Wolfe v. AmeriCheer, Inc., 2012 Ohio 941; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 827

Posted: June 11, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: #Cheerleading, #OH, Minor, Ohio, Release, Summary judgment | Leave a comment

Wolfe v. AmeriCheer, Inc., 2012 Ohio 941; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 827

Lindsay M. Wolfe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AmeriCheer, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11AP-550

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY

2012 Ohio 941; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 827

March 8, 2012, Rendered

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. (C.P.C. No. 10CVH-05-7045).

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL: Plevin & Gallucci Co., LPA, Michael D. Shroge, and Frank L. Gallucci, III, for appellant.

Reminger Co., L.P.A., Martin T. Galvin and Rafael P. McLaughlin, for appellee.

JUDGES: TYACK, J. BROWN, P.J., and DORRIAN, J., concur.

OPINION BY: TYACK

OPINION

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

DECISION

TYACK, J.

[*P1] Plaintiff-appellant, Lindsay M. Wolfe, was seriously injured while competing in a cheerleading event. She appeals from the May 24, 2011 decision and entry granting defendant-appellee AmeriCheer, Inc.’s (“AmeriCheer”) motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

[*P2] Lindsay M. Wolfe, then 13 years old, participated in a cheerleading competition on February 2, 2003 at the Columbus Convention Center. Americheer sponsored the competition known as the 2003 Winter Championship. As a prerequisite to Lindsay being allowed to participate in the competition, Lindsay’s mother, Barbara Wolfe, signed a “Medical Treatment Authorization and Release of Liability” before the competition. The release contained, in pertinent part, the following language:

I further release AmeriCheer and its representatives from any claims for injury [**2] or illness that may be sustained as a result of their participation in this event. I acknowledge and understand that in participating in this event, there is the possibility they may sustain physical illness or injury in connection with his or her participation. I further understand and acknowledge that my daughter [or] [son] and I assume the full risk of physical injury by their participation and I further release the event location, AmeriCheer, Inc., as well as it’s [sic] representatives, from any claims for personal injury, [or] illness that they may sustain during camp.

[*P3] Lindsay was a member of the Xtreme Team Athletics All-Star Cheer & Dance, a private all-star cheerleading team. Xtreme team members trained and competed in a style of cheerleading characterized by gymnastic-type stunts. At the time of her injury, Lindsay was acting as a “base” who, along with others, supported and lifted another cheerleader, the “flyer,” into the air. At a point in the routine where Lindsay had assisted in raising the flyer, the flyer slipped or lost her balance and fell, landing on Lindsay. Lindsay sustained a T8 spinal compression fracture as a result of the fall.

[*P4] Teams use spotters when cheerleaders [**3] are learning new skills, practicing, or performing stunts in which one or more cheerleaders are elevated above the floor. The spotters are there to catch a cheerleader in case of a fall. AmeriCheer provided the spotters used for the 2003 Winter Championship. In her complaint, Lindsay alleged that:

[D]ue to the wreckless [sic], wanton and complete disregard for the safety of Plaintiff, Defendant failed to provide the proper spotters and coaching, as a result Plaintiff was caused to sustain severe and permanent injuries to her person when her team members fell onto her person.

(Complaint, at ¶ 3.)

[*P5] AmeriCheer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the release signed by Lindsay’s mother barred any negligence claims. Additionally, AmeriCheer argued that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk also acted to bar Lindsay’s claims.

[*P6] Lindsay responded that the spotters’ failure to be properly positioned and failure to move in when the team started the stunt constituted reckless and wanton disregard for Lindsay’s safety, not mere negligence. Therefore, she argued there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the conduct of the spotters was wanton or reckless.

[*P7] The trial [**4] court found that the release signed by Barbara Wolfe on behalf of her daughter was valid, and therefore, the trial court concluded that Lindsay was precluded, by operation of the lease, from bringing any negligence claims against AmeriCheer related to her injuries. The court also agreed with AmeriCheer that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk precluded the negligence claims. Lindsay has not challenged those issues on appeal.

[*P8] The trial court then considered whether there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning the issue of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. The court found that Lindsay had failed to present evidence that satisfied the threshold required for a showing of wanton or reckless conduct.

[*P9] On appeal, Lindsay assigns the following as error:

I. The trial court erred in granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because material facts of willful, wanton or reckless conduct exist, placing that issue in dispute for a jury to determine.

II. The trial court erred in concluding that Plaintiff set forth no facts other than those alleged by Plaintiff herself. The trial court’s own Order citing statements garnered from the deposition testimony of Defendant’s President [**5] and CEO clearly establishe a question of fact for which a jury is to determine.

[*P10] At the outset, we address the issue of the deposition testimony of Elizabeth Rossetti, the president and CEO of AmeriCheer. Ms. Rossetti’s deposition was not filed with the court of common pleas. AmeriCheer attached a few pages of excerpts from Ms. Rossetti’s deposition as an exhibit to its reply in support of summary judgment, but the deposition itself was never filed with the court of common pleas. Only the following three depositions were made part of the record: 1) Lindsay Wolfe’s deposition taken on Friday, October 10, 2008; 2) Barbara Wolfe’s deposition taken on December 9, 2008; and 3) Lindsay Wolfe’s second deposition taken on March 15, 2011. A copy of Ms. Rossetti’s entire deposition was attached as part of AmeriCheer’s appendix to its appellate brief. However, since the complete deposition was not made part of the record, we will not consider the entirety of Ms. Rossetti’s deposition.

[*P11] Nevertheless, both parties and the trial court relied on the excerpts of Ms. Rossetti’s deposition without objection in the summary judgment proceedings. The trial court could and did rely on those representations [**6] when it quoted some of Ms. Rossetti’s testimony. Sicard v. Univ. of Dayton, 104 Ohio App.3d 27, 30, 660 N.E.2d 1241 (2d Dist.1995), fn. 1. [HN1] “A trial court, however, can consider non-complying documents in adjudicating a summary judgment motion when no objection to the documents is raised.” New Falls Corp. v. Russell-Seitz, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-397, 2008 Ohio 6514, ¶ 12. “Absent an objection, a trial court has the discretion to consider unauthenticated documents when rendering summary judgment.” Columbus v. Bahgat, 10th Dist. No 10AP-943, 2011 Ohio 3315, ¶ 16. Accordingly, we shall consider the deposition excerpts as well since both parties argue that Ms. Rossetti’s deposition supports their respective arguments.

[*P12] Lindsay’s assignments of error challenge the trial court’s ruling on AmeriCheer’s motion for summary judgment. We [HN2] review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41, 654 N.E.2d 1327 (9th Dist.1995). [HN3] Summary judgment is proper only when the party moving for summary judgment demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion, [**7] and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, when the evidence is construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Civ.R 56(C); State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St. 3d 181, 1997 Ohio 221, 677 N.E.2d 343 (1997).

[*P13] [HN4] Under summary judgment motion practice, the moving party bears an initial burden to inform the trial court of the basis for its motion and to point to portions of the record that indicate that there are no genuine issues of material fact on a material element of the non-moving party’s claim. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996 Ohio 107, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Id. Additionally, a moving party cannot discharge its burden under Civ.R. 56 simply by making conclusory assertions that the non-moving party has no evidence to prove its case. Id. Rather, the moving party must point to some evidence that affirmatively demonstrates that the non-moving party has no evidence to support his or her claims. Id. “Permitting a nonmoving party to avoid summary judgment by asserting nothing more than ‘bald contradictions [**8] of the evidence offered by the moving party’ would necessarily abrogate the utility of the summary judgment exercise. C.R. Withem Enterprises v. Maley, 5th dist. No. 01 CA 54, 2002 Ohio 5056, at ¶24. Courts would be unable to use Civ.R. 56 as a means of assessing the merits of a claim at an early stage of the litigation and unnecessary dilate the civil process.” Greaney v. Ohio Turnpike Comm., 11th Dist. No. 2005-P-0012, 2005 Ohio 5284, ¶ 16. Bearing this standard in mind, we shall address the two assignments of error as one.

[*P14] Because of the release signed by Lindsay’s mother and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, Lindsay is precluded from bringing a negligence action against AmeriCheer. [HN5] Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff voluntarily engaged in a recreational activity assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained while engaging in that activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries. Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699 (1990), syllabus; Crace v. Kent State Univ., 185 Ohio App.3d 534, 2009 Ohio 6898, ¶ 13, 924 N.E.2d 906 (10th Dist.).

[*P15] In Crace, this court found that the doctrine [**9] of primary assumption of risk barred a negligence claim against a university in connection with a cheerleading injury. Crace, the captain of the Kent State University varsity cheerleading team, was the flyer during a human pyramid stunt. The first two attempts failed, and both times Crace fell from around 15 feet in the air where the spotter at the front of the formation caught her. On the third attempt the stunt failed again. When Crace came down for the third time, the spotter behind her panicked, shielded his eyes and moved out of the way. As a result, Crace’s fall was unbroken, and caused catastrophic injuries. Id. at ¶ 7.

[*P16] As was the case with Crace, Lindsay can only proceed with her personal injury claims if AmeriCheer acted willfully, wantonly, or recklessly. The issue is whether Lindsay has set forth competent evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

[*P17] [HN6] Ordinarily, the issue of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct is a question for the jury. Matkovitch v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 69 Ohio St. 2d 210, 214, 431 N.E.2d 652 (1982). In order to find wanton misconduct, there must be a failure to exercise any care whatsoever by one who [**10] owes a duty of care to another, and the failure must occur under circumstances where there is a great probability that harm will result from the lack of care. Hawkins v. Ivy, 50 Ohio St.2d 114, 363 N.E.2d 367 (1977). By way of contrast, the term “negligence” is synonymous with heedlessness, thoughtlessness, inattention, inadvertence, and oversight, and conveys the idea of inadvertence as distinguished from premeditated or formed intention, or a conscious purpose to do a wrong act or to omit the performance of a duty. Tighe v. Diamond, 149 Ohio St. 520, 525, 80 N.E.2d 122 (1948). Negligence is not converted into wanton misconduct unless the evidence establishes a disposition to perversity on the part of the tortfeasor. Roszman v. Sammett, 26 Ohio St.2d 94, 96-97, 269 N.E.2d 420, (1971), paragraph two of the syllabus. Evidence of a disposition to perversity may be shown by acts of stubbornness, obstinacy, or persistency in opposing that which is right, reasonable, correct, or generally accepted as a course to follow in protecting the safety of others. Id.

[*P18] [HN7] Reckless disregard for the safety of another occurs if one does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know [**11] of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent. Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 104-05, 559 N.E.2d 705 (1990).

[*P19] “What constitutes an unreasonable risk under the circumstances of a sporting event must be delineated with reference to the way the particular game is played, i.e., the rules and customs that shape the participants’ ideas of foreseeable conduct in the course of a game.” Id.

[*P20] Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Lindsay has set forth evidence that two of the three spotters provided by AmeriCheer were not in the positions they should have been at the time of the injury. Whether those actions or inactions create a factual issue as to wanton or reckless misconduct must be determined by applying the evidence to the standards for wanton or reckless disregard for safety. Only one of the spotters was on the mat during the formation of the stunt. The videotape of the competition was not made part of the record, and therefore it is not possible to determine the exact [**12] placement of the spotters during Lindsay’s routine. All that is known is that at least one spotter was standing on the edge of the mat, and two others were observing in the back. (Barbara Wolfe Depo., at 36.) According to Ms. Rossetti’s testimony while watching the video, the middle spotter was moving forward as the team was preparing to execute the mount. Barbara Wolfe estimated the spotters were at the edge of the mat approximately six to eight feet from the cheerleaders. (Barbara Wolfe Depo., at 72.) Lindsay estimated the spotters were 25 feet from where the cheerleaders were forming the stunt. (Lindsay Wolfe Depo., at 165.)

[*P21] Ms. Rossetti testified that spotters were not even necessary at AmeriCheer competitions, but were there to provide additional lines of safety and to help prevent injuries if they were able to do so. (Elizabeth Rossetti Depo., at 17.) When the cheerleaders are about to perform a stunt like the one in which Lindsay was injured, Ms. Rossetti said: “They should be present, near the – – on the mat. If they’re on the mat, they’re close enough to be at a given particular time, if they’re needed.” When asked where on the mat they should be positioned, Ms. Rossetti answered: [**13] “Well, it depends on the routine. It’s hard to point out. But there’s no – – again, it’s judgment on their part. It’s not trained; it’s learned. It’s judgment. If they feel that they can be there or they’re there, then it’s their judgment to make that call. * * * It’s not my judgment to make that call. * * * It’s their judgment to be on the mat and provide an additional level of safety, yes.” (Elizabeth Rossetti Depo, at 52.)

[*P22] In Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 292, the Supreme Court of Ohio explicitly stated that [HN8] when a court receives a properly presented motion for summary judgment, a non-moving party may not rely upon the mere allegations of its complaint, but, instead, must demonstrate that a material issue of fact exists by directing the court’s attention to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. Here, Lindsay has failed to cite to facts that support her contention. For example, Lindsay argues that there was a great probability that harm would result from lack of care. She claims that the spotters’ failure to move in when Lindsay’s team began the stunt is a perverse act and conscious disregard of their duty to provide safety. These types of statements add nothing [**14] to the analysis required by a court in addressing a motion for summary judgment.

[*P23] There is no evidence in the record that supports these assertions. Cheerleading carries inherent risks to those participants engaging in stunts of the kind performed at the Winter Championship. (Barbara Wolfe Depo., at 36; see Crace at ¶ 34, 35.) There was no evidence that in 2003 there were standards for spotters or even how many spotters were needed. (Elizabeth Rossetti Depo., at 17, 60.) The only evidence put forth was testimony that two of the spotters were not standing on the mat. Ms. Rossetti watched the video during her deposition, and testified that one spotter was moving in. (Elizabeth Rossetti Depo., at 90.) There was no testimony that the spotters had a duty to move closer when the team began the stunt apart from Lindsay’s observation that at every competition she attended the spotters would walk up. (Lindsay Wolfe Depo., at 66-67.) Lindsay claims that when the cheerleaders were practicing or learning stunts that the coaches stood on the mat and spotted for them. While for summary judgment purposes this statement is taken as true, it is somewhat of a red herring. Ms. Rossetti testified that, [**15] at camp, the spotters can be close by, but, in a competition, they cannot always be on top of them because they will interfere with something else going on. (Elizabeth Rossetti Depo., at 91.) Lindsay also testified that the coaches spotted them during practices. She then stated: “Once we were comfortable with, you know, and they were comfortable with us doing it, yes, they would like stand on the edge of the mat and watch.” (Lindsay Wolfe Depo., at 66.) Taken at face value, by the time a team is ready to perform the routine in competition, the coaches, who formerly spotted, would stand at the edge of the mat. Thus, the evidence suggests the spotters were properly positioned. Even if, as Lindsay testified, the spotters should have moved closer in preparation for the stunt, at least one of them did. These facts do not demonstrate a disposition to perversity on the part of the spotters or a failure to exercise any care whatsoever. Therefore, an issue as to whether the spotters’ conduct was wanton does not exist.

[*P24] Similarly, evidence regarding reckless misconduct is lacking. As stated above, in order to show reckless misconduct, one must act or intentionally fail to act when it is his duty [**16] to the other to do so, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent. Thompson, 53 Ohio St.3d at 104-05.

[*P25] The [**17] unrefuted evidence is that in 2003 AmeriCheer was under no duty to provide spotters at its competitions, but did provide them to create an additional layer of safety. There was testimony that the spotters were, themselves, trained cheerleaders from AmeriCheer’s summer camp. There was no evidence that AmeriCheer inadequately trained its spotters. According to Lindsay, the spotters were in a location where coaches would stand after they were comfortable with how the cheerleaders were performing the routine. Lindsay testified that she had no opportunity to catch the flyer as she was falling. Lindsay’s mother believed that if the spotters had been doing their job the accident probably would not have been as severe or have happened. She also acknowledged that it was possible that the spotter could have been right there and not have been able to stop the accident.

[*P26] There is no evidence that the spotters themselves recognized any facts that would lead them to believe that their conduct could or did create an unreasonable risk of harm to another. There was no evidence at all from the spotters at the event. At best, their actions could be considered negligent. Therefore, Lindsay has failed to [**18] establish a genuine issue of material fact with regard to recklessness.

[*P27] The first assignment of error is overruled. The second assignment of error is also overruled since all parties relied on the deposition testimony of Ms. Rossetti and, as discussed above, it was not error for the trial court to rely on the excerpts. Since our review is de novo and we considered all the evidence that was in the record, there was no error.

[*P28] It is unfortunate that Lindsay was seriously injured at the competition, and we realize that, because of the accident, she has suffered a great deal. But there was no evidence of recklessness or wantonness that renders AmeriCheer liable for damages.

[*P29] Accordingly, appellant’s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

BROWN, P.J., and DORRIAN, J., concur.

Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998)

Posted: June 11, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Ohio, Sports | Tags: #Soccer, #Zivich, Minor, Ohio, Release, Supreme Court of Ohio | Leave a comment

Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998)

696 N.E.2d 201

ZIVICH ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MENTOR SOCCER CLUB, INC., APPELLEE, ET AL.

No. 97-1128

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 21, 1998 –

Decided June 29, 1998.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 95-L-184.

In May 1993, appellant Pamela Zivich registered her seven-year-old son, appellant Bryan Zivich, for soccer with Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (“Club”), appellee, for the 1993-1994 season. The Club is a nonprofit organization that provides children in the greater Mentor area with the opportunity to learn and play soccer. The Club is primarily composed of parents and other volunteers who provide their time and talents to help fulfill the Club’s mission. The Club’s registration form, signed by Mrs. Zivich, contained the following language:

“Recognizing the possibility of physical injury associated with soccer and for the Mentor Soccer Club, and the USYSA [United States Youth Soccer Association] accepting the registrant for its soccer programs and activities, I hereby release, discharge and/or otherwise indemnify the Mentor Soccer Club and the USYSA, its affiliated organizations and sponsors, their employees, and associated personnel, including the owners of the fields and facilities utilized by the Soccer Club, against any claim by or on behalf of the registrant as a result of the registrant’s participation in the Soccer Club * * *.”

On October 7, 1993, Bryan attended soccer practice. During practice, the boys participated in an intrasquad scrimmage. Bryan’s team won. After the scrimmage, Bryan ran to his father, who was standing on the sidelines and talking with the coach. Excited about the win, Bryan, unsupervised, jumped on the goal and swung back and forth on it. The goal, which was not anchored down, tipped backward. Bryan fell, and the goal came down on his chest, breaking three of his ribs and collarbone, and severely bruising his lungs.

In January 1995, Bryan’s parents, Philip and Pamela Zivich, appellants, sued the Club[fn1] for injuries sustained by Bryan. The complaint alleged negligence and reckless misconduct.[fn2] The Club moved for summary judgment on the ground that the release executed by Bryan’s mother barred the claims. The trial court agreed and granted the Club’s summary judgment motion.

The court of appeals affirmed, albeit partly on different grounds. In Judge Nader’s majority opinion, in which Judge Christley “reluctantly” joined, he said that the exculpatory agreement was effective against Mr. and Mrs. Zivich, but not against Bryan. Thus, while the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment, Bryan still had a cause of action which a guardian could bring on his behalf or which he could assert once he gained the age of majority. Judge Nader acknowledged the public policy in favor of enforcing the agreement against Bryan, but found that that decision was best left to the General Assembly or this court. Additionally, Judge Nader’s majority opinion found no evidence to support the willful and wanton misconduct claim. Concurring in the result only, Judge Ford opined that the public policy of Ohio favors enforcement of the agreement against Bryan as well as his parents. Judge Christley “wholehearted[ly] endorse[d]” the policy advocated by Judge Ford, but agreed with Judge Nader that the issue should be resolved by the General Assembly or this court.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a discretionary appeal.

[fn1] Appellants also sued the city of Mentor, which owned the park where practice was held. The city settled with appellants, and this court dismissed it from the lawsuit in December 1997. 80 Ohio St.3d 1474, 687 N.E.2d 471.

[fn2] Other claims were asserted, but they are not at issue here.

Svete, McGee & Carrabine Co., L.P.A., and James W. Reardon, for appellants.

Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., George S. Coakley, Laura M. Sullivan and Brian D. Sullivan, for appellee.

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.

We are asked to decide whether the exculpatory agreement[fn3] executed by Mrs. Zivich on behalf of her minor son released the Club from liability for the minor child’s claims and the parents’ claims as a matter of law. We find that the exculpatory agreement is valid as to all claims. Summary judgment was appropriately entered in the Club’s favor. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

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. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196, 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 (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264, 273-274.

Appellants argue that since practice had concluded, the injury occurred outside the scope of the exculpatory agreement. We find this contention meritless. We quote, with approval, Judge Nader’s majority opinion rejecting this argument: “It should not come as any great surprise for a parent to learn that, during a period of inactivity at a soccer practice, his or her child fiddled with loose equipment, climbed on nearby bleachers, or scaled the goal. It should be equally clear that coaches supervising the practices will not be able to completely prevent such unauthorized activity, as some degree of bedlam is unavoidable, when children of tender years are brought together to play a game, and when their emotions are aroused. The risk of a seven[-]year[-]old child climbing on a goal shortly after winning an intrasquad scrimmage is, therefore, a natural incident of his participation in soccer practice. Thus, Bryan’s injuries fall within the ambit of the release.”

We next consider whether the release is valid. With respect to adult participants, the general rule is that releases from liability for injuries caused by negligent acts arising in the context of recreational activities are enforceable. Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 90, 585 N.E.2d 384, 390; Simmons v. Am. Motorcyclist Assn., Inc. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 844, 846, 591 N.E.2d 1322, 1324; Cain v. Cleveland Parachute Training Ctr. (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 27, 9 OBR 28, 457 N.E.2d 1185. These holdings recognize the importance of individual autonomy and freedom of contract. Here, however, the exculpatory agreement was executed by a parent on behalf of the minor child.

Appellants contend that the release is invalid on public policy grounds. In support of their argument, they refer to the general principle that contracts entered into by a minor, unless for “necessaries,” are voidable by the minor, once the age of majority is reached, or shortly thereafter. Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts (1979), Sections 7, 12, and 14, and Comment f to Section 12. Appellants urge us to apply the seminal case of Wagenblast v. Odessa School Dist. No. 105-157-166J (1988), 110 Wn.2d 845, 851-852, 758 P.2d 968, 971, where the Washington Supreme Court relied upon Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of California (1963), 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, and set forth a six-part test to determine whether a particular release violates public policy. The Club, however, argues that the proper focus is not whether the release violates public policy but rather that public policy itself justifies the enforcement of this agreement. This is also the position advocated by Judge Ford in his concurring opinion. We agree with the Club and Judge Ford.[fn4]

The General Assembly has enacted statutes designed to encourage landowners to open their land to public use for recreational activities without fear of liability. Moss v. Dept. of Natural Resources (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 138, 142, 16 O.O.3d 161, 164, 404 N.E.2d 742, 745. See R.C. 1533.18 and 1533.181, which together provide that private entities that hold land open for recreational use without charge are immune from tort liability for any injury caused by a recreational user. Then, in 1996, R.C. 2305.381 and 2305.382 [fn5] were enacted, effective January 27, 1997. Together, these statutes accord qualified immunity to unpaid athletic coaches and sponsors of athletic events. Hence, the General Assembly has articulated its intent of encouraging the sponsorship of sports activities and protecting volunteers. However, R.C. 2305.381 and 2305.382 were enacted after this cause of action arose. Thus, our role is to render a decision that fills the gap left open before the effective date of the statutory enactments.

It cannot be disputed that volunteers in community recreational activities serve an important function. Organized recreational activities offer children the opportunity to learn valuable life skills. It is here that many children learn how to work as a team and how to operate within an organizational structure. Children also are given the chance to exercise and develop coordination skills. Due in great part to the assistance of volunteers, nonprofit organizations are able to offer these activities at minimal cost. In fact, the American Youth Soccer Organization pays only nineteen of its four hundred thousand staff members. The Little League pays only seventy of its 2.5 million members. See King, Exculpatory Agreements for Volunteers in Youth Activities – The Alternative to “Nerf” Tiddlywinks (1992), 53 Ohio St.L.J. 683, 759, fns. 208 and 209. Clearly, without the work of its volunteers, these nonprofit organizations could not exist, and scores of children would be without the benefit and enjoyment of organized sports. Yet the threat of liability strongly deters many individuals from volunteering for nonprofit organizations. Developments in the Law – Nonprofit Corporations – Special Treatment and Tort Law (1992), 105 Harv.L.Rev. 1667, 1682. Insurance for the organizations is not the answer, because individual volunteers may still find themselves potentially liable when an injury occurs. Markoff, Liability Threat Looms: A Volunteer’s Thankless Task (Sept. 19, 1988), 11 Natl.L.J. 1, 40. Thus, although volunteers offer their services without receiving any financial return, they place their personal assets at risk. See Developments, supra, 105 Harv.L.Rev. at 1692.

Therefore, faced with the very real threat of a lawsuit, and the potential for substantial damage awards, nonprofit organizations and their volunteers could very well decide that the risks are not worth the effort. Hence, invalidation of exculpatory agreements would reduce the number of activities made possible through the uncompensated services of volunteers and their sponsoring organizations.

Therefore, we conclude that although Bryan, like many children before him, gave up his right to sue for the negligent acts of others, the public as a whole received the benefit of these exculpatory agreements. Because of this agreement, the Club was able to offer affordable recreation and to continue to do so without the risks and overwhelming costs of litigation. Bryan’s parents agreed to shoulder the risk. Public policy does not forbid such an agreement. In fact, public policy supports it. See Hohe v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (1990), 224 Cal.App.3d 1559, 1564, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647, 649. Accordingly, we believe that public policy justifies giving parents authority to enter into these types of binding agreements on behalf of their minor children. We also believe that the enforcement of these agreements may well promote more active involvement by participants and their families, which, in turn, promotes the overall quality and safety of these activities. See King, supra, 53 Ohio St. L.J. at 709.

Another related concern is the importance of parental authority. Judge Ford’s concurring opinion also embraces this notion. Citing In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 96, 6 O.O.3d 293, 296-297, 369 N.E.2d 1047, 1051, fn. 9; In re Murray (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169, 1171; and State ex rel. Heller v. Miller (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 6, 8, 15 O.O.3d 3, 4-5, 399 N.E.2d 66, 67, Judge Ford found that the right of a parent to raise his or her child is a natural right subject to the protections of due process. Additionally, parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their offspring. Further, the existence of a fundamental, privacy-oriented right of personal choice in family matters has been recognized under the Due Process Clause by the United States Supreme Court. See Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042; Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599.

Based upon these protections, Judge Ford believes that many decisions made by parents “fall within the penumbra of parental authority, e.g., the school that the child will attend, the religion that the child will practice, the medical care that the child will receive, and the manner in which the child will be disciplined.” He found it notable that the law empowers a parent to consent to medical procedures for a minor child (R.C. 2317.54[C]), gives a parent the general authority to decide to decline medical treatment for the child, and destroys the child’s cause of action for battery when consent is given. See Lacey v. Laird (1956), 166 Ohio St. 12, 19, 1 O.O.2d 158, 161, 139 N.E.2d 25, 30 (Hart, J., concurring). Thus, Judge Ford believes that invalidating the release as to the minor’s claim is inconsistent with conferring other powers on parents to make important life choices for their children.

Nor is it appropriate to equate a preinjury release with a postinjury release. As one commentator aptly explains:

“The concerns underlying the judiciary’s reluctance to allow parents to dispose of a child’s existing claim do not arise in the situation where a parent waives a child’s future claim. A parent dealing with an existing claim is simultaneously coping with an injured child; such a situation creates a potential for parental action contrary to that child’s ultimate best interests.

“A parent who signs a release before her child participates in a recreational activity, however, faces an entirely different situation. First, such a parent has no financial motivation to sign the release. To the contrary, because a parent must pay for medical care, she risks her financial interests by signing away the right to recover damages. Thus, the parent would better serve her financial interests by refusing to sign the release.

“A parent who dishonestly or maliciously signs a preinjury release in deliberate derogation of his child’s best interests also seems unlikely. Presumably parents sign future releases to enable their children to participate in activities that the parents and children believe will be fun or educational. Common sense suggests that while a parent might misjudge or act carelessly in signing a release, he would have no reason to sign with malice aforethought.

“Moreover, parents are less vulnerable to coercion and fraud in a preinjury setting. A parent who contemplates signing a release as a prerequisite to her child’s participation in some activity faces none of the emotional trauma and financial pressures that may arise with an existing claim. That parent has time to examine the release, consider its terms, and explore possible alternatives. A parent signing a future release is thus more able to reasonably assess the possible consequences of waiving the right to sue.” Purdy, Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort: Erroneously Invalidating Parental Releases of a Minor’s Future Claim (1993), 68 Wn.L.Rev. 457, 474.

These comments were made in a law review article criticizing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Pacific W. Mountain Resort (1992), 119 Wn.2d 484, 834 P.2d 6. In that case, the court found that a release, signed by the mother so that her son could take ski-racing lessons, was invalid as to the minor’s claim. In Scott, the court had reasoned that it made no sense to treat a child’s preinjury and postinjury property rights differently. Id. at 494, 834 P.2d at 11-12. The article criticized this decision, noting that when the mother signed the release, she gave her son the opportunity to ski. She gained no financial advantage for herself, nor did she suffer from fraud or collusion. She was under no financial or emotional pressure when she signed. The article states that “while she may have misjudged the risk to her son, Mrs. Scott did not mismanage or misappropriate Justin’s property. She did her best to protect Justin’s interests, and the court need not step in to do so.” Id., 68 Wn.L.Rev. at 474-475.

We agree with Judge Ford’s concurring opinion and the reasoning contained in the foregoing law review article. When Mrs. Zivich signed the release she did so because she wanted Bryan to play soccer. She made an important family decision and she assumed the risk of physical injury on behalf of her child and the financial risk on behalf of the family as a whole. Thus, her decision to release a volunteer on behalf of her child simply shifted the cost of injury to the parents. Apparently, she made a decision that the benefits to her child outweighed the risk of physical injury. Mrs. Zivich did her best to protect Bryan’s interests and we will not disturb her judgment. In fact, the situation is more analogous to Ohio’s informed consent law than to the law governing children’s property rights. See R.C. 2317.54(C), which gives parents the authority to consent to medical procedures on a child’s behalf. In both cases, the parent weighs the risks of physical injury to the child and the attendant costs to herself against the benefits of a particular activity.

Therefore, we hold that parents have the authority to bind their minor children to exculpatory agreements in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit sport activities where the cause of action sounds in negligence. These agreements may not be disaffirmed by the child on whose behalf they were executed.

Having upheld the release agreement against Bryan’s claims, we find it also valid as to Mr. and Mrs. Zivich’s claims for loss of consortium. Mrs. Zivich, the signatory on the agreement, acknowledged that she had read its contents and did not ask any questions about them. Parents may release their own claims growing out of injury to their minor children. See, e.g., Simmons v. Parkette Natl. Gymnastic Training Ctr. (E.D.Pa. 1987), 670 F. Supp. 140, 142; Childress v. Madison Cty. (Tenn.App. 1989), 777 S.W.2d 1, 6; Scott, supra, 119 Wn.2d 484, 834 P.2d 6. We adopt this rule of law, finding it consistent with principles of freedom of contract. Thus, we hold that parents may release their own claims arising out of the injury to their minor children. Accordingly, we find that Mrs. Zivich is barred from recovery as to her claims.

We further find that Philip Zivich’s[fn6] loss of consortium claim is also barred as a matter of law. Although Mr. Zivich did not personally sign the release agreement, he accepted and enjoyed the benefits of the contract. In fact, when the injury occurred, Mr. Zivich was the parent who was at the practice field that evening. Thus, Mr. Zivich’s conduct conveys an intention to enjoy the benefits of his wife’s agreement and be bound by it. Under the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence, Mr. Zivich may not assert his rights against the Club. Natl. Football League v. Rondor, Inc. (N.D.Ohio 1993), 840 F. Supp. 1160, 1167.

As a separate ground for recovery, appellants also contend that the injury was caused by the Club’s willful and wanton misconduct. In McKinney v. Hartz & Restle Realtors, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 244, 246, 31 OBR 449, 451, 510 N.E.2d 386, 388-389, this court defined “willful” misconduct as conduct involving “`an intent, purpose or design to injure.'” Id., quoting Denzer v. Terpstra (1934), 129 Ohio St. 1, 1 O.O. 303, 193 N.E. 647, paragraph two of the syllabus. “Wanton” misconduct was defined as conduct where one “`fails to exercise any care whatsoever toward those to whom he owes a duty of care, and [t]his failure occurs under circumstances in which there is a great probability that harm will result.'” McKinney, 31 Ohio St.3d at 246, 31 OBR at 451, 510 N.E.2d at 388-389, quoting Hawkins v. Ivy (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 114, 4 O.O.3d 243, 363 N.E.2d 367, syllabus. We have held that while a participant in recreational activities can contract with the proprietor to relieve the proprietor from any damages or injuries he may negligently cause, the release is invalid as to willful and wanton misconduct. Bowen, supra, 63 Ohio St. 3d at 90, 585 N.E.2d at 390.

To support this claim, appellants assert that the Club’s former president, David Bolsen, attended a seminar just before his term of office ended. It was at the seminar that he learned of the need to anchor the goals and to post warning labels on them. Bolsen testified that because his term expired two weeks later, he had time to relay the information only to a few persons. However, no action was taken to secure the goals.

Appellants argue that Bolsen’s failure to take more affirmative steps to ensure that the Club and the city implemented the safety recommendations amounts to willful and wanton misconduct. Like the court of appeals, we reject this argument.

There is no evidence that the former president intended that Bryan should be injured. Nor did the former president utterly fail to exercise any care whatsoever. Even accepting as true the appellants’ claim that club officials knew about the safety problems but failed to act, this action does not amount to willful and wanton misconduct. As noted by the appellate court, “Park officials testified that the City never had anchored the goals in the past, and, apparently, of the thousands of young boys and girls playing soccer in the youth league throughout the years, no other child had been injured in this manner.” Thus, reasonable minds could not conclude that the risk posed by the unanchored goal was so great as to require immediate remedial action.

Moreover, the evidence established that the city, not the Club, was responsible for the upkeep of the soccer fields and the purchase, storage, maintenance, and placement of the soccer goals.

We find that appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence to present a jury question on the claim of willful and wanton misconduct.

Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment, albeit on somewhat different grounds. We uphold its decision that the release is valid as to the parents’ claims. However, we hold that the release is also valid as to the minor child’s claim.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in judgment only.

[fn3] The words “release,” “waiver” and “exculpatory agreement” have been used interchangeably by the courts. These defenses are based on contract principles. “Exculpatory agreements, also called `releases’ or `waivers,’ are basically written documents in which one party agrees to release, or `exculpate,’ another from potential tort liability for future conduct covered in the agreement.” King, Exculpatory Agreements for Volunteers in Youth Activities – The Alternative to “Nerf” Tiddlywinks (1992), 53 Ohio St. L.J. 683.

[fn4] The majority opinion stated that an intermediate appellate court was not the appropriate forum to decide public policy. However, in a common-law system, a judicial decision declaring the rights of the parties can be based on several grounds, one of which is public policy. Hopkins, Public Policy and the Formation of a Rule of Law (1971), 37 Brooklyn L.Rev. 323, 330. Therefore, public policy is an appropriate device to be used by an appellate court to decide a case.

