Surfboarder who cut off another Surfboarder already in the wave is protected by the defense of Primary Assumption of the Risk

Posted: May 20, 2024 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, California, Paddlesports | Tags: assumption of the risk, Etiquette, Long Board, Surfer, Surfing | Leave a comment

Unwritten rules of surfing etiquette are not rules of surfing. When you see other surfers breaking those rules all the time, you can’t complain when you are injured by someone breaking the rules.

Olson v. Saville, 2d Civ. B324465 (Cal. App. Jan 17, 2024)

State: California; California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Plaintiff: Mark Olson

Defendant: Patrick Saville

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Primary Assumption of the risk

Holding: for the defendant

Year: 2024

Summary

The court found the plaintiff assumed the risk in surfing when the plaintiff admitted seeing other surfers do the things the defendant alleged did to the plaintiff which the plaintiff complained about in his lawsuit. In California, assumption of the risk can be decided by the court and stop a negligence claim.

Facts

Appellant and respondent were surfing in a group at Miramar Beach in Montecito. Respondent was riding a custom longboard without a leash. Appellant caught a wave. Respondent then “appeared out of nowhere” and “dropped in” on the wave without looking in appellant’s direction. This forced appellant “to make a fast turn correction to his left toward the beach” and to “exit into the white water to his left.” Appellant “grabbed both [of] his board rails (aka sides) and pushed himself and the nose of the board slightly down and into the foam pile of whitewater toward the deeper water and away from respondent.” Respondent was still standing on his board heading toward the shore. As appellant made his exit and ducked into the wave, respondent’s board propelled backward and struck appellant’s torso and back.

Appellant sued respondent for negligence. He alleged that respondent “intentionally entered the wave and intentionally cut off appellant’s path of travel, thereby forcing appellant to exit the wave.” He further alleged that respondent’s “failure to use a leash to control [his] longboard” and his use of a “sharpened and deadly fin” was “reckless and displayed a w[a]nton disregard for the safety of others.” Respondent moved for summary judgment on the ground that appellant’s cause of action was barred under the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The trial court granted the motion, finding “the inherent risks of the sport of surfing include surfers ‘dropping in’ on other surfers, not wearing leashes while riding longboards of the type used by respondent, and using surfboards that have sharp fins.”

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

This was a simple analysis of the risk of Surfing. It was also an argument between two experts and ended being about who did the better job of explaining their position. To some extent, there was also the issue of the plaintiff’s arguments was tenuous at best.

Since the 1992 decision in Knight v. Jewell, 3 Cal. 4th 296; 834 P.2d 696; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3969; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7261; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11765; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11870 California has maintained that sports and recreational activities have risks and removing those inherent risks from the sport destroys the sport. Thus, you assume the risk of the sport when you engage in the sport or activity.

Here, the plaintiff argued the defendant was negligent in his surfing and those actions gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries. The defense argued the Plaintiff assumed the risk.

Under California law for a defendant to prove the Plaintiff assumed the risk the defendant must:

A defendant seeking summary judgment on the basis of primary assumption of the risk must establish ‘that the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the harm of which the plaintiff complains.’ If the defendant meets this burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to “set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.”

During a trial, there is a burden on one or the other parties. Usually, the burden starts with the plaintiff who must prove the elements of their claim. If the plaintiff is arguing negligence, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove there was a Duty, the defendant breached that Duty, the Plaintiff was injured and that injury can be reduced to damages the court can award. If the plaintiff proves those four elements of negligence, then the burden shifts to the defendant. The defendant’s burden is either to prove the Plaintiff was wrong about the negligence claim or there was a defense such as assumption of the risk so the defendant had no duty to the plaintiff.

In this case, a motion is being argued and there is still a burden on both parties. Here the court defined assumption of the risk and when the burden shifted from one party to the other. the defendant met its duty and proved the plaintiff assumed the risk. If the defendant proved assumption of the risk, the burden then shifted to the plaintiff because there were facts still in dispute to the case would go to trial.

The burden on the plaintiff was to prove a triable issue of fact. Something in dispute that cannot be decided in a motion, but only by the jury.

There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof

The court then explored assumption of the risk under California law.

The primary assumption of risk doctrine “precludes liability for injuries arising from those risks deemed inherent in a sport.” It “rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or reduce the risks of harm inherent in those activities. It operates on the premise that imposing such a legal duty ‘would work a basic alteration-or cause abandonment’ of the activity.” The doctrine applies both to sports and recreational activities “‘involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants . . . where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.

If the plaintiff assumes the risk, there is no duty on the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the risks, the plaintiff assumes.

[D]efendants generally do not have a duty to protect the plaintiff from the risks inherent in the sport, or to eliminate risk from the sport, although they generally do have a duty not to increase the risk of harm beyond what is inherent in the sport.

The removal of the duty goes so far that there is no duty short of intentionally injuring or the defendant’s conduct is so reckless to be outside the ordinary risks of the activity.

A coparticipant breaches this duty only if he “intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.

What defines risk in a sport or activity. According to the court:

“[C]onduct is within the range of ordinary activity involved in a sport if that conduct cannot be prohibited without deterring vigorous participation in the sport or otherwise fundamentally altering the nature of the sport.” Determining the nature of a defendant’s legal duty (and the inherent risks that flow from the activity) “depends heavily on the nature of the sport itself.

Under California law, for a judge to decide that the plaintiff assumed the risk based on both case law and their own experience as well as any expert witness opinions.

Judges deciding inherent risk questions under Knight may consider not only their own or common experience with the recreational activity involved but may also consult case law, other published materials, and documentary evidence introduced by the parties on a motion for summary judgment.” Courts generally do not consider the legal conclusions of expert declarations but can receive “expert testimony on the customary practices in an arena of esoteric activity for purposes of weighing whether the inherent risks of the activity were increased by the defendant’s conduct.’

Rarely is a judge’s personal experience allowed to influence an opinion.

In this case, the court compared the risks of surfing to the risks of snow skiing. Skiing had been declared a sport where the plaintiff assumed the risk of the sport so the comparison was valid based on the prior case law.

California courts have applied the doctrine to coparticipants in a variety of sports, such as snow skiing and other non-contact sports, but not yet to surfing [holding the doctrine barred a skier’s negligence claim against another skier who unintentionally injured him in a collision]; [extending the doctrine to apply to the non-contact sport of golf].) We note that snow skiing and surfing have much in common: (1) “both sports involve individual participants that use nature, either a mountain slope or wave, as a propulsion mechanism”; “[b]oth require similar equipment in the form of skis, snowboard, or surfboard to participate”; and (3) “the most important similarity between skiing and surfing is the use of the right-of-way custom to promote safety and order among participants.

In this case, the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert witness and the defendant’s expert witness had similar opinions about the risks of surfing, which did not bode well for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s expert brought in the phrase “surfing etiquette” which are “unwritten safety customs and practices“. However, the expert went on to say that surfers violated the rules all the time. Longboard surfers, of which the defendant was one, regularly surfed without a leash.

…[t]hese rules encompass such things as priority, right-of-way, and sharing waves.” Nonetheless, “violating this surfing etiquette is common among surfers.” He further opined it is “not uncommon for surfers to surf without a leash” and “[m]any longboard surfers particularly enjoy the challenge and freedom of surfing without a leash” which otherwise could interfere with their footwork and speed.

It was easy to find the plaintiff’s injuries arose from the risks of surfing.

The court then examined the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant acted “Recklessly or Increased the Inherent Risks of Surfing’” Proving this would shift the burden to the defendant to prove his actions were not reckless or increased the risk, which would eliminate the defense of assumption of the risk.

However, that failed. Proving the defendant did not meet some unwritten rules, did not prove the defendant acted recklessly or increased the risk to the plaintiff.

Showing respondent could have acted with more caution does not establish he acted recklessly. Reckless conduct is more than “‘”inadvertence”‘” or “‘”a failure to take precautions.”‘ It requires a “‘”deliberate disregard” of the “high degree of probability”‘” that an injury will occur. Although both experts acknowledged respondent may not have followed the rules of etiquette, we are wary of relying too heavily on such guidelines when defining the scope of an activity’s inherent risks.

The plaintiff had admitted that he had seen other surfers do all the things that he claimed the plaintiff had done to bar the defense of assumption of risk. Consequently, the court held the plaintiff had assumed the risk.

The undisputed evidence here showed that failure to follow the rules of etiquette is common in the surfing community. Appellant admitted: (1) he has witnessed other surfers riding a longboard without a leash; (2) a leash could obstruct some movement of an advanced surfer; (3) he has witnessed prior collisions between surfers; (4) he has witnessed another surfer failing to maintain control of their board; and (5) he personally has had surfers “drop-in” or “shoulder-hop” on his wave. Respondent’s similar conduct, it follows, was not reckless or outside the range of the ordinary activity in surfing.

If you see others taking risky actions, that is proof you know the risks. If you then go surfing, that is proof you assumed the risks. The plaintiff assumed the risks of surfing and the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty.

So Now What?

In most states, assumption of the risk is a valid defense to a negligence claim. In a few states, assumption of the risk is still merged with contributory negligence and only reduces the damages and does not preclude a claim.

In a few states, the courts are allowed to make decisions on assumption of the risk, which is usually reserved for the jury, the trier of fact, if either the jury could not find anything but assumption of the risk or the experience of the court and case law show the actions of the plaintiff proved he or she assumed the risk.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Jim Moss

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

Jim is the author or co-author of 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 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 like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter, or LinkedIn

Facebook

Threads Logo

X (formerly known as Twitter)

Blue Sky

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2024 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, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,

Olson v. Saville, 2d Civ. B324465 (Cal. App. Jan 17, 2024)

Posted: May 20, 2024 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: California, Legal Case, Paddlesports, Product Liability, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: assumption of the risk, Etiquette, Increased the Risk, Inherent Risk, Inherent Risk of Surfing, recklessly, Surfer, Surfing, Surfing Etiquette | Leave a comment

For a review of this decision see: Surfboarder who cut off another Surfboarder already in the wave is protected by the defense of Primary Assumption of the Risk

Olson v. Saville, 2d Civ. B324465 (Cal. App. Jan 17, 2024)

MARK OLSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
PATRICK SAVILLE, Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civ. No. B324465

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

January 17, 2024

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, No. 20CV02207 Hon. Donna D. Geck, Judge

Law Office of Eric A. Woosley, Eric A. Woosley; The Law Offices of Bradford D. Brown, Bradford D. Brown, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Freeman Mathis &Gary, Albert K. Alikin, Christian E. Foy Nagy, and Christopher J. Fleissner, for Defendant and Respondent.

CODY, J.

In this personal injury case, we hold the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars liability for injuries caused by a negligent surfer to a fellow surfer because those injuries were caused by risks inherent in the sport of surfing.

Mark Olson appeals from the order granting summary judgment for respondent Patrick Saville. Appellant contends that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether respondent is protected by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. We disagree and will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant and respondent were surfing in a group at Miramar Beach in Montecito. Respondent was riding a custom longboard without a leash.^[2] Appellant caught a wave. Respondent then “appeared out of nowhere” and “dropped in” on the wave without looking in appellant’s direction.^[3] This forced appellant “to make a fast turn correction to his left toward the beach” and to “exit into the white water to his left.” Appellant “grabbed both [of] his board rails (aka sides) and pushed himself and the nose of the board slightly down and into the foam pile of whitewater toward the deeper water and away from respondent.” Respondent was still standing on his board heading toward the shore. As appellant made his exit and ducked into the wave, respondent’s board propelled backward and struck appellant’s torso and back.

DISCUSSION

Appellant does not dispute that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to surfing. He contends, however, that summary judgment is not appropriate because triable issues of material fact exist as to whether respondent acted recklessly or increased the sport’s inherent risks.

Standard of Review

“[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)^[4] A defendant moving for summary judgment “bears the burden of persuasion that ‘one or more elements of’ the ’cause of action’ in question ‘cannot be established,’ or that ‘there is a complete defense’ thereto. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar); § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

“A defendant seeking summary judgment on the basis of primary assumption of the risk must establish ‘that the defendant owed no legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent the harm of which the plaintiff complains.’ [Citation.]” (Capri v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087.) If the defendant meets this burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to “set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, at p. 850, fn. omitted.)

“On appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment, we examine the record de novo, liberally construing the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolving doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460.)

Primary Assumption of Risk

The primary assumption of risk doctrine “precludes liability for injuries arising from those risks deemed inherent in a sport.” (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 161.) It “rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or reduce the risks of harm inherent in those activities. It operates on the premise that imposing such a legal duty ‘would work a basic alteration-or cause abandonment’ of the activity.” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1156 (Nalwa), quoting Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003 (Kahn).) The doctrine applies both to sports and recreational activities “‘involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants . . . where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.'” (Nalwa, at p. 1156, quoting Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650, 658.)

“[D]efendants generally do not have a duty to protect the plaintiff from the risks inherent in the sport, or to eliminate risk from the sport, although they generally do have a duty not to increase the risk of harm beyond what is inherent in the sport.” (Kahn, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1004, citing Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 315-316 (Knight), italics added.) A coparticipant breaches this duty only if he “intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.” (Knight, at p. 320.) “[C]onduct is within the range of ordinary activity involved in a sport if that conduct cannot be prohibited without deterring vigorous participation in the sport or otherwise fundamentally altering the nature of the sport.” (Freeman v. Hale (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1396.) Determining the nature of a defendant’s legal duty (and the inherent risks that flow from the activity) “depends heavily on the nature of the sport itself.” (Knight, at p. 317.)

Appellant’s Injuries Resulted from the Inherent Risks of Surfing

“Judges deciding inherent risk questions under Knight may consider not only their own or common experience with the recreational activity involved but may also consult case law, other published materials, and documentary evidence introduced by the parties on a motion for summary judgment.” (Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1158.) Courts generally do not consider the legal conclusions of expert declarations but can receive “expert testimony on the customary practices in an arena of esoteric activity for purposes of weighing whether the inherent risks of the activity were increased by the defendant’s conduct.’ [Citation.]” (Kahn, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1017.) Our de novo review includes such declarations to the extent they help us understand the sport of surfing. (Towns v. Davidson (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 461, 472-473, italics omitted [“A court in its discretion could receive expert factual opinion to inform its decision on these issues, particularly on the nature of an unknown or esoteric activity, but in no event may it receive expert evidence on the ultimate legal issues of inherent risk and duty.”]; Kahn, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1017 [same].)

California courts have applied the doctrine to coparticipants in a variety of sports, such as snow skiing and other non-contact sports, but not yet to surfing. (See, Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063, 1066 (Cheong) [holding the doctrine barred a skier’s negligence claim against another skier who unintentionally injured him in a collision]; Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 486 (Shin) [extending the doctrine to apply to the non-contact sport of golf].) We note that snow skiing and surfing have much in common: (1) “both sports involve individual participants that use nature, either a mountain slope or wave, as a propulsion mechanism”; (2) “[b]oth require similar equipment in the form of skis, snowboard, or surfboard to participate”; and (3) “the most important similarity between skiing and surfing is the use of the right-of-way custom to promote safety and order among participants.” (Caprara, supra, 44 Cal. Western L.Rev. at p. 562.)

Respondent submitted the declaration of Ian Cairns, a champion surfer and coach, who opined that surfing is an “extreme sport” with “many inherent risks.” Cairns stated it is “extremely common for surfers to ‘wipe out'” and lose control of their board given the variability of ocean conditions. “Because ‘wipeouts’ are so common, it is a known risk that a surfer may collide with another surfer, or another surfer’s board.” He explained the sport is largely regulated by unwritten safety customs and practices he referred to as “‘surfing etiquette.'” (citing Caprara, supra, 44 Cal. Western L.Rev. at p. 571.) He stated, “[t]hese rules encompass such things as priority, right-of-way, and sharing waves.” Nonetheless, “violating this surfing etiquette is common among surfers.” He further opined it is “not uncommon for surfers to surf without a leash” and “[m]any longboard surfers particularly enjoy the challenge and freedom of surfing without a leash” which otherwise could interfere with their footwork and speed. Lastly, Cairns noted that surfboards “contain between one and four fins, which assist the board with speed and stability” and that the fins are “very sharp and can inflict significant injury.”

Appellant’s expert did not oppose the core components of Cairn’s opinion. He did not dispute that surfers often violate well-established rules of etiquette. The experts appear to agree that surfers commonly collide and lose control of their boards; that boards have sharp fins that can cause injury; and that some surfers choose to forego leashes because they can inhibit speed and agility. The undisputed evidence shows that appellant’s injuries resulted from these risks. We agree with the trial court that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars appellant’s negligence claim absent evidence that respondent recklessly or increased the sport’s inherent risks.

There Is No Evidence Respondent Acted Recklessly or Increased the Inherent Risks of Surfing

Appellant relies primarily upon surfing expert Shaun Tomson to support his contention that respondent’s conduct was reckless. Tomson explained that “[o]ver time, the sport of surfing has adopted the Surfing Code and Rules of Etiquette.” According to Tomson, “surfers have a self-managed obligation to observe the Surfers Code and Rules of Etiquette and not increase the risk of harm to others in the water.” He described the rules of etiquette as follows: (1) observe the right of way of others; (2) look for other surfers before entering the wave; (3) do not interfere with, “drop in” or cut off surfers already riding a wave; (4) hold onto and do not let go of your board; (5) wear a surf leash so you do not lose control of your board; and (6) be aware and communicate with others around you. Tomson opined that respondent’s blatant disregard of these rules constituted a “conscious and wanton reckless disregard” for the safety of fellow surfers, especially considering his experience in the sport.

Tomson supported his conclusions by citing the “Leash/Legrope Policy” found in the International Surfing Association Rule Book (ISA), which he described as “the World Governing Body for [s]urfing and all related activities.” The policy reads: “As a risk management precaution . . . the ISA has a mandatory leash/legrope policy at events, due to the potential risk to other participants.” (ISA Rule Book &Contest Administration Manual, September 2023 Section D Competition Rules, subsection xvii (a), p.34.) The policy further states, “[f]ree surfing with or without a leash is at the rider’s discretion however the ISA recommends the use of a leash if there is a possible danger to third parties.” (Id., subsection xvii (b).)

Appellant analogizes respondent’s failure to use a leash to the snowboarder’s failure to use a retention strap in Campbell v. Derylo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 823. Campbell reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment for plaintiff on the grounds of primary assumption of risk, finding defendant’s failure to use a retention strap “increased the inherent risk of injury to coparticipants from a runaway snowboard.” (Id., at p. 829.) It noted that a local ordinance as well as a “Skier Responsibility Code” posted at the ski resort required their use. (Ibid.) The court also found that using a strap “would not impede or alter the sport of snowboarding” or “chill or deter vigorous participation.” (Id., at p. 830.) We do not consider Campbell analogous. No law governs the use of surfboard leashes. No signs were posted requiring their use at Miramar Beach. More significantly, appellant does not dispute Cairns’ opinion that a leash can alter the nature of the sport by interfering with a longboard surfer’s “footwork and speed” and by posing a tripping hazard to surfers who “walk” on their board. (Cf. Szarowicz v. Birenbaum (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 146, 166 [ice hockey expert’s testimony that “open ice check[ing]” in a “no-check” game increased the sport’s inherent risks raised triable issues of fact to defeat summary judgment].)

Appellant’s expert merely described what could be done to reduce the risks inherent in surfing. Showing respondent could have acted with more caution does not establish he acted recklessly. Reckless conduct is more than “‘”inadvertence”‘” or “‘”a failure to take precautions.”‘” (Towns v. Davidson, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 470, citing Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.) It requires a “‘”deliberate disregard” of the “high degree of probability”‘” that an injury will occur. (Ibid.) Although both experts acknowledged respondent may not have followed the rules of etiquette, we are wary of relying too heavily on such guidelines when defining the scope of an activity’s inherent risks. (See, e.g., Shin, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 497, fn. 9 [failure to follow golf etiquette of yelling “fore” to minimize chance of hitting other golfers with ball does not justify imposing liability].)

“‘By eliminating liability for unintended accidents, the doctrine [of primary assumption of the risk] ensures that the fervor of athletic competition will not be chilled by the constant threat of litigation from every misstep, sharp turn and sudden stop.’ [Citation].” (Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp.1071-1072.) No trier of fact could reasonably find that respondent’s conduct fell outside of the protection of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Vigorous participation in surfing “likely would be chilled if legal liability were to be imposed” in these circumstances. (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 318.)

DISPOSITION

Judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover his costs on appeal.

We concur: GILBERT, P. J., YEGAN, J.

———

Notes:

^[1] We rely on undisputed facts and allegations in the complaint.

^[2] A longboard is a board that is “typically longer than nine feet in length.” (Paul Caprara, Surf’s Up: The Implications of Tort Liability in the Unregulated Sport of Surfing (2008) 44 Cal. Western L.Rev. 557, 573, fn. 90 (Caprara).) Respondent’s longboard was 10 feet 4 inches long. A leash is a cord that attaches the ankle of the surfer to the tail end of the board.

^[3] “Dropping in” or “shoulder-hopping” describes a surfer getting in the right of way of another surfer who is surfing the same wave.” (Caprara, supra, 44 Cal. Western L.Rev. at p. 571.)

^[4] All unlabeled statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated.

———

G-YQ06K3L262

After this decision, I’m not sure you could prove assumption of the risk without a written document and a video or more.

Posted: April 22, 2024 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Challenge or Ropes Course, Pennsylvania | Tags: assumption of the risk, Balance Beam, Challenge Couse, Corporate Team Building, Low Challenge Course, Team Building, Woodloch Pines Resort | 3 Comments

Plaintiff was part of a team-building group for her school/employer, she fell off the balance beam and sued for her injuries.

Hazen v. Woodloch Pines Resort, Civil Action 3:21-cv-00174 (M.D. Pa. Feb 16, 2024)

State: Pennsylvania, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Plaintiff: Erin Hazen

Defendant: Woodloch Pines Resort d/b/a Woodloch Pines, et al

Plaintiff Claims:

Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 2024

Summary

A middle school assistant principal fell off a low rope’s balance beam, 12″ high, into wood chips suffering injuries to her leg, ankle, and foot. However, under the interpretation of the defense of assumption of the risk by this court, she did not assume the risk of her injuries.

This has got to be appealed!

Facts

Woodloch Pines Resort (“Woodloch”) is an all-inclusive family resort located in Pike County, Pennsylvania. Since the 1990s, it has offered corporate team building activities on an outdoor low ropes challenge course. One of the elements of this challenge course was a “balance beam” or “teeter-totter” device made up of a fulcrum with a plank on top of it. The plank or “beam” is 10-feet long and 10%-inches wide. The fulcrum is 12-inches high and, when at its highest point, the end of the plank or beam is 3 feet above the surface below. The area below and around the balance beam device was covered with wooden mulch, presumably to, cushion the fall of any participants.

In June 2019, the plaintiff, Erin Hazen, was an assistant principal at KIPP TEAM Academy, a public charter school in Newark, New Jersey. She had been working there for about a year. On Saturday, June 22, 2019, Hazen and ten of her colleagues from the “leadership team” at KIPP TEAM Academy were on the third day of a leadership retreat at Woodloch. That morning, they participated in the outdoor challenge course activities as a team. After completing several other activities, they attempted the “balance beam” activity, where Hazen was injured.

The team was instructed by Eric Ranner, Woodloch’s corporate activities director, that the goal of the balance beam activity was to get the entire 11-person leadership team onto the plank without breaking either of two eggs that had been placed under each end of the plank. The parties dispute whether Ranner gave any additional verbal instructions or warnings to the participants. Ranner was the only Woodloch employee present at the time.

After two unsuccessful attempts to complete the activity, the team was able to get ten members on the plank at once during its third attempt. When the eleventh team member mounted the plank, it became unbalanced and Hazen fell off, along with other participants. At least one other participant landed on top of Hazen.

As a result of her fall, Hazen suffered a gruesome ankle injury, including left ankle dislocation, a displaced left ankle trimalleolar fracture with transverse medial malleolar fracture, a transverse distal one-third fibula shaft fracture, syndesmotic rupture, and a minimally displaced proximal fracture in the metaphysis. Her medical treatment included three surgeries and ongoing physical therapy. Due to her injuries, resultant physical limitations, and her course of treatment, Hazen was forced to resign from her job at KIPP TEAM Academy.

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

The only defense raised in this motion was Assumption of the Risk. Under Pennsylvania law assumption of the risk is defined as:

…assumption of the risk is established by showing that the injured party fully appreciated the nature of the risk it faced and voluntarily assumed it. In addition, the injured party must not have had a meaningful and reasonable alternative path to avoid the risk.

Pennsylvania has an additional requirement to prove assumption of the risk from the majority of other states. Most states require that the plaintiff understood and knowingly assumed the risk. In Pennsylvania, the defendant must also prove that the plaintiff had a reasonable alternative way to avoid the risk.

This court then went on to define the components of the assumption of the risk under Pennsylvania law.

Voluntary assumption of the risk involves a subjective awareness of the risk inherent in an activity and a willingness – to accept it. A plaintiff has voluntarily assumed the risk where he fully understands it and Voluntarily chooses to encounter it.

If the plaintiff assumes the risk, like many states, this removes from the defendant the duty to protect the plaintiff.

Under the doctrine of assumption of the risk, a defendant is relieved of its duty to protect a plaintiff where the plaintiff has voluntarily and deliberately proceeded to face a known arid obvious risk and therefore is considered to have assumed liability for his own injuries.”

The court then went on to define what a risk, or danger as this court defined it, is:

A danger is deemed “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.”

In all states, the trier of fact, the jury, must determine if the plaintiff assumed the risk. In some states, the court can make that decision in a motion if there is prior case law with similar facts or if the court determines that a jury would find for the defendant.

It is for that reason that Assumption of the Risk as a defense is second to use a release. A properly written release allows the defendant to motion for a summary judgment and the court, the trial judge can decide, there is no need to spend the money to go to trial.

Here the court went further to define the risk working hard to find a definition that would put an increased burden on the defendant, effectively removing the defense of assumption of the risk.

“Whether the plaintiff knows of the existence of the risk, or whether he understands and appreciates its magnitude and its unreasonable character, is a question of fact, usually to be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court. The court may itself determine the issue only where reasonable men could not differ as to the conclusion.”.

In defining assumption of risk most courts say the plaintiff must knowingly understand the risk. Here the court stated the plaintiff must not only understand the risk but also the “magnitude and its unreasonable character.”

Going deeper into this extensive black hole to support the plaintiff the court stated.

The defendant’s burden to establish assumption of the risk is a tall order, because assumption of the risk requires knowledge of a specific risk, “It is not enough that the plaintiff was generally aware that the activity in which he was engaged had accompanying risks. Rather, the plaintiff must be aware of ‘the particular danger’ from which he is subsequently injured in order to voluntarily assume that risk as a matter of law.

The plaintiff under this ruling must not only know the risk, but the defendant must also prove the plaintiff knew of the particular danger that injured him or her.

The judge is requiring the plaintiff to have a crystal ball to understand every possible injury that could come from assuming the risk.

You are standing on a beam, elevated above the ground 12 inches on a beam that is 10″ wide with 11 other people, and not only must you know that you can fall off, but you must know that you will receive a severe leg, ankle, and foot injury.

Hazen suffered a gruesome ankle injury, including left ankle dislocation, a displaced left ankle trimalleolar fracture with transverse medial malleolar fracture, a transverse distal one-third fibula shaft fracture, syndesmotic rupture, and a minimally displaced proximal fracture in the metaphysis

You need to make a mental note when reading a case when the judge describes the injury as gruesome and then specifically identifies each injury the plaintiff suffered.

The court found the plaintiff understood and assumed that she could fall off the beam and suffer an injury. However, the court went on to say “But “awareness of a general risk does not amount to awareness of a specific risk.””

The judge continued on this track:

Awareness of the specific risk presented by the balance beam activity here includes not just an appreciation of the general possibility that she might fall, but also an appreciation of the likelihood of a fall and the potential for serious injury such as the complex multiple ankle fractures and other injuries that our plaintiff, in fact, suffered.

The next issue the court brought up was whether or not the plaintiff had a real choice to participate or not participate in any part of the team-building exercise.

Here, the parties dispute whether Hazen’s participation in the balance beam activity was voluntary. In her affidavit, Hazen has stated that she felt her participation in this team building activity was required rather than voluntary, noting that she had just finished her first year as an assistant principal at the charter school, she was required in that role to lead by example and thus participate fully in team-building activities, and the purpose of this particular activity was to get the entire team of eleven onto the plank at one time.

At what point in life can you not stop and say I don’t want to do this?

The court proceeded to dismiss the motion by the defendants.

Accordingly, based on the facts and evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiff, we find that a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff was not subjectively. aware of the specific risk of serious injury posed by her participation in the balance beam activity that resulted in her injuries, or that she did not voluntarily accept that risk.

So Now What?

I have no idea what a trimalleolar fracture is. Nor does Word or Grammarly recognize trimalleolar as a word. Yet, this court expected a middle school assistant principal to understand the word, and the risk associated with it.

Let alone the ability, as a leader in a school, or assistant principal, that she does not want to participate in an activity because of the risk. If you don’t learn that in middle school, where are you going to learn it?

Here the court went out of its way to find requirements for the defense to prove that were outlandish and impossible. The only way to win anything like this in Pennsylvania in the future is to have the participants sit down and watch a video describing all the possible ways to get hurt, record the participants watching the video, and then sign an agreement, assumption of the risk or release which says the know and understand the risks and the particular dangers of each risk and that the person signing watched the video.

This decision is a little shocking.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Jim Moss

Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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

Facebook

Threads Logo

X (formerly known as Twitter)

Blue Sky

Mastodon

Stimulus

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2024 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Interesting case where a release stopped claims for poor rescue at an underground amusement park in Kentucky.

Posted: October 2, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Challenge or Ropes Course, Indoor Recreation Center, Kentucky, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Aerial Adventure, assumption of the risk, Louisville Mega Cavern, Mega Quest, Mega Quest Adventure, Release, Ropes course, Suspension Trauma, Waiver | Leave a comment

Most of the decision centers around the instructions given by the court; however, there are great nuggets of help for the industry.

Bradley v. Louisville Mega Cavern, LLC, 2022-CA-0828-MR (Ky. Ct. App. May 19, 2023)

State: Kentucky; Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Plaintiff: Anthony Bradley, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Mitzi Westover

Defendant: Louisville Mega Cavern, LLC

Plaintiff Claims: failure to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the Mega Quest course and LMC’s failure to properly train its staff to respond to emergencies

Defendant Defenses: pre-existing health conditions and her own failure to exercise ordinary care and Release

Holding: For Defendant

Year: 2023

Summary

The deceased died at an underground amusement park after failing to maneuver an obstacle. The release she signed was ineffective as a release but was used to prove she assumed the risk of her injuries.

Facts

LMC operates an underground adventure park on the site of a former limestone mine in Louisville, Kentucky.[1] LMC operates several attractions on the site, including an underground, aerial adventure ropes course called Mega Quest. On August 17, 2017, Mitzi Westover, her husband Anthony Bradley, and her niece, Hanna Folk, purchased tickets for Mega Quest. Prior to taking part in any activity at LMC, they were required to read and execute a “Participant Agreement” (“the Agreement”).

As required, Westover, Bradley, and Folk electronically signed the Agreement. They then checked in at the front desk and were provided with equipment for the course. LMC provided a safety briefing and training on the course and use of the equipment. Shortly thereafter, the party began the Mega Quest course. Westover started an element that consisted of two horizontal ladders suspended from overhead wire ropes. Westover fell on the first ladder and was assisted by an LMC employee.

She fell again on the second ladder and was unable to get back on the ladder. The LMC employee called for a rescue via a lower-line kit. Westover was suspended on the harness for between five to eight minutes. Westover was responsive for most of this time. But as she was being lowered, Westover lost consciousness and became unresponsive. LMC called 911, which did not arrive on the scene for another nine minutes. Westover was transported to the hospital, where she died on August 22, 2017.

At trial, the Estate presented evidence that Westover’s death was caused by suspension trauma resulting from her extended time hanging unsupported on the harness. The Estate argued that this suspension trauma was caused by LMC’s failure to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the Mega Quest course and LMC’s failure to properly train its staff to respond to emergencies. In response, LMC argued that Westover’s death was caused by her pre-existing health conditions and her own failure to exercise ordinary care. Following the close of proof, the jury found that the Estate failed to prove that LMC failed to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the Mega Quest course and that such failure was a substantial factor in causing Westover’s death.

Following the close of proof, [trial] the jury found that the Estate failed to prove that LMC failed to exercise ordinary care in the operation of the Mega Quest course and that such failure was a substantial factor in causing Westover’s death.

This appeal followed.

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

The case had some very interesting actions and rulings. The trial judge ruled the release was not valid under Kentucky law and excluded it from the trial for that reason. The court also found that the immunity provided by the Kentucky agritourism-immunity statutes, in the release, were also not applicable and prevented the defendant from using those as a defense.

The trial court then ruled:

The Trial Court concluded that, even though the Release and agritourism-immunity provisions of the Agreement were unenforceable, the Agreement itself was still relevant to the disputed issues of negligence. The Trial Court redacted the bolded agritourism warning at the end of the Agreement, except for the line, “You are assuming the risk of participating in this . . . activity.”

The defendant then moved for a limiting instruction saying that the release could not be viewed as a release, but could prove the risks the deceased assumed. Stated another way, the release was used to prove the deceased assumed the risks of her injuries. The court granted this motion.

The Estate extensively argues that the Release provisions in the Agreement were not enforceable. However, the Trial Court agreed, finding that the release was not enforceable as a waiver or release of LMC’s liability for negligence. LMC does not appeal this ruling. Rather, the question on appeal is whether the Agreement was otherwise relevant to the factual matters in dispute; the question is whether the evidence was relevant, or if the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the release should not have been used to prove assumption of the risk. The defense fought this argument but did not fight the issue of whether the release was valid under Kentucky law. This was so “weird,” even the appellate court pointed it out.

The issue on appeal then revolved around whether the release, as an assumption of the risk document, was “relevant” under the Kentucky rules of evidence.

All evidence is relevant and should be admitted unless it is specifically excluded under another rule of evidence or a law. However, the first hurdle is the evidence must be relevant.

Under KRE[4] 401, relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Under KRE 402, “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible” unless otherwise excluded by the law or rules of evidence. “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” KRE 402. Relevance is established by any showing of probativeness, however slight.

The appellate court ruled the trial court was correct. The “agreement” since it was no longer legally a release, was properly admitted to show the deceased assumed the risk which caused her death.

Another way that evidence can be excluded is if the value the evidence offered is outweighed by any negative value it may have. This legal argument is stated as “whether the Agreement’s probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”

Under Kentucky law that is a three-step test.

To make sure a piece of evidence is admitted in a way that the jury understands the narrow reasons for its introduction and how it can be interpreted a jury instruction can be given with those limitations. Here the plaintiff failed to ask, at the right time, for that limiting instruction. By failing to ask the issue was waived.

The appellate court sided with the plaintiff on the value of the release or agreement as proof of assumption of the risk. But found that the level of damage to the plaintiff’s case was not so great that the case should be reversed on that point.

We agree with the Estate that the introduction of the Release and Indemnity portions of the Agreement posed a risk of confusing the jury. Without a limiting instruction, the jury had no guidance from the Court to determine how that language was to be read. The jury may have also been led to believe that it was to consider the legal issue regarding the enforceability of the Agreement. Under these circumstances, we believe that the Trial Court would have been justified in giving the Estate’s proposed instruction even though the issue was not raised by a contemporaneous objection.

This is great proof that a release can have a second life if properly written.

The next issue was the duties, the legal responsibility; the defendant has to the deceased. These duties are presented to the jury in a jury instruction and as such give the jury the definition they must follow in making their decision.

Here the plaintiffs wanted instructions that stated the defendant had to make the amusement park safe.

However, the trial court and appellate court rejected these instructions. The deceased was a business invitee, and the duties owed to a business invitee were adequately covered in other instructions in this case.

Another relevant issue argued by the plaintiff was whether or not a jury instruction and arguments made should have included the OSHA requirements for the operation of the amusement park. There was testimony that the staff was not trained in first aid or rescue, and OSHA requires both. However, OSHA only applies to employees, and the deceased was a patron of the park, not an employee.

Because OSHA standards only apply to employees, the plaintiff was correctly prohibited from giving these arguments.

The court upheld the ruling for the defendant in this case. Although mistakes were made, as there are in most trials, those mistakes were discretionary on the part of the court and did not rise to the level to change the outcome of the trial.

We conclude that the Trial Court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions did not amount to an abuse of discretion. Although the Agreement was not relevant to prove that Westover or her Estate waived any claim to liability based on LMC’s negligence, it was relevant and admissible as to the other disputed issues of negligence. Furthermore, the prejudicial effect of the Agreement did not substantially outweigh its probative value on these matters. The Release and Indemnity language in the Agreement was potentially misleading. However, the Estate did not make a contemporaneous request for an admonition. Therefore, the Trial Court’s failure to grant a limiting instruction did not amount to palpable error.

This decision is difficult to read because the arguments are couched in procedural and evidentiary issues rather than interpretation of the facts. However, that is how most cases are overturned at the appellate level, because of evidence or procedure, rather than what law is applied to the facts of the case.

So Now What?

Here is proof that writing your release to cover the risks associated with the activity or sport you are offering to the public has additional value. Granted, having the release written correctly to begin with might have saved a lot of this argument, but in any case, where your release is thrown out as a legal argument, assumption of the risk is a valid defense. Having your release written to cover the legal and knowledge issues, as in this case, may save your business.

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, 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

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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

Threads

Facebook Logo

X, Formerly Twitter

Recreation Law

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Bradley v. Louisville Mega Cavern, LLC, 2022-CA-0828-MR (Ky. Ct. App. May 19, 2023)

Posted: October 2, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Challenge or Ropes Course, Indoor Recreation Center, Kentucky, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Agritourism, Amusement Park, assumption of the risk, Kentucky, Mega Quest, Mega Quest Aerial Challenge, OSHA, Release, Underground Amusement Park, Waiver | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see:

Interesting case where a release stopped claims for poor rescue at an underground amusement park in Kentucky.

