Ski Area not liable when skiers leave the ski run and collide with snow making equipment in Michigan.

Posted: October 2, 2022 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Litigation 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.

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

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

#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 | Author: Recreation Law | 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 comment

Round 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 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).

———

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Round v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)

Posted: September 26, 2022 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: fatality, Michigan, Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, SASA, ski area, ski run, Snow Making, Snow Making Equipment | Leave a comment

Round 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

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.

(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.

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:

* * *

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.

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).

^[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).

———

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Estate of Taylor v. Outdoor Adventures of Davison, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)

Posted: January 31, 2022 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Michigan, Paddlesports, Uncategorized | Tags: Commercial Campground, drowning, Exclusive Remedy, Michigan, Paddleboard, Worker's Compensation | Leave a comment

Estate of Taylor v. Outdoor Adventures of Davison, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)

ESTATE OF ALLYN L. TAYLOR, by LOUIS B. TAYLOR, Personal Representative, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OUTDOOR ADVENTURES OF DAVISON, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 355035, 355036

Court of Appeals of Michigan

January 13, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 18-110936-NO.

Before: Mark T. Boonstra, P.J., and Mark J. Cavanagh and Michael J. Riordan, JJ.

Per Curiam.

In this negligence action arising from the drowning death of plaintiff’s decedent, Allyn Taylor, defendant Outdoor Adventures of Davison, LLC, appeals by leave granted the trial court’s orders denying its motions for summary disposition.^[1] We hold that the trial court erred by ruling that the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq., did not apply to bar plaintiff’s negligence claim. At the time of his drowning death, Taylor, an employee of defendant, was on defendant’s grounds performing a task for defendant within a reasonable time after his working hours. Thus, he is presumed to have been in the course of his employment and he was not engaged in an activity the major purpose of which was social or recreational. MCL 418.301(3). Therefore, under MCL 418.131(1), the WDCA provides plaintiffs exclusive remedy against defendant for Taylor’s drowning death. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from the tragic June 12, 2016 drowning death of plaintiff s decedent, 20-year-old Allyn Taylor, on Lake Linda in Davison, Michigan. Taylor was an employee of defendant, which owns a campground on Lake Linda. Defendant provided paddleboats to its customers for their use on Lake Linda. Taylor’s job responsibilities included checking out the boats and making sure all the boats were accounted for at the end of the day. When the boats were not in use, they were moored to a dock, but many of the ties were bad so boats would sometimes float away. One of Taylor’s job responsibilities was to retrieve any wayward paddleboats. Taylor would sometimes use another boat to pull a wayward boat back in, but if the wayward boat was not too far away from the dock, Taylor would sometimes swim out to it and pull it back in. Evidence was presented that the lake contained seaweed or lake weeds in the water near the dock, which could make swimming difficult.

On June 12, 2016, Taylor finished work at approximately 8:00 p.m. He thereafter spoke to his mother on the telephone and told her that he was going to go fishing while he waited for his parents to pick him up, and he also planned on bringing in a paddleboat that had drifted away from the dock. Taylor drowned that evening while swimming to reach a wayward paddleboat.

According to Deputy Jason Thomas of the Genesee County Dive Team, the water right near the dock was clear, but lake weeds were visible at the top of the water within 10 yards of the dock. Taylor’s body was recovered in 9 to 10 feet of water near the wall of lake weeds, approximately 90 feet from the dock. Autopsy photographs showed that Taylor had weeds wrapped around his left arm, in his mouth, and also in his nose. Plaintiffs expert in aquatic safety, Ralph L. Johnson, Ph.D, opined that Taylor experienced an “active drowning,” whereby he became entangled in the lake weeds, which caused him to panic below the water surface, struggle a great deal, and “suck[] water like crazy.” Although Taylor had also been diagnosed with syncope, a physical condition that causes fainting spells, neither Johnson nor the medical examiner, Dr. Patrick Cho, M.D., believed that this condition contributed to Taylor’s drowning.

Plaintiff filed this action against defendant for negligence. Plaintiff alleged that Taylor drowned as a result of becoming entangled in the lake weeds in Lake Linda, and that defendant was aware of the hazardous lake weeds and did nothing to alleviate the dangerous condition or to warn swimmers of the potential danger. As relevant to these appeals, defendant filed two motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(10), respectively, asserting that plaintiffs action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA, MCL 418.131(1), and that plaintiffs action was barred by the recreational land use act (RUA), MCL 324.73301(1), because Taylor was engaged in the recreational activity of swimming at the time of his drowning death. Defendant also argued that plaintiff could not establish a triable issue of fact regarding causation because plaintiffs theory that Taylor drowned after becoming entangled in the lake weeds was based solely on speculation, which is insufficient to establish a question of fact. The trial court disagreed with defendant on all of these issues, and thus denied defendant’s motions for summary disposition. As noted, this Court granted defendant’s two applications for leave to appeal and consolidated the cases.

II. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY

We first consider defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by holding that the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA did not apply to bar plaintiff’s action. We agree that defendant was entitled to summary disposition on this ground.

“We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition.” O’Leary v O’Leary, 321 Mich.App. 647, 651; 909 N.W.2d 518 (2017). Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(4) if the trial court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petersen Fin LLC v Kentwood, 326 Mich.App. 433, 441; 928 N.W.2d 245 (2018). If the facts are not in dispute, the issue of whether a plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment under MCL 418.301(1) is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Smith v Chrysler Group, LLC, 331 Mich.App. 492, 496; 954 N.W.2d 214 (2020).

It is undisputed that, at the time of Taylor’s drowning, he was attempting to secure a wayward paddleboat for defendant, his employer. MCL 418.301 provides, in pertinent part:

(1) An employee, who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment by an employer who is subject to this act at the time of the injury, shall be paid compensation as provided in this act. . . .

* * *

(3) An employee going to or from his or her work, while on the premises where the employee’s work is to be performed, and within a reasonable time before and after his or her working hours, is presumed to be in the course of his or her employment. Notwithstanding this presumption, an injury incurred in the pursuit of an activity the major purpose of which is social or recreational is not covered under this act.

MCL 418.131(1) further provides that “[t]he right to the recovery of benefits as provided in [the WDCA] shall be the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease. The only exception to this exclusive remedy is an intentional tort.” Under MCL 418.131(3), however, an injury is not covered by the WDCA if it was incurred “in the pursuit of an activity the major purpose of which is social or recreational.”

In Eversman v Concrete Cutting & Breaking, 463 Mich. 86, 95; 614 N.W.2d 862 (2000), our Supreme Court explained that in applying “the social or recreational test” of MCL 418.301(3), a court “must consider the major purpose of the activity in which the plaintiff was engaged at the time of the injury.” See also Buitendorp v Swiss Valley, Inc, 485 Mich. 879; 772 N.W.2d 50 (2009) (holding that “the major purpose of the plaintiff’s activity at the time of injury determines whether the social or recreational bar [of MCL 418.301(3)] applies”). In considering this question, the court is required to examine “the totality of the circumstances.” Eversman, 463 Mich. at 96. In the present case, the evidence demonstrated that Taylor had finished his work and went fishing while waiting for his parents to pick him up from work, but then decided to swim out to a wayward paddleboat to return it to the dock, which was one of his employment responsibilities. Taylor’s time card reflected that he began work on June 12, 2016, at 12:58 p.m. and clocked out at 8:04 p.m. Two witnesses confirmed that Taylor was fishing with them off the dock, and they last saw Taylor at approximately 8:49 p.m., when they left the dock to go fish by a nearby bridge. The Richfield Township Police Department was dispatched to the scene at 9:45 p.m. Taylor spoke to his mother on the telephone and told her that he planned to retrieve a paddleboat that had floated away from the dock.

Because Taylor was on defendant’s grounds within a reasonable time after his working hours, he is presumed to have been in the course of his employment under MCL 418.301(3). Additionally, under “the social and recreational test” set forth in Eversman, at the time of his drowning, Taylor was attempting to bring into shore a paddleboat that had drifted away. Because the evidence is clear that the “major purpose” of this activity was to perform a task for his employer, it is not subject to the social or recreational bar of MCL 418.301(3). Eversman, 463 Mich. at 95. Therefore, under MCL 418.131(1), the WDCA provides plaintiffs exclusive remedy against defendant for Taylor’s drowning death. Accordingly, the trial court erred by holding that the exclusive remedy provision does not bar plaintiffs negligence claim against defendant.

The present case is distinguishable from Nock v M & G Convoy, Inc (On Remand), 204 Mich.App. 116; 514 N.W.2d 200 (1994), which is cited in Eversman. In Nock, the plaintiff truck driver, after making deliveries for his employer to several cities in Ohio, arrived in Detroit and, while at a Detroit bar, was attacked by another patron with a pool cue and lost an eye. Id. at 118. This Court agreed that under the version of MCL 418.301(3) in effect at that time, “the major purpose” of the plaintiffs patronage at the bar was both social and recreational, and therefore, his injuries were not compensable under the WDCA. Id. at 121. In contrast, Taylor was on defendant’s grounds a short time after his work hours with defendant had ended and, although he was engaged in the social activity of fishing in Lake Linda while waiting for his parents to pick him up, he stopped that activity and was engaged in an effort to secure a wayward paddleboat for defendant at the time he drowned. Under these circumstances, the major purpose of Taylor’s activity at the time of drowning was not social or recreational, and his injuries are presumed to have arisen out of and during the course of his employment. Therefore, the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA is applicable.^[2]

III. CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s ruling that the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA is not applicable. At the time of his drowning death, Taylor was on defendant’s grounds performing a task for defendant, his employer, within a reasonable time after his working hours. Thus, he is presumed to have been in the course of his employment and he was not engaged in an activity the major purpose of which was social or recreational. MCL 418.301(1), (3). Therefore, under MCL 418.131(1), the WDCA provides plaintiffs exclusive remedy against defendant for Taylor’s drowning death, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this case. We accordingly remand to the trial court for entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant. We do not retain jurisdiction

———

Notes:

^[1] In Docket No. 355035, defendant appeals by leave granted the trial court’s September 16, 2020 order denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4). Estate of Allyn Taylor v Outdoor Adventures of Davison LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 17, 2020 (Docket No. 355035). In Docket No. 355036, defendant appeals by leave granted the trial court’s June 29, 2020 order denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Estate of Allyn Taylor v Outdoor Adventures of Davison LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 17, 2020 (Docket No. 355036). We consolidated the cases “to advance the efficient administration of the appellate process.” Estate of Allyn Taylor v Outdoor Adventures of Davison LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 20, 2021 (Docket Nos. 355035 & 335036).

^[2] Having so concluded, we need not reach defendant’s alternate arguments for reversal.

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Trampoline Court Safety Act

Posted: November 15, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Indoor Recreation Center, Michigan | Tags: #TrampolineParks, assumption of the risk, Duty to Warn, Michigan Trampoline Safety Act, Trampoline | 1 Comment

§ 691.1731. Short title

This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘trampoline court safety act’.”

Mich. Comp. Laws 691.1731 Short title (Michigan Compiled Laws (2021 Edition))

§ 691.1733. Operator; duties

An operator shall do all of the following:

(a) Post the duties of trampoliners and spectators as prescribed in this act and the duties, obligations, and liabilities of operators as prescribed in this act in conspicuous places.

(b) Comply with the safety standards specified in ASTM F2970 – 13, “Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, Installation, Operation, Maintenance, Inspection and Major Modification of Trampoline Courts” published in 2013 by the American society for testing and materials.

(d) Maintain the stability and legibility of all required signs, symbols, and posted notices.

(Added by 2014, Act 11,s 3, eff. 2/18/2014.)…

Mich. Comp. Laws 691.1733 Operator; duties (Michigan Compiled Laws (2021 Edition))

§ 691.1735. Trampoliner; duties

While in a trampoline court, a trampoliner shall do all of the following:

(a) Maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.

(b) Read and follow all posted signs and warnings.

(d) Not run on trampolines, over pads, or on platforms.

(e) Refrain from acting in a manner that may cause injury to others.

(f) Not participate in a trampoline court when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

(g) Properly use all trampoline court safety equipment provided.

(h) Not participate in a trampoline court if he or she has a preexisting medical condition, a bone condition, a circulatory condition, a heart or lung condition, a back or neck condition, high blood pressure, or a history of spine, musculoskeletal, or head injury, if he or she has had recent surgery, or if she may be pregnant.

(i) Remove inappropriate attire, including hard, sharp, or dangerous objects, such as buckles, pens, purses, or badges.

(j) Conform with or meet height, weight, or age restrictions imposed by the operator to use or participate in the trampoline court activity.

(k) Avoid crowding or overloading individual sections of the trampoline court.

(l) Use the trampoline court within his or her own limitations, training, and acquired skills.

(m) Avoid landing on the head or neck. Serious injury, paralysis, or death can occur from that activity.

(Added by 2014, Act 11,s 5, eff. 2/18/2014.)

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Redmond v. Spring Loaded I, LLC, 349683Court of Appeals of Michigan, May 06, 2021

Redmond v. Spring Loaded I, LLC, 349683Court of Appeals of Michigan, May 06, 2021

Scott Redmond, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Spring Loaded I, LLC, and Spring Loaded III, LLC, Defendants,

and

Spring Loaded II, LLC, doing business as Airtime Trampoline-Sterling Heights, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 349683

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 6, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2016-004272-NO

Before: Gleicher, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Riordan, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this tort action, plaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, Spring Loaded II, LLC (Spring Loaded II), under MCR 2.116(C)(10).[ 1] We affirm.

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, a 47 year-old, 275 pound man, sustained a severe ankle injury while jumping on a trampoline at a facility owned and operated by Spring Loaded II. Plaintiff’s injury was captured on a surveillance camera. Spring Loaded II’s trampoline court facility is a large room filled with trampolines that are connected to one another by padded frames. Plaintiff’s injury occurred as he attempted to jump from one trampoline to another. He gained momentum to hurdle a two-foot-wide section of padding by jumping near the edge of the trampoline. In doing so, his ankle buckled and he fell onto the trampoline. Although he was in close proximity to the padding, it does not appear that he touched the padding when he landed.

Plaintiff sought to recover damages from Spring Loaded II under a negligence theory and for Spring Loaded II’s alleged failure to comply with the Trampoline Court Safety Act, MCL 691.1731 et seq. After engaging in discovery, Spring Loaded II filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The circuit court granted Spring Loaded II’s motion and this appeal followed.

II STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich. 152, 159; 934 N.W.2d 665 (2019). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim. Id. at 160. When considering a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the trial court must consider all evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) may only be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (citation omitted). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

The circuit court properly granted Spring Loaded II’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

A. THE TRAMPOLINE COURT SAFETY ACT

Plaintiff argues that summary disposition was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Spring Loaded II violated the Trampoline Court Safety Act and whether the alleged violations caused plaintiff’s injury.[ 2] We disagree.

The Trampoline Court Safety Act prescribes duties and liabilities of trampoline court operators and individuals who use trampoline courts. MCL 691.1737 provides that “[a] trampoliner, spectator, or operator who violates this act is liable in a civil action for damages for the portion of the loss or damage that results from the violation.” Thus, in order to recover under MCL 691.1737, a party must establish both a violation of the Trampoline Court Safety Act and causation. Under MCL 691.1733(b), a trampoline court operator shall “[c]omply with the safety standards specified in ASTM[3] F2970-13, ‘Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, Installation, Operation, Maintenance, Inspection and Major Modification of Trampoline Courts’ published in 2013 by the American society for testing and materials.”

Plaintiff argues that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II’s failure to develop and communicate patron size restrictions to employees and patrons violated ASTM F2970-13 §§ 6, 9.1, 16.21, 16.22, and A.1.1.4 as well as ASTM F770-11 §§ 4.2 and 4.2.1, thereby causing plaintiff’s injury. However, ASTM F2970-13 § 6 applies only to “designers/engineers or manufacturers” of trampolines and § A.1.1.4 applies only to manufacturers. Spring Loaded II is an operator of a trampoline court facility and plaintiff presented no evidence that Spring Loaded designed or manufactured the trampoline.

ASTM F2970-13 § 9.1 requires trampoline manufacturers to furnish operating and maintenance information to trampoline court operators, and ASTM F2970-13 § 9.2 requires trampoline court operators to permanently affix the operating and maintenance information in a visible location in the trampoline court. ASTM F2970-13 § 9.2.5 requires the operating and maintenance information to include the “[m]aximum total patron weight per trampoline bed and per trampoline court.” Spring Loaded II conceded that the information plate was not posted in the trampoline court facility, and explained that the omission was due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide an information plate for that trampoline. However, even if a reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II violated ASTM F2970-13 § 9.1 by failing to post the information plate, no reasonable trier of fact could find that the omission caused plaintiff’s injury. Under ASTM F2970-13 § 6.8.[ 3], trampoline manufacturers are generally required to design trampolines that are able to support users weighing 300 pounds and plaintiff testified in his deposition that he weighed approximately 275 pounds on the date of his injury. Thus, plaintiff would not have been informed that he exceeded the maximum user weight even if the information plate had been posted. Moreover, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he would not have used the trampolines if the information plate had been posted.[ 4]

ASTM F2970-13 § 16.21 provides that the operator of a trampoline court facility “may deny entry to the device to any person, if in the opinion of the owner/operator the entry may cause above normal exposure to risk of discomfort or injury to the person who desires to enter . . . .” ASTM F2970-13 § 16.22 provides that “[t]rampoline court attendants should be given guide[]lines on the special considerations concerning patron size, and patrons with physical or mental disabilities or impairments . . . .” However, the word “may” indicates that ASTM F2970-13 § 16.21 is a discretionary provision and does not require trampoline court operators to deny entry to individuals that may have above normal exposure of risk to discomfort or injury. Moreover, plaintiff presented no evidence that any employees at Spring Loaded II believed plaintiff to be at an above normal risk of injury and considered exercising their discretion to deny entry to plaintiff. Furthermore, although Spring Loaded II should have given trampoline court attendants guidelines on the special considerations concerning patron size, ASTM F2970-13 § 16.22 did not require Spring Loaded II to do so in the instant matter. See In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 496 Mich. 320, 328; 852 N.W.2d 747 (2014) (noting that the significance of a statutory amendment changing “should” to “shall” is that the statute becomes mandatory). Therefore, no reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II violated ASTM F2970-13 §§ 16.21 or 16.22 by not advising its attendants regarding any risks associated with a 275 pound patron. In addition, the language in ASTM F770-11 §§ 4.2 and 4.2.1 is almost identical to the language in ASTM F2970-13 §§ 16.21 and 16.22, and therefore, that plaintiff’s arguments with respect to those provisions fail for the same reasons.

Plaintiff next argues that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II violated ASTM F2970-13 §§ 6.1 and 14.2, as well as ASTM F770-11 §§ 4.1, 8.1, and 8.3, by failing to develop and communicate information regarding the risks associated with jumping near the edge of the trampoline bed or the risks associated with jumping from one trampoline to another, thereby causing plaintiff’s injury. We disagree.

ASTM F2970-13 § 6.1 applies to designers, engineers, and manufacturers of trampolines, and as previously stated, plaintiff presented no evidence that Spring Loaded II was anything other than an operator of a trampoline facility. Additionally, ASTM F2970-13 § 14.2 requires trampoline court owners and operators to “notify the appropriate manufacturer(s) of any known incident as specified in Practice F770-11 Section 8.3.” F770-11 § 8.3 requires notification of incidents that result in a serious injury within seven days of the occurrence of the incident and incorporates F770-11 § 8.1, which states that owners and operators should complete an incident report including information regarding the injury. The use of the word “should” indicates that completing an incident report in accordance with F770-11 § 8.1 is discretionary. See In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 496 Mich. at 328 (noting that the significance of a statutory amendment changing “should” to “shall” is that the statute becomes mandatory). Additionally, Spring Loaded II’s obligation to notify the manufacturer of plaintiff’s injury could not have arisen until after plaintiff’s injury occurred. Thus, even assuming Spring Loaded II failed to notify the trampoline manufacturer of plaintiff’s injury, no reasonable trier of fact could find that the failure to do so caused plaintiff’s injury. Similarly, F770-11 § 4.1 requires owners and operators to “read and become familiar with the contents of the manufacturer’s recommended operating instructions and specifications, when received[, ]” and to prepare an “operating fact sheet” that shall be made available to trampoline court attendants. F770-11 § 4.1 does not mandate providing any information to patrons, and plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the manufacturer’s recommended operating instructions addressed an increased risk associated with jumping near the edge of a trampoline or jumping from one trampoline to another. Thus, no reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II’s alleged failure to provide an operating fact sheet to trampoline court attendants caused plaintiff’s injury.

B. DUTY TO WARN

Plaintiff argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Spring Loaded II breached its duty to warn plaintiff of the risks associated with jumping on a trampoline at higher weights or the risks associated with jumping from one trampoline to another. We disagree.

MCL 691.1736 provides: An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other trampoliners or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, injuries that result from landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform, and injuries that involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoliner that are not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common[-]law duties.

The surveillance video shows that plaintiff’s injury occurred just before he attempted to jump from one trampoline to another. Plaintiff jumped on the trampoline in order to gain momentum to traverse a small section of padded frame that joined the two trampolines. While jumping near the padded section, but before traversing the frame, plaintiff’s ankle buckled and he fell onto the trampoline. Based upon the surveillance video, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff accepted the inherent danger of sustaining an injury from landing on the trampoline or trampoline pad. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot recover unless his injury was otherwise attributable to Spring Loaded II’s breach of its common-law duties. MCL 691.1736.

Plaintiff contends that product sellers have a duty to transmit safety-related information when they know or should know that the buyer or user is unaware of the information, and this duty may be attributed to a successor in possession of the product. Plaintiff posits that Spring Loaded II had a duty to transmit safety-related information to its patrons regarding the increased risks associated with patron weight and jumping from one trampoline to another because Spring Loaded II was a successor in possession of trampolines. In support of this premise, plaintiff relies upon Foster v Cone-Blanchard Mach Co, 460 Mich. 696, 707; 597 N.W.2d 506 (1999), in which our Supreme Court held that “in certain circumstances a successor may have an independent duty to warn a predecessor’s customer of defects in a predecessor’s product.” However, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that there were defects in the trampoline, and therefore, plaintiff’s reliance on Foster is misplaced. Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Spring Loaded II had a duty to warn in this regard.

Moreover, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding causation because plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he would not have used the trampolines if he had been warned about the increased risk of injury associated with higher weight or jumping from one trampoline to another.[ 5]

IV. CONCLUSION

The circuit court properly granted Spring Loaded II’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Accordingly, we affirm.

Gleicher, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part)

Plaintiff Scott Redmond sustained a devastating ankle injury when he landed improperly on a trampoline. Redmond brought a negligence claim against defendant Spring Loaded II, LLC, the owner and operator of the trampoline park where the accident occurred. The Trampoline Safety Act, MCL 691.1731 et seq., governs Redmond’s claim. The act imposes certain safety standards on trampoline manufacturers and operators, but also limits liability through an assumption of the risk provision, as follows: An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other trampoliners or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, injuries that result from landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform, and injuries that involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoline are that are not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties. [MCL 691.1736.] [1]

Despite this provision, if an injured plaintiff establishes a violation of one of the specific duties of care imposed under the act, the plaintiff may recover damages to the extent that the defendant’s violations caused the injury. MCL 691.1737; see also Rusnak v Walker, 273 Mich.App. 299, 304; 729 N.W.2d 542 (2006) (construing virtually identical language in the in the Ski Area Safety Act, MCL 408.321 et seq.).

The majority holds that defendant did not violate any of the specific safety standards set forth in the act, and I agree. Unfortunately for trampoline users, few of the safety standards referenced in the act apply to trampoline court operators. But despite that plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from defendant’s alleged safety standard violations must fail for the reasons discussed by the majority, I would hold that plaintiff’s common-law failure to warn claim survives.

Plaintiff alleges that his injury occurred when he landed on the foam padding between two trampolines as he attempted to jump from one trampoline to the other, and that defendant failed to warn of the danger of jumping from trampoline to trampoline. The majority rejects that plaintiff landed on the foam padding. According to the majority’s interpretation of a surveillance video, “[a]lthough he was in close proximity to the padding, it does not appear that he touched the padding when he landed.”

I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the video, and I further object to the majority’s usurpation of the fact-finding role reserved to the jury. I have watched the video at least a dozen times, and it appears to me that a portion of Redmond’s foot did, in fact, come in contact with the foam padding. It is a close question: a paradigmatic issue of fact. The video was created from a single camera pointed in a single direction. It captures only one angle of view. It is impossible to discern from the video exactly where Redmond’s foot landed as he completed his final jump. Redmond testified that he landed on the foam padding, and the video does not blatantly contradict his testimony. For that reason, the majority errs by finding otherwise. See Scott v Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378-381; 127 S.Ct. 1769; 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Redmond, a question of fact exists regarding where his foot made contact. For summary disposition purposes, we must assume that Redmond landed on the pad between trampolines, as he testified, rather than on the trampoline itself.

Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Marc Rabinoff, authored a lengthy report detailing the dangers of jumping from one trampoline to another. He explained that “[t]rampolines are not designed to have persons jump on the edge of the trampoline bed near the frame,” and generally “are not designed for lateral movement, including the lateral movement required to jump from one bed, over the frame, and on to another bed.” Dr. Rabinoff opined that “there is a substantial increase in the risk of injury to persons who jump on the edge of the trampoline bed near the frame or who are jumping laterally from one trampoline bed to another.” He stressed: Notably, there is nothing inherent about a trampoline park that requires a user to jump near the edge of a trampoline bed. Nor is there anything inherent about a trampoline park that requires a user to jump from one trampoline bed over the frame and padding and on to another trampoline bed.

Dr. Rabinoff concluded that “the proximity of the trampoline beds, coupled with the absence of any signage prohibiting the practice, supports the conclusion that jumping from one bed to another was promoted by the owner/operator at the time of Mr. Redmond’s injury,” and that Spring Loaded failed to warn “that jumping near the edge of the trampoline bed, or using the trampoline for lateral propulsion, or jumping over the frame from one trampoline bed to another, materially increased the risks to users beyond the risk that is normally associated with jumping on a single trampoline bed.”

Based on Dr. Rabinoff’s testimony, I would hold that Redmond has established a jury question regarding whether jumping from one trampoline to another is an inherent risk of the activity. If it is not, Redmond did not accept a risk of injury by attempting this maneuver, and should be entitled to present his negligence claim to a jury.

My analysis considers the language of MCL 691.1736, which states that “obvious and necessary dangers” that “inhere[]” in the sport of trampolining include “injuries that result from collisions with other trampoliners or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, injuries that result from landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform, and injuries that involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoline that are not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties.” I am aware that this Court has applied the last antecedent canon in interpreting a similarly worded statute in the Roller Skating Safety Act, MCL 445.1721 et seq., holding that the Legislature meant to eliminate a cause of action for a breach of a common-law duty only when an “object or artificial structure” is in the path of travel. Dale v Beta-C, Inc, 227 Mich.App. 57, 69; 574 N.W.2d 697 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the only enumerated risk that is limited by an operator’s breach of a common-law duty is for injuries ‘which involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the roller skater.’ “).

In my view, Dale improperly applied the last antecedent canon, and this Court should not make the same mistake in the context of the statute now at issue. Our Supreme Court has cautioned that “the last antecedent rule should not be applied if ‘something in the statute requires a different interpretation’ than the one that would result from applying the rule.” Dye v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co, 504 Mich. 167, 192; 934 N.W.2d 674 (2019), quoting Hardaway v Wayne Co, 494 Mich. 423, 428; 835 N.W.2d 336 (2013). “[T]he last antecedent rule does not mandate a construction based on the shortest antecedent that is grammatically feasible; when applying the last antecedent rule, a court should first consider what are the logical metes and bounds of the ‘last’ antecedent.” Hardaway, 494 Mich. at 429.

A natural construction of the language of MCL 691.1736 suggests that the clause “that are not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties” qualifies the term “injuries” and should be applied to all forms of trampolining “injuries,” rather than being artificially limited to the statute’s final clause. [2] Indisputably, common-law duties of care attend to all facets of trampolining, including the conduct of “other trampoliners or other spectators,” maintenance and inspection of the “trampoline, pad, or platform,” and the substance of the warnings owed to trampoliners at a commercially operated trampoline park. It makes no sense, logically or linguistically, that the Legislature would carve out a single aspect of trampolining for common-law application, leaving the others unaffected.