[fn5] Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3867, 3931. Our statutory law is in line with the many “volunteer statutes” passed by other states. See McCaskey and Biedzynski, A Guide to the Legal Liability of Coaches for a Sports Participant’s Injuries (1996), 6 Seton Hall J. of Sport L. 7, 62-63 (citing statutes).

[fn6] In the court of appeals, Mr. Zivich also argued that summary judgment was improper as to his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, he does not raise this claim here. Accordingly, we do not address this issue.

COOK, J., concurring.

I join in the well-reasoned majority opinion. I write separately only to point out that today’s decision is firmly grounded in the public policy of the General Assembly, as evinced by the legislative enactments cited by the majority.

Delaware holds that mothers signature on contract forces change of venue for minors claims.

Posted: April 2, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: California, Delaware, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Summer Camp | Tags: American Arbitration Association, Arbitration, California, Minor, Summer Camp, Youth Camp | Leave a comment

Doe v. Cedars Academy, LLC, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559

Court recognizes that you can’t argue rights under the contract and void other parts of the contract in the same lawsuit.

This case alleges that the minor was assaulted at a school for students who have a need for academic and social skills development. To be enrolled in the school the mother had to sign a substantial contract. The contract included a release of liability (pre-injury release) and a venue and jurisdiction clause.

The minor was allegedly threatened and sexually assaulted by another student. The mother and son sued for.

“….negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness; one count raises a breach of contract claim, and one count raises a claim that Defendants violated John Doe’s substantive due process right to bodily integrity.”

The defendants, the school and the parent company of the school moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. This means the contract says the jurisdiction is located in another state, therefor this court does not have the legal right to hear the claim. i.e. the jurisdiction clause in the contract between the parties.

Summary of the case

The school was located in Delaware; however, the agreement required arbitration in California. The venue and jurisdiction clause was extensive in the contract.

21. Governing Law/Venue: This Agreement, and all matters relating hereto, including any matter or dispute arising between the parties out of this Agreement, tort or otherwise, shall be interpreted, governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California; and the parties consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the California Courts in Los Angeles County, California, and any qualified (American Arbitration Association-approved) arbitration service in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to enforce this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement constitutes a business transaction within the State of California. 10

The court looked at four issues in reviewing the contract and the claims of the plaintiffs:

(A) whether the Agreement is binding as to Jane Doe; [the mother]

(B) whether the Agreement is binding as to John Doe; [the son]

(C) whether the pre-injury release provision renders the entire Agreement unenforceable; and, if not

(D) whether the choice of law, choice of forum, and/or arbitration provisions of the Agreement are controlling.

The issue of whether the contract is binding on the mother. The court found it was because the mother also sued for damages under the contract. Here the court found if you are suing for damages under the contract, you cannot claim you are not part of the contract.

The court also held, in what was one of the clearest statements on this issue I’ve read, that the mother could not avail herself of the services of the defendant and put her son in the school and then claim the contract did not apply to her. If the contract allowed her to put her son in the school, then the contract applied to her.

But for the right to contact as a mother, there would be no services for children.

This same analysis was applied to whether or not the minor was bound by the agreement. If the minor could attend the school, based on the contract, then the minor had to be bound by the contract.

To conclude that John Doe is not bound by the Agreements otherwise enforceable terms, as Plaintiffs contend, simply because he is a minor would be tantamount to concluding that a parent can never contract with a private school (or any other service provider) on behalf and for the benefit of her child. As a practical matter, no service provider would ever agree to a contract with a parent if a child could ignore the provisions of the contract that pertain to him without recourse.

The court did not determine or decided if a parent can bind a minor to a pre-injury release. The court held that the contract allowed the court to exclude for the sake of argument, any part of the contract that it felt was unenforceable and therefore, the court could decide the issue without deciding the release issue.

The court then found the jurisdiction and venue clause were valid, and the case must be sent to California. Whether that was going to be a California court or arbitration, as required by the contract, in California was up to the California court.

At this point, the plaintiff argued the minute aspects of the contract did not force the case to be sent to California. This forced the court to scrutinize the agreement, down to the placement of a semi-colon. The court determined the jurisdiction and venue portion of the agreement applied.

Unless the forum selection clause “is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances,” such clauses are prima facie valid. A choice of forum provision will be deemed “unreasonable” only when its enforcement would seriously impair the plaintiff’s ability to pursue its cause of action.” Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not sufficient evidence of unreasonableness.

So Now What?

Over and over I have stressed the importance of a well-written jurisdiction and venue (choice of forums) clause in your release and in all documents. Here again, this clause will make litigation more difficult for the plaintiff.

You want the lawsuit in your community. Most of the witnesses are usually located there, the business is there, and you are better prepared to defend a claim there.

Another issue that was not brought up the court, but is present in the case is the decision on arbitration. Arbitration may be a great item for you to use if you are dealing with minors for several reasons.

Arbitration is cheaper and quicker than a trial. The rules governing arbitration have a shorter time frame and do not allow as much time for discovery.

Arbitrators, by statute, are usually limited on the type of amount of damages that they can award. As such, punitive or other excessive damages may not be awarded by an arbitrator.

However, arbitration is not necessarily the way to go in every case. Arbitration does not allow, normally for motions for summary judgment. If you have a well-written release in a state that allows the use of releases, you will have a faster and better result going to court and filing a motion for summary judgment.

Whether or not to put arbitration in a release or other contract is one to be carefully reviewed based on your state, your state law and your situation with your attorney.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

James H. “Jim” Moss

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

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

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

X, Formerly Twitter

Facebook Logo

Threads

Recreation Law

Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2012-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #arbitration,

WordPress Tags: Delaware,signature,venue,Cedars,Academy,Super,LEXIS,Court,lawsuit,students,skills,development,injury,jurisdiction,clause,student,negligence,Defendants,John,complaint,Summary,agreement,arbitration,California,tort,laws,State,Courts,Angeles,American,Association,transaction,plaintiffs,Jane,provision,forum,Here,statements,avail,defendant,analysis,Agreements,provider,recourse,argument,Whether,plaintiff,aspects,placement,selection,clauses,enforcement,action,Mere,expense,Over,importance,forums,litigation,Most,Another,decision,item,minors,discovery,Arbitrators,statute,arbitrator,judgment,situation,attorney,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,unenforceable

Doe v. Cedars Academy, LLC, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559

Posted: April 2, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: California, Delaware, Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Legal Case, Summer Camp | Tags: Aspen Education Group, California, Delaware, Minor, Parol evidence rule, Summer Camp, Youth Camp | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Delaware holds that mothers signature on contract forces change of venue for minors claims.

Doe v. Cedars Academy, LLC, 2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559

John Doe and Jane Doe, individually, and as Guardian and Next Friend of John Doe, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. Cedars Academy, LLC, and Aspen Education Group, Inc., Defendants.

C.A. No. 09C-09-136 JRS

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

2010 Del. Super. LEXIS 559

July 20, 2010, Submitted

October 27, 2010, Decided

Notice:

This opinion has not been released for publication. Until released, it is subject to revision or withdrawal.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reargument denied by Doe v. Cedars Acad., LLC, 2011 Del. Super. LEXIS 18 (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 19, 2011)

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Upon Consideration of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

DISPOSITION: GRANTED.

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The court considered a motion to dismiss (Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) filed by the defendants, a limited liability company (LLC) and a corporation, seeking an order dismissing a complaint filed by plaintiffs, a mother and her son, in which plaintiffs alleged the mother entered into a contract with the LLC to enroll her son in a boarding school and that, while a student there, he was sexually assaulted and threatened by a fellow student.

OVERVIEW: A fair reading of the complaint indicated plaintiffs alleged defendants were liable for damages for breach of the contract and for breach of common law duties of care. The court found a reasonable person would conclude that the mother objectively manifested her assent to be bound by the terms of the contract by paying tuition to the school and entrusting her son to the school as contemplated by the contract. The son, a minor, was also bound by the agreement, entered into on his behalf. Even if a pre-injury release was invalid, it would not render the entire agreement unenforceable. After reviewing the provisions within the four corners of the contract, the court concluded the parties intended to consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of California courts or arbitration panels to litigate their claims, based on a forum selection clause. Other than arguing that the contract was invalid because it was unconscionable, plaintiffs did not provide any support for their claim that the court should ignore the forum selection clause. Given the law in Delaware that choice of forum provisions were enforceable absent a showing of unreasonableness, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.

OUTCOME: The motion to dismiss was granted.

COUNSEL: Joseph J. Rhoades, Esquire, Stephen T. Morrow, Esquire, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH J. RHOADES, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Norman H. Brooks, Jr., MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants.

JUDGES: Joseph R. Slights, III, Judge.

OPINION BY: Joseph R. Slights, III

OPINION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SLIGHTS, J.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, Cedars Academy, LLC (“Cedars”) and Aspen Education Group, Inc. (“Aspen”) (collectively “the Defendants”). The motion seeks an order dismissing the Complaint filed by John Doe and his mother Jane Doe (collectively “Plaintiffs”), ¹ in which Plaintiffs allege that Jane Doe entered into a contract with Cedars to enroll her son in the Cedars Academy Boarding School (“Cedars Academy”) and that, while a student there, John Doe was sexually assaulted and threatened by a fellow student. ²

1 Plaintiffs have used pseudonyms, presumably because of the sensitive nature of the allegations.

2 Compl. ¶ 7.

The Complaint contains five counts: three counts raise tort-based claims including negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness; ³ one count raises a [*2] breach of contract claim, ⁴ and one count raises a claim that Defendants violated John Doe’s substantive due process right to bodily integrity. ⁵ Defendants move to dismiss all counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue, and also based on a pre-injury release signed by Jane Doe. Defendant Aspen also moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review of the motion, and the responses thereto, the Court determines that the forum selection clause of the operative contract (selecting California as the exclusive forum) is enforceable as to all of the parties and, as such, the motion to dismiss this action must be GRANTED.

3 Compl. ¶¶ 11-20, 26-29, 30-31.

4 Compl. ¶¶ 21-25.

5 Compl. ¶¶ 32-39.

II.

On September 15, 2007, Jane Doe entered into a contract with Cedars (hereinafter “the Agreement”) to enroll her minor son, John Doe, as a full time student at the Cedars Academy in Bridgeville, Delaware. ⁶ Cedars Academy is a private preparatory boarding school for students who demonstrate a need for academic and social skill development. ⁷ The Agreement between Ms. Doe and Cedars contained the following provisions relevant to the controversy sub judice:

5. Assumption of [*3] the Risks; Releases and Indemnities: Sponsor acknowledges serious hazards and dangers, known and unknown, inherent in the Program, including but not limited to vocational activities, emotional and physical injuries, illness or death that may arise from strenuous hiking, climbing, camping in a natural environment, exposure to the elements, plants and animals, running away from the Program, “acts of God” (nature), physical education activities, water sports, stress, involvement with other students, self-inflicted injuries, and transportation to and from activities. Sponsor understands that in participating in the Program Student will be in locations and using facilities where many hazards exist and is aware of and appreciates the risks, [sic] which may result. Sponsor understands that accidents occur during such activities due to the negligence of others, which may result in death or serious injury. Sponsor and Student are voluntarily participating in the Program with knowledge of the dangers involved and agree to accept any and all risks. In consideration for being permitted to participate in the Program, Sponsor agrees to not sue, to assume all risks and to release, hold harmless, [*4] and indemnify Cedars and any and all of its predecessors, successors, officers, directors, trustees, insurers, employees … including, but not limited to, Aspen Education Group, Inc. (collectively all of these above persons and entities shall be referred to as the “Released Parties” hereafter) who, through negligence, carelessness or any other cause might otherwise be liable to Sponsor or Student under theories of contract or tort law. Sponsor intends by this Waiver and Release to release, in advance, and to waive his or her rights and discharge each and every one of the Released Parties, from any and all claims for damages for death, personal injury or property damage which Sponsor may have, or which may hereafter accrue as a result of Student’s participation in any aspect of the Program, even though that liability may arise from negligence or carelessness on the part of the persons or entities being released, from dangerous or defective property or equipment owned, maintained, or controlled by them, or because of their possible liability without fault. Additionally, Sponsor covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties based upon their breach of any duty owed to Sponsor or Student [*5] as a result of their participation in any aspect of the Program. Sponsor understands and agrees that this Waiver and Release is binding on his or her heirs, assigns and legal representatives. ⁸

15. Binding Arbitration: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, except at Cedars’ option the collection of monies owed by Sponsor to Cedars, shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted in the State of California in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association; ⁹ and

6 Compl. [*6] ¶ 2.

7 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A.

8 Agreement ¶ 5.

9 Agreement ¶ 15.

10 Agreement ¶ 21.

On September 21, 2007, John Doe began attending Cedars Academy and residing in one of its dormitories. ¹¹ While there, John Doe was propositioned by another student to perform sexual acts. According to the Complaint, on one or more occasion, the other student (not named as a defendant or otherwise in the Complaint) entered John Doe’s dormitory room, threatened him and sexually assaulted him. ¹² Plaintiffs allege that these sexual assaults resulted in physical and emotional injuries to John Doe and economic damages to both Plaintiffs. ¹³ A fair reading of the Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs allege Defendants are liable for their damages both as a result of having breached the Agreement and having breached common law duties of care. ¹⁴

11 Compl. ¶ 7.

12 Id.

13 Compl. ¶¶ 7-10.

14 See Id. (Counts I through IV).

III.

In support of their motion, Defendants argue that the Agreement is enforceable against Jane Doe as the signatory and John Doe as a third party beneficiary. ¹⁵ Because both parties are bound by the Agreement, Defendants argue that Delaware’s preference for enforcing choice of forum provisions [*7] should prevail when, as here, the selected jurisdiction (California) has a “material connection” with the transaction. ¹⁶ Finally, Defendants assert that the arbitration provision of the Agreement should be honored because Jane Doe freely entered into the Agreement for the benefit of her minor son and John Doe received the benefit of the Agreement in the form of student housing, meals, and education. ¹⁷ According to the Defendants, he “who accepts the benefits of the contract, is also bound by any burdens or restrictions created by it.” ¹⁸

15 Defs.’ Letter Mem. pgs. 1-4.

16 Id. at 5.

17 Id. at 4.

18 Id.

In response, Plaintiffs first argue that the Agreement is not enforceable as to Jane Doe or John Doe because its “assumption of the risks; releases and indemnities” provision is invalid as a matter of law. According to Plaintiffs, Delaware courts look with disfavor upon clauses which exculpate a party from the consequences of that party’s own negligence. ¹⁹ Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that parents do not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of their children. Such pre-injury releases “deprive children of the legal relief necessary to redress negligently inflicted injuries,” [*8] according to Plaintiffs, and are thus void as against public policy. ²⁰ Because the Agreement contains a pre-injury release provision that purports to release a minor’s claim, and an invalid indemnification provision, Plaintiffs contend that the entire Agreement is unenforceable. ²¹

19 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Letter Mem. pg. 2.

20 Id. at 7.

21 Id. at 6-7.

Plaintiffs next argue that even if the Agreement is enforceable against Jane Doe, it is not enforceable against John Doe because he is not a party to the Agreement. In this regard, Plaintiffs contend that the Agreement fails to identify John Doe as a party to the Agreement, that John Doe is not a signatory to the Agreement, and that there is no language in the Agreement to suggest that Jane Doe was contracting on John Doe’s behalf. ²² Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the Agreement is between Jane Doe and Cedars only and does not bind John Doe. ²³ Plaintiffs further contend that even if John Doe is considered a third party beneficiary, he is still not bound to the Agreement because he did not sign it. ²⁴

22 Id. at 4.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 6.

Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the choice of forum and arbitration provisions of the Agreement are unenforceable [*9] against both Plaintiffs because the Agreement is over-broad and unconscionable. ²⁵ The Plaintiffs contend that the Agreement is too broad because there is no evidence that the parties contemplated “Cedars’ common law duty to prevent sexual assaults on John Doe or the manner in which breaches of that duty would be redressed when they entered into the Agreement.” ²⁶ In addition, they argue that the Agreement is unconscionable because “John Doe was in need of specialized care and Cedars purported to be uniquely qualified to render such care,” leaving Jane Doe with little choice but to “sign on the dotted line.” ²⁷

25 Id. at 8-10.

26 Id. at 9.

27 Id. at 10.

IV.

[HN1] In evaluating a Motion to Dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must assume all well plead facts in the complaint to be true. ²⁸ A complaint will not be dismissed unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonable set of circumstances susceptible of proof. ²⁹ Stated differently, a complaint may not be dismissed unless it is clearly not viable, which may be determined as a matter of law or fact. ³⁰

28 Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998).

29 Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407, 410 (Del. Super. 1983).

30 Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Univ. of Del., 269 A.2d 52, 58 (Del. 1970).

Plaintiffs’ [*10] Motion and the Defendants’ response implicate the following issues, which the Court will address seriatim: (A) whether the Agreement is binding as to Jane Doe; (B) whether the Agreement is binding as to John Doe; (C) whether the pre-injury release provision renders the entire Agreement unenforceable; and, if not (D) whether the choice of law, choice of forum, and/or arbitration provisions of the Agreement are controlling.

A. Jane Doe Is Bound By The Agreement She Entered Into With Cedars On Behalf Of Her Son

[HN2] Both Delaware and California measure the formation of a contract by an objective test. ³¹ Specifically, a contract is formed if “a reasonable person would conclude, based on the objective manifestations of assent and the surrounding circumstances, that the parties intended to be bound to their agreement on all essential terms.” ³² At the outset, the Court notes that [HN3] it is counter-intuitive to seek enforcement of an agreement that one alleges to be invalid. Stated differently, a party cannot “simultaneously seek to avoid the contract … and at the same time sue for damages for breach of [that] contract ….” ³³ And yet, this is precisely what the Plaintiffs are attempting to do in [*11] this case. ³⁴

31 The Court has considered both Delaware and California law in construing the Agreement given the Agreement’s choice of California law. See Leeds v. First Allied Conn. Corp., 521 A.2d 1095, 1097 (Del. Ch. 1986); Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 944, 955, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

32 Leeds, 521 A.2d at 1101. See also Founding Members, 109 Cal. App. 4th at 955 (“California recognizes the objective theory of contracts, under which [it] is the objective intent, as evidenced by the words of the contract, rather than the subjective intent of one of the parties, that controls interpretation.”).

33 In re Verilink Corp., 405 B.R. 356, 378 (N.D. Ala. 2009).

34 Compl. ¶¶ 21-25.

Moreover, a reasonable person would conclude that Jane Doe objectively manifested her assent to be bound by the terms of the Agreement by paying tuition to Cedars Academy as required by the Agreement and entrusting her son to the school as contemplated by the Agreement. ³⁵ As a person with the capacity to contract, and in the absence of allegations of fraud, duress, or undue influence, Jane Doe is bound to the Agreement she signed with Cedars so that [*12] her son could attend Cedars Academy. ³⁶

35 Compl. ¶¶ 5 and 22.

36 2 Williston on Contracts § 6:44 (4th ed.) (“Because the offeree’s action naturally indicates assent, at least in the absence of an invalidating cause such as fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or unconscionability, where an offeree signs a document it is generally held to be bound by the document’s terms, even if the offeree signs in ignorance of those terms.”). See, e.g., Indus. Am., Inc v. Fulton Indus., Inc., 285 A.2d 412, 415 (Del. 1971) (“Where an offeror requests an act in return for his promise and the act is performed, the act performed becomes the requisite overt manifestation of assent if the act is done intentionally; i.e., if there is a ‘conscious will’ to do it.”); Main Storage & Trucking Inc. v. Benco Contracting and Eng’g Inc., 89 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 1049, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)( [HN4] “Every contract requires mutual assent or consent, and ordinarily one who signs an instrument which on its face is a contract is deemed to assent to all its terms.”).

B. John Doe Is Bound By The Agreement Entered Into On His Behalf By His Mother

The parties focused much of their energy on whether John Doe should be considered a third party [*13] beneficiary of the Agreement. This focus, however, misses the mark in that it ignores the realities of the relationship between parent and child. As a matter of law, and as a practical matter, John Doe, a minor, could not obtain a private boarding school education from a facility like Cedars Academy without his mother contracting for such services on his behalf. ³⁷ As the guardian of John Doe, Jane Doe was authorized to provide for her minor son’s education in the manner she saw fit. ³⁸

37 6 Del. C. § 2705 ( [HN5] A person does not have the capacity to contract until he or she reaches the age of majority); Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 6700 (West 1994)(“A minor may make a contract … subject to the power of disaffirmance.”); Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 6500 (“A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age.”).

38 Ide v. Brown, 178 N.Y. 26, 70 N.E. 101, 102 ( N.Y.1904) (“As guardian, we assume that [father] had the power to provide for her support and maintenance during [daughter’s] minority.”); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070 (1925) (Parents have the liberty “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”); Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1559, 1565, 274 Cal. Rptr. 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)(same).

To [*14] conclude that John Doe is not bound by the Agreement’s otherwise enforceable terms, as Plaintiffs contend, simply because he is a minor would be tantamount to concluding that a parent can never contract with a private school (or any other service provider) on behalf and for the benefit of her child. As a practical matter, no service provider would ever agree to a contract with a parent if a child could ignore the provisions of the contract that pertain to him without recourse. ³⁹ Such a result is inconsistent with the law’s concept of the family which “rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.” ⁴⁰ In this case, as a parent, Jane Doe was authorized to enter into the Agreement with Cedars on behalf of her minor son and to bind him to its enforceable terms.

39 For instance, in this case, Cedars reserved the right to terminate John Doe’s enrollment in Cedars Academy if he engaged in “illegal, uncontrollable, or dangerous behavior” or “for any other reason … deem[ed] necessary for the protection of [John Doe], any other student(s) or the integrity of Cedar’s program.” [*15] Agreement, ¶ 9. This provision implicitly imposes upon John Doe certain obligations to behave in an appropriate manner. If this obligation was deemed by the Court to be non-binding upon John Doe simply because he is a minor, then Cedars, in turn, would lose its authority to discharge him or any other student whose behavior justified termination from the program. No private school would ever enroll a student under such circumstances.

40 Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S. Ct. 2493, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1979).

C. Even If The Pre-Injury Release Provision Is Invalid, It is Severable and Does Not Affect The Overall Enforceability Of The Agreement

Plaintiffs argue that parents do not possess the authority to bind their children to pre-injury releases. ⁴¹ According to Plaintiffs, the pre-injury release is invalid, ⁴² and, therefore, John Doe should not be bound by the balance of the Agreement’s terms. ⁴³

41 Agreement ¶ 5.

42 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Letter Mem. pg. 7.

43 Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 8.

It appears that no Delaware court has specifically addressed whether parents can bind their children to a pre-injury release. Further, it appears that there is a split among those jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. ⁴⁴ This [*16] Court need not weigh in on behalf of Delaware, however, because even if the pre-injury release is invalid, the presence of the provision would not render the entire Agreement unenforceable. ⁴⁵ [HN6] When “determining whether a contract is divisible … the essential question … is ‘did the parties give a single assent to the whole transaction, or did they assent separately to several things?'” ⁴⁶ If there is evidence that clearly shows that the parties intended to enter into an integrated contract, then the contract should be read in its entirety. ⁴⁷ In this regard, Delaware courts recognize that “[t]he parties’ intent to enter into a divisible contract may be expressed in the contract directly, through a severability clause.” ⁴⁸ The Agreement between the parties in this case contains a clear and unambiguous severability clause. ⁴⁹ Accordingly, the invalidity of the pre-injury release would not render the remainder of the Agreement unenforceable.

44 Compare Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002)(holding that Colorado’s public policy affords minors significant protections which preclude parents or guardians from releasing a minor’s own prospective claim for negligence); Hawkins ex rel. Hawkins v. Peart, 2001 UT 94, 37 P.3d 1062 (Utah 2001)(holding [*17] that a parent cannot release a child’s causes of action against a third party before or after an injury); with Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99, 769 N.E.2d 738 (Mass. 2002)(holding that releases of liability for ordinary negligence involving private parties are valid as a general proposition in the Commonwealth and, thus, it was not contrary to the purposes of the Tort Claims Act to allow city to use releases as a precondition for student’s participation in voluntary, nonessential activities, such as cheerleading at public school activities); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1998) (Holding that mother had authority to bind her minor child to exculpatory agreement in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit soccer organization, where cause of action sounded in negligence; agreement could not be disaffirmed by child on whose behalf it was executed).

45 See McInerney v. Slights, 1988 Del. Ch. LEXIS 47, 1988 WL 34528, *7 (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 1988)(“… where a contract as negotiated cannot be enforced by reason of a legally-recognized policy, a court should simply [imply] a severability clause in the contract if to enforce such an implied term may be done sensibly.”); Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. 115 Cal. App. 4th 638, 658-59, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)(“Where [*18] a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest.”).

46 Orenstein v. Kahn, 13 Del. Ch. 376, 119 A. 444, 446 (Del. Ch. 1922) (“Although the consideration is apportioned on the face of a contract, if there be a special agreement to take the whole or nothing, or if the evidence clearly shows that such was the purpose of the parties, the contract should be entire.”).

47 Id.

48 15 Williston on Contracts § 45:6 (4th ed.). See also Evans, 872 A.2d at 552 (“Generally, a severability clause is enforceable.”).

49 Agreement ¶ 22 (“In the event that any provision of this agreement, or any operation contemplated hereunder, is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be inconsistent with or contrary to any law, ordinance, or regulation, the latter shall be deemed to control and the Agreement shall be regarded as modified accordingly and, in any event, the remainder of this agreement shall continue in full force and effect.”).

D. The Choice of Forum Provision is Controlling

Having determined that the pre-injury release provision may be excised, the Court now turns to the balance of [*19] the Agreement to determine if any remaining provisions support the Defendants’ motion. In this regard, the Court’s attention is drawn immediately to provisions of the Agreement which suggest that the parties intended to resolve their disputes in California, not Delaware. Not surprisingly, Defendants interpret these provisions as requiring the Court to dismiss this action so that Plaintiffs’ claims may be brought in California as intended. Plaintiffs, not surprisingly, argue that the Agreement’s arbitration and choice of forum provisions do not apply here. The parties’ differing views of these provisions require the Court to interpret the Agreement and to determine in which forum this controversy belongs.

[HN7] Both Delaware and California courts honor the parol evidence rule. ⁵⁰ This rule provides that “[w]hen two parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as to the complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence . . . of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.” ⁵¹ To ensure compliance with the parol evidence rule, the court first must determine [*20] whether the terms of the contract it has been asked to construe clearly state the parties’ agreement. ⁵² In this regard, the court must remember that a contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties disagree as to the meaning of its terms. ⁵³ “Rather, a contract is ambiguous only when the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings.” ⁵⁴ Upon concluding that the contract clearly and unambiguously reflects the parties’ intent, the court’s interpretation of the contract must be confined to the document’s “four corners.” ⁵⁵ The court will interpret the contract’s terms according to the meaning that would be ascribed to them by a reasonable third party. ⁵⁶

50 See Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chem. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Del. 1992); Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1107, 1126, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

51 26 Corbin on Contracts § 573 (1960).

52 Comrie v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 837 A.2d 1, 13 (Del. Ch. 2003)(citing In Re. Explorer Pipeline Co., 781 A.2d 705, 713 (Del. Ch. 2001)); Wolf, 162 Cal. App. 4th at 1126 (“[w]hen a contract is reduced [*21] to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible….”)(citation omitted).

53 See Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chem. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Del. 1992)(“A contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree upon its proper construction.”); Curry v. Moody, 40 Cal. App. 4th 1547, 1552, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)(“When the parties dispute the meaning of a contract term, the trial court’s first step is to determine whether the term is ambiguous … “).

54 Id. (citation omitted).

55 See O’Brien v. Progressive Northern, Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 281, 288-89 (Del. 2001); Wolf, 162 Cal. App.4th at 1126.

56 Comrie, 837 A.2d at 13 (citations omitted); Wolf, 162 Cal. App. 4th at 1126.

As directed by the parol evidence rule, the Court looks first to the Agreement itself (the text within the “four corners”) to determine if it unambiguously reflects the parties’ intent with respect to choice of forum. To discern the parties’ intent, the Court has utilized certain settled tenets of contract interpretation. ⁵⁷ The first, and [HN8] perhaps most fundamental, tenet of contract interpretation requires the court to render a “reasonable, [*22] fair and practical” interpretation of the contract’s clear and unambiguous terms. ⁵⁸ In addition, the court must be mindful that “[a] contract should be read as a whole and every part should be interpreted with reference to the whole, and if possible should be so interpreted as to give effect to its general purpose.” ⁵⁹ In this regard, the court must interpret the contract “so as to conform to an evident consistent purpose” and “in a manner that makes the contract internally consistent.” ⁶⁰

57 “An abstract distinction exists between ‘construction’ and ‘interpretation,’ in that ‘construction’ is the drawing of conclusions from elements known from, given in, and indicated by the language used, while ‘interpretation’ is the art of finding the true sense of the language itself ….” 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts §328.

58 Id. at §338.

59 Id. at §376.

60 Id.

Here, the Agreement’s choice of law and choice of forum provisions are combined in one paragraph, and together they state, in pertinent part, as follows: “This Agreement, and all matters pertaining hereto, including any matter or dispute arising between the parties out of this Agreement, tort or otherwise, shall be interpreted, governed and enforced [*23] according to the laws of the State of California; and the Parties consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the California Courts … to enforce this Agreement.” ⁶¹ After reading this provision, the Court can mine only two sources of possible ambiguity in relation to the facts sub judice: (1) whether the choice of forum provision applies only to actions “to enforce the Agreement;” and, if not (2) whether Plaintiffs’ claims, including their tort claims, “aris[e] out of the Agreement” such that they implicate the choice of law and choice of forum provisions. As discussed below, neither of these phrases render the Agreement ambiguous.

61 Agreement ¶ 21.

As the Court considers whether Plaintiffs’ claims implicate the Agreement’s choice of forum provision, the Court takes notice of the placement of the semicolon to separate the choice of law and choice of forum provisions. At first glance, the semicolon might suggest an intent to separate the two provisions such that one will not modify the other. And, if the provisions are separated, one might read the choice of forum provision as applying only to actions “to enforce the Agreement.” But this reading would run counter to [*24] the theme of the entire Agreement, which is designed to ground all aspects of the parties’ relationship in California. For instance, the Agreement provides that payments, notices, and correspondence between Jane Doe and Cedars are to be mailed to a California location; ⁶² disputes between the parties are to be resolved by arbitration that must occur in California; and California law is to apply to all disputes between the parties, whether based in tort or contract. ⁶³ Given the parties’ clear intent to base their relationship in California, the Court will not read the placement of a semicolon as an intent to limit the scope of the choice of forum provision. ⁶⁴

62 Id. at ¶ 17.

63 Id. at ¶ 21.

64 See Reliance-Grant Elevator Equipment Corp. v. Reliance Ball-Bearing Door Hanger Co., 205 A.D. 320, 199 N.Y.S. 476, 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923) (“If for the comma we substitute a period, and make the phrase an independent sentence, all ambiguity will disappear, and the cancellation proviso will clearly refer to the duration of the agreement, and not to the making of extensions.”). See also 11 Williston on Contracts § 32:9 (4th ed.) (“Attention is often paid to grammar and punctuation in determining the proper interpretation [*25] of a contract, but a court will disregard both grammatical constructs and the punctuation used in the written agreement where the context of the contract shows that grammatical or punctuation errors have occurred.”); 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 365 ( [HN9] “while a court, in construing a contract, will give due force to the grammatical arrangement of the clauses, it will disregard the grammatical construction if it is at variance with the intent of the parties as indicated by the contract as a whole.”).

The semicolon issue aside, the choice of law/choice of forum paragraph, according to its terms, applies to all actions that “aris[e] out of the Agreement.” The question, then, is whether Plaintiffs’ tort and contract claims may properly be said to “aris[e] out of the Agreement.” [HN10] “Where there is a contractual relationship between the parties, a cause of action in tort may sometimes arise out of the negligent manner in which the contractual duty is performed, or out of a failure to perform such duty.” ⁶⁵ The Agreement mandates that “[o]n the arrival date, [Jane Doe] shall transfer, by a Power of Attorney … temporary custody of the Student [John Doe] to Cedars ….” ⁶⁶ From the moment Jane Doe [*26] dropped her son off at Cedars Academy, therefore, the school was entrusted with “duties correspondent to the role of a caregiver.” ⁶⁷ All of Plaintiffs’ claims, based as they are on an alleged failure to protect John Doe while he resided in a Cedars Academy dormitory, directly involve Cedars’ contractual undertaking to care for John Doe as “temporary custod[ian].” As such, the Court is satisfied that the claims “aris[e] out of the Agreement.”

65 Eads v. Marks, 39 Cal. 2d 807, 810-11, 249 P.2d 257 (Cal.1952). See also N. Am. Chem. Co. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 764, 775, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466(Cal. Ct. App. 1997); Southgate Recreation & Park Dist. v. California Assn. for Park & Recreation Ins., 106 Cal. App. 4th 293, 301-02, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

66 Agreement ¶ 3.

67 People v. Toney, 76 Cal. App. 4th 618, 621-22, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)(citing People v. Cochran, 62 Cal.App. 4th 826, 832, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998))(” The terms ‘care or custody’ do not imply a familial relationship but only a willingness to assume duties correspondent to the role of a caregiver.”).

After reviewing all of the provisions within the four corners of the Agreement, the Court concludes that the parties intended to consent to the exclusive jurisdiction [*27] of California courts or arbitration panels to litigate their claims. [HN11] When “there is a forum selection clause in a contract, even when the venue where the suit is filed is proper, the court should decline to proceed when the parties freely agreed that litigation should be conducted in another forum.” ⁶⁸ Unless the forum selection clause “is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances,” such clauses are prima facie valid. ⁶⁹ A choice of forum provision will be deemed “unreasonable” only when its enforcement would seriously impair the plaintiff’s ability to pursue its cause of action.” ⁷⁰ Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not sufficient evidence of unreasonableness. ⁷¹

68 Eisenmann Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2000 Del. Super. LEXIS 25, 2000 WL 140781, *7 (Del. Super. Jan. 28, 2000) (citing Elia Corp. v. Paul N. Howard Co., 391 A.2d 214, 216 (Del. Super. 1978)).

69 Id. (citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S. Ct. 1907, 32 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1972)). Defendants have argued that the forum selection provision should be enforced if California has a “material connection” to the controversy. This inquiry is implicated by a choice of law analysis, but not by a choice of forum analysis. See Weil v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 877 A.2d 1024 (Del. Ch. 2005).

70 Id.

71 Elia Corp., 391 A.2d at 216.

Other [*28] than arguing that the Agreement is invalid in its entirety because it is unconscionable, Plaintiffs do not provide any support for their contention that the Court should ignore the forum selection clause. ⁷² They have not, for instance, pointed to any circumstance that would suggest that litigating their claims in California “would seriously impair [their] ability to pursue [their] cause of action.” ⁷³ Having determined that the Agreement is valid and enforceable as to both Jane Doe and John Doe, the Court is left with no basis in fact or law to suggest that the forum selection clause seriously impairs the Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their cause of action. ⁷⁴ Accordingly, given the well settled law [HN12] in Delaware that choice of forum provisions are enforceable absent a showing of unreasonableness, the Court must enforce the provision here and decline to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.

72 Beyond the pre-injury release provision, Plaintiffs have pointed to nothing in the Agreement to support an unconscionability argument, and the Court has discerned no basis for the argument on its own.

73 Eisenmann Corp., 2000 Del. Super. LEXIS 25, 2000 WL 140781 at 7 (citing M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. 1 at 10, 92 S. Ct. 1907, 32 L. Ed. 2d 513).

