Ohio Appellate court upholds release for injury from bicycle race reviewing the steps needed to analysis the release by the courts.
Posted: May 22, 2023 Filed under: Cycling, Ohio, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Bicycle Race, Bicycle Racing, Case Western Reserve University, Greater Cleveland Sports Commission, Ohio, Release, USA Cycling, Waiver Leave a commentOhio is a state that supports the use of a release and this is a great decision to show you how to make sure your release is viable under Ohio law.
Goss v. USA Cycling, Inc., 193 N.E.3d 599 (Ohio App. 2022)
State: Ohio, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Plaintiff: Heather Goss
Defendant: USA Cycling, Inc., et al. (USA Cycling, Inc. (“USAC”), Case Western Reserve University (“CWRU”), and Greater Cleveland Sports Commission (the “GCSC”))
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For Defendants
Year: 2022
Summary
The court upheld the USA cycling release for the claims of an injured bicycle racer. The plaintiff argued the release did not cover the claims of the plaintiff and that releases should be void because the use of a release allows a business owner to be lax in its safety concerns for patrons and guests. The court found neither of the plaintiff’s arguments to be valid.
Facts
In 2016, the GCSC organized NEOCycle, a multi-day cycling festival featuring criterium races, where cyclists race numerous laps around a closed-loop race. The GCSC partnered with CWRU Cycling, a student-led cycling club, to organize the criterium races sanctioned by USAC.
Individuals involved in the logistical organization of the event included GCSC’s operation manager, Matthew Sajna (“Sajna”); CWRU staff-advisor, Ryan Pierce (“Pierce”); and CWRU students, Henry Bermet (“Bermet”), Jasper Stallings (“Stallings”), and Matthew Swartout (“Swartout”). With the exception of Swartout, the event organizers had minimal experience in designing criterium-race courses. More significantly, the event organizers did not receive specialized training in criterium-race course safety or design prior to the 2016 event. Id. Despite their lack of training, however, members of the CWRU Cycling club were directly involved in the design of the race course and the measures taken to ensure safe racing conditions.
As part of the registration process for the NEOCycle event, Goss executed a release form titled, “2016 USA Cycling Event Release Form AND One Day License Application” (the “Event Release”).
Goss had previously executed an agreement with USAC on April 14, 2016, in order to obtain a license from USAC to participate in USAC-sanctioned events in 2016. This agreement, titled “Acknowledgment of Risk, Release of Liability, Indemnification Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue” (the “Licensing Release”), contained substantially similar language to that set forth in the Event Release.
On September 10, 2016, Goss participated in two separate criterium races at the NEOCycle event. In the morning event, Goss completed a 30-minute ride. Later that afternoon, Goss returned to the same course to participate in her second race. On the final lap of the second race, a cyclist in front of Goss unexpectedly fell on the final turn of the race. The crash caused many cyclists, including Goss, to lose control of their bicycles. Ultimately, Goss crashed into a barrier, causing injuries to her neck, thyroid, larynx, and trachea.
On April 2, 2020, Goss filed a civil complaint against the appellees, setting forth separate causes of action for negligence. In pertinent part, Goss alleged that USAC, CWRU, and GCSC each breached their duty to “exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of [Goss]; to maintain said race course in a reasonably safe condition; to give warning of latent or concealed perils thereon, of which [they] knew or should have known; and not to expose such persons to unreasonable or foreseeable risk of severe bodily harm and injury.” Regarding the course conditions that allegedly led to Goss’s injuries, Goss asserted that “the race course design did not conform to USAC’s own safety standards, insomuch as there was insufficient distance from the race course’s final corner to the finish area. This insufficient distance caused racers to begin their ‘final sprint’ to the finish line before the final turn, thereby greatly increasing the chance for slide-outs and collisions.”
In the first assignment of error, Goss argues the trial court erred in finding that negligence as to race course safety and design was within the contemplation of the parties at the time the event release was executed. Consistent with the arguments posed before the trial court, Goss contends the Event Release was “too ambiguous or general to effectively waive the negligent conduct of the appellees.”
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
As in most cases the court started its analysis with a review of negligence in the state. Under Ohio law, to prove negligence the plaintiff must prove:
To establish a negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that the plaintiff’s injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty.
This four-part test is the same as in the vast majority of other states who define negligence. The court then reviewed the Ohio law claimed by the defendants to stop the claims of the plaintiff.
It is well-established that Ohio law recognizes three types of assumption of risk as defenses to negligence: express, primary, and implied or secondary. Pertinent to this case, express assumption of the risk is applicable when the parties expressly agree to release liability. For express assumption of risk to operate as a bar to recovery, the party waiving his right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept the consequences of the other party’s negligence
The requirement for a conscious choice to be made by the plaintiff is a different way of looking at the requirement that the release must clearly express the intent of the parties.
It follows that in order for a conscious acceptance to be made, an agreement purporting to constitute an express assumption of risk must state a clear and unambiguous intent to release the party from liability for its negligence.”
Conscious choice in Ohio, when interpreting a release, means the release must be written to show the person signing the release understand that the person is giving up certain legal rights and cannot sue for their injuries.
The court then quoted the classic statement that releases are not favored under the law of the state. Which means nothing legally, it just reenforces the legal requirement that the burden to prove the release is valid is on writer of the release or the defendant.
Releases from liability for future tortious conduct are generally not favored by the law and are narrowly construed. Nonetheless, “courts routinely apply such releases to bar future tort liability as long as the intent of the parties, with regard to exactly what kind of liability and what persons and/or entities are being released, is stated in clear and unambiguous terms.
The court then explains this “not favored” status further as the release must be written in a way that it is clearly understood by the plaintiff as to its purpose, the plaintiff is giving up his or her right to sue. If the release is ambiguous, if the language of the release does not clearly show to the plaintiff they are giving up their right to sue, then the release language is defined as ambiguous and possibly void.
On the other hand, where the language of the release is ambiguous or too general, courts have held that the intent of the parties is a factual matter for the jury. “The pivotal inquiry is whether it is clear from the general terms of the entire contract, considered in light of what an ordinary prudent and knowledgeable party of the same class would understand, that the proprietor is to be relieved from liability for its own negligence.”
If the release, under Ohio law, is ambiguous, then the jury must decide if the plaintiff understood the purpose of the release. This is different from most states where an ambiguous release is void.
When the language of the release is clear, then the release is a matter of law. That means the release can be interpreted by the court, the case does not need to go to a jury.
When a writing is clear and unambiguous, the interpretation is a question of law. “Ambiguity exists only when a provision at issue is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.”. Moreover, we must read the clauses as a whole, not piecemeal.
Then the release is interpreted by the court. Courts must review contracts, releases, by giving words their ordinary meaning. Does the document state in a way that is understood the intent and purpose of the document.
In interpreting contracts, “[c]ourts must give common words their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity would result or some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the written instrument. And, although not always explicitly referenced or relied on, the rules of grammar are elemental whenever reading and understanding any writing, especially a contract.
The court then reviewed the plaintiff’s arguments on why the release did not meet the requirements under Ohio law because the course was designed badly.
…that (1) “the race planners were students with no training, knowledge or experience in race course design and safety”; or (2) that “the student planners would ignore the recommendations of [USAC].” Thus, Goss contends that “because of the lack of any specificity regarding [the term] negligence in the Event Release,” “the lower court erred when it failed to find that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the unsafe design of the racecourse by uneducated, untrained and inexperienced students was within the contemplation of the parties * * * at the time of the execution of the Event Release.
It always seems to be a stretch, and in most cases it is, unless the court is going to rule against the defendant, that the facts argued by the plaintiff on what happened can affect the legal requirements of a release. However, plaintiff’s try to show the things that happened to the plaintiff were so bad or the actions of the defendant were so bad that the release should be void. Injuries to the plaintiff do not affect the legal issues of whether the release is valid. Actions by the plaintiff only are an issue if the actions rise to the level those actions were grossly, willfully or wantonly negligent in most states.
Here the court found the release did not contain any missing statements or errors that would provide a hole the plaintiff could use to argue the course design was not covered by the release.
Moreover, the Event Release executed in this case did not include an exception that would permit Goss to pursue a claim for damages arising from the appellees’ sole negligence. To the contrary, the Event Release directly contemplates the appellees’ own negligence and required Goss to acknowledge that she agreed “to waive, release, discharge, hold harmless, and promise to indemnify and not to sue” the appellees for damages arising from said negligence.
The plaintiff had argued that the release should be void because of several other arguments made in other legal decisions where the release was found to be void. However, those arguments were based on the idea that the plaintiff signing the release was not informed the release covered the negligence of the defendant. The language in those other releases the court argued
…the Event Release contained the words “release” and “negligence”; and is sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to both the type of liability being released (negligence) and the persons being released (event organizers). Here, Goss released the event sponsors and organizers from all claims arising from their own negligence to the maximum extent permitted by law, including any and all damages that may be sustained by Goss directly or indirectly in connection with, or arising out of, her participation in the cycling event. In this regard, the contract expressly stated that the release applied to “all races and activities entered at the event,” and further required Goss to acknowledge that “cycling is an inherently dangerous sport.” By signing the Event Release, Goss made the conscious choice to accept that she “fully assume[d] the risks associated with such participation,” including (1) the dangers of collisions with other riders; (2) the dangers arising from surface hazards, equipment failure, inadequate safety equipment, or the releasees’ own negligence; and (3) the possibility of a serious physical injury. Considering these terms collectively and in light of what an ordinary prudent person would understand, it is clear that the appellees were to be relieved from liability for any negligence claims relating to their organization of the cycling event, including pertinent hazards and the design of the racecourse.
The release the plaintiff signed expressly reviewed the possible risks that Goss received or argued in her case. This is another point for writing a release so the plaintiff is put on notice of the actual risks they are facing in the activity.
The court found the release specifically notified the plaintiff of the risks she may encounter in the race.
Under the doctrine of express assumption of risk, the terms of the Event Release prohibited Goss from advancing claims of negligence against the appellees. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the appellees was warranted as a matter of law.
The plaintiff then argued that releases should be void in Ohio because they took away the needed incentive to make sure that businesses would keep their activities safe.
In the second assignment of error, Goss argues the trial court erred by failing to adopt her argument that Ohio should void broad, nonspecific, ambiguous waivers of liability as a matter of public policy. Goss contends that by allowing a premises owner or occupier to obtain broad waivers of their own liability, an important incentive for the premises owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition would be removed, “thus forcing the public to bear the cost of resulting injuries caused by the [owner or occupier’s] own negligence.”
The court went back to the basics of release law. Releases in Ohio are valid unless they are against public policy, unconscionable, vague or ambiguous.
Generally, in Ohio, exculpatory clauses, which relieve a party from its own negligence, are not against public policy despite being disfavored in the law. Thus, “limiting or exculpatory language in a contract will be enforced unless the language is against important public policy concerns, unconscionable, or vague and ambiguous.”
Most courts have looked at this issue and held that recreation, like bicycle racing is not an issue protected such that a release covering it would be void as against public policy.
In this case, the exculpatory clause released the event organizers from liability for negligence claims arising from the cycling event. However, the Event Release did not authorize the appellees to exercise no care whatsoever. Nor did it permit the appellees to engage in willful or wanton misconduct. Given these remaining, meaningful protections afforded to the public, we find no basis to adopt a position that would effectively overturn the well-established position of this court that “a participant in a recreational activity is free to contract with the proprietor of such activity as to relieve the proprietor of responsibility for damages or injuries to the participant caused by the negligence of the proprietor except when caused by wanton or wilful misconduct.
This court found the plaintiff’s arguments were not valid because the release would not stop claims if the plaintiff could prove the actions of the defendant were unsafe to a large extent. The release would not stop claims that the actions of the defendant were wanton or wilful. Since that option was always available under Ohio law, the release was not void as against public policy.
In an interesting aside, the court looked at the validity of the release in question as interpreted by other courts. However, this was done in a footnote, not in the main argument of the case.
Although not specifically considered in the state of Ohio, the language contained in the Event Release generated by USAC has been considered nationally and found to be an adequate and enforceable release of liability where such releases are permissible.
The court uphold the lower court finding the release was valid and stopped the claims of the plaintiff.
So Now What?
First this is an important look at the issues facing releases under Ohio law. This court simply examined the claims of the plaintiff and showed how those claims were not met because the release met the requirements needed to be a valid release in Ohio.
Second the court pointed out an important point that many releases miss. The release is also an assumption of the risk document. In some states releases are termed assumption of the risk documents. To be an assumption of the risk document and stop claims, the release must list the possible risks the plaintiff might encounter and the plaintiff must agree to assume those risks.
Your release must include some of the risks that the plaintiff may encounter on the trip. I always suggest that the accidents and injuries that happen on every trip be listed. I also suggest the odd accidents or injuries that may only happen on your activity as well as the worse possible accidents that may result in paralysis or death.
For more cases looking at releases as interpreted by Ohio law see:
Ohio Appellate decision upholds the use of a release for a minor for a commercial activity.
For more cases looking at releases and public policy see:
Oregon Supreme Court finds release signed at ski area is void as a violation of public policy.
For more cases reviewing releases and bicycle racing see:
Decision concerning bicycle race clarifies Illinois release law.
PA court upholds release in bicycle race.
Release and proof of knowledge stop claim from bicycle racer.
Release for bicycle tour wins on appeal but barely
Release stops one of the first lawsuits over bicycle racing.
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Goss v. USA Cycling, Inc., 193 N.E.3d 599 (Ohio App. 2022)
Posted: May 22, 2023 Filed under: Cycling, Ohio, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: assumption of the risk, Bicycle Race, Bicycle Racing, Case Western Reserve, Cycling Race, foreseeable risk, Greater Cleveland Sports Commission, Negligence, Ohio, Public Policy, Release, USA Cycling, Wanton, Wilful Leave a commentGoss v. USA Cycling, Inc., 193 N.E.3d 599 (Ohio App. 2022)
193 N.E.3d 599
Heather GOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
USA CYCLING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 111084
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 21, 2022
Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP, Sanford A. Meizlish, and Jason C. Cox, Columbus, for appellant.
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, David J. Fagnilli, and Jillian L. Dinehart, Cleveland, for appellee USA Cycling, Inc.
Ogletree Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., John Gerak, and Amanda T. Quan, Cleveland, for appellee Case Western Reserve University.
Gallagher Sharp LLP, and Joseph Monroe, II, Cleveland, for appellee Greater Cleveland Sports Commission.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Heather Goss (“Goss”), appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellees, USA Cycling, Inc. (“USAC”), Case Western Reserve University (“CWRU”), and Greater Cleveland Sports Commission (the “GCSC”) (collectively the “appellees”). Goss raises the following assignments of error for review:
1. The trial court erred in finding that negligence as to racecourse safety and design was within the contemplation of the appellant and the appellees when the event release was executed.
2. The trial court erred by failing to address and adopt appellant’s argument that Ohio should void broad, nonspecific, ambiguous waivers of liability as a matter of public policy.
{¶ 2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Procedural and Factual History
{¶ 3} In 2016, the GCSC organized NEOCycle, a multi-day cycling festival featuring criterium races, where cyclists race numerous laps around a closed-loop race. The GCSC partnered with CWRU Cycling, a student-led cycling club, to organize the criterium races sanctioned by USAC.
{¶ 4} Individuals involved in the logistical organization of the event included GCSC’s operation manager, Matthew Sajna (“Sajna”); CWRU staff-advisor, Ryan Pierce (“Pierce”); and CWRU students, Henry Bermet (“Bermet”), Jasper Stallings (“Stallings”), and Matthew Swartout (“Swartout”). With the exception of Swartout, the event organizers had minimal experience in designing criterium-race courses. (Pierce depo. at 46-48; Stallings depo. at 23-25, 43; Bermet depo. at 13, 21-22; Swartout depo. at 23-24.) More significantly, the event organizers did not receive specialized training in criterium-race course safety or design prior to the 2016 event. Id. Despite their lack of training, however, members of the CWRU Cycling club were directly involved in the design of the race course and the measures taken to ensure safe racing conditions.
{¶ 5} As part of the registration process for the NEOCycle event, Goss executed a release form titled, “2016 USA Cycling Event Release Form AND One Day License Application” (the “Event Release”). The Event Release provided, in pertinent part:
I acknowledge that by signing this document, I am assuming risks, agreeing to indemnify, not to sue and release from liability the organizer of this event, USA Cycling, Inc. * * * and their respective agents, insurers, employees, volunteers, members, clubs, officials, sponsors, event directors, local associations, and affiliates (collectively “Releasees”), and that I am giving up substantial legal rights. This release is a contract with legal and binding consequences and it applies to all races and activities entered at the event, regardless whether or not listed above. I have read it carefully before signing and I understand what it means and what I am agreeing to by signing.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CYCLING IS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS SPORT AND FULLY REALIZE THE DANGERS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS EVENT * * * and FULLY ASSUME THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH PARTICIPATION INCLUDING, by way of example, and not limitation: * * * the dangers of collision with pedestrians, vehicles, or other riders, and fixed and moving objects; the dangers arising from surface hazards, including pot holes, equipment failure, inadequate safety equipment, * * * THE RELEASEES’ OWN NEGLIGENCE, the negligence of others and weather conditions; and the possibility of serious physical and/or mental trauma or injury, or death associated with the event.
* * * I HEARBY WAIVE, RELEASE, DISCHARGE, HOLD HARMLESS, AND PROMISE TO INDEMNIDY AND NOT SUE the Releasees * * * FROM ANY AND ALL RIGHTS AND CLAIMS INCLUDING CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE RELEASEES’ OWN NEGLIGENCE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, which I have or may hereafter accrue to me, and from any and all damages which may be sustained by me directly or indirectly in connection with, or arising out of, my participation in or association with the event[.]
* * *
I agree, for myself and my successors, that the above representations are contractually binding, and are not mere recitals, and that should I or my successors assert a claim contrary to what I have agreed to in this contract, the claiming party shall be liable for the expenses (including legal fees) incurred by the Releasees in defending the claims.
(Emphasis sic.) Goss had previously executed an agreement with USAC on April 14, 2016, in order to obtain a license from USAC to participate in USAC-sanctioned events in 2016. This agreement, titled “Acknowledgment of Risk, Release of Liability, Indemnification Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue” (the “Licensing Release”), contained substantially similar language to that set forth in the Event Release.
{¶ 6} On September 10, 2016, Goss participated in two separate criterium races at the NEOCycle event. In the morning event, Goss completed a 30-minute ride. Later that afternoon, Goss returned to the same course to participate in her second race. On the final lap of the second race, a cyclist in front of Goss unexpectedly fell on the final turn of the race. The crash caused many cyclists, including Goss, to lose control of their bicycles. Ultimately, Goss crashed into a barrier, causing injuries to her neck, thyroid, larynx, and trachea. (Goss depo. 117-118.)
{¶ 7} On April 2, 2020, Goss filed a civil complaint against the appellees, setting forth separate causes of action for negligence. In pertinent part, Goss alleged that USAC, CWRU, and GCSC each breached their duty to “exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of [Goss]; to maintain said race course in a reasonably safe condition; to give warning of latent or concealed perils thereon, of which [they] knew or should have known; and not to expose such persons to unreasonable or foreseeable risk of severe bodily harm and injury.” Regarding the course conditions that allegedly led to Goss’s injuries, Goss asserted that “the race course design did not conform to USAC’s own safety standards, insomuch as there was insufficient distance from the race course’s final corner to the finish area. This insufficient distance caused racers to begin their ‘final sprint’ to the finish line before the final turn, thereby greatly increasing the chance for slide-outs and collisions.”
{¶ 8} On July 23, 2021, USAC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Goss released USAC from negligence claims relating to her injuries sustained during the NEOCycle criterium race by executing two valid and binding waivers of liability. USAC asserted that the Event Release and the Licensing Release were each “clear and unambiguous as to the type of liability being released (i.e. negligence claims) and the persons being released (i.e. event organizers).” Alternatively, USAC argued that even if Goss had not expressly assumed the risks associated with the sporting event, the common-law doctrine of primary assumption of the risk required Goss’s claim to fail. In support of its motion for summary judgment, USAC attached copies of the Event Release and the Licensing Release, as well as deposition excerpts from Sajna, Stallings, Pierce, and Goss.
{¶ 9} On the same day, CWRU and GCSC filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing that “Goss’s negligence claims are barred as a matter of law because Goss signed a valid release waiving all claims, including negligence claims, against CWRU and GCSC.” In support of their joint motion for summary judgment, CWRU and GCSC attached copies of the Event Release and Licensing Release, as well as the deposition testimony of Sajna, Pierce, Stallings, Bermet, and Goss.
{¶ 10} On August 2021, Goss filed a brief in opposition to summary judgment, arguing that because the language set forth in the Event Release was “so general and ambiguous, reasonable minds could conclude that negligence as to the race course safety and design was not within the contemplation of the [parties] when the Event Release was executed.” Goss asserted that at the time she signed the Event Release she “could not have comprehended the student planners’ lack of training and experience in race-course safety,” or that “the actual race-course safety would be so far beneath USAC’s safety standards.” Alternatively, Goss argued that the broad waiver of liability should be deemed void as a matter of public policy.
{¶ 11} In support of her brief in opposition, Goss attached a copy of the Event Release, as well as deposition excerpts from Sajna, Pierce, Goss, Bermet, Stallings, and Swartout. In addition, Goss attached a copy of the affidavit and report submitted by plaintiff’s expert, Douglas Shapiro (“Shapiro”). Relevant to this appeal, Shapiro opined as follows:
Based on my 40 plus years of cycling experience, both as a bike racer, recreational cyclist and bicycle safety expert, it is my opinion the defendants’ conduct was below the acceptable standard of care required for safe race-course design and rider safety resulting in dangerous conditions not commonly associated with ordinary risks involved in the sport of cycling. The deviations from the standard of care were the proximate cause of Ms. Goss’s crash and injuries.
(Plaintiff’s exhibit G, ¶ 16.)
{¶ 12} On November 18, 2021, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, stating, in pertinent part:
The court finds that Plaintiff executed a valid and binding pre-injury waiver, releasing defendant[s] of liability. Summary judgment is therefore entered in favor of defendant[s] and against Plaintiff.
{¶ 13} Goss now appeals from the trial court’s judgment.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Negligence Safety and Design
{¶ 14} In the first assignment of error, Goss argues the trial court erred in finding that negligence as to race course safety and design was within the contemplation of the parties at the time the event release was executed. Consistent with the arguments posed before the trial court, Goss contends the Event Release was “too ambiguous or general to effectively waive the negligent conduct of the appellees.”
1. Standard of Review
{¶ 15} We review an appeal from summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) ; Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales & Equip. Co. , 124 Ohio App.3d 581, 585, 706 N.E.2d 860 (8th Dist.1998).
{¶ 16} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp. , 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196 (1995), paragraph three of the syllabus. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt , 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).
{¶ 17} Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Civ.R. 56(E) ; Mootispaw v. Eckstein , 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197 (1996). Doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg , 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 604 N.E.2d 138 (1992).
2. Negligence
{¶ 18} To establish a negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that the plaintiff’s injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty. Everett v. Parma Hts. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99611, 2013-Ohio-5314, 2013 WL 6408693, ¶ 15.
{¶ 19} It is well-established that Ohio law recognizes three types of assumption of risk as defenses to negligence: express, primary, and implied or secondary. Cameron v. Univ. of Toledo , 2018-Ohio-979, 98 N.E.3d 305, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.), citing Schnetz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 195 Ohio App.3d 207, 2011-Ohio-3927, 959 N.E.2d 554, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing Crace v. Kent State Univ. , 185 Ohio App.3d 534, 2009-Ohio-6898, 924 N.E.2d 906, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). Pertinent to this case, express assumption of the risk is applicable when the parties expressly agree to release liability. Crace at ¶ 11, citing Ballinger v. Leaniz Roofing, Ltd. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-696, 2008-Ohio-1421, 2008 WL 802722, ¶ 6.
{¶ 20} “For express assumption of risk to operate as a bar to recovery, the party waiving his right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept the consequences of the other party’s negligence.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Scandinavian Health Spa, Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 582, 586, 662 N.E.2d 890 (1st Dist.1995), citing Anderson v. Ceccardi , 6 Ohio St.3d 110, 114, 451 N.E.2d 780 (1983). “It follows that in order for a conscious acceptance to be made, an agreement purporting to constitute an express assumption of risk must state a clear and unambiguous intent to release the party from liability for its negligence.” Holmes v. Health & Tennis Corp. of Am. , 103 Ohio App.3d 364, 367, 659 N.E.2d 812 (1st Dist.1995), citing Tanker v. N. Crest Equestrian Ctr. , 86 Ohio App.3d 522, 621 N.E.2d 589 (9th Dist.1993).
{¶ 21} “Releases from liability for future tortious conduct are generally not favored by the law and are narrowly construed.” Reo v. Allegiance Admrs. LLC. , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-112, 2018-Ohio-2464, 2018 WL 3110756, ¶ 20, quoting Brown-Spurgeon v. Paul Davis Sys. of Tri-State Area, Inc. , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-069, 2013-Ohio-1845, 2013 WL 1883214, ¶ 50, citing Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co. , 29 Ohio St.3d 44, 46-47, 505 N.E.2d 264 (1987).
{¶ 22} Nonetheless, “courts routinely apply such releases to bar future tort liability as long as the intent of the parties, with regard to exactly what kind of liability and what persons and/or entities are being released, is stated in clear and unambiguous terms.” Brown-Spurgeon at ¶ 51 ; see also
Glaspell at ¶ 46-47 (A negligence claim is barred by the plaintiff’s valid execution of a release of liability of future tortious conduct.); Anderson at 114, 451 N.E.2d 780 (Valid exculpatory clauses or releases constitute express assumptions of risk.); Lamb v. University Hosp. Health Care Ents., Inc. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73144, 1998 WL 474183, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3740 (Aug. 13, 1998) (clause including word “release” and “negligence” as well as specifically identifying persons released from liability sufficiently clear to release fitness club from liability for injuries); Swartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp. , 117 Ohio App.3d 420, 424-427, 690 N.E.2d 941 (4th Dist.1997) (language releasing livery stable from “any and all claims” that arose out of “any and all personal injuries” was sufficiently clear and specific to bar injured horseback rider’s negligence claims).
{¶ 23} On the other hand, where the language of the release is ambiguous or too general, courts have held that the intent of the parties is a factual matter for the jury. Hague v. Summit Acres Skilled Nursing & Rehab ., 7th Dist. Noble No. 09 NO 364, 2010-Ohio-6404, 2010 WL 5545386, ¶ 21. “The pivotal inquiry is whether it is clear from the general terms of the entire contract, considered in light of what an ordinary prudent and knowledgeable party of the same class would understand, that the proprietor is to be relieved from liability for its own negligence.” Id. at ¶ 22.
{¶ 24} When a writing is clear and unambiguous, the interpretation is a question of law. Pruitt v. Strong Style Fitness , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96332, 2011-Ohio-5272, 2011 WL 4842485, ¶ 8, citing Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 246, 374 N.E.2d 146 (1978). “Ambiguity exists only when a provision at issue is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.” Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez , 120 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-4838, 896 N.E.2d 666, ¶ 16. Moreover, we must read the clauses as a whole, not piecemeal. Gomolka v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. , 70 Ohio St.2d 166, 172, 436 N.E.2d 1347 (1982).
{¶ 25} In interpreting contracts, “[c]ourts must give common words their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity would result or some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the written instrument.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Heckler , 3d Dist. Union No. 14-12-26, 2013-Ohio-2388, 2013 WL 2639137, ¶ 20, citing In re All Kelley & Ferraro Asbestos Cases , 104 Ohio St.3d 605, 2004-Ohio-7104, 821 N.E.2d 159, ¶ 29. And, although not always explicitly referenced or relied on, the rules of grammar are elemental whenever reading and understanding any writing, especially a contract. See
Gahanna v. Ohio Mun. Joint Self-Ins. Pool , 10th Dist., 168 N.E.3d 58, 2021-Ohio-445, ¶ 12 (“The court must read words and phrases in context and apply the rules of grammar and common usage.”).
{¶ 26} On appeal, Goss reiterates her position that the Event Release was “too ambiguous or general to effectively waive the negligent conduct of the appellees” because it did not expressly notify her that (1) “the race planners were students with no training, knowledge or experience in race course design and safety”; or (2) that “the student planners would ignore the recommendations of [USAC].” Thus, Goss contends that “because of the lack of any specificity regarding [the term] negligence in the Event Release,” “the lower court erred when it failed to find that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the unsafe design of the racecourse by uneducated, untrained and inexperienced students was within the contemplation of the parties * * * at the time of the execution of the Event Release.”
{¶ 27} In support of her position that the Event Release was so general that it included claims that were not within the contemplation of the parties when it was executed, Goss relies on the Twelfth District’s decision in Brown-Spurgeon , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-069, 2013-Ohio-1845, 2013 WL 1883214, and the Seventh District’s decision in Hague , 7th Dist. Noble No. 09 NO 364, 2010-Ohio-6404.
{¶ 28} In Brown-Spurgeon , plaintiffs Kristina Brown-Spurgeon and Andrew Spurgeon hired defendant Paul Davis Systems of Tri-State Area, Inc. (“PDS”) to complete home repairs after their home was flooded in May 2010. At the time PDS was hired, Kristina signed a “Work Authorization” form that contained an exculpatory clause. The form provided that PDS would not be liable for theft and damages arising out of the services performed pursuant to the contract. However, the clause did allow liability for actions that arise out of the PDS’s sole negligence.
{¶ 29} Once the repair-contract was executed, PDS hired Phil Griffin, the owner of Renovated Solutions, to perform a portion of the remodeling and restoration work. PDS and Griffin signed a “Tradesperson Agreement,” which provided that Griffin would conduct background checks on all persons working on jobs obtained through PDS. Despite these safeguards, however, it was discovered that a repairman hired by Griffin stole prescription drugs, jewelry, electronics, and other personal property from the plaintiffs’ home during the repair process. The value of the stolen items exceeded $18,000. {¶ 30} In May 2011, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against PDS and Griffin, setting forth causes of action for vicarious liability, general negligence, and negligent hiring and supervision. Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PDS and Griffin on each claim.
{¶ 31} On appeal, the Twelfth District reversed the trial court’s judgment in part, finding that there remained genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiffs’ vicarious liability and general negligence claims against PDS, and the general negligence and negligent hiring and supervision claims against Griffin. Relevant to this appeal, the court determined that the exculpatory clause contained in the “Work Authorization” form did not exempt PDS from liability because (1) the theft involved “willful or wanton” conduct, and (2) the exculpatory clause expressly contained an exception for damages that arise directly from the “contractor’s sole negligence.” Brown-Spurgeon , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-069, 2013-Ohio-1845, at ¶ 54-55.
{¶ 32} In Hague , plaintiffs Ruth and Robert Hague filed a negligence and loss of consortium action against Summit Acres and Summit Acres Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation after Ruth was injured on a treadmill at Summit Acres’ fitness center. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the negligence claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because Ruth executed a release from liability form. The release provided, in relevant part:
I agree that by using the fitness center, I am responsible for my actions. I agree that summit acres, inc. Is [sic] not liable for any injuries that I might receive by my use of the fitness center. I have checked with my doctor about the exercise program I am commencing upon.
{¶ 33} On appeal, the Seventh District concluded that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Summit Acres based solely on the release. The court explained as follows:
Here, the release signed by Ruth does not contain the words, “release” or “negligence,” and does not identify the individuals, company or corporation being released from liability. The release simply states that Summit Acres is not liable for any injuries that Goss might receive “by [her] use of the fitness center.” “For express assumption of risk to operate as a bar to recovery, the party waiving his right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept the consequences of the other party’s negligence.” [ Holmes , 103 Ohio App.3d 364, at 367, 659 N.E.2d 812 ]. Hence, the release in this case is of the type that have been characterized by Ohio courts as too ambiguous and general.
Id. at ¶ 28.
{¶ 34} After careful consideration, we find Brown-Spurgeon and Hague to be factually distinguishable from this case. Significantly, unlike the circumstances presented in Brown-Spurgeon , Goss does not contend that “appellees engaged in willful or wanton conduct.” Moreover, the Event Release executed in this case did not include an exception that would permit Goss to pursue a claim for damages arising from the appellees’ sole negligence. To the contrary, the Event Release directly contemplates the appellees’ own negligence and required Goss to acknowledge that she agreed “to waive, release, discharge, hold harmless, and promise to indemnify and not to sue” the appellees for damages arising from said negligence.
{¶ 35} Similarly, unlike the circumstances presented in Hague , the Event Release contained the words “release” and “negligence”; and is sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to both the type of liability being released (negligence) and the persons being released (event organizers). Here, Goss released the event sponsors and organizers from all claims arising from their own negligence to the maximum extent permitted by law, including any and all damages that may be sustained by Goss directly or indirectly in connection with, or arising out of, her participation in the cycling event. In this regard, the contract expressly stated that the release applied to “all races and activities entered at the event,” and further required Goss to acknowledge that “cycling is an inherently dangerous sport.” By signing the Event Release, Goss made the conscious choice to accept that she “fully assume[d] the risks associated with such participation,” including (1) the dangers of collisions with other riders; (2) the dangers arising from surface hazards, equipment failure, inadequate safety equipment, or the releasees’ own negligence; and (3) the possibility of a serious physical injury. Considering these terms collectively and in light of what an ordinary prudent person would understand, it is clear that the appellees were to be relieved from liability for any negligence claims relating to their organization of the cycling event, including pertinent hazards and the design of the racecourse.
{¶ 36} Construing the evidence most strongly in Goss’s favor, we find reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to Goss. Under the doctrine of express assumption of risk, the terms of the Event Release prohibited Goss from advancing claims of negligence against the appellees. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the appellees was warranted as a matter of law.1
{¶ 37} Goss’s first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Public Policy Concerns
{¶ 38} In the second assignment of error, Goss argues the trial court erred by failing to adopt her argument that Ohio should void broad, nonspecific, ambiguous waivers of liability as a matter of public policy. Goss contends that by allowing a premises owner or occupier to obtain broad waivers of their own liability, an important incentive for the premises owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition would be removed, “thus forcing the public to bear the cost of resulting injuries caused by the [owner or occupier’s] own negligence.”
{¶ 39} Generally, in Ohio, exculpatory clauses, which relieve a party from its own negligence, are not against public policy despite being disfavored in the law. Papenfuse v. Toledo Area Regional Transit Auth. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1178, 2015-Ohio-3193, 2015 WL 4720556, ¶ 6. Thus, “limiting or exculpatory language in a contract will be enforced unless the language is against important public policy concerns, unconscionable, or vague and ambiguous.” Morantz v. Ortiz , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-597, 2008-Ohio-1046, 2008 WL 642630, ¶ 27.