In Dale, 227 Mich.App. at 69, this Court’s analysis centered on the absence of a comma at the end of the last “injuries” clause: “Proper syntax provides that commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent.” The absent comma, the Court ruled, meant that the phrase “not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties” applies only to the last clause. Id. at 68-69. I cannot agree that punctuation is decisive, particularly when the sense of the paragraph leads to a different conclusion than would be dictated by a rigid application of the last antecedent rule. “When the sense of the entire act requires that a qualifying word or phrase apply to several preceding or succeeding sections, the word or phrase will not be restricted to its immediate antecedent.” 2A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Constructions (7th ed), § 47.33.

The context of MCL 691.1736 supports that all four described forms of trampolining injuries (resulting from “collisions with other trampoliners or other spectators,” “falls,” “landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform,” and those that involve “objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoliner”) are inherent risks of the activity unless they are “otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties.” That “duties” is plural reinforces my view that the term applies to more than just the final form of injury. See, e.g., Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 490 Mich. 198, 221; 805 N.W.2d 399 (2011). I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition and would remand for trial regarding whether Redmond accepted an inherent risk when he attempted to jump from one trampoline to the next, and whether a common-law duty required defendant to warn him of the risks of that activity.

Notes:

[ 1] Spring Loaded I, LLC, Spring Loaded II, LLC, and Spring Loaded III, LLC are separate franchises of an entity named Airtime International, and are owned by the parent company Spring Loaded LLC. Spring Loaded I, LLC and Spring Loaded III, LLC were dismissed from the case below and are not part of this appeal.

[ 2] Plaintiff argues in his reply brief that the issue of causation was not properly before the circuit court because it was not raised by Spring Loaded II when seeking summary disposition. We disagree. Under MCR 2.116(G)(4), “[a] motion under subrule (C)(10) must specifically identify the issues as to which the moving party believes there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Spring Loaded II addressed the issue of proximate cause in its April 17, 2019 supplemental brief in support of its motion for summary disposition. Specifically, Spring Loaded II rebutted the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that Spring Loaded II’s failure to develop and communicate weight restrictions contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Spring Loaded II argued that the expert’s opinion regarding causation was mere speculation and plaintiff’s injury was caused solely by plaintiff’s improper landing technique rather than any alleged violation of the Trampoline Court Safety Act.

[ 3] ASTM is an acronym for the American Society for Testing and Materials.

[ 4] Although plaintiff stated in an affidavit that he would not have used the trampolines if he had been warned about the increased risk of injury associated with higher weight, plaintiff’s affidavit was filed as part of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration after the circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of Spring Loaded II. When reviewing an order granting or denying summary disposition, we consider only the evidence that was properly presented to the trial court in deciding the motion. Village of Edmore v Crystal Automation Sys Inc, 322 Mich.App. 244, 262; 911 N.W.2d 241 (2017). We will not consider evidence on appeal that was first presented in a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v Ragin, 285 Mich.App. 466, 474 n 6; 776 N.W.2d 398 (2009). Thus, we do not consider plaintiff’s affidavit here.

[ 5] Although plaintiff stated in an affidavit that he would not have used the trampolines if he had been warned about the increased risks, plaintiff’s affidavit was filed after the circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of Spring Loaded II. Thus, we will not consider it in this appeal. Village of Edmore, 322 Mich.App. at 262; Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc, 285 Mich.App. at 474 n 6.

[1] In Felgner v Anderson, 375 Mich. 23, 39-40; 133 N.W.2d 136 (1965), the Michigan Supreme Court eliminated the assumption of the risk defense in tort cases. The Trampoline Safety Act resurrects the doctrine in trampoline-associated negligence claims.

[2] By way of reminder, here is the language. I have highlighted the words leading to the mosty natural reading: An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other trampoliners or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, injuries that result from landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform, and injuries that involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoline are that are not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common law duties. [MCL 691.1736.]

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Michigan Trampoline Statute protects Trampoline Operator from claims that he violated ANSI standards.

Posted: November 15, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Indoor Recreation Center, Michigan | Tags: #TrampolineParks, ANSI, assumption of the risk, Failure to Warn, Indoor Trampoline Park, Michigan Trampoline Safety Act, Trampoline | 1 Comment

Statute did not require nor did the ANSI requirement state that the defendant trampoline park needed to tell the plaintiff, he was too fat and unskilled to jump on the trampoline.

Redmond v. Spring Loaded I, LLC, 349683Court of Appeals of Michigan, May 06, 2021

State: Michigan

Plaintiff: Scott Redmond

Defendant: Spring Loaded I, LLC, and Spring Loaded III, LLC, Defendants, and Spring Loaded II, LLC, doing business as Airtime Trampoline-Sterling Heights

Plaintiff Claims: Failure to comply with Michigan’s Trampoline Court Safety Act, MCL 691.1731 et seq.

Defendant Defenses: It complied with the Michigan’s Trampoline Court Safety Act, MCL 691.1731 et seq.

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2021

Summary

A 47-year-old 275 man was injured while attempting to jump from one trampoline to another at the defendant’s trampoline facility. He claimed the defendant had a duty to warn him of the risks and failed to follow ANSI standards.

The court found the plaintiff assumed the risks, so there was no duty to warn and ANSI standards were created for manufacturers and designers of trampolines, not operators.

Facts

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

This is simply an interpretation of a surveillance video and the application of a statute to what the court saw on the video. The statute is the Michigan Trampoline Court Safety Act, § 691.1731 et. seq.

§ 691.1731. Short title This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘trampoline court safety act’.”

Mich. Comp. Laws 691.1731 Short title

§ 691.1733. Operator; duties

An operator shall do all of the following:

(a) Post the duties of trampoliners and spectators as prescribed in this act and the duties, obligations, and liabilities of operators as prescribed in this act in conspicuous places.

(c) Maintain the trampoline court according to the safety standards cited in subdivision (b).

(d) Maintain the stability and legibility of all required signs, symbols, and posted notices.

§ 691.1735. Trampoliner; duties

While in a trampoline court, a trampoliner shall do all of the following:

(a) Maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.

(b) Read and follow all posted signs and warnings.

(c) Avoid bodily contact with other trampoliners or spectators.

(d) Not run on trampolines, over pads, or on platforms.

(e) Refrain from acting in a manner that may cause injury to others.

(f) Not participate in a trampoline court when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

(g) Properly use all trampoline court safety equipment provided.

(i) Remove inappropriate attire, including hard, sharp, or dangerous objects, such as buckles, pens, purses, or badges.

(j) Conform with or meet height, weight, or age restrictions imposed by the operator to use or participate in the trampoline court activity.

(k) Avoid crowding or overloading individual sections of the trampoline court.

(l) Use the trampoline court within his or her own limitations, training, and acquired skills.

(m) Avoid landing on the head or neck. Serious injury, paralysis, or death can occur from that activity.

The simple analysis of the plaintiff’s argument is the ANSI code which applies to the manufacturing of Trampolines was not met by the defendant, and the defendant did not pass on required notices established by the code to the plaintiff.

The first issue was defendants failed to pass on the size restrictions that ANSI requirements might require. The court denied this argument by stating the ANSI code applied to manufacturers not trampoline owners or operators.

However, ASTM F2970-13 § 6 applies only to “designers/engineers or manufacturers” of trampolines and § A.1.1.4 applies only to manufacturers. Spring Loaded II is an operator of a trampoline court facility and plaintiff presented no evidence that Spring Loaded designed or manufactured the trampoline.

The next issue was ANSI required an operation’s plate to be firmly affixed to the trampoline. The defendant argued there was no operation’s plate because the trampoline did not come with one. The operation’s information was to include the maximum size of someone allowed on the trampoline. At the time of his injury, the plaintiff testified in his deposition; he weighed 275 pounds.

The court struck this argument down because the failure to post the plate was not the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. There must be a causal connection, proximate cause, to prove negligence. Generally, the court found trampolines are designed to hold 300 lbs., so that would not have changed the issues with the plaintiff since he weighed less than the design of the trampoline. Finally, there was no argument by the plaintiff that if the information were posted, he would not have used the trampoline.

However, even if a reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II violated ASTM F2970-13 § 9.1 by failing to post the information plate, no reasonable trier of fact could find that the omission caused plaintiff’s injury. Under ASTM F2970-13 § 6.8.[ 3], trampoline manufacturers are generally required to design trampolines that are able to support users weighing 300 pounds and plaintiff testified in his deposition that he weighed approximately 275 pounds on the date of his injury. Thus, plaintiff would not have been informed that he exceeded the maximum user weight even if the information plate had been posted. Moreover, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he would not have used the trampolines if the information plate had been posted.

The plaintiff argued the defendant violated an ANSI standard for:

…failing to develop and communicate information regarding the risks associated with jumping near the edge of the trampoline bed or the risks associated with jumping from one trampoline to another, thereby causing plaintiff’s injury.

Again, the court struck this down because the ANSI standard was for designers and manufacturers not operators. The standard argued by the plaintiff that was not met also had a duty to inform the manufacture of any incident within seven days of the incident which was not done in this case. Again, the failure to notify the manufacture of the incident within seven days was not the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

The plaintiff next argued the defendant had a duty to warn of the risks of jumping on a trampoline when you were fat or the risks of jumping from one trampoline to another.

The court found the defendant did not have a duty to warn of jumping on a trampoline near the edge or jumping from one trampoline to another. The statute states “An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary.” An assumption of the risk statement set out in the statute. Based on the video, the plaintiff clearly accepted the risks of his actions and as such assumed the risk requiring no duty to warn on the part of the defendant.

The plaintiff argued:

However, this argument fails because it speaks to defects in the product. In this case, there were no defects in the trampoline that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

There was a dissent in the decision. The dissenting judge agreed with the majority that there was no violation of the Michigan Trampoline Safety Act. However, the dissent did believe that there was a valid failure to warn claim. This argument stems from the dissenting judges view of the video where he believes the plaintiff’s toe touched the foam padding at the edge of the trampoline, leading to a requirement on the part of the defendant to warn patrons of jumping from mat to mat. Because the dissenting judge viewed the video differently than from the majority, he felt that factual issues should be allowed to go to the jury.

However, the dissent is just that, a minority opinion and the majority opinion is the way the decision is handled.

The circuit court properly granted Spring Loaded II’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Accordingly, we affirm.

So Now What?

The defendant should immediately post notices of the dangers of jumping from trampoline to trampoline and other risks. Just because the defendant won the appeal does not mean that the dissent is not an important legal analysis that can be ignored.
1. Included in those warnings should be one about fitness and weight of anyone jumping.
The defendant should use a release. A release in Michigan would have stopped this lawsuit sooner or might have prevented it from starting.
I would even post the Michigan Trampoline Safety Act duties required of a patron, and the risks accepted by a patron.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

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

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC SummitMagic@gmail.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Stay away from Grooming Machines when you are skiing and boarding. They are dangerous!

Posted: June 10, 2019 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Assumption of risk, assumption of the risk, Blue Slope, bunny slope, Genuine Issue of Material Fact, Green Slope, Groomer, grooming, Grooming Machine, Inherent Risk, Michigan SASA, Michigan's Ski Area Safety Act, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike, Mt. Brighton, Pump House, Ski Area Safety Act, ski lesson, Ski Slope, Ski Trip, Snow Groomer, Summary judgment | Leave a comment

Ski area safety acts were written, no matter what anyone says, to protect ski areas. However, if the ski area does not follow the statutes, then they cannot use the statute as a defense.

Dawson et al., v. Mt. Brighton, Inc. et al., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43730, 2013 WL 1276555

State: Michigan, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Plaintiff: Corinne Dawson et al.

Defendant: Mt. Brighton, Inc. et al.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Michigan Ski Safety Act

Holding: for the plaintiff

Year: 2013

Summary

Michigan Ski Safety Act lists grooming machines as an inherent risk of skiing. The act also requires signs to be posted on slopes where groomers are operating. Failure to have the proper sign creates an issue as to whether the inherent risk applies defeating the ski areas’ motion for summary judgment.

Facts

A.M., a 12 year old minor and a beginner skier, was at Mt. Brighton participating in a school sponsored ski trip on January 30, 2008. The temperature the day before and early morning hours was over 40 degrees, but by 8:00 a.m. the temperature was less than 10 degrees, with strong winds. Mt. Brighton began grooming the grounds later than normal on January 30, 2008, because of the poor conditions the day before. Only two ski slopes were open, the two rope beginner ski slopes.

An employee of Mt. Brighton for about 8 years, Sturgis operated the grooming machine that day. (Sturgis Dep. at 19) Sturgis indicated that his main concern when operating the machine was the safety of skiers around the grooming machine while in operation. (Sturgis Dep. at 52) Sturgis was grooming with another operator, Mike Bergen. (Sturgis Dep. at 83) Bergen led the grooming, followed by Sturgis. They began by grooming the bunny slopes and intermediate slopes which were groomed prior to the opening of the resort that day. (Sturgis Dep. at 66-67, 83, 86)

Sturgis and Bergen also groomed the area described as the “black and red” slopes, which were closed. (Sturgis Dep. at 86) Sturgis and Bergen then went to groom the area called the “blue” slope, which was closed. (Sturgis Dep. at 87) The resort had opened by this time. The route to the blue slope from the black and red slopes took them along the Main Lodge. Sturgis testified that his groomer passed well below the bunny hill slope, located to his left. (Sturgis Dep. at 96-98) Sturgis saw two individuals on top of the bunny hill and two girls next to a pump house to his right. Sturgis maintained eye contact with the girls because they were closer to the grooming machine than the individuals on top of the bunny hill. (Sturgis Dep. at 98) As Sturgis was going around the pump house, a boy alongside the groomer was saying something about the tiller. Sturgis jumped out and saw A.M. under the tiller. Sturgis lifted up the tiller, shut the machine off and sought first-aid. Sturgis had no idea from whence A.M. had come. (Sturgis Dep. at 104-05)

A.M. testified that he received a lesson that day on how to start and stop on skis and had skied down the bunny slope several times with his friends. (A.M. Dep. at 30-31, 33-34). This was A.M.’s second time skiing. A.M. had been skiing in the beginner area and had seen the snow groomers. (A.M. Dep. at 32-33) A.M. indicated he was racing with another boy down the hill. When he reached the bottom, he turned around to say “I won” and that was the last thing he remembered. A.M. testified that as he was going down the hill, he was trying to stop, “was slipping and trying to grab something.” (A.M. Dep. at 32-33) A.M. struck the groomer and was entrapped in the tiller. A.M. was dragged over 200 feet by the groomer.

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

The only real defense the defendant ski area had was the Michigan Ski Safety Act. The plaintiffs argue that because the defendants had violated the act, they could not use the act to protect them from a lawsuit.

The court then went through the act looking at the purpose for its creation and the protections it affords ski areas. One specific part of the act’s states that snow-grooming equipment is a risk.

MCL § 408.342. Duties of skier; acceptance of inherent dangers.

However, the act also requires that when snow grooming equipment is on the slope. there must be a sign posted.

MCL § 408.326a. Duties of ski area operators.

(f) Place or cause to be placed, if snow-grooming or snowmaking operations are being performed on a ski run, slope, or trail while the run, slope, or trail is open to the public, a conspicuous notice at or near the top of or entrance to the run, slope, or trail indicating that those operations are being performed.

The plaintiff argued the signs were not posted on the run.

The issue for the court was, did the violation of the duty created by the statute remove the defense the Michigan Ski Safety Act provides.

The assumption of the risk provision as to groomers specifically, is “broad” and “clear” and “contains no reservation or limitation of its scope.” However, “[t]he actions or inactions of a defendant cannot always be irrelevant, for if they were, the duties and liabilities placed on individual skiers would have no meaning.”

However, the court found that the issue presented by the plaintiff, that no sign was present created a genuine issue of material fact, which denies a motion for summary judgment.

The case went on to discuss other motions filed that did not relate to the facts or legal issues of interest.

So Now What?

A Colorado ski area had a multi-year nasty battle over that same issue eleven years earlier. Now signs are permanently posted at all lift loading areas and the at the tops of unloading areas so you know you can realize that groomers may be on the slopes.

At the same time, most ski areas have worked hard to remove snow groomers from the slopes when skiers are present.

For another case, colliding with a snow cat see: The actual risk causing the injury to the plaintiff was explicitly identified in the release and used by the court as proof it was a risk of skiing and snowboarding. If it was in the release, then it was a risk.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Jim Moss

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

Jim is the author or co-author of eight books about legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law. To Purchase Go Here:

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

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

If you are interested in having me write your release, download the form and return it to me.

Connect

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

X, Formerly Twitter

Facebook Logo

Threads

Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Dawson et al., v. Mt. Brighton, Inc. et al., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43730, 2013 WL 1276555

Posted: May 6, 2019 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, Michigan, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Assumption of risk, assumption of the risk, Blue Slope, bunny slope, Genuine Issue of Material Fact, Green Slope, Groomer, grooming, Grooming Machine, Inherent Risk, Michigan SASA, Michigan's Ski Area Safety Act, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike, Mt. Brighton, Pump House, Ski Area Safety Act, ski lesson, Ski Slope, Ski Trip, Snow Groomer, Summary judgment | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Stay away from Grooming Machines when you are skiing and boarding. They are dangerous!

Dawson et al., v. Mt. Brighton, Inc. et al., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43730, 2013 WL 1276555

Corinne Dawson et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mt. Brighton, inc. et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-10233

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

March 27, 2013

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ORDER SETTING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES

DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2011, a First Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Corinne Dawson, individually and as co-Next Friend of A.M., a minor, Peter Miles, co-Next Friend of A.M., a minor, Justine Miles and Dwaine Dawson against Defendants Mt. Brighton, Inc. and Robert Sturgis alleging: By A.M., by and through his Co-Next Friends, Statute Violations against All Defendants under the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, M.C.L. § 408.326a (Count I); By Corinne Dawson, Dwaine Dawson and Justine Miles, Statute Violations by All Defendants under the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, M.C.L. § 408.326a (Count II); By A.M., by and through his Co-Next Friends, Common Law Premises Liability against All Defendants (Count III); and, By Corinne Dawson, Dwaine Dawson and Justine Miles, Common Law Premises Liability against All Defendants (Count IV).

This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs filed a response, along with various documents, including “Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Facts”, Declaration of Larry Heywood, and Declaration of Timothy A. Loranger. Defendants filed a reply. Plaintiffs also filed a document titled “Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike” portions of Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Defendants replied to this motion. Defendants filed a Motion to Adjourn Scheduling Order Dates seeking adjournment of the December 4, 2012 trial date, to which Plaintiffs submitted a response that they did not object to the motion.

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A. Standard of Review

Rule 56(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedures provides that the court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The presence of factual disputes will preclude granting of summary judgment only if the disputes are genuine and concern material facts. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” only if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. Although the Court must view the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, where “the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact, ” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23. A court must look to the substantive law to identify which facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

B. Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act

Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment under Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act (“SASA”) which bars recovery for any injuries under common law premises liability or negligence claims. Plaintiffs respond that because of Defendants’ violation of SASA, specifically failing to post any signs that grooming was taking place, Defendants are not immune from liability under SASA. Plaintiffs also argue that SASA does not apply since the place where the incident occurred was not a ski run, slope or trail.

SASA was enacted in 1962. The purposes of SASA include, inter alia, safety, reduced litigation, and economic stabilization of an industry which contributes substantially to Michigan’s economy. Shukoski v. Indianhead Mountain Resort, Inc., 166 F.3d 848, 850 (6th Cir. 1999). The Michigan legislature perceived a problem with respect to the inherent dangers of skiing and the need to promote safety, coupled with the uncertain and potentially enormous ski area operators’ liability. Id. (citation omitted) Given the competing interests between safety and liability, the legislature decided to establish rules regulating ski operators and the ski operators’ and skiers’ responsibilities in the area of safety. Id. The Legislature decided that all skiers assume the obvious and necessary dangers of skiing, limiting ski area operators’ liability and promoting safety. Id. The statute states:

(1) While in a ski area, each skier shall do all of the following:

(a) Maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.

(b) Stay clear of snow-grooming vehicles and equipment in the ski area.

(d) Ski only in areas which are marked as open for skiing on the trial board…

(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.

M.C.L. § 408.342. This subjection identifies two types of dangers inherent in the sport. Anderson v. Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc., 469 Mich. 20, 24 (2003). The first is described as natural hazards and the second as unnatural hazards. Id. Both types of examples are only examples because the Legislature used the term “dangers include, but are not limited to.” Id. at 25.

A.M. was injured by snow-grooming equipment, which is expressly noted in SASA. Plaintiffs argue that there was no sign posted regarding the use of snow-grooming equipment, as required in the statute, M.C.L. § 408.326(a), which states,

Each Ski Area operator shall, with respect to operation of a ski area, do all of the following:

* * *

(f) Place or case to be placed, if snow grooming or snow making operations are being performed on a ski run, slope, or trial while the run, slope, or trial is open to the public, a conspicuous notice at or near the top of the entrance to the run, slope, or trail indicating that those operations are being performed.

M.C.L. § 408.326(a).

The Michigan courts have held that even if there are allegations that provisions of SASA were violated which may have caused injury, there is no limitation in SASA as to the risks assumed. Rusnak v. Walker, 273 Mich.App. 299, 307 (2006). Rusnak was a suit under SASA involving a collision between two skiers. In Rusnak, the Michigan Court of Appeals noted that, “the Legislature did not start off the subsection by stating except for violations of other sections of this act, ‘ the skier assumes the obvious and necessary dangers inherent in the sport.” Id . (italics added). The assumption of the risk provision in M.C.L. § 408.342 is “clear and unambiguous, providing that a skier assumes the risk of obvious and necessary dangers that inhere in the sport, and [t]hose dangers’ specifically include collisions” with snow groomers. Id.

The Michigan Supreme Court has made clear that the Legislature created a certainty concerning a ski area operator’s liability risks. Anderson, 469 Mich. at 26. In a case where a skier collided at the end of a ski run with a shack that housed race timing equipment, the Michigan Supreme Court noted:

To adopt the standard plaintiff urges would deprive the statute of the certainty the Legislature wished to create concerning liability risks. Under plaintiff’s standard, after any accident, rather than immunity should suit be brought, the ski-area operator would be engaged in the same inquiry that would have been undertaken if there had been no statute ever enacted. This would mean that, in a given case, decisions regarding the reasonableness of the place of lift towers or snow groomers, for example, would be placed before a jury or judicial fact-finder. Yet it is just this process that the grant of immunity was designed to obviate. In short, the Legislature has indicated that matters of this sort are to be removed from the common-law arena, and it simply falls to us to enforce the statute as written. This we have done.

Id. There is no need to consider whether the ski operator retains a duty under common-law premises liability. Id. at 26-27. Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants violated SASA by failing to post the appropriate sign that snow grooming was taking place does not override the express assumption of the risk by the skier enacted by the Legislature.

The assumption of the risk provision as to groomers specifically, is “broad” and “clear” and “contains no reservation or limitation of its scope.” Rusnak, 273 Mich.App. at 309. However, “[t]he actions or inactions of a defendant cannot always be irrelevant, for if they were, the duties and liabilities placed on individual skiers would have no meaning.” Id. “Indeed, we cannot favor one section, such as the assumption-of-risk provision, over other equally applicable sections, such as the duty and liability provisions.” Id. The Rusnak panel held that a plaintiff does assume the risks set forth in the statute. Id. The provisions must be read together while giving them full force and effect. Id. However, a plaintiff can still recover limited damages against a defendant if the plaintiff can prove that a defendant violated SASA, causing the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Id. In such a situation, the defendant’s acts would be relevant for a “comparative negligence” evaluation. Id. at 311. Depending on the facts, the actions of a defendant may be relevant for purposes of determining the allocation of fault and, perhaps damages. Id. at 313. Reading the provisions together is consistent with the plain language of the two provisions at issue, which conform to the legislative purpose of SASA – to reduce the liability of ski operators, while at the same time placing many, but not all, risks of skiing on the individual skiers. Id. at 314.

In this case, it is clear A.M. assumed the risk of skiing. However, A.M. has created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a notice at or near the top of or entrance to the ski run, slope, or trail indicating that snow grooming operations were being performed as set forth in M.C.L. § 408.236a(f). There remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the incident occurred falls within the phrase, “ski run, slope, or trail.” The State of Michigan Investigator and Defendants’ expert, Mark Doman, stated at his deposition that the area where the incident occurred could be described as a “ski run, slope, or trail” even though Defendants argue that this area is a “transition area.” (Doman Dep., p. 74) Summary judgment on the issue of notice under M.C.L. § 408.236a(f) is denied. Although there is no genuine issue of material fact that A.M. assumed the risk as to snow groomers under SASA, Defendants’ actions as to their duties under M.C.L. § 408.236a(f) as to notice is relevant for purposes of determining the allocation of fault and damages under a comparative negligence analysis.

III. SANCTIONS

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiffs under the Court’s inherent power. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have no intention to follow applicable well established court and ethical rules, including: page limit; entering onto Mt. Brighton for inspection in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 without notice to Defendants; and having contact with the owner of Mt. Brighton without counsel in violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 4.1 and 4.2. Defendants seek dismissal based on Plaintiffs’ alleged pattern of discovery abuse. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ counsel took an oath in this Circuit to follow the rules and practice with integrity, yet counsel had no plans to follow the oath and this Court must sanction Plaintiffs’ counsel to deter any further continued conduct. Plaintiffs respond that they did not violate the court or ethical rules.

A. Page Limit

As to the page limit claim, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs violated Local Rule 7.1 regarding page limits since Plaintiffs submitted separate documents setting forth their version of “material facts” separate from Plaintiffs’ response brief, in addition to other documents including “objection” to the summary judgment motion and “declarations” by Plaintiffs’ experts.

Plaintiffs respond that as to the page limit issue, this matter was argued at the time the Court heard the summary judgment motion. In any event, Plaintiffs claim they did not exceed the page limit since Local Rule 7.1(d)(3) states that the text of a brief may not exceed 20 pages and that Plaintiffs’ response brief was only 19 pages. Plaintiffs agree that the accompanying documents in support of their brief included declaration of expert witness, list of material facts, a motion to Defendants’ report and objections to Defendants’ purported “evidence.” These documents are not part of their response “brief” but other documents supporting Plaintiffs’ arguments. Plaintiffs argue that while there is nothing in the rules which requires the filing of a separate document of undisputed facts, there is nothing prohibiting such a filing.

Local Rule 7.1(d)(3) provides, “[t]he text of a brief supporting a motion or response, including footnotes and signatures, may not exceed 20 pages. A person seeking to file a longer brief may apply ex parte in writing setting forth the reasons.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(3). A review of Plaintiffs’ “Response” to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #28) shows that the brief is only 19 pages, which does not violate Local Rule 7.1(d)(3). However, Plaintiffs did file other documents supporting their opposition including a separate document entitled “Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Material Facts” (Doc. #29) which consists of 14 pages. This document highlights facts and source of the facts, including declarations and deposition page numbers. Plaintiffs also filed a separate document entitled “Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike” (Doc. #30) which consists of 9 pages. Plaintiffs also filed two documents entitled “Declaration of Larry Heywood” (Doc. #31) and “Declaration of Timothy A. Loranger, Esq.” (Doc. #32).

Defendants did not cite to any authority, other than the Court’s inherent power, that violation of a Local Rule must result in dismissal of a case. It is noted that at the time of the filing of the response and other documents in September 2012, Defendants did not object to these filings by a separate motion until the instant motion which was filed on November 26, 2012. Defendants addressed the documents Plaintiffs filed in Defendants’ reply brief and so argued at oral arguments. Generally, exhibits and declarations supporting motions or response briefs are “attached” as exhibits to the main brief. As to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Material Facts and Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike, these arguments should have been made in Plaintiffs’ main brief.[1] These documents may have been filed to circumvent the page limit requirement. However, the Court has the discretion to allow filings separate from the parties’ main brief. A violation of the page limit local rule does not support dismissal of the case as sanctions.

B. Rule 34

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs violated Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 34 regarding inspection of land when Plaintiffs’ counsel went to Mt. Brighton, without notice to Defendants and their counsel on two occasions.

Plaintiffs admit that counsel visited Mt. Brighton property without providing any notice to the defense because Plaintiffs believed no such notice was necessary since Mt. Brighton was open to the public for business when they visited. Plaintiffs argue that Rule 34 only states that a party “may” serve a request to permit entry and that the rule does not state “must.” Plaintiffs admit photographs were taken at that time, but that taking photographs was not prohibited by Mt. Brighton. Plaintiffs claim that admissions of these photographs at trial should be brought as motions in limine.

Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(a) In General. A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):

* * *

(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2).

Generally, if a party seeks protection from certain discovery matters, that party usually files a Motion for protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(c). Here, Defendants did not seek such protection, nor did Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ entry of the land once they learned of the first instance in June 29, 2012 during the deposition of David Mark Doman wherein Plaintiffs’ counsel admitted he had sent an agent to take pictures of Defendant’s premises without notice to defense counsel. The instant Motion as filed in November 2012. Discovery rule violations are usually addressed under Rule 37. Defendants did not file a motion under Rule 37 to prohibit Plaintiffs from using any photographs they took in connection with any pre-trial proceedings at that time.

The second incident occurred on November 14, 2012, the same day oral argument was heard on the summary judgment motion. Joseph Bruhn, owner of Mt. Brighton, indicated he met three gentlemen who did not identify themselves but indicated they were there for “breakfast” even though it was 11:00 a.m. (Bruhn Aff., ¶ 5) Mr. Bruhn indicated the restaurant was not open and later noticed the gentlemen were taking pictures from the deck. (Bruhn Aff., ¶ 8) Mr. Bruhn learned the gentlemen were lawyers from Los Angeles in town to attend facilitation of this matter to be held the next day, November 15, 2012. (Bruhn, Aff., ¶9) This second incident is troublesome. Although Mr. Bruhn did not identify himself as the owner of Mt. Brighton, Plaintiffs’ counsel themselves knew the purpose of their visit – to inspect the property and take pictures.

In general, Rule 37(b)(2)(B) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions where a party fails to comply with a court order requiring the party to produce another person for examination, including prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing matters in evidence, striking pleadings, rendering default judgment against the disobedient party, treating as contempt of court the failure to obey an order or any further “just orders.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(B); 37(b)(2)(A). Here, no order has been entered by the Court striking the photographs or finding that Plaintiffs violated Rule 34. The “spirit” of Rule 34 was violated in that Plaintiffs did not notify the defense they were inspecting the premises for discovery purposes, even if the property is open to the public. The property is private property, but open to the public. The lay of the land is at the core of these proceedings. Plaintiffs should have notified the defense they sought to inspect the land as required under Rule 34. “Trial by surprise” is not a tactic in civil actions and related discovery proceedings. However, dismissal of the case is not warranted at this time, but the Court will consider this matter at trial by way of a motion in limine or objection if any testimony or exhibit is sought to be introduced relating to Plaintiffs’ first visit to Mt. Brighton. The second visit is addressed below.

C. Violation of Michigan Rules of Professional Responsibility

Defendants seek dismissal as sanctions because they allege that Plaintiffs’ counsel violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Responsibility (“MRPC”) by contacting Mt. Brighton’s owner without counsel. Plaintiffs respond that when counsel visited Mt. Brighton unannounced, counsel did not know that the gentleman greeting him at the Mt. Brighton restaurant was Mr. Bruhn, the owner of Mt. Brighton. Mr. Bruhn informed counsel that the kitchen was not open but he never indicated that Mt. Brighton was closed. Plaintiffs’ counsel then went out onto the patio to take a few photographs of the ski/golf area. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants admit in their moving papers that Plaintiffs did not violate MRPC 4.2 since there was no discussion of any aspect of the “subject of the representation” but that because counsel did not identify himself to Mr. Bruhn. Mr. Bruhn indicated in an affidavit that he did not learn of Plaintiffs’ counsel identity until the facilitation in this matter the day after.

MRPC 4.2 provides, “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party whom the lawyer knows to be represented in the matter by another lawyer, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.” Although Defendants admit that “arguably” Plaintiffs did not directly speak with Mr. Bruhn as to the “subject of the representation, ” Plaintiffs’ counsel knew the reason they were on the premises was to take photographs of the property. Defendants seek an order from this Court finding that Defendants violated Rule 4.2 and that the proper sanction is to dismiss the case.

Although Plaintiffs’ counsel, as noted by the defense, did not “arguably” violate Rule 4.2, the Court cannot expressly so find. Violations of the professional responsibility code must be brought under E.D. Mich. LR 83.22. Defendants have not sought such a formal request. The Court, however, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), will not allow Plaintiffs to offer any photographs taken of the property during the second visit to Mt. Brighton on November 14, 2012 since they knew the purpose of their visit was to take photographs and could have so indicated to opposing counsel, Mr. Bruhn or to any of Defendants’ agents. Plaintiffs had notice since June 2012 and under the discovery rules that they were required to notify Defendants of any access to Defendants’ property.

D. Rule 11 Sanctions

In Plaintiffs’ response, they indicate they may seek sanctions under Rule 11 themselves. Generally, Rule 11 provides that prior to requesting/filing a Motion for sanctions under this rule, the party must serve notice to the opposing party under the safe harbor provision of Rule 11. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(A). Rule 11(c) states that the Motion shall not be filed if not submitted to the opposing party. Pursuant to the “safe harbor” provision in Rule 11, a party seeking sanctions under the rule must first serve notice to the opposing party that such a Motion will be filed. If either party seeks to file such Rule 11 sanctions, they must do so with the “safe harbor” provision in mind.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED as more fully set forth above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Adjourn Scheduling Order Dates (Doc. No. 23) is MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion or Submit Evidence (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The second set of photographs is disallowed to be used as evidence in this case. The request for dismissal as sanctions is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Final Pretrial Conference date is scheduled for Monday, June 10, 2013, 2:30 p.m. The parties must submit a proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order by June 3, 2013 in the form set forth in Local Rule 16.2. All parties with authority to settle must appear at the conference. The Magistrate Judge may reschedule the cancelled facilitation and submit a notice to the Court by June 3, 2013 once facilitation is complete.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trial is scheduled for Tuesday, July 9, 2013, 9:00 a.m.

Notes:

[1] The parties are referred to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 and CM/ECF Pol. & Proc. R5 and R18 governing filing of motions, briefs and exhibits. See, http://www.mied.usourts.gov.

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

NASTAR release was held by the Michigan Appellate court to be written narrowly and only protect the ski area when the guest was racing or training.

Posted: April 2, 2018 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Inherent Risk, Michigan, Michigan Ski Safety Act, NASTAR, Release, SASA, Ski Area Safety Act | 1 Comment

Michigan Ski Safety Act did not apply because it was too early in the proceedings to determine if a rope hanging below the chairlift was an inherent risk of skiing under the act.

Ritari, JR v Peter E. O’dovero, Inc., 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1711

State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff: Ronald Ritari, JR. and Tama Ritari

Defendant: Peter E. O’dovero, Inc., doing business as Marquette Mountain

Plaintiff Claims: was negligent by having ropes in the area of the chair lift, failing to post warnings of the danger, failing to take measures to prevent plaintiff from catching his skis on the rope, failing to employ the emergency stop when plaintiff yelled for help, and failing to adequately supervise and control the chair lift

Defendant Defenses: Release and Michigan Ski Area Safety Act (SASA)

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 2017

Summary

Your release must be written to cover the risks and activities you need to cover. If your release fails, as in this case, then you are faced with proving the activity that injured your guest was an inherent risk of skiing.

A rope hanging below a lift, low enough a ski could be caught in the lift is going to be an interesting argument at trial to prove it is an inherent risk of skiing.

Facts

The plaintiff was a season pass holder at the ski area and enjoyed racing NASTAR. One evening while riding the chair lift his skis were caught on a nylon rope hanging below the lift when a gust of wind pulled the chair down. The plaintiff was pulled out of the chair by the rope where he fell 12′ to the ground sustaining a fractured pelvis and fracture ribs.

The plaintiff filed suit. The Defendant ski area filed a motion for summary judgment based on the NASTAR release and the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act. The plaintiff seems to have signed two releases, one when he purchased a season pass, however, only the NASTAR release was argued at trial.

The trial court dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding the release was ambiguous, and the rope hanging below the chairlift was not an inherent risk of skiing. The defendant appealed the trial court’s decision.

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

The court first looked at the release. The trial court had found the release was ambiguous. “A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”

The scope of a release is governed by the intent of the parties as it is expressed in the release. If the text in the release is unambiguous, the parties’ intentions must be ascertained from the plain, ordinary meaning of the language of the release. A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. The fact that the parties dispute the meaning of a release does not, in itself, establish an ambiguity.

To determine if a contract is valid the contract “…must be read as a whole, construed so as to give effect to every word or phrase as far as practicable…” An ambiguous contract is also referred to as a contract “…reasonable susceptible to more than one interpretation.”

The appellate court found the release was not ambiguous.

We conclude that, when read as a whole and interpreted in conjunction with the NASTAR registration form on its reverse side, the language of the Participant release is unambiguous and in-tended to relieve defendant of “all liability” for injuries suffered during training for or participating in a racing competition.

The plaintiff also argued that the release only applied when the plaintiff was racing or training for NASTAR. Here the court found for the plaintiff. On this issue, the appellate court agreed with the trial court and held that the release could be interpreted to only be for racing or training for NASTAR events.

A rope hanging below the chairlift was not a listed risk in the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act. Therefore, the court needed to determine if the ski area safety act applied to this risk.

There is no dispute that the nylon rope that entangled plaintiff is a hazard not listed in MCL 408.342(2). Thus, the question is whether the placement of a nylon rope under a chair lift is inherent to skiing and, if so, whether placement of the rope in this case was obvious and necessary. For defendant to be entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), these material facts must be undisputed and defendant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court held the jury had to determine if the risk was obvious and necessary and inherent to skiing.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for additional discovery by the parties and trial.

So Now What?

Any time you have an incident on the lift outside of the loading and unloading area it is going to create a problem for the courts and a question of fact. In several states, like Colorado, the operator of a lift owes the highest degree of care to the lift riders. In Colorado, this case would be based on how much the check would be, not if there was going to be a check.

Furthermore, a rope hanging below a lift that a skier could catch a ski or board with is also suspect. Whether the riders were bouncing on the lift or a gust of wind did force the chair down, that is a risk that needed to be looked at from all angles. Skiers running into people and legs extending from the chair and people on the chair catching their fee in it is a risk of roping off an area under a lift.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

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

Ritari, JR v Peter E. O’dovero, Inc., 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1711

Posted: April 1, 2018 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Chair Lift, Inherent Risk, Michigan, skiing | Leave a comment

Ritari, JR v Peter E. O’dovero, Inc., 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1711

Ronald Ritari, JR. and Tama Ritari, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v Peter E. O’dovero, Inc., doing business as Marquette Mountain, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 335870

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1711

October 24, 2017, Decided

NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion granted by Ritari v. Peter E. O’Dovero, 2018 Mich. LEXIS 90 (Mich., Jan. 12, 2018)

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Marquette Circuit Court. LC No. 16-054384-NO.

CORE TERMS: skiing, nastar, rope, training, ski, chair lift, racing, placement, sport, registration form, hazard, recreational, ski area, participating, skier, lift, competitive, competitor, hazardous, alpine, matter of law, clearance, snowboarding, season, risks associated, reverse side, unambiguous, susceptible, entangled, ambiguous

JUDGES: Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and BECKERING and RIORDAN, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

In this interlocutory appeal,¹ defendant, Peter E. O’Dovero, Inc, d/b/a Marquette Mountain, challenges the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (release, immunity granted by law) and (C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact, movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law). The case arises out of an incident at Marquette Mountain ski resort that occurred when plaintiff, Ronald Ritari, Jr., was riding up the ski hill on a chair lift and became entangled in a rope that had been installed underneath the lift, which pulled him off the lift and caused him to sustain serious injuries in the ensuing fall.² Because material questions of fact remain, we agree with the trial court that summary disposition is inappropriate at this time.

1 Ronald Ritari Jr v Peter E O’Dovero, Inc, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 20, 2017 (Docket No. 335870).

2 Plaintiff Tama Ritari’s claim is derivative of her husband’s; therefore, “plaintiff” refers to Ronald Ritari, Jr.

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On the evening of January 29, 2015, plaintiff went to Marquette Mountain to ski. He was a season pass holder there and enjoyed NASTAR³ racing. According to plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit, at around 6:45 p.m. he and his son boarded [*2] a chair lift to reach the top of the hill for their first run of the evening. They planned to take a couple of pleasure runs down the hill before their Thursday night ski league began. When his chair was approximately 20 yards from the loading zone, a gust of wind pulled the chair down and the tips of plaintiff’s skis became entangled in a nylon rope attached to the ground by two poles directly below the chair lift. Plaintiff was able to free the tip of his left ski from the rope, but he was unable to free the tip of his right ski, and he felt his leg being pulled backward as his chair continued to move up the hill. Plaintiff grabbed the middle pole of the chair to keep from falling and screamed as loudly as he could for the chair lift operator to stop the lift. But the chair lift did not stop, and plaintiff was pulled out of his chair by the rope. He fell approximately 12 feet to the ground and sustained a fractured pelvis and fractured ribs.

3 According to its website, NASTAR is the “largest public grassroots ski racing program in the world” and “gives recreational racers an opportunity to compete and compare their scores to friends and family regardless of when and where they race using the NASTAR handicap system.” NASTAR competitions typically occur on grand slalom and slalom courses laid out by the host ski resorts in accordance with NASTAR’s instructions. http://www.nastar.com (accessed 9/15/17).

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging that the ski area was negligent by having ropes in the area of the chair lift, failing to post warnings of the danger, failing to take measures to prevent plaintiff from catching his skis on the [*3] rope, failing to employ the emergency stop when plaintiff yelled for help, and failing to adequately supervise and control the chair lift. Before any discovery began by way of interrogatories, depositions, or otherwise, defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10), contending that plaintiff had signed releases broad enough to bar any claim for injuries arising out of the incident. Defendant relied on three forms signed by plaintiff.

Specifically, On December 13, 2014, in conjunction with purchasing an annual ski pass at Marquette Mountain for the 2014-2015 season, plaintiff signed a release wherein he agreed to assume “the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing/snowboarding . . . .” On December 16, 2014, he filled out a document in order to participate in NASTAR races. The document, a single sheet of paper, contains two forms, one on the front and one on the back. Hand-printed vertically in capital letters along the right side of both forms are the instructions, “FILL OUT BOTH SIDES.”

On the front side of the NASTAR document is a registration form. The form has headings entitled “Registration Form,” “Racer Information,” [*4] “Team Information,” and “Waiver and Release of Liability.” According to the release language on this form, plaintiff, “in exchange for being permitted to participate in NASTAR events (the “Event”),” assumes all risks associated with his involvement in the event and the “risk of injury caused by the condition of any property, facilities, or equipment used during the Event, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable.”

On the reverse side of the NASTAR document is a release entitled “Marquette Mountain Ski Area, and Competition Participant” (henceforth, the “Participant release”). According to the relevant terms of this release, “Participant, the undersigned, being at least 18 years old . . . agrees and understands that alpine skiing and snowboarding in its various forms (hereinafter the “Activity”) is HAZARDOUS⁴ and may involve the risk of physical injury or death.” The Participant also agrees that “training or racing competitively is more HAZARDOUS than recreational skiing,” that he or she is “a competitor at all times, whether practicing for competition or in competition.” According to the release, the Participant assumes all risks associated with the Activity, including but not limited to [*5] the risk of all course conditions, course construction or layout and obstacles, risks associated with riding the lifts, and risks associated with ski lift operations and acts or omissions of employees. The Participant agrees to release defendant from “all liabilities” arising from engagement in “the Activity,” including any injuries caused by the actual negligence of defendant’s employees. In its motion for summary disposition, defendant contended that, by signing this release, plaintiff assumed “all” risks, argued that “all” left no room for exceptions, and stressed that the terms of this release barred plaintiff’s claim for negligence as a matter of law.

4 A fold or wrinkle in the copy of the release that is in the record obscures this word. However, defendant quotes the relevant section of the release in its motion for summary disposition as “I further agree and understand that training or racing competitively is more HAZARDOUS than recreational skiing.”

In support of its motion, defendant also argued that MCL 408.342(2), the assumption of risk provision in the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962 (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., operated to bar plaintiff’s claim because risks associated with fencing and falling from a chair lift inhere in the sport of skiing.

Plaintiff countered that neither the season-pass release nor the assumption of risk provision in SASA barred his claim because the inappropriate placement of a rope directly under the chair lift was not an inherent risk of skiing. Additionally, plaintiff argued that the [*6] rope was not necessary because its placement violated the standards governing minimum clearance between a chair lift and an obstacle below, and it was not obvious because he neither saw it nor expected it to be placed where it was. He further argued that neither side of the executed NASTAR document barred his claim because he was not engaged in a NASTAR event, nor was he training for such an event when he was injured. Finally, plaintiff contended that there remained genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendant’s chair lift personnel were inattentive and failed to timely shut off the chair lift when the rope entangled him, and that this was not a risk assumed pursuant to the assumption of risk provision of SASA.

At the motion hearing, defendant argued that the Participant release on the back side of the NASTAR document applied not just to competitions and training for competitions, but to “skiing in all its forms.” Accordingly, the Participant release controlled resolution of the matter and insulated defendant from any alleged negligent placement of the nylon rope. At the same time, defendant insisted that it had not been negligent in placement of the rope at issue because [*7] the rope’s location complied with required clearance standards and was necessary to the safety of skiers.⁵ Plaintiff reiterated his argument that the forms on both sides of the NASTAR document pertained to participation in competition-related skiing, and that the rope at issue was neither necessary nor obvious with respect to any assumption of the risk plaintiff assumed when signing up for his season pass or through SASA.

5 Defendant acknowledged plaintiff’s argum
Accreditation is marketing. In fact, it may be why you are being sued.

Marketing is not a way to manage risks or stop lawsuits. Marketing Makes Promises that Risk Management Must Pay For.
Accreditation is marketing. In fact, it may be why you are being sued.

Marketing is not a way to manage risks or stop lawsuits. Marketing Makes Promises that Risk Management Must Pay For.ent about the front side of the NASTAR document focusing on event racing and the fact that the release language there and in the season pass document coincides with the language of SASA, which is commonly referred to as the assumption of the risk clause. As such, while arguing that the rope at issue was a necessary and obvious danger, defendant focused on the back side of the NASTAR document and its “sweeping” release of defendant’s own negligence for the purpose of his motion for summary disposition at such an early stage in the litigation.

Ruling from the bench, the trial court noted that construing the viability of plaintiff’s claim under SASA turned on necessary factual findings yet to be made, rendering summary disposition inappropriate at that point in the proceedings. With regard to the releases, the trial court observed that the parties’ arguments were geared toward the form on the reverse side of the NASTAR document. The trial court easily dispensed with the front page as being race-related. As for the back side, the Participant release, the trial court concluded that there were questions about the extent to which the release might apply to relieve defendant of liability outside the context of racing or training.

In addition to its location on the back of the NASTAR form, the trial court pointed [*8] to three phrases in the Participant release that seem to limit the scope of that release to training for or participating in a competition. The first is the phrase in which the participant agrees with the premise “that Participant is a competitor at all times, whether practicing for competition or in competition.” The second is the provision, “Participant is always provided an opportunity to and will conduct a reasonable visual inspection of the training or racecourse.” The third phrase is, “I further agree and understand that training or racing competitively is more [hazardous] . . . than recreational skiing.” The trial court described the language of the release as “a little ambiguous” and concluded that in light of the questions about the extent to which the release might apply to relieve defendant of all liability at any time, even when the person who signed it is simply recreationally skiing, summary disposition was premature.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition because the unambiguous language of the December 16, 2014 Participant release releases it from all liability regardless of whether plaintiff was injured [*9] while practicing for a competition, in competition, or simply skiing recreationally. It also claims that it is entitled to summary disposition under the assumption of the risk statute in SASA, MCL 408.343(2). We conclude that defendant is racing too quickly to the finish line in this case, to which it may or may not be entitled a victory.

We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition, Casey v Auto Owners Ins Co, 273 Mich App 388, 393; 729 NW2d 277 (2006), as well as issues involving contractual and statutory interpretation, Rodgers v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 315 Mich App 301, 307; 890 NW2d 381 (2016).

A. RELEASE

Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate where the terms of a release bar a claim. As this Court has explained,

In addition, a contract must be read as a whole, Dobbelaere v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 275 Mich App 527, 529; 740 NW2d 503 (2007), and “construed so as to give effect to every word or phrase as far as practicable,” Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 467; 663 NW2d 447 (2003). See [*10] also Restatement Contracts, 2d, § 202, p 86 (“a writing is interpreted as a whole, and all writings that are part of the same transaction are interpreted together.”).⁶ The interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law. Mich Nat’l Bank, 228 Mich App 710, 714; 580 NW2d 8 (1998).

6 See also Restatement Contracts, 1st, § 235 (“A writing is interpreted as a whole and all writings forming part of the same transaction are interpreted together.”).

After our review of the language of the Participant release, we disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that the language of the release is ambiguous, or in other words, “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.” Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 272 668 NW2d 166 (2003) (“A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”). However, we agree with plaintiff, not defendant, as to its meaning and scope. Several factors indicate that the NASTAR registration and Participant release were part of the same transaction–which is in fact undisputed–and therefore, should be read and interpreted together: the “Participant” release is on the reverse side of the NASTAR registration form, both forms bear the handwritten instruction to “fill out both sides,” and plaintiff executed both releases on the same date specifically in order to participate in NASTAR races. We conclude that, when read as a whole and interpreted in conjunction with the NASTAR registration form on its reverse side, [*11] the language of the Participant release is unambiguous and intended to relieve defendant of “all liability” for injuries suffered during training for or participating in a racing competition.

As noted above, the trial court identified three examples where the language of the release focuses specifically on competitive skiing. After identifying the “Activity” in which the Participant is participating as “alpine skiing and snowboarding in its various forms” and noting that it may involve physical injury or death, the release requires the participant to “agree and understand that training and racing competitively is more [hazardous] than recreational skiing” (emphasis added). In addition, the release requires the participant to “agree with the Premise that Participant is a competitor at all times, whether practicing for competition or in competition” (emphasis added). Note that it does not also say when simply pleasure skiing or taking the children out for lessons on the bunny hill. Further, the Participant is required to “agree that Participant is always provided an opportunity to and will conduct a reasonable visual inspection of the training or racecourse” (emphasis added). This focuses [*12] on race-related activities. Even without consideration of the NASTAR release, the fact that the Participant release requires the participant to agree expressly to statements emphasizing the dangers of training for and participating in competitive racing specifically renders the release susceptible to the interpretation that its focus is on insulating defendant from liability for injuries sustained by participants when training for or competing in races.

Defendant contends that the Participant release’s acknowledgement that competitive racing is more hazardous than recreational skiing does not restrict the release’s scope to competitive skiing. However, the release does more than merely acknowledge the dangers of competitive skiing; it requires the Participant to expressly agree that competitive skiing is more hazardous than recreational skiing. Moreover, under the defendant’s alleged interpretation, the Participant’s acknowledgement that he or she is a competitor at all times renders it impossible for the person who signs the release as a “Participant” to ever ski recreationally. According to the logic of defendant’s argument, once a person fills out the NASTAR registration form and [*13] accompanying Participant release, he or she is a “competitor” indefinitely, regardless of whether he or she is actually competing or training for a competition.⁷

7 Under defendant’s proposed at-all-times interpretation, there is no time frame for how long someone is considered to be a Participant if that word is not tied to actual racing or training. Are they deemed to be a Participant for the rest of the season? Indefinitely? What if they only participated in one race? In doing so, have they given up all rights they might otherwise have had as a recreational skier? And where does it say that in the release? Defendant’s proposed interpretation creates an ambiguity that it cannot resolve within the confines of the agreement.

Other portions of the Participant release also support the conclusion that the unambiguous language limits its scope to liability for injuries suffered during or while training for a ski or snowboard competition. The heading contains what one might reasonably construe as an identification of the parties to the release, “Marquette Mountain Ski Area, and Competition Participant.” The comma inserted between “Marquette Mountain Ski Area” and “Competition Participant” suggests that the release involves Marquette Mountain Ski Area on one side, and a “competition participant” on the other. Defendant urges this Court to ignore the “competition participant” designation, arguing that it is not part of the four corners of the agreement and is neither used nor defined in the release. However, interpreting the NASTAR release and the Participant release together makes clear that “competition participant” refers to the person participating in the NASTAR competition that defendant is hosting.⁸ Further, if “competition” refers only to the NASTAR [*14] event, but “participant” can have more than one referent,⁹ it seems reasonable that the release would focus on defining “participant” to ensure inclusion of all the word’s possible meanings. Additionally, that the participant is “a competitor at all times” harkens back to “competition participant” in the heading, again allowing one to reasonably interpret the release to pertain only to the release of liability arising from injuries associated with training for or racing in a competition.

8 The mere fact that the release uses the word “Participant” conjures up images of participation in something; it would not lead the reader to conclude that one is a Participant whenever they are on the slopes, even when they are not actually participating in anything or training for anything.

9 E.g., “participant” includes a person at least 18-years old, a participating minor, and the parents or legal guardian of as well as his or her parent or legal guardian.

Moreover, the Participant warrants in the Participant release that he or she is in good health and has left no special instructions “that have not been listed on the registration form.” Although the Participant release makes no further mention of a registration form, the NASTAR document on the reverse side is both a registration form and a release, and it contains a ‘Physically Challenged” heading where competitors may identify their physical or intellectual challenges.

Finally, defendant asserts that “alpine skiing and snowboarding” is not limited to competitive racing. This is true; “alpine skiing” may refer to downhill skiing for sport or recreation. However, interpreting the Participant release with [*15] the NASTAR release renders the phrase “alpine skiing and snowboarding in its various forms” susceptible to the interpretation that it refers specifically to the three downhill disciplines from which participants may choose to compete at a NASTAR event: alpine skiing, snowboarding, and telemarker (which combines elements of Alpine and Nordic skiing).

Given the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition associated with the Participant release, but it erred to the extent it deemed the release language ambiguous. Assuming factual development establishes that plaintiff was not engaged in training for or competing in racing activities at the time of his injury, as plaintiff contends it will, the Participant release does not apply. Moreover, for the reasons set forth below, determination of whether the release language in plaintiff’s season pass bars his claim–which entails an assumption of the risks inherent in skiing analysis–will depend on further factual development gleaned from discovery, which has not yet begun.

B. MCL 408.342(2)

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). Summary disposition [*16] under (C)(10) is proper if the documentary evidence filed by the parties and viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion fails to show a genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).

The Legislature enacted SASA in 1962, and amended it in 1981. Kent v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 240 Mich App 731, 737; 613 NW2d 383 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). One of the purposes of the Legislature’s amendment was “to make the skier, rather than the ski area operator, bear the burden of damages from injuries.” Id. Thus, among the provisions in the 1981 amendment was one for the acceptance of risk by skiers, MCL 408.342(2), which provides as follows:

Where, as here, an injury results [*17] from a hazard not listed in the statute, Michigan’s Supreme Court has established a test to determine whether a defendant ski resort is nevertheless immune on grounds that the hazard is of the same type as those listed in the statute. Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, 469 Mich 20, 24-25; 664 NW2d 756 (2003).

At issue in Anderson was whether the assumption of risk provision barred the plaintiff’s suit for injuries suffered when he collided with a timing shack during a skiing race. The Supreme Court determined that the different types of hazards listed in MCL 408.342(2) had in common “that they all inhere in the sport of skiing and, as long as they are obvious and necessary to the sport, there is immunity from suit.” Id. at 25. Thus, once a hazard is determined to be inherent to the sport of skiing, “only if [it is] unnecessary or not obvious is the ski operator liable.” Id. at 26. Applying the facts of Anderson to its legal conclusion, the Supreme Court reasoned:

There is no disputed issue of fact in this matter that in ski racing, timing, as it determines who is the winner, is necessary. Moreover, there is no dispute that for the timing equipment to function, it is necessary that it be protected from the elements. This protection was afforded by the shack that all also agree was obvious [*18] in its placement at the end of the run. We have then a hazard of the same sort as the ski towers and snow-making and grooming machines to which the statute refers us. As with the towers and equipment, this hazard inheres in the sport of skiing. The placement of the timing shack is thus a danger that skiers such as Anderson are held to have accepted as a matter of law. [Id. at 25-26.]

Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the ski operator was immune from suit because the timing shack was a hazard inherent to skiing, and it was necessary and obvious.

We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that, at this early stage of the proceedings, the record facts are simply insufficient to determine whether SASA applies to bar plaintiff’s claim. There is no dispute that the nylon rope that entangled plaintiff is a hazard not listed in MCL 408.342(2). Thus, the question is whether the placement of a nylon rope under a chair lift is inherent to skiing and, if so, whether placement of the rope in this case was obvious and necessary. For defendant to be entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), these material facts must be undisputed and defendant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Quinto, 451 Mich at 362.