74 Here again, Plaintiffs [*29] have not argued that their ability to pursue their claims in California would be “seriously impaired,” e.g. by virtue of a statute of limitations that would bar their claims there or otherwise, and the Court can fathom no reason why the identical claims sub judice could not be raised in California.

Since the Court has determined that it should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over this dispute for the reasons set forth above, the Court need not decide the validity of the mandatory arbitration provision, nor whether Aspen should be dismissed based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction. These questions will be left to the California forum (be it a court or arbitration panel) that ultimately decides this case.

VI.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph R. Slights, III

Joseph R. Slights, III, Judge

G-YQ06K3L262

http://www.recreation-law.com

Florida statute that allows a parent to release a minor’s right to sue

Posted: February 17, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Florida, Minors, Youth, Children | Tags: Child, Children Youth and Family, Family, Florida law, Legal guardian, Minor, Minor (law), parent, Parental Rights, Release | Leave a comment

TITLE 43. DOMESTIC RELATIONS (Chs. 741-753)

CHAPTER 744. GUARDIANSHIP

PART III. TYPES OF GUARDIANSHIP

GO TO FLORIDA STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Fla. Stat. § 744.301 (2012)

§ 744.301. Natural guardians

(1) The mother and father jointly are natural guardians of their own children and of their adopted children, during minority. If one parent dies, the surviving parent remains the sole natural guardian even if he or she remarries. If the marriage between the parents is dissolved, the natural guardianship belongs to the parent to whom custody of the child is awarded. If the parents are given joint custody, then both continue as natural guardians. If the marriage is dissolved and neither the father nor the mother is given custody of the child, neither shall act as natural guardian of the child. The mother of a child born out of wedlock is the natural guardian of the child and is entitled to primary residential care and custody of the child unless a court of competent jurisdiction enters an order stating otherwise.

(2) Natural guardians are authorized, on behalf of any of their minor children, to:

(a) Settle and consummate a settlement of any claim or cause of action accruing to any of their minor children for damages to the person or property of any of said minor children;

(b) Collect, receive, manage, and dispose of the proceeds of any such settlement;

(d) Collect, receive, manage, and dispose of and make elections regarding the proceeds from a life insurance policy or annuity contract payable to, or otherwise accruing to the benefit of, the child; and

(e) Collect, receive, manage, dispose of, and make elections regarding the proceeds of any benefit plan as defined by s. 710.102, of which the minor is a beneficiary, participant, or owner, without appointment, authority, or bond, when the amounts received, in the aggregate, do not exceed $ 15,000.

(3) In addition to the authority granted in subsection (2), natural guardians are authorized, on behalf of any of their minor children, to waive and release, in advance, any claim or cause of action against a commercial activity provider, or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents, which would accrue to a minor child for personal injury, including death, and property damage resulting from an inherent risk in the activity.

(a) As used in this subsection, the term “inherent risk” means those dangers or conditions, known or unknown, which are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of the activity and which are not eliminated even if the activity provider acts with due care in a reasonably prudent manner. The term includes, but is not limited to:

1. The failure by the activity provider to warn the natural guardian or minor child of an inherent risk; and

2. The risk that the minor child or another participant in the activity may act in a negligent or intentional manner and contribute to the injury or death of the minor child. A participant does not include the activity provider or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents.

(b) To be enforceable, a waiver or release executed under this subsection must, at a minimum, include the following statement in uppercase type that is at least 5 points larger than, and clearly distinguishable from, the rest of the text of the waiver or release:

NOTICE TO THE MINOR CHILD‘S NATURAL GUARDIAN

READ THIS FORM COMPLETELY AND CAREFULLY. YOU ARE

AGREEING TO LET YOUR MINOR CHILD ENGAGE IN A

POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY. YOU ARE AGREEING THAT,

EVEN IF ( name of released party or parties ) USES

REASONABLE CARE IN PROVIDING THIS ACTIVITY, THERE IS A

CHANCE YOUR CHILD MAY BE SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED

BY PARTICIPATING IN THIS ACTIVITY BECAUSE THERE ARE

CERTAIN DANGERS INHERENT IN THE ACTIVITY WHICH CANNOT

BE AVOIDED OR ELIMINATED. BY SIGNING THIS FORM YOU ARE

GIVING UP YOUR CHILD’S RIGHT AND YOUR RIGHT TO RECOVER

FROM ( name of released party or parties ) IN A

LAWSUIT FOR ANY PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH, TO

YOUR CHILD OR ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT RESULTS FROM

THE RISKS THAT ARE A NATURAL PART OF THE ACTIVITY. YOU

HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SIGN THIS FORM, AND

( name of released party or parties ) HAS THE

RIGHT TO REFUSE TO LET YOUR CHILD PARTICIPATE IF YOU

DO NOT SIGN THIS FORM.

(c) If a waiver or release complies with paragraph (b) and waives no more than allowed under this subsection, there is a rebuttable presumption that the waiver or release is valid and that any injury or damage to the minor child arose from the inherent risk involved in the activity.

1. To rebut the presumption that the waiver or release is valid, a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver or release does not comply with this subsection.

2. To rebut the presumption that the injury or damage to the minor child arose from an inherent risk involved in the activity, a claimant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct, condition, or other cause resulting in the injury or damage was not an inherent risk of the activity.

3. If a presumption under this paragraph is rebutted, liability and compensatory damages must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

(d) Nothing in this subsection limits the ability of natural guardians, on behalf of any of their minor children, to waive and release, in advance, any claim or cause of action against a noncommercial activity provider, or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents, to the extent authorized by common law.

(4) All instruments executed by a natural guardian for the benefit of the ward under the powers specified in this section are binding on the ward. The natural guardian may not, without a court order, use the property of the ward for the guardian’s benefit or to satisfy the guardian’s support obligation to the ward.

HISTORY: S. 1, ch. 74-106; s. 8, ch. 75-166; s. 7, ch. 75-222; s. 1, ch. 77-190; s. 3, ch. 79-221; s. 17, ch. 89-96; s. 22, ch. 92-200; s. 66, ch. 95-211; s. 73, ch. 97-170; s. 11, ch. 2002-195; s. 8, ch. 2005-101; s. 3, ch. 2006-178, eff. July 1, 2006; s. 2, ch. 2010-27, eff. Apr. 27, 2010.

NOTES:

AMENDMENTS

The 2005 amendment by s. 8, ch. 2005-101, effective June 1, 2005, rewrote (2).

The 2006 amendment by s. 3, ch. 2006-178, effective July 1, 2006, in (1), substituted “the surviving parent remains the sole natural guardian even if he or she” for “the natural guardianship shall pass to the surviving parent, and the right shall continue even though the surviving parent” in the second sentence and made minor stylistic changes; substituted “Natural” for “The natural guardian or” at the beginning of (2); substituted “amounts received, in the aggregate, do” for “amount involved in any instance does” in the last undesignated paragraph in (2); in (3), inserted “for the benefit of the ward” and substituted “specified” for “provided for” in the first sentence and added the last sentence; and deleted former (4).

The 2010 amendment added (3); redesignated former (3) as (4); and substituted “this section are” for “subsection (2) shall be” in the first sentence of (4).

NOTE.–

Created from former s. 744.13.

FLORIDA STATUTES REFERENCES

Chapter 549. Automobile Race Meets, F.S. § 549.09. Motorsport nonspectator liability release.

Chapter 739. Florida Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, F.S. § 739.104. Power to disclaim; general requirements; when irrevocable.

Chapter 744. Guardianship, F.S. § 744.387. Settlement of claims.

FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REFERENCES

Chapter 19-11 Procedures for the Public Employee Optional Retirement Program, F.A.C. 19-11.003 Distributions from Frs Investment Plan Accounts.

1. Judgment against a mother in her daughter’s claim against a boutique alleging negligent ear piercing was improper; an indemnification agreement signed by the mother violated public policy. Fla. Stat. § 744.301(3) did not include releasing the commercial activity provider from liability for its own negligence. Claire’s Boutiques, Inc. v. Locastro, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6662 (Fla. 4th DCA May 11, 2011).

2. Despite a father’s claim that Georgia was the home state of his child born out of wedlock for purposes of custody under Fla. Stat. § 61.514 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, a Florida circuit court had jurisdiction to enter an emergency child pick-up order ex-parte because: (1) the child’s mother was a Florida resident when the child was born, the child was born in Florida, and the mother, after living in Georgia for a time, returned to live in Florida; (2) the order simply enforced the mother’s presumptive rights under Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) until a court determined otherwise and was not a determination as to the father’s ultimate custody rights; and (3) the emergency order was not inconsistent with O.C.G.A. § 19-2-4(a), O.C.G.A. § 19-7-22(a) and (c), and O.C.G.A. § 19-7-25. Perez v. Giledes, 912 So. 2d 32, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

3. When a parent is awarded custody of a child following a dissolution of marriage to the other parent, Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) does not automatically extinguish the rights of a noncustodial parent as natural guardian of his child; guardianship is dependent on the custody of the child and if the custodial parent dies, the natural guardianship passes to the surviving parent. Lusker v. Guardianship of Lusker, 434 So. 2d 951, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19487 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983).

4. Trial court properly dismissed the information charging defendant with interference with custody in violation of Fla. Stat. § 787.03 where an order from another state had relinquished custody of the children to defendant and the mother. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court’s declaration that Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) was unconstitutional because resolution of the case did not require such a declaration. State v. Earl, 649 So. 2d 297, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

5. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) a mother, the non-custodial parent, had a right to custody of her child upon the death of the father, the custodial parent, where the father obtained custody of the 10 month old child when the parents divorced, the father moved with his child and new wife to another county three years after the divorce and actively thwarted the mother’s attempts to visit her child so that the mother was unable to see her child for seven years, and the father’s widow, who sought custody of the child upon the father’s death, was unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mother was unfit. Webb v. Webb, 546 So. 2d 1062, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2951 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), review denied by 553 So. 2d 1168, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 1234 (Fla. 1989).

6. Mere fact that a father had enforceable rights and obligations to his child born out of wedlock by virtue of his acknowledgement of paternity did not equate to his having a right to temporary custody superior to the mother’s prior to a court declaration to that effect. Perez v. Giledes, 912 So. 2d 32, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

7. Trial court properly dismissed the information charging defendant with interference with custody in violation of Fla. Stat. § 787.03 where an order from another state had relinquished custody of the children to defendant and the mother. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court’s declaration that Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) was unconstitutional because resolution of the case did not require such a declaration. State v. Earl, 649 So. 2d 297, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

8. When a parent is awarded custody of a child following a dissolution of marriage to the other parent, Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) does not automatically extinguish the rights of a noncustodial parent as natural guardian of his child; guardianship is dependent on the custody of the child and if the custodial parent dies, the natural guardianship passes to the surviving parent. Lusker v. Guardianship of Lusker, 434 So. 2d 951, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19487 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983).

9. Trial court properly dismissed the information charging defendant with interference with custody in violation of Fla. Stat. § 787.03 where an order from another state had relinquished custody of the children to defendant and the mother. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court’s declaration that Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) was unconstitutional because resolution of the case did not require such a declaration. State v. Earl, 649 So. 2d 297, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

10. Where child’s father had executed agreement to pay for child’s required medical care, the hospital was not foreclosed from seeking recovery against the mother under an implied in law contract predicated upon her duty to support her child under Fla. Stat. § 744.301. Variety Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Vigliotti, 385 So. 2d 1052, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17190 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980).

11. Admitted father of premature infant girl was a natural guardian of the infant under Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1), despite infant’s illegitimate status; therefore, unwed father was responsible for infant’s necessary emergency medical services. De Costa v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 497 So. 2d 1282, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

12. Fla. Stat. § 744.301(1) provides that the mother of a child born out of wedlock is the natural guardian of the child and is entitled to primary residential care and custody of the child unless a court of competent jurisdiction entered an order stating otherwise. Muniz v. State, 764 So. 2d 729, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8142 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000).

13. Judgment against a mother in her daughter’s claim against a boutique alleging negligent ear piercing was improper; an indemnification agreement signed by the mother violated public policy. Fla. Stat. § 744.301(3) did not include releasing the commercial activity provider from liability for its own negligence. Claire’s Boutiques, Inc. v. Locastro, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6662 (Fla. 4th DCA May 11, 2011).

1. Florida Civil Procedure, Chapter 9. Amended and Supplementary Pleadings; Pretrial Procedure, § 9-3. Settlements.

2. Florida Estates Practice Guide, Chapter 18 Beneficiaries’ Rights, Part I. Legal Background, § 18.11 Disclaimer of Interest in Property.

3. Florida Estates Practice Guide, Chapter 26 Guardians, Part I. Legal Background, § 26.04 Natural Guardians.

4. Florida Estates Practice Guide, Chapter 26 Guardians, Part I. Legal Background, § 26.43 Litigation Involving Ward.

5. Florida Estates Practice Guide, Chapter 36 Right to Property of an Intestate, Part III. Forms, § 36.204 Petition for Authorization to Execute Qualified Disclaimer.

6. Florida Estates Practice Guide, Appendix PRG Florida Probate and Guardianship Rules, Part I General, Rule 5.040. Notice.

7. Florida Family Law, Division I Marriage, Chapter 3 Cohabitation, B. Rights and Obligations of Cohabitating Partners and their Children, § 3.11 Rights and Obligations Concerning Children.

8. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 32 Parental Responsibility and Timesharing, Part I. Legal Background, C. Basis for Determinations of Parental Responsibility and Timesharing, § 32.20 Parents’ Rights and Duties.

9. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 32 Parental Responsibility and Timesharing, Part I. Legal Background, D. Effect of Shared Parental Responsibility and Timesharing Determinations, § 32.30 Rights and Duties of Parents.

10. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 32 Parental Responsibility and Timesharing, Part II. Practice Guide, B. Preliminary Determinations, § 32.111 Action for Shared Parental Responsibility.

11. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 33 Child Support, Part I. Legal Background, § 33.01 Parents’ Duty to Support Child.

12. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 33 Child Support, Part II. Practice Guide, B. Preliminary Determinations, § 33.110 Duty to Support Child.

13. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 33 Child Support, Part II. Practice Guide, B. Preliminary Determinations, § 33.116 Child Support Order in Paternity Action.

14. Florida Family Law, Division IV Dissolution of Marriage, Chapter 82 Modification of Child Support, Part I. Legal Background, § 82.03 Practice and Procedure.

15. Florida Family Law, Division V Parent-Child Relationships, Chapter 90 Paternity, Part I. Legal Background, A. Paternity and the Parent-Child Relationship, § 90.03 Interests and Status of Natural Father.

16. Florida Family Law, Division V Parent-Child Relationships, Chapter 90 Paternity, Part I. Legal Background, A. Paternity and the Parent-Child Relationship, § 90.06 Father’s Rights to Parental Responsibility and Timesharing.

17. Florida Family Law, Division V Parent-Child Relationships, Chapter 90 Paternity, Part I. Legal Background, B. Establishing Paternity in Paternity Proceeding, § 90.20 Overview of Paternity Proceeding.

18. Florida Family Law, Division V Parent-Child Relationships, Chapter 92 Nonparental Custody, B. Proceedings Involving Nonparental Custody, § 92.10 Type of Proceedings.

19. Florida Family Law, Division VI Other Procedures, Chapter 101 Disabilities of Minority, A. Disabilities of Minority, § 101.03 Other Aspects of Disabilities of Minority.

20. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 1 Intestate Succession, § 1.12 Disclaimer.

21. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 5 Rights of the Decedent’s Children, § 5.13 Disclaimer.

22. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 19 Appointment and Removal of Guardians, § 19.03 Natural Guardians.

23. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 19 Appointment and Removal of Guardians, § 19.09 Guardians Ad Litem.

24. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 20 The Guardian as a Fiduciary, § 20.02 Powers of Natural Guardian.

25. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 20 The Guardian as a Fiduciary, § 20.04 Powers and Duties of Guardian Ad Litem.

26. Florida Probate Code Manual, Chapter 20 The Guardian as a Fiduciary, § 20.11 Bringing and Defending Actions; Settling Claims.

27. Florida Probate Code Manual, Florida Probate Rules, Scope.

28. Florida Real Estate Transactions, Part II. The Deed, Chapter 10. Parties to the Deed, § 10.03 Deeds by Minors.

29. Florida Torts, VIII. Sources of Compensation, Chapter 141 Settlement and Release, I. Legal Background, A. Settlement, 1. Settlement Procedures and Techniques, § 141.06 Statutes Affecting Settlements.

30. Florida Torts, VIII. Sources of Compensation, Chapter 141 Settlement and Release, I. Legal Background, B. Releases, § 141.53 Enforcement and Avoidance.

31. Florida Torts, VIII. Sources of Compensation, Chapter 141 Settlement and Release, I. Legal Background, B. Releases, § 141.54 Release by Natural Guardian for Minor Participating in Activities with Inherent Risks.

32. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Civil Motion Practice, Chapter 13 Settlement, IV. Entering Into a Settlement Agreement, § 13.19 Authority of Third Persons to Enter Settlement Agreements.

33. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Estate & Probate Practice, Chapter 10 Wills: Administrative Provisions, II. Appointing Fiduciaries, § 10.06 Appoint a Guardian.

34. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Personal Injury, What’s New, Scope.

35. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Personal Injury, Chapter 9 General Liability, I. Overview, § 9.02 Master Checklist.

36. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Personal Injury, Chapter 9 General Liability, VI. Determine Express Assumption of Risk, § 9.36 Checklist.

37. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Personal Injury, Chapter 9 General Liability, VI. Determine Express Assumption of Risk, § 9.38 Determine Whether Parent Executed Enforceable Pre-Injury Release.

38. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Personal Injury, Chapter 9 General Liability, VI. Determine Express Assumption of Risk, § 9.38B Establish Immunity for Motorsport Activities.

39. LexisNexis Practice Guide: Florida Pretrial Civil Procedure, Chapter 4 Parties, III. Party Must Have Standing in Action, § 4.08 Standing Generally Requires Party’s Interest in Action.

40. Planning for the Elderly in Florida, Chapter 17 Guardianship, § 17.06 Types of Guardianships.

41. Southeast Transaction Guide, Unit II. Estate Planning, Division 1. Estate Planning and Wills, § 85.03 Legal Background.

42. Southeast Transaction Guide, Unit II. Estate Planning, Division 1. Estate Planning and Wills, § 85.04 Preliminary Determinations.

43. Southeast Transaction Guide, Unit V. Personal Transactions, Division 2. Family Affairs, § 340.02 Research Guide.

44. Southeast Transaction Guide, Unit V. Personal Transactions, Division 2. Family Affairs, § 340.03 Legal Background.

45. Southeast Transaction Guide, Unit V. Personal Transactions, Division 2. Family Affairs, § 341.02 Research Guide.

46. Southeast Transaction Guide, Unit V. Personal Transactions, Division 2. Family Affairs, § 362.22 Right to Custody of Minor Children.

1. Case Comment: Constitutional Law: The Limits of a Patient’s Right to Refuse Medical Treatment, Troy Rillo, April 1994, 46 Fla. L. Rev. 347.

2. Comments: Lagging Behind The Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias in the Family Court, Cynthia A. Mcneely, Summer 1998, 25 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 891.

3. A Cry For Help: An Argument For Abrogation Of the Parent-Child Tort Immunity Doctrine in Child Abuse and Incest Casesa Cry For Help: An Argument For Abrogation Of the Parent-Child Tort Immunity Doctrine in Child Abuse and Incest Cases, Caroline E. Johnson, Fall 1993, 21 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 617.

4. The Minefield of Liability for Minors: Running Afoul Of Corporate Risk Management in Florida, Jordan A. Dresnick, April 2010, 64 U. Miami L. Rev. 1031.

5. The Minefield of Liability for Minors: Running Afoul of Corporate Risk Management in Florida, Jordan A. Dresnick, April 2010, 64 U. Miami L. Rev. 1031.

6. Quasi-Marital Children: The Common Law’s Failure in Privette and Daniel Calls For Statutory Reform, The Honorable Chris W. Altenbernd, Winter 1999, 26 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 219.

7. Student Work: Redefining Parenthood: Removing Nostalgia From Third-Party Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Florida, Sarah E. Kay, Fall 2009, 39 Stetson L. Rev. 317.

8. The Validity of Binding Arbitration Agreements and Children’s Personal Injury Claims in Florida After Shea v. Global Travel Marketing, Inc., Douglas P. Gerber, Fall 2003, 28 Nova L. Rev. 167.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

WordPress Tags: Florida,statute,TITLE,DOMESTIC,RELATIONS,CHAPTER,GUARDIANSHIP,PART,TYPES,STATUTES,ARCHIVE,DIRECTORY,Stat,Natural,guardians,guardian,parents,custody,wedlock,jurisdiction,Settle,settlement,action,person,Collect,estate,elections,life,insurance,policy,beneficiary,participant,owner,appointment,amounts,addition,subsection,provider,owners,employees,agents,injury,death,dangers,manner,failure,waiver,statement,text,NOTICE,MINOR,CHILD,READ,FORM,ENGAGE,DANGEROUS,USES,REASONABLE,CARE,CHANCE,CERTAIN,INHERENT,RECOVER,FROM,LAWSUIT,PERSONAL,DAMAGE,RESULTS,RISKS,REFUSE,SIGN,PARTICIPATE,paragraph,presumption,claimant,preponderance,extent,instruments,ward,obligation,HISTORY,NOTES,AMENDMENTS,amendment,June,instance,NOTE,REFERENCES,Automobile,Race,Meets,Motorsport,Uniform,Disclaimer,Interests,Power,requirements,ADMINISTRATIVE,CODE,Procedures,Public,Employee,Optional,Retirement,Program,Distributions,Investment,Plan,Accounts,LexisNexis,Case,NotesCASE,Treatises,Analytical,MaterialsTREATISES,MATERIALS,ReviewsLAW,REVIEWS,Judgment,daughter,agreement,negligence,Claire,Boutiques,Locastro,LEXIS,Despite,Georgia,purposes,circuit,determination,Perez,Giledes,dissolution,Lusker,Trial,information,defendant,interference,violation,declaration,State,Earl,Pursuant,wife,Webb,Mere,fact,obligations,virtue,Where,hospital,recovery,Children,Vigliotti,infant,girl,status,Costa,North,Broward,Hosp,Dist,Muniz,Civil,Procedure,Supplementary,Pleadings,Pretrial,Settlements,Estates,Practice,Guide,Beneficiaries,Rights,Legal,Background,Interest,Litigation,Intestate,Forms,Petition,Authorization,Execute,Appendix,Probate,Rules,General,Rule,Division,Marriage,Cohabitation,Partners,Parental,Basis,Determinations,Duties,Effect,Preliminary,Support,Order,Modification,Parent,Relationships,Relationship,Father,Overview,Nonparental,Proceedings,Type,Disabilities,Aspects,Manual,Succession,Decedent,Removal,Litem,Fiduciary,Powers,Actions,Claims,Scope,Real,Transactions,Parties,Deeds,Minors,Torts,VIII,Sources,Compensation,Release,Techniques,Releases,Enforcement,Avoidance,Activities,Motion,Into,Third,Persons,Enter,Agreements,Wills,Provisions,Fiduciaries,Appoint,Master,Checklist,Determine,Assumption,Risk,Whether,Enforceable,Establish,Requires,Guardianships,Southeast,Transaction,Unit,Affairs,Research,NotesLAW,Comment,Constitutional,Limits,Patient,Medical,Treatment,Troy,Rillo,April,Comments,Behind,Times,Gender,Bias,Court,Cynthia,Summer,Help,Argument,Abrogation,Tort,Doctrine,Abuse,Incest,Casesa,Cases,Caroline,Johnson,Fall,Minefield,Afoul,Corporate,Management,Jordan,Dresnick,Miami,Quasi,Marital,Common,Privette,Daniel,Calls,Statutory,Reform,Honorable,Chris,Altenbernd,Winter,Student,Work,Nostalgia,Visitation,Decisions,Sarah,Stetson,Arbitration,Shea,Global,Travel,Douglas,Gerber,Nova,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,neither,behalf,boutique,indemnification,noncustodial,upon

Alaska statute on Parents right to sign away minors right to sue

Posted: February 17, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Adventure travel, Alaska, Department of Health, JimMoss, Minor, Parental Rights, Rock climbing, Waiver | Leave a comment

TITLE 9. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Image via Wikipedia

CHAPTER 65. ACTIONS, IMMUNITIES, DEFENSES, AND DUTIES

Go to the Alaska Code Archive Directory

Alaska Stat. § 09.65.292 (2012)

Sec. 09.65.292. Parental waiver of child’s negligence claim against provider of sports or recreational activity

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a parent may, on behalf of the parent’s child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence against the provider of a sports or recreational activity in which the child participates to the extent that the activities to which the waiver applies are clearly and conspicuously set out in the written waiver and to the extent the waiver is otherwise valid. The release or waiver must be in writing and shall be signed by the child’s parent.

(b) A parent may not release or waive a child’s prospective claim against a provider of a sports or recreational activity for reckless or intentional misconduct.

(1) “child” means a minor who is not emancipated;

(2) “parent” means

(A) the child’s natural or adoptive parent;

(B) the child’s guardian or other person appointed by the court to act on behalf of the child;

(D) a person who has a valid power of attorney concerning the child; or

(E) for a child not living with the child’s natural or adoptive parent, the child’s grandparent, aunt, uncle, sister, or brother who has reached the age of majority and with whom the child lives;

(3) “provider” has the meaning given in AS 09.65.290;

(4) “sports or recreational activity” has the meaning given in AS 09.65.290.

HISTORY: (§ 2 ch 67 SLA 2004)

NOTES: CROSS REFERENCES. –For findings and legislative intent statement applicable to the enactment of this section, see § 1, ch. 67, SLA 2004, in the 2004 Temporary and Special Acts.

EDITOR’S NOTES. –Section 3, ch. 67, SLA 2004 provides that this section applies “to acts or omissions that occur on or after September 14, 2004.”

USER NOTE: For more generally applicable notes, see notes under the first section of this article, chapter or title.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

WordPress Tags: Alaska,statute,Parents,TITLE,CODE,CIVIL,PROCEDURE,CHAPTER,ACTIONS,IMMUNITIES,DEFENSES,DUTIES,Archive,Directory,Stat,Parental,waiver,negligence,provider,Except,extent,misconduct,guardian,person,Department,Health,Social,Services,custody,attorney,grandparent,brother,HISTORY,NOTES,CROSS,REFERENCES,findings,statement,enactment,Temporary,Special,Acts,EDITOR,Section,omissions,September,USER,NOTE,article,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Rights,behalf,adoptive

Arizona limited right for parent to waive child’s right to sue

Posted: February 17, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Arizona, Minors, Youth, Children | Tags: Animal, Arizona, Arizona State University, Equine, health, Horse, Minor, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Release | 1 Comment

Image via Wikipedia

TITLE 12. COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 5. LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS

ARTICLE 3. PERSONAL ACTIONS

Go to the Arizona Code Archive Directory

A.R.S. § 12-553 (2011)

§ 12-553. Limited liability of equine owners and owners of equine facilities; exception; definitions

A. An equine owner or an agent of an equine owner who regardless of consideration allows another person to take control of an equine is not liable for an injury to or the death of the person if:

1. The person has taken control of the equine from the owner or agent when the injury or death occurs.

2. The person or the parent or legal guardian of the person if the person is under eighteen years of age has signed a release before taking control of the equine.

3. The owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or equipment or the person has personally tacked the equine with tack the person owned, leased or borrowed. If the person has personally tacked the equine, the person assumes full responsibility for the suitability, installation and condition of the tack.

4. The owner or agent assigns the person to a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person’s representation of his skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines.

B. Subsection A does not apply to an equine owner or agent of the equine owner who is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.

C. An owner, lessor or agent of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property that is used by a rider or handler of an equine with or without the owner’s permission is not liable for injury to or death of the equine or the rider or handler.

D. Subsection C does not apply to an owner, lessor or agent of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property that is used by a rider or handler of an equine if either of the following applies:

1. The owner, lessor or agent knows or should know that a hazardous condition exists and the owner, lessor or agent fails to disclose the hazardous condition to a rider or handler of an equine.

2. The owner, lessor or agent is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.

E. As used in this section:

1. “Equine” means a horse, pony, mule, donkey or ass.

2. “Release” means a document that a person signs before taking control of an equine from the owner or owner’s agent and that acknowledges that the person is aware of the inherent risks associated with equine activities, is willing and able to accept full responsibility for his own safety and welfare and releases the equine owner or agent from liability unless the equine owner or agent is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.

HISTORY: Last year in which legislation affected this section: 1998

NOTES:

Premises Liability

SCOPE OF IMMUNITY.

This section does not shield stable owners from claims for negligent supervision, which do not involve horseback riding or activities directly relating thereto. Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, 965 P.2d 47 (Ct. App. 1998).

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the riding stable operator was proper where the document that the rider signed contained sufficient information to have been considered a release; further, this section does not completely deprive injured equine riders of a remedy and thus it does not violate the anti-abrogation clause, Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6. Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C., 207 Ariz. 487, 88 P.3d 557, 2003 Ariz. App. LEXIS 162 (Ct. App. 2003).

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

WordPress Tags: Arizona,TITLE,COURTS,CIVIL,PROCEEDINGS,CHAPTER,LIMITATIONS,ACTIONS,ARTICLE,PERSONAL,Code,Archive,Directory,owners,facilities,exception,definitions,owner,agent,person,injury,death,guardian,equipment,installation,interpretation,representation,skills,health,knowledge,Subsection,omissions,rodeo,rider,handler,permission,Equine,horse,pony,Release,welfare,HISTORY,Last,legislation,NOTES,LexisNexis,State,Surveys,Regulations,Premises,SCOPE,supervision,Bothell,Point,Acres,Ariz,Grant,judgment,operator,information,riders,abrogation,clause,Const,Lindsay,Cave,Creek,Outfitters,LEXIS,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Parental,Rights,wilful,lessor

Squires v. Goodwin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129234

Posted: February 6, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area | Tags: AEE, BOEC, Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center, Breckenridge Ski Area, Breckenridge Ski Resort, Colorado, Colorado Ski Safety Act, Denver, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Minor, PSIA, Release, Summary judgment, United States Magistrate Judge | Leave a comment

Squires v. Goodwin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129234

To Read an Analysis of this case see Tough fight on a case, release used to stop all but one claim for a CO ski accident

Kimberly N. Squires, by and through her Guardian and Natural Parent, LYLE K. Squires, Plaintiff, v. James Michael Goodwin, an individual, Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center, a Colorado corporation, and Mountain Man, Inc., a Montana corporation, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10-cv-00309-CBS-BNB

United States District Court For The District Of Colorado

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129234

November 8, 2011, Decided

November 8, 2011, Filed

Prior History: Squires v. Goodwin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128565 (D. Colo., Nov. 7, 2011)

CORE TERMS: ski, bi-ski, skiing, misrepresentation, willful, reckless, citations omitted, exculpatory, deposition, wanton, trip, instructor, adaptive, omission, outdoor, summary judgment, wilderness, public policy, bargaining, mountain, knot, recreational, disability, recklessly, daughter’s, sit-down, entity, lesson, negligence claim, precautions

COUNSEL: [*1] For Kimberly N. Squires, by and through her guardian and natural parent, Lyle K. Squires other, Lyle K. Squires, Plaintiff: Colleen M. Parsley, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gregory A. Gold, Gold Law Firm, L.L.C, Greenwood Village, CO; Richard Waldron Bryans, Jr., Bryans Law Office, Denver, CO.

For James Michael Goodwin, an individual, Defendant: Gary L. Palumbo, Bayer & Carey, P.C., Denver, CO.

For Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center, a Colorado corporation, Defendant: Deana R. Dagner, Joan S. Allgaier, John W. Grund, Grund Dagner, P.C., Denver, CO.

JUDGES: Craig B. Shaffer, United States Magistrate Judge.

OPINION BY: Craig B. Shaffer

OPINION

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This civil action comes before the court on Defendant Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center’s (BOEC’s) Motion for Summary Judgment (filed December 3, 2010) (Doc. # 52). On September 16, 2010, the above-captioned case was referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer to handle all dispositive matters including trial and entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, and D.C. COLO. LCivR 72.2. (See Doc. # 42). The court has reviewed the Motion, Ms. Squires’ Response (filed January 6, 2011) (Doc. # 56), BOEC’s Reply (filed January [*2] 24, 2011) (Doc. # 61), BOEC’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (filed April 18, 2011) (Doc. # 76), Ms. Squires’ Response to BOEC’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (filed May 12, 2011) (Doc. # 81), Ms. Squires’ Reply Memorandum Brief Regarding Misrepresentation (filed May 30, 2011) (Doc. # 84), BOEC’s Surreply Brief regarding Misrepresentation (filed June 6, 20110) (Doc. # 89), the affidavit, the exhibits, the arguments presented at the hearing held on July 20, 2011, and the entire case file and is sufficiently advised in the premises.

I. Statement of the Case

Ms. Squires’ claim against BOEC arises out of a ski accident (“the Accident”) that occurred at Breckenridge Ski Resort, Colorado on February 13, 2008. BOEC is a nonprofit Colorado corporation that provides outdoor experiences for people with disabilities. (See SAC (Doc. # 13) at 2-3, ¶ 6; Scheduling Order (“SO”) (Doc. # 40) at 7 of 15 (Undisputed Facts)). At all relevant times, Ms. Squires was 17 years old, legally blind, cognitively delayed, and physically limited by cerebral palsy. (See SAC at 1-2, ¶ 2).

BOEC employed Jennifer Phillips as a para-ski instructor at the time of the Accident. (See SO at 7 of 15). On the morning of [*3] the Accident, Ms. Squires was paired with Ms. Phillips and placed in a bi-ski. (See id.). The bi-ski was manufactured by Defendant Mountain Man. (See id.). Ms. Phillips and Ms. Squires went to Peak 9 at Breckenridge Ski Resort. (See id.). Ms. Phillips utilized tethers as a means to control the bi-ski. (See SAC at 5 of 13, ¶ 16). On their second run, Ms. Squires and Ms. Phillips skied down Cashier trail. (See SO at 7 of 15). Defendant Goodwin was also skiing down Cashier trail. (See id.). Defendant Goodwin lost control and skied into the tethers between Ms. Squires and Ms. Phillips. (See Goodwin Deposition, Exhibit B to Motion (Doc. # 52-2), at 2, 3 of 3). Due to the force of the collision with Defendant Goodwin, Ms. Phillips lost control of the tethers and the bi-ski containing Ms. Squires continued down Cashier trail unrestrained until it collided with a tree. (See SAC at 5 of 13, ¶ 19; BOEC’s Answer to SAC (Doc. # 27) at 2-3 of 8, ¶ 12). Ms. Squires was injured when the bi-ski collided with a tree. (See SO at 7 of 15).

Ms. Squires filed her initial Complaint on February 12, 2010, alleging five claims for relief against Defendants Goodwin and BOEC based on diversity of citizenship [*4] jurisdiction. (See Doc. # 1). She filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 15, 2010, alleging nine claims for relief against Defendants Goodwin, BOEC, and Mountain Man, Inc. (“Mountain Man”). (See Doc. # 5). Ms. Squires refiled her First Amended Complaint on April 19, 2010 pursuant to a request from the Clerk of the Court. (See Doc. # 11). Ms. Squires filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the current operative pleading, on June 2, 2011, alleging nine claims against Defendants Goodwin, BOEC, and Mountain Man. (See Doc. # 13). Ms. Squires’ First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief allege negligence per se under the Ski Safety Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-109(2) and common law negligence against Defendant Goodwin. (See Doc. # 13 at 6-7 of 13). Ms. Squires’ Fifth Claim for Relief alleges negligence, willful and wanton, reckless, and/or gross negligence against Defendant BOEC. (See id. at 8-9 of 13). The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Mountain Man on Ms. Squires’ Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Claims for Relief for strict products liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness and/or merchantability, common law negligence, and breach [*5] of express warranty. (See id. at 9-12 of 13; “Order on Pending Motions” (Doc. # 119)).

