nurse in rendering the emergency care, except any acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm or any grossly negligent acts or omissions which result in harm to the person receiving emergency care. (b) DEFINITION.– As used in this section “good faith” shall include, but is not limited to, a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the rendering of care should not be postponed until the patient is hospitalized.
	§ 8332. Nonmedical good Samaritan civil immunity	(a) GENERAL RULE.– Any person who renders emergency care, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency, or moves the person receiving such care, first aid and rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care, shall not be liable to such person for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions in rendering the emergency care, first aid or rescue, or moving the person receiving the same to a hospital or other place of medical care, except any acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm or any grossly negligent acts or omissions which result in harm to the person receiving the emergency care, first aid or rescue or being moved to a hospital or other place of medical care. (b) (b) EXCEPTIONS.— (c) (1) This section shall not relieve a driver of an ambulance or other emergency or rescue vehicle from liability arising from operation or use of such vehicle. (2) In order for any person to receive the benefit of the exemption from civil liability provided for in subsection (a), he shall be, at the time of rendering the emergency care, first aid or rescue or moving the person receiving emergency care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care, the holder of a current certificate evidencing the successful completion of a course in first aid, advanced life saving or basic life support sponsored by the American National Red Cross or the American Heart Association or an equivalent course of instruction approved by the Department of Health in consultation with a technical committee of the Pennsylvania Emergency Health Services Council and must be performing techniques and employing procedures consistent with the nature and level of the training for which the certificate has been issued.
Rhode Island	§ 9-1-27.1. Good Samaritan — Immunity from liability	No person who voluntarily and gratuitously renders emergency assistance to a person in need thereof including the administration of life saving treatment to those persons suffering from anaphylactic shock shall be liable for civil damages which result from acts or omissions by such persons rendering the emergency care, which may constitute ordinary negligence. This immunity does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct.
South Carolina	§ 15-1-310. Liability for emergency care rendered at scene of accident.	Any person, who in good faith gratuitously renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim thereof, shall not be liable for any civil damages for any personal injury as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering the emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person, except acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct.
South Dakota	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-3 (2009) § 20-9-3.	No physician, surgeon, osteopath, physician assistant, registered nurse or licensed practical nurse, licensed under the provisions of chapters 36-4, 36-4A and 36-9, who in good faith renders, in this state, emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person rendering the emergency care.
	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-4 (2009) § 20-9-4.	No physician, surgeon, osteopath, registered nurse or licensed practical nurse duly licensed to practice his profession in another state of the United States, who renders in this state emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall be liable as specified in § 20-9-3, nor shall he be deemed to be practicing medicine or nursing within this state as contemplated by chapters 36-2, 36-4 and 36-9.
	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-4.3 (2009) § 20-9-4.3. “AED” and “person” defined	Terms used in §§ 20-9-4.3 to 20-9-4.8, inclusive, mean: (1) “AED,” an automated external defibrillator; (2) “Person,” a natural person, organization, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, association, government entity, or any other legal or commercial entity.
	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-4.4 (2009) § 20-9-4.4. Liability of person using or not using AED	Any person, who in good faith obtains, uses, attempts to use, or chooses not to use an AED in providing emergency care or treatment, is immune from civil liability for any injury as a result of such emergency care or treatment or as a result of an act or failure to act in providing or arranging such medical treatment
	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-4.6 (2009) § 20-9-4.6.	Any person who provides AED training is immune from civil liability for any personal injury that occurs as a result of emergency care or treatment rendered using the AED or as a result of an act or failure to act in providing or arranging such medical treatment.
	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-4.8 (2009) § 20-9-4.8.	The immunity from civil liability under §§ 20-9-4.3 to 20-9-4.8, inclusive, does not apply if the personal injury results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person rendering such emergency care
	§ 20-9-4.9. Applicability of AED provisions — Immunity from liability for use of over-the-counter AED in providing emergency care	The provisions of this chapter do not apply to an over-the-counter AED purchased without a written prescription. However, any person, who in good faith obtains an over-the-counter AED for use in providing emergency care or treatment or utilizes an over-the-counter AED, is immune from civil liability for any injury as a result of such emergency care or treatment or as a result of an act or failure to act in providing or arranging such emergency care or treatment. The immunity from civil liability pursuant to this section does not apply if the personal injury results from the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person rendering such emergency care.
	S.D. Codified Laws § 36-4A-26.3 (2009) § 36-4A-26.3. Liability and immunity	No physician assistant licensed in this state or licensed or authorized to practice in other states of the United States who voluntarily and gratuitously, and other than in the ordinary course of employment or practice, renders emergency medical assistance is liable for civil damages for any personal injuries which result from acts or omissions by those persons in rendering emergency care which constitute ordinary negligence. The immunity granted by this section does not apply to acts or omissions constituting willful, or wanton negligence or if the medical assistance is rendered at any hospital, physician’s office, or other health care delivery entity where those services are normally rendered. No physician who supervises a physician assistant voluntarily and gratuitously providing emergency care as described in this section is liable for civil damages for any personal injuries which result from acts or omissions by the physician assistant rendering emergency care.
Tennessee	63-6-218.”Good Samaritan Law.”	(a) This section shall be known and cited as the “Good Samaritan Law.” (b) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine and surgery and including any person licensed or certified to render service ancillary thereto, or any member of a volunteer first aid, rescue or emergency squad that provides emergency public first aid and rescue services, who in good faith: (1) Renders emergency care at the scene of an accident, medical emergency and/or disaster, while en route from such scene to a medical facility and while assisting medical personnel at the receiving medical facility, including use of an automated external defibrillator, to the victim or victims thereof without making any direct charge for the emergency care; or (2) Participates or assists in rendering emergency care, including use of an automated external defibrillator, to persons attending or participating in performances, exhibitions, banquets, sporting events, religious or other gatherings open to the general public, with or without an admission charge, whether or not such emergency care is made available as a service, planned in advance by the promoter of the event and/or any other person or association, shall not be liable to such victims or persons receiving emergency care for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering the emergency care, or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person, except such damages as may result from the gross negligence of the person rendering such emergency care. (c) A receiving medical facility shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission on the part of any member of a volunteer first aid, rescue or emergency squad that provides emergency public first aid and rescue services while such person is assisting medical personnel at the receiving medical facility. (d) If: (1) A volunteer fire squad is organized by a private company for the protection of the plant and grounds of such company; (2) Such squad is willing to respond and does respond to calls to provide fire protection for residents living within a six (6) mile radius of the county surrounding such plant; and (3) The plant is located in a county that does not otherwise provide fire protection to such residents; then the members of such volunteer fire squad, while providing fire protection within such area outside the plant, shall be liable to suit under the provisions of the Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in title 29, chapter 20, part 2.
Texas	§ 74.152. Unlicensed Medical Personnel	Persons not licensed or certified in the healing arts who in good faith administer emergency care as emergency medical service personnel are not liable in civil damages for an act performed in administering the care unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. This section applies without regard to whether the care is provided for or in expectation of remuneration.
Utah	§ 26-8a-601. Persons and activities exempt from civil liability	(1) A licensed physician, physician’s assistant, or licensed registered nurse who, gratuitously and in good faith, gives oral or written instructions to an individual certified under Section 26-8a-302 or a person permitted to use a fully automated external defibrillator because of Section 26-8a-308 is not liable for any civil damages as a result of issuing the instructions, unless the instructions given were the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (2) An individual certified under Section 26-8a-302, during either training or after certification, a licensed physician, physician’s assistant, or a registered nurse who, gratuitously and in good faith, provides emergency medical instructions or renders emergency medical care authorized by this chapter is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission in providing the emergency medical instructions or medical care, unless the act or omission is the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (3) An individual certified under Section 26-8a-302 is not subject to civil liability for failure to obtain consent in rendering emergency medical services authorized by this chapter to any individual who is unable to give his consent, regardless of the individual’s age, where there is no other person present legally authorized to consent to emergency medical care, provided that the certified individual acted in good faith. (4) A principal, agent, contractor, employee, or representative of an agency, organization, institution, corporation, or entity of state or local government that sponsors, authorizes, supports, finances, or supervises any functions of an individual certified under Section 26-8a-302 is not liable for any civil damages for any act or omission in connection with such sponsorship, authorization, support, finance, or supervision of the certified individual where the act or omission occurs in connection with the certified individual’s training or occurs outside a hospital where the life of a patient is in immediate danger, unless the act or omission is inconsistent with the training of the certified individual, and unless the act or omission is the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (5) A physician who gratuitously and in good faith arranges for, requests, recommends, or initiates the transfer of a patient from a hospital to a critical care unit in another hospital is not liable for any civil damages as a result of such transfer where: (a) sound medical judgment indicates that the patient’s medical condition is beyond the care capability of the transferring hospital or the medical community in which that hospital is located; and (b) the physician has secured an agreement from the receiving facility to accept and render necessary treatment to the patient. (6) A person who is a registered member of the National Ski Patrol System (NSPS) or a member of a ski patrol who has completed a course in winter emergency care offered by the NSPS combined with CPR for medical technicians offered by the American Red Cross or American Heart Association, or an equivalent course of instruction, and who in good faith renders emergency care in the course of ski patrol duties is not liable for civil damages as a result of any act or omission in rendering the emergency care, unless the act or omission is the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (7) An emergency medical service provider who, in good faith, transports an individual against his will but at the direction of a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 62A-15-629 is not liable for civil damages for transporting the individual. (8) A person who is permitted to use a fully automated external defibrillator because of Section 26-8a-308 is not liable for civil damages as a result of any act or omission related to the use of the defibrillator in providing emergency medical care gratuitously and in good faith to a person who reasonably appears to be in cardiac arrest, unless the act or omission is the result of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
	§ 78-11-22. Good Samaritan Act	(1) A person who renders emergency care at or near the scene of, or during an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency care, unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency. As used in this section, “emergency” means an unexpected occurrence involving injury, threat of injury, or illness to a person or the public, including motor vehicle accidents, disasters, actual or threatened discharges, removal, or disposal of hazardous materials, and other accidents or events of a similar nature. “Emergency care” includes actual assistance or advice offered to avoid, mitigate, or attempt to mitigate the effects of an emergency. (2) A person who gratuitously, and in good faith, assists governmental agencies or political subdivisions in the activities described in Subsections (2)(a) through (c) is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission unless the person rendering assistance is grossly negligent in: (a) implementing measures to control the causes of epidemic and communicable diseases and other conditions significantly affecting the public health, or necessary to protect the public health as set out in Title 26A, Chapter 1, Local Health Departments; (b) investigating and controlling suspected bioterrorism and disease as set out in Title 26, Chapter 23b, Detection of Public Health Emergencies Act; and (c) responding to a national, state, or local emergency, a public health emergency as defined in Section 26-23b-102, or a declaration by the President of the United States or other federal official requesting public health-related activities. (3) The immunity in Subsection (2) is in addition to any immunity or protection in state or federal law that may apply.
Vermont
Virginia	§ 8.01-225. Persons rendering emergency care, obstetrical services exempt from liability	A. Any person who: 1. In good faith, renders emergency care or assistance, without compensation, to any ill or injured person at the scene of an accident, fire, or any life-threatening emergency, or en route therefrom to any hospital, medical clinic or doctor’s office, shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such care or assistance. 2. In the absence of gross negligence, renders emergency obstetrical care or assistance to a female in active labor who has not previously been cared for in connection with the pregnancy by such person or by another professionally associated with such person and whose medical records are not reasonably available to such person shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such emergency care or assistance. The immunity herein granted shall apply only to the emergency medical care provided. 3. In good faith and without compensation, including any emergency medical services technician certified by the Board of Health, administers epinephrine in an emergency to an individual shall not be liable for any civil damages for ordinary negligence in acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such treatment if such person has reason to believe that the individual receiving the injection is suffering or is about to suffer a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction. 6. In good faith and without compensation, renders or administers emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation, cardiac defibrillation, including, but not limited to, the use of an automated external defibrillator, or other emergency life-sustaining or resuscitative treatments or procedures which have been approved by the State Board of Health to any sick or injured person, whether at the scene of a fire, an accident or any other place, or while transporting such person to or from any hospital, clinic, doctor’s office or other medical facility, shall be deemed qualified to administer such emergency treatments and procedures and shall not be liable for acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such emergency resuscitative treatments or procedures. 7. Operates an automated external defibrillator at the scene of an emergency, trains individuals to be operators of automated external defibrillators, or orders automated external defibrillators, shall be immune from civil liability for any personal injury that results from any act or omission in the use of an automated external defibrillator in an emergency where the person performing the defibrillation acts as an ordinary, reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances, unless such personal injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the person rendering such emergency care. 8. Is a volunteer in good standing and certified to render emergency care by the National Ski Patrol System, Inc., who, in good faith and without compensation, renders emergency care or assistance to any injured or ill person, whether at the scene of a ski resort rescue, outdoor emergency rescue or any other place or while transporting such injured or ill person to a place accessible for transfer to any available emergency medical system unit, or any resort owner voluntarily providing a ski patroller employed by him to engage in rescue or recovery work at a resort not owned or operated by him, shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such emergency care, treatment or assistance, including but not limited to acts or omissions which involve violations of any state regulation or any standard of the National Ski Patrol System, Inc., in the rendering of such emergency care or assistance, unless such act or omission was the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct. 9. Is an employee of a school board, authorized by a prescriber and trained in the administration of insulin and glucagon, who, upon the written request of the parents as defined in § 22.1-1, assists with the administration of insulin or administers glucagon to a student diagnosed as having diabetes who requires insulin injections during the school day or for whom glucagon has been prescribed for the emergency treatment of hypoglycemia shall not be liable for any civil damages for ordinary negligence in acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such treatment if the insulin is administered according to the child’s medication schedule or such employee has reason to believe that the individual receiving the glucagon is suffering or is about to suffer life-threatening hypoglycemia. Whenever any employee of a school board is covered by the immunity granted herein, the school board employing him shall not be liable for any civil damages for ordinary negligence in acts or omissions resulting from the rendering of such insulin or glucagon treatment. B. Any licensed physician serving without compensation as the operational medical director for a licensed emergency medical services agency in this Commonwealth shall not be liable for any civil damages for any act or omission resulting from the rendering of emergency medical services in good faith by the personnel of such licensed agency unless such act or omission was the result of such physician’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Washington	§ 4.24.300. Immunity from liability for certain types of medical care	(1) Any person, including but not limited to a volunteer provider of emergency or medical services, who without compensation or the expectation of compensation renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency or who participates in transporting, not for compensation, therefrom an injured person or persons for emergency medical treatment shall not be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such emergency care or in transporting such persons, other than acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. Any person rendering emergency care during the course of regular employment and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering such care is excluded from the protection of this subsection. (2) Any licensed health care provider regulated by a disciplining authority under RCW 18.130.040 in the state of Washington who, without compensation or the expectation of compensation, provides health care services at a community health care setting is not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such care, other than acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
	§ 4.24.310. Persons rendering emergency care or transportation — Definitions	For the purposes of RCW 4.24.300 the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1) “Compensation” has its ordinary meaning but does not include: Nominal payments, reimbursement for expenses, or pension benefits; payments made to volunteer part-time and volunteer on-call personnel of fire departments, fire districts, ambulance districts, police departments, or any emergency response organizations; or any payment to a person employed as a transit operator who is paid for his or her regular work, which work does not routinely include providing emergency care or emergency transportation. (2) “Emergency care” means care, first aid, treatment, or assistance rendered to the injured person in need of immediate medical attention and includes providing or arranging for further medical treatment or care for the injured person. Except with respect to the injured person or persons being transported for further medical treatment or care, the immunity granted by RCW 4.24.300 does not apply to the negligent operation of any motor vehicle. (3) “Scene of an emergency” means the scene of an accident or other sudden or unexpected event or combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action.
West Virginia	§ 55-7-15. Aid to victim of accident and victim of crime; immunity from civil liability.	No person, including a person licensed to practice medicine or dentistry, who in good faith renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or to a victim at the scene of a crime, without remuneration, shall be liable for any civil damages as the result of any act or omission in rendering such emergency care.
Wisconsin	448.03. License or certificate required to practice; use of titles; civil immunity; practice of Christian Science.	(1) LICENSE REQUIRED TO PRACTICE. (a) No person may practice medicine and surgery, or attempt to do so or make a representation as authorized to do so, without a license to practice medicine and surgery granted by the board. (2) EXCEPTIONS. Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed either to prohibit, or to require, a license or certificate under this subchapter for any of the following: (i) Any person furnishing medical assistance or first aid at the scene of an emergency.
	895.48. Civil liability exemption; emergency medical care.	(1) Any person who renders emergency care at the scene of any emergency or accident in good faith shall be immune from civil liability for his or her acts or omissions in rendering such emergency care. This immunity does not extend when employees trained in health care or health care professionals render emergency care for compensation and within the scope of their usual and customary employment or practice at a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities, at the scene of any emergency or accident, enroute to a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities or at a physicians office. (1m) (a) Except as provided in par. (b), any physician or athletic trainer licensed under ch. 448, chiropractor licensed under ch. 446, dentist licensed under ch. 447, emergency medical technician licensed under s. 146.50, first responder certified under s. 146.50 (8), physician assistant licensed under ch. 448, registered nurse licensed under ch. 441, or a massage therapist or bodyworker issued a certificate under ch. 460 who renders voluntary health care to a participant in an athletic event or contest sponsored by a nonprofit corporation, as defined in s. 66.0129 (6) (b), a private school, as defined in s. 115.001 (3r), a public agency, as defined in s. 46.856 (1) (b), or a school, as defined in s. 609.655 (1) (c), is immune from civil liability for his or her acts or omissions in rendering that care if all of the following conditions exist: 1. The health care is rendered at the site of the event or contest, during transportation to a health care facility from the event or contest, or in a locker room or similar facility immediately before, during or immediately after the event or contest. 2. The physician, athletic trainer, chiropractor, dentist, emergency medical technician, first responder, physician assistant, registered nurse, massage therapist or bodyworker does not receive compensation for the health care, other than reimbursement for expenses. (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to health care services provided by a volunteer health care provider under s. 146.89 (4) (ag) In this subsection: 1. “Cardiac arrest” means the sudden cessation of cardiac function and the disappearance of arterial blood pressure that connote ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. 2. “Pulseless ventricular tachycardia” means a disturbance in the normal rhythm of the heart that is characterized by rapid electrical activity of the heart with no cardiac output. (am) Any of the following, other than an emergency medical technician or a first responder — defibrillation, is immune from civil liability for the acts or omissions of a person in rendering in good faith emergency care by use of an automated external defibrillator to an individual who appears to be in cardiac arrest: 1. The person who renders the care. 2. The owner of the automated external defibrillator. 3. The person who provides the automated external defibrillator for use, if the person ensures that the automated external defibrillator is maintained and tested in accordance with any operational guidelines of the manufacturer. 4. Any person who provides training in the use of an automated external defibrillator to the person who renders care. (b) The immunity specified in par. (am) does not extend to any of the following: 1. A person whose act or omission resulting from the use or the provision for use of the automated external defibrillator constitutes gross negligence. 2. A health care professional who renders emergency care for compensation and within the scope of his or her usual and customary employment or practice at a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities, at the scene of an emergency or accident, enroute to a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities or at a physicians office.
Wyoming	§ 1-1-120. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from civil liability.	(a) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Wyoming, or any other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, is not liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions in good faith. (b) Persons or organizations operating volunteer ambulances or rescue vehicles supported by public or private funds, staffed by unpaid volunteers, and which make no charge, or charge an incidental service or user fee, for services rendered during medical emergencies, and the unpaid volunteers who staff ambulances and rescue vehicles are not liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions in good faith in furnishing emergency medical services. This immunity does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. For purposes of this section, “unpaid volunteers” means persons who either receive incidental remuneration on a per call basis or receive no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) annually for volunteer ambulance and rescue activities. The immunity provided by this subsection shall extend to a physician while serving in his capacity as medical director of any ambulance service, to hospitals and hospital employees for activities directly related to providing clinical training as part of an emergency medical service class approved by the department of health, and to students while participating in emergency medical services training approved by the department of health. If an unpaid volunteer’s, medical director’s, hospital’s or trainee’s acts or omissions are subject to the provisions of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, immunity under this section is waived to the extent of the maximum liability provided under W.S. 1-39-118. (c) Any person who provides assistance or advice without compensation other than reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses in mitigating or attempting to mitigate the effects of an actual or threatened discharge of hazardous materials, or in preventing, cleaning up or disposing of or in attempting to prevent, clean up or dispose of any discharge of hazardous materials, is not liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions in good faith in providing the assistance or advice. This immunity does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. As used in this subsection: (i) “Discharge” includes leakage, seepage or other release; (ii) “Hazardous materials” includes all materials and substances which are now or hereafter designated or defined as hazardous by any state or federal law or by the regulations of any state or federal government agency.
Washington, D.C.	§ 7-401. Limitation on liability for medical care or assistance in emergency situations [Formerly § 2-1344]	(a) Any person who in good faith renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency in the District of Columbia outside of a hospital, without the expectation of receiving or intending to seek compensation from such injured person for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of rendering such care or assistance. (b) In the case of a person who renders emergency medical care or assistance in circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section and who is not licensed or certified by the District of Columbia or by any state to provide medical care or assistance, the limited immunity provided in subsection (a) of this section shall apply to such persons; provided, that the person shall relinquish the direction of the care of the injured person when an appropriate person licensed or certified by the District of Columbia or by any state to provide medical care or assistance assumes responsibility for the care of the injured person. (c) A certified emergency medical technician/paramedic or emergency medical technician/intermediate paramedic who, in good faith and pursuant to instructions either directly or via telecommunication from a licensed physician, renders advanced emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency or in transit from the scene of an accident or emergency to a hospital shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission not constituting gross negligence in the course of rendering such advanced emergency medical care or assistance. (d) A licensed physician who in good faith gives emergency medical instructions either directly or via telecommunication to a certified emergency medical technician/paramedic or emergency medical technician/intermediate paramedic for the purpose of providing advanced emergency medical care to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency or in transit from the scene of an accident or emergency to a hospital shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission not constituting gross negligence in the course of giving such emergency medical instructions. (d-1) If the Mayor of the District of Columbia declares a state of emergency pursuant to § 7-2304, any act or omission of an emergency medical technician/paramedic (“Paramedic”), an emergency medical technician/intermediate paramedic (“EMT/I”), or an emergency medical technician (“EMT”), performed while providing advanced or basic life support to a patient or trauma victim shall not impose liability upon the Paramedic, EMT/I, or EMT, or any employer of the Paramedic, EMT/I, or EMT; provided, that the care is provided in good faith and does not constitute gross negligence. (e) For the purposes of this section, the terms “emergency medical technician/paramedic,” “emergency medical technician/intermediate paramedic,” and “emergency medical technician” mean a person who has been trained in advanced emergency medical care, employed in that capacity, and certified by the appropriate governmental certifying authority in the District of Columbia or in any state to: (1) Carry out all phases of basic life support; (2) Administer drugs under the written or oral authorization, including via telecommunication, of a licensed physician; (3) Administer intravenous solutions under the written or oral authorization, including via telecommunication, of a licensed physician; and (4) Carry out, either directly or via telecommunication instructions from a licensed physician, certain other phases of advanced life support as authorized by the appropriate governmental certifying authority.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, EMS, Emergency Medical Systems,

Wroblewski v. Ohiopyle Trading Post, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119206

Posted: May 26, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Paddlesports, Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Whitewater Rafting | Tags: Ohiopyle, Ohiopyle Pennsylvania, Ohiopyle State Park, Ohiopyle Trading Post, Raft Rental, Rafting, Release, Whitewater Rafting, Youghiogheny River | Leave a comment

Wroblewski v. Ohiopyle Trading Post, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119206

Cari J. Wroblewski, Plaintiff, v. Ohiopyle Trading Post, Inc., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12-0780

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119206

August 22, 2013, Decided

August 22, 2013, Filed

COUNSEL: [*1] For CARI J. WROBLEWSKI, Plaintiff: Emmanuel J. Argentieri, LEAD ATTORNEY, Parker McCay, Mount Laurel, NJ; Gary F. Piserchia, PRO HAC VICE, Parker McCay P.A., Mt. Laurel, NJ.

For OHIOPYLE TRADING POST, INC., Defendant: P. Brennan Hart, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeanette H. Ho, Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon, Pittsburgh, PA; John R. Brumberg, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA.

JUDGES: Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Mark R. Hornak

OPINION

Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge

Cari Wroblewski brings suit against Ohiopyle Trading Post, Inc. (“Ohiopyle”) alleging that she suffered injuries to her knee as a result of Defendant’s negligence and gross negligence when she was thrown from her raft during a white water rafting trip. Ohiopyle argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because (1) Plaintiff signed a Rental Agreement which contained a provision releasing Defendant from liability (“Release”) for the very claims made in this matter and (2) Defendant did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from being thrown from a raft and striking a rock because these are inherent risks of white water rafting. These matters, having been fully briefed by the parties and oral [*2] argument having been presented, are ripe for disposition. For the reasons which follow, Ohiopyle’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. Background

Cari Wroblewski was 37 years old at the time of the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. Wroblewski Dep. 7:4-5. She holds an associate’s degree in business as well as a bachelor’s degree in accounting. Id. at 8:18-9:19. In April 2010, two months prior to the trip at issue in this case, Plaintiff went white water rafting on the Salt River in Arizona where she signed a rental agreement with a release and was informed that white water rafting could be dangerous and that she could fall out of the raft. Id. 16:21-17:7; 20:14-21:9.

One of Plaintiff’s friends, Steve Rose, made arrangements to rent equipment from Ohiopyle for a rafting trip on the Youghiogheny River with a group of their friends on June 11, 2010. ECF No. 21 ¶ 2; ECF No. 25 ¶ 2. Joel Means, one of the owners of Ohiopyle, testified in his deposition that the lower section of the Youghiogheny River is considered “the intermediate white water section of the River” and consists of Class I through Class III rapids with borderline Class IV at certain levels. Means Dep. 14:8-15:1. [*3] Plaintiff had been told, not by an Ohiopyle employee but most likely by one of her friends in the group, that the rapids on the river would be mild, level two and three rapids. Wroblewski Dep. 37:6-23. ¹

1 “Q: What made you think before then that the rapids were levels two or three?

A: From what I had been told they were supposed to be rather mild rapids.

Q: Who told you that they were rather mild rapids?

A: I don’t recall.

Q: It wasn’t anyone from Ohiopyle Trading Post; was it?

A: No

Q: Was it one of the people in your group that went white water rafting that day?

A: Most likely.” Wroblewski Dep. 37:6-23.

On the morning of June 11, 2010, Means noticed that the river was “up and brown” from rain the night before, and that the water level had risen from 2.5 to 3.98 feet. Means Dep. 19:2-11. When the river’s water level reaches four (4) feet, rafters are required by state regulations to have an experienced guide accompany them on their rafting trip. ² Id. 60:3-6. Ohiopyle is permitted to provide guided white water rafting tours when the level of the river is between four (4) and ten (10) feet. ECF No. 31. Means testified that the river level being of above average flow could make the rafting trip [*4] more difficult, but that the river is more dangerous at low levels than at high levels. Means Dep. 47:18-22.

2 At oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel persistently argued not that the river level actually was four (4) feet at the time at issue, but that the Court should treat it as if it were. The Court knows of no record basis to do so.

Plaintiff and her friends traveled to the Youghiogheny River for the white water rafting trip on the morning of June 11, 2010. ECF No. 21 ¶ 1; ECF No. 25 ¶ 1. Upon arriving at the River, Plaintiff went to the bathroom for “quite a while” while the rest of her group started to get their rented equipment. ECF No. 25 at 2, ¶ 1; Wroblewski Dep. 31:8-19. Means informed the rest of Plaintiff’s group that the level of the river was above average flow that day and therefore the river that day was a “real white water river” and not a “float trip.” Means Dep. 16:16-17. Means told Steve Rose that if he and the others in the group no longer wished to rent equipment, Ohiopyle would provide the group with a guided whitewater rafting tour at a discounted rate of $40 per person rather than the usual price of $60 per person (a non-guided rafting trip costs about $20 per [*5] person). Id. 38:9-14; 46:21-47:8. Plaintiffs group declined the offer of a discounted guided rafting trip. Means also instructed his employees that day to “make sure [the group understood] what game they’re about to play,” in reference to the river. Id. 39:11-15. Presumably because she was in the bathroom, Plaintiff never heard from Means his advice as to the conditions of the river or offer of a guided tour. Wroblewski Dep. 32:2-12.

When Plaintiff was finished in the bathroom, she went to get her equipment from Ohiopyle and was “in a rush” because her friends had gotten a head start. ECF No. 25 at 2, ¶¶ 2-3; Wroblewski Dep. 31:8-19. An Ohiopyle employee handed Plaintiff a Rental Agreement and told her that she “needed to sign the form and meet up with [her] group because they were getting their gear.” ECF No. 25 at 2, ¶ 5; Wroblewski Dep. 76:6-21. Plaintiff testified that “[t]hey hurried me along” and she was not given an opportunity to read the Rental Agreement. Wroblewski Dep. 78:7; 76:22-23. She also testified that the Ohiopyle employee “didn’t ask me to read it, they just gave it to me and said please sign this and catch up with your group, they’re already getting their stuff.” [*6] Id. 78:3-13. Plaintiff signed Ohiopyle’s Rental Agreement which included a waiver and release of liability provision (“Release”). ECF No. 19-5. ³

3 Plaintiff was not the last person in her group to sign the Rental Agreement, as her signature is the second to last signature on the Rental Agreement. ECF No. 19-5.

After receiving her rafting equipment, Plaintiff and her group received a safety briefing by an Ohiopyle employee before being sent to the river to embark on their trip. ECF No. 25 ¶ 8; Wroblewski Dep. 32:13-16. In the safety briefing, Plaintiff was warned that white water rafting can be dangerous, and it was possible that participants could fall out of the raft. Wroblewski Dep. 33:6-12.

After rafting through the first set of river rapids, Plaintiff grew concerned that the rapids were not level two or three. Id. 37:6-10. Plaintiff stated that she was concerned that the river was more than she could handle, and that she considered getting off of the river but “[t]here was no place to get off.” Id. 40:5-16. Plaintiff did not express her concerns to any others on the rafting trip. Id. 40:10-1. Near the end of the whitewater rafting trip, Plaintiff was thrown from the raft. ECF No. [*7] 21 ¶ 5; ECF No. 25 ¶ 5; Wroblewski Dep. 41:12-20. According to Plaintiff, she was dragged under water and struck her knee on a rock, sustaining serious injuries. ECF No. 21 ¶ 6; ECF No. 25 ¶ 6; Wroblewski Dep. 41:21-42:1.

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant in June 2012. ECF No. 1. Defendant moved for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21. Plaintiff filed her response, ECF Nos. 24, 25, and Defendant filed a reply as well as a supplement. ECF Nos. 26, 27, 31. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

II. Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The parties must support their position by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). In other words, summary judgment may be granted only if [*8] there exists no genuine issue of material fact that would permit a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).

In reviewing the evidence, the court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prod. Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir.2009) (citations omitted). It is not the court’s role to weigh the disputed evidence and decide which is more probative, or to make credibility determinations. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004); Boyle v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if a reasonable jury could possibly hold in the non-movant’s favor with regard to that issue. See id. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a reasonable trier [*9] of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Huston, 568 F.3d at 104.

III. Discussion

Ohiopyle advances two arguments in support of its summary judgment motion. First, Defendant submits that the Rental Agreement form signed by Plaintiff contained a valid and enforceable release of liability in favor of Defendant, releasing Defendant from liability for the very claims made in this matter. Secondly, Defendant argues that it did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from being thrown from a raft and striking a rock because these are inherent risks of white water rafting, and this Defendant should not have any liability.

On June 11, 2010, prior to white water rafting, Plaintiff signed a two-page document that contains a release of liability and is titled “RENTAL AGREEMENT” in capital letters at the top of its first page. ECF No. 19-5. The top half of the first page is a form to be filled out with information relating to the primary renter and the white water rafting equipment to be rented. Id.

The bottom half of the first page begins with the header “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” with thirteen (13) paragraphs listed in three columns [*10] under this header. Id. The actual language releasing Ohiopyle from liability regardless of its own negligence is listed as paragraph nine (9) in this section. Id. The font of the Release language is the same size as the other paragraphs listed under “TERMS AND CONDITIONS” but, unlike the other paragraphs, is written in all capital letters. Id. The exculpatory clause consequently falls on the bottom half of the front side of the first page, in both the left and middle columns and, by itself, makes up approximately half of the language listed under “TERMS AND CONDITIONS.” Id.

Paragraph nine (9) contains the following language:

9. READ CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY: HAVING RECEIVED A SAFETY TALK BY A MEMBER OP LESSOR’S STAFF, AND HAVING READ THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF, LESSEE(S) HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE/SHE/THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND(S): (a) THAT OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES HAVE INHERENT RISKS, DANGERS, AND HAZARDS, AND THAT SUCH EXISTS IN MY USE OF THE EQUIPMENT ABOVE DESCRIBED AND MY PARTICIPATION IN WHITE WATER RAFTING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES; (b) THAT MY PARTICIPATION IN SUCH ACTIVITIES AND/OR THE USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT [*11] MAY RESULT IN INJURY OR ILLNESS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BODILY INJURY, DISEASE, STRAINS, FRACTURES, PARTIAL AND OR TOTAL PARALYSIS, DEATH, OR OTHER AILMENTS THAT COULD CAUSE SERIOUS DISABILITY; (c) THAT SAID RISKS AND DANGERS MAY BE CAUSED BY (i) THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNERS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, OR AGENTS OF LESSOR, (ii) THE NEGLIGENCE OF PARTICIPANTS, (iii) THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS, (iv) ACCIDENTS, (v) BREACHES OF CONTRACT, AND (vi) THE FORCES OF NATURE OR OTHER CAUSES; (d) THAT RISKS AND DANGERS MAY ARISE FROM FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE CAUSES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GUIDE DECISION MAKING, INCLUDING THAT A GUIDE MAY MISJUDGE TERRAIN, WEATHER, TRAIL OR RIVER ROUTE LOCATION; WATER LEVEL; FALLING OUT OF OR DROWNING WHILE IN A RAFT, CANOE, OR KAYAK; AND SUCH OTHER RISKS, HAZARDS. AND DANGERS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE IN A WILDERNESS, OUTDOOR OR RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENT; AND (e) THAT BY MY PARTICIPATION IN THESE ACTIVITIES AND/OR USE OF THE EQUIPMENT ABOVE DESCRIBED, I HEREBY ASSUME ALL RISKS, DANGERS, AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LOSSES AND/OR DANGERS, WHETHER CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER CONDUCT OF THE OWNERS, [*12] AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF LESSOR OR ANY OTHER PERSON.

AND FURTHER, ON BEHALF OF MY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS, I DO HEREBY VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO RELEASE, WAIVE, DISCHARGE, HOLD HARMLESS, DEFEND, AND INDEMNIFY LESSOR AND ITS OWNERS, AGENTS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, ACTIONS, OR LOSSES FOR BODILY INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH, LOSS OF SERVICES, OR OTHERWISE WHICH MAY ARISE OUT OF MY USE OF THE EQUIPMENT ABOVE DESCRIBED, OR MY PARTICIPATION IN ANY ACTIVITIES INVOLVING SAID EQUIPMENT. I SPECIFICALLY UNDERSTAND THAT I AM RELEASING, DISCHARGING, AND WAIVING ANY CLAIMS OR ACTIONS THAT I MAY HAVE PRESENTLY OR IN THE FUTURE FOR THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OTHER CONDUCT BY THE OWNERS, AGENTS, OFFICERS, OR EMPLOYEES OF LESSOR.

I HAVE READ THE ABOVE WAIVER AND RELEASE, AND, BY SIGNING THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT, AGREE THAT IT IS MY INTENTION TO EXEMPT AND RELIEVE LESSOR AND ITS OWNERS, AGENTS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.

Id.

At the end of the “TERMS AND CONDITIONS” section, at the beginning of the right column, is the following language:

IN WITNESS [*13] WEREOF, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the undersigned Lessee(s) hereby certify that he/she/they have read and understood the terms and conditions of this Rental Agreement, and has/have affixed his/her/their hand(s) and seal(s) hereto on the dated indicated.

Id. Directly underneath this language, and in the column next to the exculpatory clause, multiple lines were provided where Plaintiff and the members of her party signed their names. Id. Plaintiff’s signature is the second to last signature listed on the form. Id.

The second page of the Rental Agreement has two sections. Id. The first section includes the header “SAFETY PRECAUTIONS” and the second section is titled “RECOMMENDATIONS.” Id. Both sections list a number of precautions and recommendations for how white water rafters should conduct themselves while on the river. Id.

The Defendant argues that the Release contained in the Rental Agreement is valid and enforceable. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 26. Plaintiff on the other hand asserts that the Release is unenforceable because its language is not sufficiently conspicuous to alert a party that it serves to release Defendant from liability and that Plaintiff did not actually assent [*14] to the terms of the Rental Agreement. ECF No. 24. To support her contentions, Plaintiff points out that the document was titled “Rental Agreement” and therefore does not provide adequate notice to signors that it is a release of liability. Id. at 7-8. Furthermore, the exculpatory language is placed at the bottom left of the form and not directly above the signature line, is written in small font, and does not appear until paragraph 9 of the form. Id. Plaintiff also argues that no one specifically informed her that she was entering into a contract that would affect her legal rights, and that she was “rushed along” by Defendant’s employees. Id.

The parties agree that this Court must consider Pennsylvania law and apply it in this case. See Lin v. Spring Mountain Adventures, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2010). Applying Pennsylvania law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that:

It is generally accepted that an exculpatory clause is valid where three conditions are met. First, the clause must not contravene public policy. Secondly, the contract must be between persons relating entirely to their own private affairs and thirdly, each party must be a free bargaining agent [*15] to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion. . . . once an exculpatory clause is determined to be valid, it will, nevertheless, still be unenforceable unless the language of the parties is clear that a person is being relieved of liability for his own acts of negligence. In interpreting such clauses we listed as guiding standards that: 1) the contract language must be construed strictly, since exculpatory language is not favored by the law; 2) the contract must state the intention of the parties with the greatest particularity, beyond doubt by express stipulation, and no inference from words of general import can establish the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking protection under the clause.

Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174, 1189 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff primarily relies on three release of liability cases to support her contention that the Release is in this instance unenforceable: Beck-Hummel v. Ski Shawnee, Inc., 2006 PA Super 159, 902 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006); [*16] Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010), and Lin v. Spring Mountain Adventures, Inc., No. 10-333, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2010). ⁴

4 Plaintiff does not argue that the release in this instance is facially invalid.

In Beck-Hummel, the plaintiff brought a negligence claim for injuries she received from colliding with a barrier wall while snow tubing at the defendant’s resort. 2006 PA Super 159, 902 A.2d 1266. There, the release was printed on the backside of a lift ticket that the plaintiff’s husband purchased and had given to plaintiff. Id. at 1267, 1270-71. The release contained hard to read and inconspicuous language, it did not require a signature or acknowledgment, and was printed on the portion of the ticket that would be folded out of sight of the user. Id. at 1269, 1273-1274. The record also revealed the lift ticket was not given to the Plaintiff directly by the operator. The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that plaintiff’s assent to the terms of the disclaimer was not clearly established and therefore it could not hold as a matter of law that the release for snow tubing injuries was enforceable. Id. at 1275.

In Chepkevich, plaintiff skier, who had signed a release [*17] prior to skiing, asked a lift operator to stop a lift so that she and her 6-year-old nephew could board the lift. Although the lift operator agreed to do so, when the lift came behind the plaintiff and her nephew, the operator failed to stop the lift. The skier sued the ski resort for negligence for injuries she received as a result of falling from the ski lift. The release in this case was printed on a single page and titled “RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.” 2 A.3d at 1192. The language releasing liability was in the same font as the rest of the release, included the term “negligence”, and “specifically noted that riding the ski lift is a risky activity.” Id. The plaintiff argued that she did not read the exculpatory language nor did anyone orally inform her that she was entering into such an agreement. Id. at 1180-81. The court held that the release was valid, enforceable, and “clearly encompassed the risk at issue . . . [and] clearly spelled out the parties’ intention to release [defendant] from liability for injuries . . . regardless of any negligence on the part of the [defendant].” Id. at 1195. The court therefore upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Id.

Finally [*18] in Lin, the plaintiff sued for serious injuries sustained from skiing when she lost control and fell into a snow making machine that was not properly padded. The document containing the release provision was titled “EQUIPMENT RENTAL FORM AND RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.” 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648, at *2. On the front page of the release was a capitalized, blocked section in the center of the page, above the signature line, instructing the reader to “PLEASE READ THE AGREEMENT ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM BEFORE SIGNING. IT RELEASES U.S. FROM CERTAIN LIABILITY.” Id. Directly between the instruction to read the back of the release and the signature line was the following statement: “I, the undersigned, have carefully read and understood the Acceptance of Risk and Liability Release on the back of this paper.” Id. The exculpatory clause was located on the back of the form and stated multiple times that it was a release from liability. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, [WL] at *2. The court found that even though the plaintiff had not read the release language, that she “was a voluntary signatory to a full-sized contract.” 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, [WL] at *5. The court held that the exculpatory clause was enforceable and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [*19] 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, [WL] at *9.

This case is not analogous to Beck-Hummel, as Plaintiff contends. Unlike Beck-Hummel, Plaintiff “was not a mere recipient of a release printed on a ticket, but was a voluntary signatory to a full-sized contract.” Lin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648, at *5. Plaintiff signed the Rental Agreement herself, and her signature is immediately preceded by instructions guiding her to read the entirety of the form and confirming that she had done so. Moreover, Plaintiff was provided a full-sized contract in which the Release was set forth on its front side, as opposed to a small unreadable ticket that she did not sign and in which the operative language was written on the reverse side.

Moreover, the language of the Release, construed strictly against Defendant, plainly expresses the intention of the parties to release Defendant from liability for future injury. The paragraph mentions “negligence” five (5) times and that it is a release of liability three (3) times. ECF No. 19-5. ⁵ Specifically, the first sentence of paragraph 9 asks the signer to carefully read the “WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY.” Id.

5 In fact, exculpatory clauses may bar suits based on negligence even where the clause does not specifically [*20] mention the word “negligence” at all. Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1193. “It strains common sense to suggest that releases that fail to mention the word ‘negligence’ should consistently be interpreted as barring suits based on negligence claims, while a release that clearly states that suits are barred ‘regardless of negligence’ would not bar such suits.” Id.

Part of Plaintiff’s argument is that she was not personally informed by Ohiopyle of the elevated water level prior to her signing the Rental Agreement. However, the language of the Release explicitly warned of the same things that Defendant’s employees cautioned the rest of Plaintiff’s group. Specially, the Release warns of “bodily injury” from “risks and dangers [that] may arise from foreseeable or unforeseeable causes, including . . . water level” and “falling out of . . . a raft.” Id. Furthermore, the clause stated that by signing the agreement, the signor “assume[s] all risks, dangers, and responsibility for any losses and/or dangers.” Id. In fact, the clause even warns of “total paralysis” and “death.” Id. This paragraph goes on to explain that the signor “specifically understand[s] that I am releasing, discharging, and waiving any [*21] claims or actions that I may have presently or in the future for the negligent acts or other conduct by” the Defendant. Id. Furthermore, “it is my intention to exempt and relieve lessor . . . from liability for personal injury . . . caused by negligence.” Id. It is also important to note that prior to her trip to Ohiopyle, Plaintiff admittedly went white water rafting in Arizona where she signed a rental agreement with a release, and was informed that white water rafting could be dangerous and that she could fall out of the raft. Wroblewski Dep. 16:21-17:7; 20:14-21:9. Moreover, in Ohiopyle’s safety briefing, right before Plaintiff boarded the raft, Plaintiff and her group were warned that white water rafting can be dangerous, and it was possible that she could fall out of the raft. Id. 33:6-12.

The fact that the exculpatory language was contained in the bottom half of the first page, not listed until paragraph 9, and not directly above the signature line does not make it unenforceable, either generally or in this case. While the terms and conditions are in a slightly smaller font than the upper half of the form, they are still clearly readable. Moreover, paragraph 9 is the only paragraph [*22] written entirely in capital letters. Taken as a whole, using a strict (but common sense) interpretation, it is clear the form in question releases the Defendant from liability for injuries such as those sustained by Plaintiff, even if due to Defendant’s own negligence. ⁶

6 Lahey v. Covington, 964 F. Supp. 1440, 1442 (D. Colo. 1996) is factually similar to this case in that there, the defendant failed to personally inform plaintiff of heightened water level when the plaintiff took a white water rafting trip through defendant’s company. The Arkansas Headwater Recreation Area, a white water rafting regulatory group, recommended against any rafting when the water flow measured 4.0 feet high or more (the same cut-off measurement for rafts without guides at Ohiopyle). The defendant also had a company policy to not take people rafting when the water was four feet or higher. On the day in question, the river measured 3.8 feet but, similar to this case, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff that the water level was “high” that day. Plaintiff signed a release of liability agreement prior to the trip and was injured after being tossed into the river. The court held that the exculpatory portion [*23] of the release agreement was valid and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim. Id. at 1446.

Plaintiff contends that summary judgment is also improper because whether she knowingly signed the Rental Agreement and assented to its terms is a question of fact for the jury. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff argues that she did not read the Release and that employees of Defendant did not directly warn or advise her as to the conditions of the river or offer her a guided tour, nor did they orally inform her of what the form stated or ask her to read the form, and that they rushed and “hurried [her] along”, and therefore she did not assent to the terms of the agreement. Id.

Plaintiff voluntarily chose to engage in the sport of white water rafting purely for recreational purposes. Plaintiff signed the Release; she was not compelled, as a legal matter, to sign it, but chose to sign it so that she could go on the white water rafting trip with her group. See Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc., 616 Pa. 385, 47 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. 2012) (“[R]ecreational sporting activities may be viewed differently in the context of exculpatory agreements, as each party is free to participate, or [*24] not, in the activity, and, therefore, is free to sign, or not, the release form.”); see also Chepkevich, 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174 (release enforceable even though plaintiff had not read agreement); Lin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648 (same). There is no evidence that plaintiff sought to negotiate the terms of the Release or asked for additional time to read it, and to the extent she was “compelled” it was a compulsion arising solely from her personal desire to meet up with her group.

Under Pennsylvania law, the failure to read a contract does not nullify the contract’s validity. Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. Am. Empire Ins. Co., 503 Pa. 300, 469 A.2d 563, 566 (Pa. 1983) (“[I]n the absence of proof of fraud, failure to read [the contract] is an unavailing excuse or defense and cannot justify an avoidance, modification or nullification of the contract or any provision thereof.”); see also Arce v. U-Pull-It Auto Parts, Inc., No. 06-5593, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10202, 2008 WL 375159, at *5-9 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2008) (written release found to be enforceable even when the agreement was in English but the plaintiff only read and spoke Spanish, noting that the “[p]laintiff cannot argue that the release language was inconspicuous or somehow hidden from his attention. [*25] . . . Nor did Defendant have an obligation to verify that [p]laintiff had read and fully understood the terms of the document before he signed his name to it.”). ⁷

7 See also In re Greenfield Estate, 14 Pa. 489, 496 (Pa. 1850) (“[i]f a party, who can read . . . will not read a deed put before him for execution; or if, being unable to read, will not demand to have it read or explained to him, he is guilty of supine negligence, which . . . is not the subject of protection, either in equity or at law.”).

This rule has been applied time and again in the context of recreational activities in which a party signed a pre-injury release of liability. For instance, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the owner of a racetrack where the plaintiff had signed an agreement releasing all claims against the racetrack before he was injured. Seaton v. E. Windsor Speedway, Inc., 400 Pa. Super. 134, 582 A.2d 1380 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). The Superior Court held that the signed release was enforceable even though plaintiff claimed that he had not read it, did not know that he was signing a release, and did not have time to read the document because of a long line of people behind [*26] him. Id. at 1383 (“His explanation that he did not read it does not, in the absence of fraud or a confidential relationship, extricate him from its operation.”). See also Lin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648, at *6 (“[i]t is a well established rule under Pennsylvania law that failure to read a contract does not relieve a party of their obligation under such contract that they sign, and such parties will be bound by the agreement without regard to whether the terms were read and fully understood.”); Martinez v. Skirmish, U.S.A., Inc., No. 07-5003, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51628, 2009 WL 1676144, *7 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2009) (release enforceable as to negligence for injury to plaintiff during paintball game, noting that plaintiff was accompanied by friends “who could have explained the Waiver & Release to him, if he had asked them to do so. . . . Consequently, [plaintiff’s] failure to read that document cannot constitute a defense to the enforceability of the Waiver & Release.”); Schillachi v. Flying Dutchman Motorcycle Club, 751 F. Supp. 1169, 1174-75 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (release that plaintiff signed before being injured while racing all-terrain vehicle was enforceable even though plaintiff failed to read it because “[t]o accept plaintiff’s [*27] argument that there is such a duty [on the part of the defendant] to inform in this case would essentially abrogate the law of Pennsylvania regarding plaintiff’s duty to read.”). ⁸

8 In Doe v. Cultural Care, Inc., No. 10-11426-DJC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28226, 2011 WL 1048624, at *4-5 (D. Mass. Mar. 17, 2011), the court held that a release signed by plaintiff was enforceable even if the defendant had rushed her. There, the court explained that

“[t]he fact that [plaintiff] did not take the time to read the terms and conditions of the Agreement because she felt hurried by [defendant] does not change the analysis. [Plaintiff] does not dispute that she executed the Agreement or that it contains the Release. She disputes that she agreed to the terms and conditions, that the Release discharges Defendants from liability or bars her claims since she had no knowledge of the Release and was rushed into executing the Agreement based on Defendants’ representations.”

Id.

Similar to the cases discussed above, Plaintiff voluntarily participated in the white water rafting trip. “The signer is under no compulsion, economic or otherwise, to participate, much less to sign the exculpatory agreement, because it does not relate to essential [*28] services, but merely governs a voluntary recreational activity.” Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1191. Plaintiff could have requested additional time to read the agreement, or she could have chosen to not sign the Release and not go white water rafting. See Martinez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51628, 2009 WL 1676144, at *7 (argument that plaintiff had no choice but to sign release because he had pre-paid for the paintball activity was unavailing for the reason that it was a recreational activity where participation was voluntary). Holding that Defendant had a duty to orally inform Plaintiff of what she was signing, or holding a release unenforceable because Plaintiff failed to read the contract containing a release of liability she signed because she felt rushed, would turn this rule on its head.

The Court considers, as it must, all of the relevant circumstances set out in the record, Lin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136090, 2010 WL 5257648, at *6, and is unable to agree with Plaintiff that the Rental Agreement constituted (as a matter of law) an insufficient effort on the part of Ohiopyle to inform her of the fact that by signing that Agreement, she was giving up any right she might have to sue for damages arising from injuries caused even by negligence. In five [*29] (5) different places the Release mentions “negligence” and states that is a release of liability in three (3) places. ECF 19-5. Similar to Chepkevich, “[a]lthough the outcome in this case was certainly unfortunate, the risk was not so unexpected, or brought about in so strange a manner, as to justify placing this injury beyond the reach of the plain language of the Release, which specifically noted” that white water rafting is a risky activity in which water levels can increase or decrease and that you can fall out of the raft. Chepkevich, 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174, 1194. Furthermore, between her previous white water rafting trip in Arizona and the safety briefing she was admittedly provided by Ohiopyle, Plaintiff was aware that white water rafting was dangerous and that falling out of a raft was an actual danger of the activity. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that there is an issue of material fact as to whether she assented to the terms of the agreement because she felt “rushed” by Defendant, is insufficient to deem the agreement unenforceable in light of her duty under Pennsylvania law to read a contract.

The Release, even when construed against Defendant, clearly spelled out the parties’ intention [*30] to release Defendant from liability and encompassed the risk of varying water levels and falling out of the raft. Consequently, the Release meets the enforceability test under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff brings a claim for negligence. Negligence is explicitly encompassed within the Release, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. ⁹

9 Because the signed Rental Agreement precludes Plaintiff from bringing a claim of negligence against Defendant, the Court need not decide whether the incident at issue in this case was an inherent risk of white water rafting.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. An appropriate Order will issue.

/s/ Mark R. Hornak

Mark R. Hornak

United States District Judge

Dated: August 22, 2013

Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection clauses) are extremely important in your releases. Where the lawsuit will be (where/Venue) and what law will be applied (Jurisdiction) is the sole issue in this case.

Posted: May 19, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Adventure Travel, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection) | Tags: Atlantis, Atlantis Resort, Bahamas, Bermuda, Excursion, Excursion Boat, Forum selection clause, Hotel, Jurisdiction and Venue Clause, Kerzner, Release, Third Party | 1 Comment

Advance notice of the jurisdiction and venue issues emailed to the plaintiff saves this resort. Plaintiff was not able to argue they were not told they had to sue in Bermuda. Bermuda does not allow contingency cases, and a Bermuda jury is not as likely to give money to foreigners (Americans) as a Miami jury.

Son v. Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67482

Date of the Decision: September 5, 2008

Plaintiff: Miyoung Son (“Mrs. Son”) and Youngkeun Son (“Mr. Son”)

Defendant: Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., Kerzner International North America, Inc., Kerzner International Limited, Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, and Paradise Island Limited

Plaintiff Claims: Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Defenses: Motion to Dismiss

Holding: for the defendant

The plaintiff’s booked at trip at the defendant’s resort (Atlantis Resort) in the Bahamas. This was their second trip to this resort. After booking and prior to their arrival, the defendant sent emails stating that the plaintiff’s would have to sign several documents. One of the documents was a release which contained a forum selection clause or venue clauses.

No family members of the plaintiff opened any of the documents attached to the emails, but they did acknowledge receiving the emails.

At the resort during check-in, several documents, including the release were signed by the spouse.

Mr. Son stated that the check-in process lasted approximately two to three minutes, that he was asked to sign several forms, and that he did not read the forms. Mr. Son said that the resort’s front desk staff did not explain the contents of the forms. Mr. Sonfurther stated that he did not intend to sign a forum selection clause, nor was he authorized to sign one on his wife’s behalf. However, Mr. Son did not state that his wife had affirmatively told him not to sign any documents regarding her legal rights.

While taking an excursion “Mrs. Son received severe and extensive injuries as a result of being pulled through the churning propellers of the excursion boat.”

The plaintiff’s filed suit in Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendant’s filed a Motion to Dismiss the case based on the forum selection clause the plaintiff’s had signed. Meaning the lawsuit should be dismissed because the lawsuit was filed in the wrong place.

Since the plaintiff files the lawsuit, the place where the plaintiff files the lawsuit is the original forum or venue of the suit. The Burden is then on the defendant to argue the location of the lawsuit is incorrect.

Summary of the case

A forum selection clause or a venue clause is a clause in a contract where the parties agree where any lawsuit will be held. A jurisdiction clause, usually heard in the same breath determines what law will be applied to the contract. For a forum selection clause to be held to be unreasonable, it must fail one of the following tests:

…1.) when the formation of the clause was induced by fraud or overreaching; 2.) when the plaintiff would be deprived of her day in court because of inconvenience or unfairness; 3.) when the chosen law would deprive the plaintiff of a remedy, or 4.) when enforcement of the provisions would contravene public policy.

Public policy, number 4, is not necessarily the same public policy that voids releases.

The plaintiff’s argued that the forum selection clause at issue was void because:

…that the forum selection clause was formed by fraud and overreaching, that Plaintiffs will be deprived of their day in court if they have to sue in the Bahamas, that Bahamian law is fundamentally unfair, and that enforcement of the forum selection clause would contravene public policy.

The court took on each of the arguments of the plaintiff individually and then tackled several arguments not raised by the plaintiff.

Fraud and Overreaching

The plaintiff’s argued the contract was signed because of fraud and over-reaching. The argument was based on the claim that the plaintiff’s did not receive notice of the clause prior to their arrival in the Bahamas so they could cancel the trip “with impunity.” They also argued the short check in time deprived the plaintiffs of the ability to read and comprehend the rights the plaintiff was giving up when he signed the contracts.

The court’s response to this argument was:

A non-negotiated contract containing a forum selection clause may be enforceable, so long as the contract was formed under “reasonable” circumstances. In particular, the clause must be reasonably communicated to the consumer such that the consumer knows that the contract contains terms and conditions which affect the consumer’s legal rights.

[A]bsent a showing of fraud or mental incompetence, a person who signs a contact cannot avoid her obligations under it by showing that she did not read what she signed.

The clause at issue was not hidden, was not disguised in the release; the plaintiff ignored the warning that stated, “read before signing,” all of which was not enough to void the contract. “This willful ignorance cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise binding provision.”

The argument that they did not receive notice was also thrown out by the court. Just because the plaintiff did not read the emails, does not mean the plaintiff did not have the opportunity to see the clause prior to the trip.

The plaintiff then argued that the injured wife did not give the husband the authority to sign away her rights.

Plaintiffs argued at the hearing that Mrs. Son did not sign the forum selection clause, nor did she grant her husband authority to sign away her legal rights. Thus, Plaintiffs claim, the forum selection clause could not apply to Mrs. Son. The Court disagrees. First, Mrs. Son admitted that she granted her husband authority to complete all procedures necessary to check-in to the Atlantis Resort. Thus, Mr. Son had “implied authority” to sign the forum selection clause on Mrs. Son’s behalf, because it was necessary for Mr. Son to sign the clause to complete check-in.

A spouse may sign for another spouse in some states. Additional, one spouse who did not sign taking advantage of the benefits of the contract may affirm the contract. Add to that the fact the plaintiff had signed a nearly identical clause during their prior trip and their argument for fraud and overreaching was denied.

Public Policy

The plaintiff did not present any case law to support the violation of Public Policy claim so the court found it had no merit.

Discouraging Legitimate Claims

The court quickly dismissed this argument. Because the forum selection clause was based where the defendants had their business, therefor, the forum selection clause was related to the dispute. The courts and the law where the accident occurred were legitimate; therefore, the forum selection clause was related to the dispute. Consequently, the court could not find bad faith.

Forum Non Conveniens

“The federal doctrine of forum non conveniens allows the Court to use its inherent power to dismiss an action because of the inconvenience of the plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens the court can dismiss a claim when the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or upon the court and the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reason of convenience to support this choice.

The decision process to support a forum non conveniens claim is:

First, the Court must consider whether an “adequate alternative forum” exists which has jurisdiction over the case. The Court must then consider whether private interest factors suggest that the Court should disturb the strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s choice of forum. If the Court finds that the private interest factors are indeterminate, the Court must then proceed to consider whether considerations of public interest favor a trial in the foreign forum. Dismissal is only warranted if these factors weigh heavily towards trial in the foreign forum.

An adequate alternative forum exists when the defendant is “amenable to process” in the new foreign forum. “The defendant has the burden of proving that the proposed forum is adequate, and the proposed forum has jurisdiction over the claims.” Since the defendants were based in the Bahamas and thus amenable to service of process there the plaintiff must show that they would not receive a fair trial in the Bahamas. They plaintiffs could not do that. The argued they could not afford a trial in the Bahamas since contingency fee agreements were not allowed, however, money is not part of the argument in jurisdiction and venue arguments.

Private Interest Factors

The court also reviewed the private interest factors in the case and how those applied to its decision.

Factors considered to be in a litigant’s private interest include the ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for witnesses, cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, ability to view the premises (if necessary), and “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.

The court found the majority of the witnesses were located in the Bahamas were the accidents happened. The court also found the vital witnesses were all located in the Bahamas. The Florida court could not necessarily subpoena and compel the non-employee witnesses in the Bahamas to appear in court in the US. Consequently, the defendant would be at risk in defending its case because it could not compel the witnesses needed to defend its case. The witnesses in Maryland and Washington DC of the plaintiffs were for the damages’ phase of the trial and consequently, not vital.

More importantly, the plaintiff could not identify any witnesses who could testify in Florida that could not testify in the Bahamas. The distance was relatively the same to get to either place from Maryland and DC. Only one actual witness had been identified by the plaintiff as a resident of Florida, and that was an agent for the defendant.

The defendant also argued they wanted to bring the real party at interest, the excursion boat company into the trial as a third party defendant. If the excursion boat company had no interest in Florida, the Florida court could not compel the third parties to trial in Florida. The plaintiff would also argue that the defendants were agents of the third parties, and the defendants would be defending claims of agency without the benefit of the third parties to support its claims or defenses.

Public Interest Issues.

The court quoted the US Supreme Court in its analysis of the public policy issues of forum selection.

Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

A jury in Florida has no interest in hearing or adjudicating an incident that occurred outside of its state or even the US. Bahamian law will govern the dispute because the law of the forum where the accident occurred is controlling. Forcing a Florida judge to interpret and apply Bahamian law is also an inconvenience that the court does not want to support.

Reinstatement of the Suit

The final issue that some courts, including this one reviewed is whether the plaintiffs will be foreclosed from filling suit in the proper forum if this case is dismissed. In this case, the defendant agreed to extend the statute of limitations and allow the plaintiff to file in the Bahamas after the appropriate statute had run.

Consequently, the case was dismissed.

So Now What?

Here, the only defendant the plaintiffs could catch was obviously in Florida so the trial was started in Florida. The defendant’s did not have an employee in Washington DC or Maryland, and the plaintiffs did not argue what is called minimum contacts to force the defendant to litigate in DC or Maryland.

Minimum contacts means the defendant does business in the state where the plaintiff filed the lawsuit and has the necessary minimum contacts to sue in that state. The amount of this contact is different in each state.

However, as here, a forum selection clause or jurisdiction and venue clauses are paramount and supersedes the rules governing the location of trials.

Forum selection clauses or jurisdiction and venue clauses provide immense advantages for recreational businesses.

1. It prevents litigating a release in a state where releases are invalid or void. Courts in Louisiana are going to be hesitant to apply the defense of a release because a release is void in Louisiana.

2. It makes sure the law that is important will be applied to the case. Think about applying Louisiana law to a ski accident in Colorado? Think about someone in Florida trying to understand the inherent risks of skiing as set out in the Colorado Ski Safety Statute.

3. It makes sure the area or community that has an interest in the industry or the business has control over the case. Again, a ski accident in Louisiana where the jury does not care or understand skiing versus suing in Colorado where the jury understands and has an interest in Skiing.

4. It eliminates arguments, time and costs of trying to get a trial back to the place that would serve the interest of justice best.

5. It forces the plaintiff to find legal counsel in a state or area that they may not be familiar. This may eliminate all but major claims.

6. It will force the plaintiff to expand money to prosecute a claim in a foreign (other than their own state) jurisdiction. Some of those funds may not be recoverable even if the plaintiff is successful at trial.

One interesting issue was the “impunity” argument. When you give a guest information after they have booked the trip which may change their opinion of the trip from a legal perspective, such as adding a release or another contract provisions, many states may require you to refund the guest’s money in full based on the release or additional contract terms.

Your release has limited value, if any, in many cases may be worthless, if it does not have a forum selection clauses or jurisdiction and venue clause.

IF YOU DON’T HAVE A FORUM SELECTION/JURISDICTION & VENUE CLAUSE IN YOUR RELEASE, YOUR RELEASE CAN FAIL. Contact Me.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Jurisdiction,Venue,Forum,Selection,clauses,Where,lawsuit,Advance,plaintiff,resort,Bermuda,contingency,jury,money,foreigners,Americans,Miami,Kerzner,International,Resorts,Dist,LEXIS,Date,Decision,September,Miyoung,Youngkeun,Defendant,North,America,Bahamas,Island,Hotel,Company,Paradise,Claims,Response,Motion,Dismiss,Defenses,Atlantis,arrival,clause,spouse,desk,wife,injuries,boat,Federal,District,Court,Southern,Florida,Burden,location,Summary,breath,formation,fraud,enforcement,policy,Public,Plaintiffs,Bahamian,arguments,argument,consumer,incompetence,person,obligations,ignorance,provision,Just,husband,Thus,procedures,Additional,advantage,fact,violation,Legitimate,defendants,accident,faith,Conveniens,doctrine,action,Under,convenience,factors,presumption,Dismissal,agreements,Private,Interest,litigant,cost,attendance,premises,accidents,employee,Maryland,Washington,phase,agent,agents,agency,Issues,Supreme,analysis,Administrative,litigation,origin,relation,affairs,controversies,laws,incident,Reinstatement,Suit,statute,limitations,Here,Minimum,trials,advantages,Courts,Louisiana,Think,Colorado,area,industry,Again,justice,Some,guest,information,opinion,perspective,RELEASE,FAIL,Contact,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,Negligence,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Excursion,Third,behalf,upon,whether

Son v. Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67482

Posted: May 19, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Adventure Travel, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Legal Case | Tags: Atlantis, Atlantis Resort, Bahamas, Destination Atlantis, Excursion, Excursion Boat, Forum selection clause, Hotel, Jurisdiction and Venue Clause, Kerzner, Kerzner International Limited, Paradise Island, Release, Supreme Court of The Bahamas, Third Party | Leave a comment

Son v. Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67482

Miyoung Son and Youngkeun Son, Plaintiffs, v. Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., et al., Defendants.

NO. 07-61171-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67482

September 5, 2008, Decided

September 5, 2008, Entered

COUNSEL: [*1] For Miyoung Son, Youngkeun Son, Plaintiffs: Alexander Rundlet, Victor Manuel Diaz, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEYS, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL; Katherine Warthen Ezell, Robert C. Josefsberg, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Miami, FL; Gene Locks, Jonathan W. Miller, Locks Law Firm, Philadelphia, PA; Stephen J. Nolan, Stephen J Nolan Chartered, Baltimore, MD.

For Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., a Florida corporation, in its own right, doing business as Paradise Island, doing business as Destination Atlantis, doing business as Atlantis, Kerzner International North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, in its own right, doing business as Paradise Island, doing business as Atlantis, doing business as Destination Atlantis, Kerzner International Limited, a company of the commonwealth of the Bahamas, in its own right, doing business as Paradise Island, doing business as Atlantis, doing business as Destination Atlantis, Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, a company of the commonwealth of the Bahamas, in its own right, as a subidiary of Kerzner International Limited, doing business as Paradise Island, doing business as Atlantis, doing business as Destination Atlantis, Island [*2] Hotel Company Limited, a company of the commonwealth of the Bahamas, in its own right, as subsidiary of Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, doing business as Paradise Island, doing business as Atlantis, doing business as Destination Atlantis, Paradise Island Limited, a company of the commonwealth of the Bahamas, in its own right, as a subsidiary of Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, doing business as Paradise Island, doing business as Atlantis, doing business as Destination Atlantis, Defendants: Bruce Scott Liebman, Michelle Ioanna Bougdanos, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

JUDGES: KENNETH A. MARRA, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: KENNETH A. MARRA

OPINION

OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., Kerzner International North America, Inc., Kerzner International Limited, Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, and Paradise Island Limited’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (DE 15), filed November 12, 2007. The motion is now fully briefed and is ripe for review. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on June 19, 2008. The Court has carefully [*3] considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

Background

On August 17, 2007, Plaintiffs Miyoung Son (“Mrs. Son”) and Youngkeun Son (“Mr. Son”) ( together, “Plaintiffs”) filed a four-count Complaint (DE 1) against Defendants Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., Kerzner International North America, Inc., Kerzner International Limited, Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, Paradise Island Limited, ¹ Nassau Cruses, Limited (“Nassau Cruses”), Robert Brown, Rodger Munroe, and Silvin Brown (together, “Defendants”), asserting claims of negligence and loss of consortium against all Defendants. The facts, as alleged in the Complaint and adduced at the evidentiary hearing, are as follows: Mr. and Mrs. Son, residents of Maryland, purchased a vacation package from the Kerzner Defendants for a four-night stay at the Atlantis Resort in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas in July 2005. (Compl. PP 3, 15.) The vacation was to last from August 17 to August 21, 2005. Plaintiffs were to be accompanied by their two children, Mrs. Son’s sister and brother-in-law, their three children, and a nanny. (Compl. P 15.) While in the Bahamas, Plaintiffs [*4] booked an excursion through Atlantis’s Tour and Excursions Center. (Compl. P 17.) While on the excursion, Mrs. Son received severe and extensive injuries as a result of being pulled through the churning propellers of the excursion boat. (Compl. PP 20-21.)

1 The Court will refer to the moving parties, Kerzner International Resorts, Inc., Kerzner International North America, Inc., Kerzner International Limited, Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, and Paradise Island Limited, collectively as the “Kerzner Defendants.”

Findings of Fact

1. After booking the trip, Plaintiffs received from the Kerzner Defendants a package in the mail containing information about the trip; however, the package did not contain any mention that Plaintiffs would be expected to sign a forum selection clause or choice of law clause upon check-in at the Atlantis Resort. (Pl. Ex. 1; Def. Ex. 5.)

2. On July 24, Mrs. Son received two e-mails from the Kerzner Defendants with additional information about her upcoming trip – one regarding her booking, and one regarding her sister’s family’s booking. (Pl. Ex. 3, 4; Def. Ex. 3, 4.)

3. Mrs. Son testified that she did not open the e-mails prior to [*5] departing for the Bahamas because she did not recognize the sender. Mrs. Son also testified that she did not open the e-mails and read the attached documents until very recently, but she admitted that she did receive the e-mails prior to her trip.

4. One of the documents contained in each e-mail that Mrs. Son received after making the booking stated as follows:

During guest registration at Atlantis, Paradise Island you will be asked to sign a form agreeing to the following terms related to any claims you may have as a result of your stay at the resort: I agree that any claim I may have against Atlantis, Ocean Club, or any of their officers, directors, employees or related or affiliated companies, including, without limitation, Kerzner International Limited, Kerzner International Bahamas Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, Paradise Enterprises Limited, Paradise Island Limited and Paradise Beach Inn Limited resulting from any events occurring in The Bahamas shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, and further, irrevocably agree to the Supreme Court of The Bahamas as the exclusive venue for any such proceedings whatsoever. The [*6] foregoing shall apply to all persons accompanying me, and I represent that I have the authority to sign this document on their behalf.

(Pl. Ex. 3, 4; Def. Ex. 3, 4.)

5. Mrs. Son testified that she did not know she would have to sign such a document upon arrival.

6. Upon arrival, Mr. Son completed the check-in process. (Pl. Ex. 2; Def. Ex. 1.) Mr. Son signed a form on his own behalf “and the members of [his] family group or others listed below” (including Mrs. Son) which contained the following language:

I agree that any claims I may have against the Resort Parties resulting from any events occurring in The Bahamas shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, and further, irrevocably agree to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas as the exclusive venue for any such proceedings whatsoever.

(Pl. Ex. 2; Def. Ex. 1.) Mr. Son stated that the check-in process lasted approximately two to three minutes, that he was asked to sign several forms, and that he did not read the forms. Mr. Son said that the resort’s front desk staff did not explain the contents of the forms. Mr. Son further stated that he did not intend to sign a forum selection clause, [*7] nor was he authorized to sign one on his wife’s behalf. However, Mr. Son did not state that his wife had affirmatively told him not to sign any documents regarding her legal rights.

7. Mrs. Son testified that she did not authorize her husband to sign a forum selection clause, but Mrs. Son also did not state that she told her husband he was not to sign any legal documents on her behalf. Mrs. Son testified that she did authorize her husband to complete all necessary check in procedures on her behalf.

8. Plaintiffs previously visited the Atlantis Resort in December 2001. When completing check-in formalities in 2001, Mr. Son signed a form that states as follows:

I agree that any claim I may have against Atlantis, Ocean Club, or any of their officers, directors, employees or related or affiliated companies, including, without limitation, Sun International Hotels Limited, Sun International Bahamas Limited, Island Hotel Company Limited, Paradise Enterprises Limited, Paradise Island Limited and Paradise Beach Inn Limited resulting from any events occurring in The Bahamas shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, and further, irrevocably [*8] agree to the Supreme Court of The Bahamas as the exclusive venue for any such proceedings whatsoever. The foregoing shall apply to all persons accompanying me and I represent that I have the authority to sign this document on their behalf.

(DE 54.)

Standard of Review

In the Eleventh Circuit, a motion to dismiss on the basis of a forum selection clause is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 148 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 1998). Forum selection clauses are “prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.” M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S. Ct. 1907, 32 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1972). The Court may make any findings of fact necessary to resolve a motion to dismiss for improper venue, so long as the resolution of factual disputes is not an adjudication on the merits of a case. Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 2008 WL 2469405 at *5 (11th Cir. 2008). Determining the reasonableness of a forum selection clause is a fact-specific inquiry to be made on a case-by-case basis. [*9] Shankles v. Costa Armatori, S.P.A., 722 F.2d 861, 864 (1st Cir. 1983).

Because the Court is sitting in diversity, Florida substantive law applies. See, e.g., Admiral Ins. Co. v. Feit Management Co., 321 F.3d 1326, 1328 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Sitting in diversity, we apply the substantive law of the forum state unless federal constitutional or statutory law compels a contrary result.”).

Discussion

A forum selection clause will be held “unreasonable” in only four circumstances: 1.) when the formation of the clause was induced by fraud or overreaching; 2.) when the plaintiff would be deprived of her day in court because of inconvenience or unfairness; 3.) when the chosen law would deprive the plaintiff of a remedy, or 4.) when enforcement of the provisions would contravene public policy. Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1292; see also Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 594-95, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1988). Some courts have also made prior notice of the clause an element to consider in determining reasonableness. See, e.g., Sun Trust Bank v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Corna v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 794 F. Supp. 1005, 1012 (D. Haw. 1992). ² Here, Plaintiffs [*10] argue that the forum selection clause was formed by fraud and overreaching, that Plaintiffs will be deprived of their day in court if they have to sue in the Bahamas, that Bahamian law is fundamentally unfair, and that enforcement of the forum selection clause would contravene public policy. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.

2 In Shute, the Supreme Court did not state that lack of notice of the forum selection clause was grounds for finding that the clause was unreasonable. In fact, the Court stated that it would not “address the question of whether respondents had sufficient notice of the forum clause before entering the contract for passage” because the respondents had conceded that they had sufficient notice. Shute, 499 U.S. at 590. However, the Supreme Court found notice relevant insofar as the Court found a party’s right to reject the contract “with impunity” essential to its enforceability. Id. at 595. Thus, notice is a relevant inquiry when considering a forum selection clause to determine whether the party could walk away from the contract with a minimal penalty. In Corna, for instance, the Court found that two to three days notice of the forum selection [*11] clause insufficient, because the plaintiffs would have forfeited the entire ticket price for their trip if they had canceled the trip upon first learning of the forum selection clause. Corna, 794 F. Supp. at 1011-1012; cf. Elliott v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 231 F. Supp. 2d 555, 561 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (enforcing forum selection clause where cancellation at time notice of clause received by passenger would have resulted in refund of only 50% of purchase price).

Fraud and Overreaching

Plaintiffs argue that the formation of the agreement including the forum selection provision was “induced by fraud and overreaching.” (Pl. Resp. 9.) Plaintiffs claim that they “never received . . . any notice of a forum selection clause prior to arriving at the hotel in the Bahamas.” (Id.) Plaintiffs do not argue bad faith on the Kerzner Defendants part, and their sole argument regarding fraud and overreaching relates to notice. Plaintiffs also do not argue that the forum selection clause was hidden on the forms they signed. Instead, they argue that they did not receive notice of the clause prior to their arrival in the Bahamas, so they could not cancel “with impunity.” Further, they argue that the short check-in [*12] time period effectively deprived Mr. Son of the ability to read and comprehend the rights he was surrendering when he signed the document. (See Pl. Resp. 9-10.)

A non-negotiated contract containing a forum selection clause may be enforceable, so long as the contract was formed under “reasonable” circumstances. Shute, 499 U.S. at 593-94. In particular, the clause must be reasonably communicated to the consumer such that the consumer knows that the contract contains terms and conditions which affect the consumer’s legal rights. Shankles, 722 F.2d at 864.

With respect to the time for check-in, a perusal of the “Acknowledgment, Agreement, and Release” form shows that the clause is not hidden in any way. The page contains seven paragraphs regarding limitations on liability, choice of law, and other legal provisions. (Pl. Ex. 2; Def. Ex. 1.) While the forum selection provision is not written in a larger font, in bold font, or italicized, it is still easily readable and is set off in its own paragraph in the middle of the front side of the form. Further, the form is marked at the very top “READ BEFORE SIGNING.” Thus, the Court finds that the form clearly and unmistakably conveys that it contains [*13] terms affecting the consumer’s legal rights. The clause is not hidden among other, non-legal provisions, nor is the clause physically disguised. The fact that Mr. Son chose not to read the form that is clearly marked “read before signing” does not excuse Plaintiffs from their contractual obligation. See, e.g., Coleman v. Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., 802 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[A]bsent a showing of fraud or mental incompetence, a person who signs a contact cannot avoid her obligations under it by showing that she did not read what she signed.”). The check-in process was doubtless hurried, but the Court finds that Mr. Son was not rushed through the process so as to prevent him from taking as much time as he needed or desired to review the document thoroughly. Mr. Son made a conscious choice – he chose to sign the form without reading it in order to speed the check-in process along. This willful ignorance cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise binding provision.