{¶ 40} On this record, we are unable to conclude that the Event Release is void and unenforceable due to an overwhelming public policy concern. On appeal, Goss does not contend that the Event Release was procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Moreover, as previously discussed, the Event Release was neither vague nor ambiguous. Finally, while this court agrees that the duties owed by premises owners are supported by legitimate interests in protecting the public from the risk of injury, it is equally true that the concept of freedom to contract is fundamental to our society. See
Hunter v. BPS Guard Servs., Inc. , 100 Ohio App.3d 532, 552, 654 N.E.2d 405. Similarly, there are significant public policy interests in the promotion and organization of recreational activities on public lands. In this case, the exculpatory clause released the event organizers from liability for negligence claims arising from the cycling event. However, the Event Release did not authorize the appellees to exercise no care whatsoever. Nor did it permit the appellees to engage in willful or wanton misconduct. Given these remaining, meaningful protections afforded to the public, we find no basis to adopt a position that would effectively overturn the well-established position of this court that “a participant in a recreational activity is free to contract with the proprietor of such activity as to relieve the proprietor of responsibility for damages or injuries to the participant caused by the negligence of the proprietor except when caused by wanton or wilful misconduct.” Lamb , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73144, 1998 WL 474183 at 2, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3740 at 5-6 (Aug. 13, 1998) ; see also
Pruitt , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96332, 2011-Ohio-5272, at ¶ 12 (“Although [plaintiff] claims the release is against public policy, Ohio courts have consistently held to the contrary.”).
{¶ 41} Goss’s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 42} Judgment affirmed.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
——–
Notes:
1 Although not specifically considered in the state of Ohio, the language contained in the Event Release generated by USAC has been considered nationally and found to be an adequate and enforceable release of liability where such releases are permissible. See
Scott v. Altoona Bicycle Club , No. 1426 C.D.2009, 2010 WL 9512709 (Pa. July 16, 2010) (finding USAC’s event release is clear and unambiguous and released claims of negligence against event organizers and affirming the grant of summary judgment); Hellweg v. Special Events Mgmt. , 2011 IL App (1st) 103604, 956 N.E.2d 954, 958, 353 Ill. Dec. 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (“This agreement unambiguously absolves defendants of all claims arising out of the event even if caused by their own negligence.”); Milne v. USA Cycling, Inc. , 489 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1287 (D. Utah 2007) (“The Court finds the release to show a clear and unequivocal expression of an intent to release.”).
——–
Case sent back to trial court to determine liability when a rider improperly load’s a chairlift at a ski area and eventually falls, incurring no injuries.
Posted: May 15, 2023 Filed under: Arizona, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Arizona, Arizona Skier Safety Act, Business Invitee, Chair Lift, duty, Duty of care, mental anguish, Negligence, Physical Injury, Skier Safety Act Leave a commentArizona allows lawsuits for mental anguish when there is no physical injury.
McCaw v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort, 84 Arizona Cases Digest 9, 521 P.3d 381 (Ariz. App. 2022)
State: Arizona; Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
Plaintiff: Vincent MCCAW; Carly McCaw; Andrew McCaw
Defendant: Arizona Snowbowl Resort
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence causing emotional distress” and “psychiatric injuries
Defendant Defenses: Arizona Ski Safety Act
Holding: For the Plaintiffs
Year: 2022
Summary
Arizona appellate court holds that the Arizona Skier Safety Act does not protect ski areas from claims for injuries from chair lifts. The act covers the inherent risks of skiing/boarding but those acts are under the control of the ski area, and the rider has no control over a chair lift.
Facts
In December 2016, Vincent and his two children, 17-year-old Andrew and 14-year-old Carly, visited Snowbowl for a day of skiing and snowboarding. While they waited to load the ski chair lift, Andrew’s snowboard crossed Carly’s skis, causing her skis to “[go] out [from] underneath her.” Unable to steady herself and sit properly, Carly’s arms caught the approaching lift chair, leaving her “in a very severe slouch” position. With the skis and snowboard still entangled and believing she “would be able to get back on” properly, Carly did not attempt to maneuver away from the chair as it proceeded five to ten feet along a cable wire before beginning its ascent.
Upon realizing Carly’s precarious position, Vincent and Andrew grabbed her arms, turned toward the ski lift operator, and yelled for him to “stop” the ski lift. As other ski lift passengers became aware of the situation, they also began shouting at the operator for help. By that time, however, the operator was attending to other skiers in the load line and could not hear the passengers’ pleas over the sound of blaring music. Andrew and Vincent tried to hold onto Carly, but as she began to slip from their grasp, they determined they would have to let her go. When their chair traveled over powdered snow, Vincent and Andrew dropped Carly, hoping the unpacked snow would provide a safe landing. Carly fell over 34 feet but “popped right up” and waved to Vincent and Andrew upon landing.
After the ski lift incident, the McCaws resumed their normal lives and activities. However, Carly, Vincent, and Andrew began having recurring nightmares.
Alleging the ski lift incident caused them “emotional distress” and “psychiatric injuries,” the McCaws filed a negligence complaint against Snowbowl. Snowbowl answered, denying liability, and moved for summary judgment. Specifically, Snowbowl asserted that it “owed no duty” to the McCaws under the Act. Snowbowl also claimed that the McCaws failed to present evidence they sustained emotional distress “result[ing] in the kind of bodily manifestation of physical injury or illness cognizable under Arizona law.”
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court started out looking at Negligence as defined by Arizona’s law.
To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.”
Arizona’s law is no different than the majority of state laws in the US. The court then looked at duty. Too many times, defendant’s ski “duty” in their review of what the lawsuit is all about. Did you owe a duty to the injured person.
A duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm. “The existence of a duty of care is a distinct issue from whether the standard of care has been met in a particular case.”
“As a legal matter, the issue of duty involves generalizations about categories of cases.” “Thus, a conclusion that no duty exists is equivalent to a rule that, for certain categories of cases, defendants may not be held accountable for damages they carelessly cause, no matter how unreasonable their conduct.”
Duties of care may arise from special relationships based on contract, family relations, or conduct undertaken by the defendant,” as well as from public policy considerations. “Foreseeability of harm is not a relevant consideration in determining the threshold legal issue of whether a duty exists, nor are case-specific facts.”
The plaintiff argued that the defendant ski area owed them a duty because they were business invitees of the defendant. A business invitee as defined by Arizona’s law is:
In this case, the McCaws assert that Snowbowl owed them a duty of care based on their special relationship and status as Snowbowl’s business invitees. “A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land. Under the common law, a business owner has a duty to both maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and conduct its business in a reasonably safe manner to avoid causing injury to invitees.
It is undisputed that the McCaws were Snowbowl’s business invitees at the time of the ski lift incident. The question is whether the Act abrogates common-law negligence principles, relieving ski area operators of a duty of care they would otherwise owe to ski lift passengers.
Business invitee is a term used to describe the legal relationship between an injured person on the land and the land owner. Because the resort received value from the plaintiff’s they were a business invitee.
The court then turned to the Arizona Skier Safety Act which was being reviewed for the first time by the courts.
Under the first tier, or “primary assumption of risk,” a ski area operator owes no duty to a skier as a matter of law, and a negligence action cannot stand. (“[P]rimary assumption of the risk is an alternative expression for the proposition that the defendant … owed no duty to the plaintiff.”). The primary assumption of the risk principle applies only when the plaintiff has engaged in a sport, or other activity regarded as dangerous and “the injury suffered arises from an inherent risk in the activity.” (“[F]or inherent hazards, ski area operators owe skiers no duty of care and skiers assume the risk of those hazards in the primary sense.”); (“To be covered under the [primary-assumption-of-the-risk] doctrine, the risk must be one that is so inherent to the sport or activity that it cannot be eliminated.”). Determining what constitutes an “inherent risk” presents a legal question for the court.
In contrast, under the secondary assumption of the risk tier, both the ski area operator and the skier have reciprocal responsibilities.
Using these definitions and applying the Arizona Skier Safety Act the court differentiated the duties owed to a skier versus those of a rider of the chair lift.
Applied to the Act, the primary assumption of risk tier governs any injury arising from the “inherent dangers and risks of skiing,” as statutorily defined. A.R.S. §§ 5-705(1), -701(5). Because a ski area operator owes no duty to eliminate or guard against risks inherent to skiing, it is only liable for a plaintiff’s injuries arising out of the dangers inherent to skiing if it breached its posting and equipment requirements as delineated in A.R.S. §§ 5-702 through -704, thereby contributing to the injuries sustained.
Because riding a chairlift is not an inherent risk of skiing, a different set of duties arises.
When an injury does not arise out of a risk inherent to skiing, common-law negligence principles apply, including a duty of care owed to business invitees. Because an operational failure with a ski lift is not an “inherent risk” of skiing, as that term is statutorily defined, the Act does not immunize a ski area operator from liability for ski lift negligence.
The rider of a chair lift is a business invitee, and the ski area owes that person different setup duties then someone who wonders upon their land. This analysis was supported by the argument that on the slopes and trails the rider had free will and could control their actions. On a chair lift, the rider was at the control and mercy of the chair lift operator.
This, too, is a rational solution because, unlike the slopes and trails, where a skier has “freedom of movement and choice,” a skier has no control over the movement of a ski lift.
This argument was summed up by the court as follows:
In sum, the Act provides a liability framework that generally maintains common-law negligence principles while immunizing ski area operators from lawsuits for injuries arising from the inherent risks of skiing. By its clear terms, the Act imposes a duty on skiers to have the knowledge and ability to safely load, ride, and unload from a ski lift, but it does not identify passage on a ski lift as an inherent risk of skiing.
After making this determination as to what part of the Arizona Skier Safety Act applied to what parts of skiing and riding, the court made this determination.
Having determined that ski area operators owe a duty of care to maintain and operate ski lifts safely and that passengers owe a duty of care to safely board, ride, and disembark ski lifts, whether Snowbowl or the McCaws, or both, breached their respective duties presents a question of fact.
If you are a skier or boarder, this decision might cause some issues. Was the resort at fault for not stopping the chair lift on time or was the skier at fault for not loading correctly. That question is now in the hands of the trial court again.
So Now What?
The Arizona court did not rule outside the parameters of any other court in a state that has a skier safety act. A higher degree of care is owed to clients in those situations where the act does not protect the ski area and/or the clients have no control of their situation.
One interesting note in the Arizona Skier Safety Act is § 5-706. Release of liability. This section specifically states that a release is valid under Arizona’s law and will take precedence in determining the liability of the ski area.
Another area the court did not touch on, but must be the law in Arizona is the lawsuit is about mental injury with no corresponding physical injury. Very few states allow this type of claim. Normally, there can be no damages for pain and suffering unless the claimant has suffered a physical injury.
For more Arizona decisions see:
Arizona limited right for parent to waive child’s right to sue
For more decisions concerning lift accidents see:
People including children fall off chair lifts.
Nevada family settles lawsuit over death of son swept off Nevada chair lift by Avalanche
Good record keeping proves defendant ski area did not operate lift improperly
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Arizona Ski Area Statutes
Posted: May 15, 2023 Filed under: Arizona, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Arizona, Arozona Ski Area Safety Act, Chair Lift, rider, ski area, Ski Area Safety, Skier Leave a commentArizona Ski Area Statutes
§ 5-702. Posting passenger information signs 2
§ 5-703. Posting ski information signs 3
§ 5-704. Additional duties of ski area operators 4
§ 5-705. Duties of skiers in any action against the ski area operator 4
Ҥ 5-706. Release of liability 5
§ 5-701. Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. “Base area lift” means a passenger tramway that skiers ordinarily use without first using another passenger tramway.
2. “Chair lift” means a type of transportation on which passengers are carried on chairs suspended in the air and attached to a moving cable, chain or link belt supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans.
3. “Competitor” means a skier actually engaged in competition or in practice for competition with the permission of a ski area operator on any slope or trail or portion of any slope or trail designated for competition by the ski area operator.
4. “Conditions of ordinary visibility” means daylight and, if applicable, nighttime in nonprecipitating weather.
5. “Inherent dangers and risks of skiing” means those dangers or conditions that are an integral part of the sport of skiing, excluding acts of ordinary or gross negligence, or reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the ski area operator. Inherent dangers and risks of skiing include:
(a) Changing weather conditions.
(b) Existing and changing snow surface conditions, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up and machine-made snow.
(c) Surface or subsurface conditions, whether marked or unmarked, such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, trees or other natural objects.
(d) Impacts with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or other enclosures, hydrants, water pipes or other man-made structures and their components, whether marked or unmarked.
(e) Variations in steepness or terrain, including roads, catwalks and other terrain modifications, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations.
(f) Collisions with other skiers.
(g) The failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.
6. “Passenger tramway” means a device used to transport passengers uphill on skis or in cars on tracks or suspended in the air by the use of steel cables, chains, belts or ropes, usually supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans.
7. “Rope tow” means a mode of transportation that pulls a skier riding on skis as the skier grasps the rope with the skier’s hands.
8. “Ski area” means all ski slopes and trails or other places within the boundary of a ski area operator’s property, administered as a single enterprise in this state.
9. “Ski area operator” means any corporation, company, partnership, firm, association or other commercial entity, including a natural person, and its employees, agents, members, successors in interest, affiliates and assigns that have responsibility for the operations of a ski area.
10. “Ski slopes and trails” means those areas designated by a ski area operator for use by skiers for any of the purposes listed in paragraph 11.
11. “Skier” means a person using a ski area for the purpose of skiing or sliding downhill on snow or ice on skis, a toboggan, sled, tube, skibob or snowboard or any other device, using any of the facilities of a ski area, including ski slopes and trails, or observing any activities in a ski area as a sightseer or visitor.
12. “Surface lift” means a mode of transportation that pulls skiers riding on skis by means of attachment to an overhead cable supported by trestles or towers. Surface lift includes a J-bar, a T-bar, a platter pull and any similar device.
ARS 5-701 Definitions (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
§ 5-702. Posting passenger information signs
A. A ski area operator shall maintain a sign system with concise, simple and pertinent information for the protection and instruction of people on a passenger tramway.
B. A ski area operator shall prominently display signs that are readable in conditions of ordinary visibility and, if applicable, that are adequately lighted for nighttime passengers, as follows:
1. At or near the loading point of each passenger tramway, rope tow and surface lift advising that any person not familiar with the operation of the tramway, rope tow or surface lift should ask ski area personnel for assistance and instruction.
2. In a conspicuous place at the loading area of each two-car or multicar passenger tramway that states the maximum capacity in pounds of the car and the maximum number of persons allowed in the car.
3. In the interior of each car in a two-car or multicar passenger tramway that states the maximum capacity in pounds of the car and the maximum number of persons allowed in the car and that gives instructions for procedures in the case of emergencies.
4. At all chair lifts stating the following:
(a) “Check for loose clothing and equipment”, which shall be posted ahead of the “prepare to unload” sign described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph.
(b) “Keep ski tips up” or “keep tips up”, which shall be posted ahead of any point where skis may come in contact with a platform or the snow surface while a skier is seated in the chair lift.
(c) “Prepare to unload”, which shall be posted at least fifty feet ahead of the unloading area.
(d) “Remove pole straps from wrists”, which shall be posted where applicable.
(e) “Stop gate”, which shall be posted where applicable.
(f) “Unload here”, which shall be posted at the point designated for unloading.
5. At all rope tows and surface lifts stating the following:
(a) “Check for loose clothing and equipment”, which shall be posted ahead of the “prepare to unload” sign described in subdivision (b) of this paragraph.
(b) “Prepare to unload”, which shall be posted at least fifty feet ahead of each unloading area.
(c) “Remove pole straps from wrists”, which shall be posted where applicable.
(d) “Safety gate”, “stay in tracks” or “stop gate”, which shall be posted where applicable.
(e) “Unload here”, which shall be posted at the point designated for unloading or where applicable.
C. At the operator’s discretion a ski area operator may post additional signs not required by subsection B.
D. Before opening a passenger tramway to the public each day, a ski area operator shall inspect the tramway for the presence of the signs required by subsection B or that are posted pursuant to subsection C.
E. The extent of the responsibility of a ski area operator under this section is to post and maintain the signs required by subsection B and to maintain any signs posted pursuant to subsection C. It is a rebuttable presumption that all passengers and skiers saw and understood the signs if evidence exists that the signs required by subsection B or that are posted pursuant to subsection C were posted and the signs were maintained.
ARS 5-702 Posting passenger information signs (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
§ 5-703. Posting ski information signs
A. A ski area operator shall maintain a sign and marking system with concise, simple and pertinent information for the protection and instruction of skiers. The signs required by this section shall be readable in conditions of ordinary visibility and, if applicable, that are adequately lighted for nighttime skiers.
B. A ski area operator shall place a sign that depicts and explains signs and symbols that skiers may encounter in the ski area in a position where all skiers who are proceeding to the uphill loading point of each base area lift will see the sign. The sign shall depict and explain at least the following signs and symbols:
1. A green circle and the word “easier”, which designates the least difficult ski slopes and trails of the ski area.
2. A blue square and the words “more difficult”, which designates the ski slopes and trails of the ski area that have a degree of difficulty between the least difficult and most difficult slopes and trails.
3. A black diamond and the words “most difficult”, which designates the most difficult ski slopes and trails of the ski area.
4. A figure in the shape of a skier with a band running diagonally from corner to corner of the sign with the word “closed” printed beneath the emblem.
C. If applicable, a ski area operator shall place a sign at or near the loading point of a passenger tramway that states one of the following:
1. If the tramway transports passengers only to the more difficult or most difficult ski slopes and trails in the ski area, the sign shall state: “WARNING: This lift services ‘more difficult’ (blue square emblem) and ‘most difficult’ (black diamond emblem) slopes and trails only.”.
2. If the tramway transports passengers only to the most difficult ski slopes and trails in the ski area, the sign shall state: “WARNING: This lift services ‘most difficult’ (black diamond emblem) slopes and trails only.”.
D. If a ski area operator closes a ski slope or trail or a portion of a ski slope or trail to the public, the operator shall place a sign notifying skiers that the slope or trail or portion of the slope or trail is closed at each identified entrance to the slope or trail or closed portion of the slope or trail. In lieu of placing a sign at each identified entrance, the ski area operator may close off the entrance with rope or fences.
E. A ski area operator shall place a sign at or near the beginning of each ski slope or trail that contains the appropriate symbol of the relative degree of difficulty of that slope or trail as set forth in subsection B. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to a ski slope or trail that is designated “easier” if a skier may substantially view the slope or trail in its entirety before beginning to ski the slope or trail.
F. A ski area operator shall mark the ski area boundaries that are designated on the trail map.
G. A ski area operator shall mark all ski lift tickets and season passes that the operator sells or makes available to skiers with the following in clearly readable print:
Warning: Under Arizona law, a skier accepts the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, including changing weather conditions, existing and changing snow surface conditions, surface or subsurface conditions, whether marked or unmarked, collisions with natural or man-made objects, whether marked or unmarked and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.
H. A ski area operator shall post and maintain signs where ski lift tickets and ski school lessons are sold and in a location that is clearly visible to skiers who are proceeding to the uphill loading point of each base area lift that state the following in clearly readable print:
Warning–important: Under Arizona law, a skier accepts the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Some of these risks are listed on your lift ticket or season pass. Please review your ticket or pass and ask the ski area personnel for more information.
ARS 5-703 Posting ski information signs (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
§ 5-704. Additional duties of ski area operators
A. If maintenance equipment is being used to maintain or groom any ski slope or trail that a ski area operator has not designated as closed pursuant to section 5-703, subsection D, the ski area operator shall place a conspicuous notice at or near the beginning of the slope or trail and at any entrance points to the slope or trail that notifies skiers about the presence of the equipment.
B. All snowmobiles operated on the ski slopes or trails of a ski area shall be equipped with at least the following:
1. One lighted head lamp.
2. One lighted red tail lamp.
3. A red or orange flag that is at least forty square inches in size and that is mounted at least five feet above the bottom of the tracks.
C. A ski area operator has no duties to any skier who skis beyond the designated boundaries of the ski area.
ARS 5-704 Additional duties of ski area operators (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
§ 5-705. Duties of skiers in any action against the ski area operator
In any civil action brought by a skier against a ski area operator, the duties of a skier shall be as follows:
1. At all times a skier has the sole responsibility to know the range of the skier’s own ability to negotiate a ski slope or trail and to ski within the limits of that ability. A skier expressly accepts the total risk of and all legal responsibility for injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.
2. Before using a chair lift, passenger tramway, rope tow or surface lift, a skier shall have the knowledge and ability to safely load, ride and unload from the device.
3. A skier shall maintain control of the skier’s speed and course at all times when skiing and shall maintain a proper lookout to enable the skier to avoid collisions with other skiers and with natural and man-made objects, whether marked or unmarked.
4. A skier shall avoid snow maintenance and grooming equipment, vehicles, lift towers, signs and other equipment located on ski slopes and trails.
5. A skier shall heed all posted information, signs and other warnings and shall refrain from acting in a manner that may cause or contribute to the injury of the skier or other persons or property. A skier is presumed to have seen and understood all signs and notices posted pursuant to sections 5-702, 5-703 and 5-704. Under conditions of decreased visibility, the duty rests on the skier to locate and ascertain the meaning of all the signs and notices.
6. A skier shall only use skis, snowboards and other equipment that have been equipped with a functional strap or other device designed to reduce the risk of runaway equipment.
7. A skier shall not ski on a ski slope or trail or a portion of a ski slope or trail that a ski area operator has designated as closed pursuant to section 5-703, subsection D.
8. A skier shall not begin to ski from a stationary position or enter a ski slope or trail from the side unless the skier is able to avoid colliding with moving skiers already on the ski slope or trail.
9. A skier shall not cross the uphill track or place any object in the uphill track of a rope tow or surface lift except at locations that have been designated for crossing by a ski area operator.
10. A skier shall not move uphill on any passenger tramway or use any ski slope or trail while the skier’s ability to do so is impaired by the consumption of alcohol or by the use of any narcotic or other drug.
11. A skier involved in a collision with another skier that results in an injury shall not leave the vicinity of the collision before giving the skier’s name and current address to an employee of the ski area operator or a member of a paid or voluntary ski patrol. This paragraph does not prohibit a skier from leaving the scene of a collision to secure first aid for a person who is injured in the collision. If a skier leaves the scene of a collision to secure first aid, the skier shall leave the skier’s name and current address as required by this paragraph after securing the first aid.
12. A skier shall not knowingly enter the public or private lands of an adjoining ski area if the owner of that land has closed that land to skiers and the landowner or the ski area operator has designated the adjoining land as closed.
ARS 5-705 Duties of skiers in any action against the ski area operator (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
§ 5-706. Release of liability
In any action brought by a skier against a ski area operator, if the ski area operator proves that the skier signed a valid release, the ski area operator’s liability shall be determined by the terms of the release.” ARS 5-706 Release of liability (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
§ 5-707. Competition
A. Before the beginning of any competition, a ski area operator shall allow any competitor a reasonable visual inspection of the course or area where the competition is to be held.
B. A competitor accepts the risk of all course conditions, including weather and snow conditions, course construction or layout and obstacles that a visual inspection immediately before the run could have revealed.
C. In any action brought by a competitor against any ski area operator, if the ski area operator proves that the participant in the competition signed a valid release, the ski area operator’s liability shall be determined by the terms of the release.
ARS 5-707 Competition (Arizona Revised Statutes (2023 Edition))
| Creation Date | 5/17/22 | File Name | Statutes.dotx |
| Save Date | 2/2/23 | File Location | C:\Users\Jim.JHM.001\Documents\Custom Office Templates\Statutes.dotx |
McCaw v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort, 84 Arizona Cases Digest 9, 521 P.3d 381 (Ariz. App. 2022)
Posted: May 15, 2023 Filed under: Arizona, Legal Case, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Arizona, Arizona Snowbowl, Business Invitee, Chair Lift, duty, Duty Owed, rider, Skier, Skier Safety Act, Snowbowl Leave a commentMcCaw v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort, 84 Arizona Cases Digest 9, 521 P.3d 381 (Ariz. App. 2022)
84 Arizona Cases Digest 9
521 P.3d 381
Vincent MCCAW; Carly McCaw; Andrew McCaw, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
ARIZONA SNOWBOWL RESORT, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 1 CA-CV 21-0585
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
Filed November 22, 2022
Fuller Law Group PC, San Diego, CA, By Craig D. Fuller, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Jones Skelton & Hochuli, Phoenix, By Jack Klecan, Kristin W. Basha, Eileen Dennis GilBride, Elizabeth B.N. Garcia, Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
McClaugherty and Silver PC, Santa Fe, NM, By Joe L. McClaugherty, admitted pro hac vice, Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
CAMPBELL, Judge:
¶1 Vincent, Carly, and Andrew McCaw (the McCaws) appeal from the superior court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Arizona Snowbowl Resort (Snowbowl). Because the Arizona Ski Safety Act (the Act) does not shield a ski area operator from liability for injuries arising from ski lift accidents, it does not bar the McCaws’ negligence claims. Accordingly, we vacate the superior court’s summary judgment ruling and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In December 2016, Vincent and his two children, 17-year-old Andrew and 14-year-old Carly, visited Snowbowl for a day of skiing and snowboarding. While they waited to load the ski chair lift, Andrew’s snowboard crossed Carly’s skis, causing her skis to “[go] out [from] underneath her.” Unable to steady herself and sit properly, Carly’s arms caught the approaching lift chair, leaving her “in a very severe slouch” position. With the skis and snowboard still entangled and believing she “would be able to get back on” properly, Carly did not attempt to maneuver away from the chair as it proceeded five to ten feet along a cable wire before beginning its ascent.
¶3 Upon realizing Carly’s precarious position, Vincent and Andrew grabbed her arms, turned toward the ski lift operator, and yelled for him to “stop” the ski lift. As other ski lift passengers became aware of the situation, they also began shouting at the operator for help. By that time, however, the operator was attending to other skiers in the load line and could not hear the passengers’ pleas over the sound of blaring music. Andrew and Vincent tried to hold onto Carly, but as she began to slip from their grasp, they determined they would have to let her go. When their chair traveled over powdered snow, Vincent and Andrew dropped Carly, hoping the unpacked snow would provide a safe landing. Carly fell over 34 feet but “popped right up” and waved to Vincent and Andrew upon landing.
¶4 After the ski lift incident, the McCaws resumed their normal lives and activities. However, Carly, Vincent, and Andrew began having recurring nightmares.
¶5 Alleging the ski lift incident caused them “emotional distress” and “psychiatric injuries,” the McCaws filed a negligence complaint against Snowbowl. Snowbowl answered, denying liability, and moved for summary judgment. Specifically, Snowbowl asserted that it “owed no duty” to the McCaws under the Act. Snowbowl also claimed that the McCaws failed to present evidence they sustained emotional distress “result[ing] in the kind of bodily manifestation of physical injury or illness cognizable under Arizona law.”
¶6 After oral argument on the motion, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Snowbowl, agreeing that the ski area operator owed no duty to the McCaws. The superior court found that the Act “comprehensively defines the duties of skiers and the duties of a ski area operator.” Construing the Act’s provisions, the court determined that “the duty to safely (1) load, (2) ride, and (3) unload a chair lift is the skier’s exclusive duty and not a duty of the ski area operator.” Without ruling on Snowbowl’s alternative argument regarding insufficient evidence of cognizable damages, the superior court dismissed the matter with prejudice.1
¶7 Over the McCaws’ objection, the superior court awarded Snowbowl its requested costs and entered a final judgment in its favor. The McCaws timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶8 The McCaws challenge the superior court’s summary judgment ruling, contending Snowbowl owed them a duty to monitor the ski lift and promptly intercede when the misloading occurred. Disagreeing with the superior court’s determination that the Act assigns all duties related to ski lift safety “exclusively” to skiers, the McCaws argue that the Act provides ski area operators the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. As a corollary, and for the first time on appeal, the McCaws assert that the superior court’s ruling violated Article 18, Section 5, of the Arizona Constitution by infringing on their right to have a jury determine the existence or extent of their contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
¶9 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and affirm “if the evidence produced in support of the defense or claim has so little probative value that no reasonable person could find for its proponent.” State Comp. Fund v. Yellow Cab Co. of Phx. , 197 Ariz. 120, 122, ¶ 5, 3 P.3d 1040, 1042 (App. 1999). We review de novo the superior court’s application of the law. Id. ; see also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
¶10 “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson v. Kasey , 214 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 9, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007). “Whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care is a threshold issue[,]” subject to our de novo review. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11 ; Guerra v. State , 237 Ariz. 183, 185, ¶ 7, 348 P.3d 423, 425 (2015). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show a duty exists; “absent some duty, an action for negligence cannot be maintained.” Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc. , 243 Ariz. 560, 563, ¶ 2, 416 P.3d 824, 827 (2018) ; Gipson , 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 11, 150 P.3d at 230.
¶11 A duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.” Gipson , 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 10, 150 P.3d at 230 (quotation and citation omitted). “The existence of a duty of care is a distinct issue from whether the standard of care has been met in a particular case.” Id. ; Markowitz v. Ariz. Parks Bd. , 146 Ariz. 352, 355, 706 P.2d 364, 367 (1985) (noting the existence of a duty must not “be confused with details of the standard of conduct” required to satisfy the duty); see also
Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc. , 186 Ariz. 427, 431, 924 P.2d 117, 431 (App. 1996) (explaining that the existence of a duty must be determined “on the basis of the parties’ relationship, not on the details of their conduct”).
¶12 “As a legal matter, the issue of duty involves generalizations about categories of cases.” Gipson , 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 10, 150 P.3d at 230. “Thus, a conclusion that no duty exists is equivalent to a rule that, for certain categories of cases, defendants may not be held accountable for damages they carelessly cause, no matter how unreasonable their conduct.” Id. at 143-44, ¶ 11, 150 P.3d at 230–31.
¶13 “Duties of care may arise from special relationships based on contract, family relations, or conduct undertaken by the defendant,” as well as from public policy considerations. Id. at 145, ¶¶ 18, 23, 150 P.3d at 232. “Foreseeability of harm is not a relevant consideration in determining the threshold legal issue of whether a duty exists, nor are case-specific facts.” Guerra , 237 Ariz. at 185, ¶ 8, 348 P.3d at 425 ; see also
Quiroz , 243 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 2, 416 P.3d at 827 ; Gipson , 214 Ariz. at 144, ¶ 15, 150 P.3d at 231.
¶14 In this case, the McCaws assert that Snowbowl owed them a duty of care based on their special relationship and status as Snowbowl’s business invitees. “A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land.” Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. , 131 Ariz. 140, 143, 639 P.2d 330, 333 (1982) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Under the common law, a business owner has a duty to both maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and conduct its business in a reasonably safe manner to avoid causing injury to invitees. Stephens , 186 Ariz. at 430-31, 924 P.2d at 120–21 ; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 cmt. b (1965) (stating that “an invitee enters [land] upon an implied representation or assurance that [it] has been prepared and made ready and safe for his reception”).
¶15 It is undisputed that the McCaws were Snowbowl’s business invitees at the time of the ski lift incident. The question is whether the Act abrogates common-law negligence principles, relieving ski area operators of a duty of care they would otherwise owe to ski lift passengers.
¶16 “When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Wilks v. Manobianco , 237 Ariz. 443, 446, ¶ 8, 352 P.3d 912, 915 (2015) (quotation and citation omitted). To derive that intent, we consider the “statutory language in view of the entire text, considering the context and related statutes on the same subject.” Nicaise v. Sundaram , 245 Ariz. 566, 568, ¶ 11, 432 P.3d 925, 927 (2019). “If the language is clear and unambiguous,” we follow the text as written and “need not resort to other methods of statutory construction.” Indus. Comm’n of Ariz. v. Old Republic Ins. Co. , 223 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 7, 219 P.3d 285, 287 (App. 2009). Only if a statute is ambiguous will we examine “the statute’s history, context, consequences, and purpose.” Wilks , 237 Ariz. at 446, ¶ 8, 352 P.3d at 915. When statutes relate to the same subject or general purpose, they “should be read in connection with, or should be construed with other related statutes, as though they constituted one law.” Pinal Vista Props., L.L.C. v. Turnbull , 208 Ariz. 188, 190, ¶ 10, 91 P.3d 1031, 1033 (App. 2004) (quotation and citation omitted). “Further, each word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.” Id.
¶17 “If the legislature seeks to preempt a cause of action[,] … the law’s text or at least the legislative record should say so explicitly.” Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, LLC v. Noder , 236 Ariz. 180, 182, ¶ 10, 337 P.3d 545, 547 (2014) (quotation and citation omitted). “Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to displace a common-law cause of action, we interpret statutes with every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted); see also A.R.S. § 1-201 (“Adoption of common law; exceptions”). To be clear, “it is not the function of the courts to rewrite statutes,” and we will not “interpret a statute in favor of denial or preemption of tort claims – even those that are not or may not be constitutionally protected – if there is any reasonable doubt about the legislature’s intent.” Id. at ¶¶ 10-11 (quotations and citations omitted).
¶18 In 1997, the legislature enacted the Act, A.R.S. §§ 5-701 through -707, which regulates ski areas and delineates the responsibilities of both operators and skiers. Section 5-702 requires ski area operators to “prominently display signs” outlining “pertinent information for the protection and instruction” of ski lift passengers. A.R.S. § 5-702(A), (B). As relevant here, ski area operators must post a sign at the loading point of each ski lift admonishing “any person not familiar with the operation” of the ski lift to “ask ski area personnel for assistance and instruction .” A.R.S. § 5-702(B)(1) (emphasis added). In addition, ski area operators must place a sign on the interior of each ski lift chair “that gives instructions for procedures in the case of emergencies .” A.R.S. § 5-702(B)(3) (emphasis added). Similarly, A.R.S. § 5-703 requires ski area operators to display signs containing “pertinent information for the protection and instruction of skiers.” Among the required postings, ski area operators must display signs indicating the difficulty level of each slope and trail. A.R.S. § 5-703(B), (C). Ski area operators must also clearly mark the ski area boundaries and either place a warning sign or rope off closed areas. A.R.S. § 5-703(D), (F). Apart from posting signs at designated areas, ski area operators must maintain certain equipment, A.R.S. § 5-704, and mark all ski lift tickets and passes with the following admonition:
Warning: Under Arizona law, a skier accepts the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, including changing weather conditions, existing and changing snow surface conditions, surface or subsurface conditions, whether marked or unmarked, collisions with natural or man-made objects, whether marked or unmarked and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.
A.R.S. § 5-703(G). This mandatory warning derives from A.R.S. § 5-701(5) ‘s definition of “[i]nherent dangers and risks of skiing”:
[T]hose dangers or conditions that are an integral part of the sport of skiing, excluding acts of ordinary or gross negligence, or reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the ski area operator . Inherent dangers and risks of skiing include:
(a) Changing weather conditions.
