Recreation Law

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Brett, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., et al., 279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53

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NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RULES, UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENTIALLY BINDING UNDER THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS.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

Tobogganing is added to the NJ Skier Safety Act, yet in this case, it allows the ski area to be sued.

Posted: March 14, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, New Jersey, Ski Area | Tags: Duty of care, Hazard, New Jersey, New Jersey Skier Safety Act, ski area, Toboggan, Trespasser, Ultra Hazard, Warning | Leave a comment

However, the courts in this case seemed to want the plaintiffs to win no matter what.

State: New Jersey, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Plaintiff: Patrick Brett and Elisa Ramundo

Defendant: Great American Recreation, Inc. et al.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: (1) defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs under either the common law or the Statute because they were trespassers at the time of the accident, and (2) even if plaintiffs were not barred from recovery as trespassers, the facts of this case do not render defendant liable under the terms of the Statute.

Holding: For the plaintiff’s

Year: 1995

This is an old decision; however, it explains how a statute created to and passed to protect an activity, can be used to hold the operators of the activity liable.

There are numerous claims, cross claims, third party claims and claimants. Several parties were dismissed prior to trial. Basically, everyone who was brought into the lawsuit also made claims against the people bringing them in and anyone else that could have any liability.

Thirteen college friends intended to spend the weekend in a condo owned by the uncle of one of the thirteen. The condo was sitting next to the Great Gorge North ski area. Between the ski area and the condos was a vacant strip of land. The land is owned by two condo associations, including one of the plaintiffs were staying in.

During the day, the vacant strip of land is used by the ski area as a bunny hill. When the ski hill is closed the lights are turned off. However, the lights are turned back on later in the night for the groomers to operate.

One of the party of 13 found in the condo a toboggan. After the lights were turned back on, several of the thirteen went tobogganing on the bunny hill. They were not alone tobogganing; other people were tobogganing, sledding and using the hill after it had closed but with the lights on.

Different people in the group used the toboggan at different times; taking turns because the toboggan could only hold six at a time. On the third run, the toboggan was launched higher up the hill.

The toboggan went down the bunny hill across a fifty to sixty foot flat section of land, over a flattened snow fence then over the edge of a 20’ embankment landing in the parking lot below. One of the six was able to fall off the toboggan before it went over the embankment. The five remaining riders were seriously injured landing in the parking lot and hitting a light pole.

Security guards were employed by the defendant condo association. Part of their duties included keeping people off the bunny hill. However, this night the security guards were shorthanded, and hill was not checked. The plaintiff’s even argued that the defendants were negligent because they failed to eject people on the bunny hill.

Stonehill employed security personnel to police the entire condominium area, including the Bunny Buster trail. That policing included keeping trespassers off the trail at night, but the security force was short-handed that night and failed to police the trail. Defendant’s attorney argued in his summation that Stonehill was negligent because it failed to have its security force eject after-hours trespassers.

The case proceeded to trial, and the plaintiffs were awarded $2,475,000 among the five of them. The damages were apportioned under comparative negligence as: plaintiffs 22%, defendant 54% and Stonehill 24% (one of the condo associations).

The defendants appealed.

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

The court first pointed out that even if the plaintiffs were found to be trespassers that did not mean, under New Jersey law that no duty was owed to the trespassers. If the land contained a dangerous instrumentality, then a duty is owed to a trespasser to warn them of the danger.

Traditionally, a landowner owed no duty to a trespasser other than to refrain from acts willfully injurious.” The Court held, however, that even traditionally there was a higher standard of care due a trespasser “when the property owned by the landowner can be classified as a dangerous instrumentality.” Here, the design of the Bunny Buster trail rendered it unexpectedly dangerous.

In this case, the court concluded that next to a bunny hill, an embankment is a dangerous instrumentality. The court’s opinion of the situation is pretty clear in the next discussion when the embankment is called a fatal trap.

Here, on one side of that relationship are young people attracted to a condominium because of its proximity to snow trails and who, not unexpectedly, used defendant’s adjacent lighted trail to toboggan after skiing hours. On the other side of the relationship is the operator of the trail, which, as designed, was a near-fatal trap to those using the trail to toboggan.

New Jersey has a Skier Safety Act. The court found that the New Jersey Skier Safety Act applied to this case.

To determine whether it applies to the exclusion of common-law principles, one must look at two sections of the Statute: N.J.S.A. 5:13-4, which lists the duties of skiers, 1 and N.J.S.A. 5:13-5, which describes the risks that a skier is deemed to have assumed. If a factfinder finds that a skier was injured because he or she had violated one or more of those statutory duties or is deemed by the Statute to have assumed one or more of the stated risks of skiing, the Statute applies.

Once it is determined the act applies, the court, or jury, determines if the injuries of the plaintiff were caused by the ski operators violation of the act. If so the plaintiff recovers.

If the factfinder finds that the injuries were not proximately caused by the ski operator’s violation of any of its statutory responsibilities, the Statute bars the injured skier from recovering compensation from the operator. If the factfinder finds that the injuries were proximately caused by the ski operator’s violation of one or more of its statutory responsibilities, the skier is entitled to recover under principles of comparative negligence.

The court also found the plaintiff’s violated one statute of the New Jersey Skier Safety Act. The plaintiff’s failed to maintain control of their toboggan and did not know their abilities.

Here it is obvious that plaintiffs violated at least one of the statutory duties and therefore the Statute applies. [HN7] N.J.S.A. 5:13-4d provides:

A skier shall be the sole judge of his ability to negotiate any trail, slope, or uphill track and shall not attempt to ski or otherwise traverse any trail, slope or other area which is beyond the skier’s ability to negotiate.

The court also found the plaintiff’s assumed the risk because they still went down the slope. However, this assumption of the risk, the court found was not a complete bar, but only proved the plaintiffs contributed to their injuries. Which is contrary to how the assumption of risk provision reads and is somewhat contrary to earlier statements in the case?

It is important to note that these statutory violations and risk assumptions do not affect the percentage of a skier’s comparative negligence. That determination is left to the factfinder if it finds that the skier contributed to his or her own injuries by violating one or more of the skier’s responsibilities. The skiers’ statutory violations and risk assumptions initially serve merely to invoke application of the Statute.

This interpretation of the statute effectively render’s the inherent risk section of the statute void. An inherent risk is a risk that is part of the activity. In inherent risk is something that cannot be removed from the activity without rendering the activity moot. You cannot sue for an injury you receive from an inherent risk of the activity, allegedly. Skier Safety Acts are written to broaden the risks that are inherent and to make them, if assumed an absolute bar to a claim, in most states.

However, in New Jersey, this is not the case.

The case took a somewhat amusing turn. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s claim that a stronger fence should have been built and that the defendants were liable because they had not built a fence strong enough to keep the plaintiff’s from going over the embankment. Aren’t the injuries going to be different when a toboggan going fast enough to over an embankment hits a fence, but still severe?

The argument then went back to the New Jersey Skier Safety Act. The act differentiates between manmade hazards and natural ones. The statute defines a ski area as real property “…”utilized for skiing, operating toboggans, sleds, or similar vehicles during the skiing season.”

However, the court simply stated, “Being borne off an embankment after reaching the bottom of a trail is not an inherent risk of tobogganing.”

Then the court looked at the hazard and determined the act required removal of a hazard. If the hazard could not be removed, then the plaintiff’s had to be warned of the hazard.

Where physical removal of a hazard is not possible, reasonable warnings of the hazard may constitute its practicable removal. The Statute impliedly contemplates that an operator at least has a duty to post suitable warnings of danger. It will be recalled that N.J.S.A. 5:13-5 expressly charges skiers with the reciprocal duty “to heed all posted warnings.”

The decision then went back to the duty owed to trespassers. The defendants argued the New Jersey Skier Safety Act does not apply to trespassers. However, the court stated that even if the plaintiffs were trespassers a high duty was owed with or without the New Jersey Skier Safety Act.

We already suggested that even at common law, defendant may owe plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care because their presence on the lighted trail was reasonably foreseeable, the risk of grave injury was great and the duty of care was not delegable.

The court then summed out the analysis it was making to allow a recovery by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs were not merely “in” the ski area; they were “utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as . . . operating toboggans.” They were therefore skiers entitled to recover under principles of comparative negligence if defendant violated any of its limited statutory responsibilities.

The statutory responsibility was the failure to remove the embankment or post a warning about it.

A major issue at trial was whether defendant violated any of its statutory responsibilities. The focus was on the meaning of [HN10] N.J.S.A. 5:13-3, which provides in relevant part:

a. It shall be the responsibility of the operator to the extent practicable, to:

* * * *

(3) Remove as soon as practicable obvious, man-made hazards.

The appellate court upheld the jury’s decision and award at trial.

So Now What?

In New Jersey, you must make your property safe for all users of the property, even if they are doing so without our permission. If you cannot remove the hazard, you must post a warning of the hazard, if the hazard is considered ultra-hazardous.

Simply put, risk management is not controlling what people are expected to do at your program or business. Risk Management is looking at all aspects of the operation and finding ways that people can be hurt doing things other than what they came for.

The Zip Line may be perfect but is someone can mistake an anchor for a zip line you will be sued. See Federal court voids release in Vermont based on Vermont’s unique view of release law. Someone uses the equipment incorrectly, and the court is going to hold you to the fire. See Sometimes you get screwed; here Petzl was shafted by the court.

However, a person can use a piece of equipment, try a ride, climb up or down; they will do it wrong, be hurt and sue.

Risk Management is looking at things from every point of view, for every age group, for every activity, if you don’t think those people, those age groups or that activity can be done.

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

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

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2016-2023 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, Toboggan, New Jersey, Hazard, Ultra Hazard, Warning, New Jersey Skier Safety Act, Ski Area, Trespasser, Duty of Care,

Brett, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., et al., 279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53

Posted: March 13, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, New Jersey, Ski Area | Tags: Duty of care, Hazard, New Jersey, New Jersey Skier Safety Act, ski area, Toboggan, Trespasser, Ultra Hazard, Warning | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see Tobogganing is added to the NJ Skier Safety Act, yet in this case, it allows the ski area to be sued.

Brett, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., et al., 279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53

Patrick Brett and Elisa Ramundo, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stonehill Property Owners Association, Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party-Plaintiffs, and Rudolph Maurizzi, Defendant/Third-Party-Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Denise Mcdade, Nancy Morgan, Third-Party-Defendants. Karen Furman, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stonehill Property Owners Association Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party-Plaintiffs, v. Rudolph Maurizzi, Third-Party-Defendant/Respondent. Donald Pisarcik, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stone Hill Property Owners Association Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants, and Rudolph Maurizzi, Defendant-Respondent. Megan Russell, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Stone Hill Property Owners Association Inc., Hotel Section Condominium Council, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party-Plaintiffs, and Rudolph Maurizzi, Lisa Carmelitano, Third-Party-Defendants/Respondents, and Karen Furman, Third-Party-Defendant.

A-4010-92T3

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION

279 N.J. Super. 306; 652 A.2d 774; 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 53

November 29, 1994, Argued

February 8, 1995, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Approved for Publication February 8, 1995. As Amended.

Certification granted Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 141 N.J. 97, 660 A.2d 1196, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 379 (1995)

Affirmed by Brett v. Great Am. Rec., 144 N.J. 479, 677 A.2d 705, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 787 (1996)

PRIOR HISTORY: On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County.

COUNSEL: Samuel A. DeGonge argued the cause for appellant Great American Recreation, Inc. (Samuel J. McNulty, on the brief).

Philip G. Auerbach argued the cause for respondents Patrick Brett, Elisa Ramundo, Karen Furman and Donald Pisarcik (Auerbach & Cox, attorneys; Mr. Auerbach, on the brief).

John P. Doran argued the cause for respondent Megan Russell.

Anthony P. Pasquarelli argued the cause for respondent Rudolph Maurizzi (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Jared E. Stolz, of counsel and on the brief).

Kevin J. Decoursey argued the cause for respondent Lisa Carmelitano (O’Toole & Couch, attorneys; Michael Della Rovere, on the brief).

JUDGES: Before Judges BRODY, LONG and ARNOLD M. STEIN. The opinion of the Court was delivered by BRODY, P.J.A.D.

OPINION BY: Warren Brody

OPINION

[*310] [**776] The opinion of the Court was delivered by

BRODY, P.J.A.D.

Plaintiffs in this consolidated personal injury action are five of thirteen college friends, then twenty and twenty-one years old, who had planned to be together for a winter weekend at a condominium in Vernon Township. The owner of the condominium, third-party defendant Rudolph Maurizzi, is the uncle of third-party defendant [***2] Lisa Carmelitano, one of the group. He allowed the group to use his condominium, which is one of many such buildings built along the slope of Great Gorge North on either side of a vacant strip of land. During the winter, the vacant strip, which is about a thousand feet long, is the Bunny Buster ski trail. Defendants Stonehill Property Owners Association, Inc. and Hotel [*311] Section Condominium Council, Inc. (Stonehill) own the land that contains the condominiums and the Bunny Buster trail. Defendant Great American Recreation, Inc. (defendant) operates the trail as a business under the terms of an easement from Stonehill.

Members of the group arrived on Friday at different times. Early arrivals spent part of the day skiing along various trails in the area. When they finished skiing, some of those returning to the condominium used or crossed the Bunny Buster trail even though defendant had turned off the lights on the trail because by then it had closed for the day. Between ten and eleven o’clock that night, after everyone in the group had arrived at the condominium, defendant turned on the Bunny Buster trail lights to enable its employees to groom the trail for the next day. Grooming [***3] is accomplished by using motor vehicles to pull heavy rollers over the trail to tamp down the snow.

Earlier that day, one member of the group discovered a toboggan that Maurizzi had stored in his condominium with other snow equipment. After the lights were turned on, the group decided to slide down part of the trail on the toboggan. There was evidence that other people at the time were using the trail for sledding and tobogganing. The toboggan could hold no more than six people so members of the group took turns riding it. The first two runs were uneventful.

[**777] The third run, with six on board, was a disaster. Starting from a point a bit higher than where the first two runs had begun, the toboggan slid down the trail, across a fifty- to sixty-foot flat expanse of snow at the base of the trail, over a flattened snow fence, and then over the edge of a twenty-foot dirt embankment to a parking lot below. One of the six fell off the toboggan before it dropped over the edge, thereby escaping injury. The other five, the plaintiffs, were seriously injured as their bodies hit the embankment, the parking lot and a parking-lot light pole. There was evidence that, at the time of the rescue operation, [***4] other people, not associated with plaintiffs’ group, who were tobogganing [*312] escaped injury by tumbling off their toboggan just before it dropped over the edge.

Claims against all third-party defendants were dismissed on their motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs settled with Stonehill before trial. The jury found that under the New Jersey Ski Statute (Statute), N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 et seq., plaintiffs as a group, defendant and Stonehill were all negligent. The jury apportioned the negligence as follows: plaintiffs 22%, defendant 54% and Stonehill 24%. The jury found that fair and adequate total compensation to all plaintiffs would be $ 2,475,000.

Defendant’s main arguments are: (1) defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs under either the common law or the Statute because they were trespassers at the time of the accident, and (2) even if plaintiffs were not barred from recovery as trespassers, the facts of this case do not render defendant liable under the terms of the Statute. Defendant raised these issues when it moved, unsuccessfully, for involuntary dismissal upon the conclusion of plaintiffs’ presentation of evidence, R. 4:37-2(b), and for judgment at the close [***5] of all evidence, R. 4:40-1. For reasons that follow, we conclude that defendant is liable under the Statute and that the Statute does not bar the claims of trespassers.

Before discussing those issues, we note that, contrary to defendant’s contention, although plaintiffs were trespassers at the time of the accident their claims would not necessarily be barred at common law. ” [HN1] Traditionally, a landowner owed no duty to a trespasser other than to refrain from acts willfully injurious.” Renz v. Penn Cent. Corp., 87 N.J. 437, 461, 435 A.2d 540 (1981). The Court held, however, that even traditionally there was a higher standard of care due a trespasser “when the property owned by the landowner can be classified as a dangerous instrumentality.” Id. at 462, 435 A.2d 540. Here, the design of the Bunny Buster trail rendered it unexpectedly dangerous. As this accident demonstrated, tobogganers who reached the bottom of the trail would be carried by momentum over the edge of a twenty-foot embankment resulting in serious injury.

[*313] The Court in Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993), [***6] signaled its movement away from the rigid common-law distinctions among the standards of care due trespassers, licensees and invitees. There the Court held that a real estate broker owed a duty of reasonable care to a prospective home buyer who was injured when she failed to notice a step and fell while viewing the premises. She was there to attend an “open house” conducted by the broker. In imposing a duty of care on the broker, thereby departing from the common-law requirement that only the property owner had such a duty, the Court said:

The inquiry should be not what common law classification or amalgam of classifications most closely characterizes the relationship of the parties, but . . . whether in light of the actual relationship between the parties under all of the surrounding circumstances the imposition on the broker of a general duty to exercise reasonable care in preventing foreseeable harm to its open-house customers is fair and just. That approach is itself rooted in the philosophy of the common law.

[Id. at 438, 625 A.2d 1110]

Here, on one side of that relationship are young people attracted to a condominium because of its proximity [***7] to snow trails and who, not unexpectedly, used defendant’s adjacent lighted trail to toboggan after skiing hours. On the other side of the relationship is the operator of the trail, which, as designed, [**778] was a near-fatal trap to those using the trail to toboggan. Without having to decide the question, we suggest that even if the Ski Statute did not apply, the operator would have a common-law duty to take reasonable measures to warn such trespassers of that latent danger.

Indeed, such an obligation was recognized by defendant in its cross-claim against Stonehill. Stonehill employed security personnel to police the entire condominium area, including the Bunny Buster trail. That policing included keeping trespassers off the trail at night, but the security force was short-handed that night and failed to police the trail. Defendant’s attorney argued in his summation that Stonehill was negligent because it failed to have its security force eject after-hours trespassers. We add that [HN2] the duty of an owner or occupier of land to warn of such a serious [*314] danger may not be delegable. Hopkins, supra, at 441, 625 A.2d 1110 (citing Sanna v. National Sponge Co., 209 N.J.Super. 60, 506 A.2d 1258 (App.Div.1986)). [***8]

The Legislature enacted the Ski Statute in 1979 in response to a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court that deprived operators of ski areas of the absolute defense of assumption of risk. Sunday v. Stratton Corp., 136 Vt. 293, 390 A.2d 398 (1978), held that in adopting comparative negligence by statute the legislature of that state intended to replace the absolute defense of assumption of risk with the defense of plaintiff’s comparative negligence. Our Legislature was thus moved to consider whether its adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence in 1973 left ski area operators unfairly vulnerable to personal injury actions caused by accidents that are an inherent risk of skiing and related sports such as toboganning. See generally Reisman v. Great Am. Recreation, 266 N.J.Super. 87, 92-95, 628 A.2d 801 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 560, 636 A.2d 519 (1993).

[HN3] Actions against a ski operator for personal injuries sustained by a skier on its ski slope are governed by common-law negligence principles unless the Ski Statute applies. Reisman, supra,266 N.J. Super. at 97, 628 A.2d 801. [***9] The Statute, however, has wide application.

To determine whether it applies to the exclusion of common-law principles, one must look at two sections of the Statute: N.J.S.A. 5:13-4, which lists the duties of skiers, ¹ and N.J.S.A. 5:13-5, which describes the risks that a skier is deemed to have assumed. If a factfinder finds that a skier was injured because he or she had violated one or more of those statutory duties or is deemed by the Statute to have assumed one or more of the stated risks of skiing, the Statute applies. The common law, and not the Statute, was applied in Reisman because there the skier’s injury [*315] was the result of neither the violation of a statutory duty nor the assumption of a statutory risk. He was injured while properly proceeding slowly down a beginner’s slope when a drunken skier knocked him to the ground.

1 [HN4] N.J.S.A. 5:13-2c defines “skier” to include “a person utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as . . . operating toboggans.”

[HN5] Once it is determined that the [***10] Statute applies, one must look at N.J.S.A. 5:13-3, which lists the responsibilities of the ski operator. ² If the factfinder finds that the injuries were not proximately caused by the ski operator’s violation of any of its statutory responsibilities, the Statute bars the injured skier from recovering compensation from the operator. If the factfinder finds that the injuries were proximately caused by the ski operator’s violation of one or more of its statutory responsibilities, the skier is entitled to recover under principles of comparative negligence. N.J.S.A. 5:13-6.

2 [HN6] N.J.S.A. 5:13-2a defines “operator” to include “a person . . . who . . . manages . . . the operation of an area where individuals come to . . . operate . . . toboggans.”

Here it is obvious that plaintiffs violated at least one of the statutory duties and therefore the Statute applies. [HN7] N.J.S.A. 5:13-4d provides:

A skier shall be the sole judge of his ability to negotiate any trail, slope, or uphill track and shall not attempt to ski or otherwise [***11] traverse any trail, slope or other [**779] area which is beyond the skier’s ability to negotiate.

Plaintiffs were not able to negotiate the Bunny Buster trail. It is also obvious that plaintiffs are deemed to have assumed at least one statutory risk. [HN8] N.J.S.A. 5:13-5 provides in part:

Each skier is assumed to know the range of his ability, and it shall be the duty of each skier to conduct himself within the limits of such ability, to maintain control of his speed and course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted warnings and to refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of himself or others.

Given that assumption, plaintiffs acted in a manner that contributed to their own injury.

It is important to note that these [HN9] statutory violations and risk assumptions do not affect the percentage of a skier’s comparative [*316] negligence. That determination is left to the factfinder if it finds that the skier contributed to his or her own injuries by violating one or more of the skier’s responsibilities. The skiers’ statutory violations and risk assumptions initially serve merely to invoke application of the Statute.

A major issue at trial was whether [***12] defendant violated any of its statutory responsibilities. The focus was on the meaning of [HN10] N.J.S.A. 5:13-3, which provides in relevant part:

a. It shall be the responsibility of the operator to the extent practicable, to:

* * * *

(3) Remove as soon as practicable obvious, man-made hazards.

Much of the confusion in arguing the liability issue at trial was caused by the next subsection of the Statute, which expressly excuses an operator from certain specific responsibilities to skiers. In that regard, [HN11] N.J.S.A. 5:13-3 provides in relevant part:

b. No operator shall be responsible to any skier or other person because of its failure to comply with any provisions of subsection 3.a. if such failure was caused by:

* * * *

(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection 3.a.(3), the location of man-made facilities and equipment necessary for the ordinary operation of the ski area, such as . . . fencing of any type. . . .

Plaintiffs argued that the man-made hazard for which defendant was responsible was fencing. At first they seemed to suggest that the snow fence was a direct cause of the accident because it constituted a ramp that “launched” the toboggan down the embankment. Defendant [***13] responded by claiming the benefit of subsection -3b(3), which relieved it of any responsibility for the “location” of “fencing” “necessary for the ordinary operation of the ski area.”

As plaintiffs developed their case with expert testimony, however, it became apparent that they were not claiming that the flimsy snow fence was a cause of the accident, but rather that a cause of the accident was defendant’s failure to erect a more resistant fence that would restrain a toboggan and its passengers from [*317] going over the edge of the embankment. Aside from whether such a fence would effectively reduce injury or be “practicable” (a requirement of section -3a), defendant argued that the absence of a stronger fence was still related to the location of fencing and therefore not actionable because of subsection -3b(3).

The trial judge rejected defendant’s argument when he denied its motions. He interpreted “man-made hazards” comprehensively to include the design of the trail, which directed toboggans, known to be difficult if not impossible to control, over the edge of the twenty-foot embankment and down to the parking lot and light pole. As he understood the Legislature’s intent, the requirement [***14] that operators “remove . . . man-made hazards” was broad enough to include warning people not to use the trail for tobogganing. The judge instructed the jury that “remove” not only means “to . . . uproot” but also means “to eliminate or reduce or obviate.” This left the jury free to decide whether the hazard of falling over the edge of the embankment could be removed by warnings. We agree with the trial judge.

[**780] [HN12] An obvious man-made hazard, as contemplated in N.J.S.A. 5:13-3a(3), is a man-made danger, obvious to an operator, that is not an inherent risk of using a “ski area.” A ski area is defined in part by N.J.S.A. 5:13-2b as real property “utilized for skiing, operating toboggans, sleds, or similar vehicles during the skiing season.” Being borne off an embankment after reaching the bottom of a trail is not an inherent risk of tobogganing.

Where physical removal of a hazard is not possible, reasonable warnings of the hazard may constitute its practicable removal. The Statute impliedly contemplates that an operator at least has a duty to post suitable warnings of danger. It will be recalled that N.J.S.A. 5:13-5 expressly charges skiers with the reciprocal duty “to heed [***15] all posted warnings.”

Defendant argues alternatively that even if plaintiffs may recover under the Ski Statute, the Statute does not apply to trespassers. We already suggested that even at common law, [*318] defendant may owe plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care because their presence on the lighted trail was reasonably foreseeable, the risk of grave injury was great and the duty of care was not delegable. We find nothing in the statute that suggests that the Legislature meant to supplant the common law in that respect. The Statute does not exempt trespassers from the definition of skiers to whom operators have a limited responsibility. We quote the [HN13] N.J.S.A. 5:13-2c definition in full:

“Skier” means a person utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as skiing or operating toboggans, sleds or similar vehicles, and including anyone accompanying the person. Skier also includes any person in such ski area who is an invitee, whether or not said person pays consideration.

[Emphasis added.]

Plaintiffs were not merely “in” the ski area; they were “utilizing the ski area for recreational purposes such as . . . operating toboggans.” They were therefore skiers entitled to recover [***16] under principles of comparative negligence if defendant violated any of its limited statutory responsibilities.

Our understanding of the Legislature’s intent is fortified by a change in the Assembly bill before it became the Statute. The bill originally contained a section that read:

No operator shall be liable to any person who is a trespasser, which shall include, but not be limited to, persons using the facilities who fail, when required to do so, to pay lift fees or other fees required in connection with the use of these facilities. The operator shall be liable to skiers and others only as specified in this section.

[A. 1650, 198th Leg., 1st Sess. § 3(c) (1978).]

That provision was deleted before the Statute was adopted. The Statement accompanying the final version of the bill stated in part, “The complete removal of liability on the part of a ski area operator to trespassers would be eliminated.” Assembly Judiciary, Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee Statement to Assembly No. 1650 (November 20, 1978).

The two remaining arguments that we will briefly address are that the motion judge erroneously granted partial summary judgments to Maurizzi and to Carmelitano. [***17] The motions were properly granted.

[*319] There was no evidence presented in opposition to Maurizzi’s motion that he authorized plaintiffs to use his toboggan, which he had stored in his home. There was no evidence that a toboggan is so inherently dangerous that Maurizzi should have secured it from use by adults. There was no evidence that Maurizzi knew that using the toboggan on the Bunny Buster trail would be especially dangerous.

As to Carmelitano, although there was evidence, presented in opposition to her motion, that some members of the group drank beer at the condominium before the accident, there was no evidence that Carmelitano served the beer, much less that she served it to anyone who was visibly intoxicated. Indeed, there was no evidence that beer-drinking was a cause of the accident. See Gustavson v. Gaynor, 206 N.J.Super. 540, 503 A.2d 340 (App.Div.1985), certif. denied, 103 N.J. 476, 511 A.2d 655 (1986).

[**781] We are satisfied from a careful reading of this record that the remaining issues that defendant has raised in its brief are clearly without merit and therefore require no discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

[***18] Affirmed.

What is Skiing? In New Hampshire, the definition does not include tubbing in 2004.

Posted: March 7, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: New Hampshire, Ski Area, Snow Tubing | Tags: Definition, New Hampshire Skier Safety Act, Ragged Mountain, Skier, Snow Tubing, Tubing, tubing hill | Leave a comment

Definition of the New Hampshire Skier Safety Act in 2004 was not written broadly enough to include tubing.

State: New Hampshire, Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Plaintiff: Alaina Sweeney

Defendant: Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: New Hampshire Skier Safety Act

Holding: Reversed and Remanded, sent back to trial for the Plaintiff

Year: 2004

Colorado’s ski area statute uses the term skier to describe anyone on the resort property. That means the term skier also includes snowboarders, telemark skiers, bike skiers, Nordic skier and tubers.

The plaintiff went tubing at the defendant’s tubbing hill. The hill was only for tubing and did not allow skiing on the tubing hill. No employees were present at the tubing hill when the plaintiff was tubing. While tubing she crossed from one lane to the other and collided with another tuber.

She sued, and the ski area argued to the trial court that the New Hampshire Ski Area Safety Act defined skier to include tubers. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff appealed.

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

The New Hampshire Ski Area Safety Act has been amended since this case to include in the definition of skier a snow tuber. At the time of this case, the definition of skier, which is what the controlled was defined “A “skier” is defined as “a person utilizing the ski area under the control of a ski area operator for the purpose of utilizing the ski slopes, trails, jumps or other areas.”

A court look or examining a statute cannot broaden the definitions in the statute unless the statute specifically grants the court that right. Although the courts are the final arbiter of a statute, the review is limited to what the legislature put into the statute.

We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. We first examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. Id. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent.

When a statute such as this one changes the common law, the statute must be interpreted strictly. The presumption in a law like this is the statute took away rights, not created or added additional ones. Here the statute created immunity for ski areas, taking away the common law right to sue so the statute was to be interpreted strictly.

Accordingly, then, immunity provisions barring the common law right to recover are to be strictly construed. We have often stated that we will not interpret a statute to abrogate the common law unless the statute clearly expresses that intent.

The court then looked at how ski slopes, trails, jumps or other areas were defined in the act to see if that included tubing hills. However, that definition was also specific and narrow.

Ski slopes, trails and areas” are further defined as “only those areas designated by the alpine or nordic ski operator on trail boards or maps . . . to be used by skiers for the purpose of participating in the sport of skiing.

Again, tubing was not part of the definition of the act. “Thus, a “skier” is limited to one who “participates in the sport of skiing,” and, as such, the statutory references to “skiers” necessarily inform our interpretation of the “sport of skiing.”

The court then went back and examined other parts of the New Hampshire Ski Safety Act to see if any part of the act could be used to provide protection to the ski area. The declaration, the first part of the statute detailing why the statute was created and the value of the statute to the state did not include a reference to tubing, only to skiing.

It shall be the policy of the state of New Hampshire to define the primary areas of responsibility of skiers and other users of alpine (downhill) and nordic (cross country and ski jumps) areas, recognizing that the sport of skiing and other ski area activities involve risks and hazards which must be assumed as a matter of law by those engaging in such activities, regardless of all safety measures taken by the ski area operators.

The court found that based on the declaration, the purpose and focus of the statute was for alpine and Nordic ski area. Because the plaintiff was not utilizing an alpine or Nordic slope, the plaintiff was not a skier. As such there was no protection afforded by the New Hampshire Skier Safety Act because the act, at the time of the lawsuit, only protected ski areas from skiers.

The trial court dismissal was overthrown, and the case sent back to proceed to trial.

So Now What?

There is an old adage that says the law grinds slowly but grinds finely. Meaning the law works slowly but when it works to solve the problem. Here the New Hampshire Skier Safety Act was probably enacted prior to the interest in tubing. Many other states with skier safety statutes have broader definitions of a skier who in most cases includes tubing. In some cases, the definition of a skier is a person on the ski area for any purpose.

Here the act was written narrowly, the definitions were not broad enough to include tubing. Nor were the definitions able to be broadened because that power was not provided to the court by the legislature when it passed the act.

Of real interest is the idea that no employees were present on the tubing hill at the time of the accident. It does not say, but the tubing hill probably did not include a lift and people walked up hill pulling a tube.

Either way, if you are in doubt as to whether or not a statute may provide protection to you for the activity you are selling, you should use a release.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Ricci v. Schoultz, M.D., 963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745

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, Ragged Mountain, Tubing, Snow Tubing, Tubing Hill, New Hampshire Skier Safety Act, Definition, Skier,

Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126

Posted: March 6, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, New Hampshire, Ski Area, Snow Tubing | Tags: Definition, New Hampshire Skier Safety Act, Ragged Mountain, Skier, Snow Tubing, Tubing, tubing hill | Leave a comment

Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126

Alaina Sweeney v. Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc.

No. 2003-719

SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

151 N.H. 239; 855 A.2d 427; 2004 N.H. LEXIS 126

May 6, 2004, Argued

July 15, 2004, Opinion Issued

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Released for Publication July 15, 2004.

PRIOR HISTORY: Merrimack.

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.

COUNSEL: Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Peter E. Hutchins on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., of Manchester (Robert E. Murphy, Jr. on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

JUDGES: GALWAY, J. BRODERICK, C.J., and NADEAU, DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.

OPINION BY: GALWAY

OPINION

[*240] [**428] GALWAY, J. The plaintiff, Alaina Sweeney, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) granting a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Ragged Mountain Ski Area, Inc. (Ragged Mountain). We reverse and remand.

The relevant facts follow. On March 21, 2001, the plaintiff went snow tubing at Ragged Mountain, which operates, among other things, snow tube runs. The snow tube area was designated only for snow tubing, and was not used for alpine or nordic skiing. When the plaintiff went snow tubing, no employees of Ragged Mountain were present to instruct her on the proper use of the snow tube. The plaintiff made a few “runs” down the snow tube trail. On [***2] her last run, she crossed the center line between snow tube lanes, [**429] continued down the adjacent lane, and ultimately collided with another snow tuber.

The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against Ragged Mountain for injuries sustained as a result of the collision. Ragged Mountain moved to dismiss, alleging that RSA 225-A:24, I (2000) barred recovery because it precludes claims brought by those injured in the “sport of skiing,” which, Ragged Mountain argued, includes snow tubing. The plaintiff argued that the statute does not apply to snow tubers. The court granted Ragged Mountain’s motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the plaintiff first argues that RSA 225-A:24, I, does not bar her claim because it does not apply to snow tubers. Because we agree, we need not address her other arguments.

The plaintiff contends that pursuant to RSA 225-A:24, I, ski area operators are granted immunity from liability only when claims are filed by those who participate in the “sport of skiing.” She argues that because snow tubing is not the “sport of skiing,” RSA 225-A:24, I, does not preclude her [***3] recovery. Ragged Mountain disagrees, arguing that the “sport of skiing” includes snow tubing.

[HN1] “In reviewing the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, our task is to ascertain whether the allegations pleaded in the plaintiff’s writ are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” Rayeski v. Gunstock Area, 146 N.H. 495, 496, 776 A.2d 1265 (2001) (quotation omitted). “We assume all facts pleaded in the plaintiff’s writ are true, and we construe all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. “We then engage in a threshold inquiry that tests the facts in the complaint against the applicable law.” Id. (quotation omitted). If the facts fail to constitute a basis for legal relief, we will uphold the granting of [*241] the motion to dismiss. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 150 N.H. 673, 674-75, 846 A.2d 521, 523 (2004).

The question before us is one of statutory interpretation-whether RSA 225-A:24, I, grants immunity to ski area operators against claims for injuries brought by snow tubers. [HN2] We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in [***4] the words of the statute considered as a whole. In the Matter of Jacobson & Tierney, 150 N.H. 513, 515, 842 A.2d 77 (2004). We first examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. Id. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent. Id.

Furthermore, [HN3] “statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted strictly.” 3 N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 61:6, at 255 (6th ed. rev. 2001). While a statute may abolish a common law right, “there is a presumption that the legislature has no such purpose.” Id. § 61.1, at 222. If such a right is to be taken away, “it must be noted clearly by the legislature.” Id. at 222-23. Accordingly, then, immunity provisions barring the common law right to recover are to be strictly construed. We have often stated that we will not interpret a statute to abrogate the common law unless the statute clearly expresses that intent. See State v. Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. 360, 363, 605 A.2d 1045 (1992); see also Douglas v. Fulis, 138 N.H. 740, 742, 645 A.2d 76 (1994). [***5]

RSA 225-A:24, entitled, “Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers,” states, in relevant part:

[HN4] It is hereby recognized that, regardless of all safety measures which may be taken by the ski area operator, skiing as [**430] a sport and the use of passenger tramways associated therewith may be hazardous to the skiers or passengers. Therefore:

I. Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts as a matter of law, the dangers inherent in the sport, and to that extent may not maintain an action against the operator for any injuries which result from such inherent risks, dangers, or hazards. The categories of such risks, hazards or dangers which the skier or passenger assumes as a matter of law include but are not limited to the following: variations in terrain, surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, stumps and other forms of forest growth or debris; . . . pole lines and plainly marked or visible snow making equipment; collisions with other skiers or other persons or with any of the categories included in this paragraph.

[*242] RSA 225-A:24, I (emphasis added). As we have previously [***6] held, RSA 225-A:24, I, [HN5] limits skiers’ recovery, thereby functioning as an immunity provision for ski area operators. See Nutbrown v. Mount Cranmore, 140 N.H. 675, 680-81, 671 A.2d 548 (1996). In enacting this provision, “the legislature intended to supersede and replace a skier’s common law remedies for risks inherent in the sport of skiing.” Berniger v. Meadow Green-Wildcat Corp., 945 F.2d 4, 7 (1st. Cir. 1991). The question we must answer today is whether that statute also replaces the plaintiff’s common law remedy. In answering this question, we need not precisely define the “sport of skiing,” nor list every activity encompassed within that phrase.

Because the phrase “sport of skiing,” is not specifically defined, we look to other provisions of the statutory scheme for guidance. [HN6] A “skier” is defined as “a person utilizing the ski area under the control of a ski area operator for the purpose of utilizing the ski slopes, trails, jumps or other areas.” RSA 225-A:2, II (2000). “Ski slopes, trails and areas” are further defined as “only those areas designated by the alpine or nordic ski operator [***7] on trail boards or maps . . . to be used by skiers for the purpose of participating in the sport of skiing.” RSA 225-A:2, IV (2000) (emphasis added). Thus, a “skier” is limited to one who “participates in the sport of skiing,” and, as such, the statutory references to “skiers” necessarily inform our interpretation of the “sport of skiing.”

We next look to the declaration of policy set forth at the beginning of the statutory scheme for guidance. See RSA 225-A:1 (2000). RSA 225-A:1 states, in part:

[HN7] It shall be the policy of the state of New Hampshire to define the primary areas of responsibility of skiers and other users of alpine (downhill) and nordic (cross country and ski jumps) areas, recognizing that the sport of skiing and other ski area activities involve risks and hazards which must be assumed as a matter of law by those engaging in such activities, regardless of all safety measures taken by the ski area operators.

(Emphasis added.) This provision indicates that the focus of the statutory scheme is upon those who utilize alpine and nordic areas. It further indicates that [***8] alpine areas are those used for downhill activities, while nordic areas are those used for cross country activities and ski jumps. While utilizing the alpine and nordic areas may not be the sole, defining characteristic of a skier, the policy provision indicates that it is an essential characteristic nonetheless.

Here, the plaintiff was not utilizing an alpine or nordic slope. Rather, as the trial court found, she was utilizing a snow tube run designated [*243] exclusively for snow tubing. Accordingly, we do not believe [**431] she was a skier, or other user of alpine or nordic areas, and, therefore, we cannot conclude that she “participated in the sport of skiing” as intended by the legislature in RSA 225-A:24, I.

Although Ragged Mountain looks to the same statutory provisions we have referenced for support, we believe those provisions are consistent with our more narrow interpretation of RSA 225-A:24, I. [HN8] Nothing in those provisions clearly expresses a legislative intent to preclude a snow tuber, injured while sliding down a run used exclusively for snow tubing, from recovering for her injuries. See Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. at 363. [***9]

Ragged Mountain first relies upon the statutory definition of “skier,” RSA 225-A:2, II, to support its position. Given that the statute broadly defines “skier,” Ragged Mountain argues that the “sport of skiing” must be similarly broadly defined. We disagree. Ragged Mountain errs in reading the definition of “skier” in isolation. As explained above, [HN9] when that definition is read in conjunction with RSA 225-A:2, IV and RSA 225-A:1, it appears that a “skier” does not include a person snow tubing on a track designated solely for snow tubing. At the very least, we cannot conclude that the statute “clearly expresses” an intent to abrogate the common law right to recover of a snow tuber injured while using a track designated solely for snow tubing. Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. at 363.

Ragged Mountain also relies upon RSA 225-A:1, the policy provision prefacing the statutory scheme, to support its claim. It argues that because the policy provision of the statute “clearly encompasses more than traditional downhill skiing,” the “sport of skiing” must include snow tubing.

[HN10] To the extent [***10] that RSA 225-A:1 contemplates winter sports activities other than skiing, it is concerned only with winter sport activities that occur on alpine and nordic slopes. See RSA 225-A:1. The plaintiff in the instant case was not utilizing an alpine or nordic slope, but rather was injured while utilizing a snow tube on a track designated solely for snow tubing. Nothing in the policy provision, then, clearly expresses the legislative intent to extinguish the common law claims of snow tubers injured on a track designated solely for snow tubing.

Because Ragged Mountain cannot point to a statutory provision that clearly expresses a legislative intent to abrogate the plaintiff’s common law right to recover, we conclude that the plaintiff’s claim is not precluded by RSA 225-A:24, I. See Hermsdorf, 135 N.H. at 363. We reverse the trial court’s order granting Ragged Mountain’s motion to dismiss and remand [*244] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of our opinion, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining arguments on appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

BRODERICK, C.J., and [***11] NADEAU, DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.

Skiing collision in Utah where the collision was caused by one skier falling down in front of the other skier

Posted: February 29, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Utah, Youth Camps | Tags: Collision, Downhill Skier, skier collision, skier v. skier, Uphill Skier, Utah | Leave a comment

Is that a collision, an obstacle, a reason for a lawsuit? Skiers fall all the time.

State: Utah, Court of Appeals of Utah

Plaintiff: Gary Ricci

Defendant: Charles Schoultz, M.D.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: no negligence

Holding: for the defendant

Year: 1998

Sometimes you stumble across a case that catches your eye from the way the facts are described by the court. This is one of them.

The two skiers were advanced skiers skiing on an easy run. Both were skiing under control. The defendant was part of a ski school class. The defendant was taking small easy turns as part of his class. Just as he was being passed by the plaintiff, he reached the top of a crest and slowed down, lost control and fell into the path of the plaintiff.

The two collided and slid into a tree at a high rate of speed. The plaintiff hit the tree suffering injuries. The defendant was able to ski away on his own.

At trial, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent because he fell on an easy run.

At trial, Ricci argued that since Schoultz’s fall took place on one of the easiest runs at Snowbird under near perfect conditions, there was no possible reason for Schoultz to have fallen except for his own negligence.

The jury found the defendant was negligent and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The trial judge then granted the defendant’s j.n.o.v. (judgment notwithstanding the verdict). This was based on the court’s opinion that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. “There was a duty not to be negligent. However, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant in this case.” Thus, the trial judge granted Schoultz’s j.n.o.v. motion, or alternatively granted a new trial.”

A JNOV is a fantasy. They never occur because as long as there is some evidence of negligence and a decision by the jury a trial judge is not going to overturn a jury verdict. To overturn a judgment by a jury the trial judge:

…[is] justified in granting a j.n.o.v. only if, after looking at the evidence and all of its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to [the nonmoving party], the trial court concludes that there [is] no competent evidence to support a verdict in [the nonmoving party’s] favor.

Consequently, the burden to grant a JNOV and overturn the jury’s verdict is very high and never done.

The appellate court has the same standard in reviewing a JNOV granted by the trial court.

“On appeal, we apply the same standard. In determining whether competent evidence supports the verdict, we accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom that tend to prove [the nonmoving party’s] case, and we disregard all conflicts and evidence that tend to disprove its case. Thus, if we determine that there was competent evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, we must reverse the trial court’s grant of the j.n.o.v.

The plaintiff appealed the JNOV which granted a judgment for the defendant.

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

The appellate court looked at other collision cases were the cases rested on whether or not the defendant was negligent. Something was required to support the idea that the plaintiff was negligent in those cases that had found negligence, such as the defendant drinking a large quantity of alcohol.

The court found several cases where collisions on the slopes had occurred, but the defendant was found not to be liable because there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

…the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff could not recover from defendant for injuries sustained in a mid-mountain ski collision. Similar to the case at bar, the defendant was skiing behind the plaintiff and failed to alert plaintiff of his presence before they collided. The LaVine court specifically rejected the appellant’s claim of negligence: “Appellant contends that the collision itself conclusively establishes the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s right to recover. We disagree.”

In another decision the court reviewed, there was the same statement that care was owed by the defendant. The defendant is not the insurer of the plaintiff and not responsible for everything that happens to a skier on the slopes.

The Dillworth court stated some collisions between skiers may be as a result of the obvious and necessary risks inherent in skiing, and accidents might occur despite the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care and without negligence by either skier. . . . Like all others, skiers owe that degree of care an ordinary prudent person would exercise under like or similar circumstances. One skier is not the insurer of another skier’s safety nor, absent negligence, is one skier liable to another for inadvertent or accidental contact. . . . Thus . . . skiers who lose control even while exercising due care–that is, have breached no duty owed to other skiers–may pose a danger which is inherent, obvious and necessary to participate in the sport of skiing.

The court found that falling down on the slope is not proof of negligence. Without something to indicate that the defendant was negligent, a plaintiff cannot recover.

In sum, a skier does have a duty to other skiers to ski reasonably and within control. However, an inadvertent fall on a ski slope, alone, does not constitute a breach of this duty. We conclude, after a careful review of the trial record, that Ricci failed to introduce any competent evidence that Schoultz was skiing negligently before his sudden and unexpected fall in front of Ricci. Ricci himself testified about the conditions and events just before the accident, noting that up to one second before the collision, Schoultz was skiing in control.

Ricci’s evidence, including all reasonable inferences drawn from it, is simply insufficient for a jury to have concluded that Schoultz skied negligently.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s granting of the JNOV and did not look at the other issues raised by the plaintiff on appeal.

There was a dissent in the opinion that argued there was enough evidence based on his analysis of the facts to support the jury finding. However, the facts presented were circumstantial based on the dissenting judge’s review of the evidence.

So Now What?

This was a rare case. There seems to be an assumption in all ski collision cases that if two people are on a slope together, and they collide with one person must have been negligent. This decision and the two other decisions the court pointed out show that is not the case. Not every collision on a ski slope is a negligent act.

At the same time, this is fairly easy to see and understand the issues because the party causing the collision, even though the “downhill” skier was the party that probably generated the issues to start the collision.

However, falling down is not negligence on a ski slope, at least in Utah.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc, 571 Pa. 580; 812 A.2d 1218; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832

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, Utah, Collision, Skier v. Skier, Skier Collision, Uphill Skier, Downhill Skier,

Ricci v. Schoultz, M.D., 963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745

Posted: February 28, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Legal Case, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Utah | Tags: Collision, Downhill Skier, skier collision, skier v. skier, Uphill Skier, Utah | Leave a comment

Ricci v. Schoultz, M.D., 963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745

Gary Ricci, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles Schoultz, M.D., Defendant and Appellee.

Case No. 971189-CA

COURT OF APPEALS OF UTAH

963 P.2d 784; 348 Utah Adv. Rep. 24; 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 57; 75 A.L.R.5th 745

July 23, 1998, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Third District, Salt Lake Department. The Honorable Homer F. Wilkinson.

COUNSEL: Jeffrey D. Eisenberg, Alan W. Mortensen, and Paul M. Simmons, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.

Paul M. Belnap, Robert L. Janicki, and Darren K. Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

JUDGES: Before Judith M. Billings, Judge. I CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Judge. Gregory K. Orme, Judge, Dissenting.

OPINION BY: JUDITH M. BILLINGS

OPINION

[*785] OPINION

BILLINGS, Judge:

Appellant Gary Ricci appeals the trial court’s grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) to Dr. Charles Schoultz, dismissing Ricci’s negligence claims. We affirm.

FACTS

The parties had completely different versions of how the accident occurred. [HN1] “We must review the record and determine whether there is any basis in the evidence, including reasonable inferences which could be drawn therefrom, to support the jury’s determination that [Schoultz] was negligent.” Braithwaite v. West Valley City Corp., 921 P.2d 997, 999 (Utah 1996). Thus, we recite the facts in a light most favorable to Ricci.

On April 12, 1994, Ricci and Schoultz were skiing [**2] at Snowbird Ski Resort (Snowbird) in Salt Lake County, Utah. Both parties were advanced skiers. On the sunny morning of the accident they were skiing an “easy run” that was groomed and had only a few skiers on it. Schoultz was skiing down Anderson Hill when Ricci reached the top of the run. Ricci began to ski towards the bottom and in the direction of Schoultz. Schoultz was taking a ski lesson and was making a number of small controlled turns as he descended. Schoultz and Ricci were both skiing at the same speed and in control throughout their descent. However, Schoultz slowed as he approached a small crest on the ski run and Ricci closed to within a few feet behind Schoultz. Schoultz unexpectedly lost control of his skis, and within a few seconds he fell to the left, and into Ricci, who was unable to avoid Schoultz. The two skiers slid into a tree well, with Ricci striking the tree with some force. Ricci suffered significant injuries and was eventually life-flighted to a local hospital. Schoultz was merely bruised and skied down the mountain on his own.