However, [*19] the parties dispute the material facts. And the record evidence–given that discovery has not yet begun–is not sufficient to resolve their disputes. For example, although both parties agree that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard B77.1-2006 governs the construction, installation, and operation of a ski lift, they dispute whether defendant’s positioning of the rope violated the clearance requirements set forth in ANSI, and whether such violation renders defendant liable for injuries attributable to the violation. In fact, there is no record evidence as to what the rope was even for, making impossible at this point a determination of whether it was a necessary part of skiing. Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s placement of the rope “in an area directly below the chair lift” violated the ANSI standards, and that the rope was neither obvious nor necessary. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s allegation that his fall to the ground was approximately 12 feet demonstrates that defendant complied with the requirement to have a clearance of at least 8 feet between the lowest point of the carrier and the terrain. In addition, defendant characterizes the rope as a “fence,” [*20] and asserts, “fencing and its risks are intrinsic in the sport of skiing,” and further asserts that the rope/fence was absolutely needed to prevent skiers from traveling under the chair lift and being injured.” However, because there is nothing in the record evidence indicating the rope’s purpose or its location relative to the chair lift and the terrain, it is impossible to determine where the rope was placed and whether it was necessary. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s description of his fall in his affidavit demonstrates that there was at least an 8-foot clearance between the carrier, but defendant has not eliminated the possibility that the rope was too close to the carrier when it caught plaintiff’s skis, and it begs the question of why there was a rope if the minimum clearance did not require one. In short, defendant has not met its burden to submit affirmative evidence indicating that it was entitled to summary disposition on grounds that the dangers posed by the nylon rope at issue were inherent to skiing, and that they were necessary and obvious.¹⁰
Quinto, 451 Mich at 362.

10 Because we conclude that defendant’s motion for summary disposition was properly denied at this stage of the case, we need not address plaintiff’s additional argument that SASA does not bar his claim arising from the chair lift operator’s alleged failure to stop the chair lift after plaintiff became entangled in the rope.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

/s/ Jane M. Beckering

/s/ Michael J. Riordan

Allowing a climber to climb with harness on backwards on health club climbing wall enough for court to accept gross negligence claim and invalidate the release.

Posted: February 27, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Climbing Wall, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Climbing Harness, Climbing Wall, Health club, Lifetime Fitness | Leave a comment

Whether or not the employee was present the entire time, is irrelevant, anytime any employee had the opportunity to see the harness on incorrectly was enough to be gross negligence.

Alvarez v LTF Club Operations Company Inc., 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 2198

State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff: David Alvarez and Elena Alvarez

Defendant: LTF Club Operations Company Inc., doing business as Lifetime Fitness Center, and Defendant-Appellee, Jane Doe

Plaintiff Claims: negligence

Defendant Defenses: release

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 2016

Facts

The facts are difficult to determine because the interpretation of the court in its opinion does not follow the normal language used in the climbing industry.

The plaintiff was injured when he leaned back to descend after climbing a climbing wall. Because he was not hooked in properly, something broke, and he fell. The plaintiff claims an employee of the defendant watched him put the harness on and hook into the belay system. The employee alleges she was not present for that. The plaintiff allegedly put the harness on backwards.

The harness allegedly had a red loop that should have been in front. No one either knew how the harness was to be worn or that the harness was on incorrectly.

Karina Montes Agredano, a Lifetime employee, provided David with a harness, he climbed to the top of the rock wall, and attempted to lower himself back down via the automatic belay system. However, because David’s harness was on backwards and incorrectly hooked to the belay system, it broke and he fell to the ground suffering multiple injuries.

The plaintiff argued the employee was grossly negligent. The trial court granted the defendants motion to dismiss based on the release, and this appeal ensued.

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

The court first started by defining gross negligence under Michigan’s law. Michigan law is similar if not identical to many other states. Gross negligence requires proof the defendant engaged in reckless conduct or acted in a way that demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for the plaintiff.

To establish a claim for gross negligence, it is incumbent on a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant acted or engaged in “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” “Evidence of ordinary negligence is insufficient to create a material question of fact regarding the existence of gross negligence.” “The issue of gross negligence may be determined by summary disposition only where reasonable minds could not differ.” “Simply alleging that an actor could have done more is insufficient under Michigan law, because, with the benefit of hindsight, a claim can always be made that extra precautions could have influenced the result.” However, gross negligence will often be exhibited by a “willful disregard of precautions or measures to attend to safety[.]”

Although the issue debated in the appeal was the location of the employee when the plaintiff was putting on the harness and climbing. It was undisputed the defendant’s employee was instructing the plaintiff while he was climbing. Eventually, the court found this not to be a real issue since any opportunity to see the harness was on incorrectly would have allowed the defendants employee to resolve the issue.

Thus, plaintiffs’ testimony allows the inference that Agredano did not simply have the ability to do more to assure David’s safe climb. Instead, accepting plaintiffs’ testimony as true, evidence exists that Agredano ignored the red loop in David’s harness–a clear visible indication that David was climbing the rock wall in an unsafe manner–and took no steps to avoid the known danger associated with climbing the rock wall with an improperly secured harness.

Failure then, to spot the problem or resolve the problem was proof of gross negligence, or a failure to care about the safety and welfare of the plaintiff.

Thus, Agredano’s alleged failure to affirmatively instruct David on the proper way to wear the harness before he donned it himself, coupled with her alleged disregard for the red loop warning sign that David had his harness on backwards, and instructing him to push off the wall, could demonstrate to a reasonable juror that she “simply did not care about the safety or welfare of” Accordingly, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether Agredano’s conduct constituted gross negligence.

Because the court could determine the acts of the defendant employee were possibly gross negligence, it was enough to determine what occurred and if gross negligence occurred.

So Now What?

This is pretty plane on its face. You allow a person to use a piece of equipment incorrectly who is then injured there is going to be a lawsuit. You allow a person to use a piece of safety equipment, equipment needed for the safe operation of your business incorrectly you are going to lose no matter how well written your release.

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

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

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Climbing Wall, Lifetime Fitness, Climbing Harness, Health Club,

Alvarez v LTF Club Operations Company Inc., 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 2198

Posted: February 26, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Climbing Wall, Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Climbing Wall, Gross negligence, Harness, Lifetime Fitness, Ordinary Negligence, Release | Leave a comment

Alvarez v LTF Club Operations Company Inc., 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 2198

David Alvarez and Elena Alvarez, Plaintiff-Appellants, v LTF Club Operations Company Inc., doing business as Lifetime Fitness Center, and Defendant-Appellee, Jane Doe, Defendant. David Alvarez and Elena Alvarez, Plaintiff-Appellees, v LTF Club Operations Company Inc., doing business as Lifetime Fitness Center, and Defendant-Appellant, Jane Doe, Defendant.

No. 328221, No. 328985

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 2198

November 29, 2016, Decided

NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Oakland Circuit Court. LC No. 2014-140282-NO. Oakland Circuit Court. LC No. 2014-140282-NO.

CORE TERMS: harness, climbing, gross negligence, rock, climb, belay, incorrectly, backwards, walked, deposition testimony, loop, red, putting, front, genuine issue, material fact, reasonable minds, precautions, favorable, watched, donned, order granting, rock climbing, grossly negligent, adjacent, facing, matter of law, conduct constituted, ordinary negligence, evidence submitted

JUDGES: Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and BORRELLO, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

In Docket No. 328221, plaintiffs, David Alvarez and his wife Elena Alvarez, appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., doing business as Lifetime Fitness Center (Lifetime). In Docket No. 328985, Lifetime appeals as of right the order denying its request for case evaluation sanctions and for taxation of costs. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remand for further proceedings.

This litigation arises from David’s fall from a rock climbing wall at Lifetime’s facility in Novi. Plaintiffs were at Lifetime, where they are members, with their minor daughter to allow her the opportunity to use the rock climbing wall. Neither the plaintiffs, nor their daughter, had previously attempted to use the rock climbing wall. After David signed the requisite forms, Karina Montes Agredano, a Lifetime employee, provided David with a harness, he climbed to the top of the rock wall, [*2] and attempted to lower himself back down via the automatic belay system. However, because David’s harness was on backwards and incorrectly hooked to the belay system, it broke and he fell to the ground suffering multiple injuries.

Plaintiffs argued that, as an employee of Lifetime, Agredano was grossly negligent¹ in failing to ascertain whether David had properly attached his harness and the belay system before permitting him to climb the rock wall or descend. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition arguing the assumption of risk and waiver of liability provision within the paperwork David signed barred plaintiffs’ claims because Agredano’s asserted conduct constituted only ordinary negligence and not gross negligence. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition finding plaintiffs failed to “present any evidence establishing that defendant was grossly negligent in failing to take precautions for plaintiff’s safety.”

1 Plaintiffs had signed a waiver of any negligence based liability.

Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in dismissing their claim of gross negligence against Lifetime, arguing a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Agredano [*3] was grossly negligent. We agree.

The trial court granted summary disposition in accordance with MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). This Court reviews “de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.” In re Mardigian Estate, 312 Mich App 553, 557; 879 NW2d 313 (2015). Specifically:

When considering a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a court must view the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence submitted might permit inferences contrary to the facts as asserted by the movant. When entertaining a summary disposition motion under Subrule (C)(10), the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. [Id. at 557-558, quoting Dillard v Schlussel, 308 Mich App 429, 444-445; 865 NW2d 648 (2014) (quotation marks omitted).]

In addition:

In determining whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), a court must accept as true a plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, affidavits, or other [*4] documentary evidence and construe them in the plaintiff’s favor. Where there are no factual disputes and reasonable minds cannot differ on the legal effect of the facts, the decision regarding whether a plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. [Terrace Land Dev Corp v Seeligson & Jordan, 250 Mich App 452, 455; 647 NW2d 524 (2002) (citation omitted).]

To establish a claim for gross negligence, it is incumbent on a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant acted or engaged in “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 269; 668 NW2d 166 (2003) (citations omitted). “Evidence of ordinary negligence is insufficient to create a material question of fact regarding the existence of gross negligence.” Woodman v Kera, LLC, 280 Mich App 125, 152; 760 NW2d 641 (2008), aff’d 486 Mich 228 (2010). “The issue of gross negligence may be determined by summary disposition only where reasonable minds could not differ.” Id. “Simply alleging that an actor could have done more is insufficient under Michigan law, because, with the benefit of hindsight, a claim can always be made that extra precautions could have influenced the result.” Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 90; 687 NW2d 333 (2004). However, gross negligence will often be exhibited by a “willful disregard of precautions or measures to attend to safety[.]” Id.

As [*5] evidence of Agredano’s gross negligence, plaintiffs offered their deposition testimony. In his deposition testimony, David indicated that Agredano provided him with a harness and was present as he put it on and prepared to climb the wall:

Q. And where was [Agredano] when you were placing the harness on yourself?
A. She was in front of us. We were here. She was in front of us.
Q. So she’s staring directly at your as you’re putting the harness on?
A. She was, yeah, in front of us. We were here, and she was — I mean, we could show the picture if you want.
Q. But I want to know if she was facing you when you were putting this harness on?
A. Yes.

* * *

Q. How much time elapsed between the time that you had your harness on and began climbing from the time when your wife began climbing?
A. Okay. So they walked over to the wall, and then, as soon as I put on my harness, I walked over to the wall adjacent to [Agredano], and I watched my wife. She was already up the So whatever time it took for her to get up the eight feet, which is probably a couple minutes. I mean, a minute maybe.
Q. All right. And when you walked over to the wall, was [Agredano] standing to your right?
A. When I walked over to [*6] the wall, she was on my right.
Q. And would you say she was within three or four feet of you?
A. I could touch her. She was right there.

Further, David stated that Agredano spoke to him after he had inadvertently placed the harness on backwards and directed him to a climbing area, but did not warn him that the red loop on his harness should be on his front before he began to climb the wall:

Q. When were you told to hook into something between your legs?
A. Sure. So I had trouble putting on the harness, right? They walked over to the I followed . . . . I was next to — adjacent to [Agredano] . . . . As my wife started to come down [the rock wall], I asked — I asked, where should I go climb? [Agredano] pointed me over to the other adjacent valet or belay.
Q. Belay
A. Belay. Then somewhere between there I asked — or I don’t know if I asked, but she said, Hook it between your legs. . . .

David also stated that Agredano was present in the climbing wall area during the whole incident and watched him climb the rock wall while wearing the harness incorrectly:

Q. And was [Agredano] facing you when you began climbing?
A. She was facing both of us.

* * *

Q. What I want to know is were [sic] you and [*7] your wife on the climbing, and she was behind you looking at the two of you?
A. Yeah. She was looking at both of us.

* * *

Q. Was there any point in time, while you were putting on your harness or after you put on your harness, where [Agredano] was inside the wall, through this door?
A. No.
Q. So she was outside in the climbing wall area with you the entire time?
A. Correct.

In Elena’s deposition testimony, she testified that Agredano also spoke to David after he reached the top of the rock wall, gave him instructions regarding how to descend, and instructed David to let go of the wall despite his incorrectly worn harness:

Q. What happened at that point?
A. And he said — he asked her twice how to go down. And he asked her two times, because I remember, like, why he’s asking her? . . . So then, when he asked her two times, she said, just let go, and it will bring you down, the automatically thing will bring you down. And she said, I think, you know, push, let go. She said, just let go. Just let go. . . .

While Agredano claimed that she was not in the room when David incorrectly donned his harness and ascended the wall, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and [*8] accept their testimony as true. Terrace Land Dev Corp, 250 Mich App at 455. David and Elena’s deposition testimony was that Agredano was present when David donned his harness and ascended the wall, that she had ample opportunity to determine that David had put his harness on incorrectly, but that she failed to correct his mistake. Further, plaintiffs testified that Agredano watched David climb the wall in an unsafe harness, and directed David to let go of the wall to repel back down to the ground despite the red loop on David’s harness indicating that his harness was on backwards. Thus, plaintiffs’ testimony allows the inference that Agredano did not simply have the ability to do more to assure David’s safe climb. Instead, accepting plaintiffs’ testimony as true, evidence exists that Agredano ignored the red loop in David’s harness–a clear visible indication² that David was climbing the rock wall in an unsafe manner–and took no steps to avoid the known danger associated with climbing the rock wall with an improperly secured harness. Thus, Agredano’s alleged failure to affirmatively instruct David on the proper way to wear the harness before he donned it himself, coupled with her alleged disregard for the red loop warning sign [*9] that David had his harness on backwards, and instructing him to push off the wall, could demonstrate to a reasonable juror that she “simply did not care about the safety or welfare of” David. Tarlea, 263 Mich App at 90. Accordingly, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether Agredano’s conduct constituted gross negligence. Thus, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

2 Agredano testified that if someone was standing below a rock climber, that person would be readily able to see if a harness was on backwards.

Because we have concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant, it is unnecessary for us to address in Docket No. 328985 whether the decision to deny the case evaluation award would otherwise have been appropriate if the grant of summary disposition had been proper.

We reverse the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

/s/ Christopher M. Murray

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello

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

Posted: June 20, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Health Club, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Health club, Release, Release Language, Sign in Sheet, Treadmill, Wrongful Death | Leave a comment

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

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

State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff: Junyi Xu and Haini Hou

Defendant: Hiedi Gay, d/b/a Vital Power Fitness Center

Plaintiff Claims: ordinary negligence by defendant, loss of consortium, and wrongful death and later gross negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 2003

This is a health club case. The deceased was visiting the defendant health club on a one-week complimentary pass. Each time he visited the club he was required to sign in. Signing in, consisted of signing a “sign in” sheet. The sign-in sheet had at the top had a paragraph titled release.

While using the treadmill the defendant fell and hit his head. The plaintiff contended the deceased stumbled and was thrown off the treadmill hitting his head on a window ledge that was 2.5 feet behind the treadmill. The defendant claims the deceased became ill and fell. No one saw the plaintiff fall or the accident.

The personal representative of the deceased sued the health club for negligence and wrongful death. The defendant filed a motion for summary disposition (motion for summary judgment) arguing the release should stop the claims. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants motion for summary disposition. At the same time, trial court allowed the plaintiff to amend their pleading, which had been filed earlier. The new pleading argued the defendant was also guilty of gross negligence.

Later, the defendant renewed their motion for summary disposition to dismiss the gross negligence and wrongful-death claims. The trial court found there was insufficient evidence to support a claim for gross negligence, and the wrongful-death claim failed because it was a derivative claim.

A derivative claim is one where the second claim is solely based upon the success of the first claim. If the first claim fails, as in this case, then the second claim, which is derivative automatically, fails.

This appeal followed.

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

The court started its analysis by defining some of the issues under Michigan’s law. At the time of the decision, Gross Negligence was being redefined by the courts. “Common-law gross negligence is not a higher degree of negligence, but rather ordinary negligence of the defendant that follows the negligence of the plaintiff.”

In this case, the definition was adapted from a statute that had a similar intent. “Gross negligence is defined in the GTLA as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” [GTLA is the Government Tort Claims Liability Act]. The court then redefined the definition to state:

Therefore, applying this definition, the question becomes whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendant’s conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to the decedent.

Looking at the facts, the court found that although the plaintiff’s expert witness stated the defendant had to be “the worst, poorly educated owner/operator of a health club” the facts pointed only to the fact the defendant was ignorant, not grossly negligent. “…mere ignorance does not constitute conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to Yan.”

The court then looked at the requirements for a release to be valid in Michigan. The first issue was the validity. A release is valid if it was fairly and knowingly made. The scope was the next issue, how far the release was to extend or what the release was to cover.

A release of liability is valid if it is fairly and knowingly made. The scope of a release is governed by the intent of the parties as it is expressed in the release.

The next step is whether the release was unambiguous.

A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. If the terms of the release are unambiguous, contradictory inferences become “subjective, and irrelevant,” and the legal effect of the language is a question of law to be resolved summarily.

A release is knowingly made even if it is not labeled a “release,” or the releasor fails to read its terms, or thought the terms were different, absent fraud or intentional misrepresentation designed to induce the releasor to sign the release through a strategy of trickery. A release is not fairly made if “(1) the releasor was dazed, in shock, or under the influence of drugs, (2) the nature of the instrument was misrepresented, or (3) there was other fraudulent or overreaching conduct.”

The first issue on the list, the “releaser was dazed in shock” is a new issue I’ve not seen in contract law. Generally, when someone enters into a contract, they have to have their full faculty, although there as some exceptions if you are high or drunk. Contract then and you can still be on the hook.

Applying these issues, the court found the release language on the sign-in sheet was insufficient to stop a claim by the plaintiff.

The release failed to inform the reader/signor that he would be responsible for his or her own injuries, a requirement under Michigan’s law. Nor did the release have language indicating the signor was giving up any legal rights or releasing the defendant from liability.

Specific wording is not required for a release to be valid in Michigan. However, the court found that the release should explicitly inform the reader of what the reader is giving up, what the effect of the release will be when signed.

Simply put, the paragraph at the top of a sign-in sheet does not have the necessary language to be a release and stop a claim for negligence. Since the negligence claim could proceed, then wrongful-death claim could proceed. The necessary superseding claim supporting the wrongful-death claim was back, supporting the wrongful-death claim.

Here, because Yan, had he survived, would have been able to maintain an ordinary-negligence claim against the defendant, on the basis of our decision above, plaintiff can maintain an action for damages on the basis of the ordinary negligence of the defendant.

So Now What?

Sign in sheets are simply that. They are a record of who came into the facility and maybe at what time. A release is a contract written to meet the specific requirements of the state the release will be used in.

That language might be found by stealing someone else’s release, searching the internet, or getting lucky. However, in this case the health club was did not get lucky. In fact, I suspect a big check was written to settle this case.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Health Club, Treadmill, Wrongful Death, Sign in Sheet, Release, Release Language,

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

Posted: June 17, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Ambiguous, Inc., Mogul, Release, Season Pass, ski area, Wild Mountain, Wild Mountain Ski Area | Leave a comment

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

Lee Bergin, et al., Appellants, vs. Wild Mountain, Inc. d/b/a Wild Mountain Ski Area, Respondent.

A13-1050

COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA

2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 212

March 17, 2014, Filed

NOTICE: THIS OPINION WILL BE UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Chisago County District Court File No. 13-CV-11-695.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY:

COUNSEL: For Appellants: James P. Carey, Marcia K. Miller, Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum & Carey, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

For Respondent: Brian N. Johnson, John J. Wackman, Peter Gray, Nilan Johnson Lewis, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

JUDGES: Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.

OPINION BY: HOOTEN

OPINION

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge

In this personal-injury action, appellants-skiers sued respondent-ski resort for damages resulting from a skiing accident. Appellants challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent, arguing that the district court erred by (1) denying their motion to amend the complaint to add allegations of reckless, willful, or wanton conduct; (2) determining that an exculpatory clause bars their claim of ordinary negligence; and (3) applying the doctrine of primary assumption of risk to bar their claim of ordinary negligence. Because respondent’s conduct does not give rise to a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence, and because the exculpatory clause is enforceable to bar a claim of ordinary negligence, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellants Lee and Cathy Bergin sued respondent [*2] Wild Mountain, Inc. d/b/a Wild Mountain Ski Area for injuries that Lee sustained while skiing at Wild Mountain. The Bergins sought damages for Lee’s physical injuries, loss of wages and earning ability, loss of property, and medical expenses, as well as for Cathy’s loss of services, companionship, and consortium. Following discovery, Wild Mountain moved for summary judgment. The pleadings and discovery reveal the following.

In March 2010, Robert Knight purchased over the internet 2010-2011 season passes to Wild Mountain for himself, the Bergins, and another individual. To complete the purchase, Knight agreed to a season-pass agreement which included a release of liability:

I understand and accept the fact that alpine skiing and snowboarding in its various forms is a hazardous sport that has many dangers and risks. I realize that injuries are a common and ordinary occurrence of this sport. I agree, as a condition of being allowed to use the area facility and premises, that I freely accept and voluntarily assume all risks of personal injury, death or property damage, and release Wild Mountain Ski & Snowboard Area . . . and its agents, employees, directors, officers and shareholders from [*3] any and all liability for personal injury or property damage which results in any way from negligence, conditions on or about the premises and facilities, the operations, actions or omissions of employees or agents of the area, or my participation in skiing or other activities at the area, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage of injury of any kind which may result.

In accordance with Minnesota law, nothing in this Release of Liability should be construed as releasing, discharging or waiving claims I may have for reckless, willful, wanton, or intentional acts on the part of Wild Mountain Ski & Snowboard Area, or its owners, officers, shareholders, agents or employees.

Knight [*4] did not ask Lee about the release of liability before agreeing to it. Lee wrote a check to Knight for the Bergins’ season passes. In his deposition, Lee admitted that he authorized Knight to purchase the season passes, that he had purchased season passes to Wild Mountain since 2001 and had agreed to a release of liability each year, that he understood the release of liability, and that he would have authorized Knight to purchase the season passes had he known about the release of liability.¹

1 The Bergins do not appeal the district court’s determination that Lee is bound by the season-pass agreement even though he did not execute it himself.

On the morning of November 28, 2010, the Bergins arrived at Wild Mountain to pick up their season passes and ski. The season pass is a wallet-sized card with Lee’s name and picture on the front and the following language on the back:

I agree and understand that skiing and snowboarding involve the risk of personal injury and death. I agree to assume those risks. These risks include trail conditions that vary due to changing weather and skier use, ice, variations in terrain and snow, moguls, rocks, forest growth, debris, lift towers, fences, mazes, snow [*5] grooming, and snowmaking equipment, other skiers, and other man-made objects. I agree to always ski and snowboard in control and to avoid these objects and other skiers. I agree to learn and obey the skier personal responsibility code.

The Bergins and their friends skied “The Wall,” a double-black-diamond trail. At the top of The Wall, Lee observed that there were mounds of snow on the skiers’ left side of the run. Thinking that the left side was not skiable terrain, Lee skied down the right side. Then, at the bottom of the hill in the flat transition or run-out area, Lee encountered a “mound of snow” that he could not avoid. He hit the snow mound, flew up six to ten feet in the air, and landed on his back and the tails of his skis. Lee estimated that the snow mound was “maybe a little bigger” and “maybe a little taller” than a sofa, and that “there was no sharp edges defining” it. After the fall, Lee underwent surgery on his back and is partially paralyzed.

Daniel Raedeke, the president of Wild Mountain, testified by affidavit that Wild Mountain started making snow on The Wall on November 25, three days before Lee’s accident. On the morning of November 26, snowmaking ceased and The [*6] Wall was opened for skiing. According to Raedeke, “hundreds of skiers took thousands of runs down The Wall prior to” Lee’s accident. Raedeke added:

At the completion of snowmaking activities, there were some terrain variations at various points throughout the entire Wall run from top to bottom and side to side. Terrain variations from snowmaking are common at Minnesota (and Midwest) ski areas, particularly early in the season as ski areas rely on machine-made snow to get the areas open. It is very common for terrain variation to be encountered by skiers in Minnesota and elsewhere and they are generally well-liked, particularly by expert level skiers like [Lee].

Raedeke testified that “Wild Mountain received no reports of anything being hazardous or even out-of-the ordinary on The Wall.”

The Bergins submitted the affidavits of two ski-safety experts, Seth Bayer and Richard Penniman. Bayer testified that Wild Mountain “engaged in snow-making activity, intentionally created the hazard [Lee] encountered by creating large mounds of man-made snow . . . then intentionally left the snow-making mound in the run-out or transition area.” According to Bayer, Wild Mountain “knew or should have known [*7] that the snow-making mound in the transition area created a hazard and should have groomed out the mound or further identified the mound as a hazard.” He added that Wild Mountain failed to follow professional safety standards in making and grooming the snow.

Similarly, Penniman testified that complying with professional safety standards “would have entailed grooming out the snow making mounds; putting fencing around the snow making mounds; and warning skiers of the mounds with a rope barricade and caution signs.” He testified that “Wild Mountain’s failure to have a consistent and structured snow making and grooming policy, which specifically addressed the [professional safety standard], caused or contributed to the unsafe decision to leave a large mound of man-made snow in the transition area between the bottom of The Wall ski trail and the chair lift.” According to Penniman, “snow making mounds are not an inherent risk to the sport of skiing.”

Following discovery and Wild Mountain’s motion for summary judgment, the Bergins moved to amend their complaint to add a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. In April 2013, the district court denied the Bergins’ motion and granted summary [*8] judgment in favor of Wild Mountain. This appeal follows.

DECISION

[HN1] After a responsive pleading is served, “a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. [HN2] “We review a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op. Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693, 714 (Minn. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1249, 185 L. Ed. 2d 180 (2013). [HN3] “A district court should allow amendment unless the adverse party would be prejudiced, but the court does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment.” Id. (citations omitted).

[HN4] Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. [HN5] A genuine issue of material fact does not exist “when the nonmoving party presents evidence which merely creates a metaphysical doubt [*9] as to a factual issue and which is not sufficiently probative with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions.” DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997). [HN6] On appeal, “[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted. We review de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. We also review de novo whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).

The Bergins moved to amend their complaint to add the allegation that Lee’s accident “was a result of the reckless, willful, or wanton conduct” of Wild Mountain. They assert that Wild Mountain “knew or should have known that a large, un-marked, un-groomed, mound of snow in the transition area between ‘The Wall’ and a chair lift . . . created a significant risk of physical harm to skiers.” The district court concluded that, although Wild Mountain would not be prejudiced if the motion to amend was granted,² the motion must still be denied because the proposed claim “would not survive [*10] summary judgment, as [Wild Mountain’s] conduct does not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of reckless, willful or wanton.”

2 Wild Mountain does not challenge this finding on appeal.

The Bergins argue that the district court erred as a matter of law by “[r]equiring [them] to move to amend the [c]omplaint.” They assert that “Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 9.02 does not require plaintiffs to plead allegations of reckless, willful, or wanton conduct with particularity.” See Minn. R. Civ. P. 9.02 (stating that “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally”). Accordingly, they contend that the district court should have examined whether Wild Mountain committed greater-than-ordinary negligence based on the complaint and discovery.