(b) Existing and changing snow surface conditions, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up and machine-made snow.
(c) Surface or subsurface conditions, whether marked or unmarked, such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, trees or other natural objects.
(d) Impacts with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or other enclosures, hydrants, water pipes or other man-made structures and their components, whether marked or unmarked.
(e) Variations in steepness or terrain, including roads, catwalks and other terrain modifications, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations.
(f) Collisions with other skiers.
(g) The failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.
(Emphasis added.)
¶19 In turn, A.R.S. § 5-705 outlines the “duties of a skier” for purposes of “any civil action brought by a skier against a ski area operator.” First and foremost, A.R.S. § 5-705(1) provides that “[a] skier expressly accepts the total risk of and all legal responsibility for injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing .” (Emphasis added.) Specific to this appeal, subsection (2) states: “Before using a chair lift … a skier shall have the knowledge and ability to safely load, ride and unload from the device,” and subsection (5) states: “A skier shall heed all posted information, signs and other warnings and shall refrain from acting in a manner that may cause or contribute to the injury of the skier or other persons or property.” A.R.S. § 5-705(2), (5). The remaining enumerated duties pertain to skiers’ conduct on slopes and trails. A.R.S. § 5-702(3), (4), (6)-(12).
¶20 Reading these related provisions together, the legislature adopted an analytical framework under which skiers assume all legal responsibility for injuries arising out of the inherent dangers of skiing while ski area operators retain common-law liability for both ordinary and gross negligence . As part of this framework, the legislature also imposed duties on ski area operators and skiers. Sections 5-702 to -704 impose certain posting and equipment maintenance duties on ski area operators, the breach of which constitutes negligence per se. Likewise, A.R.S. § 5-705 imposes certain responsibilities on skiers, the violation of which constitutes a defense to a civil action. This reading is consistent with the plain language of the Act.
¶21 While no previous Arizona case has interpreted the Act, courts in numerous other jurisdictions have construed similar ski safety acts enacted by their legislatures. Although not controlling, we find the two-tier assumption of risk analysis conceptualized in many of these out-of-state cases persuasive.
¶22 Under the first tier, or “primary assumption of risk,” a ski area operator owes no duty to a skier as a matter of law, and a negligence action cannot stand. Van Dyke v. S.K.I. Ltd. , 67 Cal.App.4th 1310, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 775, 778 (1998) ; see also
Lopez v. Ski Apache Resort , 114 N.M. 202, 836 P.2d 648, 653 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (“[P]rimary assumption of the risk is an alternative expression for the proposition that the defendant … owed no duty to the plaintiff.”). The primary assumption of the risk principle applies only when the plaintiff has engaged in a sport, or other activity regarded as dangerous and “the injury suffered arises from an inherent risk in the activity.” Van Dyke , 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 778 (emphasis added); see also
Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc. , 269 Conn. 672, 849 A.2d 813, 828 (2004) (“[F]or inherent hazards, ski area operators owe skiers no duty of care and skiers assume the risk of those hazards in the primary sense.”); Murray v. Great Gorge Resort, Inc. , 360 N.J.Super. 395, 823 A.2d 101, 106 (2003) (“In the skiing context, an inherent risk is one that cannot be removed through the exercise of due care if the sport is to be enjoyed.” (citation omitted)); Horvath v. Ish , 134 Ohio St.3d 48, 979 N.E.2d 1246, 1251 (2012) (“To be covered under the [primary-assumption-of-the-risk] doctrine, the risk must be one that is so inherent to the sport or activity that it cannot be eliminated.” (citation omitted)). Determining what constitutes an “inherent risk” presents a legal question for the court. Van Dyke , 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 778.
¶23 In contrast, under the secondary assumption of the risk tier, both the ski area operator and the skier have reciprocal responsibilities. See
Horvath , 979 N.E.2d at 1251 (determining the duties of operators and skiers “are reciprocal,” with “skiers ow[ing] ski-area operators certain enumerated responsibilities”); see also
Jagger , 849 A.2d at 828 (“For those hazards which are not an innate part of the sport of skiing, or over which an operator can act reasonably to eliminate or minimize the potential for harm, operators owe skiers a duty of reasonable care.”). Whether the parties breached their respective duties of care, and the comparative negligence of the parties, if any, present questions of fact for a jury. See
Jagger , 849 A.2d at 829.
¶24 Applied to the Act, the primary assumption of risk tier governs any injury arising from the “inherent dangers and risks of skiing,” as statutorily defined. A.R.S. §§ 5-705(1), -701(5). Because a ski area operator owes no duty to eliminate or guard against risks inherent to skiing, it is only liable for a plaintiff’s injuries arising out of the dangers inherent to skiing if it breached its posting and equipment requirements as delineated in A.R.S. §§ 5-702 through -704, thereby contributing to the injuries sustained. “This is a rational solution for limiting ski area operators’ liability and promoting safety.” Grieb v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc. , 155 Mich.App. 484, 400 N.W.2d 653, 656 (1986) ; see also
Gipson , 214 Ariz. at 146, ¶ 29, 150 P.3d at 233 (“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.”).
¶25 When an injury does not arise out of a risk inherent to skiing, common-law negligence principles apply, including a duty of care owed to business invitees. See
Horvath , 979 N.E.2d at 1251. Because an operational failure with a ski lift is not an “inherent risk” of skiing, as that term is statutorily defined, the Act does not immunize a ski area operator from liability for ski lift negligence. See
Pietruska v. Craigmeur Ski Area , 259 N.J.Super. 532, 614 A.2d 639, 641 (1992) (“Improper operation of a ski lift is not an inherent risk of skiing since, with due care, it can be eliminated. While the [ski safety act] imposes certain duties on a skier who uses a lift, it does not identify proper usage thereof as an inherent risk.”). This, too, is a rational solution because, unlike the slopes and trails, where a skier has “freedom of movement and choice,” a skier has no control over the movement of a ski lift. See
Mannhard v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp. , 682 P.2d 64, 66 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
¶26 In sum, the Act provides a liability framework that generally maintains common-law negligence principles while immunizing ski area operators from lawsuits for injuries arising from the inherent risks of skiing. By its clear terms, the Act imposes a duty on skiers to have the knowledge and ability to safely load, ride, and unload from a ski lift, but it does not identify passage on a ski lift as an inherent risk of skiing. Indeed, other provisions in the Act demonstrate that a ski area operator owes a duty of care to ski lift passengers. For example, A.R.S. § 5-702(B)(1) requires ski area operators to assist inexperienced passengers in loading ski lifts, and A.R.S. § 5-702(B)(3) requires ski lift operators to have predetermined emergency procedures in place in the event of a ski lift mishap. While the Act charges a ski lift passenger with a duty of care to safely ride a ski lift,2 it does not relieve a ski area operator of the common-law duty to maintain and operate ski lifts with care for its business invitees. Had the legislature intended to foreclose a passenger from bringing a negligence claim against a ski area operator for an injury arising out of passage on a ski lift, it was required to do so by expressly abrogating the common law and including passage on a ski lift within the enumerated inherent risks of skiing. Young v. Beck , 227 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 13, 251 P.3d 380, 383 (2011) (“We generally do not find that a statute changes common law unless the legislature clearly and plainly manifests an intent to have the statute do so.” (cleaned up)). Absent express preemption language, we will not construe the Act as barring common-law negligence claims. See
Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc. , 960 P.2d 70, 72 (Colo. 1998) (“A ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the lift’s practical operation ….”); D’Amico v. Great Am. Recreation, Inc. , 265 N.J.Super. 496, 627 A.2d 1164, 1166-67 (1992) (concluding ski lift operators “should be held to the highest standard of care” because a “skier has no ability to stop the cable from moving” and cannot “exit the chair once it has begun its ascent”).
¶27 Having determined that ski area operators owe a duty of care to maintain and operate ski lifts safely and that passengers owe a duty of care to safely board, ride, and disembark ski lifts, whether Snowbowl or the McCaws, or both, breached their respective duties presents a question of fact.3
See
Wilks , 237 Ariz. at 447, ¶ 15, 352 P.3d at 916. Therefore, the superior court erred by granting summary judgment in Snowbowl’s favor on the basis that it owed no duty as a matter of law.4
CONCLUSION
¶28 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the superior court’s summary judgment ruling and award of costs and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. In their briefing, the McCaws requested their attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal, failing to cite any supporting legal authority, but withdrew their request at oral argument. We award the McCaws their costs incurred on appeal, conditioned upon compliance with ARCAP 21.
——–
Notes:
1 Contrary to Snowbowl’s assertion, the superior court did not enter a “ruling” regarding the legal sufficiency of the McCaws’ damages evidence.
2 The McCaws posit that A.R.S. § 5-705(2) requires ski lift passengers only to possess the requisite knowledge to safely ride a ski lift, without requiring them to conform to that knowledge for both their protection and the safety of others. Stated differently, the McCaws argue that ski lift passengers have no duty to safely ride ski lifts under the Act. We reject this construction as nonsensical. See
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue , 209 Ariz. 71, 73, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 896, 898 (App. 2004) (explaining courts “interpret statutes to give them a fair and sensible meaning and to avoid absurd results”).
3 In this case, the extent of the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence, if any, must be determined individually.
4 Given our resolution of the duty issue, we need not address the McCaws’ constitutional claim.
——–
Anderson v. Rugged Races, LLC, 42 F.4th 955 (8th Cir. 2022)
Posted: May 8, 2023 Filed under: Minnesota, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Bang the Gong, Course Race, Federal Court of Appeals, Greater than Ordinary Negligence, Gross negligence, Jump, Minnesota, Mud Run, obstacle, Obstacle course racing, Obsticle Course, Ordinary Negligence, Platform, Release, Rugged Maniac, Spartan Race, Tough Mudder Leave a commentAnderson v. Rugged Races, LLC, 42 F.4th 955 (8th Cir. 2022)
42 F.4th 955
Jeanne ANDERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant
v.
RUGGED RACES, LLC; Dennis Raedeke, Inc., doing business as Wild Mountain Recreation Area, Defendants – Appellees
No. 20-3436
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: February 16, 2022
Filed: August 2, 2022
Counsel who represented the appellant was L. Michael Hall, of Saint Cloud, MN and Mara Brust of Saint Cloud, MN.
Counsel who represented the appellee was John M. Bjorkman, of Saint Paul, MN, Mark A. Solheim, of Saint Paul, MN, Anthony James Novak, of Saint Paul, MN and Pat Henry O’Neill of Saint Paul, MN.
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
In September 2016, Jeanne Anderson shattered her heel bone participating in the Rugged Maniac Twin Cities 5k obstacle race at the Wild Mountain Recreation Area (“Wild Mountain”). In 2018, Anderson sued Rugged Races LLC (“Rugged Races”), the race promoter, and Dennis Raedeke, Inc., the owner of Wild Mountain, alleging that defendants were “grossly negligent” in failing to perform their duties to protect race participants from unreasonable risks of harm. She appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of both defendants. The diversity action is governed by Minnesota state law. Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo , we affirm. See
Kraft v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 136 F.3d 584, 585-86 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review).
I. Background
Since 2010, Rugged Races has planned hundreds of obstacle races around the country, including Rugged Maniac Twin Cities. The events feature an obstacle course with a series of challenges involving barbed wire, fire, water, and mud, followed by a post-race party. When Anderson registered for the 2016 Twin Cities event, she signed a Race Participant Agreement (the Agreement). In Part III of the Agreement, titled Assumption of Inherent Risks , Anderson acknowledged:
I understand fully the inherent risks involved in the Event and assert that I am willingly and voluntarily participating in the Event. … (1) I understand the nature of the Event; (2) I understand the physical and mental demands that this activity will place upon me; and (3) I understand that I may be injured by participating in the Event. I hereby assert that I knowingly assume all of the inherent risks of the activity and take full responsibility for any and all damages, liabilities, losses or expenses that I incur as a result of participating in the Event.
In Part IV, titled Waiver of Liability for Ordinary Negligence , Anderson waived and discharged both Rugged Races and Wild Mountain “from any and all claims resulting from the INHERENT RISKS of the Event or the ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE of Rugged Races LLC (or other Released Parties).” Anderson again signed the Agreement when she checked in on race day.
After starting the race and completing the first seven obstacles, Anderson reached the “Bang the Gong” challenge. This obstacle required her to jump from a raised platform, attempt to slap a gong in midair, and land in a pit of muddy water. When Anderson landed in the pit her “left foot hit something hard.” She crawled from the pit, received medical attention, and learned she had shattered the calcaneus bone in her left heel. Of the more than 4000 participants in the 2016 race, four others were injured on the Bang the Gong obstacle, suffering injuries to their foot or ankle after landing in the pit.
Anderson’s Complaint alleged (i) that defendants had duties to design and construct a reasonably safe course, maintain the course in a safe condition, inspect the course for unreasonable risks of harm, warn race participants of unreasonable risks, supervise parties responsible for performing those duties, and operate and maintain the course to ensure participants were not exposed to unreasonable risks; and (ii) that defendants were grossly negligent in failing to perform each of these duties. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment record includes deposition testimony from Anderson and Rugged Races employees, declarations from the other injured participants, reports by Anderson’s expert witnesses, and other documentary evidence.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants. Anderson v. Rugged Races LLC, 496 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (D. Minn. 2020). The court concluded that the exculpatory clause in the Agreement barred any claims for ordinary negligence and that Anderson had failed to show “greater-than-ordinary negligence.” On appeal, Anderson argues (i) the exculpatory clause is unenforceable; (ii) if enforceable, it does not waive claims based on defendants’ alleged greater-than-ordinary negligence; and (iii) the summary judgment record includes evidence from which a reasonable jury could find greater-than-ordinary negligence. Defendants argue the district court properly granted summary judgment because there is insufficient evidence of greater-than-ordinary negligence. They further argue that Minnesota law does not recognize any claim other than the claims for ordinary negligence that Anderson waived in the Agreement.2
We will affirm the grant of summary judgment when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party presents “no genuine issue of material fact” from which “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to defeat summary judgment and if a nonmoving party who has the burden of persuasion at trial does not present sufficient evidence as to any element of the cause of action, then summary judgment is appropriate.” Brunsting v. Lutsen Mountains Corp., 601 F.3d 813, 820 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).
II. Analysis
On appeal, Anderson argues that her waiver of ordinary negligence claims in the Agreement is not enforceable and, alternatively, that it does not waive claims based on greater-than-ordinary negligence. Defendants counter that the exculpatory clause is valid and enforceable and bars all of Anderson’s claims. There is a considerable body of relevant Minnesota case law on these issues.
A. Under Minnesota law, there is no common law action for “gross negligence.” See Peet v. Roth Hotel Co., 191 Minn. 151, 253 N.W. 546, 548 (1934). However, the negligence standard governing particular claims may be varied by statute or by contract. See, e.g., State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 21 N.W.2d 480 (1946) (criminal negligence statute), overruled on other grounds, State v. Engle, 743 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 2008). Under Minnesota law, as in most States, “ordinary negligence” is the “failure to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). Gross negligence is “substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence … [and is] the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.” Bolsinger, 21 N.W.2d at 485.
In the Race Participant Agreement, Anderson waived all claims resulting from “the INHERENT RISKS of the Event or the ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE” of the defendants. Minnesota Courts call provisions of this type exculpatory clauses. In Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920 (Minn. 1982), the Supreme Court of Minnesota dismissed a fitness spa member’s negligence action, based on the exculpatory clause in her membership agreement. The Court noted that prior cases had upheld exculpatory clauses in construction contracts and commercial leases:
Even though we have recognized the validity of exculpatory clauses in certain circumstances, they are not favored in the law. A clause exonerating a party from liability will be strictly construed against the benefited party. If the clause is either ambiguous in scope or purports to release the benefited party from liability for intentional, willful or wanton acts, it will not be enforced .
Id. at 923 (emphasis added, citation omitted). Reversing the denial of summary judgment, the Court held:
that the exculpatory clause in Spa Petite’s membership contract was unambiguous and limited to exoneration from negligence; that there was not disparity of bargaining power; and that the clause was not void as against public policy.
Id. at 926.
In Beehner v. Cragun Corp., 636 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), the Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a riding stable’s exculpatory clause. Unlike the exculpatory clause in Schlobohm, which applied to “all acts of active or passive negligence,” 326 N.W.2d at 922, the clause in Beehner was limited to claims of “ordinary negligence” and expressly excluded claims based on “gross negligence and willful and wanton misconduct.” 636 N.W.2d at 825. Reversing the grant of summary judgment in favor of the riding stable, the Court held:
In a dispute over the applicability of an exculpatory clause, summary judgment is appropriate only when it is uncontested that the party benefited by the exculpatory clause has committed no greater-than-ordinary negligence . Thus, summary judgment is appropriate here only if Outback’s conduct does not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of gross negligence or wanton and willful misconduct .
Id. at 829 (emphasis added and citation omitted).
The district court treated Beehner as controlling Minnesota authority and applied the greater-than-ordinary negligence standard. Defendants argue Minnesota law does not recognize any claim other than the claims for ordinary negligence. We need not resolve that question in this case because, in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, the district court adopted the view of this issue that is most favorable to Anderson, the non-moving party. Because we agree with the court that Anderson presented insufficient evidence of greater-than-ordinary negligence, we assume without deciding that this standard is consistent with controlling Minnesota law.
In addition to arguing that greater-than-ordinary negligence is the correct standard, Anderson argues that the exculpatory clause at issue is unenforceable because it is ambiguous in scope: Minnesota law imposes on defendants as the landowner and operator of a for-profit recreational activity a duty to exercise a “high degree of care” to ensure that invitees are not exposed to unreasonable risks of harm. Hanson v. Christensen, 275 Minn. 204, 145 N.W.2d 868, 873-74 (1966) ; see
Olmanson v. LeSueur Cty., 693 N.W.2d 876, 881 (Minn. 2005) ; Isler v. Burman, 305 Minn. 288, 232 N.W.2d 818, 821 (1975). This argument is without merit. First, the “ordinary negligence” clause in the Agreement is less, or at least no more ambiguous than the exculpatory clause held to be un ambiguous in Schlobohm, 326 N.W.2d at 922-23 (the term “all acts of active or passive negligence … specifically purports to exonerate Spa Petite from liability for acts of negligence and negligence only”), and Beehner, 636 N.W.2d at 827. Second, when the duty to exercise this high degree of care applies, it is an ordinary negligence duty to exercise “reasonable care, meaning care commensurate with the risks involved.” Hanson, 145 N.W.2d at 873. Thus, that the waiver of claims for “ordinary negligence” includes this type of duty for landowners and for-profit operators does not make the waiver ambiguous. We agree with the district court that the Agreement’s exculpatory clause is unambiguously limited to ordinary negligence. As in Beehner, Anderson was a voluntary participant in a recreational activity that does not “implicate[ ] a public or essential service.” 636 N.W.2d at 828.
B. Anderson claims defendants exhibited greater-than-ordinary negligence in the design, construction, supervision, and maintenance of the Bang the Gong obstacle. The district court properly rejected these claims.
On appeal Anderson first argues there was greater-than-ordinary negligence in the design of the Bang the Gong challenge based on expert testimony supporting her claim that a deeper level of water in the landing pit could have prevented her injury. However, Bang the Gong was not a new obstacle for the 2016 Rugged Maniac race. Rather it was tested, used in multiple previous events, and modeled on an earlier obstacle that was safely used for years. We agree with the district court that “[t]he fact that thousands of participants — many of whom undoubtedly outweighed Anderson — jumped into the landing pit without incident is compelling evidence that the water level was not unreasonably low.” Anderson, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1285.
Anderson also argues the summary judgment record supports her claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence in the construction process for the 2016 event. Like the district court, we disagree. Rugged Races followed a detailed protocol when constructing Bang the Gong for this and other events, described in deposition testimony by Rugged Races’ Senior Vice President, Bradford Scudder, and a construction crew member from the 2016 race, Christian Melnik. The process involved digging a pit, removing debris, lining the pit with a tarp, filling it with water, and then constructing the platform participants would use to jump into the pit. The protocol requires crew members to inspect the pit three separate times before it is filled to ensure no rocks, roots, or other debris are present. They conduct two subsequent visual inspections after the pit is filled, including on the morning of the race. Although there was no supporting documentation, Melnik testified that he was not aware that the construction crew ever deviated from this protocol before, during, or after the 2016 race. Anderson, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1274. The district court properly concluded that such evidence would be admissible as evidence of Rugged Races’ routine. See Fed. R. Evid. 406 (court may admit evidence of routine practice “regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness”).
Anderson concedes the admissibility of the Rule 406 evidence, but argues such “self-serving assertion[s]” are not dispositive. True enough. But this testimony by persons familiar with and involved in the process was strong evidence that Rugged Races complied with its established routine of carefully constructing and inspecting the obstacle before the race. Anderson’s disputed evidence of a submerged rock3 was insufficient to create a material issue of fact that would meet her burden to prove that defendants were liable for greater-than-ordinary negligence. Anderson, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1280. We agree with the district court that Anderson offered “little more than speculation” supporting her contentions that the rock was present before the pit was filled and would have been discovered had the construction crew not acted with greater-than-ordinary negligence. Id. at 1284. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must provide “sufficient probative evidence” based on “more than mere speculation [or] conjecture.” Ball v. City of Lincoln, 870 F.3d 722, 727 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted).
We further agree with the district court that Anderson submitted insufficient evidence to establish that defendants acted with greater-than-ordinary negligence during or after the race. The district court estimated that Anderson was injured at approximately 1:00 pm.4 The court carefully reviewed when defendants would have learned that four other participants reported similar injuries before concluding that the record did not support Anderson’s contention that Rugged Races knew or should have known of a rock in the landing pit in time to take preventive action. 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1278-80. Anderson argues prior notice is irrelevant because Rugged Races created the danger. Rugged Races constructed the obstacle, but there is no evidence that Rugged Races placed a dangerous rock in the pit, only circumstantial evidence that it failed to discover a hidden danger. Under Minnesota law, landowners are not “insurers of safety of their patrons.” Hanson, 145 N.W.2d at 873. “Unless the dangerous condition actually resulted from the direct actions of a landowner or his or her employees, a negligence theory of recovery is appropriate only where the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.” Rinn v. Minn. State Agric. Soc’y, 611 N.W.2d 361, 365 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
Here, the first two injuries were similar to Anderson’s and occurred earlier, but neither injury report mentioned a rock in the pit, only that the injured participant “landed wrong” or “jumped into … uneven terrain.” The other three injuries, including Anderson’s, occurred between 1:00-1:30pm. The injury reports reported there was a rock in the pit, but Rugged Races was not made aware of these reports in time to put it on notice that preventive action might be needed. See
Otis v. First Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis, 292 Minn. 497, 195 N.W.2d 432, 433 (1972) (no actual or constructive notice when hazard only present for 20 minutes). Because “an act or omission is not negligent unless the actor had knowledge or notice that it involves danger to another,” Rugged Races’ failure to remove the rock from the landing pit before Anderson’s injury is not a sufficient showing of greater-than-ordinary negligence. Rue v. Wendland, 226 Minn. 449, 33 N.W.2d 593, 595 (1948). And given the nature of the obstacle and the evidence of Rugged Races’ careful inspection procedures when creating the obstacle, the record does not provide sufficient evidence that any uneven terrain in the landing pit was the product of greater-than-ordinary negligence.
Finally, Anderson argues that Rugged Races failed to maintain the water level in the Bang the Gong pit to the depth required by its protocol, a further example of greater-than-ordinary negligence. The district court declined to consider this issue because Anderson first raised it at the summary judgment hearing. 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1285 n.11. As Anderson “did not sufficiently present [the] argument” to the district court, we will not consider it on appeal. Cole v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 533 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir. 2008).
III. Conclusion
In summary, our careful review of the record confirms the district court did not err in concluding Anderson failed to establish greater-than-ordinary negligence as a matter of law. Accordingly, her negligence claims are waived by the valid and enforceable exculpatory clause in the Race Participant Agreement. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
——–
Notes:
1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, now Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
2 Defendants also argue (i) Anderson waived any claim based on greater-than-ordinary negligence by alleging only gross negligence in her Complaint; and (ii) Anderson’s claims are barred by the Minnesota doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. Given our resolution of Anderson’s appeal, we need not consider these issues.
3 Though there was no physical evidence of a submerged rock in the landing pit, Anderson and the other injured participants described “feeling a rock or similar object” when they landed. In ruling on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the district court properly concluded it “therefore must assume that a rock was present in the landing pit of Bang the Gong.” Anderson, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1278 n.7.
4 The district court estimated 1:00pm “based on the fact that Anderson did not report her injury until 1:15 pm, after she had hurt her foot, crawled out of the pit, reported her need for medical attention, waited for a medic to arrive, and been transported to the medical tent.” Anderson, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 1275 n.4.
——–
Sloppy but still lucky? Obstacle course avoids lawsuit with release, however, it was close
Posted: May 8, 2023 Filed under: Minnesota, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Assumption of Risk Doctrine, assumption of the risk, Minnesota, Obstacle Course, Obstacle course racing, Reasonably Safe Course, Release, Unreasonable Risk of Harm, Waiver Leave a commentWhen the defendant learned of a problem was a critical part of winning this case.
Anderson v. Rugged Races, LLC, 42 F.4th 955 (8th Cir. 2022)
State: Minnesota; United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Plaintiff: Jeanne Anderson
Defendant: Rugged Races, LLC; Dennis Raedeke, Inc., doing business as Wild Mountain Recreation Area
Plaintiff Claims: (i) that defendants had duties to design and construct a reasonably safe course, maintain the course in a safe condition, inspect the course for unreasonable risks of harm, warn race participants of unreasonable risks, supervise parties responsible for performing those duties, and operate and maintain the course to ensure participants were not exposed to unreasonable risks; and (ii) that defendants were grossly negligent in failing to perform each of these duties.
Defendant Defenses: Release, Assumption of the Risk
Holding: For the Defendant
Year: 2022
Summary
A release signed by a participant in an obstacle course race was sufficient to defeat her claim that the defendant builder and operator of the race were negligent. Minnesota does not allow claims for greater than ordinary negligence; however, whether the defendant was guilty of such acts was also examined.
Facts
Since 2010, Rugged Races has planned hundreds of obstacle races around the country, including Rugged Maniac Twin Cities. The events feature an obstacle course with a series of challenges involving barbed wire, fire, water, and mud, followed by a post-race party. When Anderson registered for the 2016 Twin Cities event, she signed a Race Participant Agreement (the Agreement). In Part III of the Agreement, titled Assumption of Inherent Risks , Anderson acknowledged:
I understand fully the inherent risks involved in the Event and assert that I am willingly and voluntarily participating in the Event. … (1) I understand the nature of the Event; (2) I understand the physical and mental demands that this activity will place upon me; and (3) I understand that I may be injured by participating in the Event. I hereby assert that I knowingly assume all of the inherent risks of the activity and take full responsibility for any and all damages, liabilities, losses or expenses that I incur as a result of participating in the Event.
In Part IV, titled Waiver of Liability for Ordinary Negligence , Anderson waived and discharged both Rugged Races and Wild Mountain “from any and all claims resulting from the INHERENT RISKS of the Event or the ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE of Rugged Races LLC (or other Released Parties).” Anderson again signed the Agreement when she checked in on race day.
After starting the race and completing the first seven obstacles, Anderson reached the “Bang the Gong” challenge. This obstacle required her to jump from a raised platform, attempt to slap a gong in midair, and land in a pit of muddy water. When Anderson landed in the pit her “left foot hit something hard.” She crawled from the pit, received medical attention, and learned she had shattered the calcaneus bone in her left heel. Of the more than 4000 participants in the 2016 race, four others were injured on the Bang the Gong obstacle, suffering injuries to their foot or ankle after landing in the pit.
Anderson’s Complaint alleged (i) that defendants had duties to design and construct a reasonably safe course, maintain the course in a safe condition, inspect the course for unreasonable risks of harm, warn race participants of unreasonable risks, supervise parties responsible for performing those duties, and operate and maintain the course to ensure participants were not exposed to unreasonable risks; and (ii) that defendants were grossly negligent in failing to perform each of these duties. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment record includes deposition testimony from Anderson and Rugged Races employees, declarations from the other injured participants, reports by Anderson’s expert witnesses, and other documentary evidence.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
This was an obstacle race. The defendant reached “Bang the Gong” where she climbed up a man-made platform and jumped into a muddy pit of water. Her foot hit something shattering her heel. She sued. The federal district court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment, and this was the appeal of that judgment.
Minnesota does not recognize gross negligence. Meaning if you sue there is no hierarchy of types of negligence that void releases or get you additional damages. According to Minnesota law, negligence is defined as:
…ordinary negligence” is the “failure to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” Gross negligence is “substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence … [and is] the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.”
Minnesota law imposes on defendants as the landowner and operator of a for-profit recreational activity a duty to exercise a “high degree of care” to ensure that invitees are not exposed to unreasonable risks of harm.
This was an issue because the plaintiff argued the defendant had participated in greater than ordinary negligence in the construction of the Bong the Gong. Even though Minnesota does not recognize greater than ordinary negligence, the appellate court found the standard of care to be applied in this case was based on greater than ordinary negligence.
First, the “ordinary negligence” clause in the Agreement is less, or at least no more ambiguous than the exculpatory clause held to be un ambiguous (the term “all acts of active or passive negligence … specifically purports to exonerate Spa Petite from liability for acts of negligence and negligence only”). Second, when the duty to exercise this high degree of care applies, it is an ordinary negligence duty to exercise “reasonable care, meaning care commensurate with the risks involved.” Thus, that the waiver of claims for “ordinary negligence” includes this type of duty for landowners and for-profit operators does not make the waiver ambiguous. We agree with the district court that the Agreement’s exculpatory clause is unambiguously limited to ordinary negligence. As in Beehner, Anderson was a voluntary participant in a recreational activity that does not “implicate[ ] a public or essential service.”
Then the appellate court started dissecting the arguments. The Bong the Gong structure was not a new structure; it had been used in races for several years. The plaintiff also argued the landing pit needed to be deeper so the plaintiff would not strike bottom. Because a thousand of participants in this race and thousands more in other races had not been injured the court did not buy into this argument.
However, Bang the Gong was not a new obstacle for the 2016 Rugged Maniac race. Rather it was tested, used in multiple previous events, and modeled on an earlier obstacle that was safely used for years. We agree with the district court that “[t]he fact that thousands of participants — many of whom undoubtedly outweighed Anderson — jumped into the landing pit without incident is compelling evidence that the water level was not unreasonably low.”
The defendant had a detailed protocol for building the structure and digging the pit which it had followed in this race.
Rugged Races followed a detailed protocol when constructing Bang the Gong for this and other events, described in deposition testimony by Rugged Races’ Senior Vice President, Bradford Scudder, and a construction crew member from the 2016 race, Christian Melnik. The process involved digging a pit, removing debris, lining the pit with a tarp, filling it with water, and then constructing the platform participants would use to jump into the pit. The protocol requires crew members to inspect the pit three separate times before it is filled to ensure no rocks, roots, or other debris are present. They conduct two subsequent visual inspections after the pit is filled, including on the morning of the race.
This proved that the defendant had followed its established routine in creating the obstacle, which could have been introduced at trial.
The court then agreed with the district court that the plaintiff had failed to introduce evidence to prove actions on the part of the defendant were anything but ordinary negligence.
We further agree with the district court that Anderson submitted insufficient evidence to establish that defendants acted with greater-than-ordinary negligence during or after the race. The district court estimated that Anderson was injured at approximately 1:00 pm.4 The court carefully reviewed when defendants would have learned that four other participants reported similar injuries before concluding that the record did not support Anderson’s contention that Rugged Races knew or should have known of a rock in the landing pit in time to take preventive action.
Because the injuries that occurred prior to the plaintiff’s injuries were not described in a way that would have put the defendant on notice of a problem that the plaintiff suffered and the injuries that occurred after the time the plaintiff was injured would not have mattered, the court found the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendant acted in any way that would give rise to more than ordinary negligence.
Here, the first two injuries were similar to Anderson’s and occurred earlier, but neither injury report mentioned a rock in the pit, only that the injured participant “landed wrong” or “jumped into … uneven terrain.” The other three injuries, including Anderson’s, occurred between 1:00-1:30pm. The injury reports reported there was a rock in the pit, but Rugged Races was not made aware of these reports in time to put it on notice that preventive action might be needed.
Applying the standard of care of a landowner under Minnesota law, landowners are not insurers of the safety of their patrons, (parties on their land), unless they dangerous condition resulted from the direct action of the landowner.
Under Minnesota law, landowners are not “insurers of safety of their patrons.” “Unless the dangerous condition actually resulted from the direct actions of a landowner or his or her employees, a negligence theory of recovery is appropriate only where the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.”
Because the defendant had no knowledge of the issues until the plaintiff was injured, the defendant could not be held to a higher degree of negligence, negligence and thus the release stopped the plaintiff claims.
Because “an act or omission is not negligent unless the actor had knowledge or notice that it involves danger to another,” Rugged Races’ failure to remove the rock from the landing pit before Anderson’s injury is not a sufficient showing of greater-than-ordinary negligence.
So Now What?
This is a confusing case because Minnesota does not support claims for greater than ordinary negligence, but this court worked hard to make sure it was not an issue. What does come from the case is the general support that releases are valid in Minnesota.
Even though Minnesota has held that a parent could sign away a minor’s right to sue, the courts had also found ways to invalidate releases. See Minnesota decision upholds parent’s right to sign away a minor’s right to sue (Moore v. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299).
For other cases about Minnesota release law see:
Assumption of Risk used to defend against claim for injury from snow tubing in Minnesota
Minnesota Appellate court upholds a release signed by a mother for a child’s injuries
For other states that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue see:
States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Massachusetts accepts releases and in this case, there was no argument about the validity of the release.
Posted: May 1, 2023 Filed under: Massachusetts, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Sports | Tags: Batter, Gross negligence, Massachusetts, recklessness, Release, softball, student athlete Leave a commentCollege softball player struck in the head during batting practice. No negligence because a release stopped simple negligence claims and there was no proof of gross negligence.
Brandt v. Davis, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 734, 159 N.E.3d 191 (Mass. App. 2020)
State: Massachusetts: Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk
Plaintiff: Brooke A. Brandt
Defendant: Jaclyn Davis & others
Plaintiff Claims: negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness
Defendant Defenses: Release and no duty
Holding: For the Defendants
Year: 2020
Summary
Massachusetts law allows a trial court to dismiss a case when a release is used, and the pleadings do not have the facts necessary to prove reckless conduct or gross negligence on the part of the defendant.