Bradley v. Louisville Mega Cavern, LLC, 2022-CA-0828-MR (Ky. Ct. App. May 19, 2023)

ANTHONY BRADLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MITZI WESTOVER APPELLANTS
v.
LOUISVILLE MEGA CAVERN, LLC APPELLEE

No. 2022-CA-0828-MR

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

May 19, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE ANNIE O’CONNELL, JUDGE ACTION NO. 18-CI-004436

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:

Brenton D. Stanley

Jason Swinney

Louisville, Kentucky

Molly B. Stanley

Louisville, Kentucky

Kevin C. Burke

Jamie K. Neal

Louisville, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Maxwell D. Smith

Ashley K. Brown

Betsy R. Catron

William J. Barker II

Lexington, Kentucky

BEFORE: CALDWELL, DIXON, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

OPINION

ECKERLE, JUDGE:

Anthony Bradley, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Mitzi Westover (collectively, “the Estate”) appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court that confirmed a jury verdict in favor of Louisville Mega Cavern, L.L.C. (“LMC”). The Estate argues that the trial court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and in its instructions to the jury. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

I.
Facts and Procedural History

LMC operates an underground adventure park on the site of a former limestone mine in Louisville, Kentucky.^[1] LMC operates several attractions on the site, including an underground, aerial adventure ropes course called Mega Quest. On August 17, 2017, Mitzi Westover, her husband Anthony Bradley, and her niece, Hanna Folk, purchased tickets for Mega Quest. Prior to taking part in any activity at LMC, they were required to read and execute a “Participant Agreement” (“the Agreement”). The Agreement describes the course as follows:

The Mega Quest aerial challenge course is self-guided and includes short ziplines, sky bridges and walkways, (some inclined), located high in the cavern and some consisting of planking supported by steel cables and cable handrails. Mega Quest Participants are responsible for making all Equipment Transfers on their own after watching a training video, the careful viewing of which is extremely important and receiving instructions and training from tour guides using special equipment. The age limit for the Mega Quest challenge course is five years old. Participants must be able to reach a height of 50 inches with the palm of the hand with an outstretched arm while standing flatfooted on the floor, and weigh less than 310 pounds.

In addition, the Agreement addressed medical and safety concerns, stating:

The activities are designed for Participants of average mobility and strength who are in reasonably good health. Underlying medical problems including for example obesity, high blood pressure, cardiac and coronary artery disease, pulmonary problems, pregnancy, arthritis, tendonitis, other joint and muscular skeletal problems, or other medical, physical, psychological and psychiatric problems, may impair the safety and wellbeing of Participants on the course. All such conditions may increase the inherent risks of the experience and cause Participants to be a danger to themselves or others and Participants therefore must carefully consider those risks before choosing to participate, and they must fully inform the Provider or its staff of any issues, in writing, prior to using the Facilities. Provider reserves the right to exclude anyone from participating because of medical, safety, or other reasons it deems appropriate. Participant . . .: (1) represents that each Participant or Minor Participant is physically able to participate in the activities without being a danger to themselves or to others; (2) acknowledges that participation is purely voluntary, and done so in spite of the risks (3) is not pregnant, nor under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs, or impairing legal drugs; (4) agrees to abide by all instructions provided by the Provider or the Provider’s staff; (5) will not make any adjustments to zipline or challenge course equipment but, instead, will allow all adjustments to be made only by or with the assistance of Provider or Provider’s staff; (6) will not intentionally flip over or invert while riding on the ziplines.

The Agreement goes on to identify “inherent” risks in the Mega Cavern:

Serious injuries can occur in zipline courses, challenge course tours, and bike park activities including the risk of injury or death. Risks include among others the following: falls, contact with other participants and fixed or falling objects, and moving about or being transported over the sometimes uneven terrain and grounds on which the activities are initiated and conducted[.] . . . The physical risks range from small scrapes and bruises to bites and stings, broken bones, sprains, neurological damage, and in extraordinary cases, even death. These risks, and others, are inherent to the activities that is, they cannot be eliminated without changing the essential nature, educational and other values of the experience. In all cases, these inherent risks, and other risks which may not be inherent, whether or not described above must be accepted by those who choose to participate.

Following these disclosures, the Agreement states that the participant understands the nature of the activities and voluntarily assumes the risks involved. This provision also states that LMC “has no duty to protect against the risks of illness, injury and death associated with these activities inherent and otherwise, and whether or not described above, including those which may result from negligent acts or omissions of other participants or staff.”

The Agreement also included a “Release and Indemnity” provision, stating that each participant will release, hold harmless, and indemnify LMC for any injuries caused by the activity, including claims of negligence and gross negligence. This section further states that the participant agrees as follows:

not to sue [Provider] for any liability for causes of action, claims and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever, including personal injury and death, products and premises liability and otherwise, that may arise out of or relate in any way to my . . . enrollment or participation in Provider’s programs. The claims hereby indemnified against include, among others, claims of participants and members of my . . . family, arising out of losses caused by, or suffered by me . . . . The agreements of release and indemnity include claims of negligence of a Released Party including without limitation claims of gross negligence, but not claims of willful injury.

The Agreement concluded with bolded language stating:

WARNING

Under Kentucky law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant in an agritourism activity conducted at this agritourism location if injury or death results exclusively from the inherent risks of the agritourism activity and in the absence of negligence. You are assuming the risk of participating in this agritourism activity. KRS^[2] 247.800-247.8010.

On July 31, 2018, Bradley, individually and as administrator of Westover’s Estate, brought this action against LMC asserting claims of personal injury and wrongful death. Bradley separately asserted a claim for loss of spousal consortium. LMC moved for summary judgment based on the “Release and Indemnity” provisions in the Agreement. LMC also argued that it was entitled to agritourism immunity under KRS 247.809. The Trial Court denied the motion for summary judgment, concluding that the pre-injury release was not enforceable. The Court also determined that LMC was not entitled to immunity under KRS 247.809.

Prior to trial, the Estate moved to exclude any reference to the Agreement, arguing that it was not relevant based on the Court’s finding it was unenforceable. LMC responded that the Agreement was relevant to show she had been informed of the risks of the activity, and that she had agreed she was able to participate without being a danger to herself or others. The Trial Court agreed with LMC and allowed introduction of the Agreement.

The Estate filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to CR^[3] 59.01. The Trial Court denied the motion and entered a judgment dismissing based upon the jury’s verdict. The Estate now appeals. Additional facts will be set forth below as necessary.

II.
Standard of Review

A trial court is vested with broad discretion in granting or denying a new trial, and its decision will not be reversed unless it was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Since the Trial Court had the direct opportunity to consider the evidence and the conduct of the parties, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the Trial Court. CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter, 330 S.W.3d 64, 73 (Ky. 2010).

In this case, the Estate first argues that it was entitled to a new trial because the Trial Court erroneously admitted certain evidence. We review the Trial Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Ky. 2000). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Id. at 581. More specifically, a court abuses the discretion afforded it when “(1) its decision rests on an error of law . . . or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision . . . cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909, 915 n.11 (Ky. 2004) (cleaned up).

III. Admission of the Agreement into Evidence

The Estate first raises several issues relating to the Trial Court’s admission of the Agreement into evidence. Based on the Trial Court’s finding that the Release and agritourism-immunity provisions in the Agreement were unenforceable, the Estate filed a motion in limine to exclude the Agreement or any reference to it at trial. The Estate argued that the Release provisions were irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury with matters not at issue.

In response, LMC noted that the Agreement set out the risks of the activity, including to persons with health issues. By signing the Agreement, Westover stated that she was aware of the risks, she was physically capable of performing the Mega Quest course, and that she was not under the influence of any illegal or legal intoxicating drugs. LMC argued that the disclosures in the Agreement were relevant to show that Westover failed to exercise ordinary care in undertaking the Mega Quest course. LMC further argued that the Agreement was relevant to show that Westover failed to inform LMC of her medical conditions or her medications.

Subsequently, the Estate requested a limiting instruction advising the jury that the Release was unenforceable, but “you may consider the ‘Participant Agreement’ for the purpose of determining whether Mitzi Westover was aware of the risks associated with the ‘Mega Quest’ ropes course.” The Trial Court declined to provide this instruction to the jury.

Under KRE^[4] 401, relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Under KRE 402, “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible” unless otherwise excluded by the law or rules of evidence. “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” KRE 402. Relevance is established by any showing of probativeness, however slight. Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439, 449 (Ky. 1999). However, under KRE 403, even relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

The Estate cites two out-of-state cases holding that it is prejudicial error to admit an unenforceable liability-limiting agreement. Matador Production Co. v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems, Inc., 450 S.W.3d 580, 594 (Tex. App. 2014); and Blue Valley Co-op v. National Farmers Organization, 600 N.W.2d 786, 793-96 (Neb. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280, 929 N.W.2d 40 (2019). However, in both cases there were no claims that the agreements were relevant for any reason except as a waiver of liability. Matador, 450 S.W.3d at 595; Blue Valley, 600 N.W.2d at 794. In this case, the Trial Court expressly found that the Agreement was relevant to the disputed issues of negligence. Those issues included whether LMC notified Westover of the inherent risks of the activity, as well as any risks that the activity may have posed to individuals with limited mobility or medical conditions.

LMC further argued that the Agreement was relevant to determine the adequacy of its warnings. The Trial Court also concluded that the Agreement was a party admission by Westover under KRE 801A(b). By signing the Agreement, the Trial Court found that Westover manifested her assent to and adoption of the disclosures in the Agreement, as well as her own representations that she was physically capable of performing the activity. Obviously, the Estate raised other disputed issues of negligence, including whether LMC staff was adequately trained and had access to proper equipment in the event of an emergency.

While the Agreement may not have been admissible to prove that Westover waived or released LMC from liability for its own negligence, it was otherwise relevant to show whether Westover was informed of the risks of the Mega Quest course, as well as whether she properly informed LMC of any physical or medical conditions and medications that may have affected her safety on the course. Because these issues were relevant to the disputed issues of negligence, we conclude that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing LMC to introduce the Agreement into evidence.

The more significant question is whether the Agreement’s probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The Estate contends that the Release and Indemnity language was likely to confuse the jury about the ultimate issue of liability. Specifically, the Estate argues that the language may have misled the jury into believing that Westover had waived her right to claim negligence by LMC.

The Trial Court must make three basic inquiries when making a determination under KRE 403: (1) assessment of the probative worth of the evidence whose exclusion is sought; (2) consideration of the probable impact of specified, undesirable consequences likely to flow from its admission (i.e., “undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, . . . undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence”); and (3) a determination of whether the harmful effects from admission exceeds the probative worth of evidence. Webb v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Ky. 2012) (citing Partin v. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1996), overruled on other grounds by Chestnut v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2008)). The task of weighing the probative value and undue prejudice of proffered evidence is inherently factual and, therefore, within the discretion of the Trial Court. Ross v. Commonwealth, 455 S.W.3d 899, 910 (Ky. 2015).

Here, the Estate asserts the jury was likely to be confused or misled by the Release and Indemnity language in the Agreement. But the Estate does not point to any testimony, evidence, or argument that emphasized the language or suggested that it was controlling as to LMC’s liability. Furthermore, the Trial Court redacted the bolded language excluding liability for injury or death arising from an agritourism activity, except for the assumption-of-risk language, but the Trial Court did not redact the Release and Indemnity provision at the Estate’s request. Under the circumstances, the Estate has not shown the prejudicial effect of the Agreement substantially outweighed its probative value.

Along similar lines, the Estate requested an instruction advising the jury that the Agreement’s Release and Indemnity language was unenforceable. The proposed instruction stated that “you may not determine that [LMC] is immune from lawsuit. However, you may consider the ‘Participant Agreement’ for the purpose of determining whether Mitzi Westover was aware of the risks associated with participation in the ‘Mega Quest’ ropes course.” The Estate takes the position that it was entitled to this limiting instruction under KRE 105(a), which provides as follows:

When evidence which is admissible as to one (1) party or for one (1) purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and admonish the jury accordingly. In the absence of such a request, the admission of the evidence by the trial judge without limitation shall not be a ground for complaint on appeal, except under the palpable error rule.

As discussed above, the Agreement was relevant and admissible as it related to the disputed issues of negligence and as a party admission. But the Agreement was not admissible for LMC to avoid liability under its waiver and release provisions. Indeed, the construction and enforceability of a written instrument are matters of law for the Trial Court to decide, not the jury. See
Morganfield National Bank v. Damien Elder & Sons, 836 S.W.2d 893 (Ky. 1992), and Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Ky. App. 1998). The Estate points out that KRE 105 required the Trial Court to give the instruction “upon request.” Consequently, the Estate argues that the Trial Court’s failure to give the instruction constitutes reversible error.

In denying the request, the Trial Court took the position that KRE 105 required the Estate to move for an admonition to the jury at the time the Agreement was introduced, and it was not a proper matter for jury instructions. The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed this issue in St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2004). In that case, a defendant waited until the close of evidence to request a limiting instruction as to the appropriate purpose of certain evidence pursuant to KRE 105. The Court held that

[a]lthough the substantive distinction between admonitions and instructions is not always clear or closely hewn to, we interpret the first word of KRE 105(a), i.e., “when,” to mean that the request for a “limited purpose” admonition must be made at the time that the evidence in question is admitted and no later than after the direct examination at which the evidence is introduced.

Id. at 559 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). More recently, our Supreme Court reiterated this point, holding that, “[a]lthough it is within the trial court’s discretion to determine when the admonition should be given, it must be requested ‘no later than after the direct examination’ where the evidence is introduced.” Posey v. Commonwealth, 595 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Ky. 2019) (quoting St. Clair, 140 S.W.3d at 559). Because the Estate failed to request an admonition at the time the Agreement was introduced, we may only review the Trial Court’s denial of an instruction for palpable error.

In the civil context, CR 61.02 defines “palpable error” as an error that affects the substantial rights of a party. An appellate court may review an error and grant appropriate relief, even though the issue is insufficiently raised or preserved for review, “upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.” “Manifest injustice” means that “if, upon consideration of the whole case, a substantial possibility does not exist that the result would have been different, the error will be deemed nonprejudicial.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006) (interpreting language in RCr^[5] 10.26, which has been construed “identically” to CR 61.02. See Nami Resources Company, L.L.C. v. Asher Land and Mineral, Ltd., 554 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Ky. 2018)) (citing Graves v. Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 858, 864 (Ky. 2000)).

Having said this, the mere possibility of prejudice is not enough to show manifest injustice. The Estate must show a likelihood – “a reasonable possibility” – that, but for the failure to give the instruction, a different result would have occurred. Parker v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.3d 394, 407-08 (Ky. 2016). “Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Nami Res., 554 S.W.3d at 338 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017)).

Prior to trial, the Estate sought to exclude introduction of the Agreement as irrelevant. The parties extensively litigated this matter, resulting in the Trial Court’s ruling that the Release portions of the Agreement were unenforceable, but that the Agreement was admissible for other purposes. Prior to introduction of the Agreement, the parties also discussed whether portions of the Agreement should be redacted. Based on these discussions, the Trial Court redacted a significant portion of the emphasized language. The Trial Court may well have concluded that the Estate’s decision not to request an admonition was a strategic choice to avoid emphasizing the remaining language in the Agreement.

At trial, LMC emphasized the language in the Agreement describing the risks of the activity and addressing the health and safety concerns. But as noted above, LMC neither argued that the Agreement was controlling as to liability, nor did it suggest that Westover waived her right to recover for any negligence on its part. Therefore, we must conclude that the Estate failed to establish that the Trial Court’s declination to give the limiting instruction amounted to palpable error.

IV. Instructions on LMC’s duties

The Estate also argues that the Trial Court erred by failing to give complete jury instructions on the issue of LMC’s duties. The Trial Court’s instruction advised the jury that LMC had the following duty:

to exercise ordinary care for the safety of its patrons. “Ordinary Care,” as applied to [LMC], means such care as you would expect an ordinarily prudent company engage[d] in the same type of business to exercise under similar circumstances.

The Estate’s proposed instruction included the “ordinary care” language, but also stated LMC’s general duty included the following specific duties:

to make the condition of the “Mega Quest” ropes course reasonably safe; and

(1) to discover unreasonable risks of harm associated with the “Mega Quest” ropes course; and either

(a) take active steps to make the risks safe; or

(b) give adequate warning of those risks.

The Estate’s proposed instruction further defined “unreasonable risk” as:

one that is recognized by a reasonable company in similar circumstances as one that should be avoided or minimized, or one that is in fact recognized by [LMC]. Even if you find that [LMC] adequately warned of the risks associated with participation in the “Mega Quest” ropes course, you may find that [LMC] failed to exercise ordinary care by failing to adopt further precautions against those risks, if it was foreseeable that, despite the warning, some risk of harm remained.

The Estate argues that it was entitled to instructions on the specific duties supporting its cause of action against LMC. A party plaintiff is entitled to have its theory of the case submitted to the jury if there is any evidence to sustain it. Clark v. Hauck Mfg. Co., 910 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Ky. 1995), overruled on other
grounds by Martin v. Ohio Cnty. Hosp. Corp., 295 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2009). However, Kentucky law generally requires the use of “bare bones” instructions. Olfice, Inc. v. Wilkey, 173 S.W.3d 226, 229 (Ky. 2005) (citing Lumpkins v. City of
Louisville, 157 S.W.3d 601, 605 (Ky. 2005)). “Bare bones” instructions are proper if they correctly advise the jury about “what [it] must believe from the evidence in order to return a verdict in favor of the party who bears the burden of proof” on that issue. Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc., 840 S.W.2d 814, 824 (Ky. 1992). The question on appeal is whether the allegedly erroneous instruction misstated the law. Id. at 823.

In Smith v. Smith, 563 S.W.3d 14, 18 (Ky. 2018), our Supreme Court held that a single, “ordinary care” jury instruction does not properly instruct the jury when liability is based upon land classifications or the possessor’s duty based upon those classifications. Id. But in that case, there was a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff was a licensee, a public invitee, or a business invitee. Id. at 17-18. Thus, the separate instruction was necessary for the jury to determine the applicable standard of ordinary care.

In this case, the Estate argued that LMC’s duties of ordinary care included duties to make the premises reasonably safe, to discover unreasonable risks of harm associated with the ropes course, and to take active steps to make those risks safe or to give adequate warning of those risks. Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 913-14 (Ky. 2013). But as noted in Shelton, the issue of duty is a purely legal one, while the standard of care is a factual question. Id. at 914. Here, there was no question that Westover was a business invitee.

Although the Estate asserts that LMC breached its duties to discover unreasonable risks of harm associated with the ropes course, its claims at trial were that LMC failed to use ordinary care in the operation of the ropes course and failed to give Westover adequate warning of the potential risks arising from negligence by either LMC or Westover. Any additional duties could be further explained during closing argument. Olfice, Inc., 173 S.W.3d at 230. Since these duties are adequately covered by the duty of ordinary care, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Estate’s proffered instruction.

V.
Admission of Evidence of Hydrocodone in Westover’s urine

The Estate additionally argues that the Trial Court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of hydrocodone in Westover’s urine. Prior to trial, the Estate filed a motion in limine to exclude a toxicology report showing that Westover had oxycodone and oxymorphone in her blood and hydrocodone in her urine when she was admitted to the hospital. Based on the toxicology report, LMC’s expert witness, Dr. William Smock, was prepared to testify that Westover had levels of oxycodone and hydrocodone in her system, but he was not able to definitively state that these levels caused any impairment or intoxication. Dr. Smock stated that Westover had a prescription for oxycodone, and that oxymorphone is a metabolite of oxycodone. But he could not locate her prescription for hydrocodone. LMC’s other medical expert, Dr. Greg Davis, provided similar testimony.

The Estate argues that the evidence and testimony should be excluded because neither physician could state with any reasonable certainty that Westover was impaired or intoxicated when she undertook the Mega Quest course. The Estate also contends that LMC sought to use the testimony as improper character evidence, branding Westover as an illicit drug user. But, as previously noted, LMC responded that the evidence was relevant because Westover represented that she was not under the influence of any impairing drugs. The Trial Court agreed with LMC and denied the Estate’s motion.

Generally, an expert’s opinion must be couched in terms of probability or reasonable certainty, and opinions which are expressed using language such as “possibility” may be properly excluded as speculative. Combs v. Stortz, 276 S.W.3d 282, 296 (Ky. App. 2009) (citing Schulz v. Celotex Corp., 942 F.2d 204, 208-09 (3d Cir. 1991)). But unlike in Calhoun v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 2007-CA-001651-MR, 2009 WL 152970, at *13 (Ky. App. Jan. 23, 2009), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 331 S.W.3d 236 (Ky. 2011), Drs. Smock and Davis were not testifying that Westover’s use of opiates caused her to be impaired or contributed to her injury. They merely testified as to the presence of those substances in her blood and urine at the time of her death.

While KRE 404(b) protects against the introduction of extrinsic act evidence when the evidence is offered solely to prove character, it allows such evidence to be introduced for a proper purpose. Burton v. Commonwealth, 300 S.W.3d 126, 136 (Ky. 2009). This evidence was relevant to show that Westover failed to disclose her use of these substances when she executed the Agreement. Furthermore, the testimony of Drs. Smock and Davis was subject to vigorous cross-examination, during which both admitted that there was no evidence that Westover was impaired.

The Estate maintains that LMC sought to portray Westover as an illicit user of hydrocodone. However, Dr. Davis conceded that Westover may have had a prescription for hydrocodone even though the prescription could not be located at the time of trial. The Estate also presented evidence that trace amounts of hydrocodone may have been found in Westover’s prescription for oxycodone. In addition, the Estate does not point to any evidence, testimony, or argument at trial suggesting that Westover should be denied relief because of her use of these drugs. Because the evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, we cannot find that the Trial Court abused its discretion by allowing evidence and testimony concerning the presence of hydrocodone in Westover’s urine.

VI. Limitation on Cross-Examination

The Estate also argues that the Trial Court abused its discretion by limiting its ability to cross-examine LMC witnesses regarding standards and literature published by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”). At trial, LMC’s owner, Jim Lowry, testified that LMC was not required to train its staff in first aid or CPR. LMC’s former safety manager, Kimberly Coleman, also testified that it was her understanding that LMC was not required to train its employees to the standards set out by OSHA and the Association for Challenge Course Technology (“ACCT”). When the Estate sought to cross-examine these witnesses about these standards, LMC responded that the OSHA standards were only applicable to employees and not participants in the activity. The Trial Court agreed and precluded the Estate from cross-examining the witness on this matter.

The Estate contends that the OSHA standards and literature were relevant to determine the standard of care expected of an operator of a ropes course and zip line such as LMC. But while industry standards or manuals can inform the standard of care that will satisfy a duty, neither establishes the duty itself. Spencer v. Arnold, No. 2018-CA-000479-MR, 2020 WL 4500588, at *7 (Ky. App. Jul. 24, 2020) (citing Carman v. Dunaway Timber Co., Inc., 949 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Ky. 1997)). As the Trial Court noted, the OSHA regulations and literature specifically referred to the duties owed to employees, not participants. Furthermore, Kentucky had not adopted the ACCT standards at the time of Westover’s injuries. Given the limited relevance of these materials, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by restricting the Estate’s cross-examination on these matters.

VII. Exclusion of portions of deposition testimony by LMC’s CR 30.02(b) representative

Finally, LMC designated General Manager Jeremiah Heath as its corporate representative pursuant to CR 30.02(6). Following Heath’s testimony at trial, the Estate sought to read two portions of Heath’s deposition into the record. Specifically, the Estate wanted to introduce deposition testimony in which Heath stated that he had informed LMC employees that they were not allowed to perform CPR. LMC objected, noting that the Estate had an opportunity to cross-examine Heath with his deposition testimony. The Trial Court agreed and sustained LMC’s objection.

The Estate notes that CR 32.01(b) permits the deposition of a corporate representative to be “used by an adverse party for any purpose.” The Estate further notes that the rule permits testimony to be read to the jury even though the designee is available to testify in person. Lambert v. Franklin Real Est. Co., 37 S.W.3d 770, 779 (Ky. App. 2000)(citing Kurt A. Philipps, Jr., 6 Kentucky Practice, CR 32.01 (5th ed. 1995)). However, that language is limited to use of testimony “admissible under the rules of evidence as though the witness were then present and testifying.” Hashmi v. Kelly, 379 S.W.3d 108, 112 (Ky. 2012) (quoting CR 32.01).

While the rule clearly permitted the Estate to cross-examine Heath with his prior deposition testimony, we agree with the Trial Court that his deposition testimony was not separately admissible after he testified. Use of the deposition in this manner would have been substantially prejudicial because LMC would have lacked the opportunity to rebut or explain the testimony without recalling Heath. See Graves by & Through Graves v. Jones, No. 2019-CA-0880-MR, 2021 WL 1431851, at *8 (Ky. App. Apr. 16, 2021). Furthermore, the Trial Court noted that it had sustained several of LMC’s objections during those portions of Heath’s deposition. Those sustained objections would have further limited the admissibility of those portions of the deposition. Given these considerations, we cannot find that the Trial Court abused its discretion by denying the Estate’s untimely request to read these portions of Heath’s deposition testimony to the jury.

VIII. Conclusion

The Trial Court’s instructions accurately stated the applicable law and correctly advised the jury about what it needed to believe from the evidence to return a verdict in favor of the Estate. We also conclude that the medical evidence concerning the presence of hydrocodone in Westover’s urine was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. Finally, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the Estate’s cross-examination on OSHA standards or by declining to read Heath’s deposition into the record after he had testified. Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

ALL CONCUR.

———

Notes:

^[1] The property comprising the former limestone mine is owned by Louisville Underground, L.L.C. The Estate named that entity as a party defendant in its complaint. However, it was dismissed by agreed order prior to trial and is not a party to this appeal.

^[2] Kentucky Revised Statutes.

^[3] Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

^[4] Kentucky Rules of Evidence.

^[5] Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

———

Snowmobiles are an inherent risk on ski slopes in California.

Posted: September 25, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, California, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: assumption of the risk, Collision, Inherent Risk, LLC., Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Release, Snowmobile, Waiver | Leave a comment

Appellate court decision finds release stopped claims & plaintiff assumed the risk of hitting a stopped snowmobile on the slope.

Citation: Valter v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (Cal. App. 2023)

State: California, California Court of Appeals, Third District, Mono

Plaintiff: JOHN VALTER

Defendant: MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, LLC

Plaintiff Claims: improperly drove the snowmobile up the mountain & defendant was grossly negligent

Defendant Defenses: doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and assumed the risk of colliding with a snowmobile when he signed Mammoth’s liability waiver.

Holding: For Defendant

Year: 2023

Summary

A season pass holder at Mammoth ski area was injured when he hit a snowmobile that was parked on the slopes. The California appellate court held the season pass stopped the plaintiff’s claims and also found that a snowmobile on the slopes is an inherent risk of skiing.

Facts

Mammoth is a ski resort in Mammoth Lakes. As is common in the ski industry, it uses snowmobiles in its operations and has taken certain steps to reduce the chance of collisions with guests. It has, for instance, created a snowmobile training program and developed training materials that, among other things, require its snowmobile drivers to limit their speed in congested areas, to ride on the side of the run providing the best visibility, to yield to guests, and to use flags and headlights when driving in public areas. It has additionally posted signs at the top of ski lifts warning that snowmobiles “may be encountered at any time,” included the same warning in its trail map, and, in its liability waiver for season-pass holders, required season-pass holders to acknowledge that “Skiing and Snowboarding involve risks posed by . . . collisions with . . . snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles.”

Mammoth has also established preferred routes for its snowmobile drivers with the intent to limit collision risks. One of these routes formerly covered two ski runs called St. Moritz and Stump Alley. Stump Alley is a larger, popular run that ends at the base of the resort; St. Moritz is a smaller run that branches off Stump Alley. To provide a rough visualization of these runs, think of a rotated lowercase y-as in, A-with the longer line representing Stump Alley and the shorter line representing St. Moritz. For the designated route covering these runs, snowmobile drivers were instructed to stay to their left when going up St. Moritz; then, where St. Moritz meets Stump Alley, to make a slight right turn onto Stump Alley to avoid a steep area that is difficult for snowmobiles; and then, after passing this area, to travel across Stump Alley and then stay to their left when going up Stump Alley. A map of Mammoth’s preferred snowmobile routes shows the St. Moritz-to-Stump Alley route. As depicted in the map, the route crosses Stump Alley at an upward diagonal from right to left and then goes up the left of Stump Alley. Mammoth began developing this route at some time before 1989 and used it until late 2016.

In early 2016, one of Mammoth’s lift maintenance employees, Joshua Peters, drove his snowmobile up St. Moritz on his way to a lift maintenance station. Peters- who had completed Mammoth’s snowmobile safety training-drove up St. Moritz at about 15 miles per hour, slowed to about five miles per hour before exiting St. Moritz, and then continued at this speed on Stump Alley as he looked to cut across the run. Valter, an expert skier, was skiing down the left side of Stump Alley at the same time and began decelerating from about 30 miles per hour to make a left turn onto St. Moritz. Peters said he saw Valter from a distance of about 80 to 120 feet, slowed further, and then stopped. But Valter never saw Peters. Valter made three or four controlled turns a after Peters first saw him, and he then collided with Peters’s snowmobile on Stump Alley. Valter suffered significant injuries as a result.

Two other witnesses saw the accident. One was another Mammoth employee who was driving a snowmobile behind Peters. He afterward told an officer that Peters had stopped and that Valter was looking over his left shoulder just before the collision- though Valter told the same officer that he never looked over his shoulder. Another witness saw the accident from above on a ski lift. In a written statement, he said the snowmobile was driving slowly up Stump Alley diagonally from “skier[‘]s left to right”-as in, from the left side to the right side of the run from the perspective of a skier going downhill. He added that the snowmobile had slowed almost to a stop at the time of impact. But, he wrote, it was “almost as though [the] skier never saw [the] snow mobile”; the skier traveled in a “controlled line but it was directly into [the] snow mobile.”

Several photographs taken immediately after the collision show the snowmobile’s appearance and position at the time of the accident. The snowmobile is dark blue and flies an orange flag at its back. It is not obstructed by any apparent obstacles. Another photograph taken after the accident, which the parties marked up during Peters’s deposition, shows Peters’s path from St. Moritz to Stump Alley. Both parties accept that the photograph accurately depicts his path. The photograph (together with other photographs of the scene) shows Peters entered Stump Alley from the far left of St. Moritz near a sign describing different runs and then headed up Stump Alley at a sharp diagonal. According to a diagram that Mammoth personnel made after the accident, the distance between this sign and Peters’s snowmobile at the place of the collision was 44 feet.

Before the accident, and as a condition of holding a season pass, Valter signed a liability waiver. In the waiver, Valter agreed he “underst[oo]d Skiing and Snowboarding involve risks posed by . . . collisions with . . . snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles,” “agree[d] that these risks and dangers are necessary to the sports of Skiing and Snowboarding,” “AGREE[D] TO EXPRESSLY ASSUME ANY AND ALL RISK OF INJURY OR DEATH which might be associated with [his] participation in the SPORTS,” and “AGREE[D] NEVER TO SUE, AND TO RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, Mammoth . . . for any . . . injury . . . which arises in whole or in part out of [his] . . . participation in the SPORTS . . ., including without limitation those claims based on MAMMOTH’S alleged or actual NEGLIGENCE ….”

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

The defendant was a season pass holder at Mammoth Mountain ski area. In obtaining the season pass, the plaintiff signed a release.

Releases in California stop all claims for ordinary or simple negligence. In order to defeat a release, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was grossly negligent.

… Valter’s signing of the liability waiver bars him from suing Mammoth for ordinary negligence-which Valter does not dispute. We further conclude Valter cannot show Mammoth’s conduct rose to the level of gross negligence. The undisputed facts show, among other things, that snowmobiles are common at ski resorts, that Mammoth posted signs warning guests that snowmobiles could be encountered at any time, that Valter expressly acknowledged the risk of colliding with a snowmobile and agreed to assume the risk of Mammoth’s negligence, that Mammoth trained Peters on snowmobile safety, that Peters drove his snowmobile slowly and stopped or almost stopped before the collision, that his snowmobile flew an orange flag, and that, in the photographs taken immediately after the accident, no obstacles are shown obstructing a downhill skier’s ability to see Peters and his snowmobile in the area of the collision.

The plaintiff attempted to argue that several of the actions that Mammoth did were gross negligence, however, the court did not accept any of those arguments.

Although Valter argues Mammoth’s conduct here could be found grossly negligent for several reasons, we find none of his arguments persuasive. He first contends Mammoth could be found grossly negligent because the presence of snowmobiles is not an inherent part of skiing. But whether or not the presence of snowmobiles is an inherent part of skiing, we are at least satisfied that no reasonable person could find Mammoth grossly negligent simply because it used snowmobiles. The undisputed facts, again, show that snowmobiles are common at ski resorts. Mammoth’s former health and safety manager, for instance, explained that in the ski industry, snowmobiles are used “on a daily basis for lift maintenance, lift operations, and for ski patrol emergency transport.” Valter, who said he had skied about a 1,000 days in his lifetime on various mountains, never alleged differently. He instead acknowledged he commonly saw snowmobiles on ski runs that were open to the public. The undisputed facts, moreover, show that a ski resort’s use of snowmobiles can improve safety. Snowmobiles, for example, allow lift maintenance technicians (like Peters) to respond quickly when a chair lift maintenance safety issue arises that requires an immediate response. Again, Valter never alleged differently and, on appeal, states he does not disagree “that snowmobiles are very useful and efficient in the operation of a ski resort.” On these undisputed facts, we cannot say that Mammoth’s decision to use snowmobiles evidenced “either a ‘” ‘want of even scant care'”‘ or ‘” ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct,'” ‘” even though, as Valter asserts elsewhere in his brief, snowmobiles (like most, if not all, snow equipment) pose some potential risk to skiers.

What is significant here is another court, based on the plaintiff’s facts has held that the plaintiff failed to prove enough issues to prove gross negligence. In the past, the plaintiff simply had to claim gross negligence, and the courts would throw out the release and proceed to trial. Nowadays, the courts are tired of every claim arguing gross negligence and taking it upon themselves to find the facts the plaintiff is arguing cannot rise to the level of gross negligence.

On top of that, the arguments set forth by the court can now be used by other defendants to prove they were not grossly negligent. Those arguments are:

The presence of snowmobiles is not an inherent part of skiing.
no reasonable person could find Mammoth grossly negligent simply because it used snowmobiles
undisputed facts, again, show that snowmobiles are common at ski resorts
undisputed facts, moreover, show that a ski resort’s use of snowmobiles can improve safety
Snowmobiles, for example, allow lift maintenance technicians (like Peters) to respond quickly when a chair lift maintenance safety issue arises that requires an immediate response

The next section of the decision is where the plaintiff stretched the facts to far. The plaintiff argued that Mammoth never told skiers where the designated snowmobile routes were. However, the court found the routes were not as important as all the warnings that Mammoth put in front of its guests about snowmobiles.

And failing to share the routes with the skiers at Mammoth did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

But we conclude no reasonable person could find Mammoth grossly negligent simply because it failed to share these maps-a practice that no ski resort, as far as Valter has shown, has adopted.

The arguments then descended into arguments about distance. Was the snowmobile, which was stopped at the time, off the route, not known by the plaintiff and if so by inches or yards.

Third, Valter argues Mammoth could be found grossly negligent because Peters failed to follow Mammoth’s preferred snowmobile route for St. Moritz. According to the preferred snowmobile route, again, Peters should have stayed to his left when going up St. Moritz; then, where St. Moritz meets Stump Alley, made a slight right onto Stump Alley to avoid a steep area that is difficult for snowmobiles; and then, after passing this area, traveled across Stump Alley and up the left side of Stump Alley. But according to Valter, Peters instead “drove up near the middle of St. Moritz” (rather than the left), “made a looping right turn near the top of St. Moritz at its intersection with Stump Alley” (rather than a slight right), and “intend[ed] to drive up the right side of Stump Alley” (rather than drive across Stump Alley and up the left side of the run). As a result, Valter asserts, Peters was “several yards from where he was supposed to be before trying to cross Stump Alley” at the time of the accident.

However, the court found this really did not matter because the plaintiff could not show his statements were valid. There was nothing in the evidence that showed the plaintiff’s allegations were true. “But much of Valter’s alleged facts lack evidentiary support.“ Then the court held that even if the snowmobile driver was “off route” it did not matter because the plaintiff could not prove that being off route made any difference.

The plaintiff argued Mammoth was grossly negligent for designating the snowmobile route in question as being grossly negligent.

He reasons that Mammoth should have chosen a different route because it knew Stump Alley was a popular run, knew skiers “coming down Stump Alley ‘hug’ the tree line on the left in order to turn left onto St. Moritz,” acknowledged that these trees would have grown substantially since the snowmobile routes were initially established around 1989, knew snowmobiles on St. Moritz pose a potential danger to skiers, knew other routes were available, and never conducted any safety, feasibility, or visibility studies for the route. He adds that Mammoth’s new snowmobile routes no longer use St. Moritz (though he says the “change was not made in response to Valter’s injury”) and that Mammoth now uses snowmobile corridors that are marked off with stakes and ropes.

The court rejected that argument on two different grounds. The first was the ski area still inundated its guests with warnings about snowmobiles being on the runs. The second was the plaintiff could not prove that selecting that run for a snowmobile route was done incorrectly, without planning or in any way increased the risk to skiers.

Finally, the plaintiff was shot down because the stretches in the facts went too far for the court. “But Valter’s allegations cannot be squared with the undisputed facts.”

First, in his own telling, he was traveling at a speed less than 30 miles per hour, as he was decelerating from 30 miles per hour at the time of the collision. And second, according to Peters’s undisputed testimony, Valter managed to make three or four controlled turns after Peters saw him- demonstrating that the issue is more that Valter failed to notice Peters than that he lacked time to avoid Peters. At any rate, because Valter raised this argument for the first time in his reply brief, and without good cause, we find the argument forfeited.

The court said the arguments made by the plaintiff, individually or as a group failed to show any gross negligence on the part of the defendant ski area.

So Now What?

The definition of inherent, is changing either by statute or by law. California has no ski area safety statute. However, the courts have expanded the definition of inherent risk to include snowcats, Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344
and now snowmobiles. California now joins Colorado in finding a parked snowmobile is an inherent risk of skiing, see A parked snowmobile is an inherent risk of skiing for which all skiers assume the risk under Colorado Ski Area Safety Act.

Inherent risk used to be those risks that were part and parcel of the activity, without the activity of man. Now, in skiing at least by statute or law, the inherent risks of skiing have expanded. You go skiing or boarding you assume the risk of hitting something on the slopes that is either natural or manmade.

For other articles about the inherent risks see:

A season pass release for a Pennsylvania ski are was limited to the inherent risks of skiing. Consequently, the plaintiff was able to argue his injury was not due to an inherent risk.

Hitting a rock while skiing in Montana is an inherent risk of the sport. Other interesting statements by the court though create an interesting decision.

Inherent Risk is the part of any sport and is assumed by participants when undertaking the activity.

Minnesota Supreme Court allows skier v. skier lawsuits in MN. Colliding with a tree is an inherent risk but colliding with a person is not?

Plaintiff cannot assume a risk which is not inherent in the activity or which he does not know.

Under Pennsylvania law, a collision with other skiers or boarders is an inherent risk of skiing. Skiing off the trail because of the collision is also an inherent risk of skiing.