The Bergins’ reliance on rule 9.02 is misplaced. [HN7] Although the Bergins were not required to plead a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence with particularity under rule 9.02, they still had to plead it with “a short and plain statement . . . showing that [they are] entitled to relief” under Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01, which they failed to do by pleading only a claim of “negligence and carelessness.” See L.K. v. Gregg, 425 N.W.2d 813, 819 (Minn. 1988) [*11] (stating that pleadings are liberally construed to “give[] adequate notice of the claim” against the defending party); cf. State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296, 299-300, 70 N.W.2d 110, 113 (1955) (concluding that “both at common law and by virtue of long-established usage,” the term “carelessness” in a criminal statute is “synonymous with ordinary negligence”).³

3 We also note that the district court did not require the Bergins to move to amend their complaint. Following a hearing on the summary judgment motion, the district court sent a letter to the parties, stating that “[a]t the Summary Judgment Motion Hearing, [the Bergins] moved the Court to amend the Complaint” and that “[t]he Court will leave the record open” for them to file the motion. The district court simply responded to the Bergins’ desire to amend the complaint without requiring them to do so.

Turning to the Bergins’ substantive argument, they assert that “there are questions of fact regarding whether Wild Mountain engaged in reckless or willful or wanton conduct that . . . preclude summary judgment.” [HN8] “[R]eckless conduct includes willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others . . . .” Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co., 370 N.W.2d 414, 421 (Minn. 1985).

The [*12] actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (1965) (emphasis added); see also 4 Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 25.37 (2006). “Willful and wanton conduct is the failure to exercise ordinary care after discovering a person or property in a position of peril.” Beehner v. Cragun Corp., 636 N.W.2d 821, 829 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Feb. 28, 2002).

The Bergins argue that their expert affidavits support their claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. We are not persuaded for three reasons.

First, [HN9] “[a]ffidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment do not create issues of fact if they merely recite conclusions without any specific factual support.” Grandnorthern, Inc. v. W. Mall P’ship, 359 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Minn. App. 1984). Bayer’s testimony that Wild [*13] Mountain “knew” that the snow mound was hazardous is speculation because there is no evidence that Bayer knew Wild Mountain employees’ state of mind before Lee’s fall and injury.

Second, the Bergins misunderstand the “had reason to know” standard for establishing a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. The Bergins contend that they need not prove knowledge to establish a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence and that it is enough that Wild Mountain “should have known” that the snow mound was hazardous. But [HN10] knowledge separates the “had reason to know” standard from the “should have known” standard:

(1) The words “reason to know” . . . denote the fact that the actor has information from which a person of reasonable intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the actor would infer that the fact in question exists, or that such person would govern his conduct upon the assumption that such fact exists.

(2) The words “should know” . . . denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the actor would ascertain the fact in question in the performance of his duty to another, or would govern his conduct upon the assumption that [*14] such fact exists.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 12 (1965) (emphases added). Accordingly, Bayer’s testimony that Wild Mountain “should have known” that the snow mound was hazardous is insufficient to establish the state of mind necessary to establish a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence.

Finally, the expert affidavits are insufficient to establish that Wild Mountain had reason to know that the snow mound was hazardous. According to Bayer and Penniman, the snow mound was hazardous because skiers do not expect a snow mound in the transition run-out area and because the lighting condition obscured the snow mound. Assuming that these alleged facts are true, nothing in the record suggests that Wild Mountain had knowledge of these facts from which to infer that the snow mound was hazardous. Rather, Raedeke’s testimony shows that Wild Mountain received no complaints from hundreds of skiers who skied The Wall before Lee’s accident. The expert affidavits are, at most, evidence that a reasonable person managing the ski operation would not have created, or would have marked, the snow mound in the run-out area. This evidence shows only ordinary negligence.

Because the evidence is insufficient [*15] to establish that Wild Mountain engaged in conduct constituting greater-than-ordinary negligence, the district court correctly determined that a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence would not survive a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion by denying the Bergins’ motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of greater-than-ordinary negligence. See Johnson, 817 N.W.2d at 714 (stating that [HN11] a district court “does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment”).

The Bergins also argue that the district court “did not address the evidence that created questions of material fact regarding Wild Mountain’s reckless, willful, or wanton conduct.” But the district court examined Wild Mountain’s conduct and concluded that it “does not meet the standards for gross negligence, willful and wanton conduct, or reckless conduct (as defined by both parties).” The district court’s discussion of Lee’s knowledge of the inherent risks of skiing–while perhaps extraneous–does not indicate that the district court failed to analyze Wild Mountain’s conduct.

II.

The Bergins argue [*16] that the district court erred by determining that the exculpatory clause bars the Bergins’ claim of ordinary negligence. [HN12] The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law reviewed de novo. Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 729 N.W.2d 619, 625 (Minn. App. 2007). [HN13] Under certain circumstances, “parties to a contract may . . . protect themselves against liability resulting from their own negligence.” See Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Minn. 1982) (considering exculpatory clauses in construction contracts and commercial leases). “A clause exonerating a party from liability,” known as an exculpatory clause, is enforceable if it: (1) is “unambiguous”; (2) is “limited to a release of liability arising out of negligence only”; and (3) does not violate public policy. See id. at 923. “An exculpatory clause is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction.” Beehner, 636 N.W.2d at 827.

The district court concluded that Wild Mountain’s exculpatory clause is enforceable because it is unambiguous and bars only ordinary-negligence claims. The Bergins contend that the exculpatory clause is ambiguous because “there are questions of fact [*17] regarding whether the [season-pass card] was part of the exculpatory contract.” They assert that the exculpatory clause and the language on the season-pass card “construed together are overly broad and ambiguous” because the season-pass card contains a non-exhaustive list of risks while the season-pass agreement expressly excludes greater-than-ordinary negligence from the scope of the exculpatory clause. We are not persuaded.

Because [HN14] a contract ambiguity exists only if it is “found in the language of the document itself,” we consider whether the season-pass card is a part of the season-pass agreement between Lee and Wild Mountain. See Instrumentation Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Res. Corp., 283 N.W.2d 902, 908 (Minn. 1979). [HN15] “It is well established that where contracts relating to the same transaction are put into several instruments they will be read together and each will be construed with reference to the other.” Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc., 249 Minn. 137, 146, 82 N.W.2d 48, 54 (1957). Here, the contractual relationship between Lee and Wild Mountain was formed when the online season-pass agreement was executed more than eight months before Lee picked up the season-pass card. [*18] As the district court correctly concluded, the season-pass card itself is not a contract. Although the season-pass card contains language emphasizing the inherent risk of skiing, it does not contain an offer by Wild Mountain to be legally bound to any terms. See Glass Serv. Co., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 867, 870 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1995). And as a corollary, Lee could not have accepted an offer that did not exist. The season-pass card is an extrinsic document that does not create an ambiguity in the season-pass agreement.

The Bergins rely on Hackel v. Whitecap Recreations, 120 Wis. 2d 681, 357 N.W.2d 565 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984) (Westlaw). There, a skier was injured when he was “caught in a depression apparently caused by the natural drainage of water.” 120 Wis. 2d 681, at *1. The ski resort “denied liability on the basis of language printed on the lift ticket purchased by” the skier. Id. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that summary judgment was improper because “[w]hether the printed language on the ski ticket was part of the contractual agreement between the parties is a question of fact.” Id. Based on Hackel, the Bergins argue that “there are [*19] questions of fact regarding whether the [season-pass card] was part of the exculpatory contract.”

The Bergins’ reliance on Hackel is misplaced. As an unpublished opinion issued before 2009, Hackel has neither precedential nor persuasive value in Wisconsin. See Wis. R. App. P. 809.23(3) (Supp. 2013). Even if it were, Wisconsin’s adoption of a common-law rule is “not binding on us as authority.” See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co., 344 N.W.2d 856, 861 (Minn. 1984) (examining other jurisdictions’ standards of tort liability). Substantively, the questions of fact that precluded summary judgment in Hackel are absent here. In Hackel, the only language alleged to be exculpatory was printed on the back of a lift ticket, which the skier did not sign. 120 Wis. 2d 681, at *1. This language did not expressly release the ski resort from liability, but it listed the risks that the skier agreed to assume. Id. The Wisconsin court concluded that a fact issue exists as to whether the language could be construed to mean “that skiers assume inherent risks of the sport without relieving [the ski company] of its own negligence” or that “[t]he language might also be construed as an exculpatory clause.” 120 Wis. 2d 681, Id. at *2. Another [*20] question of fact that precluded summary judgment was “whether the [unsigned] ticket was intended as part of the contract.” 120 Wis. 2d 681, Id. at *1 n.1. Here, unlike in Hackel, neither the existence of an exculpatory clause nor the intention that it be a part of the contract is in question. It is undisputed that Lee agreed to the exculpatory clause in the season-pass agreement before receiving the season-pass card.

Even if the season-pass card and season-pass agreement are construed together, they do not create an ambiguity. [HN16] “Terms in a contract should be read together and harmonized where possible,” and “the specific in a writing governs over the general.” Burgi v. Eckes, 354 N.W.2d 514, 518-19 (Minn. App. 1984). Accordingly, the season-pass agreement’s specific language excluding greater-than-ordinary negligence from the scope of the exculpatory clause supersedes the season-pass card’s general language on the inherent risks of skiing. The district court correctly determined that the exculpatory clause is limited to a release of liability arising out of negligence only and granted summary judgment in favor of Wild Mountain.

Because we conclude that an unambiguous and enforceable exculpatory clause [*21] bars the Bergins’ claim of ordinary negligence, we decline to reach the issue of whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk also bars the claim of ordinary negligence.

Affirmed.

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

Posted: June 15, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Health Club, Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Health club, Release, Release Language, Sign in Sheet, Treadmill, Wrongful Death | Leave a comment

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

Junyi Xu, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Haini Hou, Plaintiff, v Hiedi Gay, d/b/a Vital Power Fitness Center, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 237520

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

257 Mich. App. 263; 668 N.W.2d 166; 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 1505

March 4, 2003, Submitted

June 24, 2003, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Oakland Circuit Court. LC No. 1999-016321-NO.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

COUNSEL: Mark Granzotto, P.C. (by Mark Granzotto) and Donald L. Bramlage, Jr., P.C. (by Donald L. Bramlage, Jr.), for the plaintiff, Detroit, Farmington Hills.

Coticchio & Associates, P.C. (by Stephen A. Coticchio), for the defendant, Mt. Clemens.

JUDGES: Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Smolenski and Fort Hood, JJ.

OPINION BY: Michael R. Smolenski

OPINION

[*264] [**167] SMOLENSKI, J.

In this wrongful-death action, plaintiff Junyi Xu, as personal representative for the estate of decedent Ning Yan, appeals as of right the trial court’s entry of two orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Hiedi Gay, doing business as Vital Power Fitness Center. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

[*265] I

In February 1999, Ning Yan went to defendant’s fitness center to use a one-week complimentary pass. Yan visited the fitness center on February 16 and 18, 1999. Each time he visited he was required [**168] to sign-in and did so. At the top of the sign-in sheet was a paragraph that purportedly constituted a release of liability.

On February 18, 1999, while using one of the treadmills, Yan fell and hit his head. The head injury Yan sustained was severe, and he died on March 12, 1999. The parties dispute the circumstances of Yan’s fall. Plaintiff contends that Yan stumbled while jogging and that the belt of the treadmill threw Yan back into the wall or [***2] the window ledge, which were only 2-1/2 feet behind him. Defendant asserts that Yan was ill and fell down, hitting his head on the floor. No one actually saw Yan hit the wall, floor, or window ledge.

On July 22, 1999, plaintiff filed this suit alleging ordinary negligence by defendant, loss of consortium, and wrongful death. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that the release at the top of the sign-in sheet that Yan signed precluded any claims of ordinary negligence against defendant. Following a hearing on May 10, 2000, the trial court agreed with defendant, and on May 19, 2000, the Court granted defendant’s motion regarding the claim of ordinary negligence, but also granted plaintiff leave to file his second amended complaint, which was actually filed on April 5, 2000, without the court’s permission, and alleged a claim of gross negligence against defendant. ¹

1 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2000, and added Unisen, Inc, the manufacturer of the treadmill as a defendant. The claims against Unisen were dismissed on October 4, 2001, pursuant to a settlement agreement, and it is not a party to this appeal.

[***3] [*266] In July 2001, defendant renewed her motion for summary disposition to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of gross negligence and wrongful death. ² On September 12, 2001, following a hearing, the trial court concluded that reasonable minds could not differ and there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of gross negligence. Therefore, because the wrongful-death claim was derivative, both claims failed. On September 24, 2001, the trial court entered an order granting defendant summary disposition on plaintiff’s remaining claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10).

2 Defendant originally filed her second motion for summary disposition in June 2000. The trial court denied the motion in August 2000, with the option to renew the motion at the completion of discovery. The motion for summary disposition in July 2001 was actually the third such motion.

[HN1] Summary disposition against a plaintiff’s complaint is proper if there is a valid release of liability between the parties. MCR 2.116(C)(7). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) [***4] tests the factual support for a claim. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337; 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998). We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Id.

When reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), an appellate court accepts all the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true, and construes them most favorably to the plaintiff, unless specifically contradicted by documentary evidence. Sewell v Southfield Public Schools, 456 Mich. 670, 674; 576 N.W.2d 153 (1998). The court must consider all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and [*267] documentary evidence filed or submitted, and the motion should be granted only if no factual development could provide a basis for recovery. Skotak v Vic Tanny Int’l, Inc, 203 Mich. App. 616, 617; 513 N.W.2d 428, mod on other [**169] grounds Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich. 429, 526 N.W.2d 879 (1994).

Similarly, when deciding a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, [***5] and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ritchie-Gamester v City of Berkley, 461 Mich. 73, 76; 597 N.W.2d 517 (1999). If the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999).

III

Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his gross-negligence claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff asserts that, on the basis of the facts of this case, it was possible for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant was grossly negligent, and, thus, summary disposition was inappropriate. We disagree.

Historically, for a claim of gross negligence to survive under Michigan common law, the plaintiff had to show that defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff’s precedent negligence, and by defendant’s subsequent negligence caused injury to the plaintiff. Gibbard v Cursan, 225 Mich. 311, 319; 196 NW 398 (1923); Fuga v Comerica Bank-Detroit, 202 Mich. App. 380, 383; 509 N.W.2d 778 (1993). [***6] Common-law gross negligence is not a higher degree of [*268] negligence, but rather ordinary negligence of the defendant that follows the negligence of the plaintiff. Jennings v Southwood, 446 Mich. 125, 130; 521 N.W.2d 230 (1994).

However, this common-law definition was rejected by our Supreme Court in Jennings, supra. The Jennings Court reasoned,

Gibbard’s formulation of gross negligence is really the doctrine of last clear chance in disguise; accordingly, its usefulness is dubious at best in light of our holding in Petrove [v Grand Trunk W R Co, 437 Mich. 31, 33; 464 N.W.2d 711 (1991)].

* * *

This is an instance in which precedent fails to promote justice. We have repudiated the traditional justification for Gibbard’s gross negligence. [HN2] Contributory negligence no longer holds a place in Michigan jurisprudence, compelling the demise of its attendant legal theories. “The reasons for the old rule no longer obtaining, the rule falls with it.” Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich. 33, 49; 101 N.W.2d 227 (1960). [ Jennings, supra at 132-133.]

The [***7] Jennings Court acknowledged that it needed to adopt a new definition of gross negligence, and noted that most jurisdictions did not agree on an exact definition. Id. at 135-136.

Jennings involved the applicability of gross negligence in the context of the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901 et seq. Therefore, instead of embarking on an analysis of the various standards used in different jurisdictions, the Court turned to the definition of gross negligence provided in the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. Because the EMSA and the GTLA shared the same purpose–insulating employees from ordinary negligence liability, the Court adopted the [HN3] GTLA [*269] definition as the standard for gross negligence under the EMSA Id. at 136-137. Gross negligence is defined in the GTLA as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of [**170] concern for whether an injury results.” Id. at 136. See also MCL 691.1407(2)(c).

This definition is used in many other Michigan statutes that provide limited immunity to certain groups, but allow liability for gross negligence. [***8] See MCL 257.606a (Michigan Vehicle Code); MCL 324.81131 and MCL 324.81124 (Recreational Use Act); MCL 500.214 (Insurance Code); MCL 600.2945 (Revised Judicature Act). Additionally, Michigan’s standard jury instruction for gross negligence also incorporated the GTLA’s definition. M Civ. SJI2d 14.10.

[HN4] A contractual waiver of liability also serves to insulate against ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. Lamp v Reynolds, 249 Mich. App. 591, 594; 645 N.W.2d 311 (2002). Thus, because the underlying purpose is the same, we adopt the statutory definition of gross negligence as defined in the GTLA and incorporated into the EMSA by the Jennings Court. Therefore, applying this definition, the question becomes whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendant’s conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to decedent. Jennings, supra; Vermilya v Dunham, 195 Mich. App. 79, 83; 489 N.W.2d 496 (1992). We find that [***9] reasonable minds could not. ³

3 We note that the parties and case law often use the terms “gross negligence” and “willful and wanton misconduct” interchangeably, and often the terms are misused or misapplied. Thone v Nicholson, 84 Mich. App. 538, 546-552; 269 N.W.2d 665 (1975). On appeal, plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in dismissing his gross negligence and/or willful and wanton misconduct claim. However, these terms are separate concepts. Id. Common-law gross negligence referred to the last-chance doctrine. Id. [HN5] While willful and wanton misconduct is established “‘if the conduct alleged shows an intent to harm or, if not that, such indifference to whether harm will result as to be the equivalent of a willingness that it does.'” Jennings, supra at 138, quoting Burnett v City of Adrian, 414 Mich. 448, 455; 326 N.W.2d 810 (1982).

[*270] As evidence of defendant’s gross negligence, plaintiff offered the testimony of Dr. Mark Rabinoff, [***10] an expert in recreational safety. Rabinoff testified with respect to the industry’s standard of care regarding the safety distance behind treadmills, which should be a minimum of five feet. Rabinoff admitted that these are only recommended standards and are not mandatory. Rabinoff also stated that a similar accident was sure to happen again if the treadmill was not moved farther from the wall. However, we note that there was no evidence establishing that Yan actually hit his head on the wall, as opposed to the floor.

Defendant admitted that she knew a treadmill user could stumble while on the moving belt. However, defendant denied knowing that such a loss of balance could cause the user to be propelled backwards off the treadmill. Rabinoff testified that defendant’s statement was “the dumbest statement I have ever heard from anyone I think in thirty years who had anything to do with the fitness field about a treadmill.” Further, Rabinoff found defendant’s lack of knowledge regarding safety standards for a fitness club to be incredulous, stating that defendant was “the worst, poorly educated owner/operator of a health club I have ever seen in twenty-five years . . . .” The evidence [***11] also indicated that the treadmills were placed in their current positions by the fitness club’s previous owner. Defendant bought the club approximately one year before the accident, and did not move the treadmills.

[*271] Plaintiff also asserted that the manufacturer recommended that the treadmill be [**171] placed at least five to six feet from a wall. However, plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to establish this point. Maiden, supra at 123. In fact, the evidence showed that the manufacturer of this treadmill had no setback recommendation in its operator’s manual for the model of treadmill involved in this case.

Essentially, plaintiff argues that there were industry standards, that defendant should have known about these standards, and that defendant’s ignorance of and failure to implement these standards constituted gross negligence. However, this establishes a case of ordinary negligence, not gross negligence. [HN6] Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a question of fact regarding gross negligence. Maiden, supra at 122-123. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that reasonable minds could not differ; defendant’s [***12] mere ignorance does not constitute conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to Yan. Jennings, supra; Vermilya, supra. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s gross-negligence claim.

Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his ordinary-negligence claim against defendant because the language at the top of the sign-in sheet did not constitute a release of liability. We agree.

The top of defendant’s sign-in sheet reads as follows:

[*272] I understand that Vital Power Fitness Center reserves the right to revoke my membership for failure to respect the center’s rules and policies. I also understand that Vital Power Fitness Center assumes no responsibility for any injuries and/or sicknesses incurred to me or any accompanying minor person as a result of entering the premises and/or using any of the facilities. I additionally understand that I am not entitled to [a] refund on my membership fee or daily visit. MEMBERSHIP AND DAILY FEES ARE NEITHER REFUNDABLE NOR TRANSFERABLE.

The parties do not dispute that Yan [***13] signed this sheet on February 16, 1999, his first visit, and on February 18, 1999, the day of his accident.

This Court outlined the applicable law in Wyrembelski v St Clair Shores, 218 Mich. App. 125, 127; 553 N.W.2d 651 (1996), stating:

” [HN7] A release of liability is valid if it is fairly and knowingly made. The scope of a release is governed by the intent of the parties as it is expressed in the release. [ Adell v Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, PC, 170 Mich. App. 196, 201; 428 N.W.2d 26 (1988) (citations omitted).]

If the text in the release is unambiguous, we must ascertain the parties’ intentions from the plain, ordinary meaning of the language of the release. The fact that the parties dispute the meaning of a release does not, in itself, establish an ambiguity. A contract is ambiguous only if its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. If the terms of the release are unambiguous, contradictory inferences become “subjective, and irrelevant,” and the legal effect of the language is a question of law to be resolved summarily. [quoting Gortney v Norfolk & W R Co, 216 Mich. App. 535, 540; 549 N.W.2d 612 (1996).]

A release is knowingly made even if it is not labeled a “release,” or the releasor fails to read its terms, or thought [***14] the [**172] terms were different, absent fraud or intentional misrepresentation designed to induce the [*273] releasor to sign the release through a strategy of trickery. Dombrowski v City of Omer, 199 Mich. App. 705, 709-710; 502 N.W.2d 707 (1993). A release is not fairly made if “(1) the releasor was dazed, in shock, or under the influence of drugs, (2) the nature of the instrument was misrepresented, or (3) there was other fraudulent or overreaching conduct.” Skotak, supra at 618.

Plaintiff asserts that the meaning of the second sentence turns on the word “assume.” Plaintiff contends that because “assume” means to voluntarily take on, the meaning of the sentence is that defendant would not voluntarily take responsibility for decedent’s injuries, not that decedent was waiving his right to sue for injuries sustained. Plaintiff also argued below that the release was not effective because it did not contain the word “release” or another word with a similar meaning. Defendant argues that the language of the release is clear and subject to only one interpretation, i.e., defendant will not assume responsibility for any injuries and thus, will [***15] not be held liable for them. Therefore, we must first determine whether the language at the top of the sign-in sheet constitutes a release by unambiguously expressing defendant’s intent to disclaim liability for its own negligence. [HN8] “The fact that the parties dispute the meaning of a release does not, in itself, establish an ambiguity.” Cole v Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc, 241 Mich. App. 1, 14; 614 N.W.2d 169 (2000).

In Skotak, supra, the plaintiff alleged that James Skotak died after suffering a heart attack while sitting in the defendant’s steam room and that the defendant was negligent in not ensuring that its staff was properly trained in responding to such emergencies. The [*274] decedent’s membership agreement included a release that stated:

“F. By the use of the facilities of Seller and/or by the attendance at any of the gymnasiums owned by Seller, the Member expressly agrees that Seller shall not be liable for any damages arising from personal injuries sustained by the Member or his guest in, on or about the premises of the said gymnasiums or as a result of their using the facilities and the equipment therein. By the execution of this [***16] agreement Member accepts full responsibility of [sic] any such injuries or damages which may occur to the Member or guest in, on or about the premises of the said gymnasiums and further agrees that Seller shall not be liable for any loss or theft of personal property. Member assumes full responsibility for any injuries, damages or losses which may occur to Member or guest, in, on or about the premises of said gymnasiums and does hereby fully and forever release and discharge Seller and all associated gymnasiums, their owners, employees and agents from any and all claims, demands, damages, rights of action, or causes of action, present or future, whether the same be known or unknown, anticipated, or unanticipated, resulting from or arising out of the Member’s or his guests [sic] use or intended use of the said gymnasiums or the facilities and equipment thereof.” [ Id. at 618-619.]

This Court found that the release “clearly expresses defendant’s intention to disclaim liability for all negligence, including its own.” Id. at 619.

Similarly, in Cole, supra at 14, this Court held that the release the plaintiff signed “clearly [***17] expressed defendant’s intention to disclaim liability for all injuries, including those attributable to its own negligence.” In that case, the pertinent part of the release read:

[**173] “The undersigned acknowledges that due to the unique combination of dangerous factors in the restricted area [*275] associated with the stabling, exercising and training of a large number of horses, and the presence of tradespeople, jockeys, owner and other personnel in the area, there are inherent dangers in the restricted area which Ladbroke cannot eliminate after exercising reasonable care.

“In acknowledgment of the dangerous conditions and inherent risks associated with the restricted area, the undersigned hereby voluntarily assumes all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises of Ladbroke and hereby waives all liability against Ladbroke, its officers, employees and agents.” [ Id. at 4-5.]

With these cases as guidance, we simply cannot read the purported release in the instant case as releasing defendant from liability stemming from its own negligence. We find that the language in the alleged release is unambiguous, and clearly states that defendant would not [***18] assume responsibility for “any injuries and/or sicknesses incurred to [sic] me or any accompanying minor person as a result of entering the premises and/or using any of the facilities.” However, this provision does not inform the reader that he is solely responsible for injuries incurred or that he waives defendant’s liability by relinquishing his right to sue, nor does it contain the words “waiver,” “disclaim,” or similar language that would clearly indicate to the reader that by accepting its terms he is giving up the right to assert a negligence claim. While such words are not necessary to create a release, Klann v Hess Cartage Co, 50 Mich. App. 703, 705; 214 N.W.2d 63 (1973), we believe that, [HN9] at a minimum, a release should explicitly inform the reader regarding the effect of the release. ⁴ Therefore, we find [*276] that the language at the top of defendant’s sign-in sheet was insufficient to operate as a release, absolving defendant of any liability for its own negligence, and plaintiff is not barred from pursuing his ordinary-negligence claim against defendant. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition in regards [***19] to plaintiff’s ordinary-negligence claim.

4 We note that this Court held that the release in Hall v Joseph, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 2, 1999 (Docket No. 206282), “plainly and unambiguously provided that AAA was not to be liable for any actions of the third-party contractors providing emergency road service,” and, therefore, the plaintiffs were barred from seeking damages from AAA for the third-party’s actions. The release provision stated:

Understandably, in providing Emergency Road Service, AAA Michigan cannot and does not assume responsibility for the actions of independent service facility personnel. These facilities serve as independent contractors and are not employees or agents of AAA Michigan. Any damages resulting from their actions are the sole responsibility of the facility and should be reported immediately to the service facility owner before repairs are made.

The first sentence contains language similar to that at issue in this case–the defendant “does not assume responsibility . . . .” However, the release in Hall continues and provides clarification regarding the effect of this phrase–the third-party was solely responsible for any damages–while the alleged release in this case did not. We recognize that this case provides no precedential value, MCR 7.215(A)(1), and cite it only as an example of the additional language defendant could have included in her release to clearly convey that defendant was disclaiming liability.

[***20] V

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on [**174] his wrongful-death claim because the release, even if valid, only precluded a cause of action by Yan, not his family members. We agree that plaintiff’s wrongful-death claim is not barred, but for a different reason.

MCL 600.2922(1) provides:

[HN10] [*277] Whenever the death of a person or injuries resulting in death shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages, the person who or the corporation that would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death was caused under circumstances that constitute a felony.

The language of the statute is clear. [HN11] If a decedent could not have maintained the claim, his family members cannot recover under the wrongful-death statute.

Indeed, this Court recently stated:

” [HN12] The personal representative . . . who asserts a cause of action on behalf of a deceased stands in the [***21] deceased’s place for all purposes incident to the enforcement of that claim, including the rights and privileges personal to the decedent in his lifetime.”

Even though the wrongful death act is for the benefit of certain persons, the cause of action is a derivative one whereby the personal representative of the deceased stands in the latter’s shoes. [ Allstate Ins Co v Muszynski, 253 Mich. App. 138, 142; 655 N.W.2d 260 (2002) (citations omitted).]

Here, because Yan, had he survived, would have been able to maintain an ordinary-negligence claim against defendant, on the basis of our decision above, plaintiff can maintain an action for damages on the basis of the ordinary negligence of defendant. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary disposition and dismissing plaintiff’s wrongful-death claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Michael R. Smolenski

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood

Michigan decision rules skier who fell into half pipe after landing a jump could not recover based on 2 different sections of the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act.

Posted: March 21, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: Christine Marshall, Half Pipe, Inc., Jump, Marvin Marshall, Michigan Ski Safety Act, Skier Safety Act, Terrain park, v Boyne USA | Leave a comment

Language of the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act used to stop plaintiff’s claims two different ways.