In this case, a batter, the coaches and a university were not liable for the injuries of a player when she walked into the range of a batter.
Facts
The plaintiff played softball as a member of the Suffolk University women’s team, a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III team. As a condition of her participation on the team, the plaintiff signed a participant waiver and release of liability form. The waiver released Suffolk University and its employees and agents from liability for any claims arising from her participation in the athletic program to the extent “permitted by the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
On the day of the accident, the team was practicing in an indoor practice facility. The team engaged in the same general pattern of activities during practices. After warming-up, the team would leave the playing area to get their equipment, and then meet on the field. The players had to leave the playing area to get their equipment, because they hung their equipment outside the playing area on a fence. During their practices, the players would run through a series of rotating stations to develop different skills, each requiring different personal equipment. Before the players began their next station, the head coach would say “go” when she was sure everyone was in position and wearing the proper equipment.
Typically, the batting tees would be set up in batting cages, but they were not on the day of the accident. Moveable screens were available to use as protective barriers, but there was no such barrier between the tees and the field entrance on the day of the accident.
At one of the practice stations, players practiced hitting balls off tees into the netting surrounding the field. The tees were placed off to one side of an opening in the netting, which is where players would enter the area. A portable divider was placed on the opposite side of the opening to separate this station from the live hitting station. The players rotated among stations at the direction of the coaches, and were given between two and five minutes to transition before the coaching staff signaled them to start.
During the March 7, 2014, practice, when it was time for the plaintiff to rotate to the live hitting station, she left the field to retrieve her batting helmet and began jogging back with her helmet in her hand. The plaintiff testified in a deposition that she had to go retrieve her batting equipment, because her first station had been fielding. The plaintiff was “moving quickly” to get back to her station.
When the plaintiff returned to the practice area, the teammate was practicing hitting at the “last tee near the door. [The teammate] was the last to get to [her] tee because of the additional time [she] spent practicing [her] footwork.” The teammate was a left-handed batter, and she chose the tee nearest to the door so that the right-handed players in the station would not be within her swinging radius.
In her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she saw that the teammate had a bat in her hand at the tee station and was preparing to bat. The teammate’s back was to the plaintiff when the plaintiff jogged back on the field. The plaintiff did not know whether the teammate could see her because the teammate’s batting helmet limited her peripheral vision. The plaintiff testified that she saw the teammate’s face, but could not say whether that was when she was leaving the field or upon reentering it. She “didn’t feel like [she] was going to get hit” when she ran behind the teammate.
The plaintiff testified that she yelled, “Wait.” However, she could not remember when she said wait or even whether she said it out loud. She admitted that it was possible that she “said wait only in [her] own head.”
The teammate testified in a deposition that she did not begin swinging until instructed to do so by her coaches, and an assistant coach testified that the players were already swinging before the accident. The teammate stated that she “always look[ed] around … before … every single swing.” She did not see the plaintiff.
After the teammate hit the ball off the tee, the teammate’s swing hit the plaintiff in the back of the head. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a concussion and required four stitches at a hospital. She was released from the emergency department the same evening. Because the plaintiff and the teammate were best friends, the teammate stayed with the plaintiff in her dormitory room the night of the accident. A few days later, however, it became evident that the plaintiff was suffering long-term effects from the accident, including difficulty reading.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court only looked at whether the summary judgment was correct. The trial court found the plaintiff had not pled or proven any claims that would rise to the level of gross negligence or recklessness. The release was presumed valid and was enforced eliminating any basic claims.
The appellate court first looked at the duty owed by participants in athletic events. That means participants must refrain from reckless conduct. “As is well established, “participants in an athletic event owe a duty to other participants to refrain from reckless misconduct.””
This higher level of care is required because to have a lower standard of care would create litigation anytime players interacted physically. When one engages in a sport, one must accept the level of physical contact to be higher. Failure to do so takes the fun out of the play.
The court found that this same level of care or standard also applied to practices. If the players did not practice at a high level, they would not compete at a higher level.
…the Supreme Judicial Court determined that participants in an athletic event owe each other only a duty to avoid reckless conduct. The court did so because it was “wary of imposing wide tort liability on sports participants, lest the law chill the vigor of athletic competition.”
The same reasoning applies to athletic practices. During such practices, players train to improve their competitive performance. Teammates often play against each other as though it is a game through scrimmages and other drills at practice.
The court then proceeded to exam the claims of the plaintiff that the conduct was reckless. Reckless conduct is one person knowing that their actions create a high degree of risk of physical harm and still proceeds to act.
The plaintiff has the burden to prove “the actor knows, or has reason to know … of facts which create a high degree of risk of physical harm to another, and deliberately proceeds to act, or to fail to act, in conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk.”
The court reviewed the facts and found there was no reckless conduct on the part of the teammate. The actions of the batter were such that there was no time from when she attempted to swing at the ball until when she made contact with the plaintiff to alter her actions. There was no knowledge of the high degree of physical harm because the batter did not know the plaintiff was behind her. And without that knowledge, there is no recklessness.
The final issue reviewed was whether to the coach, and the universities’ actions were grossly negligent or reckless. The plaintiff’s ordinary or simple negligence claims were barred by the release. Therefore, only the gross negligence claim remained against the university and coaches.
Massachusetts law defines gross negligence as:
“[G]ross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence. … It is an act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care” The ‘voluntary incurring of obvious risk’ and ‘persistence in a palpably negligent course of conduct over an appreciable period of time’ are among ‘the more common indicia of gross negligence.’ ”
“Gross negligence … is materially more want of care than constitutes simple inadvertence”
Recklessness in this context was defined as:
“[R]eckless conduct involves a degree of risk and a voluntary taking of that risk so marked that, compared to negligence, there is not just a difference in degree but also a difference in kind.”
For the coaches and thus their employer the university to be found liable, the coaches had to have known of the propensity of the batter to act reckless or with intent to harm.
“[I]n order to impose liability on a coach for the conduct of a player, there must be, at the least, evidence of ‘specific information about [the] player suggesting a propensity to engage in violent conduct, or some warning that [the] player … appeared headed toward such conduct as the game progressed.
The trial court and the appellate court found none of the facts necessary to apply either a reckless or gross negligence definition to the actions of the batter or the coaches. In fact, the court found just the opposite.
Here, there is no indication that the teammate intentionally struck the plaintiff or that the teammate had a history of reckless conduct. The plaintiff testified that she and the teammate were best friends, and that she did not think the teammate hit her on purpose.
So Now What?
In some states, releases are part of the law and are rarely challenged unless the release is poorly written. Because of that, colleges and universities are using release to stop claims by student athletes for their injuries.
However, several other courts have indicated they are not sure that releases are the way proceed fearing a release will allow the defendants not to keep their businesses as risk free as possible. It is a constantly changing legal landscape.
For other articles about student athletes see:
For other articles about Massachusetts and releases see:
Massachusetts’s Supreme Court holds that wrongful-death claims are derivative.
Poorly written release in Massachusetts stop lawsuit for falling off a horse during riding lessons.
Duty of care for a Massachusetts campground is to warn of dangerous conditions.
A federal district court in Massachusetts upholds indemnification clause in a release.
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
Word Count: 166
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Brandt v. Davis, 98 Mass.App.Ct. 734, 159 N.E.3d 191 (Mass. App. 2020)
Posted: May 1, 2023 Filed under: Massachusetts, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Sports | Tags: Gross negligence, Massachusetts, recklessness, Release, softball, student athlete, Suffolk University Leave a comment98 Mass.App.Ct. 734
159 N.E.3d 191
Brooke A. BRANDT
v.
Jaclyn DAVIS & others.1
No. 19-P-1189
Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk..
Argued May 22, 2020.
Decided November 2, 2020.
Robert A. Curley, Jr., Braintree, for the plaintiff.
Robert B. Smith, Boston, for Jaclyn Davis & another.
Paul F. Lynch, Boston, for Meredith Ball.
Present: Wolohojian, Maldonado, & Ditkoff, JJ.
DITKOFF, J.
[98 Mass.App.Ct. 734]
The plaintiff, Brooke A. Brandt, appeals from a summary judgment dismissing her complaint against her softball teammate, Meredith Ball (teammate), and Suffolk University and her softball head coach Jaclyn Davis (collectively, the Suffolk defendants), arising out of the plaintiff’s injuries sustained during softball practice. We conclude that, like players in an athletic contest, players in an athletic practice owe a duty not to engage in reckless conduct but are not subject to suit for simple negligence. Because of a waiver signed by the plaintiff, the Suffolk defendants are liable only for gross negligence or recklessness. Concluding that the summary judgment record did not raise a triable issue that either the teammate or the Suffolk defendants engaged in reckless conduct or gross negligence, we affirm.
1. Background. The plaintiff played softball as a member of the Suffolk University women’s team, a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III team. As a condition of her participation on the team, the plaintiff signed a participant waiver and release of liability form. The waiver released Suffolk University and its employees and agents from liability for any claims arising from her participation in the athletic program to the extent “permitted by the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
On the day of the accident, the team was practicing in an indoor practice facility. The team engaged in the same general pattern of activities during practices. After warming-up, the team would leave the playing area to get their equipment, and then meet on the field. The players had to leave the playing area to get their equipment, because they hung their equipment outside the playing area on a fence. During their practices, the players would run through a series of rotating stations to develop different skills, each requiring different personal equipment. Before the players began their next station, the head coach would say “go” when she was sure everyone was in position and wearing the proper equipment.
Typically, the batting tees would be set up in batting cages, but they were not on the day of the accident. Moveable screens were available to use as protective barriers, but there was no such barrier between the tees and the field entrance on the day of the accident.
At one of the practice stations, players practiced hitting balls off tees into the netting surrounding the field. The tees were placed off to one side of an opening in the netting, which is where players would enter the area. A portable divider was placed on the opposite side of the opening to separate this station from the live hitting station. The players rotated among stations at the direction of the coaches, and were given between two and five minutes to transition before the coaching staff signaled them to start.
During the March 7, 2014, practice, when it was time for the plaintiff to rotate to the live hitting station, she left the field to retrieve her batting helmet and began jogging back with her helmet in her hand. The plaintiff testified in a deposition that she had to go retrieve her batting equipment, because her first station had been fielding. The plaintiff was “moving quickly” to get back to her station.
When the plaintiff returned to the practice area, the teammate was practicing hitting at the “last tee near the door. [The teammate] was the last to get to [her] tee because of the additional time [she] spent practicing [her] footwork.” The teammate was a left-handed batter, and she chose the tee nearest to the door so that the right-handed players in the station would not be within her swinging radius.
In her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she saw that the teammate had a bat in her hand at the tee station and was preparing to bat. The teammate’s back was to the plaintiff when the plaintiff jogged back on the field. The plaintiff did not know whether the teammate could see her because the teammate’s batting helmet limited her peripheral vision. The plaintiff testified that she saw the teammate’s face, but could not say whether that was when she was leaving the field or upon reentering it. She “didn’t feel like [she] was going to get hit” when she ran behind the teammate.
The plaintiff testified that she yelled, “Wait.” However, she could not remember when she said wait or even whether she said it out loud. She admitted that it was possible that she “said wait only in [her] own head.”
The teammate testified in a deposition that she did not begin swinging until instructed to do so by her coaches, and an assistant coach testified that the players were already swinging before the accident. The teammate stated that she “always look[ed] around … before … every single swing.” She did not see the plaintiff.
After the teammate hit the ball off the tee, the teammate’s swing hit the plaintiff in the back of the head. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a concussion and required four stitches at a hospital. She was released from the emergency department the same evening. Because the plaintiff and the teammate were best friends, the teammate stayed with the plaintiff in her dormitory room the night of the accident. A few days later, however, it became evident that the plaintiff was suffering long-term effects from the accident, including difficulty reading.
The plaintiff asserted claims against the teammate for negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness. The plaintiff asserted claims against the Suffolk defendants for gross negligence and recklessness. In a thoughtful decision, a Superior Court judge determined that the plaintiff needed to show recklessness on the part of the teammate to prevail. Concluding that the summary judgment record did not raise a triable issue of recklessness or gross negligence on the part of either the teammate or the Suffolk defendants, the judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. This appeal followed.
2. Standard of review. “Our review of a motion judge’s decision on summary judgment is de novo, because we examine the same record and decide the same questions of law.” Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Department of Criminal Justice Info. Servs., 484 Mass. 279, 286, 140 N.E.3d 923 (2020), quoting Kiribati Seafood Co. v. Dechert LLP, 478 Mass. 111, 116, 83 N.E.3d 798 (2017). “The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Morin, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 503, 506, 136 N.E.3d 396 (2019), quoting Molina v. State Garden, Inc., 88 Mass. App. Ct. 173, 177, 37 N.E.3d 39 (2015). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). “Usually, negligence and recklessness involve questions of fact left for the jury. … However, where no rational view of the evidence would permit a finding of negligence or recklessness, summary judgment is appropriate.” Borella v. Renfro, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 617, 622, 137 N.E.3d 431 (2019).
3. Claims against the teammate. a. Standard of care. As is well established, “participants in an athletic event owe a duty to other participants to refrain from reckless misconduct.” Borella, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 622, 137 N.E.3d 431, quoting Gauvin v. Clark, 404 Mass. 450, 451, 537 N.E.2d 94 (1989). Accord Gray v. Giroux, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 436, 439, 730 N.E.2d 338 (2000) (“wilful, wanton, or reckless standard of conduct, and not ordinary negligence, is the appropriate standard of care in noncontact sports”). We must determine whether this standard, rather than the ordinary negligence standard, applies to participants in an athletic practice. “Whether a party owes a duty of care to another is a legal question, ‘determine[d] “by reference to existing social values and customs and appropriate social policy.” ‘ ” Williams v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 480 Mass. 286, 290, 103 N.E.3d 1192 (2018), quoting Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 143, 849 N.E.2d 829 (2006). We conclude that the same level of duty — to refrain from reckless conduct — applies to athletic practices as well as to athletic contests.
In Gauvin, 404 Mass. at 454, 537 N.E.2d 94, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that participants in an athletic event owe each other only a duty to avoid reckless conduct. The court did so because it was “wary of imposing wide tort liability on sports participants, lest the law chill the vigor of athletic competition.” Id. This standard “furthers the policy that ‘[v]igorous and active participation in sporting events should not be chilled by the threat of litigation.’ ” Id., quoting Kabella v. Bouschelle, 100 N.M. 461, 465, 672 P.2d 290 (1983).
The same reasoning applies to athletic practices. During such practices, players train to improve their competitive performance. Teammates often play against each other as though it is a game through scrimmages and other drills at practice. See Gauvin, 404 Mass. at 454, 537 N.E.2d 94 (“Players, when they engage in sport, agree to undergo some physical contacts which could amount to assault and battery absent the players’ consent”). Batting practice, for example, requires focus for players to increase the strength and accuracy of their swings. If the players could not practice as vigorously as they play, they would — at best — be unprepared for the challenges of actual competition. At worst, their inability to practice vigorously would expose them to an increased risk of injury during games, especially if they competed against out-of-State teams not so constrained. See Kavanagh v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 440 Mass. 195, 205, 795 N.E.2d 1170 (2003).
We find support for this conclusion in decisions in other States. In Bowman v. McNary, 853 N.E.2d 984, 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the application of ordinary negligence to an injury caused by an errant swing during a practice for a high school golf team. See id. at 992 (“the rule applies to injuries sustained by any co-participants in a sporting activity, which would include teammates injured during a practice”).2 Moreover, other jurisdictions have applied the recklessness standard for noncontact or noncompetitive athletic activities. See, e.g., Ford v. Gouin, 3 Cal. 4th 339, 345, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 834 P.2d 724 (1992) (“the general rule limiting the duty of care of a coparticipant in active sports to the avoidance of intentional and reckless misconduct, applies to participants engaged in noncompetitive but active sports activity, such as a ski boat driver towing a water-skier”); Pressler v. U, 70 Ohio App. 3d 204, 205-206, 590 N.E.2d 873 (1990) (yacht race). Accord Ritchie-Gamester v. Berkley, 461 Mich. 73, 89, 597 N.W.2d 517 (1999) (declining to apply ordinary negligence where ice skater skated backwards into plaintiff).
b. Reckless conduct. “The imposition of tort liability for reckless disregard of safety can be based on either a subjective or objective standard for evaluating knowledge of the risk of harm.” Boyd v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 446 Mass. 540, 546, 845 N.E.2d 356 (2006). The plaintiff has the burden to prove “the actor knows, or has reason to know … of facts which create a high degree of risk of physical harm to another, and deliberately proceeds to act, or to fail to act, in conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk.” Id. at 546-547, 845 N.E.2d 356, quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 comment a, at 588 (1965). We examine the record to determine whether there is evidence from which a jury could conclude that the teammate “engaged in extreme misconduct outside the range of the ordinary activity inherent in the sport.” Borella, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 624, 137 N.E.3d 431. Viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, she had no reasonable expectation of proving that the teammate’s actions rose to this level of misconduct.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, a jury could not find that the teammate saw the plaintiff before the injury with enough time to prevent the accident. The plaintiff jogged onto the field near where the teammate was preparing to bat. The plaintiff testified at a deposition that the teammate had her back to the entrance, and she wore a batting helmet that limited her peripheral vision. Although the players were supposed to look around before swinging, the plaintiff did not remember whether the teammate looked around. The plaintiff’s failure of memory in this regard does not directly contradict the teammate’s affirmative recollection that she looked around her before she swung the bat. See Gray, 49 Mass. App. Ct. at 440 n.4, 730 N.E.2d 338 (plaintiff’s assertion that golfer “could have and should have been able to see the plaintiff” did not rebut defendant’s deposition testimony that he did not see plaintiff). But even were we to assume that there was a sufficient factual dispute over whether the teammate looked before she swung, and that the plaintiff was “capable of being seen from at least the time she was passing by the chain link gate until she was hit” (as the plaintiff’s expert opined), there is no rational view of the evidence that the teammate in fact saw the plaintiff before the teammate swung the bat with enough time to prevent the accident. Accordingly, this scenario, as a matter of law, did not rise to the level of recklessness. See id. (golfer was not reckless where he did not see plaintiff before taking his shot and plaintiff was not in intended path of golfer’s shot); Bowman, 853 N.E.2d at 996-997 (plaintiff’s conduct was not reckless where she struck coparticipant with backswing without ascertaining coparticipant’s precise location during high school golf practice).
The plaintiff disputes that the coach had given the “go” signal for the teammate to begin batting. Viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, even if the teammate swung her bat before the coach told players to start, the teammate’s actions were at most negligent. The plaintiff was a collegiate softball player who had played for fourteen years at the time of her injury. The plaintiff acknowledged that the coaches did “not necessarily hav[e] to micromanage every part” of the practice, and players could begin practicing at their station before the coach said “go.” Based on the players’ experience and skill level, this conduct, as a matter of law, was not reckless. See Borella, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 624, 137 N.E.3d 431.
The plaintiff claims she said “wait” before the incident. In her deposition, however, the plaintiff did not remember whether she said “wait” out loud or in her head. She did not remember her exact location when she said “wait,” the timing of when she said it, or how loudly she said it. Indeed, the plaintiff stated that she yelled “wait” “almost immediately” before she was struck. Accordingly, there was no evidence that the teammate could or did hear the plaintiff say “wait” before the teammate swung her bat, let alone in enough time to stop her swing. Indeed, the teammate testified in her deposition that she did not hear the plaintiff say anything before the accident. The plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of proving recklessness from this evidence. See Patterson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 586, 592, 723 N.E.2d 1005 (2000) (party “cannot prevail if any critical element is left to surmise, conjecture or speculation or otherwise lacks evidential support”).
4. Claims against the Suffolk defendants. Although a coach’s duty of care to opposing players is the same recklessness standard that applies to the players she coaches, Borella, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 628, 137 N.E.3d 431, we assume without deciding that a coach ordinarily has a duty of ordinary reasonable care to her own players. See Kavanagh, 440 Mass. at 202, 795 N.E.2d 1170 (not reaching this question). Cf. Moose v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 43 Mass. App. Ct. 420, 425, 683 N.E.2d 706 (1997) (university and coaches liable in negligence to injured pole vaulter for unsafe equipment and landing pit). Here, however, it is uncontested that Suffolk University had an enforceable liability waiver barring the plaintiff from bringing an ordinary negligence suit. See Rafferty v. Merck & Co., 479 Mass. 141, 155, 92 N.E.3d 1205 (2018), quoting Maryland Cas. Co. v. NSTAR Elec. Co., 471 Mass. 416, 422, 30 N.E.3d 105 (2015) (” ‘while a party may contract against liability for harm caused by its negligence, it may not do so with respect to its gross negligence’ or, for that matter, its reckless or intentional conduct”). Thus, we analyze the plaintiff’s claims only for gross negligence and recklessness.
a. Gross negligence. “[G]ross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence. … It is an act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care.” Parsons v. Ameri, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 96, 106, 142 N.E.3d 628 (2020), quoting Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588, 591-592, 121 N.E. 505 (1919). “The ‘voluntary incurring of obvious risk’ and ‘persistence in a palpably negligent course of conduct over an appreciable period of time’ are among ‘the more common indicia of gross negligence.’ ” Parsons, supra, quoting Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 294 Mass. 170, 172, 200 N.E. 914 (1936).
The plaintiff’s expert stated that the positioning of the tee station near the entrance enhanced the risk of serious danger for the players when there were safer alternative locations for the drill. The head coach gave the players approximately five minutes to transition. The head coach had no reason to believe that these trained collegiate athletes would enter the field while players were swinging their bats at the tee station. Based on the collegiate athletes’ knowledge and experience, the head coach’s assertedly inadequate planning makes out, at worst, only ordinary negligence. See Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc., 466 Mass. 398, 410, 995 N.E.2d 740 (2013), quoting Altman, 231 Mass. at 591, 121 N.E. 505 (“Gross negligence … is materially more want of care than constitutes simple inadvertence”).3
It remains a contested fact whether the coach told the players to start their stations before everyone was in place.4 Taking all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, it was at most negligent for the head coach to have prematurely yelled “go” before all of the trained athletes were at their next station.
b. Recklessness. “[R]eckless conduct involves a degree of risk and a voluntary taking of that risk so marked that, compared to negligence, there is not just a difference in degree but also a difference in kind.” Gray, 49 Mass. App. Ct. at 440, 730 N.E.2d 338, quoting Sandler v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 334, 337, 644 N.E.2d 641 (1995). “[I]n order to impose liability on a coach for the conduct of a player, there must be, at the least, evidence of ‘specific information about [the] player suggesting a propensity to engage in violent conduct, or some warning that [the] player … appeared headed toward such conduct as the game progressed.’ ” Borella, 96 Mass. App. Ct. at 628, 137 N.E.3d 431, quoting Kavanagh, 440 Mass. at 203, 795 N.E.2d 1170. Here, there is no indication that the teammate intentionally struck the plaintiff or that the teammate had a history of reckless conduct. The plaintiff testified that she and the teammate were best friends, and that she did not think the teammate hit her on purpose. See Gray, supra. As a matter of law, there is no basis for a jury to find that the head coach acted recklessly in allowing the teammate to practice hitting off tees.
Judgment affirmed.
——–
Notes:
1 Meredith Ball and Suffolk University.
2 In Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392, 404 (Ind. 2011), the Supreme Court of Indiana took issue with some of the reasoning in Bowman, but ultimately approved of its conclusion that “intentional or reckless infliction of injury” is the proper standard.
3 Gross negligence, of course, takes into account the age, experience, and skill level of the players. A setup that is merely negligent for experienced collegiate athletes might well be grossly negligent for beginners or young children.
4 The teammate testified that she was told to start. The head coach said that she had already said “go.”
——–
Ski area defendant got caught falsifying employee records by the plaintiff.
Posted: April 24, 2023 Filed under: Massachusetts, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Chairlift, Employee Training, fraud upon the court, lying to the court, Massachusetts, Wachusett Mountain Ski Area Leave a commentWachusett Mountain Ski Area lied to the plaintiff about the training the employee in question in the lawsuit had received. The defendant ski area altered the records to make it look like the employee in question had received the requisite training when, in fact, he had not.
State: Massachusetts , Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Plaintiff: Heidi Hache & another (Individually and as parent and next friend of Alexander Hache)
Defendant: Wachusett Mountain Ski Area, Inc.
Plaintiff Claims: negligently operating its ski area, a posttrial motion for a finding of fraud on the court and imposition of sanctions, incorporating by reference her earlier cross motion seeking the same relief
Defendant Defenses: None
Holding: For the Plaintiff
Year: 2023
Summary
The defendant ski area at deposition testified the employee running the lift where the accident occurred had received the appropriate training in how to operate the lift. In fact, the employee had not. The ski area altered the training records, (online) to show the employee had taken the training course. Before trial, the plaintiff could prove the ski area had falsified to the plaintiff the documents and testimony the plaintiff had received during deposition. This appeal was to determine any punishment to the defendant ski area for falsifying those records.
Facts
The plaintiffs sued Wachusett for negligently operating its ski area, causing then twelve-year-old Alexander to fall from a ski lift and suffer severe and permanent injuries.
Wachusett produced documents and stated in its answers to interrogatories that the employee operating the lift on the day of the incident, Dylan Wilson, had received the requisite training. A training certificate produced by Wachusett stated that lift operator Wilson had completed an online training program under a profile with the username “jshepard.”
Heidi noticed a deposition of Wachusett and included a request for “[a]ny documents and [electronically stored information] relative to the identity of J. Shepard, his/her position at Wachusett Mountain and his/her involvement in any way with Dylan Wilson.” On June 2, 2017, Wachusett responded that Wachusett had no such documents in its present care, custody, or control.
Wachusett’s designee for the deposition of the corporation, Corey Feeley, testified to the following: Wilson was properly trained to operate the ski lift. Wilson had completed the training under the jshepard username because that username had been created for a prior hire, who had ultimately not become an employee, and Feeley did not want to pay another fifty-dollar license fee. Wilson completed the training in November 2014 even though he did not begin work until February 2015. Feeley and a human resources director, Molly Buckley, had been unable to locate an application for employment by Shepard.
After the Wachusett corporate deposition, Heidi subpoenaed training records from a third-party training website identified as Bullwheel and learned that jshepard was a boy named Jacob Shepard. On July 27, 2017, Heidi deposed Shepard. He testified that he worked at Wachusett starting in late 2013 through April 2014 and resuming in late 2014 and into 2015 and that he interacted with Feeley once or twice per shift. In November of 2014, Shepard completed the online training under the jshepard username. He also provided payroll records and emails to prove his employment at Wachusett.
Over a year later, on October 30, 2018, Heidi deposed Jonathan Putney, an employee of Noverant, Inc., the company hosting the online training program. The Noverant records showed that on March 11, 2015 — after the incident — a user named “cfeeley” had altered the jshepard profile to display the name Dylan Wilson. The Noverant records also showed that on the same date, a username of “dwilson” was created and that this username completed the training course between March 13 and March 16, 2015.
After considerable procedural skirmishing, Wachusett conceded liability and causation and sought to limit evidence of the fraud at trial. Heidi cross-moved for a finding that Wachusett committed fraud on the court based on the evidence discussed above. Heidi contended that Wachusett falsified an employee training record to conceal the lack of training, produced the falsified record in discovery, directed the plaintiffs to that falsified record in interrogatory responses, testified under oath to the authenticity of the training record in a deposition of the company pursuant to rule 30 (b) (6), and spoliated employment and payroll records to hide the fraud.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
Don’t attempt to lie your way out of a lawsuit.
The defendant designated a person to speak on behalf of the defendant at a deposition. That person is called the deposition designee and legally speaks for the corporation. At the deposition of the designee, the designee testified the lift operator employee in question had received the designated training. That training was received under the name “jshepard.” The employee who was at issue in the trial was named “Dylan Wilson.” The deposition designee testified that to save $50 Dylan Wilson had taken the training under the name jshepard because jshepard had been hired but did not complete the training.
The plaintiff investigated and deposed two more people, jshepard and an employee of the online training program and found out that Dylan Wilson had never received the training that the ski area claimed he had received.
A year later, the ski area admitted the fraud and then admitted liability in an attempt to cover its mistakes. The plaintiff moved for sanctions against the ski area for the fraud; however, the judge denied the sanctions. After winning at trial, the plaintiff again moved for sanctions where were denied. The plaintiff appealed the issues of sanctions against the ski area to the appellate court.
Fraud on the court is an absolute no no. Attorneys can lose their license if they participate in a fraud upon the court. The party that commits the fraud can lose their lawsuit or win it based on who they are. It is never done.
Fraud on the court is defined in Massachusetts law as:
To find that a party has committed a fraud on the court, a judge must find “that a party has sentiently set-in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”
The trial court found there had been no fraud on the court because the actions of the ski area were not perpetrated by the president of the ski area, the owner of the ski area or the attorney representing the ski area.
“no evidence before the court that Wachusett, its president/owner, or its attorney knew about the forged training records until Plaintiff’s counsel uncovered them in the course of discovery. There is also no evidence that they intentionally provided forged documents or intentionally gave false answers to questions posed in depositions. Rather, as soon as Wachusett became aware of Feeley’s misconduct, Wachusett conceded liability and gave up all efforts to assert comparative negligence despite the fact that this was a colorable defense. Thus, at no time was the court influenced by, or operating under false or fraudulent information.”
No hearing was held on the matter. Only written motions were filed and the judge ruled based on those motions.
The appellate court looked at the situation differently. The defendant by state law was required to keep employee records for all employees for four years. The ski area testified that it kept records normally for seven years. Although the ski blamed the fraud on the deposition designee, the court found that more than that one individual had failed to meet the requirements of the state law and the rules of civil procedure concerning the documents that had to be presented to the plaintiff by the defendant.
The trial judge found the actions of the defendant did not hamper the trial. However, the appellate court found the trial judge should have held a hearing and applied sanctions. The plaintiff worked for three years preparing for trial that was changed when the defendant admitted to the fraud. The defendant did not immediately admit to the fraud but waited more than a year to do so.
The plaintiffs thus prepared for trial for approximately three years with the understanding that they would be litigating every element of a negligence claim. While Wachusett ultimately conceded liability, the judge’s finding that it did so “as soon as [it] became aware of Feeley’s misconduct” is clearly erroneous. The plaintiffs deposed Feeley on June 9, 2017, and Shepard on July 27, 2017, but Wachusett did not make its first attempt to stipulate to liability for more than a year, until October 23, 2018, and even then continued to dispute causation.
Thus, the plaintiff expanded time and money proving its case, which has a cost. Because of that, the judge should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the cost to the plaintiff and the actual issue of who perpetrated the fraud on the court.
The appellate court then sent the issue back to the trial court to have an evidentiary hearing on the issues and determine what if any monetary damages the ski area should pay for its actions.
So Now What?
Never lie to the court.
Lying to the court also includes lying to the other side in a deposition or in any evidence that is produced. Your actions in a trial, in everything you do to the opposing side are also to the court.
Never lie to the opposing side in litigation, it is the same as lying to the court.
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
Word Count: 166
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
New Jersey Supreme Court holds the Rescue Doctrine only applies to rescuing people and not property unless rescuing the property saves people.
Posted: April 24, 2023 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, New Jersey, Search and Rescue (SAR) | Tags: New Jersey, New Jersey Supreme Court, Person in Peril, Rescue Doctrine, Supreme Court of New Jersey Leave a commentFamily sues after wife is injured attempting to rescue neighbor’s dog. Supreme court holds rescuing a dog does not qualify under the rescue doctrine.
State: New Jersey; Supreme Court of New Jersey
Plaintiff: Ann Samolyk and John Samolyk
Defendant: Dorothy Berthe, III, Defendant, and Ilona Destefanis and Robert Destefanis
Plaintiff Claims: Rescue Doctrine
Defendant Defenses:
Holding: For the Defendants
Year: 2022
Summary
The rescue doctrine in New Jersey can only be used to recover for injuries sustained when rescuing a person. Rescuing property, in this case a dog, does not apply.
Facts
This matter arises from injuries sustained by plaintiff Ann Samolyk while trying to rescue a dog owned by defendants Ilona and Robert DeStefanis. Ann’s[1] husband, John Samolyk, filed a civil action against defendants, as Ann’s guardian ad litem, alleging defendants were liable under the rescue doctrine by negligently allowing their dog to fall or jump into the canal that borders their property, prompting Ann to dive into the water to prevent the dog from drowning. The complaint also included a per quod claim by John seeking compensation for any loss or impairment of his spouse’s services, society, and companionship due to injuries Ann sustained as a proximate result of defendants’ negligence.
The parties are neighbors in Forked River, an unincorporated bayfront community within Lacey Township. Their homes are situated on a canal. In the evening of July 13, 2017, defendants’ dog fell or jumped into the canal that snakes around the rear area of this shore community. Ann claimed she heard someone calling for help to rescue their dog that had fallen into the canal.[2] A report filed by a Lacey police officer describes the incident as “a report of a dog swimming in the lagoon.” The report states that Ann “entered the lagoon to rescue the dog.” The dog “was removed from the lagoon,” without any apparent harm, by defendants’ son and a family friend. Regrettably, Ann was found “unconscious on a floating dock.” In response to defendants’ interrogatories, plaintiffs allege Ann sustained neurological and cognitive injuries as a result of the incident.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The basic claim of the plaintiff was
“Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that defendants “invited the rescue because the dog was in peril, . . . [and Ann] would not [have] jump[ed] in the lagoon and [nearly] drown[ed] but for the dog being in there and people screaming about having to rescue the dog.”
The rescue doctrine allows an injured rescuer to recover damages from the person who placed another in peril or placed themselves in peril.
The rescue doctrine established in Wagner was originally limited to situations “where three persons are involved, i.e., one party by his culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his aid.” New York courts later expanded the rescue doctrine “to encompass a two-party situation where the culpable party has placed himself in a perilous position which invites rescue.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court found the claims of the plaintiff wanted to expand the rescue doctrine to the injuries received from rescuing property.
In this appeal, we are asked to expand the scope of the rescue doctrine to include those who voluntarily choose to expose themselves to significant danger in an effort to safeguard the property of another. We decline to modify the rescue doctrine to incorporate such a far-reaching departure from the fundamental principles embedded in Wagner.
Several states have expanded the rescue doctrine to cover property; however, the NJ Supreme Court declined to extend the doctrine in New Jersey. Unless the property being rescued would result in saving a human life, the rescue doctrine could not be used to recover for injuries of the rescuer.
Against this analytical backdrop, we decline to expand the rescue doctrine to include injuries sustained to protect property, except in settings in which the plaintiff has acted to shield human life.
The court then wrote an example of how the rescue doctrine could be used in a case like this.