Defendant BOEC moves for summary judgment on the Fifth Claim for Relief in the SAC on the grounds that Ms. Squires is prevented from bringing the claim by a valid release of liability.

II. Standard of Review

“Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment where 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 the . . . moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Colorado, 637 F. Supp. 2d 934, 939 (D. Colo. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “When applying this standard, the court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Id. “All doubts must be resolved in favor of the existence of triable issues of fact.” Id. However, if a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion [*6] of fact, “the court may . . . grant summary judgment if the motions and supporting materials — including the facts considered undisputed — show that the moving party is entitled to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

III. Analysis

A. Release of Negligence Claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107

Prior to the Accident, on January 13, 2008, Ms. Squires and her mother, Mrs. Squires, signed an “Acknowledgement [sic] of Risk and Release of Liability” (“Release”). In Colorado, the parent of a child may, on behalf of the child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107. The statute requires that such a decision be “voluntary and informed.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107(1)(a)(V).

(1)(a) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares it is the public policy of this state that:

(I) Children of this state should have the maximum opportunity to participate in sporting, recreational, educational, and other activities where certain risks may exist;

(II) Public, private, and non-profit entities providing these essential activities to children in Colorado need a measure of protection against lawsuits, and without the measure of protection these entities [*7] may be unwilling or unable to provide the activities;

(III) Parents have a fundamental right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The law has long presumed that parents act in the best interest of their children.

(IV) Parents make conscious choices every day on behalf of their children concerning the risks and benefits of participation in activities that may involve risk;

(V) These are proper parental choices on behalf of children that should not be ignored. So long as the decision is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education; and

(VI) It is the intent of the general assembly to encourage the affordability and availability of youth activities in this state by permitting a parent of a child to release a prospective negligence claim of the child against certain persons and entities involved in providing the opportunity to participate in the activities.

. . .

(3) A parent of a child may, on behalf of the child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit [*8] a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the child’s prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107.

“Because waiver is an affirmative defense, the Defendant has the burden to prove waiver.” Wycoff v. Grace Community Church of the Assemblies of God, 251 P.3d 1260, 1277 (Colo. App. 2010) (Furman, J, dissenting) (citing C.R.C.P. 8(c)). Ms. Squires argues that BOEC is not entitled to summary judgment on the Fifth Claim for Relief based on the Release because her mother’s decision to sign the Release was not informed.¹ Relying on Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1260, Ms. Squires argues that the decision was not informed because the Release did not inform Mrs. Squires of the risks associated with BOEC’s winter program, failing to “mention skiing, skis, ski slopes, ski lifts, or anything at all specific to skiing.” (See Response (Doc. # 56) at 9 of 19).

1 Ms. Squires concedes that Mrs. Squires signed the Release voluntarily. (See, e.g., Doc. # 84-4 at 6 of 7).

In Wycoff, a 17-year old minor attending a church-sponsored event was injured when she was riding [*9] on an inner-tube towed by an ATV on a frozen lake. Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1263. The minor and her mother had signed the registration and information form that contained a release. Id. While the minor was aware that riding on an inner-tube towed by an ATV on a frozen lake would be an activity at the event, her mother was not. Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1263. The court in Wycoff interpreted § 13-22-107(3) to require that a parent’s decision to release a child’s prospective claims be “voluntary and informed.” Id. Although the court noted the standard for informed consent to a medical procedure, it did not adopt that standard for a parental release of claim. Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1264. Without setting forth precisely how much information is required for a parental release to be “voluntary and informed,” the court held that a one-page “registration and information” form, which happened to contain one sentence in the last paragraph stating, “I will not hold Grace Community Church or it’s [sic] participants responsible for any liability which may result from participation,” was legally insufficient to release a child’s negligence claim. Id. at 1265. The court agreed that “[a] release need not contain [*10] any magic words to be valid,” but recognized that “in every Colorado Supreme Court case upholding an exculpatory clause, the clause contained some reference to waiving personal injury claims based on the activity being engaged in.” Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1265. The “registration and information” form held inadequate in Wycoff made no reference to the subject activity or to waiving personal injury claims, nor did it provide parents with information allowing them to assess the degree of risk and the extent of possible injuries from any activity. Id.

The Release here provides in pertinent part:

In consideration of being allowed to participate in any way in Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center (BOEC) programs, and related events and activities. . . I, and/or the minor student, and/or the person for which I am legal guardian, the undersigned:

1. Understand that although the BOEC has taken precautions to provide proper organization, supervision, instruction and equipment for each course, it is impossible for the BOEC to guarantee absolute safety. Also, I understand that I share the responsibility for safety during all activities, and I assume that

2. Understand that risks during outdoor programs [*11] include but are not limited to loss or damage to personal property, injury, permanent disability, fatality, exposure to inclement weather, slipping, falling, insect or animal bites, being struck by falling objects, immersion in cold water, hypothermia (cold exposure), hyperthermia (heat exposure), and severe social or economic losses that may result from any such incident. I also understand that such accidents or illnesses may occur in remote areas without easy access to medical facilities or while traveling to and form the activity sites. Further, there may be other risks not known to me or not reasonably foreseeable at this time.

3. Agree that prior to participation, I will inspect, to the best of my ability, the facilities and equipment to be used. If I believe anything is unsafe, I will immediately advise the BOEC staff present of such condition and refuse to participate.

4. Assume all the foregoing risks and accept personal responsibility for the damages due to such injury, permanent disability or death resulting from participating in any BOEC activity.

I hereby release the BOEC, its successors, representatives, assigns, and employees from any and all claims, demands, and causes [*12] of action, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise, of every nature and in conjunction with a BOEC activity.

(See Exhibit A to Motion (Doc. # 52-1)). On the other side of the Release was a letter of explanation (“Greetings Letter”) that the court may consider as evidence of whether the decision to sign the Release was informed. (See id. at 4 of 5; Deposition of Sara Squires, Appendix 4 to Ms. Squires’ Reply (Doc. # 84-4) at 3 of 7). See Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1264 (“We will assume for purposes of this case that a facially deficient exculpatory contract could be cured by extrinsic evidence.”); Glover v. Innis, 252 P.3d 1204, 1209 (Colo. App. 2011) (extrinsic evidence permitted not to contradict or vary terms of an agreement, but to show waiver of a provision of the agreement). The Greetings Letter stated in pertinent part:

Your ski lesson or course will involve risk, which may be greater than most people encounter in their daily lives. Providing high quality programs in a risk-managed environment is a priority at the BOEC. It is, however, impossible to eliminate all risks. It is very important that you follow all directions given by staff and that you ask questions whenever a procedure [*13] or activity is unclear to you.

While the BOEC maintains rigorous standards, it is in everyone’s best interest that risks are disclosed, understood, and assumed prior to participation. After you have reviewed the acknowledgement of risk and waiver of liability on the reverse side of this letter and if you understand and agree with its contents, please sign in the appropriate places. If you are the parent or legal guardian of a student, please read both sides of this document to the student, and if you both agree and understand their content, place YOUR signature in the three appropriate places[.]

(See Doc. # 61-1 at 4 of 5).

A finding that Mrs. Squires’ decision to sign the Release was informed is not inconsistent with the analysis in Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1260. First, the release in Wycoff was one sentence that “state[d] only that plaintiff will not hold Grace ‘responsible for any liability which may result from participation,'” surrounded by sentences addressing different topics. Here, the Release was clearly entitled at the top “Acknowledgement [sic] of Risk and Release of Liability,” in large, italicized letters. (See Doc. # 52-1). The first sentence again states, “ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF [*14] RISK AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY (REQUIRED)” in capital letters and underlined. Id. The Release signed by Ms. Squires was clearly identified as a waiver and release of liability.

Second, the Release includes one full page that explains in detail the degree of risk involved with BOEC outdoor programs, events, activities, and/or courses; the extent of possible injuries from any activity, including injury, permanent disability, fatality, and other risks not known or not reasonably foreseeable; participation in activities and the use of equipment; and the release of BOEC from any all and claims, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise. (See Doc. # 52-1). Ms. Squires was a participant in a BOEC winter outdoor program that included skiing. The Release refers to outdoor programs and sets forth a detailed explanation of the possible risks of injury to property and person. (See id.).

It is conceded that when she signed the Release, Mrs. Squires knew that her daughter would be skiing during her trip to Colorado. (See Doc. # 56 at 10 of 19). Nevertheless, Ms. Squires argues that the Release did not provide any, much less adequate, information regarding the inherent risks of skiing or describe [*15] the particular risks of the sit-down ski that she used and that it would be controlled by her instructor with tethers. Ms. Squires provides an affidavit from Mrs. Squires stating that, in response to her telephone inquiry, a BOEC employee instructed her to mark “Sit-Down” and “Bi-Ski” on the “Wilderness/Ski Group Information” Form, and that no one from BOEC explained to her what a “Sit-Down” or “Bi-Ski” was. (See Affidavit of Sara A. Squires, Exhibit 1 to Response (Doc. # 56-1); Doc. # 84-4 at 5 of 7).

Mr. and Mrs. Squires were provided the BOEC forms and applications to be completed in advance of the trip, including the Release, by Andrea Breier, Director of the Adventure Fitness Program at Camp Fire USA at the time, the group that organized the ski trip that Ms. Squires attended. (See Affidavit of Andrea Breier, Exhibit D to Reply (Doc. # 61-1) at 1-2 of 5). Mrs. Squires had opportunities to ask questions about the ski trip and the forms before her daughter’s trip to Colorado. (See id. at 2 of 5). Ms. Breier specifically recalls explaining to Mrs. Squires that Ms. Squires would be seated when skiing, that BOEC uses sleeping bags to pad the bucket seat, that students in wheelchairs [*16] have two assistants helping them, and that the instructor uses guide ropes to steer the ski down the mountain. (See id.). Mrs. Squires knew that her daughter would be using some form of sit-down ski on this trip because her primary means of mobility was by wheelchair and she would not have been able to ski down the mountain standing up. (See id.). Mrs. Squires completed the BOEC application and Release and provided Ms. Breier a typewritten summary that explained Ms. Squires’ conditions, limitations, and medical needs. (See Doc. # 61-1 at 2 of 5, ¶ 11). Mrs. Squires also wrote a detailed letter to BOEC, stating in pertinent part:

Sometimes during activities such as skiing, kids who have an implanted baclofen pump can experience withdrawal.² If she is in a “bucket”/”basket” type ski, where she might be more scrunched up, or her body is more compressed down, then the catheter line can become pinched or kinked up. If they use the bucket type, then her rehab doctor recommends that she ski for about 2 hrs and then be allowed to stand up to help “straighten” out the line. Then, go back to skiing again. If they use a “sit down ski” where she is more upright (like sitting in a wheelchair), then [*17] she shouldn’t have any problems. I am not familiar with the types of equipment they have, but am only saying what other families whose children also have pumps have told me about the equipment.

(Letter from Sara Squires dated February 12, 2008, Exhibit E to Reply (Doc. # 61-2)).

2 Ms. Squires had a surgically inserted baclofen pump, which dispenses medication for muscle spasms.

Despite that the Release does not specifically include the words, “skiing,” “sit-down,” or “bi-ski,” Mrs. Squires understood that her daughter would be seated in some type of sit-ski on the trip. While Mrs. Squires claims to have had no knowledge of what a sit-down bi-ski was at the time she signed the Release, the evidence demonstrates that she had sufficient notice and knowledge of the activities that her daughter would be participating in and the associated risks. Mrs. Squires conscientiously made inquiries to BOEC about the forms and the trip. (See Doc. # 84-4 at 5 of 7). Mrs. Squires was familiar with releases generally. (See Doc. # 84-4 at 4 of 7 (“Because . . . every single program on the face of the earth has a risk and release of liability and some verbiage to that effect.”); see also 6 of 7 (“It’s the [*18] same identical verbiage that is in every single risk and release of liability that I’ve signed for 20 years on Kimberley’s behalf for everything that she has ever participated in.”). Ms. Squires’ parents were informed that she would be skiing in Breckenridge, Colorado, in a type of sit-down ski, controlled by an instructor with tethers. The Release specifically refers to outdoor activities and associated risks and was accompanied by a cover letter that explained the risks involved with ski lessons, including the possibility of serious injury and even death. The Release provides that risks during outdoor programs include injury, permanent disability, fatality, severe social or economic losses, and other risks not known or reasonably foreseeable. See Hamill, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495, 2011 WL 1168006 at * 8 (that “mother may not have contemplated the precise mechanics of her daughter’s fall does not invalidate the release and does not create a genuine issue of material fact”). When she signed the Release, Mrs. Squires had sufficient information “to assess the degree of risk and the extent of possible injuries from any activity,” Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1265, and to make an informed decision to release any claims that [*19] Ms. Squires may have had against BOEC.

B. Validity of Release

The court having determined that the decision to release Ms. Squires’ prospective claims was informed pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107(1)(a)(V), the court must next determine whether the Release was legally valid. “Exculpatory agreements are construed strictly against the party seeking to limit its liability.” Hamill v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., P. 3d , 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495, 2011 WL 1168006, * 1 (Colo. App. March 31, 2011) (citation omitted). “The determination of the sufficiency and validity of an exculpatory agreement is a question of law for the court to determine.” B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 136 (Colo. 1998); see also Robinette v. Aspen Skiing Co., L.L.C., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093 at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2009), aff’d, 363 Fed. Appx. 547 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing B & B Livery, 960 P.2d at 136). “Although an exculpatory agreement that attempts to insulate a party from liability for his own simple negligence” is disfavored, “it is not necessarily void as against public policy . . . as long as one party is not at such obvious disadvantage in bargaining power that the effect of the contract is to put him at the mercy of the [*20] other’s negligence.” Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465, 467 (Colo. 2004) (citation omitted). “To be effective, the release must meet four criteria: (i) there must not have been an obvious disparity in bargaining power between the releasor and releasee; (ii) the agreement must set forth the parties’ intentions in clear and unambiguous language; (iii) the circumstances and the nature of the service must indicate that the agreement was fairly entered into; and (iv) the agreement may not violate public policy.” Robinette, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093 at *2 (citations omitted). BOEC bears the burden of proving each of these elements. See id.

Where, as here, the service provided is a recreational service and not an essential service, there is no unfair bargaining advantage. See Mincin v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 308 F.3d 1105, 1112 (10th Cir. 2002) (public need and disparity of bargaining power absent in context of mountain biking and bicycle rental); Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 377-78 (Colo. 1981) (because recreational skydiving service “was not a matter of practical necessity for even some members of the public” and thus “not an essential service,” Defendant did not possess a decisive [*21] advantage of bargaining strength over plaintiff); Potter v. Nat’l Handicapped Sports, 849 F. Supp. 1407, 1409-10 (D. Colo. 1994) (handicapped downhill ski racing was “a recreational activity, . . . neither a matter of great public importance nor a matter of practical necessity”) (citing Bauer v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 788 F. Supp. 472, 475 (D. Colo. 1992) (upholding an exculpatory clause in the context of ski equipment rental)). Ms. Squires does not challenge BOEC’s ability to prove this first element.

Second, the court evaluates whether the Release expresses the parties’ intent in clear and unambiguous language. “Interpretation of a written contract and the determination of whether a provision in the contract is ambiguous are questions of law.” Dorman v. Petrol Aspen, Inc., 914 P.2d 909, 912 (Colo. 1996) (citation omitted). Ms. Squires argues that the Release is ambiguous and, therefore, invalid, because the language, “[a]lso I understand that I share the responsibility for safety during all activities” expresses a “shared regime of risk,” contradicts the language “I hereby release the BOEC, its successors, representatives, assigns, and employees from any and all claims, demands, [*22] and causes of action, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise, of every nature and in conjunction with a BOEC activity,” and makes the participant/signer solely responsible for any injuries or bad outcomes. (See Doc. # 52-1; Doc. # 56 at 15-17 of 19).

“Terms used in a contract are ambiguous when they are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Ad Two, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 9 P.3d 373, 376 (Colo. 2000). “In determining whether a provision in a contract is ambiguous, the instrument’s language must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain and generally accepted meanings of the words used, and reference must be made to all the agreement’s provisions.” Ringquist v. Wall Custom Homes, LLC, 176 P.3d 846, 849 (Colo. App. 2007) (citations omitted). “The meaning and effect of a contract is to be determined from a review of the entire instrument, not merely from isolated clauses or phrases.” Moland v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State, 111 P.3d 507, 510 (Colo. App. 2004). Specific terms, such as “negligence,” are not required for an exculpatory agreement to shield a party from negligence claims. Potter, 849 F. Supp. at 1410 (citing Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 785 (Colo. 1989) [*23] (noting that the release was written in simple and clear terms that were free from legal jargon, the release was not inordinately long and complicated, the plaintiff indicated in her deposition that she understood the release, and the first sentence of the release specifically addressed a risk that described the circumstances of the plaintiff’s injury)). The inquiry is not whether specific terms are used, but “whether the intent of the parties was to extinguish liability and whether this intent was clearly and unambiguously expressed.” Id. See also Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467 (Colorado Supreme Court has “previously examined the actual language of the agreement for legal jargon, length and complication, and any likelihood of confusion or failure of a party to recognize the full extent of the release provisions”). “If there is no ambiguity, a contract will be enforced according to the express provision of the agreement.” B & B Livery, 960 P.2d at 136.

Here, the Release is written in clear and simple terms, is free from legal jargon, is neither long nor complicated, and encompasses the risks encompassed by Ms. Squires’ Fifth Claim for Relief. The Release specifically includes claims for [*24] negligence. The specific risk of what occurred in the Accident is encompassed within the risks of BOEC’s outdoor winter program. See Robinette, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093 at * 3 (“specific risk of colliding with a snowmobile being operated by a ski resort employee is necessarily within the risks of skiing/riding”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court does not find the Release ambiguous.

Nor does the court find the Release is reasonably susceptible to Ms. Squires’ interpretation. Ms. Squires interprets two provisions in the Release in a way that strains logic to conclude that the Release as a whole is ambiguous. That Ms. Squires agrees to share the responsibility of safety during BOEC activities is not mutually exclusive from Ms. Squires agreeing to release claims arising out of BOEC activities.

Ms. Squires also notes the Release language that “BOEC has taken precautions to provide proper organization, supervision, instruction and equipment for each course,” claiming that BOEC failed to do this, and querying how BOEC could shift this responsibility to its participants. Ms. Squires claims that BOEC’s failures related to the equipment used, terrain selected, use of volunteers, control of [*25] the bi-ski, training and selection of instructors, assessment of plaintiff’s disabilities, provision of instructions and safety precautions, and prevention of accidents with other skiers. The Release specifically addresses that “although the BOEC has taken precautions to provide proper organization, supervision, instruction and equipment for each course, it is impossible for the BOEC to guarantee absolute safety.” (See Doc. # 52-1).

When the Release is read as a whole and the words are given their generally accepted meaning, it is susceptible to one reasonable interpretation: that although BOEC has taken precautions, it cannot guarantee absolute safety; that there are serious risks involved in BOEC activities; and that, to participate in BOEC activities, the releaser agrees to release BOEC from any and all claims related to a BOEC activity. The Release by its plain language expresses the parties’ intent to release BOEC from liability for all personal injuries resulting from negligence in conjunction with a BOEC activity.

Third, the court examines whether the Release was fairly entered into. “A contract is fairly entered into if one party is not so obviously disadvantaged with respect [*26] to bargaining power that the resulting contract essentially places him at the mercy of the other party’s negligence.” Hamill, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495, 2011 WL 1168006 at *3 (citations omitted). Ms. Squires does not challenge BOEC’s ability to prove that the service provided here is a recreational service, not an essential service, and thus there is no unfair bargaining advantage. Where the releasor fails to point to any other unfair circumstances surrounding the exculpatory agreement, the third factor is satisfied. See Mincin, 308 F.3d at 1111. As in Chadwick, Mrs. Squires signed the Release at home in Kansas, in advance of the ski trip. 100 P.3d at 469. Mrs. Squires signed the Release voluntarily. There is no suggestion that Mrs. Squires is not competent. It is clear that Mrs. Squires is a devoted parent who has zealously tried to enhance her daughter’s quality of life. There is no evidence that the services provided by BOEC could not have been obtained elsewhere. See Hamill, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495, 2011 WL 1168006 at * 3 (“in assessing fairness, courts may also examine whether the services provided could have been obtained elsewhere”) (citing Jones, 623 P.2d at 375). Mrs. Squires is experienced and familiar with liability releases [*27] in general. Ms. Squires has not demonstrated any other unfair circumstances surrounding the execution of the Release.

Finally, the court finds that the Release does not violate public policy. The adaptive recreational ski services provided by BOEC are recreational and not a matter of great public importance or practical necessity. The evidence does not indicate that the Release was entered into in any unfair manner. The Release does not exculpate BOEC from any duty in violation of public policy. The Release does not undermine any competing public policy. See Robinette, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34873, 2009 WL 1108093 at *4. The expressed public policy in Colorado is “to encourage the affordability and availability of youth activities in this state by permitting a parent of a child to release a prospective negligence claim of the child against certain persons and entities involved in providing the opportunity to participate in the activities.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107(1)(a)(VI).

In sum, as the court finds no obvious disparity in bargaining power between the parties to the Release, that the parties’ intentions are clear and unambiguous, that the agreement was fairly entered into, and that the Release does not violate [*28] public policy, the court concludes that the Release is valid. See Hamill, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495, 2011 WL 1168006 at *6 (Colo. App. Mar. 31, 2011) (determining exculpatory agreement was valid because it “did not implicate a public duty, did not involve an essential service, was fairly entered into, and it plainly expressed the intent to release prospective negligence claims”); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 469-70 (enforcing exculpatory agreement releasing organizer of hunting trip from injuries sustained when he was thrown off mule, where exculpatory agreement unambiguously expressed the intent of the parties, was not unfairly entered into, injured party read agreement and understood he was executing a release of liability when he signed it, and agreement violated no duty to the public). Ms. Squires has released “BOEC, its successors, representatives, assigns, and employees from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action” from any claims resulting from negligence in conjunction with a BOEC activity.

C. Material Misrepresentation and Fraud in the Inducement

Ms. Squires argues that BOEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied because the Release is voidable based on material misrepresentation and fraud in [*29] the inducement. “A release is an agreement to which the general contract rules of interpretation and construction apply.” Chase v. Dow Chemical Company, 875 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). “Like any contract, a release procured through fraud can be set aside.” Id.

Ms. Squires argues that BOEC fraudulently misrepresented in the Greetings Letter, on the reverse side of the Release, that all of its “activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the highest standards, as defined by the Association of Experiential Education (“AEE”),” when in fact there were no written standards for the adaptive ski program, and that the program was accredited by AEE when in fact the program was not so accredited. (See Doc. # 61-1 at 4 of 5). There is no statement regarding AEE standards or accreditation in the Release itself. (See Doc. # 52-1). BOEC representative and Ski Program Director Paul Gamber testified that on the day of the Accident, BOEC did not have any written ski lesson policies and procedures for the adaptive ski program. (See Doc. # 84-6 at 2 of 2). BOEC’s Ski Program Director, Jeffrey Inouye, testified that the AEE accreditation related to programs other than the adaptive [*30] ski program that Ms. Squires attended. (See Deposition of Jeffrey Inouye (Doc. # 84-2) at 2 of 2). Ms. Squires argues that based on the lack of written safety standards, “it is not a stretch to conclude that the adaptive skiing program was not conducted in a manner consistent with the highest standards of the AEE, contrary to the representations made by BOEC in its Greetings Letter.” (Reply Memorandum Brief Regarding Misrepresentation (Doc. # 84) at 4 of 11). Ms. Squires argues that Mrs. Squires relied on these claimed misrepresentation when she signed the Release on January 13, 2008.

In addition to its adaptive ski program, BOEC has a department that operates its wilderness program, which facilitates year-around programming for people with disabilities and special needs. (See Doc. # 89-3 at 3 of 3). The Greetings Letter is sent to participants involved in a wilderness course, who may or may not participate in the ski program. (See Doc. # 89-1 at 2-5 of 5). Groups interested in a wilderness course, which includes lodging and activities other than skiing, such as a ropes course, and climbing wall, will complete paperwork through the wilderness program. Id. Each program has its own separate [*31] set of forms to be completed by participants. Id. Groups who are interested only in skiing at BOEC will complete paperwork for the ski program. (See Doc. # 89-1 at 2-5 of 5). Ms. Squires was a student of BOEC as a participant of the Camp Fire USA group (“Camp Fire”). (See Doc. # 61-1 at 1-2 of 5). For its trip to Colorado, Camp Fire contracted with the wilderness program for a five-day wilderness course that included transportation and lodging in addition to skiing. (See Wilderness Course Contract (Doc. # 89-2) at 1-2 of 2). The Release and Greetings Letter were from the wilderness program. (See Doc. # 89-1 at 3 of 5).

While BOEC’s adaptive ski program did not have its own written ski lesson policies and procedures at the time of the Accident, it has at all times trained its instructors and followed the standards for adaptive skiing set forth by the PSIA, the governing body that establishes national standards for skiing. (See Doc. # 89-3 at 2 of 3). BOEC’s adaptive ski program used the PSIA Core Concepts book, the Adaptive Ski Program Manual, and the Alpine Technical Manual. (See id.; see also Doc. # 84-5).

“To establish fraud, a plaintiff has to prove that (1) a fraudulent misrepresentation [*32] of material fact was made by the defendant; (2) at the time the representation was made, the defendant knew the representation was false or was aware that he did not know whether the representation was true or false; (3) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation; (4) the plaintiff had the right to rely on, or was justified in relying on, the misrepresentation; and (5) the reliance resulted in damages.” Barfield v. Hall Realty, Inc., 232 P.3d 286, 290 (Colo. App. 2010) (citing CJI-Civ. 4th 19:1 (1998)). See also J.A. Walker Co., Inc. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126, 132 (Colo. 2007) (applying same elements to a fraudulent inducement claim). “Implicit within these elements are the requirements that the claimant demonstrate that it relied on the misrepresentation and that its reliance was justified under the circumstances.” Loveland Essential Group, LLC v. Grommon Farms, Inc., 251 P.3d 1109, 1116 (Colo. App. 2010) (citation omitted).

“The misrepresentation must be made with the intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the other party to act on it, and there must be evidence that the other party did in fact rely on it and was induced thereby to act to his injury or damage.” Club Valencia Homeowners Ass’n v. Valencia Assocs., 712 P.2d 1024, 1026-27 (Colo. App. 1985) [*33] (citation omitted). Ms. Squires has not produced any evidence that BOEC made the alleged misrepresentations with the intent to deceive. For failure to demonstrate this element, Ms. Squires’ argument that the Release is voidable based on material misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement must fail.

Reasonable and justifiable reliance is also required for a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. Ivar v. Elk River Partners, LLC, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1238 (D. Colo. 2010). See also Sheffield Services Co. v. Trowbridge, 211 P.3d 714, 725 (Colo. App. 2009) (“a necessary element to all fraud actions is that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation or the nondisclosure”); Williams v. Boyle, 72 P.3d 392, 399 (Colo. App. 2003) (element of fraudulent misrepresentation is “the right or justification in relying on the misrepresentation”).

The evidence fails to demonstrate justifiable reliance by Mrs. Squires on the statements regarding AEE standards and accreditation in the Greetings Letter. The Greetings Letter emphasized the importance of reading and signing the Release on the reverse side. (See Doc. # 84-1 at 1 of 1). The Release explains that skiing involves a risk of serious [*34] bodily injury and that it is impossible to eliminate all risk. (See Doc. # 52-1). Despite the emphasis on the importance of reading and signing the Release, Mrs. Squires did not take particular note of the language in the Release. “I can only say I assume I read it. I have no recollection of reading it before I signed it.” (See Doc. # 84-4 at 6 of 7). Ms. Squires propounds that Mrs. Squires paid close attention to the Greetings Letter but did not place any importance on the Release itself, which contained the exculpatory provisions. (See id. (the Release contained “the same identical verbiage that is in every single risk and release of liability that I’ve signed for 20 years on Kimberly’s behalf for everything that she has ever participated in. So I did not put any more credence towards this particular document than I did anything else.”)). Mrs. Squires had substantial knowledge about the ski trip, learned from Camp Fire’s past experiences, communications with Ms. Breier, and BOEC’s written materials. (See Doc. # 84-4 at 2-7 of 7). The evidence does not support a finding that Mrs. Squires justifiably relied on the information in the Greetings Letter regarding the AEE while taking no [*35] notice of the exculpatory language in the Release she signed. The evidence shows that Mrs. Squires did not make the decision for Ms. Squires to participate in the ski trip in reliance on the alleged misrepresentations. The court concludes that Ms. Squires has not created a genuine issue of fact for trial on the element of justifiable reliance on the Greetings Letter. For this reason also, Ms. Squires’ argument that the Release is voidable based on material misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement must fail.

D. Willful and Wanton Conduct

The parties acknowledge that the Release cannot bar civil liability for gross negligence. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107(4) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the child’s prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.”); Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467 (“In no event will an exculpatory agreement be permitted to shield against a claim of willful and wanton negligence.”).

“Although the issue of whether a defendant’s conduct is purposeful or reckless is ordinarily a question [*36] of fact, if the record is devoid of sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue, then the question may be resolved by the court as a matter of law.” Forman v. Brown, 944 P.2d 559, 564 (Colo. App. 1996). See also Terror Mining Co. v. Roter, 866 P.2d 929, 935 (Colo. 1994) (summary judgment proper even when willful and wanton conduct alleged, where facts are undisputed and do not establish or imply willful conduct); United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Sonitrol Management Corp., 192 P.3d 543 (Colo. App. 2008) (“Ordinarily, determining whether a defendant’s conduct is willful and wanton is a question of fact.”) (citation omitted).

“Gross negligence is willful and wanton conduct, that is, action committed recklessly, with conscious disregard for the safety of others.” Hamill, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495, 2011 WL 1168006 at *9 (citing Forman, 944 P.2d at 564. “Willful and wanton conduct is purposeful conduct committed recklessly that exhibits an intent consciously to disregard the safety of others. Such conduct extends beyond mere unreasonableness.” Forman, 944 P.2d at 564. See also Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437, 449 (Colo. 2007) (“Conduct is willful and wanton if it is a dangerous course of action that is consciously [*37] chosen with knowledge of facts, which to a reasonable mind creates a strong probability that injury to others will result.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 523 n. 10 (Colo. 1992) (“Willful misconduct consists of conduct purposely committed under circumstances where the actor realizes that the conduct is dangerous but nonetheless engages in the conduct without regard to the safety of others.”) (citation omitted); Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, Inc. v. Qwest Corporation, 174 P.3d 821, 830 (Colo. App. 2007) (“Willful and wanton behavior is defined as a mental state of the actor consonant with purpose, intent, and voluntary choice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Based on her expert witness, Mr. Gale’s, opinion, Ms. Squires argues that BOEC acted recklessly, precluding application of the Release. Mr. Gale, a snow sports safety consultant with 43 years of ski safety training and experience, concludes that BOEC acted recklessly based on: (1) “an inherently unsafe bi-ski program administered and conducted by BOEC,” (2) BOEC instructor Jennifer Phillips’ selection of inappropriately difficult [*38] terrain and failure to follow proper lesson plan procedures, and (3) BOEC volunteer Jim Trisler’s failure to “do his job as a blocker, look-out . . . .” (See Doc. # 56-4 at 9-11 of 11; Doc. # 56-5 at 1-2 of 8; Doc. # 88-8 (Curriculum Vitae)).

In his Expert Report, Mr. Gale concludes:

The incident was the cumulative result of an inherently unsafe bi-ski program administered and conducted by BOEC. It knew or should have known that its “word of mouth” rather than written safety protocols and procedures were ineffective and substantially enhanced the risk over and above the inherent risks of skiing to Miss Squires. It purposely chose a dangerous course of training, supervision, and bi-ski program implementation. In doing do it created a strong probability that this circumstance was [a] predictable incident that was bound to happen sooner or later. It failed to address fundamental safety procedures even though it appears to do so in its other adaptive program offerings. . . This further demonstrates BOEC’s willful, reckless, and comprehensive disregard for Miss Squire’s safety.

(Doc. # 56-5 at 1 of 8, ¶ 5.2). Mr. Gale also concludes that the conduct of BOEC’s instructor, Ms. Phillips, was [*39] intentional, willful, and reckless.

The conduct of BOEC’s instructor Jennifer Phillips fell well below the PSIA standards. As a PSIA certified instructor, she was or should be well aware of the policies, procedures, and standards for bi-ski instruction particularly terrain selection. The plethora of written PSIA instructional methodology and information addresses skill based instructional activities with safety as a fundamental priority and duty. She intentionally made the decision to abandon the PSIA lesson plan and sequential format for bi-ski instruction. This conduct demonstrates intentional, willful, and reckless disregard for Miss Squire[s’] safety.

(Doc. # 56-5 at 1 of 8, ¶ 5.3). Mr. Gale further identifies reckless conduct with regard to the use of slip knots to ensure that the bi-ski would remain tethered to the BOEC instructor. He concludes that:

Defendant BOEC was or should have been fully aware of the dangers of a detached bi-ski caused by the reckless choice not to properly utilize or dangerously utilize BOEC’s own slip knot rule powerfully hitting some object, person, or a tree. The safety procedures, training, and program risk management did not match the risk nor fully [*40] address the safety requirements dealing with a detached and out of control bi-ski loose on the slope. The foreseeable consequence was a serious injury to the student, the public, or both. The entities recklessly disregarded Miss Squires[‘] safety and willfully created this higher than normal risk for Miss Squires. There were no prudent or careful precautions taken to reduce or lessen the risk of this predictable and foreseeable incident.

(Doc. # 56-5 at 2 of 8, ¶ 5.5).

Mr. Bil Hawkins of Knott Laboratories also provided an expert report. (See Doc. # 56-2). Mr. Hawkins has a B.S. in civil engineering and is a certified Level II Rope Access Technician. (See Doc. # 88-5). Mr. Hawkins examined the safety knot, or slip knot, used to fasten the bi-ski’s tether to BOEC instructor Ms. Phillips. This knot was the only mechanism that prevented the downhill movement of the bi-ski. Mr. Hawkins concludes in his expert report:

Based upon Knott Laboratory’s inspection, the available evidence, and this engineer’s education, training, and experience, the following conclusions have been reached within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty:

o Ms. Phillips was not certified to [i]nstruct students on [*41] a bi-ski device at the time of Ms. Squires[‘] accident on February 13, 2010

o BOEC knew or should have known that Ms. Phillips was not certified to instruct participants on a bi-ski device at the time of Ms. Squires[‘] accident on February 13, 2010

o Ms. Phillips did not follow BOEC’s written policy by providing two independent means of anchor when providing sole support to a participant on a rope device

o The safety knot Ms. Phillips reportedly tied directly against the skin of her wrist would not have slipped off her arm had it been tied properly

(Doc. # 56-2 at 11 of 11).