Your release cannot use the term “inherent risk” as the description of the risks, it creates no release at all.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

James H. “Jim” Moss

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

Facebook Logo

X, Formerly Twitter

Threads

Recreation Law

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

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Valter v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (Cal. App. 2023)

Posted: September 25, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Colorado, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: assumption of the risk, Collision, Inherent Risk Release, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, ski area, skiing, Snowmobile, Waiver | Leave a comment

To Read an analysis of this case see:

Snowmobiles are an inherent risk on ski slopes in California.

Valter v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (Cal. App. 2023)

JOHN VALTER, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

C096036

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Mono

September 18, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CV170111

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, is a ski resort that, like many ski resorts, uses snowmobiles in its operations. John Valter sued Mammoth after colliding with one of these snowmobiles while skiing. He alleged that a Mammoth employee improperly drove the snowmobile up the mountain and then stopped in his path. On Mammoth’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court found his claims failed as a matter of law for two reasons. First, it found Valter’s claims barred under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, reasoning that a collision with a plainly visible snowmobile is a risk inherent in skiing and that Mammoth had not increased this risk. Second, it found Valter’s claims barred because he expressly assumed the risk of colliding with a snowmobile when he signed Mammoth’s liability waiver. In the waiver, Valter acknowledged the risks of colliding with snowmobiles and excused Mammoth for liability for its negligence.

On appeal, Valter contends neither ground for granting summary judgment is valid. Starting with the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, he asserts the doctrine is inapplicable because the risk of colliding with a snowmobile is not a risk inherent in skiing and, even it were, Mammoth improperly increased this risk. Turning to express assumption of risk, he asserts Mammoth’s conduct was grossly negligent and so exceeded the scope of the liability waiver. We limit our discussion to Valter’s second argument. Because we conclude the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the ground of express assumption of risk, we affirm on that basis.

BACKGROUND

Factual Background

Procedural Background

Following the accident, Valter sued Mammoth for premises liability and negligence, alleging that Mammoth failed to maintain the ski area in a safe condition and failed to provide adequate warning of the alleged unsafe condition. He reasoned that Peters improperly stopped his snowmobile in front of his path without providing adequate warning.

Mammoth later filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Valter’s claims failed as a matter of law for two reasons. It contended his claims were barred under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk because a potential collision with a snowmobile is a risk inherent in skiing and it had not unreasonably increased this risk. It also asserted his claims were barred because, in signing the liability waiver, he had expressly agreed to assume the risk of its negligence. Although Mammoth acknowledged that the waiver would not cover its gross negligence, it argued that Valter could not prove gross negligence here.

Valter opposed the motion. To Mammoth’s argument concerning primary assumption of risk, he contended snowmobiles have nothing to do with skiing and, even if they did, Mammoth increased the risk inherent in skiing in two ways: first, because Mammoth selected a dangerous snowmobile route, as skiers traveling down the popular Stump Alley run are unable to see snowmobiles traveling up St. Moritz and lack adequate warning of snowmobiles; and second, because Peters dangerously deviated from the snowmobile route when he traveled up the center of St. Moritz and up the right (skier’s left) of Stump Alley. To Mammoth’s argument concerning express assumption of risk, Valter contended Mammoth’s conduct rose to the level of gross negligence and so fell outside the scope of the liability waiver. He reasoned that Mammoth was grossly negligent because it failed to provide adequate warnings about snowmobiles, it chose a dangerous snowmobile route, and Peters dangerously deviated from this route.

The trial court granted Mammoth’s motion, agreeing with both of Mammoth’s arguments. Starting with the facts, the court found the undisputed facts showed Mammoth warned skiers about the potential risk of colliding with snowmobiles, adopted a snowmobile safety manual, and required training for employees operating snowmobiles. The court further, among other things, found the undisputed facts showed Peters slowed and then stopped on Stump Alley after exiting St. Moritz, Peters’s snowmobile was in plain view before the collision on a clear and sunny day, snowmobiles are regularly used at ski resorts, and Valter had expressly agreed to assume the risk of colliding with snowmobiles when he signed a liability waiver for his season pass.

The court then turned to Mammoth’s arguments. Beginning with Mammoth’s argument grounded on primary assumption of risk, it found a collision with a plainly visible snowmobile is a risk inherent in skiing, adding “that a snowmobile is a commonly used and essential piece of equipment necessary for the practical operation of a ski mountain.” It further found Mammoth had not increased this inherent risk. While it accepted that Peters might have deviated from the snowmobile route by several feet, it found this detail immaterial and noted that Peters had attempted to yield to downhill skier traffic on Stump Alley, slowed to five miles per hour as he looked for a safe opportunity to cross, and stopped in a plainly visible location before the collision. Turning to Mammoth’s argument premised on express assumption of risk, the court found Valter expressly excused Mammoth for liability for its ordinary negligence. Although it found the waiver would not excuse Mammoth for liability for gross negligence, it concluded Valter could not show gross negligence here.

After the court entered judgment in Mammoth’s favor, Valter timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

A trial court may grant a motion for summary judgment “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (c).) To meet its burden on summary judgment, a moving defendant must show either that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s causes of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the plaintiff’s case. (Id., subd. (p)(2).) If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists. (Ibid.) A factual issue is material if it could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(a)(2).) And a factual issue is triable if “the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 845.)

” ‘” ‘We review the trial court’s decision de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except that to which objections were made and sustained.'” ‘” (Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 286.) We also” ‘liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.'” (Ibid.)

Express Assumption of Risk

Valter contends neither of the trial court’s grounds for granting Mammoth’s motion for summary judgment are valid. He first asserts the trial court wrongly granted summary judgment on the ground that the risk of colliding with a snowmobile is an inherent risk of skiing. He reasons that the risk of a snowmobile collision is not an inherent risk of skiing and, even if it were, Mammoth’s misconduct increased this risk. He further asserts the court wrongly granted summary judgment on the additional ground that he expressly agreed to assume the risk of Mammoth’s negligence, reasoning that Mammoth’s conduct was grossly negligent and so exceeded the scope of the agreement. Because we conclude no reasonable person could find Mammoth’s conduct rose to the level of gross negligence, we reject Valter’s challenge to the latter ground for granting summary judgment and affirm on that basis.

As a condition of receiving a season pass for Mammoth, Valter expressly agreed to assume the risk of Mammoth’s negligence. In the context of sports, including for skiing, courts have consistently found these types of agreements are valid when they excuse liability for ordinary negligence-that is, for “a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm.” (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 753-754, 759 (City of Santa Barbara) [“a number of cases have upheld agreements insofar as they release liability for future ordinary negligence in the context of sports and recreation programs”]; see also Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1259 [finding Mammoth’s liability waiver valid].) But our Supreme Court has explained that these agreements generally cannot excuse liability for gross negligence-that is, for conduct evidencing “either a ‘” ‘want of even scant care'”‘ or ‘” ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” ‘” (City of Santa Barbara, at p. 754.)

Applying these principles here, we conclude Valter’s signing of the liability waiver bars him from suing Mammoth for ordinary negligence-which Valter does not dispute. We further conclude Valter cannot show Mammoth’s conduct rose to the level of gross negligence. The undisputed facts show, among other things, that snowmobiles are common at ski resorts, that Mammoth posted signs warning guests that snowmobiles could be encountered at any time, that Valter expressly acknowledged the risk of colliding with a snowmobile and agreed to assume the risk of Mammoth’s negligence, that Mammoth trained Peters on snowmobile safety, that Peters drove his snowmobile slowly and stopped or almost stopped before the collision, that his snowmobile flew an orange flag, and that, in the photographs taken immediately after the accident, no obstacles are shown obstructing a downhill skier’s ability to see Peters and his snowmobile in the area of the collision. Considering the undisputed facts here, we conclude that Mammoth met its burden to show that it is entitled to judgment on the ground of express assumption of risk. We also conclude that Valter has failed to raise any triable issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. (See Joshi v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 814, 828 [“although the existence of gross negligence is a matter generally for the trier of fact [citation], it may be determined as a matter of law on summary judgment in an appropriate case”].)

Second, Valter suggests Mammoth could be found grossly negligent because it never shared its designated snowmobile routes with its guests. But Mammoth repeatedly cautioned guests about snowmobiles and explained they could be encountered at any time. Signs at the top of the lifts at Mammoth, for instance, explain that snowmobiles “may be encountered at any time.” The Mammoth trail map says the same: Snowmobiles “may be encountered at any time.” And the liability waiver that Valter signed further warned about the presence of snowmobiles and the risk of collisions, stating that Valter “underst[oo]d Skiing and Snowboarding involve risks posed by . . . collisions with . . . snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles.” Even Valter agreed “Mammoth provide[d] [him] a warning that [he] may encounter snowmobiles,” though he said Mammoth never mentioned moving snowmobiles. Considering the undisputed facts on this topic, we accept that Valter would have had more information about the potential for encountering snowmobiles had Mammoth shared its snowmobile routes with its guests. But we conclude no reasonable person could find Mammoth grossly negligent simply because it failed to share these maps-a practice that no ski resort, as far as Valter has shown, has adopted. (See Brown v. El Dorado Union High School Dist. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1028-1030 [no gross negligence as a matter of law, in a case involving a student’s concussion playing football, even though the school district “could have done more to educate students and family” about concussions].)

But much of Valter’s alleged facts lack evidentiary support. He claims Peters “intend[ed] to drive up the right side of Stump Alley” based on the statements of an officer who spoke with Peters after the accident. But according to the officer, Peters characterized his route before the accident, not the route he intended to follow afterward. Valter further claims Peters ended up several yards off the snowmobile route. But he cites nothing in support and appears to rely only on speculation. He also cites a photograph to show Peters drove near the middle of St. Moritz. But the cited photograph shows Peters’s route along the left side of St. Moritz. Valter appears to characterize the photograph differently because it shows open snow to the left on part of Peters’s path. But as the Mammoth trail map and snowmobile route map show, snowmobile drivers going up St. Moritz will-even if they stay to their far left on St. Moritz-have open snow to their left as they approach Stump Alley. This area, however, is not part of St. Moritz. It is instead part of a different run, Patrolmen’s, that branches off St. Moritz immediately after St. Moritz branches off Stump Alley. As the photograph of Peters’s path shows, moreover, because of trees, Peters could not have driven farther to the left at the point where St. Moritz meets Stump Alley.

In any event, even if Peters deviated from the snowmobile route and ended up “several yards” off the route, we find no reasonable person could find his conduct demonstrated gross negligence. Even assuming that Peters’s driving left him somewhat off the designated route, the undisputed facts still show he exercised a degree of caution: He traveled slowly up the mountain, reduced his speed to five miles per hour as he exited St. Moritz, continued at five miles per hour on Stump Alley, and, after seeing Valter, slowed further and either stopped or almost stopped. Valter does not dispute these facts. The photograph depicting Peters’s path, moreover, shows, if nothing else, that Peters could not have driven farther to the left at the point where St. Moritz meets Stump Alley. And photographs taken immediately after the collision show that Peters’s snowmobile flew an orange flag and that no apparent obstacle obstructed a downhill skier’s ability to see Peters and his snowmobile while on Stump Alley. On these undisputed facts, we conclude no reasonable person could find that Peters’s conduct evidenced either a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct, even if, as Valter asserts, Peters was “several yards” off the designated route at the time of the collision.

We find that true even though Valter suggests that Mammoth could be found grossly negligent even if Peters were “mere inches” off the designated route. Valter bases his point on our court’s opinion in Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 546. In that case, a gym deliberately placed a piece of exercise equipment less than four feet behind a treadmill, even though it knew the treadmill manufacturer’s manual said to provide a minimum six-foot clearance behind the treadmill for user safety. (Id. at pp. 549, 551, 558.) A gym member later sued the gym for negligence after falling off the treadmill and hitting her head on the equipment behind it. (Id. at pp. 548-549.) But the trial court found her claims failed as a matter of law on summary judgment, reasoning that the gym member had signed a liability waiver and the gym’s conduct could not constitute gross negligence. (Id. at p. 553.) On appeal, we reversed. We found a jury reasonably could find the facts demonstrated gross negligence, including by finding that it is standard practice in the industry to provide a minimum six-foot safety zone behind treadmills, that the gym failed to follow this standard practice to accommodate more members to make more money, that the gym took no mitigation measures, and that, as an expert implied, the gym’s failure to provide the standard safety zone was an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. (Id. at pp. 557-558, 567.)

Attempting to apply Jimenez‘s reasoning here, Valter suggests that if “mere inches” could support a claim of gross negligence in that case, then surely several yards could support a claim of gross negligence here. We find differently. To start, as noted, Valter cites no facts showing that Peters was several yards off the designated route at the time of the accident. But even setting that aside, we find Jimenez is distinguishable on several levels. First, unlike the plaintiff there, Valter cites no expert opinion suggesting that a “mere inches” deviation-or even a “several yards” deviation-from a designated snowmobile path is an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. And second, unlike the defendant in Jimenez, Mammoth implemented various safety precautions to limit collision risks, including by warning guests about snowmobiles, training snowmobile operators, and using designated snowmobile routes. We find Jimenez of limited help to Valter for these reasons.

Next, Valter asserts Mammoth could be found grossly negligent in using St. Moritz as one of its designated snowmobile routes. He reasons that Mammoth should have chosen a different route because it knew Stump Alley was a popular run, knew skiers “coming down Stump Alley ‘hug’ the tree line on the left in order to turn left onto St. Moritz,” acknowledged that these trees would have grown substantially since the snowmobile routes were initially established around 1989, knew snowmobiles on St. Moritz pose a potential danger to skiers, knew other routes were available, and never conducted any safety, feasibility, or visibility studies for the route. He adds that Mammoth’s new snowmobile routes no longer use St. Moritz (though he says the “change was not made in response to Valter’s injury”) and that Mammoth now uses snowmobile corridors that are marked off with stakes and ropes.

But although we accept that Mammoth could have taken more precautions to ensure skier safety before Valter’s injury, its failure to do so cannot support a claim for gross negligence here. Mammoth, again, had taken several steps to limit potential collisions on St. Moritz before Valter’s injury, including warning guests about snowmobiles, requiring training for its snowmobile drivers, and requiring these drivers to yield to guests, to fly an orange flag and use headlights, and to stay to their left while driving up St. Moritz-which would place them on the opposite side of the run from skiers who were (as Valter puts it) hugging the tree line coming down Stump Alley to St. Moritz. And while Valter claims Mammoth should have used a route other than St. Moritz, he has not shown, or even alleged, that any alternate route would have been safer.

Nor has Valter shown that Mammoth’s process for selecting St. Moritz as one of its snowmobile routes was inadequate. Mammoth may not have conducted formal studies about the use of St. Moritz, but its personnel still considered potential routes that would, in their view, maximize safety and then tested their conclusions about best routes. For the St. Moritz-to-Stump Alley route, for example, Mammoth personnel skied down Stump Alley while a snowmobile was on St. Moritz and “determined that it was very easy to see the snowmobile.” And in the decades before Valter’s injury, nothing in the record shows the use of St. Moritz harmed a single skier or snowboarder. Indeed, the record shows only one other snowmobile collision in the previous 40 years at Mammoth, with the other collision occurring on a hill after a beginner skier lost control and hit a ski school’s snowmobile.

Mammoth, to be sure, could have taken even more precautions to ensure skier safety before Valter’s injury. As Valter notes, for example, Mammoth could have enhanced safety further through the earlier adoption of snowmobile corridors. But he cites not one ski resort that used snowmobile corridors before the time of his injury, and we find this limited consideration insufficient to support a potential claim for gross negligence. Considering the undisputed facts here, we conclude no reasonable juror could find Mammoth’s use of St. Moritz in its snowmobile route evidenced either a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. And we find that so even though we accept, as Valter argues, that Mammoth did not pursue all possible options for limiting collision risks. (See Decker v. City of Imperial Beach (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 349, 361 [no gross negligence as a matter of law even though the city did not “pursue all possible options” when attempting to save a swimmer].)

Lastly, Valter contends several triable issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. He starts with the visibility of the snowmobile. He asserts Peters’s deviation from the route and failure to be “at the left side of St. Moritz when he reached the top of that run” endangered skiers “turning left around a blind corner onto St. Moritz.” Explaining the blind corner, he states a skier coming down Stump Alley cannot see “down much of St. Moritz” because of the angle at which St. Moritz meets Stump Alley, trees, and other obstacles. He adds that Peters’s snowmobile was dark blue and so could be “easily lost in the shadows covering the run [St. Moritz] at the time.”

But Valter’s allegations cannot be squared with the undisputed facts. Although Valter claims Peters failed to be at the left side of St. Moritz at the top of that run, the photograph showing Peters’s route-which Valter relies on-shows Peters could not have been farther to the left at that location. Although Valter further claims Peters’s snowmobile could have been lost in the shadows present at the time, the photograph he cites purportedly showing these shadows shows clear skies and white snow, with the only shadow depicted being the photographer’s own. And although Valter notes some obstacles may prevent a skier from seeing “down much of St. Moritz” while coming down Stump Alley, Peters’s snowmobile was not on St. Moritz at the time of the accident. Nor was it “coming around a blind corner when it struck him,” as Valter repeatedly asserts in his reply brief. The photograph of Peters’s route, again, shows Peters entered Stump Alley from the far left of St. Moritz and then traveled up Stump Alley before the accident. Other photographs show Peters’s snowmobile was on Stump Alley at the time of the accident and not obstructed by any apparent obstacles. And all witnesses who described Peters’s speed explained that he traveled slowly up Stump Alley and then stopped or almost stopped before Valter skied into him. Valter has failed to show a triable issue of material fact in these circumstances.

Nor are we persuaded to find differently merely because, as Valter notes, snowmobiles are not as loud and massive as certain other snow equipment-namely, snowcats. Valter discusses snowcats in an attempt to distinguish our court’s earlier decision in Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344, a case involving a skier who was injured after colliding with a snowcat that was 30 feet long and 18 feet wide and had a safety beacon, warning lights, and an audible alarm. (Id. at pp. 348, 362.) Although the snowcat in that case turned without using a turn signal before the collision, we ultimately found other warnings about the snowcat’s presence (including the snowcat’s large size and loud sound) barred the skier from claiming that Mammoth was grossly negligent as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 363.) Attempting to distinguish the case, Valter asserts a snowmobile is not as obvious as a snowcat. But while that is true, our standard is not whether a snowmobile is comparable to a snowcat. And on the undisputed facts here-which, among other things, show that snowmobiles are common at ski resorts, that Peters drove his snowmobile slowly and stopped (or almost stopped) before the collision, that the snowmobile flew an orange flag, and that no apparent obstacle obstructed a downhill skier’s ability to see Peters and his snowmobile on Stump Alley-we conclude that no reasonable person could find Mammoth grossly negligent.

Valter alternatively, in his reply brief, argues he lacked sufficient time to avoid Peters even if Peters and his snowmobile were plainly visible. That is so, he reasons, because he was skiing at about 30 miles per hour (or about 44 feet per second)^[1] and Peters testified that he saw Valter when he was about 80 to 120 feet away-which would mean Valter only had two to three seconds to adjust to avoid Peters. But Valter fails to account for several facts that undercut his argument. First, in his own telling, he was traveling at a speed less than 30 miles per hour, as he was decelerating from 30 miles per hour at the time of the collision. And second, according to Peters’s undisputed testimony, Valter managed to make three or four controlled turns after Peters saw him- demonstrating that the issue is more that Valter failed to notice Peters than that he lacked time to avoid Peters. At any rate, because Valter raised this argument for the first time in his reply brief, and without good cause, we find the argument forfeited. (Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 325, 335, fn. 8.)

In the end, none of Valter’s arguments-whether considered individually or collectively-potentially show Mammoth was grossly negligent. Again, we accept that snowmobiles (like most, if not all, snow equipment) pose some potential risk to skiers. We accept too that Mammoth could have done more to protect skiers from potential snowmobile collisions. But the question is not simply whether a reasonable person could find that Mammoth could have done more. Of course it could have. And no matter the precautions Mammoth implements, someone could always imagine some additional precaution or some additional study that could prove helpful. But that is not the relevant inquiry. It is instead whether a reasonable person could find that Mammoth’s conduct demonstrated “either a ‘” ‘want of even scant care'”‘ or ‘” ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” “‘ (City of Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 753.) And on this question, we find the answer is no as a matter of law. (See Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at pp. 363-365 [no gross negligence as a matter of law even though the snowcat operator failed to use a turn signal before turning]; Brown v. El Dorado Union High School Dist., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 1030 [no gross negligence as a matter of law even though the school district “could have done more”]; Decker v. City of Imperial Beach, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 361 [no gross negligence as a matter of law even though the city did not “pursue all possible options”].)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Mammoth is entitled to recover its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

We concur: DUARTE, Acting P. J., MESIWALA, J.

———

Notes:

^[1] One mile is 5,280 feet. Someone traveling 30 miles per hour is traveling 158,400 feet per hour, 2,640 feet per minute, and 44 feet per second.

———

Again, a bad response to the accident and poorly written release, if you can call it that, wiped out all defenses to the lawsuit.

Posted: August 21, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, California, Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Youth Camps | Tags: assumption of the risk, Dressage, Equine, Foxfield Riding School, Gross negligence, horseback riding, Inherent Risk, Ordinary Negligence, Release, Sleepaway Camp, Waiver | Leave a comment

The way the plaintiff was treated post injury, you could see that litigation was coming.

Browne v. Foxfield Riding Sch. (Cal. App. 2023)

State: California; California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Plaintiff: Ava Browne, through her mother, Kelly Browne

Defendant: Foxfield Riding School and riding instructor Katelyn Puishys

Plaintiff Claims: ordinary and gross negligence

Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk & Release

Holding: for the Plaintiff

Year: 2023

Summary

The plaintiff fell off her horse at a camp for jumping. She walked back to the cabin by herself and ended up needing emergency back surgery. The facts leading up to her injury were equally concerning. The court found multiple was to void the release and send this win back to court so the plaintiff could try again.

Facts

Ava was 12 years old when Kelly enrolled her in Foxfield’s summer sleepaway camp. Kelly completed and signed Ava’s application. In the application, Kelly indicated Ava had prior experience in horseback riding, including jumping crossrails. The application also stated that Ava was a “Level 3” rider at Mill Creek Riding School. A “Level 3” rider at Mill Creek would have been taught how to “jump horses, with multiple jumps,” and how to control a horse’s speed from walking slowly “all the way to canter.” Such a rider would also have been introduced to bigger and wider jumps.

Foxfield evaluated Ava on the first day of camp and placed her in the group with the least advanced riders. On the first and second days of instruction, Ava rode a horse named Polly in an enclosed dressage ring. Ava felt comfortable riding Polly.

On the third day of instruction, Foxfield assigned Ava a horse named Sonny, and Puishys taught the lesson. Ava rode Sonny in the dressage ring for about an hour and practiced some jumps. The group then went into the cross-country field. Ava completed her first jump with Sonny in the field, but fell off on her second jump, the “log jump.” Sonny bucked during the jump, and Ava was thrown off and landed on her back. Puishys continued with the riding lesson while Ava walked back to the cabins by herself.

Ava called Kelly from camp, and Kelly took her home. The next day, Ava had an X-ray done on her neck. She suffered a spinal injury requiring emergency surgery.

At trial, Ava testified she was nervous about riding Sonny. While riding in the dressage ring, she had difficulty controlling Sonny and told Puishys she needed instructions. Puishys “brushed it off.” Ava was also nervous about riding in the cross-country field and told Puishys she could not do it. Puishys told Ava to “face [her] fears.”

Another camper in Ava’s group testified that Ava was having problems controlling Sonny right before the log jump. She said that Sonny seemed to “want[] to go fast” and that he was “hard to control.”

The Brownes also presented deposition testimony of Foxfield’s owner, who testified that it was not typical for dressage ring riders to be taken into the cross-country field on their third day of instruction.

After the Brownes’ case-in-chief, Defendants moved for nonsuit based on the primary assumption of risk doctrine and Foxfield’s release of liability. The trial court granted the motion as to the issue of ordinary negligence, but denied it as to gross negligence. The court found that the signed release “was specific” and “very broad.” It found the release “encompassed every one of the activities that the plaintiff engaged in, including but not limited to the activity of cross[-]country field jumping at the time the injury occurred. [¶] So clearly, primary express assumption of the risk has been established as a matter of law. There’s nothing for the jury to resolve in that regard.”

The trial proceeded on the issue of gross negligence, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants. After partially granting the Brownes’ motion to strike and tax costs, the trial court awarded nearly $97,000 in costs to Defendants.

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

Reviewing the facts, it is fairly obvious there are some factual issues that raise a concern before the law is applied to the case. The release or at least language to prevent litigation is part of the application, not a separate document or at least not set out to be identified as important information.

The instructor seems to be indifferent towards the students and fails totally after the plaintiff fell off her horse. “…Ava was thrown off and landed on her back. Puishys continued with the riding lesson while Ava walked back to the cabins by herself.”

Failure of the instructor to listen to the concerns of the student and absolute failure to follow up or to respond when the student falls is scary.

At the same time, there also seems to be a real failure to understand the skills of the plaintiff. Her mother on the application writes down one level of skills, the evaluation seems to show a different level of skill, and the actual skill of the plaintiff is less than the other evaluations.

The failure of the student to adequately identify her skills with what she showed and the failure of the instructor to understand the needs of the plaintiff combined to create a lawsuit.

Legal Analysis

The plaintiff argued the release was void because the release:

…clearly and unambiguously” release claims arising from Defendants’ negligent conduct, which increased the inherent risks of horseback riding. Alternatively, they argue the release was void for a lack of meeting of the minds.

The court went into a thorough review of what is required for the plaintiff to win a case, a prelude to the defendant losing the case.

To prevail on a cause of action for ordinary negligence, a plaintiff must prove the defendant owed them a legal duty, breached that duty, and proximately caused their injury. Although a defendant generally has a duty” ‘not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others [citation], some activities-and, specifically, many sports-are inherently dangerous. Imposing a duty to mitigate those inherent dangers could alter the nature of the activity or inhibit vigorous participation.’ The primary assumption of risk doctrine, a rule of limited duty, developed to avoid such a chilling effect. Where the doctrine applies to a recreational activity, operators, instructors[,] and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” ([coach has duty to not increase risk of harm inherent in learning a sport].) A written release may exculpate a defendant by negating that duty.

The analysis of the law continued.

” ‘Contract principles apply when interpreting a release. ‘Where, as here, the interpretation of a release does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic evidence,” ‘” ‘construction of the instrument is a question of law . . . . It therefore follows that we must independently determine whether the release in this case negated the duty element of plaintiff[s’] cause of action.” ‘”

The scope of a release is determined by its express language. “The express terms of the release must be applicable to the particular negligence of the defendant, but every possible specific act of negligence . . . need not be spelled out in the agreement.” “‘ “It is only necessary that the act of negligence, which results in injury to the releasor, be reasonably related to the object or purpose for which the release is given.” ‘”

To be effective, a “release ‘must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties.'”

In the above quotes, the appellate court is pointing out that the language in the release is going to be defective, voiding the release. However, the court is not done with why and how the release is going to be denied, the court then attacks the defense of assumption of the risk.

Thus, where the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, the release must clearly and unambiguously exempt the defendant from liability from their own misconduct or negligent acts that increase the risks inherent in the activity. It must be sufficiently clear and explicit to” ‘set forth to an ordinary person untrained in the law that the intent and effect of the document is to release . . . claims for [their] own personal injuries and to indemnify the defendants from and against liability to others [that] might occur in the future.'” “If an ambiguity as to the scope of the release exists, it should normally be construed against the drafter.”

Finally, the court gets to the point.

The release language fails. There is no language in the release, that in the court’s opinion gave notice to the plaintiff that they were giving up their right to sue. The release did not use the word negligence or any phrase or other words that indicated this was a release.

But nothing in the release mentions negligence, negligent acts, or misconduct by the Defendants. Nor does the release inform an ordinary person untrained in the law that it would apply to Defendants’ negligent conduct or conduct that increases the risks inherent in horseback riding.

This analysis cumulates in the analogy that the release, if 0ne exists or the assumption of the risk language, only prevents claims for the inherent risks of the activity.

Read in context, the waiver language appears in the same sentence as the releasee’s assumption of inherent risks. Thus, we interpret it to encompass only those injuries resulting from the inherent risks of riding or handling of horses, not injuries resulting from Defendants’ alleged negligent acts. It is not a waiver of all liability.

The inherent risks of any activity are assumed by anyone participating in the activity. A release is used to cover those risks that are created by the defendants or those risks that are increased by the actions of the defendants. The court stated the release, if it was one, had no value.

The risk of injury caused by the defendants’ negligence was not within the scope of the release because a release requires “a high degree of clarity and specificity . . . in order to find that it relieves a party from liability for its own negligence.”

The court concluded that the only risks the plaintiff assumed were those inherent in the activity.

The only risks the Brownes assumed was related to the inherent risks of horseback riding. They did not assume liability attributable to Defendants’ negligence or conduct that increased the inherent risks in horseback riding.

The plaintiff also argued the jury instructions for gross negligence were incorrect. The defendant won at trial on the claims of gross negligence.

“Gross negligence is the lack of any care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be grossly negligent by acting or failing to act.”

However, the court found the instructions were clear. However, this did not really matter because since the underlying negligence claim was now back on the table, the new trial, gross negligence would be back as a claim.

The plaintiff also argued that because the defendant was not properly licensed and accredited, there could not be a meeting of the minds. Meaning the contract, the release was void, because there was important information concerning the contract that would have prevented the plaintiff from entering into the contract if known by the plaintiff. The court did not consider this argument because it held the release was void. However, this is an interesting argument that we will probably see in the future.

Brownes argue that was error because the evidence was probative to show the release was void for a lack of meeting of the minds-i.e., that Kelly would not have signed the release if she had known Foxfield was not properly licensed and accredited. We do not resolve this argument because even if the evidence was probative to the release being void, its exclusion was harmless given our conclusion that the release only applied to injuries resulting from the inherent risks of horseback riding and not to the negligence claims.

The defendants were awarded costs of nearly $97,000. That award was based on an offer of settlement that was rejected by the plaintiff. An offer of settlement is made by the defendant means the defendant says to the plaintiff we will give you $XX dollars and a judgment. If you accept this, you get the $XX immediately. If you reject the settlement, then any cost, we incur after the offer is rejected can be billed to you if you win the amount we offer or less.

Since the win was overturned by the court then the $97,000 judgement was also overturned.

There was a dissent in this opinion, which would have upheld the win for the defendant.

So Now What?

Again, reading this case, you can see the result coming way before the court ever states its decision because of the over-justification used in the decision. At the same time, there are some clear issues that helped the court reach its decision.

The release was poorly written and part of an application. The court did not even get into the issues of how the release was presented as part of an application. The language alone was enough to trigger the failure of the release to work.

The second clear issue is how the plaintiff was treated before and after the fall. Walking back to her cabin, alone, after being told to “face her fears” and brushed off her other concerns.

To read about other poorly written releases see:

Poorly written release in Massachusetts stop lawsuit for falling off a horse during riding lessons.

Poorly written release and allegation of duress push whitewater rafting ligation to Pennsylvania Appellate court.

Poorly written release failing to follow prior state Supreme Court decisions, employee statement, no padding and spinning hold send climbing wall gym back to trial in Connecticut.

Poorly written release on a sign-in sheet barely passes protecting Ohio defendant swimming area from suit.

Poorly written release and allegation of duress push whitewater rafting ligation to Pennsylvania Appellate court.

Poorly written release failing to follow prior state Supreme Court decisions, employee statement, no padding and spinning hold send climbing wall gym back to trial in Connecticut.

Poorly written release gave the plaintiffs the only chance they had to win

To read about other California cases see:

California decision imposes three specific requirements for a release to be valid. On requirement is a release must be understood by a person untrained in the law.

Most references in case law to assumption of the risk are to this California decision. The basis for understanding Assumption of the Risk is this decision based on an injured finger during a pickup football game.

This California decision looks at assumption of the risk as it applies to non-competitive long distance bicycle rides and also determines that assumption of the risk also overcomes a violation of a statute (negligence per se).

Under California law, increasing the risk or changing the inherent risk of a sport or race eliminates the defense of assumption of the risk. Defendant found grossly negligent in its course design.

To read about other equine (horse) cases see:

Equine laws stop suit against horse, outfitter still sued.

Summer camp being sued for injury from falling off horse wins lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to find an expert to prove their case.

One winner for equine liability statutes. Indiana statute stops litigation based on horse kick.

Putting a saddle on a horse does not turn a livery into a saddle manufacturer. Release stops negligence claims and law stops product liability claims.

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.

Word Count: 166

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

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

Browne v. Foxfield Riding Sch. (Cal. App. 2023)

AVA BROWNE, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
FOXFIELD RIDING SCHOOL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

2d Civil Nos. B315743, B318304

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

August 14, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of Ventura Super. Ct. No. 56-2017-00499800-CU-PO-VTA Matthew P. Guasco, Judge

Dykema Gossett, Becky S. James and Lisa M. Burnett for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Hawkins Parnell &Young, Elaine K. Fresch, Jerry C. Popovich and Melanie M. Smith for Defendants and Respondents.

BALTODANO, J.

Ava Browne, through her mother, Kelly Browne,^[1] sued Foxfield Riding School and riding instructor Katelyn Puishys (collectively, Defendants) for ordinary and gross negligence after she was injured during a horseback riding accident. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for nonsuit as to ordinary negligence, and a jury found in favor of Defendants on the gross negligence claim. The court awarded costs to Defendants.

The Brownes appeal from the judgment and contend the trial court erred when it: (1) granted partial nonsuit as to ordinary negligence, (2) instructed the jury on gross negligence, (3) made certain evidentiary rulings, (4) made cumulative errors, and (5) awarded Defendants costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure^[2] section 998. As we explain below, the trial court erred in granting partial nonsuit on the ordinary negligence claim but did not err with respect to its evidentiary rulings and instructing the jury. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the application, Foxfield included the following release:

“I have sufficient knowledge of horses to understand their unpredictability and potentially dangerous character in general[,] and I understand that the use, handling[,] and riding of a horse ALWAYS involves risk of bodily injury to anyone who handles or rides horses, as well as the risk of damaging the property of others. I understand that any horse, irrespective of its training and usual past behavior and characteristics, may act or react unpredictably at times, based upon instinct or fright, which likewise is an inherent risk assumed by one who handles/rides horses. I expressly assume such risk and hereby waive any claims that I might have against Foxfield Riding School, its [t]eachers, [c]ounselors[,] and [t]rainers, on behalf of the above[-]mentioned camper or myself. I agree to pay all doctor or hospital fees if the child is injured while staying at Foxfield.”

Ava called Kelly from camp, and Kelly took her home. The next day, Ava had an X-ray done on her neck. She suffered a spinal injury requiring emergency surgery.

The Brownes sued Defendants for negligence/gross negligence. They alleged Defendants breached their duty of care by assigning Ava to ride Sonny, a horse “unfit and unsafe for riding by a beginning rider like Ava.” They also alleged Defendants failed to adequately instruct Ava before requiring her to ride in the cross-country field, which was beyond her abilities.

Phyllis Pipolo, Ava’s previous riding instructor, testified that Ava’s balance was “slightly ahead of the center of gravity” and “slightly out of the rhythm of the horse.” She questioned Ava’s stability and said Ava had issues with “a lack of control.”

The Brownes’ expert witness, Linda Rubio, inspected Foxfield’s facilities, observed Foxfield’s horses, interviewed the Brownes, reviewed deposition testimony, and watched videos of Ava’s riding. Rubio opined Ava was a beginning level rider and that Sonny was not a suitable horse because he was “an advanced horse.” She also opined the lesson plan on the day of the accident with Ava riding Sonny was not an appropriate plan for Ava because it “increase[d] the risk over and above those inherent [in] horseback riding.” Rubio said Ava should not have gone into the cross-country field because it was “beyond her scope of capability.” According to Rubio, Foxfield increased the risk of Ava falling off the horse by putting her in the field and having her attempt the log jump.

DISCUSSION

Partial nonsuit

The Brownes contend the trial court erred when it granted a partial nonsuit as to ordinary negligence. They contend the release did not “clearly and unambiguously” release claims arising from Defendants’ negligent conduct, which increased the inherent risks of horseback riding. Alternatively, they argue the release was void for a lack of meeting of the minds. We agree the trial court erred in interpreting the release and granting partial nonsuit. ” ‘A defendant is entitled to a nonsuit if the trial court determines that, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by plaintiff is insufficient to permit a jury to find in [their] favor.’ [Citation.] In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the . . . court must not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of the witnesses. Instead, it must interpret all of the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff s case and most strongly against the defendant, and must resolve all presumptions, inferences, conflicts, and doubts in favor of the plaintiff. If the plaintiffs claim is not supported by substantial evidence, then the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, justifying the nonsuit.” (Saunders v. Taylor (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541.) We review the trial court’s ruling on a nonsuit de novo. (Id. at pp. 1541-1542.)

To prevail on a cause of action for ordinary negligence, a plaintiff must prove the defendant owed them a legal duty, breached that duty, and proximately caused their injury. (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica, LLC (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 (Benedek).) Although a defendant generally has a duty” ‘not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others [citation], some activities-and, specifically, many sports-are inherently dangerous. Imposing a duty to mitigate those inherent dangers could alter the nature of the activity or inhibit vigorous participation.’ [Citation.] The primary assumption of risk doctrine, a rule of limited duty, developed to avoid such a chilling effect. [Citations.] Where the doctrine applies to a recreational activity, operators, instructors[,] and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154, italics omitted; see also Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1005-1006 [coach has duty to not increase risk of harm inherent in learning a sport].) A written release may exculpate a defendant by negating that duty. (Benedek, at p. 1356.)

” ‘Contract principles apply when interpreting a release.'” (Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1476, 1483 (Cohen).) Where, as here, the interpretation of a release does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic evidence,” ‘” ‘construction of the instrument is a question of law . . . . It therefore follows that we must independently determine whether the release in this case negated the duty element of plaintiff[s’] cause[] of action.” ‘” (Ibid.)

The scope of a release is determined by its express language. (Benedek, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1357.) “The express terms of the release must be applicable to the particular negligence of the defendant, but every possible specific act of negligence . . . need not be spelled out in the agreement.” (Ibid.)”‘ “It is only necessary that the act of negligence, which results in injury to the releasor, be reasonably related to the object or purpose for which the release is given.” ‘” (Ibid.)