Following that line of reasoning, plaintiffs’ cause of action would have survived a motion for summary judgment had she jumped into the canal after defendants’ dog as a simultaneous reaction to seeing a child of tender years running after the animal and quickly approaching the edge of the dock. In that hypothetical situation, Ann’s actions to protect the child from imminent danger by rescuing the dog may have been reasonable and could therefore have served as the basis for a cognizable cause of action under the rescue doctrine.
Here the sole cause of the plaintiff’s injuries came from her desire to rescue property, a dog.
By contrast, the uncontested evidence here shows that Ann’s actions were based solely on her perception of danger to the dog’s life. These nuanced distinctions are intended to acknowledge and reaffirm the public policy underpinning the rescue doctrine in our state, to wit, the protection of human life. Thus, plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed because Ann’s decision to jump into the canal to save the dog’s life does not give rise to a cognizable claim under the rescue doctrine.
So Now What?
The rescue doctrine started out, as stated above that someone who rescued someone who had been placed in peril by another could recover for their injuries from the party at fault, the party that placed the person in peril.
The doctrine has expanded from what once was an attempt to punish those who created problems and reward those who solved the problem to providing money to someone who tried to help.
The rescue doctrine does not apply to commercial guides and outfitters because they have a higher duty to keep their customers safe and as such, no matter how the person came to be in peril; it is the fault of the outfitter or guide and their responsibility to rescue them.
The rescue doctrine is interpreted differently in every state, so make sure you understand it before you attempt to recover for your injuries.
Other cases that talk about the Rescue Doctrine see:
Great analysis of the “Rescue Doctrine” in a ballooning case from South Dakota http://rec-law.us/1HCQ0Px
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Samolyk v. Berthe (N.J. 2022)
Posted: April 24, 2023 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, New Jersey, Search and Rescue (SAR), Uncategorized | Tags: New Jersey, New Jersey Supreme Court, Person in Peril, Rescue, Rescue Doctrine, Supreme Court Leave a commentAnn Samolyk and John Samolyk, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Dorothy Berthe, III, Defendant,
and Ilona Destefanis and Robert Destefanis, Defendants-Respondents.
No. A-16-21
Supreme Court of New Jersey
June 13, 2022
Argued February 1, 2022
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
William D. Wright argued the cause for appellants (The Wright Law Firm, attorneys; William D. Wright and David T. Wright, on the briefs).
John Burke argued the cause for respondents (Burke & Potenza, attorneys; John Burke, of counsel and on the brief).
FUENTES, P.J.A.D. (temporarily assigned), writing for a unanimous Court.
In this appeal, the Court considers whether to expand the common law rescue doctrine to permit plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries sustained as a proximate result of attempting to rescue defendants’ dog.
Plaintiff Ann Samolyk sustained neurological and cognitive injuries when she entered a lagoon in Forked River to rescue her neighbors’ dog, which had fallen or jumped into the water. Samolyk’s husband filed a civil action against defendants, alleging they were liable under the rescue doctrine by negligently allowing their dog to fall or jump into the water, prompting Samolyk to attempt to save the dog.
Neither the Law Division nor the Appellate Division found the doctrine applicable. The Court granted certification. 248 N.J. 518 (2021).
HELD: After reviewing the noble principles that infuse the public policy underpinning this cause of action, the Court declines to consider property, in whatever form, to be equally entitled to the unique value and protection bestowed on a human life. The Court nevertheless expands the rescue doctrine to include acts that appear to be intended to protect property but are in fact reasonable measures ultimately intended to protect a human life.
1. Under the rescue doctrine, “[t]he state that leaves an opening in a bridge is liable to the child that falls into the stream, but liable also to the parent who plunges to its aid.” Wagner v. Int’l Ry. Co., 133 N.E. 437, 437-38 (N.Y. 1921). The doctrine has also been held to provide a source of recovery to one who is injured while undertaking the rescue of another who has negligently placed himself in peril. Thus, an actor is liable for harm sustained by a rescuer where the conduct of the actor has created a danger only to himself, if at the time of such conduct he should reasonably anticipate that others might attempt to rescue him from his self-created peril, and sustain harm in doing so. The Restatement (Second) of Torts and a majority of states have extended the rescue doctrine to efforts to save property. (pp. 6-11)
2. The Court declines to expand the rescue doctrine to include injuries sustained to protect property, except in settings in which the plaintiff has acted to shield human life. Notwithstanding the strong emotional attachment people may have to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals, or the great significance some may attribute to family heirlooms, or works of art generally considered as irreplaceable parts of our cultural history, sound public policy cannot sanction expanding the rescue doctrine to imbue property with the same status and dignity uniquely conferred upon a human life. The risk protected by the rescue doctrine is calibrated only by the reasonableness of the actions taken by the rescuer because all human life is equally precious. The same calculation, considering the necessarily subjective attachments to property, would prove untenable. (p. 12)
3. The Court explains that certain preemptive acts that appear to be driven by the protection of property are, at their core, adjuncts to the protection of human life and thus may give rise to a cause of action under the rescue doctrine. By contrast, the uncontested evidence here shows that Samolyk’s actions were based solely on her perception of danger to the dog’s life. The complaint was properly dismissed because the decision to jump into the canal to save the dog’s life does not give rise to a cognizable claim under the rescue doctrine. (pp. 13-14)
AFFIRMED.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES ALBIN, PATTERSON, SOLOMON, and PIERRE-LOUIS join in JUDGE FUENTES’s opinion.
OPINION
FUENTES JUDGE (temporarily assigned).
This appeal requires this Court to determine whether to expand the common law rescue doctrine to permit plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries sustained as a proximate result of attempting to rescue defendants’ dog. After reviewing the noble principles that infuse the public policy underpinning this cause of action, we decline to consider property, in whatever form, to be equally entitled to the unique value and protection we bestow on a human life. We nevertheless expand the cognizable scope of the rescue doctrine to include acts that facially appear to be intended to protect property, but are in fact reasonable measures ultimately intended to protect a human life.
I.
This matter arises from injuries sustained by plaintiff Ann Samolyk while trying to rescue a dog owned by defendants Ilona and Robert DeStefanis. Ann’s[1] husband, John Samolyk, filed a civil action against defendants, as Ann’s guardian ad litem, alleging defendants were liable under the rescue doctrine by negligently allowing their dog to fall or jump into the canal that borders their property, prompting Ann to dive into the water to prevent the dog from drowning. The complaint also included a per quod claim by John seeking compensation for any loss or impairment of his spouse’s services, society, and companionship due to injuries Ann sustained as a proximate result of defendants’ negligence.
The parties are neighbors in Forked River, an unincorporated bayfront community within Lacey Township. Their homes are situated on a canal. In the evening of July 13, 2017, defendants’ dog fell or jumped into the canal that snakes around the rear area of this shore community. Ann claimed she heard someone calling for help to rescue their dog that had fallen into the canal.[2] A report filed by a Lacey police officer describes the incident as “a report of a dog swimming in the lagoon.” The report states that Ann “entered the lagoon to rescue the dog.” The dog “was removed from the lagoon,” without any apparent harm, by defendants’ son and a family friend. Regrettably, Ann was found “unconscious on a floating dock.” In response to defendants’ interrogatories, plaintiffs allege Ann sustained neurological and cognitive injuries as a result of the incident.
After joinder of issue and the parties’ answers to interrogatories, as well as production of relevant documentary evidence, but before the parties took depositions, the Law Division judge assigned to manage the case directed the parties to file dispositive motions addressing whether plaintiffs raised a cognizable claim under the rescue doctrine.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that defendants “invited the rescue because the dog was in peril, . . . [and Ann] would not [have] jump[ed] in the lagoon and [nearly] drown[ed] but for the dog being in there and people screaming about having to rescue the dog.” In rebuttal, defense counsel noted that no court in this State had extended the rescue doctrine to apply to the protection of property. The Law Division judge agreed with defendants’ position. The judge noted he was not empowered “to start defining what level of property is worth risking a human life.”
The Appellate Division reached the same conclusion in an unpublished opinion, noting that “no reported case from any New Jersey court has applied the rescue doctrine to support a cause of action brought by the rescuer of real or personal property against a defendant who, through his negligence, placed the property in peril.”
The Appellate Division’s thoughtful opinion recognized, however, that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 472 (Am. Law Inst. 1965) has extended the rescue doctrine to the protection of property. Plaintiffs also relied on caselaw from our sister states tracking the Restatement’s approach. Although the Appellate Division found that “[s]ome of that authority is persuasive and raises a legitimate question [as to] why the rescue doctrine should be limited to the rescue of another human being,” it nevertheless declined to expand the scope of this common law doctrine in deference to its role as an intermediate appellate court.
This Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for certification to determine whether the rescue doctrine extends to property, specifically here, a dog. 248 N.J. 518 (2021).
II.
The parties rely on the arguments they made before the Appellate Division. Plaintiffs urge this Court to rely on the Restatement, as the majority of our sister states have done, and extend the rescue doctrine to protect property. In response, defendants argue it is unclear whether a majority of states have extended the doctrine to protect property, and they emphasize that New Jersey courts have consistently applied the rescue doctrine to encourage voluntary exposure to danger only to protect human life.
III.
A.
This Court reviews the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. Woytas v. Greenwood Tree Experts, Inc., 237 N.J. 501, 511 (2019). We must “consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); R. 4:46-2(c). The issue before us concerns the development of our state’s common law, a responsibility exclusively entrusted to this Court. See DCPP v. J.R.-R., 248 N.J. 353, 373 (2021).
B.
The rescue doctrine is best described by quoting the words of Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, then Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, in Wagner v. International Railway Co.:
Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief. The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences. It recognizes them as normal. It places their effects within the range of the natural and probable. The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperiled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer. The state that leaves an opening in a bridge is liable to the child that falls into the stream, but liable also to the parent who plunges to its aid.
[133 N.E. 437, 437-38 (N.Y. 1921).]
The rescue doctrine established in Wagner was originally limited to situations “where three persons are involved, i.e., one party by his culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his aid.” See Provenzo v. Sam, 244 N.E.2d 26, 28 (N.Y. 1968). New York courts later expanded the rescue doctrine “to encompass a two-party situation where the culpable party has placed himself in a perilous position which invites rescue.” Ibid.
The rescue doctrine “has long been a part of our State’s social fabric.” Saltsman v. Corazo, 317 N.J.Super. 237, 248 (App. Div. 1998) (quoting Burns
v. Mkt. Transition Facility, 281 N.J.Super. 304, 310 (App. Div. 1995)). The doctrine has been applied “to situations where the rescuer . . . sues the rescued victim who is either completely, or partially, at fault for creating the peril that invited the rescue.” Id. at 249. The Appellate Division has consistently applied the doctrine to cases where the rescuer is injured when trying to rescue another person. See id. at 247; Blackburn v. Broad St. Baptist Church, 305 N.J.Super. 541, 544-46 (App. Div. 1997); Tornatore v. Selective Ins. Co. of
Am., 302 N.J.Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1997). The first time this Court directly considered the rescue doctrine was in Ruiz v. Mero, a case in which we affirmed the Appellate Division’s opinion, which held that the Legislature abrogated the “firefighters’ rule”[3] when it adopted N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-21. 189 N.J. 525, 527 (2007). In Ruiz, a unanimous Court upheld the right of a police officer to rely on the rescue doctrine to sue “a commercial landowner for injuries he suffered when quelling a disturbance at the owner’s bar.” Ibid. In the course of explaining the statute’s unambiguous conflict with the firefighters’ rule, Justice Long noted the rescue doctrine was “[d]eeply rooted” in our state’s common law and “provides a source of recovery to one who is injured while undertaking the rescue of another who has negligently placed himself in peril.” Id. at 528-29.
In Estate of Desir v. Vertus, we reviewed the applicability of the rescue doctrine in the context of a “tragic shooting death of an individual by a criminal fleeing from a business.” 214 N.J. 303, 308 (2013). The estate of the victim filed a civil action against the defendant based in part on the rescue doctrine. Ibid. We held the defendant did not negligently create the danger that caused the decedent to come to his aid because the
evolution of the rescue doctrine remains grounded upon essential tort concepts of duty and foreseeability. As the doctrine has been explained, an actor is liable for harm sustained by a rescuer “where the conduct of the actor has created a danger only to himself, if at the time of such conduct he should reasonably anticipate that others might attempt to rescue him from his self-created peril, and sustain harm in doing so.”
[Id at 321 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 445 cmt. d).]
Those cases illustrate that, as the guardians of our state’s common law, this Court has limited the application of the rescue doctrine to reflect the sound public policy Justice Cardozo eloquently described in Wagner.
C.
In this appeal, we are asked to expand the scope of the rescue doctrine to include those who voluntarily choose to expose themselves to significant danger in an effort to safeguard the property of another. We decline to modify the rescue doctrine to incorporate such a far-reaching departure from the fundamental principles embedded in Wagner.
We acknowledge that the Restatement (Second) of Torts extends the rescue doctrine to property and provides that
[i]t is not contributory negligence for a plaintiff to expose himself to danger in an effort to save himself or a third person, or the land or chattels of the plaintiff or a third person, from harm, unless the effort itself is an unreasonable one, or the plaintiff acts unreasonably in the course of it.
[§ 472 (emphasis added).]
See also Prosser & Keeton on Torts, § 44 (5th ed. 1984) (explaining that, “[a]lthough there has been some disagreement, the great majority of courts now apply the [rescue doctrine] to one who tries to rescue the property of another, even when under no duty to do so, and even though the property involved is that of the defendant”).
The Second Restatement, however, acknowledges that “a plaintiff may run a greater risk to his own personal safety in a reasonable effort to save the life of a third person than he could run in order to save the animate or inanimate chattels of his neighbor or even of himself.” § 472 cmt. a. Furthermore, the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm includes the extension to property, noting: “This Section is also applicable to a rescuer of imperiled property, whether that property is owned by another or by the rescuer.” § 32, cmt. b (Am. Law Inst. 2010).
A majority of our sister states that have extended the rescue doctrine to cover property have done so in accord with the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See, e.g., Estate of Newton v. McNew, 698 P.2d 835, 837 (Colo.App. 1984) (holding that the doctrine is applicable to property after finding that a “majority of states apply” the doctrine to “one who tries to rescue the property of another”); Neff v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 529 P.2d 294, 296 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974) (finding the doctrine applicable to property and noting that “[t]he majority of courts . . . have extended [the doctrine] to include situations where property is in danger of being severely damaged or destroyed”); Henjum v. Bok, 110 N.W.2d 461, 463 (Minn. 1961) (holding that the doctrine is applicable “where an attempt is being made to save human life or property”).
Other jurisdictions have declined to expand the rescue doctrine to include the protection of property. For example, the Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals held in Welch v. Hesston Corp. that, “[u]nlike a majority of other jurisdictions,” it has consistently declined to extend the rescue doctrine to include the protection of property. 540 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Mo.Ct.App. 1976). The court explained that
[t]he policy basis of the distinction in treatment of rescuers of persons and rescuers of property seems “to rest upon that high regard in which the law holds human life and limb; whereas, when mere property is involved, one may not voluntarily subject another to greater liability than that which he seeks to avert.”
[Id. at 129-30 (quoting Tayer v. York Ice Mach. Corp., 119 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Mo. 1937)).]
IV.
Against this analytical backdrop, we decline to expand the rescue doctrine to include injuries sustained to protect property, except in settings in which the plaintiff has acted to shield human life. We are convinced that any attempt to reform the application of the rescue doctrine to include the protection of property, whether animate or inanimate, realty or chattel, must emanate from our innate instinct to protect human life. Notwithstanding the strong emotional attachment people may have to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals, or the great significance some may attribute to family heirlooms, or works of art generally considered as irreplaceable parts of our cultural history, sound public policy cannot sanction expanding the rescue doctrine to imbue property with the same status and dignity uniquely conferred upon a human life.
The words uttered by Justice Cardozo describe the contours of a cause of action that tolerates a concomitant degree of harm a plaintiff is reasonably willing to risk and, if necessary, endure to protect a human life. The risk factor is calibrated only by the reasonableness of the actions taken by the rescuer because all human life is equally precious. The same calculation, considering the necessarily subjective attachments to property, would prove untenable.
We are also aware, however, that certain preemptive acts that appear to be driven by the protection of property are, at their core, adjuncts to the protection of human life and thus may give rise to a cause of action under the rescue doctrine. For example, consider a neighbor who reports a fire in a nearby house to the proper authorities, then attempts to squelch the fire based on a reasonable, good faith belief that children or other vulnerable inhabitants may be in immediate danger, or because it appears likely the fire may spread to other occupied properties. Under those circumstances, if the fire was negligently started, the neighbor may have a cognizable basis to invoke the rescue doctrine to recover damages for injuries caused by the preemptive measures taken to limit the intensity of the fire, even if it is later determined there was no actual risk to human life because the house was unoccupied.
Following that line of reasoning, plaintiffs’ cause of action would have survived a motion for summary judgment had she jumped into the canal after defendants’ dog as a simultaneous reaction to seeing a child of tender years running after the animal and quickly approaching the edge of the dock. In that hypothetical situation, Ann’s actions to protect the child from imminent danger by rescuing the dog may have been reasonable and could therefore have served as the basis for a cognizable cause of action under the rescue doctrine.
By contrast, the uncontested evidence here shows that Ann’s actions were based solely on her perception of danger to the dog’s life. These nuanced distinctions are intended to acknowledge and reaffirm the public policy underpinning the rescue doctrine in our state, to wit, the protection of human life. Thus, plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed because Ann’s decision to jump into the canal to save the dog’s life does not give rise to a cognizable claim under the rescue doctrine.
V.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES ALBIN, PATTERSON, SOLOMON, and PIERRE-LOUIS join in JUDGE FUENTES’s opinion.
———
Notes:
[1] We refer to plaintiffs by their first names because they share the same last name. We do not intend any disrespect.
[2] Although defendants dispute this part of the facts presented to the Law Division, we will accept them as accurate for the purpose of addressing the dispositive legal issue raised by the parties.
[3] The firefighters’ rule was a common law affirmative defense absolving the owner or occupier of land of liability “to a paid fireman for negligence with respect to the creation of a fire.” Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270, 273 (1960).
———
States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.
Posted: April 21, 2023 Filed under: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, MARYLAND, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Minor, Nebraska, North Dakota, Parent can sign away Minor's Right to Sue, Release, Utah, Virginia, Waiver, Wisconsin Leave a commentIf your state is not listed here, you should assume a parent cannot waive a minor’s right to sue in your state.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2017-2023 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog:
www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, minor, release, Parent Signature, NC, North Carolina, Alaska, AK, AZ, Arizona, CO, Colorado, Florida, FL, CA, California, MA, Massachusetts, Minnesota, MN, ND, North Dakota, OH, Ohio, WI, Wisconsin, Hohe, San Diego, San Diego Unified School District, Global Travel Marketing, Shea, Gonzalez, City Of Coral Gables, Sharon, City of Newton, Moore, Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, McPhail, Bismark Park District, Zivich, Mentor Soccer Club, Osborn, Cascade Mountain, Atkins, Swimwest Family Fitness Center, Minor, Minors, Right to Sue, Utah, UT, Equine, Equine Safety Act, North Carolina, New York,
Sinu v. Concordia Univ., 313 Neb. 218 (Neb. 2023)
Posted: April 17, 2023 Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Nebraska, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Sports, Uncategorized | Tags: Minor, Nebraska, Private College, Release, student athlete, Waiver Leave a comment313 Neb. 218
KONRAD SINU AND LIDIA SZURLEJ, APPELLANTS.
v.
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, APPELLEE.
No. S-21-959
Supreme Court of Nebraska
January 13, 2023
1.
Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. __:__. In reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
3. Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to amend under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1115(a) for an abuse of discretion. However, an appellate court reviews de novo any underlying legal conclusion that the proposed amendments would be futile.
4. Contracts: Words and Phrases. An exculpatory clause is a contractual provision relieving a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act.
5. Contracts: Intent. Exculpatory clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved was made clear and unequivocal in the contract, and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable party will know what he or she is contracting away.
6. Contracts: Words and Phrases. An exculpatory clause is governed by principles generally applied in construction or interpretation of other contracts.
7. Contracts: Negligence: Liability: Intent. If there is no specific reference to liability for negligence, it must otherwise clearly appear from the language used or from a determination that no other meaning could be ascribed to the contract such that the court is firmly convinced that such interpretation reflects the intention of the parties.
8. Contracts: Words and Phrases. An exculpatory clause, like a contract, is ambiguous when a word, phrase, or provision in the contract has, or is susceptible of, at least two reasonable but conflicting interpretations or meanings.
9. Contracts: Intent. A contract which is written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject to interpretation or construction; rather, the intent of the parties must be determined from the contents of the contract, and the contract must be enforced according to its terms.
10. Contracts: Public Policy. Courts should be cautious in holding contracts void on the ground that the contract is contrary to public policy; to be void as against public policy, the contract should be quite clearly repugnant to the public conscience.
11. __:__ . Whether a particular exculpatory clause in a contractual agreement violates public policy depends upon the facts and circumstances of the agreement and the parties involved.
12. Contracts. An essential fact in determining unconscionability is the disparity in respective bargaining positions of parties to a contract.
13. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.
14. Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. When a party seeks leave to amend a pleading, appellate court rules generally require that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Denial of leave to amend pleadings is appropriate only in those limited circumstances in which undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment, or unfair prejudice to the nonmoving party can be demonstrated.
15. Pleadings: Pretrial Procedure: Summary Judgment. When a motion for leave to amend a pleading is filed after a motion for summary judgment but before discovery is closed, the standard for assessing the futility of the amendment turns on whether there was a sufficient opportunity for discovery.
16. __:__:__. When a motion for summary judgment has been filed and a party seeking leave to amend a pleading has had sufficient opportunity for discovery, futility is judged by whether the proposed amendment could withstand a motion for summary judgment.
17. Pleadings: Evidence: Summary Judgment. A proposed amendment to a pleading may be considered futile when the evidence in support of the proposed amendment creates no triable issue of fact and the opposing party would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
18.
Negligence: Words and Phrases. Gross negligence is great or excessive negligence, which indicates the absence of even slight care in the performance of a duty.
19. Negligence. Whether gross negligence exists must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each particular case and not from any fixed definition or rule.
20. Negligence: Summary Judgment. The issue of gross negligence is susceptible to resolution in a motion for summary judgment.
Appeal from the District Court for Seward County: James C. Stecker, Judge. Affirmed.
Jason G. Ausman and Michelle D. Epstein, of Ausman Law Firm, PC, L.L.O, for appellants.
David P. Kennison and Heidi A. Guttau, of Baird Holm, L.L.P., for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ., and Strong, District Judge.
Cassel, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Based upon a waiver of liability signed by a student and his mother, the district court granted a summary judgment rejecting their negligence claim against a university. The court also refused an attempt-made after the summary judgment motion was filed but before discovery closed-to amend the complaint. They appeal.
We find no error in granting summary judgment. Although the release did not mention negligence, its language was broad and clear and did not contravene public policy.
On the denial of leave to amend, we first settle the standard for assessing futility at that point. Because they had sufficient opportunity for discovery and we agree that their proposed amendments to add allegations of gross negligence would be futile, we find no abuse of discretion. We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
We begin with a brief background. Additional facts will be incorporated, as necessary, in the analysis section.
Concordia University is a private institution in Nebraska. It recruited Konrad Sinu (the student) to play for the university’s intercollegiate men’s soccer team. The university provided the student with soccer and academic scholarships. Before the student moved to Nebraska from his home in England, he signed an “Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release.” Because the student was 18 years old, his mother also signed the release.
Roughly 5 months after arriving at the university, the student and his soccer teammates engaged in a mandatory strength and conditioning workout at the university’s Walz Human Performance Complex (the Walz). The workout involved circuit training in which the teammates moved from one exercise station to another in small groups. One station consisted of an exercise referred to as the “face pull.” In the exercise, an elastic resistance band was secured to a squat rack post and was pulled toward the user’s face. During the course of the workout, teammates altered the band’s placement from how a university employee originally set it. When the student approached the squat rack, he observed the resistance band resting on a “I-hook” of the squat rack. As the student performed the exercise, the resistance band slid off the hook and caused injury to his eyes.
The student and his mother sued the university, setting forth a cause of action for negligence. The university asserted numerous affirmative defenses in its responsive pleading. One defense alleged that the claim was barred by the release signed by the student and his mother. Another defense alleged that the claim was barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk.
Some 4 months prior to the discovery deadline, the university moved for summary judgment. Approximately 2 months later and prior to the hearing on the university’s motion, the student and his mother moved for leave to file an amended complaint. They wished to add allegations that the university’s willful and wanton or grossly negligent actions caused the student’s injuries. Following a hearing on the motion to amend, the court denied the motion.
After the discovery deadline and days before the scheduled summary judgment hearing, the student and his mother filed a renewed motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court again denied the motion for leave, finding that any amendment would be futile.
The court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment and received a number of exhibits. It subsequently entered summary judgment in the university’s favor and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In doing so, the court rejected arguments that the release was unconscionable, that it did not release the university from liability for its own negligence, and that the release did not amount to an assumption of risk.
The student and his mother appealed, and we moved the case to our docket.[1]
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The student and his mother allege that the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment in the university’s favor when genuine disputes remain as to material facts and the ultimate inferences that a jury may draw from those facts and (2) denying their motion for leave to file an amended complaint when the proposed amended complaint stated a claim for which relief could be granted.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[2]
In reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.[3]
An appellate court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to amend under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1115(a) for an abuse of discretion. However, an appellate court reviews de novo any underlying legal conclusion that the proposed amendments would be futile.[4]
V. ANALYSIS
1. Summary Judgment
This case is before us following the district court’s entry of summary judgment in the university’s favor. To establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the university relied on the release signed by the student and his mother. For summary judgment to be appropriate, the release must be valid and enforceable. The student and his mother argue that it was not. Before considering their challenges, we set forth the language of the release and discuss exculpatory and indemnity clauses.
(a) Additional Facts
The entire release appeared on one side of a single page. The title, “Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release,” was displayed in large, boldface type. It then stated:
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY.
If you have any questions or concerns, please visit with an attorney before signing this document. This release must be signed before participation in activities at [the university] is allowed.
I acknowledge that my participation in certain activities including, but not limited to, intercollegiate athletics intramural sports, use of [the Walz], P.E. Center, [university stadium field/track, adjacent [u]niversity athletic fields and the City of Seward’s Plum Creek Park may be hazardous, that my presence and participation are solely at my own risk, and that I assume full responsibility for any resulting injuries, damages, or death.
In consideration of being allowed to participate in such activities and/or being provided access and the opportunity to use the Walz and other [u]niversity facilities and equipment, and in full recognition and appreciation of the danger and risks inherent in such physical activity, I do hereby waive, release and forever discharge the [university, its officers, directors, agents, employees and representatives, from and against any and all claims, demands, injuries, actions or causes of action, for costs, expenses or damages to personal property, or personal injury, or death, which may result from my presence at or participation in any such [u]niversity activities.
I further agree to indemnify and hold the [university, its officers, directors, agents, employees and representatives harmless from any loss, liability, damage or costs including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of my presence at or participation in any such activities. I also understand that this [release] binds me, my personal representatives, estate, heirs, next of kin and assigns.
I have read the [release] and fully understand it and agree to be legally bound by it. Beneath a line for the student’s signature, the release contained the following section, with boldface type as it appeared on the document:
If 18 years of age or younger, signature of parent/ guardian is also required.
I, as the parent or guardian of the above-named minor, have read the [release], fully understand it, and hereby voluntarily agree and execute the [release] on behalf of myself as well as the above-named minor and agree that the minor and I are legally bound by it.
Below this section appeared a line for the parent’s or guardian’s signature.
(b) Discussion
(i) Exculpatory and Indemnity Clauses
The release is a type of exculpatory clause. An exculpatory clause is “[a] contractual provision relieving a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act.”[5] Such clauses purport to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from the very person or entity which negligently caused the injury.[6]
The release also contained an indemnity clause, but that clause has not been a focal point of the litigation. We do not express any opinion regarding the validity of the indemnity clause contained in the release. However, we briefly discuss indemnity clauses in general in order to distinguish them from exculpatory clauses.
An indemnity clause is “[a] contractual provision in which one party agrees to answer for any specified or unspecified liability or harm that the other party might incur.”[7] Although an indemnity clause may ultimately have the same effect as an exculpatory clause, they differ. “An exculpatory clause purports to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from the person negligently causing the injury, while an indemnification clause attempts to shift the responsibility for the payment of damages to someone other than the negligent party . . . .”[8] In some situations, the indemnity clause shifts such responsibility back to the injured party, thereby yielding the same result as an exculpatory clause.[9]But “an indemnity provision generally does not apply to claims between the parties to an agreement. . . . ‘Rather, [the provision] obligates the indemnitor to protect the indemnitee against claims brought by persons not a party to the provision.'”[10]
Both exculpatory and indemnity clauses must make clear the effect of the agreement. And such a clause is strictly construed against the party claiming its benefit.[11] “Exculpatory clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved was made clear and unequivocal in the contract, and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable party will know what he [or she] is contracting away”[12] Similarly, “[a]n agreement which purports to indemnify the party who prepared it from liability for that party’s own negligence . . . must be clear, explicit and comprehensible in each of its essential details [and] must clearly notify the prospective releasor or indemnitor of the effect of signing the agreement.”[13] With this understanding in place, we turn to the student and his mother’s attacks on the release.
(ii) Clear Language
The student and his mother argue that the release did not contain express or clear and unequivocal language that the parties intended to release the university from its own negligence. They are correct that the release does not use words such as “negligence” or “fault.” But that does not end the inquiry.
An exculpatory clause is governed by principles generally applied in construction or interpretation of other contracts.[14] The provision must be looked at as a whole and given a reasonable construction.[15] If there is no specific reference to liability for negligence, it must otherwise clearly appear from the language used or from a determination that no other meaning could be ascribed to the contract such that the court is firmly convinced that such interpretation reflects the intention of the parties.[16] Here, the intended effect was clear.
Start with the language of the release. In large, boldface type at the top of the page appears the title, “Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release.” The document then states that “[i]n consideration of . . . being provided access and the opportunity to use the Walz” and in recognition of the “risks inherent in such physical activity, I do hereby . . . release . . . the [u\niversity . . . from and against any and all claims, demands, injuries, actions or causes of action, for . . . personal injury . . . which may result from my presence at or participation in any such [u]niversity activities.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Although the document does not mention negligence, it is apparent that releasing the university from its own negligence was the document’s intended consequence. As is evident from the definition of an exculpatory clause set forth above, relieving a party from its own negligence is the very purpose of an exculpatory clause. The language of the release clearly demonstrates an intent to eliminate the university’s liability, particularly when protecting the university from negligence claims is the only reasonable construction.[17]
In some cases dealing with indemnity clauses, we have found broad language to not be clear or unequivocal. In one case, we determined that a reference to ‘”any and all claims for damage and liability for injury to or death of persons'” was not sufficient to impose liability for an indemnitee’s negligence.[18]In another case, we stated that language that an indemnitor would protect an indemnitee against ‘”all risks and from any claims that may arise out of or pertain to the performance of such work,'” did not constitute express language covering the indemnitee’s own negligence nor did it constitute clear and unequivocal language that it was the parties’ intention to cover the indemnitee’s own negligence.[19]
But we are not addressing an indemnity clause here. As set forth above, an exculpatory clause such as a release is not synonymous with an indemnity clause. Because indemnity clauses shift liability and may involve third parties, it is important to specify whose negligence is being covered. But here, an obvious purpose of the release was to exempt the university from its own negligence.
(Hi) Ambiguity
For the same reason expressed above, we reject the student and his mother’s claim that the release did not unambiguously notify them that they were releasing the university from its own negligence. While the release’s language may not have explicitly used the word “negligence” or referenced the university’s conduct, it was not ambiguous.
An exculpatory clause, like a contract, is ambiguous when a word, phrase, or provision in the contract has, or is susceptible of, at least two reasonable but conflicting interpretations or meanings.[20] A contract which is written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject to interpretation or construction; rather, the intent of the parties must be determined from the contents of the contract, and the contract must be enforced according to its terms.[21]
The release placed no liability on the university for any injury suffered by the student. The language plainly stated that the student released the university “from and against any and all claims, demands, injuries, actions or causes of actions, for costs, expenses or damages to personal property, or personal injury, or death, which may result from my presence at or participation in any such [u]niversity activities.” This language covers “any” claim for ordinary negligence, which includes any claim caused by the university’s ordinary negligence. We see no ambiguity.
(iv) Unconscionable and Against Public Policy
Even if clear and unambiguous, an exculpatory clause will be unenforceable if it is unconscionable or void as against public policy. The student and his mother advance several reasons why they believe the release was unconscionable and void as against public policy. Those reasons lack merit.
To begin, courts are disinclined to find a contractual agreement void as against public policy. Courts should be cautious in holding contracts void on the ground that the contract is contrary to public policy; to be void as against public policy, the contract should be quite clearly repugnant to the public conscience.[22] Stated differently, the power of courts to invalidate contracts for being in contravention of public policy is a very delicate and undefined power which should be exercised only in cases free from doubt.[23]
Whether a particular exculpatory clause in a contractual agreement violates public policy depends upon the facts and circumstances of the agreement and the parties involved.[24]Public policy prevents a party from limiting its damages for gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.[25] It is important to note at this juncture that the student and his mother’s claim is limited to ordinary negligence. We need not address the release’s enforceability if the student and his mother had alleged gross negligence.
We have stated that an essential fact in determining unconscionability is the disparity in respective bargaining positions of parties to a contract.[26] Other jurisdictions have adopted a two-prong test for determining whether exculpatory clauses are invalid as contrary to public policy: (1) whether there was a disparity of bargaining power between the parties and (2) the types of services being offered or provided.[27]
There was no disparity in bargaining power. The student emphasizes that he was an 18-year-old minor living on a different continent and believed he had to sign the release in order to attend the university. He highlights that the second sentence of the release stated it “must be signed before participation in activities at [the university] is allowed.” But the first sentence of the release informed the student to speak with an attorney before signing the document if he had any concerns. The student had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract. And because the student was a minor, his mother also had to agree to the terms and sign the release. The fact that the student was given the release to sign a month prior to moving to Nebraska militates against his compulsion argument. He could have gone elsewhere to play soccer and attend college.
Further, the services offered by the university were not a public or essential service. The university is a private school, and the release related to a recreational activity. “Exculpatory agreements in the recreational sports context do not implicate the public interest and therefore are not void as against public policy. Indeed, plaintiff’s ordinary negligence claims may generally be barred where she or he voluntarily executes exculpatory contract in order to participate in recreational or nonessential activities.”[28] We conclude the release was not void as against public policy.
Because the release was valid, it barred the student and his mother’s negligence claim against the university. We conclude the district court properly entered summary judgment in the university’s favor.