There is thus some evidence in the record that it may have been reckless for Ms. Phillips to take Ms. Squires on Cashier, a blue run, on the day of the Accident. Ms. Squires was a blind, first-time skier strapped to a bi-ski with no means to control her own speed or direction. It was BOEC policy to start such a student on a green run. (See Deposition of Paul E. Gamber (Doc. # 97-11) at 2 of 2). But see Deposition of Stanley Gale (Doc. # 90-5) at 2 of 2 (“Q: Are you saying — are you saying that it’s wrong to have an adaptive bi-skier on Cashier run? A: No.”); Expert Report of Ruth Ann DeMuth (Doc. # 100-5) at 5 of 6 [*42] (BOEC employee Jennifer Phillips “did not compromise the safety of Miss Squires by going up the Beaver Run Lift to Cashier.”).

The court cannot conclusively determine based on the evidence before it whether there was a purposeful or conscious failure to use a slipknot or tie the properly. The use of a slipknot with a bi-ski is the established BOEC policy. (See Deposition of Jennifer L. Phillips (Doc. # 100-3) at 2-3 of 3; Deposition of Paul E. Gamber (Doc. # 100-4) at 4 of 4). Witnesses who were asked agreed that it could be reckless to conduct a bi-ski lesson without a properly-tied slip knot tethering a bi-ski with fixed outriggers. (See Deposition of Jennifer L. Phillips (Doc. # 90-8) at 2 of 2; Deposition of Peter W. Axelson (Doc. # 97-9) at 3 of 3; Deposition of Paul E. Gamber (Doc. # 97-11) at 2 of 2; (Doc. # 90-7) at 2 of 2; Deposition of Ruth Ann DeMuth (Doc. # 90-6) at 2 of 2; Deposition of Patrick B. Kelley (Doc. # 90-4) at 2 of 3). Mr. Hawkins concludes that “[t]he safety knot Ms. Phillips reportedly tied directly against the skin of her wrist would not have slipped off her arm had it been tied properly.” (Doc. # 56-2 at 11 of 11).

This evidence and these conclusions by the [*43] expert witnesses could demonstrate reckless, grossly negligent, and willful and wanton acts and omissions. A jury could conclude there was purposeful conduct committed recklessly with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Ms. Squires. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to Ms. Squires, might lead a reasonable jury to conclude that BOEC was conscious of its conduct and the existing conditions and knew there was a strong probability that injury to Ms. Squires would result. The court concludes that Ms. Squires is properly afforded an opportunity to present to a jury evidence of the alleged willful and wanton, reckless, or grossly negligent acts or omissions. It will best be determined at trial, after the submission of Ms. Squires’ case in chief, whether BOEC acted recklessly.

The court addresses separately Ms. Squires’ argument that BOEC volunteer, Mr. Trisler’s, “acts and omissions” were “more than mere recklessness.” (See Doc. # 56 at 14 of 19). Mr. Gale concludes that

[t]he conduct of BOEC trained Jim Trisler fell below the duty of a blocker. He did absolutely nothing to prevent the collision or intervene prior to the collision between Jennifer Phillips and Michael [*44] Goodwin. He failed in his essential duties which were to prevent the collision, or at the very least, to reduce the severity of the consequences.

(See Doc. # 56-5 at 2 of 8, ¶ 5.4). See also Doc. # 56-4 at 10 of 11 (“he did not do his job as a blocker, look-out, or make his presence known to Michael Goodwin. Apparently, he did not hear or see Michael Goodwin coming down out of control before the powerful impact. He was not vigilant nor did he fulfill his duty and responsibility to protect and warn. It seems that he was not on the look-out as he should have been or he would have likely seen Michael Goodwin skiing too close, out of control, and headed for Jennifer Philips and Miss Squires[‘] bi-ski device.”). Ms. Squires argues that ‘[a]lthough Mr. Gale does not specifically use the word reckless in describing Mr. Trisler’s acts and omissions, his analysis and description describe more than mere recklessness.” (Response (Doc. # 56) at 14 of 19). The court disagrees. Colorado law defines negligence as “a failure to do an act which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably careful person would not do, under the same or similar circumstances to protect [*45] . . . others from bodily injury, . . .” CJI-Civ. 9:6 (2011). The evidence in the record, including Mr. Gale’s opinion, amounts to no more than negligence by Mr. Trisler. As to Mr. Trisler, there is insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that he acted willfully and wantonly, that is, that he consciously chose a dangerous course of action with knowledge of facts that, to a reasonable mind, created a strong probability that injury to Ms. Squires would result. The Release thus bars Ms. Squires’ claim based on Mr. Trisler’s conduct.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant BOEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed December 3, 2010) (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. The Fifth Claim for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 13) shall proceed against Defendant Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center only on the alleged willful and wanton, reckless, or grossly negligent acts or omissions.

3. The court will hold a Telephonic Status Conference on Thursday December 8, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel for the parties shall create a conference call and then telephone the court at 303-844-2117 at the scheduled time.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th [*46] day of November, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

North Carolina may allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue for injuries when the minor is engaged in non-profit activities sponsored by schools, volunteers, or community organizations

Posted: November 23, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: North Carolina, Youth Camps | Tags: Adventure travel, Camp Lejeune, JimMoss, Marines, Minor, NC, North Carolina, North Carolina Supreme Court, Ropes course | Leave a comment

Kelly v. United States of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89741

However, the decision was not made by the North Carolina Supreme Court and not a ruling by the court and the actual legal issue.

In this case the plaintiff, a fifteen year old minor went on an orientation visit to Camp Lejeune as part of her Navy Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program at her high school. While participating in the confidence course (or what used to be called the obstacle course) she was injured. Her injuries were not identified in the lawsuit; however, she was suing for $10,000,000.00.

The minor could not attend the camp unless she and her mother signed the release.

The reason for the decision was based on the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answers. This is a preliminary motion that attempts to knock out the specific defenses of the defendant. One of the defenses the plaintiff attempted to eliminate was the defense of release.

This order and decision from the court are not a final decision on the merits of the case. This is only a preliminary motion; however, it is interesting in how the court ruled on the issue of the mother signing the release.

So?

Image via Wikipedia

The court reviewed release law in general and found that in North Carolina, releases are generally enforceable. Releases are strictly construed against the party attempting to enforce them (the defendants). To be valid in North Carolina a release cannot be enforced if it:

(1) is violative of a statute;

(2) is gained through inequality of bargaining power; or

(3) is contrary to a substantial public interest.

The release in this case did not violate any of the above three prohibitions.

The court then looked at whether the release signed by the minor plaintiff was valid. Under North Carolina law, like all other states, a release signed by a minor is voidable by the minor unless it meets rare exceptions. The exception to the contract prohibition is contracts for necessities or when a statute allows a minor to sign a contract. Here, neither of these issues was the reason the release was signed. So the release signed by the minor has no value and is void.

The court then looked at the release signed by the mother. The court found that a minority of states that had looked at the issue, had found releases for minors signed by parents so the minor could engage in “non-profit activities sponsored by schools, volunteers, or community organizations.”

The analysis then looked at whether the North Carolina Supreme Court would hold the same way. The activity the minor engaged in was extracurricular and voluntary and done for the benefit of the child. As such the court held the North Carolina Supreme Court would hold the release valid.

So Now What?

Before a rule, law can be cast in wet concrete (nothing is ever cast in stone) it must be decided by the highest court in the state. Here, the federal court looking at the issue made the decision. The North Carolina Supreme Court at some later time could decide that this is not the way it wants to rule.

Furthermore, the ruling is not that the release signed by the mother is valid. The ruling is the defense of release being argued by the defendant is not thrown out by the court. The legal issue of whether or not the release is a valid release under North Carolina law is still at issue.

The decision is important and will probably be followed later in the case, but there is no guaranty. However, it is a positive step to stop lawsuits.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

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

Keywords: #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #NorthCarolina, #NC, #Marines, #Navy, #ObstacleCourse, #ConfidenceCourse, # NJROTC, # NavyJuniorReserveOfficerTrainingCorps, # FederalTortClaimsAct,

Technorati Tags: North,Carolina,injuries,States,America,Dist,LEXIS,decision,Supreme,Court,plaintiff,Camp,Lejeune,Navy,Junior,Reserve,Officer,Corps,confidence,obstacle,lawsuit,defendants,defendant,Releases,statute,prohibitions,Under,exceptions,exception,prohibition,necessities,Here,minors,parents,analysis,lawsuits,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,NorthCarolina,Marines,ObstacleCourse,ConfidenceCourse,NJROTC,NavyJuniorReserveOfficerTrainingCorps,FederalTortClaimsAct,whether

Windows Live Tags: North,Carolina,injuries,States,America,Dist,LEXIS,decision,Supreme,Court,plaintiff,Camp,Lejeune,Navy,Junior,Reserve,Officer,Corps,confidence,obstacle,lawsuit,defendants,defendant,Releases,statute,prohibitions,Under,exceptions,exception,prohibition,necessities,Here,minors,parents,analysis,lawsuits,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,NorthCarolina,Marines,ObstacleCourse,ConfidenceCourse,NJROTC,NavyJuniorReserveOfficerTrainingCorps,FederalTortClaimsAct,whether

WordPress Tags: North,Carolina,injuries,States,America,Dist,LEXIS,decision,Supreme,Court,plaintiff,Camp,Lejeune,Navy,Junior,Reserve,Officer,Corps,confidence,obstacle,lawsuit,defendants,defendant,Releases,statute,prohibitions,Under,exceptions,exception,prohibition,necessities,Here,minors,parents,analysis,lawsuits,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,NorthCarolina,Marines,ObstacleCourse,ConfidenceCourse,NJROTC,NavyJuniorReserveOfficerTrainingCorps,FederalTortClaimsAct,whether

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

Posted: November 23, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Minor, North Dakota, Wisconsin | Leave a comment

If your state is not listed here, you should assume a parent cannot waive a minor’s right to sue in your state.

State	By Statute	Restrictions
Alaska	Alaska: Sec. 09.65.292	Sec. 05.45.120 does not allow using a release by ski areas for ski injuries
Arizona	ARS § 12-553	Limited to Equine Activities
Colorado	C.R.S. §§13-22-107	Some commentators consider the statute a little weak
Florida	Florida Statute § 744.301 (3)
	By Case Law
California	Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal.App.3d 1559, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1990)
Florida	Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 1454	Allows a release signed by a parent to require arbitration of the minor’s claims
Florida	Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So.2d 1067, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1147	Release can be used for volunteer activities and by government entities
Massachusetts	Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99; 769 N.E.2d 738; 2002 Mass. LEXIS 384
Minnesota	Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299
North Dakota	McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3
Ohio	Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998)	Maybe only for non-profits
Wisconsin	Osborn v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 546, 259 Wis. 2d 481, 2002 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1216, 2003 WI App 1	However the decision in Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2 voided all releases in the state
	On the Edge, but not enough to really rely on
North Carolina	Kelly v. United States of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89741	Ruling is by the Federal District Court and only a preliminary motion

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

Keywords: #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #minor, #release, #ParentSignature, #NC, #NorthCarolina, #Alaska, #AK, #AZ, #Arizona, #CO, #Colorado, #Florida, #FL, #CA, #California, #MA, #Massachusetts, #Minnesota, #MN, #ND, #NorthDakota, #OH, #Ohio, #WI, #Wisconsin, #Hohe, #SanDiego, #SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict, #GlobalTravelMarketing, #Shea, #Gonzalez, #CityOfCoralGables, #Sharon, #CityofNewton, #Moore, #MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool, #McPhail, #BismarkParkDistrict, #Zivich, #MentorSoccerClub, #Osborn, #CascadeMountain, #Atkins, #SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter,

Technorati Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Some,commentators,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Maybe,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter

Windows Live Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Some,commentators,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Maybe,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter

WordPress Tags: States,State,Statute,Restrictions,Alaska,areas,injuries,Arizona,Equine,Activities,Colorado,Some,commentators,Florida,Case,California,Hohe,Diego,Dist,Rptr,Global,Travel,Shea,LEXIS,Allows,arbitration,Gonzalez,Coral,Gables,Release,government,entities,Massachusetts,Sharon,Newton,Mass,Minnesota,Baseball,Instructional,School,Minn,Unpub,North,Dakota,McPhail,Bismarck,Park,District,Ohio,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Maybe,Wisconsin,Osborn,Cascade,Mountain,Wisc,decision,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Edge,Carolina,America,Federal,Court,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Blog,Mobile,Site,Keywords,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,ParentSignature,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,SanDiego,SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CityOfCoralGables,CityofNewton,MinnesotaBaseballInstructionalSchool,BismarkParkDistrict,MentorSoccerClub,CascadeMountain,SwimwestFamilyFitnessCenter

Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Posted: November 21, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: Minor, Releases / Waivers, Summer Camp, Texas | Leave a comment

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Too bad no one read the law to the Salvation Army in this case.

This case was filed in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas. The decision was based on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff to throw out the defendant’s defense of release. Normally, these types of motions are filed by the defendants to end the litigation not by the plaintiff. There was also an issue of whether the charitable immunity statute applied to limit the damages in the case.

The facts which gave rise to the case are the defendants were parents of an eleven year-old boy who attended Camp Hoblitzelle which was owned and operated by the Salvation Army of Texas. While attending the camp the minor was riding a zip line when he fell 40-50’ suffering unnamed injuries.

There was a blank in the release where the activity the parties were releasing was to be filled in. The blank line in this case was filled in with the plaintiff’s name Cynthia Perez written in as the activity. The court took delight in pointing this out.

Summary of the case

The plaintiff filed their motion for summary judgment to eliminate the defense of release. The minor’s mother signed the Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps prior to the minor attending camp.

Under Texas law, there are two tests to determine if a release is valid; (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement test.

“A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law.”

The Express Negligence Doctrine is:

The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document.

The release in this case used the language “…hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” This language was not strict enough to place the signor on notice that they were giving up their legal rights according to the court.

The release was not clear. It did not state that the defendant was being released for its future negligence. Although there is no requirement that the word negligence be in the release and referenced, it is clear the release would be difficult to write without the word negligence. The court held the release at issue had no clear expression or language showing intent to release the defendant from its own negligence.

Consequently, the release failed the Express Negligence Doctrine.

The Conspicuousness requirement test requires.

… the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself.

With regard to the conspicuousness, requirement test the court stated.

The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.

Here is a great example that your release cannot hide the important legal language from anyone signing it.

The court also looked into the Charitable Immunity Act and held the issue was not ripe because whether or not the defendant was subject to the limitation of damages would not be an issue unless the plaintiff was able to recover an amount greater than the limitation of $500,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence.

The court also stated the Charitable Immunity Act did not apply to defendants whose “act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” The plaintiff had plead actions of the defendant in almost identical language which was another issue making the issue not ripe for decision.

So Now What?

This decision is a road map on what not to do with a release in Texas.

1. Make sure your release states that it is a release and the person signing it is giving up their legal rights.

2. Make sure the language in the release is clear. The plaintiff is releasing you from liability for your negligence in advance of any injury. You are going to have to use the word negligence in your release.

3. The release language cannot be hidden. It must be set out in such a way that it is identifiable as something important that the signor needs to know about.

4. All blanks in the document need to be located in one place so it only takes a quick scan to make sure everything is completed properly.

5. Anything that can be completed by the defendant or filled in must be completed by the defendant.

6. Have an attorney that knows and understands your operation and the law affecting your business write your release.

Writing a release is not like cooking. When you cook you have to really screw up to make something that is not edible. (I’ve been single my entire life so my definition of edible may be different from yours……) Writing a release is a much more precise endeavor.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #TheSalvationArmy, #zipline, #Galvan, #TX, #Texas, #FederalCourt, #SummaryJudgment, #CampHoblitzelle, #ExpressNegligenceDoctrine, #ConspicuousnessRequirement,

Technorati Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor

Windows Live Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor

WordPress Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Posted: November 21, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Texas, Youth Camps | Tags: Minor, Releases / Waivers, Summer Camp | 2 Comments

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

To read the analysis of this case see: Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Bruce Galvan, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Salvation Army, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3365

United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston Division

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

May 3, 2011, Decided

May 3, 2011, Filed

CORE TERMS: Charitable Immunity Act, summary judgment, Charitable, amount of damages, conspicuousness, premature, matter of law, own negligence, settlement, affirmative defense, font, charitable organization, liability insurance coverage, per person, per occurrence, notice requirements, bodily injury, jury verdict, conscious indifference, reckless disregard, self-insurance, conspicuous, discovery, retention, qualify, cap, insurance coverage, enforceable, undisputed, attended

COUNSEL: [*1] For Bruce Galvan, Individually and as Next Friend, Cynthia Perez, Individually And as Next Friend, Plaintiffs: John Paul Venzke, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Venzke Law Firm LLP, Houston, TX; Michael Andrew Fisher, Dyment & Fisher, Houston, TX.

For Salvation Army, Defendant: Teresa Jones Del Valle, LEAD ATTORNEY, Del Valle Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX.

JUDGES: Nancy F. Atlas, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Nancy F. Atlas

OPINION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This personal injury case is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Release (“Release Motion”) [Doc. # 23] filed by Plaintiffs Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez. Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 27], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 28]. Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Defense of The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Motion”), to which Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 29], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 34]. Having reviewed the full record and having considered relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Release Motion and denies without prejudice the Charitable Immunity Motion.

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs [*2] Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez are parents of Plaintiff Christopher Galvan. Christopher was eleven years old when he attended Camp Hoblitzelle, a facility owned and operated by Defendant The Salvation Army. In June 2010, while at Camp Hoblitzelle, Christopher Galvan fell 40-50 feet from a zip-line and was seriously injured. Before Christopher attended Camp Hoblitzelle, Cynthia Perez signed a “Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps.” See Exh. A to Release Motion.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to recover from The Salvation Army for the injury to Christopher Galvan. Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release as an affirmative defense. Defendant has asserted also that The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Act”) limits its liability in this case to $500,000.00 per person and $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on each of these arguments. The motions have been fully briefed.

II.STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing [*3] of the existence of an element essential to the party’s case for which that party will bear the burden at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2002). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for resolving issues of law arising from a materially complete factual record. See Trevino v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 882 F.2d 182, 184 (5th Cir. 1989).

III.RELEASE MOTION

Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release signed by Cynthia Perez as an affirmative defense. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the release defense because the Release in this case fails to satisfy the [*4] requirements for it to be enforceable.

Under Texas law, there are two fair notice requirements for release agreements: (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement. See Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes, 134 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. 2004); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex. 1993). The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document. See Fisk Elec. Co. v. Constructors & Assocs., Inc., 888 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1994); Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1987). The conspicuousness requirement provides that the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. See Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself. See Reyes, 134 S.W.3d at 192 (citing Littlefield v. Schaefer, 955 S.W.2d 272, 274-75 (Tex. 1997)); Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511.

Compliance with [*5] the fair notice requirements is a question of law for the Court. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 509. A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law. Storage & Processors, 134 S.W.3d at 192. In this case, the Court concludes that the Release asserted by Defendant does not satisfy either requirement.

The Release provides that the signer “hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” See Release, Exh. 1 to Release Motion. As an initial matter, the Release purports to release Defendant from liability for injury suffered while participating in any “Activity.” The “Activity” is to be identified by filling in a blank line on the Release form. On the Release at issue in this case, the “Activity” line contains no identified activity but, instead, has “Cynthia Perez” written in as the “Activity.”

More importantly, the Release language does not specifically state that Defendant is being released from liability for its own future negligence. Indeed, there is no express mention of negligence at all. Although there is no requirement that [*6] the release contain the specific word “negligence,” the intent to release a party from liability for its own negligence must be clearly expressed. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Personnel, Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tex. 1989); Silsbee Hosp., Inc. v. George, 163 S.W.3d 284, 290 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2005, review denied). In the Release at issue in this case, there is no clear expression of an intent to release Defendant from its own negligence in connection with Christopher Galvan’s participation in zip-lining.

The Release fails also to satisfy the conspicuousness requirement. The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.

The Court concludes that the Release in this case does not satisfy the express negligence or conspicuousness requirements and, as a result, the Release is not enforceable as a matter of law.

IV.CHARITABLE IMMUNITY MOTION

The Charitable Immunity Act limits liability of a qualified charitable organization to $500,000.00 per person and [*7] $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.006. To qualify for the limitation, the charitable organization must have liability insurance coverage “in the amount of at least $500,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each single occurrence for death or bodily injury . . ..” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(g). The Charitable Immunity Act provides that the liability insurance coverage “may be provided under a contract of insurance or other plan of insurance authorized by statute and may be satisfied by the purchase of a $1,000,000 bodily injury and property damage combined single limit policy.” See id.

Defendant asserts that it is entitled to the damages limitation of the Charitable Immunity Act. It is undisputed that Defendant has over $35,000,000.00 of insurance coverage. It is also undisputed, however, that the first $500,000.00 is in the form of a self-insurance retention and the next $4,500,000.00 is in the form of The Salvation Army’s Risk Trust. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is not entitled to the damages limitation because Defendant is self-insured and self insurance does not meet the statutory requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act. ¹

1 Plaintiffs [*8] also argue that Defendant is judicially estopped to assert the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation because a different Salvation Army entity in Maine asserted in a lawsuit in 1997 that the Salvation Army entity in Maine did not have insurance coverage. The Court concludes on this limited record that Plaintiffs have not established an adequate factual basis for judicial estoppel to apply.

Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged an amount of damages. They allege that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00. See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege also that Christopher Galvan’s medical bills exceed $200,000.00. See id., ¶ 5. Thus, on this record, the specific amounts alleged by Plaintiffs do not exceed the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. Moreover, the amount of damages has not been established by either settlement or a jury award to be in excess of the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. As a result, the Court concludes that a decision on whether the limitation applies to a fully-funded self insurance retention is premature at this stage of the proceedings. See, e.g., Morgan v. Fellini’s Pizza, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1316, n.6 (N.D. Ga. 1999) [*9] (noting that a request for summary judgment as to whether a damages cap applies was premature); Rafferty v. Howard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98423, 2010 WL 3768142, *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 20, 2010) (holding that preliminary ruling on whether statutory cap applies was premature). If there is a settlement or jury verdict for more than $1,000,000.00 in this case, the Court will at that time decide whether Defendant qualifies for the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation.

Additionally, the Charitable Immunity Act provides that its limitations do not apply “to an act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(a). Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendant’s actions in this case were “intentional, willfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Christopher Galvan and others.” See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 12. Should the jury find that Defendant’s actions were as alleged by Plaintiffs in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, the issue regarding whether self-insurance satisfies the insurance requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act [*10] would become moot.

V.CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The release relied upon by Defendant satisfies neither the express negligence doctrine nor the conspicuousness requirement. As a result, there has been no effective release of Defendant for its alleged negligence in this case. Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount of damages and no amount of damages has been determined either through settlement or by jury verdict. As a result, it is premature to decide whether the Act limits the amount of damages recoverable in this case. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Release Motion [Doc. # 23] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Charitable Immunity Motion [Doc. # 26] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 3rd day of May, 2011.

/s/ Nancy F. Atlas

Nancy F. Atlas

United States District Judge

Bonne, et al., v. Premier Athletics, LLC, et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77802

Posted: November 7, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Jurisdiction and Venue (Forum Selection), Legal Case, Sports, Tennessee | Tags: Gymnastics, Jurisdiction, Minor, Release, Top Flight T&T Boosters, Trampline, USA Gymnastics, Venue | Leave a comment

Bonne, et al., v. Premier Athletics, LLC, et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77802

Matthew R. Bonne, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Premier Athletics, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:04-CV-440

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77802

October 23, 2006, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part Bonne v. Premier Ath., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79956 (E.D. Tenn., Oct. 29, 2007)

CORE TERMS: gymnastic, summary judgment, sanctioned, wrongful death, membership, athlete, guardian, trampoline, booster, choice of law, significant relationship, decedent’s, sibling, place of business, moving party, non-moving, competed, death action, reckless conduct, exculpatory clause, gross negligence, surviving spouse, superior right, deceased, spotters, matting, registration form, paralysis, sponsor, host

COUNSEL: [*1] For Matthew R Bonne, Individually next friend Jordan T Bonne, Shirley K Bonne, Individually, next friend, Jordan T Bonne, next friend, Aaron Bonne, next friend, Brooke Bonne, next friend Trey Bonne, next friend, Andrew Bonne, Plaintiff: Stephen E Yeager, Lowe & Yeager, Knoxville, TN.

For Premier Athletics, LLC, doing business as, Premier Gymnastics and Tumbling Center, Defendant: John W Baker, Jr, Baker, O’Kane, Atkins & Thompson, Knoxville, TN.

For USA Gymnastics, United States Gymnastics Federation, Defendant: Samuel W Rutherford, Stokes & Rutherford, Knoxville, TN.

JUDGES: Thomas W. Phillips, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Thomas W. Phillips

OPINION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This a wrongful death case involving parties with diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants, Premier Athletics, LLC, USA Gymnastics and United States Gymnastics Federation, have moved for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims. The parties have filed extensive briefs pertaining to the motion for summary judgment in which they have fully briefed all of the issues and submitted record evidence in support of the parties’ positions. The court has reviewed the briefs and [*2] evidence submitted, and does not feel that oral argument is necessary. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted as to the claims of Aaron Bonne, Brooke Bonne, Trey Bonne, and Andrew Bonne. In all other respects, the motion will be denied.

Background

This case involves a tragic accident that occurred on January 17, 2004, during the John Macready Flip Fest Invitational in Knoxville, Tennessee. The plaintiffs’ son, Jordan Bonne, was competing in a trampoline event when he fell off the trampoline, hitting his head on the concrete floor. Jordan died from his injuries two days later.

Defendant, Premier Athletics, was the host organization, sponsor and facilitator of the event, which was sanctioned by USA Gymnastics (USAG). Defendants USAG and the United States Gymnastics Federation (USGF) are the national governing bodies for the sport of gymnastics in the United States. Their principal place of business is in Indiana but they sanction gymnastic events all over the United States. At the time of the accident, Jordan was classified as a junior elite trampolinist according to USAG. Junior elite is the second highest classification in USAG sanctioned competition. [*3] Jordan had competed in numerous local, state and national competitions, and had recently competed internationally in his age group. Jordan competed in both the synchronized and individual trampoline events. The day before the accident, Jordan had competed in synchronized trampoline competition at Flip Fest.

Jordan was a member of the Top Flight Gymnastics Team. Jordan was also a member of USAG. In order for a gymnast to compete in a USAG sanctioned event, USAG requires all participants to be a member of USAG. For membership, USAG requires athletes to complete an “Athlete Member Application” every year. Membership is required to compete in USAG sanctioned events. Section Five of the membership application directs parents to read the reverse side of the application. Paragraph 3 of Section 5 includes the following language:

WAIVER AND RELEASE. I am fully aware of and appreciate the risks, including the risk of catastrophic injury, paralysis, and even death, as well as other damages and losses associated with participation in a gymnastics event. I further agree that USA Gymnastics, the host organization, and sponsor(s) of any USA Gymnastics sanctioned event, along with the [*4] employees, agents, officers and directors of the organization, shall not be liable for any losses or damages occurred as a result of my participation in the event, except for such loss or damage as the result of the intentional or reckless conduct of one of the organizations or individuals identified above.

Section 6 of the Athlete Member Application provides as follows:

All signatures required for acceptance of membership . . .

Required for any athlete who is not yet eighteen years old: As legal parent or guardian of this athlete, I hereby verify by my signature below, that I fully understand and accept each of the conditions listed in the Athlete Membership Agreement as described in Section Five for permitting my child to participate in any USA Gymnastics sanctioned event.

This 2004 membership application was signed by Jordan’s mother, Shirley Bonne in December 2003. Mrs. Bonne stated that she most likely signed the document in Kentucky as it was her habit to do so. In previous years, Shirley Bonne had signed similar forms containing the same waiver and release language. Jordan had also signed forms with identical waiver and release language in the past.

[*5] Top Flight Gymnastics had a similar waiver and release in its registration form. The Top Flight Gymnastics registration form provided:

As legal guardian of Jordan Bonne, I hereby consent to the above person’s participation in Top Flight Gymnastics’ programs, I recognize that potentially severe injuries, including permanent paralysis or death can occur in any activity involving height or motion, including gymnastics and related activities, including tumbling and trampoline.

I understand that it is the express intent of Top Flight Gymnastics to provide for the safety and protection of my child, and, in consideration for allowing my child to use these facilities, I hereby forever release Top Flight Gymnastics, its officers, employees, teachers, and coaches, from all liability for any and all damages and injuries suffered by my child while under the instruction, supervision, or control of Top Flight Gymnastics or its employees.

. . .

This acknowledgment of risk and waiver of liability, having been read thoroughly and understood completely, is signed voluntarily as to its content and intent.

This waiver and release was signed by Shirley Bonne on January 7, 1999.

[*6] Top Flight T&T, a booster club that supported Top Flight Gymnastics required a similar waiver and release for athletes who participated in its programs. This waiver and release stated:

As legal guardian of Jordan Bonne, I hereby consent to the above person’s participation in Top Flight’s T&T Boosters programs. I recognize that potentially severe injuries, including permanent paralysis or death can occur in any activity involving height or motion, including tumbling and trampoline.

I understand that it is the express intent of Top Flight T&T Boosters to provide for the safety and protection of my child, and, in consideration for allowing my child to use these facilities, I hereby forever release the Top Flight T&T Boosters, its officers, employees, teachers and coaches from all liability for any and all damages and injuries sustained by my child while under the instruction, supervision, or control of Top Flight T&T Boosters or its employees.

. . .

This acknowledgment of risk and waiver of liability, having been read thoroughly and understood completely, is signed voluntarily as to its content and intent.

Matthew Bonne, Jordan’s father, had also signed similar [*7] waiver and release forms for Jordan. He testified via deposition that he “probably” signed the Top Flight Registration Form. He acknowledged that he signed the booster club form. In the case of both these forms, he stated that he did not recall whether he read them before signing. Matthew Bonne traveled with his son on several occasions to different gymnastics events, including one that was held in Russia. He also attended several of Jordan’s practices.

As a result of the accident at Flip Fest on January 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed the instant action for the wrongful death of Jordan. The plaintiffs are residents of Ohio. In their complaint, Matthew and Shirley Bonne, individually and as next friends, parents and natural guardians of Jordan, sued Premier, USAG and USGF. Further, the Bonnes, as next friends, parents and guardians of Aaron Bonne, Brooke Bonne, Trey Bonne and Andrew Bonne (Jordan’s siblings) sued defendants contending that USAG and USGF were negligent in that they sanctioned an event which failed to provide a safe environment, utilized untrained spotters, failed to ensure sufficient floor matting, failed to require experienced and trained spotters, and failed to require [*8] sufficient safety matting. As a result of defendants’ alleged negligence, plaintiffs seek damages including parental and sibling consortium, expenses, and the pecuniary value of Jordan’s life.

Defendants USAG and USGF have moved for summary judgment asserting that the releases signed by Shirley and Matthew Bonne bar all claims against defendants. The releases exclude USAG and USGF from any liability resulting from injuries occurring in sanctioned events. As the host organization, sponsor and facilitator of the Flip Fest event, Premier is also expressly excluded from liability.

Analysis

Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that summary judgment will be granted by the court only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden is on the moving party to conclusively show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. The court must view the facts and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Morris to Crete Carrier Corp., 105 F.3d 279, 280-81 (6th Cir. 1987); [*9] White v. Turfway Park Racing Ass’n, Inc., 909 F.2d 941, 943 (6th Cir. 1990); 60 lvy Street Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir. 1987). Once the moving party presents evidence sufficient to support a motion under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the non-moving party is not entitled to a trial simply on the basis of allegations. The non-moving party is required to come forward with some significant probative evidence which makes it necessary to resolve the factual dispute at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); White, 909 F.2d at 943-44. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996).

Choice of Law

Defendants argue that Ohio law should apply to the interpretation of the USAG membership application which contains an exculpatory clause. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that Tennessee [*10] law is the correct choice of law to apply to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. Plaintiffs further argue that Tennessee public policy prohibits the enforcement of exculpatory clauses by parents on behalf of their minor children and thus, the USAG waiver is void in this case.

The plaintiffs reside in Ohio. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment states that Mrs. Bonne completed and signed Jordan’s USAG member application in Ohio. However, Mrs. Bonne stated in her affidavit, that she most likely signed the application in Kentucky, where the Top Flight gym is located. The application was sent to and received by USAG in Indiana.

A federal court in a diversity case applies the law of the state in which the court sits, including the state’s choice of law rules. Davis v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 873 F.2d 888, 892 (6th cir. 1989)(citing Erie R.R.Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938). It is not clear from the defendants’ motion whether they dispute that plaintiffs’ tort claims are to be analyzed under applicable Tennessee law. However, they do dispute whether Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee law governs the analysis of the release and [*11] waiver provisions at issue. Defendants assert in their motion that this is a contract dispute which should be analyzed under Tennessee’s choice of law rules related to contract claims. The court disagrees. This is a wrongful death action based upon tort, not contract. As regards the effect of the waiver and release between the parties, it will be determined by the law that governs the substantive tort rights of the parties.

The Tennessee Supreme Court in Hataway v. McKinley, 830 S.W.2d 53 (Tenn. 1992), adopted the “most significant relationship” approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 175, to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in a wrongful death case. Section 175 provides:

In an action for wrongful death, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship under the principles stated in § 6 to the occurrence and the parties, to which event the local law of the other state will be applied.

The accident causing Jordan’s [*12] death occurred at the Flip Fest in Knoxville, Tennessee. Thus, under the “most significant relationship” test, Tennessee law applies unless another state has a more significant relationship. To determine if another state has a more significant relationship, § 145 of the Restatement provides factors to be weighed and balanced. Those factors are (1) the place where the injury occurred, (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

Applying this test to the instant case, as stated above, Tennessee is where the injury and death occurred. Second, Tennessee is the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred. Third, the plaintiffs are residents of Ohio, USAG and USGF have their principal place of business in Indiana, but they sanction gymnastic events all over the United States. Premier is a Tennessee limited liability company with its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. Last, the relationship between the parties was centered in Tennessee because Jordan’s death occurred [*13] while he was participating in Flip Fest in Knoxville. The Flip Fest competition in Knoxville was the only mutual and central contact these parties had with one another. Therefore, it is clear that Tennessee is the state that has the “most significant relationship” with the parties in this case. Thus, Tennessee choice of law rules dictate that Tennessee tort law applies.

In a tort action, the effect of a release between the parties is determined by the law that governs the substantive tort rights of the parties. Mackey v. Judy’s Foods, Inc., 867 F.2d 325, 328 (6th Cir. 1989)(citing to Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, § 170, Comment b). As Tennessee law governs the rights and liabilities of the parties in the tort action, Tennessee law will also be applied to interpret the effect of the release and waiver provisions in the USAG application.

Effect of Waiver & Release

In Childress v. Madison County, 777 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn.App. 1989), the Tennessee Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he general rule is that a guardian may not waive the rights of an infant or an incompetent.” Id. at 6 [*14] (citing 39 Am.Jur.2d Guardian & Ward, § 102 (1968); 42 Am.Jur.2d Infants § 152 (1969)). As in Childress, Jordan’s rights could not be contracted away by his mother in the State of Tennessee. It is Tennessee’s stated public policy to protect minors and prohibit exculpatory releases for them. Mrs. Bonne could not execute a valid release or exculpatory clause as to the rights of her son against USAG, or anyone else, and to the extent the parties to the release attempted and intended to so do, the release is void.

Moreover, exculpatory clauses purporting to contract against liability for intentional conduct, recklessness or gross negligence are unenforceable. See Childress, 777 S.W.2d at 5; Adams v. Roark, 686 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn. 1985). Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges defendants’ failure to provide a safe environment, failure to utilize trained spotters, and failure to ensure sufficient safety matting, all constitute gross negligence and reckless conduct. Defendants have not challenged these allegations in their motion for summary judgment. Thus, accepting plaintiffs’ allegations [*15] as true, the release at issue here would not shield defendants for liability for their gross negligence and reckless conduct. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the waiver and release will be denied.