To be effective, a “release ‘must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties.'” (Benedek, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356.) Thus, where the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, the release must clearly and unambiguously exempt the defendant from liability from their own misconduct or negligent acts that increase the risks inherent in the activity. (Cohen, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1488.) It must be sufficiently clear and explicit to” ‘set forth to an ordinary person untrained in the law that the intent and effect of the document is to release . . . claims for [their] own personal injuries and to indemnify the defendants from and against liability to others [that] might occur in the future.’” (Ibid.) “If an ambiguity as to the scope of the release exists, it should normally be construed against the drafter.” (Benedek, at p. 1357.)

The express language of the release here does not “clear[ly], unambiguous[ly], and explicit[ly]” relieve Defendants of liability resulting from their own negligence or for conduct that increased the risks inherent in horseback riding. (Benedek, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356.) The release informed Kelly that the “use, handling[,] and riding of a horse ALWAYS involves risk of bodily injury to anyone who handles or rides horses” and that “any horse . . . may act or react unpredictably at times, . . . which likewise is an inherent risk assumed by one who handles/rides horses.” By signing the release, Kelly “expressly assume[d] such risk and . . . waive[d] any claims that [she] might have against” Foxfield and its teachers. (Italics added.) But nothing in the release mentions negligence, negligent acts, or misconduct by the Defendants. Nor does the release inform an ordinary person untrained in the law that it would apply to Defendants’ negligent conduct or conduct that increases the risks inherent in horseback riding. (See Cohen, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1488-1489.) Rather, the only assumption of risk mentioned in the release pertains to the inherent risks of handling or riding a horse.

The release does state that Kelly “waive [s] any claims that [she] might have against [Defendants]” and that she “agree[s] to pay all doctor or hospital fees” if Ava was injured at Foxfield. But we do not read these statements in isolation. Instead, we must interpret the release as a whole and its language in context, avoiding a piecemeal, strict construction. (Civ. Code, § 1641; Segal v. Silberstein (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 627, 633.) Read in context, the waiver language appears in the same sentence as the releasee’s assumption of inherent risks. Thus, we interpret it to encompass only those injuries resulting from the inherent risks of riding or handling of horses, not injuries resulting from Defendants’ alleged negligent acts.^[3] It is not a waiver of all liability. (Cf. Benedek, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 [release of all liability where release clearly and explicitly stated that it applied to “liability for any personal injuries suffered while on [defendant’s] premises” (italics added)]; National &International Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 934, 936 [release expressly provided that plaintiff was “not to sue [defendants] . . . from any and all claims and liability arising out of . . . ordinary negligence”].)

This case is like Cohen, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th 1476. There, the plaintiff was injured when she fell off a horse during a horseback ride. (Id. at p. 1480.) She then sued the defendants for negligence for allegedly increasing the risk inherent in trail riding when the guide accelerated the gait of the horses without warning, causing her to lose control and fall off her horse. (Ibid.) The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff signed a release. (Id. at p. 1481.) The release informed the plaintiff of the inherent risks of horseback riding, including that a horse will run or bolt uncontrollably without warning. By signing the release, she agreed to”‘ assume responsibility for the risks identified herein and those risks not specifically identified.'” (Id. at pp. 1485-1486, italics omitted.) The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the release clearly expressed an agreement not to hold the defendants liable for negligence. (Id. at p. 1482.)

The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the trial court erred in interpreting the release. (Cohen, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1487.) It explained that all the risks specifically described in the release were ones inherent in horseback riding. (Id. at p. 1486.) The risk of injury caused by the defendants’ negligence was not within the scope of the release because a release requires “a high degree of clarity and specificity . . . in order to find that it relieves a party from liability for its own negligence.” (Id. at p. 1488.) And” ‘[n]othing in the [r]elease clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly indicate[d] that it applie[d] to risks and dangers attributable to [the defendants’] negligence or that of an employee that may not be inherent in supervised recreational trail riding. Nor [did] the [r]elease indicate that it cover[ed] any and all injuries arising out of or connected with the use of [the defendants’] facilities.'” (Id. at p. 1489, italics omitted.) The same is true here.

Defendants rely on Eriksson v. Nunnink (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 708 and Brown v. El Dorado Union High School Dist. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1003 (El Dorado), two cases where a release in the recreational sports context was found to relieve the defendants from liability for their negligent conduct. But these cases are distinguishable. In Eriksson, the release between a plaintiff (a horseback rider) and the defendant (trainer) expressly stated that the “[r]ider agree[d] to hold [the trainer] . . . completely harmless and not liable and release [her] from all liability whatsoever, and AGREE[D] NOT TO SUE [her] on account of or in connection with any claims, causes of action, injuries, damages, costs[,] or expenses arising out of [the rider’s] use of [the trainer’s] services . . ., including[,] without limitation, those based on death . . . [or] bodily injury, . . . except if the damages [were] caused by the direct, willful[,] and wanton negligence of the [t]rainer.” (Ericksson, at p. 720.) The release also stated that the “[r]ider agree[d] to indemnify [the trainer] against, and hold her harmless from, any and all claims, causes of action, damages, judgments, costs[,] or expenses . . . [that] in any way [arose] from [the rider’s] use of [the trainer’s] services.” (Ibid.) The Eriksson court held that this release “plainly encompasse[d] liability for future negligence as well as any previously committed torts,” with the only exception to damages caused by gross negligence. (Id. at pp. 722-723.)

Similarly, in El Dorado, the language of the release between a student athlete and a school district expressly absolved the school district and its employees “from any and all claims of liability arising out of their negligence, or any other act or omission [that] cause[d] . . . illness, injury, death[,] or damages of any nature in any way connected with the student’s participation in the school[-]related activity.” (El Dorado, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 1010.) The court held that such language provided an “unequivocal[] agree[ment] to assume the risk of injuries caused by the negligent acts of the [d]istrict employees . . . while [the student] played football.” (Id. at p. 1025.)

Unlike Ericksson and El Dorado, Foxfield’s written release did not clearly and expressly apply to Defendants’ negligent conduct, nor did it waive all liability. The only risks the Brownes assumed was related to the inherent risks of horseback riding. They did not assume liability attributable to Defendants’ negligence or conduct that increased the inherent risks in horseback riding. Nonsuit should have been denied.^[4]

At oral argument Defendants argued the trial court’s grant of nonsuit on the ordinary negligence claim was harmless. Because the jury found in their favor on the gross negligence claim, Defendants posit, the jury necessarily rejected the Brownes’ theory that Defendants “unreasonably increased the risk to Ava over and above those already inherent in horseback riding.” But the jury was only asked to render a verdict on gross negligence, which requires” ‘” ‘the want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” ‘” (County of San Diego v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 460, 474.) We do not know whether the jury would have found for the Brownes on a claim that only required finding that Defendants breached a legal duty that proximately caused Ava’s injuries. We thus cannot say that the grant of nonsuit was harmless.

Jury instruction for gross negligence

The Brownes next contend the trial court prejudicially erred when it denied their proposed modification to CACI 425. We disagree.

CACI 425 states: “Gross negligence is the lack of any care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or to others. [¶] A person can be grossly negligent by acting or failing to act.” The Brownes requested a modification to specify that” ‘if a defendant acts or fails to act in a manner which [sic] substantially or unreasonably increases the risk of danger or harm inherent in the sporting activity, such conduct constitutes gross negligence if you find that said defendant’s act or failure to act demonstrates the lack of any care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or others.'” The trial court denied the proposed modification and instructed the jury with CACI 425, but allowed the Brownes to argue their expanded definition of gross negligence during closing arguments.

“A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case . . . [that] is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court may not force the litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party’s theory to the particular case.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 (Soule).) Where a civil jury instruction error is alleged, reversal is only appropriate if after examination of the entire cause, the” ‘error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 580.) To assess prejudicial instructional error, we evaluate: “(1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled.” (Id. at pp. 580-581.)

Here, even if the trial court erred in denying the modified instruction, the Brownes do not show they were prejudiced. During closing argument, the Brownes argued that Defendants were grossly negligent when they “unreasonably increased the risk to Ava over and above those already inherent in horseback riding.” The Brownes presented evidence to support this theory and summarized the evidence during closing argument. They also argued the jury could find Defendants grossly negligent if the evidence proved Defendants’ conduct, including the failure to act, “was a substantial factor in causing harm to Ava” irrespective of the release.

The trial court also clarified the gross negligence standard by instructing the jury that an “act or omission by the defendants [that] substantially or unreasonably increases the risk inherent in horseback riding and jumping can be gross negligence if it meets the definition of gross negligence. That is, it has to have amounted to . . . the want of any care or an extreme departure from conduct that would otherwise be reasonable.” The Brownes point to no other instructions that would have affected the jury’s understanding of gross negligence. Furthermore, there was no indication by the jury that it was confused or misled. (Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 580-581.) Thus, the court did not prejudicially err in denying the requested modification.

Evidentiary errors

Next, the Brownes argue the trial court erred when it: (1) excluded evidence regarding Foxfield’s lack of proper licensure and accreditation, and (2) did not permit Pipolo to testify as an expert witness. We review these rulings for abuse of discretion (Pannu v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1317), and reject the Brownes’ arguments.

1. Licensure and accreditation

Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence regarding Foxfield’s lack of proper licensure and accreditation as a sleepaway camp because it was more prejudicial than probative. The trial court granted the motion. The Brownes argue that was error because the evidence was probative to show the release was void for a lack of meeting of the minds-i.e., that Kelly would not have signed the release if she had known Foxfield was not properly licensed and accredited. We do not resolve this argument because even if the evidence was probative to the release being void, its exclusion was harmless given our conclusion that the release only applied to injuries resulting from the inherent risks of horseback riding and not to the negligence claims.

2. Pipolo’s testimony

At trial, Defendants objected to Pipolo’s testimony that Ava was a “beginner” rider because Pipolo was not an expert and could not opine on Ava’s skill level. The court sustained the objection but allowed Pipolo to testify about her observations of Ava’s riding.

There was no abuse of discretion. Pipolo was a lay witness and could only offer opinion testimony if it was “[r]ationally based on her perception” and “[h]elpful to a clear understanding of [her] testimony.” (Evid. Code, § 800.) In contrast, an expert could properly testify to an opinion related to “a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience” and based on their special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. (Evid. Code, § 801.) An assessment of a horse rider’s skill level is related to a subject matter beyond common experience and thus required an expert opinion. (See, e.g., Giardino v. Brown (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 820, 826.)

Any error in disallowing Pipolo to opine that Ava was a “beginner” rider also would have been harmless. Pipolo was permitted to describe her observations of Ava’s riding abilities, including observations on Ava’s issues with stability and control. Rubio also testified that Ava was a beginning rider. And there was no dispute Ava was classified in the lowest skill group at Foxfield. Excluding Pipolo’s opinion thus did not prejudice the Brownes.

Cumulative error

The Brownes argue cumulative error. Because we have determined the trial court erred in granting nonsuit on the ordinary negligence claim, this matter must be reversed. To the extent the Brownes argue the remaining issues resulted in cumulative error, our rejection of each of them forecloses their claim. (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 608.)

Section 998 costs award

Lastly, the Brownes contend the costs awarded to Defendants pursuant to section 998 should be vacated. Section 998 provides that if “an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover [their] postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” (§ 998, subd. (c)(1).) Because we reverse and remand the matter on the issue of ordinary negligence, the Brownes can potentially obtain a more favorable judgment or award on remand. We accordingly vacate the costs award.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed with respect to the nonsuit on the ordinary negligence claim, and the section 998 costs award is vacated. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

I concur: GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J., Dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion erases mother’s name from the waiver and release document. We should not do that. “The purpose of the law of contracts is to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties.” (Ben-Zvi v. Edmar Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 468, 475.) Mother knew and knows that riding a horse is dangerous and that people can be seriously injured when riding a horse. Mother agreed to accept this risk for her daughter. To be sure, she did not actually expect that daughter would be hurt but she knew, or should have known, that this was a foreseeable risk. The riding school had a reasonable expectation that it would not be the subject of a lawsuit based on a claim of negligence. These reasonable expectations should account for something.

The trial court expressly ruled that the waiver and release document was “very specific” and “very broad.” I agree with the trial court. The activity that led to minor’s harm was riding a horse and jumping a barrier in a country field. Minor was not a first time rider. She had ridden and jumped horses at another riding facility. She indicated on her application that she had experience at horse jumping. How could riding and jumping a horse not be covered by the release? Just what is the effect of mother’s signature on the release directed to? And the last line of the waiver and release document that mother signed could not be more explicit: “I agree to pay all doctor or hospital fees if [my] child is injured while staying at Foxfield [riding academy].” This last sentence is in no way ambiguous and a reasonable person can only read it as a release of any obligation of riding school to pay these fees.

The nature of incremental and progressive teaching to achieve proficiency in sporting activities, is pretty basic. A professional surfing instructor does not start teaching on a 35-foot-wave at Waimea Bay. A professional snow ski instructor does not start teaching at Hangman’s Hollow in Mammoth Mountain, one of the steepest and narrowest ski runs in the United States. Incremental teaching moves in progressive steps. It involves the professional judgment of the particular instructor. When a mishap occurs, it is always possible to assert the instructor has made a mistake and should be liable for the choices made. But this is the nature of incremental teaching. The teaching cycle involves “pushing” the student to the goal of the lesson. “Learning any sport inevitably involves attempting new skills. A coach or instructor will often urge the student to go beyond what the student has already mastered; that is the nature of (inherent in) sports instruction.” (Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1368-1369; see also Lupash v. City of Seal Beach (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1428, 14361437.) There is an established progression to the goal of proficiency. That is what happened here. The instructor did not take the student to the equivalent of Waimea Bay or Hangman’s Hollow. She took minor on a low-level jump course in the country. This was progressive and incremental teaching.

A waiver and release document can always be more specific and the majority could write such a document. So could I. This is not the test on appeal. The commonsense rationale of the trial court should not be tested by a waiver theoretically drafted by Professors Williston or Corbin. (See Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 755; see also National &International Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3rd 934, 937-938.) The fair import of the document is that it releases riding school from the theoretical negligence of the instrutor who picked the horse and who made the decision to jump in the field. It is always possible for a plaintiff to characterize such decisions as “increasing the risk of harm.” This is at variance to the concept of incremental and progressive teaching.

The majority opinion relies heavily on Presiding Justice Kline’s opinion in Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1476. There is a comprehensive and compelling dissent written by Justice Haerle. He has adequately answered the present majority opinion’s analysis.

I have deep concern for the injured minor. But that is no reason to void the release and waiver her mother signed. A strong case can be made that no negligence was involved here at all. But in any event, mother agreed to assume the risks involved in the sport of horse jumping. As the waiver and release document says: “[h]andling and riding of a horse ALWAYS involves risk of bodily injury ….”

———

Notes:

^[1] We refer to the Brownes by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended.

^[2] Further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

^[3] Even if the waiver language were ambiguous, we would construe such ambiguities against Foxfield, the drafter of the release. (Benedek, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1357; Civ. Code § 1654; see also Lund v. Bally’s Aerobic Plus, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 733, 738 [“release forms are to be strictly construed against the defendant”].)

^[4] Because we conclude the trial court erred in interpreting the release, we need not address the alternative argument that the release was void. And because we do not resolve that issue, we deny the Brownes’ request for judicial notice as irrelevant to our decision. (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 442.)

———

TV “fitness race” creates “want to be’s” and “look a likes” and a lawsuit.

Posted: August 14, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Health Club, Indoor Recreation Center, Pennsylvania | Tags: assumption of the risk, Falling, fitness race, Hang Boards, Inherent Risk, Ninja, Ninja race, No Duty Rule, Urban Air, Warrior Course | Leave a comment

The “No Duty Rule” is another way of saying the plaintiff failed to prove the Defendant owed them a duty. In this lawsuit, there was no duty because the risk that caused the injury was inherent to the activity.

Barrett v. New Am. Adventures, LLC (W.D. Pa. 2023)

State: Pennsylvania, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

Plaintiff: Courtney Barrett

Defendant: New American Adventures, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; One American Way, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company, and; and UATP Management, LLC, a Texas limited liability company

Plaintiff Claims: negligence

Defendant Defenses: no duty

Holding: For the Defendants

Year: 2023

Summary

The risk the plaintiff encountered was inherent to the activity, therefore the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. No duty, then there is no negligence and no lawsuit.

Facts

This is a personal injury case brought by Plaintiff for injuries she received on November 23, 2018, while participating on an obstacle course called the Warrior Course at Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania (“Urban Air”). Urban Air is a franchise trampoline and adventure park owned and operated by Defendant New American Adventures, LLC (“NAA”). Defendant NAA is the franchisee and Defendant UATP Management Inc. (“UATP”) is the franchisor. Defendant NAA leases the premises from Defendant One American Way, LLC (“One American”) which was a landlord out of possession of the premises at the time of the incident.

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was 34 years old and a resident of Mammoth Lakes, California with her partner, Christopher Hodges, and their two children. Plaintiff was an accomplished athlete in high school in track and field performing the long jump, triple jump, and 100 and 200 meter sprint races. She was also a cheerleader. She attended a dance and gymnastics school and was heavily involved in dance gymnastics, cheering, and fitness. Following high school, Plaintiff participated in competitive cheerleading for the Pittsburgh Storm for two years. She also competed in the Arnold Schwarzenegger Fitness Expo in Columbus, Ohio where she won third place. Additionally, Plaintiff has skied since the age of four locally at Seven Springs Mountain Resort and Hidden Valley Resort and continued to do so in California, including working at the Mammoth Ski Resort. Prior to attending Urban Air, Plaintiff had been to other trampoline and amusement parks with Mr. Hodges and their children.

Plaintiff was visiting her parents for the Thanksgiving Holiday and went to Urban Air with Mr. Hodges, their two children, her sister Alexandra Barrett, and her parents on November 23, 2018. Plaintiff testified that she understood the concept if a person is engaged in a warrior course like adventure where you are hanging, a person can fall wrong and injure themself. She further understood that it was possible that she might injure herself, including breaking a bone, when participating in activities at an adventure park. Plaintiff would rate her skill level as medium to high given her experience as a former athlete, gymnast, and track and field athlete. Before she decided to participate in the Warrior Course, she had in mind that she had enough skill and experience to complete the course.

Upon approaching the Warrior Course, Plaintiff went to the expert lane with two blue grip hang boards which had a gap in between when the incident occurred. According to Plaintiff, you had to shimmy your way hanging on to the end of the plank and propel your body to grab the next one. She acknowledged there were balls in the ball pit. Plaintiff knew when she started the Warrior Course that there was a possibility she would not finish and that she could slip and not catch the second plank and that if she missed, she would fall into the area below. As Plaintiff went to swing from the first board to the second board, she either slipped off (one or both hands) or she remembered thinking “oh, I’m just going to fall into the ball pit below.” Plaintiff went through the balls and landed on the surface below injuring her knee.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming

1) Plaintiff’s claims of negligence for injury she suffered falling off the Warrior Course attraction at Urban Air are barred by the “no-duty” rule; 2) Defendant One American was a landlord out of possession of the premises; and 3) The record is devoid of facts establishing Defendants’ conduct was reckless such that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages.

This is the decision concerning that motion.

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

Negligence requires the plaintiff proving four requirements. The first is the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. Proving this has evolved in some states to the “No Duty Rule.” There is no duty owed to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff can’t sue. In Pennsylvania and in this case, the defendant proved there was no duty owed, the No Duty Rule was applicable, and the case was dismissed.

Under Pennsylvania law, there are four states, like all states, to prove negligence:

To bring a claim of negligence under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant had a duty or obligation recognized by law; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) a connection exists between the breach and the duty; and (4) the breach created actual loss or damage.

In this case, the defendant argued that they had no duty to protect the plaintiff from harm because the risk the plaintiff undertook was an inherent risk of the sport or activity. “Specifically, Defendants submit that they had no duty to protect Plaintiff from the inherent risk of falling from the Warrior Course and, thus, summary judgment is warranted.”

The “no-duty” rule provides that “an owner or operator of a place of amusement has no duty to protect the user from any hazards inherent in the activity. “Where there is no duty, there can be no negligence, and thus when inherent risks are involved, negligence principles are irrelevant…and there can be no recovery based on allegations of negligence. Pennsylvania applies the “no-duty” rule to sports, recreation, and places of amusement.

The court then made a statement that some courts seem to forget. “To that end, the severity of the injury, whether minor or extreme, has no bearing on whether the “no-duty” rule applies.”

The court then went on to state the two-part test under Pennsylvania law to determine if the no duty rule applies.

1) whether the user was engaged in the amusement activity at the time of the injury; and

2) whether the injury arose out of a risk inherent in the amusement activity.

When both questions are answered in the affirmative, summary judgment is warranted. “If those risks are not inherent, traditional principles of negligence apply and [the Court] must determine what duty,” if any, a defendant owes to a plaintiff, whether the defendant breached that duty, and whether the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

The first part of the test was easy. The plaintiff was at the defendant’s location to have fun.

Here, there is no question that at the time of the injury Plaintiff was engaged in the Warrior Course attraction at Urban Air. Specifically, Plaintiff testified that she was on the Warrior Course and in the process of swinging from the first plank or board to the second one when she slipped off and fell into the ball pit below injuring her knee. Therefore, the first question is answered in the affirmative.

To answer the second part of the two-part test the court defined “inherent” as applied to the risk the plaintiff encountered.

A risk that is “common, frequent, and expected” is an inherent risk. Though a plaintiff’s subjective awareness of a specific inherent risk is not required

Based on the plaintiff’s testimony during depositions, the court determined that falling was an inherent risk of hanging above the ground on a board.

She testified that (based on her experiences involving other sports and recreational activities, as well as her participation in other adventure parks) she knew there was a possibility that while on the Warrior Course she could slip, lose her grip, and/or not catch the second plank. She also testified that she understood that if that happened, she would fall to the area below that contained the balls and could be injured.

The court went on to reinforce its decision by pulling information from the Plaintiff’s expert witness who also surmised that when hanging above the ground by your hands you could fall.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s expert stated that “[i]t is not unreasonable to expect that users will lose their grip and either unintentionally or intentionally fall.” He further stated that a fall from the Warrior Course “would not be unexpected.” Id. at p. 13. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that participating in an obstacle course like the Warrior Course presents inherent risk of injury from a fall.

It is pretty bad, when your expert report is used against you. However, it is also pretty obvious that falling is a risk whenever you are above the ground.

The plaintiff then argued that the risk at issue had a narrower focus. That the risk was not falling, but landing. In this case, the balls used to land on were not sufficient to protect the plaintiff from injury. However, the court rejected this argument because the risk was falling, the result was landing. The result is not part of the definition of the risk.

Pennsylvania courts “‘have rejected attempts by plaintiffs to define the injury producing risks in a very specific and narrow manner. Instead, they look to the “‘general risk’ that gave rise to the accident.”

The plaintiff then went further and argued that this was not an inherent risk because it was special. Plaintiff argued the case law where the injury was produced by a risk that other courts had determined was not inherent to the activity. In those cases, the injury was rare, not planned for and could not be defined as something that would happen every time the risk was encountered.

These cases, however, just as with cases that have held certain risks are inherent to a particular activity, turn on the relevant facts and the activity in question in determining if a risk is inherent. None, however, involves a Warrior Course type of attraction. Thus, the Court turns to the facts and activity in this case.

The court summed up its analysis in this way.

The final argument of the plaintiff was the No Duty Rule should not apply because the defendants deviated from industry customs or standards. Instead of using balls, they should have used foam in the pit. However, again, the court looked at the inherent risk. The inherent risk is falling when hanging from your arms above the ground. The result is not part of the risk.

Plaintiff suggests that Defendants should have used foam instead of plastic balls to minimize the risk and/or to ensure the balls in the pit were always level and that Defendants should have advised her not to land with a straight leg. These arguments go to negligence principles, not as to salient question of whether the risk was inherent. The question of inherent risk must be determined first. “[W]hen inherent risks are involved, negligence principles are irrelevant,” the inquiry is over, and summary judgment is proper. Therefore, Plaintiff’s arguments in this regard, and the evidence submitted to support them, fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, the Court finds summary judgment in favor of Defendants is warranted.

So Now What?

I have continuously reminded people that the first step in determining if anyone has a legitimate lawsuit against is, did you owe the plaintiff a duty and did you breach the duty. People believe that just because they are injured, that someone owes them money. I tell them that before I can turn a claim over to the insurance company, I have to know what we, the defendant did wrong. I ask, “What did we do wrong.” Rarely do I get an answer, and if I do, I explain that we did not do what they said we did. Most time, though, the injured person cannot define what we did wrong.

If we did not do something wrong, then we probably did not have a duty to the injured person and thus are not liable.

In Pennsylvania, that has evolved into a rule, the No Duty Rule. There cannot be a claim for negligence unless all four of the requirements to prove negligence have been met. The first is, did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff.

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

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

Barrett v. New Am. Adventures, LLC (W.D. Pa. 2023)

Posted: August 14, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Health Club, Indoor Recreation Center, Pennsylvania | Tags: assumption of the risk, duty, Inherent Risk Urban Air, Negligence, No Duty Rule, Warrior Race | Leave a comment

Barrett v. New Am. Adventures, LLC (W.D. Pa. 2023)

COURTNEY BARRETT, AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL; Plaintiff,
v.
NEW AMERICAN ADVENTURES, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; ONE AMERICAN WAY, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND; AND UATP MANAGEMENT, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; Defendants,

No. 2:20-CV-01813-CRE

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

June 30, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION
^[1]

CYNTHIA REED EDDY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

This civil action was initiated by Plaintiff alleging one count of negligence against each of the three Defendants arising out of an injury from a fall by Plaintiff at Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park on November 23, 2018. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47). Both Motions are brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) is granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is denied as moot.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

The standard for assessing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is well-settled. A court should grant summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Furthermore, “summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 250.

On a motion for summary judgment, the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom should be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986); Hudson v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Prod. Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). When reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, the court is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party with respect to each motion. F.R.C.P. 56. It is not the court’s role to weigh the disputed evidence and decide which is more probative, or to make credibility determinations. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004); Boyle v. County of Allegheny, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S at 247-48. An issue is “genuine” if a reasonable jury could possibly hold in the nonmovant’s favor with respect to that issue. Id. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial’.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Huston, 568 F.3d at 104.

A plaintiff may not, however, rely solely on his complaint to defeat a summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256 (“Rule 56(e) itself provides that a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”). Allegations made without any evidentiary support may be disregarded. Jones v. UPS, 214 F.3d 402, 407 (3d Cir. 2000).

III. BACKGROUND^[2]

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court based on diversity. (ECF No. 1). Thereafter Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11). Count I of the Amended Complaint is a claim of negligence against Defendant NAA. Id. Count II asserts a claim of negligence against Defendant One American. Id. Count III is a claim of negligence against Defendant UATP. Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47)

Defendants seek summary judgment on three grounds: 1) Plaintiff’s claims of negligence for injury she suffered falling off the Warrior Course attraction at Urban Air are barred by the “no-duty” rule; 2) Defendant One American was a landlord out of possession of the premises; and 3) The record is devoid of facts establishing Defendants’ conduct was reckless such that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. (ECF No. 47). As a preliminary matter regarding to the second ground, Defendants submit that American Way owes no duty to Plaintiff as a landlord out of possession of the premises. (ECF No. 49, pp. 14-17). Thus, Defendants contend that summary judgment as to Count II is warranted. Id. In Response, Plaintiff “acknowledges that there is insufficient evidence to establish liability on the part of Defendant One American and that summary judgment is appropriate.” (ECF No. 55, p. 2). Plaintiff further admits that Defendant One American is not liable as a matter of law. (ECF No. 57, p. 12, ¶76). Based on the same, the Court finds summary judgment as to Defendant One American is warranted. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) is granted as to Defendant One American and Count II is dismissed with prejudice.

The Court now turns to Defendants’ main argument that Plaintiff’s claims of negligence are barred by the “no-duty” rule. (ECF No. 49). To bring a claim of negligence under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant had a duty or obligation recognized by law; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) a connection exists between the breach and the duty; and (4) the breach created actual loss or damage. Krentz v. Consol. Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20, 27-28 (Pa. 2006). Defendants assert that Plaintiff cannot show the first element – a legal duty recognized by law. (ECF No. 49). Specifically, Defendants submit that they had no duty to protect Plaintiff from the inherent risk of falling from the Warrior Course and, thus, summary judgment is warranted. (ECF No. 49).

The “no-duty” rule provides that “an owner or operator of a place of amusement has no duty to protect the user from any hazards inherent in the activity. Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174, 1186 (Pa. 2010), citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §496A, CMTT c, 2 (where plaintiff has entered voluntarily into some relation with defendant which he knows to involve the risk, he is regarded as tacitly or impliedly agreeing to relieve defendant of responsibility, and to take his own chances); Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 762 A.2d 339, 343-44 (citing Jones v. Three Rivers Mgmt. Corp., 394 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1978). “Where there is no duty, there can be no negligence, and thus when inherent risks are involved, negligence principles are irrelevant…and there can be no recovery based on allegations of negligence. Chepkevich. 2 A.3d at 1186, citing Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000). Pennsylvania applies the “no-duty” rule to sports, recreation, and places of amusement. Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1186.

To that end, the severity of the injury, whether minor or extreme, has no bearing on whether the “no-duty” rule applies. Richmond v. Wild River Waterpark, Inc., No. 1972 MDA 2013, 2014 WL 10789957, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2014). Rather, there is a two-part inquiry to determine if the “no-duty” rule applies:

1) whether the user was engaged in the amusement activity at the time of the injury; and

2) whether the injury arose out of a risk inherent in the amusement activity.

Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1186. When both questions are answered in the affirmative, summary judgment is warranted. Id. “If those risks are not inherent, traditional principles of negligence apply and [the Court] must determine what duty,” if any, a defendant owes to a plaintiff, whether the defendant breached that duty, and whether the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Quan Vu v. Ski Liberty Operating Corp., 295 F.Supp.3d 503, 507 (M.D. Pa. 2018), aff’d sub nom. Vu v. Ski Liberty Operating Corp., 763 Fed.Appx. 178 (3d Cir. 2019).

Here, there is no question that at the time of the injury Plaintiff was engaged in the Warrior Course attraction at Urban Air. (ECF No. 45-2, p. 48). Specifically, Plaintiff testified that she was on the Warrior Course and in the process of swinging from the first plank or board to the second one when she slipped off and fell into the ball pit below injuring her knee. (ECF No. 45-2, p. 57). Therefore, the first question is answered in the affirmative.

As to the second inquiry, the key question here is whether Plaintiff’s injury arose out of a risk inherent of the Warrior Course. A risk that is “common, frequent, and expected” is an inherent risk. Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1187. Though a plaintiff’s subjective awareness of a specific inherent risk is not required, Quan Vu, 295 F.Supp.3d at 509, in this case, Plaintiff’s own testimony is telling. She testified that (based on her experiences involving other sports and recreational activities, as well as her participation in other adventure parks) she knew there was a possibility that while on the Warrior Course she could slip, lose her grip, and/or not catch the second plank. (ECF No. 45-2, p. 67). She also testified that she understood that if that happened, she would fall to the area below that contained the balls and could be injured. Id. at 67-68.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s expert stated that “[i]t is not unreasonable to expect that users will lose their grip and either unintentionally or intentionally fall.” (ECF No. 48-10, p. 12). He further stated that a fall from the Warrior Course “would not be unexpected.” Id. at p. 13. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that participating in an obstacle course like the Warrior Course presents inherent risk of injury from a fall. (ECF No. 56, p. 9, 14-16). Courts should adopt “‘a practical and logical interpretation of what risks are inherent to the sport….'” Vu, 763 Fed.Appx. at 181, quoting, Chepkevich., 2 A.3d at 1187-88. Applying the same, the Court finds that falling from the planks or boards on the Warrior Course into the ball pit below and any subsequent injury arising therefrom is an obvious danger when engaging in the Warrior Course attraction and is an inherent risk.

Plaintiff submits, however, that “[f]alling into a shallow pit filled with plastic balls is not an ‘inherent’ risk” suggesting that it is not necessary to the fundamental nature of participating in the Warrior Course. Id. at 14. This Court is unpersuaded by the framing of the issue in this manner. Pennsylvania courts “‘have rejected attempts by plaintiffs to define the injury producing risks in a very specific and narrow manner.'” Quan Vu, 295 F.Supp.3d at 508, quoting Cole v. Camelback Mountain Ski Resort, No. 16-cv-1959, 2017 WL 4621786 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2017). Instead, they look to the “‘general risk’ that gave rise to the accident.” Id. citing Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1186.

Moreover, in support of her position, Plaintiff sting cites cases where certain risks were held not to be inherent to a particular activity. Id. at p. 15, citing Telega v. Security Bureau, Inc., 719 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)(involved a spectator who caught a football and was subsequently attacked by fans); Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp., 394 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1978)(spectator of baseball game hit by a batted ball in an interior walkway); Sheerer v. W.G. Wade Shows, Inc., No. 11-cv-1496, 2012 WL 5905039 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2012)(a child’s arm injured when it was caught between the cart he was in and the wall inside the trailer that housed the ride); Perez v. Great Wolf Lodge, 200 F.Supp.3d 471 (M.D. Pa. 2016)(weight limit of participants on a waterslide attraction exceeded weight limitation and subsequently one participant was somehow separated from the tube resulting in injuries). These cases, however, just as with cases that have held certain risks are inherent to a particular activity,^[3] turn on the relevant facts and the activity in question in determining if a risk is inherent. None, however, involves a Warrior Course type of attraction. Thus, the Court turns to the facts and activity in this case.

As discussed herein above, there is no doubt that the risk of injury from falling into the ball pit while participating in the Warrior Course is “a common, frequent, and expected” part of engaging in this activity. It is part and parcel to the attraction. As Plaintiff admits, “[t]here can be little doubt that participating in an obstacle court contains a risk of injury, particularly from a fall.” (ECF No. 56, at p. 16). In fact, a fall into the ball pit from this type of obstacle course is more likely than not. (ECF No. 48-10, p. 13). It is a quintessential risk of the Warrior Course. To that end, the Court finds the risk of falling from the planks is an “inherent” risk and a subsequent injury cannot be removed from the Warrior Course without altering the fundamental nature of the activity. As set forth above, if the risk is inherent, an owner or operator has no duty to protect the user from it and the user cannot recover for any alleged negligence on the part of the owner/operator. See, Quan Vu, 295 F.Supp.3d at 507-09; Chepkevich. 2 A.3d at 1186. Accordingly, the “no-duty” rule applies here.

In opposition, however, Plaintiff also contends that the “no-duty” rule does not apply here because there is evidence that Defendants deviated “from established custom” by failing to meet industry standards. (ECF No. 56, p. 8-14). To that end, Plaintiff points to her experts who opine that the Warrior Course fails to meet industry standards and that “Defendant NAA failed to properly maintain and operate the Warrior Course within the standards set forth in the operations manual for the Warrior Course.” (ECF No. 56, pp. 10-14). For example, Plaintiff suggests that Defendants should have used foam instead of plastic balls to minimize the risk and/or to ensure the balls in the pit were always level and that Defendants should have advised her not to land with a straight leg. These arguments go to negligence principles, not as to salient question of whether the risk was inherent. The question of inherent risk must be determined first. See, Quan Vu, supra; Jones, supra; Telega, supra. “[W]hen inherent risks are involved, negligence principles are irrelevant,” the inquiry is over, and summary judgment is proper. Quan Vu, 295 F.Supp.3d at 509. Therefore, Plaintiff’s arguments in this regard, and the evidence submitted to support them, fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, the Court finds summary judgment in favor of Defendants is warranted.

Consequently, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) is granted.^[4]

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45)

Plaintiff maintains that summary judgment is warranted as to Defendants’ affirmative defense of release, consent, and/or waiver. (ECF No. 45). To that end, Plaintiff contends that she did not sign the release and waiver agreement and she did not give authority to anyone to sign a waiver and release on her behalf. (ECF No. 46). Specifically, Plaintiff submits that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff did not sign the waiver, that Mr. Hodges did not have authority (express or implied) to sign the waiver on her behalf, that there is no evidence of apparent authority, and there is no evidence of authority by estoppel. (ECF No. 46). Thus, Plaintiff seeks a partial summary judgment as to the defense of release, consent, and/or waiver. (ECF No. 45). Since the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to all of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is denied as moot.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s injury, but the extent of her injury is of no moment when considering the issue of whether the “no-duty” rule applies. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) is granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is denied as moot.

An appropriate Order follows.

———

Notes:

^[1] All parties have consented to jurisdiction before a United States Magistrate Judge; therefore, the Court has the authority to decide dispositive motions, and to eventually enter final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636, et seq.

^[2] There are cross motions for summary judgment pending. (ECF Nos. 45 and 47). As set forth above, when reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, the court is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party with respect to each motion. F.R.C.P. 56. In this case, the Court finds Defendants’ Motion to be dispositive of the issues in this case. Therefore, the facts will be viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. The background facts are taken from the admitted undisputed facts.

^[3]
See, e.g. Quan Vu, supra (collecting cases holding certain risks are inherent to a particular activity).

^[4] As an alternative type of argument, Defendants argue that the record is devoid of facts establishing Defendants’ conduct was reckless such that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. (ECF No. 47). Since this Court has found summary judgment is proper as to Plaintiff’s negligence claims, the issue is moot and the Court makes no comment on the same.

———

Release signed while checking in at a resort stopped heir’s claims when the decedent drowned while canoeing.

Posted: June 26, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: California, Paddlesports, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: assumption of the risk, Canoeing, drowning, Estate, Express Assumption of the Risk, Gross negligence, Mayacamas Holdings LLC, Mayacamas Ranch, Release, Unambguous Language, Unambigous, Waiver of Liability | Leave a comment

Compare the release and what the court said it covered in this case to the narrow interpretation of a release by Wisconsin law.

Estate of Johnson v. Mayacamas Holdings LLC (Cal. App. 2021)

State: California: California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Plaintiff: Estate of Lamerle Johnson, Sr., Danielle Martin Johnson, LaMerle Johnson, Jr., and Deja Thomas

Defendant: Mayacamas Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Claims: general negligence, premises liability, and wrongful death, alleging that Mayacamas Ranch LLC negligently owned, possessed, leased, maintained, operated, designed, inspected, supervised, managed, and controlled the resort premises

Defendant Defenses: Release and Assumption of the Rik

Holding: For the defendants

Year: 2021

Summary

The deceased signed a release when checking into the resort. During a hike, the deceased and others found a lake and canoes. They parties canoed on the lake with the deceased eventually falling out of his canoe and drowning.

The plaintiffs claim the release did not name and thus did not cover all the defendants and did not identify canoeing as a risk. The court found the release was written broadly enough to cover the defendants and the risks the decedent encountered.

Facts

Mayacamas Ranch was a resort in Calistoga. The property included a “Building Parcel,” with guest cottages, a man-made pool, and other structures, and a “Lake Parcel,” with a pond called Hidden Lake. On the shore of Hidden Lake were at least two 12-foot fiberglass canoes. An unmarked white bin, containing life vests, was nearby.

