Turnbough v. Ladner, 754 So. 2d 467; 1999 Miss. LEXIS 375
Posted: April 23, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Mississippi, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Scuba Diving | Tags: #scuba, Bends, MISSISSIPPI, negotiation, Open Water Dive, Release, scuba diving Leave a commentTurnbough v. Ladner, 754 So. 2d 467; 1999 Miss. LEXIS 375
Michael Turnbough v. Janet Ladner
NO. 97-CT-01179-SCT
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
754 So. 2d 467; 1999 Miss. LEXIS 375
December 9, 1999, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/1997. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KOSTA N. VLAHOS.
Original Opinion of December 18, 1998, Reported at: 1998 Miss. App. LEXIS 1011.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CASE SUMMARY:
COUNSEL: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOE SAM OWEN, ROBERT P. MYERS, JR.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT M. FREY, MICHAEL E. McWILLIAMS.
JUDGES: McRAE, JUSTICE. SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. MILLS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PRATHER, C.J., SMITH AND COBB, JJ.
OPINION BY: MCRAE
OPINION
[*468] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL – PERSONAL INJURY
EN BANC.
McRAE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
P1. Michael Turnbough suffered decompression sickness after participating in a certification scuba dive led by Janet Ladner. Turnbough subsequently filed suit against Ladner alleging she was negligent in planning and supervising the dive. Ladner filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Circuit Court of Harrison County granted based on an anticipatory release that Turnbough had signed in favor of Ladner. Turnbough appealed, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted certiorari. We [**2] reverse the Court of Appeals, as well as the trial court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We hold that the release executed by Turnbough did not exclude from liability the type of negligence which forms the basis for Turnbough’s complaint; and therefore, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was error.
FACTS
P2. Michael Turnbough decided in 1994 that he wanted to obtain his open-water certification as a scuba diver. He had previously been certified as a scuba diver, but his certification had expired back in the 1980’s. Turnbough enrolled in a scuba diving class offered by Gulfport Yacht Club and taught by Janet Ladner. Upon learning from Ladner that all of the participants would be required to execute a release in favor of her and the Gulfport Yacht Club in order to participate in the class, Turnbough questioned a fellow student who also happened to be an attorney. After Turnbough’s classmate informed him that such releases were unenforceable, Turnbough then executed the document entitled “Liability Release and Express Assumption of Risk.” The release, in pertinent part, stated
Further, I understand that diving with compressed [**3] air involves certain inherent risks: decompression sickness [and others]. . . .
P3. At the conclusion of the six- week course, the class convened in Panama City, Florida to perform the first of their “check-out dives” in order to receive certification. On Saturday, July 23, 1994, the class performed two dives from the beach. However, Turnbough’s participation in the first dive was cut short by a leaking tank. He completed the second dive with no apparent problems. The next morning, Sunday, July 24, 1994, the class performed two dives from a dive boat. Two dives of sixty feet each were scheduled, but because the dive boat had engine problems, the first dive site was only forty-six to forty-eight feet deep. The second dive descended to sixty feet, and Ladner calculated the maximum time allowable for the second dive as thirty-eight minutes.
P4. Turnbough began to feel the first effects of decompression sickness, commonly known as “the bends,” on his way back to Gulfport that evening. The next day Turnbough began experiencing a pain that he described as “arthritic” in his joints. On Tuesday, Turnbough began attempting to contact Ladner to inform her of his symptoms. He continued [**4] to make attempts to contact her throughout the week, finally reaching her on Friday. Ladner advised Turnbough to call a diver’s hotline, which in turn instructed him to seek medical attention at a dive hospital. Turnbough received treatment for decompression sickness at the Jo Ellen Smith Hospital in New Orleans. Turnbough states that he was told by the doctors at the hospital who ran the dive profile that the dive was too long, and there should have been a decompression stop before the [*469] divers surfaced. He further states that he was told that he could never dive again. Tom Ebro, an expert in water safety and scuba diving, opined that Ladner was negligent in planning the depths of the dives as well as in failing to make safety stops and that these errors significantly increased the risk that her students might suffer decompression illness.
P5. On February 10, 1995, Turnbough filed suit against Ladner. In his complaint, Turnbough alleged that Ladner was negligent in her supervision of the dive and in exposing him to decompression injury. Ladner filed a motion for summary judgment on October 27, 1995, based on the release Turnbough had signed. The circuit court granted the motion, [**5] and dismissed the case.
P6. Turnbough appealed, asserting that the release should be declared void as against public policy, and the case was assigned to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the release was a contract of a purely personal nature and did not violate Mississippi public policy because scuba diving does not implicate a public concern. We subsequently granted certiorari.
DISCUSSION
P7. [HN1] The law does not look with favor on contracts intended to exculpate a party from the liability of his or her own negligence although, with some exceptions, they are enforceable. However, such agreements are subject to close judicial scrutiny and are not upheld unless the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unmistakable language. 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 65, at 124 (1989); see also Willard Van Dyke Prods., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 N.Y.2d 301, 189 N.E.2d 693, 695, 239 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y. 1963) (“clear and unequivocal terms”). “Clauses [HN2] limiting liability are given rigid scrutiny by the courts, and will not be enforced unless the limitation is fairly and honestly negotiated and understandingly entered into. [**6] ” Farragut v. Massey, 612 So. 2d 325, 330 (Miss. 1992) (quoting 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 297, at 298 n.74 (1991).
P8. [HN3] The wording of an exculpatory agreement should express as clearly and precisely as possible the extent to which a party intends to be absolved from liability. Bradley Realty Corp. v. New York, 54 A.D.2d 1104, 389 N.Y.S.2d 198, 199-200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976); Hertzog v. Harrison Island Shores, Inc., 21 A.D.2d 859, 251 N.Y.S.2d 164, 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964). Failing that, we do not sanction broad, general “waiver of negligence” provisions, and strictly construe them against the party asserting them as a defense. See Leach v. Tingle, 586 So. 2d 799, 801 (Miss. 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scitzs, 394 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Miss. 1981).
P9. [HN4] In further determining the extent of exemption from liability in releases, this Court has looked to the intention of the parties in light of the circumstances existing at the time of the instrument’s execution. Farragut, 612 So. 2d at 330. The affidavit of [**7] Tom Ebro, an expert in water safety and scuba diving, shows that the alleged negligent acts on which Turnbough’s claim is based could not have been contemplated by the parties. Ebro stated that Ladner’s instruction fell “woefully short” of minimally acceptable standards of scuba instruction. Specifically, he averred that Ladner negligently planned the depths of the dives and failed to make safety stops which significantly increased the risk of decompression illness, especially with a student class. Assuming Turnbough was aware of the inherent risks in scuba diving, it does not reasonably follow that he, a student, intended to waive his right to recover from Ladner for failing to follow even the most basic industry safety standards. This is especially true since Ladner, who held herself out as an expert scuba instructor and is presumed to have superior knowledge, is the very one on whom Turnbough depended for safety. In this case it appears that Ladner may have miscalculated the amount of time for the dive or may have failed to take into account [*470] previous dives. This is important because nitrogen builds up in the body while underwater and, with too much nitrogen, the “bends” and permanent [**8] damage including loss of life may occur. Surely it cannot be said from the language of the agreement that Turnbough intended to accept any heightened exposure to injury caused by the malfeasance of an expert instructor. Turnbough, by executing the release, did not knowingly waive his right to seek recovery for injuries caused by Ladner’s failure to follow basic safety guidelines that should be common knowledge to any instructor of novice students.
P10. We have held in Quinn that [HN5] contracts attempting to limit the liabilities of one of the parties would not “be enforced unless the limitation is fairly and honestly negotiated and understood by both parties.” Quinn v. Mississippi State Univ., 720 So. 2d 843, 851 (Miss. 1998) (citation omitted). In this case, Turnbough signed a pre-printed contract, the terms of which were not negotiated. Since the contract was not negotiated and contained a broad waiver of negligence provision, the terms of the contract should be strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce such a provision. See Leach v. Tingle, 586 So. 2d at 801; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scitzs, 394 So. 2d at 1372. [**9]
P11. Although waivers are commonly used and necessary for some activities and the attendant risks and hazards associated with them, those who wish to relieve themselves from responsibility associated with a lack of due care or negligence should do so in specific and unmistakable terms. The agreement in this case fails to do that.
CONCLUSION
P12. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the trial court’s summary judgment and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
P13. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. MILLS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PRATHER, C.J., SMITH AND COBB, JJ.
DISSENT BY: MILLS
DISSENT
MILLS, JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
P14. The majority finds that summary judgment was not appropriate in this case, and therefore reverses and remands for a trial. Because the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment, I respectfully dissent.
P15. We must determine the validity of an unambiguous release dealing with admittedly hazardous activities signed [**10] with full awareness of all the risks and dangers by Turnbough in favor of Ladner. The record shows that Turnbough consulted a fellow classmate who also happened to be an attorney. Turnbough’s classmate gratuitously informed him that such releases were unenforceable. Turnbough then proceeded to sign the release but he now seeks to have the release invalidated on the basis that such releases are unenforceable. Turnbough’s conduct in this matter shows that he entered into a binding contract with no intention of honoring it and every intention of breaking it at a later time should it become convenient.
P16. Directly addressing the facts of this case, the release in question states in pertinent part:
I, Michael Turnbough, hereby affirm that I have been advised and thoroughly informed of the inherent dangers of skin diving and scuba diving.
Further, I understand that diving with compressed air involves certain inherent risks: decompression sickness [and others]. . . .
I understand and agree that neither my instructor(s) Janet Ladner [nor the Yacht Cub or other participants] may [*471] be held liable or responsible in any way for any injury, death, or other damages to me or my family, [**11] heirs, or assigns that may occur as a result of my participation in this diving class or as a result of the negligence of any party, including the Released Parties, whether passive or active.
P17. In my opinion such unambiguous releases comport with the public policy of the State of Mississippi and should be enforced. The failure to enforce such releases when dealing with obviously risky activities, such as scuba diving, will have a chilling effect on the numerous sporting activities and other events of obvious danger. We should allow reasonable adults to assume such risks when they choose to engage in activities of greater than usual danger.
P18. Releases are not only meant to save the party in whose favor it is executed from being held ultimately liable, but are also intended to allow such a party to avoid the costs and anxiety of having to fully litigate the matter. Summary judgment is the appropriate mechanism to do just that. Summary judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled [**12] to a judgment as a matter of law.” M.R.C.P. 56(c). “A ‘material’ fact tends to resolve any of the issues, properly raised by the parties.” Mississippi Road Supply Company, Inc. v. Zurich-American Insurance Company, 501 So. 2d 412, 414 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Pearl River County Board of Supervisors v. South East Collections Agency, Inc., 459 So. 2d 783, 785 (Miss.1984)).
P19. Finally, the record in this case indicates that Turnbough, after signing a release he did not intend to honor, admittedly consumed several alcoholic beverages at a local cabaret just hours before his dive in violation of clear warnings given to him by Ladner. Today’s majority opinion favors those who recklessly ignore sober warnings, intentionally sign agreements that they have no intention of fulfilling and then throw themselves upon the mercy of the Courts to reward their dishonest and reckless behavior. This Court should not reward such conduct. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ladner.
P20. I respectfully dissent.
PRATHER, C.J., SMITH AND COBB, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.
Colyer v. First United Methodist Church of New Albany, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 160
Posted: April 22, 2016 Filed under: Adventure Travel, Legal Case, Mississippi, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Church Mission, duty, Foreseeability, Issue of Material Fact, Mission, Release, Researching Risk, Risk, Supervision, Wrongful Death Leave a commentColyer v. First United Methodist Church of New Albany, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 160
Deliah Colyer, as Natural Mother and Next Friend of Marshuan Braxton, Deceased, and on Behalf of all Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Marshuan Braxton, Deceased, Appellant v. First United Methodist Church of New Albany and John Does 1-15, APPELLEES
NO. 2014-CA-01636-COA
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI
2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 160
March 29, 2016, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/22/2014. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT WILLIAM ELLIOTT. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO APPELLEES.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COUNSEL: FOR APPELLANT: JOSHUA A. TURNER.
FOR APPELLEES: WILTON V. BYARS III, JOSEPH LUKE BENEDICT.
JUDGES: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ. LEE, C.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION. WILSON, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART. CARLTON, J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING.
OPINION BY: JAMES
OPINION
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL – WRONGFUL DEATH
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ.
JAMES, J., FOR THE COURT:
P1. This case arises out of a wrongful-death action filed by Deliah Colyer on behalf of her deceased son, Marshuan Braxton. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First United Methodist Church of New Albany. On appeal, Colyer argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment. Finding error, we reverse and remand this case for a trial.
FACTS
P2. On June 20, 2009, Braxton, along with other minors and adult chaperones, flew from Memphis, Tennessee, to Costa Rica on a mission trip. Braxton, a seventeen-year-old, was expecting to begin his senior year at New Albany High School when classes [*2] resumed for the 2009-2010 school year. The purpose of the mission trip was to construct a sanctuary in Villa Briceno, Costa Rica, and conduct other mission activities. The trip was led by Amanda Gordon, associate pastor of First United Methodist Church of New Albany, Mississippi (FUNA). Amanda coordinated the trip with missionary Wil Bailey through the regional United Methodist missions group. There were fifteen members on the mission trip from FUNA, with nine adults and six minors. Five other individuals, four adults and one minor, from First United Methodist Church of Brandon, Mississippi, also joined.
P3. Before leaving for the mission trip, Elnora Howell, Braxton’s legal guardian and grandmother, signed two documents before a notary public as a condition of Braxton participating. These documents included a New Albany First United Methodist Church Youth Medical / Parent Consent form and a Parental Consent form. Braxton also signed a document entitled “Int. Missionary Profile and Release of Claim” that contained warnings about the dangers associated with participating in the mission trip.
P4. The group arrived in San Isidro, Costa Rica, on June 20. On June 21, 2009, the group left [*3] San Isidro to travel to the worksite in Villa Briceno. Since they expected to ride on the bus for several hours, Bailey suggested they stop for lunch at a scenic site on their way to Villa Briceno. The group stopped and ate at a roadside café. After leaving the café, they stopped at the Dominicalito, a beach, located near the Pacific Ocean. The weather was clear, and there were a few picnic tables in the area. A few locals were also there. The group intended to go on a brief excursion and take photographs. The bus driver suggested two or three areas on the beach for the group to visit.
P5. The group separated into two or three smaller groups and headed to the suggested areas. Braxton, Mattie Carter, and Josh Creekmore, along with adult chaperones, Sam Creekmore and Mike Carter, went to a rock formation and climbed onto it to observe crabs. The adults eventually climbed down and walked behind the rock formation. Braxton, Mattie, and Josh stayed up top and continued to observe the crabs. While Braxton, Mattie, and Josh were still up top, a large wave crashed into the rock formation and knocked them into the ocean.
P6. Mike and Sam immediately climbed back on the rock formation and saw [*4] Braxton, Mattie, and Josh swimming with their heads above water. The wave current, however, began to wash the minors away from the rock formation. Sam instructed them to swim around the rocks into an inlet area to reach safety on the beach. Mike climbed down closer to the water level. A second wave rose and knocked Mike into the ocean, and the current took him in the opposite direction of Braxton, Mattie, and Josh. Mike was eventually rescued by a local Costa Rican resident that had a life jacket and rope. Braxton, unfortunately, disappeared into the water before Mike was rescued. Mattie and Josh, however, were able to swim out onto the beach after being in the water for about five minutes.
P7. Adam Gordon and his wife, Amanda, went to a different area of the beach, but because of the distance and obstructions blocking their view they were unable to see the minors. Adam testified that he was knocked down by a wave at the same time that the wave reached the area where Braxton, Josh, and Mattie were located. Amanda was standing nearby and saw the wave approaching Adam. Amanda yelled to her husband and then saw the wave knock him down. According to the Gordons, only one or two minutes [*5] passed before they had turned the corner of the taller rock formation and could see the rock where Braxton had been located. And it was at that time that they saw Mattie and Josh getting out of the water and Mike being rescued. However, according to Josh, fifteen to twenty minutes passed between Adam being knocked down by the large wave and the minors being swept into the water by another large wave.
P8. The mission-trip members immediately began to seek help after seeing people on the beach reacting and in the water. The locals contacted emergency services by telephone, and residents in the area helped. The ambulance and local authorities arrived. Thereafter, everyone at the beach began to look for Braxton. The mission-trip group stayed on the beach for over three hours after the incident until darkness ended their search. Regrettably, Braxton’s body was found the next day and identified by Amanda, Adam, and Sam.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
P9. The complaint was filed on November 10, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Union County, Mississippi. FUNA filed its answer and defenses on March 16, 2012, and, after conducting discovery, filed it motion for summary judgment on March 5, 2014. A hearing was [*6] held on April 28, 2014, and resulted in the circuit court granting Colyer’s request for additional time to conduct discovery. Colyer conducted additional discovery and depositions followed by the parties providing supplemental briefing. Another hearing was held on September 16, 2014. After considering all of the sworn evidence and the arguments of counsel, the circuit court found that no genuine issue of material fact existed to support Colyer’s claims of negligence. The circuit court entered an order granting FUNA’s motion for summary judgment on September 23, 2014.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
P10. [HN1] We review the trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment under a de novo standard. Moss Point Sch. Dist. v. Stennis, 132 So. 3d 1047, 1049-50 (P10) (Miss. 2014).
[HN2] Summary judgment is appropriate and shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Importantly, the party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific [*7] facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, will be entered against him.
Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins., 109 So. 3d 84, 88 (P10) (Miss. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made.” One S. Inc. v. Hollowell, 963 So. 2d 1156, 1160 (P6) (Miss. 2007).
I. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact existed.
P11. Colyer alleges that FUNA was negligent and FUNA owed a duty to supervise Braxton while the group was on the mission trip. FUNA’s position is that no negligence existed and that summary judgment was proper. [HN3] The elements of a prima facie case of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. Grisham v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post, No. 4057 Inc., 519 So. 2d 413, 416 (Miss. 1988); Burnham v. Tabb, 508 So. 2d 1072, 1074 (Miss. 1987). Colyer contends that FUNA owed a duty to Braxton to provide ordinary care while supervising him during this trip. Colyer alleges that the duty was breached, and that the negligent acts or omissions of FUNA caused the death of Braxton.
P12. FUNA agrees that a duty was owed to supervise Braxton, but FUNA contends that Braxton’s age at the time of his death diminishes that duty. Nevertheless, our supreme court has held that [HN4] adequacy of supervision is a question for the jury. Summers v. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Sch., 759 So. 2d 1203, 1215 (PP48-50) (Miss. 2000); see also James v. Gloversville Enlarged Sch. Dist., 155 A.D.2d 811, 548 N.Y.S.2d 87, 88-89 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). Therefore, [*8] regardless of Braxton’s age, a jury must decide what constitutes proper and adequate supervision. See Todd v. First Baptist Church of W. Point, 993 So. 2d 827, 829 (P12) (Miss. 2008).
P13. There are also disputed facts regarding whether it was reasonable to expect Amanda to give Braxton warning after she witnessed her husband being knocked down by a wave. And we have determined that [HN5] “[c]ontradictory statements by a witness go to the weight and credibility of that witness[‘s] testimony, not its sufficiency, and a summary judgment motion does not place the trial court in the role of weighing testimony and determining the credibility of witnesses.” Jamison v. Barnes, 8 So. 3d 238, 245 (P17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citation omitted).
P14. Additionally, Colyer alleges other acts of negligence: (1) failure to research the dangers of the Pacific coast and (2) allowing the children, including Braxton, to go onto a dangerous rock structure on the coast of the Pacific Ocean without any knowledge of oceanic activities in Costa Rica.
P15. We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether FUNA provided ordinary care while supervising Braxton during this trip, and so we reverse the grant of summary judgment.
II. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment by considering the waivers of Howell and Braxton.
P16. Even though Colyer [*9] raised this issue, it does not appear that the judge considered the waiver. In his opinion, the judge stated:
[The plaintiff] claims that the defendant is liable for the wrongful death of Marshuan Braxton, who die[d] from drowning during a mission trip to Costa Rica on June 21, 2009. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds no genuine issues of material fact exist[ ] to support [the] plaintiff’s claim of negligence against the defendant. Therefore, this Court finds as a matter of law [the] defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be granted.
P17. FUNA admits that it does not appear that the court relied on the release. However, FUNA states that the waivers are valid and bar recovery. It is undisputed that the parties in this appeal are not the same parties that executed the waivers. It appears that one of the waivers was signed by Howell, who was Braxton’s grandmother. She signed a “parental consent form,” but she is not a party to this action. Braxton, a seventeen-year-old minor at the time, appeared to have signed the release waiver.
P18. [HN6] Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-19-13 (Rev. 2013), Braxton could not legally sign a contract of this nature to waive liability.1 Braxton’s contract [*10] was not legally binding because of his age and the nature of the contract. FUNA also alleges that the wrongful-death beneficiaries are bound by the contract of Braxton since they are third-party beneficiaries of Braxton’s contract. [HN7] “[O]rdinary contract principals require a meeting of the minds between the parties in order for agreements to be valid.” Am. Heritage Life Ins. v. Lang, 321 F.3d 533, 538 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A contract cannot bind a nonparty. E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 308, 122 S. Ct. 754, 151 L. Ed. 2d 755 (2002).
1 [HN8] “All persons eighteen (18) years of age or older, if not otherwise disqualified, or prohibited by law, shall have the capacity to enter into binding contractual relationships affecting personal property. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any contracts entered into prior to July 1, 1976. In any legal action founded on a contract entered into by a person eighteen (18) years of age or older, the said person may sue in his own name as an adult and be sued in his own name as an adult and be served with process as an adult.” See also Garrett v. Gay, 394 So. 2d 321, 322 (Miss. 1981).
P19. The two waivers executed in this case are not binding on Colyer and the trial court was correct in not giving any effect to these two waivers in its opinion.
CONCLUSION
P20. There is sufficient evidence before this Court [*11] to show that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether FUNA’s supervision was negligent. Therefore, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded for a trial.
P21. THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED, AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED FOR A TRIAL. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEES.
LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. WILSON, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. CARLTON, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY LEE, C.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ.; WILSON, J., JOINS IN PART. GRIFFIS, P.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. ISHEE AND GREENLEE, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
CONCUR BY: CARLTON
CONCUR
CARLTON, J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING:
P22. I specially concur with the majority’s opinion in this case, and I write specially to address the material questions of fact raised herein. With respect to the negligence claims raised, the question as to whether a duty to warn arose from the relationship between the parties constitutes a question of law. See Pritchard v. Von Houten, 960 So. 2d 568, 579 (P27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. at 576 (P20). However, the questions as to causation and foreseeability include material [*12] questions of fact. P23. In this case, a duty clearly arose from the relationship between Braxton, a seventeen-year-old minor, and Amanda, the associate pastor and leader of FUNA’s youth mission trip. At the very least, FUNA, by and through its employee, Amanda, bore a duty to use ordinary care to plan and supervise this international mission trip composed of church members to Costa Rica and its shores on the Pacific Ocean. As the facts of this case reflect, a duty also arose and existed to supervise Braxton on the rock formations of the Costa Rica Pacific coastline. Accordingly, I find that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether FUNA, through its employee, Amanda, negligently failed to warn of dangerous conditions that she knew or should have known existed on the beaches of Costa Rica’s Pacific Ocean edge, and whether Amanda, as the mission-trip leader, negligently planned and supervised this international mission trip. See Garrett v. Nw. Miss. Junior Coll., 674 So. 2d 1, 3 (Miss. 1996).2
2 In Garrett, 674 So. 2d at 3, the Mississippi Supreme Court relied upon Roberts v. Robertson County Board of Education, 692 S.W.2d 863, 870 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), where the Tennessee Court of Appeals imposed a duty of care upon a high-school vocational teacher “to take those precautions that any ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would take to protect his [*13] shop students from the unreasonable risk of injury.”
P24. In Pritchard, 960 So. 2d at 579 (P27),3 we recognized that “[a]n important component of the existence of a duty is that the injury is reasonably foreseeable.” The Pritchard court further explained:
A defendant charged with a duty to exercise ordinary care must only take reasonable measures to remove or protect against foreseeable hazards that he knows about or should know about in the exercise of due care. Such a defendant must safeguard against reasonable probabilities, and is not charged with foreseeing all occurrences, even though such occurrences are within the range of possibility. A defendant whose conduct is reasonable in light of the foreseeable risks will not be found liable for negligence.
Id. at (P29) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161, 175 (P48) (Miss. 1999). While duty constitutes an issue of law, causation is generally a question of fact for the jury. Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 06-CV-199, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40816, 2007 WL 1657417, at *4 (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2007).
3 The court in Pritchard, 960 So. 2d at 579 (P27), found that a vocational teacher “has the duty to take those precautions that any ordinary reasonable and prudent person would take to protect his shop students from the unreasonable risk of injury.”
P25. In Foster ex rel. Foster v. Bass, 575 So. 2d 967, 972 (Miss. 1990), the supreme court stated that “in order to recover for an injury to a [*14] person or property, by reason of negligence or want of due care, there must be shown to exist some obligation or duty toward the plaintiff which the defendant has left undischarged or unfulfilled.” Issues of fact as to foreseeability and breach of duty preclude summary judgment. See Summers ex rel. Dawson v. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Sch. Inc., 759 So. 2d 1203, 1214 (PP48-51) (Miss. 2000) (reversing summary judgment on negligent-supervision claim because issues of fact as to foreseeability existed).
P26. In this case, the record reflects that Amanda served as both the associate minister and youth minister at FUNA. Amanda testified that she was responsible for planning the trip to Costa Rica and that she recruited others to participate in this international mission trip. She provided that she had led youth mission trips before and had traveled with youth groups internationally before. Amanda testified that she had consulted with team leaders from another church who had traveled to Costa Rica on youth mission trips, but she admitted to failing to check with the United States State Department online travel advisory warnings, or any other travel advisories, as to any unsafe beach, tide, or surf conditions in Costa Rica. She also admitted to not instructing or warning Braxton or any other youth [*15] about beach safety or about the dangerous surf or riptides of Coast Rica’s Pacific Coast.4
4 Compare Rygg v. Cnty. of Maui, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1132-33 (D. Haw. 1999).
P27. Geographically, Costa Rica sits between the Carribean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The record reflects that the youth group was on the Pacific Ocean side of Costa Rica, and that Braxton and other members of the mission team began climbing on volcanic-rock formations that were separated from the shore by shallow water. Braxton and Josh climbed on and over the rock formation to the Pacific Ocean side, and then they climbed down by the Pacific Ocean’s edge, where they saw some crabs. While watching the crabs, waves from the Pacific Ocean knocked Braxton and Josh off of the rock formation, into the ocean, and into the current of the dangerous riptides. Josh explained that the waves knocked them into different currents.
P28. Regarding the traumatic events, Josh testified that he was standing on the rock formation with Braxton when a wave knocked them off of the rock and into the water. Josh testified that two more waves hit them as they tried to climb back onto the rock. Josh recalled getting pushed back under water after the second wave hit. When he came back [*16] to the surface, Braxton was grabbing his back, and the water had pushed the two of them close enough to the rock that they had fallen off of that they could try to climb back up. When the water from the wave subsided, they slid back down into the water, and Josh and Braxton then became separated by different currents. Josh testified that he was pushed into a current separate from Braxton, taking them in different directions. Josh recalled looking back and watching Braxton climb onto a smaller rock. When a third wave hit them, he and Braxton went under water again, and when he came back up, he could no longer see Braxton. Josh testified that prior to the trip, no one warned him of unsafe tide, surf, waves, or other conditions existing on the Pacific Ocean coast of Costa Rica. He also testified that he brought a swim suit with him on the trip.
P29. The record contains pictures of the location where Braxton was knocked off of the volcanic-rock formation and into the Pacific Ocean. Josh described the top of the rock that he and Braxton climbed on as twenty feet high above the water, and stated that he and Braxton were on the ocean side of the formation, ten feet from the top, when the wave [*17] swept them off. Josh provided that water completely surrounded the rock on all sides, separating the rock from dry sand by approximately thirty to forty feet of ankle-deep water on one side. Josh explained that the water was deeper on the ocean side of the rock where he and Braxton were knocked in the water.
P30. Josh testified that he recalled Adam, a grown man who weighed approximately 340 pounds, slipping into the water before the wave hit him and Braxton. Adam testified that he was knocked down by a seven-to-eight-foot wave. Josh recalled that Adam was swept into the water about fifteen to twenty minutes before a different wave swept him and Braxton into the ocean.
P31. The record reflects existing material questions of fact as to whether the church, through its mission-trip leader and employee, Amanda, negligently breached its duty to Braxton, a minor, to plan and supervise this international mission trip and to warn Braxton of the dangerous beach and surf conditions on Costa Rica’s Pacific coast. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment since triable issues of material fact exist in this case. In planning and supervising this trip, a duty existed to warn of [*18] the hidden dangers and perils not in plain view that FUNA and its mission trip leader, Amanda, knew, or should have known, existed. Additionally, once the tide rose and the large waves knocked the adults down, Amanda bore a duty to supervise and warn Braxton of the dangerous conditions.
P32. The trial court’s decision failed to address the Youth Medical/Parental Consent form waivers or their applicability in this case. However, the enforceability of the waivers was argued on appeal, and I write briefly to address this issue. Jurisprudence reflects that the preinjury waivers herein are unenforceable with respect to the negligence claims for wrongful death raised in this case against the church for its negligence in planning, supervising, and failing to warn of the dangerous beach and ocean conditions on this mission trip to Costa Rica. See Ghane v. Mid-S. Inst. of Self Def. Shooting Inc., 137 So. 3d 212, 221-22 (P23) (Miss. 2014). The language in the waivers in this case applied to church-mission-related activities and related risks. The waivers contained no language regarding the liability or risks of recreational activities such as hiking, swimming, or rock climbing on Costa Rica’s beaches on the Pacific Ocean or the risks of the dangerous riptides and dangerous ocean surf. [*19] Public policy prohibits the use of preinjury waivers of liability for personal injury due to future acts of a defendant’s own negligence. See Turnbough v. Ladner, 754 So. 2d 467, 469 (P8) (Miss. 1999) (waiver unenforceable where it did not express intent of student to accept any heightened exposure to injury caused by malfeasance of instructor’s failure to follow safety guidelines); Rice v. Am. Skiing Co., No. CIV.A.CV-99-06, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 90, 2000 WL 33677027, at *2 (Me. Super. Ct. May 8, 2000). For a waiver to be valid and enforceable, it must not be ambiguous and it must be specific in wording as to the liability. See Turnbough, 754 So. 2d at 469 (P8). Waivers will be strictly construed against the defendant. Id. When a waiver contains ambiguous language, it cannot be construed as a waiver of liability for injuries that result from the negligence of the defendant. Id. at 470 (P9).
P33. As stated, the evidence in the record reflects material questions of fact exist as to foreseeability and breach of duty for negligent failure to plan and supervise the mission trip and failure to warn of the dangerous beach and surf conditions of Costa Rica’s Pacific coast.5 Therefore, summary judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.
5 Compare Diamond Crystal Salt Co. v. Thielman, 395 F.2d 62, 65 (5th Cir. 1968) (plaintiff was injured on a guided tour of a mine where “the danger was not obvious, and if the dangerous condition [*20] had in fact been observed it would not have been appreciated by persons of ordinary understanding”); see also Martinez v. United States, 780 F.2d 525, 527 (5th Cir. 1986) (duty to warn at shallow swimming area of federal park); Wyatt v. Rosewood Hotels & Resorts LLC, 47 V.I. 551, 2005 WL 1706134, at *4-5 (D.V.I. 2005).
LEE, C.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION. WILSON, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART.
De Castro v. Odetah Camping Resort, Inc., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2297
Posted: March 31, 2016 Filed under: Connecticut, Legal Case, Rivers and Waterways | Tags: Campground, Causation, CN, Connecticut, Lake, Life Jacket, Lifeguard, Proximate Causation, Proximate Cause, swimming Leave a commentDe Castro v. Odetah Camping Resort, Inc., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2297
Adelson Luiz De Castro, Administrator of the Estate of Jose Luiz De Castro v. Odetah Camping Resort, Inc.
FBTCV126026625
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD AT BRIDGEPORT
2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2297
September 2, 2015, Decided
September 2, 2015, Filed
NOTICE: THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.
JUDGES: [*1] Michael P. Kamp, J.
OPINION BY: Michael P. Kamp
OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The defendant, Odetah Camping Resort, Inc., has filed a renewal of its motion for directed verdict and a motion to set aside the jury’s verdict.1 The trial commenced on April 28, 2015, and evidence concluded on May 6, 2015, when the defense rested its case. The jury received the charge on the law on May 6, 2015. On May 6, 2015, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Adelson Luiz DeCastro, Administrator of the Estate of Jose Luiz DeCastro, and awarded total damages of $229,155.96. Regarding the question of comparative negligence, the jury found the plaintiff’s decedent, Jose DeCastro, was 49% responsible for his own injuries.
1 The defendant originally moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief. At that time, the court reserved decision, and the defendant commenced its defense. On close of the defendant’s case, the matter was submitted to the jury.
The defendant filed its motion to set aside the verdict on May 15, 2015. The plaintiff filed its objection to the defendant’s motion [*2] on May 19, 2015. On June 22, 2015, the court heard the matter at short calendar and took the papers.
The defendant argues in its motion that the plaintiff failed to prove beyond the realm of surmise and speculation that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the death of the decedent. This argument is based upon a lack of evidence as to what actually caused the decedent to drown.
II
FACTS
After a trial, the jury could have found as follows. On July 7, 2011, the decedent and a group of friends went to the defendant resort located in Bozrah, Connecticut. In order to gain entrance, the decedent paid an entrance fee. The defendant is an approximately 100-acre campground that offers multiple recreational activities. In addition to facilities to accommodate overnight camping, the defendant offers sporting facilities, which include a pool as well as volleyball, tennis, and basketball courts. The defendant abuts a large, thirty-two-acre freshwater lake, which includes a small beach, and offers swimming and boating activities. A portion of the lake that is adjacent to the beach has a designated swim area. The boundaries of the swim area are designated by a rope line and buoys. Just [*3] beyond the roped off swimming area are two inflatable platforms. One was described as a platform or trampoline, and the other was described as an “iceberg.” Both inflatable devices were attractions to be used by the resort guests. The defendant did not provide lifeguards at the pool or lake swim area. A single sign was posted at one end of the beach area, indicating: “No Lifeguard on Duty. Swim at Your Own Risk.” No employees of the defendant directly supervised the lake swimming area.
On July 9, 2011, the decedent and his friend, Saulo Sousa, entered the designated swimming area for the purpose of swimming out to the trampoline just beyond the buoy line. When Sousa reached the rope line, he observed the decedent immediately behind him in the water. The depth of the water at this location was approximately six feet. As Sousa lifted the rope line to duck under it, he observed the decedent diving forward and under the rope. When Sousa reached the trampoline, he climbed on it but did not observe the decedent. After spending a few minutes on the trampoline, Sousa reentered the water and swam to the shore. After unsuccessfully attempting to locate the decedent, employees of the defendant [*4] were notified that he was missing. After a brief search, 911 emergency services were dispatched, and Bozrah firefighters and rescue personnel responded to the scene. When notified that the decedent was last seen in the designated swim area near the buoy line, firefighter Colin Laffey entered the water and located the decedent floating unresponsive just below the surface of the water just inside the buoy line. Laffey testified that he located the decedent in an area where the depth of the water was less than six feet. The decedent was brought to shore, and CPR was administered. The decedent was then transported by ambulance to Backus Hospital, but never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead. A postmortem autopsy determined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to submersion. The postmortem examination was negative for any signs of illness, traumatic injury, or any preexisting medical condition or disease. A toxicology examination was negative for the presence of any drugs, alcohol, or medication.
The decedent’s drowning was unwitnessed despite the fact that there were numerous people in the water and on the beach. Although other members of the decedent’s group, including his [*5] girlfriend, were on the beach adjacent to the swimming area, no one saw him in distress or struggling in the water. He was identified by his friends as a good or strong swimmer.
III
DISCUSSION
Practice Book §16-37 provides, in relevant part: “Whenever a motion for a directed verdict made at any time after the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief is denied or for any reason is not granted, the judicial authority is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion.” “Directed verdicts are not favored . . . A trial court should direct a verdict only when a jury could not reasonably and legally have reached any other conclusion . . . In reviewing the trial court’s decision to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff . . . Although it is the jury’s right to draw logical deductions and make reasonable inferences from the facts proven . . . it may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation . . . A directed verdict is justified if . . . the evidence is so weak that it would be proper for the court to set aside a verdict rendered for the other party.” (Internal [*6] quotation marks omitted.) Riccio v. Harbour Village Condominium Assn., Inc., 281 Conn. 160, 163, 914 A.2d 529 (2007). “A verdict may be directed . . . where the claim is that there is insufficient evidence to sustain a favorable verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beale v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 89 Conn.App. 556, 565-66, 874 A.2d 259 (2005).
Likewise, “[a] trial court may set aside a verdict on a finding that the verdict is manifestly unjust because, given the evidence presented, the jury mistakenly applied a legal principle or because there is no evidence to which the legal principles of the case could be applied . . . A verdict should not be set aside, however, where it is apparent that there was some evidence on which the jury might reasonably have reached its conclusion . . . This limitation on a trial court’s discretion results from the constitutional right of litigants to have issues of fact determined by a jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Deas v. Diaz, 121 Conn.App. 826, 841, 998 A.2d 200, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 905, 3 A.3d 69 (2010), rev’d on other grounds, Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276, 32 A.3d 318 (2011).
“[T]o establish a prima facie case, the proponent must submit evidence which, if credited, is sufficient to establish the fact or facts which it is adduced to prove . . . [T]he evidence offered by the plaintiff is to be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], and every reasonable inference is to be drawn in [the plaintiff’s] [*7] favor.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadle Co. v. Errato, 71 Conn.App. 447, 455-56, 802 A.2d 887, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 918, 812 A.2d 861 (2002). “The credibility and weight to be attributed to any evidence offered [at trial] is solely within the province of the jury.” Murteza v. State, 7 Conn.App. 196, 208-09, 508 A.2d 449, cert. denied, 200 Conn. 803, 510 A.2d 191 (1986). “[I]t is not the function of [the trial] court to sit as the seventh juror when [it] review[s] the sufficiency of the evidence . . . rather, [it] must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, whether the totality of the evidence, including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the [trier’s] verdict . . . In making this determination, [t]he evidence must be given the most favorable construction in support of the verdict of which it is reasonably capable . . . In other words, [i]f the [trier] could reasonably have reached its conclusion, the verdict must stand, even if [the trial] court disagrees with it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562, 612, 31 A.3d 1 (2011).
“In order to make out a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must submit evidence that, if credited, is sufficient to establish duty, breach of duty, causation, and actual injury . . . A defendant’s duty and breach of duty is measured by a reasonable care standard, which is the care [that] a reasonably prudent person would use under [*8] the circumstances . . . After the plaintiff establishes that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries. To do so, the plaintiff must first establish causation in fact, that is, that the injury would not have occurred but for the actor’s conduct . . . The plaintiff then must show proximate cause . . . Proximate cause requires that the defendant’s conduct [was] a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injuries and that there was an unbroken sequence of events that tied [the plaintiff’s] injuries to the [defendant’s conduct] . . . Proximate cause does not require the plaintiff to remove from the realm of possibility all other potential causes of the accident . . . Instead, the plaintiff must establish that it is more likely than not that the cause on which the plaintiff relies was in fact a proximate cause of the accident. The more likely than not standard ensures that the causal connection . . . [is] based [on] more than conjecture or surmise.” (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rawls v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company, 310 Conn. 768, 776-77, 83 A.3d 576 (2014).
The defendant’s primary argument is that no one [*9] witnessed the decedent’s drowning, and there was no evidence offered as to what caused him to drown. The defendant relies on Wu v. Fairfield, 204 Conn. 435, 528 A.2d 364 (1987). In Wu, the plaintiff’s decedent who was fifteen years old, went to Lake Mohegan, a freshwater lake, with her mother and two brothers for an afternoon of swimming. Id., 437. There was a designated swim area marked by a buoy line. At the time of the occurrence, there were four lifeguards on duty. Id. Those lifeguards had observed that the plaintiff’s decedent was a poor swimmer and had warned her twice to return to the shallow portion of the designated swim area. Id. When an approaching storm prompted the lifeguards to clear the water, the plaintiff’s decedent did not return to shore. Id. After a search, one of the lifeguards found the decedent’s body at the bottom of the lake in the designated swim area but beyond the shallow portion. Id., 437-38. The plaintiff alleged that the town and several of its employees, the lifeguards, were negligent in the performance of their duties. Id., 436. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. Id. The plaintiff then filed a motion to set aside the verdict, which motion was denied. Id. In affirming the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s [*10] motion to set aside the verdict, the court held that “[w]hile it is undisputed that the decedent drowned, there was no evidence tying any negligence on the defendant lifeguards’ part to her death . . . Here, the plaintiff presented no evidence other than that the victim perished in an unwitnessed drowning. The plaintiff failed to establish an unbroken sequence of events causally flowing from the defendant lifeguards’ arguably negligent supervision to the decedent’s drowning.” Id., 440.
In this case, the plaintiff’s May 4, 2015 amended complaint contained two specifications of negligence as to the conduct of the defendant. The first allegation was that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide lifeguards. The second allegation was that the defendant was negligent when it knew or should have known of the danger associated with encouraging its guests to swim to its recreational flotation devices, yet failed to take reasonable steps to secure their safety in doing so. In response to jury interrogatories submitted by the court the jury found that the defendant was negligent with regard to the second specification but not the first. With regard to the claim of negligence concerning encouraging [*11] swimmers to use the flotation devices, the plaintiff relied on testimony that the owner’s manual for the two devices contained warnings that recommended users wear life vests. Although life vests were available in a shed adjacent to the lake swim area, the defendant did not require guests entering the lake or using any of the flotation devices to wear them. In addition, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to properly supervise and monitor the swimming area and had an inadequate emergency rescue plan.