Plaintiffs then argue that they did not receive notice of the forum selection clause prior to their arrival at the Atlantis resort, such that they could not reject the provision “with impunity.” In Sun Trust [*14] Bank, under similar facts, the court concluded that the same forum selection clause disputed in this case was unenforceable because the plaintiffs did not have an “objectively reasonable opportunity to consider and reject” the clause. Sun Trust Bank, 184 F. Supp. 2d at 1261. The court was presented with “undisputed” evidence that the “forum-selection clause was presented to [plaintiff] for the first time upon arrival in the Bahamas.” Id.

Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, this case is distinct, and Sun Trust Bank is inapplicable. First, Plaintiffs had both visited the Atlantis resort in 2001, and Mr. Son signed a nearly identical forum selection provision upon arriving at the resort in 2001. Having previously signed a nearly identical forum selection provision in 2001, it is reasonable to expect that Plaintiffs would be asked to sign a similar provision on their return visit. In Horberg v. Kerzner Resorts International Ltd., No. 07-20250-CIV-UNGARO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97693, slip op. at 5-6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2007), the court enforced the same forum selection clause disputed in this case on the basis that the plaintiffs had visited the Atlantis resort on previous occasions and thus “had a reasonable opportunity [*15] to consider and reject the forum selection clause.”

Also making this case distinct from Sun Trust Bank is the fact that the Kerzner Defendants provided Plaintiffs with prior notice that they would be asked to sign a form requiring all suits brought against the Kerzner Defendants be brought in the Bahamas. Plaintiffs concede that Mrs. Son received two e-mails on July 24, 2005, that contained an attachment titled “Terms and Conditions.” (Pl. Ex. 4, 5.) In the section labeled “Atlantis Registration,” the attachment explained that all guests would be asked to sign a forum selection clause upon check-in.

Mrs. Son testified that she did not remember receiving these e-mails from the Kerzner Defendants, and Mrs. Son also testified that she did not open e-mails from unrecognized senders because of the threat of computer viruses. Mrs. Son further testified that she did not expect to receive e-mails regarding her Atlantis resort trip. However, Mrs. Son received these e-mails the very same day that she booked her trip, and both e-mails had “Travel Plan” in the subject line with a reservation number. Logic would dictate that Mrs. Son must have provided her e-mail address over the phone when making [*16] the reservation since she received e-mails regarding her booking shortly thereafter. Thus, while the Court finds Mrs. Son’s testimony credible, the Court does not agree that her decision not to read the e-mails was reasonable. ³ Mrs. Son chose not to read the e-mails, but the e-mails provided sufficient notice of the forum selection and choice of law clauses her family would be required to sign upon arrival at the Atlantis Resort.

3 At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel consistently averred that Plaintiffs did not have a “duty” to open the e-mails they received regarding their trip but that Plaintiff had a “duty” to open packages sent to her through the U.S. Mail. However, the Court fails to see how Plaintiffs make this distinction. Plaintiffs have not identified a specific duty that Plaintiffs might have had to open regular mail versus e-mail. Plaintiffs’ could have decided not to open the package received through the U.S. Mail as freely as they decided not to open the e-mails. The Court cannot conceive of a “duty” to open a letter any more than it can conceive of a “duty” to open an e-mail. Plaintiffs’ bear the risk that they will lose valuable information or documentation when they [*17] choose not to receive a letter, e-mail, or any other form of communication. Plaintiffs weighed the risk of losing vital information against the risk of receiving a computer virus when deciding not to open the e-mails, just as Plaintiffs weighed the risk of losing vital information against the risk of receiving anthrax powder when deciding to open the mailed package. The Kerzner Defendants’ should not be held liable because Plaintiffs’ risk calculus led them not to open the documentation.

Finally, Plaintiffs argued at the hearing that Mrs. Son did not sign the forum selection clause, nor did she grant her husband authority to sign away her legal rights. Thus, Plaintiffs claim, the forum selection clause could not apply to Mrs. Son. The Court disagrees. First, Mrs. Son admitted that she granted her husband authority to complete all procedures necessary to check-in to the Atlantis Resort. Thus, Mr. Son had “implied authority” to sign the forum selection clause on Mrs. Son’s behalf, because it was necessary for Mr. Son to sign the clause to complete check-in. ⁴ Alternatively, by signing the form which clearly stated he had the authority to bind everyone in his party, Mr. Son acted with “apparent [*18] authority,” because the Atlantis Resort reasonably believed his representations that he had the authority to bind Mrs. Son. ⁵

4 The Restatement (Third) of Agency defines “implied authority” as either (1) the authority “to do what is necessary, usual, and proper to accomplish or perform an agent’s express responsibilities or (2) to act in a manner which an agent believes the principal wishes the agent to act based on the agent’s reasonable interpretation of the principal’s manifestation in light of the principal’s objectives and other facts known to the agent.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.01 cmnt. b (2006).

5 “Apparent authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal’s legal relations with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has the authority to act on behalf of the princpal and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestations.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.03.

The parties did not brief the issue of agency, but the parties proceeded to argue the issue of agency at the hearing. In Florida, the rule of lex loci contractus determines the law to be applied when determining an issue of contract law. See Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988). [*19] Because the contract was executed in the Bahamas, Bahamian law would apply to whether Mr. Son was acting as Mrs. Son’s agent and whether she was bound by Mr. Son’s signature. The parties, however, have not provided any evidence of (nor can the Court determine on its own initiative) the scope of Bahamian agency law. The Court has turned to the Restatement (Third) of Agency as a general guideline, not as an authoritative source on the law of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Moreover, a party need not sign a forum selection clause to be bound by the terms of the clause; a party can be bound if it is “closely related” to the dispute. Hugel v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d 206, 209-10 (7th Cir. 1993); see also E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediaries, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2001); Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 514 n.5 (9th Cir. 1988). Mrs. Son is at the center of this dispute (indeed, the parties are arguing over who is responsible for her injuries) and is thus “closely related.” Therefore, she can be bound to the terms of the clause whether she actually signed it or not. Again, the Court has explained that [*20] she received all the notice to which she was entitled under the law, and she should have been aware that agreeing to a forum selection clause was part of the check-in process.

In sum, the Kerzner Defendants’ burden in this situation was only to provide reasonable notice to Plaintiffs, which the Kerzner Defendants achieved. Once the Kerzner Defendants sent Plaintiffs notice of the forum selection clause, it was Plaintiffs’ decision as to whether they read the notification. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants somehow needed to do more. Plaintiffs chose not to read the notice, and the consequences are theirs to bear. Thus, the forum selection clause will not be invalidated on this ground.

Deprivation of Day in Court and Fundamental Unfairness

Plaintiffs argue that they will be “effectively deprived of their day in court” because of the “inconvenience” of litigating in the Bahamas and because of the fundamental unfairness of Bahamian law. (Pl. Resp. 10.) First, Plaintiffs claim that Mrs. Son cannot return to the Bahamas because of the “great mental and emotional anguish” she would suffer if she was forced to return there. Mrs. Son testified that she did not want to return [*21] to the Bahamas; however, she admitted that her doctors have never stated that she is physically or mentally incapable of returning. Instead, her prohibition on travel to the Bahamas appears self-imposed and, as a result, not a persuasive justification to invalidate the forum selection clause.

Likewise, Plaintiffs claim they are “financially unable to pursue litigation in the Bahamas, where contingent fees are prohibited.” (Pl. Resp. 11.) This argument is also unavailing. The Court cannot give substantial weight to fact that contingency fee arrangements are not available in foreign forums. Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 91 F.3d 1424, 1430 (11th Cir. 1996). As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated, “If the lack of a contingent-fee system were held determinative, then a case could almost never be dismissed because contingency fees are not allowed in most foreign forums.” Coakes v. Arabian American Oil Co., 831 F.2d 572, 576 (5th Cir. 1987) (discussing contingency fee arrangements as part of forum non conveniens analysis).

Public Policy

Plaintiffs argue that “enforcement of the provisions of the Release would contravene a strong public policy, because enforcement of the forum [*22] selection clause would imply enforcement of the entire Release.” (Pl. Resp. 11.) Plaintiffs, however, have provided no cases to suggest that enforcement of the forum selection clause by this Court would compel a Bahamian court to enforce the release of liability. The Court thus finds this argument lacks merit.

Discouraging Legitimate Claims

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants “set the Bahamas as the forum ‘as a means of discouraging [hotel guests] from pursuing legitimate claims.'” (Pl. Resp. 12.) Plaintiffs point to a case in which the Kerzner Defendants chose to litigate in New Jersey state court, Paradise Enterprises Ltd. v. Sapir, 356 N.J. Super. 96, 811 A.2d 516 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2002), to show that the Kerzner Defendants can indeed litigate in U.S. forums. Plaintiffs claim that the fact that the Kerzner Defendants will litigate in New Jersey when they so choose shows bad faith selecting the Bahamas to litigate these claims. The Court also finds this argument unpersuasive. As the Supreme Court held in Shute, where the defendant selected a Florida forum, “[a]ny suggestion of such a bad-faith motive is belied by two facts: Petitioner has its principal place of business in Florida, and many of its [*23] cruises depart from and return to Florida ports.” Here, the Kerzner Defendants, who run a resort in the Bahamas, elected a Bahamian forum to litigate disputes arising out of visitors to the Bahamian resort who are injured while staying in the Bahamas. Had Defendants selected a trial court in Thailand to settle tort claims arising out of resort stays in the Bahamas, one could make a colorable argument that the selected forum was unrelated to the dispute and selected to discourage individuals from bringing legitimate claims. Where the defendant operates a business in the selected forum and the actions that would give rise to litigation would also occur in the selected forum, the Court cannot conclude that the defendant acted in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the forum selection clause is enforceable, and this case shall be dismissed subject to Plaintiff’s ability to refile the action in the Supreme Court of the Bahamas.

Forum Non Conveniens

Alternatively, the Court believes that this action should be dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The federal doctrine of forum non conveniens allows the Court to use its inherent power to dismiss an action because [*24] of the inconvenience of the plaintiff’s chosen forum. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506-07, 67 S. Ct. 839, 91 L. Ed. 1055 (1947). Under the doctrine, dismissal is “appropriate where trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting his choice.” Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 249, 102 S. Ct. 252, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1981).

Analytically, the Court’s analysis falls into three stages. First, the Court must consider whether an “adequate alternative forum” exists which has jurisdiction over the case. La Seguridad v. Transytur Line, 707 F.2d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court must then consider whether private interest factors suggest that the Court should disturb the strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s choice of forum. Id. If the Court finds that the private interest factors are indeterminate, the Court must then proceed to consider whether considerations of public interest favor a trial in the foreign forum. Id. Dismissal is only warranted if these factors weigh heavily towards trial in the foreign forum. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 249. This strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice [*25] of forum is strongest when the plaintiff is a citizen or resident of the U.S. SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 2004).

Adequate Alternative Forum

An adequate alternative forum exists when the defendant is “amenable to process” in the foreign forum. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254 n.22. The defendant bears the burden of establishing that its proposed forum is adequate and has jurisdiction over the case. La Seguridad, 707 F.2d at 1307. Here, all but two of the Defendants in this action are Bahamian citizens or corporations. (Compl. PP 4-14.) Defendants claim that they are “undoubtedly amenable to service of process in the Bahamas.” (Def. Mot. 15.) Likewise, Defendants have presented evidence that the Bahamian legal system recognizes negligence actions like Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant case. (Pyfrom Aff. P 10.) Thus, there is no indication that Bahamian courts would not afford Plaintiffs a remedy for their claims. Moreover, courts are loathe to hold that other forums are inadequate. See Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs have not intimated that Bahamian courts would be inadequate. Thus, [*26] the Court finds that the Supreme Court of the Bahamas is an adequate alternative forum for the instant action.

Private Interest Factors

The Supreme Court has directed district courts to consider the “private interest of the litigant.” Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. Factors considered to be in a litigant’s private interest include the ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for witnesses, cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, ability to view the premises (if necessary), and “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id.

The Kerzner Defendants argue that “all of the documents related to Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaint are in The Bahamas.” (Def. Mot. 16.) The Kerzner Defendants do not state what documents are in the Bahamas, nor do they argue that such documents could not be brought to Florida in the event that trial was conducted here. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, have noted that they are already in possession of police and medical records from the Bahamas (see Childs Aff.), and such documents could easily be disclosed to Defendants during discovery. This factor weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.

Notwithstanding [*27] the relative ease of access to documentary evidence, the ease of access to witnesses and the ability to compel attendance at trial is not as clear. Plaintiffs have only identified one Florida citizen witness – the corporate representative of Defendant Kerzner International Resorts, Inc. The remaining witnesses Plaintiffs seek to call are largely medical professionals from Maryland or Washington, D.C. (See Pl. Resp. 14-16.) Defendants, on the contrary, note that many prospective witnesses are located in the Bahamas: the staff at Doctors Hospital in Nassau, Bahamas, who initially treated Mrs. Son; representatives of Defendant Nassau Cruises, Ltd.; Defendants Robert Brown, Rodger Munroe, and Silvin Brown; as well as employees of the Atlantis Resort. (Def. Mot. 16.)

The Court recognizes that in Ward v. Kerzner International Hotels Ltd., Judge Jordan held that the fact that several witnesses resided in the Bahamas was insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff. No. 03-23087-CIV, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11081, 2005 WL 2456191 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005). In that case, like in Sun Trust Bank, a majority of the Bahamian witnesses were employees of the defendants who, defendants claimed, [*28] would appear voluntarily. Id.; see also Sun Trust Bank, 184 F. Supp. 2d at 1263-64. In Ward, only two Bahamian witnesses were not employed by the defendants. Ward, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11081, 2005 WL 2456191 at *3. By contrast, in this case, most of the relevant witnesses are not employees of the Kerzner Defendants. Some of the prospective witnesses are Defendants in this action, but this Court cannot effectively subpoena these foreign nationals residing in the Bahamas and compel them to appear before this Court. In fact, these Bahamian witnesses are the very witnesses that will describe the events leading to Mrs. Son’s injuries (i.e., the liability phase). The U.S. witnesses, who for the most part are medical professionals, will likely be used for the damages phase of trial. Looking at the quality of the proposed witnesses, rather than absolute numbers of potential witnesses, the Court finds that none of the most vital witnesses needed to resolve the issue of liability reside in Florida, and a substantial number of these witnesses reside in the Bahamas.

The Kerzner Defendants may be able to interview agents of Nassau Cruses, Ltd., or some of the other individual Defendants, but the Kerzner Defendants would be [*29] forced to present testimony at trial in Florida in the form of depositions or letters rogatory. Were this situation limited to a pair of witnesses whose testimony was not in controversy (as in Ward), the Kerzner Defendants would be expected to proceed using these devices. Where several of the Defendants are outside of the compulsory process of this Court and where those witnesses are the Kerzner Defendants’ main witnesses to challenge Plaintiffs’ claims of liability, as in this case, the Court believes that the Kerzner Defendants would be severely prejudiced in their ability to defend their case. As the Supreme Court explained in Gulf Oil, the doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied to avoid these situations: “Certainly to fix the place of trial at a point where litigants cannot compel personal attendance and may be forced to try their cases on deposition, is to create a condition not satisfactory to court, jury or most litigants.” 330 U.S. at 511.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ have not identified a single witness who would be available to testify if trial were held in Florida but would not be available to testify at trial in the Bahamas. As all but one of Plaintiffs’ witnesses are [*30] coming from locations outside of this district, all but one will have to travel. The Court believes that it would be equally feasible for Plaintiffs to arrange plane tickets and hotel stays in Nassau, Bahamas, as it would in West Palm Beach, Florida. These cities are roughly 200 miles apart, a relatively short distance considering that Plaintiffs will have to travel roughly 1,000 miles to reach either forum. While there may be some inconvenience for the one Florida witness to travel to the Bahamas, Plaintiffs cannot realistically contend that the inconvenience of traveling to Nassau would vary significantly from the inconvenience of traveling to West Palm Beach. See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88, 107 (2d Cir. 2000) (“For any nonparty witnesses, the inconvenience of a trial in New York is not significantly more pronounced than the inconvenience of a trial in England.”).

Finally, it has been widely recognized that the inability to implead other parties directly involved in a controversy is a factor weighing heavily against the plaintiff’s choice of forum. See, e.g., Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1398 (8th Cir. 1991); Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448, 453 (2d Cir. 1975). [*31] In this case, like in Piper Aircraft, the joinder of Nassau Cruises, Ltd., Robert Brown, Rodger Munroe, and Silvin Brown is “crucial to the presentation” of the Kerzner Defendants’ case. 454 U.S. at 259. Plaintiffs want to show that Nassau Cruises and these individuals are the agents of the Kerzner Defendants and that the Kerzner Defendants are vicariously liable for her injuries. Without the ability to join this corporation and these individuals meaningfully to this case, the Kerzner Defendants would be forced to defend claims of vicarious liability with limited benefit of evidence from the persons actually involved in the incident giving rise to the claim. The Court finds this burden to be substantial. ⁶ Conversely, the Court can find no substantial burden on Plaintiffs (other than a financial burden from Plaintiffs’ inability to retain counsel on a contingency fee basis) from having to litigate their dispute in the Bahamas.

6 Unlike all of the cases involving injuries at resorts cited by Plaintiffs, this case is distinct because it involves an injury allegedly caused by third parties. In every other case, the plaintiff alleged that the resort was directly liable for negligence. Here, [*32] Plaintiffs do not argue direct negligence by the Kerzner Defendants, and the Kerzner Defendants can only defend their own case by compelling the attendance of the alleged direct tortfeasors. While these tortfeasors are nominally part of this lawsuit and have been served, their appearance in Court cannot be guaranteed.

After considering the private interest factors, the Court finds that they weigh substantially against Plaintiffs’ selection of the Southern District of Florida as their forum. The Court will now consider the public interest factors.

Public Interest Factors

In Gulf Oil, the Supreme Court described the considerations of public interest that district courts should consider on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens:

Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There [*33] is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09. Additionally, the Court must weigh the interest of the United States in providing a U.S. forum for its citizens with the interest of the Bahamas in adjudicating a dispute that occurred in its territory. See SME Racks, 382 F.3d at 1104.

While the Court begins with the proposition that Plaintiffs (both U.S. citizens) should not be ousted from a U.S. forum, the Court finds that the public interest factors also weigh heavily in favor of trial in the Bahamas. First, in SME Racks, the court made clear that the “United States has a strong interest in providing a forum for its citizens’ grievances against an allegedly predatory foreign business that actively solicited business and caused harm within the home forum.” 382 F.3d at 1104 (emphasis added). In SME Racks, a U.S. plaintiff brought an action against a Spanish company for breach [*34] of contract and various torts in Florida. Id. at 1099. The contract was negotiated and executed in Spain, but the alleged breach and torts allegedly occurred in Florida as the plaintiff claimed it received a shipment of defective goods in Florida. Id. This case is distinguishable from SME Racks, because the “harm” did not occur in Florida (or even in the U.S.). Instead, Plaintiffs are suing (with one exception) Bahamian companies and individuals for conduct which occurred entirely within the Bahamas. Unlike SME Racks, the presumption in favor of Plaintiffs’ choice of forum here is not as strong because of the attenuated connection of this forum with the events giving rise to the claims. See, e.g., J.C. Renfroe & Sons, Inc. v. Renfroe Japan Co., Ltd., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2007); see also Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc) (holding that a U.S. plaintiff’s choice of forum is not automatically granted greater deference unless the choice was motivated by “legitimate reasons”).

The parties have not addressed any administrative difficulties with pursuing this case in the Bahamas, other than the fact that contingency fee agreements [*35] for Plaintiffs’ counsel are not permitted in the Bahamas. ⁷ This factor, as the Court has already explained, receives no consideration. The Court also agrees with Plaintiffs that a view of the site of Mrs. Son’s accident is meaningless because the “shifting sands are no longer as they were at the time of the accident.” (Pl. Resp. 14.) The remaining factors, nonetheless, weigh heavily for the Kerzner Defendants.

7 The Court notes the logic of Chierchia v. Treasure Cay Services, 738 F. Supp. 1386 (S.D. Fla. 1990), where Judge King held that “a forum in which the personal injury action arose would present a better administrative choice than one which experiences one of the busiest criminal dockets in the U.S.” Id. at 1389.

A jury composed of residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, has a minimal (if any) interest in adjudicating a dispute between citizens of Maryland and (with one exception) citizens of the Bahamas for acts that occurred in the Bahamas. As explained in Gulf Oil, the people of Florida have no relation to this case, and thus they should not bear the burden of serving on a jury to settle a dispute between Maryland residents and Bahamian corporations for activities in Bahamian [*36] territory. In contrast, the Bahamas has an interest in settling a dispute between its citizens and foreigners for activity that happened within its sovereign territory. The Commonwealth of the Bahamas has the strongest interest in protecting tourists and visitors from the conduct of its own citizens. See, e.g., Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A., 761 So. 2d 461, 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). While the State of Florida has an interest in protecting its citizens, Plaintiffs (as well as countless other visitors to the Atlantis resort) are not citizens of Florida and they have not presented a persuasive argument for needing the protection of Florida’s laws. ⁸

8 An argument could be made that the United States has an interest in protecting its citizens from harm abroad. Nevertheless, the Court feels that the interests of the Bahamas are stronger, because the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred in the Bahamas and because Defendants are Bahamian nationals. Further, Plaintiffs traveled to the Bahamas on their own volition and only after the fact seek the protection of U.S. courts.

Plus, Bahamian law will most likely govern this dispute. ⁹ While this Court is capable of applying Bahamian [*37] law, and the Bahamas is a common law country much like our own, the Court would be forced to rely on expert testimony and evidence provided by the parties as to the substance of Bahamian law, which would add substantially to the administrative burden of having trial in this forum. “The public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to ‘untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.'” Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 251 (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 509).

9 In Florida, courts apply the “significant relationship test” to determine the substantive law applied to personal injury actions. Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980). While not dispositive, the law of the state where both the injury and the conduct causing the injury occurred is, in most instances, the law to be applied. Id. Since Mrs. Son’s accident occurred in the Bahamas, the Court finds it likely that Bahamian law will apply, at least in part, to this dispute. Notably, none of the other factors Florida courts consider (residence, nationality or place of incorporation of the parties and the place where the relationship between the parties is [*38] centered) indicate that Florida law should apply. Again, these factors would suggest either Bahamian law or Maryland law should be applied.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the public interest factors also weigh in favor of dismissal of this action.

Reinstatement of Suit

The Court must ultimately determine whether Plaintiffs can reinstate their lawsuit in the alternative forum without undue prejudice or inconvenience. See Leon, 251 F.3d at 1310-11. As the Court has already explained, the inconvenience of traveling from Maryland to West Palm Beach, Florida, is no greater than the inconvenience of traveling from Maryland to Nassau, Bahamas. The distance between these locations is practically the same. In addition, Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by dismissal, as Defendants are all subject to the jurisdiction of Bahamian courts. (Def. Mot. 19.) The statute of limitations will expire in August 2008, but Defendants have agreed to waive any statute of limitations defenses they might have under Bahamian law. (Id. at 19 n.12.) The Court, therefore, dismisses this action subject to these representations.

Conclusion

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Kerzner Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [*39] (DE 15) is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. The Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is DENIED. (See DE 31.)

2. The Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) is GRANTED.

3. The Motion to Dismiss on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is GRANTED.

4. The Kerzner Defendants are deemed to have waived any statute of limitations and personal jurisdiction defenses they might otherwise raise in the Supreme Court of the Bahamas.

5. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff to refile in the Supreme Court of the Bahamas.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 5th day of September, 2008.

/s/ Kenneth A. Marra

KENNETH A. MARRA

United States District Judge

WordPress Tags: Kerzner,International,Resorts,Dist,LEXIS,Miyoung,Youngkeun,Plaintiffs,Defendants,MARRA,JOHNSON,STATES,DISTRICT,COURT,SOUTHERN,FLORIDA,September,TERMS,forum,selection,clause,resort,hotel,arrival,forums,contingency,venue,doctrine,policy,attendance,COUNSEL,Alexander,Rundlet,Victor,Manuel,Diaz,LEAD,ATTORNEYS,Podhurst,Orseck,Miami,Katherine,Warthen,Ezell,Robert,Josefsberg,Gene,Locks,Jonathan,Miller,Firm,Philadelphia,Stephen,Nolan,corporation,Paradise,Island,Destination,Atlantis,North,America,Delaware,commonwealth,Bahamas,Company,Bruce,Scott,Liebman,Michelle,Ioanna,Bougdanos,Akerman,Senterfitt,Eidson,Fort,Lauderdale,JUDGES,KENNETH,Judge,OPINION,ORDER,MOTION,DISMISS,CAUSE,Complaint,November,June,premises,Background,August,Nassau,Cruses,Brown,Rodger,Munroe,Silvin,negligence,consortium,residents,Maryland,vacation,Compl,brother,nanny,Tour,Excursions,Center,injuries,boat,Findings,Fact,information,sender,guest,registration,Ocean,Club,officers,directors,employees,limitation,Enterprises,Beach,events,accordance,laws,Supreme,proceedings,Upon,Parties,desk,wife,husband,procedures,December,formalities,Hotels,Standard,Review,Eleventh,Circuit,basis,Rule,Federal,Rules,Civil,Procedure,Lipcon,Underwriters,Lloyd,London,clauses,enforcement,Bremen,Zapata,adjudication,Bryant,Rich,Shankles,Costa,Armatori,Admiral,Feit,Management,Discussion,formation,fraud,plaintiff,Carnival,Cruise,Lines,Shute,Some,Trust,Bank,Supp,Corna,American,Hawaii,Cruises,Here,Bahamian,arguments,respondents,Thus,instance,ticket,Elliott,cancellation,agreement,provision,Resp,faith,argument,Instead,Further,consumer,perusal,Acknowledgment,Release,paragraphs,limitations,paragraph,READ,obligation,Coleman,Prudential,Bache,Securities,incompetence,person,obligations,ignorance,Contrary,assertions,Horberg,UNGARO,Also,attachment,Conditions,guests,senders,threat,computer,viruses,Travel,Plan,Logic,testimony,decision,Mail,distinction,letter,documentation,communication,virus,representations,Restatement,Third,Agency,agent,manner,interpretation,manifestation,Apparent,actor,relations,belief,manifestations,Sturiano,Brooks,signature,initiative,scope,guideline,Moreover,Hugel,DuPont,Nemours,Poulenc,Fiber,Resin,Intermediaries,Manetti,Gucci,Again,situation,Once,notification,consequences,Deprivation,Fundamental,anguish,prohibition,self,justification,Likewise,litigation,Magnin,Teledyne,Continental,Motors,Fifth,Appeals,system,Coakes,Arabian,analysis,Public,Legitimate,Claims,Jersey,Sapir,Super,defendant,suggestion,motive,Petitioner,ports,visitors,Thailand,tort,individuals,Where,action,Conveniens,Gulf,Corp,Gilbert,Under,dismissal,convenience,Piper,Aircraft,Reyno,jurisdiction,Seguridad,Transytur,Line,factors,presumption,citizen,Racks,Sistemas,Mecanicos,Para,Electronica,Adequate,Alternative,citizens,corporations,Pyfrom,indication,Leon,Millon,Private,Interest,litigant,cost,allegations,event,possession,Childs,discovery,factor,professionals,Washington,Doctors,Hospital,Ward,Jordan,nationals,phase,agents,controversy,situations,litigants,jury,locations,tickets,West,Palm,cities,Wiwa,Royal,Dutch,Petroleum,York,England,Reid,Walen,Hansen,Fitzgerald,Texaco,presentation,incident,injury,lawsuit,appearance,Administrative,origin,relation,affairs,controversies,proposition,grievances,emphasis,Spanish,torts,Spain,shipment,goods,exception,connection,Renfroe,Sons,Japan,Iragorri,Technologies,deference,agreements,accident,Chierchia,Treasure,Services,foreigners,tourists,Calvo,Melia,State,protection,volition,Plus,substance,relationship,Bishop,Paint,instances,residence,incorporation,Reinstatement,Suit,addition,statute,Conclusion,PART,PREJUDICE,Chambers,evidentiary,four,three,behalf,pursuant,whether,enforceable,refile,tortfeasors

Whitewater rafting, 13 injuries one death and release in WV are upheld. Management-level employees of DC health care company rafted river in allegedly high water causing injuries.

Posted: May 12, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), West Virginia, Whitewater Rafting | Tags: Admiralty Law, Assumption of risk, Defendant, Maritime Law, Raft, Rafting, Recreation, Shenandoah River, West Virginia, Whitewater Rafting, Writ of Prohibition | 4 Comments

West Virginia Supreme court holds that admiralty or maritime law does not apply to whitewater rafting.

River Riders, Inc., v. Steptoe, et al, 223 W. Va. 240; 672 S.E.2d 376; 2008 W. Va. LEXIS 116; 2009 AMC 2157

Date of the Decision: December 10, 2008

Plaintiff on Appeal, Defendants at the trial court: River Riders, Inc., and Matthew Knott, Petitioners

Defendant: The Honorable Thomas W. Steptoe

Third parties on appeal: plaintiff’s at the trial court: Executor of the estate of the deceased and the 13 injured plaintiffs

Plaintiff Claims: failed to meet the statutory “standard of care” expected of members of the whitewater guide profession in direct violation of the West Virginia Whitewater Responsibility Act, W. Va. Code

Defendant Defenses: release

Issue on Appeal: Whether the trial court had improperly held the whitewater rafting trip was subject to federal admiralty law.

Holding:

This is an interesting case from a procedural perspective as well as a factual one. The issue on appeal is not a review of a complete ruling by the trial court but of a ruling that the defendants, and the court felt would influence the final decision. Meaning the defendant could convince the appellate court that the trial court’s ruling was probably wrong and unless corrected now, the entire trial would have to be done again.

The facts are people went rafting on the Shenandoah River in West Virginia. Before embarking on the trip each person signed a “Release, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement.” The water was higher than average on the day of the raft trip; 12.5 feet compared to an average of 2 to 4 feet. During the raft trip four of the rafts dumped, sending several people into the water, including the deceased and thirteen other rafters into the river.

Two separate lawsuits were filed over the incident. The first was by the estate of the deceased. The second lawsuit was filed by the other thirteen injured rafters.

The complaints of the plaintiff allege several issues:

…River Riders failed to meet the statutory “standard of care” expected of members of the whitewater guide profession in direct violation of the West Virginia Whitewater Responsibility Act, W. Va. Code §20-3B-3(b) (1987).

…that running a raft trip on September 30, 2004, simply was not reasonable under the circumstances, and that the expected standard of care would have obligated River Riders to cancel or reschedule the whitewater expedition on that day because of the river’s high and turbulent waters caused by a recent hurricane that had swept through the area.

…failing to call off or postpone the trip until conditions were safe to go out on the river, by failing to recognize that the operating capabilities of its rafts with the inexperienced customers would be unsafe and hazardous in high, swift and rough water conditions; and by wrongfully electing to navigate the Shenandoah River and in particular the Shenandoah Staircase.

The complaint for the wrongful death included the following claims:

two separate counts: one for negligence, gross negligence, reckless and wanton conduct; the other for negligence per se. Citing fifteen alleged acts or omissions, Count One alleges that the duties owed by River Riders to Mr. Freeman included the duty to conform to the standard of care expected of members of their profession, the duty to conform to safety and other requirements set forth in the West Virginia Code, the duty to conform to rules promulgated by the commercial whitewater advisory board, and the duty not to act in a reckless or wanton manner. Count Two alleges two additional acts or omissions constituting negligence per se, including citations by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resource for failure to mark a commercial water craft and failure to have a valid CPR card as required by W. Va. Code §20-2-23a

Prior to trial, the plaintiff’s filed a motion in limine to exclude the release agreement which the court granted. The court relied upon a prior West Virginia Supreme Court case that held since there was a statute supporting and providing defenses for the whitewater rafting industry, a release was no long available as a defense. Murphy v. North American River Runners, Inc., 186 W. Va. 310, 412 S.E.2d 504 (1991)

Another motion in limine was filed by the plaintiff’s arguing that assumption of risk could not be a defense because the case was governed by maritime law.

Finally, the plaintiff’s filed a motion to consolidate both lawsuits into one and have one trial. This motion was also granted by the court.

The defendants then filed motions with the West Virginia Supreme court arguing that the motions of the trial court were wrong, and the court had to intervene for a fair trial to occur. This motion was called a Writ of Prohibition.

The West Virginia Supreme Court granted the Writ but only as to the issue of whether or not maritime law applied to a whitewater rafting case in West Virginia.

This Court has, on limited occasions, considered challenges from evidentiary rulings in unique circumstances where the matter at issue rose to a level of considerable importance and compelling urgency.

The court declined to review the other issues because a writ of prohibition was not the proper way to argue the issues and timing of those issues were best left to the appeal of the case.

Summary of the case

To be subject to Federal maritime law a two-prong test must be met, “whether the rafting mishap and ensuing tort claims arising therefrom satisfied both prerequisite conditions of 1) location on the navigable waters and 2) connection with maritime activity.”

In determining whether or not the accident occurred on navigable waters the trial court should have included an analysis of “…whether the incident constituted “a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce” and that it had a “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity” and determined the “the activity of whitewater rafting does not constitute traditional maritime activity and is therefore, not governed by maritime law.”

…given the fact that the Shenandoah River maintains average depths of two feet, 18 it is hard to envision how the act of whitewater rafting could have a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, to the extent that this area was unlikely a highly traveled thoroughfare over which trade and travel is conducted.

Nor could the court find any decision where admiralty law had been applied to whitewater rafting.

Whitewater rafting is a recreational activity where participants seek the adventure of paddling a rubber raftin rapidly moving whitewater streams and rivers. Such use of streams and rivers carrying people, not as traveling passengers, but rather as participants seeking adventure, makes it difficult to conceive that whitewater rafting bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.

The appellate court sent the case back down with two of the rulings intact.

So Now What?

Admiralty law is a separate area of the law. It was developed prior to the formation of the United States for commerce between countries. It has very different rules for liability, worker’s compensation and other legal issues. In the US, admiralty law also applies to travel on major rivers and waterways. When and how admiralty law is applied is dependent upon the federal statute and the type of admiralty activity. As an example there are more than a dozen different definitions of navigable for different maritime activities.

Admiralty law came from commerce. Admiralty law has been applied to recreational activities in the past, such as using personal water craft, however, in all of those cases; the activity was on the ocean or large bodies of water.

Admiralty law could be used in some states on some rafting rivers as a defense, if handled by a law firm knowledgeable in admiralty law. If the jurisdictional issues are met, a defendant can go to court within six months of an accident and file a notice (open a case) and post a bond. The reason for doing this is, under admiralty law, the damages available to the plaintiff’s is limited to the value of the vessel and its contents after the accident. However, by doing this the raft company may be admitting liability and must prove it was an admiralty issue.

This law as created to limit the damages of a ship owner to not bankrupt the owner or the industry. A $10,000 raft, frame and gear are a relatively cheap and easy way to get out from under a potential claim. However, if you fail to meet the requirements but are still subject to admiralty law, you do not have several defenses normally relied upon to stop claims: releases and assumption of the risk.

To some extent, we are left hanging by the decision on whether a release is valid as a defense in a rafting accident in West Virginia. However, the decision on whether the federal maritime law is applicable is valuable.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Whitewater,injuries,death,Management,employees,health,river,West,Virginia,Supreme,Riders,Matthew,Knott,Honorable,Thomas,Steptoe,LEXIS,Date,Decision,December,Plaintiff,Appeal,Defendants,Petitioners,Defendant,Third,Executor,estate,plaintiffs,Claims,profession,violation,Code,Defenses,Issue,Whether,perspective,Shenandoah,person,Release,Assumption,Risk,Agreement,feet,lawsuits,incident,lawsuit,complaints,September,expedition,hurricane,area,capabilities,customers,Staircase,complaint,negligence,omissions,Count,duties,Freeman,requirements,manner,citations,Division,Natural,Resource,failure,card,Prior,Court,statute,industry,Murphy,North,American,Runners,Writ,Prohibition,rulings,importance,urgency,Summary,Federal,prong,mishap,tort,prerequisite,location,connection,accident,analysis,impact,commerce,relationship,fact,extent,thoroughfare,participants,adventure,rubber,rivers,passengers,formation,States,worker,compensation,waterways,example,definitions,vessel,owner,gear,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Maritime,appellate,limine,upon

States that do not Support the Use of a Release

Posted: May 7, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Release | 1 Comment

Assumption of the risk is your best defense in these states

These states do not allow a recreational business or program to use a release to stop litigation.