At trial, Ricci argued that since Schoultz’s fall took place on one of the easiest runs at Snowbird under near perfect conditions, [**3] there was no possible reason for Schoultz to have fallen except for his own negligence. The jury found that Schoultz was negligent, and that his failure to ski in control was the cause of the accident. Schoultz moved for a j.n.o.v. on the grounds that Ricci failed to demonstrate that Schoultz, by falling unexpectedly in front of him, had breached any duty he owed to Ricci. The trial judge agreed: “There was a duty not to be negligent. But there was no negligence on the part of defendant in this case.” Thus, the trial judge granted Schoultz’s j.n.o.v. motion, or alternatively granted a new trial. Ricci now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our standard for reviewing a trial court’s grant of a j.n.o.v. is strict: [HN2] “‘In passing on a motion for a j.n.o.v., . . . a trial court has no latitude and must be correct.'” Braithwaite, 921 P.2d at 999 (quoting Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 799 (Utah 1991)). Further,

“The trial court [is] justified in granting a j.n.o.v. only if, after looking at the evidence and all of its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to [the nonmoving party], the trial court concludes that there [is] no competent evidence to support [**4] a verdict in [the nonmoving party’s] favor.”

Id. (quoting Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., 915 P.2d 1060, 1066 (Utah 1996)). “On appeal, we apply the same standard. In determining whether competent evidence supports the verdict, we accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom that tend to prove [the nonmoving party’s] case, and we disregard all conflicts [*786] and evidence that tend to disprove its case.” Gold Standard, 915 P.2d at 1066 (citing Koer v. Mayfair Mkts., 19 Utah 2d 339, 340, 431 P.2d 566, 568-69 (1967) (additional citation omitted). Thus, if we determine that there was competent evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, we must reverse the trial court’s grant of the j.n.o.v.

ANALYSIS

Although there is no helpful Utah authority, other state and federal courts have dealt with similar ski collision cases.

In LaVine v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 557 F.2d 730, 735 (10th Cir. 1977), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff could not recover from defendant for injuries sustained in a mid-mountain ski collision. Similar to the case at bar, the defendant was skiing behind [**5] the plaintiff and failed to alert plaintiff of his presence before they collided. See id. at 735. The LaVine court specifically rejected the appellant’s claim of negligence: “Appellant contends that the collision itself conclusively establishes the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s right to recover. We disagree.” Id.

More recently, in Dillworth v. Gambardella, 970 F.2d 1113, 1114 (2d Cir. 1992), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with a similar issue: “Whether collisions between skiers require as a matter of law . . . a finding of negligence on the part of at least one skier.” In Dillworth, the parties had significantly different versions of the facts leading up to the mid-mountain collision, but the result was the same as this case–significant injuries to the party bringing the cause of action. See id. at 1114-15. The Dillworth court stated [HN3] some collisions between skiers may be as a result of the obvious and necessary risks inherent in skiing, and accidents might occur despite the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care and without negligence by either skier. . . . Like all others, skiers owe that degree of care an ordinary prudent person [**6] would exercise under like or similar circumstances. One skier is not the insurer of another skier’s safety nor, absent negligence, is one skier liable to another for inadvertent or accidental contact. . . . Thus . . . skiers who lose control even while exercising due care–that is, have breached no duty owed to other skiers–may pose a danger which is inherent, obvious and necessary to participate in the sport of skiing.

Id. at 1122 (citing LaVine, 557 F.2d 734-35) (additional citations omitted).

Cases that have supported a finding of negligence in a ski collision have required proof of some negligent conduct before the collision. For example, in Freeman v. Hale, 30 Cal. App. 4th 1388, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 420 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994), two skiers collided while descending a ski slope and the plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident. In Freeman, however, the defendant had consumed a large quantity of alcohol, and was inebriated when the collision occurred. See 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 420. The California Court of Appeals succinctly summarized its conclusion that a negligence regime was the proper way to analyze liability: “While Hale did not have a duty [**7] to avoid an inadvertent collision with Freeman, he did have a duty to avoid increasing the risk of such a collision.” Id. at 423-24 (citing Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 834 P.2d 696, 710-11 (Cal. 1992)). The Freeman court concluded that alcohol consumption was not an integral aspect of skiing, and that by consuming alcohol prior to and during his skiing, defendant breached his duty to plaintiff “‘not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.'” 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 421 (quoting Knight, 834 P.2d at 710).

In sum, [HN4] a skier does have a duty to other skiers to ski reasonably and within control. However, an inadvertent fall on a ski slope, alone, does not constitute a breach of this duty. We conclude, after a careful review of the trial record, that Ricci failed to introduce any competent evidence that Schoultz was skiing negligently before his sudden and unexpected fall in front of Ricci. Ricci himself testified about the conditions and events just before the accident, noting that up to one second before the collision, Schoultz was skiing in control. Schoultz’s [*787] loss of control and fall, by itself, does not establish his negligence.

Ricci’s [**8] evidence, including all reasonable inferences drawn from it, is simply insufficient for a jury to have concluded that Schoultz skied negligently. We conclude the trial court was correct in determining that Schoultz did not breach his duty of reasonable care to Ricci by accidentally falling into Ricci when there was no evidence that Schoultz was skiing negligently at the time of his fall. Because we agree with the trial court’s ruling, we do not reach the questions of whether a new trial should have been granted or whether the trial court’s decisions to exclude Schoultz’s expert witness testimony were proper.

CONCLUSION

Some collisions between skiers are an inherent risk of skiing and may occur absent negligence, as in this case. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Judith M. Billings, Judge

I CONCUR:

Russell W. Bench, Judge

DISSENT BY: GREGORY K. ORME

DISSENT

ORME, Judge (dissenting):

By focusing on the evidence plaintiff presented, rather than all evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, my colleagues take a too narrow view of our role in reviewing a trial court’s reversal of a [**9] jury’s verdict. Simply stated, the question is not whether the evidence plaintiff presented supports the jury’s verdict; rather, it is whether any evidence from whatever source will support it. See Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., 915 P.2d 1060, 1066 (Utah 1996) (“In determining whether competent evidence supports the verdict, we accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom that tend to prove [the nonmoving party’s] case, and we disregard all conflicts and evidence that tend to disprove its case.”). As the Fifth Circuit has noted,

on motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence– not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case–but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion.Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), overruled on other grounds, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997). Accord Guilbeau v. W. W. Henry Co., 85 F.3d 1149, 1161 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 136 L. Ed. 2d 713, 117 S. Ct. 766 (1997); Lamb [**10] ex rel. Shepard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1 F.3d 1184, 1187 (11th Cir. 1993); Epoch Producing Corp. v. Killiam Shows Inc., 522 F.2d 737, 743 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 47 L. Ed. 2d 360, 96 S. Ct. 1429 (1976); Anderson v. Lykes Pasco Packing Co., 503 So. 2d 1269, 1271-72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Millet v. Cormier, 671 So. 2d 1101, 1107-08 (La. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 673 So. 2d 1036 (La. 1996).

In this case, the jury might well have believed defendant’s testimony that he was skiing in complete control until immediately before the accident, that his skis did not come apart, and that he did not fall. Rejecting defendant’s testimony that he was hit from behind by plaintiff, which was essentially impossible given where the two ended up after the collision, the jury was also free to disbelieve plaintiff’s recollection that defendant’s skis separated and defendant merely fell into plaintiff’s path. The jury could nonetheless have believed plaintiff’s testimony that, immediately prior to the collision, he was skiing in control and a safe distance from defendant and defendant’s apparently intended route. Mindful that plaintiff and defendant ended up [**11] in a heap well off the ski run, in a position consistent with defendant hitting into plaintiff at high speed, the jury might well have inferred that the only way the accident could have occurred was if defendant, fully in control, carelessly and precipitously turned sharply to the left, hitting the unsuspecting plaintiff, who had every reason to assume defendant was going to continue with his pattern of tight turns as plaintiff passed uneventfully on the left.

To be sure, this is not exactly the theory plaintiff developed at trial, but it is a scenario that emerges quite readily if one reviews all the evidence and all reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom in the light [*788] most favorable to the jury’s verdict. If that is what the jury concluded, then the accident was caused by defendant’s negligence, not an inadvertent fall. Accordingly, the trial court should not have disturbed the jury’s verdict, and we should reinstate it.

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on duty to have and use an AED defines how statutes are to be interpreted and when liability can attach and cannot attach to a statute.

Posted: February 22, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: First Aid, Medical, Pennsylvania | Tags: AED, AED Good Samaritan, Automatic External Defibrillator, Good Samaritan, Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Immunity, Negligence, Pennsylvania | Leave a comment

The law that creates a safe harbor from civil liability for being a Good Samaritan does not create a duty to act. There still is no legal requirement to act as a Good Samaritan, however, if you do, you cannot be sued.

State: Pennsylvania, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff: Jerry Atcovitz and Roslyn Atcovitz

Defendant: Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc, Jkst, Inc. and Gulph Mills/Jkst Tennis Club, Inc., Lafayette Ambulance Rescue Squad I

Plaintiff Claims: whether a tennis club owes a duty of care to its members to acquire and maintain an automated external defibrillator, hereinafter “AED,” on its premises for emergency use

Defendant Defenses: No duty

Holding: for the defendant Tennis Club

Year: 2002

The plaintiff was playing tennis at the defendant’s tennis club. While playing he suffered a stroke which was secondary to a heart attack. Within one minute tennis club, members started CPR on the plaintiff and ten minutes later an ambulance arrived. The ambulance administered defibrillation and transported the plaintiff to the hospital.

The plaintiff had a history of heart problems for twenty years, including a previous heart attack and bypass surgery. The tennis club did not know of the plaintiff’s medical history.

The heart attack and stroke left the defendant unable to concentrate or think, is unable to walk or get out of bed and requires assistance in all aspects of his life.

The plaintiff and his wife sued the defendant tennis club for not having an AED and not using it: “…had [Gulph Mills] possessed an AED device and used it on [Atcovitz] promptly, his injuries would have been significantly less and; therefore, that [Gulph Mills] is liable to him for damages.”

The plaintiff’s moved for summary judgment to prevent the defendant from asserting the defenses. The defendant then cross-filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. The case was appealed and the Pennsylvania Appellate court, called the Superior Court, reversed. The case was then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Between the incident that the plaintiff suffered and the decision by the trial court to dismiss the Pennsylvania legislature passed an AED Good Samaritan Act. The Appellate court based some of the reasoning for its decision on the AED Good Samaritan Act the legislature passed.

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

The court started out by defining the specific issues it would look at as well as the procedural definitions it must follow. This provides a clear look at how Pennsylvania courts make decisions.

The Supreme Court first reviewed the standard of review the court must use. “Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion.”

The court then reviewed under Pennsylvania law the requirements for granting a motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The reviewing court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party. When the facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ, a trial court may properly enter summary judgment.

The court then defined the elements necessary to successfully plead a negligence claim under Pennsylvania.

The elements necessary to plead an action in negligence are: (1) the existence of a duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a failure on the part of the defendant to conform to that duty, or a breach thereof; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage suffered by the complainant.

The court then further defined the element of duty in a negligence case. “A duty, in negligence cases, may be defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.“

This definition was supported by the definition of duty in a legal treatise, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts. This is the book referenced by courts in defining the law.

These are shifting sands, and no fit foundation. There is a duty if the court says there is a duty; the law, like the Constitution, is what we make it. Duty is only a word with which we state our conclusion that there is or is not to be liability; it necessarily begs the essential question. When we find a duty, breach and damage, everything has been said. The word serves a useful purpose in directing attention to the obligation to be imposed upon the defendant, rather than the causal sequence of events; beyond that it serves none. In the decision whether or not there is a duty, many factors interplay: The hand of history, our ideas of morals and justice, the convenience of administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss should fall. In the end, the court will decide whether there is a duty on the basis of the mores of the community, “always keeping in mind the fact that we endeavor to make a rule in each case that will be practical and in keeping with the general understanding of mankind.”

The bad news issue the law changes as everything else in the US changes, Public policy and public opinion are just some of the factors that affect the law. The good news is the law attempts to stay current with the changing issues facing the law. Albeit a lot slower than most might wish, but it does change. “Thus, the legal concept of duty is necessarily rooted in often amorphous public policy considerations, which may include our perception of history, morals, justice, and society.”

The care as defined by a legal duty was further broken down by the court.

In Althaus, this Court enunciated several discrete factors, derived from the aforementioned principles, that our courts are to balance [HN6] in determining whether a common law duty of care exists: (1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the social utility of the actor’s conduct; (3) the nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred; (4) the consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and (5) the overall public interest in the proposed solution.

Thus the court takes in other issues in looking at determining how a case is to be decided, however, the law and prior decisions come first. Making a change requires a major commitment by the courts to go down a different path and dismiss the prior cases leading down the old path. Consequently, you rarely see these changes, what you do see is slight modifications of the direction the path is taking.

Major changes are left to the legislature to respond more quickly to the issues facing the public. In this case, the court looked at the legislature’s intent in creating an AED Good Samaritan Act.

…the overall public interest in the proposed solution. The Legislature’s enactments and the ensuing regulations reveal that acquisition, maintenance, and use of an AED, along with AED training requirements, are highly regulated. Where our lawmakers have so thoroughly considered the statewide application and implications of a subject, this Court must refrain from imposing additional requirements upon that legislation.

The appellate court used the newly enacted AED Good Samaritan Act to hold the defendant liable. The Supreme Court looked at the act differently in relation to this decision. The Supreme Court saw the act as proof that the legislature intended the issues surrounding AEDs was highly regulated. “Rather, they are relevant to demonstrate that the acquisition, maintenance, and use of an AED, along with AED training requirements, are highly regulated.”

When reviewing an act, the information within the law enacted by the legislature is the only information that can be reviewed. Anything not included in the act is therefore excluded from the analysis. “We must infer that, [HN11] under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the inclusion of a specific matter in a statute implies the exclusion of other matters.”

The AED Act provides immunity for trained AED users and immunity for untrained users who use an AED in good faith.

The AED Good Samaritan Act, which was adopted two years after Atcovitz sustained his injuries, provides civil immunity for trained users of AEDs and requires that [HN12] “expected users shall complete training in the use of an AED. . . .” As an exception to that general rule, the AED Good Samaritan Act also provides civil immunity to untrained individuals who, in good faith, use an AED in an emergency as an ordinary, reasonably prudent individual would do under the same or similar circumstances. Significantly, the AED Good Samaritan Act defines “good faith” as including “a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the use of an AED should not be postponed until emergency medical services personnel arrive or the person is hospitalized.”

The act, consequently, only creates a safe harbor for using an AED. It does not create liability for someone who does not use an AED.

Thus, the AED Good Samaritan Act merely creates an exception for imposing liability on an untrained individual who uses an AED in limited emergency situations; it does not authorize its use by any such individual.

In addition, it does not indicate that the Legislature aimed to dispense with the regulations governing the training and use of AEDs. Simply, the existence of a civil immunity provision for Good Samaritans who use an AED in an emergency situation cannot impose a duty on a business establishment to ac-quire, maintain, and use such a device on its premises.

The act cannot, then be used to create liability for not using an AED; it only removes liability for someone who does use an AED.

Neither the EMS Act nor the AED Good Samaritan Act imposed a duty upon Gulph Mills to acquire, maintain, and use an AED. Appellees do not cite any other case, statute, or regulation that would have imposed such a duty on Gulph Mills at the time of Atcovitz’s injuries in January 1996. Because Gulph Mills did not owe a duty to carry an AED, Appellees could not have established a prima facie claim of negligence.

There was a dissenting opinion, in this case. The dissent agreed with the majority opinion; it disagreed on how broad the decision was and thought several of the issues should be sent back for review by the trial court.

So Now What?

First understand there is a difference between what is moral, ethical, and legal. My job is not to help you decide on those issues. My job is to help you understand the law when you are faced with the issues. You can be morally and ethically right and be sued and lose. You can have no morals or ethics and be sued and lose. How you balance those aspects of your life, and how you approach the issues you face in your life is not the subject of these articles. How the law applies to the facts set forth in the specific cases may affect your choices is what the article is about.

The good news is the decision prevents lawsuits for not having an AED or using an AED in Pennsylvania.

This case also defines how it would look at the reverse. If the law restricted the use of a device, the application of the law would not only allow for civil liability but possibly criminal liability also.

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768

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

#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, Good Samaritan, AED Good Samaritan, Negligence, Immunity, AED, Automatic External Defibrillator,

Skier is unable to hold ski area liable in Vermont for injuries received in an unknown way from an unknown person.

Posted: February 15, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Vermont | Tags: Causation, Jay Peak, Pro Se, Pro Se Plaintiff, Proximate Causation, ski area, Vermont | 1 Comment

Second Circuit bends over backwards to assist pro se plaintiff who fails to prove his case.

State: Vermont, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Plaintiff: Paul A. Gemmink,

Defendant: Jay Peak Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: negligently permitted dangerous jumps on its ski trails and that, in consequence of such a constructed jump at the Kokomo-Northwest Passage intersection, Gemmink suffered a collision with another skier resulting in harm to his left side

Defendant Defenses: No Duty and No Negligence

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2015

This case is a rarity; it is a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That court is one step below the US Supreme Court and one of the highest courts in the land. Consequently, to have any of the federal appellate courts issue an opinion about a skiing case is very rare. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from federal courts in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

The second issue making this case rare but sort of explains the reason why the Second Circuit heard the case, is the case is Pro Se. That means the Plaintiff was representing himself without an attorney. Pro Se cases are rarely successful and are very difficult for all the parties involved because of the procedural issues a litigant must follow to stay in court. Lawyers take a yearlong class on civil procedure in law school and work overtime not to miss procedural deadlines.

At the same time, judges bend over backwards and here the Second Circuit did too, to make sure the Pro Se litigant has the best opportunity to have his or her day in court.

Consequently, when the plaintiff, Gemmink, who was pro se lost at the trial level and successfully filed an appeal to the Second Circuit, the court based on the decision bent over backwards to respond to the plaintiff’s claims.

The plaintiff and his daughter were skiing at the defendant ski area Jay Peak. The plaintiff was following his daughter down the hill. The daughter reached the bottom of the hill and realized her father was not with her.

The plaintiff was found unconscious or regaining consciousness and combative up on the hill by the ski patrol. The plaintiff had no memory of what happened.

The plaintiff was found near trees. The daughter had seen a ski jump close to the location of where her father was found “leading her and her father to surmise that another patron “fl[ew] of[f] the jump” and collided with Gemmink.” The plaintiff’s injuries were such that he attributed them to someone coming from the right and were consistent with the theory that someone going over the jump hit him.

Gemmink suffered fractures to his left ribs and left transverse processes in the incident, injuries that, according to Gemmink, are usually attributable to a significant impact coming from right to left, and are therefore, at least consistent with the theory that a skier jumped from the right of the intersection into Gemmink.

The trial court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff for failing to establish that the defendant’s alleged negligence was the cause of his injuries. The plaintiff successfully filed this appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

The court, as usual started its decision with the requirements for a party to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Where, as here, the party opposing summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment should be granted if the moving party can “point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.” The court draws all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but the opposing party “must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.”

The court adopted the theory relied upon by the trial court, that the structure and maintenance of the alleged ski jump was sufficient to cause the injuries the plaintiff claimed based on the facts the plaintiff alleged. Again, this is rarely done when all parties are represented by attorneys. The attorney relying on this assumption would have to prove it using evidence.

The court then summarized its requirements in this case to determine whether the plaintiff presented enough evidence for a jury to rule in his favor.

The issue before us, then, is a not-infrequent one in tort cases: whether the plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence for a jury to find, more probably than not, that the ground for liability (here, the assumed negligence) was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

Thus the issue was explained to require a showing of evidence sufficient to prove that the defendant was the reason why the plaintiff was injured, and that injury was based on a breach of duty to the plaintiff by the defendant ski area.

Thus, in considering whether a plaintiff has proven causation, a trier of fact asks whether it is likely that the harm that occurred resulted from the negligence (or from another basis of liability) attributed to the defendant. In other words, is the reason that the defendant’s behavior is deemed risky, and the defendant deemed potentially liable, the harm that, in fact, occurred?

Here the court obviously looked at the issue as to whether the plaintiff assumed the risk, not based on what the defendant had done or failed to do, but based on whether the sport or the actions of the plaintiff were the cause for his injuries.

In essence, the greater the risk that the defendant’s conduct will result in the harm the plaintiff suffered, the more likely that a jury will be allowed to find that such conduct was the cause of that harm.

Here the evidence was solely circumstantial. There was no video, no witnesses, and no pictures, nothing to assist the plaintiff in proving his case other than the plaintiff and his daughter’s opinion and the injuries which could be been occurred as the plaintiff surmised. When only circumstantial evidence is available at trial, then the burden to prove the facts falls on the party using the evidence, but that burden is greater because of the nature of the evidence.

First, where one party has knowledge or access to information that renders that party better able than his adversary to explain what actually transpired, courts have tended to put the onus on that party to do so. This principle–that the party with superior knowledge bears the burden of coming forward with evidence–has always served as a basis of finding negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

In this case, the only party with any knowledge or access to the information was the plaintiff, thus the plaintiff had the sole burden to prove his circumstantial evidence.

Thus, the requirement that the plaintiff be able circumstantially to show a link between the expected risk of defendant’s conduct and what actually occurred tends to be greater when the plaintiff is better able to explain what happened, and is considerably less when, instead, it is the defendant who can better or more easily proffer evidence of what, in fact, occurred.

The court then brought in another issue, whether the circumstantial evidence offered by the plaintiff under the law of the state that is being applied, Vermont, allows for an error in determining the value or likelihood of the evidence. Meaning if there is a gray area in valuing the evidence does state law fall one way or the other, in making the final determination on its value.

If an erroneous finding of causation is, in the law of the jurisdiction, more harmful than an erroneous finding of no causation, the requirements of circumstantial evidence and knowledge grow stronger. Conversely, where the law of the jurisdiction makes clear that an erroneous finding of no causation is more harmful, the requirements are diminished.

The court then applied the three factors to this case. The first was whether there was a legal link between the maintenance of the ski jump and the injuries of the plaintiff. Maintenance in this case does not mean creation or grooming of the jump as in a terrain park, but whether the jump was allowed to exist by the defendant. The court found that any link was too tenuous to allow.

The first factor favors the defendant. The causal link between Jay Peak’s assumed negligence in its maintenance of ski jumps and the injury incurred by the plaintiff is far too attenuated to sustain Gemmink’s claim. Our common experience does not tell us that this kind of lack of maintenance results in accidents of this sort with any frequency.

This, the first argument, went in favor of the defendant. The court added in reaching this decision, that the plaintiff offered no additional evidence or expert witness to show a stronger link.

Generally, expert . . . testimony is required to support a finding of causation where the link is obscure and abstruse such that a layperson can have no well-founded knowledge and can do no more than indulge in mere speculation.

The second issue, who had evidence on what happened, the court found neither side won or actually it was a neutral result based on an analysis. “The second is, at most, neutral. Neither Gemmink nor Jay Peak has greater knowledge or access to information concerning what actually happened on the Kokomo trail.”

The third factor was interesting. Applying the test of how the state wanted the court to decide when faced with an issue that was “close call” or in a very small gray area. Here the court found that under Vermont law, the liability of a ski area is almost strict liability. That means liability with no room for error or limited if any defenses. Own a ski area and you own the safety of the people you invite to ski on the mountain.

We turn, then, to the third factor: Is this an area where, in Vermont, liability of ski operators to skiers is close to strict, so that whether negligence was the cause of the alleged injury is a matter that, in uncertainty, should be decided in favor of the skier? Or is this an area where the risk of injury, even in the presence of negligence on the part of the ski operator, is assumed primarily by the skier, so that the requirement of causation is fairly placed on the skier (unless either (a) the evidentiary link between the evidence of negligence and causation of the kind of harm that occurred is particularly strong, or (b) the defendant is in a distinctly better position to tell us what happened)? Or, finally, is Vermont relatively indifferent to error in one direction or the other, offering no reason to favor either the plaintiff or defendant?

The court determined that Vermont follows the approach of symmetrical indifference. Vermont still allowed the defense of assumption of the risk for injuries caused by engaging in a sport. The court then found that Vermont prefers to err on the side of finding no causation. Meaning any cause of the injury must be proven not just alleged. If there was a gray area after analysis by the court, meaning if there was no clear decision, then Vermont law held there was not caused, thus no negligence.

By statute, although assumption of risk has generally been subsumed in comparative negligence, 12 V.S.A. § 1036, it has been expressly retained as to sporting events, 12 V.S.A. § 1037. This would suggest that Vermont prefers to err on the side of finding no causation with respect to sport injuries like the one that here occurred.

The Vermont law concerning ski areas was proof of that issue. (See Vermont Skier Safety Act) Vermont law was interpreted by Vermont courts to offer a symmetrical approach how Vermont wants a court to consider the facts.

The court then applying the factors controlling how Vermont law was to be applied and found it could not find a link between the defendant ski area Jay Peak and the plaintiff’s injuries. There was no causation or link between the two that could be upheld legally.

Consequently, we are left to infer causation, then, from only the placement of the ski jumps and the nature of Gemmink’s injuries. We cannot infer a causal link between Jay Peak’s assumed negligence in its maintenance of ski jumps and the injury incurred on the facts presented, and the plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to support a link between his injuries and alleged theory of causation. Under these circumstances, the district court was clearly correct in its holding that the evidence adduced by Gemmink was not sufficient to raise a question for the jury.

For negligence to exist, there must be a duty, a breach of that duty and injury and proximate causation. Here the court did not look at whether or not there was a duty, but just focused on whether there is a legal relationship, causation, between the injuries and anything the defendant had done.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

So Now What?

As you can tell the court jumped through narrow hoops to provide a way to say to the plaintiff you did not prove your case and based on what you have provided cannot prove your case. I seriously doubt the court has ever created such a difficult to write and understand, yet reasoned decision before.

When confronted with a pro se plaintiff, I constantly begged them to find an attorney. I wanted someone other than the opposing attorney to explain what was going on and why. I copied and sent the law, sent notices of deadlines and requirements all in an attempt to allow the court to rule in my favor. Not because of what I did, but because the opposing side had no case and the court did not need to extend the case any longer than necessary before ruling to make sure the opposing party received a fair and just hearing.

This decision also would have been much different in most other states that allow skiing. Vermont, the largest ski state in the East has always held that ski resorts are liable for the injuries of its patrons. (See The very first lawsuit against a ski area reviewing Wright et al. v. Mt. Mansfield Lift, Inc., et al. 96 F. Supp. 786; 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2524) Because of Vermont’s unique view of the responsibility of a ski area, to dismiss a case against a ski resort creates a difficult decision when explaining a case clearly without any evidence of fault against the defendant ski area.

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

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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.

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

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

Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Threads

X (formerly known as Twitter) logo

Recreation Law logo

Stimulus

Facebook

Mastodon

Blue Sky Logo

#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, Vermont, Ski Area, Jay Peak, Pro Se, Pro Se Plaintiff, Causation, Proximate Causation,

Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Act

Posted: February 11, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Pennsylvania | Tags: Good Samaritan, Good Samaritan law, Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Act | Leave a comment

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

Title 42. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Part VII. Civil Actions and Proceedings

Chapter 83. Particular Rights and Immunities

Subchapter C. Immunities Generally

42 Pa.C.S. § 8331 (2016)

§ 8331. Medical good Samaritan civil immunity.

(a) General rule. —

Any physician or any other practitioner of the healing arts or any registered nurse, licensed by any state, who happens by chance upon the scene of an emergency or who arrives on the scene of an emergency by reason of serving on an emergency call panel or similar committee of a county medical society or who is called to the scene of an emergency by the police or other duly constituted officers of a government unit or who is present when an emergency occurs and who, in good faith, renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such physician or practitioner or registered nurse in rendering the emergency care, except any acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm or any grossly negligent acts or omissions which result in harm to the person receiving emergency care.

(b) Definition. —

As used in this section “good faith” shall include, but is not limited to, a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the rendering of care should not be postponed until the patient is hospitalized.

HISTORY: Act 1976-142 (S.B. 935), P.L. 586, § 2, approved July 9, 1976, See section of this act for effective date information.

NOTES:

EDITOR’S NOTES.

Section 2 of Act 1976-142 enacted new subchapter C, “Immunities Generally.”

1. Neither the Emergency Medical Services Act, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§ 6921 to 6938, nor the AED Good Samaritan Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2, imposed a duty upon a tennis club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator, as defined in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2(f), and summary judgment was properly entered against a tennis player who suffered a stroke while playing tennis and sought damages for the club’s negligence in failing to have a defibrillator available for such an emergency. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).

2. Good Samaritan statute did not apply to a situation where a doctor received a telephone call from a hospital and provided advice for treatment of a hospitalized patient who was suffering from respiratory difficulties; the statute did not provide the doctor with a defense to an action resulting from the death of the patient and the doctor’s summary judgment motion was denied. The Good Samaritan statute did not apply because the doctor was not at the scene of an emergency, as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8331(a), and § 8331(b) implied that the statute did not apply to hospitalized patients. Phebus v. UPMC Horizon, 71 Pa. D. & C.4th 513, 2005 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68 (Pa. County Ct. 2005).

3. Neither the Emergency Medical Services Act, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§ 6921 to 6938, nor the AED Good Samaritan Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2, imposed a duty upon a tennis club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator, as defined in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2(f), and summary judgment was properly entered against a tennis player who suffered a stroke while playing tennis and sought damages for the club’s negligence in failing to have a defibrillator available for such an emergency. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).

4. Good Samaritan statute did not apply to a situation where a doctor received a telephone call from a hospital and provided advice for treatment of a hospitalized patient who was suffering from respiratory difficulties; the statute did not provide the doctor with a defense to an action resulting from the death of the patient and the doctor’s summary judgment motion was denied. The Good Samaritan statute did not apply because the doctor was not at the scene of an emergency, as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8331(a), and § 8331(b) implied that the statute did not apply to hospitalized patients. Phebus v. UPMC Horizon, 71 Pa. D. & C.4th 513, 2005 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 68 (Pa. County Ct. 2005).

5. Neither the Emergency Medical Services Act, Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 35, §§ 6921 to 6938, nor the AED Good Samaritan Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2, imposed a duty upon a tennis club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator, as defined in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8331.2(f), and summary judgment was properly entered against a tennis player who suffered a stroke while playing tennis and sought damages for the club’s negligence in failing to have a defibrillator available for such an emergency. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).

3943. 14-246 Pennsylvania Transaction Guide–Legal Forms § 246.31, Division 1 Individuals and Families, Standard of Care Owed by Health Care Providers.

3944. 38 P.L.E. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS § 25, Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Acts or Omissions Constituting Malpractice, Copyright 2013, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.

Pennsylvania AED Good Samaritan Act

Posted: February 11, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Pennsylvania | Tags: AED, AED Good Samaritan Act, Good Samaritan, Pennsylvania | 1 Comment

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

Title 42. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Part VII. Civil Actions and Proceedings

Chapter 83. Particular Rights and Immunities

Subchapter C. Immunities Generally

42 Pa.C.S. § 8331.2 (2016)

§ 8331.2. Good Samaritan civil immunity for use of automated external defibrillator.

(a) General rule. —

Any person who in good faith acquires and maintains an AED or uses an AED in an emergency shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by an individual using the AED, except if acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm or any grossly negligent acts or omissions result in harm to the individual receiving the AED treatment.

(b) Requirements. —

Any person who acquires and maintains an AED for use in accordance with this section shall:

(1) Ensure that expected AED users receive training pursuant to subsection (c).

(2) Maintain and test the AED according to the manufacturer’s operational guidelines.

(3) Provide instruction requiring the user of the AED to utilize available means to immediately contact and activate the emergency medical services system.

(4) Assure that any appropriate data or information is made available to emergency medical services personnel or other health care providers as requested.

For purposes of this section, expected AED users shall complete training in the use of an AED consistent with American Red Cross, American Heart Association or other national standards as identified and approved by the Department of Health in consultation with the Pennsylvania Emergency Health Services Council.

(d) Obstruction of emergency medical services personnel. —

Nothing in this section shall relieve a person who uses an AED from civil damages when that person obstructs or interferes with care and treatment being provided by emergency medical services personnel or a health professional.

(e) Exception. —

Any individual who lacks the training set forth in subsection (c) but who has access to an AED and in good faith uses an AED in an emergency as an ordinary, reasonably prudent individual would do under the same or similar circumstances shall receive immunity from civil damages as set forth in subsection (a).

(f) Definitions. —

As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

“Automated external defibrillator” or “AED.” –A portable device that uses electric shock to restore a stable heart rhythm to an individual in cardiac arrest.

“Emergency.” –A situation where an individual is believed to be in cardiac arrest or is in need of immediate medical attention to prevent death or serious injury.

“Good faith.” –Includes a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the use of an AED should not be postponed until emergency medical services personnel arrive or the person is hospitalized.

HISTORY: Act 1998-126 (H.B. 1897), P.L. 949, § 11, approved Dec. 15, 1998, eff. Jan. 1, 1999; Act 2012-125 (S.B. 351), P.L. 1081, § 1, approved July 5, 2012, eff. in 60 days.

NOTES:

AMENDMENT NOTES.

The 2012 amendment rewrote (a); deleted “not be liable for civil damages provided that the person” at the end of the introductory language of (b); rewrote (c), which formerly read: “For purposes of this section, expected AED users shall complete training in the use of an AED provided by the American National Red Cross or the American Heart Association or through an equivalent course of instruction approved by the Department of Health in consultation with a technical committee of the Pennsylvania Emergency Health Services Council”; deleted (e); in (f), substituted “or is” for “and” in the definition of “Emergency”; and made related changes.

Go back to the top of LexisNexis (R) NotesCASE NOTES

1. Trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of a tennis club in a negligence action by a stroke victim because neither the Emergency Medical Services Act nor the Good Samaritan Act imposed a duty upon the club to acquire, maintain, and use an automated external defibrillator. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832 (Pa. 2002).

2. Unpublished decision: Court recommended the affirmance of its decision granting judgment to a health club in an executor’s suit brought after the club’s patron collapsed and died after suffering sudden cardiac arrest while exercising at the club. While the executor maintained that the club had a duty to have an automated external defibrillator (AED) on its premises, the court rejected this contention, noting that, under binding state supreme court precedent, a sports club had no duty under the Emergency Medical Services Act or the Good Samaritan Act to acquire, maintain, or use an AED. Goldin v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., 2011 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 54 (Pa. C.P.), aff’d, 38 A.3d 931, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5470 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).

3946. Definitions, see20 Pa.C.S. § 5483.

3947. 28 Pa. Code § 1051.2(2014), PART EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

3948. 28 Pa. Code § 1051.51(2014), PART EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

3950. 6-LIV Remick’s Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Practice § 54.01, CHAPTER LIV Health Care, Living Wills, Health Care Agents and Representatives, and Out-of-Hospital Nonresuscitation Act.

Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc, 571 Pa. 580; 812 A.2d 1218; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832

Posted: February 9, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Pennsylvania | Tags: AED, AED Good Samaritan, Automatic External Defibrillator, Good Samaritan, Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Immunity, Negligence, Pennsylvania | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see: Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on duty to have and use an AED defines how statutes are to be interpreted and when liability can attach and cannot attach to a statute.

Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc, 571 Pa. 580; 812 A.2d 1218; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832

Jerry Atcovitz and Roslyn Atcovitz, H/W, v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc, Jkst, Inc. and Gulph Mills/Jkst Tennis Club, Inc., Lafayette Ambulance Rescue Squad I; appeal of: Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., Jkst, Inc. and Gulph Mills/Jkst Tennis Club

No. 29 EAP 2001

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

571 Pa. 580; 812 A.2d 1218; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2832

April 8, 2002, Argued

December 20, 2002, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 16, 2001, at No. 3061 EDA 1999, reversing and remanding the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, entered September 13, 1999, at No. 1357 January Term 1998. Trial Court Judge: Flora Barth Wolf, Judge. Intermediate Court Judges: Joseph A. Del Sole, President Judge, Joseph A. Hudock and Correale F. Stevens, JJ.

Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 2001 PA Super 16, 766 A.2d 1280, 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16 (2001).

DISPOSITION: Reversed. Trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulph Mills affirmed.

COUNSEL: For Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., APPELLANT: Lucien R. Tharaud, Esq.

For Gulph Mills/JKST Tennis Club, Inc., APPELLANT: Charles W. Craven, Esq.

For Jerry Atcovitz and Rosyln Atcovitz, h/w, APPELLEE: Alfred Anthony Brown, Esq. and J. Craig Currie, Esq.

JUDGES: BEFORE: ZAPPALA, C.J., AND CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR AND EAKIN, JJ. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ZAPPALA. Mr. Justice Cappy files a concurring opinion. Mr. Justice Nigro files a dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice Saylor joins.

OPINION BY: ZAPPALA

OPINION

[**1220] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ZAPPALA [*583]

We granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine whether a tennis club owes a duty of care to its members to acquire and maintain an automated external defibrillator, hereinafter “AED,” on its premises for emergency use. ¹ For the reasons that follow, we hold that such clubs do not owe a duty to have an AED available on their premises.

1 An AED is [HN1] “[a] portable device that uses electric shock to restore a stable heart rhythm to an individual in cardiac arrest.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8331.2(f).

[***2] On January 16, 1996, Jerry Atcovitz suffered a stroke, secondary to a heart attack, while playing tennis at the Gulph Mills Tennis Club. ² Within a minute of his collapse, two tennis club members administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation and called for an ambulance. Approximately ten minutes later, emergency medical technicians arrived and administered a series of defibrillation shocks with an AED and transported Atcovitz to a hospital. ³ Although he survived the incident, Atcovitz “sustained severe and permanent injuries, including anoxic encephalopathy with multiple permanent central nervous system disorders. He is no longer able to think or concentrate, is no longer able to walk or get out of bed unassisted, and requires assistance in virtually every aspect of his life.” R. 42a-43a.

2 Atcovitz was then sixty-four years old and had a twenty-year history of heart problems, including a previous heart attack and bypass surgery. Appellees do not assert that Gulph Mills had knowledge of such history.

3 Atcovitz did not respond to any of the AED shocks administered by the emergency medical technicians, but did subsequently respond to a transcutaneous pacemaker. From this, Gulph Mills remarks that Atcovitz was suffering from “atrial fibrillation,” as opposed to “ventricular fibrillation.” Thus, Gulph Mills implies that, even if Atcovitz would have received electrical defibrillation immediately after he collapsed, it would not have had any beneficial effect. Appellant’s Br. at 6; see also R. 30a, 147a-149a. This Court, however, must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party in reviewing a grant of summary judgment. Thus, we must operate under the assumption that earlier use of an AED would have mitigated Atcovitz’s injuries.

[***3] [*584] Appellees, Jerry Atcovitz and his wife, Roslyn, sued Gulph Mills for negligence in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. ⁴ Specifically, they claimed that, “had [Gulph Mills] possessed an AED device and used it on [Atcovitz] promptly, his injuries would have been significantly less and, therefore, that [Gulph Mills] is liable to him for damages.” Trial Ct. Op. at 2. In its defense, Gulph Mills asserted that, at the time of Atcovitz’s injury, its employees would not have been permitted by law to use an AED.

4 Atcovitz also sued Lafayette Ambulance Rescue Squad, but the parties eventually agreed to dismissal of the rescue squad with prejudice. R. 111a-112a.

In an attempt to preclude Gulph Mills from asserting its defense, Appellees moved for partial summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Immediately prior to trial, however, Appellees orally moved for reconsideration of their motion. At the same time, Gulph Mills cross-moved [**1221] for summary judgment. ⁵ The trial court granted Gulph Mills’s [***4] cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court based its grant of summary judgment on the Emergency Medical Services Act, ⁶ hereinafter the “EMS Act,” and the regulations issued pursuant thereto. The court concluded that, at the time of Atcovitz’s injury, Gulph Mills’s employees were legally prohibited from using an AED. Thus, the court held that Gulph Mills “cannot be held negligent for failure to use the device.” Trial Ct. Op. at 4.

5 The Superior Court, citing Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2, reproved the trial court for considering a motion for summary judgment on the day of trial. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 2001 PA Super 16, 766 A.2d 1280, 1281 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001). The court’s admonition, however, seemed to overlook that the parties had agreed to reconsideration of Appellees’ motion and consideration of Gulph Mills’s cross-motion. R. 8a-14a. Indeed, the motions presented a pure question of law that would avoid the time and expense of trial if Gulph Mills prevailed, which, ultimately, it did.

6 Act of July 3, 1985, P.L. 164, No. 45, § 1, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 6921- 6938.

[***5] Appellees filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. See Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 2001 PA Super 16, 766 A.2d 1280, [*585] 1281 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001). The court opined that the trial court’s reliance on the EMS Act was inappropriate because it was designed for and aimed at the administration of emergency services by trained and licensed professionals. As the EMS Act did not contain any provision addressing emergency actions by untrained lay persons, i.e., Gulph Mills’s employees, the court concluded that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment could not be supported by reference to the EMS Act or its implementing regulations.

The court also addressed the effect of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8331.2, hereinafter the “AED Good Samaritan Act,” which provides “Good Samaritan civil immunity” for use of an AED in certain instances. It specifically provides immunity for untrained individuals who, in good faith, use an AED in an emergency as an ordinary, reasonably prudent individual would do under the same or similar circumstances. Id. at § 8331.2(e). Although the [***6] AED Good Samaritan Act was enacted after Atcovitz’s injuries, the court found that its passage evinced the Legislature’s desire that use of AEDs not be restricted solely to trained professionals. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting Gulph Mills’s motion for summary judgment. See Atcovitz, 766 A.2d at 1282. Subsequently, Gulph Mills petitioned this Court for allowance of appeal, which we granted. See Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 566 Pa. 656, 782 A.2d 541 (Pa. 2001) (table).

[HN2] This Court’s scope of review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary. Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 563 Pa. 359, 761 A.2d 1115, 1118 (Pa. 2000). Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2; see also Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 565 Pa. 571, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (Pa. 2001). [***7] [*586] The reviewing court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party. Basile, 761 [**1222] A.2d at 1118. When the facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ, a trial court may properly enter summary judgment. Id. (citing Cochran v. GAF Corp., 542 Pa. 210, 666 A.2d 245, 248 (Pa. 1995)).

[HN3] The elements necessary to plead an action in negligence are: (1) the existence of a duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a failure on the part of the defendant to conform to that duty, or a breach thereof; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage suffered by the complainant. Orner v. Mallick, 515 Pa. 132, 527 A.2d 521, 523 (Pa. 1987) (citing Morena v. South Hills Health Sys., 501 Pa. 634, 462 A.2d 680, 684 n.5 (Pa. 1983)); see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 30 at 164 (5th ed. 1984). Here, we must focus our analysis on [***8] the threshold element of duty. ⁷ Only therein may we resolve the fundamental question of whether the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct.

7 Appellees argue that the issue of duty was not considered by the lower courts and, therefore, may not be addressed by this Court. Appellees’ Br. at 4-5 (citing Pa.R.A.P. 302). Instead, Appellees assert that “the sole question under review is whether the law of this Commonwealth, at the time of Mr. Atcovitz’s cardiac arrest in January of 1996, made it illegal for Gulph Mills to have and use an [AED].” Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). Appellees’ characterization of the issue is too narrowly focused. Gulph Mills’s illegality defense is a subsidiary argument of the broader issue of duty, i.e., whether there was no duty because carrying an AED would have been illegal. Thus, the issue properly before this Court’s plenary review remains whether Gulph Mills owed a duty of care to Atcovitz to acquire and maintain an AED on its premises for emergency use.

[***9] [HN4] “A duty, in negligence cases, may be defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Law of Torts, supra, § 53 at 356. This Court has embraced [*587] an oft-quoted passage articulating the considerations that underlie the concept of common law duty:

These are shifting sands, and no fit foundation. There is a duty if the court says there is a duty; the law, like the Constitution, is what we make it. Duty is only a word with which we state our conclusion that there is or is not to be liability; it necessarily begs the essential question. When we find a duty, breach and damage, everything has been said. The word serves a useful purpose in directing attention to the obligation to be imposed upon the defendant, rather than the causal sequence of events; beyond that it serves none. In the decision whether or not there is a duty, many factors interplay: The hand of history, our ideas of morals and justice, the convenience of administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss should fall. In the end the court will decide whether there is a duty on the basis of the mores of the [***10] community, “always keeping in mind the fact that we endeavor to make a rule in each case that will be practical and in keeping with the general understanding of mankind.”

D. Prosser, Palsgraf Revisited, 52 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 15 (1953) (quoting Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 104 (N.Y. 1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting)); Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000); Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672, 681 (Pa. 1979). Thus, [HN5] the legal concept of duty is necessarily rooted in often amorphous public policy considerations, which may include our perception of history, morals, justice, and society. Althaus, [**1223] 756 A.2d at 1169 (citing Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 524 Pa. 445, 573 A.2d 1016, 1020 (Pa. 1990)).

In Althaus, this Court enunciated several discrete factors, derived from the aforementioned principles, that our courts are to balance [HN6] in determining whether a common law duty of care exists: (1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the social utility of the actor’s conduct; (3) the nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability [***11] of the harm incurred; (4) the consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and (5) the overall public interest in the proposed solution. Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169. [*588] Within this construct, we must resolve whether Gulph Mills owed a duty to Atcovitz to acquire and maintain an AED.

Here, our analysis turns upon the fifth Althaus factor, i.e., the overall public interest in the proposed solution. The Legislature’s enactments and the ensuing regulations reveal that acquisition, maintenance, and use of an AED, along with AED training requirements, are highly regulated. Where our lawmakers have so thoroughly considered the statewide application and implications of a subject, this Court must refrain from imposing additional requirements upon that legislation.

Looking first to the EMS Act, the Legislature aspired [HN7] “to assure readily available and coordinated emergency medical services of the highest quality to the people of Pennsylvania.” 35 P.S. § 6922(a). To accomplish this purpose, the Secretary of Health is required [HN8] “to plan, guide, assist and coordinate the development of areawide emergency medical services systems into a unified Statewide [***12] system and to coordinate the system with similar systems in neighboring states.” 35 P.S. § 6925(a). For that reason, [HN9] the Department of Health has adopted comprehensive regulations implementing the provisions of the EMS Act, including regulations establishing the qualifications, duties, and certification procedures for those involved in providing emergency medical services. See 28 Pa. Code §§ 1001.1- 1015.2. Similar to the EMS Act, the stated purpose of the regulations [HN10] “is to plan, guide, assist and coordinate the development of regional EMS systems into a unified Statewide system and to coordinate the system with similar systems in neighboring states, and to otherwise implement the Department’s responsibilities under the act consistent with the Department’s rulemaking authority.” Id. at § 1001.1.

To achieve these goals, the EMS Act and its implementing regulations explicitly classify and identify the capacities, training requirements, and qualifications of individuals who are authorized to deliver emergency medical services. See, e.g., 35 P.S. § 6931 (delineating [***13] emergency medical services personnel). Although the Superior Court’s observation [*589] that the EMS Act and its regulations do not specifically refer to the use of AEDs by untrained individuals is correct, we do not agree with the court’s conclusion that the EMS Act and its regulations are irrelevant to the issue of whether Gulph Mills had a duty to use an AED on its premises. Rather, they are relevant to demonstrate that the acquisition, maintenance, and use of an AED, along with AED training requirements, are highly regulated. Indeed, the implication of the Legislature’s exclusion of untrained laypersons from the EMS Act and its regulations is to preclude unqualified and untrained individuals from administering emergency medical services using an AED. We must infer that, [HN11] under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the inclusion of a specific matter in a statute implies the exclusion of other matters. Pane v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Highways, 422 Pa. 489, 222 A.2d 913, 915 (Pa. 1966) (citing Cali v. City of Philadelphia, 406 Pa. 290, 177 A.2d 824, 832 (Pa. 1962)). It [**1224] would be absurd for the governmental system charged with rendering [***14] effective emergency medical care to hinder the delivery of that care using AEDs through the system, while ordinary citizens would be duty-bound to acquire, maintain, and use AEDs free from any regulation by the Department of Health.

Likewise, the Superior Court also misconstrued the AED Good Samaritan Act as evincing the Legislature’s intention that the EMS Act should not restrict the use of AEDs to trained professionals. The AED Good Samaritan Act, which was adopted two years after Atcovitz sustained his injuries, provides civil immunity for trained users of AEDs and requires that [HN12] “expected users shall complete training in the use of an AED. . . .” 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8331.2(a), (c). [HN13] As an exception to that general rule, the AED Good Samaritan Act also provides civil immunity to untrained individuals who, in good faith, use an AED in an emergency as an ordinary, reasonably prudent individual would do under the same or similar circumstances. Id. at § 8331.2(e). Significantly, the AED Good Samaritan Act defines [HN14] “good faith” as including “a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the use of an AED should not be postponed [***15] until emergency [*590] medical services personnel arrive or the person is hospitalized.” Id. at § 8331.2(f).

Thus, the AED Good Samaritan Act merely creates an exception for imposing liability on an untrained individual who uses an AED in limited emergency situations; it does not authorize its use by any such individual. Indeed, the exception expresses that personnel under the EMS Act are the preferred users of AEDs: it applies only to instances where emergency medical services personnel are unavailable. In addition, it does not indicate that the Legislature aimed to dispense with the regulations governing the training and use of AEDs. Simply, the existence of a civil immunity provision for Good Samaritans who use an AED in an emergency situation cannot impose a duty on a business establishment to acquire, maintain, and use such a device on its premises. ⁸

8 Even if the AED Good Samaritan Act imposed a duty upon Gulph Mills to carry an AED, it would not control this case. The Legislature did not adopt it until two years after Atcovitz sustained his injuries

[***16] Neither the EMS Act nor the AED Good Samaritan Act imposed a duty upon Gulph Mills to acquire, maintain, and use an AED. Appellees do not cite any other case, statute, or regulation that would have imposed such a duty on Gulph Mills at the time of Atcovitz’s injuries in January 1996. Because Gulph Mills did not owe a duty to carry an AED, Appellees could not have established a prima facie claim of negligence. See Orner, 515 Pa. 132, 527 A.2d 521. Thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact and Gulph Mills was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Basile, 563 Pa. 359, 761 A.2d 1115. We reverse the order of the Superior Court and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulph Mills.

Mr. Justice Cappy files a concurring opinion.

Mr. Justice Nigro files a dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice Saylor joins.

CONCUR BY: CAPPY

CONCUR

CONCURRING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE CAPPY

I join the majority opinion to the extent that it holds that we must balance the factors in Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. [*591] Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000). After evaluating all five factors, I agree [***17] that no duty exists here.

DISSENT BY: NIGRO

DISSENT

[**1225] DISSENTING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE NIGRO

While I do not necessarily disagree with the majority’s conclusion that a tennis club does not owe a duty to its members to acquire and maintain an automated external defibrillator (“AED”) on its premises for emergency use, that issue is not before us here. The only issue that the Superior Court considered below was whether the Emergency Medical Services Act, 35 Pa.C.S. §§ 6921- 6938, and the Department of Health regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act specifically prohibited Appellants from using an AED. Concluding that they did not, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellants on the basis of those authorities. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 2001 PA Super 16, 766 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“Although we make no finding on the ultimate merits of [plaintiffs’] claim, we find that the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment on the basis of the statutes and regulations cited.”) As I agree [***18] with the Superior Court’s conclusion in that regard, I would affirm the Superior Court’s order and remand the case to the trial court to consider in the first instance whether there is any basis on which to conclude that Appellants owed a duty to Appellees.

Mr. Justice Saylor joins the dissenting opinion.

Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768

Posted: February 8, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Vermont | Tags: Causation, Jay Peak, Pro Se, Pro Se Plaintiff, Proximate Cause, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ski area, Vermont | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Skier is unable to hold ski area liable in Vermont for injuries received in an unknown way from an unknown person.

Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768

Paul A. Gemmink, Plaintiff-Appellant, — v. — Jay Peak Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 14-2725-cv

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

807 F.3d 46; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20768

August 19, 2015, Argued

November 30, 2015, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Pro se plaintiff Paul Gemmink was injured while skiing at defendant Jay Peak’s ski resort. Although Gemmink could not recall the circumstances of his injury, he came to believe that he had been injured in a collision with another skier as a result of Jay Peak’s negligent maintenance of ski jumps on its property. As a result, Gemmink brought an action to recover against Jay Peak for his injuries. The District Court granted summary judgment to Jay Peak, finding that Gemmink had failed to establish that any negligence on the part of Jay Peak was the cause of Gemmink’s injuries. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Gemmink v. Jay Peak, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87912 (D. Vt., June 23, 2014)

COUNSEL: PAUL A. GEMMINK, Pro se.

THOMAS P. AICHER, Cleary Shahi & Aicher, P.C., Rutland, VT, for Defendant-Appellee.

JUDGES: Before: CALABRESI, STRAUB, POOLER, Circuit Judges. Judge POOLER joins only Parts I and II(B) of the opinion.

OPINION BY: CALABRESI

OPINION

[*47] CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:

I. BACKGROUND

On February 21, 2011, Paul Gemmink and his daughter, Christine, visited the [*48] Jay Peak ski resort in Jay, Vermont. The two skied down the Northwest Passage trail, with Christine preceding her father as she turned onto the Kokomo trail, which intersected the Northwest Passage trail. When Christine reached the base [**2] of the ski lift at the end of the trail, she noticed that her father had failed to follow her descent. Instead, a Jay Peak ski patroller would find Gemmink “combative and in obvious pain,” lying on his back by a tree on the left side of the Kokomo trail, near the Kokomo-Northwest Passage intersection. App’x at 31. Gemmink had been rendered unconscious and, though argumentative, could not recall or provide an account of the incident. Christine, however, had observed a ski jump situated near the trees on the right side of the intersection, leading her and her father to surmise that another patron “fl[ew] of[f] the jump” and collided with Gemmink. Id. at 30, 32. Gemmink suffered fractures to his left ribs and left transverse processes in the incident, injuries that, according to Gemmink, are usually attributable to a significant impact coming from right to left, and are therefore at least consistent with the theory that a skier jumped from the right of the intersection into Gemmink.

Proceeding pro se, Gemmink brought this action against Jay Peak to recover for injuries that he claims were sustained as a result of Jay Peak’s negligence. Specifically, Gemmink asserts that Jay Peak negligently permitted dangerous jumps on [**3] its ski trails and that, in consequence of such a constructed jump at the Kokomo-Northwest Passage intersection, Gemmink suffered a collision with another skier resulting in harm to his left side. The District Court (Murtha, J.) granted Jay Peak’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Gemmink had failed to establish that Jay Peak’s alleged negligence was the cause of his injuries. Gemmink now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

[HN1] This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Amerex Group, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 678 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2012). [HN2] Where, as here, the party opposing summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment should be granted if the moving party can “point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.” Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995). [HN3] The court draws all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but the opposing party “must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.” Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 781 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 2015).

Before the district court, it was assumed that the negligence of Jay Peak in the structure and maintenance of the jumps was sufficiently made out to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, we will assume arguendo that Gemmink has established such [**4] a potential basis for liability on the part of Jay Peak. The issue before us, then, is a not-infrequent one in torts cases: whether the plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence for a jury to find, more probably than not, that the ground for liability (here, the assumed negligence) was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

As Professor Abraham has demonstrated in his recent article, [HN4] a showing of cause-in-fact almost always involves circumstantial evidence. See Kenneth S. Abraham, Self-Proving Causation, 99 Va. L. Rev. 1811, 1815-16 (2013). Thus, in considering whether a plaintiff has proven causation, a trier of fact asks whether it is [*49] likely that the harm that occurred resulted from the negligence (or from another basis of liability) attributed to the defendant. In other words, is the reason that the defendant’s behavior is deemed risky, and the defendant deemed potentially liable, the harm that in fact occurred?

In such circumstances, as then-Chief Judge Cardozo set out in Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (N.Y. 1920), a jury can assume that the injury occurred as the expected or ordinary result of the defendant’s conduct. Id. at 816. If for some reason it was not the ordinary result of the defendant’s conduct, that the “extraordinary” had occurred must be shown by the party [**5] wishing to counter causation. For example, if a defendant proprietor has failed to install lights on its stairways after dark, and a person coming down the stairs in the dark of night falls and injures himself, one can fairly assume that the failure to illuminate the stairs caused the injury. And it will be up to the defendant to show that something extraordinary happened, say, that an animal scampered up the stairs and tripped the injured person instead. In essence, the greater the risk that the defendant’s conduct will result in the harm the plaintiff suffered, the more likely that a jury will be allowed to find that such conduct was the cause of that harm.

[HN5] In addition to considering the strength of the circumstantial evidence linking injury and harm, however, the cases dealing with questions of causation take into account two other factors. First, where one party has knowledge or access to information that renders that party better able than his adversary to explain what actually transpired, courts have tended to put the onus on that party to do so. This principle–that the party with superior knowledge bears the burden of coming forward with evidence–has always served as a basis [**6] of finding negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. See, e.g., Griffen v. Manice, 166 N.Y. 188, 194-96, 59 N.E. 925 (1901). But it also serves as a basis for finding causation. See Williams v. Utica Coll. Of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d 112, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2006); Williams v. KFC Nat. Mgmt. Co., 391 F.3d 411, 431-32 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., concurring). Thus, the requirement that the plaintiff be able circumstantially to show a link between the expected risk of defendant’s conduct and what actually occurred tends to be greater when the plaintiff is better able to explain what happened, and is considerably less when, instead, it is the defendant who can better or more easily proffer evidence of what, in fact, occurred.

But cases of this sort also involve a third factor. Thus, [HN6] in deciding whether sufficient proof of causation has been proffered to get to a jury, courts consider whether the law of the jurisdiction is indifferent as to error in one direction or the other. If an erroneous finding of causation is, in the law of the jurisdiction, more harmful than an erroneous finding of no causation, the requirements of circumstantial evidence and knowledge grow stronger. Conversely, where the law of the jurisdiction makes clear that an erroneous finding of no causation is more harmful, the requirements are diminished. Compare Williams v. Utica Coll. Of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d at 121 (finding summary judgment against plaintiff appropriate [**7] because, inter alia, New York courts placed only a minimal duty on the defendant to avert the type of harm incurred, which is “close to saying that if an error is to be made in this context, it is better made in favor of the defendant“) (emphasis added), with Williams v. KFC Nat. Mgmt. Co., 391 F.3d at 432 (finding summary judgment against plaintiff inappropriate because, inter alia, of “the absence of any reason to [*50] prefer erring in favor of [the defendant] rather than the plaintiff”).

With these three factors in mind, we turn to the case before us. The first factor favors the defendant. The causal link between Jay Peak’s assumed negligence in its maintenance of ski jumps and the injury incurred by the plaintiff is far too attenuated to sustain Gemmink’s claim. Our common experience does not tell us that this kind of lack of maintenance results in accidents of this sort with any frequency. And plaintiff has failed to proffer expert testimony suggesting a stronger link. See Human Rights Comm’n v. LaBrie, Inc., 164 Vt. 237, 668 A.2d 659, 667 (Vt. 1995) (“Generally, expert . . . testimony is required to support a finding of causation where the link is obscure and abstruse such that a layperson can have no well founded knowledge and can do no more than indulge in mere speculation.”) (internal quotation marks [**8] omitted).

The second is, at most, neutral. Neither Gemmink nor Jay Peak has greater knowledge or access to information concerning what actually happened on the Kokomo trail.

A review of Vermont law suggests that it follows the approach of symmetrical indifference. [HN7] By statute, although assumption of risk has generally been subsumed in comparative [**9] negligence, 12 V.S.A. § 1036, it has been expressly retained as to sporting events, 12 V.S.A. § 1037. This would suggest that Vermont prefers to err on the side of finding no causation with respect to sport injuries like the one that here occurred. At the same time, however, the decision of whether the risk borne by the plaintiff in the sporting event was sufficiently “obvious and necessary” as to be assumed generally forms a jury question under Vermont law. See Estate of Frant v. Haystack Grp., Inc., 162 Vt. 11, 641 A.2d 765, 770-71 (Vt. 1994) (rejecting the conclusion that “by enacting § 1037, the legislature intended to provide more protection from liability for ski areas” and stating that “§ 1037 is broad enough . . . [that s]kiers should be deemed to assume only those skiing risks that the skiing industry is not reasonably required to prevent,” as determined by “a jury [applying] a contemporary sense of what constitutes an obvious or necessary risk”). Vermont’s approach stands in notable contrast both to Connecticut, where participants in sporting events rarely assume the risk of that participation, see, e.g., Jagger v. Mohawk Mt. Ski Area, Inc., 269 Conn. 672, 849 A.2d 813, 827 (2004), and to New York, where assumption of risk is powerfully applied by courts to bar recovery by participants in sporting events, see, e.g., Martin v. New York, 64 A.D.3d 62, 878 N.Y.S.2d 823, 825-26 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 2009); N.Y. Gen. Obl. Law § 18-106. This contrast reinforces [*51] our conclusion that Vermont [**10] wants us to treat errors in this area pretty much symmetrically.

III. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the District Court is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

Release lacked language specifying the length of time it was valid. Since the court could not determine the time the case was sent to a jury for that determination.

Posted: February 8, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Business Invitee, Contract, FactFinder, Go Kart, Go Kart Racing, Missing Phrase, Missing Term, Open and Obvious, Release, Time | Leave a comment

Release lacked one clause and consequently, failed to protect the defendant sending the case to trial.

Weinrich v. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79

State: Pennsylvania: Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division

Plaintiff: Nicholas Weinrich

Defendant: Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, incorrectly Identified As Lehigh Valley Grand Prix LLC

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release & Premises Liability

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 2015

This is an interesting case. The activity is outside the normal area of the law covered by this site; however, the legal issues are very important to everyone reading these posts.

The plaintiff was injured driving a go-kart around the defendant’s go-kart track. This was the second time the plaintiff had been at the go-kart track; the first time was about six months prior.

While driving around the track a piece of plastic from the guard rail was sticking into the track. The plaintiff drove past it and it hit is leg giving him a two-inch laceration.

The plaintiff had signed a release the first time he attended the go-kart track which was six months prior to the date of his injury. He did not sign one the second time when he was injured. The defendant stated that people who have already signed a release are not asked to sign one again.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the release the Pennsylvania Premises Liability Act. The act stated that a defendant’s business did not owe a duty to the business invitee for open and obvious hazards.

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

First, the court reviewed the requirements for a release to be valid in Pennsylvania.

First, the clause must not contravene public policy. Secondly, the contract must be between persons relating entirely to their own private affairs and thirdly; each party must be a free bargaining agent to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion.

The next issue was whether a release for recreational issues violates public policy in Pennsylvania. Again, releases for recreational activities do not violate Pennsylvania public policy concerns. Participants are free to go to any recreational facility or none at all.

In the context of recreational activities, releases generally function as a bar to liability because the party executing the release is free to choose whether or not he or she wants to participate in the activity. Such releases do not contravene public policy. However, where the injury was caused by recklessness or gross negligence, enforcement of the release would contravene public policy and the releases are thereby rendered void under those circumstances.

The court then got into the real issue. The plaintiff argued the release was not valid because he had signed the release six months prior to the date of his injury. The issue then resolved around when a contract terminates. Normally, a contract terminates based on a date or time frame which is based on language within the contract itself. This release had no language as to how long the release was supposed to last. “The salient issue in evaluating the instant waiver is that the language on the form neither limits the time for its applicability nor specifies the event or occasion to which it applies.”

Generally, time frames are to be determined by the parties to the agreement. If not by the parties, then the language of the release is to be examined for an indication of time. Failing language in the release terminating the agreement, the court can infer from the parties intended performance, which must be within a reasonable amount of time.

Since the release had no language on termination, then the court determined the release terminated within a reasonable amount of time. Since this was not defined, then a term, phrase or clause was missing from the release.

If an essential term is left out of a contract, the court can infer the term. (An essential term is always the one that the issue resolves around in court.)

However, since the reasonable period of time is not set forth by the industry, parties, the release or the law, that time period must be determined by the factfinder. The fact finder when a case has been set for a jury trial is the jury. “What constitutes a reasonable time, however, is generally a question of fact to be resolved by the factfinder.”

Consequently, Defendant’s argument in support of summary judgment based on the existence of a release must be denied. Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Whether six months following the execution of a release for a recreational activity constitutes a reasonable amount of time is a question more appropriately posed to a finder of fact. The reasonableness of the duration in question is therefore, a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is inappropriate.

The simple phrase stating the release is valid for a year or more sent this case back to the jury for trial.

The other issue argued by the defendant was the definition of a business invitee which as defined did not create liability on the part of the defendant. A landowner does not owe a duty for open and obvious conditions on the land. In this case, the open and obvious condition would be the piece of plastic sticking out into the track.

The issue of open and obvious then was reviewed as it is defined in Pennsylvania.

A danger is deemed to be “obvious” when “both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.” “For a danger to be ‘known,’ it must not only be known to exist, but … also be recognized that it is dangerous and the probability and gravity of the threatened harm must be appreciated.”

Generally in Pennsylvania, a landowner has no duty to protect business invitees from open and obvious dangers. “In the context of amusement facilities, Pennsylvania courts have held that there is no duty to protect participants against the typical risks attendant to those activities.”

However, here again whether something is open and obvious in this case, a plastic part peeling off a guard rail is something that must be determined by the factfinder.

Nonetheless, the question of whether conditions on land were, in fact, open and obvious is generally a question of fact for a jury to decide. Id. It may be decided by a court where reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusion.

Because in both cases, the release and the definition of the law required completion by the fact finder, the case was sent back for trial.

Summary judgment would not be appropriate on these grounds because there are factual issues regarding constructive notice and whether there were appropriate steps undertaken by Defendant. Testimony before a factfinder is necessary to assess whether and to what extent the employees were aware in advance of the existence of the dangerous condition. These are all factual questions to be resolved by a factfinder.

So Now What?

Here again, the release failed either because of a lazy program, an ineffective system or with both those failing a release that is missing components.

Either every time someone comes to your facility, event or business, they sign a release, or you have a system that tracks when people have signed the release and not and a release that covers that period of time.

At a minimum, you should have someone sign your release yearly. Season’s change, activities change and you might change your business, program, activities, anything and everything. That change may need to be placed in your release and at least follows up on.

This change in your program or start of the new year or season is the perfect opportunity to have an attorney review your release. Inform your attorney of any changes in your operation. Have your release checked to make sure it will do the job you and your insurance company expect it to do.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Cobb v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563

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, Release, Open and Obvious, Time, Business Invitee, Go Kart, Go Kart Racing, Contract, Missing Term, Missing Phrase, FactFinder,

Admiralty law did not stop a release from barring a claim for negligence for a parasailing injury.

Posted: February 1, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Nevada, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Rivers and Waterways, Skydiving, Paragliding, Hang gliding | Tags: Admiralty and Maritime Law, Admiralty Law, Aramark, assumption of the risk, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, Parasailing, Release, Zephyr Cove Resort | 1 Comment

Aramark sued for a parasailing accident when it booked the trip with an “affiliate.”

State: Nevada, United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Plaintiff: Jaclyn Cobb

Defendant: Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: For the defendant

Year: 2013

The plaintiff signed up to go parasailing on Lake Tahoe with Zephyr Cove Resort. Zephyr Cove Resort is described by the court as being an “affiliate of the defendant Aramark. Aramark is well known as a large concessionaire operating hotels and services in National Parks.

After signing up the plaintiff signed a release (waiver). The plaintiff went parasailing and was sailing when the weather turned bad. She was being reeled back to the boat when she struck her knee causing injury.

The plaintiff filed this claim against Aramark. (It is not stated what the relationship is between Aramark and Zephyr Cove Resort or why the plaintiff did not sue Zephyr Cove Resort.)

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted with this opinion.

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

Most legal decisions are based where a motion for summary judgment is filed to review the requirements on what must be proved by the defendant (generally), for the motion to be granted. Generally, that occupies one to five paragraphs in the order. Most are either too succinct to explain the process or too wordy to make deciphering the process worth the effort. This court did a great job of explaining what the defendant must prove to succeed in its motion for summary judgment. The court then reviewed what the plaintiff must do to rebut the motion for summary judgment.

The party filing a motion for summary judgment must argue the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the opposing party when applied to the law show there is no genuine issue of material fact. Those facts must show that no reasonable trier of fact (a jury normally), could find any other way.

The moving party bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.

To rebut the motion for summary judgment the non-moving party must point to facts in the record which so issues. The record is the evidence, depositions, responses to interrogatories and information that meets the rules of evidence to be presented to the court.

To successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.

If a reasonable mind could see the facts in a different way, then a motion for summary judgment is not appropriate. The issues must go to trial and be presented to a jury. The evidence presented in the motion must be genuine which means a reasonable jury can only see the evidence as pointing in one direction, saying one thing. The evidence that is not proved must be more than a scintilla; it must show there is a real dispute in how the facts can be seen.

Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. A dispute regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient to establish a genuine dispute; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.

Consequently, when a court grants a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented is such the court can see that evidence only proves one view of the issue and there is no other evidence that refutes that evidence sufficient to change the mind, or even make the person waiver in his or her thoughts on how the evidence is viewed.

In this case, the court found that admiralty law did apply in this case. Admiralty law is a federal law that controls the seas or waters moving between two states. Lake Tahoe has shores on both Nevada and California so admiralty law was the law to be applied to the case.

The action giving rise to the admiralty law claim must be based on maritime activity. The Supreme Court and other federal courts have a very broad definition of maritime activity, and paragliding has been found to be a maritime activity.

An action falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) when: (1) the underlying tort occurred on navigable waters; and (2) the actions giving rise to the tort claim bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.

Where, as here, a body of water forms a border between two states and is capable of supporting maritime commerce, it is considered navigable for the purpose of establishing admiralty jurisdiction. Second, parasailing bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities sufficient to establish admiralty jurisdiction. (“Careful and safe navigation of vessels in navigable waters have always been a fundamental admiralty concern. Navigation is an essential component in the parasailing activity.”)

Assumption of the risk is not a defense that can be used in a case covered by admiralty law. However, release is a valid defense.

Under Admiralty law, a release must meet a two-part test.

First, Cobb concedes that she knowingly and voluntarily signed the liability waiver. Second, the court finds that the express waiver in this action is clear and unambiguous as it contains specific language releasing Zephyr and its affiliates, including defendant Aramark, for injuries sustained in carrying out the parasailing activities as a result of Zephyr’s negligence

An unambiguous waiver is one that specifically bars the claims of the plaintiff and protects all the defendants. “A waiver is clear and unambiguous if it specifically bars the plaintiff’s negligence claim and explicitly exonerates all defendants in the lawsuit.”

The court then specifically pointed out that the injury the plaintiff was complaining of was specifically listed in the release. “Further, the very injuries Cobb is suing for are specifically precluded by the waiver including “drowning, sprained or broken bones.“

Nor does the release violate public policy. Voluntary recreational activities do not violate public policy under admiralty law.

Third, the underlying express waiver is not inconsistent with public policy because waivers of liability on navigable waters do not contravene federal public policy.

The waiver is also not an adhesion contract because again, it is for a voluntary recreational activity.

Finding that Admiralty law was the law to be applied, finding that Admiralty law allowed the use of a release to stop claims for negligence, and finding the release in this matter was valid, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Therefore, the court finds that the underlying pre-accident waiver is valid and enforceable and absolves the defendant Aramark of any liability arising from the recreational parasailing activity. Accordingly, the court shall grant Aramark’s motion for summary judgment.

So Now What?

This is another decision that you should keep handy if your recreational activity could be viewed as subject to admiralty law. Scuba diving, whitewater rafting, and as here parasailing, dependent on the location of the activity, can all be subject to admiralty law.

The decision is also good because its explanation of the law is simple and succinct. You want nothing better than to point to a sentence in a case to support your position that is easy to read and easily understood; no matter how intelligent the judges and attorneys are that may be reading it.

Of major importance for everyone is the court specifically pointed out that the injury the plaintiff was complaining about was one the release specifically pointed out as one that could occur in the release.

Whenever those two issues occur, the injury the plaintiff received was in writing in the release courts point it out. That should be a major flag to anyone writing a release that you need to list the risks of the activity in your release. You must list the major accidents that can occur like death and the common accidents that can occur, like sprains and strains for the activity, you are running.

AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelL

What do you think? Leave a comment.

James H. “Jim” Moss

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,

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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.

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

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/recreationlaw/

Threads https://www.threads.net/@recreation_law

X https://twitter.com/RecreationLaw

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2016-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

awyer, #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, Parasailing, Release, Admiralty and Maritime Law, Admiralty Law, Nevada, Lake Tahoe, Aramark,

Weinrich v. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79

Posted: January 26, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Business Invitee, Contract, FactFinder, Go Kart, Go Kart Racing, Missing Phrase, Missing Term, Open and Obvious, Release, Time | Leave a comment

Weinrich v. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79

Nicholas Weinrich, Plaintiff -VS- Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc, incorrectly Identified As Lehigh Valley Grand Prix LLC, Defendant

File No. 2014-C-0226

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, CIVIL DIVISION

2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 79

August 14, 2015, Decided

CORE TERMS: summary judgment, track, plastic, depositions, public policy, citations omitted, duration, genuine, issue of material fact, question of fact, reasonable amount, contravene, factfinder, covering, invitee, silent, rink, dangerous condition, constructive notice, protruding, inspection, customer, go-kart’s, execute, notice, repeat, snap, general rule, moving party’s, liability theory

COUNSEL: [*1] Robert G. Bauer, Esq. for Plaintiff.

Ian T. Baxter, Esq. for Defendant.

JUDGES: Douglas G. Reichley, J.

OPINION BY: Douglas G. Reichley

OPINION

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14 day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 19, 2015, and after argument conducted August 12, 2015,

IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion.

By the Court:

Douglas G. Reichley, J.

Memorandum Opinion

Lehigh Valley Grand Prix, Inc., Defendant, owns and operates a go-kart track located at 649 South 10th Street, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Nicholas Weinrich, Plaintiff, filed the instant action alleging he was injured while patronizing the facility. On May 19, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is denied.

Factual and Procedural History

According to the Complaint, on June 4, 2012 at approximately 8:15 p.m, Plaintiff was operating a go-kart on Defendant’s track during which time a piece of the plastic covering the guardrail broke and was sticking out toward the track. As Plaintiff drove around the track, the plastic caught his go-kart’s bumper causing it to snap into his [*2] left leg. Plaintiff sustained a laceration on his leg less than two inches wide.

During depositions, Plaintiff testified that six months prior to the incident, he patronized Defendant’s facility without issue. On the date in question, Plaintiff completed two laps and did not notice the plastic covering jutting out. On his third lap, Plaintiff came around the adjacent turn and maintained momentum. He was near the wall, and the piece of the plastic guard was hanging out, bent toward him. He heard a loud snap, and subsequently felt pain in his calf.

Deposition testimony from Defendant’s staff indicated that the protrusion onto the track was common enough that employees were trained on how to repair it. Defendant’s owner conceded that it was possible for the plastic piece on the wall to snap and protrude onto the track.

Six months before the incident in question, on December 4, 2011, Plaintiff patronized Defendant’s establishment. At that time he was required to execute a waiver in order to participate in the race. When he returned in June of 2012, he was not presented with his original waiver, nor was he asked to execute a second one. Testimony from Michael Achey, the manager of Defendant’s [*3] establishment, indicated that repeat customers are not asked to re-execute the waiver. (N.T. Deposition of Michael P. Achey, February 25, 2015, at 45.) Mr. Achey acknowledged that while he has indicated to some repeat customers that they did not need to execute another waiver because one was already on file, he did not say that to every repeat customer. (Id. at 45-46.)

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 4, 2014. Defendant filed its Answer on April 29, 2014. On May 19, 2015, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed his response on June 19, 2015. Defendant filed a sur-reply brief on August 6, 2015. The Court heard oral argument on August 12, 2015, after which time the matter was taken under advisement.

This Opinion follows.

Discussion

The standard of review for a motion seeking summary judgment is as follows:

A trial court properly enters summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary clement of the cause of action.” Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1). The moving party’s right to summary judgment has to be clear and free from doubt after examination of the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolution of all doubts as to the existence [*4] of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party

Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition Corp., 603 Pa. 198, 983 A.2d 652, 657 (Pa. Super. 2009).

Defendant seeks summary judgment on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff executed a voluntary waiver which bars his recovery. Second, Defendant argues that even if the release were not binding and valid, as a landowner, Defendant cannot be held liable under these circumstances under a premises liability theory.

In Pennsylvania, exculpatory agreements must be strictly construed. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Business Men’s Assoc., 423 Pa. 288, 224 A.2d 620, 623 (1966). Releases from liability are disfavored as a matter of public policy, but are nonetheless “valid where three conditions are met. First, the clause must not contravene public policy. Secondly, the contract must be between persons relating entirely to their own private affairs and thirdly, each party must be a free bargaining agent to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion.” Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174, 1189 (Pa. 2010) (quoting Topp Copy Products, Inc. v. Singletary, 533 Pa. 468, 626 A.2d 98, 99 (Pa. 1993)).

The courts of Pennsylvania have traditionally determined the effect of a release using the ordinary meaning of its language and interpreted the release as covering only such matters as can fairly be said to have been within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given. Moreover, releases [*5] are strictly construed so as not to bar the enforcement of a claim that had not accrued at the date of the execution of the release.

Fortney v. Callenberger, 2002 PA Super 182, 801 A.2d 594, 597 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In the context of recreational activities, releases generally function as a bar to liability because the party executing the release is free to choose whether or not he or she wants to participate in the activity. Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc., 616 Pa. 385, 47 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. 2012). Such releases do not contravene public policy. Id. However, where the injury was caused by recklessness or gross negligence, enforcement of the release would contravene public policy and the releases are thereby rendered void under those circumstances. Id.

The relevant language of the release in question provides:

IN CONSIDERATION of being permitted to compete, officiate, observe, work, or participate in the EVENT(s), use the equipment, premises, facilities and/or services of Lehigh Valley Grand Prix, LLC., [the undersigned agrees to the release terms] …

Plaintiff argues that the waiver was no longer valid on the date in question because he executed it six months prior to the date of the accident. In support of this argument, Plaintiff does not cite any case law from Pennsylvania or any federal [*6] authority interpreting Pennsylvania law on this matter. The sole case upon which Plaintiff relics is a Florida case, Cain v. Banka, 932 So.2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), which held a release unenforceable because the release contained no express language advising the plaintiff that it covered every future visit to a motocross track.

There are not any Pennsylvania cases reflecting the Florida court’s holding. Federal cases interpreting Pennsylvania law merely look at the language of the release to gauge its degree of applicability. See Savarese v. Camelback Ski Corp., 417 F.Supp.2d 663, 667 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (applying Pennsylvania law, language on the back of a ski lift ticket constituted a valid exculpatory agreement once the plaintiff purchased the ticket).

The salient issue in evaluating the instant waiver is that the language on the form neither limits the time for its applicability nor specifies the event or occasion to which it applies. When asked about the release’s duration during oral argument, Defendant’s counsel maintained that the waiver would be effective forever without limitation.

“As a general rule, releases encompass only such matters as may fairly be said to have been within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given.” Farrell v. Lechmanik, Inc., 417 Pa. Super. 172, 611 A.2d 1322, 1323 (Pa. Super. 1992). “[I]t is axiomatic that releases are construed in accordance [*7] with traditional principles of contract law, fundamental to which is the directive that the effect of a release must be determined from the ordinary meaning of its language.” Maloney v. Valley Med. Facilities, Inc., 2008 PA Super 32, 946 A.2d 702, 706 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under contract principles, where a contract is silent as to the time for performance, courts must infer that the parties intended that performance occur within a reasonable amount of time. Cashdollar v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 406 Pa. Super. 606, 595 A.2d 70, 76 (Pa. Super. 1991) (“When the exact period for which the parties intended to contract cannot be ascertained, the agreement is not vitiated; rather, an agreement for a ‘reasonable time’ will be inferred.”).

In construing a contract, courts must adopt “an interpretation which under all circumstances ascribes the most reasonable, probable, and natural conduct of the parties, bearing in mind the objects manifestly to be accomplished.” Metzger v. Clifford Realty Corp., 327 Pa. Super. 377, 476 A.2d 1, 5 (Pa. Super. 1984) (citation omitted). “If an essential term is left out of the agreement, the law will not invalidate the contract but will include a reasonable term.” Stephan v. Waldron Elec. Heating & Cooling LLC, 2014 PA Super 205, 100 A.3d 660, 668 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting RegScan, Inc. v. Con-Way Transp. Services, Inc., 2005 PA Super 176, 875 A.2d 332 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

In this case, the release Plaintiff executed is silent as to duration. Based on the foregoing case law, the Court determines that this is an essential term which is left out of the agreement. Therefore, a reasonable [*8] term is to be imposed instead of invalidating the release as a whole. Id. Because contract principles further dictate that contractual duration is presumed to be for a reasonable amount of time in the absence of a specified time for performance, Metzger, 476 A.2d at 5, the parties’ release must therefore be deemed to apply for a reasonable period of time. What constitutes a reasonable time, however, is generally a question of fact to be resolved by the factfinder. See, e.g., Yates v. Clifford Motors, Inc., 283 Pa. Super. 293, 423 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super. 1980) (in the Uniform Commercial Code context, whether goods were rejected within a reasonable amount of time where contract was silent as to time for rejection was question of fact for jury).

Consequently, Defendant’s argument in support of summary judgment based on the existence of a release must be denied. Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Whether six months following the execution of a release for a recreational activity constitutes a reasonable amount of time is a question more appropriately posed to a finder of fact. The reasonableness of the duration in question is therefore a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is inappropriate.

Defendant also argued in its motion [*9] that even if the release was not binding and valid, as a landowner, Defendant cannot be held liable under these circumstances under a premises liability theory. Plaintiff in this case was an invitee for premises liability purposes. An invitee is someone who is “invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.” Restatement (Second) of Torts §332 (1965).

As a general rule, possessors of land are not liable to invitees for physical harm caused to them by activities or conditions on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343A. A danger is deemed to be “obvious” when “both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.” Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178, 469 A.2d 120, 123-24 (Pa. 1983) (citation omitted). “For a danger to be ‘known,’ it must not only be known to exist, but … also be recognized that it is dangerous and the probability and gravity of the threatened harm must be appreciated.” Id. at 124.

Nonetheless, the question of whether conditions on land were in fact open and obvious is generally [*10] a question of fact for a jury to decide. Id. It may be decided by a court where reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusion. Id.; see also Long v. Manzo, 452 Pa. Super. 451, 682 A.2d 370, 373 (Pa. Super. 19%) (citation omitted) (issues of plaintiff’s knowledge of condition creating unreasonable risk of harm usually for jury to decide, but may be decided by court where reasonable minds could not differ).

In the context of amusement facilities, Pennsylvania courts have held that there is no duty to protect participants against the typical risks attendant to those activities. See Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc., 374 Pa. Super. 118, 542 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 1983) (roller rink has no obligation to protect patrons from falling down or being bumped by other skaters). A duty arises only where the risks at play are atypical. See id. (liability found where accident attributable to a condition unique to defendant skating rink, i.e. a 60-foot wide opening in the rink and a 6″ drop-off on its side).

With respect to the requirement for notice, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s employees’ depositions demonstrate an acute awareness that the sort of dangerous condition at issue–the broken plastic piece protruding into the racetrack–was something for which they were trained. While the record is devoid of evidence supporting [*11] actual notice, Plaintiff argued Defendant had constructive notice.

Neither the witnesses who were deposed nor Plaintiff testified that the plastic was protruding into the track for an extended period of time. The testimony at the depositions indicated that there are three scheduled inspections of the racetrack per day: morning, noon, and night. None of those inspections revealed the dangerous condition. There is also a visual inspection of the track in between each race according to the testimony offered by Michael McCreary, Defendant’s owner. Defendant’s employees, Michael Achey (manager) and Corey Dewalt (track marshal) conceded that it was possible that the protruding plastic could have been missed.

Conclusion

Because there is an outstanding factual issue concerning whether six [*12] months after execution of the subject release is a reasonable period of time for the release to remain in effect, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground of the release must fail. Further, there are outstanding factual questions concerning constructive notice which render summary judgment inappropriate on that basis. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

By the Court:

Douglas G. Reichley, J.

8/14/15

10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Colorado law concerning releases in a whitewater rafting fatality.

Posted: January 25, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Paddlesports, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: 10th Circuit, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Arkansas River, Brown’s Canyon, fatality, Release, Seidel’s Suck Hole, Strainer, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Waiver, Whitewater Rafting | 9 Comments

Plaintiff’s approach was a unique way of attempting to circumvent the legal protection afforded by the release. Claims of negligence per se and fraud were pled to beat the release.

Citation: Espinoza, Jr., v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39

State: Colorado, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Plaintiff: Jesus Espinoza, Jr.

Defendant: Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence per se and fraud

Defendant Defenses: release

Holding: Defendant

Year: 2016

There is a quasi-third party in this case, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association (CTLA). The CTLA filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the appellate court. An amicus curiae brief is a written argument with legal support saying there are issues in this case that may or may not be brought out by one of the parties that are important to people other than the named parties.

In this case, the CTLA probably wanted to influence the court in favor of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s mother went whitewater rafting with the defendant raft company. Upon arrival the plaintiff received “the usual guidance,” signed a release and headed down the river. “The next day(?)” while rafting through Seidel’s Suck Hole the raft flipped. Everyone was “fished out of the river” except the deceased who was swept into a “log jam” (a strainer).

Brown’s Canyon, including Seidel’s Suck Hole is an all-day river trip. However, a few companies run two-day trips on the river stopping mid-way and camping for the night. That is the confusion on what day, relative to the date the deceased signed the release the fatality occurred. 99.9% of the trips are just one-day trips.

Her son brought suit against the raft company for negligence per se and fraud. The trial court agreed with the defendant and granted its motion for summary judgment. The appeal to the Tenth Circuit and this decision followed.

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

The court distilled the plaintiff’s major argument down to one sentence. “…whether Colorado law permits private parties to enforce a contract like this.”

The court first looked at the requirements for a release to be valid in Colorado as set out by the Colorado Supreme Court.

…the Colorado Supreme Court has instructed courts to weigh four factors when deciding whether to give effect to agreements along these lines: “(1) the existence [or nonexistence] of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.

The court then analyzed the four different factors breaking them down into sub-groups. The first two factors the court found to be public policy questions.

…asking whether “[t]he party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity [and] . . . [a]s a result of the essential nature of the service . . . the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services.”

The last two questions of the four focus on whether the release, as a contract met the requirements to be a contact:

…whether the release was fairly obtained and clearly and unambiguously expressed. If the release satisfies both sets of questions — the more general and the more particular — it may be enforced.”

Generally, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that businesses that perform recreational services are not engaged in essential public services. Essential public services or referred to by other courts as necessities are those are you cannot live without. “So while businesses providing, say, water, electricity, or sanitary services usually may not shield themselves from claims of negligence; recreational service providers often can.”

Under Colorado law, private parties are free to assume the risks associated with recreational activities.

The court then looked at how this test applied to the plaintiff’s argument that the raft company was liable because it was negligent per se. However, the court rejected the negligence per se argument finding that creation of a statute covering a particular business does not therefore create negligence per se actions on all aspects of the statute.

And because whitewater rafting is a recreational activity, a statute could not turn a recreational activity into a necessity.

And the distinction the Jones factors draw between essential and recreational services would break down pretty quickly if the presence of some state regulation were enough to convert an otherwise obviously “recreational” service into a “practically necessary” one.

On top of that, Colorado law has always allowed parties to contract away negligence claims and there is almost no difference between the common law of negligence, and the duty required of a negligence per se claim.

Colorado law has long permitted parties to contract away negligence claims in the recreational context. And negligence per se claims often differ very little from their common law cousins: they usually just substitute a common law duty or standard of care with one prescribed by statute, and all other elements remain the same. In fact, in the case before us, it’s not even clear what duty of care CROA adds to the common law.

Nor did the plaintiff point out how the statute created a new duty that was violated by the defendant. And the court cannot create a new duty. “Indeed, courts generally will not assume that the General Assembly means to displace background common law principles absent some clear legislative expression of that intent.”

He contends that the rafting company misrepresented the nature of the trip to Ms. Apolinar. He points for support to testimony suggesting that, when Ms. Apolinar first made her reservation, she was told by company representatives and read on its website that the trip was appropriate for beginners and involved at most only class III rapids.

However, the court found the deceased was provided information on the risks of the rafting trip.

Whatever the rafting company said about the trip earlier on, when Ms. Apolinar arrived at the outfitter’s office she received a vivid description of the risks she could face. The rafting company provided — and Ms. Apolinar signed — a document titled in part “RAFTING WARNING” explaining that rafting can be “HAZARDOUS AND INVOLVES THE RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY AND/OR DEATH.”

The release also had a clause that voided all other statements or sales pitches and stated only the representations in the release were valid. “The document provided, too, that its representations and warnings about the trip superseded any prior “communications or representations…”

The court then restated that in Colorado, courts had consistently upheld releases signed by “competent and reasonably educated” people.

Colorado courts have repeatedly emphasized that individuals engaged in recreational activities are generally expected to read materials like these, and because recreational businesses do not provide “essential” services of “practical necessity” individuals are generally free to walk away if they do not wish to assume the risks described.

Nor would the court allow the claim for fraud to proceed.

To make out a claim for fraud in Colorado, a plaintiff must establish actual and reasonable reliance on a false statement; a party cannot — as a matter of law — continue to rely on a previously expressed false statement after the truth is aired. And, of course, we have just found that the rafting company’s written warnings accomplished just that — adequately airing the truth about the nature of the risks Ms. Apolinar faced.

Here again, the court could not find a false statement that was in the documents, and any false statement made prior to the signing of the release was null and void based on the superseding statement clause in the release.

The court upheld the release and the dismissal of the lawsuit by the trial court.

So Now What?

The issue with the most concern is the dispute between the American Whitewater Association whitewater difficulty rating of the section of river (International Scale of River Difficulty). For decades, the Arkansas River running through Brown’s Canyon was considered a Class III section.

Outfitters believing they could receive one of two benefits; either could receive some marketing value or lawsuit protection, started advertising the section as Class IV yet still marketed it as a beginner section.

A couple of books were published about the river and those books in an effort to protect someone (First Amendment is pretty strong though) also rated the river as a Class IV section.

Now an outfitter almost loses a decision because there is enough contention over the rating of the river that one judge thinks it should go to trial.

THINK people. Your actions today may come back to bite you somewhere in the future.

You can’t say something is a beginner run and then give it a Class IV rating to cover your legal butt. An AWA Class IV rating is advanced. Advanced is not Beginner.

The second issue is how hard the plaintiff’s and the plaintiff’s bar worked to overcome the release. Your release must be written correctly (See Think your release will survive a lawsuit? Test your Release and Find out.) If you stole your release from a competitor, cut and pasted yours from the web or was there when you bought the place you are going to lose a lawsuit.

Releases must fit the experience you are attempting to provide your guests. Your release must not be contradicted by your marketing or your website. Your release must be understood by you and your staff so you don’t void your release by your actions. Finally, your release must meet the legal requirements for a release for your industry and pursuant to your state law.

You then must make sure the information you provide to your guests before during and after their experience does no invalidate your release. Finally deal with the issues a disaster creates, just don’t hide.

Finally, the release was relied upon not only as a release, but as proof of the risks of the activity, for a superseding statement clause to eliminate fraud claims and failure to inform claims.

A well written release work.

Remember!

Marketing makes promises Risk Management must pay for.

Here the marketing was it was a beginner raft trip; however, someone died on it and there was enough controversy over whether the trip was really for beginners that this case was a close call.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

James H. “Jim” Moss

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,

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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.

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

Threads

Facebook Logo

X, Formerly Twitter

Recreation Law

Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2016-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

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, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, 10^th Circuit, Whitewater Rafting, Arkansas River, Brown’s Canyon, Strainer, Seidel’s Suck Hole, Fatality

Cobb v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563

Posted: January 23, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Nevada, Rivers and Waterways, Skydiving, Paragliding, Hang gliding | Tags: Admiralty and Maritime Law, Admiralty Law, Aramark, assumption of the risk, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, Parasailing, Release, Zephyr Cove Resort | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Admiralty law did not stop a release from barring a claim for negligence for a parasailing injury.

Cobb v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563

Jaclyn Cobb, Plaintiff, v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, Defendant.

3:11-cv-0840-LRH-WGC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

933 F. Supp. 2d 1295; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20139; 2013 AMC 2563

February 13, 2013, Decided

February 14, 2013, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended March 18, 2013.

COUNSEL: [**1] For Jaclyn Cobb, Plaintiff: Angela D. Bullentini, Charles M Kilpatrick, Kilpatrick, Johnston & Adler, Carson City, NV.

For Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, Defendant: Rachel K McLendon-Kent, Graeme A. Reid, Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell, Reno, NV; Terence Cox, Cox, Wootton, Griffin, Hansen & Poulos, LLP, San Francisco, CA.

JUDGES: LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

OPINION BY: LARRY R. HICKS

OPINION

[*1296] AMENDED ORDER

Before the court is defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC’s (“Aramark”) motion for summary judgment. Doc. #28. ¹ Plaintiff Jaclyn Cobb (“Cobb”) filed an opposition (Doc. #33) to which Aramark replied (Doc. #38). This Order amends Order #39. ²

1 Refers to the court’s docket number.

2 This Order is identical to Order #39, but with needed edits for punctuation and citation accuracy.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff Cobb is seeking recovery for a knee injury allegedly sustained while parasailing with an affiliate of defendant Aramark.

On June 15, 2010, Cobb paid to go parasailing on Lake Tahoe through an operation ran by Zephyr Cove Resort (“Zephyr”). Before going on the boat for parasailing, Cobb signed a waiver of liability entitled Acknowledgment and Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability (“Waiver”). The waiver stated in relevant part:

In consideration of my being allowed to participate in the parasailing [**2] activities operated and conducted by [Zephyr], I hereby RELEASE and WAIVE . . . any and all claims that I may have . . . against [Zephyr], and any of [its] affiliates . . . I specifically RELEASE [Zephyr], and any of [its] affiliates . . . from . . . all claims for . . . injury or death to persons caused by negligence of any one of them arising out of my participation in the parasailing activities. I AGREE NOT TO SUE . . . the aforementioned parties for any injuries or damages that I might hereby receive from my participation in the parasailing activities, whether or not such injury, loss or damage results from the aforementioned [*1297] parties’ negligence or from any other cause.

Doc. #28, Exhibit A.

After signing the waiver, Cobb boarded the parasailing vessel and, along with another family member, went parasailing in a tandem harness. At some point during the trip, adverse weather conditions, including high winds, caused the parasailing trip to be called short. As she was being reeled back into the boat Cobb struck her knee on the boat causing significant injury.

Subsequently, Cobb filed a complaint for negligence against Aramark. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, Aramark filed the present motion [**3] for summary judgment contending that Cobb expressly waived her right to sue. Doc. #28.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).

The moving party bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” [**4] Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986); see also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

To successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient to establish a genuine dispute; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. See id. at 252.

III. Discussion

A. Applicable Law

In its motion, Aramark argues that this action, and thereby [**5] the express waiver, is governed by federal admiralty law. See Doc. #28. An action falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) when: (1) the underlying tort occurred on navigable waters; and (2) the actions giving rise to the tort claim bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. Charnis v. Watersport Pro, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *5-6 [*1298] (D. Nev. 2009) (citing Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 365-66, 110 S. Ct. 2892, 111 L. Ed. 2d 292 (1990)).

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that this action falls within the court’s exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. First, the alleged injury occurred on Lake Tahoe, a navigable waterway that lies within the borders of Nevada and California. Where, as here, a body of water forms a border between two states and is capable of supporting maritime commerce, it is considered navigable for the purpose of establishing admiralty jurisdiction. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *6. Second, parasailing bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities sufficient to establish admiralty jurisdiction. See e.g., In the Matter of Skyrider, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16510, *10 (D. Haw. 1990) [**6] (“Careful and safe navigation of vessels in navigable waters have always been a fundamental admiralty concern. Navigation is an essential component in the parasailing activity.”); UFO Chuting of Hawaii Inc. v. Smith, 508 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that parasailing is an activity bearing a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities); Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *6 (“The operation of recreational boats, including pulling skiers or wakeboarders, bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”). Therefore, this action arises under the court’s admiralty jurisdiction and, as such, the court must apply substantive federal admiralty law to this action. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *6 (“With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive admiralty law.”) (citing E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S 858, 864, 106 S. Ct. 2295, 90 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1986)).