Marshall, v Boyne USA, Inc., 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928

State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff: Marvin Marshall and Christine Marshall

Defendant: v Boyne USA, Inc.,

Plaintiff Claims: Plaintiffs filed the instant action, alleging that defendant was negligent in failing to adequately mark the boundaries of the half pipe.

Defendant Defenses: plaintiffs’ claim was barred both under the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., and by reason of two liability releases, one that plaintiff signed when he rented the ski equipment and a second that was printed on the back of his lift ticket.

Holding: for the defendant

Year: 2012

Plaintiff was skiing with a friend. In the morning, they had skied through the terrain park but had not skied the half pipe. In the afternoon, they went back to the terrain park and skied several jumps again. Plaintiff also noticed the warning sign at the entrance of the terrain park.

The half pipe in this case appears to be a trough lower than the height of the ski slope based upon the description in the decision. As the plaintiff landed a jump, he allegedly slid to a stop and then fell into the half pipe suffering injuries.

The plaintiff and his spouse sued the resort. The resort filed a motion for summary disposition (similar to a motion for summary judgment) with the court based on:

…plaintiffs’ claim was barred both under the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., and by reason of two liability releases, one that plaintiff signed when he rented the ski equipment and a second that was printed on the back of his lift ticket.

That motion was denied, and the defendants appealed the denial to the Michigan Appellate Court.

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

The court firs looked at the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act. The court found the claims of the plaintiff were barred by the act. Under the Michigan act, a skier assumes the risks of the sport that are necessary or not obvious.

Because the actions of the plaintiff were covered under the act, the court then looked to see if the actions of the defendant ski area were in violation of any duty imposed under the act. The court did not find any violations of the act.

Moreover, defendant did not breach a duty imposed under the act. MCL 408.326a imposes a duty on the ski resort to mark certain hazards involving equipment and fixtures, which is not relevant here, as well as a duty to place a sign at the top of a run, slope or trail with certain information regarding the difficulty of that run, slope or trail. There is no dispute that defendant complied with this requirement.

The plaintiff argued that failing to mark the half pipe breached a duty to the plaintiff. However, the court found the plaintiff accepted that risk of an unmarked half pipe when he chose to ski into the terrain park and passed the warning sign.

By choosing to ski in the terrain park, which was marked with signage as required by the SASA, and which contained the half pipe that plaintiff saw earlier that day, plaintiff is held to have accepted the danger as a matter of law.

The defendant raised two additional arguments in its defense. The first was a release signed by the plaintiff when he rented his ski equipment and the “release” on the back of his lift ticket. Because the statute barred his claims and the lawsuit would be dismissed, the court did not look into either of those defenses.

The court reversed the trial court decision.

There was also a dissent in the case. The dissent agreed with the majority that the case should be reversed by based its decision to reverse on other grounds.

The dissent found the terrain park and the half pipe were necessary installations in a terrain park. However, the dissent agreed with the plaintiff’s that the half pipe was not obvious, which is what the dissent believes persuaded the trial court to deny the defendant’s motion.

However, because the plaintiff to actual knowledge of the half pipe that he observed earlier in the day while skiing he could not claim it was a hidden danger.

The dissent also felt the plaintiff should lose because the plaintiff failed to maintain reasonable control of his course and speed at all times as required by the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act.

I would conclude that the obligation to reasonably control one’s course includes the expectation that a plaintiff will avoid known hazards. Here, plaintiff’s failure to reasonably control his course of travel after executing a jump resulted in him coming up to and falling into the half pipe that he admittedly knew was located in that area of the terrain pipe. For that reason, I would reverse and remand.

The case was sent back to the trial court to be dismissed.

So Now What?

It’s nice when a plan comes together, and a statute is written so the court’s interpretation of the statute proceeds along the same lines as the writers of the statute intended.

The Michigan Ski Area Safety Act is a very effective act, almost as encompassing as Colorado’s. The act was written to make sure that injured skiers could only sue if the ski area actually did something to injure the plaintiffs.

The facts in this case also do not lead you to believe the plaintiff stretched the truth. His actions in skiing across the mountain to hit a jump which sent him further across the mountain diagonally were not super intelligent. However, did not result in any injury except his own.

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

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Marvin Marshall, Christine Marshall, v Boyne USA, Inc., Terrain Park, Half-Pipe, Half Pipe, Jump, Michigan Ski Safety Act, Skier Safety Act,

Marshall, v Boyne USA, Inc., 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928

Posted: March 15, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: Christine Marshall, Half Pipe, Inc., Jump, Marvin Marshall, Michigan Ski Safety Act, Skier Safety Act, Terrain park, v Boyne USA | Leave a comment

Marshall, v Boyne USA, Inc., 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928

Marvin Marshall and Christine Marshall, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v Boyne USA, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 301725

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 928

May 15, 2012, Decided

NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Leave to appeal denied by Marshall v. Boyne United States, Inc., 2012 Mich. LEXIS 2153 (Mich., Dec. 5, 2012)

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Charlevoix Circuit Court. LC No. 10-091822-NF.

CORE TERMS: half pipe, terrain, skiing, ski, jump, skied, hit, inhere, hazard, trail, sport, downhill, feet, Safety Act SASA, ski resort, skier, slope, top, morning, timing, reversing, booth, edge

JUDGES: Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and SAWYER and SAAD, JJ. HOEKSTRA, P.J., (concurring).

OPINION

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals by leave granted from the circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition. We reverse and remand.

In 2009, plaintiff Marvin Marshall was skiing at defendant’s ski resort at Boyne Mountain in Charlevoix County with a friend, Randy. They skied several trails that morning, and also skied in the terrain park. Plaintiff was familiar with and had skied in terrain parks, which he described as having “jumps and different obstacles[.]” Plaintiff saw a warning sign at the entrance to the terrain park, but he did not read it.

The terrain park contained a half pipe that was about twenty feet deep. A half pipe is a ski attraction created by a trench in the snow that extends downhill. Skiers ski inside of the half pipe. On the morning of February 5, plaintiff saw the half pipe in the terrain park, but he did not ski into it. Plaintiff skied in an area just to the right of the half pipe.

After lunch, plaintiff and his friend went into the terrain park for a second time. They entered the terrain park from the left side this time. [*2] Plaintiff skied down the terrain park and hit the edges of a series of jumps. When plaintiff was halfway down the hill, Randy yelled to him and plaintiff stopped. Randy said that there was a good jump to their right that would be “good to hit.” Randy went first, and plaintiff followed. Plaintiff proceeded laterally across the hill (to the right, if one is facing downhill). Plaintiff “came almost straight across because there was enough of an incline . . . [he] didn’t have to come downhill much.”

Plaintiff successfully navigated the jump, which caused him to go up into the air about 12 to 15 feet. He landed and came to a stop by turning quickly to the right and power-sliding to a stop. As he looked around for Randy, plaintiff felt his feet go over the edge of the half pipe. He slid down the side a little bit, and then hit the bottom. Plaintiff shattered his left calcaneus (heel) and the top of his tibia, and broke his hip and right arm. He also fractured his left eye socket where his pole hit his head when he fell.

Plaintiffs filed the instant action, alleging that defendant was negligent in failing to adequately mark the boundaries of the half pipe. Defendant moved for summary disposition, [*3] arguing that plaintiffs’ claim was barred both under the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., and by reason of two liability releases, one that plaintiff signed when he rented the ski equipment and a second that was printed on the back of his lift ticket. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there remained issues of fact. Thereafter, we granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal. We review the trial court’s decision de novo. Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich 20, 23; 664 NW2d 756 (2003).

We agree with defendant that SASA bars plaintiffs’ claim. Under SASA, a skier assumes the risk for those dangers that inhere in the sport of skiing unless those dangers are unnecessary or not obvious. Anderson, 469 Mich at 26. Among the risks assumed are “variations in terrain.” MCL 408.342(2). Moreover, defendant did not breach a duty imposed under the act. MCL 408.326a imposes a duty on the ski resort to mark certain hazards involving equipment and fixtures, which is not relevant here, as well as a duty to place a sign at the top of a run, slope or trail with certain information regarding the difficulty of that run, slope or trail. There is no dispute that [*4] defendant complied with this requirement. Rather, plaintiffs argue that defendant breached a duty not imposed by the statute: to mark the half pipe itself. But Anderson makes clear that when SASA resolves a matter, common-law principles are no longer a consideration. Anderson, 469 Mich at 26-27. By choosing to ski in the terrain park, which was marked with signage as required by the SASA, and which contained the half pipe that plaintiff saw earlier that day, plaintiff is held to have accepted the danger as a matter of law. Anderson, 469 Mich at 25-26.

Accordingly, defendant was entitled to summary disposition by application of SASA. In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether defendant was also entitled to summary disposition under the liability waivers.

Reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order of summary disposition in defendant’s favor. We do not retain jurisdiction. Defendant may tax costs.

/s/ David H. Sawyer

/s/ Henry William Saad

CONCUR BY: HOEKSTRA

CONCUR

Hoekstra, P.J., (concurring).

Although I join with the majority in reversing, I write separately because my reason for reversing differs from that of the majority.

In Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich 20, 26; 664 NW2d 756 (2003), [*5] the Supreme Court concluded that if a hazard inheres in the sport of skiing, it is covered by the Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., unless it is unnecessary or not obvious.

Here, it is undisputed that the half pipe, like the timing booth in Anderson, inheres to the sport of skiing and is a necessary installation in a terrain park. But unlike the timing booth in Anderson, plaintiff, in my opinion, makes an arguable claim that the half pipe was not obvious to persons skiing cross-hill. It appears that this argument persuaded the trial court to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

But even assuming a fact question exists regarding whether the half pipe was not obvious, plaintiff admitted to actual knowledge of the location of the half pipe from having observed it earlier that same day while skiing. When skiing, a plaintiff is required by the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his speed and course at all times,” MCL 408.342 (emphasis added). I would conclude that the obligation to reasonably control one’s course includes the expectation that a plaintiff will avoid known hazards. Here, plaintiff’s failure to reasonably control his course of travel after [*6] executing a jump resulted in him coming up to and falling into the half pipe that he admittedly knew was located in that area of the terrain pipe. For that reason, I would reverse and remand.

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

Michigan Equine helped the plaintiff more than the stable and helped prove there may be gross negligence on the part of the defendant

Posted: January 11, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Equine, Equine Liability Act, Horse, Michigan, Michigan Equine Liability Act, Saddle, stable, Trail Ride | Leave a comment

The plaintiff argues gross negligence claim which the appellate court agreed raises enough triable issues of fact to send the case back to the trial court.

Hawkins, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc., 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 2366

State: Michigan, COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff: Bret D. Hawkins and Erin Hawkins

Defendant: v Ranch Rudolph, Inc. and Circle H Stables, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: Gross Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Actions not negligent

Holding: For Plaintiff

Year: 2005

The plaintiffs were on their honeymoon and signed up for a trail ride. They chose the “Wrangler Ride” offered by the defendant because the groom had never been on a horse before. The Bride had only been on a horse once when she was eleven. The Wrangler Ride was a four-mile single-file ride on trails through the woods.

The trail guide or wrangler chose a horse for the groom that was very gentle, and normally used for kids. The wrangler gave everyone basic instructions on how to stay on the horse and use the reins. The wrangler saddled the horses and double-checked the saddles before and after the guests mounted their horses.

The groom claimed after mounting the horse he complained that his saddle was not securely fastened. The wrangler did not recall the groom making this request. She also did not notice the saddle was loose while the groom was mounting the horse.

During the ride the wrangler asked if they wanted to trot their horses and asked if anyone was opposed to the idea. She also said if they were having trouble to yell.

At this point the plaintiff’s version of the facts is so fare outside of the scope of a normal operation or how horses would respond it is clear the facts were altered or made up to support their claims.

According to plaintiffs, Ridge and her horse then “bolted” into a fast, or full-out run, and the other horses followed her lead. Both plaintiffs stated that when their horses began running they were too surprised or shocked to yell and were just trying to hang on. According to Bret, his saddle slid to the right and he grabbed the saddlehorn and the back of the saddle as instructed but was still falling off his horse. He stated that his arm hit a tree so hard that he suffered a humeral fracture. He then fell from the horse.

However, the wrangler and other people on the ride described the events quite differently.

According to Ridge, a trot is a fast walk, “slower than a canter, and much slower than a run or gallop.” Other experienced riders in the group characterized a trot in similar language.

One of the other participants attested that he checked the saddle after the fall and it was not loose.

On top of that the facts are just too absurd to be believable. No trail ride, no matter how good the riders are going to take off on a gallop. It is dangerous for riders of all abilities and horses. Second, normally, the first thing someone in trouble or seeing a risk does is scream. Thirdly, if you are holding on to the saddlehorn with one hand and the back of the saddle with the other, how does your arm fly out and strike a tree?

The trial court could not find facts in the plaintiff’s version of the facts that would rise to the level required to prove negligence under Michigan law. The release voided all ordinary negligence claims so only the gross negligence claim was viable.

The case was dismissed and the plaintiffs appealed.

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

The basic claim of the plaintiff is there were issues of fact in dispute giving rise to enough for a jury to decide.

The first issue the court addressed was the witness statements, but not directly. Rather the court looked at what a witness may say. Basically, it is about anything as long as it is relevant to the case. Lay witnesses, witnesses that are not qualified as an expert witness, can provide opinions.

As an initial matter, plaintiffs’ testimony was admissible because it was based on their personal observations and perceptions. MRE 602. To the extent that plaintiffs’ testimony merely amounted to opinion, such testimony would nevertheless be admissible evidence. MRE 701. “MRE 701 allows opinion testimony by a lay witness as long as the opinion is rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or a fact in issue.” “Once a witness’s opportunity to observe is demonstrated, the opinion is admissible in the discretion of the trial court, and the weight to be accorded the testimony is for the jury to decide.” Moreover, laypersons are permitted to testify regarding speed. Therefore, that plaintiffs lacked experience with horses merely goes to the weight of their testimony not to its admissibility.

So no matter how farfetched or contrived the statements of a witness, if they cannot be proved as false, they are admitted into court.

The court then looked at gross negligence in Michigan. “…gross negligence should be defined as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.”

Since under Michigan and most other (if not all) state laws a release does not void a claim for gross negligence, the only claims left of the plaintiff were the gross negligence claims.

The Michigan Equine Liability Act allows the use of a release by horse owners.

§ 691.1666. Notice; posting and maintenance of signs; contract; contents of notice.

(2) A written contract entered into by an equine professional for providing professional services, instruction, or rental of equipment, tack, or an equine to a participant, whether or not the contract involves an equine activity on or off the location or site of the equine professional’s business, shall contain in clearly readable print the warning notice set forth in subsection (3).

The court pointed out that the act did not provide protection for the “equine professional.” As such, the only claims available to the plaintiff were the claims for gross negligence.

The court then found that the plaintiff’s claims if viewed in a light most favorable to them could be found to be valid to prove a claim of gross negligence.

We conclude that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether her conduct of taking a totally inexperienced rider on a fast ride was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.

There is a dissenting opinion that found the trial court was correct in its analysis of the facts. However, the majority opinion found that the issue at trial in this case was the decision to speed up the ride.

However, in our collective opinion, our point of departure from our esteemed colleague’s dissenting opinion is the trail guide’s decision to speed up the pace when plaintiff had never ridden a horse before. For a first time rider, yelling “Whoa Nellie” or in this instance, “Whoa Tye” hoping to slow the horse down or to obtain the trail guide’s attention for help could be difficult.

The court went on to explain its reasoning.

Ridge was in control of the horses’ speed, as the guide riding the lead horse. And Bret’s horse “bolted” not because it was scared, which would clearly be an inherent risk of an equine activity, but because it was following Ridge’s lead. It cannot be disputed that she made the conscious decision to “speed things up a little bit,” knowing that Bret lacked the requisite experience to control the animal on which he rode. It would seem that it was indisputably an important part of Ridge’s job to look after the safety of those placed in her care.

The court sent the case back to trial.

A reasonable person could conclude that Ridge’s conduct of taking plaintiffs on a fast ride given their known lack of experience unreasonably added to the risks of the already dangerous activity and was thus so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.

So Now What? (Motivational get them to do something post)

First, the Michigan Equine Liability Statute only protects a horse owner from the actions of the horse. There was no protection for the actions of the wrangler or the stable. No matter how written all equine liability acts have been written in a similar way leaving wide open any lawsuit claiming the injury the plaintiff received was do the owner’s negligence.

As I have said in the past, Equine Liability Acts are 100% effective, since their enactment no horses have been sued. However, the acts were so glaringly deficient that they have seemingly increased the number of lawsuits against horse owners.

This defendant wisely followed the requirements of the act and had guests sign a release.

The second issue is the wild statements of the injured guests. Actually, there are very little ways to counteract these statements except for one. If you can record either in writing, in the minds of witnesses, or by tape the statements of the possible plaintiffs. Keeping good notes on what they said might allow you to at least partially discredit later allegations, but only at trial.

Another real issue that came to light in this case is the other riders who were involved with their actions and opinions. One rider checked the saddle to see if it was tight and others opined they never went faster than a trot. Keeping the other witnesses and participants to an activity engaged and happy can be of infinite value to you later. Remember a Victim is not only the person who was hurt but anyone who saw the victim or was on the trip. These people may need care, maybe not first aid, but at least someone to help them deal with the issues they may be having.

Although those statements would have little value in pre-trial motions, their testimony at trial is the most valuable statement made on the stand. Jurors know that the other guests had a better view, a better understanding of what happened, and no axe to grind or wallet to defend.

Jim Moss

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 manufacturers, 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

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

and Law.

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Blue Sky

Threads

X (formerly known as Twitter) logo

Facebook

Stimulus

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

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

@2024 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

#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, Horse, Stable, Equine, Equine Liability Act, Michigan Equine Liability Act, Trail Ride, Saddle, Michigan,

Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act

Posted: January 9, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Michigan | Tags: Equine, Equine Activities, Equine Liability Act, Equine Liability Statute, Horse, Horses, Michigan, stable | Leave a comment

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS SERVICE

a member of the LexisNexis Group.

This document is current through 2015 Public Act 202 with the exception of Public Acts 160, 167, 170, 173-176, 178-179, 181, 182, 191, and 198.

Chapter 691 Judiciary

Act 351 of 1994 Equine Activity Liability Act

Go to the Michigan Code Archive Directory

MCLS § 691.1662 (2015)

§ 691.1661. Short title. 1

§ 691.1662. Definitions. 2

§ 691.1663. Injury, death, or property damage; liability. 5

§ 691.1664. Liability; exception; waiver. 7

§ 691.1665. Liability not prevented or limited; conditions. 9

§ 691.1666. Notice; posting and maintenance of signs; contract; contents of notice. 11

§ 691.1667. Applicability of act. 12

§ 691.1661. Short title.

Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “equine activity liability act”.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 1, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(1)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals §§ 61, 71

Michigan Law and Practice, Torts § 74

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

Research references:

4 Am Jur 2d, Animals §§ 96-100, 105, 106, 113-115, 122, 134, 136-141

1C Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms, Rev, Animals, §§ 3, 132-140

13 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 473, Knowledge of Animal’s Vicious Propensities

25 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 461, Failure to Use Due Care in Providing Horses for Hire

§ 691.1662. Definitions.

Sec. 2. As used in this act:

(a) “Engage in an equine activity” means riding, training, driving, breeding, being a passenger upon, or providing or assisting in veterinary treatment of an equine, whether mounted or unmounted. Engage in an equine activity includes visiting, touring, or utilizing an equine facility as part of an organized event or activity including the breeding of equines, or assisting a participant or show management. Engage in equine activity does not include spectating at an equine activity, unless the spectator places himself or herself in an unauthorized area and in immediate proximity to the equine activity.

(b) “Equine” means horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny.

(i) An equine show, fair, competition, performance, or parade including, but not limited to, dressage, a hunter and jumper horse show, grand prix jumping, a 3-day event, combined training, a rodeo, riding, driving, pulling, cutting, polo, steeplechasing, English and western performance riding, endurance trail riding, gymkhana games, and hunting.

(ii) Equine training or teaching activities.

(iii) Boarding equines, including their normal daily care.

(iv) Breeding equines, including the normal daily care and activities associated with breeding equines.

(v) Riding, inspecting, or evaluating an equine belonging to another, whether or not the owner receives monetary consideration or another thing of value for the use of the equine or is permitting a prospective purchaser of the equine or an agent to ride, inspect, or evaluate the equine.

(vi) A ride, trip, hunt, or other activity, however informal or impromptu, that is sponsored by an equine activity sponsor.

(vii) Placing or replacing a horseshoe on or hoof trimming of an equine.

(d) “Equine activity sponsor” means an individual, group, club, partnership, or corporation, whether or not operating for profit, that sponsors, organizes, or provides the facilities for an equine activity, including, but not limited to, a pony club; 4-H club; hunt club; riding club; school- or college-sponsored class, program, or activity; therapeutic riding program; stable or farm owner; and operator, instructor, or promoter of an equine facility including, but not limited to, a stable, clubhouse, ponyride string, fair, or arena at which the equine activity is held.

(e) “Equine professional” means a person engaged in any of the following for compensation:

(i) Instructing a participant in an equine activity.

(ii) Renting an equine, equipment, or tack to a participant.

(iii) Providing daily care of horses boarded at an equine facility.

(iv) Training an equine.

(v) Breeding of equines for resale or stock replenishment.

(f) “Inherent risk of an equine activity” means a danger or condition that is an integral part of an equine activity, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

(i) An equine’s propensity to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to a person on or around it.

(ii) The unpredictability of an equine’s reaction to things such as sounds, sudden movement, and people, other animals, or unfamiliar objects.

(iii) A hazard such as a surface or subsurface condition.

(iv) Colliding with another equine or object.

(g) “Participant” means an individual, whether amateur or professional, engaged in an equine activity, whether or not a fee is paid to participate.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 2, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(2)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Plaintiff, a visitor to a stable, was a “participant” under the Equine Activity Liability Act when she briefly assisted in the care of a horse owned by a friend. Therefore her claim for damages arising from being bitten by a horse was properly dismissed on summary. Amburgey v. Sauder, 238 Mich. App. 228, 605 N.W.2d 84, 1999 Mich. App. LEXIS 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Horse owner could invoke MCL § 691.1663 of the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL §§ 691.1661 et seq., although she was not an equine professional or an equine activity sponsor because she fit within the definition of “another person” under § 691.1663 of the EALA. Also, she properly was characterized as an equine participant as that term was defined in MCL § 691.1662. Gardner v. Simon, 445 F. Supp. 2d 786, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57228 (W.D. Mich. 2006).

Rider’s injuries while riding a horse resulted from “an inherent risk of an equine activity” as that phrase was defined under MCL § 691.1662(f) of the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act, MCL §§ 691.1661 et seq., based on the rider’s testimony that, upon being mounted, the horse got a little antsy and started to raise up on the front end a little bit at which time the rider, who was experienced, began turning the horse in tight circles to settle him down. After turning two circles, the horse bumped his head on a tree; reared up and caught one of his front hoofs in a tree; went over backwards and fell on the rider, injuring the rider. Gardner v. Simon, 445 F. Supp. 2d 786, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57228 (W.D. Mich. 2006).

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals § 73

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

Michigan Digest references:

Animals § 15

Research references:

1C Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms, Rev, Animals, § 1

25 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 461, Failure to Use Due Care in Providing Horses for Hire

§ 691.1663. Injury, death, or property damage; liability.

Sec. 3. Except as otherwise provided in section 5, an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant or property damage resulting from an inherent risk of an equine activity. Except as otherwise provided in section 5, a participant or participant’s representative shall not make a claim for, or recover, civil damages from an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or another person for injury to or the death of the participant or property damage resulting from an inherent risk of an equine activity.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 3, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(3)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Judgment granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of a horse owner in a neighbor’s personal injury action was affirmed because the neighbor failed to produce evidence in support of her claims under MCL 691.1665(b) and (d) as her injury resulted from an inherent risk of an equine activity and she did not prove otherwise. The claim was barred under MCL 691.1663. Beattie v. Mickalich, 284 Mich. App. 564, 773 N.W.2d 748, 2009 Mich. App. LEXIS 1445 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009), rev’d, 486 Mich. 1060, 784 N.W.2d 38, 2010 Mich. LEXIS 1452 (Mich. 2010).

Horse owner could invoke MCL § 691.1663 of the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL §§ 691.1661 et seq., although she was not an equine professional or an equine activity sponsor because she fit within the definition of “another person” under § 3 of the EALA. Also, she properly was characterized as an equine participant as that term was defined in MCL § 691.1662. Gardner v. Simon, 445 F. Supp. 2d 786, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57228 (W.D. Mich. 2006).

Bar to liability set forth in MCL § 691.1663 of the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL §§ 691.1661 et seq., was subject to MCL § 691.1665, which provided that § 691.1663 of the EALA did not prevent liability for a negligent act or omission that proximately caused an injury. Accordingly, the EALA did not prevent liability on a rider’s claim that a horse owner was negligent in failing to warn the rider about the horse’s dangerous and viscous propensities; and whether the owner acted reasonably by suggesting to the rider that he ride the horse and not warning the rider that the horse was in need of further training, in light of the rider’s extensive experience with horses, was clearly a question of fact for a jury. Gardner v. Simon, 445 F. Supp. 2d 786, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57228 (W.D. Mich. 2006).

Statutory references:

Section 5, above referred to, is § 691.1665.

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals §§ 71, 73

Michigan Law and Practice, Torts § 74

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

Michigan Digest references:

Animals § 15

Research references:

4 Am Jur 2d, Animals §§ 96-100, 105, 106, 113-115, 122, 134, 136-141

1C Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms, Rev, Animals, §§ 3, 132-140

13 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 473, Knowledge of Animal’s Vicious Propensities

25 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 461, Failure to Use Due Care in Providing Horses for Hire

§ 691.1664. Liability; exception; waiver.

Sec. 4. (1) This act does not apply to a horse race meeting that is regulated by the racing law of 1980, Act No. 327 of the Public Acts of 1980, being sections 431.61 to 431.88 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) Two persons may agree in writing to a waiver of liability beyond the provisions of this act and such waiver shall be valid and binding by its terms.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 4, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(4)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

The Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) provides immunity to commercial riding stables from claims for damages resulting from the inherent risks of horseback riding and being around horses, but the immunity provision does not apply to horse race meetings; a horse race meeting within the meaning of the EALA includes the activity of exercising a race horse at a track in preparation for a race; while the EALA did not confer immunity on a race track in a suit brought by a exercise rider who was injured when he was thrown from a horse, the release signed by the plaintiff was broad enough to protect the defendant from liability. Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Mich., Inc., 241 Mich. App. 1, 614 N.W.2d 169, 2000 Mich. App. LEXIS 110 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000), app. denied, 463 Mich. 972, 623 N.W.2d 595, 2001 Mich. LEXIS 223 (Mich. 2001).

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals § 71

Michigan Law and Practice, Torts § 74

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

Michigan Digest references:

Animals § 13

Research references:

4 Am Jur 2d, Animals §§ 96-100, 105, 106, 113-115, 122, 134, 136-141

25 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 461, Failure to Use Due Care in Providing Horses for Hire

Legal periodicals:

Fayz, Annual Survey of Michigan Law, June 1, 1999-May 31, 2000: Torts, 47 Wayne L Rev 719 (2001)

§ 691.1664. Liability; exception; waiver.

(2) Two persons may agree in writing to a waiver of liability beyond the provisions of this act and such waiver shall be valid and binding by its terms.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 4, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(4)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

NOTES TO DECISIONS

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals § 71

Michigan Law and Practice, Torts § 74

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

Michigan Digest references:

Animals § 13

Research references:

4 Am Jur 2d, Animals §§ 96-100, 105, 106, 113-115, 122, 134, 136-141

25 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 461, Failure to Use Due Care in Providing Horses for Hire

Legal periodicals:

Fayz, Annual Survey of Michigan Law, June 1, 1999-May 31, 2000: Torts, 47 Wayne L Rev 719 (2001)

§ 691.1665. Liability not prevented or limited; conditions.

Sec. 5. Section 3 does not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or another person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person does any of the following:

(a) Provides equipment or tack and knows or should know that the equipment or tack is faulty, and the equipment or tack is faulty to the extent that it is a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

(b) Provides an equine and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity and to determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine. A person shall not rely upon a participant’s representations of his or her ability unless these representations are supported by reasonably sufficient detail.

(c) Owns, leases, rents, has authorized use of, or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of land or facilities on which the participant sustained injury because of a dangerous latent condition of the land or facilities that is known to the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person and for which warning signs are not conspicuously posted.