State				Citation			Issues
Releases are Void
Louisiana		C.C. Art. 2004 (2005)			Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for intentional or gross fault that causes damage to the other party. Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for causing physical injury to the other party.
Montana		MCA § 27-1-701			Liability for negligence as well as willful acts. Except as otherwise provided by law, everyone is responsible not only for the results of his willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person except so far as the latter has willfully or by want of ordinary care brought the injury upon himself.
Virginia		Johnson’s Adm’x v. Richmond and Danville R.R. Co., 86 Va. 975, 11 S.E. 829 (1890)			Except for Equine Activities Chapter 62. Equine Activity Liability § 3.2-6202. Liability limited; liability actions prohibited
Use of a Release is Restricted
Arizona		Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 2005 Ariz. LEXIS 53
New Mexico		Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corporation, 132 N.M. 332;2002 NMCA 60;48 P.3d 70;2002 N.M. App. 39;41 N.M. St. B. Bull. 25
West Virginia		Kyriazis v. University of West Virginia; 192 W. Va. 60; 450 S.E.2d 649; 1994 W. Va. LEXIS 161
Use of Releases is Probably Void
Connecticut			Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 885 A.2d 734 (2005) and Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, Et Al., 280 Conn. 153; 905 A.2d 1156; 2006 Conn. LEXIS 330
Wisconsin			Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2
Vermont			Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd, 164 Vt 329; 670 A.2d 795; 1995 Vt. Lexis 127
Specific uses of Releases are Void
Alaska	Sec. 05.45.120(a). Use of liability releases					A ski area operator may not require a skier to sign an agreement releasing the ski area operator from liability in exchange for the right to ride a ski area tramway and ski in the ski area. A release that violates this subsection is void and may not be enforced.
Hawaii	King v. CJM Country Stables, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511 (D. Haw. 2004)					Found that Hawaii statute § 663-1.54. Recreational activity liability prevented the use of a release
New York	General Obligation Law § 5-326. Agreements exempting pools, gymnasiums, places of public amusement or recreation and similar establishments from liability for negligence void and unenforceable					Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

WordPress Tags: States,Support,Release,Assumption,litigation,State,Citation,Issues,Releases,Void,Louisiana,clause,injury,Montana,negligence,Except,skill,management,person,Virginia,Johnson,Richmond,Danville,Equine,Activities,Chapter,Arizona,Phelps,Firebird,Raceway,Ariz,LEXIS,Mexico,Berlangieri,Corporation,NMCA,Bull,West,Kyriazis,Connecticut,Hanks,Powder,Ridge,Restaurant,Corp,Conn,Reardon,Windswept,Farm,Wisconsin,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Wisc,Vermont,Dalury,Specific,Alaska,area,operator,agreement,subsection,Hawaii,Country,Stables,Supp,Dist,Found,statute,Recreational,York,General,Obligation,Agreements,gymnasiums,amusement,recreation,establishments,covenant,connection,collateral,membership,ticket,admission,owner,gymnasium,establishment,user,facilities,compensation,agents,servants,employees,policy,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,unenforceable

Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 258 Ore. App. 390; 310 P.3d 692; 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1080

Posted: May 5, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Oregon, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Age of Majority, Air Chamber, Boarder, Boarding, Disaffirm, Inc., Mount Bachelor, Mt. Bachelor, Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, Myles A. Bagley, Oregon, Release, ski area, Ski Resort, Snowboard, Snowboarder, snowboarding, Terrain park | Leave a comment

This decision was just overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court in Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., dba Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, 2014 Ore. LEXIS 994 on December 18, 20014

Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 258 Ore. App. 390; 310 P.3d 692; 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1080

Myles A. Bagley, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Al Bagley, individually; and Lauren Bagley, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., dba Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, Defendant-Respondent, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

A148231

COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON

258 Ore. App. 390; 310 P.3d 692; 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1080

September 6, 2012, Argued and Submitted

September 5, 2013, Filed

COUNSEL: Kathryn H. Clarke argued the cause for appellant. On the opening brief were Bryan W. Gruetter and Joseph S. Walsh. With her on the reply brief was Lisa T. Hunt.

Andrew C. Balyeat argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Balyeat & Eager, LLP.

JUDGES: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge.

OPINION BY: SERCOMBE

OPINION

[**694] [*392] SERCOMBE, J.

Plaintiff Bagley, after suffering serious injuries while snowboarding over a “jump” in defendant Mt. Bachelor, Inc.’s (Mt. Bachelor) “terrain park,” brought this action alleging negligence in the design, construction, maintenance, or inspection of that jump. ¹ The trial court granted Mt. Bachelor’s motion for summary judgment, which was based on the affirmative defense of release, and denied Bagley’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment pertaining to that same issue. Bagley appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in (1) concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Bagley ratified, after reaching the age of majority, a release agreement entered into while he was a minor; (2) concluding that the release agreement was not contrary [***2] to public policy; and (3) concluding that the release agreement was neither substantively nor procedurally unconscionable. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the trial court and, accordingly, affirm.

1 For ease of reading, notwithstanding additional named parties (Bagley’s parents and “John Does 1-10”), we refer throughout this opinion to plaintiff “Bagley” and defendant “Mt. Bachelor.”

[HN1] In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts, along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party–here, Bagley on Mt. Bachelor’s motion and Mt. Bachelor on Bagley’s cross-motion. ORCP 47 C; Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc., 346 Ore. 128, 132, 206 P3d 181 (2009). On September 29, 2005, just under two weeks before his 18th birthday, Bagley purchased a “season pass” from Mt. Bachelor. Bagley was a skilled and experienced snowboarder, having purchased season passes from Mt. Bachelor for each of the preceding three years and having classified his skill level as of early 2006, immediately prior to the injury, as “advanced expert.” Upon purchasing the season pass, he executed [**695] a release agreement as required by Mt. Bachelor. That [***3] agreement read, in pertinent part:

“RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

“IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF A MT. BACHELOR PASS AND/OR MT. BACHELOR’S PREMISES, I/WE AGREE TO RELEASE AND INDEMNIFY MT. BACHELOR, [*393] INC., ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, OWNERS, AGENTS, LANDOWNERS, AFFILIATED COMPANIES, AND EMPLOYEES (HEREINAFTER ‘MT. BACHELOR, INC.’) FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURY, OR DEATH WHICH I/WE MAY SUFFER OR FOR WHICH I/WE MAY BE LIABLE TO OTHERS, IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH SKIING, SNOWBOARDING, OR SNOWRIDING. THIS RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT SHALL APPLY TO ANY CLAIM EVEN IF CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE. THE ONLY CLAIMS NOT RELEASED ARE THOSE BASED UPON INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.

“* * * * *

“THE UNDERSIGNED(S) HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS TERMS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DOCUMENT. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, THE DUTIES OF SKIERS, SNOWBOARDERS, OR SNOWRIDERS. THE UNDERSIGNED(S) UNDERSTAND THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS AN AGREEMENT OF RELEASE AND INDEMNITY WHICH WILL PREVENT THE UNDERSIGNED(S) OR THE UNDERSIGNEDS’ ESTATE FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FROM MT. BACHELOR, INC. IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OR INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY. THE UNDERSIGNED(S), NEVERTHELESS, [***4] ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY AND AGREE IT IS BINDING ON THE UNDERSIGNED(S) AND THE UNDERSIGNEDS’ HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

“BY MY/OUR SIGNATURE(S) BELOW, I/WE AGREE THAT THIS RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND I WILL BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS THROUGHOUT THIS SEASON AND ALL SUBSEQUENT SEASONS FOR WHICH I/WE RENEW THIS SEASON PASS.

“SEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET * * * FOR DUTIES OF SKIERS, SNOWBOARDERS, OR SNOW RIDERS WHICH YOU MUST OBSERVE.”

(Underscoring and capitalization in original; emphases added.) The reverse side of the document detailed the “Duties of Skiers” pursuant to ORS 30.990 and ORS 30.985 and also included printed notification that “Skiers/Snowboarders/Snowriders [*394] Assume Certain Risks” under ORS 30.975–namely, the “inherent risks of skiing.” ² In addition, because Bagley was not yet 18, his father executed a “minor release and indemnity agreement” (capitalization omitted) that read as follows:

“I HEREBY AGREE TO RELEASE AND INDEMNIFY MT. BACHELOR, INC., ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, OWNERS, AGENTS, LANDOWNERS, AFFILIATED COMPANIES, AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURY, OR DEATH WHICH [***5] THE MINOR(S) NAMED BELOW MAY SUFFER OR FOR WHICH HE OR SHE MAY BE LIABLE TO OTHERS, IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH SKIING, SNOWBOARDING, OR SNOWRIDING. THIS RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT SHALL APPLY TO ANY CLAIM EVEN IF CAUSED BY [**696] NEGLIGENCE. THE ONLY CLAIMS NOT RELEASED ARE THOSE BASED UPON INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.

“BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I AGREE THAT THIS MINOR RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND I WILL BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS THROUGHOUT THIS SEASON AND ALL SUBSEQUENT SEASONS FOR WHICH THIS SEASON PASS IS RENEWED.

“I HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS TERMS.”

(Capitalization in original; emphasis added.)

2 Oregon has promulgated statutes specifically pertaining to skiing and ski areas. See ORS 30.970 – 30.990. Those statutes, inter alia, set forth the “duties” of skiers, require that ski area operators inform skiers of those duties, establish notice requirements and a statute of limitations pertaining specifically to injury or death while skiing, and provide that those who engage in the sport of skiing accept and assume the risks inherent in that activity.

Less than two weeks after purchasing the season pass and executing the [***6] above-quoted release agreement, Bagley reached the age of majority–turning 18 on October 12, 2005. Thereafter, on November 18, 2005, Bagley began using the pass, on which the crux of the release agreement was also printed:

[*395] “READ THIS RELEASE AGREEMENT

“IN CONSIDERATION FOR EACH LIFT RIDE, THE TICKET USER RELEASES AND AGREES TO HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY MT. BACHELOR, INC., AND ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS FROM ALL CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURY OR DEATH EVEN IF CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE. THE ONLY CLAIMS NOT RELEASED ARE THOSE BASED UPON INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.”

(Capitalization in original; emphasis added.) Further, the following sign was posted at each of Mt. Bachelor’s ski lift terminals:

“YOUR TICKET IS A RELEASE

“The back of your ticket contains a release of all claims against Mt. Bachelor, Inc. and its employees or agents. Read the back of your ticket before you ride any lifts or use any of the facilities of Mt. Bachelor, Inc. If you purchase a ticket from someone else, you must provide this ticket release information to that person or persons.

“Skiers and lift passengers who use tickets at this resort release and agree to hold harmless and indemnify Mt. Bachelor, Inc., its employees and [***7] agents from all claims for property damage, injury or death which he/she may suffer or for which he/she may be liable to others, arising out of the use of Mt. Bachelor’s premises, whether such claims are for negligence or any other theory of recovery, except for intentional misconduct.

“If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the sale of your ticket, please do not purchase the ticket or use the facilities at Mt. Bachelor.

“Presentation of this ticket to gain access to the premises and facilities of this area is an acknowledgment of your agreement to the terms and conditions outlined above.”

(Capitalization in original; emphases added.)

Ultimately, beginning on November 18, 2005, after his 18th birthday, Bagley used his season pass to ride Mt. Bachelor’s lifts at least 119 times over the course of 26 days spent snowboarding at the ski area. However, on February 16, 2006, while snowboarding over a manmade jump in Mt. Bachelor’s “air chamber” terrain park, Bagley sustained serious injuries resulting in permanent paralysis.

[*396] On June 16, 2006, approximately four months later, Bagley provided Mt. Bachelor with formal notice of his injury under ORS 30.980(1), which requires [***8] that “[a] ski area operator * * * be notified of any injury to a skier * * * within 180 days after the injury * * *.” Nearly two years after the injury, on February 15, 2008, Bagley brought this action–filing a complaint alleging negligence on Mt. Bachelor’s part in designing, constructing, maintaining, or inspecting the jump on which Bagley was injured. Mt. Bachelor answered, in part, by invoking the affirmative defense of release–pointing to the above-quoted release agreements signed by Bagley and his father prior to the date of injury.

Mt. Bachelor quickly moved for summary judgment on that ground, arguing before the trial court that, by failing to disaffirm the voidable release agreement within a reasonable [**697] period of time after reaching the age of majority, and by accepting the benefits of that agreement and “objectively manifest[ing] his intent to affirm” it (i.e., by riding Mt. Bachelor’s lifts 119 times over 26 days), Bagley had ratified the release and was therefore bound by it. Mt. Bachelor further noted that Bagley “admittedly understood that he [had] entered into a release agreement and was snowboarding under its terms on the date of [the] accident.” Accordingly, Mt. Bachelor [***9] argued, because Bagley had ratified a release agreement that unambiguously disclaimed liability for negligence, there was no material issue of fact as to whether that agreement barred Bagley’s action, and Mt. Bachelor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ³

3 Mt. Bachelor additionally argued, as pertinent to this appeal, that the release agreement was neither adhesionary nor contrary to public policy under Oregon law. Specifically, it argued that “skiers and snowboarders voluntarily choose to ski and snowboard and ski resorts do not provide essential public services.”

Bagley then filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to Mt. Bachelor’s affirmative defense of release, arguing that “there [was] no genuine issue of material fact [as to whether] the release [was] void and unenforceable as a matter of law.” Specifically, Bagley argued that he timely disaffirmed the release agreement by (1) notifying Mt. Bachelor of the injury pursuant to ORS 30.980(1), (2) filing his complaint for negligence within the two-year statute of limitations “for injuries to a skier” established by ORS 30.980(3), [*397] and (3) “plead[ing] infancy as a defense to [Mt. Bachelor’s] First Affirmative Defense [***10] on the release executed by [Bagley] while an infant.” Additionally, in response to Mt. Bachelor’s motion, Bagley alternatively argued that “whether [he] disaffirmed the Release within a reasonable time should be determined by the jury as a question of fact” because a material issue of fact existed as to Bagley’s knowledge of both the scope of the release (namely, whether it covered claims for negligence) and “of his right to disaffirm” it (i.e., whether it was voidable). He further argued that the release was contrary to public policy and “both substantively and procedurally unconscionable.”

The trial court agreed with Mt. Bachelor, reasoning that Bagley’s “use of the pass following his eighteenth birthday constitute[d] an affirmation of the contract and release agreement each time the pass was used, a total of 119 times over a period of 26 different days, up to February 16, 2006[,]” and noting that, “[o]nce there [was] an affirmation, [Bagley could] no longer disaffirm the contract.” The court rejected Bagley’s public policy and unconscionability arguments, reasoning that “[s]now riding is not such an essential service which requires someone such as [Bagley] to be forced to sign a [***11] release in order to obtain the service.” Accordingly, having determined that Bagley ratified the release agreement after reaching the age of majority and that “there [was] no basis by which [it could] find the release invalid[,]” the trial court granted summary judgment in Mt. Bachelor’s favor and denied Bagley’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Bagley now appeals, reprising his arguments below.

[HN2] On appeal, we review the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment to determine whether we agree “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” ORCP 47 C; see O’Dee v. Tri-County Metropolitan Trans. Dist., 212 Ore. App. 456, 460, 157 P3d 1272 (2007). [HN3] No genuine issue of material fact exists if, “based upon the record before the court viewed in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter that is the subject of the motion for summary judgment.” ORCP 47 C.

[*398] In his first assignment of error, Bagley asserts that “[t]here is a genuine factual dispute as to whether [his] actions or omissions after reaching the age of majority [***12] were enough to disaffirm or affirm the contract he entered with [Mt. Bachelor] when he was a minor.” More specifically, Bagley argues that “[a] jury could reasonably infer from the facts that merely turning 18 years old and continuing to snowboard was not conclusive evidence of [his] intent to affirm the release [**698] and agree to waive all prospective claims for [Mt. Bachelor’s] negligence.” He argues that a jury “could just as easily find that he promptly disaffirmed the contract” by notifying Mt. Bachelor of the injury approximately four months after it occurred as required by ORS 30.980(1), by filing suit for negligence within the applicable statute of limitations, or by pleading infancy in response to Mt. Bachelor’s affirmative defense of release. ⁴

4 Bagley alternatively argues that, “even if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the inferences arising from the facts in this case are susceptible to more than one reasonable conclusion precluding summary judgment.” However, Bagley does not identify any facts that purportedly give rise to inferences susceptible to more than one reasonable conclusion, and, ultimately, his generalized argument to that effect is not materially different [***13] from his argument in support of his first assignment of error. Accordingly, we reject that alternative argument without further discussion.

Mt. Bachelor likewise reprises its arguments below, asserting that Bagley admittedly knew that he was snowboarding under the terms of a release agreement, was aware of the inherent risks of snowboarding (particularly given his advanced, aerial style of snowboarding), and, “[u]nderstanding those risks,” made “an informed decision to execute the release agreement” and “an informed decision to honor the agreement after reaching the age of majority because he wanted to snowboard.” As noted, Mt. Bachelor points to Bagley’s use of the pass after reaching the age of majority–arguing that Bagley ratified the release agreement by riding the lifts “no less than 119 times on 26 days before the subject accident.”

[HN4] In Oregon, a former minor may disaffirm a contract within a “reasonable time” after reaching the age of majority, see Highland v. Tollisen, 75 Ore. 578, 587, 147 P 558 (1915), or, conversely, may ratify a contract after reaching the age of majority by manifesting an intent to let the contract stand, [*399] see Haldeman v. Weeks, 90 Ore. 201, 205, 175 P 445 (1918); [***14] see also Richard A. Lord, 5 Williston on Contracts § 9:17, 166-70 (4th ed 2009) (“[I]f an infant after reaching the age of majority engages in any conduct that objectively manifests an intent to regard the bargain as binding, the former minor will be held as a matter of law to have ratified the contract.”). Further, as particularly relevant here, although what constitutes a reasonable period of time after reaching the age of majority varies widely depending on the circumstances, it is well established that [HN5] ratification of a voidable contract abolishes a party’s power to later disaffirm it. See Brown et ux v. Hassenstab et ux, 212 Ore. 246, 256, 319 P2d 929 (1957) (“The two courses of action are inconsistent and the taking of one will preclude the other.”); Snyder v. Rhoads, 47 Ore. App 545, 553-54, 615 P2d 1058, rev den, 290 Ore. 157 (1980) (similar).

Applying those principles to these facts, we agree with Mt. Bachelor and conclude that no objectively reasonable juror could find that Bagley disaffirmed the release agreement within a reasonable time after turning 18. Rather, the record gives rise to only one reasonable conclusion: By using the season pass at least 119 times over the course [***15] of 26 days between November 18, 2005 and February 16, 2006, Bagley objectively manifested his intent to let the release stand–affirmatively electing to ride the lifts and snowboard under the terms of the agreement (i.e., to accept the benefits of the agreement). His actions after the date of injury–at which time the release had already been ratified and Bagley’s power to disaffirm it thereby defeated–are immaterial. Cf. Highland, 75 Ore. at 587 (former minor’s disaffirmance held valid under circumstances where she had neither taken any affirmative action on the contract nor received any benefit from it); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 85 comment b (1981) (power of disaffirmance may be lost, inter alia, “by exercise of dominion over things received”); Lord, 5 Williston on Contracts § 9:17 at 170 ( [HN6] “[I]f the infant after attaining majority voluntarily receives performance in whole or in part from the other party to the contract, this will amount to a ratification.”). ⁵

5 Although existing Oregon case law on point is limited, several other states have similarly reasoned that a former minor’s acceptance of the benefits of a contract may constitute a ratification. See, e.g., Jones v. Dressel, 623 P2d 370, 372-74 (Colo 1981) [***16] (holding that a former minor, who had signed a release at age 17 in order to skydive, “ratified the contract, as a matter of law, by accepting the benefits of the contract when he used [the defendant’s] facilities” and further stating that the question whether that former minor’s subsequent actions constituted disaffirmance of the contract was “not relevant” because the former minor had already ratified the contract); Parsons ex rel Cabaniss v. American Family Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 211, 305 Wis 2d 630, 639, 740 NW2d 399, 403 (Wis Ct App 2007), rev den, 2008 WI 19, 307 Wis. 2d 294, 746 N.W.2d 811 (Wis 2008) (former minor ratified release agreement in connection with settlement by retaining funds given as consideration for that release).

[*400] [**699] In reaching that conclusion, we emphasize that Bagley was less than two weeks short of the age of majority when he signed the release agreement and did not begin snowboarding under its terms until well over a month after turning 18. He was also an experienced snowboarder, had signed release agreements at other ski resorts in the past, and had purchased a season pass and signed a release agreement for each of the preceding three years that he spent snowboarding at Mt. Bachelor. See [***17] Haldeman, 90 Ore. at 205 (considering former minor’s maturity and life experience in determining whether contract had been ratified). Moreover, the language of the release was unambiguous, as discussed further below, and that language was both heavily emphasized and omnipresent–having been reproduced on the back of the physical season pass that Bagley was required to carry at all times and in large part on signage at each of the lift terminals to which Bagley was exposed at least 119 times. Indeed, given the exculpatory language on Bagley’s pass and the signage directing his attention to it, it is not implausible that Bagley released Mt. Bachelor from liability for negligence each time that he rode one of the lifts.

Nevertheless, Bagley affirmatively chose to accept the benefits of the agreement after reaching the age of majority and, as noted, continued to do so until the date of injury notwithstanding the pass’s and signage’s continuing reminders of the existence of the agreement and provision of ample exposure to its terms. The following exchange, which occurred during Bagley’s deposition, is particularly illustrative:

“[Mt. Bachelor’s Counsel]: The reason you didn’t go to Mt. Bachelor [***18] and tell them ‘You know what, I signed this agreement when I was 17, now I’m 18, I want to void it, I don’t want to be subject to it,’ what I’m asking you to [*401] acknowledge is the reason you didn’t do that is because you wanted [to] continue [to snowboard] and did continue [to snowboard] under the terms of the season pass agreement.

“[Bagley]: Yes.”

Thus, as the trial court correctly reasoned, when Bagley used the season pass 119 times to gain access to Mt. Bachelor’s lifts, he objectively manifested his intent to regard the release agreement as binding in order to reap its benefits–thereby ratifying it.

However, although he concedes that he was “aware of the release” and “aware of the inherent risks of his sport[,]” Bagley further argues that he did not know that the agreement released Mt. Bachelor from claims related to its own negligence. Nor, he argues, did he know that he had the power to disaffirm the contract upon turning 18. We conclude that such knowledge was not a necessary prerequisite to ratification and, therefore, that Bagley’s arguments as to his subjective understanding of both the release agreement and the law do not affect our determination that “no objectively reasonable [***19] juror could [have] return[ed] a verdict for” Bagley on the issue of ratification. ORCP 47 C.

Oregon subscribes to the “objective theory of contracts.” Kabil Developments Corp. v. Mignot, 279 Ore. 151, 156-57, 566 P2d 505 (1977) (citation omitted); Newton/Boldt v. Newton, 192 Ore. App. 386, 392, 86 P3d 49, rev den, 337 Ore. 84, 93 P.3d 72 (2004), cert den, 543 U.S. 1173, 125 S. Ct. 1365, 161 L. Ed. 2d 153 (2005). Accordingly, although there is undisputed evidence in the record showing that, after reaching the age of majority, Bagley was exposed to language expressly disclaiming liability for negligence on the part of Mt. Bachelor, ⁶ his subjective understanding [*402] [**700] of that language and the terms of the release agreement is not relevant to the question of whether he ratified that agreement such that it could be enforced against him. See, e.g., NW Pac. Indem. v. Junction City Water Dist., 295 Ore. 553, 557 n 4, 668 P2d 1206 (1983), modified on other grounds, 296 Ore. 365, 677 P2d 671 (1984) ( [HN7] “[F]ailure to read an instrument is not a defense to enforcement.”).

6 For instance, as noted, the season pass that he was required to carry with him at all times expressly disclaimed liability for negligence and drew his attention to that language with the following [***20] heading: “READ THIS RELEASE AGREEMENT[.]” (Capitalization in original.) Further, during his deposition testimony, Bagley confirmed that he had read signage posted prominently on the mountain that stated, as pertinent here, that

“[s]kiers and lift passengers who use tickets at this resort release and agree to hold harmless and indemnify Mt. Bachelor, Inc., its employees and agents from all claims for property damage, injury or death which he/she may suffer or for which he/she may be liable to others, arising out of the use of Mt. Bachelor’s premises, whether such claims are for negligence or any other theory of recovery, except for intentional misconduct.”

(Emphasis added.)

We similarly reject Bagley’s argument regarding his lack of knowledge of the power to disaffirm the release agreement upon reaching the age of majority. In raising that issue, Bagley notes that, “[i]n some states, the former infant’s knowledge, or lack thereof, of his right to disaffirm a contract may be taken into consideration” in assessing whether there has been a ratification or disaffirmance. (Emphases added.) However, we have previously stated that [HN8] “[i]gnorance of [***21] the law is not a basis for not enforcing a contract.” Shea v. Begley, 94 Ore. App. 554, 558 n 3, 766 P2d 418 (1988), rev den, 307 Ore. 514, 770 P.2d 595 (1989) (citation omitted; emphasis added); see also Walcutt v. Inform Graphics, Inc., 109 Ore. App. 148, 152, 817 P2d 1353 (1991), rev den, 312 Ore. 589, 824 P.2d 418 (1992) (the plaintiff was not entitled to avoid contract due to her and her counsel’s “failure to take reasonable measures to inform themselves about her affairs”). Moreover, as Mt. Bachelor correctly points out, Bagley’s argument is drawn from the minority view among other jurisdictions. See Lord, 5 Williston on Contracts § 9:17 at 175-77 (former minor’s ignorance of legal defense of infancy treated as irrelevant in a majority of those jurisdictions that have considered the issue). As aptly stated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,

“[t]o require that one must have knowledge of a right to disaffirm in order to make an effective ratification of a voidable contract made in infancy would be inconsistent with the well-established rule that failure to disaffirm such contract within a reasonable time after coming of age terminates the privilege of disaffirmance.”

Campbell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 307 Pa 365, 371, 161 A 310, 312 (1932).

In [***22] short, both of Bagley’s ancillary arguments are inconsistent with the objective theory of contracts to which Oregon adheres; we look to the parties’ objective conduct, [*403] and, here, after reaching the age of majority, Bagley objectively manifested his intent to let the contract stand because he “wanted to snowboard[.]”

As noted, in his second assignment of error, Bagley asserts that the release agreement was void as contrary to public policy–focusing primarily on the respective bargaining power of the parties and an asserted “public interest [in] protecting a large number of business invitees, including [Bagley], from the negligence of ski area operators.” ⁷ (Some capitalization omitted.) [HN9] In evaluating whether a contract disclaiming liability for negligence is contrary to public policy, we assess the language of the agreement under the circumstances in order to determine whether it violates public policy “as applied” to the facts of the particular case. Harmon v. Mt. Hood Meadows Ltd., 146 Ore. App. 215, 217-18, 222-24, 932 P2d 92 (1997) (upholding release agreement disclaiming “any and all liability (including claims based upon negligence) for damage or injury” because the plaintiff’s action [***23] pertained only to ordinary negligence and therefore did not implicate the release’s potential coverage of recklessness or intentional misconduct [**701] (capitalization and boldface omitted)). Specifically, we stated in Harmon that

[HN10] “[t]he question of whether a contract provision is unenforceable as against some general, uncodified public policy must be determined on an ‘as applied’ basis. * * * [A] party seeking to avoid contractual responsibility must demonstrate that enforcement of the contractual provision as to him or her will offend public policy. That is so regardless of whether enforcement of the same contractual provision against other parties in other circumstances would violate public policy.”

Id. at 222 (emphases added); see generally Young v. Mobil Oil Corp., 85 Ore. App. 64, 69, 735 P2d 654 (1987) ( [HN11] “Oregon requires that a public policy be clear and ‘overpowering’ before a court will interfere with the parties’ freedom to contract on the ground of public policy.” (Citation omitted.)).

7 We assume without deciding that the “void as contrary to public policy” doctrine pertaining to this type of case has not been superseded by later-evolved principles concerning substantive unconscionability. [***24] See Restatement at § 208 comment a (unconscionability analysis generally “overlaps” with public-policy analysis).

[*404] Again, the release agreement provided, as pertinent here:

“RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

“IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF A MT. BACHELOR PASS AND/OR MT. BACHELOR’S PREMISES, I/WE AGREE TO RELEASE AND INDEMNIFY MT. BACHELOR, INC., ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, OWNERS, AGENTS, LANDOWNERS, AFFILIATED COMPANIES, AND EMPLOYEES (HEREINAFTER ‘MT. BACHELOR, INC.’) FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURY, OR DEATH WHICH I/WE MAY SUFFER OR FOR WHICH I/WE MAY BE LIABLE TO OTHERS, IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH SKIING, SNOWBOARDING, OR SNOWRIDING. THIS RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT SHALL APPLY TO ANY CLAIM EVEN IF CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE. THE ONLY CLAIMS NOT RELEASED ARE THOSE BASED UPON INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.”

(Underscoring and capitalization in original; emphasis added.) Although that exculpatory language expressly excludes intentional misconduct from its purview, the same cannot be said with respect to gross negligence or recklessness. However, applying Harmon, because Bagley alleges only ordinary negligence, the failure to expressly exclude gross negligence or recklessness does [***25] not render the agreement contrary to public policy “as applied” to the negligence claim in this case. 146 Ore. App at 222.

Further, in assessing the language of the agreement, our decision in Steele v. Mt. Hood Meadows Oregon, Ltd., 159 Ore. App. 272, 974 P2d 794, rev den, 329 Ore. 10, 994 P.2d 119 (1999), provides substantial guidance. There, the plaintiff in a wrongful death action brought against a ski resort argued that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment for the ski resort in part because “the terms of the release [were] ambiguous.” Id. at 276. We concluded that the agreement was ambiguous and stated that, [HN12] “[w]hen one party seeks to contract away liability for its own negligence in advance of any harm, the intent to do so must be ‘clearly and unequivocally expressed.'” Id. (quoting Estey v. MacKenzie Engineering Inc., 324 Ore. 372, 376, 927 P2d 86 (1996)). We further elaborated:

[*405] “In determining whether a contract provision meets that standard, the court has considered both the language of the contract and the possibility of a harsh or inequitable result that would fall on one party if the other were immunized from the consequences of its own negligence. The latter inquiry turns on the [***26] nature of the parties’ obligations and the expectations under the contract.”

Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

We conclude that the release agreement’s language “clearly and unequivocally” expressed Mt. Bachelor’s intent to disclaim liability for negligence. In reaching that conclusion, considering “the nature of the parties’ obligations and the expectations under the contract[,]” id., we note that Bagley admittedly understood that he was engaged in an inherently dangerous activity and that the agreement not only disclaimed liability [**702] for negligence but specifically stated that the “only” claims not released were those for intentional misconduct. Unlike the ambiguous release agreement in Steele, the above-quoted language expressly referred to negligence and was positioned prominently at the beginning of the release agreement; it was not obscured by unrelated provisions. See id. at 274-75 (exculpatory provision obscured by, inter alia, provision addressing skier’s duty to report injuries to the ski resort’s medical clinic). Indeed, we are hard-pressed to envision a more unambiguous expression of “the expectations under the contract”–namely, that in exchange [***27] for the right to use Mt. Bachelor’s facilities to participate in an inherently dangerous activity, Bagley was to release Mt. Bachelor from all claims related to anything other than intentional misconduct (including, of course, negligence).

Moreover, we have previously emphasized that [HN13] a release agreement disclaiming liability for negligence does not necessarily offend public policy where it pertains exclusively to “recreational activities,” and, most prominently, where the business seeking to relieve itself of such liability does “not provide an essential public service[.]” Mann v. Wetter, 100 Ore. App. 184, 187, 187 n 1, 785 P2d 1064, rev den, 309 Ore. 645, 789 P.2d 1387 (1990) (“[T]here are no public policy considerations that prevent a diving school from limiting liability for its own negligence. The diving school does not provide an [*406] essential public service[.]”). A ski resort, like a diving school, primarily offers “recreational activities” (with possible exceptions that do not apply here, e.g., training for search-and-rescue personnel) and does not provide an “essential public service[.]” Id.

Thus, bearing in mind the principles set forth in Mann and the recreational context of this particular case, [***28] ⁸ because the release agreement “clearly and unequivocally” disclaimed liability for negligence, and because Bagley’s claims relate only to ordinary negligence, under Oregon law the agreement was not contrary to public policy “as applied” to Bagley’s action. Steele, 159 Ore. App. at 276; Harmon, 146 Ore. App. at 222.

8 Regarding that recreational context, we further note that the legislature has enacted statutes indemnifying landowners from liability in connection with “use of the land for recreational purposes[.]” ORS 105.682; see ORS 105.672 – 105.696. Accordingly, we add that, as a general matter, it would be counterintuitive to hold that a contract with the same operative effect as that statutory scheme is void as contrary to public policy.

Finally, we reject Bagley’s third assignment of error, in which, as noted, he asserts that the release agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. At the outset, we emphasize the substantive rigor historically applied by Oregon courts in assessing claims of unconscionability:

[HN14] “‘[T]he doctrine of unconscionability does not relieve parties from all unfavorable terms that result from the parties’ respective bargaining positions; it [***29] relieves them from terms that are unreasonably favorable to the party with greater bargaining power. Oregon courts have been reluctant to disturb agreements between parties on the basis of unconscionability, even when those parties do not come to the bargaining table with equal power. In those rare instances in which our courts have declared contractual provisions unconscionable, there existed serious procedural and substantive unfairness.'”

Hatkoff v. Portland Adventist Medical Center, 252 Ore. App. 210, 217, 287 P3d 1113 (2012) (quoting Motsinger v. Lithia Rose-FT, Inc., 211 Ore. App. 610, 626-27, 156 P3d 156 (2007)) (emphasis in Motsinger). Further, “each case is decided on its own unique facts[,]” Vasquez-Lopez v. Beneficial Oregon, Inc., 210 Ore. App. 553, 567, 152 P3d 940 (2007), taking into account both the terms of the contract and the circumstances existing when the contract was signed.

[HN15] [*407] In assessing Bagley’s claim of procedural unconscionability, we focus on “the conditions of contract formation” and look to “two factors: oppression and surprise.” Id. at 566-67 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). More specifically, “[o]ppression arises from an inequality of bargaining power [***30] which results in no real negotiation and an absence of meaningful [**703] choice. Surprise involves the extent to which the supposedly agreed-upon terms of the bargain are hidden in a prolix printed form drafted by the party seeking to enforce the terms.” Id. at 566 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Bagley addresses only the former, advancing a generalized argument that the agreement “was a contract of adhesion and there was a disparity in bargaining power.” (Some capitalization omitted.)

As noted, we do not find the release agreement procedurally unconscionable under these circumstances. Although the parties indeed came to the bargaining table with unequal power insofar as Mt. Bachelor required that the release be signed in order to allow Bagley to purchase a season pass, we have, albeit in dictum and in the context of addressing public-policy arguments, suggested that standard-form release agreements in the context of recreational activities are not impermissibly adhesive. See Harmon, 146 Ore. App. at 219 n 4 (citing cases from other jurisdictions and noting their holdings “that exculpatory provisions in ski-related form agreements were not impermissibly adhesive”); Mann, 100 Ore. App. at 187-88 [***31] (noting that “customers have a multitude of alternatives” in dealing with providers of “non-essential service[s,]” even where such providers hold an “economic advantage”). ⁹ Although we limit our holding to these “unique facts,” we rely in part on those principles in addressing both “oppression” and “surprise” (as well as substantive unconscionability, as set forth below).

9 Many other states, as well as federal courts, have, as Mt. Bachelor points out, “reached the same conclusion.” See, e.g., Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L. P., 607 Pa 1, 29, 2 A3d 1174, 1191 (2010) (noting that, in the recreational context, “[t]he signer is a free agent who can simply walk away without signing the release and participating in the activity, and thus the contract signed under such circumstances is not unconscionable”); Silva v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., No CV 06-6330-AA, *2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55942 (D Or July 21, 2008) (“[T]he release from liability is not invalid as a contract of adhesion, because [the] plaintiff voluntarily chose to ski at Mt. Bachelor and the ski resort does not provide essential public services.”); Grbac v. Reading Fair Co., Inc., 521 F Supp 1351, 1355 (WD Pa 1981), aff’d, 688 F2d 215 (3d Cir 1982) (stock-car [***32] racing company’s standard-form release provision not adhesionary).

[*408] Here, with respect to “oppression,” Bagley was free to choose not to snowboard at Mt. Bachelor, was less than two weeks short of the age of majority when he signed the agreement, was an experienced snowboarder who had previously signed release agreements required by at least two other ski resorts, had signed a release agreement in obtaining a season pass at Mt. Bachelor during each of the preceding three years, and was accompanied by his father (who, as noted, signed a nearly identical agreement disclaiming liability for negligence). Each of those facts contributes to our conclusion that, notwithstanding the parties’ unequal bargaining power, the circumstances of contract formation were not impermissibly oppressive. Bagley and his father were presented with a “meaningful choice[,]” Vasquez-Lopez, 210 Ore. App. at 566, particularly given that, as noted, snowboarding is a recreational activity and Bagley could have simply declined to sign the release without being denied access to an essential public service.

With respect to “surprise,” as evidenced by the unambiguous language of the release agreement, and particularly given [***33] its additional clarification after disclaiming liability for negligence (“THE ONLY CLAIMS NOT RELEASED ARE THOSE BASED UPON INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT”), this was not a situation where the “terms of the bargain [were] hidden” by Mt. Bachelor. Id. To the contrary, the above quoted paragraph pertaining to the skier’s release of claims, including claims for negligence, appeared at the beginning of the release agreement and was highlighted by a centered and underlined introductory heading drawing the skier’s attention to the fact that he or she was signing a release (“RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT”). On those facts, we find no indication of surprise and, coupled with our conclusion above as to oppression, cannot say that the release agreement was procedurally unconscionable.

In further arguing that the release agreement was substantively unconscionable, Bagley asserts that “[t]he Release term of the contract in question is unreasonably [**704] favorable to [Mt. Bachelor], the drafter of the contract and more powerful party.” Further, Bagley argues, the terms of the release “unconscionably shift[ ] the burden to protect [skiers] from [Mt. Bachelor’s] negligent behavior to the public that it invites [***34] upon its premises, including [Bagley].” [HN16] [*409] In assessing a contract for substantive unconscionability, we focus on the terms of the contract itself in light of the circumstances of its formation; ultimately, “[t]he substantive fairness of the challenged terms” is the “essential issue.” Carey v. Lincoln Loan Co., 203 Ore. App. 399, 423, 125 P3d 814 (2005), aff’d on other grounds, 342 Ore. 530, 157 P3d 775 (2007); see Vasquez Lopez, 210 Ore. App. at 566-69.

On these facts, the provision in the release agreement disclaiming liability for negligence was not “unreasonably” favorable to Mt. Bachelor. Carey, 203 Ore. App. at 422. Indeed, the principal Oregon case touching on the issue upheld a provision–albeit on an “as applied” basis in the context of that particular plaintiff’s public-policy argument–that not only disclaimed liability for negligence in connection with skiing but for “any and all liability” (presumably including liability related to gross negligence or intentional misconduct on the part of the ski resort). Harmon, 146 Ore. App. at 217-22 (emphasis added). Moreover, as noted, in Harmon we specifically cited cases from other jurisdictions “holding that exculpatory provisions in ski-related form [***35] agreements were not impermissibly adhesive.” Id. at 219 n 4. Returning to the overarching notion that the terms at issue must be read in light of their recreational context, in one of those cases, the New Jersey Superior Court aptly reasoned as follows:

“When an individual enters a ski shop to buy ski equipment, s/he does not have a need for those goods and services, merely a desire. Should the seller demand exculpation as a condition for the sale of the equipment, the purchaser is free to walk away. This is not so with the consumer of automobile insurance, or the individual who cannot find a place to live during a housing shortage. Unlike the skier, these individuals must face an inability to use their automobile, or the prospect of becoming homeless, if they are not willing to sign on the dotted line and exculpate the provider. The skier merely faces the prospect of a ski-less weekend.”

McBride v. Minstar, Inc., 283 NJ Super 471, 491, 662 A2d 592, 602 (NJ Super Ct Law Div 1994), aff’d sub nom McBride v. Raichle Molitor, USA, 283 NJ Super 422, 662 A2d 567 (NJ Super Ct App Div), rev den, 143 N.J. 319, 670 A.2d 1061 (1995) (emphasis in original). As noted, similar release agreements [*410] in the [***36] context of recreational activities have been upheld (including against claims of unconscionability) in a number of other jurisdictions. See Or App at n 9 (slip op at 20 n 9). Finally, [HN17] ORS 105.682 establishes a public policy in favor of indemnification of landowners where the land is used for, inter alia, recreational purposes. We fail to see how a private contract to the same effect is substantively unfair as a matter of law.

Accordingly, given existing case law and the aforementioned substantive rigor that we apply in assessing claims of unconscionability, see Hatkoff, 252 Ore. App. at 217, we conclude that the terms of Mt. Bachelor’s release were not substantively unconscionable under these circumstances. That is, the inclusion of the release provision did not constitute one of “those rare instances” where the terms of the contract were so “unreasonably favorable” to Mt. Bachelor that they were unconscionable. Id. (emphasis in original); see also Restatement at § 208 comment b (a contract has traditionally been held unconscionable only where “it was such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In sum, we conclude [***37] that Bagley ratified the release agreement prior to the date of injury, nullifying his power to later disaffirm it (whether by notice, filing suit, or pleading infancy), and that the agreement–coupled with the language printed on the season pass and signage at the lift terminals–was sufficiently clear as to its application to claims for negligence. We further conclude that Bagley’s lack of knowledge regarding the scope of the unambiguous agreement did not preclude [**705] summary judgment, nor did his lack of knowledge of the power to disaffirm it upon reaching the age of majority. As to whether the release agreement was valid in the first instance, we conclude that, as applied, the release agreement was not contrary to public policy. Nor was the agreement substantively or procedurally unconscionable. Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to Mt. Bachelor’s affirmative defense of release, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for Mt. Bachelor and denying partial summary judgment to Bagley on that basis.

Affirmed.

WordPress Tags: Bagley,Bachelor,LEXIS,Myles,Plaintiff,Appellant,Lauren,Plaintiffs,Summer,Resort,Defendant,Respondent,JOHN,DOES,Defendants,COURT,APPEALS,OREGON,September,COUNSEL,Kathryn,Clarke,Bryan,Gruetter,Joseph,Walsh,Lisa,Hunt,Andrew,Balyeat,Eager,JUDGES,Ortega,Judge,Sercombe,Hadlock,OPINION,injuries,terrain,park,action,negligence,construction,maintenance,inspection,judgment,fact,agreement,policy,parents,inferences,ORCP,Vaughn,Transit,skill,injury,Upon,RELEASE,CONSIDERATION,PASS,PREMISES,AGREE,INDEMNIFY,OFFICERS,DIRECTORS,OWNERS,AGENTS,LANDOWNERS,COMPANIES,EMPLOYEES,HEREINAFTER,FROM,CLAIMS,DAMAGE,DEATH,SUFFER,LIABLE,SHALL,CLAIM,INTENTIONAL,MISCONDUCT,READ,UNDERSTAND,TERMS,BOTH,SIDES,DOCUMENT,INCLUDES,DUTIES,SKIERS,SNOWBOARDERS,SNOWRIDERS,PREVENT,UNDERSIGNEDS,ESTATE,DAMAGES,EVENT,PERSON,ENTER,INTO,HEIRS,LEGAL,SIGNATURE,REMAIN,FULL,FORCE,EFFECT,BOUND,THROUGHOUT,SEASON,SUBSEQUENT,SEASONS,RENEW,REVERSE,SIDE,SHEET,RIDERS,OBSERVE,emphases,notification,Assume,Certain,Risks,addition,HEREBY,MINOR,Capitalization,emphasis,statutes,areas,area,operators,requirements,statute,limitations,October,Thereafter,November,crux,LIFT,RIDE,TICKET,USER,RELEASES,AGREES,HOLD,Further,terminals,facilities,information,passengers,tickets,theory,recovery,sale,Presentation,February,chamber,June,operator,complaint,agreements,accident,resorts,infancy,Affirmative,Defense,infant,response,jury,knowledge,scope,affirmation,arguments,basis,Metropolitan,Trans,Dist,manner,juror,verdict,assignment,error,omissions,conclusion,argument,discussion,decision,Highland,Tollisen,Haldeman,Weeks,Richard,Lord,Williston,Contracts,ratification,Brown,Hassenstab,Snyder,Rhoads,Rather,Restatement,Second,dominion,performance,Although,acceptance,Jones,Dressel,Colo,Parsons,Cabaniss,American,Insurance,connection,settlement,life,Moreover,attention,reminders,existence,provision,exposure,Thus,prerequisite,determination,Kabil,Developments,Corp,citation,Newton,Boldt,cert,Indem,Junction,Water,instrument,enforcement,instance,testimony,mountain,Shea,Begley,Walcutt,Inform,Graphics,failure,affairs,jurisdictions,ignorance,Pennsylvania,Supreme,Campbell,Sears,Roebuck,Some,Harmon,Meadows,coverage,Young,Mobil,freedom,doctrine,analysis,Again,Steele,guidance,Estey,MacKenzie,consequences,obligations,expectations,citations,quotation,clinic,Mann,Wetter,exceptions,personnel,context,legislature,purposes,outset,instances,Hatkoff,Portland,Adventist,Medical,Center,Motsinger,Lithia,Rose,Vasquez,Lopez,Beneficial,account,formation,factors,oppression,negotiation,absence,Surprise,extent,adhesion,dictum,adhesive,holdings,customers,multitude,providers,advantage,Many,Chepkevich,Hidden,Valley,agent,Silva,Grbac,Fair,Supp,Here,clarification,situation,paragraph,indication,behavior,Carey,Lincoln,Loan,notion,Jersey,Superior,equipment,goods,Should,seller,exculpation,purchaser,consumer,automobile,shortage,individuals,provider,McBride,Minstar,Super,Raichle,Molitor,inclusion,delusion,whether,neither,snowboarder,three,pursuant,alia,four,months,skier,disaffirm,voidable,adhesionary,snowboard,unenforceable,disaffirmance,signage,exculpatory,didn

Negligence suit over injuries from falling out of a raft that was rented from outfitter. Release was part of raft rental contract.

Posted: May 2, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Whitewater Rafting | Tags: Ohiopyle, Ohiopyle Trading Post, Raft Rental, Rafting, Release, Whitewater Rafting, Youghiogheny River | Leave a comment

Federal District court grant’s motion for summary judgment on release language in a rental agreement with multiple signatures from renters on one page. Scary!

Wroblewski v. Ohiopyle Trading Post, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119206

Date of the Decision: August 22, 2013

Plaintiff: Cari J. Wroblewski

Defendant: Ohiopyle Trading Post, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims:

Defendant Defenses: release in raft rental agreement

Holding: for the defendant

The plaintiff had recently gone rafting on the Salt River in Arizona. Two months later she with her friends rented a raft and equipment from the defendant to a raft the Youghiogheny River. The Youghiogheny River is a Class III run although it allegedly borders on Class IV at certain water levels.

Once the water level rises above a certain level the defendant is allowed to operate as a guide service and run river guides with its customers.

While the plaintiff was taking a long time in the restroom, the rest of her group talked to the defendant’s employees about the high water and declined a guided service. The normal price of a guided trip is $60 per person. The rental cost is $20 per person. The defendant offered to add a guide to the trip for $40 per person, a $20 per person discount from the regular price.

After leaving the restroom the plaintiff testified that she was rushed to sign the release and get her “stuff.” The court took note that the plaintiff was not the last person to sign the release. “Plaintiff was not the last person in her group to sign the Rental Agreement, as her signature is the second to last signature on the Rental Agreement.”

After signing the release and getting her gear the plaintiff received a safety briefing and then was sent down the river. During one of the final rapids, the plaintiff fell out of the boat and “was dragged under water and struck her knee on a rock, sustaining serious injuries.”

The case was filed in Federal District Court, which is the trial court, and the opinion is the court’s which was used to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment.

Summary of the case

The court pointed out several issues that the court, and the plaintiff identified. The release started half-way down the page and was titled “Terms and Conditions.” Multiple lines were provided where the parties all signed the same document. Additional legal information was found under section identified as “SAFETY PRECAUTIONS” and “RECOMMENDATIONS.” The overall title of the document was “Rental Agreement.” The court did point out that the font used in the form was small but sufficient.

The plaintiff argued the release was not enforceable because:

…Plaintiff points out that the document was titled “Rental Agreement” and therefore does not provide adequate notice to signors that it is a release of liability. Furthermore, the exculpatory language is placed at the bottom left of the form and not directly above the signature line, is written in small font, and does not appear until paragraph 9 of the form. Plaintiff also argues that no one specifically informed her that she was entering into a contract that would affect her legal rights, and that she was “rushed along” by Defendant’s employees.

The court then went through the cases in Pennsylvania that had thrown the release out. However, in each case this court found the facts were different or the case was not applicable to this one.

The statement of the court as to the relationship between a party signing a release for recreational activities and one for other purposes sets recreational releases apart.

Plaintiff voluntarily chose to engage in the sport of white-water rafting purely for recreational purposes. Plaintiff signed the Release; she was not compelled, as a legal matter, to sign it, but chose to sign it so that she could go on the white-water rafting trip with her group. (“[R]ecreational sporting activities may be viewed differently in the context of exculpatory agreements, as each party is free to participate, or not, in the activity, and, therefore, is free to sign, or not, the release form.”)

The court also took on issues the plaintiff did not identify, which is whether or not the plaintiff attempted to negotiate the release terms. As it has been pointed out several times in other cases, the opportunity or not to negotiate an activity without signing a release or to change a release may void the release.

There is no evidence that plaintiff sought to negotiate the terms of the Release or asked for additional time to read it, and to the extent she was “compelled” it was a compulsion arising solely from her personal desire to meet up with her group.

The court also eliminated the plaintiff’s argument she did not understand what she was signing in one sentence. “Under Pennsylvania law, the failure to read a contract does not nullify the contract’s validity.” The court stated the “Plaintiff could have requested additional time to read the agreement, or she could have chosen to not sign the Release and not go white-water rafting.”

The court held the release stopped the plaintiff’s claims.

The Release, even when construed against Defendant, clearly spelled out the parties’ intention to release defendant from liability and encompassed the risk of varying water levels and falling out of the raft. Consequently, the Release meets the enforceability test under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff brings a claim for negligence. Negligence is explicitly encompassed within the Release, and Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

So Now What?

Remember a release that is involved in litigation is one that is poorly written. Well written releases do not end up in front of judges and juries. This court upheld the release but in doing so pointed out several issues that in other jurisdictions or maybe in Pennsylvania with different fact patterns would have held the other way.

First, the document was a rental agreement. It was labeled as such and most of the information the court pointed out was based on rental information. You may be able to combine a rental agreement and a release in one document; however, you should clearly label the document as such.

What was amazing is in the day and age when this accident happened, 2010, that a recreation business was still using a sign-in sheet as a release. You don’t buy a house on the same document as your neighbor used. Why would you risk your business by using a document signed by multiple people that defend against a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

Add to that the print size, the release language divided into three different columns in the document and the plaintiff’s arguments that she was hurried; this is a thank heaven’s decision.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Negligence,injuries,Release,rental,Federal,District,judgment,agreement,signatures,renters,Scary,Wroblewski,Ohiopyle,Post,Dist,LEXIS,Date,Decision,August,Plaintiff,Cari,Defendant,Claims,Defenses,Salt,River,Arizona,equipment,Youghiogheny,Class,Once,customers,restroom,employees,person,cost,signature,gear,rapids,boat,knee,Court,opinion,defendants,Summary,Terms,Conditions,Multiple,Additional,information,PRECAUTIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS,paragraph,Pennsylvania,statement,relationship,purposes,context,agreements,extent,compulsion,argument,Under,failure,intention,Remember,litigation,juries,jurisdictions,fact,accident,recreation,sheet,neighbor,million,dollar,lawsuit,size,columns,arguments,heaven,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Whitewater,Raft,exculpatory

Wisconsin decision has left the status of release law in Wisconsin in jeopardy. Decision also brought in new defenses to releases in the state

Posted: April 28, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Health Club, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Swimming, Wisconsin | Tags: Fitness Center, Legal guardian, Minnesota, Release, swimming, Swimwest Family Fitness Center, Waiver, Wisconsin | 1 Comment

This decision worked hard to defeat not only this release, but all releases in Wisconsin, even though the dissent laid out great arguments why the majority’s decision was not based on any business principle. Even a concurring opinion thought the majority decision was too broad.

Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2

Date of the Decision: January 19, 2005

Plaintiff: Benjamin Atkins, a minor, as the only surviving child of Charis Wilson, deceased, by Alexander Kammer, guardian ad litem

Defendant: Swimwest Family Fitness Center a/k/a Swimwest School of Instruction, Inc., Karen Kittelson, and West Bend Mutual Insurance Company

Plaintiff Claims:

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: for the Plaintiff

In this decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court set release law back in the state. The decision, Atkins v. Swimwest violated a release on numerous grounds that would not hold up in other states. In a decision that may invalidate all releases in Wisconsin, the Court ruled that a release used by a swim club in conjunction with the registration statement was invalid as against public policy.

The plaintiff was the only surviving heir of the deceased and a minor. Consequently, the plaintiff was represented by a guardian ad litem. This is a person appointed by the court to represent the minor. The guardian ad litem may or may not be an attorney.

The decedent went to the defendant’s swimming pool for physical therapy. She entered the pool that day and was observed swimming a sidestroke up and down the length of the pool. Soon thereafter she was observed at the bottom of the pool. She was rescued, and CPR was started. She was transported to a hospital where she died the next day.

The decedent was not a member of the swim club, so she was required to sign a guest registration/release form. The form was titled “Guest Registration.” The form was a five 1/2 inch by five 1/2 inch card with release language that the court characterized as standardized. The card also required written personal information. The waiver information was below the registration information. The waiver language was:

I agree to assume all liability for myself without regard to fault, while at Swimwest Family Fitness Center. I further agree to hold harmless Swimwest Fitness Center, or any of its employees for any conditions or injury that may result to myself while at the Swimwest Fitness Center. I have read the foregoing and understand its contents.

The trial court dismissed the case based on the release. The appellate court certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Certified means they passed the case on up without a decision.

Summary of the case

The court first had a problem with the term fault. The term was described as overly broad. The court explained the term was not defined enough to indicate to the parties (the deceased) the exact legal claims that would be barred by the release. The court found the term fault could also cover intentional acts which the court specifically stated would violate public policy and consequently, void the release.

The court stated, “We have consistently held that “only if it is apparent that the parties, in light of all the circumstances, knowingly agreed to excuse the defendants from liability will the contract be enforceable.” From this, statement appears the court wants the specific possible risks to be enumerated; however, that is an impossible job for most recreational activities.

The Supreme Court then looked at the Public Policy issues. The court called the public policy test a balancing test. The court required a balancing of the needs of the parties to contract versus the needs of the community to protect its members. No other court has balanced the issue of a release for a recreational activity this way. No other decision has surmised that the needs of the community include protecting individual members from freedom to contract. The court did not even consider the issue that the purpose of swimming by the decedent was for medical care: her physical therapy which might have had some public policy basis.

The court examined the release’s language in a two-step process. “First, the waiver must clearly, unambiguously, and unmistakably inform the signer of what is being waived. Second, the form, looked at in its entirety, must alert the signer to the nature and significance of what is being signed.” The court stated the release served two purposes: (1) as a sign-in sheet for the facility and (2) as a release and therefore, did not meet the test they created.

In another statement the court stated, there was nothing conspicuous about the release language in the form. While other courts across the nation have continuously berated release writers about hiding the release language, wanting them to make sure the language was not hidden. Here the court goes one step further and wants the release language to be quite apparent and pointed out to the reader.

In one of the wildest statements in a court decision, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated that the decedent did not contemplate drowning.

…Wilson likely would not have contemplated drowning in a four-foot deep pool with a lifeguard on duty, when she signed the guest registration and waiver form. The question is not whether swimming carries with it the risk of drowning, but rather whether Wilson, herself, likely contemplated that risk.

Although you might look at slipping on the wet deck or stubbing your toe as you entered the water, what other possible risks exist in swimming other than drowning?

The next major blow to releases in general was the bargaining argument. The court stated the release was void because there was no opportunity for the decedent to bargain over the release language.

We also conclude that there was no opportunity for Wilson to bargain over the exculpatory language in the guest registration and waiver form.

We held that an exculpatory clause would not be enforced when it is part of a standardized agreement that offers little or no opportunity to bargain.

The term bargain means the court wants possible signors of releases to be able to negotiate the exculpatory language out of the release. As argued by the dissent, (judge who disagrees with the majority opinion) this would require every firm to hire an attorney to negotiate each release with each patron. As a condition of insurance, most providers of recreational insurance and/or health club insurances are requiring that every participant sign a release. If a participant does not sign a release and the release is a policy condition, there will be no insurance available to defend a claim.

Even if you could purchase insurance without using a release, at what cost would not having a release be worth? Based on two cases that have occurred, the person who is injured is the person who did not sign the release. So the cost of not have a patron sign a release is equal to their possible claims. If you want to join the health club and sign a release the cost is $79.00 per month with a $100 membership fee. If you want to join without signing a release, the cost is $89.00 a month with a $5 million-dollar membership fee.

The failure bargain to remove the release language was a violation of public policy. How? The court does not enumerate, nor do the concurrence and the dissent provide much additional information; however, both the concurrence and the dissent recognize the fallacy of the bargain requirement.

In the one point of illumination, court summed up their decision in the last paragraph:

In summary, we conclude that the exculpatory language in Swimwest’s form is unenforceable, since it is contrary to public policy. The waiver of liability language is, first, overly broad and all-inclusive. The use of the word “fault” on the form did not make clear to Wilson that she was releasing others from intentional, as well as negligent, acts. Second, the form served two purposes, guest registration and waiver of liability for “fault,” and thus failed to highlight the waiver, making it uncertain whether Wilson was fully notified about the nature and significance of the document she signed. Finally, Wilson did not have any opportunity to bargain. If she had decided not to sign the guest registration and waiver form, she would not have been allowed to swim. The lack of such opportunity is also contrary to public policy. Accordingly, we reverse and remand, concluding also that Atkins is entitled to pursue his wrongful death claim.

The dissent is a well-thought-out argument about what is good and bad about the release and what is very bad about the majority’s opinion; however, the dissent, a minority of one, has no real value.

So Now What?

The solution to this issue is to use the word negligence. Negligence has a specific legal definition and specifically/legally defines the parameter of the release. The only specific statement from the decision that could be considered directional in writing releases was the statement that the word release should have been used in the form.

Why not? Why risk having your release thrown out because you failed to put in one additional sentence.

The next problem was the release was part of a registration form. The court included this as a reason the release did not meet its public policy test. This problem would have been resolved if the release was on a separate sheet of paper and clearly marked with a heading and/or notice above the signature line that the document was a release.

The court then went on in this vein and stated the exculpatory language in the release should have been highlighted or been more visible to someone signing the release.

From this decision, in Wisconsin you must!

1. Your release must be on a separate and distinct piece of paper.

2. You release must be identified and clearly state it is a release.

3. The release must use the magic word “negligence” to be valid.

4. You need to list all of the possible injuries or risks that can befall the signor of the release.

5. Your release must be read by the parties and there should be a notice in the release that the signor read, understood and signed the release with the intention to give up their right to sue for injuries or death.

If you can, you should see if you can provide:

6. The opportunity for your patron to buy their way out of the release.

7. References to other competitors where a guest may be able to go to have a similar opportunity without signing a release.

8. 8. Make sure your insurance is up to date and adequate for the value of your business and your risk.

Always in any business.

9. Make sure your corporate records are up to date. If you are not incorporated or an LLC get incorporated now!

10. 10. Look into separating assets from operations in separate corporations or LLC’s and divide your business into separate, smaller entities to protect the business.

11. 11. Look into asset protection planning for your personal assets.

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

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Wisconsin,decision,status,jeopardy,arguments,principle,opinion,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Wisc,LEXIS,Date,January,Plaintiff,Benjamin,Charis,Wilson,Alexander,Kammer,guardian,Defendant,School,Instruction,Karen,Kittelson,West,Bend,Mutual,Insurance,Company,Claims,Defenses,Release,Supreme,Court,conjunction,registration,statement,policy,heir,person,attorney,therapy,length,Soon,hospital,member,guest,card,information,waiver,employees,injury,Summary,defendants,From,Public,freedom,purpose,basis,Second,significance,purposes,sheet,nation,writers,Here,reader,statements,foot,lifeguard,Although,argument,clause,agreement,patron,providers,health,insurances,participant,cost,worth,membership,million,dollar,failure,violation,concurrence,fallacy,requirement,illumination,paragraph,death,solution,negligence,definition,parameter,paper,signature,vein,injuries,intention,References,competitors,Make,Look,assets,corporations,entities,asset,protection,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,litem,five,signer,whether,exculpatory,month,signor

Release is used to prove an activity is hazardous and deny a claim for life insurance. Heli-skiing should have been disclosed as a risk activity or hobby according to the court when buying life insurance.

Posted: April 21, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Avalanche, Colorado, Insurance, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Alaska, Assumption of risk, Buy Sell Agreement, Colorado, Disability Insurance, Health insurance, Heli-skiing, Heliski, Life Insurance, Policy, Premium, Rescission, scuba diving, skiing | 4 Comments

“Rating up” is a term used to say an insured is a higher than normal risk, and the insurance rate will increase. The amount of the increase is dependent upon the risk. Heli-skiing would have tripled the cost of a life insurance policy. However, not telling the insurance company denied the claim.

West Coast Life Insurance Company. Hoar, 558 F.3d 1151; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5266

Date of the Decision: 2009

Plaintiff: West Coast Life Insurance Company

Defendants: Martha Hoar, as the personal representative of the other Estate of Stephen M. Butts; Telluride Properties, Llc., a Colorado Limited Liability Company; Telluride Properties, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Albert D. Roer, an individual; Polly Lychee, an individual

Plaintiff Claims: (1) breach of contract, (2) bad faith, and (3) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act

Defendant Defenses: Rescission

Holding: for the plaintiff life insurance company

Owners in a business want to make sure the business will survive if one of the owners is disabled or dies. There is also a desire to take care of the family of the deceased. Finally, immediately purchasing the deceased share of the business keeps the business running smoothly without the worry or probate or someone with no business experience from running the business. This usually takes the form of a buy-sell agreement. The agreement sets out the terms on when the contract kicks in, how to value the business and how to pay the estate of the deceased or the disabled owner.

Many times the owners will want to make the purchase of the deceased estate immediate, so the business purchases life insurance on the owners. Upon the death of an insured, the insurance proceeds are used to keep the business going to pay for the ownership of the business from the estate of the deceased.

In this case, the parties created a business and purchased a $3 million-dollar policy on the owners. For large life insurance policies more underwriting, questions are asked and sometimes physicals are required. In this case, the insured owner was asked if he “”[e]ngaged in auto, motorcycle or boat racing, parachuting, skin or scuba diving, skydiving, or hang gliding or other hazardous avocation or hobby.” The insured said he was a scuba diver and skier. At the end of the form the insured had to affirm that all of his answers were full, complete, and true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

The insured was then interviewed by a third party hired to investigate the insured. The insured was asked what he did in his spare time. The insured answered he skied and golfed. He also stated he was into private aviation and scuba diving. At no time did the insured ask any clarifying questions as to what hazardous activities meant.

The insured regularly participated in heli-ski trips in Canada. He had been heli-skiing for at least six years. He purchased a Black Diamond Avalung for his ski trips. The heli-ski operation required the insured to sign a “Release of Liability, Waiver of Claims, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement.” The heli-ski operation also required avalanche rescue training, helicopter safety training and required the use of avalanche beacons.

During a heli-ski trip, the insured was killed in an avalanche.

The insurance company refused to pay the life insurance benefit because the insured had not been truthful on his application for insurance. The life insurance company sued for rescission. The trial court granted the life insurance company’s motion for summary judgment, and the case was appealed.

Summary of the case

Rescission is the term applied when a contract is unwound, and both parties are placed back in their original position. There must be a legally recognized cause for a court to require rescission. Material breach, or as in this case fraud, can be a cause for a court to rescind a contract.

To win a claim of rescission under Colorado law the insurance company had to prove:

(1) the applicant made a false statement of fact or concealed a fact in his application for insurance; (2) the applicant knowingly made the false statement or knowingly concealed the fact; (3) the false statement of fact or the concealed fact materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer; (4) the insurer was ignorant of the false statement of fact or concealment of fact and is not chargeable with knowledge of the fact; (5) the insurer relied, to its detriment, on the false statement of fact or concealment of fact in issuing the policy.

The court focused on the first and second claims that the deceased made a false statement or concealed a fact and did so knowingly.

The court did a thorough review of all the facts the life insurance company presented, which stated that heli-skiing was a high-risk operation. These facts included the acts of the insured/deceased as outlined above and statements made by the expert witness of the insurance company. One statement which the court found particularly informative was that heli-skier was “… approximately 18,702 times more likely to be killed in an avalanche than an individual skiing inbounds at a ski area.” This statement was then supported by this footnote the court included. “The probability of an avalanche fatality occurring while heli-skiing or snowcat skiing is approximately 1 per 29,000 visits.”

The risk of heli-skiing was then supported in the court’s argument by the fact the deceased had signed a release. “This is especially true where heli-skiers such as Butts were required to sign a waiver explicitly acknowledging heli-skiing was far more dangerous than resort skiing.”

The fact that the deceased had signed the release, purchased a Black Diamond Avalung, and took avalanche and helicopter training showed the activity was dangerous. That was proof of knowledge and intent that heli-skiing was a high-risk activity which his involvement in should have been disclosed to the insurance company.

The next argument was over the fourth element. The court found for this argument the insurance company had to have knowledge that the life insurance policy applicant was not truthful in answer questions.

Consequently, the beneficiary of the insurance policy, the defendants were not able to argue the contract should not be rescinded. The insurance company was granted rescission and did not have to pay the $3 million-dollar policy benefit.

So Now What?

The increase due to heli-skiing would have increased the yearly premium from $4,800 to $12,380. For most people making a living in the outdoor recreation, the basic premium is too much, the increased premium out of reach. Disability insurance can cost more.

Health insurance is probably no longer subject to such rating changes to do the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is one blessing for those of us making a living in the outdoors.

If you are just starting out, make sure you have good health, life and disability policies. Lying or misrepresenting the risks you take will subject your family to a similar situation. Purchasing the policies before you have gone too far…outdoors, may save you some money.

If you die mowing the lawn or in a car accident, the chances of this occurring are low. The investigation is triggered when you die doing a high-risk activity, and the insurance company finds out you regularly participated in the activity and did not tell them at the time you applied for the policy.

You’ll probably not have to worry about this issue. You’ll be dead.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#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, Life Insurance, Rescission, Policy, Premium, Health Insurance, Disability Insurance, Heli-Skiing, Skiing, Scuba Diving, Life Insurance, Buy Sell Agreement, Buy-Sell Agreement,

WordPress Tags: Release,life,insurance,Heli,hobby,cost,policy,West,Coast,Company,Hoar,LEXIS,Date,Decision,Plaintiff,Defendants,Martha,Estate,Stephen,Butts,Telluride,Properties,Colorado,corporation,Albert,Roer,Lychee,Claims,faith,violation,Consumer,Protection,Defendant,Defenses,Rescission,Owners,probate,agreement,owner,Many,Upon,death,ownership,million,dollar,policies,auto,motorcycle,boat,avocation,diver,knowledge,belief,aviation,Canada,Black,Diamond,Avalung,Waiver,Assumption,Risk,avalanche,helicopter,beacons,judgment,Summary,Material,fraud,applicant,statement,fact,acceptance,insurer,concealment,detriment,statements,area,footnote,argument,resort,involvement,fourth,beneficiary,recreation,Health,Patient,Affordable,Care,situation,money,lawn,accident,investigation,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,Negligence,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Premium,Scuba,Sell,skier

West Coast Life Insurance Company. Hoar, 558 F.3d 1151; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5266

Posted: April 21, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Insurance, Legal Case, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Colorado, Disability Insurance, Health insurance, Heli-skiing, Insurance, Life Insurance, Policy, Premium, Rescission, scuba diving, Selkirk-Tangiers, skiing | Leave a comment

West Coast Life Insurance Company. Hoar, 558 F.3d 1151; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5266

West Coast Life Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. Martha Hoar, as the personal representative of the other Estate of Stephen M. Butts; Telluride Properties, Llc., a Colorado Limited Liability Company; Telluride Properties, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Albert D. Roer, an individual; Polly Lychee, an individual, Defendants – Appellants.

No. 07-1080

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

558 F.3d 1151; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5266

March 6, 2009, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. (D.C. NO. 05-CV-01765-EWN-BNB).

W. Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Hoar, 505 F. Supp. 2d 734, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5442 (D. Colo., 2007)

COUNSEL: Blain D. Myhre (Stuart Pack with him on the briefs), Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants.

Stephen G. Masciocchi (Lee F. Johnston with him on the briefs), Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

JUDGES: Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: MURPHY

OPINION

[*1153] MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

West Coast Life Insurance Company (“WCLI”) brought suit in federal district court seeking rescission of an insurance policy based upon an alleged misrepresentation by Stephen Butts. Butts, who participated in heli-skiing on numerous occasions, stated in his insurance application that he did not engage in any hazardous activities. Butts’s estate and intended beneficiaries asserted counterclaims against WCLI alleging: (1) breach of contract, (2) bad faith, and (3) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The district court dismissed Defendants’ Consumer Protection Act counterclaim with prejudice. It then granted WCLI’s motion for summary judgment, concluding Butts had knowingly made a false statement of material fact on which WCLI relied [**2] in issuing him the life insurance policy. On appeal, Defendants contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment to WCLI on its rescission claim because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether: (1) there was a false statement or concealed fact in the Butts application, (2) Butts knowingly made the false statement or concealed the facts, and (3) WCLI was chargeable with the knowledge Butts engaged in heli-skiing. Defendants also appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to their bad faith claim. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

1. Factual Background

In August 2004, Butts (through his company, Defendant Telluride Properties, Inc.), Defendant Albert Roer, and Defendant Polly Lynchee formed a new company, Defendant Telluride Properties, LLC. ¹ The three principals entered into a buy-sell agreement requiring each principal to sell his or her interest in the business to the remaining principals in the event of his or her death. The agreement was financed by insurance policies on the lives of each of the three principals. On September 21, 2004, Butts contacted WCLI agent Sharon Evanson by phone to [**3] complete an application for a three million dollar life insurance policy (the “Butts Application”). Evanson read the questions on the application and transcribed Butts’s responses.

1 The other Defendant is Martha Hoar, the personal representative of Butts’s estate.

The fifth question of the Butts Application (“Question 5”) asked if Butts “[e]ngaged in auto, motorcycle or boat racing, parachuting, skin or scuba diving, skydiving, or hang gliding or other hazardous avocation or hobby.” Butts answered the question in the negative. The Butts Application contained a declaration that all statements and answers were full, complete, and true to the best of Butts’s “knowledge and belief.” Butts did not at any point during the call mention he participated in “heli-skiing.” Heli-skiing involves flying by helicopter to the top of a backcountry mountain and skiing down the mountain, usually with the escort of guides.

Alex Chu, a senior life insurance reporter at First Financial Underwriting Services, Inc. (“First Financial”), conducted a telephonic interview with Butts on October 12, 2004. First Financial is an independent, third-party company that, at the request of its insurance company clients, [**4] [*1154] gathers information about the lifestyles and finances of life insurance applicants, typically through telephone interviews. Chu asked Butts what he did for recreation and exercise in his spare time, to which Butts answered he skied and golfed. Chu also asked Butts if he engaged in “any hazardous activities.” Butts stated he was involved only in scuba diving and private aviation as a pilot. Butts did not seek any clarification of this question or voice concerns or confusion as to the meaning of “hazardous activities.” During Chu’s tenure at First Financial, applicants had identified heli-skiing in response to the hazardous activity question.

Under a heading titled “Aviation-Recreation-Driving Record,” Chu’s report to WCLI (the “First Financial Report”) detailed Butts’s piloting experience, briefly noted his scuba diving activities, and stated: Butts “also enjoys skiing and golfing in his spare time. He reported no other recreational or hazardous pastimes in which he is active on a regular basis.”

In October 2004, Mark Youngquist, an underwriter for WCLI, underwrote a three million dollar policy (the “Butts Policy”) insuring Butts’s life. In so doing, Youngquist reviewed the Butts Application, [**5] Butts’s medical records, the First Financial Report, and a questionnaire completed by Butts regarding his aviation activities. Youngquist, who worked as an underwriter since 1995 for other insurance companies, had worked for WCLI for less than a month when he approved the Butts Application. The WCLI underwriting manual, published by reinsurer Swiss Re, does not rate resort skiing as an activity to be factored into the underwriting process. “Heli-skiing,” however, is a rated activity requiring the insured to pay a higher premium. Youngquist never referred to this rating table during the process of underwriting the Butts Policy.

Based on the information before him, Youngquist believed Butts engaged only in non-rated resort skiing. Youngquist made no inquiry into the nature of the “skiing” activity mentioned in the First Financial Report. Youngquist determined the Butts Policy should be issued on a “Standard, Non-Tobacco” rating. ² On November 5, 2004, WCLI issued the Butts Policy, which expressly incorporated the Butts Application.

2 Neither party addresses the significance, if any, of the disclosure by Butts of his scuba diving activities. We therefore deem it irrelevant.

On January 15, [**6] 2005, Butts traveled to British Columbia with a group of friends for a week of heli-skiing. The group hired heli-skiing operator Selkirk-Tangiers Helicopter Skiing LLP (“Selkirk-Tangiers”). On January 18, 2005, Butts was heli-skiing with his friends when an avalanche broke above them. The avalanche caught Butts, and swept him into some trees. Within minutes, Butts was found dead. He suffered a broken neck as a result of the avalanche.

During her deposition, Butts’s ex-wife testified he took approximately ten to fifteen heli-skiing trips with Selkirk-Tangiers and additional trips to Canada with another heli-skiing operator. Butts took heli-skiing trips to British Columbia with Selkirk-Tangiers every year for at least six consecutive years prior to his application. Each year, Butts had signed a Selkirk-Tangiers “Release of Liability, Waiver of Claims, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement,” each of which included the following language:

I am aware that wilderness skiing involves risks, dangers and hazards in addition to those normally associated with downhill skiing. Avalanches occur frequently in the alpine terrain used for [*1155] wilderness skiing and may be caused by natural forces or [**7] by skiers. I acknowledge and accept that the [o]perators and their staff may fail to predict whether the alpine terrain is safe for skiing or whether an avalanche may occur. The alpine terrain used for wilderness skiing is uncontrolled, unmarked, not inspected and involves many risks, dangers and hazards in addition to that of avalanche.

* * *

I AM AWARE OF THE RISKS, DANGERS AND HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH WILDERNESS SKIING AND I FREELY ACCEPT AND FULLY ASSUME ALL SUCH RISKS, DANGERS AND HAZARDS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LOSS RESULTING THEREFROM.

Selkirk-Tangiers provides its guests with: (1) avalanche rescue and survival training; (2) helicopter safety training; and (3) specialized equipment such as “avalanche beacons,” which signal to rescuers the location of skiers buried in avalanches. Prior to each of his heli-skiing trips with Selkirk-Tangiers, Butts participated in mock avalanche drills and other onsite, hands-on training on helicopter safety protocols and avalanche rescue and survival. Although not required by Selkirk-Tangiers, Butts also had purchased and used an “Avalung” on heli-skiing trips in 2004 and 2005. An Avalung is a product designed [**8] to provide a few minutes of air should its user become buried in an avalanche.

After receiving notification of Butts’s death, WCLI initiated an investigation. WCLI received evidence indicating Butts had previously participated in heli-skiing trips. In March 2005, WCLI’s chief underwriter, Steven Hetherington, composed an opinion as to the impact of heli-skiing on the risk assumptions for the Butts Policy. Hetherington determined that had Butts disclosed his heli-skiing activities, the Butts Policy would have been rated in the amount of an extra $ 2.50 per $ 1000 of coverage. Marilyn Reed, WCLI’s Vice President of Underwriting, adopted Hetherington’s underwriting opinion.

According to WCLI underwriters, had Butts disclosed his heli-skiing avocation, his annual premium would have almost tripled, rising from $ 4880 to $ 12,380. WCLI’s independent agent, Stuart Bachman, contacted other life insurance companies to determine if they applied an additional rating for heli-skiing. Every carrier Bachman contacted indicated heli-skiing would result in an additional rating of at least $ 2.50 per $ 1000 dollars of coverage.

WCLI’s contestable claims committee met on July 26, 2006, to discuss and evaluate [**9] the Butts Policy claim. The committee considered whether “a reasonable objective person’s interpretation” of Question 5 would have led such a person to disclose a heli-skiing avocation such as that of Butts. The committee did not consider whether Butts was an expert skier, whether he believed heli-skiing was hazardous, or if he had heli-skied previously without incident because it felt such information was irrelevant to its decision. The committee voted unanimously to deny payment under the Butts Policy based upon Butts’s failure to disclose he regularly engaged in heli-skiing.

2. Procedural History

WCLI filed its complaint in the district court seeking: (1) rescission of the Butts Policy pursuant to Colorado law, and (2) a declaration that the Butts Policy was void ab initio and WCLI was thus not liable to Defendants thereunder. In their answer, Defendants asserted state law counterclaims for: (1) breach of contract, (2) bad faith, and (3) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-101 to -115. The district court [*1156] dismissed Defendants’ Consumer Protection Act counterclaim with prejudice.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted [**10] WCLI’s motion for summary judgment, concluding: (1) Butts had made a false statement of fact or concealed a fact in his application for insurance because a reasonable person would have understood heli-skiing was a hazardous activity for purposes of Question 5, (2) Butts knew heli-skiing was a hazardous activity and knowingly concealed the fact he engaged in it, (3) the concealment materially affected the risk assumed by WCLI, (4) WCLI was ignorant of the false statement of fact or concealment of fact and was not chargeable with knowledge of the fact, and (5) WCLI relied on Butts’s false statement in issuing the Butts Policy.

On appeal, Defendants contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment to WCLI on its rescission claim because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether: (1) there was a false statement or concealed fact in the Butts application, (2) Butts knowingly made the false statement or concealed the facts, and (3) WCLI was chargeable with the knowledge Butts heli-skied. Defendants also appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to their bad faith claim.

III. DISCUSSION

1. Motion to Strike

In its motion to strike, WCLI contends [**11] this court should not consider certain arguments and evidence raised by Defendants for the first time on appeal. Specifically, in their reply brief, Defendants for the first time offer statistical evidence regarding auto accident fatalities and discuss the Colorado Ski Safety Act requirement that ski resort lift tickets warn of the risk of resort skiing as support for their argument that reasonable minds could differ on whether heli-skiing is a hazardous activity. Defendants ask the court to take judicial notice of the accident statistics. In addition, Defendants argue the Colorado Ski Safety Act cite was properly included in their reply brief in order to rebut an argument raised in WCLI’s answer brief.

[HN1] “Whether an appellate court will for the first time take judicial notice of a judicially notable fact rests largely in its own discretion.” Mills v. Denver Tramway Corp., 155 F.2d 808, 812 (10th Cir. 1946). Defendants offer no explanation for why they did not seek to introduce the auto accident fatality statistics before the district court. In addition, consideration of this evidence for the first time in Defendants’ reply brief denies WCLI the opportunity to contest or rebut the evidence. [**12] Stump v. Gates, 211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir. 2000). We therefore decline to take judicial notice of the auto accident fatality statistics and grant WCLI’s motion to strike these statistics. See Am. Stores Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 170 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 1999) ( [HN2] “Judicial notice is not a talisman by which gaps in a litigant’s evidentiary presentation . . . may be repaired on appeal.” (quotation omitted)).

As to the introduction of Colorado’s statutory requirement that ski resort lift tickets warn of the risk of resort skiing, Defendants maintain this evidence was properly introduced for the first time in their reply brief in response to an argument in WCLI’s answer brief. Specifically, it rebuts WCLI’s contention that the requirement that individuals sign a release before engaging in heli-skiing supports the proposition a reasonable person would view heli-skiing as hazardous. While WCLI’s precise argument regarding the release requirement was raised before the district court, the evidence Defendants now seek to introduce to rebut the argument [*1157] was never brought to the attention of the district court. This court has stated [HN3] “[i]n reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our [**13] inquiry is limited to the summary judgment record before the district court when the motion was decided.” Feichko v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R., 213 F.3d 586, 593 n.5 (10th Cir. 2000). In addition, as discussed above, [HN4] this court is reluctant to consider evidence raised only in a reply brief, leaving the opposing party no opportunity to challenge its validity or relevance. See Am. Stores Co., 170 F.3d at 1270. We therefore grant WCLI’s motion to strike this evidence.

2. Rescission of the Life Insurance Policy

[HN5] “We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonprevailing party.” Mullin v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 541 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 2008). [HN6] “Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute over any material fact, and a party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. (quotation omitted). [HN7] Under Colorado law, to avoid a life insurance policy due to misrepresentations in the application, an insurer must prove:

(1) the applicant made a false statement of fact or concealed a fact in his application for insurance; (2) the applicant knowingly made the false statement or knowingly concealed [**14] the fact; (3) the false statement of fact or the concealed fact materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer; (4) the insurer was ignorant of the false statement of fact or concealment of fact and is not chargeable with knowledge of the fact; (5) the insurer relied, to its detriment, on the false statement of fact or concealment of fact in issuing the policy.

Hollinger v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 192 Colo. 377, 560 P.2d 824, 827 (Colo. 1977) (footnote omitted). Defendants contend the district court erred in concluding no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the first, second, and fourth elements of the Hollinger standard.

i. The First and Second Hollinger Elements

The first element, “the applicant made a false statement,” is encompassed in the second element, “the applicant knowingly made a false statement.” Id. Because there is significant overlap in the parties’ arguments regarding the first and second elements, we consider the two elements together. Wade v. Olinger Life Insurance Co. holds that [HN8] in determining whether an applicant knowingly made a false statement, a court must look beyond the applicant’s mere knowledge she engaged in the activity [**15] which was allegedly required to be disclosed by the open-ended insurance question. 192 Colo. 401, 560 P.2d 446, 452 (Colo. 1977). Namely, “to protect innocent insurance applicants, an applicant must be reasonably chargeable with knowledge that the facts omitted or misrepresented were within the scope of questions asked on the application.” Id. The court further explained that in the context of answering an insurance application question which calls for a value judgment, “[a] particular misrepresentation . . . must be such that a [r]easonable person would, under the circumstances, have understood that the question calls for disclosure of specific information.” Id. The court elaborated on this standard in Hollinger, a companion case to Wade. Hollinger, 560 P.2d at 827. In Hollinger, the court explained the standard applied in Wade was “whether a reasonable person, with the applicant’s physical or mental characteristics, under all the circumstances, would understand that the question calls for disclosure of specific information.” Id.

[*1158] Question 5 asked Butts if he “[e]ngaged in auto, motorcycle or boat racing, parachuting, skin or scuba diving, skydiving, or hang gliding or other hazardous avocation or [**16] hobby.” WCLI contends Butts’s negative response to Question 5 was unreasonable in light of his yearly heli-skiing vacations. Defendants argue reasonable minds could differ as to whether heli-skiing constitutes a hazardous activity, and thus the question should have been submitted to the jury. Defendants further contend because Butts believed heli-skiing was not a hazardous activity, his response to Question 5 could not have constituted a misrepresentation.

This court must thus decide whether a reasonable person in Butts’s position would know heli-skiing constituted a hazardous activity for purposes of the insurance policy. We agree with the district court that reasonable purchasers of life insurance understand they are agreeing to pay a premium in exchange for the insurer’s promise to pay benefits in the event of death, and thus an insurer would be interested in learning of activities that increase the chance of premature death. Question 5 asks applicants whether they engage in hazardous activities and provides as examples of hazardous activities, skydiving, motorized racing, and scuba diving. A reasonable applicant understands these examples are provided to have the applicant determine [**17] if she engages in activities that might pose risks similar to those posed by the enumerated activities.

WCLI presented evidence indicating a heli-skier is approximately 18,702 times more likely to be killed in an avalanche than an individual skiing inbounds at a ski area. ³ In addition, the heli-skiing operator Butts skied with required its clients to: (1) demonstrate proficiency in avalanche rescue techniques and equipment, (2) undergo training on safety protocols associated with helicopter loading, flight, offloading, and landing, and (3) carry an avalanche beacon while skiing. Such training took place prior to the execution of a waiver and release agreement in which Butts recognized: (1) wilderness skiing involves “risks, dangers and hazards in addition to those normally associated with downhill skiing,” (2) avalanches occur frequently in the alpine terrain used for wilderness skiing, (3) the ski outfitter’s “staff may fail to predict whether the alpine terrain is safe for skiing or whether an avalanche may occur,” and (4) the “alpine [**18] terrain used for wilderness skiing is uncontrolled, unmarked, not inspected and involves many risks, dangers and hazards in addition to that of avalanche.” Additionally, Butts chose to purchase and carry an “Avalung” avalanche emergency air supply while heli-skiing.

3 The probability of an avalanche fatality occurring while heli-skiing or snowcat skiing is approximately 1 per 29,000 visits.

Based on these facts, a reasonable person in Butts’s position would understand Question 5 calls for an applicant to report heli-skiing. As the district court explained, “a reasonable, ordinary person would understand that a sport whose participants equip themselves with ‘avalanche beacons’ and ‘Avalungs’ and then ride in helicopters to the summits of isolated backcountry mountains in order to ski down ungroomed alpine terrain . . . falls along with sky diving, hang gliding, and scuba diving into the commonsense category of ‘hazardous’ activities.” Butts’s status as an experienced heli-skier who engaged in the activity in the past without incident does not change the conclusion it was unreasonable for an individual in his position to answer “no” to Question 5. Butts knew of the great risks of heli-skiing. [**19] Notably, [*1159] Defendants’ expert declined to refute the Utah Avalanche Center’s statement that “[a]lmost all avalanche accidents occur to recreationists who are very skilled at their sport.”

Defendants contend this court should rely on the expert opinion of Vincent Anderson, a certified alpine and ski mountaineering guide who, without citing any statistical evidence, states in a report that, in his opinion, the risks involved in heli-skiing are not unreasonably high and are not greater than those involved in skiing at a resort. This opinion, however, does little to rebut the statistical evidence presented by WCLI demonstrating a heli-skier is approximately 19,000 times more likely to die in an avalanche than someone skiing within bounds at a ski resort. Moreover, it is difficult to see how the subjective opinion testimony of this one individual, lacking any statistical support, does much to support the proposition a reasonable person with Butts’s characteristics would not understand heli-skiing to be a hazardous activity. This is especially true where heli-skiers such as Butts were required to sign a waiver explicitly acknowledging heli-skiing was far more dangerous than resort skiing.

Finally, [**20] Defendants argue that because of the language at the end of the Butts Application, wherein Butts affirmed all answers in the “application [were] full, complete and true to the best of [his] knowledge and belief,” Question 5 solicited a subjective answer and thus could not be a false statement of fact. In support of this argument Defendants cite to Hauser v. Life General Security Insurance Co., 56 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 1995), in which the Eleventh Circuit stated, “[w]here an insurer only requests the disclosure of information to the best of the insured’s ‘knowledge and belief,’ and where the applicant so complies, we will decline to protect the insurer from a risk it assumed by virtue of the contractual language it drafted.” Id. at 1335 (quotation omitted). The court went on to state, however:

[w]hat the applicant in fact believed to be true is the determining factor in judging the truth or falsity of his answer, but only so far as that belief is not clearly contradicted by the factual knowledge on which it is based. In any event, [HN9] a court may properly find a statement false as a matter of law, however sincerely it may be believed. To conclude otherwise would be to place insurance [**21] companies at the mercy of those capable of the most invincible self deception . . . .

Id. (quotation omitted). Here, even assuming Colorado courts would follow the reasoning of Hauser, any belief Butts may have had in the non-hazardous nature of heli-skiing is contradicted by his underlying knowledge of the significant risks inherent in heli-skiing as indicated by the training he was required to undertake, waivers he signed, and equipment he used. We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that as a matter of law Butts knowingly made a false statement of fact.

ii. The Fourth Element

In order to satisfy the fourth element of the Hollinger standard, WCLI must demonstrate it was “not chargeable” with the knowledge Butts heli-skied. 560 P.2d at 827. [HN10] Colorado has yet to adopt a test for determining when an insurer is “chargeable with knowledge” of an undisclosed material fact. The parties agree, however, and the district court concluded, the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse the following standard: an insurer is chargeable with knowledge of undisclosed information only where it “had sufficient information that would have put a prudent man on notice and would have caused him to [**22] start an inquiry” which would have uncovered the truth. Major Oil Corp. v. [*1160] Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 457 F.2d 596, 604-05 (10th Cir. 1972).

Butts gave a negative response to Question 5, indicating he did not engage in any hazardous activities. Later, however, in response to the question of what he did for recreation and exercise in his spare time during his phone interview with Chu, Butts stated he enjoyed skiing and golfing. In response to Chu’s question about hazardous activities, Butts stated only that he was involved in scuba diving and private aviation as a pilot. WCLI’s underwriter, Youngquist, interpreted Butts’s response that he participated in skiing in his spare time, to mean he engaged in resort skiing. Youngquist had only worked for WCLI for about a month, and was unaware the underwriting manual treated the various kinds of skiing differently, with heli-skiing, but not resort skiing, meriting an increase in the insured’s premium. He did not consult the manual during the course of underwriting Butts’s Policy. Defendants contend that based on Butts’s disclosure that he skied, WCLI had a duty to conduct an investigation into the nature of Butts’s skiing precisely because [**23] of the six classes of skiing identified for differing treatment in the underwriting manual. A reasonably prudent insurer, they argue, would have been put on notice to conduct further investigation into the type of skiing in which Butts engaged.

In deciding to insure Butts, Youngquist had before him: (1) Butts’s negative response to Question 5, (2) Butts’s report to Chu stating the only hazardous activities in which he engaged were scuba diving and private aviation, and (3) Butts’s report to Chu stating he “also enjoy[ed] skiing and golfing in his spare time.” Thus, even if Youngquist had been aware of the classifications in the underwriting manual, such awareness would not have sufficed to put a prudent underwriter on notice he should further investigate a situation where an applicant reports recreational skiing and denies engaging in any hazardous activities. As the district court explained, “[i]f such were the burden of a prudent insurance company, then it would seem that any report of a generally lowhazard recreational activity — e.g., wrestling, juggling, or fishing — would require the insurer to investigate the myriad possible ‘extreme’ variants thereof.” Cf. Am. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Peoples Compress Co., 156 F.2d 663, 667 (10th Cir. 1946) [**24] (stating “honesty, good faith, and fair dealings require [an insured] to communicate [facts material to the risk] to his insurer.”).

Accordingly, [HN11] courts have generally found insurance companies chargeable with knowledge of an undisclosed fact only where it has knowledge of evidence indicating the applicant was not truthful in answering the particular application question at issue. See Major Oil Corp., 457 F.2d at 598-604 (concluding insurer was chargeable with knowledge of applicant’s alcohol problem where another insurance company considering the applicant informed the insurer of the applicant’s ongoing alcohol problem and a report by the Medical Information Bureau received by the insurer prior to issuance of the policy revealed the insured had a drinking habit); Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 116 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1940) (concluding insurer was chargeable with knowledge that applicant had previously been declined insurance despite applicant’s answer to the contrary where it had in its possession documentation indicating “that the applicant had either been declined or had been rated differently from the established rates, or that some other unusual circumstances were [**25] involved.”). Here, WCLI had no such evidence. Butts twice informed WCLI he did not engage in hazardous activities. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, Butts’s statement he engaged in the recreational activities of skiing and [*1161] golfing does not constitute evidence or raise a red flag as to his lack of truthfulness in answering the hazardous activities question, as recreational resort skiing is not considered a hazardous activity. See Barciak v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 777 F. Supp. 839, 843 (D. Colo. 1991) (concluding insurer was not chargeable with knowledge of applicant’s heart condition where applicant did not disclose he received medical care for chest pain, extensive medical tests, and had been referred to a cardiologist, but in a subsequent phone interview stated he had seen a doctor for a headache and received a variety of tests, including a chest x-ray and EKG, and the doctor’s diagnosis was unknown.).

We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that WCLI has met the Hollinger elements as a matter of law entitling it to summary judgment on its claim for rescission of the Butts Policy.

3. Defendants’ Counterclaim

Defendants’ bad faith counterclaim depends on the existence [**26] of a valid and enforceable insurance policy. Because we affirm the district court’s ruling that Butts’s nondisclosure voided the Butts Policy entitling WCLI to rescission, Defendants’ counterclaim fails.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because WCLI was entitled to rescission of the Butts Policy, the district court’s decision is affirmed.

WordPress Tags: West,Coast,Life,Insurance,Company,Hoar,LEXIS,Nebraska,corporation,Plaintiff,Appellee,Martha,Estate,Stephen,Butts,Telluride,Properties,Colorado,Albert,Roer,Lychee,Defendants,Appellants,STATES,COURT,APPEALS,TENTH,CIRCUIT,March,PRIOR,HISTORY,APPEAL,FROM,DISTRICT,Supp,Dist,Colo,COUNSEL,Blain,Myhre,Stuart,Pack,Isaacson,Rosenbaum,Denver,Masciocchi,Johnston,Holland,Hart,JUDGES,BRISCOE,EBEL,MURPHY,OPINION,Judge,INTRODUCTION,WCLI,policy,misrepresentation,beneficiaries,faith,violation,Consumer,Protection,judgment,statement,fact,knowledge,jurisdiction,BACKGROUND,Factual,August,Defendant,Lynchee,principals,agreement,event,death,policies,September,agent,Sharon,Evanson,million,dollar,Application,responses,Question,auto,motorcycle,boat,avocation,hobby,declaration,statements,belief,Heli,helicopter,mountain,Alex,reporter,Financial,Services,October,clients,information,lifestyles,applicants,recreation,aviation,clarification,tenure,response,Under,Record,Report,pastimes,basis,Mark,Youngquist,underwriter,questionnaire,Swiss,resort,Standard,Tobacco,November,Neither,significance,disclosure,January,British,Columbia,operator,Selkirk,Tangiers,avalanche,trees,Within,neck,wife,Canada,Release,Waiver,Claims,Assumption,Risk,dangers,addition,Avalanches,terrain,AWARE,RISKS,HAZARDS,ACCEPT,ASSUME,PERSONAL,INJURY,DAMAGE,LOSS,THEREFROM,guests,survival,equipment,beacons,rescuers,location,protocols,Although,Avalung,product,user,notification,investigation,Steven,Hetherington,impact,assumptions,coverage,Marilyn,Vice,President,underwriters,Bachman,carrier,dollars,committee,person,interpretation,incident,decision,payment,failure,Procedural,complaint,Stat,Both,purposes,concealment,DISCUSSION,Motion,Strike,arguments,accident,requirement,tickets,argument,statistics,Whether,discretion,Mills,Tramway,Corp,explanation,Stump,Gates,Stores,Comm,Internal,Revenue,Judicial,talisman,litigant,presentation,quotation,contention,individuals,proposition,attention,Feichko,Grande,relevance,Rescission,Mullin,Travelers,Indem,Conn,Summary,misrepresentations,insurer,applicant,acceptance,detriment,Hollinger,Benefit,footnote,fourth,Second,Elements,Wade,Olinger,scope,context,companion,characteristics,vacations,jury,purchasers,examples,area,proficiency,techniques,beacon,execution,participants,Avalungs,helicopters,summits,mountains,category,status,conclusion,Utah,Center,accidents,Vincent,Anderson,Moreover,testimony,Hauser,General,Eleventh,virtue,factor,truth,mercy,self,deception,Here,waivers,Element,Supreme,Major,Equitable,Assurance,Later,kinds,treatment,Thus,classifications,situation,variants,Eagle,Fire,Peoples,dealings,alcohol,Medical,Bureau,Columbian,Rodgers,possession,documentation,Contrary,assertions,Barciak,Omaha,chest,headache,diagnosis,Counterclaim,existence,upon,counterclaims,pursuant,three,scuba,backcountry,month,skiers,skier

Stuff Happens People need to know that!

Posted: April 17, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk | Tags: assumption of the risk, Stuff Happens, Warnings | Leave a comment

What more do you have to say?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Stuff,Happens,People,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,Negligence,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Warnings,Assumption,Risk

Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises, Inc., 196 Wis. 2d 485; 538 N.W.2d 834; 1995 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1022

Posted: April 14, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Wisconsin | Tags: fatality, Minor, parent, Season Pass, ski area, Summary judgment, Yauger | 1 Comment

Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises, Inc., 196 Wis. 2d 485; 538 N.W.2d 834; 1995 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1022

Michael Yauger and Brenda Yauger, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Skiing Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Hidden Valley Ski Area, a Wisconsin corporation, and Investors Insurance Company of America, a foreign corporation, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 94-2683

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN

196 Wis. 2d 485; 538 N.W.2d 834; 1995 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1022

July 12, 1995, Oral Argument

August 23, 1995, Opinion Released

August 23, 1995, Opinion Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Manitowoc County: ALLAN J. DEEHR, Judge.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

COUNSEL: On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Gary L. Bendix and John M. Bruce of Savage, Gregorski, Webster, Stangel & Bendix, S.C. of Manitowoc. There was oral argument by John M. Bruce.

On behalf of the defendants-respondents, there was a brief and oral argument by Thomas B. Hartley of Guttormsen, Hartley & Guttormsen of Kenosha.

JUDGES: Before Anderson, P.J., Brown and Snyder, JJ.

OPINION BY: BROWN

OPINION

[**836] [*490] BROWN, J. We are asked to gauge whether the exculpatory contract in this case is void as against public policy. Here, Brenda and Michael Yauger brought a wrongful death action against Hidden Valley Ski Area after their eleven-year-old daughter, Tara, was killed when she struck the concrete base of a ski lift tower. The trial court dismissed the claim finding that the [*491] Yaugers’ contract with Hidden Valley for a season pass contained a valid exculpatory clause. The Yaugers now reassert their challenge that [***2] it is void.

The following facts were taken from the appellate record consisting of the pleadings, affidavits and depositions. On October 8, 1992, Michael Yauger submitted an application for a family season pass at Hidden Valley. This form is reproduced at the end of the opinion. The pass cost roughly $ 720. Although only Michael signed the application, his wife and two daughters (then ages ten and eight) were named on the form. Depositions reveal that Michael submitted the application in person at the Hidden Valley Ski Shop.

The Yauger family was familiar with Hidden Valley. Michael had skied there approximately sixty times in the three seasons prior to the accident, and Tara had skied there about fifty times prior to her accident. The record also shows that the Yauger family had a season pass at the resort the prior year.

On March 7, 1993, Tara suffered her fatal accident. The exact facts surrounding her death are unsettled, but the record currently suggests that she struck the side of a concrete base of a ski lift tower. The Yaugers sued Hidden Valley that October, claiming that this support was not adequately padded.

After limited discovery, Hidden Valley and its insurer [***3] sought summary judgment on grounds that the exculpatory release within the Yaugers’ contract for a season pass barred them from bringing this claim since it arose out of the “certain inherent risks in skiing.” The Yaugers responded that the clause was invalid as against public policy because it was not knowingly entered into by each of the Yaugers, was ambiguous and overbroad and also attempted to encompass protections provided under Wisconsin’s safe-place law.

[*492] The trial court granted Hidden Valley’s motion. It focused its analysis on the phrase “certain inherent risks in skiing” and reasoned that it covered the type of injury that killed Tara, namely, the risk that a skier will collide with a stationary object. It also rejected the Yaugers’ argument that Brenda Yauger was not bound by the exculpatory clause, finding that her express endorsement was not necessary since she received the benefit of the season pass.

We are reviewing a grant of summary judgment; thus, § 802.08(2), STATS., governs [**837] the analysis. See Decade’s Monthly Income and Appreciation Fund v. Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., 164 Wis. 2d 227, 230, 474 N.W.2d 766, 767 (Ct. App. 1991), aff’d, 173 Wis.2d 665, [***4] 495 N.W.2d 335 (1993). [HN1] Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Moreover, this appeal concerns the interpretation of a contract which appellate courts address de novo. Id. at 230-31, 474 N.W.2d at 767. Therefore, to defeat Hidden Valley’s motion for summary judgment the Yaugers must show that material facts are in dispute, or that the trial court erred in its analysis of the exculpatory clause. See id. at 230-31, 474 N.W.2d at 767.

We first turn to the analysis of the season pass and its exculpatory clause. Wisconsin law does not favor these agreements and courts therefore examine with care the facts of each case to ascertain whether enforcement will contravene public policy. See Merten v. Nathan, 108 Wis. 2d 205, 210-11, 321 N.W.2d 173, 176 (1982). The goal is to strike a balance between conflicting principles of contract and tort law. See id. at 211, 321 N.W.2d at 177. [HN2] Freedom of contract suggests that [*493] courts should abstain from interfering in people’s relationships and personal affairs. See id. On [***5] the other hand, tort law recognizes that those responsible for causing harm through negligence should bear the cost of the harm and should not be allowed to circumvent this duty through contract. See id. at 211-12, 321 N.W.2d at 177.

A review of the recent supreme court cases on this issue indicates that there are two aspects to the question of whether an exculpatory contract violates public policy. In Dobratz v. Thomson, 161 Wis. 2d 502, 468 N.W.2d 654 (1991), the court cited with approval § 195 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS (1979), which sets out a series of situations in which an exculpatory contract would violate public policy. Id. at 515-16, 468 N.W.2d at 658-59 (citing Arnold v. Shawano County Agric. Soc’y, 111 Wis. 2d 203, 210-11, 330 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1983)). The first element tests the effect of the exculpatory clause, e.g., does it exempt an employer from suits by an employee. See id. ¹

1 This two-prong analysis was also discussed in Discount Fabric House v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 117 Wis. 2d 587, 602, 345 N.W.2d 417, 424-25 (1984), where the court faced a challenge to an exculpatory release that served to cover any errors in telephone directory advertising. The court explained that the analysis of such contracts involves an assessment of the “commercial reasonableness” of the terms (substantive) and the relationship between the parties during negotiations (procedural). Id.

[***6] The Yaugers’ assertion that the exculpatory clause in Hidden Valley’s season pass application contravenes the safe-place statute, § 101.11, STATS., fits this line of analysis. In further support of this argument they cite Meyer v. Val-Lo-Will Farms, Inc., 14 Wis. 2d 616, 111 [*494] N.W.2d 500 (1961), for the proposition that a for-profit winter sports park was subject to the safe-place law. In substance, they argue that the exculpatory clause violates public policy because it seeks to relieve Hidden Valley of the duty imposed by the statute. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 195(2)(c). ² The trial court rejected this argument, reasoning that the safe-place statute did not create a special cause of action, but established a higher duty of care for what would ordinarily be addressed through common law negligence.

2 The applicability of the safe-place statute, § 101.11, STATS., in situations where frequenters challenge exculpatory contracts was raised, but left unanswered, in Kellar v. Lloyd, 180 Wis. 2d 162, 178-81, 509 N.W.2d 87, 93-94 (Ct. App. 1993).

[***7] While we agree with the trial court’s result, a different analysis is appropriate. Moreover, we need not decide the issue of whether the safe-place law imposed a special statutory duty on Hidden Valley. We hold that even if the statute does apply, a potential defendant may still bargain for an exclusion.

As noted above, the supreme court has endorsed § 195 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS. See Merten, 108 Wis. 2d at 212-13, 321 N.W.2d at 177-78. ³ [*495] The [**838] official comment to this section, however, suggests that the enumerated standards are not a litmus test for these agreements; it states: “the rigor of this rule may, however, be mitigated by a fairly bargained for agreement to limit liability to a reasonable agreed value in return for a lower rate.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 195 cmt. a.

3 We recognize that the exact status of RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 195 (1979), is somewhat clouded. In Dobratz v. Thomson, 161 Wis. 2d 502, 515-16, 468 N.W.2d 654, 658-59 (1991), the court expressly quoted all the subsections after noting that it had originally “referred with approval” to them in Arnold v. Shawano County Agric. Soc’y, 111 Wis. 2d 203, 210-11, 330 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1983). When one examines the Arnold opinion, however, it includes only a general reference to the RESTATEMENT. Indeed, the rule in § 195(2)(c), which provides the basis for the Yaugers’ argument, was not referred to in the discussion. See Arnold, 111 Wis. 2d at 210-11, 330 N.W.2d at 777. Moreover, in the supreme court’s most recent exploration of these issues, the majority opinion made no reference to § 195, although it did reaffirm its confidence in the Dobratz decision. Richards v. Richards, 181 Wis. 2d 1007, 1014, 513 N.W.2d 118, 121 (1994). We have located a federal district court case in which the various subsections of § 195 were found to be a component of Wisconsin law and formed the basis for voiding an exculpatory contract. See RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. First Wisconsin Nat’l Bank, 636 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (E.D. Wis. 1986) (voiding clause exempting liability for harm arising out of reckless or intentional acts). We thus find that § 195 continues to be a valid component of Wisconsin common law.

[***8] The process envisioned by the drafters of this comment aptly describes the transaction between the Yaugers and Hidden Valley. The Yaugers wanted a discount on their skiing. The resort was a willing supplier, but recognized that the increase in days skied would directly increase the risk of an accident and the potential for a damages claim. Hidden Valley therefore sought a release from liability. Gauging the deal at the time when the parties entered into the contract, we cannot say that the exchange was totally unreasonable. The Yaugers obtained their discount, but lost the right to bring a claim arising out of an accident which may never have occurred. Here, freedom of contract requires that we not delve deeper into the merits of this agreement. [*496] See Merten, 108 Wis. 2d at 211, 321 N.W.2d at 177. ⁴

4 Of course the above analysis certainly does not summarize all the concerns of the bargaining parties. The Yaugers and Hidden Valley were also making allowances for the risk that there would be no snow that season. The key to understanding our analysis, however, is to recognize that courts rarely are able to do a better job of writing contracts than the parties themselves.

[***9] The second prong of the public policy question entails examining the circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. See Dobratz, 161 Wis. 2d at 516 n.2, 468 N.W.2d at 659. For example, in Richards v. Richards, 181 Wis. 2d 1007, 1010, 513 N.W.2d 118, 119 (1994), ⁵ the supreme court was asked to review an exculpatory contract signed by a passenger in a commercial, long-haul truck. The plaintiff was married to a driver employed by the defendant and was asked to sign a “passenger authorization” before joining her husband on the road. Id. at 1012, 513 N.W.2d at 119. Within the form was a clause releasing the defendant from liability for any harm that might occur during her travels. Id. Still, the wife brought suit after she and her husband were involved in an accident. The lower courts found that the release was valid and granted summary [*497] judgment for the defendant. Id. at 1010, 513 N.W.2d at 119.

5 We discuss Richards in detail because it represents the supreme court’s most recent analysis of how flaws in the specific terms of an agreement, or the circumstances of the bargaining process, may serve as grounds for voiding an exculpatory agreement. For other examples, see Merten v. Nathan, 108 Wis. 2d 205, 214-15, 321 N.W.2d 173, 178 (1982) (release invalidated because defendant misrepresented a fact during the negotiation process), and Eder v. Lake Geneva Raceway, 187 Wis. 2d 596, 610-11, 523 N.W.2d 429, 434 (Ct. App. 1994) (release clause found to be ambiguous).

[***10] After its review of the contract, however, the supreme court found it to be void as contrary to public policy. Id. at 1011, 513 N.W.2d at 119. The majority pointed to three aspects of the agreement, which together led to this conclusion. First, the contract served two purposes. The court emphasized that the exculpatory clause was not distinguishable from other components of the document. It reasoned that highlighting the release provision would have provided greater protection for the signing party. See id. at 1017, 513 N.W.2d at 122.

Next, the court found that the contract was over-inclusive. It applied not only to the [**839] defendant, but also to all of its affiliates. Moreover, it did not delineate the nature of claims that would be excluded, such as those arising from negligence but not from intentional acts. Also, the time period through which the exclusion would apply was not limited. The majority found that the contract was lopsided in favor of the defendant and should therefore be construed against the company. See id. at 1017-18, 513 N.W.2d at 122.

Finally, the court noted that the release was embodied in a standard form contract, and the defendant [***11] did not inform the plaintiff of the purpose and effect of the authorization. This suggested that there was little or no opportunity to dicker about the terms. Id. at 1019, 513 N.W.2d at 123.

The Yaugers cite Richards and raise a number of arguments, each suggesting that they and Hidden Valley were not on equal footing when they entered into this agreement. The many issues they raise can be distilled into three central points. First, the Yaugers contend that the release clause, which was a single [*498] term in the season pass application, was never pointed out to Michael before he completed and signed the form. See Richards, 181 Wis. 2d at 1019, 513 N.W.2d at 123. They further assert that summary judgment was inappropriate because Hidden Valley presented no evidence on this issue.

We are not persuaded. This agreement was signed in October, at least one month prior to the skiing season. There was no sense of urgency. Michael could have taken the form home for further consideration. In addition, the Yaugers had purchased a season pass for the prior year. Therefore, Michael had a source of knowledge from which to draw comparisons. Compare Eder v. Lake [***12] Geneva Raceway, 187 Wis. 2d 596, 609, 523 N.W.2d 429, 433 (Ct. App. 1994)(noting that parties signing the release were not allowed onto the racetrack grounds until they signed the release form).

Next, the Yaugers assert that the language within the exculpatory clause is ambiguous. It specifically addressed “certain inherent risks in skiing.” They question what constitutes these “inherent risks” and whether the clause only applies to a “certain” number of these dangers. In addition, they note that Hidden Valley did not provide any evidence which would identify these risks. The Yaugers also raise concerns that the clause (which is composed of a single sentence) reads to limit Hidden Valley’s liability for any injury occurring on the premises. They stress that this could be reasonably interpreted as an attempt to limit the resort’s liability for any accident on the premises, such as a slip and fall in the restaurant. See Richards, 181 Wis. 2d at 1017-18, 513 N.W.2d at 122.

The trial court concluded that the terminology covered the obvious dangers in skiing, viz, falling down or [*499] colliding with another skier or a fixed object, and that the “any injury” language was limited [***13] to those harms arising out of these risks. We agree.

[HN3] Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. Borchardt v. Wilk, 156 Wis. 2d 420, 427, 456 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Ct. App. 1990). We test whether the term is reasonable or fairly susceptible of more than one construction. Id. [HN4] A clause is not ambiguous, however, merely because its language is general or broad. See Wilke v. First Federal Savs. & Loan Ass’n, 108 Wis. 2d 650, 654, 323 N.W.2d 179, 181 (Ct. App. 1982).

This was a contract between Hidden Valley and a season pass holder. The contracting skier, therefore, could reasonably be expected to have some knowledge about the sport. The Yaugers’ interest in skiing is further demonstrated by their willingness to commit over seven hundred dollars to skiing that season. ⁶ The record also reveals that the Yaugers had a similar pass at the resort the prior year. We are thus hesitant to accept their arguments that such language would lead to confusion among parties executing these agreements. The language is plain and simple. It aptly describes the risks that [**840] arise whenever one’s skis are in contact with the slope. ⁷

6 The season pass was not refundable.

[***14]

7 Very similar language can be found in Wisconsin’s recreational responsibility law. See § 895.525(3), STATS. (“A participant in a recreational activity … accepts the risks inherent in the recreational activity ….”) (emphasis added). Moreover, several states have adopted specific skier responsibility laws which codify these terms. For example, Colorado law provides, in part:

“Inherent dangers and risks of skiing” means those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 33-44-103(10) (West Supp. 1994) (emphasis added).

Further discussion of these laws, and judicial efforts in providing interpretation, are set forth in Arthur N. Frakt and Janna S. Rankin, Surveying the Slippery Slope: The Questionable Value of Legislation to Limit Ski Area Liability, 28 IDAHO L. REV. 227 (1991-92).

[***15] [*500] Finally, the Yaugers argue that the exculpatory clause should be held void because it was “not clearly identified or distinguished.” See Richards, 181 Wis. 2d at 1017, 513 N.W.2d at 122.

The trial court noted that although the exculpatory language was not highlighted, there was no indication that it was disguised and therefore did not provide grounds for rendering the agreement void. Indeed, the clause is set out in a separate paragraph.

Any break in text requires the reader to pause and thus provides a moment for reflection.

The face of the application does not otherwise suggest that Hidden Valley was trying to trick season pass holders into signing away their rights. It was an application form. Not only did the applicants have to sign the agreement, but they had to furnish information [*501] such as their address, age, other family member names, etc. In sum, the form and application process provided ample opportunity for Michael to consider the terms of the agreement.

We have addressed a variety of concerns about the exculpatory clause of the season pass contract. Although no single point is troublesome enough to render the clause void, Richards suggests that [***16] courts may consider all these aspects together when making a determination about the effects of public policy. See id. at 1011, 513 N.W.2d at 119. But even the totality of the circumstances presented here does not warrant that this contract be set aside. The contracting process simply does not raise any concern of overreaching by the party seeking to be released from liability. ⁸

8 The Yaugers raised one other challenge to the exculpatory clause relating to the contract language. They assert that under Hortman v. Otis Erecting Co., 108 Wis. 2d 456, 463, 322 N.W.2d 482, 485-86 (Ct. App. 1982), an agreement which indemnifies a party for its own negligence must specifically include the term “negligence.” As the defendants contend, however, this specific argument was not presented to the trial court and is therefore waived on appeal. See, e.g., Bank One, Appleton, N.A. v. Reynolds, 176 Wis. 2d 218, 222, 500 N.W.2d 337, 339 (Ct. App. 1993).

We now turn to the second issue presented. [***17] Although we have found that the exculpatory clause serves as a bar to the Yaugers’ claim, Brenda nonetheless asserts that it should not run against her individually since she did not expressly acknowledge these terms, nor did she authorize her husband to execute a contract releasing these claims. In support of her argument, she draws an analogy to Arnold v. Shawano County Agri. Soc’y, 111 Wis. 2d 203, 214-15, 330 N.W.2d 773, 779 (1983), where the court held that a [*502] spouse’s claim for consortium rights is not defeated by a valid exculpatory contract running against the deceased.

In dismissing this claim the trial court distinguished Arnold, stating:

In this case the plaintiff Brenda Yauger did not sign the application, but the application was made on her behalf and for her [**841] benefit, which is not the factual situation in Arnold. And she is specifically identified and money is specifically paid for her membership, for her use, and the use of her daughter ….

Although we agree in substance with the trial court’s analysis, we feel it necessary to elaborate further. We add that Brenda’s claim is barred by the exculpatory clause because it is so intertwined [***18] with that of her husband, and thus it was reasonable for Hidden Valley to assume that Michael was acting on her behalf when he executed the agreement.

The Yaugers’ claim has three components: loss of consortium, Tara’s medical expenses and the cost of her funeral. See § 895.04(4), STATS. The right to pursue a claim for these losses accrues to Michael and Brenda as the “parents of the deceased.” See id. This is not a situation in which one parent’s recovery is limited or barred by his or her negligence. See § 895.04(7). This distinction recently was addressed in Chang v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 182 Wis. 2d 549, 561, 514 N.W.2d 399, 403 (1994), where the court noted: “the right to sue and recover damages under the wrongful death statute must be distinguished from the ownership and allocation of the recovery itself.”

Brenda alleges that she never authorized her husband to enter into this exculpatory clause (and bargain [*503] away her right to pursue a potential claim), nor was she aware of its effects. Nevertheless, she shared equally in the benefits that arose to her family, and the face of the application form would suggest that all [***19] named parties are bound by its terms.

Although there is little case law applying the principles of agency in transactions between married persons and third parties, Smart v. Estate of Ford, 23 Wis. 2d 60, 65-66, 126 N.W.2d 573, 576 (1964), summarized the Wisconsin rule that third parties may reasonably believe that one spouse had authority to act on behalf of the other. Here, we are dealing with the Yaugers’ joint interest in the companionship of their beloved daughter. Michael completed the season pass application on behalf of his whole family and paid the appropriate sum. Absent any evidence that Brenda informed Hidden Valley that she was not bound by this agreement, the Yaugers should both be held by the terms of the application.

By the Court.–Judgment affirmed.

WordPress Tags: Yauger,Enterprises,Wisc,LEXIS,Michael,Brenda,Plaintiffs,Appellants,Hidden,Valley,Area,Wisconsin,corporation,Investors,Insurance,Company,America,Defendants,Respondents,COURT,APPEALS,Oral,Argument,August,Opinion,PRIOR,HISTORY,APPEAL,judgment,circuit,Manitowoc,ALLAN,DEEHR,Judge,DISPOSITION,COUNSEL,Gary,Bendix,John,Bruce,Savage,Gregorski,Webster,Stangel,Thomas,Hartley,Guttormsen,Kenosha,JUDGES,Anderson,Brown,Snyder,policy,Here,death,action,daughter,Tara,Yaugers,clause,affidavits,October,cost,Although,wife,daughters,Depositions,person,Shop,accident,resort,March,discovery,insurer,protections,analysis,injury,endorsement,STATS,Decade,Income,Appreciation,Fund,Whyte,Hirschboeck,Summary,fact,Moreover,interpretation,agreements,enforcement,Merten,Nathan,goal,tort,Freedom,relationships,affairs,negligence,aspects,Dobratz,Thomson,approval,RESTATEMENT,SECOND,CONTRACTS,series,situations,Arnold,Shawano,Agric,employer,employee,prong,Discount,Fabric,House,errors,relationship,negotiations,assertion,statute,Meyer,Farms,proposition,winter,park,substance,Kellar,Lloyd,defendant,exclusion,agreement,status,subsections,reference,basis,discussion,exploration,confidence,decision,Richards,district,component,RepublicBank,Dallas,Bank,Supp,transaction,supplier,allowances,example,truck,plaintiff,driver,authorization,husband,road,Within,Still,flaws,examples,negotiation,Eder,Lake,Geneva,Raceway,conclusion,purposes,components,provision,protection,Also,purpose,arguments,urgency,addition,knowledge,comparisons,Compare,racetrack,dangers,premises,restaurant,terminology,Whether,Borchardt,Wilk,construction,Wilke,Federal,Savs,Loan,holder,dollars,Very,participant,emphasis,laws,Colorado,Inherent,corn,crust,slush,machine,growth,trees,collisions,impact,enclosures,variations,terrain,roads,catwalks,modifications,failure,abilities,COLO,STAT,West,Further,efforts,Arthur,Frakt,Janna,Rankin,Slippery,Slope,Questionable,Value,Legislation,Limit,IDAHO,indication,paragraph,text,reader,moment,reflection,holders,applicants,information,member,determination,Hortman,Otis,Appleton,Reynolds,analogy,Agri,spouse,consortium,situation,money,membership,funeral,parents,recovery,distinction,Chang,State,Farm,Auto,ownership,allocation,agency,transactions,Smart,Estate,Ford,companionship,Absent,behalf,exculpatory,appellate,three,skier,skiers,third

Virginia Chapter 62. Equine Activity Liability

Posted: April 14, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Virginia | Tags: Equine, Equine Activities, Equus (genus), Horse, Mammals, minors, Release, Risk, Virginia | Leave a comment

CODE OF VIRGINIA

TITLE 3.2. AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL CARE, AND FOOD

SUBTITLE V. DOMESTIC ANIMALS

CHAPTER 62. EQUINE ACTIVITY LIABILITY

GO TO CODE OF VIRGINIA ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6202 (2014)

§ 3.2-6202. Liability limited; liability actions prohibited

A. Except as provided in § 3.2-6203, an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company, shall not be liable for an injury to or death of a participant resulting from the intrinsic dangers of equine activities and, except as provided in § 3.2-6203, no participant nor any participant’s parent, guardian, or representative shall have or make any claim against or recover from any equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the intrinsic dangers of equine activities.

B. Except as provided in § 3.2-6203, no participant or parent or guardian of a participant who has knowingly executed a waiver of his rights to sue or agrees to assume all risks specifically enumerated under this subsection may maintain an action against or recover from an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional for an injury to or the death of a participant engaged in an equine activity. The waiver shall give notice to the participant of the intrinsic dangers of equine activities. The waiver shall remain valid unless expressly revoked in writing by the participant or parent or guardian of a minor.

HISTORY: 1991, c. 358, § 3.1-796.132; 2003, c. 876; 2008, c. 860.

NOTES: LAW REVIEW. –For article, “Virginia’s Rule of Non-waiver of Liability for Negligent Acts: Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association, Inc.,” see 2 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 27 (1994).

WordPress Tags: CODE,VIRGINIA,Matthew,Bender,Company,member,LexisNexis,Group,Current,Sessions,General,Acts,Annotations,January,TITLE,AGRICULTURE,ANIMAL,CARE,FOOD,SUBTITLE,DOMESTIC,ANIMALS,CHAPTER,EQUINE,ARCHIVE,DIRECTORY,Except,person,corporation,partnership,injury,death,participant,dangers,guardian,waiver,subsection,action,HISTORY,NOTES,REVIEW,article,Rule,Negligent,Hiett,Lake,Barcroft,Association,Mason

States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue

Posted: April 10, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minor, minors, Right to Sue, Ski Resort, Virginia | Leave a comment

If your state is not listed here, you should assume a parent cannot waive a minor’s right to sue in your state.

State	By Statute	Restrictions
Alaska	Alaska: Sec. 09.65.292	Sec. 05.45.120 does not allow using a release by ski areas for ski injuries
Arizona	ARS § 12-553	Limited to Equine Activities
Colorado	C.R.S. §§13-22-107
Florida	Florida Statute § 744.301 (3)
Virginia	Chapter 62. Equine Activity Liability § 3.2-6202. Liability limited; liability actions prohibited	Allows a parent to sign a release for a minor for equine activities
	By Case Law
California	Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal.App.3d 1559, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1990)
Florida	Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1454	Allows a release signed by a parent to require arbitration of the minor’s claims
Florida	Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So.2d 1067, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1147	Release can be used for volunteer activities and by government entities
Massachusetts	Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99; 769 N.E.2d 738; 2002 Mass. LEXIS 384
Minnesota	Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299
North Dakota	McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3
Ohio	Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998)
Wisconsin	Osborn v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 546, 259 Wis. 2d 481, 2002 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1216, 2003 WI App 1	However the decision in Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2 may void all releases in the state
	On the Edge, but not enough to really rely on
North Carolina	Kelly v. United States of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89741	Ruling is by the Federal District Court and only a preliminary motion

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #minor, #release, #ParentSignature, #NC, #NorthCarolina, #Alaska, #AK, #AZ, #Arizona, #CO, #Colorado, #Florida, #FL, #CA, #California, #MA, #Massachusetts, #Minnesota, #MN, #ND, #NorthDakota, #OH, #Ohio, #WI, #Wisconsin, #Hohe, #SanDiego, #SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict, #GlobalTravelMarketing, #Shea, #Gonzalez, #CityOfCoralGables, #Sharon, #CityofNewton, #Moore, #MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool, #McPhail, #BismarkParkDistrict, #Zivich, #MentorSoccerClub, #Osborn, #CascadeMountain, #Atkins, #SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter, Minor, Minors, Right to Sue,

WordPress Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Florida,Virginia,Chapter,Allows,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,Negligence,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter,Minor,Minors

Morgan et al., v. Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ et al., 2012-Ohio-453; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 385

Posted: April 7, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, Ohio, Summer Camp | Tags: assumption of the risk, Chaperone, Hike, Night Hike, Ohio, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Stream Crossing | Leave a comment

Brian Morgan et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11AP-405

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY

2012-Ohio-453; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 385

February 7, 2012, Rendered

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. (C.P.C. No. 10CVC-03-4516).

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL: Rourke & Blumenthal, LLP, Kenneth S. Blumenthal and Jonathan R. Stoudt; Cloppert, Latanick, Sauter & Washburn, and Robert L. Washburn, for appellants.

Philipp & Gregory, Ronald D. Gregory and Jeffrey T. Peters, for appellees.

JUDGES: DORRIAN, J. KLATT and SADLER, JJ., concur.

OPINION BY: DORRIAN

OPINION

(ACCELERATED CALENDAR)

DECISION

DORRIAN, J.

[*P1] Plaintiffs-appellants, Brian Morgan (“Morgan”) and his wife Amie Morgan (collectively “appellants”), appeal from the April 4, 2011 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in favor of defendants-appellees, Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ (“OCUCC”) and Templed Hills Camp and Conference Center (“Templed Hills”) (collectively “appellees”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

[*P2] On November 12, 13, and 14, 2007, Morgan was scheduled to attend the Nature’s Classroom program at Templed Hills as a teacher chaperone for sixth grade students of Worthington City Schools. The school district contracted with the owner of the site, OCUCC, to send the students. The contract set forth a fee of $7,565 for the group’s participation. (Affidavit of Mark Glassbrenner, [**2] ¶4; Exhibit A-A to Affidavit.) On the evening of November 13, Morgan volunteered to act as a chaperone on one of the group’s night hikes. Morgan had chaperoned students annually from approximately 2002 to 2007 and attended the night hike every year. The night hike had originally been scheduled for the evening of November 12, but was postponed to the second evening due to rain. (Affidavit of Kristi Patrick, ¶6; Affidavit of Kathy Mikkelson, ¶6.)

[*P3] The night hike was led by Matthew Marsh (“Marsh”), a Nature’s Classroom instructor. Marsh testified that the purpose of the night hike was to use your other senses when your eyes were not as heightened as during the daylight. Marsh picked the trail and had been using that same trail for the night hikes he had been leading twice a week for the last seven months. It was an established trail and wider than shoulder length. Other trails on the property were harder to traverse. Marsh stated that the evening was a clear night, not cloudy, and the moon was out so the trail could be seen. The adults were also told to bring flashlights.

[*P4] The group met at approximately 7:30 p.m. and started with a game called “Bat & Moth,” where one child is blindfolded [**3] and the children attempt to escape. It is similar to the game Marco Polo. The game lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes, after which the group entered the woods. After several minutes of hiking, they had to cross a creek bed, but it was a receding creek so there was not much water in it. Marsh stood in the middle of the creek bed on a rock with his flashlight and helped every child cross by holding their hand, and then he helped Morgan cross. While Marsh was counting the kids on the other side of the creek, he saw Morgan shift his weight and fall on his stomach. Marsh tried to call his supervisor on his radio and his cell phone but could not reach her. Then he called 911. When the EMTs arrived, Marsh took the students to an area away from Morgan.

[*P5] Morgan testified to a slightly different version of facts. He had never been on that particular trail and thought it was very overgrown. He was not advised to take a flashlight on the hike and remembered the night being cloudy. Morgan testified that as he approached the creek Marsh was there to help him cross and had a flashlight. Morgan did not remember specifically, but thinks he used Marsh’s shoulder to step on a tree stump or rock as [**4] he took a long stride to cross the creek. After a few seconds, Marsh gave some directions for the next activity and Morgan took a step with his right foot, lost traction and fell. He knew immediately that he was seriously injured. Morgan suffered severe injuries to his left arm and shoulder. Morgan testified he had to ask Marsh to call 911 several times before Marsh called them.

[*P6] Morgan and his wife filed a complaint against OCUCC and Templed Hills as the owners and operators of the site and the employers of Marsh for damages Morgan suffered resulting from Marsh’s negligence, as well as for Amie Morgan’s loss of consortium. A stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 41 was filed.

[*P7] The claim was refiled on March 22, 2010. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that appellants’ claims were barred by the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk and by the Ohio recreational user statute, R.C. 1533.181. Appellees argued that Morgan assumed the risk of his injury by voluntarily participating in the night hike and that, under the circumstances, appellees owed no duty to protect Morgan from injury. Appellees also argued that Ohio’s recreational statute, R.C. 1533.181, [**5] barred his claims because Morgan was a recreational user and, as such, appellees owed no duty to Morgan as a hiker pursuant to the statute.

[*P8] In opposition to appellees’ motion, Morgan argued that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not bar his cause of action, as the dangers presented by Marsh’s negligence were not inherent to hiking. Also, Morgan argued that the recreational user statute was inapplicable to these facts because the negligence alleged was based on the negligence of an employee, not a theory of premises liability. Additionally, Morgan claimed he was not a recreational user because he was a business invitee.

[*P9] By decision and entry filed April 4, 2011, the trial court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment finding that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred appellants’ claims. The doctrine removed any duty on appellees’ part to protect Morgan from risks inherent to the activity of night hiking.

[*P10] Appellants assert one assignment of error on appeal:

The trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the Appellees Ohio Conference United Church of Christ and Templed Hills holding that the doctrine of primary assumption [**6] of the risk bars Plaintiffs from recovering on their claims for negligence and loss of consortium.

[*P11] In their assignment of error, appellants challenge the granting of the motion for summary judgment, contending that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is inapplicable to these facts. [HN1] By asserting a negligence action, appellants were required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellees owed them a duty of care, that the duty was breached and that the breach proximately caused Morgan’s injuries. Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285, 423 N.E.2d 467 (1981). Under the law of negligence, a defendant’s duty to a plaintiff depends on the relationship between the parties and the foreseeability of injury to someone in the plaintiff’s position. Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 645, 1992 Ohio 42, 597 N.E.2d 504 (1992).

[*P12] [HN2] The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk has often been applied to cases involving sporting events and recreational activities. Crace v. Kent State Univ., 185 Ohio App. 3d 534, 2009 Ohio 6898, ¶12, 924 N.E.2d 906, citing Ballinger v. Leaniz Roofing, Ltd., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-696, 2008 Ohio 1421, ¶8, 2008 WL 802722, citing Anderson v. Ceccardi, 6 Ohio St.3d 110, 114, 6 Ohio B. 170, 451 N.E.2d 780 (1983). Whether to [**7] apply the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk presents an issue of law for the court to determine. Crace at ¶12, citing Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427, 435, 1996 Ohio 320, 659 N.E.2d 1232 (1996). We therefore review the trial court’s decision de novo. Crace at ¶12, citing Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 76 Ohio St. 3d 521, 523, 1996 Ohio 298, 668 N.E.2d 889 (1996), citing Indus. Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm., 68 Ohio St. 3d 559, 563, 1994 Ohio 435, 629 N.E.2d 423 (1994).

[*P13] [HN3] Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries. Crace at ¶13, citing Santho v. Boy Scouts of Am., 168 Ohio App. 3d 27, 2006 Ohio 3656, ¶12, 857 N.E.2d 1255. The doctrine is based on the fiction that the plaintiff has “tacitly consented” to the risk of injury inherent in the activity. Collier v. Northland Swim Club, 35 Ohio App.3d 35, 37, 518 N.E.2d 1226 (10th Dist.1987). The rationale behind the doctrine is that certain risks are so intrinsic in some activities that the risk of injury [**8] is unavoidable. Crace at ¶13, citing Collier. The test for applying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to recreational activities and sporting events requires that “(1) the danger is ordinary to the game, (2) it is common knowledge that the danger exists, and (3) the injury occurs as a result of the danger during the course of the game.” Santho at ¶12.

[*P14] [HN4] The affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk completely negates a negligence claim because the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff against the inherent risks of the recreational activity in which the plaintiff engages. Crace at ¶15, citing Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141, 144, 2004 Ohio 379, 802 N.E.2d 1116, citing Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts (5th Ed.1984) 496, Section 68; see also Gallagher at 431, citing Prosser & Keeton, 496-97, Section 28 (“Primary assumption of risk ‘is really a principle of no duty, or no negligence, and so denies the existence of any underlying cause of action.'”). Primary assumption of the risk serves to negate the duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Wolfe v. Bison Baseball, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-905, 2010 Ohio 1390, ¶18, 2010 WL 254597. “Because a successful [**9] primary assumption of risk defense means that the duty element of negligence is not established as a matter of law, the defense prevents the plaintiff from even making a prima facie case.” Id. at ¶21, citing Gallagher at 431-32.

[*P15] [HN5] With the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, the injured plaintiff’s subjective consent to and appreciation for the inherent risks of the recreational activity are immaterial to the analysis. Crace, 185 Ohio App. 3d 534, ¶16, citing Gentry at 144. The types of risks inherent to an activity are those risks that are foreseeable and customary risks of the sport or recreational activity. Deutsch v. Birk, 189 Ohio App. 3d 129, 2010 Ohio 3564, ¶12 (937 N.E.2d 638, 12th Dist.), citing Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 104-106, 559 N.E.2d 705 (1990). In accordance with these principles, this court held in Gehri v. Capital Racing Club, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 96APE10-1307, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2527, 1997 WL 324175 (June 12, 1997), that “primary assumption of [the] risk requires an examination of the activity itself and not plaintiff’s conduct. If the activity is one that is inherently dangerous and from which the risks cannot be eliminated, then a finding of primary assumption of [the] risk is appropriate.” 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2527, [WL] at *4. [**10] “The law simply deems certain risks as accepted by the plaintiff regardless of actual knowledge or consent.” Crace at ¶16. The focus in primary assumption of the risk is on the defendant’s conduct, whether such conduct was reckless or intentional. Gentry at ¶9.

[*P16] In the instant case, the trial court noted that hiking is a recreational activity to which the doctrine applies, and hiking contains an inherent risk of slipping, tripping or falling that cannot be eliminated, even more so with hiking at night. (Apr. 4, 2011 Decision, 2.) Appellants argue that primary assumption of the risk does not apply to these facts because the risks which led to the injury in this case could have been eliminated if Marsh had chosen a different trail. However, this is essentially a claim that Marsh’s conduct was reckless. In Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 100, 559 N.E.2d 699 (1990), fn. 3, the Supreme Court of Ohio cited the comments f and g to Section 500 of the Restatement of Torts 2d, 590, which defined the three mental states of tortious conduct, as follows:

f. Intentional misconduct and recklessness contrasted. [HN6] Reckless misconduct differs from intentional wrongdoing in a very important particular. While an act [**11] to be reckless must be intended by the actor, the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it. It is enough that he realizes or, from facts which he knows, should realize that there is a strong probability that harm may result, even though he hopes or even expects that his conduct will prove harmless. However, a strong probability is a different thing from the substantial certainty without which he cannot be said to intend the harm in which his act results.

g. Negligence and recklessness contrasted. [HN7] Reckless mis-conduct differs from negligence in several important particulars. It differs from that form of negligence which consists in mere inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions to enable the actor adequately to cope with a possible or probable future emergency, in that reckless misconduct requires a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it or with knowledge of facts which would disclose this danger to any reasonable man. It differs not only from the above-mentioned form of negligence, but also from that negligence which consists in intentionally doing an act with [**12] knowledge that it contains a risk of harm to others, in that the actor to be reckless must recognize that his conduct involves a risk substantially greater in amount than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent. The difference between reckless misconduct and conduct involving only such a quantum of risk as is necessary to make it negligent is a difference in the degree of the risk, but this difference of degree is so marked as to amount substantially to a difference in kind.

[*P17] Appellants argue that Marsh should have chosen a different path for the hikers that evening. However, appellants did not allege that Marsh was reckless in choosing that path. The trial court specifically found that [HN8] hiking, especially night hiking, involves the risk of tripping, slipping and falling. Hiking does involve these risks. Morgan volunteered to participate in the night hike and assumed these risks. The court in Shaner v. Smoot, 7th Dist. No. 712, 2001 Ohio 3429, 2001 WL 1243920, found that persons involved in recreational activities assume the ordinary risks of the activity and the failure to warn of the ordinary risks does not subject one to liability. In Shaner, the plaintiff was injured [**13] while riding a motorcycle in tall grass with tree stumps scattered throughout the area. The plaintiff was aware that there were tree stumps in the area where he was riding. However, the court found that the risk of hitting a tree stump was an ordinary risk of riding a motorcycle in such a location, and the defendants could not be liable for failure to warn of an ordinary risk assumed by the plaintiff.

[*P18] Appellants concede that there are risks inherent in hiking that cannot be avoided. However, appellants contend that the risks which led to Morgan’s particular injury could have been avoided if Marsh had picked a trail which was better maintained with less-demanding obstacles. Thus, appellants argue, implied assumption of the risk is more appropriate to these facts, which has been merged into Ohio’s comparative negligence statute, R.C. 2315.19. However, these risks were not risks out of the ordinary for night hiking.

[*P19] In California, the courts have addressed similar issues and applied primary assumption of the risk, finding that a defendant is only liable for a plaintiff’s injuries if the defendant’s conduct is reckless or totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the [**14] sport or activity. In Andia v. Full Service Travel, S.D.Cal. No. 06cv0437 WQH (JMA), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88247, 2007 WL 4258634 (Nov. 29, 2007), the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s cruise ship and participated in a shore expedition known as the HL 15, the Kilauea Lava Viewing Hike. The plaintiff slipped on one of the rocks and fell, fracturing her foot. She filed a negligence action, and the court found that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applied, negating the defendant’s duty to prevent the plaintiff from slipping and falling on lava rock, an inherent risk of the activity of lava hiking.

[*P20] In Kane v. Natl. Ski Patrol Sys., Inc., 88 Cal.App.4th 204, 209, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 600 (2001), a ski instructor led participants in a skills clinic for a voluntary ski patrol. The participants were reluctant to proceed to the most difficult portion of the trail, which was icy and contained trees, rocks, and stumps, but the instructor encouraged them to go. The two plaintiffs were injured, one fell to his death and the other one suffered a broken leg. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applied, negating the defendant’s [**15] duty of care. The court held that [HN9] “an instructor’s assessment errors–either in making the necessarily subjective judgment of skill level or the equally subjective judgment about the difficulty of the conditions–are in no way ‘outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.'” Id. at 214.

[*P21] Similarly, here, any assessment error in the subjective judgment of the path chosen by the Nature’s Classroom instructor, if any, is not outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in night hiking. As we have said, tripping, slipping, and falling are inherent risks of night hikes, regardless of the trail chosen.

[*P22] In Kalter v. Grand Circle Travel, 631 F.Supp.2d 1253 (C.D.Cal.2009), the plaintiff suffered serious injuries when she fell while hiking at Inca ruins at Machu Picchu. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the vacation tour operator, but the court applied the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, finding that hiking across uneven and challenging terrain is an inherent risk when hiking in ancient ruins, and inherent in this activity is the risk that one will fall and become injured.

[*P23] This case law from California is similar to our Ohio law. Morgan attempts [**16] to argue that the conditions which led to his injury, attempting to cross a creek up a slippery embankment in dark, wet conditions, were not inherent to hiking. However, Morgan had already crossed the creek when he fell, and the dark is inherent in night hiking regardless of the trail chosen, and the ground was wet because it had been raining the day before. That was the reason the hike had been postponed. Despite Morgan’s attempt to argue that the risks were heightened, we find, under these facts, that these risks were inherent risks to night hiking.

[*P24] Appellants rely on Byer v. Lucas, 7th Dist. No. 08AP-351, 2009 Ohio 1022, 2009 WL 581710, to argue that the risks involved here outweigh the ordinary risks involved in the recreational activity that the plaintiff was engaged. In Byer, the plaintiff filed a negligence action against the owner and driver of a tractor pulling a hay wagon as part of party festivities. The defendant was drinking alcohol at the party. The plaintiff was riding in the wagon. The defendant stopped the wagon at the top of a steep hill and advised the passengers that they could get out of the wagon and either walk down the hill or wait to be picked up by a truck [**17] to return to the party. Apparently, the plaintiff did not hear the warning and remained on the wagon. The defendant lost control of the wagon, and plaintiff was ejected and treated for severe injuries. Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence and intentional and reckless conduct. On appeal, the court found there were risks that were not ordinary, customary, or foreseeable to a hayride.

[*P25] Ordinary risks for a hayride include “getting scratched by tree braches [sic], being bounced around on a wagon, and even losing one’s balance and falling off the wagon.” Id. at ¶30. In Byer, however, the court found risks that were out of the ordinary for a hayride, including the choice of route, the driver control and severe injuries. The driver chose to drive down the steep hill while another driver took a safer route. The tractor and wagon careened down the hill out of control. Many passengers were thrown from the wagon. Finally, the plaintiff suffered severe injuries including cuts to her head, requiring stitches, and two segments of her tailbone were fractured.

[*P26] The choice of route, down a steep hill, the out-of-control nature of the ride and the injuries the plaintiff received were not risks that [**18] would be expected from a hayride. The court found that “a farm tractor and its wagon cascading down a steep hill out of control and jackknifing to a stop throwing passengers from it is not an inherent risk of a hayride.” Id. at ¶39. Thus, the court found primary assumption of the risk inapplicable. But Byer is distinguishable from the case at hand. The court in Byer found the risks were not inherent to the recreational activity, whereas here, we find the risks were inherent to night hiking. Also in Byer, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless. Here, the only allegation is that Marsh’s conduct was negligent. Thus, the facts of Byer distinguish it from the facts at hand.

[*P27] Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, appellees owed no duty to protect appellants from the inherent risks of injury related to the night hike. Since the primary assumption of the risk negates the duty element of appellants’ negligence claim, appellants are precluded from making a prima facie case of negligence, and the trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Amie Morgan’s claim also fails because it is dependent upon her husband’s [**19] successful claim. Appellants’ assignment of error is overruled.

[*P28] For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ assignment of error is overruled, and we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Judgment affirmed.

KLATT and SADLER, JJ., concur.

WordPress Tags: Morgan,Ohio,Conference,Church,Christ,LEXIS,Brian,Plaintiffs,Appellants,Defendants,Appellees,COURT,APPEALS,TENTH,APPELLATE,DISTRICT,FRANKLIN,February,PRIOR,HISTORY,APPEAL,Common,Pleas,DISPOSITION,Judgment,COUNSEL,Rourke,Blumenthal,Kenneth,Jonathan,Stoudt,Cloppert,Latanick,Sauter,Washburn,Robert,Philipp,Gregory,Ronald,Jeffrey,Peters,JUDGES,DORRIAN,KLATT,SADLER,OPINION,CALENDAR,DECISION,wife,Amie,April,OCUCC,Hills,Camp,Center,November,Nature,Classroom,teacher,students,Worthington,Schools,owner,participation,Affidavit,Mark,Glassbrenner,Exhibit,Kristi,Patrick,Kathy,Mikkelson,Matthew,Marsh,instructor,purpose,length,adults,flashlights,Moth,Marco,Polo,woods,creek,supervisor,radio,cell,EMTs,area,version,tree,foot,traction,injuries,complaint,owners,operators,employers,negligence,consortium,stipulation,dismissal,March,assumption,user,statute,injury,hiker,opposition,doctrine,action,dangers,Also,employee,theory,premises,assignment,error,preponderance,Strother,Hutchinson,Under,defendant,plaintiff,relationship,Simmers,Bentley,Constr,events,Crace,Kent,State,Univ,Ballinger,Leaniz,Dist,Anderson,Ceccardi,Whether,Gallagher,Cleveland,Browns,Football,Elec,Illum,Util,Comm,Indus,Energy,Consumers,Power,Utils,event,Santho,Scouts,Collier,Northland,Swim,Club,rationale,danger,knowledge,Gentry,Craycraft,Prosser,Keeton,Torts,Section,Primary,principle,existence,Wolfe,Bison,Baseball,analysis,Deutsch,Birk,Thompson,McNeill,accordance,Gehri,Capital,June,examination,Marchetti,Kalish,Supreme,Restatement,Intentional,misconduct,actor,particulars,inadvertence,incompetence,failure,precautions,difference,degree,path,hikers,Shaner,Smoot,motorcycle,location,obstacles,Thus,California,Andia,Full,Service,Travel,expedition,Kilauea,Lava,Hike,Kane,Natl,Patrol,Rptr,participants,skills,clinic,trees,death,errors,skill,Kalter,Grand,Circle,Supp,Inca,Machu,Picchu,vacation,operator,terrain,embankment,Despite,Byer,Lucas,driver,wagon,festivities,alcohol,hill,passengers,truck,Ordinary,Many,segments,Here,allegation,husband,hikes,pursuant,prima,facie,tractor,hayride

In Ohio, Primary Assumption of the Risk is a complete bar to claims for injuries from hiking at night.

Posted: April 7, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Ohio, Summer Camp | Tags: Assumption of risk, assumption of the risk, Chaperone, Hike, Night Hike, Ohio, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Recreation, Stream Crossing | 1 Comment

This decision held that falling down while hiking at night was an inherent risk of hiking, especially at night.

Morgan et al., v. Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ et al., 2012-Ohio-453; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 385

Date of the Decision: February 7, 2012

Plaintiff: Brian Morgan and his wife Amie Morgan

Defendant: Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ (“OCUCC”) and Templed Hills Camp and Conference Center

Plaintiff Claims: negligence

Defendant Defenses: defendant assumed the risks of hiking at night, falling was an inherent risk of hiking

Holding: for the defendants

Ohio has a statute that requires kids to receive some of their education about the outdoors in the outdoors. This law was passed in the early 70’s. I know I was a camp counselor for one of these trips as a senior in high school.

This case comes from a school group going to a camp for outdoor classroom. The plaintiff had done this for five consecutive years, and for five years had participated as a chaperone on the “night hike.” During the night hike, after crossing a stream the plaintiff fell injuring his shoulder.

The plaintiff sued. The defendant camp filed a motion to dismiss claiming the plaintiff assumed the risk, which was granted by the court and this appeal followed. Due to the evidence presented the appellate court viewed the motion as a motion for summary judgment.

Summary of the case

The Ohio Appellate court extensively reviewed Primary Assumption of the Risk under Ohio Law.

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries. The doctrine is based on the fiction that the plaintiff has “tacitly consented” to the risk of injury inherent in the activity. The rationale behind the doctrine is that certain risks are so intrinsic in some activities that the risk of injury is unavoidable. The test for applying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to recreational activities and sporting events requires that “(1) the danger is ordinary to the game, (2) it is common knowledge that the danger exists, and (3) the injury occurs as a result of the danger during the course of the game.”

The effect of a court finding that the plaintiff assumed the risk as defined, by Primary Assumption of the Risk, is a complete bar to the plaintiff’s claims.

The affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk completely negates a negligence claim because the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff against the inherent risks of the recreational activity in which the plaintiff engages.

The court then explained how Primary Assumption of the Risk worked to stop a claim by the plaintiff.

Primary assumption of risk ‘is really a principle of no duty, or no negligence, and so denies the existence of any underlying cause of action. Primary assumption of the risk serves to negate the duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. “Because a successful primary assumption of risk defense means that the duty element of negligence is not established as a matter of law, the defense prevents the plaintiff from even making a prima facie case.”

To prevail at trial, the plaintiff has to make a prima facie case. That means the plaintiff has to plead and prove enough facts to prove their case. If the defendant or the court can show the risks of the activity which caused the injury to the plaintiff were inherent to the activity, then the plaintiff is prevented from even making his or her case.

The risks of the activity that are sufficient to prove Primary Assumption of the Risk are “…types of risks inherent to an activity are those risks that are foreseeable and customary risks of the sport or recreational activity.”

The telling issue, as the court explained, is not of the actions of the parties but of the risk. “If the activity is one that is inherently dangerous and from which the risks cannot be eliminated, then a finding of primary assumption of [the] risk is appropriate.”

The court also looked at the defendant’s side of the facts. “The focus in primary assumption of the risk is on the defendant’s conduct, whether such conduct was reckless or intentional.” If the conduct of the defendant was not reckless or intentional, if the defendant did not do anything that increased the risk to the injured plaintiff in a reckless or intentional way than the defense stands.

In the instant case, the trial court noted that hiking was a recreational activity to which the doctrine applies, and hiking contains an inherent risk of slipping, tripping or falling that cannot be eliminated, even more so with hiking at night.

The court then looked at how Ohio defines tortious conduct. It came from the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant increased the risk by reckless choosing the trail that the plaintiff fell on.

Intentional misconduct and recklessness contrasted. Reckless misconduct differs from intentional wrongdoing in a very important particular. While an act to be reckless must be intended by the actor, the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it. It is enough that he realizes or, from facts which he knows, should realize that there is a strong probability that harm may result, even though he hopes or even expects that his conduct will prove harmless. However, a strong probability is a different thing from the substantial certainty without which he cannot be said to intend the harm in which his act results.

Negligence and recklessness contrasted. Reckless mis-conduct differs from negligence in several important particulars. It differs from that form of negligence which consists in mere inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions to enable the actor adequately to cope with a possible or probable future emergency, in that reckless misconduct requires a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it or with knowledge of facts which would disclose this danger to any reasonable man. It differs not only from the above-mentioned form of negligence, but also from that negligence which consists in intentionally doing an act with knowledge that it contains a risk of harm to others, in that the actor to be reckless must recognize that his conduct involves a risk substantially greater in amount than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent. The difference between reckless misconduct and conduct involving only such a quantum of risk as is necessary to make it negligent is a difference in the degree of the risk, but this difference of degree is so marked as to amount substantially to a difference in kind.

Because the conduct of the employee, the guide of the night hike, was not intentional or reckless, the plaintiff was prevented from brining his claims because of the defense of Primary Assumption of the Risk.

So Now What?

The issues you need to understand when looking at the risks of outdoor or recreational activities are which risks are of what type. Those risks that are not inherent in the activity are the ones that you are at the greatest risk of losing a lawsuit over unless you can prove the guest knew and assumed the risks or released you from their injury prior to the activity.

This does not mean you should not inform your guests of all the risks. On the contrary, knowledgeable guests are happier guests and usually injury-free guests. Any injury is a problem for you no matter how small and a problem for the entire group all the time.

What this means is when you list the risks of the activity you need to make sure you know which ones may need special attention for your guests. Those they do not recognize or understand which may include some inherent risks, and those that are obvious.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Ohio,Primary,Assumption,Risk,injuries,decision,Morgan,Conference,Church,Christ,LEXIS,Date,February,Plaintiff,Brian,wife,Amie,Defendant,OCUCC,Hills,Camp,Center,Claims,negligence,Defenses,defendants,statute,education,counselor,classroom,judgment,Summary,Appellate,Under,doctrine,event,injury,rationale,events,danger,knowledge,principle,existence,action,argument,Intentional,misconduct,actor,particulars,inadvertence,incompetence,failure,precautions,difference,degree,employee,lawsuit,guest,guests,attention,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Hike,Stream,five,prima,facie,ones

Really neat assumption of the risk agreement. But will it work? Should it be a release?

Posted: April 2, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Paddlesports | Tags: Acknowledgement of Risk, assumption of the risk, Florida, Release, WaterTribe | Leave a comment

Without the word negligence or giving up your right to sue it is not a release.

A friend sent me this assumption of the risk form. You can find it here. It is on the WaterTribe website. It is fun to read and well written. Three long pages of warnings about the risks of boating.

However there is no place to sign. So there is no way to prove that anyone signed the form.

There is also no use of the magic word negligence or language where the party is giving up the right to sue.

The document says you have to sign a release, however searching the site did not turn one up. However it might be a member’s only location on the site. Does the release tie into or relate back to this form. That would provide great assumption of risk proof.

Do Something

However this is nothing wrong with this document. It tells the truth that if you don’t read and pay attention to what it says you can get hurt or die.

Maybe we need more documents that drive home the risk, rather than legally dance around it.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#RecreationLaw, #Recreation-Law.com, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #Rec-Law, #RiskManagement, #CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, Assumption of the Risk, Acknowledgement of Risk, Release, WaterTribe, Florida,

WordPress Tags: assumption,agreement,Should,negligence,friend,WaterTribe,Three,warnings,member,location,Does,truth,attention,Maybe,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,Tourism,AdventureTourism,RiskManagement,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,Camps,YouthCamps,Areas,SkiLaw,Outside,AttorneyatLaw,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,HumanPoweredRecreation,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Challenge,Course,Ropes,Line,Rock,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Samaritan,Risk,Acknowledgement,Release,Florida

Indiana decision upholds release signed by mother for claims of an injured daughter for the inherent risks of softball. However, language of the decision may apply to well written releases to stop all claims for negligence.

Posted: March 31, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Indiana, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: base, Brian Thompson, Indiana, Inherent Risk, Minor, Negligence, parent, Plaintiff, Release, Sliding, softball, Summary judgment, YMCA | 3 Comments

Decision appears to add Indiana to the list of states were a parent can sign away a minor’s right to sue for injuries.

Wabash County Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. v. Thompson, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 428

Date of the Decision: August 31, 2012

Plaintiff: Wabash County Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. f/k/a Wabash Community Service, Appellant-Defendant

Defendant: Taylor M. Thompson, a minor, by next friends, Brian Thompson and Charlene Thompson

Plaintiff (Defendant on Appeal) Claims: negligent and violated its duty to protect Taylor by its failure to inspect, warn, and implement preventive measures designed to eliminate or reduce dangers posed by the condition of the second base “such that it was fixed as a rigid obstacle for participants to encounter while sliding into the base and, thereby, posing a clear safety hazard

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: Release signed by the mother of the injured plaintiff (defendant on appeal) barred claims for the inherent risks of playing softball

Again, the plaintiff on appeal was the defendant in the trial court. The defendant at the trial court level filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed that decision. Because of that timeline, the defendant became the plaintiff on appeal. Because of the confusion, I’ll just refer to the parties by their names: YMCA and Thompson.

The mother of Thompson, 17 years old at the time of her injury, signed a release to allow her daughter to play softball. The release was quite bad. It did not contain solid language, the word release, or explain any risks except the inherent risks of softball. The trial court rejected the YMCA’s argument and denied its motion for summary judgment based on the release.

The YMCA appealed the decision to the Indiana Appellate Court which reversed the decision.

Of note and of interest, Indian defines negligence in three steps, not the normal four steps as defined by the appellate court in this case.

In order to prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff is required to prove:

(1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff;

(2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and

(3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach.”

Basically, Indiana combines the majority third and fourth step into Indiana’s third step to define the requirements to prove negligence.

Summary of the case

Thompson first argued that an Indiana statute required any release for a minor to be approved by the court before it became effective. Many states require court approval of the settlement of the claims of minors.

The court quickly dismissed this argument because the statute in question was part of the probate law of Indiana and only dealt with post injury claims. Thompson did not raise any other arguments against the release so the court declared the release valid.

The court then went through the requirements for a valid release under Indiana’s law.

It is well established in Indiana that exculpatory agreements are not against public policy. “Generally, parties are permitted to agree that a party owes no obligation of care for the benefit of another, and thus, shall not be liable for consequences that would otherwise be considered negligent.” However, this court has held that an exculpatory clause will not act to absolve a party from liability unless it “‘specifically and explicitly refer[s] to the negligence of the party seeking release from liability.'” An exculpatory clause may be found sufficiently specific and explicit on the issue of negligence even in the absence of the word itself. Furthermore, an exculpatory clause not referring to the negligence of the releasee may act to bar liability for those damages incurred which are inherent in the nature of the activity.

Of greater note was this statement from the court. “The requirement of specificity is only necessary when the risk of harm is a latent danger, i.e. the defendant’s own negligence.”

This may lead you to believe, and I believe properly that a properly written release would top a minor’s claim for negligence under Indiana Law.

The court concluded the release signed by the mother did not release the YMCA for all negligent acts because it was written so poorly. However, it will release the YMCA for what was stated in the release, the inherent risks of softball.

The court then reviewed whether sliding into a base was an inherent risk of softball.

So Now What?

It appears that Indiana will allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue. A well-written release, including the magic word negligence, which identifies the risks other than the inherent risks, would stop a claim for negligence.

A well-written release would have eliminated half of this decision, maybe even the appeal. If the proper language, the magic word negligence and a broader definition of the risks were in the release, this case would have been decided faster and with less worthy.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Indiana,decision,daughter,negligence,injuries,Wabash,Young,Christian,Association,Thompson,LEXIS,Date,August,Plaintiff,Service,Appellant,Defendant,Taylor,Brian,Charlene,Appeal,Claims,failure,dangers,obstacle,participants,Defenses,Release,Again,YMCA,injury,argument,judgment,Appellate,Court,Indian,fourth,requirements,Summary,statute,Many,approval,settlement,minors,probate,arguments,agreements,policy,obligation,consequences,clause,absence,statement,requirement,danger,definition,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Minor,Parent,Softball,Base,Inherent,Risk,third,exculpatory

Wabash County Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. v. Thompson, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 428

Posted: March 31, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Indiana, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Sports | Tags: IN, Indiana, Indianapolis, Inherent Risk, Judgment as a matter of law, Magic Words, Minor, Motion (legal), Negligence, parent, Release, Summary judgment, YMCA | Leave a comment

Wabash County Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. v. Thompson, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 428

Wabash County Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. f/k/a Wabash Community Service, Appellant-Defendant, vs. Taylor M. Thompson, a minor, by next friends, Brian Thompson and Charlene Thompson, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

No. 85A05-1203-CT-138

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 428

August 31, 2012, Decided

August 31, 2012, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

APPEAL FROM THE WABASH CIRCUIT COURT. The Honorable Robert R. McCallen, III, Judge. Cause No. 85C01-1110-CT-839.

COUNSEL: FOR APPELLANT: RANDALL W. GRAFF, ORFEJ P. NAJDESKI, LESLIE B. POLLIE, Kopka, Pinkus, Dolin & Eads, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

FOR APPELLEES: JOSEF MUSSER, Spitzer Herriman Stephenson, Holderead Musser & Conner, LLP, Marion, Indiana.

JUDGES: BROWN, Judge. FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.

OPINION BY: BROWN

OPINION

OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge

Wabash County Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc., (“YMCA”) appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment. The YMCA raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred in denying the YMCA’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

The relevant facts follow. On October 13, 2011, Taylor Thompson, by next friends Brian Thompson and Charlene Thompson, filed a complaint against the YMCA alleging that she was at the premises known as the Field of Dreams which was owned by the YMCA on May 28, 2009, and was injured when she slid into second base while participating in the Wabash Metro Summer Baseball/Softball League.¹ The complaint alleged that the YMCA was negligent and violated its duty to protect Taylor [*2] by its failure to inspect, warn, and implement preventive measures designed to eliminate or reduce dangers posed by the condition of the second base “such that it was fixed as a rigid obstacle for participants to encounter while sliding into the base and, thereby, posing a clear safety hazard.” Appellant’s Appendix at 7. The complaint alleged that Taylor suffered serious and permanent physical injury.

1 The complaint indicated that Taylor was seventeen years old at the time of the filing of the complaint.

On November 22, 2011, the YMCA filed a Motion to Dismiss And/Or Change of Venue Pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6). The YMCA alleged that Charlene, Taylor’s mother, executed a contractual document for Taylor’s participation in the Wabash Metro Summer Baseball/Softball League, and the YMCA attached the document to the motion. The form contains the following statement:

I (parent or guardian) Charlene Thompson hereby give permission for Taylor Thompson to participate in Metro League Baseball/Softball. I further understand that injuries can occur and will not hold the field, sponsor, coaching staff or league responsible for injury or medical expenses incurred while participating in practice [*3] or playing in a game. I also affirm that my child is physically fit to participate in athletic activities.

Id. at 12. The YMCA alleged that Taylor contractually agreed that there was an inherent risk to her participation in the softball game that could result in injury and that she contractually agreed that she would hold the YMCA, as alleged owner of the field, harmless for any injuries or medical expenses resulting from such injuries.

On December 22, 2011, Taylor filed a response to the YMCA’s motion to dismiss and argued that “in the case of minors, a person claiming tort damages on behalf of the minor against another person has power to execute a release on the minor’s behalf, however, the release must be approved by the Court before being effective.” Appellant’s Appendix at 14. Taylor also alleged that the document YMCA relies upon did not contemplate an injury from the negligent maintenance of the property, rather, it contemplates the foreseeable injuries which can inherently occur while playing baseball or softball. Taylor argued that the YMCA was not a party to the understanding evidenced by the document.

On December 30, 2011, the court held a hearing on the YMCA’s motion. On [*4] January 18, 2012, the court denied the YMCA’s motion to dismiss. On February 16, 2012, the YMCA filed a motion to certify the interlocutory order, which the court granted on February 21, 2012. On April 16, 2012, this court accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B).

The issue is whether the trial court erred by denying summary judgment to the YMCA. Initially, we note that the YMCA’s motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) and attached the form completed by Taylor’s mother. Therefore, we will review the YMCA’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. [HN1] See Ind. Trial Rule 12(B) (“If, on a motion, asserting the defense number (6), to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56.”); New Albany-Floyd Cnty. Educ. Ass’n v. Ammerman, 724 N.E.2d 251, 255 n.7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“Although the trial court specifically granted Holman’s motion to dismiss and did not rule on his motion for summary judgment, we must nevertheless treat [*5] the former as a motion for summary judgment on review.”); Galbraith v. Planning Dep’t of City of Anderson, 627 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (treating the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as a summary judgment for the defendant when plaintiff submitted an affidavit and the trial court acknowledged that it considered matters outside the pleadings).

[HN2] Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. 2001). All facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts are construed in favor of the nonmovant. Mangold, 756 N.E.2d at 973. [HN3] Our review of a summary judgment motion is limited to those materials designated to the trial court. Id. [HN4] We must carefully review a decision on summary judgment to ensure that a party was not improperly denied its day in court. Id. at 974. [HN5] “[A] motion for summary judgment that is unopposed should be granted only if the designated materials, regardless of whether they stand unopposed by materials designated by the nonmovant, warrant it.” [*6] Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Klotz v. Hoyt, 900 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2009).

[HN6] In reviewing a grant of summary judgment we face the same issues as the trial court and follow the same process. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., 964 N.E.2d 190, 193 (Ind. 2012). [HN7] Under Trial Rule 56(C), the moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. If it is successful, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to designate evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.

[HN8] “In order to prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach.” Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736, 738 (Ind. 2004). [HN9] In negligence cases, summary judgment is “rarely appropriate.” Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. 2004). “This is because negligence cases are particularly fact sensitive and are governed by a standard of the [*7] objective reasonable person–one best applied by a jury after hearing all of the evidence.” Id. Nevertheless, a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the undisputed material facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s claim. Id. at 385.

We initially address Taylor’s argument that while Indiana law requires that a parent claiming tort damages on behalf of a minor against another person has power to execute a release on the minor’s behalf, the release must be approved by the court to be valid. Taylor cites Ind. Code § 29-3-9-7(b) which provides:

[HN10] Whenever a minor has a disputed claim against another person, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and a guardian for the minor and the minor’s property has not been appointed, the parents of the minor may compromise the claim. However, before the compromise is valid, it must be approved by the court upon filing of a petition requesting the court’s approval. If the court approves the compromise, it may direct that the settlement be paid in accordance with IC 29-3-3-1. If IC 29-3-3-1 is not applicable, the court shall require that a guardian be appointed and that the settlement be delivered to the guardian [*8] upon the terms that the court directs.

Taylor argues that “[n]o Indiana statute, rule, or decision authorizes a parent of a minor to sign a pre-tort waiver.” Appellee’s Brief at 5. Taylor also argues that “the Indiana statute requiring court approval of minor’s claim settlement arises out of a public policy of favoring protection of minors with respect to contractual obligations” and “[t]he statute guards minors against improvident compromises made by their parents.” Id.

The YMCA argues that Taylor’s reliance on Ind. Code § 29-3-9-7(b) “is misplaced and has no bearing on the subject matter at issue in this case, which involves a vastly different legal scenario having nothing to do with probating a disputed claim a minor has against another person.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. The YMCA also argues that if Taylor’s argument is accepted, it would render all releases signed by parents to allow their children to participate in school and sporting events ineffective and meaningless. The YMCA contends that “[i]t would be impossible for parents to obtain court approval for every release or hold harmless agreement for every club, hobby, camp, and sporting activity for each of their children.” Id. at 9.

We [*9] observe that the referenced statute governs a post-injury claim and falls under Title 29, which governs probate law, and not the issue in this case. Further, Taylor does not point to any other authority indicating that the release form was invalid. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the release form is valid. See Bellew v. Byers, 272 Ind. 37, 38, 396 N.E.2d 335, 336 (1979) (addressing a minor’s compromise claim in which the parent and natural guardian was paid an amount for the injuries to her three children in return for a release), abrogated on other grounds by Huffman v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 588 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 1992); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201, 206-207 (Ohio 1998) (holding that it was not appropriate to equate a pre-injury release with a post-injury release and that parents have the authority to bind their minor children to exculpatory agreements in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit sport activites where the cause of action sounds in negligence).

We next turn to whether the release applies to Taylor’s injury. The YMCA argues that the release form applies to Taylor’s action of sliding into second base during the softball game. [*10] The YMCA also argues that “one can take almost any on-field mishap and seek to couch it in terms of negligence by arguing for more padding, softer playing surfaces, rule changes, etc., but the fact remains that the injury arose because of a risk inherent in the game.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 3. Taylor argues that the YMCA’s repeated reference to her injury being the result of her sliding into second base without referencing the accompanying allegations of the complaint that the injury was caused by the negligent maintenance of the second base is a glaring omission throughout the YMCA’s argument.

“It is well established in Indiana that [HN11] exculpatory agreements are not against public policy.” Stowers v. Clinton Cent. Sch. Corp., 855 N.E.2d 739, 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. [HN12] “Generally, parties are permitted to agree that a party owes no obligation of care for the benefit of another, and thus, shall not be liable for consequences that would otherwise be considered negligent.” Marsh v. Dixon, 707 N.E.2d 998, 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. However, this court has held that an exculpatory clause will not act to absolve a party from liability unless it “‘specifically [*11] and explicitly refer[s] to the negligence of the party seeking release from liability.'” Id. (quoting Powell v. Am. Health Fitness Ctr. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 757, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). [HN13] An exculpatory clause may be found sufficiently specific and explicit on the issue of negligence even in the absence of the word itself. Anderson v. Four Seasons Equestrian Ctr., Inc., 852 N.E.2d 576, 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Furthermore, [HN14] an exculpatory clause not referring to the negligence of the releasee may act to bar liability for those damages incurred which are inherent in the nature of the activity. Id. [HN15] The requirement of specificity is only necessary when the risk of harm is a latent danger, i.e. the defendant’s own negligence. Id. at 581-582.

The form signed by Taylor’s mother did not release the YMCA of liability for all negligent acts because the form did not contain any specific or explicit reference to the negligence of the YMCA or owner of the field. See Stowers, 855 N.E.2d at 749 (“The Stowers’ proposed instruction set out that the Release Forms did not absolve Clinton Central of liability for negligent acts if they did not contain language specifically referring [*12] to negligence; thus, it was a correct statement of the law.”). Thus, we must determine whether Taylor’s injury was derived from a risk inherent in the nature of the activity. See Anderson, 852 N.E.2d at 581 (holding that an exculpatory clause not referring to the negligence of the releasee may act to bar liability for those damages incurred which are inherent in the nature of the activity).

Sliding into second base, notwithstanding its rigidity, is an activity inherent in the nature of playing baseball or softball and we conclude that Taylor’s injury was derived from a risk inherent in the nature of the activity. See id. at 584-585 (observing that the plaintiff was injured when attempting to mount her horse and concluding that the plaintiff’s damages were inherent in the nature of the activity of horse riding and that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to the defendants). The release attached to the YMCA’s motion to dismiss indicated that the owner of the field would not be responsible for any injury or medical expenses “incurred while participating in practice or playing in a game.” Appellant’s Appendix at 12. Based upon the language in the release, we conclude [*13] that the YMCA met its burden of making a prima facie showing that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the burden then shifted to Taylor who did not designate any evidence to show that an issue of material fact existed. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying the YMCA’s motion for summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the YMCA’s motion for summary judgment.

Reversed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.

WordPress Tags: Wabash,Young,Christian,Association,Thompson,LEXIS,Service,Appellant,Defendant,Taylor,Brian,Charlene,Appellees,Plaintiffs,COURT,APPEALS,INDIANA,August,PRIOR,HISTORY,APPEAL,FROM,CIRCUIT,Honorable,Robert,McCallen,Judge,Cause,COUNSEL,RANDALL,GRAFF,ORFEJ,NAJDESKI,LESLIE,POLLIE,Kopka,Pinkus,Dolin,Eads,Indianapolis,JOSEF,MUSSER,Spitzer,Herriman,Stephenson,Holderead,Conner,Marion,JUDGES,BROWN,FRIEDLANDER,PYLE,OPINION,PUBLICATION,YMCA,judgment,October,complaint,premises,Field,Dreams,Metro,Summer,Baseball,Softball,League,failure,dangers,obstacle,participants,Appendix,injury,November,Motion,Dismiss,Change,Venue,Pursuant,Trial,Rule,participation,statement,guardian,permission,injuries,owner,December,response,minors,person,tort,maintenance,January,February,April,jurisdiction,Appellate,relief,Albany,Floyd,Educ,Ammerman,Although,Holman,Galbraith,Anderson,dismissal,plaintiff,affidavit,Summary,fact,Mangold,Natural,inferences,decision,Starks,Village,Apartments,Klotz,Hoyt,Klinker,Merchants,Bank,Under,existence,negligence,Peters,Forster,Rhodes,jury,argument,Code,parents,approval,settlement,accordance,statute,waiver,Appellee,Brief,policy,protection,obligations,reliance,scenario,events,agreement,hobby,Title,probate,Further,Bellew,Byers,Huffman,Monroe,Corp,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Ohio,agreements,action,mishap,reference,allegations,omission,Stowers,Clinton,Cent,obligation,consequences,Marsh,Dixon,clause,Powell,Health,Fort,Wayne,absence,Four,Seasons,Equestrian,requirement,danger,instruction,Release,Forms,Central,Thus,horse,defendants,denial,whether,behalf,upon,nonmovant,prima,facie,exculpatory,trans,releasee

States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue

Posted: March 26, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Alaska, Arizona, Camp, Colorado, Exculpatory Agreement, Minor, parent, Recreation, Release, Waiver | Leave a comment

If your state is not listed here, you should assume a parent cannot waive a minor’s right to sue in your state.

State	By Statute	Restrictions
Alaska	Alaska: Sec. 09.65.292	Sec. 05.45.120 does not allow using a release by ski areas for ski injuries
Arizona	ARS § 12-553	Limited to Equine Activities
Colorado	C.R.S. §§13-22-107	Release stops suit for falling off horse at Colorado summer Camp
Florida	Florida Statute § 744.301 (3)	New Florida law allows a parent to sign away a child’s right to sue for injuries
	By Case Law
California	Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal.App.3d 1559, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1990)
Delaware	Hong v. Hockessin Athletic Club, 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 340	Delaware decision upholds a release signed by a parent against a minor’s claims Delaware holds that mothers signature on contract forces change of venue for minors claims.
Florida	Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1454	Allows a release signed by a parent to require arbitration of the minor’s claims
Florida	Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So.2d 1067, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1147	Release can be used for volunteer activities and by government entities
Maryland	BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 435 Md. 714; 80 A.3d 345; 2013 Md. LEXIS 897	Release upheld for injury to 5 year old in chair care area of store while parents shopped.
Massachusetts	Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99; 769 N.E.2d 738; 2002 Mass. LEXIS 384
Minnesota	Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299	Minnesota decision upholds parent’s right to sign away a minor’s right to sue.
North Dakota	McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3	North Dakota decision allows a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue
Ohio	Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998)	Ohio Appellate decision upholds the use of a release for a minor for a commercial activity
Wisconsin	Osborn v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 546, 259 Wis. 2d 481, 2002 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1216, 2003 WI App 1	However the decision in Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2 voided all releases in the state
	On the Edge, but not enough to really rely on
North Carolina	Kelly v. United States of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89741	Ruling is by the Federal District Court and only a preliminary motion North Carolina may allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue for injuries when the minor is engaged in non-profit activities sponsored by schools, volunteers, or community organizations

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #minor, #release, #ParentSignature, #NC, #NorthCarolina,#Alaska, #AK, #AZ, #Arizona, #CO, #Colorado, #Florida, #FL, #CA, #California, #MA, #Massachusetts, #Minnesota, #MN, #ND, #NorthDakota, #OH, #Ohio, #WI, #Wisconsin, #Hohe, #SanDiego, #SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict, #GlobalTravelMarketing, #Shea, #Gonzalez, #CityOfCoralGables, #Sharon, #CityofNewton, #Moore, #MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool, #McPhail, #BismarkParkDistrict, #Zivich, #MentorSoccerClub, #Osborn, #CascadeMountain, #Atkins, #SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter, Delware, Maryland, Retail Store, Child Care,

WordPress Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Release,horse,Camp,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Delaware,Hong,Hockessin,Athletic,Club,Super,LEXIS,decision,signature,venue,minors,Global,Travel,Shea,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,government,entities,Maryland,Wholesale,Rosen,injury,area,parents,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Appellate,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,Keywords,Outside,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter,Delware,Retail,Child,Care

Maryland top court allows a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue. Release was not fantastic, but good enough.

Posted: March 24, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Maryland, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: BJ's Wholesale Club, BJ’s Wholesale Kid’s Club, Court of Appeals, Court of Special Appeals, Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Maryland Courts, Minor, parent, Release, Waiver | Leave a comment

Parents signed a release to drop kids off at a “kids’ club” while they shopped in the defendant’s store (wholesale club). The release was in the agreement to use the club. Also included in the agreement was an indemnification clause which the court did not rule on.

BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 435 Md. 714; 80 A.3d 345; 2013 Md. LEXIS 897

Date of the Decision: November 27, 2013

Plaintiff: (Original) Russell Rosen, et. al.

Defendant: (Original) BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect its patrons in the play area from injury. Defendant agents and employees knew or should have known that placing an elevated play structure directly over carpet adhered to a concrete floor would pose a danger to children playing there. The defendant breached its duty of care by placing.

Defendant Defenses: Release and indemnification

Holding: For the defendant (plaintiff in the appeal)

In this Maryland Supreme Court decision, the party named first in the citation to the case is the party that appealed the lower-court opinion. So the original defendant is the party that appealed the decision in the last court and thus is listed as the plaintiff in the citation.

The defendant is a wholesale club. Generally, you pay a yearly fee to shop in the club which sells items for lower prices. As an incentive, this club had a play area called the BJ’s Incredible Kids’ Club. To be able to leave your kids at the club while you shop you had to sign “BJ’s Incredible Kids’ Club Rules.”

The rules contained a release and indemnification clause.

In the kid’s club, there was an elevated plastic play apparatus called Harry the Hippo. Harry the Hippo was approximately 38” high at its peak. The injured plaintiff was a five-year-old boy who fell off the hippo landing on the floor. The floor was carpeted with no padding covering the concrete. The young boy suffered a severe “acute epidural hematoma.” This required surgery to save his life.

The family sued. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint based on the release. The next level of court in Maryland, the Court of Special Appeals, reversed the trial court. The case was appealed and accepted by the highest court, in this case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Summary of the case

The court first examined the club agreement which contained the release. The release language was just one paragraph long but did contain a clause that released the negligence of the club. The agreement also had rules, one of which was you could not leave your kid in the club for more than 90 minutes.

Right below the release, or exculpatory clause as it was called by the court, was an indemnification clause. The indemnification clause was in smaller font but printed in bold right above the signature line.

The court then worked through the requirements for releases to be valid in Maryland as reviewed by the lower courts in their decisions.

Generally, Maryland Courts will uphold exculpatory clauses that are executed by adults on their own behalf. “There are circumstances, however, under which the public interest will not permit an exculpatory clause in a contract.” “Public policy will not permit exculpatory agreements in transactions affecting the public interest.” “The ultimate determination of what constitutes the public interest must be made considering the totality of the circumstances of any given case against the backdrop of current societal expectations.”

The court then specifically reviewed exculpatory clauses under Maryland law.

An exculpatory clause is a “contractual provision relieving a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act.” By entering into an exculpatory agreement, “the parties expressly . . . agree in advance that the defendant is under no obligation of care for the benefit of the plaintiff, and shall not be liable for the consequences of conduct which would otherwise be negligent.”

…”[i]n the absence of legislation to the contrary, exculpatory clauses are generally valid, and the public policy of freedom of contract is best served by enforcing the provisions of the clause.” We also have opined that exculpatory clauses are to be construed strictly, requiring that the language of any such clause “clearly and specifically indicates the intent to release the defendant from liability for personal injury caused by the defendant’s negligence.”

The court then reviewed when exculpatory clauses would not be upheld in Maryland. An exculpatory will not protect from liability from intentional harm or extreme forms of negligence. Extreme forms of negligence are generally referred to herein as greater than normal negligence and in Maryland include reckless, wanton or gross negligence.

Second, an exculpatory clause cannot be part of a contract that was the product of grossly unequal bargaining power. That means when a party has no choice but to sign the agreement, because that person has no bargaining power so that he is at the mercy of the other’s negligence.

Remember, for the argument of unequal bargaining power to be a valid defense to a release, the agreement must be for something necessary for the health, welfare or safety of the person signing the agreement. Babysitting or recreational activities are not such necessities that create a true unequal bargaining power that would void a release.

The final group that would void a release are transactions affecting the public interest. Transactions affecting the public interest seem to be very similar to the unequal bargaining power argument but are viewed by the court from the context of why rather than who. Two were not at issue in this case; public service obligations such as an agreement between a consumer and an electric company and “other transactions “so important to the public good that an exculpatory clause would be patently offensive.”” The example the court gave to explain the second type of contract was in the reverse; an agreement between a health club and a consumer “of no great public importance or practical necessity.”

The court went into depth is reasoning on rejecting the public service obligation because it was the basis for the dissent in the case from two other justices.

The third category of public service exceptions to releases, the court and the dissent stated were not easily defined. In a prior Maryland case, this exception was developed by referring to the California decision in Tunkl v. Regents of University of California, 60 Cal. 2d 92, 32 Cal. Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 444-46 (Cal. 1963). However, the court found that Tunkl was not valid in defining this exception.

We declined, however, to adopt the Tunkl factors, determining that the “fluid nature of the public interest” renders strict reliance on “the presence or absence of six fixed factors” arbitrary and inappropriate. We recognized, instead, that while the factors may be persuasive to evaluate the public interest, “[t]he ultimate determination of what constitutes the public interest must be made considering the totality of the circumstances of any given case against the backdrop of current societal expectations.”

The best description the court could identify was “societal expectations.” These expectations are best found by looking at the statute and common law. Here the court examined the laws defining the relationship between the parent and the child. Under Maryland law, the parents are given almost absolute control over the acts, welfare, growth, and raising of their child. The presumption in Maryland is the parents are going to act in the best interest of the child.

The societal expectation that parents should make significant decisions pertaining to a child’s welfare is manifest in statutes that enable parents to exercise their authority on behalf of their minor child in the most important aspects of a child’s life, including significant physical and mental health decisions. Parents are empowered, on behalf of their children to: consent to medical treatment, consent to having their children give blood, consent to the use of a tanning device by their child, and to authorize another family member to consent to the immunization of a minor child. Parents are also empowered to commit a child, under certain conditions, to: a public or private service that provides treatment for individuals with mental disorders, as well as a private therapeutic group home that provides access to a range of diagnostic and therapeutic mental health services.

“Parents also are empowered to permit a fifteen to seventeen-year-old child to marry.” Based on the court’s review of these and other statutes, the court found parents in Maryland were empowered to make significant decisions on behalf of children. The next argument was then whether the courts had a duty or obligation to step in and replace the decision-making of a parent and when.

The major argument to support this argument is courts in Maryland approve settlements affecting children who were injured as plaintiffs in lawsuits. This is normal in most states and has been developed for many reasons; the main one is to prevent a negligent defendant from taking advantage of a naïve or unknowing parent. However, in Maryland, there were exceptions to this law, which allowed parents to settle some claims without judicial review. Based on that exception the court found this argument was not controlling.

We conclude, therefore, that Mr. Rosen’s execution of an exculpatory agreement on behalf of Ephraim to allow him to use the Kids’ Club was not a transaction affecting the public interest within the meaning of Wolf, which otherwise would have impugned the effect of the agreement.

The next argument presented by the injured parties was a commercial entity was better able to bear the risk of loss by purchasing insurance than these parents. The court found several flaws with this argument. Basically, was who was going to determine what a commercial enterprise was. The court used this example to make its point.

For example, is a Boy Scout or Girl Scout, YMCA, or church camp a commercial establishment or a community-based activity? Is a band trip to participate in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade a school or commercial activity? What definition of commercial is to be applied?

The final argument was that the state had a parens patriae obligation to the children of the state. Parens patriae is the legal power of the state to protect those who do not have the legal authority to protect themselves. Minor’s incapacitated adults or adults who mental status is not at the state’s minimum level.

However, under Maryland law the obligation of the state under parens patriae only arises if the parental rights have been abrogated pursuant to a statute. No statute required the courts to intervene, and no statute had removed the injured minor from the legal authority of his parents. Finally, parens patriae is applied when a minor has been adjudicated or become involved in the juvenile delinquency system, which was not present in this case.

The court reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back to the trial court for dismissal.

So Now What?

Maryland now joins the slowing growing ranks of states that allow a parent to sign a release and give up their minor child’s right to sue.

For a complete list see: States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2014-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

WordPress Tags: Maryland,Release,Parent,defendant,agreement,Also,clause,Wholesale,Club,Rosen,LEXIS,Date,Decision,November,Plaintiff,Original,Russell,Claims,patrons,area,injury,agents,employees,carpet,danger,Defenses,Supreme,Court,citation,opinion,items,incentive,Incredible,Kids,Rules,apparatus,Harry,Hippo,surgery,life,complaint,Special,Appeals,Summary,paragraph,negligence,signature,requirements,decisions,Courts,clauses,adults,Public,policy,agreements,transactions,determination,backdrop,expectations,provision,obligation,consequences,absence,legislation,freedom,Extreme,Second,product,person,mercy,Remember,argument,health,welfare,Baby,necessities,context,obligations,consumer,example,importance,depth,basis,justices,category,exceptions,exception,California,Tunkl,Regents,Rptr,factors,reliance,presence,description,statute,Here,laws,relationship,Under,parents,growth,presumption,expectation,statutes,aspects,treatment,blood,device,member,immunization,individuals,settlements,plaintiffs,lawsuits,advantage,execution,Ephraim,transaction,Wolf,insurance,flaws,enterprise,Scout,Girl,YMCA,establishment,band,Macy,definition,Parens,Minor,status,delinquency,system,dismissal,States,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Waiver,indemnification,exculpatory,behalf,patriae

Most references in case law to assumption of the risk are to this California decision. The basis for understanding Assumption of the Risk is this decision based on an injured finger during a pickup football game.

Posted: March 17, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, California, Sports | Tags: Acknowledgement of Risk, Assumption of risk, assumption of the risk, California, California Supreme Court, Inherent Risk, Jewett, Kendra Knight, Knight, Knight v. Jewett, Michael Jewett, Primary Assumption of the Risk, reasonable implied assumption of risk, Secondary Assumption of the Risk, Summary judgment, unreasonable implied assumption of risk | Leave a comment

The definition of primary and secondary assumption of the risk was clearly set forth in this decision. This decision also related primary assumption of the risk with the inherent risk of an activity. The decision also eliminated the equally confusing reasonable implied assumption of risk, unreasonable implied assumption of risk theories.

Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296; 834 P.2d 696; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3969; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7261; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11765; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11870

Date of the Decision: 1992

Plaintiff: Kendra Knight

Defendant: Michael Jewett

Plaintiff Claims: negligence and assault and battery

Defendant Defenses: assumption of the risk

Holding: for the defendant

Most references to assumption of the risk when needed to clarify the definition in a decision come back to this seminal case: Knight v. Jewett.

The injury in this case occurred during a football game during half time of a super bowl game. The plaintiff and defendant were guests invited to watch the game. Each team had 4-5 players of both sexes. It was purely a pick-up football game. The plaintiff and defendant were on opposite teams.

The court never determined which set of facts were controlling in the case. Generally, the plaintiff and defendant ran into each other during a play. The plaintiff maintained she told the defendant not to play so hard. On the next play, the defendant stepped on the plaintiff’s hand while she was on the ground, injuring her finger.

The injury resulted in three operations and eventual amputation of the finger.

The plaintiff filed suit, which the trial court dismissed based upon the defendant’s motion for summary judgment where he argued assumption of the risk by the plaintiff prevented her recover. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court decision, and the case was appealed to the California Supreme Court which led to this discussion.

Summary of the case

The California Supreme Court wrote extensively about the history and nature of assumption of the risk. A little of that decision will be reviewed here.

The court ruled the basics of negligence claims. “As a general rule, persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others, and may be held liable if they’re careless conduct injures another person.” It then looked at this in comparison of sports and recreation.

In the sports setting, however, conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport itself. Thus, although moguls on a ski run pose a risk of harm to skiers that might not exist were these configurations removed, the challenge and risks posed by the moguls are part of the sport of skiing, and a ski resort has no duty to eliminate them.

The court then examined the issue of inherent risk of a sport or activity. An inherent risk is one that without those risks, the sport would not exist. Another way of looking at it is you cannot participate in the sport without possibly experiencing the inherent risks of the sport.

Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, 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.

As sports evolved, the actions of other parties in an activity might exceed or be considered careless, but still part of the sport. “In some situations, however, the careless conduct of others is treated as an “inherent risk” of a sport, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff.”

This then leads to the variations in how the courts interpreted the defense.

“The divergent results of the foregoing cases lead naturally to the question how courts are to determine when careless conduct of another properly should be considered an “inherent risk” of the sport that (as a matter of law) is assumed by the injured participant.

The issue of the careless coparticipant in a sport or recreational activity has generally been resolved in the US as a risk of the sport.

The overwhelming majority of the cases, both within and outside California, that have addressed the issue of coparticipant liability in such a sport, have concluded that it is improper to hold a sports participant liable to a coparticipant for ordinary careless conduct committed during the sport–for example, example, for an injury resulting from a carelessly thrown ball or bat during a baseball game–and that liability properly may be imposed on a participant only when he or she intentionally injures another player or engages in reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.

The court looked at the history of the defense and found that it has been used in several different ways and was a very confusing defense.

Indeed, almost a half-century ago, Justice Frankfurter described the term “assumption of risk” as a classic example of a felicitous phrase, “undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas,” and whose uncritical use “bedevils the law.”

The defense had been applied in California to cases where spectators were injured at sporting events where it was determined that no duty was owed to the spectator. In other cases, it was used in sport and other activities where:

… it was clear that the defendant had breached a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, and the inquiry focused on whether the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily had chosen to encounter the specific risk of harm posed by the defendant’s breach of duty.

The court then reviewed comparative fault or the doctrine of contributory negligence. Until the adoption of the doctrine, it did not matter what assumption of risk theory was used, both prevented recovery. However, after the adoption of the doctrine it became important to define which theory applied. One was merged with contributory negligence and the other either by exemption in a statute or by court decision was allowed to survive.

Contributory Negligence was the result of a change in how liability and consequently, damages were applied by a jury. Instead of determining who won or lost, completely, the jury was tasked with determining what percentage of fault applied to the parties in a case. If the plaintiff was less at fault than the defendant, the percentage of fault is different in each state, and then the defendant recovered that percentage of the damages.

However, that division of the fault left many in the sports and recreation field at a loss when the plaintiff did assume the risk of injuries which the court felt should bar a claim.

The court then started to define the new approach of assumption of the risk.

First, in “primary assumption of risk” cases–where the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk of harm–a plaintiff who has suffered such harm is not entitled to recover from the defendant, whether the plaintiff’s conduct in undertaking the activity was reasonable or unreasonable.

Second, in “secondary assumption of risk” cases–involving instances in which the defendant has breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff–the defendant is not entitled to be entirely relieved of liability for an injury proximately caused by such breach, simply because the plaintiff’s conduct in encountering the risk of such an injury was reasonable rather than unreasonable.

The basic distinction results in a totally different result. The first prevents the plaintiff from recovering, and the second may affect the plaintiff’s recovery. By that I mean one is a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery and the second, because of comparative negligence may reduce or limit the plaintiff’s recovery.

This third classification is different. However, if you look at the injuries of different sports it makes sense; compare the risks of jump rope versus the risk of boxing.

Third and finally, 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.

The court reached the following conclusions with respect to how the two different applications of the theory would be applied to the facts and the result.

In cases involving “primary assumption of risk”–where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury–the doctrine continues to operate as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery.

Secondary assumption of risk was defined as:

In cases involving “secondary assumption of risk”–where the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter a known risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty–the doctrine is merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties.

Coparticipants in sports were then defined to be protected from their careless acts because the injured participant assumed the risk.

Accordingly, we conclude that a participant in an active sport breaches a legal duty of care to other participants–i.e., engages in conduct that properly may subject him or her to financial liability–only if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.

As such the defendant in this case was found not to be liable to the plaintiff because the defendant’s carelessness was a risk of the activity, and the plaintiff assumed the risk under the primary assumption of risk doctrine.

So Now What?

First, this court wrote a decision that is still referenced today and is used by the majority of states to define assumption of the risk; primary and secondary for a state.

The real issue, and the one that courts face every day, is to determine the inherent risks of an activity and what defines careless acts on the part of coparticipant. Leaving this decision to a judge or a jury that does not understand the activity could lead to confusion and losing decisions.

In that vein, when a statute is written such as equine or ski safety acts, then the statute defines the inherent risks of the activity. A long and comprehensive list such as that in the Colorado Ski Safety Act broadens the risks inherent in skiing.

In that vein, make sure you release does not limit the risks that are covered by your release. If your release just prevents suits for the inherent risks of the activity, those risks that in many states, the plaintiff must accept and assume any way you may be limiting the scope of your release.

Always educate your guests on all of the risks of the activity or as many as you possibly can. You want your guests to be informed of the risks, the more a guest knows and understands the better the experience. At the same time, the more the guest knows, the more the issue becomes primary assumption of the risk, a complete bar rather than secondary assumption of the risk.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#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,Kendra Knight, Michael Jewett, Assumption of the Risk, Acknowledgement of Risk, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Secondary Assumption of the Risk, Inherent Risk, reasonable implied assumption of risk, unreasonable implied assumption of risk, Knight, Jewett, Knight v. Jewett,

WordPress Tags: Most,references,assumption,California,decision,basis,Risk,football,definition,theories,Jewett,Rptr,LEXIS,Service,Journal,Date,Plaintiff,Kendra,Defendant,Michael,Claims,negligence,Defenses,injury,guests,team,players,sexes,teams,amputation,judgment,Supreme,Court,discussion,Summary,history,basics,person,comparison,recreation,Thus,moguls,configurations,resort,Another,Although,defendants,participant,situations,recovery,variations,example,ball,player,century,Justice,Frankfurter,spectators,events,spectator,doctrine,adoption,theory,exemption,statute,Contributory,jury,Instead,percentage,injuries,Second,instances,distinction,classification,Third,relationship,conclusions,virtue,Secondary,trier,fact,Coparticipants,participants,decisions,vein,Colorado,scope,guest,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,AdventureTourism,AdventureTravelLaw,AdventureTravelLawyer,AttorneyatLaw,BicyclingLaw,Camps,ChallengeCourse,ChallengeCourseLaw,ChallengeCourseLawyer,CyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,FitnessLawyer,HumanPoweredRecreation,JamesHMoss,JimMoss,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,OutsideLaw,OutsideLawyer,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,LawBlog,RecLawyer,RecreationalLawyer,RecreationLawBlog,RecreationLawcom,Lawcom,RiskManagement,RockClimbingLawyer,RopesCourse,RopesCourseLawyer,SkiAreas,SkiLaw,SummerCamp,Tourism,TravelLaw,YouthCamps,ZipLineLawyer,Acknowledgement,Primary,Inherent,coparticipant,whether

Update on whether Avalanches are in inherent risk of inbounds skiing reviewed by Appellate court in Colorado.

Posted: March 13, 2014 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Avalanche, Colorado, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: avalanche, Colorado, Colorado Supreme Court, Inbounds, Inbounds Avalanche, Intawest, IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corporation, Ski Resort, Winter Park, Winter Park Ski Area | Leave a comment

For background on the issues see Issue of whether avalanches are an inherent risk of skiing in Colorado headed for appeal. Even with this decision, this issue I am still betting will head to the Supreme Court of Colorado.

The first case in the two avalanche deaths that occurred several years ago inbound at ski areas has reached the appellate level. The court in Fleury v. IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corporation, 2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 242 held for the ski area stating that the Colorado Ski Safety Act included in its terms of inherent risks Avalanches.

For that reason, because an appeal is probably forthcoming and the time for filing for an appeal has just started to run, I’ll not review the case at this time.

If the case is not appealed…

To read the decision see Fleury v. IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corporation, 2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 242

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#RecreationLaw, #Recreation-Law.com, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #Rec-Law, #RiskManagement, #CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, Winter Park Ski Area, Winter Park, Intawest, Avalanche, Inbounds, Inbounds Avalanche,

WordPress Tags: Update,Avalanches,Appellate,Colorado,Issue,decision,Supreme,Court,avalanche,deaths,areas,Fleury,IntraWest,Winter,Park,Operations,Corporation,Colo,LEXIS,area,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,Tourism,AdventureTourism,RiskManagement,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,Camps,YouthCamps,Negligence,SkiLaw,Outside,AttorneyatLaw,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,HumanPoweredRecreation,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Challenge,Course,Ropes,Line,Rock,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Samaritan,Intawest,Inbounds,whether

It's not what I write, It's what you Learn

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

This decision was just overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court in Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., dba Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, 2014 Ore. LEXIS 994 on December 18, 20014

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

35 Years of Outdoor Retailer

The book for the Outdoor Recreation Industry Professional.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Contact Information

Pages

Follow Blog via Email

Follow on Twitter

Categories: by Activity, State & Legal Issue

Blog Stats

StatCounter