(c) Assumption of Risk
The student and his mother additionally argue that the student did not assume the risk of the danger he confronted. But because the release barred the student’s claim, we need not also address whether the student assumed the risk of his injury. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.[29]
2. Leave to Amend
The student and his mother twice sought leave to amend their complaint to include allegations of gross negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. The court denied both requests. In considering whether the court abused its discretion in doing so, we set forth the relevant procedural timeline and determine the standard of review applicable under the circumstances.
(a) Additional Facts
The following timeline provides helpful context in considering the timing of the motions for leave to amend:
• 06/26/2019: complaint filed
• 08/14/2019: answer filed
• 11/02/2020: discovery deadline extended to 06/04/2021
• 11/02/2020: depositions of three university employees taken
• 11/19/2020: depositions of the student and his mother taken
• 12/02/2020: deposition of university employee taken
• 01/28/2021: motion for summary judgment filed
• 03/25/2021: motion for leave to file amended complaint
• 04/05/2021: court denied motion for leave
-allowed 45 days for disclosure of expert witness
-extended discovery deadline to 08/01/2021
-continued summary judgment hearing to 08/16/2021
• 05/19/2021: student’s expert witness disclosed
• 08/11/2021: renewed motion for leave to file amended complaint
(b) Discussion
When a party seeks leave to amend a pleading, appellate court rules generally require that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Denial of leave to amend pleadings is appropriate only in those limited circumstances in which undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment, or unfair prejudice to the nonmoving party can be demonstrated.[30] As the timeline demonstrates, the student and his mother first sought leave to amend after the university filed its motion for summary judgment but before discovery closed. They filed a renewed request for leave to amend after the discovery deadline.
Our case law has discussed the situation where leave is sought before discovery is complete and before a motion for summary judgment is filed. If leave to amend is sought before discovery is complete and before a motion for summary judgment has been filed, the question of whether such amendment would be futile is judged by reference to Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6).[31] Leave to amend in such circumstances should be denied as futile only if the proposed amendment cannot withstand a motion to dismiss under § 6-1112(b)(6).[32]
Our case law has also addressed the situation where leave is sought after discovery is closed and after a motion for summary judgment has been filed. After discovery is closed and a motion for summary judgment has been filed, the appropriate standard for assessing whether a motion to amend should be determined futile is that the proposed amendment must be not only theoretically viable but also solidly grounded in the record and supported by substantial evidence sufficient to give rise to a triable issue of fact.[33]
Our case law has not directly addressed the situation here. The student and his mother sought leave to amend the complaint before the close of discovery but after the university filed a motion for summary judgment.
A commentator has proposed a standard to evaluate futility in such a situation. The commentator suggests that the standard used “should depend on whether the plaintiff can establish that it needs to engage [i]n discovery on the new matter alleged in the amendment.”[34] The commentator explains:
A plaintiff who seeks leave to amend but who lacks sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment directed at the new matter should file an affidavit explaining why it needs additional discovery to develop a sufficient evidentiary basis for the new matter. If [the] court finds the explanation sufficient, then the court should evaluate the futility of the amendment by applying the standard for [a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. If the court finds the explanation insufficient, then the court should apply the standard for summary judgment.[35]
We agree with the commentator’s view. When a motion for leave to amend a pleading is filed after a motion for summary judgment but before discovery is closed, the standard for assessing the futility of the amendment turns on whether there was a sufficient opportunity for discovery. Here, there was.
The student and his mother had engaged in substantial discovery to develop their case. At the time of their initial motion for leave, they had taken the depositions of six individuals. They had requested additional time to disclose expert opinions regarding the university’s alleged negligence and had disclosed their expert witness prior to renewing their motion for leave.
When a motion for summary judgment has been filed and a party seeking leave to amend a pleading has had sufficient opportunity for discovery, futility is judged by whether the proposed amendment could withstand a motion for summary judgment. In determining whether the proposed amendment was futile, the standard is whether the proposed amendment is both theoretically viable and solidly grounded in the record and supported by substantial evidence sufficient to give rise to a triable issue of fact.[36] Stated differently, the proposed amendment may be considered futile “when the evidence in support of the proposed amendment creates no triable issue of fact and the opposing party would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[37]
With the appropriate standard in place, we review the district court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. Addressing the renewed motion for leave, the court stated that the facts would not support a finding of gross negligence and that any amendment would be futile. We agree.
The student and his mother wished to amend the complaint to allege the university’s “negligence, recklessness, willful and wanton, and/or grossly negligent actions” caused the student’s injury and damages. Gross negligence is great or excessive negligence, which indicates the absence of even slight care in the performance of a duty.[38] Whether gross negligence exists must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each particular case and not from any fixed definition or rule.[39] The issue of gross negligence is susceptible to resolution in a motion for summary judgment.[40]
The allegations in the proposed amended complaint do not rise to the level of gross negligence. The proposed complaint would allege, among other things, that the university was negligent in allowing the student athletes to pull the resistance band toward their faces and in failing to inform the student that other student athletes could modify the placement of the bands during the workout. At best, these allegations would implicate ordinary negligence. Because the proposed amendments would have been futile, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motions for leave to file an amended complaint.
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the district court properly entered summary judgment in the university’s favor, because the release signed by the student and his mother was valid and enforceable and relieved the university of liability for its ordinary negligence. And because the proposed amendments to the complaint would have been futile, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the student and his mother’s motions for leave to amend. We affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.
Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.
19
———
Notes:
[1] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
[2]
Kozal v. Snyder, 312 Neb. 208, 978 N.W.2d 174 (2022).
[4]
Williams v. State, 310 Neb. 588, 967 N.W.2d 677 (2021).
[5] Black’s Law Dictionary 712 (11th ed. 2019).
[6] See 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 41 (2022).
[7] Black’s Law Dictionary 919 (11th ed. 2019).
[8] 57A Am. Jur. 2d, supra note 6, § 43 at 86.
[10]
Ganske v. Spence, 129 S.W.3d 701, 708 (Tex. App. 2004).
[11]See, Annot, 175 A.L.R. 8, § 8 (1948); 57AAm. Jur. 2d, supra note 6; 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 448 (2020). See, also, Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522, 973 N.W.2d 666 (2022).
[12] 57A Am. Jur. 2d, supra note 6, § 46 at 91.
[14] See Oddo v. Speedway Scaffold Co., 233 Neb. 1, 443 N.W.2d 596 (1989).
[15] See Kuhn v. Wells Fargo Bank of Neb., 278 Neb. 428, 771 N.W.2d 103 (2009).
[16]
Dion v. City of Omaha, supra note 11.
[17] See 57A Am. Jur. 2d, supra note 6, § 49.
[18]
Dion v. City of Omaha, supra note 11, 311 Neb. at 556, 973 N.W.2d at 690.
[19]
Anderson v. Nashua Corp., 251 Neb. 833, 840, 560 N.W.2d 446, 450 (1997).
[20]See Community First Bank v. First Central Bank McCook, 310 Neb. 839. 969 N.W.2d 661 (2022).
[21]New Light Co. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 247 Neb. 57, 525 N.W.2d 25 (1994).
[22]SFI Ltd. Partnership 8 v. Carroll, 288 Neb. 698, 851 N.W.2d 82 (2014).
[23]Myers v. Nebraska Invest. Council, 272 Neb. 669, 724 N.W.2d 776 (2006).
[24]New Light Co. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., supra note 21.
[26]Myers v. Nebraska Invest. Council, supra note 23.
[27]Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920 (Minn. 1982).
[28] 57A Am. Jur. 2d, supra note 6, § 62 at 112.
[29]
Schreiber Bros. Hog Co. v. Schreiber, 312 Neb. 707, 980 N.W.2d 890 (2022).
[30]
McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141, 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021).
[31]
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (2017).
[34] John P. Lenich, Nebraska Civil Procedure § 15:4 at 723 (2022).
[36] See Estermann v. Bose, supra note 31.
[37]
Bailey v. First Nat. Bank of Chadron, 16 Neb.App. 153, 169, 741 N.W.2d 184, 197 (2007).
[38]
Palmer v. Lakeside Wellness Ctr., 281 Neb. 780, 798 N.W.2d 845 (2011).
———
Idaho Businesses are Stingy: at least with the new Outfitter bill
Posted: February 20, 2023 Filed under: Activity / Sport / Recreation, Idaho | Tags: Bill, Guide, Idaho, Inhernet Risk, Legislature, Outfitter, Outfitter and Guide, statute Leave a commentState: Idaho
There is a new law that is trying to get passed in Idaho. The law wants outfitters to be able to use a release. Idaho law currently allows a release to be used to block a lawsuit. See
Plaintiff raised argument in work/team building situation that they were forced to sign release. release. The state is not a stalwart of release law but the few cases, I’ve read support the release.
The bill wants to make the use of a release ONLY for outfitters and guides a law, not just judicial decision. Here is the statute as of 3/16/21.
6-1206. LIABILITY OF OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES. (1) No outfitter or guide licensed under the provisions of chapter 21, title 36, Idaho Code, and acting in the course of his employment shall be liable to a participant for damages or injuries to such participant unless such damage or injury was directly or proximately caused by failure of the outfitter or guide to comply with the duties placed on him by the negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct of the outfitter or guide.
An outfitter or guide has no duty to eliminate, alter, control, or lessen the risks inherent with recreational activities provided by outfitters and guides. A participant who takes part in a recreational activity provided by outfitters and guides assumes all risks inherent in that activity.
Any person may, by express written consent, prospectively waive negligence claims against licensed outfitters and guides. It is the policy of this state that such written liability waivers are enforceable to the same degree as similar waivers for other activities.
Click on the Link Above and Click On Bill Text to see the latest version. Be careful it is written in legislative legalese, which I have cleaned up above.
I’m not sure what prompted this bill. However, there are several issues with it.
You cannot sue for the inherent risks of an activity. The issue in a case like this is was the risk that caused the injury inherent or man-made. This bill does nothing to clarify what an inherent risk is so that is not going to change anything. Plaintiffs are still going to sue; they are just going to argue the outfitter changed the risk or created the risk, and it was not inherent.
If you want to protect yourself from that “what is inherent” lawsuit you need to define them in the statute. There seems to be a reluctance to do this because even the Idaho Ski Safety Act does not define the inherent risks. See Idaho Ski Safety Act.
Most other ski safety acts do. See the Colorado Ski Safety Act which identifies inherent risks in 33-44-103. Definitions. (3.5)
(3.5) “Inherent dangers and risks of skiing” means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities. The term “inherent dangers and risks of skiing” does not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth in section 33-44-104 (2). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.
Avalanches were added to that list by the Colorado Supreme Court in Colorado Supreme Court rules that an inbounds Avalanche is an inherent risk assumed by skiers based upon the Colorado Skier Safety Act.
As such, a skier and skier’s attorney quickly know if they have a case or not. Versus in Idaho where you have to sue to have the judge decided if the risk that caused your injury on the slopes or by an outfitter were inherent. That costs money.
Part of the act outlines how a plaintiff can sue the outfitter or guide. By the “negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct” of the outfitter or guide. Never tell the opposition how to sue you. Besides in this case they already know. That part of the act does not change anything. That is the law in Idaho and every other state.
Consequently, the bill is pretty weak or better has no real value.
On top of that the bill is very narrow. Outfitters and Guides licensed by the state are not the only groups that can be sued because of the risks of an activity. I would think they would gather more support if the included other groups such as:
Youth Groups Youth Camps Sports Activities Coaches Volunteer Youth Leaders
Recreational Activities such as Indoor Climbing Walls, Trampoline parks, etc.
Little League and Youth Football programs alone would bring a lot of additional support.
To get a bill to pass, in most state legislatures, you have to give the legislators a reason not to vote against the bill. Having the outfitters and guides contacting their legislators is probably a small group of legislators since the areas the outfitters and guides are based is pretty sparse.
Having little league coaches in Boise, Moscow and other suburban areas would add a lot of voices in support.
Good luck on passing the bill; however, I think a lot of time; money and energy will be invested with little or no return.
For more about “inherent risks” see:
2015 SLRA – Inherent Risk: Should the Phrase be in your Release?
@RecreationLaw #RecLaw #RecreationLaw #OutdoorRecreationLaw #OutdoorLaw #OutdoorIndustry
Who am I
Jim Moss
I’m an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the Outdoor Recreation Industry
I represent Manufactures, Outfitters, Guides, Reps, College & University’s, Camps, Youth Programs, Adventure Programs and Businesses
What do you think? Leave a comment below.
Copyright 2020 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
If you are interested in having me, write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw, Outdoor Recreation Insurance Risk Management and Law, Jim Moss, James H. Moss, James Moss,
https://twitter.com/recreationlaw
https://www.facebook.com/RecreationLaw/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2442096/
Copyright Summit Magic, LLC 2000-2023 summit.magic@gmail.com
Release signed previously for different event by same defendant used to defeat claim at new event in Georgia
Posted: November 14, 2022 Filed under: Georgia, Indoor Recreation Center, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Floor Mats, Floor Padding, Georgia, Georgia All Stars, Georgia Recreational Use Statute, Gym, Mats, Recreational Use Statute, Release, Tumbling Leave a commentGeorgia Recreational Use Statute also stops claims for slip and fall by spectator at event.
Shields v. RDM, LLC, 355 Ga. App. 409, 844 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. App. 2020)
State: Georgia: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Plaintiff: Kimberly and James Shields
Defendant: RDM, LLC d/b/a Georgia All Stars
Plaintiff Claims: negligence and loss of consortium, and seeking attorney fees, litigation costs, and damages
Defendant Defenses: Release and Recreational Use Statute
Holding: For the Defendant
Year: 2020
Summary
A mother watching her daughter perform in a gym tripped and fell breaking here leg stepping off mats. The gym raised the defenses of release, which the mother had signed at a previous event and the Georgia Recreational Use statute to successfully stop the claims of the mother.
Facts
…the record shows that Georgia All Stars offers tumbling instruction and provides competitive all-star cheerleading team programs in its Roswell, Georgia gym.3 On the day in question, November 19, 2015, Georgia All Stars hosted an exhibition of participants’ routines for parents to view in the practice area of the gym. And for this exhibition, the concrete gymnasium floor was covered with purple practice mats, and at least two vendors were there to promote their goods or services.
The Shieldses’ daughter was a participant in Special Twist, which is a “special needs all star cheer and dance team.” Special Twist is not part of the Georgia All Stars facility or teams, but is instead an independent 501 (3) (c) organization that, under previous ownership, had been permitted to practice in the Georgia All Stars facility with volunteer coaches and leadership. Georgia All Stars then adopted and continued the agreement, and Special Twist is charged nothing to use the facilities. Special Twist members were invited to participate in the exhibition on the night in question.
That evening, Special Twist performed an hour later than scheduled, and due to the number of people in attendance and the resulting crowd in the gym, spectators whose children had yet to perform were asked to wait outside. So, when Kimberly was eventually permitted inside the gym to watch Special Twist, she and “about a hundred [other] people” were “crammed into a corner” and stood to watch the performance.
When Special Twist finished performing, the coach took the members to watch other teams perform from the sidelines; but Kimberly and her daughter could not stay for the entire program due to another obligation they had early the next morning. As a result, Kimberly went to look for her daughter, who at the time was less than five feet tall. And as she was walking toward her daughter’s team, while attempting to look over other people and navigating through the crowd, Kimberly suddenly fell from the mats at a distance of what she described as two feet onto the concrete floor.
The area where Kimberly fell had not been marked off physically with rope, tape, or cones. And after she fell, a Georgia All Stars employee came over to assist Kimberly and called for an ambulance because she was unable to get up on her own. Then, at the hospital, Kimberly was diagnosed with four breaks between her leg and ankle that required surgery and many months of recovery.
Kimberly was familiar with the layout of the gym and the use of the purple mats because she watched her daughter perform or practice there on at least ten other occasions. But on the night in question, she noticed the mats were stacked in ways she had never seen before, and so she was not expecting the drop off where she fell. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Georgia All Stars had parents sign releases containing warnings about potential hazards in the gym, and verbal warnings were given at the evening’s exhibition.
Prior to her daughter’s participation in a daily, one-week-long camp at the Georgia All Stars gym, Kimberly signed a medical-release form on July 30, 2015.5 In doing so, Kimberly understood that the medical release applied to her and her daughter, and that the document applied to her and her daughter’s participation in events at the gym.
The mother and her husband sued the gym for negligence and loss of consortium.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court started out by reviewing the requirements for a contract to be effective under Georgia law.
The first step is to decide whether the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous. If so, the contract is enforced according to its plain terms, and the contract alone is looked to for meaning. Second, if the language of the contract is ambiguous in some respect, the rules of contract construction must be applied by the court to resolve the ambiguity. And finally, if ambiguity remains after applying the rules of construction, the issue of what the ambiguous language means and what the parties intended must be resolved by a jury.10
The court then looked at the four issues under Georgia’s law for a release to be valid.
Suffice it to say, the cardinal rule of contract construction is to “ascertain the intention of the parties, as set out in the language of the contract.” Additionally, it is the “paramount public policy of this state that courts will not lightly interfere with the freedom of parties to contract.” And a contracting party may “waive or renounce that which the law has established in his or her favor, when it does not thereby injure others or affect the public interest.” Finally, exculpatory clauses in Georgia are “valid and binding, and are not void as against public policy when a business relieves itself from its own negligence.”
In this case the court found the release was valid. The plaintiff then argued the release was only valid for the camp the defendant’s daughter had participated in where the release was signed. However, the court noted there was nothing in the release that limited its application to a specific event or a date certain.
In this case, although Kimberly argues that the medical-release form was only applicable to her daughter’s participation in a temporary camp program, nothing in the language of the release limits it to any specific program, event, or time period. Indeed, the plain language of the release states that it is applicable to “the activities that I or my child engage in while on the premises or under the auspices of GA,” “all of the risks, known and unknown, connected with GA related activities,” and “participation in GA-related activities.”
Always remember, there is no reason to limit the time frame of your release, doing so simply puts an end to your defenses when there is no t need to do so.
Find the release valid for a different time and location then the plaintiff argued the court then looked at whether the Georgia Recreational Use Act, OCGA § 51-3-20 et seq applied.
Recreational Use Statutes were created by legislatures to encourage land owners to open their land to other for recreational purposes. In general, the use must be free, or with no benefit to the land owner and for recreational purposes. Under Georgia’s law that meant:
(1) the nature of the activity that constitutes the use of the property in which people have been invited to engage, and (2) the nature of the property that people have been invited to use.” In other words, “the first asks whether the activity in which the public was invited to engage was of a kind that qualifies as recreational under the Act, and the second asks whether at the relevant time the property was of a sort that is used primarily for recreational purposes or primarily for commercial activity.”
Here, watching a child’s gymnastic routine was considered recreational by the court. There was also no fee charged by the defendant for the children to use the facility or for the parent to watch the child perform.
The plaintiffs argued that since there were vendors at the event, the defendant received a benefit for the use of the facility. The court looked at Georgia Supreme Court decisions over the type of charge and determined:
“[i]t is not the law—and we have never said that it was—that inviting people to use recreational property for recreational activities could still fail to qualify for immunity under the Act solely because the landowner had some sort of subjective profit motive in doing so.” Instead, the relevant question is whether “the landowner actually invited people onto the property (directly or indirectly) to do something ‘recreational,’ or whether people have instead been allowed onto the property to engage in commercial activity.” And in this case, the evidence shows that “both the nature of the activity and the nature of the property at the time of the [gymnastics exhibition] were purely recreational.”
Although the defendant may or may not have made some type of money from the vendors. There was no payment by the defendant to the facility to be there. There was no requirement that a purchase had to be made from a vendor or the vendors received any benefit from the exhibition. In fact, the court summed up its analysis of the facts in the case as:
To put it plainly, this case is the poster child for immunity under the RPA, and the trial court did not err in concluding that the Shieldses’ claims were barred under the statute.
The court stated both defenses would have stopped the claims of the plaintiffs. In fact, the court used an analysis I have never seen to describe the situation.
If the medical-release form is the belt of Georgia All Stars’s defense to this lawsuit, the protections afforded to property owners by the Recreational Property Act are its suspenders.
So Now What?
Too many times I see releases that have an ending date or a date when the release is no longer valid. Just the opposite needs to be made clear. That the release is valid for longer than one year. Many times, showing valid releases signed each year by the plaintiff is proof that the plaintiff knew and understood what they were signing, the risks and each release was another bar to the plaintiffs’ claims.
Do not limit the value of your release by putting a date on the release ending its effectiveness.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Georgia Recreational Use Statutes
Posted: November 14, 2022 Filed under: Georgia | Tags: Georgia Recreational Use Statutes, Recreational Use Statute Leave a commentGeorgia Recreational Use Statutes
§ 51-3-20. Purpose of article 1
51-3-22. Duty of owner of land to those using same for recreation generally 1
51-3-23. Effect of invitation or permission to use land for recreation 1
51-3-25. Certain liability not limited 2
51-3-26. Construction of article 2
§ 51-3-20. Purpose of article
The purpose of this article is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owners’ liability toward persons entering thereon for recreational purposes.” GA. Code 51-3-20 Purpose of article (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
51-3-21. Definitions
As used in this article, the term:
(1) “Charge” means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.
(2) “Land” means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.
(3) “Owner” means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, a lessee, an occupant, or a person in control of the premises.
(4) “Recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, aviation activities, nature study, water skiing, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
History:
Amended by 2014 Ga. Laws 658, §2, eff. 10/1/2014.
GA. Code 51-3-21 Definitions (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
51-3-22. Duty of owner of land to those using same for recreation generally
Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes.
GA. Code 51-3-22 Duty of owner of land to those using same for recreation generally (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
51-3-23. Effect of invitation or permission to use land for recreation
Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby:
(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;
(2) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or
(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission of such persons.
GA. Code 51-3-23 Effect of invitation or permission to use land for recreation (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
51-3-24. Applicability of Code Sections 51-3-22 and 51-3-23 to owner of land leased to state or subdivision for recreation
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, Code Sections 51-3-22 and 51-3-23 shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased to the state or any subdivision thereof for recreational purposes.
GA. Code 51-3-24 Applicability of Code Sections 51-3-22 and 51-3-23 to owner of land leased to state or subdivision for recreation (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
51-3-25. Certain liability not limited
Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
(1) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or
(2) On a date when the owner of land charges any individual who lawfully enters such land for recreational use and any individual is injured in connection with the recreational use for which the charge was made, provided that, in the case of land leased to the state or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for the lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this Code section.
History:
Amended by 2018 Ga. Laws 554, §1, eff. 7/1/2018.
GA. Code 51-3-25 Certain liability not limited (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
51-3-26. Construction of article
Nothing in this article shall be construed to:
(1) Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or property; or
(2) Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this article to exercise care in his use of the land and in his activities thereon or from the legal consequences of failure to employ such care.
GA. Code 51-3-26 Construction of article (Georgia Code (2022 Edition))
| Creation Date | 11/10/22 | File Name | Georgia Recreational Use Statutes.docx |
| Save Date | 11/10/22 | File Location | D:\1. Legal\1.2.1 Laws\Recreational Use\Georgia Recreational Use Statutes.docx |
Shields v. RDM, LLC, 355 Ga.App. 409, 844 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. App. 2020)
Posted: November 14, 2022 Filed under: Georgia, Indoor Recreation Center, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: All Stars, Floor Padding, Georgia, Georgia All Stars, Georgia Recreational Use Statute, Gym, Padding, Recreational Use Statute, Release, Slip and Fall, Tumbling Leave a commentShields v. RDM, LLC, 355 Ga.App. 409, 844 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. App. 2020)
355 Ga.App. 409
844 S.E.2d 297
SHIELDS et al.
v.
RDM, LLC .
A20A0465
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
June 5, 2020
Costyn Law, Joseph M. Costyn, Zachary B. Johnson, for appellants.
Freeman Mathis & Gary, Wayne S. Melnick, Jason A. Kamp, for appellee.
Dillard, Presiding Judge.
Kimberly and James Shields appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to RDM, LLC d/b/a Georgia All Stars on claims based on personal injuries Kimberly sustained during an event at Georgia All Stars’s facility. Specifically, the Shieldses argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Georgia All Stars and, in doing so, finding that their claims were barred by the terms of a medical release form signed by Kimberly and the Georgia Recreational Property Act (”RPA”).1 For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.
Viewed de novo in the light most favorable to the Shieldses (i.e. , the nonmoving parties),2 the record shows that Georgia All Stars offers tumbling instruction and provides competitive all-star cheerleading team programs in its Roswell, Georgia gym.3 On the day in question, November 19, 2015, Georgia All Stars hosted an exhibition of participants’ routines for parents to view in the practice area of the gym. And for this exhibition, the concrete gymnasium floor was covered with purple practice mats, and at least two vendors were there to promote their goods or services.
The Shieldses’ daughter was a participant in Special Twist, which is a “special needs all star cheer and dance team.” Special Twist is not part of the Georgia All Stars facility or teams, but is instead an independent 501 (3) (c) organization that, under previous ownership, had been permitted to practice in the Georgia All Stars facility with volunteer coaches and leadership. Georgia All Stars then adopted and continued the agreement, and Special Twist is charged nothing to use the facilities. Special Twist members were invited to participate in the exhibition on the night in question.
That evening, Special Twist performed an hour later than scheduled, and due to the number of people in attendance and the resulting crowd in the gym, spectators whose children had yet to perform were asked to wait outside. So, when Kimberly was eventually permitted inside the gym to watch Special Twist, she and “about a hundred [other] people” were “crammed into a corner” and stood to watch the performance.
When Special Twist finished performing, the coach took the members to watch other teams perform from the sidelines; but Kimberly and her daughter could not stay for the entire program due to another obligation they had early the next morning. As a result, Kimberly went to look for her daughter, who at the time was less than five feet tall. And as she was walking toward her daughter’s team, while attempting to look over other people and navigating through the crowd, Kimberly suddenly fell from the mats at a distance of what she described as two feet onto the concrete floor.
The area where Kimberly fell had not been marked off physically with rope, tape, or cones. And after she fell, a Georgia All Stars employee came over to assist Kimberly and called for an ambulance because she was unable to get up on her own. Then, at the hospital, Kimberly was diagnosed with four breaks between her leg and ankle that required surgery and many months of recovery.
Kimberly was familiar with the layout of the gym and the use of the purple mats because she watched her daughter perform or practice there on at least ten other occasions. But on the night in question, she noticed the mats were stacked in ways she had never seen before, and so she was not expecting the drop off where she fell. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Georgia All Stars had parents sign releases containing warnings about potential hazards in the gym, and verbal warnings were given at the evening’s exhibition.
The Shieldses later filed suit against Georgia All Stars on October 4, 2017, asserting claims of simple negligence and loss of consortium, and seeking attorney fees, litigation costs, and damages. Georgia All Stars answered and filed a counterclaim against the Shieldses for breach of contract based on a medical release Kimberly signed some months prior to the incident in question. Georgia All Stars later moved for summary judgment on the Shieldses’ claims, contending that (1) Kimberly contractually released it, barring her claims of negligence, and (2) the claims were also barred by the Recreational Property Act.4 As a result, Georgia All Stars likewise argued that the Shieldses’ derivative claims should be dismissed. The trial court agreed that the Shieldses’ claims were barred by the medical release and the Recreational Property Act, granting summary judgment in favor of Georgia All Stars. This appeal follows.
1. For starters, the Shieldses argue that the trial court erred by concluding their claims were barred by a medical-release form Kimberly signed months prior to the night of the exhibition. We disagree.
Prior to her daughter’s participation in a daily, one-week-long camp at the Georgia All Stars gym, Kimberly signed a medical-release form on July 30, 2015.5 In doing so, Kimberly understood that the medical release applied to her and her daughter, and that the document applied to her and her daughter’s participation in events at the gym.
The medical release provides, in relevant part:
In consideration of the services of Georgia All-Star Cheerleading, Inc., its owners, agents, officers, employees, and all other persons or entities acting in any capacity on their behalf (hereinafter collectively referred to as ”GA”), I hereby agree to release, discharge, and hold harmless GA on behalf of myself, my children, my parents, my heirs, assigns, personal representative and estates as follows:
1. I understand and acknowledge that the activities that I or my child engage in while on the premises or under the auspices of GA pose known and unknown risks which could result in injury, paralysis, death, emotional distress, or damage to me, my child, to property, or to third parties. The following describes some, but not all of those risks:
Cheerleading and gymnastics, including performances of stunts and use of trampolines, entail certain risks that simply cannot be eliminated without jeopardizing the essential qualities of the activity. Without a certain degree of risk, cheerleading students would not improve their skills and the enjoyment of the sport would be diminished. Cheerleading and gymnastics expose participants to the usual risk of cuts and bruises, and other more serious risks as well. Participants often fall, sprain or break wrists and ankles, and can suffer more serious injuries. Traveling to and from shows, meets and exhibitions, raises the possibilities of any manner of transportation accidents. In any event, if you or your child is injured, medical assistance may be required which you must pay for yourself.
2. I expressly agree and promise to accept and assume all of the risks, known and unknown, connected with GA related activities, including, but not limited to performance of stunts and the use of trampolines. …
3. I hereby voluntarily release, forever discharge, and agree to hold harmless and indemnify GA from any and all liability, claims, demands, actions or rights of action, which are related to, arise out of, or are in any way connected with my child’s participation in GA-related activities.
In considering the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Georgia All Stars, we note that summary adjudication is only proper when “there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”6 And we review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo , viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.7 Furthermore, the party opposing summary judgment is “not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.”8
Here, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Georgia All Stars was based, in part, on the medical release signed by Kimberly. The construction of this contract is, of course, “a question of law for the court”9 that involves three steps:
The first step is to decide whether the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous. If so, the contract is enforced according to its plain terms, and the contract alone is looked to for meaning. Second, if the language of the contract is ambiguous in some respect, the rules of contract construction must be applied by the court to resolve the ambiguity. And finally, if ambiguity remains after applying the rules of construction, the issue of what the ambiguous language means and what the parties intended must be resolved by a jury.10
Suffice it to say, the cardinal rule of contract construction is to “ascertain the intention of the parties, as set out in the language of the contract.”11 Additionally, it is the “paramount public policy of this state that courts will not lightly interfere with the freedom of parties to contract.”12 And a contracting party may “waive or renounce that which the law has established in his or her favor, when it does not thereby injure others or affect the public interest.”13 Finally, exculpatory clauses in Georgia are “valid and binding, and are not void as against public policy when a business relieves itself from its own negligence.”14
In this case, although Kimberly argues that the medical-release form was only applicable to her daughter’s participation in a temporary camp program, nothing in the language of the release limits it to any specific program, event, or time period. Indeed, the plain language of the release states that it is applicable to “the activities that I or my child engage in while on the premises or under the auspices of GA,” “all of the risks, known and unknown, connected with GA related activities,” and “participation in GA-related activities.” Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Georgia All Stars on the ground that the medical-release form signed by Kimberly barred the claim for negligence related to her fall inside the gym during her daughter’s participation in an exhibition.15 Likewise, the trial court also properly granted summary judgment on the derivative claims for loss of consortium and damages.16
2. If the medical-release form is the belt of Georgia All Stars’s defense to this lawsuit, the protections afforded to property owners by the Recreational Property Act are its suspenders. Indeed, the trial court correctly determined that the Shieldses’ claims are also foreclosed by the RPA,17 whose codified purpose is “to encourage both public and private landowners to make their property available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owners’ liability.”18
To that end, the RPA provides, inter alia , that
[e]xcept as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby … [a]ssume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission of such persons.19
The RPA defines “charge” to mean “the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.”20 So, in order to determine whether immunity is available to a property owner under the RPA, a court must make a determination “of the true scope and nature of the landowner’s invitation to use its property.”21 And in making this determination, the analysis is “properly informed” by “two related considerations: (1) the nature of the activity that constitutes the use of the property in which people have been invited to engage, and (2) the nature of the property that people have been invited to use.”22 In other words, “the first asks whether the activity in which the public was invited to engage was of a kind that qualifies as recreational under the Act, and the second asks whether at the relevant time the property was of a sort that is used primarily for recreational purposes or primarily for commercial activity.”23
Here, the Shieldses do not dispute that the activity in question—attending a free exhibition of cheerleading participants’ routines—was “recreational” within the meaning of the RPA. Instead, they maintain that “a material question of fact exists [as] to the purpose behind [Georgia All Stars’s] allowance of [their] daughter’s use of its facility, which relates directly to whether the operation of [the] gym constitutes a commercial or recreational venture.” This argument is a nonstarter.
There is no evidence or suggestion that Georgia All Stars charged an admission price or fee to attend the exhibition in question. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Georgia All Stars did not charge the members of Special Twist anything to use the facilities for practice at any time.24 And the presence of vendors at the exhibition does not change our conclusion. Indeed, as our Supreme Court recently explained in Mercer University v. Stofer ,25 “[i]t is not the law—and we have never said that it was—that inviting people to use recreational property for recreational activities could still fail to qualify for immunity under the Act solely because the landowner had some sort of subjective profit motive in doing so.”26 Instead, the relevant question is whether “the landowner actually invited people onto the property (directly or indirectly) to do something ‘recreational,’ or whether people have instead been allowed onto the property to engage in commercial activity.”27 And in this case, the evidence shows that “both the nature of the activity and the nature of the property at the time of the [gymnastics exhibition] were purely recreational.”28 There is no evidence that any attendees were required to make purchases from the vendors, that the exhibition was held for the benefit of the vendors, or that Georgia All Stars in any way profited from vendor sales.29 To put it plainly, this case is the poster child for immunity under the RPA, and the trial court did not err in concluding that the Shieldses’ claims were barred under the statute.
For all these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Georgia All Stars.
Judgment affirmed.
Rickman and Brown, JJ., concur.
——–
Notes:
2
See, e.g. , Gayle v. Frank Callen Boys and Girls Club, Inc. , 322 Ga. App. 412, 412, 745 S.E.2d 695 (2013) (“A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (punctuation omitted)).
3 Georgia All Stars rents the gymnasium space and is an “owner” within the meaning of the Recreational Property Act. See OCGA § 51-3-21 (3) (defining “Owner” as the “possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, a lessee, an occupant, or a person in control of the premises”).
5 Although the deposition transcripts in the appellate record indicate that various exhibits were identified and used during the depositions, including the relevant medical-release form, no exhibits were included with these depositions. Nevertheless, Kimberly read the relevant language contained in the medical-release form into the record during her deposition testimony, and Georgia All Stars included a scanned photograph of what it purports to be the medical-release form with the same language in one of its pleadings below. And because it is undisputed that the form exists and was signed by Kimberly, we will consider the language as reflected by what is in the record before us.
6
Sadlowski v. Beacon Mgmt. Servs., Inc. , 348 Ga. App. 585, 587-88, 824 S.E.2d 42 (2019) (punctuation omitted); accord
Navy Fed. Credit Union v. McCrea , 337 Ga. App. 103, 105, 786 S.E.2d 707 (2016).
7
Sadlowski , 348 Ga. App. at 588, 824 S.E.2d 42 ; McCrea , 337 Ga. App. at 105, 786 S.E.2d 707.
8
Montgomery Cty. v. Hamilton , 337 Ga. App. 500, 502-03, 788 S.E.2d 89 (2016) (punctuation omitted); accord
Sadlowski , 348 Ga. App. at 588, 824 S.E.2d 42.
9
Bd. of Cm’rs of Crisp Cty. v. City Cm’rs of the City of Cordele , 315 Ga. App. 696, 699, 727 S.E.2d 524 (2012) ; accord
Shelnutt v. Mayor of Savannah , 349 Ga. App. 499, 505 (3), 826 S.E.2d 379 (2019).
10
Bd. of Cm’rs of Crisp Cty. , 315 Ga. App. at 699, 727 S.E.2d 524 (punctuation and footnotes omitted); accord
Y.C. Dev. Inc. v. Norton , 344 Ga. App. 69, 73 (1), 806 S.E.2d 662 (2017).
11
Stanley v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. , 344 Ga. App. 342, 344 (1), 810 S.E.2d 179 (2018) (punctuation omitted); see also
Yash Sols., LLC v. New York Glob. Consultants Corp. , 352 Ga. App. 127, 140 (2) (b), 834 S.E.2d 126 (2019) (same).
12
2010-1 SFG Venture LLC v. Lee Bank & Trust Co. , 332 Ga. App. 894, 897 (1) (a), 775 S.E.2d 243 (2015) (punctuation omitted); accord
Neighborhood Assistance Corp. v. Dixon , 265 Ga. App. 255, 256 (1), 593 S.E.2d 717 (2004) ; My Fair Lady of Ga. v. Harris , 185 Ga. App. 459, 460, 364 S.E.2d 580 (1987).
13
2010-1 SFG Venture LLC , 332 Ga. App. at 897 (1) (a), 775 S.E.2d 243 (punctuation omitted); accord
Dixon , 265 Ga. App. at 256 (1), 593 S.E.2d 717 ; Harris , 185 Ga. App. at 460, 364 S.E.2d 580.
14
2010-1 SFG Venture LLC , 332 Ga. App. at 897 (1) (a), 775 S.E.2d 243 (punctuation omitted); accord
Dixon , 265 Ga. App. at 256 (1), 593 S.E.2d 717 ; Harris , 185 Ga. App. at 460, 364 S.E.2d 580.
15
See
Lovelace v. Figure Salon, Inc. , 179 Ga. App. 51, 53 (1), 345 S.E.2d 139 (1986) (holding that trial court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for personal injury due to alleged negligence when plaintiff signed a release in which she assumed the risk of injury and the defendant disclaimed any liability, and in which the plaintiff agreed not to file suit against the defendant for any injuries she might incur). Cf.
Harris , 185 Ga. App. at 461, 364 S.E.2d 580 (“Under this factual predicate, where a cause of action is based on the alleged negligence of the club, and there being a valid contractual waiver and release for any action arising out of [the plaintiff’s] use of the facilities, which sounded in negligence, the trial court erred in denying [the defendant’s] motion for summary judgment.”).
16
See
Lovelace , 179 Ga. App. at 53 (3), 345 S.E.2d 139 (“The right of the husband to recover for loss of consortium being dependent upon the right of the wife to recover, the court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant as to the husband’s cause of action.”).
18
S. Gwinnett Athletic Ass’n Inc. v. Nash , 220 Ga. App. 116, 117 (1), 469 S.E.2d 276 (1996) ; accord
Gwinnett Cty., Ga. v. Ashby , 354 Ga.App. ––––, ––––, 842 S.E.2d 70, 73 (2020) ; see OCGA § 51-3-20 (“The purpose of this article is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owners’ liability toward persons entering thereon for recreational purposes.”).
19 OCGA § 51-3-23 (3) (emphasis supplied).
21
Mercer Univ. v. Stofer , 306 Ga. 191, 191, 830 S.E.2d 169 (2019).
22
Id. at 191, 830 S.E.2d 169.
23
Id. at 196 (2), 830 S.E.2d 169.
24
See
Nash , 220 Ga. App. at 117-18 (1), 469 S.E.2d 276 (“In the current case, the Association charges a little league registration fee, although this fee is waived as to any child in need of free service. The fee covers expenses such as uniforms for the children, umpires, lights, water and sanitation. Because the fee is needed to defray the costs of operating the league, and is not an admission price required for permission to enter onto the land, it is not a charge to the public as contemplated by the Act.”).
25 306 Ga. 191, 830 S.E.2d 169 (2019).
26
Id. at 200 (3), 830 S.E.2d 169 ; accord
Mercer Univ. v. Stofer , 354 Ga. App. 458, 461, 841 S.E.2d 224, 226 (1) (2020) (“Importantly, a landowner’s subjective profit motivations are irrelevant to the analysis.”).
27
Stofer , 306 Ga. at 196 (2), 830 S.E.2d 169.
28
Stofer , 354 Ga. App. at 461, 841 S.E.2d 224, 227-28 (1).
29
See id. at 462, 841 S.E.2d 224, 228 (1) (“To the extent that the concert series may have increased Mercer [University]’s name recognition and good will in the community, potential student interest in attending the university, or the likelihood that it would receive future grant funding, such speculative considerations and subjective motivations are not relevant to our analysis. Notably, there is no evidence that Mercer made a profit from the vendors, the sponsors, or … branded give-aways, nor is there evidence that it received a direct financial benefit from the concert series whatsoever. The fact that there might have been an indirect commercial benefit is not sufficient to create a factual question.” (citation omitted)).
Kentucky appellate court upholds the use of a release to stop claims from injuries using a zip line.
Posted: October 31, 2022 Filed under: Kentucky, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Zip Line | Tags: Exculpatory Agreement, Kentucky, Landing Platform, Mammoth Cave Adventures, Release, zip line Leave a commentPlaintiff did not make very good arguments, and court pointed that out.
Bowling v. Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2020)
State: Kentucky: Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Plaintiff: Billy D. Bowling
Defendant: Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC
Plaintiff Claims: (1) an employee of MCA negligently misrepresented that he could zip line despite being over the weight limit, (2) MCA was negligent in not lighting the course or landing area, and (3) the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies.
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the Defendant
Year: 2020
Summary
Release was sufficient to bar the claims of the plaintiff injured when arriving at the landing platform. More importantly, since the plaintiff did not argue any reasons why the release was invalid; the court really did not review the issues. Did the release the four requirements to be valid under Kentucky law, which it did? Case closed.
Facts
Facts are sparse, but then so is the legal arguments made by the plaintiff.
On June 10, 2017, Bowling went to MCA to zip line with his friends. Before engaging in the activity, Bowling signed a release of liability. Bowling injured his right ankle when approaching the landing platform.
The plaintiff then sued for negligence arguing “the zip lining course and landing ramp were unlit, which resulted in his injury.” There are also statements in the decision that there was a weight limit for people riding the zip line, but it was not a fact argued by the plaintiff.
The trial court granted the defendants motion for summary judgement, and the plaintiff appealed.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
There were only two legal issues discussed by the appellate court. The first was whether the release was valid and stopped the plaintiff’s claims. Under Kentucky law, for a release to be valid.
…a preinjury release will be upheld only if (1) it explicitly expresses an intention to exonerate by using the word “negligence;” or (2) it clearly and specifically indicates an intent to release a party from liability for a personal injury caused by that party’s own conduct; or (3) protection against negligence is the only reasonable construction of the contract language; or (4) the hazard experienced was clearly within the contemplation of the provision. “Thus, an exculpatory clause must clearly set out the negligence for which liability is to be avoided.”
However, the plaintiff failed to argue that the release did not meet the Kentucky requirements. The plaintiff raised no arguments that the release was not valid so the appellate court properly accepted the trial courts decision that it was. “Bowling fails to assert why the agreement at issue is unenforceable.”
The next issue was even a shorter discussion. The plaintiff brought up on appeal the issue that the release was void based on an estoppel argument. However, since that argument had not been raised in the lower court, it could not be argued on appeal. “It is axiomatic that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal.”
There was also a dissent to the opinion. The dissent made several arguments that the case should be sent back because the allegations in the complaint rose to the level of willful and wanton actions, which would not be covered by the release.
The dissent also made an argument that the release did not fully tell the plaintiff of the possible risks.
The release uses only the word “negligence.” The release does specifically and explicitly release MCA from liability for ordinary negligence claims. The language of the release is specific as to its purpose to exonerate MCA from ordinary negligence liability only. The release specifically warns that zip line activity is dangerous, without any detailed explanation or discussion.
We are seeing more cases with this argument. That a release needs more than just the legal clause that releases the defendant from his or her own negligence. The release also needs to explain the dangers of the activity to the possible plaintiff.
The final argument seems to be an extension of the above argument, that the release needs to point out specific risks to the signor.
Additionally, Bowling alleges there was no lighting on the landing, which is also a disputed factual issue, which would make an inherently dangerous activity even more dangerous. If true, this would clearly be an enhancement to the danger of the activity that would require, at minimum, disclosure and perhaps a warning. The release makes no reference to the lack of lighting on the landing and its enhancement of the dangerous activity.
So Now What?
Looking at a dissenting opinion does not help much in learning current law. The defendant won. However, the dissenting opinion can be important in making sure your release is up to any possible future changes to the law.
If the dissenting judge has more judges join the court that agree or the dissenting judge convinces other judges that his opinion has some important points, the dissent could be a majority opinion in the future. A win now, might not be a win in the future if your release is written to meet the needs of the law today and the possible changes in the law tomorrow.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
 |
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us |
|
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Bowling v. Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2020)
Posted: October 31, 2022 Filed under: Kentucky, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Zip Line | Tags: Exculpatory Agreement, Kentucky, Landing Platform, Mammoth Cave Adventures, Release, zip line Leave a commentBILLY D. BOWLING APPELLANT
v.
MAMMOTH CAVE ADVENTURES, LLC APPELLEE
NO. 2019-CA-000822-MR
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
APRIL 24, 2020
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOHN T. ALEXANDER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 18-CI-00357
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
GOODWINE, JUDGE: Billy D. Bowling (“Bowling”) appeals the Barren Circuit Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC (“MCA”). The circuit court found the exculpatory agreement between the parties was enforceable. On appeal, Bowling argues material facts precluded summary judgment. After careful review of the record, finding no error, we affirm.
On June 10, 2017, Bowling went to MCA to zip line with his friends. Before engaging in the activity, Bowling signed a release of liability. Bowling injured his right ankle when approaching the landing platform.
On June 8, 2018, Bowling filed suit against MCA in Barren Circuit Court alleging he was injured as a result of MCA’s negligence. He asserted the zip lining course and landing ramp were unlit, which resulted in his injury.
MCA moved for summary judgment, arguing the release of liability was an enforceable exculpatory agreement under Hargis v. Baize, 168 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. 2005). Because the agreement was enforceable, MCA was not liable for any alleged negligent conduct.
The circuit court heard MCA’s motion on February 25, 2019. On April 18, 2019, the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of MCA. The circuit court examined the release of liability, which provides:
RELEASE OF LIABILITY
In consideration of being given the opportunity to participate in the zip line activities of Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC, I, on behalf of myself, my personal representatives, assigns, heirs and next of kin, do hereby state as follows:
1. I acknowledge that participating in the zip line activity is dangerous. I understand the nature and rigors of the activity and the risk involved in participation.
2. I wish to participate in the zip line activities and as a result, I fully accept and assume all the risks and dangers involved in said activity and accept responsibility for all injuries, losses, costs and damages I incur as a result of the participation in the activity and I release and discharge and covenant not to sue the Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC, for any liability, claims, damages, demands or losses which I has [sic] been caused by or alleged to have been caused by the actions or negligence of Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC, and I will indemnify and save and hold it harmless from any litigation expenses, attorney fees, liabilities, damages or costs, it may incur as a result of any claim of mine to the fullness [sic] extent permitted by law.
3. I understand that I have released Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC, and I have signed this document freely and without any inducement or assurance of any kind.
The circuit court applied the following four factors in determining the agreement was enforceable:
Specifically, a preinjury release will be upheld only if (1) it explicitly expresses an intention to exonerate by using the word “negligence;” or (2) it clearly and specifically indicates an intent to release a party from liability for a personal injury caused by that party’s own conduct; or (3) protection against negligence is the only reasonable construction of the contract language; or (4) the hazard experienced was clearly within the contemplation of the provision. “Thus, an exculpatory clause must clearly set out the negligence for which liability is to be avoided.”
Id. at 47 (citations omitted).
Bowling subsequently filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, which the circuit court denied. This appeal followed.
“Appellate review of a summary judgment involves only legal questions and a determination of whether a disputed material issue of fact exists. So we operate under a de novo standard of review with no need to defer to the trial court’s decision.” Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc’y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Ky. 2013) (citations omitted).
On appeal, Bowling does not contest the circuit court’s determination that the release of liability was enforceable under Hargis. Instead, he argues: (1) an employee of MCA negligently misrepresented that he could zip line despite being over the weight limit, (2) MCA was negligent in not lighting the course or landing area, and (3) the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies.
First, we address Bowling’s negligence arguments. By signing the release of liability, Bowling surrendered his “right to prosecute a cause of action” against MCA. Waddle v. Galen of Kentucky, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 361, 364 (Ky. App. 2004) (citation omitted). Although exculpatory agreements “are disfavored and are strictly construed against the parties relying upon them,” Bowling fails to assert why the agreement at issue is unenforceable. Hargis, 168 S.W.3d at 47 (citations omitted). He does not contest the circuit court’s thorough analysis under Hargis and does not raise a public policy argument under Miller as Next Friend of E.M. v. House of Boom Kentucky, LLC, 575 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Ky. 2019). Instead, Bowling asks this Court to consider whether MCA acted negligently. Bowling signed an exculpatory agreement agreeing not to sue MCA for any damages caused by its alleged negligence, which the circuit court found enforceable. Bowling has no factual basis for his claim against MCA as a matter of law because he signed an enforceable exculpatory agreement. As such, because this agreement cut off Bowling’s right to sue for the injuries he sustained, his allegation that MCA acted negligently does not amount to a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment.
Furthermore, we decline to address Bowling’s equitable estoppel argument. Not only is it conclusory, he also failed to raise the argument before the circuit court. “It is axiomatic that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal.” Sunrise Children’s Services, Inc. v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, 515 S.W.3d 186, 192 (Ky. App. 2016) (citation omitted). “As this Court has stated on numerous occasions, ‘appellants will not be permitted to feed one can of worms to the trial judge and another to the appellate court.'” Elery v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 78, 97 (Ky. 2012) (quoting Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1976), overruled on other grounds by Wilburn v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 321 (Ky. 2010)). As this argument is not properly before us and Bowling does not request review for palpable error under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 61.02, we decline to address this argument.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the summary judgment of the Barren Circuit Court.
DIXON, JUDGE, CONCURS.
TAYLOR, JUDGE, DISSENTS AND FILES A SEPARATE OPINION.
TAYLOR, JUDGE, DISSENTING. Respectfully, I dissent.
I must disagree with the majority and the trial court that the release form signed by Bowling satisfies all of the factors in Hargis, 168 S.W.3d 36. The release uses only the word “negligence.” The release does specifically and explicitly release MCA from liability for ordinary negligence claims. The language of the release is specific as to its purpose to exonerate MCA from ordinary negligence liability only. The release specifically warns that zip line activity is dangerous, without any detailed explanation or discussion. However, importantly for the claims in this case, there is no language that releases MCA from conduct that would constitute gross negligence under Kentucky law.
Bowling claims that an employee of MCA told him immediately prior to getting on the zip line that there was a weight limit, although it was not disclosed to Bowling before signing the release nor was it set out in the release.
This is a relevant disputed material issue of fact in my opinion. Additionally, Bowling alleges there was no lighting on the landing, which is also a disputed factual issue, which would make an inherently dangerous activity even more dangerous. If true, this would clearly be an enhancement to the danger of the activity that would require, at minimum, disclosure and perhaps a warning. The release makes no reference to the lack of lighting on the landing and its enhancement of the dangerous activity.
A weight limit for participants (and allowing overweight participants to access the zip line) and no lighting in the landing area could be construed as willful or wanton conduct for which a party may not contract away liability through a generic release, without full disclosure in my opinion. This type of release is disfavored under Kentucky law and requires a strict construction of the agreement against MCA that precludes summary judgment in this case. See Hargis, 168 S.W.3d at 47. These material issues of fact as disputed by the parties can only be resolved by a trier of fact and are not appropriately resolved by summary judgment. If the jury determines that MCA’s conduct was grossly negligent, the release would be unenforceable as to this conduct. Of course, under comparative negligence, the jury could also consider Bowling’s conduct in contributing to his injuries.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
Michael L. Harris
Columbia, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
David E. Crittenden
Robert D. Bobrow
Louisville, Kentucky
Interesting CA case on sheriff’s failure to start SAR & run SAR
Posted: October 24, 2022 Filed under: California, Mountain Biking | Tags: Discretionary, Hypothermia, Immunity, Mountain biking, SAR, Search and Rescue, Sheriff's Department Leave a commentCounty lost appeal because employees’ actions were out of line and the deceased, at least from the facts presented could have easily been found before he died.
Arista v. Cnty. of Riverside (Cal. App. 2021)
State: California; Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two
Plaintiff: Christyna Arista
Defendant: County of Riverside
Plaintiff Claims: Wrongful death, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress
Defendant Defenses: Government Code section 8453, which provides public employees are not liable for the failure to provide sufficient police protection; section 820.2, which provides that public employees are not liable for injuries that result from acts or omissions stemming from discretionary decisions; Health and Safety Code section 1799.107, subdivision (b), which provides that emergency rescue personnel are not liable for injuries caused by actions taken within the scope of their employment, unless the actions were done in bad faith or with gross negligence
Holding: For the Plaintiff
Year: 2021
Summary
A lawsuit was filed against Riverside County Sheriff’s department for negligent Search and Rescue training and procedures. The trial court granted the Counties motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff’s appealed. The case was sent back by Appellate Court for trial. The deceased died of hypothermia and was easily found by friends of the deceased. Sheriff’s department assumed deceased was having an affair and did not search for him.
Facts
On March 1, at 3:00 p.m., when Marin [deceased] failed to return home, Wife called and texted Marin’s cell phone every 15 minutes but received no answer until 5:14 p.m. when Marin answered Wife’s call. Marin said he had fallen from his bicycle and suffered an injury. Marin seemed confused and disoriented but said that, said that, prior to the fall, he had reached Santiago Peak and was on his way home. At 5:32 p.m., Wife began calling various agencies, e.g., a ranger station, but was unable to reach anyone. At 5:36 p.m., Wife called 911 and the operator advised her to wait at home. At 6:30 p.m., Corona Police arrived at Wife’s home, and Wife explained that Marin was injured, on his way down from Santiago Peak, and lightly dressed.
At 8:00 p.m., Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Zaborowski2 arrived at the Family’s home. At that point, deputies had already checked trailheads in the CNF, traveled along access roads looking for Marin, pinged Marin’s cell phone, and contacted civilian volunteers to tell them “to be ‘on alert’ for a potential call to assist.” Wife provided Zaborowski with the same information she provided the Corona Police. Zaborowski told Wife that the ping of Marin’s phone showed he was in the area of Santiago Peak. Zaborowski also said Verizon service employees were in the area of Santiago Peak and had been asked to “be vigilant for Marin’s location.”
Lieutenant Hall (Hall) was the Sheriff’s Department’s Incident Commander for the search for Marin. Hall stayed at his home during the search. He was not trained in search and rescue. Hall did not consider the risks that Marin faced from the weather. Hall did not know Santiago Peak has an elevation of 5,689 feet. Hall was unaware that the trail Marin had planned to use has an elevation of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Hall did not know what, if any, equipment Marin had with him for cold weather.
At 10:00 p.m., Detective Holder arrived at the Family’s home. While at the residence, Holder spoke to Zaborowski. Holder said “he [(Holder)] was ‘not sure what we’re doing here,’ that Marin was ‘probably just running around on his wife’ and was ‘just covering his tracks,’ suggesting that Marin was not missing, but instead involved in some adulterous affair.” Holder informed Wife that the Sheriff’s Department was suspending its search for the night and would resume searching in the morning. Wife asked Holder, ” ‘[W]hat are the chances he [Marin] dies of hypothermia?’ ” because the temperatures at Santiago Peak were expected to be in the mid-30s to mid-40s. “Holder replied that Marin was ‘a grown man’ and that ‘he can survive the night.’ ” Holder further said “that ‘if it was a child, [he] would send a helicopter out there right now.’ ”
After being told that the search was suspended for the night, Wife organized relatives to perform their own search. Unidentified County personnel asked Wife not to initiate her own search because the County would conduct the search. Nevertheless, Wife and six relatives began searching for Marin, on foot, at 3:45 a.m. Pat Killiam who is a mountain biker and search and rescue volunteer “had heard about the ‘missing biker,’ ” and began his own search for Marin using a motorcycle on the access roads. Killiam found Marin’s body on a maintained fire access road. The precise time that Killiam found Marin is not alleged in the TAC. Marin died of hypothermia due to being exposed to cold environmental temperatures.
The County’s Sheriff’s Department has an Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement unit (ROVE) that is equipped with all-terrain vehicles that have lights. The vehicles can operate in the mud at night. ROVE was not dispatched to search for Marin. Because Marin was on a maintained fire access road, he could have been rescued by people using all-terrain vehicles.
The real basis of the claims of the plaintiff were summed up by the Appellant court in this statement.
In the Family’s wrongful death cause of action, it alleged the following: The Sheriff’s Department assumed the responsibility of searching for Marin by starting the search and telling Wife not to conduct her own search. The Family alleged that it relied upon the County to rescue Marin after the County assumed control of the search and rescue. In taking responsibility for the search, the Sheriff’s Department owed a duty to conduct the search with reasonable care.
The County should not have assigned Hall to be the incident commander for the search because Hall lacked search and rescue training. Hall acted with reckless disregard for life by managing the search from his living room. The County’s employees acted with bad faith and gross negligence by (1) failing to contact people who had knowledge of the trails and service roads in the CNF; (2) failing to deploy the ROVE team on the night of March 1; and (3) failing to consult a medical professional with knowledge of hypothermia regarding Marin’s possible injuries and the risk of hypothermia.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
After reviewing the procedural issues on appeal, the court looked at the arguments. The first was whether or not the County had immunity from suit for its rescue personnel under several California statutes.
Health and Safety Code section 1799.107, subdivision (b), provides, “[N]either a public entity nor emergency rescue personnel shall be liable for any injury caused by an action taken by the emergency rescue personnel acting within the scope of their employment to provide emergency services, unless the action taken was performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner.”
The family, the plaintiff’s, argued there could not be any immunity because the actions of the individuals were grossly negligent. The Appellate court agreed that if the actions of the county personnel were found to be grossly negligent, then the individuals were not protected by the statute.
Gross negligence if plead and proved supersedes an immunity statute in California. Unless the statute provides immunity to the entire claim, the statute does not provide immunity: “…it is an error to grant summary judgment unless the defense is “a complete defense to the entire action.”
Knowing that based on the clothing and the weather conditions, there was a good chance that the deceased would die of hypothermia, failure to start a search by the sheriff’s department employee could be considered gross negligence.
I suspect that these factors were made more apparent when the deceased was so easily found by the family members when they searched.
The next immunity statute was Section 845, which was created to give law enforcement wide range in making budgetary decisions. Meaning how many law enforcement personnel were hired and deployed to certain areas within a community could not be subject to judicial scrutiny.
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service
No budgetary decisions were made in deciding not to rescue the deceased. The lawsuit was not over whether or not enough SAR personnel were sent to the scene, the lawsuit was based on negligence in handling the entire incident.
The Family is not suing the County for budgetary or political decisions. The Family is suing due to the alleged negligence of particular County employees. The County asserts the Family’s lawsuit is partially based upon a failure to provide adequate search and rescue training to its Sheriff’s Department personnel.
The final immunity is usually the broadest and provides the most protection to state and local governments. The actions of an employee of a local, state or federal government are discretionary. As long as the decisions of the employee are not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, the decision will be upheld.
The appellate court did not rule the actions of the sheriff departments employees were not discretionary, only that the county, if relying on that defense must show that each of the decisions made by the employee was discretionary. The appellate court in this case increased the burden on the county to prove immunity in this case.
If the County seeks to have every material search decision Hall made protected under section 820.2 then it needs to provide evidence of what material decisions were made, provide evidence of the discretion exercised in making those decisions, and provide argument as to why each of those decisions is deserving of immunity under section 820.2. Without that information, it was not proper to grant summary judgment pursuant to the discretionary decision immunity (§ 820.2) because the County only addressed a portion of the Family’s allegations.
The motion for summary judgment granted for the County by the trial court was overruled, and the case was sent back for further adjudication.
So Now What?
Most states have various forms of immunity to protect state and county employees from lawsuits over the discretionary parts of their job. Governments would never accomplish anything if every time they did something a citizen did not like, the citizen sued them. Most Search and Rescue litigation is avoided or dismissed quickly because of this.
Here, the county’s overt actions in responding to the family as well as how easily the victim was eventually found, give credence to the claims of the family. Suggesting a mountain biker was not missing but having an affair may be a common issue in the minds of law enforcement, but expressing it or placing it in the paperwork is just stupid.
This decision seems to be a stretch, though based on the facts it does not seem to be out of line. What it is, is an example of doing dumb things, treating people badly or making a judge made can still make you lose no matter how strong the law is on your side.
Don’t do stupid things, treat people right, do your job and when in doubt, try to help would have prevented this lawsuit and probably this death.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us
Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.
To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here.
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law To Purchase Go Here:
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Arista v. Cnty. of Riverside (Cal. App. 2021)
Posted: October 23, 2022 Filed under: California, Legal Case, Mountain Biking | Tags: County, Discretionary, Government, Hyphermia, Mountain biking, SAR, Search and Rescue Leave a commentArista v. Cnty. of Riverside (Cal. App. 2021)
CHRISTYNA ARISTA, Individually and as Successor in Interest, etc. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendant and Respondent.
E074815
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
April 14, 2021
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIC1502475)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Daniel A. Ottolia, Judge. Reversed.
Tiedt & Hurd, John E. Tiedt and Marc S. Hurd for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Disenhouse Law, Bruce E. Disenhouse; Arias & Lockwood and Christopher D. Lockwood for Defendant and Respondent.
In a third amended complaint plaintiff and appellant Christyna Arista and her children (collectively, the Family) sued defendant and respondent County of Riverside (the County) for wrongful death, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.1 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Family contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment. We reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
The facts in this subsection are taken from the third amended complaint (TAC). Christyna Arista (Wife) was married to Andres Marin (Marin), and he is the father of her children. On March 1, 2014, at approximately 6:30 a.m., Marin left home, in Corona, for a bicycle ride to Santiago Peak in the Cleveland National Forest (the CNF). The ride would be approximately 55 miles, and Marin was expected to return home by 2:00 p.m. On March 1, the temperature in Corona was 50 to 60 degrees with periodic light drizzle. For the bicycle ride, Marin was wearing knee-length bicycle shorts, a bicycle jersey, calf-length socks, bicycle gloves, shoes, and a helmet. Marin carried $10, water, snacks, and his cell phone.
On March 1, at 3:00 p.m., when Marin failed to return home, Wife called and texted Marin’s cell phone every 15 minutes but received no answer until 5:14 p.m. when Marin answered Wife’s call. Marin said he had fallen from his bicycle and suffered an injury. Marin seemed confused and disoriented but said that, prior to the fall, he had reached Santiago Peak and was on his way home. At 5:32 p.m., Wife began calling various agencies, e.g., a ranger station, but was unable to reach anyone. At 5:36 p.m., Wife called 911 and the operator advised her to wait at home. At 6:30 p.m., Corona Police arrived at Wife’s home, and Wife explained that Marin was injured, on his way down from Santiago Peak, and lightly dressed.
At 8:00 p.m., Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Zaborowski2 arrived at the Family’s home. At that point, deputies had already checked trailheads in the CNF, traveled along access roads looking for Marin, pinged Marin’s cell phone, and contacted civilian volunteers to tell them “to be ‘on alert’ for a potential call to assist.” Wife provided Zaborowski with the same information she provided the Corona Police. Zaborowski told Wife that the ping of Marin’s phone showed he was in the area of Santiago Peak. Zaborowski also said Verizon service employees were in the area of Santiago Peak and had been asked to “be vigilant for Marin’s location.”
Lieutenant Hall (Hall) was the Sheriff’s Department’s Incident Commander for the search for Marin. Hall stayed at his home during the search. He was not trained in search and rescue. Hall did not consider the risks that Marin faced from the weather. Hall did not know Santiago Peak has an elevation of 5,689 feet. Hall was unaware that the trail Marin had planned to use has an elevation of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. Hall did not know what, if any, equipment Marin had with him for cold weather.
At 10:00 p.m., Detective Holder arrived at the Family’s home. While at the residence, Holder spoke to Zaborowski. Holder said “he [(Holder)] was ‘not sure what we’re doing here,’ that Marin was ‘probably just running around on his wife’ and was ‘just covering his tracks,’ suggesting that Marin was not missing, but instead involved in some adulterous affair.” Holder informed Wife that the Sheriff’s Department was suspending its search for the night and would resume searching in the morning. Wife asked Holder, ” ‘[W]hat are the chances he [Marin] dies of hypothermia?’ ” because the temperatures at Santiago Peak were expected to be in the mid-30s to mid-40s. “Holder replied that Marin was ‘a grown man’ and that ‘he can survive the night.’ ” Holder further said “that ‘if it was a child, [he] would send a helicopter out there right now.’ “
After being told that the search was suspended for the night, Wife organized relatives to perform their own search. Unidentified County personnel asked Wife not to initiate her own search because the County would conduct the search. Nevertheless, Wife and six relatives began searching for Marin, on foot, at 3:45 a.m. Pat Killiam who is a mountain biker and search and rescue volunteer “had heard about the ‘missing biker,’ ” and began his own search for Marin using a motorcycle on the access roads. Killiam found Marin’s body on a maintained fire access road. The precise time that Killiam found Marin is not alleged in the TAC. Marin died of hypothermia due to being exposed to cold environmental temperatures.
The County’s Sheriff’s Department has an Off-Highway Vehicle Enforcement unit (ROVE) that is equipped with all-terrain vehicles that have lights. The vehicles can operate in the mud at night. ROVE was not dispatched to search for Marin. Because Marin was on a maintained fire access road, he could have been rescued by people using all-terrain vehicles.
In the Family’s wrongful death cause of action, it alleged the following: The Sheriff’s Department assumed the responsibility of searching for Marin by starting the search and telling Wife not to conduct her own search. The Family alleged that it relied upon the County to rescue Marin after the County assumed control of the search and rescue. In taking responsibility for the search, the Sheriff’s Department owed a duty to conduct the search with reasonable care.
The County should not have assigned Hall to be the incident commander for the search because Hall lacked search and rescue training. Hall acted with reckless disregard for life by managing the search from his living room. The County’s employees acted with bad faith and gross negligence by (1) failing to contact people who had knowledge of the trails and service roads in the CNF; (2) failing to deploy the ROVE team on the night of March 1; and (3) failing to consult a medical professional with knowledge of hypothermia regarding Marin’s possible injuries and the risk of hypothermia. The Family’s causes of action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress are based on the same conduct/omissions as the wrongful death cause of action.
B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The County moved for summary judgment. In its presentation of the facts, the County asserted that, on the evening of March 1, 2014, “it was raining and there was a thick cloud cover and fog in the [CNF].” The County asserted the weather “made it too dangerous to fly” a helicopter to search for Marin. The County also asserted the weather conditions and risks of landslides made it too dangerous for rescuers to search on the ground.
The County asserted that the Family did not cite a statute to support direct liability on the part of the County, which meant the Family was relying on respondeat superior liability. The County asserted that its employees’ decision to suspend the search for the night was objectively reasonable and fell within the standard of reasonable care.
Next, the County asserted three separate immunities applied. First, the County cited Government Code section 8453, which provides public employees are not liable for the failure to provide sufficient police protection. The County asserted section 845 made it immune from the allegation that it “should have provided more or different training.”
Second, the County cited section 820.2, which provides that public employees are not liable for injuries that result from acts or omissions stemming from discretionary decisions. The County argued, “The undisputed evidence shows that a discretionary decision was made, based on all of the available evidence, and after considering the risks to [Marin], the weather and the trail conditions, the conflicting cell phone location information, and all the other information . . . , not to risk rescue personnel by a further nighttime search, but to wait until morning.”
Third, the County cited Health and Safety Code section 1799.107, subdivision (b), which provides that emergency rescue personnel are not liable for injuries caused by actions taken within the scope of their employment, unless the actions were done in bad faith or with gross negligence. The County asserted, “The undisputed evidence . . . shows no gross negligence and no bad faith in deciding to wait until morning to do additional searches of the forest. Rather, the undisputed evidence shows an objectively reasonable decision, based on all of the available evidence, not to expose searchers to the high risks of a night time [sic] search under those weather conditions when decedent’s location was only vaguely known.”
C. OPPOSITION
The Family opposed the County’s motion for summary judgment. The Family asserted there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the Sheriff’s Department’s employees’ conduct/omissions constituted an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. The Family asserted the following constituted gross negligence: failing to set up a command post in the CNF; failing to establish a search area; not having a deputy trained in search and rescue evaluate the trail and road conditions; not contacting the ROVE team in a timely manner; having Hall command the search from his living room; and failing to consult with a medical professional regarding Marin’s injuries and risk of hypothermia.
The Family asserted the immunity for failing to provide sufficient police protection (§ 845) is meant to protect budgetary and policy decisions, not negligence by a particular law enforcement officer. As to the immunity for discretionary decisions (§ 820.2), the Family asserted (1) the County was liable for the negligent way in which it handled the search prior to deciding to suspend the search for the night; and (2) immunity for discretionary decisions applies to operational and policy decisions not to decisions such as Hall’s decision to suspend the search.
In regard to immunity for rescue personnel (Health & Saf. Code, § 1799.107, subd. (b)), the Family asserted there were triable issues of fact regarding whether County personnel acted in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner. As to bad faith, the Family pointed to Holder’s comments that Marin was likely having an affair. In regard to gross negligence, the Family pointed to a declaration by Richard B. Goodman, who was the Search and Rescue Resource Officer for the New Mexico State Police from 1994 to 2002, reflecting that the Sheriff’s Department’s actions were “an extreme departure from what a reasonable . . . law enforcement [officer] assuming search and rescue activities would do in the same or similar circumstances.”