At the time relevant to this case, the Building Parcel of Mayacamas Ranch was owned by respondent Mayacamas Holdings LLC (Mayacamas Holdings), and the Lake Parcel was owned by respondent Profit Recovery Center. Both parcels were operated and managed by respondent Paradise With Purpose, a hospitality management company.[1]

In December 2016, Johnson attended a retreat at Mayacamas Ranch hosted by Rockwood Leadership Institute. Upon his arrival, he received a “Release & Waiver of Liability,” which the resort required guests to review and sign before they were assigned rooms and given keys. Johnson signed the release on December 5, 2016.

On December 6, 2016, Johnson and another guest, Troy Williams, went hiking and “stumbled upon” Hidden Lake. Johnson took one of the canoes onto the water, apparently without incident.

On December 7, 2016, Johnson, Williams, and two other guests (Heracio Ray Harts and Eddy Zheng) went hiking before the day’s scheduled activities. They arrived at Hidden Lake and took turns taking the two canoes onto the water. They did not locate any life vests; although they found the white bin, they could not open it.

While Johnson and Williams were in their respective canoes on Hidden Lake, Johnson began “horsing around” and rocking Williams’s canoe. Williams started to return to shore. When he looked back, he saw that Johnson’s canoe had flipped over and Johnson was in the water. Williams saw “panic in [Johnson’s] face.”

As Williams tried to help Johnson, Williams fell into the water, which was so cold that he had to swim to shore. Zheng entered the water to look for Johnson, and Harts ran to get help. Darlene Nipper, the chief executive officer of Rockwood Leadership Institute, arrived at the scene and unsuccessfully tried to find Johnson. First responders later found Johnson’s deceased body.

On the day of the incident, the canoes were unsecured; previously, they had been secured with a chain and a lock. The water temperature in Hidden Lake was about 40 degrees, and the air temperature was roughly 38 degrees. Respondents had no policies, procedures, or practices to warn guests about specific safety hazards associated with cold water shock and swimming or canoeing at Hidden Lake.

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

Under California law, a release is an express assumption of the risk document which negates the defendant’s duty of care.

If the plaintiff signed a release of all liability, the release applies to any ordinary negligence of the defendant, so long as the act of negligence that resulted in the plaintiff’s injury is reasonably related to the purpose for which the release was given. The release must be” ‘” ‘clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties.

In this case, the appellate court found the release was clear, unambiguous and explicit in expressing the parties (both the defendant and the decedent’s) intent that the decedent assumed the risk of his possible injury.

The release was entitled “Release & Waiver of Liability,” communicating to Johnson that he was releasing claims and waiving liability. It explicitly stated that he would “assume full responsibility for all risks of bodily injury, death or property damage,” and that he would “hold harmless Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property.” It further stated that Johnson would “waive, release, and discharge any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which [he] now ha[s] or which may arise out of or in connection with [his] presence at Mayacamas Ranch.” (Italics added.) In short, the release applied to any ordinary negligence liability arising out of Johnson’s stay at the ranch, which would include his use of the canoe on Hidden Lake at the resort.

The court then looked at whether the release identified all the named defendants. The release only identified “Mayacamas Ranch,
its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property.” It did not identify by name “Paradise With Purpose, Profit Recovery Center, or Mayacamas Holdings.” The plaintiff argued because those three defendants were named in the release they were not covered by the release.

The appellate court found that all the parties were covered by the release. The parties and the land those parties controlled were all managed by the named defendant and the language identifying other parties was sufficient to cover the non-named parties.

The plaintiff argued the scope of the release was ambiguous. The release mentioned swimming so the release could only be applied to the swimming pool not canoeing on a lake.

The court did not buy it. “An ambiguity exists only”‘ “when a party can identify an alternative, semantically reasonable, candidate of meaning of a writing.” The language of the release covered swimming, it also covered “any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which I now have or which may arise out of or in connection with my presence at Mayacamas Ranch.” That language alone in the release would cover canoeing in a lake while on the property.

The court summed up the release in this statement.

Here, the purpose of the release was for guests to waive all future claims arising out of their presence at the ranch and their use of its property and facilities, which necessarily included canoeing on Hidden Lake.

The plaintiff then argued the actions of the defendant were grossly negligent.

‘Gross negligence'” is a” ‘” ‘want of even scant care'” ‘” or” ‘” ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” ‘” [“‘ “such a lack of care as may be presumed to indicate a passive and indifferent attitude toward results”‘ “].) By contrast, ordinary negligence is “a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm.” [“‘ “[M]ere nonfeasance, such as the failure to discover a dangerous condition or to perform a duty,”‘ amounts to ordinary negligence.”].) Thus, while “[e]vidence of conduct that evinces an extreme departure from safety directions or an industry standard could demonstrate gross negligence,” “conduct demonstrating the failure to guard against, or warn of, a dangerous condition typically does not rise to the level of gross negligence.”

The plaintiff’s argued that

However, the court found these actions were not gross negligence but simply malfeasance, which is covered by ordinary negligence and as such, the release.

Assumption of the risk was also raised as a defense to the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that drowning while canoeing was not an inherent risk of canoeing. The court found otherwise.

In addition to contending that the release negated the element of duty under an express assumption of risk theory, the Mayacamas Defendants contended in the trial court that they had no liability based on the primary assumption of risk theory. Under that theory, “operators, instructors and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” Whether a given risk is inherent in the sport is a question of law to be answered by the court.

The court did not go into that issue with any greater detail because its decision on the release meant the issue was resolved without looking at assumption of the risk.

The release, as flawed as it might appear to be, was written broadly enough under California law, to deny the claims of the plaintiff.

So Now What?

Compare this case, and how the release was interpreted to the decision in Schabelski v. Nova Cas. Co. (Wis. App. 2022) discussed in Wisconsin finding more ways to invalidate releases, which makes writing a release difficult. There is no way this release would have survived under Wisconsin law.

This release did not name the defendants properly, did not identify the risks with any specificity yet was written broadly enough to meet the requirements of a release under California law.

In Wisconsin, a release cannot be written broadly and must specifically identify the risks the release is being used to prevent.

That does not mean you can write releases in some states and not care about how they are written. A poorly written release is always the best example to teach or write about because they are always appealed. Good releases never get to court because the plaintiffs cannot find the holes necessary to make a claim.

Get your release written by an attorney, not a sports professor, who knows the law and knows your land, business or activity.

Other California Cases looking at Releases.

Allegations of fraud inducing a non-English speaking client to sign a release are enough to void the release in California.

Balloon ride in California is not a common carrier, and the release signed by the plaintiff bars the plaintiff’s claims even though she did not read or speak English

California decision imposes three specific requirements for a release to be valid. On requirement is a release must be understood by a person untrained in the law

Defendants awarded attorney fees in California cycling race. One unique argument was raised; the plaintiff signed the release on the wrong line

Most references in case law to assumption of the risk are to this California decision

The actual risk causing the injury to the plaintiff was explicitly identified in the release and used by the court as proof it was a risk of skiing and snowboarding. If it was in the release, then it was a risk.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Estate of Johnson v. Mayacamas Holdings LLC (Cal. App. 2021)

Posted: June 26, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: California, Paddlesports, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: assumption of the risk, Canoeing, Estate, Express Assumption of the Risk, Gross negligence, Mayacamas Ranch, Release, Survivors, unambiguous, unambiguous language, Waiver of Liability | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Release signed while checking in at a resort stopped heir’s claims when the decedent drowned while canoeing.

ESTATE OF LAMERLE JOHNSON, SR., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
MAYACAMAS HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants and Respondents.

A161183

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

December 21, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG17853267

NEEDHAM, J.

The Estate of Lamerle Johnson, Sr., Danielle Martin Johnson, LaMerle Johnson, Jr., and Deja Thomas (appellants) sued respondents after Lamerle Johnson, Sr. (Johnson) tragically drowned while canoeing on a lake at respondents’ resort. The trial court entered judgment in respondents’ favor after granting their motion for summary adjudication, based largely on the fact that Johnson had signed a release of liability. Appellants now contend the court erred because (1) respondents were not identified by name as parties to the release and were not third-party beneficiaries; (2) the release could be construed to pertain only to claims arising from swimming at the pool, not canoeing on the lake; (3) there was a material factual dispute as to whether respondents were grossly negligent; and (4) the court erred in sustaining an objection to the declaration of appellants’ expert witness. We will affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Mayacamas Ranch

B. Release and Waiver of Liability

The release stated: “I am aware that the grounds and facilities of Mayacamas Ranch are rural and rustic. I do not have any medical or physical conditions, which would impair or affect my ability to engage in any activities or which would cause any risk of harm to myself or to the participants or otherwise endanger my health while attending and utilizing Mayacamas Ranch. . . . I am further aware that certain activities available at the Ranch may be dangerous, for example, swimming, consuming alcohol, or hiking the trails. I understand that the Ranch does not provide lifeguards or any other forms of supervision for the use of the facilities nor for monitoring consumption of alcoholic beverages. I understand that the Ranch does not have on staff anyone trained in CPR nor first aid. Pool [c]loses promptly at 10 p.m. to adhere to strict property noise ordinance. . . . I assume full responsibility for all risks of bodily injury, death or property damage and hold harmless Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property. . . . I waive, release, and discharge any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which I now have or which may arise out of or in connection with my presence at Mayacamas Ranch. I acknowledge that I have read and agree to all Mayacamas Ranch policies listed in this release & waiver of liability.” (Italics added.)

C. Johnson Drowns While Canoeing

On December 6, 2016, Johnson and another guest, Troy Williams, went hiking and “stumbled upon” Hidden Lake. Johnson took one of the canoes onto the water, apparently without incident.

D. Johnson’s Estate and Survivors Sue

In March 2017, appellants sued Mayacamas Ranch LLC, Rockwood Leadership Institute, and others. They asserted causes of action for general negligence, premises liability, and wrongful death, alleging that Mayacamas Ranch LLC negligently owned, possessed, leased, maintained, operated, designed, inspected, supervised, managed, and controlled the resort premises.

In April 2018, appellants filed an amended complaint in which they acknowledged that Mayacamas Ranch LLC was a dissolved entity that was no longer operating. In its place, appellants named three new defendants- respondents Mayacamas Holdings, Profit Recovery Center, and Paradise With Purpose (Mayacamas Defendants).

E. Mayacamas Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion

In December 2019, the Mayacamas Defendants moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. They argued that the release provided a complete defense to each cause of action, the primary assumption of the risk doctrine also barred liability, and Thomas lacked standing to bring a wrongful death action.

Appellants opposed the motion, arguing inter alia that the release did not identify the Mayacamas Defendants, did not cover canoeing on Hidden Lake, and did not absolve the defendants from liability for gross negligence. They also argued that primary assumption of the risk was inapplicable and that Thomas had standing to file suit.

On the issue of gross negligence, appellants submitted a declaration from Dr. John R. Fletemeyer, a purported expert in “aquatics safety,” who stated that the defendants’ failure to take certain safety precautions-such as failing to provide warnings, limit access to the canoes, or make life vests accessible-fell “far below the generally accepted customs and practices in the aquatic safety industry, such that it rises to a level of gross neglect, recklessness and a deliberate and willful disregard for the safety of the public and their guests, including Mr. Johnson.”

In July 2020, the trial court granted summary adjudication for the Mayacamas Defendants on each cause of action, concluding that the release was “unambiguous as a matter of law.” The court found “no triable issue of material fact as to the existence of gross negligence, which could negate the legal effect of the Release,” observing that Dr. Fletemeyer’s opinion “fail[ed] to establish what the accepted customs and practices in the aquatic safety industry [were], or how they appl[ied] to properties like Mayacamas Ranch.” The court sustained the Mayacamas Defendants’ objection to paragraph 16 of Dr. Fletemeyer’s declaration, which had set forth his opinion on gross negligence, as conclusory and lacking in foundation. The court added that “Mr. Johnson’s assumption of risk in signing the Release functions as a defense to the Plaintiffs’ claims based on negligence.”

Judgment was entered in favor of the Mayacamas Defendants as to all causes of action. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we conduct an independent review to determine whether there are triable issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) A defendant seeking summary judgment must show that at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1) & (2).) The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show there is a triable issue of material fact as to that issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); See Alex R. Thomas & Co. v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 66, 72.) We construe the moving party’s evidence strictly, and the nonmoving party’s evidence liberally, in determining whether there is a triable issue. (Thomas, at p. 72.)

A. The Release Unambiguously Bars Appellants’ Claims

A written release of future liability reflects an express assumption of the risk by the plaintiff, thereby negating the defendant’s duty of care. (Eriksson v. Nunnink (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 (Eriksson).) If the plaintiff signed a release of all liability, the release applies to any ordinary negligence of the defendant, so long as the act of negligence that resulted in the plaintiff’s injury is reasonably related to the purpose for which the release was given. (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1357-1358.) The release must be” ‘” ‘clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties.'” ‘” (Eriksson, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 722, italics omitted.)

Here, the release was clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the parties’ intent that Johnson assume all risks of injury or damage at Mayacamas Ranch and waive and release all claims related to his stay. The release was entitled “Release & Waiver of Liability,” communicating to Johnson that he was releasing claims and waiving liability. It explicitly stated that he would “assume full responsibility for all risks of bodily injury, death or property damage,” and that he would “hold harmless Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property.” (Italics added.) It further stated that Johnson would “waive, release, and discharge any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which [he] now ha[s] or which may arise out of or in connection with [his] presence at Mayacamas Ranch.” (Italics added.) In short, the release applied to any ordinary negligence liability arising out of Johnson’s stay at the ranch, which would include his use of the canoe on Hidden Lake at the resort.

B. Appellants’ Arguments

Appellants contend the release was insufficient in three respects: it did not apply to the Mayacamas Defendants; it did not apply to canoeing; and it did not apply to gross negligence. Their contentions lack merit.

1. Application of the Release to the Mayacamas Defendants

The release stated that Johnson would hold harmless “Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees and the owners of the real property.” It did not explicitly name Paradise With Purpose, Profit Recovery Center, or Mayacamas Holdings. Therefore, appellants contend, the Mayacamas Defendants “were not parties to the Release” and could not invoke its protections unless they were intended third-party beneficiaries. Appellants further contend there was no evidence that the release was intended to benefit the Mayacamas Defendants and appellants presented evidence to the contrary.

Although the release did not identify the Mayacamas Defendants by name, a reasonable person in Johnson’s position-signing a release and waiver of liability for all claims arising from his presence at Mayacamas Ranch-would necessarily expect the phrase “Mayacamas Ranch, its officers, agents, principals and employees” to include the entity that was operating, and doing business as, “Mayacamas Ranch.” That entity was the defendant, Paradise With Purpose, which-as alleged in the amended complaint- operated and managed both parcels. (At the time the release was signed, the legal entity previously known as “Mayacamas Ranch, LLC” had already been dissolved.) Further, a reasonable person in Johnson’s position would understand that “owners of the real property” meant those who owned the property on which Mayacamas Ranch was located: that is, Mayacamas Holdings, which owned the Building Parcel, and Profit Recovery Center, which owned the Lake Parcel, as alleged in the amended complaint.

The cases on which appellants rely do not suggest otherwise. In Vahle v. Barwick (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1323, an attorney had represented clients in a personal injury matter that was resolved by a settlement agreement.

When the clients later sued the attorney for malpractice, the attorney argued that a provision in the settlement agreement, by which the clients had released the opposing party in the personal injury case and “their agents, servants, assigns . . . and all other persons . . .” from all claims related to the personal injury litigation, released the attorney as to the subsequent malpractice claim. (Italics added.) The court rejected the argument, noting that the release was plainly intended only to release the opposing party and those in privity with the opposing party, and not the clients’ own attorney. (Id. at pp. 1326-1333.)

In Neverkovec v. Fredericks (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 337, a passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident sued the driver of the other car. The defendant driver contended the claim was barred by a release the plaintiff had signed with the insurer of the vehicle in which the plaintiff had been riding. That release had exonerated certain individuals “and any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility or liability.” (Italics added.) The court of appeal concluded there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff had intended to release the driver with the words “any other person.” (Id. at pp. 342-345.) The question, the court explained, is whether “a reasonable person in the releasing party’s shoes would have believed the other party understood the scope of the release.” (Id. at p. 351.)

Here, we do not have a situation where we must divine whether the parties intended the Mayacamas Defendants to fall within a phrase such as “all other persons” or “any other person.” The release expressly identified the ranch, its agents, its officers, its principals, its employees, and the owners of the real property as the ones who would be held harmless. The only reasonable interpretation is that, by this language, the release was intended to protect the entities that were subject to liability as operators of the resort and owners of the real property-the Mayacamas Defendants.

Appellants argue that they submitted evidence showing that the Mayacamas Defendants were not third-party beneficiaries. They cite to a discovery response in which Profit Recovery Center stated it owned the Lake Parcel but did not own or control the Building Parcel (the land where the” ‘resort and retreat center'” was located). Whether Profit Recovery Center owned the Building Parcel is irrelevant, however, because it owned the Lake Parcel and was therefore one of the “owners of the real property” under the release. Similarly, appellants point us to a discovery response in which Mayacamas Holdings stated it owned the Building Parcel and not the Lake Parcel, but that still makes Mayacamas Holdings an “owner[] of the real property” under the release. Appellants also refer to discovery responses indicating that the Mayacamas Defendants had no “relationship” except that they shared a chief executive officer or manager, but they fail to demonstrate why that matters.

Whether the release should be construed such that Mayacamas Holdings, Profit Recovery Center, and Paradise With Purpose were parties to the release, or were intended third-party beneficiaries, they are entitled to the benefits and protections of the release.

2. Application to the Canoe Incident

Appellants next contend the scope of the release was ambiguous and could reasonably be construed to apply only to Johnson’s use of the resort’s swimming pool, and not to canoeing; because of this ambiguity, they argue, there was a material factual dispute that precluded summary judgment.

Appellants’ argument is meritless. An ambiguity exists only”‘ “when a party can identify an alternative, semantically reasonable, candidate of meaning of a writing.” ‘” (Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1476, 1485 (Cohen).) It is not semantically reasonable to conclude that the release covered only Johnson’s swimming in the pool.

As mentioned, the release was exceedingly broad. It stated that Johnson assumed “full responsibility for all risks of bodily injury, death or property damage” and “waive, release, and discharge any and all claims, rights and/or causes of action which I now have or which may arise out of or in connection with my presence at Mayacamas Ranch.” (Italics added.) Given this language, no reasonable person would think that the release pertained only to swimming in the swimming pool. Appellants point to a sentence in the release that states: “I am further aware that certain activities available at the Ranch may be dangerous, for example, swimming, consuming alcohol, or hiking the trails.” (Italics added.) But in that sentence, “swimming” was just an “example” of dangerous activities, and there was no attempt to provide an exhaustive list of the risks. While the release mentioned the pool’s closing time, that was plainly to solicit adherence to a “noise ordinance” and in no way limited the release’s scope. To the contrary, the first sentence of the release recited Johnson’s awareness that the “grounds and facilities of Mayacamas Ranch are rural and rustic,” suggesting a far broader scope to the release than just the pool. (Italics added.) And finally, the fact that the release did not specifically mention canoeing is immaterial. (See Cohen, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485 [the express terms of the release must apply to the defendant’s negligence, but the release need not mention the defendant’s specific negligent act].) Canoeing would be performed in the canoes provided at Hidden Lake, which was part of the “grounds and facilities of Mayacamas Ranch,” and involved Johnson’s “presence” at the resort.

The cases on which appellants rely are inapposite. In those cases, the harm that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was outside the purpose of the release. (Huverserian v. Catalina Scuba Luv, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1466-1469 [release given in connection with the rental of scuba diving equipment was expressly limited to “boat dives or multiple day rentals” and therefore did not apply where the decedent had not rented the equipment for those purposes]; Sweat v. Big Time Auto Racing, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303-1308 [release signed as a condition of watching an automobile race from the “pit area” did not cover injuries incurred when bleachers in the pit area collapsed, because the purpose was to require attendees to assume the risk of injury as a result of being in close proximity to the race, not defectively constructed or maintained bleachers].) Here, the purpose of the release was for guests to waive all future claims arising out of their presence at the ranch and their use of its property and facilities, which necessarily included canoeing on Hidden Lake.

3. No Triable Issue as to Gross Negligence

A release of liability bars claims for ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 750 (Santa Barbara).) Appellants contend they established triable issues of material fact as to whether the Mayacamas Defendants acted with gross negligence. We disagree.

” ‘Gross negligence'” is a” ‘” ‘want of even scant care'” ‘” or” ‘” ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.'” ‘” (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 754; Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 640 [“‘ “such a lack of care as may be presumed to indicate a passive and indifferent attitude toward results”‘ “].) By contrast, ordinary negligence is “a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm.” (Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 753-754; Anderson, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 881 [“‘ “[M]ere nonfeasance, such as the failure to discover a dangerous condition or to perform a duty,”‘ amounts to ordinary negligence.”].) Thus, while “[e]vidence of conduct that evinces an extreme departure from safety directions or an industry standard could demonstrate gross negligence,” “conduct demonstrating the failure to guard against, or warn of, a dangerous condition typically does not rise to the level of gross negligence.” (Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344, 365 (Willhide-M ichiulis).)

Here, appellants claim that the Mayacamas Defendants were grossly negligent because they did not lock up the canoes, post signs, provide a flotation device and life vests, or warn guests about “cold water shock” and canoeing at the lake, including admonishing them that canoes can capsize and life vests should be worn. This alleged wrongdoing, however, does not constitute gross negligence, but “[m]ere nonfeasance”-the failure to guard against, or warn of, dangerous conditions. (See Willhide-Michiulis, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at pp. 358-365 [where snowboarder collided with snow grooming equipment, allegations that the equipment was used on an open run without spotters or adequate warning of the danger did not demonstrate gross negligence]; Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 878-883 [customer who slipped and fell in health club’s shower room failed to plead gross negligence by alleging that the shower room floor was routinely covered with oily and soapy residue, because there was no extreme departure from expected conditions or safety standards, and the defendant did not actively increase the risk or conceal it].)

Dr. Fletemeyer’s opinion that the failure to take the stated precautions fell “far below the generally accepted customs and practices in the aquatic safety industry, such that it rises to a level of gross neglect” did not create a triable issue of fact. As discussed post, the trial court did not err in sustaining defendants’ objection to Dr. Fletemeyer’s statement as conclusory and lacking in foundation. (Willhide-Michiulis, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at pp. 355-356.) In any event, Dr. Fletemeyer’s opinion missed the mark, because he did not explain the customs and practices of aquatic safety in the context of places such as Mayacamas Ranch and Hidden Lake. There was no showing, therefore, of an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.

Nor did the alleged actions of the Mayacamas Defendants increase the inherent risks of canoeing. A reasonable person in Johnson’s position understands that canoeing on a lake (in 38-degree weather) poses risks such as the canoe capsizing or the canoer otherwise falling into the water and having to swim to safety. Not only is this conclusion readily drawn from general experience, it is confirmed by the deposition testimony of Johnson’s own companions, who knew enough about the dangers of canoeing to inquire of Johnson’s ability to swim and to search for life vests; despite not finding any, they ventured onto the water. (See Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at pp. 878-883 [no gross negligence where the defendant did not actively increase the risk or conceal it]; cf. Eriksson, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 856-857 [triable issue as to gross negligence where defendant unreasonably increased the inherent risk of injury in horse jumping by allowing the victim to ride an unfit horse and concealing the horse’s unfitness].)

Appellants’ reliance on Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072 (Rosencrans) is misplaced. In Rosencrans, a motorcycle rider fell on a motorcross track during a practice run, at a location where he was not visible to other riders; after he stood and picked up his motorcycle, two other motorcyclists struck him. (Id. at p. 1077.) The court determined that, as a matter of law, the operator owed the plaintiff a duty to minimize the risks of motorcross by providing a system, such as a “caution flagger,” to alert riders of a fallen participant. (Id. at pp. 1084-1085.) Based on admissible evidence in the form of an instructional manual, which directed that flaggers should remain at the flag station at all times when competitors are on the course, and a declaration of a motocross safety expert, who averred that the common practice was to always place caution flaggers at their posts and the failure to do so greatly fell below the standard of care in the motocross industry, the court concluded there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the operator’s failure to provide the caution flagger constituted an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct-that is, gross negligence. (Id. at pp. 1086-1087.)

Here, even assuming that the Mayacamas Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing constituted a breach of their duty of care, there is no evidence comparable to that in Rosencrans suggesting the conduct was so extreme as to constitute gross negligence. There was no evidence, for example, of an applicable instructional manual. Nor was there admissible testimony from an expert that such conduct would greatly fall below the standard of care applicable specifically to operators of resorts akin to Mayacamas Ranch.

Appellants fail to establish that the court erred in granting summary adjudication and entering judgment based on the release.

C.
Primary Assumption of the Risk

In addition to contending that the release negated the element of duty under an express assumption of risk theory, the Mayacamas Defendants contended in the trial court that they had no liability based on the primary assumption of risk theory. Under that theory, “operators, instructors and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154.) Whether a given risk is inherent in the sport is a question of law to be answered by the court. (Id. at pp. 1158-1159.) Respondents argue that falling out of a canoe and drowning is an inherent risk of canoeing, and there was no evidence that the Mayacamas Defendants increased that risk.

It is unclear whether the trial court addressed the primary assumption of risk argument. The court stated in its order that “Mr. Johnson’s assumption of risk in signing the Release function[ed] as a defense to the Plaintiffs’ claims based on negligence.” (Italics added.) Because the court discussed assumption of the risk “in signing the Release” and referred to the Eriksson case, the Mayacamas Defendants contend the court was referring to express assumption of the risk and never ruled on the primary assumption of the risk theory. On the other hand, the court made its statement under the heading of “Issue 4,” which pertained to assumption of the risk (based in part on the language of the release), separate from “Issues 1[-]3,” which pertained to the theory of waiver based on the release. Appellants argue that the court did invoke the “primary assumption of the risk” doctrine as an alternative basis for its ruling, and erred in doing so.

Even if the trial court relied on the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, we need not and do not address this alternative ground for the court’s decision, because we affirm the ruling based on the express assumption of the risk doctrine as discussed ante.

D. Exclusion of Evidence

In concluding there were no triable issues of material fact as to gross negligence, the trial court sustained respondents’ objection to paragraph 16 of Dr. Fletemeyer’s declaration. Paragraph 16 read as follows: “Based on my background, education, training, experience, skill, and specialized knowledge in aquatics safety, there are many reasonable, inexpensive, simple, and effective safety precautions, outlined above and referenced below, that the Property-Defendants should have taken under the circumstances. Their failures, whether taken individually or in any combination, more likely than not caused or contributed to the Drowning and death of Mr. Johnson. These failures fall far below the generally accepted customs and practices in the aquatic safety industry, such that it rises to a level of gross neglect, recklessness, and a deliberate and willful disregard for the safety of the public and their guests, including Mr. Johnson.” Subparagraphs set forth the safety precautions that, according to Dr. Fletemeyer, should have been taken and would have saved Johnson’s life.

The court sustained the objection to paragraph 16 on the ground it was conclusory and lacking in foundation, because Dr. Fletemeyer failed to establish industry standard or custom, particularly as it applied to Mayacamas Ranch. Appellants contend this was error. The traditional rule is that evidentiary rulings in summary judgment proceedings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 852.) It is now an open question whether that remains the standard or whether the standard is de novo. (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 535.) Under either standard, we would uphold the trial court’s ruling.”

Dr. Fletemeyer professed to be an expert in “aquatics safety” and opined about customs and practices in the “aquatic safety industry,” but nothing in his declaration defined the standard and custom specifically for a resort like Mayacamas Ranch or the body of water known as Hidden Lake. Although appellants insist that Dr. Fletemeyer identified the reasonable industry practices relating to safety precautions in paragraph 16(a) and preceding paragraphs, those passages amount to a legal conclusion that certain things the Mayacamas Defendants did not do constituted reasonable industry standard practices, without particularizing the “industry” to which he referred, identifying the “industry standard,” or explaining how it applies to resorts like the ranch. (Willhide-Michiulis, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 344, 366 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert declarations that “did nothing more than to provide conclusions that the [defendants]conduct violated industry standards and constituted gross negligence”].) Appellants fail to establish error.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur. SIMONS, Acting P. J. BURNS, J.

———

Notes:

^[1] In October 2017, Mayacamas Ranch was destroyed by fire. Paradise With Purpose is purportedly suspended by the California Secretary of State and barred from defending against appellants’ lawsuit. (See Grell v. Laci Le Beau Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1300, 1306.) Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company filed a motion to intervene in this appeal to protect its interests as the insurer of Paradise With Purpose and the interests of its insured. We granted the motion, and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company filed its joinder to respondents’ brief.

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

Goss v. USA Cycling, Inc., 193 N.E.3d 599 (Ohio App. 2022)

Posted: May 22, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Cycling, Ohio, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: assumption of the risk, Bicycle Race, Bicycle Racing, Case Western Reserve, Cycling Race, foreseeable risk, Greater Cleveland Sports Commission, Negligence, Ohio, Public Policy, Release, USA Cycling, Wanton, Wilful | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Ohio Appellate Court upholds release for injury from bicycle race reviewing the steps needed to analyze the release by the courts.

Goss v. USA Cycling, Inc., 193 N.E.3d 599 (Ohio App. 2022)

193 N.E.3d 599

Heather GOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
USA CYCLING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 111084

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 21, 2022

Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP, Sanford A. Meizlish, and Jason C. Cox, Columbus, for appellant.

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, David J. Fagnilli, and Jillian L. Dinehart, Cleveland, for appellee USA Cycling, Inc.

Ogletree Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., John Gerak, and Amanda T. Quan, Cleveland, for appellee Case Western Reserve University.

Gallagher Sharp LLP, and Joseph Monroe, II, Cleveland, for appellee Greater Cleveland Sports Commission.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Heather Goss (“Goss”), appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellees, USA Cycling, Inc. (“USAC”), Case Western Reserve University (“CWRU”), and Greater Cleveland Sports Commission (the “GCSC”) (collectively the “appellees”). Goss raises the following assignments of error for review:

1. The trial court erred in finding that negligence as to racecourse safety and design was within the contemplation of the appellant and the appellees when the event release was executed.

2. The trial court erred by failing to address and adopt appellant’s argument that Ohio should void broad, nonspecific, ambiguous waivers of liability as a matter of public policy.

{¶ 2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Procedural and Factual History

{¶ 3} In 2016, the GCSC organized NEOCycle, a multi-day cycling festival featuring criterium races, where cyclists race numerous laps around a closed-loop race. The GCSC partnered with CWRU Cycling, a student-led cycling club, to organize the criterium races sanctioned by USAC.

{¶ 4} Individuals involved in the logistical organization of the event included GCSC’s operation manager, Matthew Sajna (“Sajna”); CWRU staff-advisor, Ryan Pierce (“Pierce”); and CWRU students, Henry Bermet (“Bermet”), Jasper Stallings (“Stallings”), and Matthew Swartout (“Swartout”). With the exception of Swartout, the event organizers had minimal experience in designing criterium-race courses. (Pierce depo. at 46-48; Stallings depo. at 23-25, 43; Bermet depo. at 13, 21-22; Swartout depo. at 23-24.) More significantly, the event organizers did not receive specialized training in criterium-race course safety or design prior to the 2016 event. Id. Despite their lack of training, however, members of the CWRU Cycling club were directly involved in the design of the race course and the measures taken to ensure safe racing conditions.

{¶ 5} As part of the registration process for the NEOCycle event, Goss executed a release form titled, “2016 USA Cycling Event Release Form AND One Day License Application” (the “Event Release”). The Event Release provided, in pertinent part:

I acknowledge that by signing this document, I am assuming risks, agreeing to indemnify, not to sue and release from liability the organizer of this event, USA Cycling, Inc. * * * and their respective agents, insurers, employees, volunteers, members, clubs, officials, sponsors, event directors, local associations, and affiliates (collectively “Releasees”), and that I am giving up substantial legal rights. This release is a contract with legal and binding consequences and it applies to all races and activities entered at the event, regardless whether or not listed above. I have read it carefully before signing and I understand what it means and what I am agreeing to by signing.

I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CYCLING IS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS SPORT AND FULLY REALIZE THE DANGERS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS EVENT * * * and FULLY ASSUME THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH PARTICIPATION INCLUDING, by way of example, and not limitation: * * * the dangers of collision with pedestrians, vehicles, or other riders, and fixed and moving objects; the dangers arising from surface hazards, including pot holes, equipment failure, inadequate safety equipment, * * * THE RELEASEES’ OWN NEGLIGENCE, the negligence of others and weather conditions; and the possibility of serious physical and/or mental trauma or injury, or death associated with the event.

* * * I HEARBY WAIVE, RELEASE, DISCHARGE, HOLD HARMLESS, AND PROMISE TO INDEMNIDY AND NOT SUE the Releasees * * * FROM ANY AND ALL RIGHTS AND CLAIMS INCLUDING CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE RELEASEES’ OWN NEGLIGENCE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, which I have or may hereafter accrue to me, and from any and all damages which may be sustained by me directly or indirectly in connection with, or arising out of, my participation in or association with the event[.]

* * *

I agree, for myself and my successors, that the above representations are contractually binding, and are not mere recitals, and that should I or my successors assert a claim contrary to what I have agreed to in this contract, the claiming party shall be liable for the expenses (including legal fees) incurred by the Releasees in defending the claims.

(Emphasis sic.) Goss had previously executed an agreement with USAC on April 14, 2016, in order to obtain a license from USAC to participate in USAC-sanctioned events in 2016. This agreement, titled “Acknowledgment of Risk, Release of Liability, Indemnification Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue” (the “Licensing Release”), contained substantially similar language to that set forth in the Event Release.

{¶ 6} On September 10, 2016, Goss participated in two separate criterium races at the NEOCycle event. In the morning event, Goss completed a 30-minute ride. Later that afternoon, Goss returned to the same course to participate in her second race. On the final lap of the second race, a cyclist in front of Goss unexpectedly fell on the final turn of the race. The crash caused many cyclists, including Goss, to lose control of their bicycles. Ultimately, Goss crashed into a barrier, causing injuries to her neck, thyroid, larynx, and trachea. (Goss depo. 117-118.)

{¶ 7} On April 2, 2020, Goss filed a civil complaint against the appellees, setting forth separate causes of action for negligence. In pertinent part, Goss alleged that USAC, CWRU, and GCSC each breached their duty to “exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of [Goss]; to maintain said race course in a reasonably safe condition; to give warning of latent or concealed perils thereon, of which [they] knew or should have known; and not to expose such persons to unreasonable or foreseeable risk of severe bodily harm and injury.” Regarding the course conditions that allegedly led to Goss’s injuries, Goss asserted that “the race course design did not conform to USAC’s own safety standards, insomuch as there was insufficient distance from the race course’s final corner to the finish area. This insufficient distance caused racers to begin their ‘final sprint’ to the finish line before the final turn, thereby greatly increasing the chance for slide-outs and collisions.”

{¶ 8} On July 23, 2021, USAC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Goss released USAC from negligence claims relating to her injuries sustained during the NEOCycle criterium race by executing two valid and binding waivers of liability. USAC asserted that the Event Release and the Licensing Release were each “clear and unambiguous as to the type of liability being released (i.e. negligence claims) and the persons being released (i.e. event organizers).” Alternatively, USAC argued that even if Goss had not expressly assumed the risks associated with the sporting event, the common-law doctrine of primary assumption of the risk required Goss’s claim to fail. In support of its motion for summary judgment, USAC attached copies of the Event Release and the Licensing Release, as well as deposition excerpts from Sajna, Stallings, Pierce, and Goss.

{¶ 9} On the same day, CWRU and GCSC filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing that “Goss’s negligence claims are barred as a matter of law because Goss signed a valid release waiving all claims, including negligence claims, against CWRU and GCSC.” In support of their joint motion for summary judgment, CWRU and GCSC attached copies of the Event Release and Licensing Release, as well as the deposition testimony of Sajna, Pierce, Stallings, Bermet, and Goss.

{¶ 10} On August 2021, Goss filed a brief in opposition to summary judgment, arguing that because the language set forth in the Event Release was “so general and ambiguous, reasonable minds could conclude that negligence as to the race course safety and design was not within the contemplation of the [parties] when the Event Release was executed.” Goss asserted that at the time she signed the Event Release she “could not have comprehended the student planners’ lack of training and experience in race-course safety,” or that “the actual race-course safety would be so far beneath USAC’s safety standards.” Alternatively, Goss argued that the broad waiver of liability should be deemed void as a matter of public policy.

{¶ 11} In support of her brief in opposition, Goss attached a copy of the Event Release, as well as deposition excerpts from Sajna, Pierce, Goss, Bermet, Stallings, and Swartout. In addition, Goss attached a copy of the affidavit and report submitted by plaintiff’s expert, Douglas Shapiro (“Shapiro”). Relevant to this appeal, Shapiro opined as follows:

Based on my 40 plus years of cycling experience, both as a bike racer, recreational cyclist and bicycle safety expert, it is my opinion the defendants’ conduct was below the acceptable standard of care required for safe race-course design and rider safety resulting in dangerous conditions not commonly associated with ordinary risks involved in the sport of cycling. The deviations from the standard of care were the proximate cause of Ms. Goss’s crash and injuries.

(Plaintiff’s exhibit G, ¶ 16.)

{¶ 12} On November 18, 2021, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, stating, in pertinent part:

The court finds that Plaintiff executed a valid and binding pre-injury waiver, releasing defendant[s] of liability. Summary judgment is therefore entered in favor of defendant[s] and against Plaintiff.

{¶ 13} Goss now appeals from the trial court’s judgment.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Negligence Safety and Design

{¶ 14} In the first assignment of error, Goss argues the trial court erred in finding that negligence as to race course safety and design was within the contemplation of the parties at the time the event release was executed. Consistent with the arguments posed before the trial court, Goss contends the Event Release was “too ambiguous or general to effectively waive the negligent conduct of the appellees.”

1. Standard of Review

{¶ 15} We review an appeal from summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) ; Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales & Equip. Co. , 124 Ohio App.3d 581, 585, 706 N.E.2d 860 (8th Dist.1998).

{¶ 16} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp. , 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196 (1995), paragraph three of the syllabus. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt , 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).

{¶ 17} Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Civ.R. 56(E) ; Mootispaw v. Eckstein , 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197 (1996). Doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg , 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 604 N.E.2d 138 (1992).

2. Negligence

{¶ 18} To establish a negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that the plaintiff’s injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty. Everett v. Parma Hts. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99611, 2013-Ohio-5314, 2013 WL 6408693, ¶ 15.