Claims of Jordan’s Siblings

Defendants assert that since both Jordan’s parents are living and are named , as plaintiffs in this actions, no right to sue on Jordan’s behalf has passed to his siblings. Thus, the claims of Aaron Bonne, Brooke Bonne, Trey Bonne and Andrew Bonne, should be dismissed as a matter of law.

The statutes permitting an action for the wrongful death of another create “no right of action existing independently of that which the deceased would have had, had he survived.” Rogers v. Donelson Hermitage Chamber of Commerce, 807 S.W.2d 242, 245 (Tenn.App. 1990); Memphis St. Ry. Co., v. Cooper, 313 S.W.2d 444, 447, 203 Tenn. 425 (1958). Although living beneficiaries of the deceased may seek a limited recovery for their own losses in addition to those of the decedent, see Hill v. City of Germantown, 31 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tenn. 2000); Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hosp., 984 S.W.2d 593, 598 (Tenn. 1999), [*16] the right of action itself remains one that is “single, entire and indivisible.” See Wheeler v. Burley, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 578, No. 01A01-9701-CV-00006 (Tenn.App. Aug. 27, 1997). Therefore, “there can be but one cause of action for the wrongful death of another.” Matthews v. Mitchell, 705 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tenn.App. 1985).

Because multiple actions may not be brought to resolve a single wrongful death claim, the statutes carefully prescribe the priority of those who may assert the action on behalf of the decedent and any other beneficiaries. In a dispute between the surviving spouse and the children of the decedent as to who may maintain the action, the surviving spouse clearly has “the prior and superior right above all others.” Foster v. Jeffers, 813 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn.App. 1991); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-107. In fact, the children of a deceased may maintain an action only if the decedent is not survived by a spouse or if the surviving spouse has waived his or her right of priority. Id. Applying Tennessee law to the instant case, the court finds that Jordan’s parents have a superior right, as opposed to Jordan’s siblings, [*17] to maintain this cause of action against defendants for the wrongful death of Jordan.

Recognizing that a claim for loss of consortium does not represent a claim for damages separate from the wrongful death action itself, but rather embodies one component of the decedent’s pecuniary value of life, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that a trial court should dismiss any other pending wrongful death actions upon proper filing of an action by party holding a superior right. See Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 208 (Tenn. 2002). Accordingly, because Jordan’s parents have the superior right to maintain this action, the court will dismiss the claims of Aaron Bonne, Brooke Bonne, Trey Bonne, and Andrew Bonne.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to the claims of Aaron Bonne, Brooke Bonne, Trey Bonne, and Andrew Bonne. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. The parties will prepare the case for trial.

The parties motions for oral argument on the summary judgment motion [Docs. 28, 33] are DENIED.

ENTER:

[*18] s/ Thomas W. Phillips

United States District Judge

Maine follows the majority and does not allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Posted: August 15, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Adventure travel, American Ski Company, Children, JimMoss, MAINE, Minor, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Rock climbing, Ski Resort, United States | Leave a comment

Rice, Et Als, vs. American Skiing Company, Et Als, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 90

However the court held out the possibility that a

properly written indemnification clause may

be upheld.

In Rice et all the plaintiff was a nine year old boy skiing at Sunday River Ski Area. Sunday River Skiway Corporation was owned by the now defunct

English: The beautiful Sunday River Ski Resort...

Image via Wikipedia

American Ski Company at the time. The mother of the plaintiff signed the plaintiff up for an all-day ski lesson. While doing so she signed a “Acknowledgement &; Acceptance of Risks & Liability Release” (Ski Enrollment Form)” The form stated the risks and released the defendant of liability for negligence. The form also contained an indemnification provisions which stated the parents would indemnify the ski area for any losses of the minor.

During the afternoon instruction the plaintiff fell. The class stopped and waited for him to catch up. The plaintiff lost control and skied into the tree suffering injuries. The plaintiff sued for negligent supervision. The defendants claimed the defenses of the Maine Skiers’ and Tramway Passengers’ Responsibilities Act, 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 (Supp. 1999) and the release signed by the mother.

The court quickly found the Maine Ski Act did not stop the lawsuit. The Maine Ski Act allows a suit for “does not prevent the maintenance of an action against the ski area operator for the negligent operation of the ski area”. The court found that negligent supervision “clearly” falls within the Maine Ski Acts “negligent operation” exclusion.

The court then looked at the release and struck the normal cords discussing releases. The court looks with disfavor on releases, releases must be strictly construed, and they must spell out with greatest particularity the intention of the parties.

After reviewing Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1998), the court held that Zivich only applied to non-profit organizations and in one-half of a sentence dismissed the issue that a parent is constitutionally allowed to sign a release for a child. The court then looked at prior law in Maine and held that a parent could not sign away a minor’s right to sue in Maine.

The court then looked at the mother’s claim for lost wages. The mother’s claim is derivative of the son’s claims. That means that if the son’s claim does not prevail then the mother’s claim does not stand. Because there were no defenses to the son’s claim then the mother’s claim could go forward.

Whether a parent can recover for their own losses when a child is negligently injured varies from state to state.
The final defense reviewed by the court was the indemnification language in the release. Maine, like all other states disfavors indemnification clauses against a defendant’s own negligence. The court found that this clause was not sufficient to state a defense under Maine law. However the court did not deny indemnifications claims absolutely. A release or indemnification agreement written with the guidelines of the court may be upheld.

So? Summary of the case

Maine fell in with the majority of the states holding that a parent could not sign away a minor’s right to sue. Nothing knew there. However there were several other defenses that were not raised or maybe were raised at later times.

The mother enrolled the plaintiff in a level III class. That required the plaintiff to have experience and be able to “form a wedge, to be able to stop and start and to get up on their own if they fall and they can put their skis on by themselves and that they have experience riding the chairlift.” A minor can assume the risk of injury. Whether or not a nine year minor can I do not know. The specific age were a minor can assume a risk varies by state and by age. However, the plaintiff did have experience skiing and as such might have assumed the risk.

Another outside claim might be that the mother was a fault for signing here son up for a class that was beyond his abilities. Maybe the minor should have been enrolled in a Level 1 or 2 class. However, this claim would be subject to the claim that the instructor should have moved the child if the child was in the wrong class by lunch. This argument may hold if the accident occurred in the morning before the ski instructor had the opportunity to review the student.

The court also brought up and pointed out that the father had not signed any of the documentation. Not a legal point, but an interesting one in this case.

Image via Wikipedia

So Now What?

1. Get the best most well written release you can that specifically stops lawsuits by parents.
2. Educate the minor in advance, and probably the parents so you might have an assumption of the risk defense.
3. Be very wary with kids. If it appears that the minor cannot ski with the rest of the class, either move the minor to another class or move the class to a slope the minor can handle.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #Sunday River, #ski area, #ski school, #skiway,

Technorati Tags: Maine,Rice,American,Company,Super,LEXIS,clause,plaintiff,River,Area,Skiway,Corporation,lesson,Acknowledgement,Acceptance,Risks,Release,Enrollment,Form,defendant,negligence,parents,instruction,tree,injuries,supervision,defendants,Skiers,Tramway,Passengers,Responsibilities,Supp,lawsuit,maintenance,action,operator,Acts,exclusion,cords,intention,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Ohio,Whether,clauses,agreement,guidelines,Summary,injury,Another,abilities,Maybe,Level,instructor,argument,accident,student,documentation,Motivational,lawsuits,Educate,assumption,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,indemnification,nine

Windows Live Tags: Maine,Rice,American,Company,Super,LEXIS,clause,plaintiff,River,Area,Skiway,Corporation,lesson,Acknowledgement,Acceptance,Risks,Release,Enrollment,Form,defendant,negligence,parents,instruction,tree,injuries,supervision,defendants,Skiers,Tramway,Passengers,Responsibilities,Supp,lawsuit,maintenance,action,operator,Acts,exclusion,cords,intention,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Ohio,Whether,clauses,agreement,guidelines,Summary,injury,Another,abilities,Maybe,Level,instructor,argument,accident,student,documentation,Motivational,lawsuits,Educate,assumption,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,indemnification,nine

WordPress Tags: Maine,Rice,American,Company,Super,LEXIS,clause,plaintiff,River,Area,Skiway,Corporation,lesson,Acknowledgement,Acceptance,Risks,Release,Enrollment,Form,defendant,negligence,parents,instruction,tree,injuries,supervision,defendants,Skiers,Tramway,Passengers,Responsibilities,Supp,lawsuit,maintenance,action,operator,Acts,exclusion,cords,intention,Zivich,Mentor,Soccer,Club,Ohio,Whether,clauses,agreement,guidelines,Summary,injury,Another,abilities,Maybe,Level,instructor,argument,accident,student,documentation,Motivational,lawsuits,Educate,assumption,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,indemnification,nine

Alabama follows the majority of states and does not allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Posted: June 20, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Adventure travel, Alabama, Child, Indiana, JimMoss, Minor, Motorcross, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Rock climbing, United States district court | Leave a comment

J.T., Jr., a minor v. Monster Mountain, Llc, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130407; 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 182

This is an interesting case based on who actually signed the release on behalf of and in an attempt to bind the minor.

The minor traveled from Indiana to Alabama to ride at the defendant’s motocross facility. The parents of the minor signed a power of attorney giving the

Image via Wikipedia

coach the authority to sign on their behalf “all release of liability and registration forms and to give consent for medical treatment” for the minor while on the trip. This was a proper power of attorney, signed by the parents and notarized.

The coach then registered the plaintiff each day and signed the release on the plaintiff’s behalf.

While riding on the third day the minor went over a jump. While airborne he saw a tractor that had been parked on the track which he collided with. The minor sued in Federal District Court for his injuries claiming the act of leaving the tractor on the track was negligent.

Summary of the case

Under Alabama law, like in most jurisdictions a minor cannot contract. That is done so that adults will not take advantage of minors. The exception to the rule is a minor can contract for necessities. Necessities are food, utilities, etc., those things necessary to live.

Also under Alabama law, and most other states, a parent cannot sign away a minor’s right in advance except in with regard to insurance. A parent can sign away a minor’s right in an insurance policy with regard to the subrogation right in the insurance policy. The court reasoned the minor cannot have the benefits of the insurance without the responsibility also.

So Alabama is like the majority of states. A parent cannot sign away a minor’s right to sue and a minor cannot contract or sign a release.

So Now What?

In most states, the only real defense available to stop a lawsuit by a minor is assumption of the risk. Because a minor cannot contract, the minor cannot agree to assume the risk in writing. You the outdoor business or program must be able to show that you gave the minor the information so the minor knew the risks and accepted them. It is up to the trier of fact to determine if the minor understood those risks.

1. Make your website an information resource. Any and every question about the activity should be there including what the risks are and how to deal with them. Put in pictures, FAQ’s and videos. Show the good and the bad.
2. Provide a bonus or a benefit for completing watching and reviewing the website. If a minor collects the bonus or benefit then you have proof the minor know of the risks.
3. Review the bigger risks and the common ones with all minors before they are allowed to participate in the activity.
4. Still have the parents sign a release. Remember the parents have a right to sue for the minor’s injuries. A release will stop the parent’s suit. Put in the release that the parent has reviewed the website with the minor to make sure the minor understands the risks of the activity.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Technorati Tags: Alabama,Monster,Mountain,Dist,LEXIS,Serv,Callaghan,Indiana,defendant,motocross,parents,attorney,registration,treatment,plaintiff,Federal,District,Court,injuries,Summary,Under,jurisdictions,adults,advantage,minors,exception,necessities,food,utilities,Also,insurance,policy,lawsuit,assumption,information,trier,fact,Make,resource,Provide,bonus,Review,Still,Remember,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,behalf,tractor,website
Windows Live Tags: Alabama,Monster,Mountain,Dist,LEXIS,Serv,Callaghan,Indiana,defendant,motocross,parents,attorney,registration,treatment,plaintiff,Federal,District,Court,injuries,Summary,Under,jurisdictions,adults,advantage,minors,exception,necessities,food,utilities,Also,insurance,policy,lawsuit,assumption,information,trier,fact,Make,resource,Provide,bonus,Review,Still,Remember,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,behalf,tractor,website
WordPress Tags: Alabama,Monster,Mountain,Dist,LEXIS,Serv,Callaghan,Indiana,defendant,motocross,parents,attorney,registration,treatment,plaintiff,Federal,District,Court,injuries,Summary,Under,jurisdictions,adults,advantage,minors,exception,necessities,food,utilities,Also,insurance,policy,lawsuit,assumption,information,trier,fact,Make,resource,Provide,bonus,Review,Still,Remember,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,behalf,tractor,website
Blogger Labels: Alabama,Monster,Mountain,Dist,LEXIS,Serv,Callaghan,Indiana,defendant,motocross,parents,attorney,registration,treatment,plaintiff,Federal,District,Court,injuries,Summary,Under,jurisdictions,adults,advantage,minors,exception,necessities,food,utilities,Also,insurance,policy,lawsuit,assumption,information,trier,fact,Make,resource,Provide,bonus,Review,Still,Remember,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,behalf,tractor,website

Iowa does not allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Posted: May 10, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Child, Iowa, Iowa Supreme Court, Jim Moss, Minor, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, University of Northern Iowa, Upward Bound | Leave a comment

Galloway v. State of Iowa, 790 N.W.2d 252; 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 109

Iowa follows the majority of states finding that the state has an interest in protecting kids from allowing their parents to think.

This case was brought by a parent whose child was hit by a car on an out of state field trip. The trip was an Upward Bound trip sponsored by University of Northern Iowa. The mother sued the State of Iowa, parent entity of the university. The University filed a motion for summary judgment based on two releases signed by the mother. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, and the case was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. There is no information on whether there was a decision by the Iowa Appellate Court or if the appeal was directly to the Iowa Supreme Court.

An appeal from the trial court to the supreme court of a state can be done, but it is very rare and only for unusual or immediate circumstances.

The sole issue the court in its opinion discussed was the issue of whether a parent could sign away a minor’s right to sue in a preinjury release.

What are you supposed to say about a case when the court quotes this statement from the plaintiff’s argument?

In particular, she [plaintiff] contends public policy should preclude enforcement of releases executed by parents because parents are ill-equipped to assess in advance the nature of risks of injury faced by children while they are participating in activities at remote locations under the supervision of others and because parents are uninformed of the nature and extent of the gravity of the injuries to which their children may be exposed when the releases are executed. [Emphasis added]

Parents are ill equipped to assess the nature of the risk facing a child? Isn’t that what parenting is all about? When I see a parent reading the ingredients on a box in the supermarket with a toddler in the cart is the parent doing that to have something to talk about that night?

The court then stated:

By signing a preinjury waiver, a parent purports to agree in advance to bear the financial burden of providing for her child in the event the child is injured by a tortfeasor’s negligence. Sometimes parents are not willing or able to perform such commitments after an injury occurs. [Emphasis added]

The court followed that statement with:

If parents fail to provide for the needs of their injured children, and the preinjury waiver in favor of the tortfeasor is enforced, financial demands may be made on the public fisc to cover the cost of care.

So the potential risk to the coffers of the State of Iowa is greater than the need to be a responsible parent. The court sent the case back to the trial court for trial.

So? Summary of the case

There were several issues that this court ignored in favor of getting to the conclusion it wanted to reach. The releases, two of them, were poorly written and did not provide any information as to what the risks of the trip were. The releases appear to be set out in full in the decision which is below.

This case was not over after this decision. The plaintiff is a fourteen year old girl who was hit by a car crossing the street. There is probably a great assumption of the risk defense that would either significantly lower the damages or possibly allow the University/State to win. If this case is not settled after this decision, then there is a significant issue at trail as to whether the child assumed the risk of the injury.

However, Iowa, with this decision falls into the category where any organization or group dealing with kids must do so very carefully. Any child without health insurance is going to look for ways to pay the bills. Any child with insurance will have an insurance company looking for reimbursement for their losses because of the injuries.

So Now What?

Isn’t that another issue that parents are tasked with? What role is a parent going to play in the future based on the reasoning of the Iowa court? It seems that what the child is going to wear to school will be the limit. If the parent is presented with the proper information the parent should decide whether the financial risks and their resources are adequate to deal with the issues. If the parent is not presented with the proper information is it not the parent’s responsibility to study and find out what those risks are?

Youth organizations and youth group’s sole chance it to have a bill passed in the Iowa legislature that over turns this decision.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

James H. “Jim” Moss

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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

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

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

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

Jim@Rec-Law.US

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

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

G-YQ06K3L262

Threads

X (formerly known as Twitter) logo

Recreation Law logo

Stimulus

Facebook

Mastodon

Blue Sky Logo

Technorati Tags: Iowa,Galloway,State,LEXIS,parents,Upward,Bound,Northern,judgment,Supreme,Court,information,decision,Appellate,opinion,statement,plaintiff,argument,policy,enforcement,injury,locations,supervision,extent,injuries,Emphasis,ingredients,supermarket,waiver,event,negligence,Sometimes,commitments,cost,coffers,Summary,conclusion,girl,street,assumption,category,health,insurance,reimbursement,role,resources,Youth,legislature,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,areas,whether,preinjury,tortfeasor

Windows Live Tags: Iowa,Galloway,State,LEXIS,parents,Upward,Bound,Northern,judgment,Supreme,Court,information,decision,Appellate,opinion,statement,plaintiff,argument,policy,enforcement,injury,locations,supervision,extent,injuries,Emphasis,ingredients,supermarket,waiver,event,negligence,Sometimes,commitments,cost,coffers,Summary,conclusion,girl,street,assumption,category,health,insurance,reimbursement,role,resources,Youth,legislature,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,areas,whether,preinjury,tortfeasor

WordPress Tags: Iowa,Galloway,State,LEXIS,parents,Upward,Bound,Northern,judgment,Supreme,Court,information,decision,Appellate,opinion,statement,plaintiff,argument,policy,enforcement,injury,locations,supervision,extent,injuries,Emphasis,ingredients,supermarket,waiver,event,negligence,Sometimes,commitments,cost,coffers,Summary,conclusion,girl,street,assumption,category,health,insurance,reimbursement,role,resources,Youth,legislature,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,areas,whether,preinjury,tortfeasor

Blogger Labels: Iowa,Galloway,State,LEXIS,parents,Upward,Bound,Northern,judgment,Supreme,Court,information,decision,Appellate,opinion,statement,plaintiff,argument,policy,enforcement,injury,locations,supervision,extent,injuries,Emphasis,ingredients,supermarket,waiver,event,negligence,Sometimes,commitments,cost,coffers,Summary,conclusion,girl,street,assumption,category,health,insurance,reimbursement,role,resources,Youth,legislature,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,areas,whether,preinjury,tortfeasor

Summer camp supervision issues are always part of any lawsuit and tough to determine in New York.

Posted: May 2, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Summer Camp | Tags: Adventure travel, Child, JimMoss, Minor, New York, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Prank, Rock climbing, Ropes course, Summer Camp | Leave a comment

Kosok v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, 24 A.D.2d 113; 264 N.Y.S.2d 123; 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042

As long as there was no notice of a problem and no rule of the camp or standard for the camp, assumption of the risk is a valid defense against minors claim.

New York had dozens of decisions concerning lawsuits by injured campers. It is going to take months to figure out if there is any discernable rule or idea on how to run a camp in New York. This decision is a start.
At this camp groups of boys were divided into cabins by age groups. After lunch “camp regulations” required a rest period. Younger campers had to rest on their beds; older boys were just required to do sedentary activities. (Why you don’t want to wear out kids, by the time they go to bed at camp is beyond me?)

During one of the rest periods, a group of boys threaded a fishing line over a rafter and attached a galvanized bucket to it. When someone would walk underneath the bucket, they would lower it where it would hit the unsuspecting camper making a pop. After another camper had the prank played on them the plaintiff was enticed into the cabin where the bucket was dropped. The plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries.

The plaintiff sued the camp and the two boys involved in the prank. The two boys were dismissed from the lawsuit by the trial court. The plaintiff sued for “improper supervision and a failure to provide proper medical care after the accident.” The case went to trial and the jury found for the plaintiff on the supervision claim and for the defendant camp for the medical care claim. The camp appealed.

This decision has great quotes, which have been quoted in numerous other New York decisions, and then, to some extent, seems to be ignored. However, the court found that boys at camp have fun.

Summer camp, it will be seen that constant supervision is not feasible.
[constant supervision] Nor is it desirable. One of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which on overly protective supervision would destroy.
A certain amount of horseplay is almost always to be found in gatherings of young people, and is generally associated with children’s camps. It is only to be discouraged when it becomes dangerous. Nothing in the incident itself or the surrounding circumstances indicates any notice to defendant that such was likely to result here.

The court did find that the standard of care for a camp was that of a reasonable prudent parent. That standard though varies with the age of the child.

The court held the jury verdict should be reversed, and the case dismissed because the court found no negligence on the part of the defendant.

So?

This case is 52 years old. It is a still relevant law in New York. However, I believe that based on other New York decisions and the standard of care for campers in New York has changed. Many decisions quote the language of this case, and then find a difference in the facts to hold the camp liable.

So Now What?

To work within the boundaries of these and other cases the best result would be to inform parents and campers of the risk. Pictures, videos, brochures and the website are a start. Have the parents and campers to acknowledge that there is horseplay when kids get together and have them acknowledge the kids get hurt.
This should be in a written document that refers to the website as the source of more information or even better information they have reviewed. An assumption of the risk form for the minors and a release for the parents should do more than just have the simple legal language of a release. Each document, or the same document, if written correctly, should identify the activities the minors will be engaging in and the possible risks for all of those activities.

When you are creating your website, don’t be afraid to show kids being unsuccessful as well as successful. Kids fall while playing sports, kids get tagged out running bases and canoes tip over throwing kids in the water. Follow the old Clint Eastwood movie; show the good and the bad, maybe the ugly.

A scrape on a camper is a good way to show parents that you have a medical team on hand. It also lets parents realize that kids are outdoors, having fun and probably getting hurt.

The more you can prove you informed the parents and the campers of the risks the greater your chances at success in keeping everyone happy and out of court.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Technorati Tags: Summer,supervision,lawsuit,York,Kosok,Young,Christian,Association,Greater,LEXIS,assumption,minors,dozens,decisions,lawsuits,campers,decision,boys,cabins,Younger,beds,periods,bucket,camper,prank,plaintiff,cabin,injuries,failure,accident,jury,defendant,extent,institution,self,reliance,horseplay,gatherings,incident,verdict,negligence,Many,difference,boundaries,parents,Pictures,brochures,information,Kids,Clint,Eastwood,movie,team,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,website

Windows Live Tags: Summer,supervision,lawsuit,York,Kosok,Young,Christian,Association,Greater,LEXIS,assumption,minors,dozens,decisions,lawsuits,campers,decision,boys,cabins,Younger,beds,periods,bucket,camper,prank,plaintiff,cabin,injuries,failure,accident,jury,defendant,extent,institution,self,reliance,horseplay,gatherings,incident,verdict,negligence,Many,difference,boundaries,parents,Pictures,brochures,information,Kids,Clint,Eastwood,movie,team,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,website

WordPress Tags: Summer,supervision,lawsuit,York,Kosok,Young,Christian,Association,Greater,LEXIS,assumption,minors,dozens,decisions,lawsuits,campers,decision,boys,cabins,Younger,beds,periods,bucket,camper,prank,plaintiff,cabin,injuries,failure,accident,jury,defendant,extent,institution,self,reliance,horseplay,gatherings,incident,verdict,negligence,Many,difference,boundaries,parents,Pictures,brochures,information,Kids,Clint,Eastwood,movie,team,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,website

Blogger Labels: Summer,supervision,lawsuit,York,Kosok,Young,Christian,Association,Greater,LEXIS,assumption,minors,dozens,decisions,lawsuits,campers,decision,boys,cabins,Younger,beds,periods,bucket,camper,prank,plaintiff,cabin,injuries,failure,accident,jury,defendant,extent,institution,self,reliance,horseplay,gatherings,incident,verdict,negligence,Many,difference,boundaries,parents,Pictures,brochures,information,Kids,Clint,Eastwood,movie,team,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,website

Release stops suit for falling off horse at Colorado summer Camp.

Posted: April 18, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Colorado, Equine Activities (Horses, Donkeys, Mules) & Animals, Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Youth Camps | Tags: Appellate Court, Child, Colorado, Gross negligence, Hamill, Minor, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Rock climbing, Summary judgment, Summer Camp | Leave a comment

Hamill v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495

I always enjoy it when people with money, sue to get more money…..

In this case, the minor plaintiff fell off a horse and suffered a broken arm. She sued for her damages. What makes this sort of amusing is the minor had attended the camp two prior years. Her mother has signed the release three consecutive times. However, the plaintiff sued.

The allegations in the complaint were the wrangler had inappropriately saddled the horse she rode. This is a classic claim used to get around equine liability acts. Equine liability acts are 100% effective. Since they have been passed no horse has been sued. However, suits against horse owners have increased.

For additional articles about equine (horse) lawsuits and why Equine Liability Acts have little value see: $2.36 M awarded to a boy kicked by horse during inner-city youth program and $1.2 M award in horseback riding fatality in Wyoming.

The district court (trial or first court) granted the defendant camp’s motion for summary judgment. And the Plaintiff appealed. The basis for the appeal was:

she was a minor and her mother did not make an informed decision, the agreement did not extinguish her negligence claims and that disputed material facts preclude the grant of summary judgment on her gross negligence claim.

The first issue the court reviewed was whether the release was valid under Colorado law. The court found there were four tests that had to be met for the release to be valid.

(1) the existence of a duty to the public;
(2) the nature of the service performed;
(3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and
(4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.

B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 136 (Colo. 1998) (citing Jones, 623 P.2d at 376).
The court found the first two tests were met because recreational activities create no duty to the public and are not necessary for living.

The next test was whether the contract was fairly entered into. This is a case of whether the injured party had the opportunity to go somewhere else or not participate. Whether one party was at the mercy of the other party because of unequal bargaining power. However, again, recreational activities are not something that a parent or participant is forced to undertake. On top of that the mother admitted she voluntarily signed the release…..three times.

More importantly the court found the plaintiff could have attended other camps. She was not forced to attend the defendant camp.

The last test also can be examined multiple ways. First way is, is the agreement plan on its face is it written in such a way that the parties understand what it says or should have understood what it said. Another way is whether the agreement, the release, clearly evidenced the intent of the party’s.

Here you can release one party from negligent conduct as long as the intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the contract. Here the release expressly contained language that the court found was clear to the plaintiff and her mother of the intent of the release.

The agreement sufficiently placed Hamill’s mother on notice that the “[e]quipment used . . . may break, fail or malfunction” and that “counselors . . . may misjudge . . . circumstances.” The breadth of the release persuades us that the parties intended to disclaim legal liability for negligence claims. Indeed, misjudging a situation can amount to negligence.

The classic I now did not understand the release is also looked at this point, and the court rejected that argument.

An agreement with such plain and unambiguous terms will not fail because one of the parties, in hindsight, now claims to have misunderstood the scope of that agreement — to govern only conduct outside of Cheley’s control — based on ambiguities not readily apparent within the four corners of the agreement.

The court succinctly summed up its decision about the release stating:

Because the agreement did not implicate a public duty, did not involve an essential service, was fairly entered into, and it plainly expressed the intent to release prospective negligence claims, we hold that the agreement is valid.

The court then reviewed the recently enacted Colorado statute allowing a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue C.R.S. § 13-22-107. A recent decision by the Colorado Appellate court had thrown out a release signed by a mother because it was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. See Releases are legal documents and need to be written by an attorney that understands the law and the risks of your program/business/activity and your guests/members/clientele which discussed the case Wycoff v. Grace Community Church of the Assemblies of God, 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832.

The statute requires the parent who is signing a release for a minor to be voluntary and informed. The court stated that “A parent’s decision is informed when the parent has sufficient information to assess the potential degree of risks involved, and the extent of possible injury.” quoting Wycoff v. Grace Community Church of the Assemblies of God, 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832.

Here the mother and the plaintiff knew of the risks because the plaintiff had attended the camp two prior years and had ridden horses those two years.

The final argument was made that the release did not bar claims for gross negligence. However, the court found the complaint and the other documents in the case did not plead any facts giving rise to a claim that would be a gross negligence claim. Under the Colorado law gross negligence is “willful and wanton conduct, that is, action committed recklessly, with conscious disregard for the safety of others.” Nothing in the documents indicated the defendant had acted willfully or wantonly.

One interesting part of this case was a statement quoted in the case from a deposition of the mother. The defendant’s attorney referred to Christopher Reeves, who suffered a fall from a horse becoming a quadriplegic and eventually died from the injuries. The mother answered she personally knew Mr. Reeve. If you want to do a little research, match the names of the parties, and determine who would know other movie stars.

So?

Again and again, and again, make sure you have a well written release. That was the first and best thing done in this case. The release stood up to scrutiny by the trial court and the appellate court.

The next thing is always have good facts. The court pointed out the wrangler checked the saddle two or three times before the plaintiff rode the horse which eliminated the gross negligence argument. Good facts do not mean to only defend yourself when you are going to win. It means to do things right, and you don’t have to worry and if you do have a problem you will win.

Here the wrangler had been well trained in how to deal with the situation and problems of kids at summer camps riding horses. Before the plaintiff was allowed to mount the horse the saddle was checked and double checked.

So Now What?

Hire well, train well and treat well; the three ideas to keep employees part of your defense team. Your employees do not need to lawsuits and not have a lawsuit become a forum for any employee to come back at you.

See 7 Mistakes Made by People, who are called Defendant. Hire good people to begin with. Work hard at hiring people who like people and understand the job. The job is not to show off to little kids about how great a horseman you are, the job is to get kids on horses and have them have a good time. The job is to have the kids leave the ring the same way they entered the ring with a big grin on top of a horse.

Never hire for skills except people skills. You can teach anyone to ride a horse, row a raft or run a ropes course. Finding someone who can remember to double check everything, deal with a problem child and entertain at the same time is a little harder. However, those people are out there, work harder and find them.

7 Mistakes Made by People who are called Defendant.

1. Hire and retain Uncaring Employees: Hire Well, Train Well, and Treat Well
2. Failing to Know Your Customers and why they are buying from you.
3. Failing to Treat Your Customers the Way They Want to Be Treated:
4. Examining the problem from Your Perspective: Your customer sees the problem differently than you. The customer may not even understand the problem.
5. Placing a ridiculous value on principles and pride. Principles & Pride Goethe before a Lawsuit
6. Never know Why you are being sued: Sticking your head in the sand, or passing the problem to a lawyer does not resolve the problem.
7. Forgetting What Your Mother Taught You: If you act like your mother taught you, you won’t be sued.

James H. “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 Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law

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

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

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

Technorati Tags: Release,horse,Colorado,Camp,Hamill,Cheley,Camps,Colo,LEXIS,money,plaintiff,allegations,complaint,wrangler,Equine,owners,lawsuits,Acts,youth,district,defendant,judgment,basis,decision,agreement,negligence,existence,intention,Livery,Riehl,Jones,Whether,mercy,participant,Another,Here,counselors,breadth,situation,argument,scope,ambiguities,statute,Appellate,requirements,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,information,degree,extent,injury,horses,Under,action,statement,Christopher,injuries,Reeve,movie,Again,scrutiny,Hire,employees,team,lawsuit,forum,employee,Mistakes,Made,People,Work,horseman,skills,Train,Treat,Customers,Want,Perspective,customer,pride,Principles,Goethe,lawyer,Mother,Taught,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,wars,waiver,three,four

Windows Live Tags: Release,horse,Colorado,Camp,Hamill,Cheley,Camps,Colo,LEXIS,money,plaintiff,allegations,complaint,wrangler,Equine,owners,lawsuits,Acts,youth,district,defendant,judgment,basis,decision,agreement,negligence,existence,intention,Livery,Riehl,Jones,Whether,mercy,participant,Another,Here,counselors,breadth,situation,argument,scope,ambiguities,statute,Appellate,requirements,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,information,degree,extent,injury,horses,Under,action,statement,Christopher,injuries,Reeve,movie,Again,scrutiny,Hire,employees,team,lawsuit,forum,employee,Mistakes,Made,People,Work,horseman,skills,Train,Treat,Customers,Want,Perspective,customer,pride,Principles,Goethe,lawyer,Mother,Taught,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,wars,waiver,three,four

WordPress Tags: Release,horse,Colorado,Camp,Hamill,Cheley,Camps,Colo,LEXIS,money,plaintiff,allegations,complaint,wrangler,Equine,owners,lawsuits,Acts,youth,district,defendant,judgment,basis,decision,agreement,negligence,existence,intention,Livery,Riehl,Jones,Whether,mercy,participant,Another,Here,counselors,breadth,situation,argument,scope,ambiguities,statute,Appellate,requirements,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,information,degree,extent,injury,horses,Under,action,statement,Christopher,injuries,Reeve,movie,Again,scrutiny,Hire,employees,team,lawsuit,forum,employee,Mistakes,Made,People,Work,horseman,skills,Train,Treat,Customers,Want,Perspective,customer,pride,Principles,Goethe,lawyer,Mother,Taught,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,wars,waiver,three,four

Blogger Labels: Release,horse,Colorado,Camp,Hamill,Cheley,Camps,Colo,LEXIS,money,plaintiff,allegations,complaint,wrangler,Equine,owners,lawsuits,Acts,youth,district,defendant,judgment,basis,decision,agreement,negligence,existence,intention,Livery,Riehl,Jones,Whether,mercy,participant,Another,Here,counselors,breadth,situation,argument,scope,ambiguities,statute,Appellate,requirements,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,information,degree,extent,injury,horses,Under,action,statement,Christopher,injuries,Reeve,movie,Again,scrutiny,Hire,employees,team,lawsuit,forum,employee,Mistakes,Made,People,Work,horseman,skills,Train,Treat,Customers,Want,Perspective,customer,pride,Principles,Goethe,lawyer,Mother,Taught,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,wars,waiver,three,four

Statutes and prospective language to allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Posted: March 16, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children | Tags: Alaska, Child, Children Youth and Family, Colorado, Florida, Legal guardian, Minor, parent, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights | Leave a comment

Now is the time to move a statute like this forward in your state.

Three states allow a parent to sign away a child’s right to sue by statute: Alaska, Florida and Colorado. Five (maybe 6) states allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue by Supreme Court Decision. See States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue. With more legislatures leaning to the conservative side, now is the time to introduce and get a law like these passed in your state. To assist you, at the end I have included language that I would propose for the statute.

Colorado

C.R.S. §§13-22-107. Legislative declaration – definitions – children – waiver by parent of prospective negligence claims
(1) (a) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares it is the public policy of this state that:
(I) Children of this state should have the maximum opportunity to participate in sporting, recreational, educational, and other activities where certain risks may exist;
(II) Public, private, and non-profit entities providing these essential activities to children in Colorado need a measure of protection against lawsuits, and without the measure of protection these entities may be unwilling or unable to provide the activities;
(III) Parents have a fundamental right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The law has long presumed that parents act in the best interest of their children.
(IV) Parents make conscious choices every day on behalf of their children concerning the risks and benefits of participation in activities that may involve risk;
(V) These are proper parental choices on behalf of children that should not be ignored. So long as the decision is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education; and
(VI) It is the intent of the general assembly to encourage the affordability and availability of youth activities in this state by permitting a parent of a child to release a prospective negligence claim of the child against certain persons and entities involved in providing the opportunity to participate in the activities.
(b) The general assembly further declares that the Colorado supreme court’s holding in case number 00SC885, 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002), has not been adopted by the general assembly and does not reflect the intent of the general assembly or the public policy of this state.
(2) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Child” means a person under eighteen years of age.
(b) For purposes of this section only, “parent” means a parent, as defined in section 19-1-103 (82), C.R.S., a person who has guardianship of the person, as defined in section 19-1-103 (60), C.R.S., a person who has legal custody, as defined in section 19-1-103 (73), C.R.S., a legal representative, as defined in section 19-1-103 (73.5), C.R.S., a physical custodian, as defined in section 19-1-103 (84), C.R.S., or a responsible person, as defined in section 19-1-103 (94), C.R.S.
(3) A parent of a child may, on behalf of the child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the child’s prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.