D. HEARING
The trial court found there were triable issues of fact regarding “whether the County breached the duty to rescue that it undertook.” The court determined that the County was immune from liability because Hall exercised discretion when deciding to suspend the search for the night (§ 820.2). The trial court said it was familiar with the trails leading up to Santiago Peak, and that “deputies have an incredibly difficult job. They have to consider so many factors.” The trial court said to the Family’s counsel, “I’d invite you to go on a ride-along, if you never have, just to find out what a deputy’s job is like.” The trial court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the submitted papers show that ‘there is no triable issue as to any material fact,’ and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] A defendant meets his burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if he shows that one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense. [Citation.] Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists.” (Claudio v. Regents of the University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 229.)
“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the reviewing court makes ‘ “an independent assessment of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, applying the same legal standard as the trial court in determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact or whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citations.]” ‘ [Citation.] [¶] ‘On review of a summary judgment, the appellant has the burden of showing error, even if he did not bear the burden in the trial court.’ ” (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 454-455.)
In the trial court, the County made 55 objections to the Family’s evidence. At the hearing, the trial court said, “The Court is overruling all evidentiary objections by both plaintiffs and defendants in this matter.” In its respondent’s brief, the County contends the trial court erred by overruling its objections to the declarations of Richard B. Goodman, who was the Search and Rescue Resource Officer for the New Mexico State Police from 1994 to 2002, and to Ken Zafren, M.D., who is an emergency physician with expertise in hypothermia.
Our understanding of the County’s argument is as follows: If the Family is correct that the trial court erred in its analysis of the summary judgment motion, then those errors are harmless. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 906 [respondents can argue error within a prejudice analysis].) The errors are harmless because if the trial court had sustained the County’s objections to Goodman’s and Zafren’s declarations then it is probable summary judgment would have been granted because there would not be a triable issue of material fact. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 475 [“a different result would have been probable if such error . . . had not occurred”].) The County’s argument is not persuasive because we do not need to consider the Family’s evidence due to the County failing to meet its burden to show the causes of action have no merit.
In a motion for summary judgment, the moving party, in this case the County, bears the burden of demonstrating the causes of action lack merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) In the County’s motion for summary judgment, it asserted the Family’s causes of action had no merit because the County’s employees’ decision to suspend the search was objectively reasonable. The County’s argument fails to specifically address the other allegations in the Family’s TAC, such as Hall’s alleged negligence in conducting the search from his living room. In the TAC, within the wrongful death cause of action, the Family alleged, “It is a reckless disregard for life for Lt. Hall to manage a wilderness search from a home living room.” Other allegations in the Family’s TAC were that the County acted with gross negligence by (1) not involving personnel who knew the CNF, (2) not deploying the ROVE team on the night of March 1, and (3) not consulting a medical professional regarding hypothermia and Marin’s possible injuries.
The County focused only on the decision to suspend the search for the night, but the Family is also suing due to the manner in which the search was conducted prior to the search being suspended. In the motion for summary judgment, the County failed to address all of the Family’s allegations of gross negligence. Thus, the County did not meet its burden of demonstrating the causes of action lack merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2) [defendant bears the burden of establishing the “cause of action has no merit”].)
Because the County did not meet its burden to establish that the causes of action lack merit, the burden did not shift to the Family to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Therefore, any error related to rulings on the County’s evidentiary objections is irrelevant in that the Family’s evidence need not be considered. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the County’s assertion that any error alleged by the Family can be found harmless.
Next, on appeal, the County renews its objections to Goodman’s and Zafren’s declarations. (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 534 [renewed objections on appeal when the trial court failed to rule on the objections]; Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1089 [same].) The County asserts that the Family relies almost exclusively on Goodman’s and Zafren’s declarations in the Family’s appellants’ opening brief, so if the declarations are inadmissible then the Family’s appellate argument fails. It is unnecessary to rule upon the County’s renewed objections because Goodman’s and Zafren’s declarations are not relevant to resolving the alleged errors relating to the immunity defenses. Accordingly, we will not rule upon the County’s renewed objections.
C. IMMUNITY FOR RESCUE PERSONNEL
The Family contends the immunity for rescue personnel (Health & Saf. Code, § 1799.107, subd. (b)) does not support a grant of summary judgment.
Health and Safety Code section 1799.107, subdivision (b), provides, “[N]either a public entity nor emergency rescue personnel shall be liable for any injury caused by an action taken by the emergency rescue personnel acting within the scope of their employment to provide emergency services, unless the action taken was performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner.”
In the wrongful death cause of action, the Family alleged, “Further, the [County] knew that the injured Marin was going to be left in predicted cold temperatures that could expose him to hypothermic conditions and jeopardize his life, but through gross negligence, the [County] let Marin die on [its] watch.” As explained ante, the County did not establish that the Family’s cause of action lacks merit. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, there is merit to the Family’s gross negligence allegations.
If we assume, without deciding, that Health and Safety Code section 1799.107, subdivision (b), applies in this case, it would not support a grant of summary judgment because, at this stage, it does not provide a complete defense given the gross negligence allegations. (See Mallard Creek Industries v. Morgan (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 426, 438 [it is error to grant summary judgment unless the defense is “a complete defense to the entire action”].) Accordingly, summary judgment could not be granted on the basis of the immunity afforded rescue personnel (Health & Saf. Code, § 1799.107, subd. (b)).
D. IMMUNITY FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT POLICE PROTECTION
The Family contends the immunity for failing to provide sufficient police protection does not apply in this case.
Section 845 provides, in relevant part, “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.” Section 845 “was designed to prevent political decisions of policy-making officials of government from being second-guessed by judges and juries in personal injury litigation. [Citation.] In other words, essentially budgetary decisions of these officials were not to be subject to judicial review in tort litigation.” (Mann v. State of California (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 773, 778-779, fn. omitted.) “Thus, section 845 was not intended to provide immunity against a particular police officer’s negligence in the performance of his duty in a particular situation.” (Wallace v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1402.)
The Family is not suing the County for budgetary or political decisions. The Family is suing due to the alleged negligence of particular County employees. The County asserts the Family’s lawsuit is partially based upon a failure to provide adequate search and rescue training to its Sheriff’s Department personnel. However, the County cites to the Family’s appellants’ opening brief, not the TAC or the Family’s opposition to the summary judgment motion, to support its argument. In the TAC, the Family alleges the County had the ROVE team and if it had been utilized, then it “would have located Marin on the Evening of March 1, 2014.” The Family specifically alleges, “The COUNTY failed to deploy trained personal [sic] to manage . . . critical decisions concerning Mr. Marin.” In our reading of the TAC, the Family is not asserting that the County failed to train its personnel, but rather that the County was negligent in failing to deploy the trained personnel it had.
The County asserts that the failure to deploy the ROVE team is protected under section 845. In support of that argument, the County cites Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6. In that case, the victim called the police and said her estranged husband was coming to her residence to kill her. The police told the victim to call them back when her husband was at the house. Forty-five minutes later, the victim’s husband stabbed her to death. The police arrived after the victim died. The appellate court explained that the wrongful death cause of action failed because the police had immunity under section 845. (Hartzler, at p. 8.) The appellate court explained that the exception to section 845 is when there is a “voluntary assumption by the public entity . . . . Even though there is initially no liability on the part of the government for its acts or omissions, once it undertakes action on behalf of a member of the public, and thereby induces that individual’s reliance, it is then held to the same standard of care as a private person or organization.” (Hartzler, at p. 9.) The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting a special relationship between the victim and the police. (Id. at p. 10.)
In other words, Hartzler established that section 845 provides immunity when the complaint concerns a general failure of policing, i.e., the police should have come to my aid but they did not come, but section 845 does not provide immunity when the complaint concerns the manner in which police executed a particular undertaking after a special relationship has developed. (See Adams v. City of Fremont (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 243, 317 (dis. opn. of P.J. Kline) [” ‘where there exists a special relationship . . . liability may be imposed irrespective of the immunity granted by . . . section 845’ “], citing Hartzler v. City of San Jose, supra, 46 Cal.App.3d 6.) In the instant case, the Family is complaining that the County had a special relationship with Marin and that the County was negligent in searching for Marin. Therefore, the County’s reliance on Hartzler is misplaced.
E. IMMUNITY FOR DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS
The Family contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based upon the immunity afforded to governmental discretionary decisions (§ 820.2).
Section 820.2 provides, “[A] public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” “Discretion” is not to be read literally because nearly every act involves some discretionary choice ” ‘ “even if it involve[s] only the driving of a nail.” ‘ ” (Johnson v. State (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 787-790.) In eschewing a literal approach to the term “discretion,” concentration has been placed on policy, in particular, “whether the agency in a particular case should have immunity.” (Id. at pp. 789-790.)
Policy decisions made by the legislative and executive branches are subject to immunity because review of those decisions “would place the court in the unseemly position of determining the propriety of decisions expressly entrusted to a coordinate branch of government.” (Johnson v. State, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 793.) As an example, judicial immunity applies to the California Division of Juvenile Justice’s “determination of whether to place a youth on parole” because that decision involves “the resolution of policy considerations, entrusted by statute to a coordinate branch of government, that compels immunity from judicial reexamination.” (Id at p. 795, fn. omitted.) By contrast, judicial immunity does not apply to the “determination as to whether to warn the foster parents [of a juvenile parolee] of latent dangers facing them” because “to the extent that a parole officer consciously considers pros and cons in deciding what information, if any, should be given, he makes such a determination at the lowest, ministerial rung of official action. Judicial abstinence from ruling upon whether negligence contributed to this decision would therefore be unjustified; coupled with the administrative laxness that caused the loss in the first instance, it would only result in the failure of governmental institutions to serve the injured individual.” (Id. at pp. 795-796.)
In the County’s points and authorities in support of its motion for summary judgment, it asserted Hall made a discretionary decision in deciding to suspend the search for the night. The County did not cite specific evidence to support its assertion that a discretionary decision was made; rather, the County wrote that the evidence was “addressed above.” We infer the County was referring to the “facts” section of its points and authorities.
In the “facts” section, the County wrote, “[Hall] discussed and evaluated all the available information and weighed the risks and benefits of a night time [sic] search. [Citations.] Lt. Hall was aware of the risks of [Marin] freezing to death [citation] but Lt. Hall and his supervisor Chief Deputy Alm made a discretionary risk/benefit decision that the risks to search personnel of a further night search outweighed the potential of locating [Marin] in the dark and they make a discretionary decision not to conduct additional searches in the [CNF] until morning. [Citation.] The factors they considered included: [¶] 1. The rain and thick fog . . . [¶] 2. [Marin’s] location was only vaguely known . . . [¶] 3. Visibility was extremely limited . . . [¶] 4. The rain and fog made the trail dangerous . . . [¶] 5. County employees were not familiar with the area . . . .”
The County’s argument in the points and authorities is focused on the decision to suspend the search, but the Family’s lawsuit is not solely focused on the decision to suspend the search. The Family is also suing due to manner in which the search was conducted prior to the search being suspended. For example, the Family complains of not involving personnel who knew the CNF and not deploying the ROVE team on the night of March 1.
In the County’s brief to this court, the County takes the position that every decision involved in the search was a discretionary decision and that all of those discretionary decisions deserve immunity. The County does not direct this court to evidence indicating what decisions Hall made during the search, or to evidence that Hall weighed and balanced particular factors in making those decisions. Additionally, the County fails to explain why every decision Hall made during the search process is deserving of immunity under section 820.2. (See Johnson v. State, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 789-790 [“discretionary decision” is not meant literally; whether immunity applies is a policy question].)
If the County seeks to have every material search decision Hall made protected under section 820.2 then it needs to provide evidence of what material decisions were made, provide evidence of the discretion exercised in making those decisions, and provide argument as to why each of those decisions is deserving of immunity under section 820.2. Without that information, it was not proper to grant summary judgment pursuant to the discretionary decision immunity (§ 820.2) because the County only addressed a portion of the Family’s allegations. (See Mallard Creek Industries v. Morgan, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 438 [it is error to grant summary judgment unless the defense is “a complete defense to the entire action”].)
F. CONCLUSION
In sum, it has not been shown that the causes of action lack merit and the County failed to demonstrate that it has a complete defense to the entire TAC. Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred and the grant of summary judgment must be reversed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order granting summary judgment. Appellants are awarded their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
FIELDS
J.
——–
Footnotes:
1. This court previously issued an opinion in this case reversing the trial court’s sustaining of the County’s demurrer to the Family’s second amended complaint. (Arista v. County of Riverside (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1051.)
2. In the TAC, the deputy’s last name is spelled Zaborowski. In the motion for summary judgment, the deputy’s last name is spelled Zabrowski. In a declaration by Lieutenant Hall, the deputy’s name is spelled different ways including Zaborwski. We use the Zaborowski spelling because that is the spelling used in Deputy Zaborowski’s declaration.
3. All subsequent statutory references will be to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.
4. A harmless error analysis typically follows a finding of error. In this case, we begin with the County’s assertion that the trial court’s error is harmless because the triable issue of material fact matter discussed as part the harmless error analysis will simplify our discussion post of the Health and Safety Code section 1799.107, subdivision (b), immunity.
——–
Ski Area not liable when skiers leave the ski run and collide with snow making equipment in Michigan.
Posted: October 2, 2022 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: fatality, Michigan Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, Michigan SASA, SASA, Schuss Mountain, ski run, Snow Making, Snow Making Equipment Leave a commentLitigation ensued because an important term in the Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act was not defined in the act. What is a ski run?
Round v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
State: Michigan; Court of Appeals of Michigan
Plaintiff: Cheryle A. Round, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles R. Round
Defendant: Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, Schuss Mountain
Plaintiff Claims: negligence action, alleging that defendant failed to comply with duties imposed under the SASA
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the defendant ski area
Year: 2022
Summary
Lawsuit against a ski area was based on a term in the statute that was not defined, forcing the court to define the term. What is a ski run? The decedent skied into snow making equipment and died. If on the ski run, the equipment must be marked. The equipment was not marked. The court also ruled over and embankment, not on snow and 15-25 feet from the edge of the run, the snow making equipment was not on the ski run.
Facts
On December 21, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent, Charles R. Round, died after allegedly sustaining fatal injuries when he collided with snow-making equipment at Schuss Mountain, a ski area owned and operated by defendant. At the time, Round was participating in an event called the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade whereby volunteer skiers ski down an unlit hill-known as Kingdom Come-at night while carrying lighted torches, eventually getting to the bottom of the hill to light the ski resort’s Christmas tree. Round was leading the parade of skiers-as he had for several years-when he suddenly veered to his left and skied beyond the edge of the ski run. A ski lift was located on the edge of the ski run and, underneath the ski lift, were four permanent snow-making machines installed at various points up the hill. At about the half-way point of the ski hill, Round crossed into this area, collided with a snow-making machine, and sustained severe injuries that proved fatal.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
Pursuant to Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act, a ski area is not liable for injuries to its patrons for collisions with snow making equipment if the snow making equipment is “properly marked or plainly visible.”
§ 408.342. Duties of skier in ski area; acceptance of dangers.
(2) Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snow-making or snow-grooming equipment.
The plaintiff argued the snow making equipment was not marked and had to be marked because it was located on the ski run. The defendant argued that the snow making equipment was not on the ski run. Ski run is not defined by the Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act. The Michigan Appellate Court then had to use the plain meeting of the terms to derive a definition.
At minimum, the plain meaning of the phrase “ski run” for purposes of the SASA must include a path or route expected to be used for skiing down a hill. Indeed, ski runs are named, designed, constructed, groomed, and designated as the route skiers are to use for skiing down a particular hill. As this Court similarly noted in Rhoda v O’Dovero, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals: “Although the SASA does not define the terms ‘run,’ ‘slope’ or ‘trail,’ the plain, ordinary and common meanings of these terms encompass the paths a skier or snowboarder takes to get down a hill, including those paths designed and constructed by the ski operator for precisely that purpose.”
The court then went into the depositions presented by the defendant, witnesses who described the location of the snow making equipment when the deceased hit it.
The decedent was found 22′ off the run, over an embankment under the snow gun. It took several repetitions to move the deceased in a toboggan from where he was back up to the ski run.
The court reasoned if the snow gun which the deceased collided with was located on the trail, the other skiers following him would have hit the snow gun also.
The Appellate court sent the case back to the trail court with an order to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case.
So Now What?
Short and sweet, but educational because of the issues the statute left out. Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act is a combination of a skier safety act and a tramway act. Consequently, it is quite long with little have much to do with how the ski area is to operate. The act has definitions but most deal with the structure of the tramway issues.
When one term, as in this case ski run is used to defined part of a statute, that term needs to be defined, or we end up in a position like this, litigation to define what is a ski run.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2020 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Round v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
Posted: October 2, 2022 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: fatality, Michigan SASA, Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, Schuss Mountain, ski run, Snow Making Equipment Leave a commentRound v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
CHERYLE A. ROUND, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CHARLES R. ROUND, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee,
v.
TRINIDAD RESORT & CLUB, LLC,Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.
No. 357849
Court of Appeals of Michigan
September 15, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
Antrim County Circuit Court LC No. 20-009218-NO
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Garrett and Yates, JJ.
Per Curiam
Defendant appeals by leave granted[1] an order denying its motion for summary disposition which asserted that it was entitled to immunity under Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., because plaintiff could not demonstrate noncompliance with a statutory duty; the snow-making equipment that plaintiff’s decedent collided with was not located on the ski run so a warning sign was not required. We agree and reverse.
On December 21, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent, Charles R. Round, died after allegedly sustaining fatal injuries when he collided with snow-making equipment at Schuss Mountain, a ski area owned and operated by defendant. At the time, Round was participating in an event called the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade whereby volunteer skiers ski down an unlit hill-known as Kingdom Come-at night while carrying lighted torches, eventually getting to the bottom of the hill to light the ski resort’s Christmas tree. Round was leading the parade of skiers-as he had for several years-when he suddenly veered to his left and skied beyond the edge of the ski run. A ski lift was located on the edge of the ski run and, underneath the ski lift, were four permanent snow-making machines installed at various points up the hill. At about the half-way point of the ski hill, Round crossed into this area, collided with a snow-making machine, and sustained severe injuries that proved fatal.
On June 24, 2020, Round’s wife, Cheryle A. Round, filed this negligence action, alleging that defendant failed to comply with duties imposed under the SASA, including by:
a. Failing to ensure that the snow-making equipment was properly marked or plainly visible to skiers;
b. Failing to properly light the ski area during the event;
c. Failing to mark the snow-making machine with a visible sign or other warning device to warn approaching skiers;
d. Failing to construct or maintain physical barriers to prevent skiers from colliding with the snow-making machine; and
e. Failing to install protective padding around the snow-making machine to prevent serious injuries from collisions.
In response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant asserted affirmative defenses, including that it was immune and plaintiff’s claim was barred by the SASA. Defendant also filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, indemnification, and other claims based on the release Round had signed.
On November 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (C)(10) as to defendant’s defense of immunity under the SASA. Plaintiff argued that her decedent collided with a snow-making machine that was neither properly marked nor plainly visible during the nighttime event; thus, the SASA did not presume-as set forth under MCL 408.342(2)-that her decedent assumed the risk of being injured in this situation. Defendant responded to plaintiff’s motion arguing, in relevant part, that plaintiff’s decedent assumed the risk of skiing in the event and signed a release to that effect. But, further, defendant owed no duty to mark or make plainly visible the snow-making machine at issue because it was 10 feet tall and was not located on the ski run.
On January 4, 2021, the trial court rendered its decision and order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition holding, in relevant part, that “the injury causing hazard (e.g. the snow-making equipment) was neither properly marked nor plainly visible, [and thus], the Decedent cannot be said to have assumed the inherent risk of the hazard and recovery is not precluded by SASA.”
Defendant filed its application for leave to appeal the trial court’s order which was denied “for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review.” See Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 18, 2021 (Docket No. 356123).
On April 27, 2021, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing that defendant strictly complied with its duties mandated by the SASA. And contrary to plaintiff’s claims, defendant had no duty under the SASA to light, mark, or pad the snow-making machine at issue because it is undisputed that (1) the ski run was not open to the public when plaintiff’s decedent was fatally injured, (2) the snow-making machine extended more than six feet above the snow surface; it was ten feet above the snow surface, and (3) the snow-making machine was located off of the ski run; it was nine feet away from the groomed edge of the ski run known as Kingdom Come. Moreover, plaintiff’s decedent breached his duties under the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.” MCL 408.341(1). The video evidence showed that plaintiff’s decedent abruptly departed from the ski run without effort to correct his course before striking the snow-making machine. Defendant supported its motion with numerous exhibits, including deposition testimony transcripts, affidavits, an incident report, and photographs.
Plaintiff responded to defendant’s motion for summary disposition arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court already decided that plaintiff’s decedent did not assume the risk in this case, and thus, defendant was not entitled to immunity under the SASA. Further, plaintiff argued, (1) the ski run was open to the public when this incident occurred, (2) the snow-making machine was less than 6 feet above the snow surface when plaintiff’s expert, Stanley Gale, performed a site visit on March 6, 2021, and (3) the snow-making machine was located on the skiable portion of the trail, as Gale also determined, but, in any case, “it is the snow-making operations that must be located on the ski run-not the snow-making equipment itself.” Plaintiff supported her response with exhibits, including Gale’s investigative report.
Defendant replied to plaintiff’s response to its motion for summary disposition, arguing that (1) the ski run was not open to the public at the time of the accident, a fact supported by the deposition testimony of witnesses, the incident report, and even the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s purported expert, Stanley Gale; (2) the snow-making machine extended more than six feet above the snow surface at the time of the accident and Gale’s measurement using only his ski to gauge the distance more than one year after the accident was incompetent to refute defendant’s evidence; and (3) the snow-making machine was not located on the ski run, as even plaintiff’s decedent’s wife, son, and daughter admitted, and as testified to by other witnesses. Defendant supported its response with exhibits, including deposition testimony transcripts.
On June 1, 2021, the trial court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion and the parties argued consistently with their briefs. On June 27, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition, holding that (1) whether the ski run was open to the public at the time of the accident is irrelevant but, in any case, was a question of fact for the jury considering that not just employees participated in the event; (2) whether the height of the snow-making machine at issue was six feet above the snow surface was a question of fact for the jury because plaintiff’s expert found it to be less than six feet and the machine had been manipulated; and (3) whether the snow-making equipment was located on the ski run was a question of fact for the jury because plaintiff’s expert stated that it was on a skiable portion of the trail. The court did not address defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s decedent breached his duties under MCL 408.341(1) of the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.” Accordingly, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed that must be decided by a jury, and thus, defendant’s motion was denied.
On July 16, 2021, defendant filed its application for leave to appeal arguing that preemptory reversal was required but, at minimum, leave to appeal should be granted. The snow-making equipment at issue in this case was not located on a ski run, and thus, defendant owed no duty to mark the snow-making equipment and cannot be held liable for plaintiff decedent’s accident. This Court granted leave to appeal. Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 1, 2021 (Docket No. 357849). On November 8, 2021, while this appeal was pending, plaintiff filed a motion to affirm which this Court denied. Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 24, 2021 (Docket No. 357849).
On appeal, defendant argues that it was entitled to summary disposition because the snow-making equipment at issue was not located on a ski run; thus, defendant had no duty to place a warning sign on that equipment and defendant cannot be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident. We agree.
A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Hughes v Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 277 Mich.App. 268, 273; 744 N.W.2d 10 (2007). Defendant’s motion for summary disposition was brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity), (C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and (C)(10) (no material factual issue), but was supported by numerous exhibits. Although the trial court did not indicate under which subrule it denied defendant’s motion, the court considered matters outside of the pleadings and so we review the motion as having been denied under MCR 2.116(C)(10). See id.; see also Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich. 429, 434; 526 N.W.2d 879 (1994).
Further, issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich. 20, 23; 664 N.W.2d 756 (2003). Our purpose in reviewing questions of statutory construction is to discern and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich. 192, 196; 694 N.W.2d 544 (2005). Our analysis begins by examining the plain language of the statute; if the language is unambiguous, no judicial construction is required or permitted and the statute must be enforced as written, giving its words their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. (citation omitted).
The SASA was enacted in 1962 “in an effort to provide some immunity for ski-area operators from personal-injury suits by injured skiers.” Anderson, 469 Mich. at 23. It delineates duties applicable to ski-area operators and to skiers. As to the duties imposed on skiers, and their acceptance of the associated risks of skiing, MCL 408.342 of the SASA provides, in part:
(2) Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare sports; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snow-making or snow-grooming equipment.
This provision has been referred to as an “assumption-of-risk provision,” and means that a skier has assumed the risk of being injured by these and similar dangers as inherent in the sport of skiing. Rusnak v Walker, 273 Mich.App. 299, 301, 304; 729 N.W.2d 542 (2007). Thus, when a skier’s injury arises from one of these dangers considered to be inherent in the sport of skiing, the ski-area operator is immune from liability unless the ski-area operator violated a specific duty imposed by the SASA that resulted in injury. Id. at 304-305, 313-314; see also Kent v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 240 Mich.App. 731, 742-744; 613 N.W.2d 383 (2000).
Relevant to this case is the immunity related to snow-making equipment. Under MCL 408.342(2), ski-area operators are immune from liability for collisions with snow-making equipment, if that equipment is “properly marked or plainly visible.” Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition which addressed SASA’s immunity provision, MCL 408.342(2). Specifically, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to immunity because plaintiff’s decedent did not assume the risk of skiing into the unmarked and not plainly visible snow-making equipment at issue in this case. The trial court agreed and granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that the snow-making equipment was neither properly marked nor plainly visible, and thus, plaintiff’s decedent cannot be charged with assuming this risk as inherent in the sport of skiing so liability was not precluded under the SASA.
Thereafter, defendant filed the motion for summary disposition at issue here, arguing that the snow-making equipment at issue in this case actually did not have to be “properly marked or plainly visible” because it was not on the ski run; rather, plaintiff’s decedent skied off of the ski run and into an area that was not meant for skiing where he collided with the snow-making equipment. In other words, defendant argued that it breached no duty imposed by the SASA with regard to the snow-making equipment, and thus, could not be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident.
The duty provision pertaining to snow-making equipment is codified in MCL 408.326a(b) and Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80(2). These provisions address the issue that was not decided by plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, i.e., whether defendant, as the ski-area operator, had a duty to mark the snow-making equipment in this case. If SASA did not require marking this equipment with a warning sign or other device, defendant did not breach any statutory duty to plaintiff and summary disposition in favor of defendant would be appropriate.
MCL 408.326a provides in relevant part:
Each ski area operator shall, with respect to operation of a ski area, do all of the following:
* * *
(b) Mark with a visible sign or other warning device the location of any hydrant or similar fixture or equipment used in snow-making operations located on a ski run, as prescribed by rules promulgated [by the Ski Area Safety Board].
The corresponding administrative rule, Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80, prescribes the conditions under which snow-making equipment must be marked, stating:
(1) When a ski run, slope, or trail is open to the public, the ski area operator shall mark snowmaking devices as stated in this rule.
(2) A ski area operator shall mark the location of any hydrant, snow gun, or similar fixture or equipment which is used in snowmaking operations located on a ski run and which extends less than 6 feet above the snow surface with a caution sign that has contrasting colors. An orange marking disc, with a minimum diameter of 8 inches, may be used as a caution sign. One sign is adequate for all devices within an area 3 feet on either side of the sign and 10 feet in the downhill direction of the ski run from the sign.
The dispositive issue here is whether the snow-making equipment at issue was “located on a ski run,” as set forth in MCL 408.326a(b) and R 408.80(2).[2] We conclude that it was not. Accordingly, defendant was not in violation of the SASA, and thus, could not be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident.
The SASA does not define the phrase “ski run.” When a statute does not define a term, it is construed in accordance with its ordinary and generally accepted meaning. Popma v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 446 Mich. 460, 470; 521 N.W.2d 831 (1994). At minimum, the plain meaning of the phrase “ski run” for purposes of the SASA must include a path or route expected to be used for skiing down a hill. Indeed, ski runs are named, designed, constructed, groomed, and designated as the route skiers are to use for skiing down a particular hill. As this Court similarly noted in Rhoda v O’Dovero, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 24, 2016 (Docket No. 321363), unpub op at 8: “Although the SASA does not define the terms ‘run,’ ‘slope’ or ‘trail,’ the plain, ordinary and common meanings of these terms encompass the paths a skier or snowboarder takes to get down a hill, including those paths designed and constructed by the ski operator for precisely that purpose.”[3]
In this case, no genuine issue of material fact exists-the snow-making equipment at issue was not located on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. The evidence presented by defendant in support of its argument included deposition testimony from witnesses. Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she saw a video taken the night of the accident and she saw that her decedent actually veered the wrong way before striking the equipment-that had been in the same place for years-which was located off of the ski trail. Rick Van Tongeren, the snow sports school manager at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he watched a video taken the night of the incident and plaintiff’s decedent was skiing out of control in the wrong direction, i.e., not on the expected path, and was skiing very fast before the accident.
Mike Moreen, the director of the ski patrol at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade and was at the back of the lineup when he received a radio call from Fred Hunt that ski patrol was needed “skier’s left off of ski run about halfway down the hill.” When Moreen arrived to help Round, he saw that Round was “in a difficult location down off of the skiing surface, underneath the snow gun, underneath the structure, the stanchion of the snow gun . . . .” Moreen noted that they were “in deep snow” and “were off of the skiing surface quite a ways, several feet.” Round was down an embankment; about 10 to 15 feet away. And after they got Round on the toboggan to remove him from the accident site, “it probably took four or five repetitions to get him from the snow gun up to the skiing surface.”
Mark Durance, a member of the ski patrol at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade and was the second person from the last in the lineup. When the radio call came in, Durance followed Moreen to the accident site. Round was located about “ten feet or so off the ski run so it’s not a run.” Durance could not really determine Round’s condition “because he was so far off the existing run” that he could barely make observations. Ted Ewald, a ski instructor at Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade about 10 people from the front and he saw that “somebody went into the woods . . . .” But he did not see precisely what happened, the actual event; “I saw something in the woods when I skied by there.”
The evidence presented by defendant in support of its motion for summary disposition also included an incident report. The incident report included witness statements. One witness, Michael Casey, who was the third person from the front skiing in the parade, reported that he saw that Round-who was the leader of the parade-at one point seemed to be a lot further away than he should have been, indicating increased speed. He then saw Round “go off the ski hill into the woods.”
The incident report included a drawing of the snow-making machine at issue and depicted measurements taken the day after the accident. The drawing shows that the snow-making machine was located nine feet from the groomed trail; the machine sat between the groomed trail and trees, i.e., a “woods,” that was located 22 feet from the groomed trail; and the machine stood ten feet tall above the snow surface. The drafter of the drawing, Tom Murton, averred in an affidavit that he drew the diagram after the accident and the precise measurements were accurate. Murton also testified in a deposition about his investigation of the accident-including the measurements taken-that occurred the day after the accident. He testified that the snow-making equipment at issue is not part of Kingdom Come’s groomed ski surface or the ski run itself and had been in the same location permanently since at least the mid-1990s when he began working there. Photographs were also submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary disposition and they show the scene of the accident, including the snow-making machine at issue, and it is clear that the machine was very close to the wooded area and not on the ski run known as Kingdom Come.
In opposition to defendant’s claim that it had no duty to mark the snow-making equipment at issue in this case because it was “not located on a ski run,” plaintiff argued that the machine was located on a skiable portion of the trail. Plaintiff supported that argument with a report from her purported expert, Gale, which stated that the snow-making machine was located on the skiable portion of the trail. But it is unclear as to what Gale considered a “skiable portion of the trail.” At issue here was the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Any area where there is snow is likely to be considered by some people as “skiable,” or able to be skied on-even areas that are not expected to be skied on and areas not designed or designated for skiing. We cannot agree with the trial court that Gale’s statement, alone-and which is unsupported by precise measurements or other evidence-is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of disputed fact that warrants a trial. The party filing a motion for summary disposition has the initial burden of supporting its position with documentary evidence and the party opposing that motion must then establish by evidentiary materials that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich. 358, 362; 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996). Defendant provided a plethora of evidence establishing that plaintiff’s decedent did not encounter and collide with the snow-making equipment on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Gale’s claim that the snow-making equipment was located on a “skiable portion of the trail” is not sufficient to establish that it was “located on a ski run,” which would give rise to a duty for defendant to mark that equipment with a caution sign or other warning device.
And most obviously in this case, if the snow-making machine at issue was, in fact, located on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come-within the contemplation of R 408.80(2), other skiers in the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade would likely have collided with-or at least seen and avoided-that equipment. There is no such evidence. The SASA imposes certain and specific duties on ski-area operators, one of which is to mark the location of snow-making equipment “located on a ski run and which extends less than 6 feet above the snow surface . . . .” Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80(2); see also MCL 408.326a(b). Clearly, snow-making equipment that is located on a ski run and which extends more than 6 feet above the snow surface need not be marked. This balancing of responsibilities recognizes that skiers are charged with exercising care for their own safety by avoiding obvious hazards they might encounter skiing down a hill, and ski-area operators are charged with providing warnings when a hazard that a skier might encounter skiing down a hill is less likely to be obvious. A ski-area operator is not charged by law with the impossible task of making its ski runs or every allegedly “skiable” area at its facility “accident proof.” Ski-area operators are not absolute insurers of safety, particularly with regard to those skiers who intentionally or inadvertently ski off the path or route expected to be used for skiing down a particular hill. This conclusion is consistent with the SASA’s purpose of “promoting safety, reducing litigation and stabilizing the economic conditions in the ski resort industry,” Grieb v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 155 Mich.App. 484, 487; 400 N.W.2d 653 (1986), while at the same time ensures that ski-area operators stay vigilant and responsible for providing reasonably safe skiing conditions in the areas their patrons are invited, and expected, to ski.
In this case, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition because defendant had no duty under the SASA to mark the location of the snow-making equipment that plaintiff’s decedent collided with, allegedly causing his fatal injuries. There is no genuine issue of fact that the snow-making equipment was not located on the ski run, i.e., the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision. This matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing this case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
———
Notes:
[1]
Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 1, 2021 (Docket No. 357849).
[2] To the extent plaintiff argues that it was the snow-making operations that must be on the ski run and not the snow-making equipment itself, we reject that argument as inconsistent with the plain language of MCL 408.326a(b) and R 408.80(2).
[3] Although not binding precedent, a court may consider unpublished opinions for their instructive or persuasive value. Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich.App. 292, 307; 911 N.W.2d 219 (2017).
———
Recreation Law 