{¶ 19} It is well-established that Ohio law recognizes three types of assumption of risk as defenses to negligence: express, primary, and implied or secondary. Cameron v. Univ. of Toledo , 2018-Ohio-979, 98 N.E.3d 305, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.), citing Schnetz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 195 Ohio App.3d 207, 2011-Ohio-3927, 959 N.E.2d 554, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing Crace v. Kent State Univ. , 185 Ohio App.3d 534, 2009-Ohio-6898, 924 N.E.2d 906, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). Pertinent to this case, express assumption of the risk is applicable when the parties expressly agree to release liability. Crace at ¶ 11, citing Ballinger v. Leaniz Roofing, Ltd. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-696, 2008-Ohio-1421, 2008 WL 802722, ¶ 6.

{¶ 20} “For express assumption of risk to operate as a bar to recovery, the party waiving his right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept the consequences of the other party’s negligence.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Scandinavian Health Spa, Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 582, 586, 662 N.E.2d 890 (1st Dist.1995), citing Anderson v. Ceccardi , 6 Ohio St.3d 110, 114, 451 N.E.2d 780 (1983). “It follows that in order for a conscious acceptance to be made, an agreement purporting to constitute an express assumption of risk must state a clear and unambiguous intent to release the party from liability for its negligence.” Holmes v. Health & Tennis Corp. of Am. , 103 Ohio App.3d 364, 367, 659 N.E.2d 812 (1st Dist.1995), citing Tanker v. N. Crest Equestrian Ctr. , 86 Ohio App.3d 522, 621 N.E.2d 589 (9th Dist.1993).

{¶ 21} “Releases from liability for future tortious conduct are generally not favored by the law and are narrowly construed.” Reo v. Allegiance Admrs. LLC. , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-112, 2018-Ohio-2464, 2018 WL 3110756, ¶ 20, quoting Brown-Spurgeon v. Paul Davis Sys. of Tri-State Area, Inc. , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-069, 2013-Ohio-1845, 2013 WL 1883214, ¶ 50, citing Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co. , 29 Ohio St.3d 44, 46-47, 505 N.E.2d 264 (1987).

{¶ 22} Nonetheless, “courts routinely apply such releases to bar future tort liability as long as the intent of the parties, with regard to exactly what kind of liability and what persons and/or entities are being released, is stated in clear and unambiguous terms.” Brown-Spurgeon at ¶ 51 ; see also
Glaspell at ¶ 46-47 (A negligence claim is barred by the plaintiff’s valid execution of a release of liability of future tortious conduct.); Anderson at 114, 451 N.E.2d 780 (Valid exculpatory clauses or releases constitute express assumptions of risk.); Lamb v. University Hosp. Health Care Ents., Inc. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73144, 1998 WL 474183, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3740 (Aug. 13, 1998) (clause including word “release” and “negligence” as well as specifically identifying persons released from liability sufficiently clear to release fitness club from liability for injuries); Swartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp. , 117 Ohio App.3d 420, 424-427, 690 N.E.2d 941 (4th Dist.1997) (language releasing livery stable from “any and all claims” that arose out of “any and all personal injuries” was sufficiently clear and specific to bar injured horseback rider’s negligence claims).

{¶ 23} On the other hand, where the language of the release is ambiguous or too general, courts have held that the intent of the parties is a factual matter for the jury. Hague v. Summit Acres Skilled Nursing & Rehab ., 7th Dist. Noble No. 09 NO 364, 2010-Ohio-6404, 2010 WL 5545386, ¶ 21. “The pivotal inquiry is whether it is clear from the general terms of the entire contract, considered in light of what an ordinary prudent and knowledgeable party of the same class would understand, that the proprietor is to be relieved from liability for its own negligence.” Id. at ¶ 22.

{¶ 24} When a writing is clear and unambiguous, the interpretation is a question of law. Pruitt v. Strong Style Fitness , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96332, 2011-Ohio-5272, 2011 WL 4842485, ¶ 8, citing Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. , 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 246, 374 N.E.2d 146 (1978). “Ambiguity exists only when a provision at issue is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.” Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez , 120 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-4838, 896 N.E.2d 666, ¶ 16. Moreover, we must read the clauses as a whole, not piecemeal. Gomolka v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. , 70 Ohio St.2d 166, 172, 436 N.E.2d 1347 (1982).

{¶ 25} In interpreting contracts, “[c]ourts must give common words their ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity would result or some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the written instrument.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Heckler , 3d Dist. Union No. 14-12-26, 2013-Ohio-2388, 2013 WL 2639137, ¶ 20, citing In re All Kelley & Ferraro Asbestos Cases , 104 Ohio St.3d 605, 2004-Ohio-7104, 821 N.E.2d 159, ¶ 29. And, although not always explicitly referenced or relied on, the rules of grammar are elemental whenever reading and understanding any writing, especially a contract. See
Gahanna v. Ohio Mun. Joint Self-Ins. Pool , 10th Dist., 168 N.E.3d 58, 2021-Ohio-445, ¶ 12 (“The court must read words and phrases in context and apply the rules of grammar and common usage.”).

{¶ 26} On appeal, Goss reiterates her position that the Event Release was “too ambiguous or general to effectively waive the negligent conduct of the appellees” because it did not expressly notify her that (1) “the race planners were students with no training, knowledge or experience in race course design and safety”; or (2) that “the student planners would ignore the recommendations of [USAC].” Thus, Goss contends that “because of the lack of any specificity regarding [the term] negligence in the Event Release,” “the lower court erred when it failed to find that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the unsafe design of the racecourse by uneducated, untrained and inexperienced students was within the contemplation of the parties * * * at the time of the execution of the Event Release.”

{¶ 27} In support of her position that the Event Release was so general that it included claims that were not within the contemplation of the parties when it was executed, Goss relies on the Twelfth District’s decision in Brown-Spurgeon , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-069, 2013-Ohio-1845, 2013 WL 1883214, and the Seventh District’s decision in Hague , 7th Dist. Noble No. 09 NO 364, 2010-Ohio-6404.

{¶ 28} In Brown-Spurgeon , plaintiffs Kristina Brown-Spurgeon and Andrew Spurgeon hired defendant Paul Davis Systems of Tri-State Area, Inc. (“PDS”) to complete home repairs after their home was flooded in May 2010. At the time PDS was hired, Kristina signed a “Work Authorization” form that contained an exculpatory clause. The form provided that PDS would not be liable for theft and damages arising out of the services performed pursuant to the contract. However, the clause did allow liability for actions that arise out of the PDS’s sole negligence.

{¶ 29} Once the repair-contract was executed, PDS hired Phil Griffin, the owner of Renovated Solutions, to perform a portion of the remodeling and restoration work. PDS and Griffin signed a “Tradesperson Agreement,” which provided that Griffin would conduct background checks on all persons working on jobs obtained through PDS. Despite these safeguards, however, it was discovered that a repairman hired by Griffin stole prescription drugs, jewelry, electronics, and other personal property from the plaintiffs’ home during the repair process. The value of the stolen items exceeded $18,000. {¶ 30} In May 2011, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against PDS and Griffin, setting forth causes of action for vicarious liability, general negligence, and negligent hiring and supervision. Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PDS and Griffin on each claim.

{¶ 31} On appeal, the Twelfth District reversed the trial court’s judgment in part, finding that there remained genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiffs’ vicarious liability and general negligence claims against PDS, and the general negligence and negligent hiring and supervision claims against Griffin. Relevant to this appeal, the court determined that the exculpatory clause contained in the “Work Authorization” form did not exempt PDS from liability because (1) the theft involved “willful or wanton” conduct, and (2) the exculpatory clause expressly contained an exception for damages that arise directly from the “contractor’s sole negligence.” Brown-Spurgeon , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-09-069, 2013-Ohio-1845, at ¶ 54-55.

{¶ 32} In Hague , plaintiffs Ruth and Robert Hague filed a negligence and loss of consortium action against Summit Acres and Summit Acres Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation after Ruth was injured on a treadmill at Summit Acres’ fitness center. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the negligence claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because Ruth executed a release from liability form. The release provided, in relevant part:

I agree that by using the fitness center, I am responsible for my actions. I agree that summit acres, inc. Is [sic] not liable for any injuries that I might receive by my use of the fitness center. I have checked with my doctor about the exercise program I am commencing upon.

{¶ 33} On appeal, the Seventh District concluded that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Summit Acres based solely on the release. The court explained as follows:

Here, the release signed by Ruth does not contain the words, “release” or “negligence,” and does not identify the individuals, company or corporation being released from liability. The release simply states that Summit Acres is not liable for any injuries that Goss might receive “by [her] use of the fitness center.” “For express assumption of risk to operate as a bar to recovery, the party waiving his right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept the consequences of the other party’s negligence.” [ Holmes , 103 Ohio App.3d 364, at 367, 659 N.E.2d 812 ]. Hence, the release in this case is of the type that have been characterized by Ohio courts as too ambiguous and general.

Id. at ¶ 28.

{¶ 34} After careful consideration, we find Brown-Spurgeon and Hague to be factually distinguishable from this case. Significantly, unlike the circumstances presented in Brown-Spurgeon , Goss does not contend that “appellees engaged in willful or wanton conduct.” Moreover, the Event Release executed in this case did not include an exception that would permit Goss to pursue a claim for damages arising from the appellees’ sole negligence. To the contrary, the Event Release directly contemplates the appellees’ own negligence and required Goss to acknowledge that she agreed “to waive, release, discharge, hold harmless, and promise to indemnify and not to sue” the appellees for damages arising from said negligence.

{¶ 35} Similarly, unlike the circumstances presented in Hague , the Event Release contained the words “release” and “negligence”; and is sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to both the type of liability being released (negligence) and the persons being released (event organizers). Here, Goss released the event sponsors and organizers from all claims arising from their own negligence to the maximum extent permitted by law, including any and all damages that may be sustained by Goss directly or indirectly in connection with, or arising out of, her participation in the cycling event. In this regard, the contract expressly stated that the release applied to “all races and activities entered at the event,” and further required Goss to acknowledge that “cycling is an inherently dangerous sport.” By signing the Event Release, Goss made the conscious choice to accept that she “fully assume[d] the risks associated with such participation,” including (1) the dangers of collisions with other riders; (2) the dangers arising from surface hazards, equipment failure, inadequate safety equipment, or the releasees’ own negligence; and (3) the possibility of a serious physical injury. Considering these terms collectively and in light of what an ordinary prudent person would understand, it is clear that the appellees were to be relieved from liability for any negligence claims relating to their organization of the cycling event, including pertinent hazards and the design of the racecourse.

{¶ 36} Construing the evidence most strongly in Goss’s favor, we find reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to Goss. Under the doctrine of express assumption of risk, the terms of the Event Release prohibited Goss from advancing claims of negligence against the appellees. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the appellees was warranted as a matter of law.1

{¶ 37} Goss’s first assignment of error is overruled.

B. Public Policy Concerns

{¶ 38} In the second assignment of error, Goss argues the trial court erred by failing to adopt her argument that Ohio should void broad, nonspecific, ambiguous waivers of liability as a matter of public policy. Goss contends that by allowing a premises owner or occupier to obtain broad waivers of their own liability, an important incentive for the premises owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition would be removed, “thus forcing the public to bear the cost of resulting injuries caused by the [owner or occupier’s] own negligence.”

{¶ 39} Generally, in Ohio, exculpatory clauses, which relieve a party from its own negligence, are not against public policy despite being disfavored in the law. Papenfuse v. Toledo Area Regional Transit Auth. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1178, 2015-Ohio-3193, 2015 WL 4720556, ¶ 6. Thus, “limiting or exculpatory language in a contract will be enforced unless the language is against important public policy concerns, unconscionable, or vague and ambiguous.” Morantz v. Ortiz , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-597, 2008-Ohio-1046, 2008 WL 642630, ¶ 27.

{¶ 40} On this record, we are unable to conclude that the Event Release is void and unenforceable due to an overwhelming public policy concern. On appeal, Goss does not contend that the Event Release was procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Moreover, as previously discussed, the Event Release was neither vague nor ambiguous. Finally, while this court agrees that the duties owed by premises owners are supported by legitimate interests in protecting the public from the risk of injury, it is equally true that the concept of freedom to contract is fundamental to our society. See
Hunter v. BPS Guard Servs., Inc. , 100 Ohio App.3d 532, 552, 654 N.E.2d 405. Similarly, there are significant public policy interests in the promotion and organization of recreational activities on public lands. In this case, the exculpatory clause released the event organizers from liability for negligence claims arising from the cycling event. However, the Event Release did not authorize the appellees to exercise no care whatsoever. Nor did it permit the appellees to engage in willful or wanton misconduct. Given these remaining, meaningful protections afforded to the public, we find no basis to adopt a position that would effectively overturn the well-established position of this court that “a participant in a recreational activity is free to contract with the proprietor of such activity as to relieve the proprietor of responsibility for damages or injuries to the participant caused by the negligence of the proprietor except when caused by wanton or wilful misconduct.” Lamb , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73144, 1998 WL 474183 at 2, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3740 at 5-6 (Aug. 13, 1998) ; see also
Pruitt , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96332, 2011-Ohio-5272, at ¶ 12 (“Although [plaintiff] claims the release is against public policy, Ohio courts have consistently held to the contrary.”).

{¶ 41} Goss’s second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 42} Judgment affirmed.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR

——–

Notes:

1 Although not specifically considered in the state of Ohio, the language contained in the Event Release generated by USAC has been considered nationally and found to be an adequate and enforceable release of liability where such releases are permissible. See
Scott v. Altoona Bicycle Club , No. 1426 C.D.2009, 2010 WL 9512709 (Pa. July 16, 2010) (finding USAC’s event release is clear and unambiguous and released claims of negligence against event organizers and affirming the grant of summary judgment); Hellweg v. Special Events Mgmt. , 2011 IL App (1st) 103604, 956 N.E.2d 954, 958, 353 Ill. Dec. 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (“This agreement unambiguously absolves defendants of all claims arising out of the event even if caused by their own negligence.”); Milne v. USA Cycling, Inc. , 489 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1287 (D. Utah 2007) (“The Court finds the release to show a clear and unequivocal expression of an intent to release.”).

http://www.recreation-law.com

@2010-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Sloppy but still lucky? Obstacle course avoids lawsuit with release, however, it was close

Posted: May 8, 2023 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minnesota, Racing, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Assumption of Risk Doctrine, assumption of the risk, Minnesota, Obstacle Course, Obstacle course racing, Reasonably Safe Course, Release, Unreasonable Risk of Harm, Waiver | Leave a comment

When the defendant learned of a problem was a critical part of winning this case.

Anderson v. Rugged Races, LLC, 42 F.4th 955 (8th Cir. 2022)

State: Minnesota; United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Plaintiff: Jeanne Anderson

Defendant: Rugged Races, LLC; Dennis Raedeke, Inc., doing business as Wild Mountain Recreation Area

Plaintiff Claims: (i) that defendants had duties to design and construct a reasonably safe course, maintain the course in a safe condition, inspect the course for unreasonable risks of harm, warn race participants of unreasonable risks, supervise parties responsible for performing those duties, and operate and maintain the course to ensure participants were not exposed to unreasonable risks; and (ii) that defendants were grossly negligent in failing to perform each of these duties.

Defendant Defenses: Release, Assumption of the Risk

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2022

Summary

A release signed by a participant in an obstacle course race was sufficient to defeat her claim that the defendant builder and operator of the race were negligent. Minnesota does not allow claims for greater than ordinary negligence; however, whether the defendant was guilty of such acts was also examined.

Facts

Since 2010, Rugged Races has planned hundreds of obstacle races around the country, including Rugged Maniac Twin Cities. The events feature an obstacle course with a series of challenges involving barbed wire, fire, water, and mud, followed by a post-race party. When Anderson registered for the 2016 Twin Cities event, she signed a Race Participant Agreement (the Agreement). In Part III of the Agreement, titled Assumption of Inherent Risks , Anderson acknowledged:

I understand fully the inherent risks involved in the Event and assert that I am willingly and voluntarily participating in the Event. … (1) I understand the nature of the Event; (2) I understand the physical and mental demands that this activity will place upon me; and (3) I understand that I may be injured by participating in the Event. I hereby assert that I knowingly assume all of the inherent risks of the activity and take full responsibility for any and all damages, liabilities, losses or expenses that I incur as a result of participating in the Event.

In Part IV, titled Waiver of Liability for Ordinary Negligence , Anderson waived and discharged both Rugged Races and Wild Mountain “from any and all claims resulting from the INHERENT RISKS of the Event or the ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE of Rugged Races LLC (or other Released Parties).” Anderson again signed the Agreement when she checked in on race day.

After starting the race and completing the first seven obstacles, Anderson reached the “Bang the Gong” challenge. This obstacle required her to jump from a raised platform, attempt to slap a gong in midair, and land in a pit of muddy water. When Anderson landed in the pit her “left foot hit something hard.” She crawled from the pit, received medical attention, and learned she had shattered the calcaneus bone in her left heel. Of the more than 4000 participants in the 2016 race, four others were injured on the Bang the Gong obstacle, suffering injuries to their foot or ankle after landing in the pit.

Anderson’s Complaint alleged (i) that defendants had duties to design and construct a reasonably safe course, maintain the course in a safe condition, inspect the course for unreasonable risks of harm, warn race participants of unreasonable risks, supervise parties responsible for performing those duties, and operate and maintain the course to ensure participants were not exposed to unreasonable risks; and (ii) that defendants were grossly negligent in failing to perform each of these duties. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment record includes deposition testimony from Anderson and Rugged Races employees, declarations from the other injured participants, reports by Anderson’s expert witnesses, and other documentary evidence.

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

This was an obstacle race. The defendant reached “Bang the Gong” where she climbed up a man-made platform and jumped into a muddy pit of water. Her foot hit something shattering her heel. She sued. The federal district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and this was the appeal of that judgment.

Minnesota does not recognize gross negligence. Meaning if you sue there is no hierarchy of types of negligence that void releases or get you additional damages. According to Minnesota law, negligence is defined as:

…ordinary negligence” is the “failure to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” Gross negligence is “substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence … [and is] the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.”

Minnesota law imposes on defendants as the landowner and operator of a for-profit recreational activity a duty to exercise a “high degree of care” to ensure that invitees are not exposed to unreasonable risks of harm.

This was an issue because the plaintiff argued the defendant had participated in greater than ordinary negligence in the construction of the Bong the Gong. Even though Minnesota does not recognize greater than ordinary negligence, the appellate court found the standard of care to be applied in this case was based on greater than ordinary negligence.

First, the “ordinary negligence” clause in the Agreement is less, or at least no more ambiguous than the exculpatory clause held to be un ambiguous (the term “all acts of active or passive negligence … specifically purports to exonerate Spa Petite from liability for acts of negligence and negligence only”). Second, when the duty to exercise this high degree of care applies, it is an ordinary negligence duty to exercise “reasonable care, meaning care commensurate with the risks involved.” Thus, that the waiver of claims for “ordinary negligence” includes this type of duty for landowners and for-profit operators does not make the waiver ambiguous. We agree with the district court that the Agreement’s exculpatory clause is unambiguously limited to ordinary negligence. As in Beehner, Anderson was a voluntary participant in a recreational activity that does not “implicate[ ] a public or essential service.”

Then the appellate court started dissecting the arguments. The Bong the Gong structure was not a new structure; it had been used in races for several years. The plaintiff also argued the landing pit needed to be deeper so the plaintiff would not strike the bottom. Because a thousand of participants in this race and thousands more in other races had not been injured the court did not buy into this argument.

However, Bang the Gong was not a new obstacle for the 2016 Rugged Maniac race. Rather it was tested, used in multiple previous events, and modeled on an earlier obstacle that was safely used for years. We agree with the district court that “[t]he fact that thousands of participants — many of whom undoubtedly outweighed Anderson — jumped into the landing pit without incident is compelling evidence that the water level was not unreasonably low.”

The defendant had a detailed protocol for building the structure and digging the pit which it had followed in this race.

Rugged Races followed a detailed protocol when constructing Bang the Gong for this and other events, described in deposition testimony by Rugged Races’ Senior Vice President, Bradford Scudder, and a construction crew member from the 2016 race, Christian Melnik. The process involved digging a pit, removing debris, lining the pit with a tarp, filling it with water, and then constructing the platform participants would use to jump into the pit. The protocol requires crew members to inspect the pit three separate times before it is filled to ensure no rocks, roots, or other debris are present. They conduct two subsequent visual inspections after the pit is filled, including on the morning of the race.

This proved that the defendant had followed its established routine in creating the obstacle, which could have been introduced at trial.

The court then agreed with the district court that the plaintiff had failed to introduce evidence to prove actions on the part of the defendant were anything but ordinary negligence.

We further agree with the district court that Anderson submitted insufficient evidence to establish that defendants acted with greater-than-ordinary negligence during or after the race. The district court estimated that Anderson was injured at approximately 1:00 pm.4 The court carefully reviewed when defendants would have learned that four other participants reported similar injuries before concluding that the record did not support Anderson’s contention that Rugged Races knew or should have known of a rock in the landing pit in time to take preventive action.

Because the injuries that occurred prior to the plaintiff’s injuries were not described in a way that would have put the defendant on notice of a problem that the plaintiff suffered and the injuries that occurred after the time the plaintiff was injured would not have mattered, the court found the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendant acted in any way that would give rise to more than ordinary negligence.

Here, the first two injuries were similar to Anderson’s and occurred earlier, but neither injury report mentioned a rock in the pit, only that the injured participant “landed wrong” or “jumped into … uneven terrain.” The other three injuries, including Anderson’s, occurred between 1:00-1:30pm. The injury reports reported there was a rock in the pit, but Rugged Races was not made aware of these reports in time to put it on notice that preventive action might be needed.

Applying the standard of care of a landowner under Minnesota law, landowners are not insurers of the safety of their patrons, (parties on their land), unless the dangerous condition resulted from the direct action of the landowner.

Under Minnesota law, landowners are not “insurers of safety of their patrons.” “Unless the dangerous condition actually resulted from the direct actions of a landowner or his or her employees, a negligence theory of recovery is appropriate only where the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.”

Because the defendant had no knowledge of the issues until the plaintiff was injured, the defendant could not be held to a higher degree of negligence, negligence and thus the release stopped the plaintiff’s claims.

Because “an act or omission is not negligent unless the actor had knowledge or notice that it involves danger to another,” Rugged Races’ failure to remove the rock from the landing pit before Anderson’s injury is not a sufficient showing of greater-than-ordinary negligence.

So Now What?

This is a confusing case because Minnesota does not support claims for greater than ordinary negligence, but this court worked hard to make sure it was not an issue. What does come from the case is the general support that releases are valid in Minnesota.

Even though Minnesota has held that a parent could sign away a minor’s right to sue, the courts had also found ways to invalidate releases. See Minnesota decision upholds parent’s right to sign away a minor’s right to sue (Moore v. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299).

For other cases about Minnesota release law see:

Assumption of Risk used to defend against claim for injury from snow tubing in Minnesota

Federal court holds that under Minnesota law, a release signed at a ski area did not violate MN Public Policy

Minnesota Appellate court upholds a release signed by a mother for a child’s injuries

Plaintiff argues under Minnesota law, the language on the back of the season pass created an ambiguity which should void the season pass release for a ski area

For other states that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue see:

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

Jim 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.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

The path down from the road to a river is an open and obvious danger that the plaintiff assumes before walking down the path.

Posted: June 27, 2022 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, New York, Paddlesports, Rivers and Waterways | Tags: assumption of the risk, Battenkill River, Battenkill river Sports & Campground, Common Carrier, River Tubing, Tubing | Leave a comment

Plaintiff worked hard to come up with any possible legal theory to win.

Rooney v. Battenkill River Sports & Campground Holding Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

State: New York; Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Plaintiff: Jessica Rooney

Defendant: Battenkill River Sports & Campground Holding Company, LLC

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2022

Summary

Plaintiff sued for injuries she received while walking down a path to the river to go tubing. Defendant tube rental company proved the risks were open and obvious, and the plaintiff assumed the risks.

Facts

In July 2018, plaintiff sustained injuries when she slipped on a rock located on an access path while attempting to access the Battenkill River to go water tubing.

This is a case out of New York so the facts are few, and the decision is short.

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

Not all the legal arguments made by the plaintiff are going to be discussed here. The case is easy to read, and you understand them on your own.

The plaintiff was walking down an embankment to the river, which was not owned by the tubing company, when she fell. She sued for negligence and argued the defendant owed her a high duty of care because the defendant was a common carrier.

The trail court adopted that position and upheld the plaintiffs’ claims on that theory; however, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because she assumed the risk causing her injury. The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court did not review the common carrier question.

(It would be extremely rare and unlikely that any transportation that was incidental to the recreational activity and only taking people from the shop to the put in would be found to be a common carrier by any court in any state.)

The duty of the defendant in this situation is to exercise reasonable care to make sure the conditions are as safe as they appear. The defendant has a duty to search for unknown risks that may not be obvious to the guest. Meaning any risk that is visible is assumed by the guest, those risks that are hidden are not assumed by the guest.

The duty owed under these circumstances is a duty to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty”

The court found that the defendant had met its burden and showed there were no hidden risks and the risks the plaintiff encountered were open and obvious.

Given this evidence, we find that defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that plaintiff, who had prior experience water tubing and who had on a prior occasion used the same access path, assumed the inherent risk of her injuries. The risk of falling on uneven and rocky terrain while traversing the river’s embankment to access the river is a commonly appreciated and an obvious risk inherent in and arising out of the nature of the sport of river tubing…

Under New York law, when the defendant meets this threshold then the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to prove the defendant hid the risks or made the risk greater than they appeared.

Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant concealed or unreasonably enhanced the danger, engaged in reckless or intentional conduct or created conditions that were unique and not inherent in river water sports activities

The plaintiff failed to do so in two different ways. First, the plaintiff was unable to prove the defendant had anything to do with the path leading to the water, or that the path was in terrible condition with hidden dangers. Second, the plaintiff walked the same path in prior years without incident when tubing.

The court then summed up its analysis on why the plaintiff could not overcome her burden.

“One who engages in water sports assumes the reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in the activity” and it is foreseeable that, in order to gain access to the river, plaintiff needed to traverse down an uneven embankment consisting of rock and gravel. Although plaintiff encountered less than optimal conditions on the river embankment access path in July 2018, the risk of falling on the natural, rocky terrain is interwoven with and inherent in the sport of river water tubing and therefore was assumed by her. Plaintiff’s vague and equivocal testimony that defendant unreasonably increased the risk of traversing the path was insufficient to create a question of fact. Moreover, although plaintiff testified that there was no warning sign at the access point, a warning sign is unnecessary as “[t]he duty to warn… does not extend to open and obvious dangers – particularly those encompassing natural geographic phenomena which can readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses”

So Now What?

In New York, it is always an issue as to whether or not an activity will fall within the purview of New York General Obligations Law § 5-326 which prohibits a place of amusement from using a release. Several courts have interpreted New York General Obligations Law § 5-326 to mean a physical place and so a river may not qualify. However, based on several other decisions it might be worth putting release language into a written agreement for guests to sign.

At the very least, the defendant could use an assumption of risk agreement where the agreement points out the risk of tubing, including accessing the river, reinforce those risks in a safety talk and protect from more than the inherent risks of tubing.

It might not bring closure any quicker; however, it might deter a plaintiff from starting a case to begin with.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

Rooney v. Battenkill River Sports & Campground Holding Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

Posted: June 27, 2022 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, New York, Paddlesports, Rivers and Waterways | Tags: Access Path, assumption of the risk, Battenkill River, Battenkill River Sports & Campground Holding Company, Open and Obvious, River Tubing, Tubing | Leave a comment

Rooney v. Battenkill River Sports & Campground Holding Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

Jessica Rooney, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
Battenkill River Sports & Campground Holding Company, LLC, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2022-02606

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

April 21, 2022

Calendar Date:February 10, 2022

Basch & Keegan, LLP, Kingston (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Mark D. Goris, Cazenovia, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.), entered July 1, 2021 in Rensselaer County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In July 2018, plaintiff sustained injuries when she slipped on a rock located on an access path while attempting to access the Battenkill River to go water tubing. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this negligence action against defendant, the company that rented her the tube and shuttled her by van to the river’s access point. Following joinder of issue and discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that defendant did not owe or breach any duty to plaintiff and that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing, among other things, that defendant was a common carrier and, as such, it owed a duty of care to maintain the access path. Supreme Court found that defendant operated as a common carrier, and that questions of fact existed as to whether the embankment’s access path was primarily used for defendant’s business and whether defendant assumed a duty of care. Nevertheless, Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint, finding that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied to bar plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appeals and defendant cross appeals from those portions of the order that found defendant to be a common carrier and that questions of fact exist as to whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. ^[1]

The gravamen of plaintiff’s contention is that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable here because, although she had traversed the at-issue access path on a prior occasion, such activity is not an inherent risk associated with water tubing. “Under the assumption of risk doctrine, a person who elects to engage in a sport or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” (Schorpp v Oak Mtn., LLC, 143 A.D.3d 1136, 1137 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Morgan v State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484-485 [1997]; Thompson v Windham Mtn. Partners, LLC, 161 A.D.3d 1366, 1366 [2018]; Youmans v Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 A.D.3d 957, 958 [2008]). “The duty owed under these circumstances is a duty to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” (Youmans v Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 A.D.3d at 958 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

In support of its motion, defendant submitted photographs ^[2] of the access path used by plaintiff and the particular rock that plaintiff identified as the one on which she slipped. Defendant also relied on the depositions of plaintiff and Suzanne Piekarz, the daughter of defendant’s owner. Plaintiff’s testimony confirmed that she had previously used the same access path on a prior water tubing excursion. Piekarz, who has worked at the business since she was a child, testified that the access path consisted of dry dirt and was not particularly rocky, and that the business did not own or maintain the river’s embankment access path. Her testimony also revealed that customers were warned by posted and written materials to walk and not run to the river, and that they assumed the risk for all river water activities, including one sign, which read:” you assume risk of injury and/or death when participating in river activities .” Given this evidence, we find that defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that plaintiff, who had prior experience water tubing and who had on a prior occasion used the same access path, assumed the inherent risk of her injuries. The risk of falling on uneven and rocky terrain while traversing the river’s embankment to access the river is a commonly appreciated and an obvious risk inherent in and arising out of the nature of the sport of river tubing (see Sara W. v Rocking Horse Ranch Corp., 169 A.D.3d 1342, 1343-1344 [2019]; Martin v State of New York, 64 A.D.3d 62, 64 [2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 706 [2009]; Youmans v Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 A.D.3d at 959).

Thus, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant concealed or unreasonably enhanced the danger, engaged in reckless or intentional conduct or created conditions that were unique and not inherent in river water sports activities (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d at 487). Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she previously rented a tube from defendant on two prior occasions and that she was taken by shuttle van to an access point, including on one occasion to the same access point where the accident occurred. Plaintiff recalled receiving documentation to fill out, viewing some warning signs at or near the rental office and receiving some general instructions during the shuttle van ride, but she did not recall any specific discussions, warnings or instructions regarding the access point or how to traverse from the shuttle van down to the river’s embankment access path to the river. Plaintiff described the river’s embankment access path as a narrow, rocky path that was difficult to navigate while holding a tube. Plaintiff stated that she was wearing flip flops and did not know what caused her to fall. Lastly, plaintiff asserted that when she went river tubing in 2017, the river embankment access path was a much smoother surface consisting of hard packed dirt and gravel.

“One who engages in water sports assumes the reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in the activity” Sartoris v State of New York, 133 A.D.2d 619, 620 [1987] [citation omitted]), and it is foreseeable that, in order to gain access to the river, plaintiff needed to traverse down an uneven embankment consisting of rock and gravel. Although plaintiff encountered less than optimal conditions on the river embankment access path in July 2018, the risk of falling on the natural, rocky terrain is interwoven with and inherent in the sport of river water tubing and therefore was assumed by her. Plaintiff’s vague and equivocal testimony that defendant unreasonably increased the risk of traversing the path was insufficient to create a question of fact. Moreover, although plaintiff testified that there was no warning sign at the access point, a warning sign is unnecessary as “[t]he duty to warn… does not extend to open and obvious dangers – particularly those encompassing natural geographic phenomena which can readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses” (Arsenault v State of New York, 96 A.D.3d 97, 101 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In view of the foregoing, we find that Supreme Court’s award of summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint was proper (see Martin v State of New York, 64 A.D.3d at 65; Youmans v Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 A.D.3d at 959-960).

Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons and McShan, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs.

———

Notes:

^[1] As Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant is not aggrieved by Supreme Court’s July 2021 order (see CPLR 5511), and defendant’s cross appeal must therefore be dismissed (see Matter of Village Green Hollow, LLC v Assessor of the Town of Mamakating, 145 A.D.3d 1134, 1135 n 2 [2016]; Maldonado v DiBre, 140 A.D.3d 1501, 1503 n 3 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 908 [2016]). Although defendant’s arguments are properly before us as alternative grounds for affirmance, our decision renders them academic (see Ford v Rifenburg, 94 A.D.3d 1285, 1285 n 1 [2012]; McCormick v Bechtol, 68 A.D.3d 1376, 1378 n 2 [2009], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 701 [2010], cert denied 562 U.S. 1063 [2010]).

^[2] Said photographs reflect the position and size of the rock, neither of which is particularly remarkable, and confirm plaintiff’s contention that the rocks located on this river access path were “not even.”

———

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

G-YQ06K3L262

Trampoline Court Safety Act

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

§ 691.1731. Short title

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

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

§ 691.1733. Operator; duties

An operator shall do all of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

§ 691.1735. Trampoliner; duties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

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

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

Scott Redmond, Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

and

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

No. 349683

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 6, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2016-004272-NO

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

PER CURIAM.

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

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

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

II STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

III. ANALYSIS

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

A. THE TRAMPOLINE COURT SAFETY ACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. DUTY TO WARN

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

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

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

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

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

IV. CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

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

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

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

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

State: Michigan

Plaintiff: Scott Redmond

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

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

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

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2021

Summary

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

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

Facts

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

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

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

Mich. Comp. Laws 691.1731 Short title

§ 691.1733. Operator; duties

An operator shall do all of the following:

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

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

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

§ 691.1735. Trampoliner; duties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiff argued the defendant violated an ANSI standard for:

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

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

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

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

The plaintiff argued:

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

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

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

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

So Now What?

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

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

One paragraph would have eliminated this lawsuit.

Posted: August 2, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Rock Climbing | Tags: assumption of the risk, Choice of Law, Colorado, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Rapelling, Release, Texas, Venue, Wilderness Expeditions | 1 Comment

Badly written release and a bad attempt to tie two documents together almost cost the defendant outfitter.

Hamric v. Wilderness Expeditions, Inc

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

Plaintiff: Alicia Hamric, individually, as representative of the Estate of Robert Gerald Hamric, and as next friend of Ava Hamric, a minor

Defendant: Wilderness Expeditions, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: For the defendant

Year: 2021

Summary

Deceased died while repelling with the defendant and surviving spouse sued Colorado company in Colorado but attempted to use Texas law, where the release was signed, as a way to void the release.

Facts

Members of the Keller Church of Christ in Keller, Texas, scheduled an outdoor excursion to Colorado, contracting with WEI for adventure planning and guide services. WEI is incorporated in Colorado and has its headquarters in Salida, Colorado. Jamie Garner served as the coordinator for the church group and the point-of-contact between the church members and WEI. The experience WEI provided included guides taking participants rappelling. WEI required all participants, before going on the outdoor excursion, to complete and initial a “Registration Form” and complete and sign a “Medical Form.”

WEI made the forms available to Mr. Garner for downloading and completion by the individual church members several months prior to the booked trip. Mr. Hamric initialed both blanks on the Registration Form and signed the Medical Form, dating it April 5, 2017. Andrew Sadousky, FNP-C, completed and signed the “Physician’s Evaluation” section of the Medical Form, certifying that Mr. Hamric was medically capable of participating in the outdoor activities listed on the form, including rappelling. Mr. Hamric’s signed forms were delivered to WEI upon the church group’s arrival in Colorado in July 2017.

After spending a night on WEI property, WEI guides took the church group, including Mr. Hamric, to a rappelling site known as “Quarry High.” Because the rappelling course had a section that WEI guides considered “scary,” the guides did not describe a particular overhang at the Quarry High site during the orientation session or before taking the church group on the rappelling course. [emphasize added]

Several members of the church group successfully descended Quarry High before Mr. Hamric attempted the rappel. As Mr. Hamric worked his way down the overhang portion of the course, he became inverted and was unable to right himself. Efforts to rescue Mr. Hamric proved unsuccessful, and he died of positional asphyxiation.

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

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is an appellate court that sits in Denver. The Tenth Circuit hears cases from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming federal district courts. The court, consequently, hears a few appeals of recreation cases because of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming recreation activities.

This appealed covered four different legal issues. Three of the issues were procedural and won’t be reviewed here. The fourth was the dismissal of the case by the lower-court magistrate on a motion for summary judgement because of the release.

The plaintiff argued the release should be read using Texas law because the release was read and signed in Texas.

There was no Jurisdiction and Venue Clause in the Release!

The defendant had the deceased sign two forms. One was a release, and the second was a medical form. Neither form had a venue or jurisdiction clause. Having a medical information formed signed is a quick give away that the defendant does not understand the legal issues involved. The defendant wrote both forms, so they conflicted with each other in some cases and attempted to tie the forms together. Neither really worked.

The plaintiff argued the forms were one because they conflicts would have made both forms basically invalid.

Further, language on the Medical Form is conflicting and ambiguous as to whether the two forms comprise a single agreement: Individuals who have not completed these forms will not be allowed to participate. I have carefully read all the sections of this agreement, understand its contents, and have initialed all sections of page 1 of this document. I have examined all the information given by myself, or my child. By the signature below, I certify that it is true and correct. Should this form and/or any wording be altered, it will not be accepted and the participant will not be allowed to participate.

Both the italicized language and the use of “forms” in the plural to describe the agreement support the conclusion that the Registration Form and the Medical Form are a single agreement. But the underlined language, using “form” in the singular, suggests the forms might constitute separate agreements. Otherwise, the singular use of “form” would suggest the unlikely result that a participant could not alter the wording of the Medical Form but could alter the wording of the Registration Form.

However, after a lengthy review, the court found the forms were two different documents and ignored the medical form and the release like language in it.

We conclude, however, that this dispute of fact is not material to resolution of the primarily legal question regarding whether Mr. Hamric entered into a valid liability release with WEI.

The next issue is what law should apply to determine the validity of the release. Choice of laws is a compete course you can take in law school. I still have my Choice of Laws’ textbook after all these years because it is a complicated subject that hinges on minutia in some cases to determine what court will hear a case and what law will be applied.