B. Assumption of the Risk

In her opposition, Cobb argues that the liability waiver is unenforceable because under federal maritime law assumption of the risk is not a valid defense. Cobb is correct that assumption of the risk is not an available defense in maritime cases involving [**7] personal injury. See e.g., De Sole v. United States, 947 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1991); Skidmore v. Grueninger, 506 F.2d 716 (5th Cir. 1975). However, this does not preclude Aramark from raising the defense of express waiver in this case. Waiver and assumption of the risk are two distinct affirmative defenses and are addressed separately under federal admiralty law. See Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *10-11. Therefore, Aramark may raise the affirmative defense of express waiver in this action.

C. Express Waiver

In its motion, Aramark argues that the signed express waiver precludes the present action. See Doc. #28. Specifically, Aramark argues that under federal maritime law, pre-accident liability waivers are enforceable and may properly dispose of this action on summary judgment.

Under federal admiralty law, owners of recreational vessels may, through written waivers, disclaim liability for their own negligence. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *11. A pre-accident waiver absolves a defendant of liability for recreational activities on navigable waters if the exculpatory clause is (1) clear and unambiguous; (2) is not inconsistent with public policy; and (3) is not an adhesion contract. [**8] Id. at 13.

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that the signed waiver of liability is [*1299] enforceable. First, Cobb concedes that she knowingly and voluntarily signed the liability waiver. See Doc. #33. Second, the court finds that the express waiver in this action is clear and unambiguous as it contains specific language releasing Zephyr and its affiliates, including defendant Aramark, for injuries sustained in carrying out the parasailing activities as a result of Zephyr’s negligence.

A waiver is clear and unambiguous if it specifically bars the plaintiff’s negligence claim and explicitly exonerates all defendants in the lawsuit. See Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022. Here, the waiver specifically bars plaintiff from suing for her injuries. Doc. #28, Exhibit A (“I AGREE NOT TO SUE . . . the aforementioned parties for any injuries or damages that I might hereby receive from my participation in the parasailing activities, whether or not such injury, loss or damage results from the aforementioned parties’ negligence or from any other cause.”). Further, the very injuries Cobb is suing for are specifically precluded by the waiver including “drowning, [**9] sprained or broken bones.” Doc. #28, Exhibit A. Therefore, the court finds that the express waiver is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to cover Cobb’s injuries sustained while parasailing.

Third, the underlying express waiver is not inconsistent with public policy because waivers of liability on navigable waters do not contravene federal public policy. Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *13-14; In re Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123786, *21 (C.D. Utah 2012) (holding that maritime exculpatory clauses are enforceable when a party clearly absolves itself from liability for its own negligence).

Finally, the court finds that the express waiver signed by Cobb is not an adhesion contract because it concerns a voluntary recreational activity. Under federal admiralty law, liability waivers for recreational sporting activities like parasailing are not contracts of adhesion because they are not essential services. See e.g., Charnis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76022, *14-15; In re Aramark, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123789, *15. Therefore, the court finds that the underlying pre-accident waiver is valid and enforceable and absolves defendant Aramark of any liability [**10] arising from the recreational parasailing activity. Accordingly, the court shall grant Aramark’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #28) is GRANTED. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC and against plaintiff Jaclyn Cobb.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2013.

/s/ Larry R. Hicks

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

Espinoza, Jr., v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39

Posted: January 21, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Legal Case, Paddlesports, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: 10th Circuit, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Arkansas River, Brown’s Canyon, fatality, Seidel’s Suck Hole, Strainer, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Whitewater Rafting | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Colorado law concerning releases in a whitewater rafting fatality.

Espinoza, Jr., v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39

Jesus Espinoza, Jr., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, Defendant – Appellee. Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae.

No. 14-1444

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 39

January 5, 2016, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01421-MSK-BNB).

Espinoza v. Ark. Valley Adventures, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136102 (D. Colo., Sept. 26, 2014)

CASE SUMMARY:

OVERVIEW: HOLDINGS: [1]-The deceased’s son unsuccessfully argued that, while his mother signed a release, it should be still be held to violate state public policy as it ran afoul of the first two Jones factors because his is claim was one for negligence per se rather than common law negligence; [2]-The argument mistook the nature of the inquiry called for by the first two Jones factors; [3]-His argument suggested a firmer analytical line could be drawn between claims of negligence and negligence per se than the circumstances in the case would fairly allow; [4]-His interpretation of the Colorado River Outfitters Act would require the court to read into that statute a good deal more than it said; [5]-The disclosure and release sufficed to satisfy the third and fourth Jones factors.

OUTCOME: Judgment affirmed.

CORE TERMS: rafting, recreational, common law, trip, claim of negligence, warning, negligence per se, public policy, equine, river, common law, private parties, recreational activities, misdemeanor, outfitter’s, provider, Colo Law, civil liability, purporting, raft, ski, matter of law, negligence claims, matter of practical necessity, public services, great importance, mean to suggest, horseback riding, standard of care, civil claims

COUNSEL: William J. Hansen of McDermott & McDermott, LLP, Denver, CO (George E. McLaughlin of Warshauer McLaughlin Law Group, P.C., Denver, CO, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alan Epstein (Ryan L. Winter and Conor P. Boyle, with him on the brief), of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Russell R. Hatten and Evan P. Banker of Chalat Hatten Koupal & Banker PC, Denver, CO, on the brief for amicus curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.

JUDGES: Before KELLY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: GORSUCH

OPINION

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

This case arises from a summer rafting trip gone tragically wrong. It began when Sue Ann Apolinar hired a guide for a family adventure in the Colorado Rockies: an overnight rafting and camping excursion on a popular stretch of the Arkansas River running through Brown’s Canyon. After she arrived at the outfitter’s office, Ms. Apolinar and the other rafters received the usual guidance, made the usual preparations, and signed the usual release before heading down river. The next day, while maneuvering around [*2] a rapid known locally as Seidel’s Suck Hole, the raft capsized. Everyone else was fished out of the water soon enough. But in a heartbreaking turn of events, the current swept Ms. Apolinar into a logjam where, despite repeated efforts to save her, she drowned. Eventually, Ms. Apolinar’s son, Jesus Espinoza, Jr., brought a lawsuit against the rafting company alleging negligence per se and fraud (and other claims no longer in dispute). In reply, the company sought summary judgment, arguing that the release Ms. Apolinar signed shielded it from liability. With this the district court agreed and proceeded to enter judgment for the company. It’s the propriety of this ruling that we’re asked to assess in this appeal.

No one before us doubts that Ms. Apolinar signed a release. Or that the release purported to absolve the rafting company from any claim of negligence. The only question in this appeal is whether Colorado law permits private parties to enforce a contract like this. [HN1] Under Colorado common law, it’s long settled that courts will not give effect to contracts purporting to release claims for intentional, knowing, or reckless misconduct. See, e.g., Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc., 223 P.3d 724, 726 (Colo. 2010). But claims of negligence are a different [*3] matter. Colorado common law does not categorically prohibit the enforcement of contracts seeking to release claims of negligence. Instead, and at the most general level, the Colorado Supreme Court has instructed courts to weigh four factors when deciding whether to give effect to agreements along these lines: “(1) the existence [or nonexistence] of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.” Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981).

Even more specifically, [HN2] the Colorado Supreme Court has explained that the first two Jones factors focus on public policy questions — asking whether “[t]he party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity [and] . . . [a]s a result of the essential nature of the service . . . the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services.” Id. (quoting Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal. 2d 92, 32 Cal. Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 444 (Cal. 1963)). Meanwhile, the latter two factors focus on more party- and contract-specific questions — asking whether the release was fairly [*4] obtained and clearly and unambiguously expressed. Id. at 378. If the release satisfies both sets of questions — the more general and the more particular — it may be enforced. (Provided, of course, that it is otherwise a valid contract, involving, for example, mutual assent and consideration, matters not in dispute here).

[HN3] When it comes to the first two Jones factors, the Colorado Supreme Court has offered even more specific guidance yet. Though some businesses perform essential public services and owe special duties to the public, the court has held that “businesses engaged in recreational activities” generally do not. Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465, 467 (Colo. 2004); see also Boles, 223 P.3d at 726 (“More than a quarter century ago, this court rejected the assertion that any agreement purporting to shield a party from liability for its own tortious conduct” in the provision of recreational services “would violate . . . public policy . . . .”). So while businesses providing, say, water, electricity, or sanitary services usually may not shield themselves from claims of negligence, recreational service providers often can. Though, of course, they must still face and satisfy the latter two case-specific Jones factors.

This relatively permissive public policy toward [*5] recreational releases may not be unique to Colorado common law but it does seem to be one of its distinguishing features. We don’t doubt other states may rationally choose to pursue different lines when it comes to recreational releases: certainly the parties before us cite an array of cases from other jurisdictions taking an array of views. But [HN4] in our federal system, states are usually permitted (and encouraged) to pursue their own paths on policy matters like these. And it’s clear enough that Colorado allows private parties to assume some of the risks associated with their recreational pursuits. It’s a policy choice that, no doubt, means some losses go uncompensated but one that also promotes the output and diversity of recreational services consumers may enjoy. Of course, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado General Assembly may change their judgment on this score at any time. And maybe someday they will prefer a policy that shifts the burden of loss to the service provider, ensuring compensation in cases like this even if also impairing to some degree individual choice and output. But that decision is their decision to make, not ours, and their current policy is clear. Indeed, [*6] following the Colorado Supreme Court’s guidance in this area, this court and many Colorado courts have upheld many releases in many recreational activities over many years. Only some examples of which we include in the margin.¹

1 See, e.g., Lahey v. Covington, 964 F. Supp. 1440, 1444-46 (D. Colo. 1996) (whitewater rafting), aff’d sub nom. Lahey v. Twin Lakes Expeditions, Inc., 113 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 1997); Forman v. Brown, 944 P.2d 559, 563-64 (Colo. App. 1996) (same); Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Co., No. 08-cv-00052-MSK-MJW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093, at *3-5 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2009) (skiing), aff’d, 363 F. App’x 547 (10th Cir. 2010); Fullick v. Breckenridge Ski Corp., No. 90-1377, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 9988, 1992 WL 95421, at *3 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 1992) (same); Potter v. Nat’l. Handicapped Sports, 849 F. Supp. 1407, 1409-11 (D. Colo. 1994) (same); Bauer v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 788 F. Supp. 472, 474-75 (D. Colo. 1992) (same); Mincin v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 308 F.3d 1105, 1113 (10th Cir. 2002) (mountain biking); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 468-70 (horseback riding); B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 137-38 (Colo. 1998) (same); see also William R. Rapson & Stephen A. Bain, Recreational Waivers in Colorado: Playing at Your Own Risk, 32 Colo. Law. 77, 77 (2003) (noting that “Colorado law generally supports waivers of liability in connection with recreational activities”); James H. Chalat, Colorado Ski Law, 27 Colo. Law. 5, 14 (1998) (noting that “courts generally hold [ski racing] waivers to be enforceable”); Jordan Lipp, Horse Law — A Look at the Equine Statute and Liability Law, 41 Colo. Law. 95, 99 (2012) (“Releases have been upheld in a number of horseback riding cases.”).

Still, Mr. Espinoza submits, his case is categorically different. Yes, Ms. Apolinar signed a document purporting to release the rafting company from all claims of negligence. Yes, Colorado public policy generally permits the release of claims of negligence in recreational pursuits like the one here. But, Mr. Espinoza argues, the release Ms. Apolinar signed should still be held to violate state public policy — it should [*7] still be held to run afoul of the first two Jones factors — because his claim is one for negligence per se rather than common law negligence. He observes that the Colorado River Outfitters Act (CROA) makes it a misdemeanor for rafting companies to operate any raft in a “careless or imprudent manner.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-32-107(2)(b). And from this, he reasons, negligence by rafting companies has become a matter of public concern and a public service within the meaning of the first two Jones factors.

We find ourselves unable to agree for a number of related reasons.

First, we think this argument mistakes the nature of the inquiry called for by the first two Jones factors. [HN5] By their terms, those factors don’t ask whether the activity in question is the subject of some sort of state regulation. Instead, they ask whether the service provided is of “great importance to the public,” a matter of “practical necessity” as opposed to (among other things) a “recreational” one. 623 P.2d at 376-77. And the distinction the Jones factors draw between essential and recreational services would break down pretty quickly if the presence of some state regulation were enough to convert an otherwise obviously “recreational” service into a “practically necessary” [*8] one. After all, state law imposes various rules and regulations on service providers in most every field these days — including on service providers who operate in a variety of clearly recreational fields. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-14-116 (snowmobiling); id. § 33-44-104(2) (skiing); id. § 13-21-119(4)(b)(I) (equine activities).

Second, Mr. Espinoza’s argument suggests a firmer analytical line can be drawn between claims of negligence and negligence per se than we think the circumstances here will fairly allow. As we’ve seen, [HN6] Colorado law has long permitted parties to contract away negligence claims in the recreational context. And negligence per se claims often differ very little from their common law cousins: they usually just substitute a common law duty or standard of care with one prescribed by statute and all other elements remain the same. See Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565, 573 (Colo. 2008). In fact, in the case before us it’s not even clear what duty of care CROA adds to the common law. Mr. Espinoza says the rafting company violated the statutory duty to avoid operating a raft in a “careless or imprudent manner.” Mr. Espinoza points as well to implementing regulations that suggest a company should offer things like a “basic orientation” for rafters and help when accidents occur. [*9] But Mr. Espinoza does not suggest how these provisions create any distinctly new duty of care. Indeed, they appear to be more or less coextensive with [HN7] the preexisting common law standard of care, which requires parties to act with “reasonable care . . . i.e., that which a person of common prudence would use under the circumstances.” Christensen v. Hoover, 643 P.2d 525, 529 (Colo. 1982). And given this it seems hard to see a rational basis on which the law might treat such similar (identical?) claims so differently based merely on how they are pleaded, rewarding the crafty but penalizing the pedestrian pleader.²

2 Though we do not rely on the fact in our analysis above, Colorado authorities did conduct an investigation of the accident in this case pursuant to CROA and ultimately decided not to pursue any sanction.

Third, Mr. Espinoza’s interpretation of CROA would require us to read into that statute a good deal more than it says. [HN8] CROA imposes criminal misdemeanor sanctions for violating the duties it prescribes. It does not speak, one way or the other, to the question of civil liability — let alone suggest that private parties are forbidden from contractually releasing potential negligence claims. Neither [HN9] is it obviously irrational that the [*10] General Assembly might choose to pass legislation about public (criminal) liability but leave private (civil) liability to preexisting common law principles. Indeed, courts generally will not assume that the General Assembly means to displace background common law principles absent some clear legislative expression of that intent. See Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 387 (Colo. 2005). The General Assembly, too, has shown that — when it wishes — it well knows how to displace background common law norms and preclude the release of civil claims. See, e.g., Stanley v. Creighton Co., 911 P.2d 705, 707-09 (Colo. App. 1996). Given all this, we do not think it our place to adorn the General Assembly’s handiwork with revisions to the common law that it easily could have but declined to undertake for itself.

Finally, we find it noteworthy that Colorado courts faced with similar challenges seem to have resolved them much as we resolve this one today. For example, the General Assembly has adopted a statute holding that “equine professional[s]” may not be held civilly liable for “the inherent risks of equine activities.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-119(3). But that statute goes on to state that the immunity it provides does not extinguish civil liability in cases where the equine professional supplied equipment or tack it should have known was faulty or [*11] failed to make reasonable efforts to determine the ability of the rider before the excursion began. Id. § 13-21-119(4)(b)(I). And despite the General Assembly’s express solicitude toward these latter classes of claims, the Colorado Supreme Court has allowed private parties to contract away claims of negligence on both fronts. B & B Livery, 960 P.2d at 135, 137-38. Maybe even more pointedly still, [HN10] since the enactment of CROA and its misdemeanor criminal penalties, various Colorado courts have enforced releases of civil negligence claims obtained by whitewater rafting companies. See, e.g., Lahey, 964 F. Supp. at 1444-46; Forman, 944 P.2d at 563-64. This court has upheld, too, a release a snowboarder gave to a ski area absolving its employees of negligence even when the area’s employee allegedly operated a snowmobile in a negligent manner and a state statute made that very behavior a misdemeanor. See Robinette, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093, at *3-5.

In saying this much, we take care to emphasize what we do not mean to say. We do not mean to suggest that some future statute could not — or even that some other current statute might not — preclude the enforcement of releases like the one here. Neither do we mean to suggest that the Colorado Supreme Court could not alter its common law policy with respect to recreational releases. In particular, we [*12] do not pass on the question whether the General Assembly’s enactment of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-101 to 6-1-1001, might preclude the enforcement of recreational releases when the plaintiff pleads a valid claim under that statute. See Rapson & Bain, supra, at 77-78 (noting that while Colorado law “generally supports” recreational waivers, it’s an open question whether a statutory CCPA claim can be waived). In this case, we merely hold that the CROA provisions cited to us do not satisfy and do not overrule the first two factors of the common law Jones test.

Of course, that takes us only half way. Having decided that the release survives Jones‘s public-policy factors, we must still consider its case-specific factors. [HN11] The third Jones factor requires us to ask whether “the circumstances and the nature of the service involved indicate that the contract was fairly entered into.” Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467. Relatedly, the fourth Jones factor addresses the terms of the contract itself, inviting us to “examine[] the actual language of the [release] for legal jargon, length and complication” and any other evidence that a party might not “recognize the full extent of the release provisions.” Id. The district court held that the release before us [*13] satisfied both of these conditions — that it was fairly entered into and clear in its terms. And in the end we find we agree with its assessment on this score too.

Mr. Espinoza trains most of his attention on the third factor. He contends that the rafting company misrepresented the nature of the trip to Ms. Apolinar. He points for support to testimony suggesting that, when Ms. Apolinar first made her reservation, she was told by company representatives and read on its website that the trip was appropriate for beginners and involved at most only class III rapids. He points as well to his expert witness who testified that Seidel’s Suck Hole is really a class IV rapid, not a class III rapid, according to the “International Scale of River Difficulty.”³ But at the same time Mr. Espinoza must acknowledge that another of his witnesses — a state ranger charged with overseeing the stretch of river in question — testified that he believes the trip is indeed appropriate for families with children. So the facts Mr. Espinoza himself offers are mixed at best on whether the rafting company actually ever made a material misstatement about the nature of the trip.⁴

3 That scale describes class III rapids [*14] as requiring (among other things) “[c]omplex maneuvers in fast current and good boat control in tight passages or around ledges” and notes that “[i]njuries while swimming are rare.” The scale describes class IV rapids as involving “[i]ntense, powerful but predictable rapids requiring precise boat handling in turbulent water. . . . [and] fast maneuvers under pressure” and notes that the “[r]isk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high.”

4 On appeal, Mr. Espinoza offers another theory why the circumstances surrounding the release were unfair. He alleges that the rafting company refused to reschedule the trip and might have refused to refund Ms. Apolinar’s deposit if she declined to sign the release. And this, he says, imposed unfair pressure on her to sign the release. But Mr. Espinoza’s argument along these lines before the district court consisted of only two sentences so it’s not surprising or improper that the district court declined to pass upon it. Neither will we pass on this argument for the first time now, leaving its development instead to future cases where it might prove relevant and more fully presented. See generally Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998); Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2011).

Still, even if we might assume (without deciding) that the facts here are enough to create [*15] a material dispute of fact regarding whether the rafting company initially misrepresented the nature of the trip, it’s still hard to see how we could say the release was unfairly secured or unclear in its terms — at least within the meaning Colorado law gives to the third and fourth Jones factors. That’s because of what happened next. Whatever the rafting company said about the trip earlier on, when Ms. Apolinar arrived at the outfitter’s office she received a vivid description of the risks she could face. The rafting company provided — and Ms. Apolinar signed — a document titled in part “RAFTING WARNING” explaining that rafting can be “HAZARDOUS AND INVOLVES THE RISK OF PHYSICAL INJURY AND/OR DEATH.” The document proceeded to offer a detailed picture of the sorts of problems that could be (and sadly were) encountered: “cold water immersion, hidden underwater obstacles, trees or other above water obstacles, . . . changing and unpredictable currents, drowning, exposure, swimming, overturning, . . . entrapment of feet or other body parts under rocks or other objects . . . .” It added that “THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGE[S] AND UNDERSTAND[S] THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE RISKS LISTED ABOVE IS NOT COMPLETE AND THAT PARTICIPATING [*16] IN THE ACTIVITY MAY BE DANGEROUS AND MAY INCLUDE OTHER RISKS.” The document provided, too, that its representations and warnings about the trip superseded any prior “communications or representations” on these subjects. Neither can there be any question that the document clearly communicated that a signature would release civil claims for liability. At the outset it directed Ms. Apolinar to “PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING. THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY & WAIVER OF LEGAL RIGHTS.” And later it provided that “THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY RELEASE[S], FOREVER DISCHARGE[S], AND AGREE[S] NOT TO SUE . . . with respect to any and all claims and causes of action . . . which could be asserted [by] the Undersigned in connection with . . . the Activity.”

This disclosure and release suffices to satisfy the third and fourth Jones factors. To be sure, we can imagine other states might choose to hold circumstances and printed forms like these insufficiently fair or clear. But [HN12] Colorado courts have repeatedly emphasized that individuals engaged in recreational activities are generally expected to read materials like these, and because recreational businesses do not provide “essential” services of “practical [*17] necessity” individuals are generally free to walk away if they do not wish to assume the risks described. See, e.g., Jones, 623 P.2d at 377-78. Particularly where, as here, the person confronted with the release is competent and reasonably educated. Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 469. Indeed, Colorado courts and this court have consistently found releases provided at the outset of a recreational activity and containing language very much like the one now before us sufficient as a matter of law to supply a fair and full warning within the meaning of the latter two Jones factors. See, e.g., Jones, 623 P.2d at 377-78; Brooks v. Timberline Tours, Inc., 127 F.3d 1273, 1274-76 (10th Cir. 1997); Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 782, 785 (Colo. 1989); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 468-69.

As the district court recognized, too, this resolution of the third and fourth Jones factors also resolves Mr. Espinoza’s fraud claim. [HN13] To make out a claim for fraud in Colorado, a plaintiff must establish actual and reasonable reliance on a false statement; a party cannot — as a matter of law — continue to rely on a previously expressed false statement after the truth is aired. And, of course, we have just found that the rafting company’s written warnings accomplished just that — adequately airing the truth about the nature of the risks Ms. Apolinar faced. Neither do we see how we might arrive at a different result just because this claim is denominated [*18] in fraud rather than negligence. The inquiries prescribed for us by law are virtually indistinguishable (was the truth fairly and fully disclosed?), the facts are the same (the release’s warnings), and it follows that the result should be the same. See Vinton v. Virzi, 269 P.3d 1242, 1247, 2012 CO 10, 2012 CO 10 (Colo. 2012) (holding if a party “has access to information” that “would have led to the true facts, that party has no right to rely on a [prior] false representation”); Morrison v. Goodspeed, 100 Colo. 470, 68 P.2d 458, 462 (Colo. 1937) (same).

Enduring the death of a close family member in tragic circumstances is among life’s bitterest challenges. The loss Ms. Apolinar’s family has suffered is beyond words. But our charge is to follow the law. And in this case the law is just as the district court described it, permitting the enforcement of the release in this case and requiring the entry of summary judgment.

Affirmed.⁵

5 We decline Mr. Espinoza’s request for certification of his negligence per se claim to the Colorado Supreme Court for decision. Not only is the request fleetingly made (three sentences in the middle of a brief arguing state law unambiguously supports his position), [HN14] we generally do not trouble state supreme courts where, as here, existing state law provides “a reasonably clear and principled course” [*19] we may follow to resolve the case at hand. Pino v. United States, 507 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2007).

HARTZ, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting:

I fully join all the opinion except the discussion of the third Jones factor. I respectfully dissent, however, on that factor. In my view, a jury must resolve whether Ms. Apolinar was misled about the danger of the rapids. Although the warning provided to her at the outfitter’s office listed all the potential risks that she would face, the description of the rapids is what would convey the probability of those risks. It is not enough to list a risk if the customer has been misled about its probability.

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

Colorado River Outfitters Act

Posted: January 21, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Paddlesports | Tags: Colorado, Colorado River Outfitters Act, CROA, Rafting, River Outfitters, Whitewater Rafting | Leave a comment

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

TITLE 33. PARKS AND WILDLIFE

OUTDOOR RECREATION

ARTICLE 32. RIVER OUTFITTERS

33-32-101. Legislative declaration.. 1

33-32-102. Definitions. 2

33-32-103. Powers and duties of the commission – rules. 3

33-32-103.5. Variances. 3

33-32-104. License required – fee. 3

33-32-105. Minimum qualifications and conditions for a river outfitter’s license. 4

33-32-105.5. Minimum qualifications of guides, trip leaders, and guide instructors. 4

33-32-106. Equipment required – employees required to meet minimum qualifications. 5

33-32-107. River outfitters – prohibited operations – penalties. 5

33-32-108. Enforcement 6

33-32-109. Denial, suspension, or revocation of license – disciplinary actions. 8

33-32-110. Advisory committee – repeal 9

33-32-111. Fees – river outfitters cash fund. 9

33-32-112. Repeal of article. 9

C.R.S. 33-32-101 (2015)

33-32-101. Legislative declaration

The general assembly declares that it is the policy of this state to promote and encourage residents and nonresidents alike to participate in the enjoyment and use of the rivers of this state and, to that end, in the exercise of the police powers of this state for the purpose of safeguarding the health, safety, welfare, and freedom from injury or danger of such residents and nonresidents, to license and regulate those persons who provide river-running services in the nature of equipment or personal services to such residents and nonresidents for the purpose of floating on rivers in this state unless the provider of such river-running services is providing such river-running services exclusively for family or friends. It is not the intent of the general assembly to interfere in any way with private land owner rights along rivers or to prevent the owners of whitewater equipment from using said equipment to accommodate friends when no consideration is involved; nor is it the intent of the general assembly to interfere in any way with the general public’s ability to enjoy the recreational value of state rivers when the services of river outfitters are not utilized or to interfere with the right of the United States to manage public lands and waters under its control. The general assembly recognizes that river outfitters, as an established business on rivers flowing within and without this state, make a significant contribution to the economy of this state and that the number of residents and nonresidents who are participating in river-running is steadily increasing.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 928, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 1169, § 1, effective October 1.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1226, § 1, effective, July 1.

33-32-102. Definitions

As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Advertise” or “advertisement” means any message in any printed materials or electronic media used in the marketing and messaging of river outfitter operations.

(1.4) and (2) Repealed.

(3) “Guide” means any individual, including but not limited to subcontractors, employed for compensation by any river outfitter for the purpose of operating vessels.

(4) “Guide instructor” means any qualified guide whose job responsibilities include the training of guides.

(5) “Person” means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, nonprofit corporation or organization as defined in section 13-21-115.5 (3), C.R.S., limited liability company, firm, association, or other legal entity either located within or outside of this state.

(5.5) (a) “Regulated trip” means any river trip for which river-running services are provided which has been the subject of an advertisement or for which a fee has been charged regardless of whether such fee is:

(I) Charged exclusively for the river trip or as part of a packaged trip, recreational excursion, or camp; or

(II) Calculated to monetarily profit the river outfitter or is calculated merely to offset some or all of the actual costs of the river trip.

(b) “Regulated trip” does not include a trip in which a person is providing river-running services exclusively for family or friends as part of a social gathering of such family or friends.

(6) “River outfitter” means any person advertising to provide or providing river-running services in the nature of facilities, guide services, or transportation for the purpose of river-running; except that “river outfitter” does not include any person whose only service is providing motor vehicles, vessels, and other equipment for rent, any person whose only service is providing instruction in canoeing or kayaking skills, or any person who is providing river-running services exclusively for family or friends.

(7) “Trip leader” means any guide whose job responsibilities include being placed in charge of a river trip.

(8) “Vessel” means every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation of persons and property on the water, other than single-chambered air-inflated devices or seaplanes.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 929, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: (3) amended, (4) and (5) R&RE, and (6) to (8) added, pp. 1169, 1170, § § 2, 3, effective October 1.L. 94: (1), (5), and (6) amended and (1.4) and (5.5) added, p. 1227, § 2, effective July 1.L. 2010: (1) amended, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1641, § 4, effective August 11.L. 2012: (1.4) and (2) repealed, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1229, § 70, effective June 4.

33-32-103. Powers and duties of the commission – rules

The commission shall promulgate rules to govern the licensing of river outfitters, to regulate river outfitters, guides, trip leaders, and guide instructors, to ensure the safety of associated river-running activities, to establish guidelines to enable a river outfitter, guide, or trip leader to make a determination that the condition of the river constitutes a hazard to the life and safety of certain persons, and to carry out the purposes of this article. The commission may promulgate rules specifically outlining the procedures to be followed by the commission and by the enforcement section of the division in the event of a death or serious injury during a regulated trip. The commission shall e-mail a notice of every proposed rule to each licensee. The commission shall adopt rules regarding notification to outfitters of certain division personnel changes within ten days of the change and safety training standards and customer and outfitter interaction training standards for division rangers who monitor regulated trips.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 929, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 1170, § 4, effective October 1.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1228, § 3, effective July 1.L. 2010: Entire section amended, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1641, § 5, effective August 11.L. 2012: Entire section amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1229, § 71, effective June 4.

33-32-103.5. Variances

The director may grant variances from rules adopted by the commission pursuant to section 33-32-103 to any river outfitter on a case-by-case basis if the director determines that the health, safety, and welfare of the general public will not be endangered by the issuance of such variance.

HISTORY: Source: L. 94: Entire section added, p. 1228, § 4, effective July 1.L. 2012: Entire section amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1229, § 72, effective June 4.

33-32-104. License required – fee

(1) No person shall act in the capacity of a paid river outfitter or advertise or represent himself or herself as a river outfitter in this state without first obtaining a river outfitter’s license in accordance with rules prescribed by the commission.

(2) An applicant for a river outfitter’s license shall meet the minimum qualifications pursuant to section 33-32-105 and shall apply on a form prescribed by the commission. All applicants shall pay a nonrefundable license fee in an amount determined by the commission, which fee shall be adequate to cover the expenses incurred for inspections, licensing, and enforcement required by this article, and shall renew such license pursuant to a schedule adopted by the commission upon payment of the fee. License terms shall not exceed three years. The commission may offer licenses that differ in the length of their terms and may stagger the length of license terms so that approximately equal numbers of licensees renew their licenses each year.

(3) Every river outfitter’s license shall, at all times, be conspicuously placed on the premises set forth in the license.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 929, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: (3) added, p. 1170, § 5, effective October 1.L. 2010: (1) and (2) amended, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1641, § 6, effective August 11.L. 2012: (1) and (2) amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1230, § 73, effective June 4.

33-32-105. Minimum qualifications and conditions for a river outfitter’s license

(1) A river outfitter’s license may be granted to any river outfitter, either within or without this state, meeting the following minimum qualifications and conditions:

(a) The river outfitter, if a corporation, shall be incorporated pursuant to the laws of this state or duly qualified to do business in this state.

(b) The river outfitter shall submit to the commission evidence of liability insurance in the minimum amount of three hundred thousand dollars’ combined single limit for property damage and bodily injury.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 929, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: Entire section R&RE, p. 1170, § 6, effective October 1.L. 2012: (1)(b) and (1)(c) amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1230, § 74, effective June 4.

33-32-105.5. Minimum qualifications of guides, trip leaders, and guide instructors

(1) Individuals providing the services of guides, trip leaders, or guide instructors shall have the following minimum qualifications and such additional qualifications as the commission may establish by rule:

(a) Guides shall be eighteen years of age or older, possess a valid standard first-aid card, be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and have fifty hours of training on the river as a guide from a qualified guide instructor.

(b) Trip leaders shall be eighteen years of age or older, possess a valid standard first-aid card, be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and have logged at least five hundred river miles, of which at least two hundred fifty river miles shall have been logged while acting as a qualified guide and no more than two hundred fifty river miles shall have been logged while acting as a guide on nonregulated trips. Miles from nonregulated trips shall be documented and signed by the trip leader under penalty of perjury, and the licensee shall retain the documents during the term of the trip leader’s employment.

(c) Guide instructors shall be eighteen years of age or older, possess a valid standard first-aid card, be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and have logged at least fifteen hundred river miles, of which at least seven hundred fifty river miles shall have been logged while acting as a qualified guide.

(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2010, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1642, § 7, effective August 11, 2010.)

HISTORY: Source: L. 88: Entire section added, p. 1171, § 7, effective October 1.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1228, § 5, effective July 1.L. 2010: Entire section amended, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1642, § 7, effective August 11.L. 2012: IP(1) amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1230, § 75, effective June 4.

33-32-106. Equipment required – employees required to meet minimum qualifications

(1) All licensed river outfitters shall provide the river-outfitting equipment required by rules promulgated by the commission, and said equipment shall be in a serviceable condition for its operation as required by the rules promulgated by the commission.

(2) All river outfitters who employ or contract with guides, trip leaders, or guide instructors shall employ or contract only with such individuals who meet the qualifications provided in section 33-32-105.5 (1) and provided by those rules promulgated by the commission.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 930, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 1171, § 8, effective October 1.L. 2012: Entire section amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1230, § 76, effective June 4.

33-32-107. River outfitters – prohibited operations – penalties

(1) (a) No river outfitter shall operate a river-outfitting business without a valid license as prescribed by section 33-32-104 or without insurance as provided in section 33-32-105 (1) (b). Any river outfitter that violates this paragraph (a):

(I) Commits a class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.;

(II) Is liable for an administrative penalty of five times the annual licensing fee established pursuant to section 33-32-104 (2).

(b) If the river outfitter is a corporation, violation of this subsection (1) shall result in the officers of said corporation jointly and severally committing a class 2 misdemeanor, and said officers shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

(2) It is unlawful for any river outfitter, guide, trip leader, or guide instructor to:

(a) Violate the safety equipment provisions of section 33-13-106. Any person who violates the provisions of this paragraph (a) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars; except that any person who fails to have one personal flotation device for each person on board as required by section 33-13-106 (3) (a) commits a class 3 misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

(b) Operate a vessel in a careless or imprudent manner without due regard for river conditions or other attending circumstances, or in such a manner as to endanger any person, property, or wildlife. Any person who violates the provisions of this paragraph (b) is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

(c) Operate a vessel with wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property. Any person who violates the provisions of this paragraph (c) is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

(3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 94, p. 1229, § 6, effective July 1, 1994.)

(4) (a) No river outfitter or guide shall operate or maintain physical control of or allow any other person to operate or maintain physical control of a vessel on a regulated trip if such river outfitter, guide, or person is under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance or any combination thereof, as specified in section 33-13-108.1.

(b) Any person who violates this subsection (4) commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 930, § 1, effective May 9; (2)(a) amended, p. 1125, § 46, effective June 7.L. 88: (1), IP(2), and (3) amended, p. 1171, § 9, effective October 1.L. 94: (3) amended and (4) added, p. 1229, § 6, effective July 1.L. 97: (2)(a) amended, p. 1607, § 7, effective June 4.L. 2002: (1), (2), and (4)(b) amended, p. 1545, § 299, effective October 1.L. 2010: (1) amended, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1642, § 8, effective August 11.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsections (1), (2), and (4)(b), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For comment, “The Public Trust Doctrine — A Tool for Expanding Recreational Rafting Rights in Colorado”, see 57 U. Colo. L. Rev. 625 (1986).

33-32-108. Enforcement

(1) (a) Every peace officer, as defined in this section, has the authority to enforce the provisions of this article and in the exercise of such authority is authorized to stop and board any vessel.

(b) As used in this section, “peace officer” means any division of parks and wildlife officer or any sheriff or city and county law enforcement officer certified by the peace officers standards and training board pursuant to part 3 of article 31 of title 24, C.R.S.

(2) (a) Any actual expenses incurred by a governmental entity for search and rescue efforts stemming from any river running activity conducted for consideration by a river outfitter pursuant to the provisions of this article shall be reimbursed by said river outfitter. Such expenses shall include but not be limited to hours worked, fuel, a reasonable fee for use of equipment, and equipment repair or replacement costs, if any.

(b) Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), any expenses incurred by governmental entities stemming from search and rescue efforts that are reimbursed by a river outfitter shall be distributed as follows:

(I) If to local law enforcement agencies, on a pro rata basis in proportion to the amount of assistance rendered thereby;

(II) If to the division of parks and wildlife, one-half of the moneys shall be credited to the parks and outdoor recreation cash fund, created in section 33-10-111, and one-half shall be credited to the wildlife cash fund, created in section 33-1-112.

(III) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2011, (SB 11-208), ch. 293, p. 1393, § 24, effective July 1, 2011.)

(3) (a) (I) If an authorized representative of the division conducts an inspection or investigation and determines that any provision of this article or any regulation promulgated pursuant to this article has been violated and that such violation creates or may create an emergency condition which may have a significant adverse effect on the health, safety, or welfare of any person, then such authorized representative shall immediately issue an order to the violating party to cease and desist the violating activity.

(II) Any order issued pursuant to this paragraph (a) shall set forth:

(A) The section of this article or the regulation promulgated pursuant to this article allegedly violated;

(B) The factual basis for the allegation of a violation; and

(III) (A) The recipient of any cease and desist order issued pursuant to this paragraph (a) may request a hearing to determine whether a violation of this article or of any regulation promulgated pursuant to this article has actually occurred if such request is made in writing within thirty days after the date of the service of the cease and desist order.

(B) Any hearing conducted pursuant to this subparagraph (III) shall be in accordance with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S.

(b) If a person fails to comply with a cease and desist order issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (3), the director may request the attorney general or the district attorney for the judicial district in which the alleged violation occurred to bring an action for a temporary restraining order and for injunctive relief to enforce such cease and desist order.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 930, § 1, effective May 9.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1229, § 7, effective July 1.L. 2011: (1)(b), IP(2)(b), (2)(b)(II), and (2)(b)(III) amended, (SB 11-208), ch. 293, p. 1393, § 24, effective July 1.L. 2012: (1)(b) amended, (HB 12-1283), ch. 240, p. 1136, § 54, effective July 1.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in the 2012 act amending subsection (1)(b), see section 1 of chapter 240, Session Laws of Colorado 2012.

33-32-109. Denial, suspension, or revocation of license – disciplinary actions

(1) The commission may deny, suspend, or revoke a river outfitter license, place a licensed river outfitter on probation, or issue a letter of admonition to a licensed river outfitter if the applicant or holder:

(a) Violates section 33-32-105 or 33-32-106 or uses fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in applying for or attempting to apply for licensure;

(b) Unlawfully acts as a river outfitter if such violation results in a conviction;

(d) Violates any provision of law regulating the practice of river outfitting in another jurisdiction if such violation resulted in disciplinary action against the applicant or holder. Evidence of such disciplinary action shall be prima facie evidence for the possible denial of a license or other disciplinary action in this state if the violation resulting in the disciplinary action in such other jurisdiction would be grounds for disciplinary action in this state.

(e) Violates section 18-4-503 or 18-4-504, C.R.S., resulting in two or more second or third degree criminal trespass convictions within any three- to five-year period while acting as a river outfitter or guide; except that the commission shall be governed by section 24-5-101, C.R.S., when considering any such conviction;

(f) Violates section 33-32-105.5 (1) by employing any person as a guide who fails to meet the requirements of such section; or

(g) Violates any order of the division or commission or any other provision of this article or any rules promulgated under this article.

(2) A plea of nolo contendere or a deferred prosecution shall be considered a violation for the purposes of this section.

(3) (a) Any proceeding to deny, suspend, or revoke a license granted under this article or to place a licensee on probation shall be pursuant to sections 24-4-104 and 24-4-105, C.R.S. Such proceeding may be conducted by an administrative law judge designated pursuant to part 10 of article 30 of title 24, C.R.S.

(b) Any proceeding conducted pursuant to this subsection (3) shall be deemed final for purposes of judicial review. Any appeal of any such proceeding shall be made to the court of appeals pursuant to section 24-4-106 (11), C.R.S.

(4) The commission may deny an application for a river outfitter license or a renewal of a river outfitter’s license if the applicant does not meet the requirements specified in section 33-32-105 or 33-32-106.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 931, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 1172, § 10, effective October 1.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1230, § 8, effective July 1.L. 2012: IP(1), (1)(e), (1)(g), and (4) amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1231, § 77, effective June 4.

33-32-110. Advisory committee – repeal

(1) The commission shall appoint a river outfitter advisory committee, consisting of two river outfitters and one representative of the division. The committee shall review and make recommendations concerning rules promulgated and proposed pursuant to this article.

(2) (a) This section is repealed, effective July 1, 2019.

(b) Prior to its repeal, the advisory committee shall be reviewed as provided for in section 2-3-1203, C.R.S.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 931, § 1, effective May 9.L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 423, § 54, effective March 26.L. 88: (2)(a) amended, p. 1172, § 11, effective October 1.L. 89: Entire section repealed, p. 1147, § 3, effective April 6.L. 94: Entire section RC&RE, p. 1232, § 9, effective July 1.L. 2000: Entire section repealed, p. 185, § 2, effective July 1.L. 2010: Entire section RC&RE, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1643, § 9, effective August 11.L. 2012: (1) amended, (HB 12-1317), ch. 248, p. 1231, § 78, effective June 4.

33-32-111. Fees – river outfitters cash fund

All fees collected under this article shall be transmitted to the state treasurer who shall credit the same to the river outfitters cash fund, which fund is hereby created. The general assembly shall make annual appropriations from such fund for the direct and indirect costs of administration of this article.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 931, § 1, effective May 9.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1232, § 10, effective July 1.

33-32-112. Repeal of article

This article and the licensing function of the division are repealed, effective September 1, 2019. Prior to such termination, the licensing function shall be reviewed as provided for in section 24-34-104, C.R.S.

HISTORY: Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 931, § 1, effective May 9.L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 931, § 20, effective April 28; entire section amended p. 1172, § 12, effective October 1.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1232, § 11, effective July 1.L. 2004: Entire section amended, p. 297, § 3, effective August 4.L. 2010: Entire section amended, (HB 10-1221), ch. 353, p. 1640, § 3, effective August 11.

Editor’s note: Amendments to this section by House Bill 88-1036 and House Bill 88-1138 were harmonized.

Before a meeting a volunteer leader has no duty to protect the youth. Besides kids throw snowballs.

Posted: January 18, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, New York | Tags: Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, negligent supervision, parental control, Scout, Scout meeting, Scoutmaster Snowball, Snowball fight | Leave a comment

If there is snow, then there will be snowball fights.

Citation: Alvero v. Allen, Jr., 262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634

State: New York: Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

Plaintiff: James W. Allen, Jr. (I think)

Defendant: Martin Alvero (I think)

Plaintiff Claims: Negligent Supervision

Defendant Defenses: No Duty

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 1999

This is a great decision, not only for the holding but for several statements and just solid logical reasoning for the decision.

A group of youth was sitting outside waiting for the Boy Scout meeting to start. During that time, the plaintiff was hit on the head by an ice ball. The defendant scoutmaster said he had not arrived yet the plaintiff said the Scoutmaster had arrived and had gone into the building without letting the youth in.

The ice ball was allegedly the first snowball thrown.

The Scoutmaster moved to dismiss the complaint, and the trial court denied the dismissal. The Scoutmaster appealed giving rise to this decision.

The parties are never identified by name just the appellant is the person brining the appeal, named first in the pleading, so I am assuming the appellant scoutmaster is Martin Alvero.

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

Here was the basis of the court’s decision to dismiss the case quoting from a similar fact situation at a school.

“[n]o one grows up in this climate without throwing snowballs and being hit by them. If snow is on the ground as children come to school, it would require intense policing, almost child by child, to take all snowball throwing out of play. It is unreasonable to demand or expect such perfection in supervision from ordinary teachers or ordinary school management; and a fair test of reasonable care does not demand it”.

The court then reasoned that additional, the defendant had no notice of a snowball fight. “Given the absence of proof that the defendant in the present case had notice of an ongoing and potentially dangerous snowball fight, the plaintiff may not prevail on a theory of inadequate supervision…”

Here is another key provision that is important to remember if you are a volunteer.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the plaintiff’s father was present in his car about 50 feet away and neither he nor any of the other parents who were present in the area saw fit to intervene in any way prior to the incident.

Because the father was still present, he could have done something about a snowball fight. More importantly because the plaintiff’s father was still present, he is liable for the plaintiff.

Finally, the court found that the Scout meeting had not begun so therefore the liability of the Scoutmaster (adult volunteer) could not attach.

We also note that the scout meeting had not begun, no official scouting activity was taking place, and, according to the plaintiff’s version, the defendant had entered the building locking the door behind him, thus implicitly leaving the assembling Boy Scouts in the custody of the adults who were present outside

So Now What?

There are several great take a-ways from this case for New York Volunteers.

Until the youth meeting has begun, no liability attaches to the adult volunteers. Likewise, until the adult volunteer arrives no liability attaches.

Second and most importantly no liability attaches to third parties for protecting a child with the parents present unless the acts are intentional. If you are concerned about a child or the child’s parent or if the parent is concerned about your supervision over their child, just require them to be present.

Finally, kids are kids and there is something that no adult can stop kids from doing. Snow on the ground leads to snowball fights and there is nothing you can do about it.

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

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

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

#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, Boy Scouts, Scout, Scoutmaster Snowball, Snowball fight, negligent supervision, parental control, Boy Scouts of America, Scout meeting,

Alvero v. Allen, Jr., 262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634

Posted: January 17, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, New York | Tags: Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, negligent supervision, parental control, Scout, Scout meeting, Scoutmaster Snowball, Snowball fight | Leave a comment

To read an Analysis of this opinion see Before a meeting a volunteer leader has no duty to protect the youth. Besides kids throw snowballs.

Alvero v. Allen, Jr., 262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634

Martin Alvero, Respondent, v. James W. Allen, Jr., Appellant.

98-06867

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

262 A.D.2d 434; 692 N.Y.S.2d 116; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6634

April 26, 1999, Argued

June 14, 1999, Decided

COUNSEL: Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Edward R. Rimmels of counsel), for appellant.

Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber and Gerald I. Friedman of counsel), for respondent.

JUDGES: Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

OPINION

[*434] [**117] Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The infant plaintiff was hit on the head with what he described as an “ice ball” while he and several other Boy Scouts were waiting outside a church in which the weekly meeting of [*435] their Boy Scout troop was scheduled to begin. At a deposition given in connection with a separate action commenced against another entity, the infant plaintiff [***2] stated that he had not seen anyone throw anything prior to the time he was hit. He responded affirmatively when asked whether the “ice ball” with which he was struck, and which had apparently been thrown by another Boy Scout, was “the first thing that was thrown during the whole time from when you got to the church up until you got hit”.

The defendant in the present action is the Boy Scout troop leader who was to be in charge of the meeting. According to his affidavit, he was informed upon his arrival at the church that the infant plaintiff had already been injured. According to the affidavit of the infant plaintiff, on the other hand, the defendant had arrived prior to the incident, had entered the building, and had refused to allow the infant plaintiff to follow him inside. The Supreme Court denied the branch of the defendant’s motion which was premised on CPLR 3211, and denied that branch of the motion as was premised on CPLR 3212, holding that such an application was premature prior to the joinder of issue. We reverse.

The parties clearly laid bare their proof, and treated the motion as one for summary judgment. The [***3] Supreme Court was therefore authorized to treat the pre-answer application pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) as one for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3211 [c]; see, e.g., MacDonald v Prudential Sec., 247 AD2d 346; Palazolo v Palazolo, 244 AD2d 393; Gelmin v Quicke, 224 AD2d 481).

Turning to the merits, it is clear that the defendant cannot be held liable based on allegations of inadequate supervision under the facts as outlined above. As the Court of Appeals stated in Lawes v Board of Educ. (16 NY2d 302, 304), “[n]o one grows up in this climate without throwing snowballs and being hit by them. If snow is on the ground as children come to school, it would require intense policing, almost child by child, to take all snowball throwing out of play. It is unreasonable to demand or expect such perfection in supervision from ordinary teachers or ordinary school management; and a fair test of reasonable care does not demand it”.

[**118] Given the absence of proof that the defendant in the present case had notice of an ongoing and potentially dangerous snowball [***4] fight, the plaintiff may not prevail on a theory of inadequate supervision (see also, Johnsen v Cold Spring Harbor Cent. School Dist., 251 AD2d 548; Kennedy v Seaford Union Free School Dist. No. 6, 250 AD2d 574). This conclusion is [*436] reinforced by the fact that the plaintiff’s father was present in his car about 50 feet away and neither he nor any of the other parents who were present in the area saw fit to intervene in any way prior to the incident. We also note that the scout meeting had not begun, no official scouting activity was taking place, and, according to the plaintiff’s version, the defendant had entered the building locking the door behind him, thus implicitly leaving the assembling Boy Scouts in the custody of the adults who were present outside (see generally, Phillipe v City of New York Bd. of Educ., 254 AD2d 339 [school has no duty of supervision prior to starting of school day]). For these reasons, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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.

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