(d) If the person is an equine activity sponsor or equine professional, commits an act or omission that constitutes a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that is a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

(e) If the person is not an equine activity sponsor or equine professional, commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 5, eff March 30, 1995; amended by Pub Acts 2015, No. 87, eff September 21, 2015.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(5)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

Amendment Notes

The 2015 amendment by PA 87 rewrote (d), which formerly read: “Commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage”; and added (e).

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Statutory references:

Section 3, above referred to, is § 691.1663.

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals § 71

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

Michigan Digest references:

Animals § 15

Research references:

4 Am Jur 2d, Animals §§ 96-100, 105, 106, 113-115, 122, 134, 136-141

1C Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms, Rev, Animals, §§ 3, 132-140

25 Am Jur Proof of Facts 2d 461, Failure to Use Due Care in Providing Horses for Hire

Act 351 of 1994 Equine Activity Liability Act prec 691.1661

AN ACT to regulate civil liability related to equine activities; and to prescribe certain duties for equine professionals.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

HISTORY: ACT 351, 1994, p 1749, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”

§ 691.1666. Notice; posting and maintenance of signs; contract; contents of notice.

Sec. 6. (1) An equine professional shall post and maintain signs that contain the warning notice set forth in subsection (3). The signs shall be placed in a clearly visible location in close proximity to the equine activity. The warning notice shall appear on the sign in conspicuous letters no less than 1 inch in height.

(3) A sign or contract described in this section shall contain substantially the following warning notice:

WARNING

Under the Michigan equine activity liability act, an equine professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant in an equine activity resulting from an inherent risk of the equine activity.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 6, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(6)

Editor’s notes:

Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995, provides:

“Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.”.

LexisNexis(R) Michigan analytical references:

Michigan Law and Practice, Animals § 72

ALR notes:

Liability of owner or bailor of horse for injury by horse to hirer or bailee thereof, 6 ALR4th 358

Validity, construction, and effect of agreement exempting operator of amusement facility from liability for personal injury or death of patron, 54 ALR5th 513

Liability of owner of horse to person injured or killed when kicked, bitten, knocked down, and the like, 85 ALR2d 1161

Liability of youth camp, its agents or employees, or of scouting leader or organization, for injury to child participant in program, 88 ALR3d 1236

§ 691.1667. Applicability of act.

Sec. 7. This act applies only to a cause of action filed on or after the effective date of this act.

HISTORY: Pub Acts 1994, No. 351, § 7, eff March 30, 1995.

NOTES:

Prior codification:

MSA § 12.418(7)

Hawkins, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc., 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 2366

Posted: January 9, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Equine, Gross negligence, Horse, Horseback Ride, Saddle, Trail Ride | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see: Michigan Equine helped the plaintiff more than the stable and helped prove there may be gross negligence on the part of the defendant

Hawkins, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc., 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 2366

Bret D. Hawkins and Erin Hawkins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Ranch Rudolph, Inc. and Circle H Stables, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 254771

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

September 27, 2005, Decided

NOTICE: [*1] THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.

PRIOR HISTORY: Grand Traverse Circuit Court. LC No. 03-022735-NO.

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

JUDGES: Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Schuette, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the order granting defendants summary disposition. Bret Hawkins was injured after falling off a horse during a guided trail ride conducted by defendants. We reverse and remand.

I. FACTS

On June 18, 2002, plaintiffs, who were on their honeymoon, went to defendants’ stables to participate in a guided horseback trail ride. Defendants offered several different types of rides, based on age and level of experience. Plaintiffs chose the “Wrangler Ride,” which was described by defendants’ brochure as a “walk/trot ride” and had the minimum age requirement of eight-years-old. The ride consisted of a four-mile, single-file ride on wooded trails. Plaintiffs chose the “Wrangler Ride” because Bret had never ridden a horse before. Before participating, however, [*2] plaintiffs executed a release and indemnification waiver, in accordance with § 6 of the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq. MCL 691.1666.

Prior to beginning the ride, defendants’ trail guide, Kate Ridge, asked all the participants about their riding experience. Erin Hawkins indicated that she had only ridden a horse once before when she was eleven-years-old, and Bret indicated that he had never ridden a horse. In light of Bret’s lack of experience, Ridge assigned him “Tye,” a horse that defendants typically assign to beginning riders, including children, because he was calm and easy to ride. Plaintiffs were given basic instructions regarding how to stay on the horse and how to use the reins. According to Ridge, she saddled the horses before the ride and then double-checked all the saddles both before and after the horses were mounted. Bret claimed that after mounting Tye, he complained to Ridge that his saddle was not securely fastened, and she checked it again. Ridge stated that she did not recall Bret telling her his saddle was loose before the ride and she did not notice that it was loose while he [*3] was mounting the horse.

The ride started out at a slow walk, but after awhile, Ridge asked the participants if they wanted to go a little faster. The group responded, “Yes,” and Ridge told them to hold on to the saddlehorn with one hand and to put the other hand on the back of the saddle, and to yell if they wanted to slow down. According to plaintiffs, Ridge and her horse then “bolted” into a fast, or full-out run, and the other horses followed her lead. Both plaintiffs stated that when their horses began running they were too surprised or shocked to yell and were just trying to hang on. According to Bret, his saddle slid to the right and he grabbed the saddlehorn and the back of the saddle as instructed but was still falling off his horse. He stated that his arm hit a tree so hard that he suffered a humeral fracture. He then fell from the horse.

Defendants and Ridge denied that the horses were running. According to defendants, midway through the ride, Ridge asked the participants if they would like to begin a “short trot.” According to Ridge, a trot is a fast walk, “slower than a canter, and much slower than a run or gallop.” Other experienced riders in the group characterized [*4] a trot in similar language. After asking for but hearing no objections, defendants contended that Ridge then proceeded to trot the horses. Defendant noted that if anyone had stated that they did not want to trot, Ridge would not have began the trot and continued with the walk. Defendant also explained that horses are not permitted to engage in a “fast run” during rides.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging gross negligence. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing, in pertinent part, that given the facts, even if there was a question of fact regarding whether defendants’ conduct amounted to negligence, reasonable jurors could not differ that defendants’ conduct did not amount to gross negligence. Defendant pointed out that Ridge attested that a couple seconds after commencing the trot she heard a scream and turned around to see that Bret had dropped his reins and was hanging on to the saddle horn with both hands, which she instructed him not to do. Ridge stated that Bret was losing his balance and leaning far to the right and he fell off his horse after hitting a tree branch. One of the other participants attested [*5] that he checked the saddle after the fall and it was not loose. Defendants argued that Bret’s injuries were not the result of defendants’ negligence, but of “the inherent risk of equine activity,” his own lack of experience, and his failure to follow Ridge’s instructions.

The trial court indicated that there was no question that plaintiffs’ allegations related to securing the saddle and instructing the participants only amounted to negligence. With respect to the allegation that the horses were made to run off at a high rate of speed, defendants continued to contend that there was no question of fact because Ridge and the other experienced participants stated that they began to trot, and the only people who said the horses began to run were plaintiffs, who had little or no riding experience. Plaintiffs responded that the differing accounts meant that there was a factual dispute, thereby precluding summary disposition. The court concluded that, given plaintiffs’ lack of experience compared with the experienced opinions of the guide and other participants, there was no genuine issue of fact that the horses were trotting not running. The court then concluded that even if it were a high [*6] speed run, reasonable minds could not differ that defendants’ conduct did not amount to gross negligence. Accordingly, the court granted defendants summary disposition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiffs now argue that the trial court erred in granting defendants summary disposition on the issue of gross negligence. We agree. [HN1] This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337; 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998).

[HN2] Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), a party may move for dismissal of a claim on the ground that a claim is barred because of a release. Neither party is required to file supportive material. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 119; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Any documentation that is provided to the court, however, must be admissible evidence and must be considered by the court. MCR 2.116(G)(5). The plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, affidavits, or other admissible documentary evidence must be accepted as true and construed in the plaintiff’s favor, unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant. [*7] Maiden, supra at 119. [HN3] Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a party may move for dismissal of a claim on the ground that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. The motion tests the factual support for a claim, and when reviewing the motion, the court must consider all the documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 119; see also MCR 2.116(G)(4).

III. ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, [HN4] plaintiffs’ testimony was admissible because it was based on their personal observations and perceptions. MRE 602. To the extent that plaintiffs’ testimony merely amounted to opinion, such testimony would nevertheless be admissible evidence. MRE 701. “MRE 701 allows opinion testimony by a lay witness as long as the opinion is rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or a fact in issue.” Sells v Monroe Co, 158 Mich. App. 637, 644-645;405 N.W.2d 387 (1987). “Once a witness’s opportunity to observe is demonstrated, [*8] the opinion is admissible in the discretion of the trial court, and the weight to be accorded the testimony is for the jury to decide.” Id. at 646-647. Moreover, laypersons are permitted to testify regarding speed. Mitchell v Steward Oldford & Sons, Inc, 163 Mich. App. 622, 629-630;415 N.W.2d 224 (1987). Therefore, [HN5] that plaintiffs lacked experience with horses merely goes to the weight of their testimony not to its admissibility.

The concept of gross negligence has developed in recent years, evolving from its common law roots. The common-law rule was originally invoked in Gibbard v Cursan, 225 Mich 311; 196 NW 398 (1923), to “circumvent the harsh rule of contributory negligence[,]” which at the time would have barred the plaintiff’s recovery. Jennings v Southwood, 446 Mich. 125, 129; 521 N.W.2d 230 (1994). The Gibbard definition was not crafted to be a higher degree of negligence; rather, it was simply “mere[] ordinary negligence of the defendant that followed from the negligence of the plaintiff.” Id. at 130. In actuality it was really just “the doctrine of last clear chance [*9] in disguise.” Id. at 132. Noting that such a construction was no longer viable after abandonment of the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of pure comparative negligence and because it was not in keeping with the Legislature’s intent of limiting liability in certain contexts, the Jennings Court renounced further application of the Gibbard gross negligence definition. Id. at 132, 135

[HN6] Presented with the potentially arduous task of constructing a new definition of gross negligence in the context of the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901 et seq., ¹ the Jennings Court simply borrowed language from the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. Jennings, supra at 135-136. The Court reasoned that the short cut was permissible given that the two statutory schemes shared the same purpose of insulating certain employees from liability for ordinary negligence. Id. at 136-137. Thus, the Court stated that in the context of the EMSA, gross negligence should be defined as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” Id. at 136; [*10] see MCL 691.1407(7)(a).

1 MCL 333.20965(1) states:

Unless an act or omission is the result of gross negligence . . ., the acts or omissions of a medical first responder, emergency medical technician, [etc.,] . . . do not impose liability in the treatment of a patient on those individuals or any of the following persons. . . .

Subsequently, the definition has been employed in other Michigan statutes limiting liability for ordinary negligence while still allowing liability for gross negligence. Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 269; 668 N.W.2d 166 (2003). [HN7] The GTLA definition of gross negligence adopted in Jennings, arises in statutory contexts where there is a public policy rationale for limiting certain parties’ liability while still affording the public recourse when the parties’ conduct rises to the level of recklessness described in the definition. See id. (citing various examples of statutes using the same definition [*11] of gross negligence). Noting that a contractual waiver of liability can similarly serve to insulate against ordinary negligence but not gross negligence, this Court expanded the scope of application of the Jennings/GTLA gross negligence definition, likewise adopting the definition to address a claim of gross negligence where the decedent signed a waiver purporting to release a privately-owned fitness center from liability. Id. The Xu Court concluded that summary disposition for the defendant was proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reasonable minds could not differ that the defendant’s mere ignorance of industry safety standards did not constitute conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted to the decedent. Id. at 270-271. [HN8] “Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a question of fact regarding gross negligence.” Id. at 271.

Here, plaintiffs executed a release and indemnification waiver, in accordance with § 6 of the EALA. MCL 691.1666. By signing the release, plaintiffs agreed that because plaintiffs were participants in an equine [*12] activity defendants were not liable for plaintiffs’ injury or death resulting from an inherent risk of the equine activity. MCL 691.1666(3); MCL 691.1663. “Inherent risk of an equine activity” is defined by the EALA as:

[HN9] a danger or condition that is an integral part of an equine activity, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

(i) An equine’s propensity to behave in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to a person on or around it.

(ii) The unpredictability of an equine’s reaction to things such as sounds, sudden movement, and people, other animals, or unfamiliar objects.

(iii) A hazard such as a surface or subsurface condition.

(iv) Colliding with another equine or object. [MCL 691.1662(f).]

However, [HN10] the EALA provides exceptions to this general immunity for certain acts, including negligence on the part of the equine professional. ² Thus, solely applying the EALA, plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and, by implication, gross negligence, would not be barred.

2 MCL 691.1665 states:

[HN11] Section 3 does not prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or another person if the equine activity sponsor, equine professional, or other person does any of the following:

(d) Commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury, death, or damage.

[*13] However, the release that plaintiffs signed specifically relieved defendants of liability for negligence, and they were bound to the terms as agreed. Thus, in the face of a contractual waiver of liability insulating defendants against ordinary negligence, the trial court properly focused on whether defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence. See Xu, supra at 269. Accordingly, following the precedent set by Xu, in addressing this claim of gross negligence, we consider “whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendants’ conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.” Xu, supra at 269. Accord Jennings, supra at 130.

[HN12] “Generally, once a standard of conduct is established, the reasonableness of an actor’s conduct under the standard is a question for the factfinder, not the court.” Tallman v Markstrom, 180 Mich. App. 141, 144; 446 N.W.2d 618 (1989). “However, if, on the basis of the evidence presented, reasonable minds could not differ, then the motion for summary disposition should be granted.” Vermilya v Dunham, 195 Mich. App. 79, 83; [*14] 489 N.W.2d 496 (1992). . . . These established precedents form the boundaries of our review. Accordingly, our task is to review the facts, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine the appropriateness of summary disposition in favor of the defendant. [Jackson v Saginaw Co, 458 Mich. 141, 146-147; 580 N.W.2d 870 (1998).]

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, it should be accepted as true that after asking the trail ride participants if they wanted to speed up a little bit, Ridge then bolted into a high-speed run – or at the very least, a ride that was too fast given plaintiffs’ lack of experience. While the trial court concluded that Ridge’s conduct “would not be gross negligence even if it were a high speed run,” we disagree. We conclude that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether her conduct of taking a totally inexperienced rider on a fast ride was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.

In his dissent, our colleague Judge Murray emphasizes that the trail guide [*15] placed plaintiff (1) on a safe horse; (2) tightened the saddle; (3) provided safety instructions; (4) started slowly; and (5) sped up only after all riders including plaintiff agreed. We agree that the first four points referenced above appear reasonable. However, in our collective opinion, our point of departure from our esteemed colleague’s dissenting opinion is the trail guide’s decision to speed up the pace when plaintiff had never ridden a horse before. For a first time rider, yelling “Whoa Nellie” or in this instance, “Whoa Tye” hoping to slow the horse down or to obtain the trail guide’s attention for help could be difficult. Here, reasonable minds could indeed differ as to whether the conduct of the trail guide rose to the level of recklessness required to establish gross negligence. The question of whether the trail guide in this case demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted is a question of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ. Therefore, it is appropriate for a jury to make this determination.

By participating in the horseback ride, plaintiffs agreed to undertake the inherent risk of an equine activity. But, absent some unexpected [*16] event, Ridge was in control of the horses’ speed, as the guide riding the lead horse. And Bret’s horse “bolted” not because it was scared, which would clearly be an inherent risk of an equine activity, but because it was following Ridge’s lead. It cannot be disputed that she made the conscious decision to “speed things up a little bit,” knowing that Bret lacked the requisite experience to control the animal on which he rode. It would seem that it was indisputably an important part of Ridge’s job to look after the safety of those placed in her care. And asking an inexperienced horseback rider whether he objected to such a ride cannot insulate her conduct.

[HN13] Horseback riding, an activity in which people are exposed to all the inherent risks of dealing with an animal’s individual propensities and unpredictable nature, is a dangerous activity in and of itself. See MCL 691.1662(f). A reasonable person could conclude that Ridge’s conduct of taking plaintiffs on a fast ride given their known lack of experience unreasonably added to the risks of the already dangerous activity and was thus so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an [*17] injury resulted. Therefore, summary disposition in this case was not appropriate.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Patrick M. Meter

/s/ Bill Schuette

DISSENT BY: MURRAY

DISSENT

MURRAY, J. (dissenting).

With great respect to my esteemed colleagues, I dissent from their decision to reverse the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary disposition.

As the majority correctly observes, in reviewing the propriety of granting defendants’ motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we, like the trial court, must view the admissible evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the non-moving parties. MCR 2.116(G)(4); Maiden v Rozwood,461 Mich. 109, 119; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). With the material facts viewed in that manner, we must then determine whether reasonable minds could differ as to whether the conduct at issue was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result. Xu v Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263, 270-271; 668 N.W.2d 166 (2003).

Where I depart from [*18] my colleagues is my conclusion that this evidence, under this standard, does not arise to the recklessness required to establish gross negligence. The material facts, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, established that the following events occurred at Ranch Rudolph:

1. Plaintiff Bret Hawkins (hereafter “plaintiff”), signed the waiver of liability, and informed the trail guide that he had never ridden a horse;

2. In response, the trail guide put plaintiff on the most cautious horse available, one usually utilized with children;

3. Once atop the horse, plaintiff informed the trail guide that his saddle was loose. The trail guide responded by attempting to tighten the saddle;

4. Before commencing the ride, the trail guide visually and orally instructed all the participants as to how to properly ride and handle the horse;

5. Once the trail ride commenced, the guide and all riders proceeded “extremely slow”;

6. Eventually, the trail guide asked the riders if they wanted to “go a little faster,” to which the group responded “yes”;

7. Before picking up the pace, the trail guide told the riders that they should yell if anyone wanted to [*19] slow down;

8. The trail guide, and all other horses, started on a “high speed run,” and less than a minute later, plaintiff was injured.

These material facts, taken from plaintiffs’ affidavits, answers to interrogatories and photos, do not establish that the trail guide acted so recklessly that she exhibited a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result. Rather, the evidence shows that, in response to plaintiff’s concerns, she (1) placed him on the safest possible horse; (2) attempted to further tighten the saddle; (3) instructed the riders on safety and riding procedures; (4) started the ride off “extremely slow;” and (5) sped up only after the riders – including plaintiffs – agreed to do so. Hence, the act at issue ¹ was the trail guide’s decision to go too fast for plaintiff to handle, but not all the others, including his wife, who last rode a horse at age eleven. This misjudgment may have been a negligent one, but it did not reveal a recklessness with regard to plaintiff’s safety. Maiden, supra at 122-123(ordinary negligence does not amount to gross negligence). All the evidence of precautions taken, in fact, precludes reasonable [*20] jurors from so concluding. See, e.g., Lindberg v Livonia Public Schools, 219 Mich. App. 364, 368-369; 556 N.W.2d 509 (1996). ²

1 Plaintiff also complains about the trail guide’s inability to properly tighten the saddle. However, in my view, this is no more than an allegation of negligence, because there is no dispute that the trail guide attempted to tighten the saddle, but at best was unsuccessful in doing so.

2 As the trial court correctly observed, there seems to be a varying degree of decisions under this standard of liability. In my view, this results not from any inconsistency in determining the standard itself, but instead arises from the natural difference resulting from each judge’s own objective determination of whether the evidence meets that standard. Because judges do not always agree on the legal impact of the same undisputed set of facts, our decisions will at times necessarily result in different opinions.

I would affirm the trial court’s order.

/s/ [*21] Christopher M. Murray

G-YQ06K3L262

When you are mountain biking on land you are unfamiliar with, probably private land, any condition of the land causing any injury is your responsibility to find.

Posted: September 21, 2015 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Michigan, Mountain Biking | Tags: Deliberate Indifference, Gross negligence, Landowner, Mountain biking, Premises Liability, Recreational Use Act | Leave a comment

Michigan mountain biker that struck a cable gate liable for his own injuries because of the Michigan Recreational Use Statute. Actions of the land owner in creating the gate were not gross negligence when they had posted the property with no trespass signs.

Schoonbeck v. Kelly, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 223

State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff: Thomas H. Schoonbeck

Defendant: v Casey J. Kelly, a/k/a Casey James Kelly, Nicholas Thomas Donajkowski, and Roger W. Nielsen

Plaintiff Claims: negligence and gross negligence

Defendant Defenses: Michigan Recreational Use Statute

Holding: for the defendant land owner and land lessee

Year: 2015

The plaintiff was mountain biking on private land that was adjacent to state land. While traveling down a trail he was injured when he struck a cable being used as a gate strung between two trees. The cable had a “No Trespassing” sign facing away from the plaintiff’s direction of travel so people coming onto the land could see the sign.

The land was owned by one defendant, Nielsen, who leased the land to Donajkowski and Kelly to use for hunting. Donajkowski and Kelly created the cable gate because it was the cheapest and easiest gate to erect. They also placed “no trespassing” signs around the property and at the corners of the property.

The plaintiff sued for negligence and gross negligence. The defendants filed a motion for summary disposition on the negligence claim and argued that installing a gate was not gross negligence. The trial court agreed, and this appeal followed.

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

The Michigan Recreational Use statute is very comprehensive. The statute covers any cause of action, which is a “concurrence of facts giving rise to the obligation sought to be enforced against the defendant.” on the land. That definition also is based on premise’s liability law, which is the law that is based on ownership of land.

The plaintiff’s argued the statute was based on laws occurring on the land, not of the land. Mainly the law dealt with nuisance claims, which is “unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public.”

However, the argument failed in total because the nuisance argument was not raised in the lower court so it could not be argued in the appellate court.

The next argument was whether erecting (stringing) a cable gate on the land was gross negligence. The plaintiff argued the gate case created with “deliberate indifference to the likelihood that an injury would result.”

The court then looked at the definition of gross negligence in Michigan.

A person’s conduct is grossly negligent if the person engages in “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” “Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence.” Willful and wanton misconduct occurs when the defendant acted “with a set purpose to accomplish the results which followed the act,” which “implies malice.” “Willful and wanton misconduct is not a high degree of negligence; rather, it is in the same class as intentional wrongdoing.”

The plaintiff argued the defendants should have done more. They should have built a gate at the other end of the property, notified neighbors the land was now closed or turned the No Trespassing sign around. However, allegations that someone could have done more are not proof that what was done was gross negligence. “To be grossly negligent, a person must disregard precautions or safety in a way that suggests that he or she does not care about the welfare of others.”

The allegations of the plaintiff were the defendants could have done more, not that what they did was grossly negligent.

At best, Schoonbeck has only alleged that Donajkowski and Kelly could have done more. He has not provided any evidence that their actions showed a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury might result.

The actions of the defendant were not grossly negligent and the Michigan Recreational Use Statute provides protection for the negligence claims. The trial court dismissal of the complaint was upheld.

So Now What?

I don’t have mostly indifference to the plaintiff in this case. Mountain biking is defined by its falls, just like skiing. Not falling, not trying hard enough, etc.

Here the landowner/lease did what every other landowner did. The real sole issue was, whether the landowner should have done more when the status to the land allegedly changed. However, the plaintiff did not even prove that. The prior landowner did not allow mountain biking or other activities; he just did not go out and try to stop them.

If you own the land, and you don’t want people on it, do what the law requires to protect your land.

If you are a mountain biker, make sure you know where you are before you go barreling down a trail. Much like a terrain park skiing, check out the jumps before cruising through them.

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

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Recreational Use Act, Landowner, Mountain Biking, Gross Negligence, Deliberate Indifference, Premises Liability,

Schoonbeck v. Kelly, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 223

Posted: September 15, 2015 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Michigan, Mountain Biking | Tags: Deliberate Indifference, Gross negligence, Landowner, Mountain biking, Premises Liability, Recreational Use Act | Leave a comment

Schoonbeck v. Kelly, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 223

Thomas H. Schoonbeck, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Casey J. Kelly, a/k/a Casey James Kelly, Nicholas Thomas Donajkowski, and Roger W. Nielsen, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 318771

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 223

February 10, 2015, Decided

NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Muskegon Circuit Court. LC No. 12-048517-NO.

CORE TERMS: gate, trespassing, cable, gross negligence, wanton misconduct, willful, causes of action, installed, trail, nuisance claims, grossly negligent, recreational, material fact, premises liability, motorcycles, installing, favorable, struck, tenant, lessee, bike, snowmobiles, land use, claims of negligence, facts giving rise, questions of fact, de novo, genuine issue, nonmoving party, reasonable minds

COUNSEL: For THOMAS H. SCHOONBECK: ALANA LYNN WIADUCK, MUSKEGON, MI.

For CASEY J. KELLY: JAMES M SEARER, MUSKEGON, MI.

For ROGER W. NIELSEN: JOSEPH P VANDERVEEN, GRAND RAPIDS, MI.

JUDGES: Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and SAWYER and MARKEY, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, Thomas H. Schoonbeck, appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendants, Casey James Kelly, Nicholas Thomas Donajkowski, and Roger W. Nielsen. Schoonbeck was injured when he struck a cable gate while riding a dirt bike on property that Nielsen had leased to Donajkowski and Kelly. The trial court ruled that the recreational land use act (the Act), 324.73301, barred Schoonbeck’s claims. We affirm.

I. FACTS

In September 2010, Schoonbeck was riding a dirt bike on Nielsen’s property when he struck a cable gate that was suspended across a trail between two trees. According to Trooper Brian Cribbs’s report of the incident, the cable was installed along a fairly straight section of the trail that had a “very slight curve” about 87 feet before where Schoonbeck struck it. A 10 x 14-inch sign that read “Private Property — No Trespassing” was attached to the middle of the cable. The sign faced the opposite direction from which Schoonbeck was traveling.

At his deposition, Nielsen testified that he had rented the property for hunting [*2] and recreational purposes to Donajkowski and Kelly at the time of the accident. A two-track trail traversed the property from the southwest to the northeast. In affidavits, various neighbors stated that the property did not have “no trespassing” signs and that they walked, rode bikes, and used motorcycles or snowmobiles on the property’s trails. Nielsen testified that he had previously seen some evidence that people rode motorcycles or snowmobiles across the property. However, according to Nielsen and Donajkowski, there were “no trespassing” ribbons at the corners of the property and “no trespassing” signs along its borders.

Kelly testified that he was not aware that motorcycles or snowmobiles crossed the property, but he wanted to inform people that the property was private because it abutted state land. Donajkowski testified that he wanted to put a gate on the trail to stop traffic. Nielsen testified that Donajkowski asked to install a gate on the property and complained that people were trespassing on it with motorcycles and off-road vehicles.

According to Kelly, about a week after leasing the property, he and Donajkowski installed “no trespassing” signs and a cable gate with a “no [*3] trespassing” sign on it. They installed a cable gate because it was the easiest kind of gate to install. It was Kelly’s first time on the property and Donajkowski’s second time on the property. Donajkowski testified that the “no trespassing” sign faced outward from the property.

In August 2012, Schoonbeck filed this suit. He alleged claims of negligence and gross negligence against Nielsen, Donajkowski, and Kelly. In May 2013, Nielsen moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). In pertinent part, Nielsen contended that the Act barred Schoonbeck’s claims because Donajkowski and Kelly’s act of installing the cable gate was not grossly negligent or malicious. Donajkowski and Kelly also moved for summary disposition, adopting Nielsen’s arguments and further contending that they were not grossly negligent and did not commit willful or wanton misconduct. Schoonbeck responded that the Act did not apply and, even if it did apply, there were material questions of fact regarding whether Donajkowski and Kelly were grossly negligent or committed willful and wanton misconduct.

In a brief written opinion, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions under MCR 2.116(C)(10). It determined that the Act barred Schoonbeck’s [*4] claims. Schoonbeck now appeals.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo the trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A party is entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment . . . as a matter of law.” The trial court must consider all the documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. MCR 2.116(G)(5); Maiden, 461 Mich at 120. A genuine issue of material fact exists if, when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reasonable minds could differ on the issue. Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419, 425; 751 NW2d 8 (2008).

This Court reviews de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 664; 685 NW2d 648 (2004). When interpreting a statute, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Id. at 665. The statute’s language is the best indicator of the Legislature’s intent. Id. If the language of a statute is unambiguous, we must enforce the statute as written. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Mich Catastrophic Claims Ass’n (On Rehearing), 484 Mich 1, 13; 795 NW2d 101 (2009). This Court should not read language into an unambiguous statute. McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 209; 795 NW2d 517 (2010).