The plaintiff offered the testimony of Gerald Dworkin, an aquatic safety expert. Dworkin offered opinion testimony regarding the defendant’s lack of safety measures including its failure to have lifeguards monitoring the swim area. Dworkin was also critical of the defendant’s lack of an emergency safety plan. Dworkin did not, however, offer any opinion testimony as to what actually caused the decedent to drown. He affirmed that it was an unwitnessed drowning. In addition, although the owner’s manuals for the flotation devices recommended the use of life vests, the decedent was not using either device when he drowned; the little evidence there is indicates he never left the designated [*12] swim area. The flotation devices were located outside that designated area.
Here, as in Wu, the plaintiff presented no evidence other than that the decedent died in an unwitnessed drowning. There was no evidence as to what caused the decedent to drown. In the absence of any such evidence, any number of factual possibilities could explain this accident. Without any evidence as to what caused this unfortunate incident, only speculation and conjecture could link the plaintiff’s drowning to the negligent conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence to establish an unbroken sequence of events causally flowing from the defendant’s conduct that the jury found negligent to the decedent’s drowning. “The establishment of proximate cause is an essential element of a negligence claim and the parties recognize that if proximate cause is lacking, the plaintiff cannot prevail.” Wu v. Town Of Fairfield, supra, 204 Conn. 441.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, no reasonable juror could find that the negligence of the defendant caused or was a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s death by drowning. The lack of any evidence as to what [*13] caused this drowning is fatal to the plaintiff’s case.
IV
CONCLUSION
Because the plaintiff failed to establish that the negligent conduct of the defendant was the proximate cause of the decedent’s drowning, the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict is granted. Judgment may enter for the defendant.
KAMP, J.
Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662
Posted: March 30, 2016 Filed under: Colorado, Legal Case, Ski Area | Tags: Chair Lift, Common Carrier, Invitee, Keystone, Landowner, Liftie, Neglignece, Premises Liability Act, Vail Leave a commentBrigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662
Teresa Brigance, Plaintiff, v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., Defendant.
Civil Action No. 15-cv-1394-WJM-NYW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662
March 11, 2016, Decided
March 11, 2016, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1] For Teresa Brigance, Plaintiff: Trenton Jeffrey Ongert, Bloch & Chapleau, LLC, Denver, CO.
For Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., Defendant: Edward Timothy Walker, Samuel Nathan Shapiro, Vail Resorts Management Company, Legal Department, Broomfield, CO.
JUDGES: William J. Martínez, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: William J. Martínez
OPINION
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Teresa Brigance (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Vail Summit Resorts, Inc. (“Defendant”). This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 17.) Defendant filed the Motion on August 28, 2015. (Id.) On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Response to the Motion. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant filed its Reply on October 13, 2015. (ECF No. 31.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim in a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to “assume the truth of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations and view them [*2] in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). In ruling on such a motion, the dispositive inquiry is “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). “Thus, ‘a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
II. BACKGROUND
The following allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). (ECF No. 6.) The Court assumes these allegations to be true for purposes of this motion.
On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff visited the Keystone ski area, which is owned and operated by Defendant. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff participated in a ski lesson which was taught by Megan McKinney, an employee of Defendant. (Id. ¶ 6.) Ms. McKinney instructed Plaintiff on the procedures for getting on and off the chair lift. (Id. ¶ 7.) The chair lift was operated by an unknown chair lift operator who was also an employee of Defendant and whom the Court will refer to as John Doe. (Id. ¶ 26.) While unloading from the chair lift, Plaintiff’s ski boot became wedged between the chair and the ground at the [*3] unloading area, causing injury to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff asserted numerous claims arising out of events related to the chair lift incident. (See id.) Plaintiff asserts claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) negligent supervision/training, (4) negligence (respondeat superior), (5) negligent hiring, and (6) premises liability pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-115. (See id.)
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant, through its Motion, moves to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims except for the premises liability claim. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se (Claim Two) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 4.) Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s claims for negligence (Claim One) and negligence per se should be dismissed as they are preempted by the Premises Liability Act. (Id. at 2.) Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims for negligent supervision/training, negligence (respondeat superior), and negligent hiring should be dismissed as duplicative. (Id. at 6.) The Court will discuss these arguments in turn.
A. Negligence Per Se
[*4] Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for negligence per se. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) “In contrast to negligence, negligence per se occurs when a defendant violates a statute adopted for the public’s safety and the violation proximately causes the plaintiff’s injury.” Scott v. Matlack, Inc., 39 P.3d 1160, 1166 (Colo. 2002). Plaintiff must also show that the statute was intended to protect against the type of injury the plaintiff suffered and that the plaintiff is a member of the group of persons the statute was intended to protect. Id. If those requirements are met, “then the statute conclusively establishes the defendant’s standard of care and violation of the statute is a breach of [defendant’s] duty.” Id.
In its Motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to identify any statutory standard of care that has been violated. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) Plaintiff identifies two statutes as the basis of her negligence per se claim: the Skier Safety Act and the Passenger Tramway Safety Act. (ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 18-19.)
As to the Skier Safety Act, certain violations of that Act do constitute negligence per se. See Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437, 443 (Colo. 2007). Under the Skier Safety Act, “a violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 25-5-704(1)(a), C.R.S., shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-104(2). However, Plaintiff fails to identify any requirement of that article–the Skier Safety Act–which has been violated. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) of the Passenger Tramway Safety Act.1 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e). (See also ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 18, 20-21.) Section 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) identifies certain situations in which the passenger tramway safety board may take disciplinary action. However, § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) is not a [*5] rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board and therefore Plaintiff does not properly state a claim for negligence per se under the Skier Safety Act.
1 Plaintiff identifies this language as coming from § 25-5-706(2)(d)–(e). However, it is clear that Plaintiff is actually referring to § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e), since the language Plaintiff quotes is from that subsection of the statute.
In its response to the Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Passenger Tramway Safety Act provides a statutory standard of care independent of the Skier Safety Act. Specifically, Plaintiff stresses that § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) allows for disciplinary action to be taken if there is either “[w]illful or wanton misconduct in the operation or maintenance of a passenger tramway” or “[o]peration of a passenger tramway while a condition exists in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of the passenger tramway which endangers the public health, safety, or welfare, which condition was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the area operator.”
Nevertheless, this language does not provide a statutory standard of care which is adequate to support Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se. This Court has previously held that a claim for negligence per se requires a [*6] statute, “the violation of which can be clearly established.” Hendrickson v. Doyle, F. Supp. 3d , , 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166362, 2015 WL 8533769, at *5 (D. Colo. Dec. 11, 2015). “In other words, the relevant statute needs to prescribe or proscribe some relatively discrete action.” Id. The language of § 25-5-706(3)(d) proscribes willful or wanton misconduct and § 25-5-706(3)(e) proscribes something akin to negligent conduct. This is not statutory language prescribing or proscribing some discrete action (e.g., all chairs must be two feet removed from the ground at the unloading area). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligence per se. The Court grants the Motion as to Claim Two and dismisses Claim Two without prejudice.
B. Premises Liability Act Preemption
The Colorado Premises Liability Act contains the following provision:
In any civil action brought against a landowner by a person who alleges injury occurring while on the real property of another and by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property, the landowner shall be liable only as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(2). Defendant does not dispute that it meets the statutory definition of a “landowner”. (ECF No. 17 at n.1.) Based on its status as a landowner and the language of [*7] § 13-21-115(2), Defendant asserts that it can only be found liable, if at all, under the Premises Liability Act. (Id. at 4.) Therefore, Defendant argues that Claims One and Two are preempted and must be dismissed. (Id. at 3-4.)
To support its argument, Defendant cites the Colorado Supreme Court in Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004). In that case, the court held that the language of § 13-21-115(2) was “specific in its terms and without ambiguity,” and demonstrated that the General Assembly intended “to completely occupy the field and supercede existing law in the area” of premises liability. Vigil, 103 P.3d at 328. Furthermore, “[t]his language, coupled with the precisely drawn landowner duties in subsection (3), leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.” Id. Ultimately, the Court held that the Premises Liability Act “abrogate[s] the common law with respect to landowner duties.” Id. at 330.
This Court has interpreted the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in Vigil and has held that “all common law claims involving landowner duties, including negligence . . . are abrogated by the Premises Liability Act which provides the exclusive remedy.” Raup v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., F. Supp. 3d , , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11499, 2016 WL 374463, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 1, 2016); see also Giebink v. Fischer, 709 F. Supp. 1012, 1017 (D. Colo. 1989) (holding that when a common law negligence claim is founded on negligent maintenance of a ski area, such a claim is within the scope of the Premises Liability Act [*8] and must be dismissed).
Claim One is a common law negligence claim. (See ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff also alleges that her injury occurred while on the property of Defendant, the admitted landowner. (Id.) Therefore, the claim would be preempted by the Premises Liability Act if the alleged injury occurred “by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(2).
Plaintiff alleges in Claim One that her injury occurred due to Defendant’s failure “to maintain a proper distance between the chair and the ground at the unloading point, and/or [failure] to property operate and/or maintain the chair lift.” (ECF No. 6 ¶ 15.) The alleged failures to maintain the conditions of the property clearly fall under the Premises Liability Act. Furthermore, failing to properly operate the chair lift is an “activity conducted” on the property that also falls under the Premises Liability Act. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(2); see also Raup, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11499, 2016 WL 374463, at *4 (holding that the affirmative actions of a chair lift operator, in directing passengers to exit the lift, qualified as activity conducted on the property for the purposes of the Premises Liability Act).
The Court thus has little difficulty in concluding [*9] that Plaintiff’s common law negligence claim is preempted by the Premises Liability Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion as to Claim One and dismisses Claim One with prejudice. Since the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se in the previous section, the Court need not discuss, let alone decide, whether that claim should also be dismissed based on Defendant’s preemption argument.2
2 Defendant does not argue that Claims Three, Four, and Five are preempted by the Premises Liability Act. Therefore, the Court will also not address that issue.
C. Imputed Liability Claims
Defendant admits that both Megan McKinney and chair lift operator John Doe were employees of Defendant. (ECF No. 17 at 7.) Defendant further admits that both were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of Plaintiff’s incident. (Id.) As such, Defendant admits that it is liable under the theory of respondeat superior for whatever negligent acts or omissions of those two employees, if any, caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (See id.)
Defendant argues that, because it is vicariously liable for the employees’ negligent acts, claims based on other theories of imputed liability–Claims Three and Five–are [*10] duplicative and should be dismissed.3 (Id. at 7-8.) Defendant cites two trial court decisions from Colorado state court in which those courts dismissed claims based on theories of imputed liability that they found to be duplicative. (See id.) However, Defendant provides no state appellate precedential support for its position. (See id.)
3 In the heading for its third argument in the Motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s fourth claim for negligence (respondeat superior) should also be dismissed. (ECF No. 17 at 6, 8.) However, Defendant, in its discussion, does not argue that Claim Four should be dismissed. (Id. at 6-8.) Defendant’s argument in that section is limited to arguing that Claims Three and Five should be dismissed because they are duplicative of Claim Four. (See id.)
Moreover, Defendant fails to acknowledge that “[p]laintiffs may seek duplicative relief under federal and state statutes and common [law].” Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Vilsack, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1198 (D. Colo. 2015). The pursuit of alternative claims for similar relief is expressly permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2) (“A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones.”). Plaintiff may not recover [*11] for the same injury under multiple theories of imputed liability, and at some point Plaintiff may have to choose between her theories. However, that is not a reason to dismiss any of Plaintiff’s claims at this stage. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion as to Claims Three, Four, and Five.4
4 In its reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring should also be dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to plead “what knowledge [Defendant] had or should have had at the time its employees were hired.” (ECF No. 31 at 6.) This argument was not made in the Motion itself and therefore the Court need not and will not consider it.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Claim One (Negligence) and Claim Two (Negligence Per Se) and DENIED as to all other claims;
3. Claim One of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
4. Claim Two of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2016. [*12]
BY THE COURT:
/s/ William J. Martínez
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
D’Amico, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499
Posted: March 29, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, New Jersey, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Chair Lift, Common Carrier, Great American Recreation, Highest Degree of Care, Loading Area, New Jersey, NJ, ski area Leave a commentD’Amico, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499
Kathleen A. D’Amico and Allen N. D’Amico, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant
DOCKET No. W-029746-88
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County
265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499
December 24, 1992, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Approved for Publication June 9, 1993.
CASE SUMMARY:
COUNSEL: Craig L. Klafter for plaintiffs (Hanlon, Lavigne, Herzfeld & Rubin, attorneys).
Samuel A. DeGonge for defendant (Samuel A. DeGonge, attorneys).
JUDGES: RUSSELL, J.S.C.
OPINION BY: RUSSELL
OPINION
[***2] [*497] [**1165] On February 27, 1987, plaintiff was injured while attempting to board a ski lift at defendant’s ski resort, Vernon Valley. Functionally, [*498] chairlifts consist of a series of metal and wooden chairs which are suspended from a wire cable. They are spaced evenly apart along the cable which rests on wheels attached to tall steel towers. At the bottom and top of the mountain, there is a large wheel which reverses the direction of the cable to enable the chairs to go up and down the mountain. The skier skis to a waiting area to board the lift. As the chair comes closer, the skier sits down onto the chair and is picked up off the snow and transported up the mountain. A safety bar across the front of the chair is lowered into place to prevent the skier from falling out of the chair.
Plaintiff was in the boarding area of the ski lift when the accident occurred. As she was waiting for the chair, an unidentified skier skied into the path of the chair. He struck the chair intended to transport plaintiff up the mountain. As a result, the chair began to swing and struck plaintiff causing serious injury. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendant ski area was negligent in its operation and supervision of the ski lift. Plaintiff moved in limine for an order declaring defendant to be a common carrier in the operation of the ski lift.
This issue has not been addressed by any reported decisions in New Jersey. Plaintiff seeks to have this court adopt the reasoning of the Third District Court of Appeals of California in Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 1499, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, (1992) that a ski area is a common carrier in the operation of its ski lifts and the highest standard of care applies
There are two New Jersey statutes which regulate ski areas, N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 et seq. (hereinafter “Ski Act”) and N.J.S.A. 34:4A-1 et seq. (hereinafter “Ski Lift Safety Act”). Neither act resolves the issue presently before this court. The Ski Act imposes duties on ski area operators and skiers involving the act of [***3] skiing. The Ski Lift Safety Act authorizes the adoption of standards for the construction, operation and inspection of ski lifts.
Plaintiff asserts that the New Jersey Ski Lift Safety Act of 1975 was modeled after a similar statute in New Hampshire originally [*499] enacted in 1957. Plaintiff derives this assertion from the similarity between the statements of purpose of the two acts. N.J.S.A. 34:4A-2 and N.H.R.S.A. 225-1:1. However, the definition of a ski area operator is significantly different in that a provision of the New Hampshire statute was added in 1965 to specifically provide that ski area operators shall not be deemed to be common carriers. Plaintiff argues that since the New Jersey Legislature was relying largely on the New Hampshire statute when it adopted the Ski Lift Safety Act, the absence of a comparable provision excluding common carrier liability evidences an intent to impose such liability.
There is nothing in the legislative history of the Ski Act or the Ski Lift Safety Act which indicates such an intent. However, the similarity between the New Hampshire and New Jersey statutes indicates that the Legislature was aware of the New Hampshire law [***4] and presumably they were also aware of the 1967 New York law which also specifically excludes ski lift operators from common carrier liability. N.Y.Trans.Law Sec. 2(6).
[HN1] It is a long-standing tenet of statutory construction that the legislature will not be said to change the common law without clear statutory language. See State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 432 A.2d 74 (1981). Furthermore, [HN2] N.J.S.A. 34:4A-4 specifically provides that the Ski Lift Safety Act shall not “reduce or diminish the standard of care imposed upon passenger tramway operators under existing law.”
New Jersey case law provides little assistance in this matter; however, a number of other courts have grappled with this issue. In 1959, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court decided Grauer v. New York, 9 A.D.2d 829, 192 N.Y.S.2d 647 (1959). The court held that the state of New York would be deemed to be a common carrier in the operation of a chair lift at a state park. The court noted that in [**1166] the operation of the chair lift, “(a) fee was charged for transportation and the public was invited [***5] to use the service.” Id. 192 N.Y.S.2d at 649. This holding by the New York Court was later overturned by the Legislature in 1967 [*500] when it amended New York’s transportation law. See N.Y.Trans. Law Sec. 2(6).
In Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 283 F.2d 533 (2nd Cir.1960), the court upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the standard of care of a common carrier applied to a Vermont ski lift operator. In Summit County Development Corp. v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 441 P.2d 658 (1968), the trial judge instructed the jury that the ski area operator owed plaintiff the highest degree of care because it was a common carrier in the operation of its ski lifts. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld this decision.
In Allen v. New Hampshire, 110 N.H. 42, 260 A.2d 454 (1969), the court applied the standard of care of a common carrier to a ski lift operator. New Hampshire later changed its law through legislative action. N.H.R.S.A. Sec. 225-A:1. See Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 117 N.H. 566, 374 A.2d 1187 (1977).
[***6] In one case, Pessl v. Bridger Bowl, 164 Mont. 389, 524 P.2d 1101 (1974), the court did not apply the common carrier standard to a ski lift operator because of specific state legislation preventing such application. See Mont.Code Ann. Sec. 69-6615 (1947).
Grauer, Fisher, Bagnoli, Allen and Pessl were all decided before the New Jersey Legislature adopted the Ski Lift Safety Act in 1975. As such, the Legislature must be said to have been aware of the trend of courts addressing this issue to hold ski lift operators to the standard of care of common carriers. See Guzman v. City of Perth Amboy, 214 N.J.Super. 167, 518 A.2d 758 (App.Div.1980).
This trend was continued in the recent, well reasoned decision of Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 1499, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897 (1992). The court defined [HN3] a common carrier as “any entity which holds itself out to the public generally and indifferently to transport goods or persons from place to place for profit” and held that a ski lift operator fit within [***7] this definition. Id. at 1508, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.
[*501] The defendant in the Squaw Valley case and the defendant in the case sub judice both argued that a ski lift operator is not a common carrier because ski lift riders are required to possess special equipment and skills in order to use the lift, hence, a ski lift is not offered for use indiscriminately to the general public. This court agrees with the conclusion of the Squaw Valley Court that defendant’s argument must fail. [HN4] A common carrier does not lose its status as such merely because the nature of its services is specialized. All members of the general public who possess the necessary equipment and expertise may avail themselves of the Vernon Valley chair lift.
The rationale behind requiring common carriers to exercise the highest degree of care furthers its application here. A passenger of a common carrier places himself in the care of that common carrier. A passenger is unable to use his own faculties in order to prevent or avoid accidents and is forced to rely on the common carrier to ensure that accidents are avoided. The carrier has this responsibility [***8] because they exercise control of the equipment used in the transportation of the passenger. Only the carrier can ensure that the equipment is in proper working order and is being operated correctly.
Just like a passenger on a train who has no opportunity to ensure that the locomotive is operating properly, a skier cannot determine whether a ski lift is operating properly. When skiers board a ski lift, they are entrusting their care in the hands of another. Once they have committed themselves to riding that chair up the mountain, they are powerless to control their own safety. The chair lifts the skier off the ground as she sits down. The chair is suspended off the ground at considerable distance. The skier has no ability to stop the cable from moving. Furthermore, a skier can’t exit the chair once it has begun [**1167] its ascent. Because of the skier’s helplessness, ski lift operators should be held to the highest standard of care.
Defendant argues that it should not be deemed to be a common carrier because “(i)t does not hold itself out to the public for [*502] compensation for the transportation of persons.” Great American Recreation asserts that the transportation of skiers [***9] up the mountain is only “incidental” to its business. Ski areas provide customers with many services including snow making, trail grooming and maintenance, lessons, parking, equipment rentals and restaurant facilities. However, skiers come to ski areas to ski. If ski areas did not provide transportation up a mountain, it would be impossible for skiers to ski down the mountain. Transportation of skiers up the mountain is one of the primary functions of a ski area operator. It is the reason skiers purchase “lift tickets”.
Defendant also argues that holding ski lift area operators to the standard of care of a common carrier would necessitate holding operators of elevators, escalators and other people movers to the standard of care of common carriers. However, many states have imposed this standard of care on operators of these devices. See, e.g., Kaminsky v. Arthur Rubloff & Co., 72 Ill.App.2d 68, 218 N.E.2d 860 (1906) (elevator); Norman v. Thomas Emery’s Sons, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 218 N.E.2d 480 (1942) (elevator); [***10] Vandagriff v. J.C. Penney Co., 228 Cal.App.2d 579, 39 Cal.Rptr. 671 (1964). But see Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc., 38 Ill.2d 519, 233 N.E.2d 33 (1968) (holding that escalators are not common carriers). The reported New Jersey decisions involving elevators or escalators do not address the issue of whether to hold the operators to the standard of care of a common carrier. See Pisano v. S. Klein on the Square, 78 N.J.Super. 375, 188 A.2d 622 (1963); Dombrowska v. Kresge-Newark, Inc., 75 N.J.Super. 271, 183 A.2d 111 (App.Div.1962).
The fact that this plaintiff was not physically on the lift when she was injured does not help defendant. [HN5] The duty of care of a common carrier includes providing a safe means of ingress and egress for its passengers. See Buchner v. Erie Railroad Co., 17 N.J. 283, 111 A.2d 257 (1955).
Based upon the applicable well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions and the analysis set forth above, [HN6] this court holds that ski area operators are common carriers in the operation of ski [*503] lifts. It is, of course, within the [***11] power of the Legislature to follow the examples of New York and New Hampshire and amend existing law to exclude ski lift operators from common carrier liability. Great American Recreation will be held to the standard of care applicable to other types of common carriers in the operation of its Vernon Valley chairlift. This standard has been described as the highest possible care consistent with the nature of the undertaking involved. Harpell v. Public Serv. Coord. Transp., 20 N.J. 309, 120 A.2d 43 (1956). See Model Jury Charges 5.31.
Wethington v. Swainson, d/b/a/ Pegasus Airsport Center, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169145
Posted: March 29, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Oklahoma, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Skydiving, Paragliding, Hang gliding | Tags: Exculpatory Agreement, Exculpatory clause, Minor, OK, Oklahoma, Release, Skydiving Leave a commentWethington v. Swainson, d/b/a/ Pegasus Airsport Center, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169145
Holly Wethington and Makenzie Wethington, Plaintiffs, v. Robert Swainson, d/b/a/ Pegasus Airsport Center, Defendant.
Case No. CIV-14-899-D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169145
December 18, 2015, Decided
December 18, 2015, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Sanctions allowed by, in part, Sanctions disallowed by, in part Wethington v. Swainson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171126 (W.D. Okla., Dec. 23, 2015)
Motion granted by Wethington v. Swainson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7421 (W.D. Okla., Jan. 22, 2016)
COUNSEL: [*1] For Holly Wethington, individually, Mackenzie Wethington, Plaintiffs: James E Weger, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jones Gotcher & Bogan, Tulsa, OK; Robert E Haslam, Haslam & Gallagher, Fort Worth, TX.
Robert Swainson, doing business as Pegasus Airsport Center, Defendant, Pro se.
Robert Swainson, Third Party Plaintiff, Pro se.
Joseph Wethington, Third Party Defendant, Pro se.
Robert Swainson, Counter Claimant, Pro se.
For Holly Wethington, individually, Counter Defendant: James E Weger, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jones Gotcher & Bogan, Tulsa, OK; Robert E Haslam, Haslam & Gallagher, Fort Worth, TX.
JUDGES: TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI
OPINION
ORDER
The determinative issue before the Court concerns the authority of a parent to bind their minor child to an exculpatory agreement, which functions to preclude a defendant’s liability for negligence, before an injury has even occurred. Holly and Makenzie Wethington, mother and daughter (“Plaintiffs”), bring this action against Defendant Robert Swainson, d/b/a/ Pegasus Airsport Center, for injuries suffered by Makenzie while skydiving.1 Under theories of negligence and breach of contract, Plaintiffs contend Defendant (1) provided inadequate training to [*2] Makenzie in preparation for the parachute jump, (2) selected a person to provide radio assistance who had no prior experience, (3) provided old equipment that malfunctioned during Makenzie’s jump, and (4) permitted Makenzie to use a parachute she was ill-prepared to use and which was inappropriate for her skill level. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 24], to which Plaintiffs have filed their response in opposition [Doc. No. 30]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
1 At the time this action was brought, Makenzie was a minor. She has since become eighteen and will thus be referenced by name.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed. On January 24, 2014, Makenzie, who was then sixteen years old and accompanied by her parents, went to Defendant to learn how to skydive. As part of the registration process, Makenzie executed a Registration Form and Medical Statement. Near the bottom of the document, Makenzie initialed a disclaimer which read:
I FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT SKYDIVING AND GLIDING ARE VERY SERIOUS AND HAZARDOUS SPORTS IN WHICH I COULD SUSTAIN SERIOUS AND PERMANENT INJURIES OR EVEN DEATH
Makenzie underwent an instruction course that included [*3] determining the condition of the parachute after deployment, gaining control and resolving any deployment problems and, if necessary, activating her emergency parachute. In connection with her registration and training, Makenzie and her parents both signed and/or initialed an accompanying document entitled “Agreement, Release of Liability and Acknowledgment of Risk” (the Release). The Release contained numerous exculpatory provisions, which stated in pertinent part:
1. RELEASE FROM LIABILITY. I hereby RELEASE AND DISCHARGE [Defendant] from any and all liability claims, demands or causes of action that I may hereafter have for injuries and damages arising out of my participation in parachuting and other aviation activities, including but not limited to LOSSES CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER FAULT OF THE RELEASED PARTIES.
2. COVENANT NOT TO SUE. I further agree that I WILL NOT SUE OR MAKE A CLAIM AGAINST [Defendant] for damages or other losses sustained as a result of my participation in parachuting and other aviation activities.
* * *
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RISK. I understand and acknowledge that parachuting activities have inherent dangers that no amount of care, caution, instruction or [*4] expertise can eliminate and I EXPRESSLY AND VOLUNTARILY ACKNOWLEDGE ALL RISK OF DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY SUSTAINED WHILE PARTICIPATING IN PARACHUTING AND OTHER AVIATION ACTIVITIES WHETHER OR NOT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER FAULT OF THE RELEASED PARTIES, including but not limited to equipment malfunction from whatever cause or inadequate training.
* * *
9. ENFORCEABILITY. I agree that if any portion of this Agreement, Release of Liability and Acknowledgment of risk is found to be unenforceable or against public policy, that only that portion shall fall and all other portions shall remain in full force and effect. . . . I also specifically waive any unenforceability or any public policy argument that I may make or that may be made on behalf of my estate or by anyone who would sue because of injury, damage or death as a result of my participation in parachuting and other aviation activities.
10. LEGAL RIGHTS. It has been explained to me, and I expressly recognize that this Agreement, Release of Liability and Acknowledgment of Risk is a contract pursuant to which I am giving up important legal rights, and it is my intention to do so.
(Emphasis added).
Near the bottom of the form, Makenzie [*5] read and rewrote the following statement: “I hereby certify that I have read this Agreement, Release of Liability and Acknowledgment of Risk, that I fully understand the contents of this contract, that I wish to be bound by its terms, and that I have signed this contract of my own free will.” This statement was signed and dated by Makenzie and initialed by her mother. At the bottom of the Release, under the heading, “RATIFICATION BY PARENT/GUARDIAN if participant is under 18-years-of-age,” both parents attested that they had read the agreement, understood its terms, and agreed to be bound thereby.
Makenzie received four hours of training and instruction. She was assigned a used parachute based on her size and weight. Defendant employed the assistance of Jacob Martinez to act as radio controller. Mr. Martinez’s duty was to help guide the jumpers onto the landing area and it was his first time to assist with the radio. Upon Makenzie’s jump, her chute malfunctioned, causing her to spin with increasing rapidity towards the ground. Makenzie landed at a high speed and impact, causing her to sustain serious injuries.
STANDARD OF DECISION
“Summary judgment is proper if, viewing the evidence in [*6] the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121, 1124 (10th Cir. 2015) (citing Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013)). The Court’s function at the summary judgment stage is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter asserted, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Tolan v. Cotton, U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014). An issue is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). An issue of fact is “material” if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim. Id. Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present sufficient evidence in specific, factual form to establish a genuine factual dispute. Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991).
The nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. Rather, it must go beyond the pleadings and establish, through admissible evidence, there is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved by the trier of fact. Salehpoor v. Shahinpoor, 358 F.3d 782, 786 (10th Cir. 2004). Unsupported conclusory allegations do not create an issue of fact. Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139, 1144 (10th Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the Release absolves him from all liability [*7] for any injury suffered by Makenzie. Plaintiffs respond that Defendant’s motion should be denied because (1) Makenzie was a minor when she signed the Release, rendering it invalid under Oklahoma law,2 (2) Defendant is clearly liable under the theories asserted, and (3) this Court had a duty to protect Makenzie as a minor.
2 In Oklahoma, a minor is any person under eighteen (18) years of age. 15 Okla. Stat. § 13.
“An exculpatory clause releases in advance the second party for any harm the second party might cause the first party after the contract is entered.” Arnold Oil Properties LLC v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 672 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (10th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). While generally enforceable, such clauses are considered “distasteful to the law.” Schmidt v. United States, 1996 OK 29, P 8, 912 P.2d 871, 874 (emphasis in original).3 Exculpatory clauses are enforceable only if they meet the three following criteria:
(1) Their language must evidence a clear and unambiguous intent to exonerate the would-be defendant from liability for the sought-to-be-recovered damages;
(2) At the time the contract was executed, there must have been no vast difference in bargaining power between parties; and
(3) Enforcement of the clause would not (a) be injurious to public health, public morals or confidence in administration of the law or (b) so undermine the security of individual [*8] rights vis-a-vis personal safety or private property as to violate public policy.
Schmidt, 912 P.2d at 874. “The clause will never avail to relieve a party from liability for intentional, willful or fraudulent acts or gross, wanton negligence.” Id. at 874 (citations omitted, emphasis in original); Satellite System, Inc. v. Birch Telecom of Okla., Inc., 2002 OK 61, P 11, 51 P.3d 585, 589 (“Oklahoma has a strong legislative public policy against contracts which attempt ‘to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another.'”) (citing 15 Okla. Stat. § 212).
3 Notwithstanding this admonition, courts should void contract clauses on public-policy grounds “rarely, with great caution and in cases that are free from doubt.” Union Pacific R. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 591 F.3d 1311, 1321 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Shepard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1983 OK 103, P 3, 678 P.2d 250, 251).
Oklahoma courts, and others, have upheld exculpatory contracts similar to the present Release, i.e., contracts that exculpate the defendant from injuries suffered by plaintiffs while skydiving. See Manning v. Brannon, 1998 OK CIV APP 17, PP 15-17, 956 P.2d 156, 158-59 (exculpatory contract relieving defendant from any liability for injuries to plaintiff from parachuting activities was valid and enforceable); see also Scrivener v. Sky’s the Limit, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 277, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 756, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 181 (1993); Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981). This Court, likewise, finds the Release is generally valid on its face.
First, the Release states in clear and unequivocal terms the intention of the parties to excuse Defendant from liability caused [*9] by Defendant’s negligence, equipment failure, or inadequate instruction. Plaintiffs signed and initialed several clauses containing the headings, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, COVENANT NOT TO SUE, and ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RISK. Mrs. Wethington and her husband signed a ratification stating they had read the Release, understood its terms, and agreed to be bound thereby. Second, there is no evidence of unequal bargaining power. “Oklahoma courts consider two factors in determining parties’ relative bargaining power: ‘(1) the importance of the subject matter to the physical or economic wellbeing of the party agreeing to the release, and (2) the amount of free choice that party could have exercised when seeking alternate services.'” Arnold Oil, 672 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Schmidt, 912 P.2d at 874). There is no evidence that skydiving was necessary or important to Plaintiffs’ wellbeing. In fact, when asked why she wanted to skydive, Makenzie answered, “It’s on my bucket list.” Moreover, Plaintiffs do not contend Makenzie had no choice but to agree to be trained by and jump with Defendant as opposed to going elsewhere. Third, as noted, Oklahoma courts have upheld such releases as not against public policy. See Manning, 956 P.2d at 159 (“we find a exculpatory contract in the [*10] context of a high-risk sport such as sky diving not against the public policy of this state.”).
Plaintiffs nevertheless maintain the Release is voidable because Makenzie was a minor when she signed it and her subsequent suit disaffirmed the agreement. It is also true that as a matter of public policy, courts have protected minors from improvident and imprudent contractual commitments by declaring the contract of a minor is voidable at the election of the minor after she attains majority. See 15 Okla. Stat. § 19. “A release is a contract.” Corbett v. Combined Communications Corp., 1982 OK 135, P 5, 654 P.2d 616, 617. Under Oklahoma law, a minor’s right to rescind a contract is unaffected by the approval or consent of a parent. Gomes v. Hameed, 2008 OK 3, P 26, 184 P.3d 479, 489 (citing Gage v. Moore, 1948 OK 214, P 8, 200 Okla. 623, 198 P.2d 395, 396).
In this case, however, Makenzie’s parents also knowingly signed the Release on her behalf, ratifying and affirming its exculpatory content, and agreeing to be bound thereby. Nevertheless, Defendant refers this Court to no controlling authority that permits the parent of a minor to, on the minor’s behalf, release or waive the minor’s prospective claim for negligence. The Court is unaware of any such authority, and therefore must predict how the Oklahoma Supreme Court would rule on the question. Ortiz v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., No. CIV-13-32-D, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41544, 2015 WL 1498713, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2015) (“A [*11] federal court sitting in diversity must apply state law as propounded by the forum’s highest court. Absent controlling precedent, the federal court must attempt to predict how the state’s highest court would resolve the issue.”) (quoting Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co. v. Choren, 393 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2005)).
Although the cases are split on the issue, it is well-recognized that the majority of state courts considering the issue have held a parent may not release a minor’s prospective claim for negligence. See Fedor v. Mauwehu Council, Boy Scouts of Am., 21 Conn. Supp. 38, 143 A.2d 466, 467-68 (Conn. 1958); Kirton v. Fields, 997 So.2d 349, 356 (Fla. 2008) (pre-injury release executed by parent on behalf of minor is unenforceable against minor or the minor’s estate in a tort action arising from injuries resulting from participation in a commercial activity); Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 901 A.2d 381, 386 (N.J. 2006) (New Jersey public policy prohibits parents of a minor child from releasing a minor child’s potential tort claim arising out of the use of a commercial recreational facility); Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill. App. 3d 141, 634 N.E.2d 411, 414, 199 Ill. Dec. 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (“[I]n the absence of statutory or judicial authorization, a parent cannot waive, compromise, or release a minor child’s cause of action merely because of the parental relationship . . . . This rule has also been extended to render ineffective releases or exculpatory agreements for future tortious conduct by other persons where such releases had been signed by parents on [*12] behalf of their minor children.”); Galloway v. State, 790 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Iowa 2010) (public policy precluded enforcement of parent’s pre-injury waiver of her child’s cause of action for injuries caused by negligence); Doyle v. Bowdoin College, 403 A.2d 1206, 1208 n. 3 (Me. 1979) (“a parent, or guardian, cannot release the child’s or ward’s, cause of action.”); Childress v. Madison County, 777 S.W.2d 1, 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); Woodman v. Kera, LLC, 280 Mich. App. 125, 760 N.W.2d 641, 655-56 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (pre-injury waivers effectuated by parents on behalf of their minor children are not presumptively enforceable); Apicella v. Valley Forge Military Acad. & Junior Coll., 630 F.Supp. 20, 24 (E.D. Penn. 1985) (“Under Pennsylvania law, parents do not possess the authority to release the claims or potential claims of a minor child merely because of the parental relationship.”); Munoz v. II Jaz Inc., 863 S.W.2d 207, 209-10 (Tex. App. 1993) (statute which empowered parents to make legal decisions concerning their child did not give parents power to waive child’s cause of action for personal injuries); Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d 484, 834 P.2d 6, 11-12 (Wash. 1992) (“A parent does not have legal authority to waive a child’s own future cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party’s negligence”).4
4 Of the cases enforcing pre-injury releases executed by parents on behalf of minor children, most involve state-enacted legislation permitting such waiver or the minor’s participation in school-run or community-sponsored activities. See, e.g., Squires v. Breckenridge Outdoor Educ. Ctr., 715 F.3d 867, 874 (10th Cir. 2013); Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1559, 1564, 274 Cal. Rptr. 647, 649-50 (1990); BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 435 Md. 714, 80 A.3d 345, 362 (Md. 2013); Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99, 769 N.E.2d 738, 746-47 (Mass. 2002); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ohio 1998).
These decisions have invalidated such agreements on the grounds that (1) parents have no [*13] such power, or (2) the agreements violate public policy. The underlying rationale employed by many is that courts, acting in the role as parens patriae, have a duty to protect minors. Oklahoma recognizes its duty to protect minor children. Baby F. v. Oklahoma County District Court, 2015 OK 24, P 23, 348 P.3d 1080, 1088. In Oklahoma, a parent or guardian may not settle a child’s claim without prior court approval. See 30 Okla. Stat. § 4-702 (“A guardian, with the approval of the court exercising jurisdiction in the suit or proceeding, may compromise and settle any claim made by, on behalf of or against the ward in such suit or proceeding.”). As aptly summarized by the Washington Supreme Court in Scott:
Since a parent generally may not release a child’s cause of action after injury, it makes little, if any, sense to conclude a parent has the authority to release a child’s cause of action prior to an injury. In situations where parents are unwilling or unable to provide for a seriously injured child, the child would have no recourse against a negligent party to acquire resources needed for care and this is true regardless of when relinquishment of the child’s rights might occur.
Scott, 834 P.2d at 11-12 (emphasis added).
Based on the case law in Oklahoma and other jurisdictions, the Court is led to the conclusion [*14] that (1) Makenzie’s acknowledgment and execution of the Release is of no consequence and does not preclude her claims against Defendant, and (2) the Oklahoma Supreme Court would find that an exculpatory agreement regarding future tortious conduct, signed by parents on behalf of their minor children, is unenforceable. Accordingly, to the extent the Release purports to bar Makenzie’s own cause of action against Defendant, it is voidable. Plaintiffs correctly argue that commencement of this lawsuit constitutes a disaffirmance of the Release (see, e.g., Gage, supra; Ryan v. Morrison, 1913 OK 598, 40 Okla. 49, 135 P. 1049), and the contract is void ab initio. Grissom v. Beidleman, 1912 OK 847, P 8, 35 Okla. 343, 129 P. 853, 857 (“The disaffirmance of a contract made by an infant nullifies it and renders it void ab initio; and the parties are returned to the same condition as if the contract had never been made.”). The ratification signed by Makenzie’s parents is likewise unenforceable as a bar to Makenzie’s claims. The Release, however, is otherwise conspicuous and clear so as to bar the parents’ cause of action based upon injury to their child. Therefore, Mrs. Wethington’s causes of action, individually, are barred.5
5 As noted, exculpatory clauses cannot excuse one for, inter alia, gross negligence. The statutory definition [*15] of gross negligence is “want of slight care and diligence.” 25 Okla. Stat. § 6. Under Oklahoma law, “gross negligence” requires the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of consequences or in callous indifference to life, liberty, or property of another. Palace Exploration Co. v. Petroleum Dev. Co., 374 F.3d 951, 954 (10th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs expressly plead in their Complaint only causes of action for negligence and breach of contract. Moreover, although Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks punitive damages based on Defendant’s alleged “gross, willful, and intentional acts,” Compl., P 8, Plaintiffs neither argue nor present any evidence indicating Defendant’s actions constituted anything beyond ordinary negligence.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s motion is granted as to Plaintiff Holly Wethington’s claims and denied as to Plaintiff Makenzie Wethington’s claim for negligence. Since the skydiving contract is rendered void ab initio by means of Makenzie’s lawsuit, her breach of contract claim cannot proceed as a matter of law.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Timothy D. DeGiusti
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jimenez et al., v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 237 Cal. App. 4th 546; 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228; 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 494
Posted: March 29, 2016 Filed under: California, Health Club, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: 24 Hour Fitness, fitness, Fraud, Increase the Risk, Misrepresentation, Misrepresentation and Fraud, Product liability, Release, Safety Zone, Treadmill Leave a commentJimenez et al., v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 237 Cal. App. 4th 546; 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228; 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 494
Etelvina Jimenez et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Defendant and Respondent.
C071959
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
237 Cal. App. 4th 546; 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228; 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 494
June 9, 2015, Opinion Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2015 Cal. LEXIS 8476 (Cal., Aug. 10, 2015)
Review denied by, Request denied by Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness United States, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 9252 (Cal., Sept. 23, 2015)
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 34201100096852-CUPOGDS, David I. Brown, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.
COUNSEL: Moseley Collins III and Thomas G. Minder for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bruce L. Davis and Jack C. Nick for Defendant and Respondent.
JUDGES: Opinion by Murray, J., with Blease, Acting P. J., and Hull, J., concurring.
OPINION BY: Murray, J.
OPINION
[**230] MURRAY, J.–Plaintiffs Etelvina and Pedro Jimenez appeal from summary judgment in favor of defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (24 Hour), in plaintiffs’ negligence action stemming from a catastrophic injury sustained by Etelvina while using a treadmill at 24 Hour. Plaintiffs asserted that 24 Hour was grossly negligent in setting up the treadmill in a manner that violated the manufacturer’s safety instructions. 24 Hour moved for summary judgment, contending that it was not liable as a matter of law because Etelvina signed a liability release when she joined the gym. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in 24 Hour’s favor because (1) the liability release is not enforceable against plaintiffs’ claim of gross negligence; (2) the release was obtained [***2] by fraud and misrepresentation; and (3) the release only encompasses reasonably foreseeable risks and Etelvina’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable at the time she signed the release.
The third contention is forfeited for purposes of this appeal, but we agree with the first two contentions. Accordingly, we reverse. [*549]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Undisputed Facts1
1 The facts are taken from plaintiffs’ and 24 Hour’s separate statements of fact. The only fact that was specifically disputed was 24 Hour’s claim that plaintiffs did not identify “any statutory violation committed by 24 Hour.” Plaintiffs disputed this assertion, responding that Civil Code section 1668 precludes releases obtained through fraud. 24 Hour did not dispute any of plaintiffs’ facts but did object to most of them on various evidentiary grounds, and the trial court overruled these objections. The court’s ruling on defendant’s objections is not challenged on appeal. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ separate statement of facts is undisputed for purposes of our review on appeal. (See Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089] [“On [HN1] appeal after a motion for summary judgment has been granted, we review the record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers [***3] except that to which objections have been made and sustained.”].)
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against 24 Hour stating causes of action for premises [**231] liability, general negligence, and loss of consortium. The action arose out of injuries Etelvina sustained on January 16, 2011, while exercising at a 24 Hour facility in Sacramento, California. Etelvina’s expert opined that she fell backwards off of a moving treadmill and sustained severe head injuries when she hit her head on the exposed steel foot of a leg exercise machine that 24 Hour placed approximately three feet 10 inches behind the treadmill.
24 Hour filed an answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations and claiming several affirmative defenses, including the defense that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a liability release.
At the time of her injuries, Etelvina was a member of 24 Hour. She joined 24 Hour approximately two years before the day she sustained her injury, and thereafter, she used the facilities regularly several times per week. On the day she joined, she was directed to the membership manager, Justin Wilbourn. She was then required to sign a membership agreement. However, Etelvina could not read or speak [***4] English, and Wilbourn did not speak Spanish. Wilbourn knew Etelvina did not read or speak English. Nevertheless, he did not call a Spanish-speaking employee to help him translate. Instead, he pointed to his computer screen to a figure, $24.99, indicating the membership fee, and made pumping motions with his arms like he was exercising. Etelvina understood the numbers, which are identical in Spanish, and she understood Wilbourn’s physical gestures to mean that if she paid that amount, she could use the facility. She could not read anything else. Wilbourn then pointed to the lines in the agreement for Etelvina to sign.
The membership agreement contained a liability release provision, which provided: “Using the 24 Hour USA, Inc. (24 Hour) facilities involves the risk [*550] of injury to you or your guest, whether you or someone else causes it. Specific risks vary from one activity to another and the risks range from minor injuries to major injuries, such as catastrophic injuries including death. In consideration of your participation in the activities offered by 24 Hour, you understand and voluntarily accept this risk and agree that 24 Hour, its officers, directors, employees, volunteers, agents [***5] and independent contractors will not be liable for any injury, including, without limitation, personal, bodily, or mental injury, economic loss or any damage to you, your spouse, guests, unborn child, or relatives resulting from the negligence of 24 Hour or anyone on 24 Hour’s behalf or anyone using the facilities whether related to exercise or not. … By signing below, you acknowledge and agree that you have read the foregoing and know of the nature of the activities at 24 Hour and you agree to all the terms on pages 1 through 4 of this agreement and acknowledge that you have received a copy of it and the membership policies.”
Wilbourn did not point out the release to Etelvina or make any other indications about the scope of the agreement aside from his gestures mimicking exercise and the fee. Etelvina believed she signed an agreement only to pay the monthly fee of [**232] $24.99. In her declaration supporting plaintiffs’ separate statement, Etelvina declared that “Wilbourn misrepresented the agreement and deceived [her]. He hid from [her] that she was also signing a release of liability.” Etelvina also declared that Wilbourn “misled” and “defrauded” her, and she relied on Wilbourn’s “indication [***6] of the meaning of the contract.”2
2 Plaintiffs also submitted a declaration by Etelvina’s sister, Emelia Villaseñor, who declared that she went through the same process at 24 Hour and was similarly misled as to the contents of the membership agreement.
Etelvina has no memory of the incident leading to her injuries. However, Laurence H. Neuman, an expert on civil engineering and accident reconstruction, investigated the incident. In the course of his investigation, Neuman determined that the 24 Hour location in question had 21 treadmill machines. In the area where Etelvina fell, “the distance directly behind the running belt of the treadmill to the closest piece of equipment was 3 feet 10 inches.” Neuman determined that other treadmills in the gym were placed with an even shorter distance between the running belts and other gym equipment, approximately three feet. These measurements reflect the same conditions present at the time of Etelvina’s injuries.
However, the treadmill manufacturer’s owner’s manual instructed in a section titled “Treadmill Safety Features”: “[I]t is important to keep the area around the treadmill open and free from encumbrances such as other equipment. The minimum space [***7] requirement needed for user safety and proper [*551] maintenance is three feet wide by six feet deep … directly behind the running belt.” (Italics added.) The manufacturer’s assembly guide for the treadmill also says to provide a minimum six-foot clearance behind the treadmill for “user safety” and maintenance. Neuman determined that none of the 21 treadmills at this 24 Hour location had a six-foot safety clearance. Neuman concluded that 24 Hour’s act of placing other exercise equipment within the six-foot safety zone increased the risk of injury to persons using the treadmills.
Dr. James P. Dickens assessed Etelvina’s injuries, her medical records, and Neuman’s findings, and he determined that Etelvina fell backward while using the treadmill and “struck her head, fracturing the right occipital bone and right temporal bone.” Dr. Dickens noted that while the gym floor is covered with shock-absorbing material, there was a leg exercise machine with an exposed steel foot that was approximately three feet 10 inches behind the treadmill’s moving belt. Dr. Dickens opined that it was unlikely that Etelvina would have suffered the skull fractures had her head landed on the shock-absorbing floor [***8] coverings behind the treadmill and she likely hit her head on the leg machine. Additionally, Barton Waldon, a certified personal fitness trainer, opined that it is foreseeable that treadmill users occasionally trip, stumble, or fall off treadmills. Waldon declared that “[f]or the safety of the users and in order to minimize injury, it is important that a safety zone behind the treadmill be kept clear of other machines and obstacles so that users falling off or pushed off the rear of the treadmill do not strike such objects.” Accordingly, Waldon opined that 24 Hour’s act of placing exercise equipment inside the safety zone “greatly increased the risk of injury to [Etelvina].”
In his deposition, Wilbourn, the membership manager for 24 Hour, said that he did not remember meeting Etelvina, although he identified himself as the employee [**233] who assisted her based on his signature on her membership agreement. Wilbourn testified that typically, when he encountered a potential customer who only spoke Spanish, his habit and custom was to have a Spanish-speaking employee handle the signup for that potential customer.
Motion for Summary Judgment
24 Hour filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, [***9] summary adjudication, asserting that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the release. As for the loss of consortium cause of action, 24 Hour argued the claim was barred because it was derivative of plaintiffs’ negligence and premises liability causes of action. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending that the release was invalid because 24 Hour was grossly negligent and because 24 Hour obtained the release through fraud. However, plaintiffs did not specifically raise the argument that the release did not encompass [*552] Etelvina’s injury because it was not reasonably foreseeable to her at the time she signed the release that 24 Hour would intentionally increase her risk of injury.
Plaintiffs argued that due to 24 Hour’s fraud in obtaining Etelvina’s signature on the release, the release was ineffective. Plaintiffs further argued that the holding in Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 158, 163 [21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 245] (Randas), does not apply here, because in this case, unlike in Randas, there was overreaching and fraud. The court inquired how Etelvina could know that Wilbourn misrepresented the nature of the release if she could not understand English. Plaintiffs’ counsel replied that Wilbourn communicated with her about the purported contents of the membership [***10] agreement through gesturing and pointing at the numbers on the computer screen. The court then inquired about the gross negligence exception to enforcing releases, pointing out that plaintiffs did not specifically allege a cause of action for gross negligence in their complaint. Plaintiffs responded that under California law, there is not a distinct cause of action for gross negligence and alleging general negligence suffices.3 Plaintiffs also contended that the question of gross negligence is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury rather than a matter of law to be resolved on summary judgment. The court questioned whether there was an industry standard on the appropriate safety clearance behind treadmills. Plaintiffs contended that the industry standard is evidenced in the manufacturer’s directions and Waldon’s declaration. The court expressed concern that Waldon’s “assumption is predicated upon the fact that she was on the treadmill. If you assume she was not on the treadmill, and we don’t have any tissue or hair or blood on a piece of equipment that would allow us to pinpoint where it is, we can’t really know what was happening at the time of the accident.” The court indicated [***11] that while that circumstance did not necessarily mean defendant should prevail, it was something for the court to consider. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that the court identified a factual dispute in the case for a jury to decide.
3 24 Hour does not make a contrary argument on appeal. We agree with plaintiffs that [HN2] California does not recognize a distinct common law cause of action for gross negligence apart from negligence. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 779-780 [62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527, 161 P.3d 1095] (Santa Barbara); Continental Ins. Co. v. American Protection Industries (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 322, 329-330 [242 Cal. Rptr. 784].) As a degree of negligence, “[g]ross negligence is pleaded by alleging the traditional elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1082 [122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 22] (Rosencrans).)
[**234] During oral argument in the trial court, 24 Hour focused on the question of whether there was evidence of gross negligence, claiming it was impossible to detect the cause of plaintiffs’ injuries because she could not remember what happened. The trial court observed that this might be “a question of [*553] proof at trial.” The court then asked defense counsel why Etelvina’s testimony that Wilbourn misrepresented the content of the release would not create a factual issue for trial. Defense counsel responded that there was no evidence of “an affirmative act to deceive.” The court took the matter [***12] under submission.
The trial court granted 24 Hour’s motion. In its ruling, the court wrote that plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that Wilbourn “made any affirmative representations that led [Etelvina] to believe she was signing something other than what the agreement, on its face, purported to be.” The court further wrote that “[t]he fact that [Etelvina] elected to sign the agreement without understanding all of its terms cannot be considered the fault of [24 Hour].” With respect to the gross negligence argument, the court was persuaded by 24 Hour’s argument that, as a matter of law, a space of three to four feet as opposed to the recommended six-foot safety zone cannot constitute gross negligence, because “it does not reflect an ‘extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” The court reasoned that 24 Hour’s “placement of the treadmill constitutes at most, ordinary negligence.” Consequently, the court ruled that plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact with regard to the enforceability of the release.”
DISCUSSION
I. Standards of Review
[HN3] “A trial court properly grants summary judgment where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving [***13] party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476 [110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370, 28 P.3d 116] (Merrill), citing Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “[G]enerally, from commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841, 24 P.3d 493], fn. omitted (Aguilar).) If a defendant shows that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue exists as to one or more material facts. (Doe v. California Lutheran High School Assn. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 828, 834 [88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475], citing Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849.) If the trial court finds that no triable issue of fact exists, it then has the duty to determine the issue of law. (California School of Culinary Arts v. Lujan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 16, 22 [4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 785].)
[HN4] On appeal, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. (Merrill, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 476.) We independently review the papers supporting and [*554] opposing the motion, considering all the evidence offered in connection with the motion and any inferences that the evidence reasonably supports, applying the same rules and standards as the trial court. (Ibid.) We view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the losing parties. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768-769 [107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 617, 23 P.3d 1143].) In liberally construing the evidence [**235] in favor of the party opposing the motion, we resolve [***14] all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of the opponent. (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460 [30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797, 115 P.3d 77].)
II. Gross Negligence
A. The Parties’ Contentions
24 Hour contends it met its burden of showing that plaintiffs could not establish the duty element of their negligence cause of action by producing a valid release and the burden thus shifted to plaintiffs to show a triable issue of material fact. (Cf. Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849.) 24 Hour contends that plaintiffs failed to meet this burden and, accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate. Conversely, plaintiffs contend that there are triable issues of fact regarding the question of whether 24 Hour’s conduct constituted gross negligence, which would preclude 24 Hour’s reliance on the release to absolve it from liability. 24 Hour responds that the question of gross negligence was properly decided as a matter of law because plaintiffs’ allegation of gross negligence was unsupported in their summary judgment pleadings. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, liberally construing that evidence and resolving all doubts in their favor, we disagree with 24 Hour.
B. Analysis
(1) ” [HN5] While often referred to as a defense, a release of future liability is more appropriately characterized as an express [***15] assumption of the risk that negates the defendant’s duty of care, an element of the plaintiff’s case. ‘”… The result is that the defendant is relieved of legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, he cannot be charged with negligence.” [Citation.]'” (Eriksson v. Nunnink (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 [183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 234] (Eriksson II).) In a summary judgment motion, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the validity of a release “as applied to the case at hand.” (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 780, fn. 58; see Eriksson v. Nunnink (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 826, 856 [120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90] (Eriksson I).)
[HN6] A release cannot absolve a party from liability for gross negligence. (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 750-751, 776-777.) In Santa Barbara, our [*555] high court reasoned that “the distinction between ‘ordinary and gross negligence’ reflects ‘a rule of policy’ that harsher legal consequences should flow when negligence is aggravated instead of merely ordinary.” (Id. at p. 776, quoting Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 871 [118 P.2d 465].) A liability release, “to the extent it purports to release liability for future gross negligence, violates public policy and is unenforceable.” (Santa Barbara, at p. 751.)
(2) The issue we must determine here is whether, with all facts and inferences construed in plaintiffs’ favor, the conduct shown by plaintiffs’ evidence could be found to constitute gross negligence. If so, then it is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the [***16] release in this case was unenforceable for that reason. As our high court has noted, [HN7] whether conduct constitutes gross negligence is generally a question of fact, depending on the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence. (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 767, 781 [reasoning that whether the evidence showed lack of care sufficient to constitute gross negligence was a triable issue of fact [**236] in that case].) The Courts of Appeal have followed suit, holding that generally, [HN8] it is a triable issue of fact whether a defendant’s lack of care constitutes gross negligence. (Decker v. City of Imperial Beach (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 349, 358 [257 Cal. Rptr. 356] (Decker).) And when reviewing summary judgment based on the absence of a triable issue of fact as to gross negligence, we must resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the plaintiffs. (Rosencrans, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088.)
“‘Ordinary negligence’–an unintentional tort–consists of a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm. [Citation.] [¶] [HN9] ‘Gross negligence’ long has been defined in California and other jurisdictions as either a ‘”‘want of even scant care'”‘ or ‘”‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'”‘” (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 753-754; see Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185-1186 [7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 552, 80 P.3d 656] (Eastburn).)
In [***17] Santa Barbara, a developmentally disabled child attended a special summer camp for disabled children run by the city. (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 750-753.) Because she had frequent seizures, the child was assigned a counselor to monitor her closely. (Id. at p. 752.) However, when her counselor momentarily turned her attention away from the child, who was at that time swimming toward the side of the pool, the child suffered a seizure and drowned. (Id. at p. 753.) The city contended that a release signed by the child’s mother had absolved the city of liability for any negligence. (Id. at pp. 750, 753.) On appeal, our high court held that the family’s gross [*556] negligence claim was not barred by the release because an agreement purporting to protect the releasee from liability for conduct rising to the level of gross negligence is against public policy. (Id. at pp. 770-777.)
In Rosencrans, where the court concluded there was a question of fact regarding gross negligence, the showing was similar to the showing in the instant case. In that case, a motorcyclist was injured during motocross practice.4 (Rosencrans, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1077, 1083.) The plaintiffs presented two pieces of evidence in opposition to the defendant’s summary judgment motion, indicating that there was an industry standard to provide caution flaggers [***18] on motocross tracks: (1) the “‘Brett Downey Safety Foundation Instructional Manual for Caution Flaggers,'” which provided that caution flaggers should be at their stations at all times while motorcyclists are on the course (id. at p. 1086) and (2) a motocross safety expert’s declaration that “the common practice for motocross tracks is to have caution flaggers at their assigned posts at all times …” (ibid.). The court held that because “it is standard practice in the industry to have caution flaggers on their platforms at all times … ,” the defendant’s failure to provide a caution flagger raised a triable issue of material fact on the question of gross negligence. (Id. at pp. 1081, 1086-1087.)
4 “Motocross is a sport in which people ride motorcycles and perform jumps off of ramps, while in a setting filled with dust and other people on motorcycles.” (Rosencrans, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1083.)
[**237] 24 Hour contends that there was no industry standard regarding a treadmill safety zone. They offer no cases or examples of any industry standard that violates a manufacturer’s safety directions. Indeed, it could be reasonably inferred that it is unlikely an industry would develop a standard that violates the express safety directions of the manufacturer. Plaintiffs, on the other [***19] hand, presented three pieces of evidence indicating a possible industry standard on treadmill safety zones: (1) the treadmill manufacturer’s owner’s manual instructed in its “Treadmill Safety Features” section that “[t]he minimum space requirement needed for user safety and proper maintenance is three feet wide by six feet deep” (italics added); (2) the manufacturer’s assembly guide for the treadmill also instructs that the treadmill requires a minimum six-foot-deep clearance behind it “for user safety and proper maintenance” (italics added); and (3) plaintiffs’ expert, Waldon, declared that “[f]or the safety of the users and in order to minimize injury, it is important that a safety zone behind the treadmill be kept clear of other machines and obstacles so that users falling off or pushed off the rear of the treadmill do not strike such objects,” and he opined that 24 Hour’s act of placing other exercise equipment inside the safety zone “greatly increased the risk of injury to [Etelvina].” This evidence is similar to the evidence presented in Rosencrans. While Waldon did not expressly use the words “common practice” or [*557] “industry standard,” such is an inference that his declaration reasonably [***20] supports, particularly when viewed in tandem with the manufacturer’s safety directions.
(3) In our view, based on the evidence plaintiffs presented, a jury could reasonably find that (1) it is standard practice in the industry to provide a minimum six-foot safety zone behind treadmills, based on the owner’s manual, assembly guide, and Waldon’s declaration as an expert; (2) 24 Hour did not provide this minimum six-foot safety zone, as declared by Neuman; and (3) the failure to provide the minimum safety zone was an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct, as implied in Waldon’s declaration. Accordingly, plaintiffs created a triable issue of fact as to whether the failure to provide the minimum six-foot safety zone constituted an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.
While the issue of whether there has been gross negligence is generally a triable issue of fact, we recognize that such is not always the case. (See Decker, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 358.) For example, in a recent case involving 24 Hour, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment grounded in part on the trial court’s determination that there was no triable issue of fact as to gross negligence. (Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 631, 639 [184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 155] (Grebing).) The contrast to our [***21] case supports our conclusion that, looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, there is a triable issue of fact as to gross negligence in this case.
In Grebing, the plaintiff, who had twice signed 24 Hour’s release, was injured using a low row machine, when a clip failed causing a handlebar to break free from the cable and strike him in the forehead. (Grebing, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 634.) The evidence disclosed that the clip was the wrong clip, broken, or not working for the machine on which the plaintiff was exercising. (Id. at p. 635.) Some machines in the facility were missing clips and apparently members moved clips to other machines. Fifteen minutes before the plaintiff’s injury, another member reported [**238] that a different machine had a crooked clip. (Ibid.) The court held that to the extent the plaintiff was claiming 24 Hour should have inspected and replaced broken or improper clips on all machines within the 15 minutes after the other member’s complaint, that claim was insufficient to raise a triable issue of gross negligence. (Id. at p. 639.) Further, the court noted that “it is undisputed that 24 Hour took several measures to ensure that its exercise equipment and facility were well maintained. For example, it hired [***22] a facilities technician whose job was to conduct a daily inspection of the facility and perform preventative maintenance. If the facilities technician was unavailable, 24 Hour had a practice of requiring other staff members to conduct the inspection and perform any required maintenance.” (Ibid.) The Grebing court [*558] concluded, “In view of these measures, 24 Hour’s conduct cannot reasonably be regarded as demonstrating a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” (Ibid.)
Here, unlike in Grebing where there was no notice, 24 Hour knew it was violating the manufacturer’s express safety directions when it deliberately arranged the gym equipment without providing a six-foot safety zone for the treadmills. It can be inferred that 24 Hour did so for the purpose of placing more machines into its facility to accommodate more members to make more money. And unlike in Grebing, where 24 Hour acted reasonably by conducting daily equipment inspections, there were no mitigation measures that would have prevented the injury plaintiffs alleged occurred here. We are not persuaded by 24 Hour’s argument that because it provided shock-absorbing flooring materials, [***23] it exhibited “some care” and a jury would be precluded from finding gross negligence. A shock-absorbing floor makes little difference when it is covered with gym equipment upon which members could fall and severely injure themselves. Thus, we cannot agree that this purported mitigation measure precludes a jury finding of gross negligence.
In reaching our conclusion, we also reject 24 Hour’s argument, as adopted by the trial court, that “the provision of three to four feet of space as opposed to the recommended six feet cannot, as a matter of law, constitute gross negligence as it does not reflect ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” The misdirected focus on the two-to-three-foot difference between 24 Hour’s spacing and the recommended minimum spacing impliedly suggests that such difference was negligible and not “an extreme departure.” However, when one thinks of the minimum safety zone recommended by the treadmill manufacturer in terms of the height of adult human beings and the high likelihood of a person falling off a treadmill impacting nearby equipment as close as three feet, it seems clear that the reduced zone established by 24 Hour here can hardly be [***24] considered a “safety” zone at all. Accordingly, it strikes us that a departure of two to three feet from the recommended minimum six-foot safety zone makes a great difference under these circumstances. Without any expert testimony indicating otherwise and in light of plaintiffs’ expert’s declaration corroborating the manufacturer’s directions and the financial motivation that can be inferred from the evidence, we cannot agree that as a matter of law, the spacing of the machines demonstrates at least scant care and is not an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.
24 Hour contends that if the facts in several cases it cites do not amount to gross negligence, then the facts in this case certainly do not. In our view, 24 Hour’s cited cases are distinguishable. [*559] [**239]
24 Hour cites Decker as a comparable case on gross negligence. In Decker, a surfer became entangled in the tether of a submerged lobster trap and drowned after the city pursued an antiquated surf rescue method, the “lifeline rescue method.” (Decker, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at pp. 352-353, 360.) There was evidence that the rescue personnel arrived promptly and made diligent efforts to attempt to rescue the surfer both with the sheriff’s dive team and with a helicopter, [***25] but the dive team used a rescue method disfavored for surf rescues. (Id. at pp. 360-361, 363.) The court reasoned that this evidence “could support a finding that use of the lifeline rescue method is a disfavored surf rescue method and would not be used by an experienced, trained surf rescuer but it does not support a finding the sheriff’s dive team was grossly negligent for having used this method given their lack of training or experience in surf rescue.” (Id. at p. 360, italics added.) The Decker court also noted that the plaintiff did not contest the validity of the sheriff’s first rescue attempt with the helicopter, which also failed. (Id. at pp. 360-361.) The failure to train for and use a specialized rescue method during an otherwise diligent rescue effort that included another undisputed rescue method is very different from 24 Hour’s failure to follow the treadmill manufacturer’s explicit directions to maintain a minimum six-foot safety zone. The conduct in Decker was, at best, passive negligence by people who did not know any better and did not create or even increase the risk of injury whereas in our case defendant’s conduct actively created or increased the risk of injury to treadmill users by deliberately setting up the [***26] equipment in a dangerous manner.
In DeVito v. State of California (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 264 [248 Cal. Rptr. 330] (DeVito), another case upon which 24 Hour relies, a hiker swung from a firehose hung over a tree limb in a mountain canyon on public land, lost her grip, and fell down a steep slope, sustaining injuries. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of her complaint against the state on demurrer, primarily focusing on a statute, Government Code section 831.7, which provides “a public entity is not liable to ‘any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity … for any … injury … arising out of that … activity.'” (DeVito, at pp. 267, 270.) The court noted that under the statute, “‘tree rope swinging'” is listed as one such hazardous recreational activity, and the primary issue on appeal was one of interpreting this statute. (Ibid.) The court, in a single, short paragraph, only briefly discussed the plaintiff’s secondary argument that the state engaged in gross negligence, concluding in summary fashion that no facts alleged in the complaint supported the allegation of gross negligence. (Id. at p. 272.)
DeVito is distinguishable on several bases. First, in this case, plaintiffs here did allege facts in their summary judgment opposition which support a finding of gross negligence, as discussed [***27] ante. Second, as in Decker, the plaintiff in DeVito did not allege facts indicating that the defendant actively [*560] created or increased the risk of harm. Instead, the plaintiff alleged that the state failed to “‘guard or warn of [a] known dangerous condition,'” which would not ordinarily rise to the level of gross negligence. (DeVito, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 267, 272.) Third, and significantly, the court’s opinion in DeVito focused on the plaintiff’s failure “to guard or warn” argument because the gross negligence argument was barely raised and not supported in the plaintiff’s argument on appeal. (See id. at p. 272.) [**240] The court noted, “We could, but choose not to, ignore this contention since it is set forth in a single sentence of appellant’s opening brief, unsupported by either argument or authority.” (Id. at fn. 7.) Accordingly, DeVito provides little analysis of the gross negligence exception to liability releases and equally little support to 24 Hour’s position.
A third case cited by 24 Hour is even less helpful. Eastburn, supra, 31 Cal.4th 1175, involved a claim of gross negligence based on a 911 operator putting the plaintiff on hold. An injured child and her parents sued, contending that the child suffered injuries because of the failure to provide prompt emergency response to [***28] the 911 call. (Id. at p. 1179.) Our high court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiffs would be unable to allege gross negligence to amend their defective complaint. (Id. at pp. 1179, 1185-1186.) On this point, the court wrote: “Plaintiffs’ briefs before the Court of Appeal made the additional allegation that the 911 dispatcher put them ‘on hold’ during their telephone conversation, but such conduct would hardly amount to gross negligence or bad faith. The case law has defined gross negligence as ‘”the want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.”‘ [Citations.] Nothing in plaintiffs’ pleadings or appellate briefs points to such extreme conduct. Accordingly, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.” (Id. at pp. 1185-1186.) Eastburn provides no factual analogue suitable for comparison to our case.
At oral argument, in addition to Grebing, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th 631, 24 Hour cited two other recent cases, which we also find distinguishable. In Honeycutt v. Meridian Sports Club, LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 251 [179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 473], the plaintiff sued a sports club for a knee injury she sustained while attempting a kicking maneuver in a kickboxing class taught by a personal trainer. (Id. at pp. 254-255.) The trainer attempted to correct the plaintiff’s form by holding her kicking leg while he instructed [***29] her how to pivot her planted leg. (Ibid.) To support her claim that the defendant was grossly negligent, the plaintiff presented an expert declaration asserting that “an instructor should not touch the student, and instead should demonstrate and verbalize the maneuver and regress to an easier maneuver if the kick was too difficult for the student’s skills.” (Id. at p. 259.) On appeal from summary judgment in the defendant’s favor, the Court of Appeal reasoned that there was no triable issue of fact as to gross negligence because “[a] mere [*561] difference of opinion as to how a student should be instructed does not constitute evidence of gross negligence.” (Id. at p. 260.) This strikes us as a quintessential case of, at most, ordinary negligence. Unlike our case, there was no evidence that the defendant violated something like an industry standard, or manufacturer’s safety directions or otherwise made an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.
Defendant also cited Eriksson II, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th 708 at oral argument and ignored Eriksson I. In Eriksson I, the plaintiffs’ daughter was killed in an equestrian mishap. The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment. Looking at the evidence [***30] in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court concluded that the plaintiffs produced evidence sufficient to support a jury finding [**241] that a riding coach was grossly negligent in persuading the mother to allow her daughter to compete in an equestrian competition on a recently injured and unfit horse. (Eriksson I, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.) Following a remand for trial, the trial court entered judgment after the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief. The trial court found, based on the trial evidence, that the defendant’s conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence. (Eriksson II, at p. 718.) On review, the Court of Appeal reasoned that because the defendant “established the validity of the release in the sense that it was binding and enforceable against [the plaintiffs],” the plaintiffs then had the burden of establishing that the defendant was grossly negligent in their case-in-chief at trial. (Id. at pp. 733-734.) Based on this procedural posture, the Eriksson II court applied a deferential standard of review (as opposed to the de novo review of the summary judgment in Eriksson I). The court “review[ed] the record to determine whether the evidence establishe[d], as a matter of law” that the defendant was grossly negligent. (Id. at p. 734, italics added.) The court determined [***31] that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden at trial; however, it did not publish the portion of the opinion analyzing why the trial evidence failed to establish that the defendant was grossly negligent as a matter of law. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the case is of little utility to 24 Hour. In any event, due to the vastly different procedural posture and deferential standard of review, Eriksson II is distinguishable from our case. Indeed, the court in Eriksson I, citing Santa Barbara, noted that in the context of a summary judgment motion, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the validity of a release “as applied to the case at hand.” (Eriksson I, at p. 856, italics omitted, quoting Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 780, fn. 58.) And as we have noted, our high court held that [HN10] a release from liability for gross negligence is invalid and unenforceable. (Santa Barbara, at pp. 750-751.) Thus, the opinion in Eriksson I is far more instructive where the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in the defendant’s favor, reasoning that the plaintiffs showed there were material issues of fact as to whether the defendant was grossly negligent. (Eriksson I, at p. 857.) [*562]
In the trial court, 24 Hour did not explicitly dispute plaintiffs’ separate statement of facts in [***32] its moving papers; instead it opted to object to most of plaintiffs’ facts instead. On appeal, 24 Hour repeatedly disputed plaintiffs’ factual allegations in its brief. Specifically, defendant makes much of the fact that Etelvina cannot remember her fall, contending there is no “evidence that she actually fell backwards off of a moving treadmill.” However, this argument ignores plaintiffs’ expert declarations opining what likely happened to Etelvina based on her injuries, the location of her fall, and accident reconstruction. Although 24 Hour’s factual presentation in its briefing does not view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we must do so. And while the experts’ opinions may or may not be credible at trial, this is an inherently factual issue for a jury to decide.5
5 24 Hour notes its objections to plaintiffs’ evidence and contends that these expert opinions are inadmissible. However, the trial court overruled 24 Hour’s evidentiary objections, and 24 Hour does not challenge this ruling on appeal. Accordingly, this argument is forfeited. (Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Assn. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1161-1162 [132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 886].)
[**242] We emphasize that “we are not passing judgment upon the merits of plaintiffs’ allegations; rather, we are viewing the allegations [***33] in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, as required by the law.” (Rosencrans, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1089.) A jury may very well conclude that Etelvina was not injured in the manner alleged, that there was no industry standard on treadmill safety clearances, and that 24 Hour’s conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence, but we are unwilling to reach these conclusions as a matter of law based on the record before us. In a case involving disputes of fact such as how and where Etelvina fell and whether there is an industry standard on treadmill safety zones, summary judgment is a “drastic remedy.” (Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation v. Edmund A. Gray Co. (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 8, 17 [9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486].) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiffs did not present a triable issue of fact regarding whether 24 Hour engaged in gross negligence.
III. Fraud and Misrepresentation
A. The Parties’ Contentions
Plaintiffs contend that there are triable issues of fact as to whether 24 Hour obtained Etelvina’s signature on the liability release through fraud and misrepresentation, which would invalidate the release as to all of plaintiffs’ theories of recovery. In the trial court, plaintiffs presented the declarations of Etelvina and her sister, another 24 Hour member, testifying that before they [***34] signed their respective releases, the 24 Hour employees misrepresented and concealed the contents of the agreements. Specifically, Etelvina declared that [*563] Wilbourn gestured and pointed to represent that the agreement was to pay a certain amount of money per month for the gym membership and that she relied on that representation when she signed the release. However, the trial court ruled that plaintiffs presented “no evidence that Mr. Wilbourn made any affirmative representations that led [Etelvina] to believe she was signing something other than what the agreement, on its face, purported to be.”
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that 24 Hour failed to conclusively establish the enforceability of the release because they produced evidence that Wilbourn did not act in good faith and made affirmative misrepresentations to Etelvina through nonverbal gestures and by pointing to the monthly payment amount on his computer screen. Additionally, plaintiffs point out Wilbourn violated his own policy as the membership manager of referring Spanish-speaking customers to sign up with Spanish-speaking employees.6 24 Hour responds that it owed no duty to translate or explain the agreement to Etelvina, and [***35] the material facts alleged by plaintiffs do not raise a triable issue of whether Wilbourn misrepresented the contents of the agreement.
6 Plaintiffs repeatedly refer to this as a 24 Hour policy, but citations to Wilbourn’s deposition reveal that the questions directed toward him and his answers related to what he did and his habit and custom.
B. Analysis
(4) ” [HN11] A release may negate the duty element of a negligence action.” (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 [129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197].) As we have noted, in order to absolve itself of responsibility for any ordinary negligence, it was 24 Hour’s burden to establish the validity of the release “as [**243] applied to the case at hand.” (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 780, fn. 58; see Eriksson I, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 856.)
Generally, a person who signs an instrument may not avoid the impact of its terms on the ground that she failed to read it before signing. (Randas, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 163.) However, a release is invalid when it is procured by misrepresentation, overreaching, deception, or fraud. (Ibid.) “It has often been held that if the releaser was under a misapprehension, not due to his own neglect, as to the nature or scope of the release, and if this misapprehension was induced by the misconduct of the releasee, then the release, regardless of how comprehensively worded, is binding only to the extent actually [***36] intended by the releaser.” (Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97, 103 [28 Cal. Rptr. 307, 378 P.2d 579], fn. omitted.) “In cases providing the opportunity for overreaching, the releasee has a duty to act in good faith and the releaser must have a full understanding of his legal rights. [Citations.] Furthermore, it is the province of the jury to determine whether the circumstances afforded the opportunity for overreaching, whether the releasee [*564] engaged in overreaching and whether the releaser was misled. [Citation.]” (Frusetta v. Hauben (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 551, 558 [266 Cal. Rptr. 62] (Frusetta).) A “strong showing of misconduct” by the plaintiff is not necessary to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact here; only a “‘slight showing'” is required. (Id. at pp. 559-560.)
(5) Here, if a jury were to be persuaded that Wilbourn made misrepresentations to Etelvina about the contents of the agreement by making nonverbal gestures indicating that what she was signing related only to being allowed to exercise if she paid the price on the computer screen, it would be entitled to find that Etelvina’s signature on the release was produced by misrepresentation and that the release is not enforceable against her. (See Seeger v. Odell (1941) 18 Cal.2d 409, 414 [115 P.2d 977] [one [HN12] who has been induced by fraudulent misrepresentations to sign agreement is entitled to have agreement set aside]; Blankenheim v. E. F. Hutton & Co. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1474 [266 Cal. Rptr. 593] [same]; see [***37] also American T. Co. v. California etc. Ins. Co. (1940) 15 Cal.2d 42, 65 [98 P.2d 497] [“Regardless of whether one is under a duty to speak or disclose facts, one who does speak must speak the whole truth, and not by partial suppression or concealment make the utterance untruthful and misleading.”].) Thus, we must determine whether, with all facts and inferences construed in plaintiffs’ favor, the conduct shown by plaintiffs’ evidence could be found to constitute fraud. If so, then it is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the release in this case was ineffective.
In Frusetta, a personal injury case, the plaintiff asserted that an insurance adjuster who worked for Twentieth Century Insurance Company told her that a preprinted check was to be a partial payment for injuries she suffered in a car accident, and the adjuster represented to her that another payment would be forthcoming. (Frusetta, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 554.) The check included the words, “‘Bodily injury in full and final settlement.'” (Ibid.) The reverse of the check stated that if “‘”Full and Final Settlement” is printed on the front of the draft, endorsement of the draft constitutes a full Release of all claims known or unanticipated which the under-signed has or may hereafter have against the Payor … .'” (Ibid.) The plaintiff endorsed [***38] and cashed the check, and Twentieth [**244] Century claimed that by doing so, she released it from any further liability. (Id. at pp. 554-555.) The Frusetta court reasoned, “it is clearly possible that a jury might find the circumstances demonstrated fraud or overreaching on the part of Twentieth Century. If a jury accepted [the plaintiff’s] testimony a Twentieth Century adjuster stated to her the check was a partial settlement and the rest would be paid later, then it might be found Twentieth Century violated its duty to act in good faith.” (Id. at p. 558.) Accordingly, the court held there was a triable issue of fact as to whether “a [*565] fraud or misrepresentation … induced a party’s signing of a release ‘[where] it substantially contribute[d] to his decision to manifest his assent.'” (Id. at pp. 556-557.)
A recent Ninth Circuit case applying California law, Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 946 (Gangland), is also instructive. There, the plaintiff sued two production companies for broadcasting a television documentary without concealing his identity. (Id. at pp. 951-952.) In an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, among other arguments, the defendants contended that the plaintiff’s claims were barred because he signed a release consenting to disclosure of his real identity in the broadcast [***39] and waiving all claims for liability. (Id. at pp. 957-958.) In order to overcome the anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims. (Id. at p. 957.) In a declaration, the plaintiff stated that he was dyslexic, illiterate, and that he informed the Gangland producer who asked him to sign the release that he had “‘extreme difficulty reading.'” (Id. at p. 952.) The plaintiff also stated that “when he was provided the alleged release, [the producer] told him it was ‘just a receipt’ for his $300 payment for the interview. Because of these representations, [the plaintiff] did not ask his girlfriend to read out loud the document before he signed it.” (Id. at p. 958.) The court reasoned that the plaintiff “made a sufficient showing of fraud in the execution of the release, which, if true, would render the release void.” (Ibid.)
In reaching its conclusion, the court in Gangland cited Mairo v. Yellow Cab Co. (1929) 208 Cal. 350 [281 P. 66]. In Mairo, the California Supreme Court reviewed a directed verdict in the defendant’s favor, where the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had waived his rights by executing several releases. (Id. at pp. 351-352.) The plaintiff was an illiterate Russian immigrant who understood little spoken English. (Id. [***40] at p. 351.) He was injured after being hit by the defendant’s taxicab and during the course of his medical treatment, the defendant had him sign several releases in exchange for the payment of his medical treatment. (Id. at pp. 351-352.) The plaintiff asserted that the defendant misrepresented the true contents of the releases and that he believed they were merely a permit to operate on him and receipts. (Id. at p. 352.) The court held that if the true nature of the releases was “misrepresented to [the plaintiff] so that he did not know what he was really signing, they are, of course, void. But under the conflicting evidence here it is impossible to tell whether such was the fact. This also was an issue which should have gone to the jury and it was, therefore, erroneous for the trial court to direct said verdict for defendant.” (Ibid.; see Meyer v. Haas (1899) 126 Cal. 560, 562 [58 P. 1042] [holding that a release was void where the releaser could not read English and understood little spoken English, and the releasee “did not convey full information as to [the release’s] contents”].) [*566]
[**245] Defendant dismisses the application of Frusetta and other cases where there was “affirmative misrepresentation or fraud” regarding the nature or character of the document in question, [***41] because here there was no verbal misrepresentation. However, in our view, this is a distinction without a difference. 24 Hour contends that these nonverbal communications cannot, as a matter of law, amount to affirmative misrepresentations because Etelvina “could not reasonably have relied upon anything Mr. Wilbourn said” since he spoke a different language. 24 Hour’s argument implies that nonverbal communications cannot be misrepresentative or induce reasonable reliance. We reject this argument. While it may be less reasonable for a plaintiff to rely on nonverbal communications in a case where the parties speak the same language, in this case, gesturing was virtually the only form of communication between Wilbourn and Etelvina. It is undisputed that Etelvina did not speak English and Wilbourn did not speak Spanish. Further, Wilbourn knew Etelvina did not speak or read English. And he knew that Etelvina did not read the contract, including the terms setting forth the release, even though, as the membership manager, he must have known that the release says, “By signing below, you acknowledge and agree that you have read the foregoing …” provisions of the release. (Italics added.) Under [***42] these circumstances, already ripe for misrepresentation and overreaching, Wilbourn’s gestures and pointing may very well have misrepresented the nature of the document Etelvina signed. This is an inherently factual question for a jury to decide. (See Jordan v. Guerra (1943) 23 Cal.2d 469, 475 [144 P.2d 349] [“[I]t [HN13] is for the trier of the facts to determine what the plaintiff understood was covered by the writing and whether his understanding different from the writing was induced by the defendant.”].)
24 Hour relies heavily on Randas, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 158, arguing that under Randas, a case involving a release signed by a person who did not speak English, it had no duty to translate or explain the membership agreement to Etelvina and that Etelvina had no one to blame but herself. Randas does not help 24 Hour because there was no claim of fraud or overreaching in that case and the releasee had no reason to think the releaser could not read the release. Indeed, the Randas court made a point of those circumstances, specifically noting, “Appellant made no claim of respondent’s fraud or overreaching. Nor did appellant claim that respondent had reason to suspect she did not or could not read the release she had signed and which in full captions above and below her signature stated: [***43] ‘I Have Read This Release.'” (Id. at p. 163.) Here, plaintiffs’ theory is fraud and overreaching. And it is clear that Wilbourn knew Etelvina could not and did not read the release.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on this basis as well. [*567]
IV. Foreseeability That 24 Hour Would Intentionally Increase the Risk of Danger
On appeal, plaintiffs also contend that the release is unenforceable because a release only encompasses risks that are foreseeable at the time it is signed, and it was not reasonably foreseeable that 24 Hour would intentionally increase the risk of danger to its treadmill users. However, plaintiffs did not pursue this argument below in either their opposition to the summary judgment motion or during oral argument on the motion. Additionally, plaintiffs did not allege that 24 Hour engaged in intentional conduct in their complaint or raise undisputed facts pertaining [**246] to this foreseeability theory in their separate statement of facts. Accordingly, we decline to consider this argument for the first time on appeal. (See Greenwich S.F., LLC v. Wong (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 739, 767 [118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531] [reasoning that [HN14] generally, theories not raised in the trial court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal, particularly where it is unclear whether [***44] the theory raises a pure question of law].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. 24 Hour shall pay plaintiffs’ costs on appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (5).)
Blease, Acting P. J., and Hull, J., concurred.
Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 126; 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 315
Posted: March 27, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Missouri, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: airbag, Bungee Jumping, fair, Missouri, MO, safety manual, St. Louis Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see: Here is another reason to write releases carefully. Release used the term inherent to describe the risks which the court concluded made the risk inherently dangerous and voids the release.
Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 126; 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 315
Loren Martin Hatch, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc. Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and Northstar Entertainment, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. ED73279, ED73280
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
990 S.W.2d 126; 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 315
March 16, 1999, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Corrected March 30, 1999.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Hon. Floyd McBride.
DISPOSITION: JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT IN FAVOR OF V.P. FAIR REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST V.P. FAIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VERDICT. REMAINDER OF JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
COUNSEL: Richard C. Witzel, David A. Dimmitt, Witzel, Kearns, Kenney & Dimmitt, St. Louis, MO. Alan G. Kimbrell Louis, MO, for appellant/cross-respondent.
Thomas C. Walsh, Elizabeth C. Carver, St. Louis, MO, for respondents/cross-appellants.
JUDGES: James R. Dowd, Judge, Kathianne Knaup Crane, P.J., concurs. Mary Rhodes Russell, J., concurs.
OPINION BY: JAMES R. DOWD
OPINION
[*130] OPINION
This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit commenced by Loren Martin Hatch against defendants V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc. (“V.P. Fair”) and Northstar Entertainment, Inc. (“Northstar”) to recover damages for injuries Hatch suffered when Northstar failed to attach the bungee cord to the crane when he made a bungee jump. The jury awarded Hatch $ 5,000,000, finding V.P. Fair vicariously liable on a premises liability theory and Northstar liable on a recklessness theory. Hatch appeals from the trial court’s grant of V.P. [**2] Fair’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on his premises liability claim and from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on two of his other claims against V.P. Fair. He also appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on his negligence [*131] claim against Northstar. In their cross-appeal, 1 defendants claim that the trial court erred in submitting Hatch’s recklessness claim to the jury and in defining recklessness for the jury. Defendants also contend that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling their motion for a remittitur of the jury’s verdict. We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of V.P. Fair and remand for entry of judgment against V.P. Fair in accordance with the verdict. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
1 V.P. Fair has joined Northstar’s cross-appeal as a “conditional cross-appellant” to assert errors in the denial of its motion for new trial that would become viable if the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in its favor is reversed. See Rule 72.01(c)(1).
[**3] I. Factual Background
V.P. Fair organizes an annual multi-day fair in downtown St. Louis to celebrate the Fourth of July. The fair offers a variety of events and activities, including air shows, musical performances, food stands, and amusement rides. In 1993, V.P. Fair contracted with Northstar for the provision of a bungee jumping 2 attraction. On July 5, 1993, Hatch and a group of his friends arrived at the fair between 10:30 and 10:45 a.m. Although the fair and all of its activities were scheduled to open at 10:00 a.m., Northstar’s employees had yet to arrive at the site. Hatch purchased a ticket to bungee jump and waited approximately fifteen minutes until Northstar’s employees arrived and set up the attraction. Hatch was then called into a tent area where he was weighed and signed a log book. He also signed a document written by Northstar, entitled “Release and Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement.”
2 The bungee jump in this case was designed to allow participants to jump from a substantial height secured by an elastic cord attached to a crane. A participant’s fall is arrested when the cord reaches its length, stretches, and recoils, causing the participant to bounce. Following the jump, the participant is slowly lowered to the ground and unhooked.
[**4] Hatch was then prepared for his bungee jump. He was to be the first jumper of the day. A Northstar employee placed a harness around Hatch’s waist and ankles, and fastened the bungee cord to the harness. Hatch walked to the bungee cage where he joined Paul Murray, Northstar’s jumpmaster, and a reporter and cameraman from a local television station. A crane lifted the bungee cage 170 feet above the ground, and Murray opened the cage door and straightened out the bungee cord inside the cage. Murray then directed Hatch to the front of the cage and told him that he was locked in and safe to jump. Unfortunately, no one had attached the bungee cord to the crane, and when Hatch leaped off the platform, he plunged 170 feet to the ground. Initially, Hatch fell head-first. Although not attached, the bungee cord momentarily snagged on the bungee cage and stretched out. Breaking loose, the cord recoiled and struck Hatch as it passed him. The force of the recoil apparently reversed Hatch’s position so that his descent was upright. The bungee cord and tackle, together weighing between seventy-five and eighty pounds, reached the airbag first and partially deflated it prior to his landing. After [**5] landing feet-first in the airbag, Hatch was taken to the hospital. As a result of the fall, Hatch sustained serious injuries to his back, legs, and shoulders. A tape depicting the premises, the preparation for the jump, and the jump itself was shown to the jury.
At some point prior to the 1993 fair, Northstar adopted a safety manual. The manual was created by an association of bungee jumping businesses in an effort to provide safety guidelines for operating a bungee jumping attraction. The manual’s safety procedures were largely ignored by Northstar’s crew. The manual called for a crew of six, Northstar supplied only a crew of five; the manual specified that the controller must be twenty-five years old, Northstar’s controller was eighteen years [*132] old; the manual required every piece of equipment to be inspected daily and recorded on a checklist, there was no record of an inspection on July 5, 1993, indicating that Northstar’s employees either failed to inspect the equipment, failed to record the inspections, or failed to do both; the manual required a test jump before opening the bungee jump to the public, Northstar failed to conduct a test jump on the day of Hatch’s fall.
After [**6] his fall, Hatch instituted this lawsuit against Northstar and V.P. Fair. The second amended petition consisted of eight counts and contained several theories of recovery. Count I of the second amended petition (“Careless Disregard–Joint Venture”) sought damages from both defendants, jointly and severally, for negligence based on the theory of joint venture. Count II (“Negligence/Careless Disregard–Northstar Entertainment, Inc.”) sought damages from Northstar for negligence in failing to take reasonable efforts to ensure the safety of the bungee jumping operation. Count III (“Negligence/Careless Disregard–V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.”) sought damages from V.P. Fair for its negligence in failing to inspect Northstar’s bungee jumping operation to ensure that it was being operated in a reasonably safe manner. Count IV (“Premises Liability–Defendant V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.”) sought damages from V.P. Fair on a premises liability theory for negligence in (1) inviting the public onto its premises which were not in a reasonably safe condition for intended use, (2) failing to warn the public of the existence of a dangerous condition, and (3) failing to inspect the premises and to discover [**7] the defective conditions. Count V (“Gross Negligence/Conscious Disregard–Joint Venture”) sought damages from both defendants, jointly and severally, for gross negligence or recklessness on a joint venture theory. Count VI (“Gross Negligence/Conscious Disregard–Northstar Entertainment, Inc.”) sought damages from Northstar based on Northstar’s gross negligence or recklessness in failing to inspect the bungee jumping equipment and in failing to attach the bungee cord to the crane or cage assembly prior to Hatch’s jump. Count VII (“Gross Negligence/Conscious Disregard–V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.”) sought damages from V.P. Fair based on its gross negligence or recklessness in failing to inspect Northstar’s bungee jumping operation. Count VIII (“Premises Liability–Defendant V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.”) sought damages from V.P. Fair based on its gross negligence or recklessness in (1) inviting the public onto its premises when the premises were not in a reasonably safe condition, (2) failing to warn the public of the existence of a dangerous condition on the premises, and (3) failing to inspect the premises and to discover the defective condition.
Prior to trial, defendants filed [**8] motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Counts I and V, finding no joint venture because there was no agreement between V.P. Fair and Northstar to share profits and losses from the bungee jumping operation and because V.P. Fair did not exercise sufficient control over the bungee jumping operation. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Northstar on Count II, finding that the release signed by Hatch barred his negligence claim against Northstar. As to Count IV, the court found that V.P. Fair could be liable under a premises liability theory only if bungee jumping was an inherently dangerous activity. It entered summary judgment in favor of V.P. Fair on Count VII because it did not state a viable claim against V.P. Fair independently of Count IV. It also entered summary judgment on Count VIII.
Hatch proceeded to trial on Counts IV and VI. 3 The questions of whether Northstar acted recklessly and whether bungee jumping constituted an inherently dangerous activity were submitted to the jury. [*133] On the recklessness claim, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hatch and against Northstar. The jury also found that bungee [**9] jumping was an inherently dangerous activity and returned a verdict in favor of Hatch and against V.P. Fair on the premises liability claim. The jury awarded Hatch $ 5,000,000 in damages, and the trial court entered a judgment against defendants in that amount. Defendants filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur. The trial court granted V.P. Fair’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and overruled the remaining post-trial motions. This appeal followed.
3 It appears that Hatch abandoned Count III at trial.
On appeal, Hatch contends that the trial court erred in: (1) granting V.P. Fair’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that bungee jumping is not an inherently dangerous activity, (2) sustaining V.P. Fair’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendants were not engaged in a joint venture, (3) sustaining V.P. Fair’s motion for summary judgment on the premises liability claim based on retained control because [**10] V.P. Fair did not surrender sufficient control of the premises to avoid liability for the dangerous condition to which patrons of the bungee jumping operation were exposed, and (4) sustaining Northstar’s motion for summary judgment on his claim for negligence and holding that the release he signed exculpated Northstar from liability for its future negligence. We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that bungee jumping is an inherently dangerous activity and that the risk was not caused by collateral negligence; therefore, the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of V.P. Fair. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of V.P. Fair and remand for entry of judgment in accordance with the verdict. However, we hold that the trial court did not err in sustaining V.P. Fair’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not engaged in a joint venture. Because V.P. Fair is vicariously liable as a landowner under the inherently dangerous activity exception, we do not need to address the question of whether it is also liable based on retained control. We likewise need not reach the merits [**11] of the question of whether Hatch’s release released Northstar’s negligence because, even if Hatch had a claim for negligence against Northstar, he has already been awarded damages for his injuries based on his recklessness claim against Northstar.
In their cross-appeal, defendants argue that the trial court erred in: (1) submitting Hatch’s claim of recklessness to the jury because Missouri does not recognize a cause of action for recklessness; and (2) overruling defendants’ motion for new trial because the jury instruction defining the term “recklessness” failed to include a standard of care. Defendants also claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling their motion for remittitur of the jury’s verdict. We find no error in the points raised on cross-appeal.
II. Hatch’s Appeal
A. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict – Premises Liability
In his first point, Hatch argues that the trial court erred in granting V.P. Fair’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis of its finding that as a matter of law bungee jumping is not an inherently dangerous activity. The parties agree that for the purposes of tort liability, V.P. Fair is [**12] considered a landowner of the fairgrounds.
[HN1] In general, a landowner owes a duty of ordinary and reasonable care to invitees to prevent injury to the invitee. Hunt v. Jefferson Arms Apartment Co., 679 S.W.2d 875, 879 (Mo.App. E.D.1984). A well-recognized exception to this general rule exists when a landowner hires an independent contractor. A landowner is not vicariously liable for injuries to third [*134] parties caused by the negligence of the independent contractor or his employees. Lawrence v. Bainbridge Apartments, 957 S.W.2d 400, 403-04 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). Thus, by hiring an independent contractor, the landowner may shift the duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to prevent injury to the independent contractor. Halmick v. SBC Corporate Servs., Inc., 832 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Mo.App. E.D.1992).
[HN2] Nevertheless, there are at least two exceptions under which a non-negligent landowner may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor: the landowner control exception and the inherently dangerous activity exception. Lawrence, 957 S.W.2d at 404. As previously stated, in this opinion we reach only the application of the inherently dangerous activity [**13] exception.
As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree whether the determination of whether an activity is inherently dangerous is a question of law or fact. Defendants argue that Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1991), stands for the proposition that the issue of whether an activity is inherently dangerous is entirely one of law. We disagree. By noting that the question is initially one of law, Zueck simply enunciated the firmly rooted principle that the trial court must initially decide as a question of law whether or not a plaintiff has made a submissible case. Id. at 386. The court noted that for the purposes of its opinion in Zueck it was assuming that the work in issue was inherently dangerous, thereby removing any issue of unresolved fact. Id. The court did not engage in any further discussion of the matter or purport to overrule any appellate decisions to the contrary.
Furthermore, at the time Zueck was decided, substantial authority indicated that the question of whether a particular activity is “inherently dangerous” is generally a question of fact for the jury. See Smith v. Inter-County Telephone [**14] Co., 559 S.W.2d 518, 524 (Mo. banc 1977); Nance v. Leritz, 785 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.App. E.D.1990); Floyd v. Benson, 753 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Mo.App. S.D.1988); Donovan v. General Motors, 762 F.2d 701, 703 (8th Cir. 1985). Therefore, we find Zueck does not stand for the proposition that the question of whether a specific activity is inherently dangerous is solely a question of law. Developments after the Supreme Court handed down Zueck also support this conclusion. After Zueck, the Missouri Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions adopted MAI 16.08, which leaves for the jury the ultimate question of whether an activity is inherently dangerous. Accordingly, we hold that [HN3] the determination of whether an activity is inherently dangerous, while initially a question of law, is ultimately a question of fact.
[HN4] Landowner liability under the inherently dangerous activity exception is a species of premises liability. Matteuzzi v. Columbus Partnership, L.P., 866 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo. banc 1993). Under this exception, a landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform an inherently dangerous activity has a nondelegable duty to take special precautions to [**15] prevent injury from the activity. Id. The landowner “remains liable for the torts of the contractor, simply for commissioning the activity. The liability attaches without any need for showing that the employer is in any respect negligent. It is purely vicarious.” Ballinger v. Gascosage Elec. Coop., 788 S.W.2d 506, 511 (Mo. banc 1990).
The theory upon which this liability is based is that a person who engages a contractor to do work of an inherently dangerous character remains subject to an absolute, nondelegable duty to see that it is performed with that degree of care which is appropriate to the circumstances, or in other words, to see that all reasonable precautions shall be taken during its performance, to the end that third persons may be effectually protected against injury.
[*135] 41 Am.Jur.2d Independent Contractors sec. 41 (1968).
[HN5] A landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform an inherently dangerous activity, however, is not vicariously liable for every act of an independent contractor that causes injury to a third party. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, 4 the inherently dangerous activity exception applies only where “the harm [**16] results from the negligence of the contractor in failing to take precautions against the danger involved in the work itself, which the employer should contemplate at the time of the contract.” Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 427 cmt. d (1965). On the other hand, if the contractor’s negligence is “collateral,” the general rule of landowner non-liability applies. Nance, 785 S.W.2d at 793; Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 426 cmt. a (1965).
4 In Ballinger, the court stated that the Restatement correctly reflects Missouri law with respect to the inherently dangerous activity exception. 788 S.W.2d at 511. MAI 16.08, which was adopted after the Ballinger decision, cites the Restatement as authority.
[HN6] The Restatement defines collateral negligence as “negligence which is unusual or abnormal, or foreign to the normal or contemplated risks of doing the work, as distinguished from negligence which creates only the normal or contemplated risk.” Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 426 cmt. a (1965). Under [**17] this rule,
a landowner is not required to contemplate or anticipate abnormal or unusual kinds of negligence on the part of the contractor, or negligence in the performance of the operative details of the work which ordinarily may be expected to be carried out with proper care, unless the circumstances under which the work is done give him warning of some special reason to take precautions, or some special risk of harm to others inherent in the work.
Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 426 cmt. b (1965).
[HN7] An appellate court will affirm the entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict only when all of the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are so strongly against the plaintiff’s case that there is no room for reasonable minds to differ and the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thieme v. Tour-Toiseshell, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). Only when the plaintiff has failed to make a submissible case should the trial court grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id. To determine whether a plaintiff, who obtained a jury verdict, has made a submissible case, we view the evidence in a light most favorable [**18] to the plaintiff, giving plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Id.
In its judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court first concluded that bungee jumping was not inherently dangerous as a matter of law because the evidence indicated that bungee jumping could be done safely. In so holding, the trial court relied on dicta found in Reed v. Ocello, 859 S.W.2d 242 (Mo.App. E.D.1993), in which this Court stated “if there is a safe way to perform the activity, it is not inherently dangerous, and the general rule of landowner non-liability applies.” Id. at 245; see also Lammert v. Lesco Auto Sales, 936 S.W.2d 846, 850 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (relying on Reed for the same proposition).
In our view the dicta in Reed and Lammert directly contradicts Ballinger v. Gascosage Electric Cooperative, 788 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. banc 1990), in which the court stated that [HN8] “the essence of inherent danger . . . is the need for special precaution. It is not sufficient for the defendant to show that the work can be done safely.” Id. at 509; see also W. Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts 512-15 (5th ed. 1984). The holdings [**19] in Reed and Lammert correctly hold that the [*136] activity in question in those cases was not inherently dangerous, however, the dicta indicating that an activity is not inherently dangerous if it can be performed safely should not be followed. Accordingly, the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of V.P. Fair.
[HN9] To initially determine whether an activity is inherently dangerous, Zueck, 809 S.W.2d at 384, the trial judge should begin by ascertaining the nature of the activity and the manner in which the activity is ordinarily performed. If after considering these factors the trial court concludes the activity does not involve some peculiar risk of harm, then the activity is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. If the trial court does not so find, then the question should be submitted to the jury pursuant to MAI 16.08.
In this case, while there was evidence that the activity could be done safely, there was also evidence, including Northstar’s release form itself, 5 which would support a conclusion that by its very nature the activity involves some peculiar risk of physical harm. Thus, the trial court erred in determining [**20] as a matter of law that bungee jumping is not inherently dangerous.
5 Northstar’s release form contained the following language:
The participant is fully aware that bungee-jumping and all associated activities is a calculated risk sport and contains inherent risk and dangers (including serious injury or death) that no amount of care, caution, instruction, or expertise can eliminate.
Having found sufficient evidence to support a finding that the bungee jump in this case was inherently dangerous, we must next determine if Northstar’s failure to attach the bungee cord is an act of collateral negligence. In its judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court found that Northstar’s failure to attach the bungee cord was an act of collateral negligence. Collateral negligence would preclude a finding that the V.P. Fair is vicariously liable. We conclude that the trial court misinterpreted the collateral negligence rule.
[HN10] Collateral negligence occurs when the negligence is unusual or foreign to the [**21] normal contemplated risks of performing the activity. Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 426 cmt. a (1965). A landowner is not immune from liability simply because the independent contractor’s negligence contributed to the third party’s injury. Nance, 785 S.W.2d at 793. Instead, the proper focus for the factfinder is whether the landowner contemplated or should have contemplated the type of negligence committed by the independent contractor. Id.; Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 426 cmt. b (1965). As to what an employer is and is not expected to contemplate, the Restatement provides the following example:
[HN11] An employer may hire a contractor to make an excavation, reasonably expecting that the contractor will proceed in the normal and usual manner with bulldozer or with pick and shovel. When the contractor, for his own reasons, decides to use blasting instead, and the blasting is done in a negligent manner, so that it injures the plaintiff, such negligence is “collateral” to the contemplated risk, and the employer is not liable. If, on the other hand, the blasting is provided for or contemplated by the contract, the negligence in the course of the operation is within the [**22] risk contemplated, and the employer is responsible for it.
Id.
[HN12] The test is whether or not the independent contractor’s acts were or should have been within the contemplation of the landowner. The Restatement provides that a landowner may be required to contemplate abnormal or unusual kinds of negligence if the circumstances under which the activity is performed give the landowner warning of special reasons to take precautions or some special risk of harm to others inherent in the activity. [*137] Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 426 cmt. b (1965). Here, because of the extreme height involved, V.P. Fair should have been aware of a special risk of injury to bungee jumping participants if Northstar failed to properly attach the bungee cord. V.P. Fair had the opportunity to argue to the jury that Northstar’s actions were not and should not have been within its contemplation. The participant’s safety in making a bungee jump depends in large part on the security of the bungee cord. The risk that a participant could be injured as a result of any failure of the cord, its attachment, or the persons operating the jump is a peculiar risk that V.P. Fair should have contemplated. Accordingly, [**23] Hatch made a submissible case under the inherently dangerous activity exception.
The trial court properly instructed the jury under MAI 16.08 to determine whether bungee jumping was inherently dangerous. 6 We are satisfied that in considering whether the activity of bungee jumping was inherently dangerous, the jury reasonably could have found that unless adequate precautions were taken, bungee jumping necessarily presents a substantial risk of harm. In addition, the jury reasonably could have found that the risk of injury from a fall is a risk that inheres in bungee jumping itself in the absence of adequate precautions and that the risk was not negligently created solely as the result of the improper manner in which Northstar performed the work. Because Hatch made a submissible case under the inherently dangerous activity exception, the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
6 [HN13] MAI 16.08 defines inherently dangerous activity as an activity that necessarily presents a substantial risk of harm unless adequate precautions are taken.
The Notes on Use accompanying MAI 16.08 [HN14] authorize the defendant to request the court to further instruct the jury that an inherently dangerous activity does not include a risk of harm that is not inherent in or a normal part of the work to be performed and that is negligently created solely as a result of the improper manner in which the work under the contract is performed.
This additional provision, which defendants requested be given, properly submitted the question of whether or not Northstar’s negligence was collateral and, if it was, whether or not it was the sole cause of the risk of harm.
[**24] V.P. Fair argues that the judgment notwithstanding the verdict can be sustained on other grounds set forth in its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, even if not relied on by the trial court. See Budding v. Garland Floor Co., 939 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). It requests that we sustain the judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that the inherently dangerous activity exception permits a landowner to be held vicariously liable only for an independent contractor’s negligent acts and not for its reckless acts or on the ground that its release precludes Hatch’s premises liability claim.
Neither of these grounds was raised in V.P. Fair’s motion for directed verdict. [HN15] Rule 72.01(a) requires that a motion for a directed verdict state the specific grounds therefore. Rule 72.01(b) provides that when a motion for directed verdict is not granted, “the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion.” A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a motion “to have judgment entered in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict.” Id. For this reason a sufficient [**25] motion for a directed verdict is required to preserve the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for appeal. Fust v. Francois, 913 S.W.2d 38, 45 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). V.P. Fair’s failure to raise these issues as grounds for its motion for directed verdict precluded it from obtaining a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in its favor on these grounds and further precludes it from obtaining appellate review of the trial [*138] court’s failure to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict on these grounds. Id.
B. Summary Judgment Issues
In his next three points Hatch asserts the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on his claims based on joint venture, premises liability based on retention of control, and Northstar’s negligence. For the reasons stated in Part I, we only address the joint venture claim.
1. Preservation of Error
Defendants initially challenge our jurisdiction to consider any of the points of error based on the summary judgment because they were not raised in the motion for new trial. They argue that for the same reasons that error in granting a directed verdict must be preserved in the motion for new trial, a summary [**26] judgment should be likewise preserved. We disagree. [HN16] On appeal we treat summary judgments as the equivalent of court-tried cases and do not require that such judgments be preserved for review in motions for new trial. Title Ins. Corp. of St. Louis v. United States, 432 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Mo.App. 1968). This rule applies whether or not any issues in the case which were not resolved by summary judgment proceeded to trial.
2. Joint Venture
Hatch asserts the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on his claims that V.P. Fair was jointly liable with Northstar on the grounds of joint venture. We disagree. [HN17] A joint venture is an “association of persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combine their property, money, effects, skill and knowledge.” Labor Discount Ctr., Inc. v. State Bank & Trust Co. of Wellston, 526 S.W.2d 407, 424 (Mo.App. 1975) (internal quotations omitted). The elements of a joint venture are: (1) an express of implied agreement among the members; (2) a common purpose to be carried out by the members; (3) a community of pecuniary interests in that common purpose; and (4) an equal voice, giving an [**27] equal right of control in the direction of the enterprise. Eads v. Kinstler Agency, Inc., 929 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Mo.App. W.D.1996).
No express agreement between V.P. Fair and Northstar to act as joint venturers was in the summary judgment record. Further, no such agreement could be implied because the parties’ contract expressly included an addendum that Northstar is an independent contractor and is not authorized to act as an agent or employee of V.P. Fair. [HN18] The existence of a different type of express contract is in itself inconsistent with a claimed relationship of joint venture by implication. Martin v. City of Washington, 848 S.W.2d 487, 495 (Mo. banc 1993); see also Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc. v. Bell, 454 S.W.2d 5, 16 (Mo. 1970). A court may not imply a joint venture where it is evident a different business form was involved. Rosenfeld v. Brooks, 895 S.W.2d 132, 135 (Mo.App. E.D.1995).
In addition, the record did not support a finding that the parties had a community of pecuniary interest. [HN19] The mere fact that both parties have an economic interest in the activity does not make them joint venturers. Eads, 929 S.W.2d at 292. The community of pecuniary interest requires [**28] that the parties have a right to share in the profits and a duty to share in the losses. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Houf, 695 S.W.2d 924, 928 (Mo.App. E.D.1985); Labor Discount Ctr., 526 S.W.2d at 424-25. Profit is defined as the excess of income over expenditures. Labor Discount Ctr., 526 S.W.2d at 424. The summary judgment record established that V.P. Fair’s fee was to come out of Northstar’s gross income from the bungee jump operation whether or not Northstar made any profit, and V.P. Fair was not to share in any of Northstar’s losses.
[*139] Lastly, the record does not support a finding that V.P. Fair had an equal right to control the bungee jump. There must be some active participation in the enterprise and some control over the subject matter thereof or property engaged therein. Jeff-Cole Quarries, 454 S.W.2d at 15. The evidence that V.P. Fair chose the site, permitted Northstar to use its logo, took tickets and payment, controlled the crowd, and lined up prospective jumpers does not establish that V.P. Fair had any voice, much less an equal voice, in the details of the operation of the bungee jump. See Archer v. Outboard Marine Corp., 908 S.W.2d 701, [**29] 703 (Mo.App. W.D.1995). Further, defendants presented uncontradicted testimony that no one from the V.P. Fair was in control of physical activities of Northstar’s employees or the manner in which the bungee jump was conducted.
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in V.P. Fair’s favor on Counts I and V. This point is denied.
III. Northstar’s and V.P. Fair’s Cross-Appeal
A. Recklessness Claim
1. Existence of a Cause of Action for Recklessness
Defendants contend that Missouri does not recognize a cause of action for recklessness, and therefore, the trial court erred in submitting Hatch’s recklessness claim against Northstar to the jury. In support of their argument, defendants rely chiefly upon Fowler v. Park Corp., 673 S.W.2d 749, 755 (Mo. banc 1984), in which the court noted that “there are no legal degrees of negligence.” We disagree with defendants’ argument.
When the Fowler court said that there are no legal degrees of negligence in Missouri, it was referring to the fact that Missouri does not recognize a doctrine, originally developed in bailment law, which recognizes three “degrees” of negligence: slight negligence, [**30] which is the failure to use great care; ordinary negligence, which is the failure to use ordinary care; and gross negligence, which is the failure to use even slight care. See Prosser and Keeton sec. 34, at 210; see also 57A Am.Jur.2d Negligence secs. 240-43 (1989). This theory has been rejected by the courts of most states, including Missouri. See Fowler, 673 S.W.2d at 755; Virginia D. v. Madesco Investment Corp., 648 S.W.2d 881, 886 n. 11 (Mo. banc 1983). [HN20] The prevailing view is that “there are no ‘degrees’ of care or negligence as a matter of law; there are only different amounts of care, as a matter of fact.” Prosser and Keeton sec. 34, at 211.
[HN21] The fact that Missouri does not recognize legal degrees of negligence has nothing to do with whether Missouri recognizes a cause of action for recklessness. Recklessness looks to the tortfeasor’s state of mind. Id. Recklessness is an aggravated form of negligence which differs in quality, rather than in degree, from ordinary lack of care. Id. It is applied to conduct which is negligent, rather than intentional, but which is so far from a proper state of mind that it is treated in many respects as if it were so [**31] intended. Id. at 212-13.
Missouri recognizes a cause of action for recklessness which our supreme court has explained and defined as follows:
[HN22] Negligence is one kind of tort, an unintentional injury usually predicated upon failure to observe a prescribed standard of care (52 Am.Jur., Sec. 20) while a willful, wanton, reckless injury is another kind of tort, an intentional injury often based upon an act done in utter disregard of the consequences. 52 Am.Jur., Secs. 22, 23; 38 Am.Jur., Secs. 4, 5. Reckless conduct may be negligent in that it is unreasonable but it is and must be something more than unreasonable, “it must contain a risk of harm to others in excess of that necessary to make the conduct unreasonable and therefore, negligent.” 2 Restatement, Torts, p. 1294. “The actor’s (defendant’s) conduct [*140] is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial [**32] harm will result to him.” 2 Restatement, Torts, Secs. 500, 501.
Nichols v. Bresnahan, 357 Mo. 1126, 212 S.W.2d 570, 573 (Mo. 1948).
In this case Hatch proceeded on his recklessness claim after the trial court found that his release precluded his negligence claim but did not release Northstar’s recklessness. ” [HN23] There is no question that one may never exonerate oneself from future liability for intentional torts or for gross negligence, or for activities involving the public interest.” Alack v. Vic Tanny Int’l of Missouri, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo. banc 1996). This point is denied.
2. Definition of Recklessness in Jury Instructions
Defendants next claim that the trial court erroneously defined recklessness in its instruction to the jury in that the instruction failed to include a standard or degree of care by which to measure Northstar’s actions. We do not reach the merits of this point because Northstar failed to preserve this issue for review.
[HN24] In order to preserve claims of instructional error for review, counsel is required to make specific objections to the instruction at trial and again raise the error in the motion for new trial. Rule 70.03 [**33] provides:
Counsel shall make specific objections to instructions considered erroneous. No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give instructions unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.
Defendants did not make a specific objection at trial to the failure to include a standard of care in Instruction No. 6 at trial. Rather, they objected on different grounds. Counsel stated:
First, it’s not in MAI. Second, there is no independent cause of action for recklessness for Missouri. Third, the standard here is gross negligence and the recklessness definition tendered by the plaintiff is not the proper definition for gross negligence.
[HN25] Where an alleged error relating to an instruction differs from the objections made to the trial court, the error may not be reviewed on appeal. Seidel v. Gordon A. Gundaker Real Estate Co., 904 S.W.2d 357, 364 (Mo.App. E.D.1995); Wilson v. Kaufmann, 847 S.W.2d 840, 846-47 (Mo.App. E.D.1992).
Northstar argues that the objection was not insufficient because a different, more generalized standard should apply [**34] to instructions which are not in MAI and the objection that was given should have alerted the trial judge to the irregularity of the entire submission. We disagree. First, Rule 70.03 is not limited to those instructions which are in MAI. Second, even if one objection can preserve a different one, a contention with which we disagree, none of the specific objections raised was a valid objection and in no way alerted the trial judge to the fact that there might be a different or valid problem with the instruction.
Northstar next requests that if the objection was not preserved, we review for plain error because of the seriousness of the error. We decline to do so. This was a long and complex trial. If the instruction was as seriously erroneous as Northstar contends, counsel should have made that flaw known to the trial court prior to submission to the jury. [HN26] Rule 70.03 is designed to prevent retrials for instructional error which was not brought to the trial court’s attention prior to submission. This point is denied.
[*141] B. Remittitur
In their final point of error, defendants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to enter a remittitur of the jury’s verdict [**35] because it exceeds reasonable compensation for Hatch’s injuries and damages. Specifically, defendants claim that the damages award greatly exceeds Hatch’s economic damages and is out of line with similar cases.
[HN27] Although the trial court has broad discretion in ordering a remittitur, the assessment of damages is primarily the function of the jury. King v. Unidynamics Corp., 943 S.W.2d 262, 268 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). We will not disturb the trial court’s decision whether or not to reduce damages absent an abuse of discretion so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience and convinces this Court that both the trial judge and the jury have abused their discretion. Id. In reviewing whether a verdict is excessive, our review is limited to the evidence supporting the verdict. Wright v. Fox-Stanley Photo Prods., Inc., 639 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Mo.App. E.D.1982).
[HN28] There is no precise formula for determining whether a verdict is excessive, and each case must be considered on its own facts with the ultimate test being what fairly and reasonably compensates plaintiff for the injuries sustained. Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202, 211 (Mo. banc 1991). In Magnuson [**36] by Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 844 S.W.2d 448, 458 (Mo.App. W.D.1992), the court listed several factors to assist in the determination of whether an award is excessive. These factors include: (1) present and future loss of income, (2) medical expenses, (3) plaintiff’s age, (4) the nature and severity of the injuries, (5) economic factors, (6) awards given in similar cases, and (7) the superior opportunity of the trial court and jury to appraise plaintiff’s injuries and other damages. Id.
As a result of his fall, Hatch sustained serious injuries to his back, legs, and shoulders. He has undergone six surgeries, including the placement and subsequent removal of spinal hardware devices. Hatch suffers from chronic pain syndrome and depression for which he takes pain medication and antidepressants. He is no longer able to engage in many of the activities he enjoyed prior to the accident. He cannot exercise, participate in sports or actively interact with his four children. Hatch, who was thirty-nine years old at the time of the accident, was terminated by his employer for excessive absences due to his injuries. Prior to his fall, he maintained an exemplary work record and had consistently [**37] received outstanding evaluations. He is presently unable to work as an auditor or accountant because of his inability to concentrate due to ongoing pain and physical limitations. An economic expert testified that Hatch’s past wage losses were $ 37,000 and that his future wage losses were $ 670,000. His medical expenses at the time of trial totaled $ 150,000.
Defendants argue that the jury’s award is excessive when compared to similar cases. This, however, is not the sole test. Fowler v. Park Corp., 673 S.W.2d 749, 758 n.15 (Mo. banc 1984); Bender v. Burlington-Northern R.R. Co., 654 S.W.2d 194, 202 (Mo.App. S.D.1983). The trial court was in the best position to evaluate the evidence regarding Hatch’s injuries and damages. We do not find that the verdict is so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience or that both the jury and the judge abused their discretion. Point denied.
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded with directions to reinstate the verdict against V.P. Fair and to enter judgment thereon.
James R. Dowd, Judge
Kathianne Knaup Crane, [**38] P.J., concurs.
Mary Rhodes Russell, J., concurs.
G-YQ06K3L262
Marshall, v Boyne USA, Inc., 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928
Posted: March 15, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: Christine Marshall, Half Pipe, Inc., Jump, Marvin Marshall, Michigan Ski Safety Act, Skier Safety Act, Terrain park, v Boyne USA Leave a commentMarshall, v Boyne USA, Inc., 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928
Marvin Marshall and Christine Marshall, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v Boyne USA, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 301725
COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928
May 15, 2012, Decided
NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Leave to appeal denied by Marshall v. Boyne United States, Inc., 2012 Mich. LEXIS 2153 (Mich., Dec. 5, 2012)
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
Charlevoix Circuit Court. LC No. 10-091822-NF.
CORE TERMS: half pipe, terrain, skiing, ski, jump, skied, hit, inhere, hazard, trail, sport, downhill, feet, Safety Act SASA, ski resort, skier, slope, top, morning, timing, reversing, booth, edge
JUDGES: Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and SAWYER and SAAD, JJ. HOEKSTRA, P.J., (concurring).
OPINION
Per Curiam.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from the circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition. We reverse and remand.
In 2009, plaintiff Marvin Marshall was skiing at defendant’s ski resort at Boyne Mountain in Charlevoix County with a friend, Randy. They skied several trails that morning, and also skied in the terrain park. Plaintiff was familiar with and had skied in terrain parks, which he described as having “jumps and different obstacles[.]” Plaintiff saw a warning sign at the entrance to the terrain park, but he did not read it.
The terrain park contained a half pipe that was about twenty feet deep. A half pipe is a ski attraction created by a trench in the snow that extends downhill. Skiers ski inside of the half pipe. On the morning of February 5, plaintiff saw the half pipe in the terrain park, but he did not ski into it. Plaintiff skied in an area just to the right of the half pipe.
After lunch, plaintiff and his friend went into the terrain park for a second time. They entered the terrain park from the left side this time. [*2] Plaintiff skied down the terrain park and hit the edges of a series of jumps. When plaintiff was halfway down the hill, Randy yelled to him and plaintiff stopped. Randy said that there was a good jump to their right that would be “good to hit.” Randy went first, and plaintiff followed. Plaintiff proceeded laterally across the hill (to the right, if one is facing downhill). Plaintiff “came almost straight across because there was enough of an incline . . . [he] didn’t have to come downhill much.”
Plaintiff successfully navigated the jump, which caused him to go up into the air about 12 to 15 feet. He landed and came to a stop by turning quickly to the right and power-sliding to a stop. As he looked around for Randy, plaintiff felt his feet go over the edge of the half pipe. He slid down the side a little bit, and then hit the bottom. Plaintiff shattered his left calcaneus (heel) and the top of his tibia, and broke his hip and right arm. He also fractured his left eye socket where his pole hit his head when he fell.
Plaintiffs filed the instant action, alleging that defendant was negligent in failing to adequately mark the boundaries of the half pipe. Defendant moved for summary disposition, [*3] arguing that plaintiffs’ claim was barred both under the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., and by reason of two liability releases, one that plaintiff signed when he rented the ski equipment and a second that was printed on the back of his lift ticket. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there remained issues of fact. Thereafter, we granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal. We review the trial court’s decision de novo. Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich 20, 23; 664 NW2d 756 (2003).
We agree with defendant that SASA bars plaintiffs’ claim. Under SASA, a skier assumes the risk for those dangers that inhere in the sport of skiing unless those dangers are unnecessary or not obvious. Anderson, 469 Mich at 26. Among the risks assumed are “variations in terrain.” MCL 408.342(2). Moreover, defendant did not breach a duty imposed under the act. MCL 408.326a imposes a duty on the ski resort to mark certain hazards involving equipment and fixtures, which is not relevant here, as well as a duty to place a sign at the top of a run, slope or trail with certain information regarding the difficulty of that run, slope or trail. There is no dispute that [*4] defendant complied with this requirement. Rather, plaintiffs argue that defendant breached a duty not imposed by the statute: to mark the half pipe itself. But Anderson makes clear that when SASA resolves a matter, common-law principles are no longer a consideration. Anderson, 469 Mich at 26-27. By choosing to ski in the terrain park, which was marked with signage as required by the SASA, and which contained the half pipe that plaintiff saw earlier that day, plaintiff is held to have accepted the danger as a matter of law. Anderson, 469 Mich at 25-26.
Accordingly, defendant was entitled to summary disposition by application of SASA. In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether defendant was also entitled to summary disposition under the liability waivers.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order of summary disposition in defendant’s favor. We do not retain jurisdiction. Defendant may tax costs.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Henry William Saad
CONCUR BY: HOEKSTRA
CONCUR
Hoekstra, P.J., (concurring).
Although I join with the majority in reversing, I write separately because my reason for reversing differs from that of the majority.
In Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich 20, 26; 664 NW2d 756 (2003), [*5] the Supreme Court concluded that if a hazard inheres in the sport of skiing, it is covered by the Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., unless it is unnecessary or not obvious.
Here, it is undisputed that the half pipe, like the timing booth in Anderson, inheres to the sport of skiing and is a necessary installation in a terrain park. But unlike the timing booth in Anderson, plaintiff, in my opinion, makes an arguable claim that the half pipe was not obvious to persons skiing cross-hill. It appears that this argument persuaded the trial court to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
But even assuming a fact question exists regarding whether the half pipe was not obvious, plaintiff admitted to actual knowledge of the location of the half pipe from having observed it earlier that same day while skiing. When skiing, a plaintiff is required by the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his speed and course at all times,” MCL 408.342 (emphasis added). I would conclude that the obligation to reasonably control one’s course includes the expectation that a plaintiff will avoid known hazards. Here, plaintiff’s failure to reasonably control his course of travel after [*6] executing a jump resulted in him coming up to and falling into the half pipe that he admittedly knew was located in that area of the terrain pipe. For that reason, I would reverse and remand.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
Brett, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., et al., 279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53
Posted: March 13, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, New Jersey, Ski Area | Tags: Duty of care, Hazard, New Jersey, New Jersey Skier Safety Act, ski area, Toboggan, Trespasser, Ultra Hazard, Warning Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see Tobogganing is added to the NJ Skier Safety Act, yet in this case, it allows the ski area to be sued.
Brett, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., et al., 279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53
Patrick Brett and Elisa Ramundo, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stonehill Property Owners Association, Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party-Plaintiffs, and Rudolph Maurizzi, Defendant/Third-Party-Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Denise Mcdade, Nancy Morgan, Third-Party-Defendants. Karen Furman, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stonehill Property Owners Association Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party-Plaintiffs, v. Rudolph Maurizzi, Third-Party-Defendant/Respondent. Donald Pisarcik, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stone Hill Property Owners Association Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants, and Rudolph Maurizzi, Defendant-Respondent. Megan Russell, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stone Hill Property Owners Association Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party-Plaintiffs, and Rudolph Maurizzi, Lisa Carmelitano, Third-Party-Defendants/Respondents, and Karen Furman, Third-Party-Defendant.
A-4010-92T3
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION
279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53
November 29, 1994, Argued
February 8, 1995, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Approved for Publication February 8, 1995. As Amended.
Certification granted Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 141 N.J. 97, 660 A.2d 1196, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 379 (1995)
Affirmed by Brett v. Great Am. Rec., 144 N.J. 479, 677 A.2d 705, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 787 (1996)
PRIOR HISTORY: On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County.
COUNSEL: Samuel A. DeGonge argued the cause for appellant Great American Recreation, Inc. (Samuel J. McNulty, on the brief).
Philip G. Auerbach argued the cause for respondents Patrick Brett, Elisa Ramundo, Karen Furman and Donald Pisarcik (Auerbach & Cox, attorneys; Mr. Auerbach, on the brief).
John P. Doran argued the cause for respondent Megan Russell.
Anthony P. Pasquarelli argued the cause for respondent Rudolph Maurizzi (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Jared E. Stolz, of counsel and on the brief).
Kevin J. Decoursey argued the cause for respondent Lisa Carmelitano (O’Toole & Couch, attorneys; Michael Della Rovere, on the brief).
JUDGES: Before Judges BRODY, LONG and ARNOLD M. STEIN. The opinion of the Court was delivered by BRODY, P.J.A.D.
OPINION BY: Warren Brody
OPINION
[*310] [**776] The opinion of the Court was delivered by
BRODY, P.J.A.D.
Plaintiffs in this consolidated personal injury action are five of thirteen college friends, then twenty and twenty-one years old, who had planned to be together for a winter weekend at a condominium in Vernon Township. The owner of the condominium, third-party defendant Rudolph Maurizzi, is the uncle of third-party defendant [***2] Lisa Carmelitano, one of the group. He allowed the group to use his condominium, which is one of many such buildings built along the slope of Great Gorge North on either side of a vacant strip of land. During the winter, the vacant strip, which is about a thousand feet long, is the Bunny Buster ski trail. Defendants Stonehill Property Owners Association, Inc. and Hotel [*311] Section Condominium Council, Inc. (Stonehill) own the land that contains the condominiums and the Bunny Buster trail. Defendant Great American Recreation, Inc. (defendant) operates the trail as a business under the terms of an easement from Stonehill.
Members of the group arrived on Friday at different times. Early arrivals spent part of the day skiing along various trails in the area. When they finished skiing, some of those returning to the condominium used or crossed the Bunny Buster trail even though defendant had turned off the lights on the trail because by then it had closed for the day. Between ten and eleven o’clock that night, after everyone in the group had arrived at the condominium, defendant turned on the Bunny Buster trail lights to enable its employees to groom the trail for the next day. Grooming [***3] is accomplished by using motor vehicles to pull heavy rollers over the trail to tamp down the snow.
Earlier that day, one member of the group discovered a toboggan that Maurizzi had stored in his condominium with other snow equipment. After the lights were turned on, the group decided to slide down part of the trail on the toboggan. There was evidence that other people at the time were using the trail for sledding and tobogganing. The toboggan could hold no more than six people so members of the group took turns riding it. The first two runs were uneventful.
[**777] The third run, with six on board, was a disaster. Starting from a point a bit higher than where the first two runs had begun, the toboggan slid down the trail, across a fifty- to sixty-foot flat expanse of snow at the base of the trail, over a flattened snow fence, and then over the edge of a twenty-foot dirt embankment to a parking lot below. One of the six fell off the toboggan before it dropped over the edge, thereby escaping injury. The other five, the plaintiffs, were seriously injured as their bodies hit the embankment, the parking lot and a parking-lot light pole. There was evidence that, at the time of the rescue operation, [***4] other people, not associated with plaintiffs’ group, who were tobogganing [*312] escaped injury by tumbling off their toboggan just before it dropped over the edge.
Claims against all third-party defendants were dismissed on their motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs settled with Stonehill before trial. The jury found that under the New Jersey Ski Statute (Statute), N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 et seq., plaintiffs as a group, defendant and Stonehill were all negligent. The jury apportioned the negligence as follows: plaintiffs 22%, defendant 54% and Stonehill 24%. The jury found that fair and adequate total compensation to all plaintiffs would be $ 2,475,000.
Defendant’s main arguments are: (1) defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs under either the common law or the Statute because they were trespassers at the time of the accident, and (2) even if plaintiffs were not barred from recovery as trespassers, the facts of this case do not render defendant liable under the terms of the Statute. Defendant raised these issues when it moved, unsuccessfully, for involuntary dismissal upon the conclusion of plaintiffs’ presentation of evidence, R. 4:37-2(b), and for judgment at the close [***5] of all evidence, R. 4:40-1. For reasons that follow, we conclude that defendant is liable under the Statute and that the Statute does not bar the claims of trespassers.
Before discussing those issues, we note that, contrary to defendant’s contention, although plaintiffs were trespassers at the time of the accident their claims would not necessarily be barred at common law. ” [HN1] Traditionally, a landowner owed no duty to a trespasser other than to refrain from acts willfully injurious.” Renz v. Penn Cent. Corp., 87 N.J. 437, 461, 435 A.2d 540 (1981). The Court held, however, that even traditionally there was a higher standard of care due a trespasser “when the property owned by the landowner can be classified as a dangerous instrumentality.” Id. at 462, 435 A.2d 540. Here, the design of the Bunny Buster trail rendered it unexpectedly dangerous. As this accident demonstrated, tobogganers who reached the bottom of the trail would be carried by momentum over the edge of a twenty-foot embankment resulting in serious injury.
[*313] The Court in Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993), [***6] signaled its movement away from the rigid common-law distinctions among the standards of care due trespassers, licensees and invitees. There the Court held that a real estate broker owed a duty of reasonable care to a prospective home buyer who was injured when she failed to notice a step and fell while viewing the premises. She was there to attend an “open house” conducted by the broker. In imposing a duty of care on the broker, thereby departing from the common-law requirement that only the property owner had such a duty, the Court said:
The inquiry should be not what common law classification or amalgam of classifications most closely characterizes the relationship of the parties, but . . . whether in light of the actual relationship between the parties under all of the surrounding circumstances the imposition on the broker of a general duty to exercise reasonable care in preventing foreseeable harm to its open-house customers is fair and just. That approach is itself rooted in the philosophy of the common law.
[Id. at 438, 625 A.2d 1110]
Here, on one side of that relationship are young people attracted to a condominium because of its proximity [***7] to snow trails and who, not unexpectedly, used defendant’s adjacent lighted trail to toboggan after skiing hours. On the other side of the relationship is the operator of the trail, which, as designed, [**778] was a near-fatal trap to those using the trail to toboggan. Without having to decide the question, we suggest that even if the Ski Statute did not apply, the operator would have a common-law duty to take reasonable measures to warn such trespassers of that latent danger.
Indeed, such an obligation was recognized by defendant in its cross-claim against Stonehill. Stonehill employed security personnel to police the entire condominium area, including the Bunny Buster trail. That policing included keeping trespassers off the trail at night, but the security force was short-handed that night and failed to police the trail. Defendant’s attorney argued in his summation that Stonehill was negligent because it failed to have its security force eject after-hours trespassers. We add that [HN2] the duty of an owner or occupier of land to warn of such a serious [*314] danger may not be delegable. Hopkins, supra, at 441, 625 A.2d 1110 (citing Sanna v. National Sponge Co., 209 N.J.Super. 60, 506 A.2d 1258 (App.Div.1986)). [***8]
The Legislature enacted the Ski Statute in 1979 in response to a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court that deprived operators of ski areas of the absolute defense of assumption of risk. Sunday v. Stratton Corp., 136 Vt. 293, 390 A.2d 398 (1978), held that in adopting comparative negligence by statute the legislature of that state intended to replace the absolute defense of assumption of risk with the defense of plaintiff’s comparative negligence. Our Legislature was thus moved to consider whether its adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence in 1973 left ski area operators unfairly vulnerable to personal injury actions caused by accidents that are an inherent risk of skiing and related sports such as toboganning. See generally Reisman v. Great Am. Recreation, 266 N.J.Super. 87, 92-95, 628 A.2d 801 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 560, 636 A.2d 519 (1993).
[HN3] Actions against a ski operator for personal injuries sustained by a skier on its ski slope are governed by common-law negligence principles unless the Ski Statute applies. Reisman, supra,266 N.J. Super. at 97, 628 A.2d 801. [***9] The Statute, however, has wide application.
To determine whether it applies to the exclusion of common-law principles, one must look at two sections of the Statute: N.J.S.A. 5:13-4, which lists the duties of skiers, 1 and N.J.S.A. 5:13-5, which describes the risks that a skier is deemed to have assumed. If a factfinder finds that a skier was injured because he or she had violated one or more of those statutory duties or is deemed by the Statute to have assumed one or more of the stated risks of skiing, the Statute applies. The common law, and not the Statute, was applied in Reisman because there the skier’s injury [*315] was the result of neither the violation of a statutory duty nor the assumption of a statutory risk. He was injured while properly proceeding slowly down a beginner’s slope when a drunken skier knocked him to the ground.
1 [HN4] N.J.S.A. 5:13-2c defines “skier” to include “a person utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as . . . operating toboggans.”
[HN5] Once it is determined that the [***10] Statute applies, one must look at N.J.S.A. 5:13-3, which lists the responsibilities of the ski operator. 2 If the factfinder finds that the injuries were not proximately caused by the ski operator’s violation of any of its statutory responsibilities, the Statute bars the injured skier from recovering compensation from the operator. If the factfinder finds that the injuries were proximately caused by the ski operator’s violation of one or more of its statutory responsibilities, the skier is entitled to recover under principles of comparative negligence. N.J.S.A. 5:13-6.
2 [HN6] N.J.S.A. 5:13-2a defines “operator” to include “a person . . . who . . . manages . . . the operation of an area where individuals come to . . . operate . . . toboggans.”
Here it is obvious that plaintiffs violated at least one of the statutory duties and therefore the Statute applies. [HN7] N.J.S.A. 5:13-4d provides:
A skier shall be the sole judge of his ability to negotiate any trail, slope, or uphill track and shall not attempt to ski or otherwise [***11] traverse any trail, slope or other [**779] area which is beyond the skier’s ability to negotiate.
Plaintiffs were not able to negotiate the Bunny Buster trail. It is also obvious that plaintiffs are deemed to have assumed at least one statutory risk. [HN8] N.J.S.A. 5:13-5 provides in part:
Each skier is assumed to know the range of his ability, and it shall be the duty of each skier to conduct himself within the limits of such ability, to maintain control of his speed and course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted warnings and to refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of himself or others.
Given that assumption, plaintiffs acted in a manner that contributed to their own injury.
It is important to note that these [HN9] statutory violations and risk assumptions do not affect the percentage of a skier’s comparative [*316] negligence. That determination is left to the factfinder if it finds that the skier contributed to his or her own injuries by violating one or more of the skier’s responsibilities. The skiers’ statutory violations and risk assumptions initially serve merely to invoke application of the Statute.
A major issue at trial was whether [***12] defendant violated any of its statutory responsibilities. The focus was on the meaning of [HN10] N.J.S.A. 5:13-3, which provides in relevant part:
a. It shall be the responsibility of the operator to the extent practicable, to:
* * * *
(3) Remove as soon as practicable obvious, man-made hazards.
Much of the confusion in arguing the liability issue at trial was caused by the next subsection of the Statute, which expressly excuses an operator from certain specific responsibilities to skiers. In that regard, [HN11] N.J.S.A. 5:13-3 provides in relevant part:
b. No operator shall be responsible to any skier or other person because of its failure to comply with any provisions of subsection 3.a. if such failure was caused by:
* * * *
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection 3.a.(3), the location of man-made facilities and equipment necessary for the ordinary operation of the ski area, such as . . . fencing of any type. . . .
Plaintiffs argued that the man-made hazard for which defendant was responsible was fencing. At first they seemed to suggest that the snow fence was a direct cause of the accident because it constituted a ramp that “launched” the toboggan down the embankment. Defendant [***13] responded by claiming the benefit of subsection -3b(3), which relieved it of any responsibility for the “location” of “fencing” “necessary for the ordinary operation of the ski area.”
As plaintiffs developed their case with expert testimony, however, it became apparent that they were not claiming that the flimsy snow fence was a cause of the accident, but rather that a cause of the accident was defendant’s failure to erect a more resistant fence that would restrain a toboggan and its passengers from [*317] going over the edge of the embankment. Aside from whether such a fence would effectively reduce injury or be “practicable” (a requirement of section -3a), defendant argued that the absence of a stronger fence was still related to the location of fencing and therefore not actionable because of subsection -3b(3).
The trial judge rejected defendant’s argument when he denied its motions. He interpreted “man-made hazards” comprehensively to include the design of the trail, which directed toboggans, known to be difficult if not impossible to control, over the edge of the twenty-foot embankment and down to the parking lot and light pole. As he understood the Legislature’s intent, the requirement [***14] that operators “remove . . . man-made hazards” was broad enough to include warning people not to use the trail for tobogganing. The judge instructed the jury that “remove” not only means “to . . . uproot” but also means “to eliminate or reduce or obviate.” This left the jury free to decide whether the hazard of falling over the edge of the embankment could be removed by warnings. We agree with the trial judge.
[**780] [HN12] An obvious man-made hazard, as contemplated in N.J.S.A. 5:13-3a(3), is a man-made danger, obvious to an operator, that is not an inherent risk of using a “ski area.” A ski area is defined in part by N.J.S.A. 5:13-2b as real property “utilized for skiing, operating toboggans, sleds, or similar vehicles during the skiing season.” Being borne off an embankment after reaching the bottom of a trail is not an inherent risk of tobogganing.
Where physical removal of a hazard is not possible, reasonable warnings of the hazard may constitute its practicable removal. The Statute impliedly contemplates that an operator at least has a duty to post suitable warnings of danger. It will be recalled that N.J.S.A. 5:13-5 expressly charges skiers with the reciprocal duty “to heed [***15] all posted warnings.”
Defendant argues alternatively that even if plaintiffs may recover under the Ski Statute, the Statute does not apply to trespassers. We already suggested that even at common law, [*318] defendant may owe plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care because their presence on the lighted trail was reasonably foreseeable, the risk of grave injury was great and the duty of care was not delegable. We find nothing in the statute that suggests that the Legislature meant to supplant the common law in that respect. The Statute does not exempt trespassers from the definition of skiers to whom operators have a limited responsibility. We quote the [HN13] N.J.S.A. 5:13-2c definition in full:
“Skier” means a person utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as skiing or operating toboggans, sleds or similar vehicles, and including anyone accompanying the person. Skier also includes any person in such ski area who is an invitee, whether or not said person pays consideration.
[Emphasis added.]
Plaintiffs were not merely “in” the ski area; they were “utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as . . . operating toboggans.” They were therefore skiers entitled to recover [***16] under principles of comparative negligence if defendant violated any of its limited statutory responsibilities.
Our understanding of the Legislature’s intent is fortified by a change in the Assembly bill before it became the Statute. The bill originally contained a section that read:
No operator shall be liable to any person who is a trespasser, which shall include, but not be limited to, persons using the facilities who fail, when required to do so, to pay lift fees or other fees required in connection with the use of these facilities. The operator shall be liable to skiers and others only as specified in this section.
[A. 1650, 198th Leg., 1st Sess. § 3(c) (1978).]
That provision was deleted before the Statute was adopted. The Statement accompanying the final version of the bill stated in part, “The complete removal of liability on the part of a ski area operator to trespassers would be eliminated.” Assembly Judiciary, Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee Statement to Assembly No. 1650 (November 20, 1978).
The two remaining arguments that we will briefly address are that the motion judge erroneously granted partial summary judgments to Maurizzi and to Carmelitano. [***17] The motions were properly granted.
[*319] There was no evidence presented in opposition to Maurizzi’s motion that he authorized plaintiffs to use his toboggan, which he had stored in his home. There was no evidence that a toboggan is so inherently dangerous that Maurizzi should have secured it from use by adults. There was no evidence that Maurizzi knew that using the toboggan on the Bunny Buster trail would be especially dangerous.
As to Carmelitano, although there was evidence, presented in opposition to her motion, that some members of the group drank beer at the condominium before the accident, there was no evidence that Carmelitano served the beer, much less that she served it to anyone who was visibly intoxicated. Indeed, there was no evidence that beer-drinking was a cause of the accident. See Gustavson v. Gaynor, 206 N.J.Super. 540, 503 A.2d 340 (App.Div.1985), certif. denied, 103 N.J. 476, 511 A.2d 655 (1986).
[**781] We are satisfied from a careful reading of this record that the remaining issues that defendant has raised in its brief are clearly without merit and therefore require no discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
[***18] Affirmed.
Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126
Posted: March 6, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, New Hampshire, Ski Area, Snow Tubing | Tags: Definition, New Hampshire Skier Safety Act, Ragged Mountain, Skier, Snow Tubing, Tubing, tubing hill Leave a commentSweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126
Alaina Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc.
No. 2003-719
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126
May 6, 2004, Argued
July 15, 2004, Opinion Issued
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Released for Publication July 15, 2004.
PRIOR HISTORY: Merrimack.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
COUNSEL: Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Peter E. Hutchins on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., of Manchester (Robert E. Murphy, Jr. on the brief and orally), for the defendant.
JUDGES: GALWAY, J. BRODERICK, C.J., and NADEAU, DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.
OPINION BY: GALWAY
OPINION
[*240] [**428] GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, Alaina Sweeney, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) granting a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc. (Ragged Mountain). We reverse and remand.
The relevant facts follow. On March 21, 2001, the plaintiff went snow tubing at Ragged Mountain, which operates, among other things, snow tube runs. The snow tube area was designated only for snow tubing, and was not used for alpine or nordic skiing. When the plaintiff went snow tubing, no employees of Ragged Mountain were present to instruct her on the proper use of the snow tube. The plaintiff made a few “runs” down the snow tube trail. On [***2] her last run, she crossed the center line between snow tube lanes, [**429] continued down the adjacent lane, and ultimately collided with another snow tuber.
The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against Ragged Mountain for injuries sustained as a result of the collision. Ragged Mountain moved to dismiss, alleging that RSA 225-A:24, I (2000) barred recovery because it precludes claims brought by those injured in the “sport of skiing,” which, Ragged Mountain argued, includes snow tubing. The plaintiff argued that the statute does not apply to snow tubers. The court granted Ragged Mountain’s motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the plaintiff first argues that RSA 225-A:24, I, does not bar her claim because it does not apply to snow tubers. Because we agree, we need not address her other arguments.
The plaintiff contends that pursuant to RSA 225-A:24, I, ski area operators are granted immunity from liability only when claims are filed by those who participate in the “sport of skiing.” She argues that because snow tubing is not the “sport of skiing,” RSA 225-A:24, I, does not preclude her [***3] recovery. Ragged Mountain disagrees, arguing that the “sport of skiing” includes snow tubing.
[HN1] “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, our task is to ascertain whether the allegations pleaded in the plaintiff’s writ are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” Rayeski v. Gunstock Area, 146 N.H. 495, 496, 776 A.2d 1265 (2001) (quotation omitted). “We assume all facts pleaded in the plaintiff’s writ are true, and we construe all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. “We then engage in a threshold inquiry that tests the facts in the complaint against the applicable law.” Id. (quotation omitted). If the facts fail to constitute a basis for legal relief, we will uphold the granting of [*241] the motion to dismiss. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 150 N.H. 673, 674-75, 846 A.2d 521, 523 (2004).
The question before us is one of statutory interpretation-whether RSA 225-A:24, I, grants immunity to ski area operators against claims for injuries brought by snow tubers. [HN2] We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in [***4] the words of the statute considered as a whole. In the Matter of Jacobson & Tierney, 150 N.H. 513, 515, 842 A.2d 77 (2004). We first examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. Id. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent. Id.
Furthermore, [HN3] “statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted strictly.” 3 N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 61:6, at 255 (6th ed. rev. 2001). While a statute may abolish a common law right, “there is a presumption that the legislature has no such purpose.” Id. § 61.1, at 222. If such a right is to be taken away, “it must be noted clearly by the legislature.” Id. at 222-23. Accordingly, then, immunity provisions barring the common law right to recover are to be strictly construed. We have often stated that we will not interpret a statute to abrogate the common law unless the statute clearly expresses that intent. See State v. Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. 360, 363, 605 A.2d 1045 (1992); see also Douglas v. Fulis, 138 N.H. 740, 742, 645 A.2d 76 (1994). [***5]
RSA 225-A:24, entitled, “Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers,” states, in relevant part:
[HN4] It is hereby recognized that, regardless of all safety measures which may be taken by the ski area operator, skiing as [**430] a sport and the use of passenger tramways associated therewith may be hazardous to the skiers or passengers. Therefore:
I. Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts as a matter of law, the dangers inherent in the sport, and to that extent may not maintain an action against the operator for any injuries which result from such inherent risks, dangers, or hazards. The categories of such risks, hazards or dangers which the skier or passenger assumes as a matter of law include but are not limited to the following: variations in terrain, surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, stumps and other forms of forest growth or debris; . . . pole lines and plainly marked or visible snow making equipment; collisions with other skiers or other persons or with any of the categories included in this paragraph.
[*242] RSA 225-A:24, I (emphasis added). As we have previously [***6] held, RSA 225-A:24, I, [HN5] limits skiers’ recovery, thereby functioning as an immunity provision for ski area operators. See Nutbrown v. Mount Cranmore, 140 N.H. 675, 680-81, 671 A.2d 548 (1996). In enacting this provision, “the legislature intended to supersede and replace a skier’s common law remedies for risks inherent in the sport of skiing.” Berniger v. Meadow Green-Wildcat Corp., 945 F.2d 4, 7 (1st. Cir. 1991). The question we must answer today is whether that statute also replaces the plaintiff’s common law remedy. In answering this question, we need not precisely define the “sport of skiing,” nor list every activity encompassed within that phrase.
Because the phrase “sport of skiing,” is not specifically defined, we look to other provisions of the statutory scheme for guidance. [HN6] A “skier” is defined as “a person utilizing the ski area under the control of a ski area operator for the purpose of utilizing the ski slopes, trails, jumps or other areas.” RSA 225-A:2, II (2000). “Ski slopes, trails and areas” are further defined as “only those areas designated by the alpine or nordic ski operator [***7] on trail boards or maps . . . to be used by skiers for the purpose of participating in the sport of skiing.” RSA 225-A:2, IV (2000) (emphasis added). Thus, a “skier” is limited to one who “participates in the sport of skiing,” and, as such, the statutory references to “skiers” necessarily inform our interpretation of the “sport of skiing.”
We next look to the declaration of policy set forth at the beginning of the statutory scheme for guidance. See RSA 225-A:1 (2000). RSA 225-A:1 states, in part:
[HN7] It shall be the policy of the state of New Hampshire to define the primary areas of responsibility of skiers and other users of alpine (downhill) and nordic (cross country and ski jumps) areas, recognizing that the sport of skiing and other ski area activities involve risks and hazards which must be assumed as a matter of law by those engaging in such activities, regardless of all safety measures taken by the ski area operators.
(Emphasis added.) This provision indicates that the focus of the statutory scheme is upon those who utilize alpine and nordic areas. It further indicates that [***8] alpine areas are those used for downhill activities, while nordic areas are those used for cross country activities and ski jumps. While utilizing the alpine and nordic areas may not be the sole, defining characteristic of a skier, the policy provision indicates that it is an essential characteristic nonetheless.
Here, the plaintiff was not utilizing an alpine or nordic slope. Rather, as the trial court found, she was utilizing a snow tube run designated [*243] exclusively for snow tubing. Accordingly, we do not believe [**431] she was a skier, or other user of alpine or nordic areas, and, therefore, we cannot conclude that she “participated in the sport of skiing” as intended by the legislature in RSA 225-A:24, I.
Although Ragged Mountain looks to the same statutory provisions we have referenced for support, we believe those provisions are consistent with our more narrow interpretation of RSA 225-A:24, I. [HN8] Nothing in those provisions clearly expresses a legislative intent to preclude a snow tuber, injured while sliding down a run used exclusively for snow tubing, from recovering for her injuries. See Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. at 363. [***9]
Ragged Mountain first relies upon the statutory definition of “skier,” RSA 225-A:2, II, to support its position. Given that the statute broadly defines “skier,” Ragged Mountain argues that the “sport of skiing” must be similarly broadly defined. We disagree. Ragged Mountain errs in reading the definition of “skier” in isolation. As explained above, [HN9] when that definition is read in conjunction with RSA 225-A:2, IV and RSA 225-A:1, it appears that a “skier” does not include a person snow tubing on a track designated solely for snow tubing. At the very least, we cannot conclude that the statute “clearly expresses” an intent to abrogate the common law right to recover of a snow tuber injured while using a track designated solely for snow tubing. Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. at 363.
Ragged Mountain also relies upon RSA 225-A:1, the policy provision prefacing the statutory scheme, to support its claim. It argues that because the policy provision of the statute “clearly encompasses more than traditional downhill skiing,” the “sport of skiing” must include snow tubing.
[HN10] To the extent [***10] that RSA 225-A:1 contemplates winter sports activities other than skiing, it is concerned only with winter sport activities that occur on alpine and nordic slopes. See RSA 225-A:1. The plaintiff in the instant case was not utilizing an alpine or nordic slope, but rather was injured while utilizing a snow tube on a track designated solely for snow tubing. Nothing in the policy provision, then, clearly expresses the legislative intent to extinguish the common law claims of snow tubers injured on a track designated solely for snow tubing.
Because Ragged Mountain cannot point to a statutory provision that clearly expresses a legislative intent to abrogate the plaintiff’s common law right to recover, we conclude that the plaintiff’s claim is not precluded by RSA 225-A:24, I. See Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. at 363. We reverse the trial court’s order granting Ragged Mountain’s motion to dismiss and remand [*244] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of our opinion, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining arguments on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
BRODERICK, C.J., and [***11] NADEAU, DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.
Ricci v. Schoultz, M.D., 963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745
Posted: February 28, 2016 Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Legal Case, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Utah | Tags: Collision, Downhill Skier, skier collision, skier v. skier, Uphill Skier, Utah Leave a commentRicci v. Schoultz, M.D., 963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745
Gary Ricci, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles Schoultz, M.D., Defendant and Appellee.
Case No. 971189-CA
COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH
963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745
July 23, 1998, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Third District, Salt Lake Department. The Honorable Homer F. Wilkinson.
COUNSEL: Jeffrey D. Eisenberg, Alan W. Mortensen, and Paul M. Simmons, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Paul M. Belnap, Robert L. Janicki, and Darren K. Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
JUDGES: Before Judith M. Billings, Judge. I CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Judge. Gregory K. Orme, Judge, Dissenting.
OPINION BY: JUDITH M. BILLINGS
OPINION
[*785] OPINION
BILLINGS, Judge:
Appellant Gary Ricci appeals the trial court’s grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) to Dr. Charles Schoultz, dismissing Ricci’s negligence claims. We affirm.
FACTS
The parties had completely different versions of how the accident occurred. [HN1] “We must review the record and determine whether there is any basis in the evidence, including reasonable inferences which could be drawn therefrom, to support the jury’s determination that [Schoultz] was negligent.” Braithwaite v. West Valley City Corp., 921 P.2d 997, 999 (Utah 1996). Thus, we recite the facts in a light most favorable to Ricci.
On April 12, 1994, Ricci and Schoultz were skiing [**2] at Snowbird Ski Resort (Snowbird) in Salt Lake County, Utah. Both parties were advanced skiers. On the sunny morning of the accident they were skiing an “easy run” that was groomed and had only a few skiers on it. Schoultz was skiing down Anderson Hill when Ricci reached the top of the run. Ricci began to ski towards the bottom and in the direction of Schoultz. Schoultz was taking a ski lesson and was making a number of small controlled turns as he descended. Schoultz and Ricci were both skiing at the same speed and in control throughout their descent. However, Schoultz slowed as he approached a small crest on the ski run and Ricci closed to within a few feet behind Schoultz. Schoultz unexpectedly lost control of his skis, and within a few seconds he fell to the left, and into Ricci, who was unable to avoid Schoultz. The two skiers slid into a tree well, with Ricci striking the tree with some force. Ricci suffered significant injuries and was eventually life-flighted to a local hospital. Schoultz was merely bruised and skied down the mountain on his own.
At trial, Ricci argued that since Schoultz’s fall took place on one of the easiest runs at Snowbird under near perfect conditions, [**3] there was no possible reason for Schoultz to have fallen except for his own negligence. The jury found that Schoultz was negligent, and that his failure to ski in control was the cause of the accident. Schoultz moved for a j.n.o.v. on the grounds that Ricci failed to demonstrate that Schoultz, by falling unexpectedly in front of him, had breached any duty he owed to Ricci. The trial judge agreed: “There was a duty not to be negligent. But there was no negligence on the part of defendant in this case.” Thus, the trial judge granted Schoultz’s j.n.o.v. motion, or alternatively granted a new trial. Ricci now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our standard for reviewing a trial court’s grant of a j.n.o.v. is strict: [HN2] “‘In passing on a motion for a j.n.o.v., . . . a trial court has no latitude and must be correct.'” Braithwaite, 921 P.2d at 999 (quoting Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 799 (Utah 1991)). Further,
“The trial court [is] justified in granting a j.n.o.v. only if, after looking at the evidence and all of its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to [the nonmoving party], the trial court concludes that there [is] no competent evidence to support [**4] a verdict in [the nonmoving party’s] favor.”
Id. (quoting Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., 915 P.2d 1060, 1066 (Utah 1996)). “On appeal, we apply the same standard. In determining whether competent evidence supports the verdict, we accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom that tend to prove [the nonmoving party’s] case, and we disregard all conflicts [*786] and evidence that tend to disprove its case.” Gold Standard, 915 P.2d at 1066 (citing Koer v. Mayfair Mkts., 19 Utah 2d 339, 340, 431 P.2d 566, 568-69 (1967) (additional citation omitted). Thus, if we determine that there was competent evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, we must reverse the trial court’s grant of the j.n.o.v.
ANALYSIS
Although there is no helpful Utah authority, other state and federal courts have dealt with similar ski collision cases.
In LaVine v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 557 F.2d 730, 735 (10th Cir. 1977), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff could not recover from defendant for injuries sustained in a mid-mountain ski collision. Similar to the case at bar, the defendant was skiing behind [**5] the plaintiff and failed to alert plaintiff of his presence before they collided. See id. at 735. The LaVine court specifically rejected the appellant’s claim of negligence: “Appellant contends that the collision itself conclusively establishes the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s right to recover. We disagree.” Id.
More recently, in Dillworth v. Gambardella, 970 F.2d 1113, 1114 (2d Cir. 1992), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with a similar issue: “Whether collisions between skiers require as a matter of law . . . a finding of negligence on the part of at least one skier.” In Dillworth, the parties had significantly different versions of the facts leading up to the mid-mountain collision, but the result was the same as this case–significant injuries to the party bringing the cause of action. See id. at 1114-15. The Dillworth court stated [HN3] some collisions between skiers may be as a result of the obvious and necessary risks inherent in skiing, and accidents might occur despite the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care and without negligence by either skier. . . . Like all others, skiers owe that degree of care an ordinary prudent person [**6] would exercise under like or similar circumstances. One skier is not the insurer of another skier’s safety nor, absent negligence, is one skier liable to another for inadvertent or accidental contact. . . . Thus . . . skiers who lose control even while exercising due care–that is, have breached no duty owed to other skiers–may pose a danger which is inherent, obvious and necessary to participate in the sport of skiing.
Id. at 1122 (citing LaVine, 557 F.2d 734-35) (additional citations omitted).
Cases that have supported a finding of negligence in a ski collision have required proof of some negligent conduct before the collision. For example, in Freeman v. Hale, 30 Cal. App. 4th 1388, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 420 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994), two skiers collided while descending a ski slope and the plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident. In Freeman, however, the defendant had consumed a large quantity of alcohol, and was inebriated when the collision occurred. See 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 420. The California Court of Appeals succinctly summarized its conclusion that a negligence regime was the proper way to analyze liability: “While Hale did not have a duty [**7] to avoid an inadvertent collision with Freeman, he did have a duty to avoid increasing the risk of such a collision.” Id. at 423-24 (citing Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 834 P.2d 696, 710-11 (Cal. 1992)). The Freeman court concluded that alcohol consumption was not an integral aspect of skiing, and that by consuming alcohol prior to and during his skiing, defendant breached his duty to plaintiff “‘not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.'” 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 421 (quoting Knight, 834 P.2d at 710).
In sum, [HN4] a skier does have a duty to other skiers to ski reasonably and within control. However, an inadvertent fall on a ski slope, alone, does not constitute a breach of this duty. We conclude, after a careful review of the trial record, that Ricci failed to introduce any competent evidence that Schoultz was skiing negligently before his sudden and unexpected fall in front of Ricci. Ricci himself testified about the conditions and events just before the accident, noting that up to one second before the collision, Schoultz was skiing in control. Schoultz’s [*787] loss of control and fall, by itself, does not establish his negligence.
Ricci’s [**8] evidence, including all reasonable inferences drawn from it, is simply insufficient for a jury to have concluded that Schoultz skied negligently. We conclude the trial court was correct in determining that Schoultz did not breach his duty of reasonable care to Ricci by accidentally falling into Ricci when there was no evidence that Schoultz was skiing negligently at the time of his fall. Because we agree with the trial court’s ruling, we do not reach the questions of whether a new trial should have been granted or whether the trial court’s decisions to exclude Schoultz’s expert witness testimony were proper.
CONCLUSION
Some collisions between skiers are an inherent risk of skiing and may occur absent negligence, as in this case. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Judith M. Billings, Judge
I CONCUR:
Russell W. Bench, Judge
DISSENT BY: GREGORY K. ORME
DISSENT
ORME, Judge (dissenting):
By focusing on the evidence plaintiff presented, rather than all evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, my colleagues take a too narrow view of our role in reviewing a trial court’s reversal of a [**9] jury’s verdict. Simply stated, the question is not whether the evidence plaintiff presented supports the jury’s verdict; rather, it is whether any evidence from whatever source will support it. See Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., 915 P.2d 1060, 1066 (Utah 1996) (“In determining whether competent evidence supports the verdict, we accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom that tend to prove [the nonmoving party’s] case, and we disregard all conflicts and evidence that tend to disprove its case.”). As the Fifth Circuit has noted,
on motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence– not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case–but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion.Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), overruled on other grounds, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997). Accord Guilbeau v. W. W. Henry Co., 85 F.3d 1149, 1161 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 136 L. Ed. 2d 713, 117 S. Ct. 766 (1997); Lamb [**10] ex rel. Shepard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1 F.3d 1184, 1187 (11th Cir. 1993); Epoch Producing Corp. v. Killiam Shows Inc., 522 F.2d 737, 743 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 47 L. Ed. 2d 360, 96 S. Ct. 1429 (1976); Anderson v. Lykes Pasco Packing Co., 503 So. 2d 1269, 1271-72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Millet v. Cormier, 671 So. 2d 1101, 1107-08 (La. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 673 So. 2d 1036 (La. 1996).
In this case, the jury might well have believed defendant’s testimony that he was skiing in complete control until immediately before the accident, that his skis did not come apart, and that he did not fall. Rejecting defendant’s testimony that he was hit from behind by plaintiff, which was essentially impossible given where the two ended up after the collision, the jury was also free to disbelieve plaintiff’s recollection that defendant’s skis separated and defendant merely fell into plaintiff’s path. The jury could nonetheless have believed plaintiff’s testimony that, immediately prior to the collision, he was skiing in control and a safe distance from defendant and defendant’s apparently intended route. Mindful that plaintiff and defendant ended up [**11] in a heap well off the ski run, in a position consistent with defendant hitting into plaintiff at high speed, the jury might well have inferred that the only way the accident could have occurred was if defendant, fully in control, carelessly and precipitously turned sharply to the left, hitting the unsuspecting plaintiff, who had every reason to assume defendant was going to continue with his pattern of tight turns as plaintiff passed uneventfully on the left.
To be sure, this is not exactly the theory plaintiff developed at trial, but it is a scenario that emerges quite readily if one reviews all the evidence and all reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom in the light [*788] most favorable to the jury’s verdict. If that is what the jury concluded, then the accident was caused by defendant’s negligence, not an inadvertent fall. Accordingly, the trial court should not have disturbed the jury’s verdict, and we should reinstate it.
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768
Posted: February 8, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Vermont | Tags: Causation, Jay Peak, Pro Se, Pro Se Plaintiff, Proximate Cause, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ski area, Vermont Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see
Skier is unable to hold ski area liable in Vermont for injuries received in an unknown way from an unknown person.
Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768
Paul A. Gemmink, Plaintiff-Appellant, — v. — Jay Peak Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 14-2725-cv
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768
August 19, 2015, Argued
November 30, 2015, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Pro se plaintiff Paul Gemmink was injured while skiing at defendant Jay Peak’s ski resort. Although Gemmink could not recall the circumstances of his injury, he came to believe that he had been injured in a collision with another skier as a result of Jay Peak’s negligent maintenance of ski jumps on its property. As a result, Gemmink brought an action to recover against Jay Peak for his injuries. The District Court granted summary judgment to Jay Peak, finding that Gemmink had failed to establish that any negligence on the part of Jay Peak was the cause of Gemmink’s injuries. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Gemmink v. Jay Peak, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87912 (D. Vt., June 23, 2014)
COUNSEL: PAUL A. GEMMINK, Pro se.
THOMAS P. AICHER, Cleary Shahi & Aicher, P.C., Rutland, VT, for Defendant-Appellee.
JUDGES: Before: CALABRESI, STRAUB, POOLER, Circuit Judges. Judge POOLER joins only Parts I and II(B) of the opinion.
OPINION BY: CALABRESI
OPINION
[*47] CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:
I. BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2011, Paul Gemmink and his daughter, Christine, visited the [*48] Jay Peak ski resort in Jay, Vermont. The two skied down the Northwest Passage trail, with Christine preceding her father as she turned onto the Kokomo trail, which intersected the Northwest Passage trail. When Christine reached the base [**2] of the ski lift at the end of the trail, she noticed that her father had failed to follow her descent. Instead, a Jay Peak ski patroller would find Gemmink “combative and in obvious pain,” lying on his back by a tree on the left side of the Kokomo trail, near the Kokomo-Northwest Passage intersection. App’x at 31. Gemmink had been rendered unconscious and, though argumentative, could not recall or provide an account of the incident. Christine, however, had observed a ski jump situated near the trees on the right side of the intersection, leading her and her father to surmise that another patron “fl[ew] of[f] the jump” and collided with Gemmink. Id. at 30, 32. Gemmink suffered fractures to his left ribs and left transverse processes in the incident, injuries that, according to Gemmink, are usually attributable to a significant impact coming from right to left, and are therefore at least consistent with the theory that a skier jumped from the right of the intersection into Gemmink.
Proceeding pro se, Gemmink brought this action against Jay Peak to recover for injuries that he claims were sustained as a result of Jay Peak’s negligence. Specifically, Gemmink asserts that Jay Peak negligently permitted dangerous jumps on [**3] its ski trails and that, in consequence of such a constructed jump at the Kokomo-Northwest Passage intersection, Gemmink suffered a collision with another skier resulting in harm to his left side. The District Court (Murtha, J.) granted Jay Peak’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Gemmink had failed to establish that Jay Peak’s alleged negligence was the cause of his injuries. Gemmink now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
[HN1] This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Amerex Group, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 678 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2012). [HN2] Where, as here, the party opposing summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment should be granted if the moving party can “point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.” Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995). [HN3] The court draws all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but the opposing party “must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.” Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 781 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 2015).
Before the district court, it was assumed that the negligence of Jay Peak in the structure and maintenance of the jumps was sufficiently made out to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, we will assume arguendo that Gemmink has established such [**4] a potential basis for liability on the part of Jay Peak. The issue before us, then, is a not-infrequent one in torts cases: whether the plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence for a jury to find, more probably than not, that the ground for liability (here, the assumed negligence) was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
As Professor Abraham has demonstrated in his recent article, [HN4] a showing of cause-in-fact almost always involves circumstantial evidence. See Kenneth S. Abraham, Self-Proving Causation, 99 Va. L. Rev. 1811, 1815-16 (2013). Thus, in considering whether a plaintiff has proven causation, a trier of fact asks whether it is [*49] likely that the harm that occurred resulted from the negligence (or from another basis of liability) attributed to the defendant. In other words, is the reason that the defendant’s behavior is deemed risky, and the defendant deemed potentially liable, the harm that in fact occurred?
In such circumstances, as then-Chief Judge Cardozo set out in Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (N.Y. 1920), a jury can assume that the injury occurred as the expected or ordinary result of the defendant’s conduct. Id. at 816. If for some reason it was not the ordinary result of the defendant’s conduct, that the “extraordinary” had occurred must be shown by the party [**5] wishing to counter causation. For example, if a defendant proprietor has failed to install lights on its stairways after dark, and a person coming down the stairs in the dark of night falls and injures himself, one can fairly assume that the failure to illuminate the stairs caused the injury. And it will be up to the defendant to show that something extraordinary happened, say, that an animal scampered up the stairs and tripped the injured person instead. In essence, the greater the risk that the defendant’s conduct will result in the harm the plaintiff suffered, the more likely that a jury will be allowed to find that such conduct was the cause of that harm.
[HN5] In addition to considering the strength of the circumstantial evidence linking injury and harm, however, the cases dealing with questions of causation take into account two other factors. First, where one party has knowledge or access to information that renders that party better able than his adversary to explain what actually transpired, courts have tended to put the onus on that party to do so. This principle–that the party with superior knowledge bears the burden of coming forward with evidence–has always served as a basis [**6] of finding negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. See, e.g., Griffen v. Manice, 166 N.Y. 188, 194-96, 59 N.E. 925 (1901). But it also serves as a basis for finding causation. See Williams v. Utica Coll. Of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d 112, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2006); Williams v. KFC Nat. Mgmt. Co., 391 F.3d 411, 431-32 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., concurring). Thus, the requirement that the plaintiff be able circumstantially to show a link between the expected risk of defendant’s conduct and what actually occurred tends to be greater when the plaintiff is better able to explain what happened, and is considerably less when, instead, it is the defendant who can better or more easily proffer evidence of what, in fact, occurred.
But cases of this sort also involve a third factor. Thus, [HN6] in deciding whether sufficient proof of causation has been proffered to get to a jury, courts consider whether the law of the jurisdiction is indifferent as to error in one direction or the other. If an erroneous finding of causation is, in the law of the jurisdiction, more harmful than an erroneous finding of no causation, the requirements of circumstantial evidence and knowledge grow stronger. Conversely, where the law of the jurisdiction makes clear that an erroneous finding of no causation is more harmful, the requirements are diminished. Compare Williams v. Utica Coll. Of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d at 121 (finding summary judgment against plaintiff appropriate [**7] because, inter alia, New York courts placed only a minimal duty on the defendant to avert the type of harm incurred, which is “close to saying that if an error is to be made in this context, it is better made in favor of the defendant“) (emphasis added), with Williams v. KFC Nat. Mgmt. Co., 391 F.3d at 432 (finding summary judgment against plaintiff inappropriate because, inter alia, of “the absence of any reason to [*50] prefer erring in favor of [the defendant] rather than the plaintiff”).
B.
With these three factors in mind, we turn to the case before us. The first factor favors the defendant. The causal link between Jay Peak’s assumed negligence in its maintenance of ski jumps and the injury incurred by the plaintiff is far too attenuated to sustain Gemmink’s claim. Our common experience does not tell us that this kind of lack of maintenance results in accidents of this sort with any frequency. And plaintiff has failed to proffer expert testimony suggesting a stronger link. See Human Rights Comm’n v. LaBrie, Inc., 164 Vt. 237, 668 A.2d 659, 667 (Vt. 1995) (“Generally, expert . . . testimony is required to support a finding of causation where the link is obscure and abstruse such that a layperson can have no well founded knowledge and can do no more than indulge in mere speculation.”) (internal quotation marks [**8] omitted).
The second is, at most, neutral. Neither Gemmink nor Jay Peak has greater knowledge or access to information concerning what actually happened on the Kokomo trail.
We turn, then, to the third factor: Is this an area where, in Vermont, liability of ski operators to skiers is close to strict, so that whether negligence was the cause of the alleged injury is a matter that, in uncertainty, should be decided in favor of the skier? Or is this an area where the risk of injury, even in the presence of negligence on the part of the ski operator, is assumed primarily by the skier, so that the requirement of causation is fairly placed on the skier (unless either (a) the evidentiary link between the evidence of negligence and causation of the kind of harm that occurred is particularly strong, or (b) the defendant is in a distinctly better position to tell us what happened)? Or, finally, is Vermont relatively indifferent to error in one direction or the other, offering no reason to favor either the plaintiff or defendant?
A review of Vermont law suggests that it follows the approach of symmetrical indifference. [HN7] By statute, although assumption of risk has generally been subsumed in comparative [**9] negligence, 12 V.S.A. § 1036, it has been expressly retained as to sporting events, 12 V.S.A. § 1037. This would suggest that Vermont prefers to err on the side of finding no causation with respect to sport injuries like the one that here occurred. At the same time, however, the decision of whether the risk borne by the plaintiff in the sporting event was sufficiently “obvious and necessary” as to be assumed generally forms a jury question under Vermont law. See Estate of Frant v. Haystack Grp., Inc., 162 Vt. 11, 641 A.2d 765, 770-71 (Vt. 1994) (rejecting the conclusion that “by enacting § 1037, the legislature intended to provide more protection from liability for ski areas” and stating that “§ 1037 is broad enough . . . [that s]kiers should be deemed to assume only those skiing risks that the skiing industry is not reasonably required to prevent,” as determined by “a jury [applying] a contemporary sense of what constitutes an obvious or necessary risk”). Vermont’s approach stands in notable contrast both to Connecticut, where participants in sporting events rarely assume the risk of that participation, see, e.g., Jagger v. Mohawk Mt. Ski Area, Inc., 269 Conn. 672, 849 A.2d 813, 827 (2004), and to New York, where assumption of risk is powerfully applied by courts to bar recovery by participants in sporting events, see, e.g., Martin v. New York, 64 A.D.3d 62, 878 N.Y.S.2d 823, 825-26 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2009); N.Y. Gen. Obl. Law § 18-106. This contrast reinforces [*51] our conclusion that Vermont [**10] wants us to treat errors in this area pretty much symmetrically.
Consequently, we are left to infer causation, then, from only the placement of the ski jumps and the nature of Gemmink’s injuries. We cannot infer a causal link between Jay Peak’s assumed negligence in its maintenance of ski jumps and the injury incurred on the facts presented, and the plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to support a link between his injuries and alleged theory of causation. Under these circumstances, the district court was clearly correct in its holding that the evidence adduced by Gemmink was not sufficient to raise a question for the jury.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the District Court is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
G-YQ06K3L262
http://www.recreation-law.com
Weinrich v. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79
Posted: January 26, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Business Invitee, Contract, FactFinder, Go Kart, Go Kart Racing, Missing Phrase, Missing Term, Open and Obvious, Release, Time Leave a commentWeinrich v. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79
Nicholas Weinrich, Plaintiff -VS- Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, incorrectly Identified As Lehigh Valley Grand Prix LLC, Defendant
File No. 2014-C-0226
COMMON PLEAS COURT OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CIVIL DIVISION
2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79
August 14, 2015, Decided
CORE TERMS: summary judgment, track, plastic, depositions, public policy, citations omitted, duration, genuine, issue of material fact, question of fact, reasonable amount, contravene, factfinder, covering, invitee, silent, rink, dangerous condition, constructive notice, protruding, inspection, customer, go-kart’s, execute, notice, repeat, snap, general rule, moving party’s, liability theory
COUNSEL: [*1] Robert G. Bauer, Esq. for Plaintiff.
Ian T. Baxter, Esq. for Defendant.
JUDGES: Douglas G. Reichley, J.
OPINION BY: Douglas G. Reichley
OPINION
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14 day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 19, 2015, and after argument conducted August 12, 2015,
IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion.
By the Court:
Douglas G. Reichley, J.
Memorandum Opinion
Lehigh Valley Grand Prix, Inc., Defendant, owns and operates a go-kart track located at 649 South 10th Street, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Nicholas Weinrich, Plaintiff, filed the instant action alleging he was injured while patronizing the facility. On May 19, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is denied.
Factual and Procedural History
According to the Complaint, on June 4, 2012 at approximately 8:15 p.m, Plaintiff was operating a go-kart on Defendant’s track during which time a piece of the plastic covering the guardrail broke and was sticking out toward the track. As Plaintiff drove around the track, the plastic caught his go-kart’s bumper causing it to snap into his [*2] left leg. Plaintiff sustained a laceration on his leg less than two inches wide.
During depositions, Plaintiff testified that six months prior to the incident, he patronized Defendant’s facility without issue. On the date in question, Plaintiff completed two laps and did not notice the plastic covering jutting out. On his third lap, Plaintiff came around the adjacent turn and maintained momentum. He was near the wall, and the piece of the plastic guard was hanging out, bent toward him. He heard a loud snap, and subsequently felt pain in his calf.
Deposition testimony from Defendant’s staff indicated that the protrusion onto the track was common enough that employees were trained on how to repair it. Defendant’s owner conceded that it was possible for the plastic piece on the wall to snap and protrude onto the track.
Six months before the incident in question, on December 4, 2011, Plaintiff patronized Defendant’s establishment. At that time he was required to execute a waiver in order to participate in the race. When he returned in June of 2012, he was not presented with his original waiver, nor was he asked to execute a second one. Testimony from Michael Achey, the manager of Defendant’s [*3] establishment, indicated that repeat customers are not asked to re-execute the waiver. (N.T. Deposition of Michael P. Achey, February 25, 2015, at 45.) Mr. Achey acknowledged that while he has indicated to some repeat customers that they did not need to execute another waiver because one was already on file, he did not say that to every repeat customer. (Id. at 45-46.)
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 4, 2014. Defendant filed its Answer on April 29, 2014. On May 19, 2015, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed his response on June 19, 2015. Defendant filed a sur-reply brief on August 6, 2015. The Court heard oral argument on August 12, 2015, after which time the matter was taken under advisement.
This Opinion follows.
Discussion
The standard of review for a motion seeking summary judgment is as follows:
A trial court properly enters summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary clement of the cause of action.” Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1). The moving party’s right to summary judgment has to be clear and free from doubt after examination of the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolution of all doubts as to the existence [*4] of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party
Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition Corp., 603 Pa. 198, 983 A.2d 652, 657 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Defendant seeks summary judgment on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff executed a voluntary waiver which bars his recovery. Second, Defendant argues that even if the release were not binding and valid, as a landowner, Defendant cannot be held liable under these circumstances under a premises liability theory.
In Pennsylvania, exculpatory agreements must be strictly construed. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Business Men’s Assoc., 423 Pa. 288, 224 A.2d 620, 623 (1966). Releases from liability are disfavored as a matter of public policy, but are nonetheless “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 to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion.” Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174, 1189 (Pa. 2010) (quoting Topp Copy Products, Inc. v. Singletary, 533 Pa. 468, 626 A.2d 98, 99 (Pa. 1993)).
The courts of Pennsylvania have traditionally determined the effect of a release using the ordinary meaning of its language and interpreted the release as covering only such matters as can fairly be said to have been within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given. Moreover, releases [*5] are strictly construed so as not to bar the enforcement of a claim that had not accrued at the date of the execution of the release.
Fortney v. Callenberger, 2002 PA Super 182, 801 A.2d 594, 597 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In the context of recreational activities, releases generally function as a bar to liability because the party executing the release is free to choose whether or not he or she wants to participate in the activity. Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc., 616 Pa. 385, 47 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. 2012). Such releases do not contravene public policy. Id. However, where the injury was caused by recklessness or gross negligence, enforcement of the release would contravene public policy and the releases are thereby rendered void under those circumstances. Id.
The relevant language of the release in question provides:
IN CONSIDERATION of being permitted to compete, officiate, observe, work, or participate in the EVENT(s), use the equipment, premises, facilities and/or services of Lehigh Valley Grand Prix, LLC., [the undersigned agrees to the release terms] …
Plaintiff argues that the waiver was no longer valid on the date in question because he executed it six months prior to the date of the accident. In support of this argument, Plaintiff does not cite any case law from Pennsylvania or any federal [*6] authority interpreting Pennsylvania law on this matter. The sole case upon which Plaintiff relics is a Florida case, Cain v. Banka, 932 So.2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), which held a release unenforceable because the release contained no express language advising the plaintiff that it covered every future visit to a motocross track.
There are not any Pennsylvania cases reflecting the Florida court’s holding. Federal cases interpreting Pennsylvania law merely look at the language of the release to gauge its degree of applicability. See Savarese v. Camelback Ski Corp., 417 F.Supp.2d 663, 667 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (applying Pennsylvania law, language on the back of a ski lift ticket constituted a valid exculpatory agreement once the plaintiff purchased the ticket).
The salient issue in evaluating the instant waiver is that the language on the form neither limits the time for its applicability nor specifies the event or occasion to which it applies. When asked about the release’s duration during oral argument, Defendant’s counsel maintained that the waiver would be effective forever without limitation.
“As a general rule, releases encompass only such matters as may fairly be said to have been within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given.” Farrell v. Lechmanik, Inc., 417 Pa. Super. 172, 611 A.2d 1322, 1323 (Pa. Super. 1992). “[I]t is axiomatic that releases are construed in accordance [*7] with traditional principles of contract law, fundamental to which is the directive that the effect of a release must be determined from the ordinary meaning of its language.” Maloney v. Valley Med. Facilities, Inc., 2008 PA Super 32, 946 A.2d 702, 706 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under contract principles, where a contract is silent as to the time for performance, courts must infer that the parties intended that performance occur within a reasonable amount of time. Cashdollar v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 406 Pa. Super. 606, 595 A.2d 70, 76 (Pa. Super. 1991) (“When the exact period for which the parties intended to contract cannot be ascertained, the agreement is not vitiated; rather, an agreement for a ‘reasonable time’ will be inferred.”).
In construing a contract, courts must adopt “an interpretation which under all circumstances ascribes the most reasonable, probable, and natural conduct of the parties, bearing in mind the objects manifestly to be accomplished.” Metzger v. Clifford Realty Corp., 327 Pa. Super. 377, 476 A.2d 1, 5 (Pa. Super. 1984) (citation omitted). “If an essential term is left out of the agreement, the law will not invalidate the contract but will include a reasonable term.” Stephan v. Waldron Elec. Heating & Cooling LLC, 2014 PA Super 205, 100 A.3d 660, 668 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting RegScan, Inc. v. Con-Way Transp. Services, Inc., 2005 PA Super 176, 875 A.2d 332 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
In this case, the release Plaintiff executed is silent as to duration. Based on the foregoing case law, the Court determines that this is an essential term which is left out of the agreement. Therefore, a reasonable [*8] term is to be imposed instead of invalidating the release as a whole. Id. Because contract principles further dictate that contractual duration is presumed to be for a reasonable amount of time in the absence of a specified time for performance, Metzger, 476 A.2d at 5, the parties’ release must therefore be deemed to apply for a reasonable period of time. What constitutes a reasonable time, however, is generally a question of fact to be resolved by the factfinder. See, e.g., Yates v. Clifford Motors, Inc., 283 Pa. Super. 293, 423 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super. 1980) (in the Uniform Commercial Code context, whether goods were rejected within a reasonable amount of time where contract was silent as to time for rejection was question of fact for jury).
Consequently, Defendant’s argument in support of summary judgment based on the existence of a release must be denied. Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Whether six months following the execution of a release for a recreational activity constitutes a reasonable amount of time is a question more appropriately posed to a finder of fact. The reasonableness of the duration in question is therefore a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is inappropriate.
Defendant also argued in its motion [*9] that even if the release was not binding and valid, as a landowner, Defendant cannot be held liable under these circumstances under a premises liability theory. Plaintiff in this case was an invitee for premises liability purposes. An invitee is someone who is “invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.” Restatement (Second) of Torts §332 (1965).
As a general rule, possessors of land are not liable to invitees for physical harm caused to them by activities or conditions on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343A. A danger is deemed to be “obvious” when “both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.” Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178, 469 A.2d 120, 123-24 (Pa. 1983) (citation omitted). “For a danger to be ‘known,’ it must not only be known to exist, but … also be recognized that it is dangerous and the probability and gravity of the threatened harm must be appreciated.” Id. at 124.
Nonetheless, the question of whether conditions on land were in fact open and obvious is generally [*10] a question of fact for a jury to decide. Id. It may be decided by a court where reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusion. Id.; see also Long v. Manzo, 452 Pa. Super. 451, 682 A.2d 370, 373 (Pa. Super. 19%) (citation omitted) (issues of plaintiff’s knowledge of condition creating unreasonable risk of harm usually for jury to decide, but may be decided by court where reasonable minds could not differ).
In the context of amusement facilities, Pennsylvania courts have held that there is no duty to protect participants against the typical risks attendant to those activities. See Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc., 374 Pa. Super. 118, 542 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 1983) (roller rink has no obligation to protect patrons from falling down or being bumped by other skaters). A duty arises only where the risks at play are atypical. See id. (liability found where accident attributable to a condition unique to defendant skating rink, i.e. a 60-foot wide opening in the rink and a 6″ drop-off on its side).
With respect to the requirement for notice, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s employees’ depositions demonstrate an acute awareness that the sort of dangerous condition at issue–the broken plastic piece protruding into the racetrack–was something for which they were trained. While the record is devoid of evidence supporting [*11] actual notice, Plaintiff argued Defendant had constructive notice.
Neither the witnesses who were deposed nor Plaintiff testified that the plastic was protruding into the track for an extended period of time. The testimony at the depositions indicated that there are three scheduled inspections of the racetrack per day: morning, noon, and night. None of those inspections revealed the dangerous condition. There is also a visual inspection of the track in between each race according to the testimony offered by Michael McCreary, Defendant’s owner. Defendant’s employees, Michael Achey (manager) and Corey Dewalt (track marshal) conceded that it was possible that the protruding plastic could have been missed.
Summary judgment would not be appropriate on these grounds because there are factual issues regarding constructive notice and whether there were appropriate steps undertaken by Defendant. Testimony before a factfinder is necessary to assess whether and to what extent the employees were aware in advance of the existence of the dangerous condition. These are all factual questions to be resolved by a factfinder.
Conclusion
Because there is an outstanding factual issue concerning whether six [*12] months after execution of the subject release is a reasonable period of time for the release to remain in effect, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground of the release must fail. Further, there are outstanding factual questions concerning constructive notice which render summary judgment inappropriate on that basis. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
By the Court:
Douglas G. Reichley, J.
8/14/15
Cobb v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563
Posted: January 23, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Nevada, Rivers and Waterways, Skydiving, Paragliding, Hang gliding | Tags: Admiralty and Maritime Law, Admiralty Law, Aramark, assumption of the risk, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, Parasailing, Release, Zephyr Cove Resort Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see
Admiralty law did not stop a release from barring a claim for negligence for a parasailing injury.
Cobb v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563
Jaclyn Cobb, Plaintiff, v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, Defendant.
3:11-cv-0840-LRH-WGC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563
February 13, 2013, Decided
February 14, 2013, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended March 18, 2013.
COUNSEL: [**1] For Jaclyn Cobb, Plaintiff: Angela D. Bullentini, Charles M Kilpatrick, Kilpatrick, Johnston & Adler, Carson City, NV.
For Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, Defendant: Rachel K McLendon-Kent, Graeme A. Reid, Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell, Reno, NV; Terence Cox, Cox, Wootton, Griffin, Hansen & Poulos, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
JUDGES: LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: LARRY R. HICKS
OPINION
[*1296] AMENDED ORDER
Before the court is defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC’s (“Aramark”) motion for summary judgment. Doc. #28. 1 Plaintiff Jaclyn Cobb (“Cobb”) filed an opposition (Doc. #33) to which Aramark replied (Doc. #38). This Order amends Order #39. 2
1 Refers to the court’s docket number.
2 This Order is identical to Order #39, but with needed edits for punctuation and citation accuracy.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Cobb is seeking recovery for a knee injury allegedly sustained while parasailing with an affiliate of defendant Aramark.
On June 15, 2010, Cobb paid to go parasailing on Lake Tahoe through an operation ran by Zephyr Cove Resort (“Zephyr”). Before going on the boat for parasailing, Cobb signed a waiver of liability entitled Acknowledgment and Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability (“Waiver”). The waiver stated in relevant part:
In consideration of my being allowed to participate in the parasailing [**2] activities operated and conducted by [Zephyr], I hereby RELEASE and WAIVE . . . any and all claims that I may have . . . against [Zephyr], and any of [its] affiliates . . . I specifically RELEASE [Zephyr], and any of [its] affiliates . . . from . . . all claims for . . . injury or death to persons caused by negligence of any one of them arising out of my participation in the parasailing activities. I AGREE NOT TO SUE . . . the aforementioned parties for any injuries or damages that I might hereby receive from my participation in the parasailing activities, whether or not such injury, loss or damage results from the aforementioned [*1297] parties’ negligence or from any other cause.
Doc. #28, Exhibit A.
After signing the waiver, Cobb boarded the parasailing vessel and, along with another family member, went parasailing in a tandem harness. At some point during the trip, adverse weather conditions, including high winds, caused the parasailing trip to be called short. As she was being reeled back into the boat Cobb struck her knee on the boat causing significant injury.
Subsequently, Cobb filed a complaint for negligence against Aramark. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, Aramark filed the present motion [**3] for summary judgment contending that Cobb expressly waived her right to sue. Doc. #28.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).
The moving party bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” [**4] Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986); see also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
To successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient to establish a genuine dispute; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. See id. at 252.
III. Discussion
A. Applicable Law
In its motion, Aramark argues that this action, and thereby [**5] the express waiver, is governed by federal admiralty law. See Doc. #28. An action falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) when: (1) the underlying tort occurred on navigable waters; and (2) the actions giving rise to the tort claim bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. Charnis v. Watersport Pro, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *5-6 [*1298] (D. Nev. 2009) (citing Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 365-66, 110 S. Ct. 2892, 111 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1990)).
The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that this action falls within the court’s exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. First, the alleged injury occurred on Lake Tahoe, a navigable waterway that lies within the borders of Nevada and California. Where, as here, a body of water forms a border between two states and is capable of supporting maritime commerce, it is considered navigable for the purpose of establishing admiralty jurisdiction. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *6. Second, parasailing bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities sufficient to establish admiralty jurisdiction. See e.g., In the Matter of Skyrider, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16510, *10 (D. Haw. 1990) [**6] (“Careful and safe navigation of vessels in navigable waters have always been a fundamental admiralty concern. Navigation is an essential component in the parasailing activity.”); UFO Chuting of Hawaii Inc. v. Smith, 508 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that parasailing is an activity bearing a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities); Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *6 (“The operation of recreational boats, including pulling skiers or wakeboarders, bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”). Therefore, this action arises under the court’s admiralty jurisdiction and, as such, the court must apply substantive federal admiralty law to this action. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *6 (“With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive admiralty law.”) (citing E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S 858, 864, 106 S. Ct. 2295, 90 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1986)).
B. Assumption of the Risk
In her opposition, Cobb argues that the liability waiver is unenforceable because under federal maritime law assumption of the risk is not a valid defense. Cobb is correct that assumption of the risk is not an available defense in maritime cases involving [**7] personal injury. See e.g., De Sole v. United States, 947 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1991); Skidmore v. Grueninger, 506 F.2d 716 (5th Cir. 1975). However, this does not preclude Aramark from raising the defense of express waiver in this case. Waiver and assumption of the risk are two distinct affirmative defenses and are addressed separately under federal admiralty law. See Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *10-11. Therefore, Aramark may raise the affirmative defense of express waiver in this action.
C. Express Waiver
In its motion, Aramark argues that the signed express waiver precludes the present action. See Doc. #28. Specifically, Aramark argues that under federal maritime law, pre-accident liability waivers are enforceable and may properly dispose of this action on summary judgment.
Under federal admiralty law, owners of recreational vessels may, through written waivers, disclaim liability for their own negligence. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *11. A pre-accident waiver absolves a defendant of liability for recreational activities on navigable waters if the exculpatory clause is (1) clear and unambiguous; (2) is not inconsistent with public policy; and (3) is not an adhesion contract. [**8] Id. at 13.
The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that the signed waiver of liability is [*1299] enforceable. First, Cobb concedes that she knowingly and voluntarily signed the liability waiver. See Doc. #33. Second, the court finds that the express waiver in this action is clear and unambiguous as it contains specific language releasing Zephyr and its affiliates, including defendant Aramark, for injuries sustained in carrying out the parasailing activities as a result of Zephyr’s negligence.
A waiver is clear and unambiguous if it specifically bars the plaintiff’s negligence claim and explicitly exonerates all defendants in the lawsuit. See Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022. Here, the waiver specifically bars plaintiff from suing for her injuries. Doc. #28, Exhibit A (“I AGREE NOT TO SUE . . . the aforementioned parties for any injuries or damages that I might hereby receive from my participation in the parasailing activities, whether or not such injury, loss or damage results from the aforementioned parties’ negligence or from any other cause.”). Further, the very injuries Cobb is suing for are specifically precluded by the waiver including “drowning, [**9] sprained or broken bones.” Doc. #28, Exhibit A. Therefore, the court finds that the express waiver is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to cover Cobb’s injuries sustained while parasailing.
Third, the underlying express waiver is not inconsistent with public policy because waivers of liability on navigable waters do not contravene federal public policy. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *13-14; In re Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123786, *21 (C.D. Utah 2012) (holding that maritime exculpatory clauses are enforceable when a party clearly absolves itself from liability for its own negligence).
Finally, the court finds that the express waiver signed by Cobb is not an adhesion contract because it concerns a voluntary recreational activity. Under federal admiralty law, liability waivers for recreational sporting activities like parasailing are not contracts of adhesion because they are not essential services. See e.g., Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *14-15; In re Aramark, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123789, *15. Therefore, the court finds that the underlying pre-accident waiver is valid and enforceable and absolves defendant Aramark of any liability [**10] arising from the recreational parasailing activity. Accordingly, the court shall grant Aramark’s motion for summary judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #28) is GRANTED. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC and against plaintiff Jaclyn Cobb.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2013.
/s/ Larry R. Hicks
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
G-YQ06K3L262
http://www.recreation-law.com
Espinoza, Jr., v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39
Posted: January 21, 2016 Filed under: Colorado, Legal Case, Paddlesports, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: 10th Circuit, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Arkansas River, Brown’s Canyon, fatality, Seidel’s Suck Hole, Strainer, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Whitewater Rafting Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see
10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Colorado law concerning releases in a whitewater rafting fatality.
Espinoza, Jr., v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39
Jesus Espinoza, Jr., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, Defendant – Appellee. Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae.
No. 14-1444
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39
January 5, 2016, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01421-MSK-BNB).
Espinoza v. Ark. Valley Adventures, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136102 (D. Colo., Sept. 26, 2014)
CASE SUMMARY:
OVERVIEW: HOLDINGS: [1]-The deceased’s son unsuccessfully argued that, while his mother signed a release, it should be still be held to violate state public policy as it ran afoul of the first two Jones factors because his is claim was one for negligence per se rather than common law negligence; [2]-The argument mistook the nature of the inquiry called for by the first two Jones factors; [3]-His argument suggested a firmer analytical line could be drawn between claims of negligence and negligence per se than the circumstances in the case would fairly allow; [4]-His interpretation of the Colorado River Outfitters Act would require the court to read into that statute a good deal more than it said; [5]-The disclosure and release sufficed to satisfy the third and fourth Jones factors.
OUTCOME: Judgment affirmed.
CORE TERMS: rafting, recreational, common law, trip, claim of negligence, warning, negligence per se, public policy, equine, river, common law, private parties, recreational activities, misdemeanor, outfitter’s, provider, Colo Law, civil liability, purporting, raft, ski, matter of law, negligence claims, matter of practical necessity, public services, great importance, mean to suggest, horseback riding, standard of care, civil claims
COUNSEL: William J. Hansen of McDermott & McDermott, LLP, Denver, CO (George E. McLaughlin of Warshauer McLaughlin Law Group, P.C., Denver, CO, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alan Epstein (Ryan L. Winter and Conor P. Boyle, with him on the brief), of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Russell R. Hatten and Evan P. Banker of Chalat Hatten Koupal & Banker PC, Denver, CO, on the brief for amicus curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.
JUDGES: Before KELLY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: GORSUCH
OPINION
GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
This case arises from a summer rafting trip gone tragically wrong. It began when Sue Ann Apolinar hired a guide for a family adventure in the Colorado Rockies: an overnight rafting and camping excursion on a popular stretch of the Arkansas River running through Brown’s Canyon. After she arrived at the outfitter’s office, Ms. Apolinar and the other rafters received the usual guidance, made the usual preparations, and signed the usual release before heading down river. The next day, while maneuvering around [*2] a rapid known locally as Seidel’s Suck Hole, the raft capsized. Everyone else was fished out of the water soon enough. But in a heartbreaking turn of events, the current swept Ms. Apolinar into a logjam where, despite repeated efforts to save her, she drowned. Eventually, Ms. Apolinar’s son, Jesus Espinoza, Jr., brought a lawsuit against the rafting company alleging negligence per se and fraud (and other claims no longer in dispute). In reply, the company sought summary judgment, arguing that the release Ms. Apolinar signed shielded it from liability. With this the district court agreed and proceeded to enter judgment for the company. It’s the propriety of this ruling that we’re asked to assess in this appeal.
No one before us doubts that Ms. Apolinar signed a release. Or that the release purported to absolve the rafting company from any claim of negligence. The only question in this appeal is whether Colorado law permits private parties to enforce a contract like this. [HN1] Under Colorado common law, it’s long settled that courts will not give effect to contracts purporting to release claims for intentional, knowing, or reckless misconduct. See, e.g., Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc., 223 P.3d 724, 726 (Colo. 2010). But claims of negligence are a different [*3] matter. Colorado common law does not categorically prohibit the enforcement of contracts seeking to release claims of negligence. Instead, and at the most general level, the Colorado Supreme Court has instructed courts to weigh four factors when deciding whether to give effect to agreements along these lines: “(1) the existence [or nonexistence] of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.” Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981).
Even more specifically, [HN2] the Colorado Supreme Court has explained that the first two Jones factors focus on public policy questions — asking whether “[t]he party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity [and] . . . [a]s a result of the essential nature of the service . . . the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services.” Id. (quoting Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal. 2d 92, 32 Cal. Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 444 (Cal. 1963)). Meanwhile, the latter two factors focus on more party- and contract-specific questions — asking whether the release was fairly [*4] obtained and clearly and unambiguously expressed. Id. at 378. If the release satisfies both sets of questions — the more general and the more particular — it may be enforced. (Provided, of course, that it is otherwise a valid contract, involving, for example, mutual assent and consideration, matters not in dispute here).
[HN3] When it comes to the first two Jones factors, the Colorado Supreme Court has offered even more specific guidance yet. Though some businesses perform essential public services and owe special duties to the public, the court has held that “businesses engaged in recreational activities” generally do not. Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465, 467 (Colo. 2004); see also Boles, 223 P.3d at 726 (“More than a quarter century ago, this court rejected the assertion that any agreement purporting to shield a party from liability for its own tortious conduct” in the provision of recreational services “would violate . . . public policy . . . .”). So while businesses providing, say, water, electricity, or sanitary services usually may not shield themselves from claims of negligence, recreational service providers often can. Though, of course, they must still face and satisfy the latter two case-specific Jones factors.
This relatively permissive public policy toward [*5] recreational releases may not be unique to Colorado common law but it does seem to be one of its distinguishing features. We don’t doubt other states may rationally choose to pursue different lines when it comes to recreational releases: certainly the parties before us cite an array of cases from other jurisdictions taking an array of views. But [HN4] in our federal system, states are usually permitted (and encouraged) to pursue their own paths on policy matters like these. And it’s clear enough that Colorado allows private parties to assume some of the risks associated with their recreational pursuits. It’s a policy choice that, no doubt, means some losses go uncompensated but one that also promotes the output and diversity of recreational services consumers may enjoy. Of course, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado General Assembly may change their judgment on this score at any time. And maybe someday they will prefer a policy that shifts the burden of loss to the service provider, ensuring compensation in cases like this even if also impairing to some degree individual choice and output. But that decision is their decision to make, not ours, and their current policy is clear. Indeed, [*6] following the Colorado Supreme Court’s guidance in this area, this court and many Colorado courts have upheld many releases in many recreational activities over many years. Only some examples of which we include in the margin.1
1 See, e.g., Lahey v. Covington, 964 F. Supp. 1440, 1444-46 (D. Colo. 1996) (whitewater rafting), aff’d sub nom. Lahey v. Twin Lakes Expeditions, Inc., 113 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 1997); Forman v. Brown, 944 P.2d 559, 563-64 (Colo. App. 1996) (same); Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Co., No. 08-cv-00052-MSK-MJW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093, at *3-5 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2009) (skiing), aff’d, 363 F. App’x 547 (10th Cir. 2010); Fullick v. Breckenridge Ski Corp., No. 90-1377, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 9988, 1992 WL 95421, at *3 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 1992) (same); Potter v. Nat’l. Handicapped Sports, 849 F. Supp. 1407, 1409-11 (D. Colo. 1994) (same); Bauer v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 788 F. Supp. 472, 474-75 (D. Colo. 1992) (same); Mincin v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 308 F.3d 1105, 1113 (10th Cir. 2002) (mountain biking); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 468-70 (horseback riding); B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 137-38 (Colo. 1998) (same); see also William R. Rapson & Stephen A. Bain, Recreational Waivers in Colorado: Playing at Your Own Risk, 32 Colo. Law. 77, 77 (2003) (noting that “Colorado law generally supports waivers of liability in connection with recreational activities”); James H. Chalat, Colorado Ski Law, 27 Colo. Law. 5, 14 (1998) (noting that “courts generally hold [ski racing] waivers to be enforceable”); Jordan Lipp, Horse Law — A Look at the Equine Statute and Liability Law, 41 Colo. Law. 95, 99 (2012) (“Releases have been upheld in a number of horseback riding cases.”).
Still, Mr. Espinoza submits, his case is categorically different. Yes, Ms. Apolinar signed a document purporting to release the rafting company from all claims of negligence. Yes, Colorado public policy generally permits the release of claims of negligence in recreational pursuits like the one here. But, Mr. Espinoza argues, the release Ms. Apolinar signed should still be held to violate state public policy — it should [*7] still be held to run afoul of the first two Jones factors — because his claim is one for negligence per se rather than common law negligence. He observes that the Colorado River Outfitters Act (CROA) makes it a misdemeanor for rafting companies to operate any raft in a “careless or imprudent manner.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-32-107(2)(b). And from this, he reasons, negligence by rafting companies has become a matter of public concern and a public service within the meaning of the first two Jones factors.
We find ourselves unable to agree for a number of related reasons.
First, we think this argument mistakes the nature of the inquiry called for by the first two Jones factors. [HN5] By their terms, those factors don’t ask whether the activity in question is the subject of some sort of state regulation. Instead, they ask whether the service provided is of “great importance to the public,” a matter of “practical necessity” as opposed to (among other things) a “recreational” one. 623 P.2d at 376-77. And the distinction the Jones factors draw between essential and recreational services would break down pretty quickly if the presence of some state regulation were enough to convert an otherwise obviously “recreational” service into a “practically necessary” [*8] one. After all, state law imposes various rules and regulations on service providers in most every field these days — including on service providers who operate in a variety of clearly recreational fields. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-14-116 (snowmobiling); id. § 33-44-104(2) (skiing); id. § 13-21-119(4)(b)(I) (equine activities).
Second, Mr. Espinoza’s argument suggests a firmer analytical line can be drawn between claims of negligence and negligence per se than we think the circumstances here will fairly allow. As we’ve seen, [HN6] Colorado law has long permitted parties to contract away negligence claims in the recreational context. And negligence per se claims often differ very little from their common law cousins: they usually just substitute a common law duty or standard of care with one prescribed by statute and all other elements remain the same. See Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565, 573 (Colo. 2008). In fact, in the case before us it’s not even clear what duty of care CROA adds to the common law. Mr. Espinoza says the rafting company violated the statutory duty to avoid operating a raft in a “careless or imprudent manner.” Mr. Espinoza points as well to implementing regulations that suggest a company should offer things like a “basic orientation” for rafters and help when accidents occur. [*9] But Mr. Espinoza does not suggest how these provisions create any distinctly new duty of care. Indeed, they appear to be more or less coextensive with [HN7] the preexisting common law standard of care, which requires parties to act with “reasonable care . . . i.e., that which a person of common prudence would use under the circumstances.” Christensen v. Hoover, 643 P.2d 525, 529 (Colo. 1982). And given this it seems hard to see a rational basis on which the law might treat such similar (identical?) claims so differently based merely on how they are pleaded, rewarding the crafty but penalizing the pedestrian pleader.2
2 Though we do not rely on the fact in our analysis above, Colorado authorities did conduct an investigation of the accident in this case pursuant to CROA and ultimately decided not to pursue any sanction.
Third, Mr. Espinoza’s interpretation of CROA would require us to read into that statute a good deal more than it says. [HN8] CROA imposes criminal misdemeanor sanctions for violating the duties it prescribes. It does not speak, one way or the other, to the question of civil liability — let alone suggest that private parties are forbidden from contractually releasing potential negligence claims. Neither [HN9] is it obviously irrational that the [*10] General Assembly might choose to pass legislation about public (criminal) liability but leave private (civil) liability to preexisting common law principles. Indeed, courts generally will not assume that the General Assembly means to displace background common law principles absent some clear legislative expression of that intent. See Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 387 (Colo. 2005). The General Assembly, too, has shown that — when it wishes — it well knows how to displace background common law norms and preclude the release of civil claims. See, e.g., Stanley v. Creighton Co., 911 P.2d 705, 707-09 (Colo. App. 1996). Given all this, we do not think it our place to adorn the General Assembly’s handiwork with revisions to the common law that it easily could have but declined to undertake for itself.
Finally, we find it noteworthy that Colorado courts faced with similar challenges seem to have resolved them much as we resolve this one today. For example, the General Assembly has adopted a statute holding that “equine professional[s]” may not be held civilly liable for “the inherent risks of equine activities.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-119(3). But that statute goes on to state that the immunity it provides does not extinguish civil liability in cases where the equine professional supplied equipment or tack it should have known was faulty or [*11] failed to make reasonable efforts to determine the ability of the rider before the excursion began. Id. § 13-21-119(4)(b)(I). And despite the General Assembly’s express solicitude toward these latter classes of claims, the Colorado Supreme Court has allowed private parties to contract away claims of negligence on both fronts. B & B Livery, 960 P.2d at 135, 137-38. Maybe even more pointedly still, [HN10] since the enactment of CROA and its misdemeanor criminal penalties, various Colorado courts have enforced releases of civil negligence claims obtained by whitewater rafting companies. See, e.g., Lahey, 964 F. Supp. at 1444-46; Forman, 944 P.2d at 563-64. This court has upheld, too, a release a snowboarder gave to a ski area absolving its employees of negligence even when the area’s employee allegedly operated a snowmobile in a negligent manner and a state statute made that very behavior a misdemeanor. See Robinette, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093, at *3-5.
In saying this much, we take care to emphasize what we do not mean to say. We do not mean to suggest that some future statute could not — or even that some other current statute might not — preclude the enforcement of releases like the one here. Neither do we mean to suggest that the Colorado Supreme Court could not alter its common law policy with respect to recreational releases. In particular, we [*12] do not pass on the question whether the General Assembly’s enactment of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-101 to 6-1-1001, might preclude the enforcement of recreational releases when the plaintiff pleads a valid claim under that statute. See Rapson & Bain, supra, at 77-78 (noting that while Colorado law “generally supports” recreational waivers, it’s an open question whether a statutory CCPA claim can be waived). In this case, we merely hold that the CROA provisions cited to us do not satisfy and do not overrule the first two factors of the common law Jones test.
Of course, that takes us only half way. Having decided that the release survives Jones‘s public-policy factors, we must still consider its case-specific factors. [HN11] The third Jones factor requires us to ask whether “the circumstances and the nature of the service involved indicate that the contract was fairly entered into.” Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467. Relatedly, the fourth Jones factor addresses the terms of the contract itself, inviting us to “examine[] the actual language of the [release] for legal jargon, length and complication” and any other evidence that a party might not “recognize the full extent of the release provisions.” Id. The district court held that the release before us [*13] satisfied both of these conditions — that it was fairly entered into and clear in its terms. And in the end we find we agree with its assessment on this score too.
Mr. Espinoza trains most of his attention on the third factor. He contends that the rafting company misrepresented the nature of the trip to Ms. Apolinar. He points for support to testimony suggesting that, when Ms. Apolinar first made her reservation, she was told by company representatives and read on its website that the trip was appropriate for beginners and involved at most only class III rapids. He points as well to his expert witness who testified that Seidel’s Suck Hole is really a class IV rapid, not a class III rapid, according to the “International Scale of River Difficulty.”3 But at the same time Mr. Espinoza must acknowledge that another of his witnesses — a state ranger charged with overseeing the stretch of river in question — testified that he believes the trip is indeed appropriate for families with children. So the facts Mr. Espinoza himself offers are mixed at best on whether the rafting company actually ever made a material misstatement about the nature of the trip.4
3 That scale describes class III rapids [*14] as requiring (among other things) “[c]omplex maneuvers in fast current and good boat control in tight passages or around ledges” and notes that “[i]njuries while swimming are rare.” The scale describes class IV rapids as involving “[i]ntense, powerful but predictable rapids requiring precise boat handling in turbulent water. . . . [and] fast maneuvers under pressure” and notes that the “[r]isk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high.”
4 On appeal, Mr. Espinoza offers another theory why the circumstances surrounding the release were unfair. He alleges that the rafting company refused to reschedule the trip and might have refused to refund Ms. Apolinar’s deposit if she declined to sign the release. And this, he says, imposed unfair pressure on her to sign the release. But Mr. Espinoza’s argument along these lines before the district court consisted of only two sentences so it’s not surprising or improper that the district court declined to pass upon it. Neither will we pass on this argument for the first time now, leaving its development instead to future cases where it might prove relevant and more fully presented. See generally Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998); Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2011).
Still, even if we might assume (without deciding) that the facts here are enough to create [*15] a material dispute of fact regarding whether the rafting company initially misrepresented the nature of the trip, it’s still hard to see how we could say the release was unfairly secured or unclear in its terms — at least within the meaning Colorado law gives to the third and fourth Jones factors. That’s because of what happened next. Whatever the rafting company said about the trip earlier on, when Ms. Apolinar arrived at the outfitter’s office she received a vivid description of the risks she could face. The rafting company provided — and Ms. Apolinar signed — a document titled in part “RAFTING WARNING” explaining that rafting can be “HAZARDOUS AND INVOLVES THE RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY AND/OR DEATH.” The document proceeded to offer a detailed picture of the sorts of problems that could be (and sadly were) encountered: “cold water immersion, hidden underwater obstacles, trees or other above water obstacles, . . . changing and unpredictable currents, drowning, exposure, swimming, overturning, . . . entrapment of feet or other body parts under rocks or other objects . . . .” It added that “THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGE[S] AND UNDERSTAND[S] THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE RISKS LISTED ABOVE IS NOT COMPLETE AND THAT PARTICIPATING [*16] IN THE ACTIVITY MAY BE DANGEROUS AND MAY INCLUDE OTHER RISKS.” The document provided, too, that its representations and warnings about the trip superseded any prior “communications or representations” on these subjects. Neither can there be any question that the document clearly communicated that a signature would release civil claims for liability. At the outset it directed Ms. Apolinar to “PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING. THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY & WAIVER OF LEGAL RIGHTS.” And later it provided that “THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY RELEASE[S], FOREVER DISCHARGE[S], AND AGREE[S] NOT TO SUE . . . with respect to any and all claims and causes of action . . . which could be asserted [by] the Undersigned in connection with . . . the Activity.”
This disclosure and release suffices to satisfy the third and fourth Jones factors. To be sure, we can imagine other states might choose to hold circumstances and printed forms like these insufficiently fair or clear. But [HN12] Colorado courts have repeatedly emphasized that individuals engaged in recreational activities are generally expected to read materials like these, and because recreational businesses do not provide “essential” services of “practical [*17] necessity” individuals are generally free to walk away if they do not wish to assume the risks described. See, e.g., Jones, 623 P.2d at 377-78. Particularly where, as here, the person confronted with the release is competent and reasonably educated. Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 469. Indeed, Colorado courts and this court have consistently found releases provided at the outset of a recreational activity and containing language very much like the one now before us sufficient as a matter of law to supply a fair and full warning within the meaning of the latter two Jones factors. See, e.g., Jones, 623 P.2d at 377-78; Brooks v. Timberline Tours, Inc., 127 F.3d 1273, 1274-76 (10th Cir. 1997); Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 782, 785 (Colo. 1989); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 468-69.
As the district court recognized, too, this resolution of the third and fourth Jones factors also resolves Mr. Espinoza’s fraud claim. [HN13] To make out a claim for fraud in Colorado, a plaintiff must establish actual and reasonable reliance on a false statement; a party cannot — as a matter of law — continue to rely on a previously expressed false statement after the truth is aired. And, of course, we have just found that the rafting company’s written warnings accomplished just that — adequately airing the truth about the nature of the risks Ms. Apolinar faced. Neither do we see how we might arrive at a different result just because this claim is denominated [*18] in fraud rather than negligence. The inquiries prescribed for us by law are virtually indistinguishable (was the truth fairly and fully disclosed?), the facts are the same (the release’s warnings), and it follows that the result should be the same. See Vinton v. Virzi, 269 P.3d 1242, 1247, 2012 CO 10, 2012 CO 10 (Colo. 2012) (holding if a party “has access to information” that “would have led to the true facts, that party has no right to rely on a [prior] false representation”); Morrison v. Goodspeed, 100 Colo. 470, 68 P.2d 458, 462 (Colo. 1937) (same).
Enduring the death of a close family member in tragic circumstances is among life’s bitterest challenges. The loss Ms. Apolinar’s family has suffered is beyond words. But our charge is to follow the law. And in this case the law is just as the district court described it, permitting the enforcement of the release in this case and requiring the entry of summary judgment.
Affirmed.5
5 We decline Mr. Espinoza’s request for certification of his negligence per se claim to the Colorado Supreme Court for decision. Not only is the request fleetingly made (three sentences in the middle of a brief arguing state law unambiguously supports his position), [HN14] we generally do not trouble state supreme courts where, as here, existing state law provides “a reasonably clear and principled course” [*19] we may follow to resolve the case at hand. Pino v. United States, 507 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2007).
HARTZ, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting:
I fully join all the opinion except the discussion of the third Jones factor. I respectfully dissent, however, on that factor. In my view, a jury must resolve whether Ms. Apolinar was misled about the danger of the rapids. Although the warning provided to her at the outfitter’s office listed all the potential risks that she would face, the description of the rapids is what would convey the probability of those risks. It is not enough to list a risk if the customer has been misled about its probability.
G-YQ06K3L262
http://www.recreation-law.com
Alvero v. Allen, Jr., 262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634
Posted: January 17, 2016 Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, New York | Tags: Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, negligent supervision, parental control, Scout, Scout meeting, Scoutmaster Snowball, Snowball fight Leave a commentTo read an Analysis of this opinion see Before a meeting a volunteer leader has no duty to protect the youth. Besides kids throw snowballs.
Alvero v. Allen, Jr., 262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634
Martin Alvero, Respondent, v. James W. Allen, Jr., Appellant.
98-06867
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634
April 26, 1999, Argued
June 14, 1999, Decided
COUNSEL: Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Edward R. Rimmels of counsel), for appellant.
Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber and Gerald I. Friedman of counsel), for respondent.
JUDGES: Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
OPINION
[*434] [**117] Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The infant plaintiff was hit on the head with what he described as an “ice ball” while he and several other Boy Scouts were waiting outside a church in which the weekly meeting of [*435] their Boy Scout troop was scheduled to begin. At a deposition given in connection with a separate action commenced against another entity, the infant plaintiff [***2] stated that he had not seen anyone throw anything prior to the time he was hit. He responded affirmatively when asked whether the “ice ball” with which he was struck, and which had apparently been thrown by another Boy Scout, was “the first thing that was thrown during the whole time from when you got to the church up until you got hit”.
The defendant in the present action is the Boy Scout troop leader who was to be in charge of the meeting. According to his affidavit, he was informed upon his arrival at the church that the infant plaintiff had already been injured. According to the affidavit of the infant plaintiff, on the other hand, the defendant had arrived prior to the incident, had entered the building, and had refused to allow the infant plaintiff to follow him inside. The Supreme Court denied the branch of the defendant’s motion which was premised on CPLR 3211, and denied that branch of the motion as was premised on CPLR 3212, holding that such an application was premature prior to the joinder of issue. We reverse.
The parties clearly laid bare their proof, and treated the motion as one for summary judgment. The [***3] Supreme Court was therefore authorized to treat the pre-answer application pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) as one for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; see, e.g., MacDonald v Prudential Sec., 247 AD2d 346; Palazolo v Palazolo, 244 AD2d 393; Gelmin v Quicke, 224 AD2d 481).
Turning to the merits, it is clear that the defendant cannot be held liable based on allegations of inadequate supervision under the facts as outlined above. As the Court of Appeals stated in Lawes v Board of Educ. (16 NY2d 302, 304), “[n]o one grows up in this climate without throwing snowballs and being hit by them. If snow is on the ground as children come to school, it would require intense policing, almost child by child, to take all snowball throwing out of play. It is unreasonable to demand or expect such perfection in supervision from ordinary teachers or ordinary school management; and a fair test of reasonable care does not demand it”.
[**118] Given the absence of proof that the defendant in the present case had notice of an ongoing and potentially dangerous snowball [***4] fight, the plaintiff may not prevail on a theory of inadequate supervision (see also, Johnsen v Cold Spring Harbor Cent. School Dist., 251 AD2d 548; Kennedy v Seaford Union Free School Dist. No. 6, 250 AD2d 574). This conclusion is [*436] reinforced by the fact that the plaintiff’s father was present in his car about 50 feet away and neither he nor any of the other parents who were present in the area saw fit to intervene in any way prior to the incident. We also note that the scout meeting had not begun, no official scouting activity was taking place, and, according to the plaintiff’s version, the defendant had entered the building locking the door behind him, thus implicitly leaving the assembling Boy Scouts in the custody of the adults who were present outside (see generally, Phillipe v City of New York Bd. of Educ., 254 AD2d 339 [school has no duty of supervision prior to starting of school day]). For these reasons, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Hawkins, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc., 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 2366
Posted: January 9, 2016 Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Equine, Gross negligence, Horse, Horseback Ride, Saddle, Trail Ride Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see: Michigan Equine helped the plaintiff more than the stable and helped prove there may be gross negligence on the part of the defendant
Hawkins, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc., 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 2366
Bret D. Hawkins and Erin Hawkins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc. and Circle H Stables, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 254771
COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
September 27, 2005, Decided
NOTICE: [*1] THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.
PRIOR HISTORY: Grand Traverse Circuit Court. LC No. 03-022735-NO.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
JUDGES: Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Schuette, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the order granting defendants summary disposition. Bret Hawkins was injured after falling off a horse during a guided trail ride conducted by defendants. We reverse and remand.
I. FACTS
On June 18, 2002, plaintiffs, who were on their honeymoon, went to defendants’ stables to participate in a guided horseback trail ride. Defendants offered several different types of rides, based on age and level of experience. Plaintiffs chose the “Wrangler Ride,” which was described by defendants’ brochure as a “walk/trot ride” and had the minimum age requirement of eight-years-old. The ride consisted of a four-mile, single-file ride on wooded trails. Plaintiffs chose the “Wrangler Ride” because Bret had never ridden a horse before. Before participating, however, [*2] plaintiffs executed a release and indemnification waiver, in accordance with § 6 of the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq. MCL 691.1666.
Prior to beginning the ride, defendants’ trail guide, Kate Ridge, asked all the participants about their riding experience. Erin Hawkins indicated that she had only ridden a horse once before when she was eleven-years-old, and Bret indicated that he had never ridden a horse. In light of Bret’s lack of experience, Ridge assigned him “Tye,” a horse that defendants typically assign to beginning riders, including children, because he was calm and easy to ride. Plaintiffs were given basic instructions regarding how to stay on the horse and how to use the reins. According to Ridge, she saddled the horses before the ride and then double-checked all the saddles both before and after the horses were mounted. Bret claimed that after mounting Tye, he complained to Ridge that his saddle was not securely fastened, and she checked it again. Ridge stated that she did not recall Bret telling her his saddle was loose before the ride and she did not notice that it was loose while he [*3] was mounting the horse.
The ride started out at a slow walk, but after awhile, Ridge asked the participants if they wanted to go a little faster. The group responded, “Yes,” and Ridge told them to hold on to the saddlehorn with one hand and to put the other hand on the back of the saddle, and to yell if they wanted to slow down. According to plaintiffs, Ridge and her horse then “bolted” into a fast, or full-out run, and the other horses followed her lead. Both plaintiffs stated that when their horses began running they were too surprised or shocked to yell and were just trying to hang on. According to Bret, his saddle slid to the right and he grabbed the saddlehorn and the back of the saddle as instructed but was still falling off his horse. He stated that his arm hit a tree so hard that he suffered a humeral fracture. He then fell from the horse.
Defendants and Ridge denied that the horses were running. According to defendants, midway through the ride, Ridge asked the participants if they would like to begin a “short trot.” According to Ridge, a trot is a fast walk, “slower than a canter, and much slower than a run or gallop.” Other experienced riders in the group characterized [*4] a trot in similar language. After asking for but hearing no objections, defendants contended that Ridge then proceeded to trot the horses. Defendant noted that if anyone had stated that they did not want to trot, Ridge would not have began the trot and continued with the walk. Defendant also explained that horses are not permitted to engage in a “fast run” during rides.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging gross negligence. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing, in pertinent part, that given the facts, even if there was a question of fact regarding whether defendants’ conduct amounted to negligence, reasonable jurors could not differ that defendants’ conduct did not amount to gross negligence. Defendant pointed out that Ridge attested that a couple seconds after commencing the trot she heard a scream and turned around to see that Bret had dropped his reins and was hanging on to the saddle horn with both hands, which she instructed him not to do. Ridge stated that Bret was losing his balance and leaning far to the right and he fell off his horse after hitting a tree branch. One of the other participants attested [*5] that he checked the saddle after the fall and it was not loose. Defendants argued that Bret’s injuries were not the result of defendants’ negligence, but of “the inherent risk of equine activity,” his own lack of experience, and his failure to follow Ridge’s instructions.
The trial court indicated that there was no question that plaintiffs’ allegations related to securing the saddle and instructing the participants only amounted to negligence. With respect to the allegation that the horses were made to run off at a high rate of speed, defendants continued to contend that there was no question of fact because Ridge and the other experienced participants stated that they began to trot, and the only people who said the horses began to run were plaintiffs, who had little or no riding experience. Plaintiffs responded that the differing accounts meant that there was a factual dispute, thereby precluding summary disposition. The court concluded that, given plaintiffs’ lack of experience compared with the experienced opinions of the guide and other participants, there was no genuine issue of fact that the horses were trotting not running. The court then concluded that even if it were a high [*6] speed run, reasonable minds could not differ that defendants’ conduct did not amount to gross negligence. Accordingly, the court granted defendants summary disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiffs now argue that the trial court erred in granting defendants summary disposition on the issue of gross negligence. We agree. [HN1] This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337; 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998).
[HN2] Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), a party may move for dismissal of a claim on the ground that a claim is barred because of a release. Neither party is required to file supportive material. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 119; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Any documentation that is provided to the court, however, must be admissible evidence and must be considered by the court. MCR 2.116(G)(5). The plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, affidavits, or other admissible documentary evidence must be accepted as true and construed in the plaintiff’s favor, unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant. [*7] Maiden, supra at 119. [HN3] Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a party may move for dismissal of a claim on the ground that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. The motion tests the factual support for a claim, and when reviewing the motion, the court must consider all the documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 119; see also MCR 2.116(G)(4).
III. ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, [HN4] plaintiffs’ testimony was admissible because it was based on their personal observations and perceptions. MRE 602. To the extent that plaintiffs’ testimony merely amounted to opinion, such testimony would nevertheless be admissible evidence. MRE 701. “MRE 701 allows opinion testimony by a lay witness as long as the opinion is rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or a fact in issue.” Sells v Monroe Co, 158 Mich. App. 637, 644-645;405 N.W.2d 387 (1987). “Once a witness’s opportunity to observe is demonstrated, [*8] the opinion is admissible in the discretion of the trial court, and the weight to be accorded the testimony is for the jury to decide.” Id. at 646-647. Moreover, laypersons are permitted to testify regarding speed. Mitchell v Steward Oldford & Sons, Inc, 163 Mich. App. 622, 629-630;415 N.W.2d 224 (1987). Therefore, [HN5] that plaintiffs lacked experience with horses merely goes to the weight of their testimony not to its admissibility.
The concept of gross negligence has developed in recent years, evolving from its common law roots. The common-law rule was originally invoked in Gibbard v Cursan, 225 Mich 311; 196 NW 398 (1923), to “circumvent the harsh rule of contributory negligence[,]” which at the time would have barred the plaintiff’s recovery. Jennings v Southwood, 446 Mich. 125, 129; 521 N.W.2d 230 (1994). The Gibbard definition was not crafted to be a higher degree of negligence; rather, it was simply “mere[] ordinary negligence of the defendant that followed from the negligence of the plaintiff.” Id. at 130. In actuality it was really just “the doctrine of last clear chance [*9] in disguise.” Id. at 132. Noting that such a construction was no longer viable after abandonment of the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of pure comparative negligence and because it was not in keeping with the Legislature’s intent of limiting liability in certain contexts, the Jennings Court renounced further application of the Gibbard gross negligence definition. Id. at 132, 135
[HN6] Presented with the potentially arduous task of constructing a new definition of gross negligence in the context of the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901 et seq., 1 the Jennings Court simply borrowed language from the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. Jennings, supra at 135-136. The Court reasoned that the short cut was permissible given that the two statutory schemes shared the same purpose of insulating certain employees from liability for ordinary negligence. Id. at 136-137. Thus, the Court stated that in the context of the EMSA, gross negligence should be defined as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” Id. at 136; [*10] see MCL 691.1407(7)(a).
1 MCL 333.20965(1) states:
Unless an act or omission is the result of gross negligence . . ., the acts or omissions of a medical first responder, emergency medical technician, [etc.,] . . . do not impose liability in the treatment of a patient on those individuals or any of the following persons. . . .
Subsequently, the definition has been employed in other Michigan statutes limiting liability for ordinary negligence while still allowing liability for gross negligence. Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 269; 668 N.W.2d 166 (2003). [HN7] The GTLA definition of gross negligence adopted in Jennings, arises in statutory contexts where there is a public policy rationale for limiting certain parties’ liability while still affording the public recourse when the parties’ conduct rises to the level of recklessness described in the definition. See id. (citing various examples of statutes using the same definition [*11] of gross negligence). Noting that a contractual waiver of liability can similarly serve to insulate against ordinary negligence but not gross negligence, this Court expanded the scope of application of the Jennings/GTLA gross negligence definition, likewise adopting the definition to address a claim of gross negligence where the decedent signed a waiver purporting to release a privately-owned fitness center from liability. Id. The Xu Court concluded that summary disposition for the defendant was proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reasonable minds could not differ that the defendant’s mere ignorance of industry safety standards did not constitute conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to the decedent. Id. at 270-271. [HN8] “Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a question of fact regarding gross negligence.” Id. at 271.
Here, plaintiffs executed a release and indemnification waiver, in accordance with § 6 of the EALA. MCL 691.1666. By signing the release, plaintiffs agreed that because plaintiffs were participants in an equine [*12] activity defendants were not liable for plaintiffs’ injury or death resulting from an inherent risk of the equine activity. MCL 691.1666(3); MCL 691.1663. “Inherent risk of an equine activity” is defined by the EALA as:
[HN9] a danger or condition that is an integral part of an equine activity, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(i) An equine’s propensity to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to a person on or around it.
(ii) The unpredictability of an equine’s reaction to things such as sounds, sudden movement, and people, other animals, or unfamiliar objects.
(iii) A hazard such as a surface or subsurface condition.
(iv) Colliding with another equine or object. [MCL 691.1662(f).]
However, [HN10] the EALA provides exceptions to this general immunity for certain acts, including negligence on the part of the equine professional. 2 Thus, solely applying the EALA, plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and, by implication, gross negligence, would not be barred.
2 MCL 691.1665 states:
[HN11] Section 3 does not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or another person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person does any of the following:
(a) Provides equipment or tack and knows or should know that the equipment or tack is faulty, and the equipment or tack is faulty to the extent that it is a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.
(b) Provides an equine and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity and to determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine. A person shall not rely upon a participant’s representations of his or her ability unless these representations are supported by reasonably sufficient detail.
(c) Owns, leases, rents, has authorized use of, or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of land or facilities on which the participant sustained injury because of a dangerous latent condition of the land or facilities that is known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person and for which warning signs are not conspicuously posted.
(d) Commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.
[*13] However, the release that plaintiffs signed specifically relieved defendants of liability for negligence, and they were bound to the terms as agreed. Thus, in the face of a contractual waiver of liability insulating defendants against ordinary negligence, the trial court properly focused on whether defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence. See Xu, supra at 269. Accordingly, following the precedent set by Xu, in addressing this claim of gross negligence, we consider “whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendants’ conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.” Xu, supra at 269. Accord Jennings, supra at 130.
[HN12] “Generally, once a standard of conduct is established, the reasonableness of an actor’s conduct under the standard is a question for the factfinder, not the court.” Tallman v Markstrom, 180 Mich. App. 141, 144; 446 N.W.2d 618 (1989). “However, if, on the basis of the evidence presented, reasonable minds could not differ, then the motion for summary disposition should be granted.” Vermilya v Dunham, 195 Mich. App. 79, 83; [*14] 489 N.W.2d 496 (1992). . . . These established precedents form the boundaries of our review. Accordingly, our task is to review the facts, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine the appropriateness of summary disposition in favor of the defendant. [Jackson v Saginaw Co, 458 Mich. 141, 146-147; 580 N.W.2d 870 (1998).]
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, it should be accepted as true that after asking the trail ride participants if they wanted to speed up a little bit, Ridge then bolted into a high-speed run – or at the very least, a ride that was too fast given plaintiffs’ lack of experience. While the trial court concluded that Ridge’s conduct “would not be gross negligence even if it were a high speed run,” we disagree. We conclude that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether her conduct of taking a totally inexperienced rider on a fast ride was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.
In his dissent, our colleague Judge Murray emphasizes that the trail guide [*15] placed plaintiff (1) on a safe horse; (2) tightened the saddle; (3) provided safety instructions; (4) started slowly; and (5) sped up only after all riders including plaintiff agreed. We agree that the first four points referenced above appear reasonable. However, in our collective opinion, our point of departure from our esteemed colleague’s dissenting opinion is the trail guide’s decision to speed up the pace when plaintiff had never ridden a horse before. For a first time rider, yelling “Whoa Nellie” or in this instance, “Whoa Tye” hoping to slow the horse down or to obtain the trail guide’s attention for help could be difficult. Here, reasonable minds could indeed differ as to whether the conduct of the trail guide rose to the level of recklessness required to establish gross negligence. The question of whether the trail guide in this case demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted is a question of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ. Therefore, it is appropriate for a jury to make this determination.
By participating in the horseback ride, plaintiffs agreed to undertake the inherent risk of an equine activity. But, absent some unexpected [*16] event, Ridge was in control of the horses’ speed, as the guide riding the lead horse. And Bret’s horse “bolted” not because it was scared, which would clearly be an inherent risk of an equine activity, but because it was following Ridge’s lead. It cannot be disputed that she made the conscious decision to “speed things up a little bit,” knowing that Bret lacked the requisite experience to control the animal on which he rode. It would seem that it was indisputably an important part of Ridge’s job to look after the safety of those placed in her care. And asking an inexperienced horseback rider whether he objected to such a ride cannot insulate her conduct.
[HN13] Horseback riding, an activity in which people are exposed to all the inherent risks of dealing with an animal’s individual propensities and unpredictable nature, is a dangerous activity in and of itself. See MCL 691.1662(f). A reasonable person could conclude that Ridge’s conduct of taking plaintiffs on a fast ride given their known lack of experience unreasonably added to the risks of the already dangerous activity and was thus so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an [*17] injury resulted. Therefore, summary disposition in this case was not appropriate.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Bill Schuette
DISSENT BY: MURRAY
DISSENT
MURRAY, J. (dissenting).
With great respect to my esteemed colleagues, I dissent from their decision to reverse the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
As the majority correctly observes, in reviewing the propriety of granting defendants’ motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we, like the trial court, must view the admissible evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the non-moving parties. MCR 2.116(G)(4); Maiden v Rozwood,461 Mich. 109, 119; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). With the material facts viewed in that manner, we must then determine whether reasonable minds could differ as to whether the conduct at issue was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result. Xu v Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263, 270-271; 668 N.W.2d 166 (2003).
Where I depart from [*18] my colleagues is my conclusion that this evidence, under this standard, does not arise to the recklessness required to establish gross negligence. The material facts, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, established that the following events occurred at Ranch Rudolph:
1. Plaintiff Bret Hawkins (hereafter “plaintiff”), signed the waiver of liability, and informed the trail guide that he had never ridden a horse;
2. In response, the trail guide put plaintiff on the most cautious horse available, one usually utilized with children;
3. Once atop the horse, plaintiff informed the trail guide that his saddle was loose. The trail guide responded by attempting to tighten the saddle;
4. Before commencing the ride, the trail guide visually and orally instructed all the participants as to how to properly ride and handle the horse;
5. Once the trail ride commenced, the guide and all riders proceeded “extremely slow”;
6. Eventually, the trail guide asked the riders if they wanted to “go a little faster,” to which the group responded “yes”;
7. Before picking up the pace, the trail guide told the riders that they should yell if anyone wanted to [*19] slow down;
8. The trail guide, and all other horses, started on a “high speed run,” and less than a minute later, plaintiff was injured.
These material facts, taken from plaintiffs’ affidavits, answers to interrogatories and photos, do not establish that the trail guide acted so recklessly that she exhibited a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result. Rather, the evidence shows that, in response to plaintiff’s concerns, she (1) placed him on the safest possible horse; (2) attempted to further tighten the saddle; (3) instructed the riders on safety and riding procedures; (4) started the ride off “extremely slow;” and (5) sped up only after the riders – including plaintiffs – agreed to do so. Hence, the act at issue 1 was the trail guide’s decision to go too fast for plaintiff to handle, but not all the others, including his wife, who last rode a horse at age eleven. This misjudgment may have been a negligent one, but it did not reveal a recklessness with regard to plaintiff’s safety. Maiden, supra at 122-123(ordinary negligence does not amount to gross negligence). All the evidence of precautions taken, in fact, precludes reasonable [*20] jurors from so concluding. See, e.g., Lindberg v Livonia Public Schools, 219 Mich. App. 364, 368-369; 556 N.W.2d 509 (1996). 2
1 Plaintiff also complains about the trail guide’s inability to properly tighten the saddle. However, in my view, this is no more than an allegation of negligence, because there is no dispute that the trail guide attempted to tighten the saddle, but at best was unsuccessful in doing so.
2 As the trial court correctly observed, there seems to be a varying degree of decisions under this standard of liability. In my view, this results not from any inconsistency in determining the standard itself, but instead arises from the natural difference resulting from each judge’s own objective determination of whether the evidence meets that standard. Because judges do not always agree on the legal impact of the same undisputed set of facts, our decisions will at times necessarily result in different opinions.
I would affirm the trial court’s order.
/s/ [*21] Christopher M. Murray
G-YQ06K3L262
Maurer, v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294; 890 P.2d 69; 1994 Ariz. App. LEXIS 105; 165 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 51
Posted: December 20, 2015 Filed under: Adventure Travel, Arizona, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: duty, Party Train, Release, Student Tour, Travel Agenty Leave a commentMaurer, v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294; 890 P.2d 69; 1994 Ariz. App. LEXIS 105; 165 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 51
Larry Maurer and Linda Maurer, husband and wife, personally and on behalf of the Estate of Molly Marie Maurer, Deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., an Arizona corporation; College Tours, a division of Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.; Dennis Anderson and Jane Doe Anderson, husband and wife; Anton Cerkvenik and Jane Doe Cerkvenik, husband and wife; and John Does I-X, Defendants/Appellees. Larry Maurer and Linda Maurer, husband and wife, personally and on behalf of the Estate of Molly Marie Maurer, Deceased, Cross-Appellees. v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., an Arizona corporation; College Tours, a division of Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.; Anton Cerkvenik and JANE Doe Cerkvenik, husband and wife. Cross-Appellants.
2 CA-CV 93-0175
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B
181 Ariz. 294; 890 P.2d 69; 1994 Ariz. App. LEXIS 105; 165 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 51
May 17, 1994, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Petition for Review Denied December 20, 1994.
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY. Cause No. CV 91-17422. Honorable J. Kenneth Mangum, Judge, Honorable Sherry H. Hutt, Judge.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED IN PART AFFIRMED IN PART
CASE SUMMARY:
COUNSEL: Treon, Strick, Lucia & Aguirre, by Arthur G. Newman, Jr. and Richard T. Treon, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Teilborg, Sanders & Parks, P.C., by Brian R. Burt and Rick N. Bryson, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Jennings, Kepner and Haug, by James L. Csontos, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees Dennis Anderson.
JUDGES: JAMES D. HATHAWAY, Judge, WILLIAM E. DRUKE, Chief Judge, PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge.
OPINION BY: JAMES D. HATHAWAY
OPINION
[**70] [*295] OPINION
HATHAWAY, Judge.
In this action for the wrongful death of their daughter Molly, plaintiffs/appellants Maurers appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants/appellees Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., College Tours, Dennis Anderson and Anton Cerkvenik (collectively, “CA”) on the basis that CA had no duty to Molly regarding the tour package she purchased. CA cross-appeals [***2] the court’s denial of summary judgment sought on the basis of waiver or release from liability and its refusal to award attorney’s fees. We reverse summary judgment as to appellants and affirm as to CA.
2 FACTS
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., 131 Ariz. 140, 639 P.2d 330 (1982), the facts are as follows. CA is a travel agency doing business as “College Tours.” Its business includes organizing, promoting, selling and operating student vacation tours destined for Mazatlan, Mexico. CA sets the itinerary, arranges for transportation and lodging and provides information relating to the students’ comfort, convenience and safety on the tour. For many years, the tour packages have included an eighteen-hour ride on a Mexican train traveling from Nogales to Mazatlan, as was the case with the tour purchased by the decedent. CA described this as a “Party Train.”
During the train ride from Nogales to Mazatlan, Molly and a friend decided to “adventure” forward in the trainto see the engine. The connecting areas between passenger railcars have metal floors with accordion-like “boots” extending from the [***3] sides of each railcar, forming an area in which it is safe to walk from the door at the end of one railcar to the door at the end of the other. En route, Molly paused and attempted to communicate in Spanish with an apparent employee of the railroad before going through a door, which turned out to be the front door of the foremost passenger car of the train. The car in front of this car was either a freight car or the engine. There was only a partial “boot” between the front of this car and the car in front of it. Beyond the door was only a narrow platform and then a large area between the cars, up to four feet wide, open straight down to the tracks and wheels of the train. It was dark, and after Molly stepped through the door, she fell to her death between the cars.
Molly was the fourth student to die by falling from a moving train on a student tour to Mazatlan organized by CA. Three other students had died previously, albeit the particular circumstances of each incident varied. The students on Molly’s tour were not informed of these prior incidents eventhough CA acknowledges that it “knew of other deaths on Mexican trains.”
[**71] [*296] DUTY OF TRAVEL AGENTS/TOUR OPERATORS
[***4] Appellants contend that CA had a duty (1) to exercise reasonable care for the safety of students in operating its student tours; (2) to disclose material facts affecting safety in promoting and selling its tours; and, (3) not to make misrepresentations in promoting and selling its tours. CA counters that it had no such duties as a travel agent, it lacked the right to control the train to make it safe, and it had no knowledge of the specific condition which caused Molly’s death.
[HN1] The existence of duty is an issue of law for the court to decide, Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board, 146 Ariz. 352, 706 P.2d 364 (1985), not to be confused with details of conformance with a standard of conduct imposed by the relationship. Ibid. 146 Ariz. at 355, 706 P.2d at 367; see also, Lasley v. Shrake’s Country Club Pharmacy, Inc., 1994 Ariz. App. LEXIS 58, 162 Ariz.Adv.Rep. 10 (App. April 5, 1994). Whether a duty exists is a question of whether one of the parties to a relationship is under an obligation to use care to avoid or prevent injury to the other. [***5] “‘Duty’ is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff.” W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 53 at 356 (5th ed. 1984). “If the court decides that no duty exists, then a trial is unnecessary.” Lankford & Blaze, The Law of Negligence in Arizona at 11 (1992). In this case, the trial court concluded that a trial was unnecessary because “no duty was owed by [CA] to [appellants’] decedent for the injuries which led to her death.” We disagree.
To conclude there is “no duty” is to conclude the defendant cannot be liable, no matter the facts. As the supreme court observed in Markowitz: “To postulate that the possessor of land has no duty at all to protect its invitees or warn of specific types of danger is to postulate that it can never be liable, no matter what the circumstances.” 146 Ariz. at 357, 706 P.2d at 369. The court asked the poignant question: “Would the state have been liable even if the park ranger, knowing of the hazard, had sat on the rock, watched David get ready to dive and said nothing?” Id. at 356, 706 P.2d at 368.
Adapting that query [***6] to the instant case, we believe an affirmative answer as to CA’s responsibility is compelled under principles governing agency relationships. As an Oklahoma court well summarized in Douglas v. Steele, 816 P.2d 586, 589 (Okla.App. 1991):
[HN2] An agent who handles travel and vacation plans is a special agent of the traveler for purposes of that one transaction between the parties. … And this is so even though the agent’s compensation may be paid by the company to whom she steers the business, much like an advertising agent….
[HN3] [The travel agent has] a duty to act with the care, skill and diligence a fiduciary rendering that kind of service would reasonably be expected to use…. This agency relationship also imposes a duty to promptly communicate to [the] principals confirmations and all other relevant information about the proposed travel plans and tours which would help them protect themselves from harm or loss.
(Citations omitted.) These duties include the [***7] duty to disclose material dangers known to the agent. See Tracy A. Bateman, Annotation, “Liability of Travel Publication, Travel Agent, or Similar Party for Personal Injury or Death of Traveler,” 2 A.L.R. 5th 396 (1992). This duty to disclose or warn of known dangers, as the court explained in Rookard v. Mexicoach, 680 F.2d 1257, 1263 (9th Cir. 1982), “does not represent an extension of tort liability upon an agent[;] it results from an exposition of the pre-existing duty of care owed a principal by his agent.” See also In re Swartz, 129 Ariz. 288, 294, 630 P.2d 1020, 1026 (1981) (agent’s duty to make full disclosure to principal of all material facts relevant to agency is fundamental to fiduciary relation); Walston & Co. v. Miller, 100 Ariz. 48, 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 381 (1957), states the duty thusly:
Unless otherwise agreed, an agent is subject to a duty to use reasonable efforts to give his principal information which is relevant to affairs entrusted to him and which, as the agent has notice, the principal would desire tohave and which can be communicated [**72] [*297] [***8] without violating a superior duty to a third person.
The travel agent’s duty to disclose is not without limits, however. The scope of this duty of disclosure will be limited, naturally, to what is reasonable in any given instance. A travel agent is not an insurer, nor can he be reasonably expected to divine and forewarn of an innumerable litany of tragedies and dangers inherent in foreign travel. Nonetheless, it does not follow that because a travel agent cannot possibly presage all dangers, he should be excused entirely from his fiduciary duties toward his principal to warn of those dangers of which he is aware, or should be aware in the exercise of due care.
Rookard, 680 F.2d at 1263. [HN4] “While there is no duty of investigation, the travel agent must disclose all information the agent learns which is material to the object of the agency.” United Airlines, Inc. v. Lerner, 87 Ill.App.3d 801, 43 Ill. Dec. 225, 410 N.E.2d 225, ___, 43 Ill.Dec. 225, ___, 410 N.E.2d 225, 228 (1980);Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 381 (1957).
[***9] In this case, because of the duties existing through the agency relationship, the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
CONSUMER FRAUD ACTION
Appellants contend that CA violated the Consumer Fraud Act (Act), A.R.S. § 44-1521, et seq., by omitting material facts and making misrepresentations to Molly in selling and promoting its tours. [HN5] A private right of action exists for breach of the Act. Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573, 521 P.2d 1119 (1974). [HN6] Under the Act, it is unlawful for any person to use or employ any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, A.R.S. § 44-1522(A) [***10] . The term “merchandise” includes “services.” A.R.S. § 44-1521(5). Accordingly, CA can be held liable for misrepresentations and “concealment, suppression or omission” of any material fact in selling its services.
Appellants contend the trial court evidently held, death, as a matter of law, is not a type of damage for which a private right of action may be brought under the Act. Appellants point out that they have found only one case in the nation that has considered the question. Duncavage v. Allen, 497 N.E.2d 433, 147 Ill.App.3d 88, 100 Ill.Dec. 455 (1986) (claim held to have been stated in suit against landlord for consumer fraud act violation for death of tenant based on representations and omissions about building safety.)
Appellants argue that no policy reason exists to exclude death as an injury for which a private action for damages may be brought under the Act when the omission of material information about safety has caused the death of the purchaser. They also contend that such a view is consistent with Arizona decisions in which the omission of information one has a duty to disclose causes death. See, e.g., Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc., 163 Ariz. 539, 789 P.2d 1040 (1990) [***11] (trial court erred in ruling that motel owner owed no duty to disclose information about earlier presence of robber to independent contractor security guard who was later shot and killed by robber.) Moreover, appellants contend that neither the Act nor the cases interpreting it exclude death caused by a breach of the Act; rather, the cases have considered as an element of the cause of action the general “consequent and proximate injury” to the victim. See, Parks v. Macro-Dynamics, Inc., 121 Ariz. 517, 591 P.2d 1005 (App. 1979).
Finally, appellants argue that if a private right of action had not been recognized in Arizona, the statute is the sort the violation of which would have been treated as negligence per se and that death is a cognizable injury within the scope of an action for negligence per se. Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 667 P.2d 200 (1983). They persuasively conclude that, “recognition of a private [**73] [*298] right of action should not reduce the relief that would … otherwise have been available under negligence per se without the private right of action.” We agree.
We do not find any basis for an [***12] exemption when the damage resulting from the alleged violation is death. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to appellants’ claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.
CROSS-APPEAL ON CONTRACTUAL
RELEASE/WAIVER OF LIABILITY
CA contends in its cross-appeal that even assuming the existence of a duty, summary judgment against appellants must be affirmed because Molly released and/or waived any claim against them for any acts or omissions that led to her death. This issue has been raised both in the cross-appeal and as a cross-issue on appeal.
Molly’s itinerary contained the following provision:
XV. Terms and Conditions
… The purchaser releases and absolves College Tours from all liability for property loss or damage, caused and/or from all damages resulting in death or personal injury, loss of services, which may be sustained on account of, arising out of or while engaged in said trip, whether due to its own negligence or otherwise.
(Bold in original) The itinerary also contained a paragraph expressly entitled “Waiver of Liability.” This provision was set out separately from the other paragraphs in the itinerary and provided:
[***13] The students and the students [sic] relatives hereby waive any [sic] or liability for property damage, or personal injury, or death (Including the loss of services), which may be sustained by any student on account of, arising out of, or while engaged in said trip unless claimant establishes that the person or entity, versus whom the claim is made, violated the law or was guilty of a willful injury. Any alleged violation of law or willful injury must be the direct cause of the injury complained of; otherwise, the student and anyone making a claim as a result of any injury, damage or death to said student, hereby waives any such claim. All potential claimants hereby acknowledge that there are other means and tours available to visit Mexico or Hawaii and the student is not in an inferior bargaining position and thus freely accepts the responsibility contracted for herein. Each client has the right to choose to attend or not attend any event provided by College Tours and does so at their own discretion.
(Bold in original) Molly received an invoice form that also contained a “Waiver of Liability” provision virtually identical to that contained in the itinerary. [***14] It also contained a certification that the customer had read the flyer, waiver of liability and the itinerary and acknowledged by her payment for the trip that she had read the information, agreed to it and understood all its terms and conditions. A copy of the invoice was returned to CA with Molly’s final payment for the trip.
In denying the defense motion for summary judgment on the release/waiver issue, the trial court explained:
This Court does not find waiver to be a valid defense to Plaintiffs’ claims. read the flyer, waiver of liability and the itinerary and acknowledged by her payment for the trip that she had read the information, agreed to it and understood all its terms and conditions. Because the danger being waived was so specific and obvious in Valley National Bank v. National Assoc. for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 153 Ariz.App. [sic] 374, 736 P.2d 1186 (App. 1987), that Court allowed the waiver to defeat Plaintiff’s claims. Here, the danger is too defuse [sic] and unspecific for a valid waiver to apply.
We find merit in the trial court’s distinction. Attempts to release oneself from liability by contract for harm caused by one’s own negligence are not looked upon with favor. “This would tend to encourage [***15] carelessness.” Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 143 Ariz. 368, 382, 694 P.2d 198, 212 (1984).
[HN7] While an agent may be discharged from liability by an effective release, Restatement [**74] [*299] (Second) of Agency § 419 (1957), such agent is under the “duty of disclosure and fair dealing stated in Section 390.” That section provides that an agent has a duty to deal fairly with the principal and to disclose to him all facts which the agent knows or should know would reasonably affect the principal’s judgment, unless the principal has manifested that he knows such facts or that he does not care to know them.
Thus, although we conclude that CA is a seller to consumers and an agent bound by statutory and common law duties, we are unable to determine from the limited record before us whether the release is valid. Whether CA fulfilled its duty to Molly under Section 390 must await further discovery or trial. Accordingly, the court’s order denying CA’s Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment on waiver/release grounds [***16] is affirmed.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part.
JAMES D. HATHAWAY, Judge
CONCURRING:
WILLIAM E. DRUKE, Chief Judge
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge
Hogan v. Pat’s Peak Skiing, LLC, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 74
Posted: December 13, 2015 Filed under: Legal Case, New Hampshire, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Mailbox Rule, New Hampshire, New Hampshire Ski Area Safety Act, Notice Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see: In New Hampshire, the skier Safety Act requires the ski area receives notice of a claim within 90 days.
Hogan & a. v. Pat’s Peak Skiing, LLC, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 74
Deborah Hogan & a. v. Pat’s Peak Skiing, LLC
No. 2014-420
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
2015 N.H. LEXIS 74
April 9, 2015, Argued
July 28, 2015, Opinion Issued
HEADNOTES NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
1. Statutes–Generally–Legislative History or Intent Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. In matters of statutory interpretation, the Court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. The Court first looks to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construes that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. The Court interprets legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include. The Court construes all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and avoid an absurd or unjust result. Moreover, the Court does not consider words and phrases in isolation, but rather within the context of the statute as a whole. This enables the Court to better discern the legislature’s intent and to interpret statutory language in light of the policy or purpose sought to be advanced by the statutory scheme. In the event that the statutory language is ambiguous, the Court will resolve the ambiguity by determining the legislature’s intent in light of legislative history.
2. Contracts–Offer and Acceptance–Generally The mailbox rule is one that is traditionally associated with contract law, and provides that acceptances are effective when they are no longer in the control of the sender. The Court has applied the doctrine in its contract jurisprudence.
3. Statutes–Generally–Remedial and Curative Statutes Without legislative history to guide it, the Court construes statutes to address the evil or mischief that the legislature intended to correct or remedy.
4. Notice–Generally–Particular Statutes On the one hand, the chapter involving skiers was passed to protect New Hampshire’s citizens and visitors from hazards and the unsafe operation of ski areas and to allow those injured from such endangerments to seek compensation. On the other hand, the notice requirement allows ski operators to promptly investigate incidents, to evaluate the conditions of their premises and take any necessary remedial measures, and to adequately prepare to defend against claims. RSA 225-A:1.
5. Notice–Generally–Particular Statutes In accordance with the principles of uniformity and certainty, the Court holds that notice given of an injury to a skier or passenger is effective upon mailing; accordingly, plaintiffs satisfied the notice provision by mailing the notice the day before the 90-day notice period expired. In doing so, the Court narrowly applies the common law mailbox rule to the notice provision, in consonance with holdings from other jurisdictions. Where a statute specifies that a person shall be notified by a particular means, such as certified or registered mail, notice is effective when deposited in the mails. RSA 225-A:25, IV.
6. Statutes–Generally–Avoidance of Absurd or Unjust Results It is not to be presumed that the legislature would pass an act leading to an absurd result.
COUNSEL: Christopher W. Driscoll, of Gloucester, Massachusetts, by brief and orally, for the plaintiffs.
Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Thomas Quarles, Jr. and Leigh S. Willey on the brief, and Mr. Quarles orally), for the defendant.
JUDGES: HICKS, J. DALIANIS, C.J., and CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.
OPINION BY: HICKS
OPINION
Hicks, J. The plaintiffs, Deborah Hogan and Matthew Hogan, appeal the decision of the Superior Court (Smukler, J.) granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Pat’s Peak Skiing, LLC. We reverse and remand.
The following facts are derived from the trial court’s order or the record. On February 4, 2012, both plaintiffs fell from a ski chairlift while skiing at the defendant’s premises. The plaintiffs were evaluated that day by a member of the defendant’s ski patrol and incident reports were completed. Both plaintiffs reported injuries from the fall. On May 3, 2012, the plaintiffs sent notice to the defendant, by certified return receipt mail, stating that they had retained counsel regarding the February 4, 2012 incident. The letter of notice was dated May 3, 2012, arrived at the Henniker post office on May 5, 2012, and was delivered [*2] to the defendant on May 10, 2012.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant on December 3, 2013, seeking damages for negligence, recklessness, and loss of consortium. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs did not provide notice by May 4, 2012 — ninety days from the date of the injury — as required by RSA 225-A:25, IV (2011). The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the statute because the notice did not arrive until, at the earliest, May 5, 2012, the ninety-first day. In response, the plaintiffs countered that mailing the notice on May 3, 2012, the eighty-ninth day, satisfied the statutory requirement. Alternatively, the plaintiffs contended that they adhered to the notice provision by completing incident reports and giving verbal notice on the day of the incident and also by giving verbal notice on a later visit to the ski area. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to give proper notice pursuant to RSA 225-A:25, IV. This appeal followed.
The question before us is whether the statutory phrase “shall be notified,” as it appears in RSA 225-A:25, IV, is satisfied upon dispatch of notice or upon receipt [*3] of notice. RSA 225-A:25, IV provides:
[HN1] No action shall be maintained against any operator for injuries to any skier or passenger unless the same is commenced within 2 years from the time of injury provided, however, that as a condition precedent thereof the operator shall be notified by certified return receipt mail within 90 days of said injury. The venue of any action against an operator shall be in the county where the ski area is located and not otherwise.
RSA 225-A:25, IV (emphasis added).
[1] [HN2] “Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Appeal of Local Gov’t Ctr., 165 N.H. 790, 804, 85 A.3d 388 (2014). “In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Id. “We first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. “We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.” Id. “We construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and avoid an absurd or unjust result.” Id. “Moreover, we do not consider words [*4] and phrases in isolation, but rather within the context of the statute as a whole.” Id. “This enables us to better discern the legislature’s intent and to interpret statutory language in light of the policy or purpose sought to be advanced by the statutory scheme.” Id. In the event that the statutory language is ambiguous, “we will resolve the ambiguity by determining the legislature’s intent in light of legislative history.” United States v. Howe, 167 N.H. 143, 148-49, 106 A.3d 425 (2014).
[2] The plaintiffs ask that we adopt the common law “mailbox rule” in interpreting the notice provision of RSA 225-A:25, IV. [HN3] The mailbox rule is one that is traditionally associated with contract law, and provides that acceptances are effective when they are no longer in the control of the sender. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 63 (1981). We have applied the doctrine in our contract jurisprudence. See Cushing v. Thomson, 118 N.H. 292, 294, 386 A.2d 805 (1978) (noting that a contract becomes complete when the acceptance has been mailed by the offeree, not when the acceptance is received by the offeror). The plaintiffs argue that we should apply the rule to RSA 225-A:25, IV notices. As a result, notice would become effective upon the date of mailing. Under the plaintiffs’ construction, therefore, notice was effectively given upon mailing, on May 3, [*5] 2012 — eighty-nine days after the date of the injury and within the statutory period.
The defendant, on the other hand, argues that the mailbox rule should not be read into the notice provision of RSA 225-A:25, IV. Instead, the defendant asks us to interpret the provision to require actual receipt of notice. Under the defendant’s construction, notice was given, at the earliest, upon its arrival at the Henniker post office on May 5, 2012 — ninety-one days after the date of the injury, and one day after the expiration of the statutory period.
We conclude that both the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s proffered constructions are reasonable. Because RSA 225-A:25, IV’s language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we would normally resolve the ambiguity by determining the legislature’s intent in light of legislative history. See Howe, 167 N.H. at 148-49 (quotation omitted). In this case, however, the legislative history is not helpful.
RSA 225-A:25, IV, originally codified as RSA 225-A:26, II, was enacted in 1965. See Laws 1965, 241:2. The provision was amended in 1978, increasing the notice period from within sixty days of injury to within ninety days of injury, among other changes. See Laws 1978, 13:5. In 2005, the provision was amended a final time in a manner [*6] not relevant to this appeal. See Laws 2005, 145:7. There are no committee reports, legislative debates, or other historical documents that shed light on the intentions of the legislature regarding the effectiveness of notice. As a result, a review of the legislative history is unavailing in resolving the ambiguity of RSA 225-A:25, IV.
[3, 4] [HN4] Without legislative history to guide us, “[w]e construe statutes to address the evil or mischief that the legislature intended to correct or remedy.” State v. Costella, 166 N.H. 705, 710, 103 A.3d 1155 (2014) (quotation omitted). However, this case involves competing policy interests. [HN5] On the one hand, RSA chapter 225-A was passed to “protect [New Hampshire’s] citizens and visitors” from hazards and the unsafe operation of ski areas and to allow those injured from such endangerments to seek compensation. RSA 225-A:1 (2011). On the other hand, the notice requirement allows ski operators to promptly investigate incidents, to evaluate the conditions of their premises and take any necessary remedial measures, and to adequately prepare to defend against claims. In the absence of legislative direction, we cannot determine the principal policy purpose of RSA 225-A:25, IV.
[5] Nonetheless, a decision must be made. Cf. 1 J.M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts, § 3.24, at 440-41 (rev. ed. 1993) (noting [*7] with respect to the mailbox rule, “One of the parties must carry the risk of loss and inconvenience. We need a definite and uniform rule as to this. We can choose either rule; but we must choose one. We can put the risk on either party, but we must not leave it in doubt.”). [HN6] In accordance with the principles of uniformity and certainty, we hold that notice given pursuant to RSA 225-A:25, IV is effective upon mailing. In doing so, we narrowly apply the common law mailbox rule to RSA 225-A:25, IV, in consonance with holdings from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Call v. Alexander Coal Co., 8 Ohio App. 3d 344, 8 Ohio B. 455, 457 N.E.2d 356, 357 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (“Where a statute specifies that a person shall be notified by a particular means, such as certified or registered mail, notice is effective when deposited in the mails.”).
Our holding favors the party who would be harmed more by a lack of certainty. As in this case, actual receipt a day beyond the 90-day period creates minimal inconvenience for the ski operator, for it hardly affects the ski area’s ability to evaluate its premises and investigate the incident in a timely manner. In contrast, under the alternative construction of the statute, the party allegedly injured by the operator’s wrongdoing is denied the right to bring suit even when receipt is late due [*8] to circumstances beyond that party’s control. We elect not to allow such forfeiture. See Opinion of the Justices, 126 N.H. 554, 566-67, 493 A.2d 1182 (1985).
[6] Furthermore, [HN7] “it is not to be presumed that the legislature would pass an act leading to an absurd result . …” Costella, 166 N.H. at 711 (quotation omitted). Were we to hold that notice under RSA 225-A:25 is effective upon actual receipt, delays caused by a carrier that postpones the delivery of notice, or loss or destruction of notice while in the mail system, would leave plaintiffs without recourse through no fault of their own — an absurd and unfair outcome which our holding avoids.
If the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA 225-A:25, “it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute.” State v. Dor, 165 N.H. 198, 205-06, 75 A.3d 1125 (2013).
Accordingly, having determined that the plaintiffs satisfied the notice provision of RSA 225-A:25, IV by mailing the notice on May 3, 2012, we need not address the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments.
Reversed and remanded.
Dalianis, C.J., and Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
G-YQ06K3L262
Becker v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., 269 Ore. App. 877; 346 P.3d 620; 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 319
Posted: December 6, 2015 Filed under: Legal Case, Oregon, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: assumption of the risk, Chair Lift, Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., Oregon, Release Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see: What happens when the trial judge rules correctly under the law but between the trial motions and the appeal the State Supreme Court Changes things? Things change
Becker v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., 269 Ore. App. 877; 346 P.3d 620; 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 319
Tabitha Becker, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., an Oregon corporation, dba Hoodoo Ski Area, Defendant-Respondent.
A154563
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
269 Ore. App. 877; 346 P.3d 620; 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 319
November 4, 2014, Argued and submitted
March 18, 2015, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Linn County Circuit Court. 112557. DeAnn L. Novotny, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
COUNSEL: Kathryn H. Clarke argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was William A. Gaylord.
Andrew C. Balyeat argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Balyeat & Eager, LLP.
JUDGES: Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.
OPINION BY: TOOKEY
OPINION
[**621] [*878] TOOKEY, J.
Plaintiff Becker, who was injured by a chair lift at Hoodoo’s ski area, brought this negligence action against defendant Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc. (Hoodoo). Hoodoo filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to the affirmative defense of release, and Becker filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the release was unenforceable because it violated public policy and was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The trial court granted Hoodoo’s motion for summary judgment, denied Becker’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and entered a judgment in favor of Hoodoo. Becker now appeals that judgment, renewing her argument that the release was unenforceable because it violated public policy and was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. For the reasons that follow, [***2] we reverse and remand.
[HN1] We review a trial court’s rulings on summary judgment to determine whether “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and whether “the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” ORCP 47 C. “We view the historical facts set out in the summary judgment record, along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party–plaintiff on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and defendant on plaintiff’s cross-motion.” Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 356 Ore. 543, 545, 340 P3d 27 (2014) (Bagley II).
Becker’s husband purchased a lift ticket for Becker to ski at Hoodoo’s ski area. An anticipatory release, along with Hoodoo’s logo, appeared on the face of the lift ticket. The release read as follows:
“Release Agreement
“‘The purchaser or user of this ticket understands that skiing can be hazardous and accepts and assumes the inherent risks of skiing including but not limited to changing weather conditions, variations or steepness in terrain, snow or ice conditions, surface or subsurface conditions, bare sports [sic], creeks and gullies, forest growth, rocks, stumps, lift towers and other structures and their [*879] components, collisions with chairlifts, snow grooming equipment [***3] and other skiers, and a skier’s [**622] failure to ski within the skier[‘]s own ability. Always ski in control.’
“‘THE USER OF THIS TICKET HEREBY RELEASES HOODOO SKI BOWL DEVELOPERS, INC., d.b.a. HOODOO SKI AREA AND ITS AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THIS TICKET INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SKIING ACTIVITIES AND LOADING AND UNLOADING FROM LIFTS. THIS RELEASE INCLUDES CLAIMS BASED UPON NEGLIGENCE.[‘]
“The holder of this ticket as condition of being permitted to use the facilities of the area agrees to assume all risk of personal injury or loss of or damage to property and that the management is not responsible for ticket if lost or stolen. This ticket may be revoked without refund at any time for misconduct of or nuisance caused by the holder[.]
“NO REFUNDS NOT TRANSFERABLE”
(Capitalization in original; emphases added.) The release occupied approximately one-half of the face of the ticket, and the logo occupied the other half.1 Becker did not notice or read the release.
1 The lift ticket was “designed to have its backing removed, and to then be folded over a metal wicket so that the backs of each half stick together resulting in the Hoodoo [***4] logo being visible on one side and the release agreement visible on the other side.” That design allowed the user of the ticket to remove the backing and attach “the wicket to his or her clothing before using the ski lifts.”
A sign was also posted in Hoodoo’s ski area. The sign provided, in part, that
“[a] ski area operator shall be notified of any injury to a skier by registered or certified mail within 180 days after the injury or within 180 days after the skier discovers or reasonably should have discovered, such injury. ORS 30.980(1). Failure to give notice as required by this section bars a claim for injuries or wrongful death. ORS 30.980(4).
“The above notice is required by Oregon Law and is presented in a manner reasonably calculated to inform. It is in addition to other notices and specific release agreements you may have entered into with Ski Area Management.”
[*880] On the day in question, Becker used a chair lift several times without incident. While Becker was waiting to again board the lift, a chair came around to the boarding area with its seat bottom upright. Becker “tried to turn her skis and go off to the right[,]” but the chair struck Becker, and she was injured.2
2 Becker’s complaint alleges, in part, that [***5] Becker
“was struck, lifted, run over, dragged and dropped by a moving chair lift, causing tearing, twisting, wrenching, bruising and abrading to the bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons, joints and associated soft tissues of her right arm and shoulder and both lower extremities, from all of which she suffered a dislocated right shoulder and associated brachial plexus injury, with radiculopathy and nerve pain and numbness into the fingers of her right hand, requiring her to undergo surgery and to keep her right arm in a sling, resulting in a temporary partially frozen shoulder, and a permanent partial disability of her shoulder and in continuing and intermittent pain, weakness, and reduced range of motion of her right arm; a low-back injury, with sciatic pain down her left leg; injuries to both knees, with parasthesia into the three middle toes of the left foot; and left heel and ankle pain and instability; and exacerbation of a pre-existing plantar fasciitis in her left foot. As a further result of these injuries, plaintiff is now at risk of developing arthritis in the injured areas as she ages.”
Becker subsequently filed this action, alleging that Hoodoo was negligent in its operation [***6] of the chair lift and that its negligence caused her injuries. Hoodoo filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to the affirmative defense of release based on the release that was printed on Becker’s lift ticket. Becker filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the release violated public policy and was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. After a hearing on those motions, the trial court ruled in favor of Hoodoo as noted above, and Becker now appeals.
On appeal, Becker contends that the trial court erred in granting Hoodoo’s motion for summary judgment, denying her cross-motion [**623] for partial summary judgment, and entering a judgment in favor of Hoodoo, again arguing that the release was unenforceable because it violated public policy and was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.3 Hoodoo responds that the trial court did not err [*881] because the release at issue is not contrary to public policy and is not unconscionable. In their appellate briefs, both parties cite Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 258 Ore. App. 390, 310 P3d 692 (2013) (Bagley I), rev’d, 356 Ore. 543, 340 P3d 27 (2014)–a case that was decided by this court after the parties argued their motions to the trial court and after the trial court entered judgment in favor [***7] of Hoodoo.
3 Becker also argues that “[t]here was no agreement reached under the circumstances of this case.” However, we need not decide that issue because, assuming without deciding that an agreement was reached in this case, enforcement of such an agreement would be unconscionable, as we conclude below.
The plaintiff in Bagley I, who had signed a release agreement4 when he purchased a season ski pass from the defendant Mt. Bachelor, Inc., was injured while snowboarding over a jump in the defendant’s “‘terrain park'” and brought an action alleging negligence in the design, construction, maintenance, or inspection of that jump. Id. at [*882] 392. There, as here, the defendant moved for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of release, and the plaintiff argued that the release was contrary to public policy and unconscionable. After analyzing the facts in Bagley I, this court concluded that the release in that case was not contrary to public policy and that the terms of the release were neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Id. at 410.
4 The release agreement at issue in Bagley, which was signed by the plaintiff, read, in part:
“‘In consideration of the use of a Mt. Bachelor pass and/or Mt. Bachelor’s [***8] 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.
“‘* * * *
“‘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 under-signed(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, enter into this agreement freely and voluntarily and agree it is binding on the undersigned(s) and the undersigneds’ heirs and legal representatives. [***9]
“‘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.'”
Bagley I, 258 Ore. App. at 392-93. (Capitalization omitted.) The “crux of the release agreement was also printed” on the plaintiff’s ski pass. Id. at 394.
In addition, a sign was posted at each of the defendant’s ski lift terminals, providing, in part, that “‘YOUR TICKET IS A RELEASE'” and advising members of the public not to purchase tickets without agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of the release. Id. at 395 (capitalization in original).
However, after the parties in this case briefed and argued this case to us, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed our decision in Bagley I. See Bagley II, 356 Ore. at 543. In so doing, the court explained that it would, “for the sake of convenience–if not doctrinal convergence–* * * address the parties’ public policy arguments in the context of [its] analysis of whether, in the particular circumstances of [that] case, enforcement of the release would be unconscionable.” Id. at 554. The court then [***10] set forth the “procedural factors” and “substantive considerations” that it gleaned from its prior decisions involving unconscionable contracts, stating:
“We glean from those decisions that [HN2] relevant procedural factors in the determination of whether enforcement of an anticipatory release would violate public policy or be unconscionable include whether the re [**624] lease was conspicuous and unambiguous; whether there was a substantial disparity in the parties’ bargaining power; whether the contract was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; and whether the contract involved a consumer transaction. Relevant substantive considerations include whether enforcement of the release would cause a harsh or inequitable result to befall the releasing party; whether the releasee serves an important public interest or function; and whether the release purported to disclaim liability for more serious misconduct than ordinary negligence. Nothing in our previous decisions suggests that any single factor takes precedence over the others or that the listed factors are exclusive. Rather, they indicate that a determination whether enforcement of an anticipatory release would violate public policy or be unconscionable [***11] must be based on the totality of the circumstances of a particular transaction. The analysis in that regard is guided, but not limited, by the factors that this court previously has identified; it is also informed by any [*883] other considerations that may be relevant, including societal expectations.”
Id. at 560 (emphases added).
The court then analyzed those factors and considerations as they pertained to the facts in that case. When analyzing the procedural factors, the court noted that one factor–whether the release was conspicuous and unambiguous–weighed in favor of enforcement, as the plaintiff did not contend that he was surprised by the terms of the release. Id. at 561. The court then stated that “[o]ther procedural factors * * * point[ed] in a different direction[,]” noting that this “was not an agreement between equals” as “[o]nly one party to the contract–defendant–was a commercial enterprise, and that party exercised its superior bargaining strength by requiring its patrons, including plaintiff, to sign an anticipatory release on a take-it-or-leave-it basis as a condition of using its facilities.” Id. The court also noted that “plaintiff had no opportunity * * * to negotiate for different terms or pay an additional [***12] fee for protection against defendant’s negligence.” Id. at 562.
When analyzing the substantive considerations, the court stated that “the enforcement of the release would cause a harsh and inequitable result” to befall the plaintiff; that the “defendant’s business operation [was] sufficiently tied to the public interest as to require the performance of its private duties to its patrons[;]” and that “the fact that plaintiff’s claim [was] based on negligence rather than on more egregious conduct carries less weight than the other substantive factors[.]” Id. at 565-70. The court concluded by stating, “Because the factors favoring enforcement of the release are outweighed by the countervailing considerations that we have identified, we conclude that enforcement of the release at issue in this case would be unconscionable.” Id. at 573.
The release here is materially indistinguishable from the release at issue in Bagley, and, therefore, under the analysis set forth by the Oregon Supreme Court in Bagley II, we conclude that enforcement of the release in this case would likewise be unconscionable. Accordingly, Hoodoo is not entitled to prevail on its affirmative defense of release, [*884] and the trial court erred in granting [***13] Hoodoo’s motion for summary judgment, denying Becker’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and entering a judgment in favor of Hoodoo.
Reversed and remanded.
Camire v. The Gunstock Area Commission, 166 N.H. 374; 97 A.3d 250; 2014 N.H. LEXIS 60
Posted: November 30, 2015 Filed under: Legal Case, New Hampshire, Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Collision, New Hampshire, New Hampshire Ski Area Safety Act, skier collision, skier v. skier, Snowboarder v. Skier Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see
Snowboarder, off-duty employee of defendant ski area, collides with a skier. New Hampshire Supreme Court finds a way different from what was argued at the trial court to decide the case.
Camire v. The Gunstock Area Commission, 166 N.H. 374; 97 A.3d 250; 2014 N.H. LEXIS 60
Diana Camire v. The Gunstock Area Commission
No. 2013-258
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
166 N.H. 374; 97 A.3d 250; 2014 N.H. LEXIS 60
February 26, 2014, Argued
June 18, 2014, Opinion Issued
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Belknap
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
HEADNOTES NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
1. Appeal and Error–Questions Considered on Appeal–Questions Not Preserved, but Considered Ordinarily, an appellate court will not review arguments that were not timely raised before the trial court because trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court, This rule, however, is not absolute. Preservation is a limitation on the parties to an appeal and not the reviewing court. [*375]
2. Torts–Defenses–Assumption of Risk The specification of “collisions with other skiers or other persons” in the enumerated categories of inherent risks in the statute regarding responsibilities of skiers and passengers plainly includes all person-to-person collisions. As the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire has concluded, the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute’s immunity provision could hardly be clearer: it identifies collisions with other skiers or other persons as one of the risks, dangers, or hazards which the skier assumes as a matter of law. It makes no exception for collisions with skiers who are violating the statute, nor does it except collisions with ski area employees, even when those employees are themselves violating the statute or otherwise conducting themselves in a negligent or reckless fashion. RSA 225-A:24, I.
3. Torts–Defenses–Assumption of Risk Based upon the plain language of the statute regarding responsibilities of skiers and passengers, the legislature intended to include, as a category of inherent risk, collisions with ski area employees, regardless of whether they were working at the time of the collision. Thus, when a snowboarder collided with an instructor who was snowboarding prior to his scheduled “lineup,” the statute barred her vicarious liability claims as a matter of law. RSA 225-A:24, I.
4. Torts–Defenses–Assumption of Risk The current statute regarding responsibilities of skiers and passengers does not limit the risks assumed to those enumerated therein. Thus, “collisions with other skiers or other persons” does not exclude collisions with ski area employees because the legislature did not specifically identify them as an inherent risk of skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing. RSA 225-A:24, I.
5. Appeal and Error–Questions Considered on Appeal–Particular Cases Because plaintiff did not develop an argument as to why the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant on her direct negligence claim, the court declined to review it.
COUNSEL: McLaughlin Law Office, P.C., of Laconia (Emily F. McLaughlin on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Thomas Quarles, Jr. and Leigh S. Willey on the brief, and Mr. Quarles orally), for the defendant.
JUDGES: CONBOY, J. DALIANIS, C.J., and HICKS, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.
OPINION BY: CONBOY
OPINION
[**252] Conboy, J. The plaintiff, Diana Martinez (formerly Diana Camire), appeals an order of the Superior Court (O’Neill, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, The Gunstock Area Commission (Gunstock), on the plaintiff’s claims for damages for negligence and recklessness. We affirm.
The following facts are drawn from the trial court’s order and the record, or are otherwise undisputed. On February 13, 2010, the plaintiff, a snowboarder, visited Gunstock’s ski and snowboard area. Posted on the wall of the ticket kiosk was a thirty-five inch by forty inch sign that recited, in part, the language of RSA 225-A:24 and also stated: “By purchasing and/or affixing a ticket to use our facilities, you are agreeing to accept, as a matter of law, all inherent risks of winter sports activities and agree not [*376] to sue Gunstock for NEGLIGENCE or any other [***2] legal claim.” (Bolding omitted.). See RSA 225-A:24 (2011) (outlining responsibilities of skiers and passengers). In addition, the back of the lift ticket purchased by the plaintiff included language stating that, as a condition of using the ski area, the purchaser or user of the ticket agreed to release Gunstock, and its employees and agents from any legal liability, including, but not limited to, claims for negligence.
Later that day, between 11:15 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., the plaintiff was injured when she was snowboarding on a ski trail and another snowboarder struck her from behind. The snowboarder was employed by Gunstock during the 2009-2010 season as a snowboard instructor. At the time of the collision, he was snowboarding prior to his scheduled 11:45 a.m. “lineup” in anticipation of a 12:00 p.m. lesson. The plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries as a result of the collision.
The plaintiff sued Gunstock, asserting three counts based upon vicarious liability for the instructor’s alleged negligent and reckless conduct, and one count alleging that Gunstock was directly liable for negligently hiring, training, and supervising the instructor. The trial court granted Gunstock’s motion [***3] for summary judgment on all of the claims. This appeal followed.
[HN1] “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Sanchez v. Candia Woods Golf Links, 161 N.H. 201, 203, 13 A.3d 268 (2010) (quotation omitted). “If our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the grant of summary judgment.” Id. (quotation omitted). We review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo. Id.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by determining that the liability releases barred her claims “in the absence of some evidence that [she] expressly agreed to [the] exculpatory language.” She also contends that the trial court erred in finding that, as a matter of law, the instructor was not in Gunstock’s employ at the time of the collision. She further asserts that RSA 225-A:24, I, “does not bar recovery for [a ski area] operator’s negligent supervision of its employees and the negligence of its agents in violation of their [***4] duties as employees.”
The defendant disputes the plaintiff’s contention that the releases do not preclude its liability and that the instructor was working at the time of the collision. The defendant further asserts that, even if the instructor had been “working at the time of the accident, because this accident was a skier-to-skier collision [–] an inherent [**253] risk of skiing, for which ski areas are immune [–] Gunstock would have immunity from [the plaintiff’s] claims.”
[*377] [1] We recognize that, in the trial court proceeding, neither party, nor the court, addressed the applicability of RSA 225-A:24, I, to the plaintiff’s claims. [HN2] Ordinarily, we will not review arguments that were not timely raised before the trial court, Baines v. N.H. Senate President, 152 N.H. 124, 128 (2005), because “trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court,” Petition of Guardarramos-Cepeda, 154 N.H. 7, 9, 904 A.2d 609 (2006) (quotation omitted). This rule, however, is not absolute. Id. As we have previously recognized, preservation is a limitation on the parties to an appeal and not the reviewing court. Id. The issue of whether a ski area operator has statutory [***5] immunity under RSA 225-A:24, I, presents a question of law that, in this case, is dispositive of the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, and because both parties addressed the issue during oral argument before this court, we will consider it. See id.
Whether RSA 225-A:24, I, precludes the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims is a question of statutory interpretation. [HN3] “We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Martin v. Pat’s Peak, 158 N.H. 735, 738, 973 A.2d 333 (2009) (quotation omitted). “We first examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” Id. (quotation omitted).
RSA 225-A:24, I, provides, in pertinent part:
[HN4] Each person who participates in the sport of skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing accepts as a matter of law, the dangers inherent in the sport, and to that extent may not maintain [***6] an action against the operator for any injuries which result from such inherent risks, dangers, or hazards. The categories of such risks, hazards, or dangers which the skier or passenger assumes as a matter of law include but are not limited to the following: … collisions with other skiers or other persons . …
(Emphasis added.). The plaintiff argues that the statute does not bar her claims because “collisions with other skiers or other persons” does not include collisions with employees of the ski area operator.
[2, 3] Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, [HN5] the specification of “collisions with other skiers or other persons” in the enumerated categories of inherent risks plainly includes all person-to-person collisions. Cf. LaChance v. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., 156 N.H. 88, 94, 931 A.2d 571 (2007) (interpreting “any [*378] person injured” broadly within context of Consumer Protection Act). As the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire recently concluded:
the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the [statute’s] immunity provision could hardly be clearer: it identifies “collisions with other skiers or other persons” as one of the “risks, dangers, or hazards which the skier assumes as a [***7] matter of law.” It makes no exception for collisions with skiers who are violating the [statute], nor does it except collisions with ski area employees, even when those employees are themselves violating [**254] the [statute] or otherwise conducting themselves in a negligent or reckless fashion.
Hanus v. Loon Mountain Recreation Corp., No. 13-cv-44-JL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778, 2014 WL 1513232, at *3 (D.N.H. Apr. 16, 2014) (ellipsis omitted). If we were to conclude, as the plaintiff urges, that the legislature intended to exclude collisions with ski area employees, we would, in effect, be rewriting the statute. This we decline to do. See LaChance, 156 N.H. at 94. Thus, we hold that, [HN6] based upon the plain language of the statute, the legislature intended to include, as a category of inherent risk, collisions with ski area employees, regardless of whether they were working at the time of the collision.
The plaintiff relies upon Adie v. Temple Mt. Ski Area, 108 N.H. 480, 238 A.2d 738 (1968), to support her argument that a “ski area can be liable for an employee’s negligence, despite the existence of statutory immunity.” In Adie, we considered whether the statute barred “an action for negligent instruction against an operator who has undertaken [***8] to instruct skiers.” Adie, 108 N.H. at 482. We concluded that the statute did not bar recovery for a ski area operator’s negligence in ski instruction to a skier because “the statute does not regulate instruction in skiing by operators.” Id. at 483-84. We noted that “[i]f the Legislature had intended to bar skiers from actions against an operator for negligent instruction … , some regulation of their operations in th[is] area[ ] would have appeared in the statute.” Id. at 484. Here, unlike in Adie, the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims allege injuries caused by a “collision[ ] with other skiers or other persons,” RSA 225-A:24, I; such claims are expressly addressed in the statute.
[4] Moreover, as we have previously explained, [HN7] the current statute “does not limit the risks assumed to those enumerated therein.” Rayeski v. Gunstock Area, 146 N.H. 495, 498, 776 A.2d 1265 (2001); see RSA 225-A:24, I (risks, hazards, or dangers “include but are not limited to” enumerated items). Thus, we disagree with the plaintiff to the extent that she argues that “collisions with other skiers or other persons,” RSA 225-A:24, I, excludes [*379] collisions with ski area employees because the legislature did not specifically [***9] identify them as an inherent risk of skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing.
Accordingly, because RSA 225-A:24, I, bars the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims as a matter of law, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gunstock on those claims. In light of our holding, we need not decide whether the instructor was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision or whether the claims are also barred by Gunstock’s liability releases.
[5] The final count of the plaintiff’s writ alleged negligence on the part of Gunstock in failing to properly hire, train, and supervise the instructor. Gunstock moved for summary judgment on this claim on the basis that the plaintiff could not establish a causal connection between her injury and the fact that the ski instructor worked for Gunstock. Although, on appeal, the plaintiff cites Trahan-Laroche v. Lockheed Sanders, 139 N.H. 483, 485, 657 A.2d 417 (1995), for the proposition that “[a]n employer may be directly liable for damages resulting from the negligent supervision of its employee’s activities,” she does not develop an argument as to why the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendant on her [***10] direct negligence claim. As she has failed to brief this argument sufficiently for appellate review, we decline to review it. See Porter [**255] v. City of Manchester, 155 N.H. 149, 157, 921 A.2d 393 (2007); State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49, 816 A.2d 1014 (2003).
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Kopeikin v. Moonlight Basin Management, LLC, 90 F. Supp. 3d 1103; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15348
Posted: November 22, 2015 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, Montana, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Inherent Risk Montana Skier Safety Act, Montana's skier responsibility statute, Moonlight Basin, ski area, skiing Leave a commentKopeikin v. Moonlight Basin Management, LLC, 90 F. Supp. 3d 1103; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15348
Brian Kopeikin, M.D., Plaintiff, vs. Moonlight Basin Management, LLC, D/B/A Moonlight Ba In Resort, Defendant.
CV 13-C45-CBU-CDLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, BUTTE DIVISION
90 F. Supp. 3d 1103; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15348
February 9, 2015, Decided
February 9, 2015, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Kopeikin v. Moonlight Basin Mgmt., LLC, 981 F. Supp. 2d 936, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160390 (D. Mont., 2013)
CORE TERMS: skier, skiing, rock, snow, elkhorn, ski, track, cat, terrain, inherent dangers, summary judgment, ski area, hazard, reasonable care, mountain, sport, hit, injuries resulted, surface, slope, skis, visible, ski resort, disputed, safely, skied, unmarked, matter of law, entitled to judgment, legal responsibility
COUNSEL: [**1] For Brian Kopeikin, M.D., Plaintiff: Edward P. Moriarity, MORIARITY BADARUDDIN & BOOKE, LLC, Missoula, MT.
For Moonlight Basin Management, LLC doing business as Moonlight Basin Resort, Defendant: Ian McIntosh, LEAD ATTORNEY, CROWLEY FLECK, Bozeman, MT.
JUDGES: Dana L. Christensen, Chief United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: Dana L. Christensen
OPINION
[*1104] ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons explained, the Court grants the motion.
Synopsis
Plaintiff Dr. Brian Kopeikin (“Kopeikin”) was injured in a skiing accident in Montana. Kopeikin is a resident of California. He brought this diversity action against Defendant Montana ski area operator Moonlight Basin Management, LLC (“Moonlight”) asserting a claim for negligence sounding in premises liability and a claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision and management.
Earlier in the litigation, Moonlight moved to dismiss the Complaint asserting that it failed to state a claim under Montana’s skier responsibility statute, Montana Code Annotated § 23-2-736, because even as alleged all of Kopeikin’s injuries resulted from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. The Court denied the motion.
Now before the Court is Moonlight’s motion for summary judgment, and a [**2] fully-developed record in which several of Kopeikin’s key allegations from the Complaint are conclusively rebutted. On this updated evidentiary record, the Court concludes that Moonlight acted consistent with its duty of reasonable care and that all of Kopeikin’s injuries resulted from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Accordingly, Moonlight is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and its motion for summary judgment is granted.
Factual Background1
1 Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2014, and Kopeikin responded on July 25, 2014. In accordance with Local Rule 56.1(b), Kopeikin simultaneously filed a separate Statement of Disputed Facts with his brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Then, on the afternoon of January 28, 2015, less than 24 hours prior to a hearing on the motion, Kopeikin filed a document styled as a “Supplement to Statement of Disputed Facts.” (Doc. 41.) Kopeikin did not seek leave of Court to file the “Supplement,” and the filing is not contemplated by Local Rules. Indeed, it is contrary to the Local Rule’s requirement that a Statement of Disputed Facts be filed “simultaneously with” the brief in opposition. L.R. 56.1(b). The filing is untimely by [**3] at least six months, and Kopekin has not sought leave to file it. Accordingly, its contents are not considered for purposes of deciding this motion.
On February 5, 2012, Kopeikin and his skiing partner, Sven Rose, purchased lift tickets to ski Moonlight Basin ski resort. Near the ticket booth where Kopeikin purchased his ticket is a sign warning skiers of unmarked hazards. Kopeikin is a very experienced skier, having skied at several ski resorts throughout the Rocky Mountain West over the past 36 years, and he had seen similar signs at other ski resorts warning patrons of unmarked hazards. Kopeikin knew that the presence of rocks is common at ski areas in the Rocky Mountains, such as Moonlight, and he did not expect that all hazards at Moonlight would be marked.
Skiing conditions at Moonlight on February 5, 2012, were generally good, with [*1105] clear skies, calm winds, and temperatures near thirty-two degrees. However, it was a low snow coverage year, and Kopeikin acknowledges that prior to his accident he saw uncovered rocks on the sides of the ski runs. Rocks are prevalent at Moonlight.
After skiing several easier warm-up runs, Kopeikin and Rose decided to take the Six Shooter chairlift up [**4] the mountain in an effort to access an area of more challenging, expert terrain known as Headwaters. Upon learning that hiking was required to access the terrain, and due to their concern about a lack of sufficient snow coverage, the two men decided not to ski Headwaters.
Instead, Kopeikin and Rose decided to ski a run called “Elkhorn.” At the unloading area for the Six Shooter chairlift there is a sign identifying Elkhorn as a black diamond, or “most difficult,” run. (Doc. 21-9; 30-7.) To access Elkhorn, Kopeikin and Rose began by skiing on an intermediate run called “Fast Lane.” On Fast Lane, there were plainly visible rocks above the snow surface that Kopeikin admits that he likely saw.
The two then approached the entrance to Elkhorn. Immediately before the entrance to Elkhorn, there is a sign indicating, again, that Elkhorn is designated a black diamond, or “most difficult,” run. (Doc. 21-13.) Kopeikin and Rose skied past this sign and onto Elkhorn. At this point, the terrain steepened and narrowed, and the ski run was occupied by obstacles such as moguls and snowdrifts.2 As Kopeikin began skiing down Elkhorn, plainly visible grass and rocks could be seen poking through the snow on [**5] the side of the run.
2 A snowdrift, or wind drift, is defined as “a heap of snow piled up by the wind.” Webster’s New World Dictionary (4th Ed., Wiley Publishing 2002). In his deposition, Kopeikin referred to the snowdrifts as “drift lumps.” (Doc. 25-4 at 93.)
Approximately 200 yards below the entrance of Elkhorn, there is an area where a cat track, or its remains, crosses Elkhorn. In 2007, after determining the cat track was not being used regularly, Moonlight removed the edges of the cat track where it crossed Elkhorn in an attempt to return the slope to its natural condition. The cat track, or what remains of it, partially obscures the terrain immediately below it.
Rose skied in front of Kopeikin and successfully navigated the cat track and the terrain immediately below it. Kopeikin estimates that he was skiing behind Rose at approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour. Kopeikin “came over the cat track and absorbed it[] and when [his] skis touched down both hit rocks,” and he was ejected from his skis. (Doc. 25-4 at 120.) He fell forward and landed in other rocks that were either visible or buried under the snow. As a result of his fall, Kopeikin suffered serious and disabling injuries that [**6] necessitated extensive medical care and treatment.
Kopeikin testified that he “would not have fallen because of the cat track,” id. at 124:1-2, but fell because his “skis hit rocks.” Id. at 124:2-3. The particular rock that caused him to be ejected from his ski was one that he could not see because it was under the snow and was “something you had to penetrate and hit with a little force.” Id. at 146:14-15.
From 2003, when Moonlight opened, through the end of the 2012 ski season, Moonlight had approximately 700,000 skier visits. Other than Kopeikin’s accident, there have been no other reported accidents due to rocks in the location of the subject accident.3
3 Kopeikin disputes whether any other accidents had been reported at the location of his accident, but he presents no contrary evidence. In an effort to show that the fact is disputed, Kopeikin cites to the Court three incident reports involving skiing or snowboarding accidents on the Elkhorn run generally. These include: (1) a 2013 accident that occurred somewhere on Elkhorn in which a woman with “no vision on one side” bumped into her daughter on her blind side and fell, (Doc. 25-11 at 3); (2) a 2011 accident in which a snowboarder “was [**7] going down of [sic] the second hill of elkhorn [and] rolled forward,” (Doc. 25-9 at 2-3.); and (3) a 2008 accident that occurred on the “left side on skiers L of Lower Elkhorn” in which a snowboarder “caught [his] edge on ice [and] fell forward,” (Doc. 25-10 at 2-3). None of these accident appear to have occurred at the location of Kopeikin’s accident, and all of them are, in any case, of such dissimilar nature as to be immaterial to the Court’s analysis.
[*1106] Legal Standard
A party is entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “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). Summary judgment is warranted where the documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one conclusion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the lawsuit will preclude entry of summary judgment; factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary to the outcome are not considered. Id. at 248. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. The “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s [**8] position” is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Id. at 252.
Discussion
In this diversity action, the Court applies Montana substantive law. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 79, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938).
Pursuant to Montana statute, “[a] skier shall accept all legal responsibility for injury or damage of any kind to the extent that the injury or damage results from inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-736(4). The “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” are statutorily defined as “those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing,” including in pertinent part:
. . .
(b) snow conditions as they exist or as they may change, . . .
. . .
(d) collisions with natural surface or subsurface conditions, such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps . . . and other natural objects;
. . .
(f) variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or the result of slope design, snowmaking, or snow grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, ski jumps, catwalks,4 and other terrain modifications.
Id. at § 702(2).
4 Consistent with its Order of November 7, 2013, the Court interprets the term “catwalk” to be synonymous with the term “cat track.” No objection to this interpretation has been raised by the parties. [**9]
Under Montana statute, “[a] skier has the duty to ski at all times in a manner that avoids injury to the skier and others and to be aware of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” Id. at § 736(1). Additionally, Montana statute requires a skier to “know the range of the skier’s ability and safely ski within the limits of that ability . . . so as to negotiate any section of terrain or ski slope and trail safely and [*1107] without injury or damage.” Id. at 736(2)(a). A skier is also statutorily required to “know that the skier’s ability may vary because of ski slope and trail changes caused by weather, grooming changes, or skier use.” Id.
A ski area operator must act “consistent with the duty of reasonable care owed by a ski area operator to a skier.” Id. at § 733. Montana’s skier responsibility statutes cannot be read to immunize ski resorts from their own negligent or intentional acts, because such an interpretation would violate Montana’s constitution. Mead v. M.S.B., Inc., 264 Mont. 465, 872 P.2d 782, 788 (Mont. 1994). However, the stated purpose of Montana’s skier responsibility statutes is to “discourage[] claims based on damages resulting from the inherent risks of skiing.” Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-731.
In ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court articulated an interpretation of Montana’s skier [**10] responsibility statutes that harmonizes the definition of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing with the requirement that a ski area operator act consistent with its duty of reasonable care. In so doing, the Court rejected the notion that a court’s only role in ski area liability cases is to inquire whether the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from a collision with a particular object appearing on the statutory list of inherent risks of skiing, because such an application would produce absurd results and render the statute unconstitutional. Kopeikin v. Moonlight Basin Management, LLC, 981 F.Supp.2d 936, 945 (D. Mont. 2013). At the same time, not every case involving hazards on a ski mountain presents a genuine dispute of fact appropriate for trial, and summary judgment will sometimes be appropriate. Id. at 943.
Ultimately, Montana’s skier responsibility statutes make clear that the duty of reasonable care owed by a ski area operator to a skier “must be viewed in the unique context of skiing.” Id. at 945. Skiing is a sport in which thrill-seeking skiers embrace its inherent dangers and risks. It is a sport that occurs on “a mighty mountain, with fluctuation in weather and snow conditions that constantly change.” Wright v. Mt. Mansfield Lift, Inc., 96 F.Supp. 786, 791 (D. Vt. 1951). “[A] ski area operator cannot be expected to expend all of its resources [**11] making every hazard or potential hazard safe, assuming such an end is even possible,” or desirable. Kopeikin, 981 F.Supp.2d at 946. “Ski areas encompass vast and unwieldy terrain and mother nature is always at play.” Id. The act of skiing in such terrain presents an obvious array of dangers to a skier, many of which the ski area operator has no duty to protect against under Montana law. Fundamentally, a skier bears much of the responsibility for avoiding injury to himself, which is a principal that is consistent with Montana law.
In this case, Kopeikin’s injuries resulted from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Without question, applying a plain language interpretation of Montana’s skier responsibility statutes leads to this conclusion. In snow conditions as they existed on February 4, 2012, Kopeikin skied over a variation in terrain and collided with a subsurface rock that caused him to fall and collide with other surface or subsurface rocks. Thus, the accident falls clearly within the definition of the inherent dangers and risks that are part of the sport of skiing. Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-701(2)(b)(d)&(f). Furthermore, Kopeikin failed to negotiate the terrain safely and without injury. Notwithstanding his years of experience and expertise, [**12] he failed to ski in manner that avoided injury to himself and to be aware of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. See id. at § 23-2-736. Accordingly, so long as Moonlight [*1108] acted consistent with its duty of reasonable care owed to Kopeikin, Kopeikin must accept all legal responsibility for his injuries. Id. at § 23-2-736(4).
It is clear that Moonlight acted consistent with its duty of reasonable care as a ski area operator with respect to Kopeikin. Moonlight warned generally of unmarked hazards. It posted multiple signs designating the run on which Kopeikin was injured a black diamond, or most difficult, run. With respect to the cat track, Moonlight had taken efforts to remove it and return the slope back to its natural condition.
Kopeikin did not suddenly and blindly encounter an unmarked cat track. Rather, Kopeikin admits that what remained of the cat track could be clearly seen from above. Also, the rocks that Kopeikin collided with, like all of the rocks on the Elkhorn run, were naturally occurring. Without citation to any record evidence, Kopeikin asks the Court to infer that some of the rocks in the area where he fell unnaturally accumulated there through the process of removing the cat track back [**13] in 2007. The record evidence, however, establishes the opposite — the process of removing the cat track reduced the number of rocks in the area because many of the rocks were covered up during the cat track removal process.
Furthermore, with over 700,000 skier visits, there had never been another reported accident at the location of Kopeikin’s accident caused by a collision with rocks. According to Kopeikin, the rock that he hit with his skis, which caused him to fall, was buried under the snow and “was something you had to penetrate and hit with a little force and then it was there.” (Doc. 25-4 at 147.) Thus, Kopeikin’s theory that Moonlight had a duty to warn of these specific rocks, is undermined by this specific accident’s unforeseeability, despite the fact that accidents of this general nature were foreseeable to skiers that were skiing on the mountain in low snow conditions. To impose a duty on Moonlight to mark or remove all submerged rocks, which are not readily visible, would be to require Moonlight to undertake an impossibility.
Kopeikin himself recognized that it was a low snow year. He had seen other rocks on other runs prior to skiing Elkhorn. He elected not to ski Headwaters [**14] in part because there was “no snow.” (Doc. 25-4 at 90.) He rightly did not expect that all hazards on the mountain would be marked. On Elkhorn, rocks and grass were plainly visible. When he approached the area of Elkhorn where the remains of the cat track obscured the terrain immediately below, he did not stop and assess what was below.
It is clear that Montana’s skier responsibility statutes apply to these facts, that Kopeikin encountered the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, and that he must therefore accept all legal responsibility for his injuries and damages. As was eloquently stated by Judge Gibson in granting a directed verdict for the defendant ski area operator against a claim by a plaintiff injured when her skis unexpectedly hit a tree stump buried under the snow:
Skiing is a sport; a sport that entices thousands of people; a sport that requires an ability on the part of the skier to handle himself or herself under various circumstances of grade, boundary, mid-trail obstructions, corners and varied conditions of the snow. Secondly, it requires good judgment on the part of the skier and recognition of the existing circumstances and conditions. Only the skier knows his own [**15] ability to cope with a certain piece of trail. Snow, ranging from powder to ice, can be of infinite kinds. Breakable crust may be encountered where soft snow is expected. [*1109] Roots and rocks may be hidden under a thin cover. A single thin stubble of cut brush can trip a skier in the middle of a turn. Sticky snow may follow a fast running surface without warning. Skiing conditions may change quickly. What was, a short time before, a perfect surface with a soft cover on all bumps may fairly rapidly become filled with ruts, worn spots and other manner of skier created hazards.
Wright, 96 F.Supp. at 790-91 (emphasis added).
The Montana Legislature has recognized these truths about skiing and codified them, so that a skier has a duty to ski safely and within his abilities, and accepts all responsibility for injuries resulting from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Because Kopeikin’s injuries resulted only from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing and because Moonlight did not breach its duty of reasonable care, Moonlight is entitled to judgment as matter of law.
IT IS ORDERED that Moonlight’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The [**16] clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. This case is CLOSED.
Dated this 9th day of February 2015.
/s/ Dana L. Christensen
Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge
United States District Court
Recreation Law 