The case was filed in the Federal Court covering Colorado. Since the defendant was not a Texas business or doing business in Texas, the lawsuit needed to be in the defendant’s state. Federal Court was chosen because disputes between citizens of two states should be held in a neutral court, which is the federal courts. A Texan might not feel they are getting a fair deal if they have to sue in a Colorado state court. That is called the venue. What court sitting where will hear the case.

If the defendant had operated in Texas, been served in Texas or had a history of actively looking for clients in Texas this would have been a Texas lawsuit, probably with a different outcome.

So, the decision on what court to sue was somewhat limited. However, that is not the end. Once the court is picked, venue, the next argument is what law will be applied to the situation. The Plaintiff argued Texas Law. Texas has stringent requirements on releases. If Texas law was applied to the release, there was a chance the release would be void under Texas law. The defendant argued Colorado law, which has much fewer requirements for releases.

Ms. Hamric further contends that under contract principles in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, Texas law applies because Mr. Hamric was a Texas resident who completed the Registration Form and the Medical Form while in Texas.

Here is the court’s analysis on what states laws should apply.

A more specific section of the Restatement addressing contracts lacking a choice-of-law provision provides additional guidance: (1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6. (2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties . . ., the contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place of contracting, (b) the place of negotiation of the contract, (c) the place of performance, (d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.

It is not a slam dunk for Colorado law. In this case, the plaintiff made a very good argument that Texas law should apply. The deceased was a Texas resident recruited in Texas by the defendant. The release had been given to the deceased in Texas, and he signed it in Texas. If the analysis ended there Texas law would have applied.

However, there was more to the investigation the court is required to do.

We conclude that, under the Restatement, a Colorado court would apply Colorado law to determine the validity and enforceability of the liability release relied upon by WEI. First looking at § 6 of the Restatement, the liability release was drafted by a Colorado corporation to cover services provided exclusively in Colorado.

Honestly, the trial court and appellate court bent over backwards to help this defendant.

This argument switched the discussion from applying Texas law to Colorado law.

Applying out-of-state law to interpret the liability release would hinder commerce, as it would require WEI and other outdoor-recreation companies to know the law of the state in which a given participant lives. Such a rule would place a significant burden on outdoor-recreation companies who depend on out-of-state tourists for revenue because it would require a company like WEI to match the various requirements of the other forty-nine states. This approach would not give WEI the benefit of having logically molded its liability release to comply with Colorado law, the law of the state where WEI does business. Furthermore, Ms. Hamric’s primary argument for applying Texas law is that Mr. Hamric signed the forms in Texas. But a rule applying out-of-state law on that basis is likely to deter WEI from furnishing the liability release until a participant enters Colorado. And, while not providing participants the forms until arrival in Colorado might lessen WEI’s liability exposure under out-of-state law; such a practice would not benefit participants because it would pressure participants into a last-minute decision regarding whether to sign the liability release after having already traveled to Colorado for the outdoor excursion.

It is significant to note that the court looked at the issue of waiting until customers arrive in the state of Colorado to have them sign the release. The court intimated that doing so would put pressure on them to sign after already traveling to Colorado. Legally, that could be argued as duress, which voids a release or contract.

It is these small statements in decisions that must be watched and remembered so that in the future they are not used to void a release. You must have your clients sign a release as soon as possible and waiting until they travel to Colorado maybe to late to have the release survive in court.

In a rare statement, the court also commented on the outdoor recreation industry in Colorado and the need for releases.

Colorado also has a strong interest in this matter. Colorado has a booming outdoor-recreation industry, in the form of skiing, hiking, climbing, camping, horseback riding, and rafting excursions. Colorado relies on tax receipts from the outdoor-recreation industry. And while many out-of-state individuals partake in these activities within Colorado, they often purchase their tickets or book excursion reservations before entering Colorado. If we applied Texas law because it is the state where Mr. Hamric signed the liability release, we would essentially allow the other forty-nine states to regulate a key industry within Colorado.

The final analysis the court discussed on the issue was the legal issue of binding effect. When a contract does define what is required to create the contract, such as the signature of both parties to the contract, then the last act that gives life or that is necessary to form the contract is considered the point when the contract was valid. Where that last act occurs is the place where the contract should be litigated and the law that should be applied to the contract. Here the last act occurred when the deceased was in Colorado and the church group he was with, handed over the signed releases.

Further, the considerations and contacts listed in § 188 of the Restatement favor application of Colorado law. As to the first contact, in accord with the commentary, a contract is formed in “the place where occurred the last act necessary to give the contract binding effect.” Here, that act occurred when the church group provided the forms to WEI in Colorado; for, before the forms were provided to WEI, Mr. Hamric had not conveyed his acceptance to WEI, and WEI did not know whether Mr. Hamric would complete the forms and agree to the liability release.

The plaintiff then argued the release did not meet the requirements of Colorado or Texas law. The plaintiff argued the contract was ambiguous. Colorado has five factors that must be considered to determine if a contract is ambiguous.

In general accord with this statement, federal district courts in Colorado have discerned five factors from Colorado Supreme Court decisions to determine if a release is unambiguous: (1) “whether the agreement is written in simple and clear terms that are free from legal jargon”; (2) “whether the agreement is inordinately long or complicated”; (3) “whether the release specifically addresses the risk that caused the plaintiff’s injury”; (4) “whether the contract contains any emphasis to highlight the importance of the information it contains”; and (5) “whether the plaintiff was experienced in the activity making risk of that particular injury reasonably foreseeable.”

The court reviewed the release and found it was not ambiguous. Only one factor the last one, whether the plaintiff has experience in the activity, was possible and the Colorado Supreme Court had weakened that requirement.

The sole factor clearly cutting against enforcement of the liability release is Mr. Hamric’s lack of rappelling experience. However, as noted above, the Colorado Supreme Court has not found this consideration to be dispositive against the enforcement of a liability waiver.

So, the court first determined that the release should be reviewed under Colorado law and then determined that under Colorado law, the release was valid and stopped the claims of the plaintiffs.

Finally, I have to comment about one incredibly stupid move on the part of the defendant. As quoted in the facts and by the court.

Because the rappelling course had a section that WEI guides considered “scary,” the guides did not describe a particular overhang at the Quarry High site during the orientation session or before taking the church group on the rappelling course.

Besides eliminating the defense of assumption of the risk by doing this, you have created a situation where you have increased the chance of a participant getting injured or as in this case died. You cannot assume a risk which you don’t know about.

First, what are you doing taking beginners rappelling over an overhang. This is not a beginner move.

Second, you have a scary section you CANNOT hide it from people, especially if they cannot see it or understand it. You MUST inform your participants of the risk.

Third, the defendant did not tell the deceased how to correct the problem if they found themselves in a compromised position. That is the main goal of any safety talk, to tell your participants how to keep themselves safe and how to rescue or be rescue.

Fourth, you need to hire new guides because it is clear your current guides do not understand the gravity of the situation, let alone the legal liability, of doing this to someone.

So Now What?

However, for one simple paragraph, or actually, one sentence, this lawsuit would have never gotten off the ground. The issue is a jurisdiction and venue clause. If the release would have stated any lawsuit must be in Colorado and Colorado law must apply, this lawsuit would not have had a chance.

Of special note in writing a release in Colorado and a few other states, if you do not outline or identify the possible risks to the participant signing the release, the release may be ambiguous. This issue is facing more scrutiny by the plaintiffs, and you are seeing more courts have to deal with the issue. On top of that, failing to identify the possible risks, eliminates the defense of assumption of the risk, which might be needed.

The other issue that the court waded through that could have done the defendant in was the competing language in the two contracts. First why collect information you cannot use, such as medical information? Only a physician and the participant have the ability to make the decision, as to whether or not they can medically undertake an activity. If you, the activity, business or program, decide a person can’t participate because of a medical issue, you are practicing medicine without a license which is a crime.

That does not mean you cannot collect information that you might need if a participant is injured.

Worse the above in this case, was both documents attempted to include release language and neither agreement had language stated which one was controlling. If you have your participants sign multiple documents you need to make sure that the release is not voided by another contract. You need to make sure one contract is primary, and the other contact has nothing in it that cancels, modifies or revokes the release.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

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

G-YQ06K3L262

In a strange round about way, Missouri Appellate Court finds release stops tubing hill claim, but only after release identified the risk the plaintiff complained of.

Posted: June 21, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Missouri, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Snow Tubing | Tags: assumption of the risk, Inherent Risk, Missouri, Release, Snow Tubing, Tubing | Leave a comment

Court comes to the conclusion the release is valid, but starts at the very beginning of the law and circles continuously to get there.

The Good News is releases are valid under Missouri’s law. The bad news is, you might never know from this decision.

Ferbet v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc.,

State: Missouri, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division

Plaintiff: Douglas E. Ferbet

Defendant: Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: negligent maintenance and operation of the tubing hill

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding:

Year: 2020

Summary

Plaintiff was snow tubing, and his foot got caught in a hole or divot breaking his leg. The plaintiff signed a release, which stopped the lawsuit. The court reviewed all the possible ways the plaintiff could win and lose the lawsuit in this 12-page opinion.

Facts

Hidden Valley’s snow tubing operation, located on a hillside adjacent to its ski resort, consists of a series of parallel and adjacent lanes descending down the hill. Customers slide down the lanes while perched on rubber inner tubes provided to them by Hidden Valley. Hidden Valley maintains the surface of the lanes covered in snow and ice and separates the lanes from each other by raised rows of packed snow and ice.

On January 25, 2013, when Ferbet arrived with his family at the ticket window, he was presented with this one-page, single-spaced, form agreement. He signed and dated the agreement in the spaces designated at the bottom, purchased tickets, and then proceeded to the tubing hill. Hidden Valley provided Ferbet an inner tube to use to slide down any of the tubing lanes he chose. And during what would turn out to be Ferbet’s last slide of the day, his right foot lodged into a crevice in the sliding surface fracturing his tibia and fibula when his momentum carried the rest of his body forward.

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

This court decided to write a law school analysis of the law concerning outdoor recreation injuries. The problem was the decision is extremely difficult to read because it keeps circling back on itself to bring up new legal topics.

The first issue the court reviewed was whether the release contained assumption of the risk language specific to the injury the plaintiff suffered.

I’ve argued that releases need this language for years. However, my argument is based on proving assumption of the risk if the release is thrown out by the court. Here, the appellate court seems to require the language in a release in Missouri, but never comes right out and says so.

The first analysis the court undertook was whether the release met Missouri’s law. This is a common analysis of any case where a release is used to stop the lawsuit. The second analysis, whether the thing that caused the plaintiff’s injury was covered by the release, is also sometimes seen in reviewing releases. In that analysis, the issue is, was the release written broadly enough to cover the injury the plaintiff is complaining about.

However, in this case, the court wanted to know if the release specifically looked at the specific issue that caused the plaintiff’s injury. Did the release cover the cracks and divots in the snow where the plaintiff caught his foot?

First looking at whether the release was valid under Missouri’s law the court reviewed Missouri’s law.

It is a “well-established rule of construction that a contract provision exempting one from liability for his or her negligence will never be implied but must be clearly and explicitly stated.” In doing so, courts must ensure that the exculpatory clause complies with the bright-line test established in Alack, the seminal case on this question, requiring that the words “negligence” or “fault” or their equivalents be used conspicuously so that a clear and unmistakable waiver and shifting of risk occurs.

Here is where the case starts to veer into new areas. The exact same clause the court is reviewing was already found valid in a prior case involving the same defendant on the same tubing hill with a different plaintiff seven years earlier.

Moreover, this Court has already considered this exact same release in Guthrie v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (Van Amburg, J., dissenting), in which a divided panel of this Court affirmed summary judgment in Hidden Valley’s favor and found that the language in paragraph 7 releasing Hidden Valley from its future negligence was sufficiently clear and conspicuous. Id. at 648. There, Guthrie’s foot was broken when another snow tuber collided with him in the run-out portion of the hill, the area where all of the snow tubers end their runs. So, Guthrie differs somewhat from this case because of the mechanism of injury which was a collision with another snow tuber, a risk the release covered repeatedly and extensively in paragraph 2 and again in the 8th bullet point of paragraph 3, while here the injury was allegedly caused by the condition of the premises.

Normally once a court finds a release valid in a prior case, they won’t even review the latest decision, they court just issues an order saying the prior decision is controlling. Here, they acknowledge the prior case and still analyzed every possible aspect of release and assumption of risk law in Missouri.

The court found the language of the release was valid. The court also found the word negligence was a necessary requirement of the release.

The court then quoted the decision forming the basis for release law in Missouri, which stated the word negligence was not necessary as long as similar language was used and also requires a notification to the defendant of the specific risks of the activity.

Alack instructs that doing so would be insufficient because the agreement must not only pass the bright-line conspicuity test by employing the word “negligence” or its equivalent, but it also must notify the participant of the specific nature of the claims he or she is releasing.

I believe that the word negligence is not required under Missouri’s law, but I would not bet on it. If you are using a release in Missouri, make sure your release says you are not liable for your own negligence.

The court, after finding the release was valid because it was identical to a release in a prior decision, reviewed all aspects of the document, starting with whether or not the release met Missouri’s requirements for a contract.

Since this is a contract, we apply our rules of contract interpretation to determine whether the language of the agreement should be construed to encompass Ferbet’s specific claim of negligence and whether Hidden Valley is released from that claim. The Supreme Court in Alack framed the issue thusly: “There must be no doubt that a reasonable person agreeing to an exculpatory clause actually understands what future claims he or she is waiving.” “Because standardized contracts address the mass of users, the test for reasonable expectations is objective, addressed to the average member of the public who accepts such a contract, not the subjective expectations of an individual adherent

The cardinal principle of contract interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the parties and to give effect to that intent. The terms of a contract are read as a whole and are given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. Courts prefer a contract construction that gives meaning to all contract provisions and we avoid construing the contract so as to leave portions meaningless and inexplicable. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, the language of the contract is construed against the drafting party. And this doctrine is enhanced in this case because we strictly construe contracts that seek to exonerate a party from acts of future negligence against the party claiming the benefit of that provision.

This is a pretty good analysis of contract law for any state. However, it is pages longer than any other decision reviewing a release as a contract, 99% of which do so in a paragraph.

The court then concluded that it was their job to determine if a reasonable party would have understood what they were signing.

Here, our task is to determine whether a reasonable person would clearly understand and be put on notice that he or she was releasing Hidden Valley from liability for a claim arising from an injury suffered as a result of Hidden Valley negligently maintaining in a dangerous condition the surface of the sliding area so that parts of the body extending from the tube would not become lodged in the sliding surface and cause injury.

It is that last section, that departs from all other reviews of releases. Whether the plaintiff knew, by reading the release, that his food could become lodged in a hole in the ice causing him injury. Normally, the analysis is, did the release say the plaintiff could be injured and was that clear and unambiguous.

The court then looked at inherent risk to determine if the risk of a hole in the snow and ice was inherent in tubing. A first in release law, but here the court found a way to tie it back in by including another area of the law never reviewed when looking at release law.

First, it looks at whether term inherent risks as mentioned in the release, define the inherent risks of the sport.

Unfortunately, while Hidden Valley tells its customers in paragraph 1 that “there are inherent and other risks associated with the sport . . .” it does not identify or define in the contract which risks are inherent and which are the “other risks.”

Inherent risks are identified as such because you assume them no matter what. You know the inherent risks of a sport or activity, by law. There is no need to list them in a release.

The court then looks to Missouri’s law to define inherent risks.

Our Supreme Court has defined a risk that is “inherent” to an activity as something “structural” or involving the “constitution or essential character” of the activity. And, generally, a participant is deemed to have assumed the risk of injury from the inherent risks of an activity that are known and understood, and the defendant is not liable for injuries stemming from such inherent risks because no duty is owed as to those risks.

The Missouri Supreme Court stated that a participant is “…deemed to have assumed the risk of injury from the inherent risks of an activity that are known and understood…” Why would there be any requirement to list them in a release? You know what they are. In fact, any releases that only protects the defendant from the inherent risks are worthless. You can’t sue for the inherent risks of a sport or activity. Therefore, you release does not need to protect you from the inherent risks. A release must protect you from the risks of the sport or activity that are not inherent.

If your release only protects you from claims from the inherent risks of a sport or activity send me a copy. jim@rec-law.us And get a new release written.

The court then veered into assumption of the risk under Missouri’s law. The case that was referenced to define inherent risks, and this court then determined a further review of assumption of the risk was needed.

Judge Wilson expounded on the history and current state of Missouri law regarding assumption of the risk. Coomer [a legal decision] identified three types of assumption of the risk, “express assumption of the risk,” “implied primary assumption of the risk,” and “implied secondary assumption of the risk.” For our purposes, implied primary assumption of the risk and express assumption of the risk are helpful to illustrate the concept of inherent risks raised by Hidden Valley in the participation agreement with Ferbet and the impact of assumption of the risk on duty. Implied primary assumption of the risk bars a plaintiff from recovery when the plaintiff has knowingly and voluntarily encountered risk that is inherent in the nature of the defendant’s activity. In express assumption of the risk, which is directly applicable to this case, the plaintiff makes an express statement that he is voluntarily accepting a specified risk and is barred from recovering damages for an injury resulting from that risk. The plaintiff’s consent relieves the defendant of any duty to protect the plaintiff from injury and as a result, the defendant cannot be negligent.

The definitions are the same as in most other states. What is confusing is why the court is taking this circuitous route to get to its decision? If the release is valid, it stops the claims, whether or not the risk is assumed or not in most states, including Missouri.

The court then attempted “tied” everything together, unsuccessfully.

Application of these principles to this case illustrates the circumstances to which the release here applies and those to which it may not and also the extent to which assumption of the risk principles may apply. It is for that reason that we have incorporated into our legal rationale these assumption of the risk principles even though the trial court relied solely on the release for its grant of summary judgment. Disposition of this case requires application of the release and of assumption of the risk.

The court circled back to the facts in this case by setting forth the analysis of the facts of the case. The court stated if the risk encountered by the plaintiff was an inherent risk of the activity, and the defendant did not increase that risk, there is no duty owed to the plaintiff. No duty, means there cannot be negligence.

A defendant owes no duty to anyone for the inherent risks of the activity. That is a basic year two of law school analysis.

However, if the defendant enhanced or increased the risk, then the risk is not inherent and whether or not the defendant is liable is based on the validity of the risk. Again, year two basic law school analysis.

Neither analysis has anything to do with release law. Is the release a valid contract? Doe the release meet the requirements of the state law on releases? If so, case over.

The court then looked at the issue if the risk was not an inherent risk.

In addition, if Ferbet’s injury was not the result of an inherent risk, but was the result of negligence on the part of Hidden Valley, then we apply the release and our analysis is whether that “other risk” was adequately covered by the release such that Ferbet was on notice that he was releasing Hidden Valley for its negligence in causing or creating the risk which resulted in his injury.

The analysis is correct, it is just written in a way that is confusing to read and seems to start a discission, leave it and then circle back to it. On top of that, it does not matter if the release is valid.

The court circled back again and reviewed if the risk suffered by the plaintiff was inherent in the activity.

Then the court changes its mind……. again. “But how uneven can the surface be and still be considered an inherent risk?”

After more analysis, the court concluded the risk was not inherent and if the claim was to be stopped it must rely upon the release. Which it could have found in the first paragraph of the decision.

As a result, we find that to the extent the particular variation that resulted in Ferbet’s injury was the result of Hidden Valley’s negligence, then this release extinguished that claim.

The court found the risk was not inherent, and the release stopped the claim. (Inherent risks, if an issue for the decision, are usually determined by the trier of fact, the jury.)

The court took off on another deviation, one which I found entertaining and correct. Many releases have stupid language in them because they are written by attorneys who don’t understand releases or written by non-attorneys. One of those phrases is the person accepts the facilities as is.

Before we turn to Ferbet’s remaining points, we briefly address paragraph 4 in which Hidden Valley seeks to exonerate itself by having the participant accept the snow tubing facility “AS IS” and that “NO WARRANTIES” are being made with respect to the snow tubing facility. These are terms of art with specific meanings in the context of the sale of goods and the sale of real estate. But these concepts have no role in this case involving a business inviting a customer onto their premises for a fee to participate in a recreational activity. Hidden Valley’s customers are not buyers and there is little if any opportunity for them to inspect the snow tubing facility before executing the release and paying their money or even before plunging down the hill.

If your release uses the language “as is” or “no warranties” send me a copy. jim@rec-law.us And get a new release written.

The court points out that the language is from the sale of goods and real estate and has no place in a release. On top of that, you are asking a person, who probably has never seen the activity to agree it is OK. If there is an opportunity for a release to be invalidated, it is by forcing the signor to agree to something that they cannot legally agree to.

The plaintiff argued the snow tubing hill was a common carrier, which requires the highest level of care. The court quickly found a tubing hill is not a common carrier.

After that the issue of whether the plaintiff knew what he was signing came back, and the court dismissed the claim with this statement.

It has been uniformly held that a person who can read, and is in no way prevented from reading a written contract before he signs it, is bound by its terms, and cannot void it on the ground that he did not know its contents when he signed it.”). Ferbet testified that nothing prevented him from reading the document.

Which seems to be contrary to its statement where the court determined if the plaintiff would have been fully informed of the possible risks as I quoted above.

After twelve pages, the court concluded the defendant was not liable.

So Now What?

There is a great analysis of how the legal system looks; it is just rarely done outside of law school. However, reading and understanding the decision the way it jumps around makes it very difficult.

The decision makes several great points; it is just maddening to try to find them and understand them in the circular decision.

What is confusing it the courts’ statement about wanting the release to identify the inherent risks of the activity. Inherent risks are known by people under the law and do not need to be identified. You can’t sue over the inherent risks because they are inherent, and you know them.

The good news is Missouri allows the use of a release, if it is carefully written correctly.

If you email me, a release with either of the language pointed out above, include your mailing address, and I’ll send you a sticker or magnet or something cheap and kitschy!

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Ferbet v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc.,

Posted: June 21, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Missouri, Snow Tubing | Tags: assumption of the risk, Inherent Risk, Missouri, Release, Snow Tubing, tubing hill | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

In a strange round about way, Missouri Appellate Court finds release stops tubing hill claim, but only after release identified the risk the plaintiff complained of.

Ferbet v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc.,

Douglas E. Ferbet, Appellant,

Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. and Peak Resorts, Inc., Respondents.

No. ED108495

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division

December 15, 2020

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 18SL-CC00050 Honorable Mary Elizabeth Ott.

James M. Dowd, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Robin Ransom, J.

James M. Dowd, Presiding Judge.

Introduction

Appellant Douglas Ferbet’s recreational outing with his family on January 25, 2013 to Respondents’ snow tubing hill in Eureka, Missouri ended abruptly when as he slid down the hill seated on a large rubber inner tube, his dangling right foot engaged with a crevice in the sliding surface of the slippery slope breaking his leg in two places. Now, Ferbet appeals the trial court’s summary judgment entered in favor of Respondents Hidden Valley and Peak Resorts (Hidden Valley) on Ferbet’s negligence claim in which he alleged that his injuries were caused by Hidden Valley’s negligent maintenance of the tubing hill. Hidden Valley sought summary judgment based on release-of-liability language in an agreement Hidden Valley required Ferbet to sign before selling snow tubing tickets to him and his family just before they headed to the hill.

The trial court found the agreement enforceable and therefore that Ferbet had released Hidden Valley from his negligence claim based on the document’s references both to specific risks involved in snow tubing and that Ferbet was releasing Hidden Valley from liability for injuries including those caused by Hidden Valley’s own negligence.

We affirm the judgment, but our legal rationale is somewhat different than the trial court’s. We agree with the trial court that while exculpatory clauses like the one here that purport to release a party from its own future negligence are disfavored, they are not prohibited by Missouri public policy, and to the extent Ferbet has adequately pled a negligence claim, the language of this agreement is sufficiently specific to encompass Ferbet’s claim and, importantly, it also clearly and conspicuously states that even claims resulting from Hidden Valley’s negligence are released. We also affirm because to the extent that the risk Ferbet claims caused his injury was a known and understandable inherent risk of snow tubing for which Hidden Valley owed Ferbet no duty, his claim is without merit under the doctrine of assumption of the risk.

Background

At all relevant times, customers, in order to be permitted to buy tickets, were required to read and sign the following document, which we reproduce verbatim here, purporting to identify certain general and specific injury risks posed by snow tubing. The document also contains language that purports to release Hidden Valley from liability for injuries sustained while snow tubing including for claims arising from Hidden Valley’s own negligence: POLAR PLUNGE SNOW TUBING HIDDEN VALLEY SKI-TUBE-RIDE AREA, WILDWOOD, MISSOURI ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RISK AND AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE THIS IS A CONTRACT! * * * * * * * * * * PLEASE READ! 1. I understand and acknowledge that snow tubing is a dangerous, risky sport and that there are inherent and other risks associated with the sport and that all of these risks can cause serious and even fatal injuries. 2. I understand that part of the thrill, excitement and risks of snow tubing is that the snow tubes all end up in a common, run-out area at various times and speeds and that [sic] is my responsibility to try to avoid hitting another snow tuber, and it is also my responsibility to try to avoid being hit by another snow tuber, but that notwithstanding these efforts by myself and other snow tubers, there is a risk of collisions. 3. I acknowledge that the risks of snow tubing include, but are not limited to, the following: • Variations in the steepness and configuration of the snow tubing chutes and run-out area; • Variations in the surface upon which snow tubing is conducted, which can vary from wet, slushy conditions to hard packed, icy conditions and everything in between; • Fence and/or barriers at or along portions of the snow tubing area, the absence of such fence and/or barriers and the inability of fences and/or barriers to prevent or reduce injury; • Changes in the speed at which snow tubers travel depending on surface conditions, the weight of snow tubers and the inter-linking of snow tubers together to go down the snow tubes runs; • The chance that a patron can fall out, be thrown out or otherwise leave the snow tube; • The chance that a snow tube can go from one run to another run, regardless of whether or not there is a barrier between runs, and the chance that a snow tube can go beyond the run-out area; • The chance that a snow tube can go up the run-out hill and then slide in the general run-out area; • Collisions in the run-out area and other locations of the snow tubing facility, with collisions happening between snow tubes, between a snow tube and another patron, between a snow tube and a snow tubing facility attendant, between a snow tubing patron who may or may not be in or on a snow tube at the time of the collision and other sorts of collisions; collisions with fixed objects, obstacles or structures located within or outside of the snow tube facility; • The use of the snow tubing carpet lift or tow, including falling out of a tube, slipping backwards, becoming entangled with equipment, railing and fencing, slipping and falling on the carpet lift and/or the adjacent deck and other risks. 4. I also acknowledge and understand that I am accepting AS IS the snow tube and any other equipment involved with the snow tubing activity, including lifts and tows, and further acknowledge and understand that NO WARRANTIES are being extended to me with respect to any aspect of the snow tubing facility. 5. I agree and understand that snow tubing is a purely voluntary, recreational activity and that if I am not willing to acknowledge the risk and agree not to sue, I should not go snow tubing. 6. I agree to allow the use of my image or likeness incidental in any photograph, live recorded video display or other transmission or reproduction of the event in any form to which this agreement admits me. 7. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE AND BEING ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPORT OF SNOWTUBING, I AGREE THAT I WILL NOT SUE AND WILL RELEASE FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, HIDDEN VALLEY GOLF AND SKI, INC. OR PEAK RESORTS, INC., THEIR OWNERS, OPERATIONS, LESSORS, LESSEES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES IF I OR ANY MEMBER OF MY FAMILY IS INJURED WHILE USING ANY OF THE SNOWTUBING FACILITIES OR WHILE BEING PRESENT AT THE FACILITIES, EVEN IF I CONTEND THAT SUCH INJURIES ARE THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SNOWTUBING FACILITY. 8. I further agree that I WILL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS HIDDEN VALLEY GOLF AND SKI, INC. AND PEAK RESORTS, INC. THEIR OWNERS, OPERATORS, LESSORS, LESSEES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES from any loss, liability, damages or cost of any kind that it may incur as the result of any injury to myself or to any member of my family or to any person for whom I am explaining that meaning of this agreement, even if it is contended that any such injury was caused by the negligence on the part of the snow tubing facility. 9. I understand and agree that this Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Missouri. I further agree that if any part of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, all other parts shall be given full force and effect. 10. I have read and understand the foregoing Acknowledgement of Risks and Agreement Not to Sue. I understand by reading this that I may be giving up the rights of my child and spouse to sue as well as giving up my own right to sue.

On December 27, 2018, Ferbet filed suit alleging that his injuries and damages were caused by Hidden Valley’s negligent maintenance and operation of the tubing hill, specifically with respect to the dangerous condition of the sliding surface that he claims caused his injuries. After some discovery took place, Respondents filed their motion for summary judgment on the sole basis that Ferbet had released his claim against them by signing the above agreement.

In his response, Ferbet asserted that the release was unenforceable as against public policy. He also alleged that amusement park and recreational area operators such as Hidden Valley should be considered common carriers and therefore held to the highest degree of care, as opposed to ordinary care, and that an exculpatory clause should be unenforceable when the highest degree of care is owed.

After a June 7, 2019 hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary judgment based on its findings that the facts were undisputed that Ferbet had signed the agreement; that the agreement was enforceable and not against public policy; that its operative release language clearly and explicitly exonerated Hidden Valley for its negligence in causing Ferbet’s injuries; and that Hidden Valley is not a common carrier subject to the highest degree of care. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

On appeals from summary judgment, our review is essentially de novo and we review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.04 governs summary judgment procedures. The trial court shall grant summary judgment “[i]f the motion, the response, the reply and the sur-reply 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.” Rule 74.04(c)(6); See also, Id. at 378. The trial court and this Court look to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with any affidavits to determine whether the undisputed facts demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. River Hills Development, 831 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). But “[t]he key to a summary judgment is the undisputed right to a judgment as a matter of law; not simply the absence of a fact question.” Birdsong v. Christians, 6 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (quoting Southard v. Buccaneer Homes Corp., 904 S.W.2d 525, 530 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995)).

Where the defending party is the movant, it may establish a right to judgment by showing: (1) facts negating any one of the non-movant’s elements; (2) that the non-movant, after an adequate period of discovery, has not been able and will not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the non-movant’s elements; or (3) that there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support the movant’s properly-pleaded affirmative defense. ITT, 854 S.W.2d at 381.

Here, since Hidden Valley has asserted the release as an affirmative defense, we review de novo the legal and fact questions (1) whether the release before us is enforceable to release Ferbet’s claims as a matter of law, and (2) whether Hidden Valley has established as a matter of undisputed fact that the injury-causing negligent conduct alleged by Ferbet is within the purview of this release. Alack v. Vic Tanny Intern. of Missouri, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo. banc 1996); see also Abbott v. Epic Landscape Prods., L.C., 361 S.W.3d 13, 19 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011), as modified (Jan. 31, 2012).

Hidden Valley also asserted assumption of the risk as an affirmative defense. Although it did not seek summary judgment on that basis nor did the trial court rely on assumption of the risk in its grant of summary judgment here, our review is de novo and we may do so. See ITT Commercial, 854 S.W.2d at 387-88 (summary judgment may be “affirmed in this Court on an entirely different basis than that posited at trial”). In fact, for the reasons we provide below, we find it necessary to employ Hidden Valley’s assumption of the risk affirmative defense in addition to the release in order to resolve this case.

Discussion

1. In Missouri, exculpatory clauses are disfavored but not void as against public policy.

In his first point, Ferbet alleges the trial court failed to address his affirmative avoidance that the exculpatory clause before us violates public policy and is therefore unenforceable. While we may agree and acknowledge that there continue to be strong policy arguments why these anticipatory releases are problematic, e.g., the party best positioned to prevent the harm is relieved of liability and instead the burden of loss is placed upon the party least able to prevent it, the public policy implications of such releases have been litigated, analyzed, and largely decided by our Supreme Court. See Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 334 (“Although exculpatory clauses in contracts releasing an individual from his or her own future negligence are disfavored, they are not prohibited as against public policy.”) In short, that public policy ship has sailed aboard the S.S. Alack.

Thus, our initial analysis is whether the release here complies with the dictates of Alack and its progeny to which we now turn. It is a “well-established rule of construction that a contract provision exempting one from liability for his or her negligence will never be implied but must be clearly and explicitly stated.” Id. (citing Poslosky v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 349 S.W.2d 847, 850 (Mo. 1961)). In doing so, courts must ensure that the exculpatory clause complies with the bright-line test established in Alack, the seminal case on this question, requiring that the words “negligence” or “fault” or their equivalents be used conspicuously so that a clear and unmistakable waiver and shifting of risk occurs. Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 337.[ 1]

Moreover, this Court has already considered this exact same release in Guthrie v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (Van Amburg, J., dissenting), in which a divided panel of this Court affirmed summary judgment in Hidden Valley’s favor and found that the language in paragraph 7 releasing Hidden Valley from its future negligence was sufficiently clear and conspicuous. Id. at 648. There, Guthrie’s foot was broken when another snow tuber collided with him in the run-out portion of the hill, the area where all of the snow tubers end their runs. Id. at 646. So, Guthrie differs somewhat from this case because of the mechanism of injury which was a collision with another snow tuber, a risk the release covered repeatedly and extensively in paragraph 2 and again in the 8th bullet point of paragraph 3, while here the injury was allegedly caused by the condition of the premises.

i. Paragraph 7’s release language satisfies Alack’s bright-line test.

Nevertheless, we abide by our previous holding in Guthrie that the release language here satisfies Alack’s conspicuity requirement. Paragraph 7, located three quarters down the one-page agreement, provides in all capital letters that snow tubing participants agree to release Hidden Valley for claims if injured while using or being present at the snow tubing facility “even if … such injuries are the result of negligence on the part of” Hidden Valley.

ii. The word “negligence” is necessary, but we still construe the whole contract.

But our inquiry does not end with the mere inclusion of the word “negligence.” If that was the case, Hidden Valley could have simply presented its customers with a 9-word declaration to sign: “I release Hidden Valley for all claims including negligence.” Alack instructs that doing so would be insufficient because the agreement must not only pass the bright-line conspicuity test by employing the word “negligence” or its equivalent, but it also must notify the participant of the specific nature of the claims he or she is releasing. Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 337.

Hidden Valley seems to concede this by virtue of its 850-word agreement here in which it endeavors to comprehensively identify the risks associated with, inherent to, or that may arise during snow tubing. And while paragraph 7 sets forth the release language on which Hidden Valley relies, paragraph 7 does not stand alone in this contract. In fact, with its opening phrase “[i]n consideration of the above…,” paragraph 7 incorporates the preceding six numbered paragraphs, the first four of which specifically address the types and nature of the risks involved in snow tubing.[ 2] In this way, Hidden Valley has sought to define and identify the risks of injury from snow tubing for which it not only seeks to obtain a release from its customers but also requests its customers to assume those risks.

Since this is a contract, we apply our rules of contract interpretation to determine whether the language of the agreement should be construed to encompass Ferbet’s specific claim of negligence and whether Hidden Valley is released from that claim. The Supreme Court in Alack framed the issue thusly: “There must be no doubt that a reasonable person agreeing to an exculpatory clause actually understands what future claims he or she is waiving.” Id. at 337-38. “Because standardized contracts address the mass of users, the test for reasonable expectations is objective, addressed to the average member of the public who accepts such a contract, not the subjective expectations of an individual adherent.” Woods v. QC Fin. Servs., Inc., 280 S.W.3d 90, 95 n.1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted).

The cardinal principle of contract interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the parties and to give effect to that intent. Dunn Indus. Group, Inc. v. City of Sugar Creek, 112 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Mo. banc 2003). The terms of a contract are read as a whole and are given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. Id.; Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 337-38. Courts prefer a contract construction that gives meaning to all contract provisions and we avoid construing the contract so as to leave portions meaningless and inexplicable. Storey v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, LLC, 466 S.W.3d 650, 655 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, the language of the contract is construed against the drafting party. Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505, 509 (Mo. banc 2010). And this doctrine is enhanced in this case because we strictly construe contracts that seek to exonerate a party from acts of future negligence against the party claiming the benefit of that provision. Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 334.

The first three numbered paragraphs are the focus of our attention. In paragraph 1, Hidden Valley very broadly and generally puts customers on notice that snow tubing is dangerous and risky and that there are inherent and other risks associated with the activity that can cause injury or death. Paragraph 2 explains in detail the risk of collisions during snow tubing. And in paragraph 3 with its nine subparts, Hidden Valley identifies and notifies customers of a myriad of the risks they might face.

iii. Assumption of the risk – the nature of the risk determines whether a duty exists.

Hidden Valley’s reference to “inherent risks” of the sport of snow tubing[ 3] presents an important legal concept that requires our attention because the extent to which the risk that caused Ferbet’s injuries is an inherent risk to snow tubing will determine whether the release here even applies. Unfortunately, while Hidden Valley tells its customers in paragraph 1 that “there are inherent and other risks associated with the sport . . .” it does not identify or define in the contract which risks are inherent and which are the “other risks.”

Our Supreme Court has defined a risk that is “inherent” to an activity as something “structural” or involving the “constitution or essential character” of the activity. Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 437 S.W.3d 184, 202 (Mo. banc 2014). And, generally, a participant is deemed to have assumed the risk of injury from the inherent risks of an activity that are known and understood, and the defendant is not liable for injuries stemming from such inherent risks because no duty is owed as to those risks. Id. at 197.

In the Coomer opinion, which doubles as an ode to the national pastime, Judge Wilson expounded on the history and current state of Missouri law regarding assumption of the risk. Coomer identified three types of assumption of the risk, “express assumption of the risk,” “implied primary assumption of the risk,” and “implied secondary assumption of the risk.” Id. at 192. For our purposes, implied primary assumption of the risk and express assumption of the risk are helpful to illustrate the concept of inherent risks raised by Hidden Valley in the participation agreement with Ferbet and the impact of assumption of the risk on duty. Implied primary assumption of the risk bars a plaintiff from recovery when the plaintiff has knowingly and voluntarily encountered risk that is inherent in the nature of the defendant’s activity. Id. at 192. In express assumption of the risk, which is directly applicable to this case, the plaintiff makes an express statement that he is voluntarily accepting a specified risk and is barred from recovering damages for an injury resulting from that risk. Id. at 191. The plaintiff’s consent relieves the defendant of any duty to protect the plaintiff from injury and as a result, the defendant cannot be negligent. Id. at 193.

The rule that a defendant is not liable because it owes no duty for the known and understandable inherent risks of an activity “extends only to those risks” that the defendant “is powerless to alleviate without fundamentally altering” the activity. Id. But the defendant “still owes a duty of reasonable care not to alter or increase such inherent risks.” Id. at 197-198. Coomer illustrates this point with two examples. The first is the baseball spectator injured by a foul ball which he claimed he was prevented from seeing because he was being repeatedly jostled and distracted by the team’s dinosaur mascot. Id. at 198 (citing Lowe v. California League of Professional Baseball, 56 Cal.App.4th 112, 65 Cal.Rptr.2nd 105 (1997)). While getting hit by a foul ball is an inherent risk to attending a baseball game for which implied primary assumption of the risk precludes recovery because the team owes no duty of care, the jury may hold the team liable if the negligence of the mascot altered or increased that otherwise inherent risk and that negligence causes the plaintiff’s injuries. Coomer, at 198.

The second example Coomer cites is from Sheppard v. Midway R-1 Sch. Dist., 904 S.W.2d 257 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995), which involved a high school long-jumper injured during a competition by a bad landing in the landing pit. Id. at 259. The court held that even though the student cannot sue the school district for a bad landing because that is an inherent risk to long-jumping, the jury may hold the school district liable when that inherent risk is altered or increased by the defendant’s negligence in preparing the landing pit. Id. at 264.

Thus, if Ferbet’s injury resulted from a known and understandable risk deemed to be inherent to the sport of snow tubing, and Hidden Valley did not negligently enhance or increase that inherent risk, then the release language in paragraph 7 is not relevant nor applicable because Hidden Valley owed Ferbet no duty with respect to risks inherent to snow tubing. But if Hidden Valley negligently enhanced or increased that inherent risk, then the release language in the agreement is applicable and operative and we would look to the agreement as a whole to determine whether that enhanced risk was covered by the release. In addition, if Ferbet’s injury was not the result of an inherent risk, but was the result of negligence on the part of Hidden Valley, then we apply the release and our analysis is whether that “other risk” was adequately covered by the release such that Ferbet was on notice that he was releasing Hidden Valley for its negligence in causing or creating the risk which resulted in his injury.

iv. The risks created by an uneven sliding surface on Hidden Valley’s snow tubing hill are inherent to the activity of snow tubing.

We turn now to the crevice in the sliding surface that caused Ferbet’s injury and we find that an uneven sliding surface and the potential risks it creates for snow tubers are inherent risks of snow tubing because they are “structural” to the activity and involve the “essential character” of snow tubing. Coomer, 437 S.W.3d at 202. The packed snow and ice surface is outdoors at the mercy of both the changing meteorological conditions and the continual battering from plunging snow tubes and tubers. As with traditional snow sledding, an uneven surface and its impact on the participant’s experience and enjoyment seems to be part of the “essential character” of snow tubing.

But how uneven can the surface be and still be considered an inherent risk? Unfortunately, the record below is largely silent. We know little about the size or configuration of the spot on the surface in which Ferbet’s foot became lodged. Ferbet described it as an area of riprap which seemed to be along the raised rows of packed snow and ice that separated the individual lanes. The agreement, for its part, not only identified these rows but mentioned that snow tubers may slide up and over these rows into the next lane. We also know little about Hidden Valley’s care and maintenance of the surface and whether Hidden Valley was aware of the danger of body parts becoming lodged in crevices in the surface or whether there had been any, and if so, how many prior similar instances like Ferbet’s.

As the Supreme Court in Coomer recognized, a risk that is deemed inherent may become actionable if the risk is altered or enhanced by the negligence of the activity operator. Id. at 198. So, an uneven area that simply adds to snow tubers’ thrill by pitching them up, and perhaps occasionally out, of the tube is one thing. But a divot that repeatedly and unexpectedly catches and fractures customers’ limbs may go beyond being an inherent risk and become actionable because it is no longer a known and understandable risk that is part of the structure and essence of the activity.

While the paucity of this record certainly limits the concreteness of our factual findings, it does not prevent us from reaching the following legal conclusions and holdings, each of which ends in the demise of Ferbet’s appeal: First, to the extent the crevice was merely a known and understandable risk inherent to snow tubing, then Hidden Valley owed Ferbet no duty and the release is inapplicable and irrelevant because there is no claim to release; Second, if the record had demonstrated that the crevice was so big and dangerous that it went beyond what would be deemed an inherent risk to snow tubing and instead would constitute a negligently maintained surface, then Hidden Valley would owe Ferbet a duty and in that circumstance, the release would be triggered. Looking to the contract, specifically, paragraph 3, we find it adequately notified Ferbet that there could be “[v]ariations in the surface upon which snow tubing is conducted, which can vary from wet, slushy conditions to hard packed, icy conditions and everything in between.” As a result, we find that to the extent the particular variation that resulted in Ferbet’s injury was the result of Hidden Valley’s negligence, then this release extinguished that claim.

Before we turn to Ferbet’s remaining points, we briefly address paragraph 4 in which Hidden Valley seeks to exonerate itself by having the participant accept the snow tubing facility “AS IS” and that “NO WARRANTIES” are being made with respect to the snow tubing facility. These are terms of art with specific meanings in the context of the sale of goods and the sale of real estate. Davis Indus. Sales, Inc. v. Workman Const. Co., Inc., 856 S.W.2d 355, 359 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993); Harper v. Calvert, 687 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). But these concepts have no role in this case involving a business inviting a customer onto their premises for a fee to participate in a recreational activity. Hidden Valley’s customers are not buyers and there is little if any opportunity for them to inspect the snow tubing facility before executing the release and paying their money or even before plunging down the hill.

In light of the above, we deny Ferbet’s first point.

2. Hidden Valley was not a common carrier in that its tubing hill was not a commercial ride for hire.

Ferbet asserts that because they operate rides and slides, recreation area operators such as Hidden Valley should be considered common carriers and should therefore be held to the highest degree of care. Ferbet then alleges without citation to any authority that such a degree of care is inconsistent with the enforcement of an exculpatory clause. We disagree.

Missouri law applies a heightened degree of care only to a very small number of well-defined activities including common carriers, such as railroads, buses, commercial airlines, streetcars, and elevator operators; electric companies; users of explosives; users of firearms; and motor vehicle operators. Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP, 450 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Mo. banc 2014). Otherwise, the applicable standard is the ordinary degree of care. Id. (citing Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op., Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 158 (Mo. banc 2000)) (“The common law ordinary negligence rule requires a defendant to exercise the degree of care of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances, now commonly referred to as the ‘ordinary degree of care.'”).

In Missouri, neither the common carrier designation nor the application of the highest degree of care has ever been extended to amusement parks or recreation areas such as ski resorts or snow tubing hills. Id. at 296; see also McCollum v. Winnwood Amusement Co., 332 Mo. 779, 59 S.W.2d 693, 697 (1933) (holding the operator of a place of public amusement operating has a duty of ordinary care to its patrons); Lewis v. Snow Creek, Inc., 6 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (applying a duty of ordinary care when skiers were injured due to icy conditions). And, since this activity resembles both skiing and an amusement park ride, we decline Ferbet’s invitation to do so. Hidden Valley owed Ferbet a duty of ordinary care in connection with its operation and maintenance of its snow tubing hill.

Point two is denied.

3. The summary judgment entered in this case fully disposed of Ferbet’s affirmative avoidances and did not violate Ferbet’s due process rights.

Ferbet claims the trial court’s grant of summary judgment violated his due process rights because the court failed to address his numerous affirmative avoidances. We have reviewed Ferbet’s affirmative avoidances and find they fall into two groups. The first group attacks the formation of the agreement here by raising such issues as duress and that Ferbet had not actually read or understood the document before signing it. The second group of affirmative avoidances broadly attacks the exculpatory clause on public policy grounds. And we conclude from our review of the record and in our opinion here that Ferbet’s affirmative avoidances have been fully considered and resolved.

With respect to Ferbet’s attacks on the contract’s formation, the trial court’s enforcement of the agreement necessarily signifies that the trial court found as a matter of law that this was a properly formed agreement when Ferbet signed it and dated it. Austin v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co., 285 S.W. 1015, 1017 (Mo. App. 1926) (“It has been uniformly held that a person who can read, and is in no way prevented from reading a written contract before he signs it, is bound by its terms, and cannot void it on the ground that he did not know its contents when he signed it.”). Ferbet testified that nothing prevented him from reading the document.

As for Ferbet’s affirmative avoidances regarding the public policy considerations relevant to exculpatory clauses, we discussed at length above that Missouri case law is settled that though disfavored, exculpatory clauses are not prohibited as against public policy. Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 334. In effect, Ferbet’s public policy arguments have been baked into the controlling precedent by Alack and its progeny. We decline Ferbet’s invitation to ignore that precedent.

Point three is denied.

Conclusion

The trial court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Robin Ransom, J. concur.

———

Notes:

[ 1] We also note that Alack sought to distinguish between ordinary negligence and gross negligence in the context of exculpatory clauses with the former being disfavored but enforceable and the latter void as against public policy. Id. at 337 (“there is no question that one may never exonerate oneself from future liability for intentional torts or for gross negligence[.]” (emphasis added)). However, in Decormier v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group, Inc., the Supreme Court erased this distinction because “Missouri courts do not recognize degrees of negligence at common law.” 446 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Mo. banc 2014). Decormier permits exculpatory clauses to shield parties from negligence but holds exculpatory clauses provide no protection for reckless conduct or for intentional torts. Id. Here Ferbet’s claims against Hidden Valley were for ordinary negligence.

[ 2] But even if paragraph 7 had not included the phrase “[i]n consideration of the above…”, our rule of contract interpretation require us to consider paragraph 7 in conjunction with the remaining portions of the contract including the paragraphs that seek to identify the risks involved in snow tubing.

[ 3] Hidden Valley refers to snow tubing as a sport. We need not decide whether this is the case, or whether riding a roller coaster is a sport, whether descending the log flume at Six Flags is a sport or, for that matter, whether golf is a sport.

http://www.recreation-law.com

G-YQ06K3L262

Standish v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corporation

Posted: May 31, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Wyoming | Tags: assumption of the risk, Inherent Risk, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, skiing, WRSA, Wyoming, Wyoming Recreation Safety Act | 1 Comment

Thomas A. Standish, IV; Meghan Keiter, Plaintiffs – Appellants,

Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corporation, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 20-8045

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

May 14, 2021

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WYOMING (D.C. NO. 1:19-cv-00004-KHR)

Gary L. Shockey, Gary Shockey Law, Casper, Wyoming, for Appellants.

James K. Lubing (Nathan D. Rectanus with him on the brief), Lubing Law Group, Jackson, Wyoming, for Appellee.

Before TYMKOVICH, KELLY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge.

While skiing in an ungroomed area at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, Thomas Standish was injured when his right ski struck a six-and-a-half-foot stump covered with freshly fallen snow. Standish and his wife brought a negligence lawsuit against Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (“Jackson Hole”) to recover for his injuries.

Jackson Hole moved for summary judgment, contending the Wyoming Recreation Safety Act (WRSA) limited Jackson Hole’s liability because Standish’s injury was a result of an “inherent risk” of alpine skiing. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that a tree stump covered by fresh snow was an inherent risk of skiing for which the WRSA precludes liability. We agree with that conclusion. Thus, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. Background

In January 2017, California residents Thomas Standish and his then-fiancee, Megan Keiter, traveled to Jackson Hole Mountain Resort as part of a “bucket list” ski trip. From January 8 through 10-the three days prior to Standish’s arrival-Jackson Hole had received about 27 inches of new snow, and on the morning of January 11, Jackson Hole received an additional 18 inches of snow. Over these four days, the mid-mountain depth of the snow increased from 56 to 80 inches.[ 1]

On January 11, the couple purchased ski passes for Jackson Hole. The backs of these “J Cards” bear language indicating that the pass-holder “acknowledges that participation in any and all winter recreation activities at [Jackson Hole], including . . . skiing . . . involves SUBSTANTIAL AND INHERENT RISKS, HAZARDS, AND DANGERS THAT MAY RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY, DEATH or damages to property.” Aplt. App. 41. The couple first skied a few groomed runs. They then ventured down an off-piste run near the Thunder Chairlift line, with Standish-the more experienced skier-leading the way. “Off-piste” is a term for a ski run or area that is ungroomed and left in its natural state. See Roberts v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 884 F.3d 967, 970 (10th Cir. 2018). About halfway down the mountain, Standish’s right ski hit the top of a six-and-a-half-foot-tall tree stump that was covered with about two inches[ 2] of fresh snow. His ski came off on impact, and he broke multiple bones in his right leg.

Standish underwent surgery, receiving fourteen screws, two metal plates, and a bone graft. After returning to California a few days later, Standish suffered a pulmonary embolism, a common complication resulting from serious fractures. This required anti-coagulation injections in his abdomen for several months. Because of Standish’s long recovery, he and Keiter pushed their wedding back from June to September 2017. They also sold their business because Standish was unable to work during his recovery.

In January of 2019, Standish and Keiter brought this diversity suit in the District of Wyoming against Jackson Hole, alleging negligence and loss of consortium, respectively. During discovery, the parties were unable to ascertain when, why, or by whom the tree had been cut. In a deposition, Jackson Hole’s risk safety and environmental manager agreed that the stump had been cut at some point in the past, but no individuals or departments he talked to had any recollection or knowledge of cutting that tree. When asked why it was cut in the way it had been-that is, over six feet high-the manager suggested “it had been cut down during the winter to mitigate a hazard, like the tree blowing over or growing in a particular way that may have been identified to be a hazard.” Aple. App. 63. In October 2019, the stump was cut down completely, apparently as a result of the accident and the ongoing litigation.

Jackson Hole moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court concluded that Wyoming law provided immunity from the inherent risks of skiing, including unmarked objects on ungroomed runs-even objects like trees that have been partially cut.

II. Analysis

Standish makes two arguments about why the district court erred in granting summary judgment. First, he contends that the question of whether a subsurface, cut tree in an off-piste area is an inherent risk of alpine skiing should have been submitted to a jury. Second, Standish argues the district court improperly considered inadmissible facts in granting summary judgment. We address each in turn.

A. Inherent Risk

1. Standard of Review

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Roberts, 884 F.3d at 971. Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

Because this diversity suit arises out of Wyoming, we “must ascertain and apply state law to reach the result the Wyoming Supreme Court would reach if faced with the same question.” Cooperman v. David, 214 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 2000). In doing so, “we rely foremost on decisions of the Wyoming Supreme Court, and then on ‘other state court decisions, federal decisions, and the general weight and trend of authority.'” Roberts, 884 F.3d at 972 (quoting Sapone v. Grand Targhee, Inc., 308 F.3d 1096, 1100 (10th Cir. 2002)). We review the district court’s determination of state law de novo. Cooperman, 214 F.3d at 1164.

2. The Wyoming Recreation Safety Act

Common-law tort principles typically guide our analysis of personal-injury claims brought on the basis of negligence. When bringing a negligence claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently assert that “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to conform to a specified standard of care; (2) the defendant breached the duty of care; (3) the breach proximately caused injury to the plaintiff; and (4) the injury is compensable by money damages.” Dimickv. Hopkinson, 422 P.3d 512, 521 (Wyo. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

But in enacting the WRSA, the Wyoming legislature chose to insulate recreational providers from some types of personal-injury claims. In relevant part, the WRSA[ 3] provides that [a]ny person who takes part in any sport or recreational opportunity assumes the inherent risks in that sport or recreational opportunity, whether those risks are known or unknown, and is legally responsible for any and all damage, injury or death to himself or other persons or property that results from the inherent risks in that sport or recreational opportunity.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-123(a). And a recreational provider “is not required to eliminate, alter or control the inherent risks within the particular sport or recreational opportunity.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-123(b).

a. Duty Under the WRSA

The WRSA limits the first negligence element: duty. Specifically, the WRSA “codifies the common-law concept of primary assumption of the risk,” which limits the recreational provider’s duty to a participant. Roberts, 884 F.3d at 972; see also Halpern v. Wheeldon, 890 P.2d 562, 565 (Wyo. 1995) (“[T]he assumption-of-risk terminology [in the WRSA] is intended to limit the duty which a provider owes to a participant.”). “When primary assumption of the risk applies, as it does under the WRSA, ‘the legal result is that the defendant is simply relieved of the duty which would otherwise exist.'” Roberts, 884 F.3d at 972 (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 68, at 481 & n.lO (5th ed. 1984)). In other words, because the WRSA provides that a participant has assumed certain risks that are inherent to the activity, the recreational provider typically owes no duty for inherent risks of an activity. In sum, a recreational “provider has no duty to eliminate, alter, or control the inherent risks of an activity, and any person who chooses to take part in a sport or recreational opportunity assumes all inherent risks [that] are associated with that opportunity.” Halpern, 890 P.2d at 565.

The district court generally decides whether the defendant owed a duty as a matter of law, see Halpern, 890 P.2d at 565, but the jury typically decides whether a particular risk is an inherent one, see Beckwith v. Weber, 277 P.3d 713, 722 (Wyo. 2012). In the context of whether a hazard is an inherent risk, the “level of factual specificity required . . . will often but not always preclude summary judgment on the duty question.” Creel v. L &L, Inc., 287 P.3d 729, 737 (Wyo. 2012). So “when genuine issues of material fact exist, it is proper to present the issue to the jury of whether a risk is inherent to a particular activity.” Halpern, 890 P.2d at 566. But in the absence of genuine issues of material fact, “the district court may decide as a matter of law that the provider does not owe a duty to the participant.” Roberts, 884 F.3d at 973 (quoting Halpern, 890 P.2d at 566); see also Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp. v. Rohrman, 150 P.3d 167, 168 (Wyo. 2006) (“If the court can say that, given that evidence, this is an ‘inherent risk’ and reasonable minds cannot differ about that, then summary judgment is appropriate.”).

b. Inherent Risk

The central question here is whether the plaintiff’s injury was the result of an inherent risk of a particular activity. If the injury was caused by an inherent risk, then the recreational provider owes no duty to “eliminate, alter, or control it[, ]” and the entry of summary judgment is appropriate. Rohrman, 150 P.3d at 168.

The WRSA defines “inherent risk” as “those dangers or conditions which are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of any sport or recreational opportunity.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-122; see also Cooperman, 214 F.3d at 1166 (discussing definitions of “characteristic,” “intrinsic,” and “integral”). But the WRSA-unlike some other states’ recreational liability statutes-does not list examples of inherent risks. Rather, “[w]hat an ‘inherent risk’ means in any given set of circumstances is a variable that the Wyoming Legislature included in the statute by design.” Muller v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, 139 P.3d 1162, 1166 (Wyo. 2006), opinion after certified question answered sub nom. Muller v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 210 Fed.Appx. 792 (10th Cir. 2006).

In order to determine what is an inherent risk under the WRSA, the Wyoming Supreme Court has explained a “reasonableness” inquiry should guide courts. Rohrman, 150 P.3d at 170. So, the “central concern … is what ‘reasonable persons’ will view as inherent risks.” Id. “[I]f reasonable minds cannot differ as to whether or not a given set of factual circumstances involve an ‘inherent risk’ of skiing (in this particular instance we are concerned with skiing, or fill in the blank as the case might be), then the protections of the [W]RSA apply, and the litigation of that controversy must come to an end.” Id.

The Wyoming Supreme Court has pointed to several sources of guidance for determining what reasonable persons would view as inherent risks of an activity. One is, of course, jury deliberations on the particular facts of a case. See Rohrman, 150 P.3d at 170. Others are safety experts and experienced skiers.[ 4]Id. But the sources most discussed by the Court in this context are analogous statutes from similarly-situated states. See Rohrman, 150 P.3d at 170-72; Muller, 139 P.3d at 1166-67. In Rohrman, the Court held that reference to analogous statutes-for example, from Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah-is “a meaningful source of guidance in explaining the inherent risks of skiing to any fact finder.” Rohrman, 150 P.3d at 172.

The explicit citation to these statutes, and the reference to other similar state statutes, is meant to be an expansive guide for courts considering the inherent risk question. For one, the texts of all three analogous state statutes included in Rohrman have non-exhaustive lists of inherent risks of skiing. Each of the three has broad language that includes, for example, trees and forest debris, subsurface conditions, and man-made structures. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-103(3.5) (2021); N.M. Stat. § 24-15-10 (2021); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-402 (2021). For another, the court expressly did not constrain itself to these lists, stating “those statutes are not the exclusive source of guidance and the factual variations are, in some senses, infinite.” Rohrman, 150 P.3d at 172.[ 5]

In particular, the court’s reference to analogous statutes is significant at the summary judgment stage. In situations with novel or contested facts, of course, the question of reasonableness-that is, whether reasonable minds cannot differ over what is an inherent risk-is appropriate for consideration by the fact-finder, not for determination as a matter of law by the court. But when there are no genuine disputes of material fact, the Wyoming Supreme Court has explicitly held that “[u]nder Wyoming’s statutory construct, which is much broader than that of Colorado, such items as those included in Colorado’s statute may, as a matter of law, be inherent risks of the recreational activity of skiing.” Muller, 139 P.3d at 1167 (emphasis added). “[I]n such cases[, ] a trial court may grant a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment based on the [W]RSA.” Id. In other words, a court may look to the enumerated inherent risks in Colorado’s statute to hold that a particular risk is an inherent one as a matter of law. 3. The Risk to Standish

The district court determined that skiing into an unmarked six-and-a-half-foot-tall tree on an off-piste run-which had been previously altered by Jackson Hole and which was submerged and made invisible by recent, heavy snow fall-was an inherent risk of skiing. We agree with both the framing of the inherent risk and the district court’s conclusion.

With regard to the risk’s framing, we have previously acknowledged “we can not look at the risk in a vacuum.” Cooperman, 214 F.3d at 1167. Rather, “we must evaluate the risk at the greatest level of specificity permitted by the factual record.” Id. Here, the operative facts are undisputed. The mountain had received 45 inches of fresh snow in the four days prior to the accident. The accident took place in an off-piste-and therefore ungroomed-area. Standish’s injury was caused by a collision with the top of the stump, which was lightly covered with the fresh snow and thus not visible to Standish. The stump had been cut to a height of six-and-a-half feet at some point in the past to mitigate some problem. The district court’s inherent-risk framing did not employ any disputed facts and accurately captures the facts of the case. Neither party appears to contest this framing on appeal. We therefore adopt this framing of the risk.

With this specific factual scenario in mind, we conclude that encountering a snow-covered stump in an ungroomed area is an inherent risk of alpine skiing. Everyone familiar with the sight of the intertwining runs of a ski area knows that cutting and otherwise managing trees is necessary for the runs’ creation and upkeep. The vast majority of ski-able terrain simply could not exist in the first instance without the ministrations of sawyers and forest managers. And the forested setting of ski areas means that trees may sometimes fall or otherwise present hazards. As the risk safety and environmental manager for Jackson Hole indicated in his deposition, trees can be altered or “removed for various reasons.” Aple. App. 63. These can include creating more space for skiing in a particular run or glade or mitigating a hazard, such as a “tree blowing over or growing in a particular way that may have been identified to be a hazard.” Aple. App. 63. The height at which the tree in this case was cut could have been a function of a high snow-level during winter, or it could have resulted from a decision to cut just below a particular hazard in any season (i.e., the tree broke or became unstable above that height). Whatever the reason, the ability to act to mitigate hazards and cut trees that pose a risk to skiers-or to create new runs or vary the terrain-is essential to effectively managing a ski area.

Moreover, this accident occurred in an off-piste area, in which unmarked obstacles are frequent and inevitable. “[W]e cannot ignore the nature of the run on which he encountered [the stump] and the inherent risks that run presents.” Roberts, 884 F.3d at 976 (discussing an accident in an off-piste area). And a changing level of the snow-which here was, by chance, just enough to render the stump invisible-is another inherent risk of skiing. Variable snow conditions are intrinsic to the mountainous setting of ski resorts in the American West. See, e.g., Kopeikin v. Moonlight Basin Mgmt., LLC, 981 F.Supp.2d 936, 945 (D. Mont. 2013) (“Skiing presents a multitude of dangers and hazards. Notwithstanding an operator’s efforts to tame it, skiing takes place on essentially wild terrain, on a mighty mountain, with fluctuation in weather and snow conditions that constantly change.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Consequently, all reasonable people understand that the combination of encountering the remnant stumps of forest-management practices and of changing snow levels at a ski area is an inherent risk of alpine skiing.

Furthermore, the Wyoming Supreme Court has explicitly held that because the WRSA is a broader statutory scheme than Colorado’s analogous law, “such items as those included in Colorado’s statute may, as a matter of law, be inherent risks of the recreational activity of skiing.” Muller, 139 P.3d at 1167 (emphasis added). Colorado’s statute expressly includes stumps-whether snow-covered or not-as inherent risks. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-103(3.5) (‘”Inherent dangers and risks of skiing’ means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including . . . surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects . . . .”).[ 6] And other states include subsurface stumps or forest debris as inherent risks in their analogous statutes, including Utah, see Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-402 (stumps); New Mexico, see N.M. Stat. § 24-15-10 (“trees or other forms of forest growth or debris”); Idaho, see Idaho Code § 6-1106 (2021) (same); and Montana, see Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-702 (2021) (stumps).[ 7]

Similarly, Colorado’s statute-as well as, for example, Utah’s, Idaho’s, and Montana’s-also includes changing snow conditions and levels as inherent risks. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-103; Mont. Code Ann. § 23-2-702; Utah Code § 78B-4-402; Idaho Code § 6-1106; see also Fleury v. IntraWest Winter Park Operations Corp., 372 P.3d 349, 351 (Colo. 2016) (holding an in-bounds avalanche qualifies as an inherent risk of skiing because it is a “changing condition” of snow). The depth of the snow in this case is as integral to the accident as the height of the stump. Any less snow, and the stump would have been visible; any more, and Standish would have passed over the top unharmed. Given that there are no genuine disputes of material facts in this case, holding that a snow-covered stump in an off-piste area is an inherent risk of alpine skiing comports with Wyoming Supreme Court precedent.

This conclusion aligns with both our precedent and public policy. In Cooperman, a Tenth Circuit panel considered whether a slipping saddle that was loosely cinched by the recreational provider is an inherent risk of horseback riding. See Cooperman, 214 F.3d at 1168. Cinching a saddle, explained the panel, “is done by hand, and not with scientific precision,” so “a provider must make a judgment call as to how tight or loose to cinch the saddle.” Id. “This imprecision in the cinching of the saddle is characteristic or typical of and therefore inherent in the sport of horseback riding.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The same is true for managing forests. Ski-area managers must make judgment calls about whether and how to cut a tree that has become a hazard. In winter, the height at which a tree is cut is as imprecise and judgment-based as cinching a saddle: it can be cut too tall or too short, and the risk of its being covered lightly with the next snow fall-or being exposed by snow melt-is characteristic of ever-changing mountain conditions at ski areas. So, too, in the summer: a tree could be cut at any height to mitigate a hazard, and a forest manager could decide to leave the stump remnant for a variety of reasons (e.g., impossibility of removal based on terrain, concerns about slope destabilization or damage, or ecological concerns about surrounding flora or fauna). Forest management, just as the saddle-cinching in Cooperman, is based on best practices-not exact practices-and the resulting risks are inherent to skiing in a forested ski area.

In a more recent case, this court held that encountering subsurface boulders-and the gaps between them-in an off-piste ski area in changing snow conditions is an inherent risk of skiing. See Roberts, 884 F.3d at 976. The panel in Roberts noted that a “critical distinction has emerged in the case law between a provider’s failure to control inherent risks (which is no longer actionable)[] and actions that affirmatively enhance existing risks (which remain actionable).” Id. at 975. Because subsurface boulders are an inherent risk of skiing in an off-piste area, and because Jackson Hole had done nothing to affirmatively enhance the existing risk of the boulders, the panel reasoned, the WRSA limited Jackson Hole’s liability, and summary judgment was appropriate. See id. at 977.

To reach this conclusion, the Roberts panel relied on Creel and Dunbar. See id. at 975-76. The outcomes in both Creel and Dunbar rest on the actions of the employees or agents of the recreational provider affirmatively enhancing existing risks. In Creel, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the danger of being struck with a golf ball is an inherent risk of attending a golf tournament-but the employee who encouraged the golfer to hit despite the golfer’s concern about spectators in the way affirmatively enhanced the existing risk of stray golf balls. See Creel, 287 P.3d at 739. In Dunbar, the Tenth Circuit panel concluded encountering a half-pipe in a terrain park is an inherent risk of skiing-but the “delphic statements” of the employee on how to safely exit the terrain park affirmatively enhanced the existing risks posed by the terrain park features. Dunbar v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 392 F.3d 1145, 1153 (10th Cir. 2004).

Not so here. Had a Jackson Hole employee represented to Standish that this particular run was groomed or free of obstacles, Jackson Hole might have created a jury question that the resort somehow enhanced the risk of an accident. See, e.g., Roberts, 884 F.3d at 976 (The plaintiff “was not directed to [the area where the accident occurred] by an employee offering ‘delphic statements’ about its safety; in fact advanced skiers in search of fresh untracked and unconsolidated powder are attracted to off-piste terrain . . . because it is ungroomed, untamed, and provided the types of natural obstacles that distinguish such runs from those frequented by less talented skiers.” (quoting Dunbar, 392 F.3d at 1153; emphasis in original)).

But there are no facts in this case to suggest anything of the sort. “[T]here is a difference between the consequences of conduct chosen by [the skier], and risks that are inherent to that choice.” Dunbar, 392 F.3d at 1151. Standish knew that unmarked obstacles could and would exist in this off-piste area, and he chose to proceed down this more-advanced run. Nor did Standish present any evidence that cutting the tree at this particular height affirmatively enhanced the risk or took it “outside the realm of inherent risk.” Creel, 287 P.3d at 737. What made the stump’s height hazardous was the snow level on January 11-and changing snow levels are undoubtedly an inherent risk of mountain recreation. Consequently, the district court properly found that Jackson Hole did not enhance the already-existing risk of the stump.

The outcome in Roberts further supports our decision here. In that case, Roberts’s expert-who had concluded that subsurface boulders were not an inherent risk of off-piste skiing-“put the cart before the horse” by faulting Jackson Hole for not placing warning signs above the area. Roberts, 884 F.3d at 976-77′. But this targeted the element of breach without establishing the existence of a duty in the first place. Id. at 977. Conclusory statements that the boulders that had caused Roberts’s injuries were not inherent risks of skiing were insufficient to preclude summary judgment. Id.

The same is true of the expert testimony Standish presents. As the district court noted, Standish’s expert addressed how Jackson Hole breached the duty it supposedly owed Standish by not removing the remnant stump. But a snow- covered stump is itself an inherent risk of alpine skiing, and the expert’s testimony does not address what action by Jackson Hole takes the stump “outside the realm of inherent risk.” Creel, 287 P.3d at 737. The expert’s claim that “[t]he act of removing the top part of the tree was an affirmative act by the Resort which created the risk encountered by Mr. Standish” is unavailing. Aplt. App. 33. If that were true, then every tree cut by Jackson Hole’s forest managers would present a non-inherent risk to skiing-depending on the snow level on a particular day. And the expert’s claim that Jackson Hole’s “failure to finish the job . . . substantially enhanced the risk created by the Resort” improperly imposes a duty on Jackson Hole to remove completely the stumps made by its forest management. Neither the Wyoming legislature nor any court has imposed such a duty on ski areas. And given the Wyoming Supreme Court’s express embrace of the inherent risks in Colorado’s statute, including stumps, the expert testimony fails to preclude summary judgment.[ 8]

This conclusion also aligns with public policy. To hold that Jackson Hole has a duty to cut trees to a particular level or to remove stumps entirely would disincentivize recreational managers from attempting to mitigate hazards for their guests. If a fallen tree in an off-piste area is an inherent hazard of skiing, and cutting it off below the break creates a non-inherent risk, a ski area manager might decide to simply leave the fallen tree so as not to potentially incur liability. The WRSA is meant to limit the liability of recreational providers so that they can, in their judgment, both manage and offer sometimes-risky recreational opportunities.

Moreover, the standard that would arise from the opposite conclusion here would be untenable. Suppose a tree falls in an off-piste ski area during the winter and needs to be cut. The tree is cut to just above the current snow level, 70 inches. For the next week, the snow melts, leaving about 10 inches of the stump exposed and clearly visible to skiers. But then 11 inches of fresh snow falls, just covering the exposed stump. To conclude that the ski area is then liable for a skier’s collision with that stump would expose the ski area to liability the WRSA is clearly meant to limit. In other words, to hold that the WRSA does not preclude liability in this case would impose a duty on ski areas to never allow a tree stump be the same height as the current level of the snow-even in off-piste areas. We decline to reach such a conclusion.

* * *

Standish’s accident was the result of an unfortunate confluence of a stump, an ungroomed run, and the spectacular snow levels of the previous days. The combination of these factors is an inherent risk of skiing, a sport as thrilling as it can be risky. And the WRSA reflects this by limiting the duty owed by an entity offering access to such a sport. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Jackson Hole on the basis of the WRSA.

B. Consideration of Inadmissible Facts

Standish also argues that, in evaluating the motion for summary judgment, the district court improperly considered facts that would be inadmissible before a jury. His argument is based on the district court’s discussion of the factual context of analogous and precedential cases-including, for example, Creel, Dunbar, Cooperman, and Roberts. See Aplt. Br. at 12-14.

While we review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Wright-Simmons v. City of Oklahoma City, 155 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 1998), we review a district court’s findings of law and entry of summary judgment de novo. See Roberts, 884 F.3d at 971. It is true that a district court may consider only admissible evidence from a record in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. See Johnson v. Weld Cty., Colo., 594 F.3d 1202, 1209 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is well settled in this circuit that we can consider only admissible evidence in reviewing an order granting summary judgment.” (quoting Wright-Simmons, 155 F.3d at 1268)).

But in discussing these cases, the district court here was not making an evidentiary ruling about whether the facts of cases like Creel and Cooperman would be presented to a jury at trial. Rather, it was making a determination of law. In discussing the facts of these analogous cases, the district court was engaging in classic legal analysis: comparing the facts of Standish’s case with the factual context of other inherent-risk cases under the WRSA. See, e.g., Aplt. App. 54 (discussing the facts of Roberts to evaluate Standish’s claims); Aplt. App. 58 (discussing Dunbar to determine Standish’s claim of risk-creation).

To have erred here, the district court would have had to consider facts about Standish ‘s case that were not in the record or would have been otherwise inadmissible before a jury. The district court did not do so, and we reject Standish’s argument.

III. Conclusion

Thomas Standish’s injuries from his accident were severe and painful. This case provides a somber reminder of skiing’s risks to those who enjoy the sport. But Wyoming law does not provide recourse against Jackson Hole for Standish’s accident. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s entry of summary judgment.

———

Notes:

[ 1] Though the numbers do not add up precisely, this fact is undisputed. The discrepancy may be due to the variance in measurements between lift-base depth and mid-mountain depth, as well as other environmental factors like wind.

[ 2] The district court came to this number by subtracting the height of the tree (78 inches) from the approximate depth of snow (80 inches). Neither party contests this finding on appeal.

[ 3] On July 1, 2017, Wyoming’s Ski Safety Act went into effect. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-123.2 (2020). This Act takes ski-area skiing out of the purview of the WRSA. In other words, now the Ski Safety Act, rather than the WRSA, sets out the statutory scheme for actions based on skiing at a ski area. But as the district court found, the parties in this case agree the Ski Safety Act is inapplicable to this case because the accident occurred before the law became effective.

[ 4] Though the WRSA is not limited to skiing, many of the precedential cases in this context are results of skiing accidents. Any reference in this opinion to skiing, as opposed to other recreational activities, is merely a reflection of this body of precedent and the particular facts of this case.

[ 5] Though Wyoming’s recent Ski Safety Act is not applicable to this case, see note 3, the Wyoming legislature, in passing the Act, has since provided a definition of “inherent risks” of skiing in a ski area. In doing so, Wyoming’s law now more closely resembles these analogous state statutes. The Ski Safety Act provides that “Inherent risk” with regard to skiing in a ski area means those dangers or conditions which are part of the sport of skiing, including: (A) Changing weather conditions; (B) Falling or surface snow conditions, whether natural or man-made, as they exist or change; (C) Surface or subsurface conditions including bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, trees or other natural objects; (D) Collisions or impacts with natural objects such as the objects specified in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph including encounters with wildlife; (E) Impact with ski lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes or other man-made structures and their components . . .; (F) Variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of ski trail or feature design, or snowmaking or grooming operations such as roads, freestyle terrain, jumps and catwalks or other terrain modifications; and (G) Collisions with other skiers.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-123.2 (2020) (emphasis added).

[ 6] While the other items in this list are all generally natural, the plain meaning of stump indicates a tree that has been cut. See, e.g., Stump, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stump (defining “stump” as “the part of a plant and especially a tree remaining attached to the root after the trunk is cut”); Stump, Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/view/ Entry/192144 (defining “stump” as “[t]he portion of the trunk of a felled tree that remains fixed in the ground; also, a standing tree-trunk from which the upper part and the branches have been cut or broken off). And the remainder of Colorado’s inherent-risks list includes man-made items, including “impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components,” and “terrain modifications.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-103(3.5).

[ 7] So, too, does Wyoming’s new Ski Safety Act, which went into effect about six months after Standish’s accident. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-123.2 (including “stumps” as inherent risks of skiing).

[ 8] Standish’s argument that the expert represented the views of at least “one reasonable person” and thus precluded summary judgment, is similarly unavailing. The reasonableness inquiry to determine whether something is an inherent risk of an activity requires, of course, consideration of the inherent risk itself. But, again, Standish’s expert does not discuss or espouse any non-conclusory opinion on the inherent risk of a subsurface stump in an off-piste area; rather, his conclusion is based on Jackson Hole’s failure to remove it. This merely assumes that such a stump is not an inherent risk. Further, the mere existence of a contrary expert opinion-particularly a conclusory expert opinion-does not preclude summary judgment. See Roberts, 884 F.3d at 977.

Risk Management in Action combined with the proof people assumed the risk.

Posted: March 8, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk | Tags: assumption of the risk, Crocodiles, Risk Management, Survivor, Television | Leave a comment

Survivor films and shows contestants being given warnings about crocodiles in Guatemala.

The article Find Out How ‘Survivor’ Production Prepared for a Wrongful Death Lawsuit reveals that during the filming of Survivor Guatemala, the contestants were cavalier about the native crocodiles. Fearing for the safety of the contestants and the resulting outcry if a contestant was eaten survivor gathered the contestants together and filmed them being warned about the crocodiles.

The only non-contestant ever seen on the show is the producer and host Jeff Probst. However, for this segment, they brought in and filmed a crocodile expert who explained to the contestants the danger’s crocodiles posed.

For more on the issue or Survivor Guatemala see:

Find Out How ‘Survivor’ Production Prepared For a Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Survivor Quarantine Questionnaire: Brooke Struck on surviving crocodile attacks in Guatemala

“Previously on Survivor” – Season 11 – Survivor: Guatemala — The Maya Empire

Do Something

Quite Interesting to see how real life intersects with entertainment and how it is handled.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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