Florida Statute on Guardian right to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Fla. Stat. § 744.301 (2010)
§ 744.301. Natural guardians
(3) In addition to the authority granted in subsection (2), natural guardians are authorized, on behalf of any of their minor children, to waive and release, in advance, any claim or cause of action against a commercial activity provider, or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents, which would accrue to a minor child for personal injury, including death, and property damage resulting from an inherent risk in the activity.
(a) As used in this subsection, the term “inherent risk” means those dangers or conditions, known or unknown, which are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of the activity and which are not eliminated even if the activity provider acts with due care in a reasonably prudent manner. The term includes, but is not limited to:
1. The failure by the activity provider to warn the natural guardian or minor child of an inherent risk; and
2. The risk that the minor child or another participant in the activity may act in a negligent or intentional manner and contribute to the injury or death of the minor child. A participant does not include the activity provider or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents.
(b) To be enforceable, a waiver or release executed under this subsection must, at a minimum, include the following statement in uppercase type that is at least 5 points larger than, and clearly distinguishable from, the rest of the text of the waiver or release:

Alaska

Alaska Stat. § 09.65.292 (2011)
Sec. 09.65.292. Parental waiver of child’s negligence claim against provider of sports or recreational activity
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a parent may, on behalf of the parent’s child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence against the provider of a sports or recreational activity in which the child participates to the extent that the activities to which the waiver applies are clearly and conspicuously set out in the written waiver and to the extent the waiver is otherwise valid. The release or waiver must be in writing and shall be signed by the child’s parent.
(b) A parent may not release or waive a child’s prospective claim against a provider of a sports or recreational activity for reckless or intentional misconduct.
(c) In this section,
(1) “child” means a minor who is not emancipated;
(2) “parent” means
(A) the child’s natural or adoptive parent;
(B) the child’s guardian or other person appointed by the court to act on behalf of the child;
(C) a representative of the Department of Health and Social Services if the child is in the legal custody of the state;
(D) a person who has a valid power of attorney concerning the child; or
(E) for a child not living with the child’s natural or adoptive parent, the child’s grandparent, aunt, uncle, sister, or brother who has reached the age of majority and with whom the child lives;
(3) “provider” has the meaning given in AS 09.65.290;
(4) “sports or recreational activity” has the meaning given in AS 09.65.290.

My suggestion on how the law should read.

Legislative declaration – definitions – minor children – waiver by parent or guardian of prospective negligence claims
(1) (a) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares it is the public policy of this state that:
(I) Children of this state should have the maximum opportunity to participate in sporting, recreational, educational, and other activities where certain risks may exist;
(II) Public, private, and non-profit entities providing these essential activities to children in _____________ (state) need a measure of protection against lawsuits, and without the measure of protection these entities may be unwilling or unable to provide the activities;
(III) Parents have a legal and fundamental right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their minor children. The law has long presumed that parents act in the best interest of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3767; 68 U.S.L.W. 4458; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4345; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5831; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3199; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 365 (Troxel is a US Supreme Court decision that allows a parent to sign away a child’s right to sue. See Courtney Love in Outdoor Recreation Law.)
(IV) Parents make conscious choices every day on behalf of their children concerning the risks and benefits of participation in activities that may involve risk;
(V) These are proper parental choices on behalf of children that should not be ignored. So long as the decision is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education; and
(VI) It is the intent of the general assembly to encourage the affordability and availability of youth activities in this state by permitting a parent of a child to release a prospective negligence claim of the child against certain persons and entities involved in providing the opportunity to participate in the activities.
(a) “Child” means a person under eighteen years of age at the time of incident, loss, injury or accident.
(b) For purposes of this section only, “parent” means a parent, a person who has guardianship of the person, a person who has legal custody, a legal representative, a physical custodian or a responsible person, in temporary custody and control of the minor Child.
(3) A Parent of a Child may, on behalf of the Child, release and waive, in advance, any claim or cause of action against a private, commercial, governmental or non-profit, activity provider, business, program or activity, or its owners, affiliates, employees, volunteers or agents, which would accrue to a minor child for personal injury, including death, and property damage resulting from the risk or an inherent risk in the activity or the Child’s prospective claim for negligence.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the child’s prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.

To work you will need to round up everyone who deals with kids. Little League and other youth sports groups, day care centers, youth programs like Scouts, commercial programs like camps, day camps and anyone serving youth as well as major organizations that may be in your state like NOLS and Outward Bound.

Your statutory language may vary based on current state laws and court interpretations, but go for it. You can only lose time and get a civics lesson.

This won’t save you money on your insurance that never happens. However, it may help keep your insurance from going up and keep you out of court.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #minor, #parent, #waiver, #release,

Technorati Tags: Statutes,statute,Three,Alaska,Florida,Colorado,Five,Supreme,Court,Decision,States,legislatures,Legislative,declaration,definitions,waiver,negligence,policy,Children,Public,entities,protection,lawsuits,Parents,decisions,custody,participation,treatment,education,youth,Colo,context,Child,person,purposes,guardianship,custodian,omission,Guardian,Stat,Natural,guardians,addition,subsection,action,provider,owners,employees,agents,injury,death,dangers,manner,failure,participant,statement,text,Parental,Except,extent,misconduct,Department,Health,Social,Services,attorney,grandparent,brother,suggestion,_____________,Troxel,Granville,LEXIS,Service,Journal,Courtney,Love,Outdoor,Recreation,incident,accident,Parent,Little,League,Scouts,NOLS,Outward,Bound,laws,interpretations,lesson,money,insurance,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,hereby,behalf,adoptive

Windows Live Tags: Statutes,statute,Three,Alaska,Florida,Colorado,Five,Supreme,Court,Decision,States,legislatures,Legislative,declaration,definitions,waiver,negligence,policy,Children,Public,entities,protection,lawsuits,Parents,decisions,custody,participation,treatment,education,youth,Colo,context,Child,person,purposes,guardianship,custodian,omission,Guardian,Stat,Natural,guardians,addition,subsection,action,provider,owners,employees,agents,injury,death,dangers,manner,failure,participant,statement,text,Parental,Except,extent,misconduct,Department,Health,Social,Services,attorney,grandparent,brother,suggestion,_____________,Troxel,Granville,LEXIS,Service,Journal,Courtney,Love,Outdoor,Recreation,incident,accident,Parent,Little,League,Scouts,NOLS,Outward,Bound,laws,interpretations,lesson,money,insurance,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,hereby,behalf,adoptive

WordPress Tags: Statutes,statute,Three,Alaska,Florida,Colorado,Five,Supreme,Court,Decision,States,legislatures,Legislative,declaration,definitions,waiver,negligence,policy,Children,Public,entities,protection,lawsuits,Parents,decisions,custody,participation,treatment,education,youth,Colo,context,Child,person,purposes,guardianship,custodian,omission,Guardian,Stat,Natural,guardians,addition,subsection,action,provider,owners,employees,agents,injury,death,dangers,manner,failure,participant,statement,text,Parental,Except,extent,misconduct,Department,Health,Social,Services,attorney,grandparent,brother,suggestion,_____________,Troxel,Granville,LEXIS,Service,Journal,Courtney,Love,Outdoor,Recreation,incident,accident,Parent,Little,League,Scouts,NOLS,Outward,Bound,laws,interpretations,lesson,money,insurance,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,areas,hereby,behalf,adoptive

Wrong release for the activity almost sinks YMCA

Posted: March 14, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: California, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Summer Camp | Tags: Adventure travel, Baseball Bat, Child, Day Camp, James H. Moss, JimMoss, Minor, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Rock climbing, YMCA | 1 Comment

A release must apply to the activity and the person who you want to make sure cannot sue you.

McGowan et al v. West End YMCA, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3018

Image via Wikipedia

In this case, a mother signed her son up to attend a day camp sponsored by the YMCA. While attending the day camp, the child was accidentally hit in the head by another child with a baseball bat. The mother sued for the child’s injuries.

The YMCA argued that the mother had signed a release, and therefore, the YMCA should be dismissed. The mother argued that the release only applied to her, not her child because the release was unclear as to who was being released in the document. (The mother argued the release was required for her to walk around the YMCA to sign her son up for the camp.)

In this case, the YMCA used its general release for people on the premises of the YMCA as a fitness facility, for its day camp. The release did not indicate a parent would be signing for the child nor did the release look to the issues the child would encounter, only an adult using the YMCA or any other gym.

The mother argued because the release did not identify her son, the injured party, as who the release applied to the release only applied to her while she was on the premises. Nothing in the document indicated that the mother was signing a release on behalf of her son.

Like most releases used in gyms and fitness centers it is written for the adult signing up to use the gym.
Under the law, “An agreement exculpating the drafter from liability for his or her own future negligence must clearly and explicitly express that this is the intent of the parties.”

What saved the YMCA was a technicality in the language of the release. To go to the day camp, the child attending must be a member of the YMCA. The mother of the injured child was not a member of the YMCA. However, her son was. Because the release referred to the YMCA member as the person giving up their right to sue, the court held the release applied to the child not the mother. This language allowed the court to find for the YMCA.

So?

Releases are not documents you can merely find on the internet or put together based on language that sounds good. Think about the contract you used to purchase your house. It was a 10 to 20 page document used to buy something of value greater than $100,000 or so.

If someone is suing you for several million dollars do you want to rely on a document that you put together or worse stole from the business down the street.

Here again you have to make sure your release is properly written. You may have several different releases for different parties or activities. I commonly suggest that people use different paper to print the different release forms. Here the YMCA should have had a general release for use of its fitness and other facilities and a release for its day camp. One could have been printed on white paper and the other on green. Even better, put the release online and save paper.

Your release must identify who is protected by the release and who the release is going to stop from suing. In many cases, one parent will sign on behalf of a child. However, in some states, unless the language is clear, that parent may not be preventing the other parent from suing. Identify every person who can sue in the release as well as every person who cannot be sued. When in doubt, have both parents sign the release.

For information on other states where a parent can sign away a minor’s right to sue see: States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue–Updated 2011

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Technorati Tags: Wrong,YMCA,person,McGowan,West,Unpub,LEXIS,injuries,premises,gyms,Under,agreement,negligence,member,Releases,Think,million,dollars,street,Here,paper,facilities,Identify,parents,information,States,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,behalf

Windows Live Tags: Wrong,YMCA,person,McGowan,West,Unpub,LEXIS,injuries,premises,gyms,Under,agreement,negligence,member,Releases,Think,million,dollars,street,Here,paper,facilities,Identify,parents,information,States,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,behalf

WordPress Tags: Wrong,YMCA,person,McGowan,West,Unpub,LEXIS,injuries,premises,gyms,Under,agreement,negligence,member,Releases,Think,million,dollars,street,Here,paper,facilities,Identify,parents,information,States,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,behalf

Releases are legal documents and need to be written by an attorney that understands the law and the risks of your program/business/activity and your guests/members/clientele.

Posted: February 28, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Child, Church Group, Colorado, Colorado Supreme Court, Information, Insurance, Law, Minor, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Plaintiff, Supreme Court, United States, Youth Group | Leave a comment

Wycoff v. Grace Community Church of the Assemblies of God, 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1832

The case is a little confusing to read because there was another case that was appealed by the same parties whom this case refers to. Additionally, the act of the trial court in reducing the damages is confusing. However, this case is a very clear example of how a badly written release is going to cost the church and its insurance company millions.

A church group had taken kids to a camp for a “Winterama 2005.” The church had rented the camp for the weekend. The plaintiff was 17 and not a member of the church. Her parents had paid a reduced fee for her to attend the activity. As part of that registration her mother signed a “Registration and information” form. One of the activities was pulling them behind an ATV on an inner tube on a frozen lake.

There was a large boulder embedded in the lake. On the second loop, the plaintiff’s inner tube hit the boulder breaking her back.

The plaintiff’s mother had signed the “Registration and Information” form. On the form was the following sentence.

I will not hold Grace Community Church or its participants responsible for any liability, which may result from participation.

The case went to trial, and the jury returned a $4M verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant and plaintiff appealed after the judge reduced the damages to the limits of the insurance policy of the church, $2M plus interest.

The appellate court first looked at Colorado case law on releases and the legislative history of § 13-22-107(3), C.R.S. 2010. That statute, C.R.S. § 13-22-107(3), was enacted to allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue. The statute, and the decision in Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981), has a requirement that the parental decision must be “informed” and with the intent to release the [defendant] from liability. Jones v. Dressel was the first Supreme Court review of releases in the state of Colorado as they applied to recreational activities.

The court looked at the language in the “Registration and Information” form to see if it informed the parents of the activities and risks their child would be undertaking. The court looked at the language and found:

There is no information in Grace’s one-page registration form describing the event activities, nothing describing the associated risks. Stating that the children would participate in “Winterama 2005 and all activities associated with it” does not indicate what the activities would involve and certainly does not suggest they would include ATV-towed inner-tube excursions around a frozen lake.

The court also looked at prior decisions concerning releases and found that “in every Colorado Supreme Court case upholding an exculpatory clause. The clause contained some reference to waiving personal injury claims based on the activity being engaged in.”

The court concluded that:

Grace’s [the defendant’s] form made no reference to the relevant activity or to waiving personal injury claims. The operative sentence (the third one in a paragraph) states only that plaintiff will not hold Grace “responsible for any liability which may result from participation.” Surrounding sentences address other issues: the first gives permission to attend; the second consents to medical treatment; and the fourth agrees to pick up disobedient children.
… nowhere does the form provide parents with information allowing them to assess the degree of risk and the extent of possible injuries from any activity. The form is legally insufficient to release plaintiff’s personal injury claims.

The court then looked at the second major issue that has been surfacing in many outdoor recreation cases of late. The plaintiff sued claiming a violation of the duties owed by the landowner, a premises liability claim. That means that the landowner owed a duty to the plaintiff to warn or eliminate dangers, which the landowner failed to do.

The defendant argued that it was not the landowner; it had just leased the land for the weekend. However, the court found this argument lacking. The premise’s liability statute § 13-21-115(1), C.R.S. 2010, defines landowner to include someone leasing the property.

This places two very important burdens on anyone leasing land or using land.

They must know and identify the risks of the land before bringing their clients/guests/members on the land.
The release must include premise liability language.

The second one is relatively easy to do; however, the effectiveness is going to be difficult. The first places a tremendous burden on anyone going to a camp, park or other place they do not own for the day, weekend or week.

Your insurance policy must provide coverage for this type of claim.
You need to inspect the land in advance, do a due diligence to make sure you know of any risks or dangers on the land.
You must inform your guests/members/clients of those risks.

The final issue that might be of some importance to readers is the court reviewed the legal concept of charitable immunity. At one time, charities could not be sued because they “did good” for mankind. That has evolved over time so that in most states charitable immunity no longer exists. At present, and with this court decision, the assets of the charity held may not be levied by a judgment. What that means is after someone receives a judgment against a charity, the plaintiff with the judgment then attempts to collect against the assets of the charity. Some of the assets may not be recovered by the judgment creditor because they are part of the charitable trust.

What does that mean? If you are a charity, buy insurance.

Of note in this case is the plaintiffs are the injured girl and her insurance company: The opinion states “Plaintiff and her insurer, intervenor American Medical Security Life Insurance Company (insurer).” Although set forth in the decision, her insurance company is probably suing under its right in the subrogation clause. A subrogation clause in an insurance policy says your insurance policy has the right to sue under your name or its own name against anyone who caused your damages that the insurance company reimbursed.

So?

As I have said numerous times, your release must be written by an attorney that understands two things.

Release law
The activities you are going to engage in.
The risks those activities present to your guests/members/clients.
Any statutes that affect your activity and/or your guests/members/clients.

Any release should include a good review of the risks of the activities and a description of the activities so adults and parents can read and understand those risks. Any minor who can read and understand the risks should also sign the release as proof the child assumed the risk. Assumption of the risk works to win cases against minors when the release is thrown out or in those cases where a release cannot be used against a minor.

Find a good attorney that knows and understands your activities, those risks and the laws needed to write a release to protect you.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Technorati Tags: Registration,information,Colorado,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,Colo,LEXIS,example,cost,insurance,millions,Winterama,plaintiff,member,parents,tube,boulder,participants,participation,jury,verdict,defendant,policy,history,statute,decision,Jones,Dressel,requirement,Supreme,Court,event,decisions,clause,reference,injury,paragraph,permission,treatment,fourth,degree,extent,injuries,recreation,violation,duties,landowner,premises,dangers,argument,premise,clients,park,coverage,diligence,importance,readers,concept,charities,assets,judgment,Some,plaintiffs,girl,opinion,insurer,American,Medical,Life,Company,Although,Release,statutes,description,adults,Assumption,minors,Find,laws,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,subrogation

Windows Live Tags: Registration,information,Colorado,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,Colo,LEXIS,example,cost,insurance,millions,Winterama,plaintiff,member,parents,tube,boulder,participants,participation,jury,verdict,defendant,policy,history,statute,decision,Jones,Dressel,requirement,Supreme,Court,event,decisions,clause,reference,injury,paragraph,permission,treatment,fourth,degree,extent,injuries,recreation,violation,duties,landowner,premises,dangers,argument,premise,clients,park,coverage,diligence,importance,readers,concept,charities,assets,judgment,Some,plaintiffs,girl,opinion,insurer,American,Medical,Life,Company,Although,Release,statutes,description,adults,Assumption,minors,Find,laws,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,subrogation

WordPress Tags: Registration,information,Colorado,Releases,attorney,guests,clientele,Wycoff,Grace,Church,Assemblies,Colo,LEXIS,example,cost,insurance,millions,Winterama,plaintiff,member,parents,tube,boulder,participants,participation,jury,verdict,defendant,policy,history,statute,decision,Jones,Dressel,requirement,Supreme,Court,event,decisions,clause,reference,injury,paragraph,permission,treatment,fourth,degree,extent,injuries,recreation,violation,duties,landowner,premises,dangers,argument,premise,clients,park,coverage,diligence,importance,readers,concept,charities,assets,judgment,Some,plaintiffs,girl,opinion,insurer,American,Medical,Life,Company,Although,Release,statutes,description,adults,Assumption,minors,Find,laws,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence,subrogation

Minnesota decision upholds parent’s right to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Posted: February 21, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Youth Camps | Tags: Baseball, Baseball Camp, Child, Coach, JimMoss, Minnesota, Minor, Outdoor recreation, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Summer Camp | Leave a comment

Case was a baseball camp where the minor was injured during horseplay.

Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299

This is a pretty simple case. The defendants operated a baseball camp on the campus of the University of Minnesota. The plaintiff’s mother had signed her son up for the camp, online or electronically. On the last day after lunch a group of students went to the courtyard. The plaintiff sustained a permanent eye injury when they started throwing woodchips from the courtyard at each other.

The father sued on behalf of his son. The trial court, a district court in the opinion, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The father on his and his son behalf appealed.

The plaintiff first argued that the release, or assumption of the risk agreement as it was termed in the decision, should be “thrown out” because it could not be produced. Because the mother had signed online there was no signed document. On top of that, the system used by the defendant did not produce any document indicating who had signed what documents.

However, the defendant was able to show that the mother had signed other documents just like the release. A roster of those kids that had attended the camp that summer, with the injured minor’s name on it was produced. The camp through a director, also testified that if the mother had not signed the release, the minor would not have been allowed to attend the camp.

The mother’s deposition was also introduced. She could not deny filing out the forms online even though she did not remember the forms.

The plaintiff’s then argued that the language of the release did not cover the injury the minor sustained. The language only spoke to baseball and as such the release only covered injuries that the minor could have received playing baseball. Horsing around during free time therefore, was not covered by the release. The plaintiff also argued the language that excluded the claims; the release sentence was separate from the sentence that identified the risks. As such the release should be very narrowly construed.

Neither argument was accepted by the court. The court found that the release covered more than just baseball, and the release had to be read as a whole so the risk was incorporated into the exculpatory sentence.

The plaintiff then argued the exculpatory clause violated public policy. The court dismissed this argument. The court found that the baseball camp was not educational in nature. The training could be found through other sources and playing baseball was not essential or of great importance to members of the public.

So?

The rules of evidence have a procedure for admitting into trial documents that have been lost. The rule is based on procedure. The procedure to be allowed to go to a baseball camp required a parent to sign many documents. The child would not have been allowed at amp without signing all of the documents. A procedure was set up to show the mother had to have signed the release because her son was at the camp.
You should create a procedure for your business, camp or program. The best one I’ve seen for whitewater rafting was created by Mountain Waters Rafting. Guests were given their PFD’s (life jackets) when they handed in their releases. If a guest had on a PFD, the guest had signed a release.

The more you can identify a procedure that you used the same way every time, the easier to introduce a lost piece of paper.

Electronically, there can be several ways to make sure you can prove a person read and signed the release online. I first suggest you always tie a release into a credit card. The credit card company knows more about the holder of a credit card then you ever will. If the credit is accepted to pay for something on line, and the name on the release matches the name on the credit card you can prove the release was signed. If the trip or camp was paid for a release was signed.

You should also have a system that you are notified that each person has signed the documents. Create a way to download the information, name, address, etc. date and exact time the release was signed to your business computer and do so regularly. That information can be matched up, name, date and time to the credit card and payment used. Match this with your receipt of payment from the credit card company and you should have proof.

Make sure your release is written to cover all the risks of your program, business or activity. Here the language was broad enough the baseball program was covered for horseplay. How often do you feed guests, transport guests, and have guests just walking around that could be a chance to be injured. Your release needs to stop litigation, all types of litigation, not just what you face what you are selling to the public.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3

Posted: December 27, 2010 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Cycling, Legal Case, Michigan, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: biking, Cycling, Day Care, Minor, Release, School | Leave a comment

McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3
Scott Kondrad, a minor, by and through Shari McPhail as next friend, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Bismarck Park District, Defendant and Appellee
No. 20020196
Supreme Court of North Dakota
2003 ND 4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3
January 17, 2003, Filed
Prior History: [***1] Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
Counsel: Michael Ray Hoffman, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.
Randall J. Bakke, Smith Bakke Oppegard Porsborg Wolf, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellee.
Judges: Opinion of the Court by Maring, Justice. Mary Muehlen Maring, William A.
Neumann, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Opinion By: Mary Muehlen Maring

Opinion

[**412] Maring, Justice.
[*P1] Scott Kondrad, a minor, by and through his mother, Shari McPhail, as next friend, appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his action for damages against the Bismarck Park District for injuries suffered in a bicycle accident.
We hold a waiver and release signed by McPhail exonerates the Park District for its alleged negligence in this case, and we affirm.

I

[*P2] The bicycle accident occurred on September 9, 1999, at the Pioneer Elementary School while Kondrad was [***2] participating in BLAST, an after-school care program operated by the Park District. Kondrad fell on the school grounds while riding a bicycle owned by a child who was not part of the BLAST program. Kondrad injured his arm in the fall, and McPhail subsequently sued the Park District for damages on Kondrad’s behalf, asserting Kondrad’s injuries were the result of the Park District’s negligent supervision of the children in the BLAST program. The Park District moved for a summary judgment, claiming McPhail had released the Park District from liability for the accident.
The district court construed the waiver and release signed by McPhail, determined it exonerated the Park District from liability, and granted the Park District’s motion for dismissal of the case.

II

[*P3] On appeal, Kondrad asserts the district court erred in granting the summary judgment dismissal and in concluding that the waiver and release signed by McPhail exonerated the Park District from liability for its alleged negligence.
[*P4] Summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 is a procedural device for properly disposing of a lawsuit without trial if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [***3] the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact or conflicting inferences which can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be resolved are questions of law. Jose v. Norwest Bank, 1999 ND 175, P7, 599 N.W.2d 293. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Garofalo v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 2000 ND 149, P6, 615 N.W.2d 160. On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that reasonably can be drawn from the evidence. Olander [**413] Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Invs., 2002 ND 65, P9, 643 N.W.2d 29.
[*P5] Resolution of this appeal requires us to interpret the “Parent Agreement” signed by McPhail when she enrolled Kondrad in the BLAST program, which included the following waiver and release language:
I recognize and acknowledge that there are certain risks of physical injury to participant in this program and I agree to assume the full risk of any such injuries, damages or loss regardless of [***4] severity which I or my child/ward may sustain as a result of participating in any activities associated with this program. I waive and relinquish all claims that I, my insurer, or my child/ward may have against the Park District and its officers, servants, and employees from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss which I or my child/ward may have or which may accrue to me or my child/ward on account of my participation of my child/ward in this program.
Kondrad argues this language must be interpreted as exonerating the Park District from liability for damages only as to injuries sustained during “activities associated with” the BLAST program. The Park District has conceded that riding a bicycle was not an activity associated with the program. Kondrad asserts the release does not, therefore, exonerate the Park District from liability if its negligence resulted in Kondrad incurring injuries while riding the bicycle. The Park District asserts the waiver is unambiguous and released the Park District from liability for any and all injuries sustained by Kondrad while participating in the BLAST program. The Park District argues the waiver and release exonerated it from [***5] liability for negligence resulting in injury or damages to Kondrad while participating in the program irrespective of whether, at the time of the injury, Kondrad was involved in a planned activity associated with the program.
[*P6] Generally, the law does not favor contracts exonerating parties from liability for their conduct. Reed v. Univ. of North Dakota, 1999 ND 25, P22, 589 N.W.2d 880. However, the parties are bound by clear and unambiguous language evidencing an intent to extinguish liability, even though exculpatory clauses are construed against the benefitted party. Id. When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-04; Meide v. Stenehjem ex rel. State, 2002 ND 128, P7, 649 N.W.2d 532. The construction of a written contract to determine its legal effect is a question of law for the court to decide, and, on appeal, this Court will independently examine and construe the contract to determine if the trial court erred in its interpretation of it. Egeland v. Continental Res., Inc., 2000 ND 169, P10, 616 N.W.2d 861. [***6] The issue whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. Lenthe Invs., Inc. v. Serv. Oil, Inc., 2001 ND 187, P14, 636 N.W.2d 189. An unambiguous contract is particularly amenable to summary judgment. Meide, 2002 ND 128, P7, 649 N.W.2d 532.
[*P7] We conclude the language of waiver and release under the agreement signed by McPhail is clear and unambiguous. We construe all provisions of a contract together to give meaning to every sentence, phrase, and word. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Koenig, 2002 ND 137, P9, 650 N.W.2d 820. The assumption of risk and waiver clauses are separate and distinct. Each contains a clearly expressed meaning and consequence. Under the assumption of risk clause, McPhail agreed to assume the full risk of injury and damages resulting from Kondrad participating in [**414] any activities associated with the BLAST program. In addition, under the waiver and release clause, McPhail waived and relinquished all claims against the Park District for injuries or damages incurred on account of Kondrad’s participation in the BLAST program. The language of waiver and release is not limited to only those injuries incurred [***7] while participating in activities associated with the program, but to all injuries incurred by the child on account of his participation in the program.
[*P8] It is undisputed that Kondrad’s bicycle accident occurred on the school grounds while Kondrad was participating in the BLAST program. This is the very type of situation for which the Park District, under the release language, insulated itself from liability for alleged negligence while operating the after-school care program. Under the unambiguous language of the agreement, McPhail exonerated the Park District from liability for injury and damages incurred by Kondrad while participating in the program and caused by the alleged negligence of the Park District. 1
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – Footnotes – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -1
Under N.D.C.C. § 9-08-02 a party is precluded from contractually exonerating itself from liability for willful acts. See Reed v. Univ. of North Dakota, 1999 ND 25, P22 n.4, 589 N.W.2d 880. The release in this case is not specifically limited to exonerating the Park District from liability for only negligent conduct.
However, Kondrad’s claim against the Park District is based on negligence, and he has not argued the release is invalid because it purports to exonerate the Park District from liability for intentional or willful acts. We do not, therefore, address that issue in this opinion.
– – – – – – – – – – – – End Footnotes- – – – – – – – – – – – – –
[***8] III
[*P9] We hold the Parent Agreement signed by McPhail clearly and unambiguously exonerates the Park District for injuries sustained by Kondrad while participating in the BLAST program and which were allegedly caused by the negligent conduct of the Park District. We further hold, therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment dismissing Kondrad’s action against the Park District, and we affirm.
[*P10] Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Kirton vs. Fields, No. SC07-1739, No. SC07-1741, No. SC07-1742 (FL 2008)

Posted: September 13, 2010 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Florida, Legal Case | Tags: All Terrain Vehicle, ATV, Florida, Minor, Release | Leave a comment

SCOTT COREY KIRTON, etc., et al., Petitioners, vs. JORDAN FIELDS, etc., et al., Respondents. DEAN DYESS, Petitioner, vs. JORDAN FIELDS, etc., et al., Respondents. H. SPENCER KIRTON, et al., Petitioners, vs. JORDAN FIELDS, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. SC07-1739, No. SC07-1741, No. SC07-1742

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

2008 Fla. LEXIS 2378; 33 Fla. L. Weekly S 939

December 11, 2008, Decided

NOTICE:

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions. (Okeechobee County). Fourth District – Case No. 4D06-1486.

Fields v. Kirton, 961 So. 2d 1127, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., 2007)

COUNSEL: William J. Wallace of William J. Wallace, P.A., Okeechobee, Florida, Richard Lee Barrett and Ralph Steven Ruta, of Barrett, Chapman and Ruta, P.A., Orlando, Florida, and Alan C. Espy of Alan C. Espy, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, for Petitioners.

Bard d. Rockenbach of Burlington and Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Laurence C. Huttman of Rubin and Rubin, Stuart, Florida, for Respondents.

Timothy J. Owens of Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz, Kettlewell, and Owens, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, on behalf of The American Motorcyclist Association, for Amicus Curiae.

JUDGES: QUINCE, C.J. ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., specially concurs with an opinion. PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., did not participate.

OPINION BY: QUINCE

OPINION

QUINCE, C.J.

We have for review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fields v. Kirton, 961 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), which certified the following question to be of great public importance:

WHETHER A PARENT [*2] MAY BIND A MINOR’S ESTATE BY THE PRE-INJURY EXECUTION OF A RELEASE.

We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. ¹ For the reasons discussed below, we answer the certified question in the negative and hold that [HN1] a parent does not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child when the release involves participation in a commercial activity. ²

1 The Fourth District also certified conflict with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Lantz v. Iron Horse Saloon, Inc., 717 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, subsequent to its decision in Lantz and subsequent to the certification of conflict, the Fifth District decided Applegate v. Cable Water Ski, L.C., 974 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), where the Fifth District aligned itself with the Fourth District in Kirton. For those reasons and because the Fourth District certified a question providing us for any independent basis for jurisdiction, we do not address the certified conflict.

2 We answer the certified question as to pre-injury releases in commercial activities because that is what this case involves. Our decision in this case should not be read as limiting our reasoning only [*3] to pre-injury releases involving commercial activity; however, any discussion on pre-injury releases in noncommercial activities would be dicta and it is for that reason we do not discuss the broader question posed by the Fifth District.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The instant action arises from the decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fields v. Kirton, 961 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The facts of the underlying action were detailed in the opinion of that court:

Pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, Bobby Jones was the primary residential parent for his fourteen year old son, Christopher. On May 10, 2003, the father took Christopher to Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park to ride his all terrain vehicle (ATV). To gain entry to the facility and be allowed to participate in riding the ATV, Bobby Jones, as Christopher’s natural guardian, signed a release and waiver of liability, assumption of risk, and indemnity agreement. While attempting a particular jump, Christopher lost control of his ATV, causing himself to be ejected. Tragically, he hit the ground with the ATV landing on top of him. He got up, walked a short distance, then collapsed and died. Christopher’s [*4] mother, Bette Jones, was unaware that the father was permitting their son to engage in this activity. She was also unaware that approximately one month prior to the accident causing Christopher’s death, he had attempted the same jump, resulting in a fractured rib and mild concussion.

Id. at 1128.

Subsequently, Fields, as personal representative of the estate of Christopher Jones, filed suit for wrongful death against Spencer Kirton, Scott Corey Kirton, Dudley Kirton, and the Kirton Brother Lawn Service, Inc. (“the Kirtons”) as owners and operators of Thunder Cross Motor Sports. The amended complaint also named Dean Dyess as a defendant for his participation in the management of the park. The Kirtons then filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint. In one of the affirmative defenses, the Kirtons argued that the claims raised by Fields were barred by the release and waiver executed by Mr. Jones on behalf of his son. The Kirtons thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment based on the release and waiver. ³ The trial court entered an order granting the Kirtons’ motion for summary judgment on the wrongful death claim, finding that there was no genuine issue of material [*5] fact because the release executed by Mr. Jones on behalf of his minor child, Christopher, barred the claim.

3 Mr. Jones filed an affidavit in support of the Kirtons’ motion for summary judgment. In that affidavit, he admitted that he willfully and with full understanding executed the release on behalf of his minor child at Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park. He also stated that he understood that it was his intention to waive the right to sue for the death of Christopher and to be banned by the other terms as set forth in the general release. He further stated that he understood that by signing the general release, he was forever discharging the Kirtons for any and all loss or damage and any claim or demands on account of injury to Christopher or his property or resulting in the death of Christopher arising out of or related to the events, whether caused by the negligence of the releasees or otherwise.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the district court emphasized that the issue was not about a parent’s decision on what activities are appropriate for his or her minor child, which is properly left to the [*6] parent. Instead, the issue concerned the “decision to absolve the provider of an activity from liability for any form of negligence . . . [which] goes beyond the scope of determining which activity a person feels is appropriate for their child.” Id. at 1129. This is because the “effect of the parent’s decision in signing a pre-injury release impacts the minor’s estate and the property rights personal to the minor.” As a result, the district court found that these rights could not be waived by the parents absent a basis in common law or statute. Id. at 1129-30. The district court found that there was no statutory scheme governing the issue of pre-injury releases signed by parents on behalf of minor children. Because there is no basis in common law or statute, the district court found that the courts do not have the authority to “judicially legislate that which necessarily must originate, if it is to be law, with the legislature.” Id. at 1130. Accordingly, the district court held that a parent could not bind a minor’s estate by the parent’s execution of a pre-injury release. In doing so, the Fourth District also certified the above question to be of great public importance and certified [*7] conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Lantz v. Iron Horse Saloon, Inc., 717 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

ANALYSIS

The issue in this case is the enforceability of a pre-injury release executed by a parent on behalf of a minor child that binds a minor child’s estate and releases an activity provider from liability. Because the enforceability of the pre-injury release is a question of law arising from undisputed facts, the standard of review is de novo. See D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311, 314 (Fla. 2003) (stating that [HN2] the standard of review for pure questions of law is de novo and no deference is given to the judgment of the lower courts).

The Kirtons and the amicus curiae ⁴ supporting their position assert that a parent has a fundamental right to make decisions relating to the care of a minor child, and that right includes executing a pre-injury release on behalf of the minor child. The Kirtons also argue that enforcing the validity of a pre-injury release is consistent with Florida courts that have ruled that a parent has the prelitigation right to forego settlement awards in favor of pursuing a lawsuit without court approval or appointment of a guardian [*8] ad litem. On the other hand, Fields contends that pre-injury releases are invalid because neither the common law nor the Legislature has given parents the authority to waive these substantive rights of a minor child.