III. APPLICATION OF THE RECREATIONAL LAND USE ACT

First, Schoonbeck contends the Act does not apply because it is limited to premises liability causes of action. We disagree.

The Act provides that “a [*5] cause of action” generally does not arise from a nonpaying outdoor recreational user’s use of an owner’s land unless the user’s injuries were caused by the owner’s gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, a cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use or trail use, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee. [MCL 324.73301(1).]

A cause of action is a “concurrence of facts giving rise to the obligation sought to be enforced against the defendant.” Davis v Kramer Bros Freight Lines, Inc, 361 Mich 371, 376-377; 105 NW2d 29 (1960); also see Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed) (“A group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person.”).

The plain language of the statute bars any cause of action, not only those [*6] causes of action that sound in premises liability. Had the Legislature wished to limit the statute to a narrower set of circumstances, it could have used the words “cause in action sounding in premises liability” rather than the more general term “cause of action.” See Neal, 470 Mich at 665-666. It did not do so. We decline to read additional language into the statute and, therefore, we reject Schoonbeck’s argument that the Act only applies to claims sounded in premises liability.

Second, Schoonbeck contends that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition because the Act does not apply to nuisance claims. “A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public.” Cloverleaf Car Co v Phillips Petroleum Co, 213 Mich App 186, 190; 540 NW2d 297 (1995). In this case, regardless of whether revoking an implied license to trespass constitutes a nuisance or whether the Act bars nuisance claims, Schoonbeck did not assert a nuisance claim in his complaint. He asserted only claims of negligence and gross negligence. Since Schoonbeck did not plead a nuisance claim, nor does he provide argument to support that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition on potentially meritorious claims that the plaintiff did not raise, we fail to see how he [*7] can be deemed to have addressed a nuisance claim. Moreover, we decline to make Schoonbeck’s arguments for him. See VanderWerp v Plainfield Charter Twp, 278 Mich App 624, 633; 752 NW2d 479 (2008). Accordingly, we reject this assertion because Schoonbeck did not allege a nuisance claim.

IV. GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND WILLFUL OR WANTON MISCONDUCT

Schoonbeck contends that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition because there was a question of material fact regarding whether Donajkowski and Kelly’s installation of the cable gate showed a deliberate indifference to the likelihood that an injury would result. We conclude that Schoonbeck did not show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Donajkowski and Kelly acted with gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.

A person’s conduct is grossly negligent if the person engages in “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 123; Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 269; 668 NW2d 166 (2003). “Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 122-123. Willful and wanton misconduct occurs when the defendant acted “with a set purpose to accomplish the results which followed the act,” which “implies malice.” Boumelhem v Bic Corp, 211 Mich App 175, 185; 535 NW2d 574 (1995). “Willful and wanton misconduct is not a high degree [*8] of negligence; rather, it is in the same class as intentional wrongdoing.” Id.

Even accepting Schoonbeck’s assertions that Donajkowski and Kelly should have installed a gate at the other end of the property, faced a second sign inward on the gate, or informed the neighbors they were installing the gate, these allegations do not show a genuine question of material fact on the issue of gross negligence. An allegation that an actor could have done more or acted differently is not evidence of ordinary negligence, much less gross negligence. Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 90; 687 NW2d 333 (2004). To be grossly negligent, a person must disregard precautions or safety in a way that suggests that he or she does not care about the welfare of others. Id. At best, Schoonbeck has only alleged that Donajkowski and Kelly could have done more. He has not provided any evidence that their actions showed a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury might result.

In contrast, Donajkowski and Kelly provided evidence that they did not act with a deliberate indifference of whether an injury could result from installing the cable gate. Donajkowski and Kelly installed a “no trespassing” sign near the entrance to the property and hung a “no trespassing” [*9] sign from the cable gate. They installed the cable gate and sign on a fairly straight area of the trail. They also installed additional “no trespassing” signs. These signs faced toward the road, the logical direction from which to expect traffic would approach the gate. We conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Schoonbeck, reasonable minds could not differ concerning whether Donajkowski and Kelly’s action was so reckless that it showed a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted. We conclude that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

V. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the Act is not limited to premises liability actions. Further, we conclude that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when Schoonbeck provided no evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Donajkowski and Kelly acted recklessly.

We affirm. As the prevailing parties, defendants may tax costs. MCR 7.219.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell

/s/ David H. Sawyer

/s/ Jane E. Markey

The assumption of risk defense is still available when the claim is based on a condition of the land. This defense is called the open and obvious doctrine.

Posted: July 27, 2015 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Michigan, Summer Camp | Tags: assumption of the risk, Condition of the Land, Open and Obvious, Special Needs Camp, St. Francis Camp on the Lake, summer camp | Leave a comment

A landowner must protect invitees from hidden dangers. If the danger could have been seen or was seen, then it is open and obvious and the landowner must not protect the invitees from the danger.

Watkins, Jr., v St. Francis Camp on the Lake, 2010 Mich. App. LEXIS 1814

State: Michigan, Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff: Robert Vincent Watkins, Jr.

Defendant: St. Francis Camp on the Lake

Plaintiff Claims:

Defendant Defenses: Open and Obvious defect in the land

Holding: For the defendant

Year: 2010

The plaintiff was attending the defendant camp. The camp was run for people with special needs. The plaintiff suffered from cerebral palsy and was a quadriplegic. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was 34 years old.

At the camp, a water slide was created. The slide was a 100’ long tarp, 20’ wide and placed upon a hill. Water was prayed on the tarp along with soap. Some of the campers used inner tubes on the slide; others just went down on the buttocks.

At the bottom was a little ditch, 2.5’ long 2’ wide and 12-18” deep. The ditch had mud and water in it. When someone going down slide hit the ditch it would flip them.

On the day before the incident, the plaintiff had gone down the slide four or five times. He would ride down the hill on an inner tube with a camp counselor in an inner tube behind the plaintiff. After each ride, the plaintiff and tubes would be loaded on a golf cart and taken to the top of the hill.

The second day the plaintiff was injured on the slide during the flip, injuring his foot. He had already gone down the slide twice before his injury.

The plaintiff sued for his injuries. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

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

The basis for the dismissal was the condition of the land that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was open and obvious. The plaintiff argued that this was a case not based upon the land but based upon the actions of the defendant. The actions of the defendant would set up a negligence claim. A claim based upon the condition of the land would be determined on the duty owed by the landowner to the plaintiff as an invitee.

Under Michigan’s law, the duty owed by a landowner to an invite was:

Generally, a premises possessor owes a duty of care to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land. This duty generally does not encompass a duty to protect an invitee from “open and obvious” dangers. However, if there are “special aspects” of a condition that make even an “open and obvious” danger “unreasonably dangerous,” the premises possessor maintains a duty to undertake reasonable precautions to protect invitees from such danger.

The appellate court also found the claims rose from the land; therefore, the liability was from the relationship between the landowner and the plaintiff-invitee.

That is, the question was whether defendant had a duty as the owner of the land to protect plaintiff from harm and thus provide a water slide activity that was free from danger by not allowing a ditch at the bottom of the slide to exist, which propelled participants into the air.

Even if actions of the defendants contributed to the injury it was not enough to alter the relationship to create a negligence claim.

Consequently, although some alleged conduct on the part of defendant may have been involved-i.e. failing to protect plaintiff from harm, allowing the ditch to form, and/or failing to train staff to recognize the danger involved in allowing participants to hit the ditch and be propelled into the air-this does not change the fact that, as a matter of law, this negligence claim was based on premises liability law.

Because the condition was open and obvious, one that the plaintiff knew about normally because they could have or should have seen it and in this case did see it and did encounter it, there was no liability owed by the landowner-defendant.

Plaintiff argued that because the counselor’s did not recognize the danger, the danger could not be open and obvious.

However, simply because one counselor did not see any danger in operating the slide (all the evidence pointed to the conclusion that all campers enjoyed the slide) does not result in a conclusion that an average user of ordinary intelligence would not have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection by going down a water slide, hitting the ditch, and flipping into the air.

Evidence of prior injuries would be needed to convert the actions of the counselors from that of a landowner to simple defendants. If the counselors kept the slide open after a person had been injured and then the plaintiff received his injury, then the open and oblivious claim may not work.

This argument fails for the simple reason that in a premises liability action when determining whether a condition is open and obvious, “the fact-finder must consider the ‘condition of the premises,’ not the condition of the plaintiff.”

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the case by the trial court.

So Now What?

In this specific case, you can look at the open and obvious defense as similar to the defense of assumption of the risk.

More importantly always examine every possible defense when you are faced with a suit. Here, the answer was easy, although having campers launched into the air may not provide an open and obvious defense in all states.

If you are a camp or landowner, what you need to constantly be aware of and even search for are the non-open and obvious dangers on the land. Those things that cannot be seen by casual observation or that should have been seen by observation are what will hold you liable.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

#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, Open and Obvious, Condition of the Land, Assumption of the Risk, Summer Camp, Special Needs Camp, St. Francis Camp on the Lake,

Watkins, Jr., v St. Francis Camp on the Lake, 2010 Mich. App. Lexis 1814

Posted: July 20, 2015 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Summer Camp | Tags: assumption of the risk, Condition of the Land, Open and Obvious, Special Needs Camp, St. Francis Camp on the Lake, Summer Camp | Leave a comment

Watkins, Jr., v St. Francis Camp on the Lake, 2010 Mich. App. Lexis 1814

Robert Vincent Watkins, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v St. Francis camp on the lake, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 292578

Court of Appeals of Michigan

2010 Mich. App. LEXIS 1814

September 28, 2010, Decided

NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Hillsdale Circuit Court. LC No. 08-000601-NI.

CORE TERMS: water slide, ditch, camper, slide, went down, premises liability, amend, times, counselor, tube, matter of law, nuisance, flipped, invitee, futile, hit, air, obvious danger, pleaded, bottom, rolled, feet, leave to amend, physical condition, duty to protect, duty of care, liability case, liability claim, dangerous condition, ordinary intelligence

JUDGES: Before: MURPHY, C.J., and SAWYER and MURRAY, JJ. MURPHY, C.J. (concurring).

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Robert Watkins, Jr., appeals by leave granted the trial court’s June 1, 2009, order granting defendant summary disposition, and its order denying his motion to amend. We affirm.

I. FACTS

Plaintiff, who is disabled, was injured using a water slide at a summer camp that defendant St. Francis Camp on the Lake runs for people with special needs. Plaintiff, who suffers from cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair because he is a quadriplegic, was approximately 34 years old at the time of the accident and was living with his parents. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed at the Roscommon county courthouse as a mail clerk, where he worked for the previous 15 years for about 20 hours per week. Plaintiff did not have a legal guardian.

A water slide was at the camp. The water slide consisted of a tarp, which was approximately 100 feet long and 20 feet wide, placed on a hill. Water was then sprayed onto the tarp and soap was put onto the campers so that the campers would slide down the tarp faster. Some of the campers would use inner tubes [*2] when going down the hill and some would slide down the hill on their buttocks. At the bottom of the slide was a “little ditch,” which was approximately two and one-half feet long, two feet wide, and 12 to 18 inches deep. There was water and mud in the ditch, and if a camper hit the ditch when sliding down the hill, which “pretty much everybody hit the ditch,” the camper would flip.

Robert Seger was a camp counselor while plaintiff was at the camp. Seger indicated that the camp basically “let the campers decide what they feel they can and can’t do. They try not to place any limitations on anybody. They want them to have the best experience possible there.” Camp counselors kept notes throughout the week about the campers. Seger’s notes about plaintiff reflected, “July 15th, Sunday. Robert W. excited to be at the new camp. Very happy and pleasant all day. Likes to try new things and is determined to do as much as he can do on his own.” Seger’s notes also reflected, “July 17th, Tuesday. Robert W. says he really likes the camp. The best one he has been to. Took him on the slip and slide. He does not let his physical limitations stop him from trying anything new. He loves the water slide.” [*3] ¹

1 Plaintiff’s mother completed plaintiff’s camper medical information form and indicated on the form that plaintiff has suffered from cerebral palsy since birth, was a quadriplegic, used an electric wheelchair, and had a colostomy as well as arthritis and speech problems. One of the questions on the form provided, “Should camper’s activities be limited due to physical condition or illness?” Plaintiff’s mother circled “Yes” and explained “Spine/disc narrowing-disc bulging, and disc herniation.”

Seger testified that, on Tuesday, plaintiff went down the water slide four or five times. Seger testified that plaintiff was loaded onto a tube at the top of the hill, then a camp counselor sat in a tube behind plaintiff’s tube and went down the hill holding onto plaintiff’s tube. Plaintiff was subsequently loaded onto a golf cart and driven back up to the top of the hill. On Wednesday, plaintiff went down the water slide approximately four more times. Seger testified:

So Robby rolled a couple times, got up laughing. It was fine the first day. And that’s when, I believe the second day, he really took a good flip. Elizabeth went down with him on the slide as well. I believe that’s the day he might [*4] have, when he rolled might have hit his foot on the ground too hard. He might have caught it in the ditch down at the bottom. I am not quite too sure exactly the circumstances that led to bones being broken in his foot. But when he complained about it I noticed the bruising and said something to the nurse and had her examine it.

Seger further testified regarding the last two times that plaintiff went down the water slide on Wednesday:

The third time I do remember him flipping. He went one time after that which he flipped as well. So-I’m sorry. Like I said, I can’t necessarily-I don’t remember specific times, but his last two times he flipped really hard. And that’s when he decided he was done. He didn’t want to go anymore. And he had some scratches caused from the gravel from the rolling over. And I think I remember that there was-he complained-got the wind knocked out of him when they rolled over, because he had lain there for a bit. And we went down to check everything out, make sure he was okay, checked his colostomy bag. Because I mean, like I said, he rolled over pretty good. And he said he just kind of had the wind knocked out of him but he was fine. So we got him cleaned up, wiped [*5] the mud off of his face, put him back in the golf cart, took him to the top of the hill. And that was close to the end of the activity, but he didn’t want to go anymore anyways.

On March 6, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint, which alleged the following:

7. On or about July 19, 2007, the Defendant and its agents and employees, including all camp instructors and supervisors, owed certain duties and obligations to the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, including but not limited to:

a. Ensuring that they were kept from harm;

b. Utilizing all means and methods to ensure that they would not cause serious and permanent injury to Plaintiff;

c. To abide by the wishes and request of any guardian or parent of the Plaintiff or other similar situated individuals so as to ensure that the Plaintiff was not exposed to an increase[d] risk of harm and injury in the activities undertaken during said time at the camp;

d. To ensure that individuals attending the facility such as the Plaintiff herein were protected from severe and permanent injury and damage during the course of normal activity;

e. To ensure that injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff or other[s] similar[ly] situated while staying [*6] at the camp were properly and adequately diagnosed and treated and then appropriate and prompt medical attention was provided to these individuals and the Plaintiff herein by qualified and competent medical professionals;

f. To ensure that the facility properly and adequately trained its personnel to recognize the dangers in activities, which they may undertake with campers so as to reduce or eliminate the danger for severe and permanent injury and damage; and

g. Such other duties and obligations as may be identified throughout the course of discovery.

On April 17, 2009, defendant moved for summary disposition, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)10), arguing that this was a premises liability case and that the alleged hazard was open and obvious. Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint in order to add a claim of nuisance in fact and moved to amend the scheduling order in order to extend scheduling dates 60 days so that he would have enough time to complete discovery. Plaintiff also opposed defendant’s motion.

At the hearing on the motion to amend the complaint, the trial court concluded:

This isn’t a nuisance case. This isn’t an issue that’s something open to the general public. It is for simply the [*7] private campers. You’ve got a negligence action, I think. It would appear that Mr. Watkins-at least from the briefs I’ve read thus far, subject to the arguments of both of you, I believe it’s Friday-didn’t even agree to this activity. It would appear that he simply was picked up out of a wheelchair, put on an inner tube, and he was accompanied by a counselor down the hill. This isn’t a nuisance case, it’s a negligence case. Doesn’t even appear to be a premises liability case.

So I think we’re-it would be futile to amend the complaint at this time. We’ll proceed with the complaint as drafted . . . .

At the hearing, the trial court also indicated that it was denying plaintiff’s request to have the scheduling order dates extended.

At the subsequent hearing on defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court held:

This case has been described as a premises liability case. The reason the Court doesn’t consider it a negligence case in general is that I’m not sitting here with a patient that — or an individual that is not cognizant of what is going on around him. The staff followed his directions.

* * *

[I]n this particular case I’m dealing with a ditch at the bottom of a hill where [*8] water accumulates. As I have described here, based on the depositions, the condition was open, the condition was obvious, it was observed by Mr. Watkins, it was observed by everyone around. This could not be expected that this would result in a serious injury-severe injury. The condition of the premises cannot be considered unreasonable. You don’t have a situation where we could have an especially high likelihood of injury.

Hence, the trial court concluded that defendant’s motion for summary disposition should be granted because plaintiff’s claims were based on premises liability law and the condition was open and obvious and without special aspects that would remove the condition from the open and obvious danger doctrine. The trial court noted, however, that the claim relating to the failure to obtain proper medical services in a timely fashion remained pending. At the end of the hearing on the motion for summary disposition, the trial court entertained plaintiff’s motion for entry of order to dismiss the case without prejudice, which the trial court also granted.

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that his claims of negligence should not have been summarily dismissed as claims sounding only [*9] in premises liability because it was defendant’s conduct in not properly and adequately training its personnel to recognize the dangers in activities that led to his injuries. Further, an objective reading of the complaint results in a finding that the negligence clearly involved the conduct of individuals with regard to the water slide activity. Thus, plaintiff’s claims should not have been dismissed on the basis of premises liability law because premises liability law does not apply to conduct.

We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition. Coblentz v City of Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567; 719 NW2d 73 (2006). We review the record in the same manner as the trial court to determine whether the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Morales v Auto-Owners Ins, 458 Mich 288, 294; 582 NW2d 776 (1998). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a reviewing court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the [*10] light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Coblentz, 475 Mich at 567-568. Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. MCR 2.116(C)(10); MCR 2.116(G)(4); Coblentz, 475 Mich at 568.

Generally, where an injury arises out of a condition on the land, rather than conduct or activity, the action lies in premises liability. James v Alberts, 464 Mich 12, 18-19; 626 NW2d 158 (2001); Laier v Kitchen, 266 Mich App 482, 493; 702 NW2d 199 (2005). In other words:

In a premises liability claim, liability emanates merely from the defendant’s duty as an owner, possessor, or occupier of land. However, that does not preclude a separate claim grounded on an independent theory of liability based on the defendant’s conduct . . . . [Id.]

Premises liability law has been summarized by the Michigan Supreme Court as follows:

Generally, a premises possessor owes a duty of care to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land. This duty generally does not encompass a duty to protect an invitee from “open [*11] and obvious” dangers. However, if there are “special aspects” of a condition that make even an “open and obvious” danger “unreasonably dangerous,” the premises possessor maintains a duty to undertake reasonable precautions to protect invitees from such danger. [Mann v Shusteric Enterprises, Inc, 470 Mich 320, 328; 683 NW2d 573 (2004) (citations omitted).]

The test to determine if a danger is open and obvious is whether an average user of ordinary intelligence would have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection. Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231, 238; 642 NW2d 360 (2002).

We conclude, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that defendant’s alleged liability emanated from its duty as the owner of the land. Coblentz, 475 Mich at 568; Laier, 266 Mich App at 493. That is, the question was whether defendant had a duty as the owner of the land to protect plaintiff from harm and thus provide a water slide activity that was free from danger by not allowing a ditch at the bottom of the slide to exist, which propelled participants into the air. Id. The theory of liability directly related to a condition on the land, i.e. the premises. James, 464 Mich at 18-19. [*12] Consequently, although some alleged conduct on the part of defendant may have been involved-i.e. failing to protect plaintiff from harm, allowing the ditch to form, and/or failing to train staff to recognize the danger involved in allowing participants to hit the ditch and be propelled into the air-this does not change the fact that, as a matter of law, this negligence claim was based on premises liability law. Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537 NW2d 185 (1995); Laier, 266 Mich App at 489. ² Indeed, in Laier we specifically held that the open and obvious doctrine applied to a claim pleaded as “a failure to warn of a dangerous condition or as a breach of a duty in allowing the dangerous condition to exist.” Id. at 489 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the trial court correctly determined that this case was based on premises liability law and analyzed the case under that theory. Id.

2 That is, of course, except for the negligence claim related to plaintiff’s subsequent care and treatment at the camp, which the trial court indicated remained pending, at least until the order dismissing the case without prejudice.

The undisputed facts reveal that the condition was also open and [*13] obvious. Joyce, 249 Mich App at 238. The testimony reflected that almost every time a camper went down the water slide, they hit the ditch and flipped or became covered in mud. In addition, plaintiff specifically testified that before he went down the water slide, he saw other people go down the water slide and fly into the air. Further, the testimony established that plaintiff went down the water slide several times before he was injured and that plaintiff was enjoying the water slide. We find on the record before us that an average user of ordinary intelligence would have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection. Id. Based on the foregoing, the danger of going down the water slide, hitting the ditch, and flipping into the air, was open and obvious. Id.

Plaintiff argues that because a counselor at the camp did not recognize the danger, there was genuine issue of material fact on whether the condition was open and obvious. However, simply because one counselor did not see any danger in operating the slide (all the evidence pointed to the conclusion that all campers enjoyed the slide) does not result in a conclusion that an average user of ordinary [*14] intelligence would not have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection by going down a water slide, hitting the ditch, and flipping into the air. Joyce, 249 Mich App at 238. Additionally, there was no evidence of prior injuries. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether the condition was open and obvious, Coblentz, 475 Mich at 567-568, and no special aspects to this condition were presented. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, 464 Mich 512, 516-520; 629 NW2d 384 (2001). Hence, plaintiff’s claim was barred by the open and obvious doctrine.

In addition, plaintiff argues that defendant should have known or anticipated that, given plaintiff’s physical condition and his parent’s requested restrictions, plaintiff could have been hurt if propelled into the air after hitting the ditch. This argument fails for the simple reason that in a premises liability action when determining whether a condition is open and obvious, “the fact-finder must consider the ‘condition of the premises,’ not the condition of the plaintiff.” Mann, 470 Mich at 329. Hence, plaintiff’s physical condition was not pertinent to [*15] the determination that the condition was open and obvious. Id.

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied him the opportunity to amend his pleadings with additional theories of ordinary negligence. The grant or denial of leave to amend is within the trial court’s discretion. Weymers v Khera, 454 Mich 639, 654; 563 NW2d 647 (1997). Thus, “[we] will not reverse a trial court’s decision regarding leave to amend unless it constituted an abuse of discretion that resulted in injustice.” PT Today, Inc v Comm’r of the Office of Financial & Ins Servs, 270 Mich App 110, 142; 715 NW2d 398 (2006). “Leave to amend the pleadings should be freely granted to the nonprevailing party upon a grant of summary disposition unless the amendment would be futile or otherwise unjustified.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgt, Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 126-127; 724 NW2d 718 (2006). Specifically, “[a]n amendment is futile where the paragraphs or counts the plaintiff seeks to add merely restate, or slightly elaborate on, allegations already pleaded.” Dowerk v Oxford Charter Twp, 233 Mich App 62, 76; 592 NW2d 724 (1998).

For two reasons the trial court did not abuse it’s discretion. First, [*16] the exclusive focus of plaintiff’s motion to amend was to amend the complaint to allege a “nuisance”, and plaintiff does not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that nuisance is not properly pleaded under these facts. Second, an amendment would have been futile because plaintiff’s alleged additional theories of ordinary negligence merely restated, and slightly elaborated on, the theories of negligence that plaintiff already pleaded. Id. And, as already stated above, the open and obvious doctrine applied because defendant’s alleged liability emanated from defendant’s duty as the owner of the land to protect plaintiff from harm, including in allowing the danger to exist. Bertrand, 449 Mich at 609; Laier, 266 Mich App at 493. In other words, the open and obvious doctrine applied to plaintiff’s alleged theories of negligence, which were set forth in his complaint, as well as plaintiff’s alleged additional theories of ordinary negligence (except as noted in footnote 2, supra) because defendant’s alleged liability emanated from defendant’s duty as the owner of the land to protect plaintiff from harm. Id. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion that resulted in an injustice because granting [*17] plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would have been futile. Dowerk, 233 Mich App at 76; Weymers, 454 Mich at 654.

Affirmed.

/s/ David H. Sawyer

/s/ Christopher M. Murray

CONCUR BY: William B. Murphy

CONCUR

MURPHY, C.J. (concurring).

I find it unnecessary to determine whether plaintiff’s lawsuit sounded solely in premises liability law. Assuming that plaintiff alleged an independent cause of action on a pure negligence theory, I would hold, as a matter of law, that defendant owed no specific duty of care to plaintiff that encompassed protecting him from or keeping him off the water slide. I would also analyze the premises liability claim in a slightly different manner. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

“The elements of an action for negligence are (i) duty, (ii) general standard of care, (iii) specific standard of care, (iv) cause in fact, (v) legal or proximate cause, and (vi) damage.” Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425, 437; 254 NW2d 759 (1977). As a general rule, there is no common law duty that obligates one person to protect another person from danger. Dawe v Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Associates, PC, 485 Mich 20, 25; 780 NW2d 272 (2010). An exception exists when there is a special relationship between a plaintiff [*18] and the defendant. Id. at 25-26. The Dawe Court, quoting Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495, 499; 418 NW2d 381 (1988), observed:

“The rationale behind imposing a duty to protect in these special relationships is based on control. In each situation one person entrusts himself to the control and protection of another, with a consequent loss of control to protect himself. The duty to protect is imposed upon the person in control because he is best able to provide a place of safety.” [Dawe, 485 Mich at 26.]

Here, plaintiff’s allegations that presumably sounded in negligence were in the nature of claims that defendant had failed to protect him from or keep him off the water slide. Despite his physical limitations, plaintiff is an adult who was fully aware of the ditch at the end of the water slide, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that he was incapable of appreciating any potential dangers, nor that he was incapable of making his own informed decision whether to engage in the activity of using the water slide. The record reflects that plaintiff did not have a guardian and that he was employed as a mail clerk. This case does not present a situation in which plaintiff [*19] entrusted himself to the control and protection of defendant, as he never lost the ability to protect himself, which could have been accomplished by simply declining to participate in the activity. Defendant never forced plaintiff to use the water slide. Indeed, plaintiff later decided against further using the slide. I would hold, as a matter of law, that defendant owed no specific duty of care to plaintiff that encompassed protecting him from or keeping him off the water slide.

With respect to plaintiff’s claims predicated on premises liability law, this case is not truly one that concerns the open and obvious danger doctrine. Rather, we have a situation in which defendant had no duty because plaintiff had actual knowledge of the hazard and chose to proceed. Plaintiff knew that camp patrons, including himself, had flipped over in the ditch, considering that he had slid down the slide and flipped previously, and given that he observed others doing the same. As indicated in Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 610; 537 NW2d 185 (1995), liability will not be imposed on a landowner where a hazard is known or is open and obvious. “[T]he open and obvious doctrine will cut off liability [*20] if the invitee should have discovered the condition and realized its danger.” Id. at 611 (emphasis added). Thus, liability or a duty evaporates when a danger is open and obvious, as it should have been discovered, or when the danger was actually known, as it had been discovered, which is the case here. Plaintiff’s premises liability claim thus fails, as I do not find that the condition remained unreasonably dangerous despite plaintiff’s knowledge of it. Id.

In all other respects, I agree with the majority’s opinion.

I respectfully concur.

/s/ William B. Murphy

It's not what I write, It's what you Learn

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Connect

Rate this:

Share this:

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

§ 691.1661. Short title.

§ 691.1662. Definitions.

§ 691.1663. Injury, death, or property damage; liability.

§ 691.1664. Liability; exception; waiver.

§ 691.1665. Liability not prevented or limited; conditions.

§ 691.1666. Notice; posting and maintenance of signs; contract; contents of notice.

§ 691.1667. Applicability of act.

Rate this:

Share this:

To Read an Analysis of this decision see: Michigan Equine helped the plaintiff more than the stable and helped prove there may be gross negligence on the part of the defendant

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Recognized as the Go to Lawyer by the Outdoor Recreation Industry

If you want to book an appointment?

My New Book: Boating the Grand Canyon: A “How To” for Private Boaters

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

James H. Moss, J.D.

Pages

Follow Blog via Email

Follow on Twitter

Categories: by Activity, State & Legal Issue

Blog Stats

StatCounter