4 The American Motorcyclist Association.

Parental Authority and the State’s “Parens Patriae” Authority

The enforceability of a pre-injury release concerns two compelling interests: that of the parents in raising their children and that of the state to protect children. [HN3] Parental authority over decisions involving their minor children derives from the liberty interest contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the guarantee of privacy in article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) (plurality opinion) (“In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”); see also Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271, 1275 (Fla. 1996) (“The fundamental liberty interest in parenting is protected by both the Florida and federal [*9] constitutions. In Florida, it is specifically protected by our privacy provision.”). In fact, beginning with Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923), the United States Supreme Court has recognized that [HN4] parents have a constitutionally protected interest in child rearing. In Troxel, the United States Supreme Court further pointed to [HN5] a presumption that

fit parents act in the best interests of their children. . . . Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.

530 U.S. at 68-69; see also Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510, 514 (Fla. 1998) (“Neither the legislature nor the courts may properly intervene in parental decision-making absent significant harm to the child threatened by or resulting from those decisions.”).

However, these [HN6] parental rights are not absolute and the state as parens patriae may, in certain situations, usurp parental control. In Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392, 399 (Fla. 2005), we explained [*10] the concept of parens patriae as applied in this State:

[HN7] “Parens patriae,” which is Latin for “parent of his or her country,” describes “the state in its capacity as provider of protection to those unable to care for themselves.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1144 (8th ed. 2004). The doctrine derives from the common-law concept of royal prerogative, recognized by American courts in the form of legislative prerogative. See Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 600, 102 S.Ct. 3260, 73 L.Ed.2d 995 (1982). The United States Supreme Court, upholding a state child labor law in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), recognized the parens patriae power when it stated that [HN8] although the “custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, . . . the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor and in many other ways.” Id. at 166, 64 S.Ct. 438 (footnotes omitted).

In decisions over the past three decades, this Court has expressly relied on the state’s parens patriae authority to protect children in two areas: (1) juvenile delinquency [*11] and dependency, see P.W.G. v. State, 702 So.2d 488, 491 (Fla.1997); State v. D.H., 340 So. 2d 1163, 1166 (Fla.1976); In re Camm, 294 So.2d 318, 320 (Fla.1974); and (2) child custody and support. See Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So.2d 1290, 1293 (Fla.1991); Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So.2d 749, 753 (Fla.1982); Kern v. Kern, 333 So.2d 17, 19 (Fla.1976). Pervasive statutory schemes cover each of these areas. See generally ch. 39, Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Proceedings Relating to Children”); ch. 61, Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Custody”); ch. 984, Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Children and Families in Need of Services”); ch. 985, Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Delinquency; Interstate Compact on Juveniles”).

Although there is no statutory scheme governing pre-injury releases, the Kirtons argue that a parent’s execution of a pre-injury release falls squarely within the parent’s authority to settle pursuant to section 744.301(2), Florida Statutes (2007). This statutory provision allows a parent, acting as the natural guardian of a minor child, to settle the child’s claim for amounts up to $ 15,000. The Kirtons reason that because at the time a parent signs a pre-injury release, the claim is worth less than [*12] $ 15,000, the parent’s authority to execute a pre-injury release for a minor child falls within this section. Contrary to the Kirtons’ assertion, a parent’s authority to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child does not fall within the purview of section 744.301(2). Section 744.301, Florida Statutes (2007), applies to situations where a minor child already has a cause of action against another party. A pre-injury release is executed before any cause of action accrues and extinguishes any possible cause of action.

The absence of a statute governing parental pre-injury releases demonstrates that the Legislature has not precluded the enforcement of such releases on behalf of a minor child. See Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392, 400 (Fla. 2005) (noting that the absence of a statutory scheme governing a parent’s agreement to binding arbitration on behalf of a minor child demonstrates that the Legislature has not precluded the enforcement of such agreements). However, we find that public policy concerns cannot allow parents to execute pre-injury releases on behalf of minor children.

Florida Courts

Although this is an issue of first impression for this Court, the [*13] district courts of Florida have addressed this matter, but their decisions have not been consistent. In Lantz v. Iron Horse Saloon, Inc., 717 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the minor child’s natural guardian filed suit against Iron Horse Saloon after the child was injured while operating a “pocket bike” on the Iron Horse premises. Id. at 591. The trial court granted Iron Horse’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on the pre-injury release executed by the minor child’s guardian. On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion, finding that the release was sufficient to bar the child’s claim. Id. at 591-92. However, the Fifth District’s decision was based on the finding that the release clearly and unequivocally relieved Iron Horse from liability. The district court did not focus on whether the guardian had authority to execute the pre-injury release on behalf of the minor. Id.

In Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), the mother signed a pre-injury release so that the minor child could participate in the Coral Gables Fire Rescue Explorer Program. After the child was injured, the mother filed suit and the trial court [*14] entered summary judgment in favor of the city based on the release the mother had signed. The Third District affirmed and found that the release barred the mother’s claim on behalf of the minor child. Id. at 1067-68. The district court relied on a distinction the Fourth District made in Shea v. Global Travel Marketing, Inc., 870 So. 2d 20, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), quashed, 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2005), between community and school-supported activities and commercial activities. The Third District found that because the explorer program was a community-supported activity, the release was enforceable. Gonzalez, 871 So. 2d at 1067. ⁵ The Third District similarly found a parent’s execution of a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child, for participation on the high school cheerleading squad, enforceable. See Krathen v. School Bd. of Monroe Cty., 972 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In Krathen, the Third District again discussed the Fourth District’s distinction in Shea between school-supported activities and commercial activities. Id. at 889. However, the Third District’s decision ultimately relied on this Court’s finding in Shea that “parents have the authority to make the decision whether [*15] to waive a child’s litigation rights in exchange for participation in an activity the parent feels is beneficial for the child.” Id. at 889 (citing Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392, 404 (Fla. 2005)).

5 This Court in Shea found such a distinction arbitrary as applied to parents’ agreements to arbitrate but, in doing so, noted that it would not address this distinction as applied to pre-injury releases. Shea, 908 So. 2d at 403-04 & n.9.

On the other hand, in Applegate v. Cable Water Ski, L.C., 974 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), a case decided after Lantz, the Fifth District aligned itself with the Fourth District in the instant case and held that pre-injury releases are unenforceable as against public policy. Applegate involved a minor child who was injured while wakeboarding at a camp. In finding the parent’s execution of the pre-injury release unenforceable, the district court emphasized that its decision was limited to commercial enterprises because “[t]hey can insure against the risk of loss and include these costs in the price of participation.” Id. at 1115.

In Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, the father brought a wrongful death action against a safari operator [*16] for the death of his son who was mauled by hyenas while on the safari. 908 So. 2d at 395. Before the safari, the child’s mother signed a travel contract on behalf of herself and her son, which included a release of liability and an arbitration agreement provision. Based on the travel contract, Global Travel moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration of the father’s claim, which the trial court granted. Id. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed and found the arbitration clause unenforceable as to the child based on public policy grounds. Id. at 396. However, this Court quashed the Fourth District’s decision and found the arbitration agreement enforceable against the minor or minor’s estate in a tort action arising from the contract. ⁶ In doing so, this Court reasoned that if the courts required parents to seek court approval before entering into travel contracts that included arbitration agreements, courts would be second guessing a fit parent’s decision. Id. at 404. The Court emphasized that parents who decide which activities their children can participate in may also decide on behalf of their children “to arbitrate a resulting tort claim if the risks of these activities [*17] are realized.” Id.

6 This Court noted at the beginning of its decision that the issue, as phrased by the Fourth District, only touched “upon binding arbitration and not on any broader contractual waiver of a tort claim brought on behalf of a minor.” Id. at 394. It also distinguished pre-injury releases from arbitration agreements: “Whether a parent may waive his or her child’s substantive rights is a different question from whether a parent may agree that any dispute arising from the contract may be arbitrated rather than decided in a court of law.” Id. at 401. We emphasized this distinction by noting that the nature of the waiver, whether it concerns a waiver of a legal claim or right or a waiver of the forum in which the claim is presented, “is a crucial consideration in determining whether the state’s interest in protecting children renders the waiver unenforceable.” Id. at 403.

A federal district court in Florida in two separate cases also found that pre-injury releases signed by parents on behalf of their minor children were invalid. See In re Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2006); In re Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (S.D. Fla. 2005) [*18] (where both the father and minor child were injured on a jet ski that was owned by Royal Caribbean on the island of Coco Cay, Bahamas). In both cases, the federal district court reviewed out-of-state precedent and found that in cases involving school-sponsored or community-run activities the courts upheld pre-injury releases, and in cases involving commercial activities the courts have found the releases unenforceable. In re Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 459 F. Supp. 2d at 1280; In re Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 403 F. Supp. 2d at 1172.

Out-of-State Precedent

Other states and federal courts have also addressed the propriety of a parent or guardian’s execution of a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child. In holding that pre-injury releases executed by parents on behalf of minor children are unenforceable for participation in commercial activities, we are in agreement with the majority of other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Johnson v. New River Scenic Whitewater Tours, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 621 (S.D.W.Va. 2004) (finding a parent could not waive liability on behalf of a minor child and also could not indemnify a third party against the parent’s minor child for liability for conduct that [*19] violated a safety statute such as the Whitewater Responsibility Act); Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill. App. 3d 141, 634 N.E.2d 411, 199 Ill. Dec. 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (finding a parental pre-injury waiver unenforceable in a situation where the minor child was injured after falling off a horse at a horseback riding school); Doyle v. Bowdoin Coll., 403 A.2d 1206, 1208 n.3 (Me. 1979) (stating in dicta that a parent cannot release a child’s cause of action); Smith v. YMCA of Benton Harbor/St. Joseph, 216 Mich. App. 552, 550 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (“It is well settled in Michigan that, as a general rule, a parent has no authority, merely by virtue of being a parent, to waive, release, or compromise claims by or against the parent’s child.”); Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 901 A.2d 381, 383 (N.J. 2006) (finding that where a child was injured while skateboarding at a skate park facility, “a parent may not bind a minor child to a pre-injury release of a minor’s prospective tort claims resulting from the minor’s use of a commercial recreational facility”); Childress v. Madison County, 777 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (extending the law that a parent could not execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child to a mentally [*20] handicapped twenty-year-old student who was injured while training for the Special Olympics at a YMCA swimming pool); Munoz v. II Jaz, Inc., 863 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. App. 1993) (finding that giving parents the power to waive a child’s cause of action for personal injuries is against public policy to protect the interests of children); Hawkins v. Peart, 2001 UT 94, 37 P.3d 1062, 1066 (Utah 2001) (concluding that “a parent does not have the authority to release a child’s claims before an injury,” where the child was injured as a result of falling off a horse provided by a commercial business); Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Cmty. Ass’n., 244 Va. 191, 418 S.E.2d 894, 8 Va. Law Rep. 3381 (Va. 1992) (concluding that public policy prohibits the use of pre-injury waivers of liability for personal injury due to future acts of negligence, whether for minor children or adults); Scott v. Pac. W. Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d 484, 834 P.2d 6 (Wash. 1992) (holding that the enforcement of an exculpatory agreement signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child participating in a ski school is contrary to public policy).

Although there are jurisdictions where pre-injury releases executed by parents on behalf of minor children have been found enforceable, we note that the only [*21] published decisions where they have been upheld involved a minor’s participation in school-run or community-sponsored activities. See, e.g., Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1559, 274 Cal. Rptr. 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (finding the pre-injury release executed by the father on behalf of the minor child enforceable against any claims resulting from the child’s participation in a school-sponsored event); Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99, 769 N.E.2d 738 (Mass. 2002) (holding that a parent has the authority to bind a minor child to a waiver of liability as a condition of a child’s participation in public school extracurricular sports activities); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ohio 1998) (concluding that a parent may bind a minor child to a release of volunteers and sponsors of a nonprofit sports activity from liability for negligence because the threat of liability would strongly deter “many individuals from volunteering for nonprofit organizations” because of the potential for substantial damage awards).

While this particular case involves a commercial activity, we note that these jurisdictions that have upheld pre-injury releases have done so because community-run and [*22] school-sponsored type activities involve different policy considerations than those associated with commercial activities. As the Ohio Supreme Court explained in Zivich, in community and volunteer-run activities, the providers cannot afford to carry liability insurance because “volunteers offer their services without receiving any financial return.” 696 N.E.2d at 205. If pre-injury releases were invalidated, these volunteers would be faced with the threat of lawsuits and the potential for substantial damage awards, which could lead volunteers to decide that the risk is not worth the effort.

This Case

The trial court in this case specifically relied on the case law that has upheld the enforceability of the pre-injury release executed by the father on behalf of the deceased minor child in granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Kirtons. In reversing the trial court’s order, the Fourth District first acknowledged that as part of the liberty interest contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the guarantee of privacy in article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution, parents have a right to determine what activities may be appropriate for [*23] the minor child’s participation. However, the district court determined that the “decision to absolve the provider of an activity from liability for any form of negligence (regardless of the inherent risk or danger in the activity) goes beyond the scope of determining which activity a person feels is appropriate for their child.” Fields, 961 So. 2d at 1129. We agree.

Although parents undoubtedly have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, upbringing, and control of their children, Troxel, 530 U.S. at 67, the question of whether a parent should be allowed to waive a minor child’s future tort claims implicates wider public policy concerns. See Hojnowski, 901 A.2d at 390. While a parent’s decision to allow a minor child to participate in a particular activity is part of the parent’s fundamental right to raise a child, this does not equate with a conclusion that a parent has a fundamental right to execute a pre-injury release of a tortfeasor on behalf of a minor child. It cannot be presumed that a parent who has decided to voluntarily risk a minor child’s physical well-being is acting in the child’s best interest. Furthermore, we find that there is injustice [*24] when a parent agrees to waive the tort claims of a minor child and deprive the child of the right to legal relief when the child is injured as a result of another party’s negligence. When a parent executes such a release and a child is injured, the provider of the activity escapes liability while the parent is left to deal with the financial burden of an injured child. If the parent cannot afford to bear that burden, the parties who suffer are the child, other family members, and the people of the State who will be called on to bear that financial burden. Therefore, when a parent decides to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child, the parent is not protecting the welfare of the child, but is instead protecting the interests of the activity provider. Moreover, [HN9] a “parent’s decision in signing a pre-injury release impacts the minor’s estate and the property rights personal to the minor.” Fields, 961 So. 2d at 1129-30. For this reason, the state must assert its role under parens patriae to protect the interests of the minor children.

[HN10] Business owners owe their patrons a duty of reasonable care and to maintain a safe environment for the activity they provide. See Hojnowski, 901 A.2d at 388. [*25] If pre-injury releases were permitted for commercial establishments, the incentive to take reasonable precautions to protect the safety of minor children would be removed. Id. Moreover, as a provider of the activity, a commercial business can take precautions to ensure the child’s safety and insure itself when a minor child is injured while participating in the activity. On the other hand, a minor child cannot insure himself or herself against the risks involved in participating in that activity. As the New Jersey Supreme Court stated in Hojnowski:

[HN11] The operator of a commercial recreational enterprise can inspect the premises for unsafe conditions, train his or her employees with regard to the facility’s proper operation, and regulate the types of activities permitted to occur. Such an operator also can obtain insurance and spread the costs of insurance among its customers. Children, on the other hand, are not in a position to discover hazardous conditions or insure against risks. Moreover, the expectation that a commercial facility will be reasonably safe to do that which is within the scope of the invitation, is especially important where the facility’s patrons are minor children. [*26] If we were to permit waivers of liability, we would remove a significant incentive for operators of commercial enterprises that attract children to take reasonable precautions to protect their safety.

Id. (citations omitted).

Based on these public policy concerns, it is clear that the pre-injury release executed by Bobby Jones on behalf of his now deceased son was unenforceable because it prevented the minor’s estate from bringing a cause of action against the commercial establishment that provided the activity which resulted in the minor’s death.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we hold that a pre-injury release executed by a parent on behalf of a minor child is unenforceable against the minor or the minor’s estate in a tort action arising from injuries resulting from participation in a commercial activity. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative, approve the decision of the Fourth District, disapprove the Fifth District’s decision in Lantz, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., specially concurs with an opinion.

PARIENTE, J., concurs with an opinion.

WELLS, J., dissents [*27] with an opinion.

CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., did not participate.

CONCUR BY: ANSTEAD; PARIENTE

CONCUR

ANSTEAD, J., specially concurring.

I concur in the majority opinion and write separately to emphasize that our holding is narrowly directed at those commercial operators who wrongfully and negligently cause injury to a child but seek to be relieved of liability for their misconduct by securing a pre-activity release from the child’s parent. Of course, under today’s holding commercial operators who properly conduct their operations and cannot be demonstrated to have acted negligently will continue to be free of liability. On the other hand, Florida’s children and parents need not worry, after today’s decision, that careless commercial operators may be immunized from their carelessness by the presence of an exculpatory clause in a ticket for admission.

Finally, I also find the articulation of the policy considerations supporting today’s decision set out in Judge Torpy’s opinion for the Fifth District in Applegate to be particularly instructive and persuasive:

Exculpatory contracts are, by public policy, disfavored in the law because they relieve one party of the obligation to use due care and shift the risk of [*28] injury to the party who is probably least equipped to take the necessary precautions to avoid injury and bear the risk of loss. Cain v. Banka, 932 So. 2d 575, 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Nevertheless, because of a countervailing policy that favors the enforcement of contracts, as a general proposition, unambiguous exculpatory contracts are enforceable unless they contravene public policy. Id.; Ivey Plants, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 282 So. 2d 205, 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496B.

Appellants concede that the contract at issue here is unambiguous but urge that the general rule should give way to an overriding public policy of protecting children from damages caused by negligently imposed injuries. This argument finds considerable support in the decisional law across the country. We are persuaded by some of the reasoning advanced by these authorities and also offer our own rationale for our holding.

Indisputably, Florida’s public policy manifests a strong intent to protect children from harm. As parens patriae, the state’s authority is broader than that of a parent’s and may be invoked to limit parental authority when necessary to protect children. Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392, 399 (Fla. 2005). [*29] The expression of that policy most relevant here is the legislative limitation on parental authority to settle post-injury claims contained in section 744.301(2), Florida Statutes (2007). By requiring judicial approval of settlements over $ 15,000, the legislature has manifested a policy of protecting children from parental imprudence in the compromise of their claims for injury. Because parents’ legal duty to support their children ends at or near the age of majority, the potential societal burden of an imprudent settlement justifies judicial oversight of the settlement contract.

The case of a pre-injury exculpatory clause may be distinguished from a post-injury settlement in one respect. In a pre-injury situation, there is no risk that financial pressure will induce parental imprudence. Instead, the parents’ motivation is the potential benefit to the child derived from the child’s participation in the activity. Theoretically, the prudent parent can weigh this benefit against the potential consequence of a negligently caused injury and determine whether it is in the child’s best interest to execute an exculpatory clause and permit the activity. Motivations aside, however, the consequence [*30] of an imprudent decision is the same as in the post-injury context: a child will suffer injury for which society might ultimately bear the burden. Thus, the parents’ interest is not necessarily consonant with those of society and the child.

Although this potential societal cost is arguably a justification to invalidate all pre-injury exculpatory clauses, we discern significant reasons for a distinction when a child is the subject. A consenting adult has the ability to avoid potential injury by exercising personal caution and mitigate the impact of future economic loss by purchasing disability and health insurance policies. Conversely, children tend to throw caution to the wind during risky activities, resulting in a decreased chance of avoiding injury caused by the negligence of others. More importantly, children have no ability to indemnify themselves for future economic losses like their adult counterparts, making them especially vulnerable after the parents’ support obligation ends. As parens patriae, the state also has an interest in protecting children from the non-economic consequences of negligently-caused injury. A policy that enforces exculpatory clauses fosters an increased [*31] risk of injury through carelessness. For these reasons, although the scales of public policy might tip in favor of the enforcement of exculpatory contracts involving consenting adults, we think they tip the other way when children are the subject.

We emphasize that our holding is limited to commercial enterprises. They can insure against the risk of loss and include these costs in the price of participation.

Applegate, 974 So. 2d at 1114-15 (footnote and citation omitted).

PARIENTE, J., concurring.

I fully concur with the majority’s conclusion that the pre-injury release signed by the father on behalf of his fourteen-year-old son, executed in order to “gain entry to the facility and be allowed to participate in riding the ATV in the Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park,” is invalid. The owners and operators of the sports park, the Kirtons, raised the execution of this release as a complete defense to the wrongful death action brought on behalf of the estate.

I write to emphasize several points. First, as pointed out by the Fourth District, “[t]here is no basis in common law for a parent to enter into a compromise or settlement of a child’s claim, or to waive substantive rights of the child without [*32] court approval.” Fields, 961 So. 2d at 1130.

Second, the release in this case was all-encompassing, as it covered not just injuries occurring as a result of the activity of ATV riding, which itself could be considered inherently dangerous, but all negligent acts. The allegations of the complaint in this case, which we must accept as true, asserted in pertinent part that the ATV fourteen-year-old Christopher Jones was “racing and jumping” on “the course set up and maintained by Defendants” was recommended “only for use by those over the age of 16” by the manufacturer. Significantly, the allegations also asserted that “the subject four wheel all terrain vehicle was not designed by the manufacturer or recommended for racing or jumping on a course such as the course constructed and maintained by Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents and employees.”

Moreover, the amended complaint alleged that the Kirtons had prior knowledge of Christopher Jones’s limited experience based on a serious injury he sustained on the same course with the same ATV approximately one month before:

Defendants and/or their agents and employees knew or should have known that a fourteen year old with limited experience [*33] as a rider, such as CHRISTOPHER JONES, should not have been permitted to operate the subject 350 cc four wheel all terrain vehicle in the manner it was being operated by him on the course constructed and maintained by THUNDER CROSS MOTOR SPORTS PARK on May 10, 2003. This is particularly the case given the fact that the last time CHRISTOPHER JONES operated the subject 350 cc four wheel all terrain vehicle he operated it in the same manner and “missed the jump” while riding on the identical course constructed and maintained by THUNDER CROSS MOTOR SPORTS PARK on April 6, 2003. On that date he was seriously injured such that he was removed from the Defendant’s property by Fire Rescue personnel and was transported to the hospital for treatment.

The amended complaint further alleged that the negligent design of the course and the failure to have a “flag man” to alert riders to the dangers of the course and to prevent the fatal injuries directly caused or substantially contributed to the death of Christopher Jones. As explained in the amended complaint:

On May 10, 2003 while attempting to jump on Defendants’ course which was negligently constructed and/or maintained by Defendants through their [*34] agents and their employees, CHRISTOPHER JONES “missed the jump” so that he came up short and did not clear the jump. The front tires of the four wheel all terrain vehicle he was operating hit the ground first and CHRISTOPHER JONES bounced over the handlebars, flipped off the four-wheeler to the right and the four-wheeler went to the left and then came back directly at him.

Although there was supposed to be a flag man stationed at the jump to alert riders of dangers on the course and to assist in rendering assistance to injured riders such as CHRISTOPHER JONES, there was no flag man stationed at the jump that CHRISTOPHER JONES was attempting to navigate when the accident occurred on May 10, 2003. Because the four-wheeler came back at CHRISTOPHER JONES after he was thrown off the vehicle, had a flag man been close enough to the jump, he would have been able to remove CHRISTOPHER JONES from harm’s way before the vehicle hit and killed him.

In distinguishing between risks inherent in the activity and separate acts of negligence, the Fourth District explained:

The decision to absolve the provider of an activity from liability for any form of negligence (regardless of the inherent risk or danger [*35] in the activity) goes beyond the scope of determining which activity a person feels is appropriate for their child. The decision to allow a minor to participate in an activity is properly left to the parents or natural guardian. For instance, the decision to allow one’s child to engage in scuba diving or sky diving involves the acceptance of certain risks inherent in the activity. This does not contemplate that a dive instructor will permit or encourage diving at depths beyond safe recreational limits, or that the pilot of the plane on a sky diving venture is intoxicated or otherwise impaired, both situations which could cause injury to the minor.

Id. at 1129. I agree with this distinction. Although the father accepted the risks inherent in ATV riding by allowing his son to participate in the activity, his acceptance did not contemplate that the defendants would act negligently as described in the amended complaint.

Finally, I write to emphasize that this Court limits its decision to activities provided by commercial establishments because those were the facts presented by this case. However, I do not agree with the reasoning of those cases cited by the majority that have found that [*36] all releases from liability for noncommercial activities are automatically valid. To me there is an important distinction between a release to allow a child to participate in school activities, such as cheerleading or football, which could be considered inherently dangerous, and a blanket release that absolves the sponsor of liability from all negligent acts. As with commercial activities, when a parent allows his or her child to participate in an inherently dangerous noncommercial activity, his or her acceptance does not contemplate that the activity provider will act negligently.

DISSENT BY: WELLS

DISSENT

WELLS, J., dissenting.

While I agree that it would be a good policy to limit parental pre-injury releases of minors’ claims for injuries or death arising out of dangerous activities operated by commercial entities, until today this Court has never held that such a pre-injury release knowingly executed by a parent is unenforceable. Nor until this case was decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, had a district court of appeal held such a pre-injury release unenforceable. Furthermore, when the parent in this case signed such a release, the Legislature had not prohibited or regulated pre-injury parental [*37] releases of a minor’s claims, though the Legislature had legislated as to post-injury parental releases of a minor’s claims. See §§ 744.301, 744.387, Fla. Stat. (2003). The Legislature has not subsequently acted to regulate pre-injury releases. Thus, at the time of this parental agreement which permitted the minor to participate in this activity, there was no law in Florida, either statutory or court-declared, enunciating the public policy that the majority now determines makes this agreement unenforceable. Absent the majority’s decision that such an agreement is against public policy, the agreement would without question be enforceable. See Ivey Plants, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 282 So. 2d 205, 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (explaining that exculpatory clauses are generally valid and enforceable absent public policy requiring nonenforcement). I believe that it is fundamentally unfair to now declare a new public policy and then apply it to the defendants in this case.

Moreover, I conclude that the majority opinion highlights why the decision as to the enforceability of a parent’s pre-injury release of a minor’s claim is and should be a legislative decision. The majority opinion creates many questions [*38] and provides few answers. The answers will have to be gleaned from further costly case-by-case litigation, and if the particular circumstances of other releases are found to be against the declared public policy, the result will be additional after-the-fact determinations of liability without sufficient notice to the parties involved.

The majority opinion draws a distinction between “commercial establishments” and “community based or school activities,” which is precisely the distinction that this Court’s majority criticized in quashing the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2005). The Court expressly stated:

[T]he line dividing commonplace activities from commercial travel opportunities is far from clear, given that some commonplace school or community activities might also involve commercial travel. The Fourth District decision might prevent arbitration of claims of minors arising from their parents’ decisions in individually authorizing activities that involve commercial travel, but not from the decisions of school authorities in arranging for the same activity.

We see no basis in fact or law for this distinction, [*39] nor a reliable standard by which to apply it without making value judgments as to the underlying activity that the parent has deemed appropriate for the child to engage in. Moreover, the alternative of requiring parents to seek court approval before entering into commercial travel contracts that include arbitration agreements would place courts in a position of second guessing the decision-making of a fit parent.

Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). In reaching our decision, we relied upon and quoted from Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68-69, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) (“Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.”).

I recognize that in Shea the majority said in a footnote that it was not addressing the distinction between commercial and community-based and school-related activities as applied to pre-injury waivers of liability. See 908 So. 2d at 395 n.3. However, in this case, the majority does not have any more of a reasonable “basis in law [*40] or fact for this distinction, nor a reliable standard by which to apply it without making value judgments as to the underlying activity that the parent has deemed appropriate for the child to engage in” than the majority had in Shea. As found in Shea, the line dividing commercial activities from community-based and school-related activities is far from clear. For example, is a Boy Scout or Girl Scout, YMCA, or church camp a commercial establishment or a community-based activity? Is a band trip to participate in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade a school or commercial activity? What definition of commercial is to be applied?

The importance of this issue cannot be overstated because it affects so many youth activities and involves so much monetary exposure. Bands, cheerleading squads, sports teams, church choirs, and other groups that often charge for their activities and performances will not know whether they are a commercial activity because of the fees and ticket sales. How can these groups carry on their activities that are so needed by youth if the groups face exposure to large damage claims either by paying defense costs or damages? Insuring against such claims is not a realistic [*41] answer for many activity providers because insurance costs deplete already very scarce resources. The majority’s decision seems just as likely to force small-scale activity providers out of business as it is to encourage such providers to obtain insurance coverage.

If pre-injury releases are to be banned or regulated, it should be done by the Legislature so that a statute can set universally applicable standards and definitions. When the Legislature acts, all are given advance notice before a minor’s participation in an activity as to what is regulated and as to whether a pre-injury release is enforceable. In contrast, the majority’s present opinion will predictably create extensive and expensive litigation attempting to sort out the bounds of commercial activities on a case-by-case basis.

The majority opinion also does not explain the reason why after years of not finding pre-injury releases to be against public policy, it today finds a public policy reason to rule pre-injury releases unenforceable when the Legislature has not done so. Again, the present majority opinion conflicts with the reasoning expressed just three years ago in Shea:

Further, the lack of a statutory requirement [*42] for court involvement in pre-injury arbitration agreements provides a basis for treating these agreements differently from settlements of lawsuits involving minors’ claims, for which appointment of a guardian ad litem and court approval are necessary under certain circumstances pursuant to sections 744.301 and 744.387, Florida Statutes (2004). The Legislature has chosen to authorize court protection of children’s interests as to extant causes of action, but has not exercised its prerogative as parens patriae to prohibit arbitration of those claims.

908 So. 2d at 403. Similarly, though the Legislature has acted in respect to the settlement of accrued claims, the Legislature has not acted in respect to pre-injury releases. There can be no question that the Legislature adopts legislation when it concludes that the interests of minors are best served by statutory protection. The Legislature has chosen to act in respect to many matters in which the Legislature concluded that minors should have the protection of a guardian ad litem. See Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Petersen, 920 So. 2d 75, 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (listing circumstances in which trial court may or must appoint [*43] a guardian ad litem: § 39.402(8)(c) (shelter hearings); § 39.807(2)(a) (termination of parental rights proceedings); § 73.021(4) (eminent domain proceedings); § 390.01115(4)(a) (termination of pregnancy without parental notification); § 731.303(4) (probate proceedings); § 743.09(3) (contract for artistic or creative services or professional sport contract); § 744.446 (parental conflict of interests with minor child), Florida Statutes (2004)). Thus, as we did in respect to arbitration agreements, it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature has chosen not to act in respect to pre-injury releases.

The Legislature may have chosen not to act on the issue of pre-injury releases out of respect for the authority of parents to make choices involving their children, which again we recognized in Shea:

Parents’ authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 23 [of the Florida Constitution] encompasses decisions on the activities appropriate for their children–whether they be academically or socially focused pursuits, physically rigorous activities such as football, adventure sports such as skiing, horseback riding, or mountain climbing, or, as in this case, an adventure vacation [*44] in a game reserve. Parents who choose to allow their children to engage in these activities may also legitimately elect on their children’s behalf to arbitrate a resulting tort claim if the risks of these activities is realized.

908 So. 2d at 404. Without the ability to execute pre-injury releases, a parent may find that his or her minor child will not be able to participate in activities because the operators of the activities will not accept the financial exposure of the minor’s participation, regardless of whether the parent would decide that the benefit to the minor outweighed the risk of injury.

The majority opinion raises other serious questions. If a parent does not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release, does a parent have the authority to execute an enforceable consent for medical treatment on behalf of a minor child? Florida courts have long recognized the authority of the parent to execute an enforceable consent for medical treatment on behalf of a minor child, see Ritz v. Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund, 436 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (holding that parent could consent to medical treatment on behalf of incompetent child), but medical consents and pre-injury [*45] releases have substantial similarities. Plainly, without the giving of consent, health care providers in most instances will not provide medical services. The majority’s decision also calls into question whether a parent has authority to turn down an offer of settlement for an injury to a minor as was upheld in Petersen.

In sum, I conclude that the questions presented by this case demonstrate a need for the Court to exercise judicial restraint, recognize that the Legislature is the policy-making branch of government, and defer to the Legislature by respecting the Legislature’s non-action to date.

A Parent (or Guardian) is still in control of a child, no matter what the volunteer may want.

Posted: May 6, 2010 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: control, guardian, Minor, parent, power of attorney | Leave a comment

A question posed on an Ask the Expert page has a very simple answer a very simple question.

The question asked was; must we allow adults into closed youth meetings? The simple answer is yes. There are no other answers available, no other answers to be considered, there is no other answer.

There may be other issues from various perspectives. However, we are talking about parental rights and minors.

You cannot keep a parent out of a meeting where their child is.

You can try to explain the issues; you can have the children discuss the issues with the parents. You can try anything but there is nothing else you can do other than talk and educate.

Look at this position from that of a parent. An adult is trying to tell me that I cannot go in that room where my child is. In my mind, the only real issue is will the parent slow down when they knock over the adult standing in their way.

The parent will have a lot of questions. What is going on behind that door? What is the adult trying to hide? What type of organization is my child in?

The question occurs when adults are attempting to give youth the freedom to make their own decisions and/or plan their own future. Adults intimidate and have a very difficult time staying out of the way. However, keeping adults from the room only creates additional barriers between the youth and adults. They believe that the only way they can accomplish anything is to bar adults.

The issue is not how to train the youth. The issue is how to educate and/or train the adults.

Parents need to be told both their child and by the adult volunteers what the purpose of the meeting or other function is and why they are requesting limited adult interaction. The meeting has to be done in a way that parents feel secure for their children. Finally, the meeting must be done so to protect the youth themselves and that youth protection guidelines are violated.

See Ask the Expert: Is it a violation of BSA policy to have “closed” meetings?

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

WordPress Tags: Parent,Guardian,volunteer,Expert,youth,rights,children,room,door,organization,freedom,Adults,Parents,purpose,interaction,protection,guidelines,violation,policy,Recreation,Edit,Recreaton,Gmail,adventure,James Moss,attorney,tourism,management,Human,Scouts,America,Guide,decisions,barriers,blog

It's not what I write, It's what you Learn

No. 11AP-550

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Court recognizes that you can’t argue rights under the contract and void other parts of the contract in the same lawsuit.

Summary of the case

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Connect

Rate this:

Share this:

To Read an Analysis of this decision see

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Squires v. Goodwin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129234

Rate this:

Share this:

However, the decision was not made by the North Carolina Supreme Court and not a ruling by the court and the actual legal issue.

So?

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

If your state is not listed here, you should assume a parent cannot waive a minor’s right to sue in your state.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

To read the analysis of this case see: Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rice, Et Als, vs. American Skiing Company, Et Als, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 90

However the court held out the possibility that a

properly written indemnification clause may

be upheld.

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

This is an interesting case based on who actually signed the release on behalf of and in an attempt to bind the minor.

Summary of the case

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Iowa follows the majority of states finding that the state has an interest in protecting kids from allowing their parents to think.

So? Summary of the case

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

As long as there was no notice of a problem and no rule of the camp or standard for the camp, assumption of the risk is a valid defense against minors claim.

So?

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

So?

So Now What?

7 Mistakes Made by People who are called Defendant.

Rate this:

Share this:

Now is the time to move a statute like this forward in your state.

Colorado

Florida Statute on Guardian right to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Alaska

My suggestion on how the law should read.

Rate this: