McGowen v. Montes, 152 N.E.3d 654; 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 335; 2020 WL 4516816

Posted: June 14, 2021 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Indiana | Tags: act or omission, activated, automatic, brake light, civil liability, collided, Collision, defibrillator, Driving, Emergency, emergency care, external, Good Samaritan Statutes, gratuitously, Gross negligence, immune, Indiana, material fact, medical treatment, partial, purposes, Reckless, scene, semi, stopping, Summary judgment, summary judgment motion, Trial court, truck, undisputed, wanton misconduct, willful | Leave a comment

McGowen v. Montes, 152 N.E.3d 654; 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 335; 2020 WL 4516816

Court of Appeals of Indiana

August 6, 2020, Decided; August 6, 2020, Filed

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CT-1707

Reporter

152 N.E.3d 654 *; 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 335 **; 2020 WL 4516816

Eric McGowen and Vision Logistics, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Bradley Montes, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court. The Honorable Steven P. Meyer, Judge. Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-1708-CT-138.

Counsel: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES; William B. Weiler, John A. Masters, Langhenry Gillen Lundquist & Johnson, LLC, Munster, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT: Christopher G. Stevenson, Wilson Kehoe Winningham LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Kyle E. Cray, Kisti Good Risse, Bennett Boehning & Clary LLP Lafayette, Indiana; ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, Brian A. Karle, Sarah M. Wyatt, Ball Eggleston PC, Lafayette, Indiana.

Judges: Friedlander, Senior Judge. May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Opinion by: Friedlander

Opinion

[*656]
Friedlander, Senior Judge.

P1 Eric McGowen and Bradley Montes were injured in a vehicle accident after McGowen stopped at the scene of a prior vehicle accident and Montes collided with his vehicle. McGowen sued Montes, and Montes sued McGowen and McGowen’s employer, Vision Logistics, Inc.

P2 In this interlocutory appeal, the parties cross-appeal the trial court’s rulings on their cross-motions for summary judgment, in which the court determined that a dispute of material fact remains to be decided at trial. We affirm in part but also reverse [**2] in part and remand because we conclude there are no disputes of material fact and McGowen and Vision are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

P3 On the morning of November 4, 2016, before the sun had risen, there was heavy fog in rural Tippecanoe County. McGowen was driving a semi-tractor (without a trailer) owned by his employer, Vision, on a two-lane county road. Traffic was sparse, but McGowen drove at thirty-five to forty miles per hour, well below the speed limit of fifty miles per hour, due to poor visibility. As he drove east, McGowen saw a truck in a ditch on the side of the road. The truck was upright and its headlights were on, pointing at McGowen’s semi as he approached. The truck’s roof, windshield, and hood were heavily damaged. McGowen also saw another vehicle stopped in the road near the truck, but that vehicle drove off as McGowen approached. McGowen speculated that there had been a two-car accident, and the other vehicle was leaving the scene.

P4 McGowen saw a man, later identified as Ryan Patton, “kind of wandering around” the truck. Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 40. McGowen thought Patton “was drunk at first” or possibly injured. Id.

P5 McGowen stopped [**3] his semi in the road. He kept his foot on the brake, rather than shifting the semi’s transmission to park. The semi’s rear brake lights activated automatically when the driver pressed on the brake pedal. McGowen checked his side mirrors as he slowed to a halt, but he did not see any sign of vehicles approaching from behind.

P6 McGowen rolled down the passenger window and asked Patton, “Are you okay?” Id. Patton climbed up to the semi’s passenger-side window and responded, “Yeah.” Id. Next, McGowen asked Patton if he wanted McGowen to call 911. Patton responded, “Yeah, if you don’t mind.” Id.

P7 Rebecca Higgins was traveling westbound on the same road and she saw the headlights of McGowen’s semi, stopped in the road. She pulled past the semi, parked on the side of the road opposite the semi, and activated her hazard lights. She saw Patton’s truck after she had passed the semi. Higgins also saw the semi’s brake lights.

P8 Meanwhile, Montes was also driving east on the same county road. Higgins saw Montes’ car traveling in her direction. She activated her vehicle’s high beams to warn Montes, but he did not slow down. Higgins also rolled down her window, waved her arms, and yelled, but Montes [**4] still did not slow down. He instead collided with the rear of McGowen’s semi, without braking, immediately after Patton had asked McGowen to call 911. McGowen estimated no more than fifteen to thirty seconds had elapsed from the time he stopped until the time Montes struck the semi. Another vehicle that was also traveling east on the [*657] road, behind Montes, saw McGowen’s semi and stopped before hitting Montes’ car.

P9 Both McGowen and Montes suffered injuries from the collision. Montes later recalled seeing the rear of McGowen’s semi prior to the collision, but he was unsure of the distance at which he first saw it.

P10 This case began on August 24, 2017, when McGowen sued Montes, claiming negligence.¹ Montes filed an answer, counter-sued McGowen for negligence, and sued Vision as a third-party defendant, alleging McGowen had been working for Vision at the time of the collision.

P11 In January 2019, McGowen and Vision filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that they were immune from Montes’ negligence claims under Indiana Code section 34-30-12-1 (2008), also known as the Good Samaritan Law (“GSL”). Montes responded to the motion and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, asserting [**5] the GSL did not apply to McGowen’s conduct.

P12 After a hearing, the trial court issued an order determining: (1) there is no dispute of material fact that McGowen was rendering emergency care, for purposes of the GSL, when he stopped and offered to call 911; but (2) there is a dispute of material fact as to whether McGowen’s act in stopping on the road amounted to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, for purposes of the GSL. The court granted in part and denied in part McGowen and Vision’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Montes’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

P13 Montes, McGowen, and Vision asked the trial court to certify its order for interlocutory review. The court granted the motion. Next, both sides separately asked the Court to accept this appeal. The Court granted the motions, and this appeal followed.

1. Standard of Review

HN1[] P14 Summary judgment orders are reviewed de novo, applying the same standard of review as the trial court. AM General LLC v. Armour, 46 N.E.3d 436 (Ind. 2015). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence designated by the parties demonstrates “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(C).

HN2[] P15 The [**6] movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014). If the movant bears its burden, then the nonmovant must present contrary evidence showing an issue for the trier of fact. Id. All evidence must be construed in favor of the nonmovant. Mahan v. Am. Standard Ins. Co., 862 N.E.2d 669 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

HN3[] P16 Cross-motions for summary judgment do not alter our standard of review. Alexander v. Linkmeyer Dev. II, LLC, 119 N.E.3d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Instead, we consider each motion separately to determine whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mahan, 862 N.E.2d 669.

P17 In addition, this case requires us to review the trial court’s application of the GSL. HN4[] Interpretation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts and, as is the case for a summary judgment order, is reviewed under a de novo standard. Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp., 865 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[*658]
2. The Good Samaritan Law

P18 The GSL provides:

(a) This section does not apply to services rendered by a health care provider (as defined in IC 34-18-2-14 or IC 27-12-2-14 before its repeal) to a patient in a health care facility (as defined in IC 27-8-10-1).

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who comes upon the scene of an emergency or accident, complies with IC 9-26-1-1.5, or is summoned to the scene of an emergency or accident and, in good faith, gratuitously renders emergency care at the scene [**7] of the emergency or accident is immune from civil liability for any personal injury that results from:

(1) any act or omission by the person in rendering the emergency care; or

(2) any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person;

except for acts or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

(c) This subsection applies to a person to whom IC 16-31-6.5 applies. A person who gratuitously renders emergency care involving the use of an automatic external defibrillator is immune from liability for any act or omission not amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct if the person fulfills the requirements set forth in IC 16-31-6.5.

(d) This subsection applies to an individual, business, or organization to which IC 16-31-6.5 applies. An individual, business, or organization that allows a person who is an expected user to use an automatic external defibrillator of the individual, business, or organization to in good faith gratuitously render emergency care is immune from civil liability for any damages resulting from an act or omission not amounting to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct by the user or for acquiring [**8] or providing the automatic external defibrillator to the user for the purpose of rendering the emergency care if the individual, business, or organization and the user fulfill the requirements set forth in IC 16-31-6.5.

(e) A licensed physician who gives medical direction in the use of a defibrillator or a national or state approved defibrillator instructor of a person who gratuitously renders emergency care involving the use of an automatic external defibrillator is immune from civil liability for any act or omission of the licensed physician or instructor if the act or omission of the licensed physician or instructor:

(1) involves the training for or use of an automatic external defibrillator; and

(2) does not amount to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

Ind. Code § 34-30-12-1.

P19 The GSL has rarely been addressed by Indiana’s appellate courts. HN5[] The statute’s grant of immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances limits a claimant’s right to bring suit, “in derogation of the common law.” Beckerman v. Gordon, 614 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), reh’g denied, 618 N.E.2d 56 (1993), trans. denied. We strictly construe such statutes against limitations on the right to sue. Id.

HN6[] P20 When applying a statute to a case, “our first task is to give its words their clear and plain [**9] meaning, while considering the structure of the statute as a whole.” City of Lawrence Utils. Serv. Bd. v. Curry, 68 N.E.3d 581, 585 (Ind. 2017). If a statute contains clear and unambiguous language, it is not subject to judicial interpretation. Yates v. Kemp, 979 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. 2012).

[*659]
3. Cross-Appeal: Emergency Care

P21 We first address Montes’ cross-appeal claim because, if it is meritorious, it would be dispositive of the appeal. He argues the trial court should have granted his motion for partial summary judgment because McGowen was not rendering emergency care for purposes of the GSL when he stopped at the accident scene to ask if Patton was okay and whether he should call 911. Montes argues that the GSL applies only to “persons actively participating in rendering care or assistance,” Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Br. p. 15, and not to people in McGowen’s situation.² He further argues the facts demonstrate there was no emergency at the time McGowen stopped his semi.

HN7[] P22 The General Assembly has defined the phrase “gratuitously renders emergency care,” as set forth in the GSL, in relevant part:

[t]he giving of emergency care (including the use of an automatic external defibrillator):

(1) that was volunteered without legal obligation on the part of the person rendering the emergency care; and

(2) for [**10] which the person rendering the emergency care does not expect remuneration.

Ind. Code § 34-6-2-51 (1999). This statute focuses on the element of gratuitousness and does not address what conduct, other than the use of a defibrillator, meets the definition of emergency care.

P23 Similarly, Indiana’s prior cases applying the GSL have not sought to define “emergency care.” In McKinney v. Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied, a panel of this Court was asked to determine whether a vehicle that was disabled due to a flat tire, where the driver was uninjured, was an “accident” for purposes of the Samaritan Law. The panel determined that those circumstances did not amount to an accident, and the person who stopped to change the flat tire was not immune from civil suit under the GSL. In Beckerman, 614 N.E.2d 610, this Court was similarly asked to determine whether the circumstances of that case amounted to an “accident” for purposes of the GSL. A doctor had been called to a house to treat an ill person, who subsequently died from a heart attack. This Court concluded the victim’s medical condition was not a “sudden calamitous event,” and the GSL did not provide immunity from suit. Id. at 613.

P24 The parties cite several cases from other jurisdictions in support of their claims. Those [**11] cases are not particularly helpful here because other states’ Good Samaritan laws are drafted differently from Indiana’s, and the courts applying those statutes have reached differing results. See, e.g., McDowell v. Gillie, 2001 ND 91, 626 N.W.2d 666, 675 (N.D. Sup. Ct. 2001) (stopping at an accident to ask if assistance is needed can constitute rendering “aid” for North Dakota’s GSL); Howell v. City Towing Assoc., Inc., 717 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986) (tow truck driver calling his dispatcher after passenger suffered medical emergency did not amount to “emergency care” as defined by Texas’ GSL), writ refused.

P25 In the absence of a statutory definition or prior caselaw, we define “emergency care” in accordance with our principles of statutory application. HN8[] Subsection (b)(2) of the GSL distinguishes between medical treatment and other forms [*660] of emergency assistance, providing immunity for persons who “provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care.” Ind. Code § 34-30-12-1(b)(2) (emphasis added). Based on the plain language of the statute, “emergency care” thus encompasses actions other than direct medical treatment. In addition, the Samaritan Law immunizes an “act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.” Id. In the current case, it is undisputed that McGowen stopped his semi to ask Patton if he [**12] was okay and if McGowen should contact 911. McGowen was thus seeking to arrange medical treatment, as mentioned in the statute.

P26 Montes and amicus curiae argue that, reading the GSL in its entirety, the statute encompasses only medical care or first aid. We disagree. Subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the GSL address the use of a defibrillator to provide medical assistance. The General Assembly clearly knew how to specify medical care, including specific medical treatments, in the GSL. If the General Assembly had intended to specify that “emergency care” meant only medical treatment or first aid, they could have done so. HN9[] “We cannot add new words to a statute but are bound to apply statutes as the legislature has written them.” Matter of Supervised Estate of Kent, 99 N.E.3d 634, 639 (Ind. 2018). HN10[] We conclude from the unambiguous language of the GSL that stopping and asking if a person who has been involved in an accident needs help is “emergency care.”

P27 Next, Montes argues the scene of the vehicle collision did not qualify as an “objective emergency.” Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Br. p. 13. HN11[] The Beckerman court defined an “accident” as a “sudden calamitous event.” Beckerman, 614 N.E.2d at 613. In this case, McGowen arrived on the scene of an automobile accident, possibly a two-car collision. Further, [**13] Patton was wandering around the truck, giving McGowen the impression that he was injured or drunk. This is ample, undisputed evidence of a sudden event, with a potentially injured person, that qualified as an emergency for purposes of the GSL. The trial court did not err in denying Montes’ motion for partial summary judgment.

4. Gross Negligence and Willful and Wanton Misconduct

HN12[] P28 The GSL provides that a person is not shielded from civil liability if the person’s acts or omissions while providing emergency care amounted to “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.” Ind. Code § 34-30-12-1. The trial court determined there was a dispute of material fact as to whether McGowen’s conduct was grossly negligent or willful or wanton. McGowen and Vision argue that the undisputed facts establish that his acts did not meet either standard, and they conclude the trial court should have granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

P29 The General Assembly has frequently used the phrases “gross negligence” and “willful or wanton misconduct” in statutes granting immunity from civil damages. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 21-44.5-2-6 (2019) (administration of auto-injectable epinephrine); Ind. Code § 31-33-6-2 (2018) (reporting child abuse or neglect); [**14]
Ind. Code § 10-17-13.5-7 (2018) (physicians’ administration of hyperbaric oxygen treatments to veterans). We have not found a statutory definition of those terms for purposes of the GSL, and the parties have not directed us to any.

HN13[] P30 The Indiana Supreme Court has defined gross negligence as “‘[a] conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of . . . the consequences to another party.'” N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. [*661] Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 2003) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1057 (7th ed. 1999)). A finding of gross negligence is predicated on a showing of negligence, as it is the intentional failure to perform a duty in reckless disregard of the consequences. York v. Fredrick, 947 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

P31 In Miller v. Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 878 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), Miller was driving his employer’s truck when he stopped at a stop sign. Upon driving into the intersection, he collided with a vehicle approaching from his right side. Miller’s employer terminated him after the collision, citing a provision of a labor agreement that permitted instant termination for “gross negligence.” Id. at 350.

P32 Miller sought unemployment benefits, and he appealed the denial of his request. HN14[] A panel of this Court applied the definition of gross negligence set forth above, noting “the question of whether an act or omission constitutes gross negligence is generally [**15] a question of fact, [but] the question may become one of law if ‘the facts are undisputed and only a single inference can be drawn from those facts.'” Id. at 356 (quoting Sharp, 790 N.E.2d at 466). The Court concluded that Miller’s failure to use due care when entering the intersection after stopping at the stop sign was “negligent, but not grossly negligent.” Id. at 357.

P33 In this case, the undisputed facts establish that McGowen was driving at only thirty-five to forty miles per hour when he stopped his semi in the road at the scene of an accident. McGowen did not put his semi in park but merely pressed on the brake, activating his rear brake lights. He was unaware of any vehicles behind him. McGowen asked Patton if he was okay and whether he should call 911, immediately before Montes collided with the rear of the semi. McGowen stated, without contradiction, that only fifteen to thirty seconds elapsed between him stopping his semi and being rear-ended by Montes. These circumstances resemble at worst the mere negligence at issue in Miller, rather than the reckless disregard for others that characterizes gross negligence.

P34 Montes claims there are several material disputes of fact that justify the trial court’s partial denial [**16] of McGowen and Vision’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of gross negligence. We disagree. He points to evidence that McGowen could have pulled off the road, contradicting Montes’ statement during a deposition that there was no space for his semi along the side of the road. This fact is immaterial due to the short duration of the stop prior to the collision and McGowen’s choice to not put the semi in park, allowing him to move on quickly if needed.

P35 There is also a dispute as to whether McGowen activated his vehicle’s hazard lights after stopping, in the brief interval before Montes collided with him. This factual dispute is also immaterial because it is undisputed that McGowen’s brake lights activated when he stopped, and: (1) the brake lights override the hazard lights, and (2) the brake lights are as bright as the hazard lights.

P36 Finally, Montes claims McGowen violated numerous traffic regulations and commercial driver standards when he stopped in the road. HN15[] Even if McGowen’s acts were contrary to statutes, “violation of a statutory duty creates a presumption of negligence that may be rebutted.” Sandberg Trucking, Inc. v. Johnson, 76 N.E.3d 178, 188-89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A presumption of negligence is dissimilar to a presumption of gross negligence. [**17] We conclude that there is no dispute [*662] of material fact as to whether McGowen was grossly negligent.

HN16[] P37 Turning to willful or wanton conduct, such conduct consists of two elements: “(1) the defendant must have knowledge of an impending danger or consciousness of a course of misconduct calculated to result in probable injury; and (2) the actor’s conduct must have exhibited an indifference to the consequence of his conduct.” Witham v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 561 N.E.2d 484, 486 (Ind. 1990). “The distinction between constructive willfulness and mere negligence depends on the actor’s state of mind.” McKeown v. Calusa, 172 Ind. App. 1, 6-7, 359 N.E.2d 550, 554 (1977).

P38 In Frybarger v. Coffelt, 180 Ind. App. 160, 387 N.E.2d 104 (1979), a passenger in Coffelt’s car died when Coffelt chose to race another driver on a two-lane highway at night and collided with a third car attempting to turn left across the highway. On appeal, the passenger’s estate argued that the trial court erred in determining Coffelt’s conduct did not meet the definition of willful or wanton misconduct. A panel of this Court concluded that, although Coffelt was racing at night at a high rate of speed, a dip in the road made it impossible for him to see the car in time to avoid striking it, and there was no evidence of any other reckless behavior by Coffelt. The Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that [**18] Coffelt had not behaved willfully and wantonly.

P39 In the current case, the standard of review is different, but McGowen’s conduct is far less reckless than Coffelt’s. On a dark, foggy morning, McGowen drove on a two-lane county road at thirty-five to forty miles per hour due to poor visibility. He came to a stop when he saw Patton and the wrecked truck along the side of the road, pressing on the brake rather than shifting into park. McGowen checked his side mirrors as he slowed to a halt, but he did not see any sign of approaching vehicles. He barely had time to ask Patton if he was okay and whether he should call 911 when Montes collided with the back of the semi. During McGowen’s deposition, when asked if he was concerned that stopping on the road may have been hazardous, he stated, “I was more concerned about [Patton]. I thought it was a two-car accident.” Appellants’/Cross-Appellees’ App. Vol. II, p. 104. There is no evidence that McGowen was indifferent to the results of his conduct. Rather, the undisputed facts demonstrate McGowen was aware of dangerous road conditions and attempted to drive carefully while rendering aid to Patton. As a matter of law, McGowen’s conduct did not [**19] meet the standard of willful or wanton misconduct. The trial court erred in denying in part McGowen and Vision’s motion for summary judgment, because they are entitled to the protection of the Good Samaritan Law.

P40 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to grant McGowen and Vision’s motion for summary judgment.

P41 Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

South Dakota in Federal District Court decision seems to allow a release to stop the claims for a minor.

Posted: October 19, 2020 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Risk Management, Snow Tubing, South Dakota | Tags: appreciated, assumption of the risk, bottom, Careless, Collisions, deliberate, depo, descended, descent, genuine, Gross negligence, Guests, Negligence, nonmoving, Reckless, recommends, Release, Resort, Slope, slower, Snow Tubbing, State of Mind, station, tear, top, Tubbing, tube, tubers, Wanton, Willful and Wanton | 2 Comments

Release was effective in stopping ordinary negligence claims; however, the gross negligence claims were allowed to continue.

Reed v. Union Resort, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225856, 2018 WL 8332583

State: South Dakota, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division

Plaintiff: Brad Reed, Individually and as Joint Limited Conservators of I.R., a Minor; and Tara Reed, Individually and as Joint Limited Conservators of I.R., a Minor

Defendant: Union Resort, LLC, dba Mystic Miner

Plaintiff Claims: negligence and gross negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: For both plaintiff and defendant, but proceeding to trial

Year: 2018

Summary

The minor child was injured on a tubing hill when her tube stopped in the middle of the hill, and she was hit and injured by her brother coming after her. The release the parents signed stopped the ordinary negligence claim but under South Dakota, law did not stop a claim for gross negligence.

There was no discussion in the decision as to whether the release stopped the claims of the minor child, the injured plaintiff. It just seemed to be taken for granted by the court, or at least not argued by the plaintiffs.

Facts

On March 13, 2015, Brad and Tara Reed brought their children to the defendant’s resort near Lead, South Dakota, for an afternoon of recreational snow tubing.1 The resort was owned and operated by Union Resort, LLC, dba Mystic Miner. Among the Reeds’ children with them that day was seven-year-old I.R. Accompanying the Reeds were another couple and Alex, a social worker from the Philippines.

Upon arriving shortly before noon, the Reed party entered the lodge area where customers are required to check in and purchase admission tickets for the resort. The Reeds purchased snow tubing day passes for themselves and their children, including I.R. As a condition of allowing I.R. to use the resort, Union required the Reeds to agree to a written release of liability. The Reeds signed the release and printed the names of each of their children, including I.R., as participants.

The Reeds understood the document was a release of liability agreement and that, by signing, they would be relinquishing certain unspecified rights. They did not ask any questions about the release. The release informed resort participants that tubing activities are extremely hazardous and can result in personal injury. The Reeds understood that tubing carried with it a degree of risk, including risk of trauma to the head, and that I.R. would be exposed to this risk.

After signing the release and paying the admission fee, the Reeds and their kids received individual tickets for the tube park. Those tickets included additional warnings.

At the resort, there are numerous bright red signs that provide instructions and warnings to participants. Among the messages on some of the signs was a warning that collisions with other tubers was one of the dangers of tubing. Other signs instructed the tubers to follow the attendant’s instructions and to wait for the attendant’s signal before starting [down the tube run]. The Reeds do not recall whether they saw or read any of these signs.

The Reeds were directed to select tubes from the resort’s selection of tubes, which they did. Defendant had approximately 50 to 70 tubes in inventory at the time, but there is no evidence how many of these tubes had already been selected by prior guests. No employee of defendant selected the tubes for the Reeds. Several defendant employees testified at their depositions that it was a practice at the resort to leave tubes with tears in the bottoms in circulation for guests to use. The employees explained that such tubes were slower and slower equated to safer in their minds.

During the Reeds’ stay at the resort, they went down the tube runs approximately 15 to 20 times. Two of the four tube runs at the resort were open that day. During the Reeds’ runs, there were two defendant employees at the bottom of the tube runs assisting guests with the tow rope (which towed guests to the top of the run).

On approximately two of the Reeds’ 15-20 tubing runs, there was a young man at the top of the tube runs who also appeared to be a resort employee with a radio in his possession. However, the young man never monitored the tube runs, never gave instructions to tubers, and never staged tubers going down the tube runs. “Staging” means controlling the entry of guests onto the tube runs to ensure that the prior tuber has finished the run and cleared the area before the next tuber is allowed to begin his or her descent. There was no staging and, instead, tubers decided themselves when to begin their descent, a situation Brad Reed described as a “free-for-all.”

At approximately 2 p.m., the Reeds decided to take one last run down the tube runs before leaving the resort. Up to this point, the Reeds had experienced no concerns or incidents. Up to this final run, I.R. had always completed her run down the slope as part of a group or with one of her parents. On the final run, she asked to be allowed to go down the tube run by herself, to which her parents agreed. Mrs. Reed told I.R. they would go down the run together, parallel to each other in each of the two open tube runs. At this point, Alex was directly behind I.R. in line for the same tube lane. Mr. Reed was behind Alex in the same line.

Once both lanes were clear, Mrs. Reed and I.R. began their descents. Mrs. Reed went all the way down the run, but I.R.’s tube stopped approximately 3/4 of the way down the slope. While I.R. was stopped, Alex began her descent before I.R. cleared the lane. When Alex’s tube reached I.R.’s tube, they collided. No defendant employee told Alex to begin her descent, but no defendant employee was present at the top of the run to tell her, instruct her, or prevent her from beginning her descent until I.R. cleared the lane.

From the top of the slope, Mr. Reed testified Alex should have been able to see I.R. had not cleared the lane had Alex been paying attention. Mr. Reed himself was able to observe the collision from his vantage point at the top of the slope.

After the accident, the Reeds observed an approximately 8-inch hole in the bottom of I.R.’s tube that had filled with snow. Defendant asserts it was its policy to stow the tubes under the deck each night and to pull them out the next day for guests’ use. Defendant asserts employees were directed to observe the tubes for significant tears or defects and to remove defective tubes during this process. However, several defendant employees testified they left tubes with tears in their bottoms in rotation for guest use because the tears would slow the tuber down as they descended the slope. Employees believed a slower descent was a safer descent.

If a lightweight child descended the slope with a tube with a tear in it, sometimes the tube would stop mid-way down the slope and a defendant employee would have to walk up the slope to retrieve the child. In such an instance, the defendant employee at the bottom of the slope would radio the employee at the top and tell them to stop sending guests down the slope until the child was retrieved and taken to the bottom.

No photograph was taken of I.R.’s tube at the beginning of the day, after the accident, or at any other time on the day of the accident. It is unknown if the tear in the bottom of her tube was there from the start of the day or whether the tear occurred during the Reeds’ use of the tube that day. The Reeds mixed and mingled the various tubes they checked out, so several members of the Reeds’ group could have used the accident tube at various times of the day.

The accident tube was the only tube checked out by the Reed group that had a tear in it. The Reeds did not notice the tear until after I.R.’s injury. The Reeds did not inform anyone at the resort about the tear in the tube after the accident occurred. There is no evidence that any defendant employee had specific knowledge that the Reeds had checked out a tube with a tear in it on the day of the accident, though defendant employees had general knowledge that such tubes were often retained in inventory because they were perceived to be “safer” because they were slower.

From the beginning of the 2010-11 season through the end of the 2014-15 season, defendant had incident reports of 17 collisions of tubers. During that same time frame, there were 72 total incident reports.3 Several of these collisions between tubers occurred within a few weeks and, in two examples, a few days, of I.R.’s collision. Specifically, there were 5 incident reports involving collisions between tubers going down the tube lane between December 30, 2014, and February 27, 2015. None of defendant’s incident reports record whether a hole in a tube contributed to the incident.

Defendant maintains that it had a proper protocol of having at least one employee at the top of the tube run and one employee at the bottom of the tube run at all times. The employee at the top of the tube run was supposed to “stage” the tubers going down. The employee at the bottom of the tube run would retrieve items lost by tubers going down the slope (hats, mittens, etc.) and also retrieve guests whose tubes stopped without fully descending the slope.

The Reeds assert defendant was chronically understaffed and that defendant made a deliberate decision not to station an employee at the top of the tube run the day of I.R.’s accident. Defendant asserts the Reeds have no evidence to support the assertion that the decision not to station an employee at the top of the tube run was a deliberate decision.

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

The plaintiff’s conceded that the release barred their claims for negligence, the first count in their complaint. That left the issue of whether the release barred their claims for gross negligence and whether they had pled enough facts to support a gross negligence claim.

Gross negligence under South Dakota law is the same as willful and wanton conduct:

Under South Dakota law, the phrase “gross negligence” is synonymous with the phrase “willful and wanton misconduct.” Both phrases refer “to a category of tort that is different in kind and characteristics than negligence.” Negligence occurs when one acts with an “unreasonable risk of harm to another.” Willful and wanton misconduct requires a risk of harm that is “substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the conduct negligent.” The threatened harm “must be an easily perceptible danger of death or substantial physical harm.”

The major difference between ordinary negligence and gross negligence is the mental state of the defendant.

In addition, proof of a negligence claim focuses on the ordinary standard of care, while a gross negligence claim focuses on the defendant’s mental state. A defendant acts willfully and wantonly when it knows or has reason to know at the time of its actions of the dire risk and proceeds without concern for the safety of others. The standard does not require proof of intent to harm, but it does “partake to some appreciable extent … of the nature of a deliberate and intentional wrong.” Gross negligence requires “an affirmatively reckless state of mind.” There must be “a conscious realization that a serious physical injury was a probable, as distinguished from a possible (ordinary negligence), result of such conduct.”

That creates a two-step test to determine if the defendant was grossly negligent.

Summarizing the above case law, gross negligence is distinguished from ordinary negligence by two factors. The risk of harm must be greater for gross negligence—whereas under ordinary negligence, the risk of harm can be anything from negligible harm to death, the risk of harm for gross negligence must be death or serious harm. Secondly, the likelihood that harm will come about, phrased in terms of the defendant’s state of mind, must be greater. For example, if there is a 10 percent chance some harm will happen and the defendant fails to take steps to ensure that harm does not come about, he is merely negligent. If there is an 85 percent chance serious harm or death will happen and the defendant fails to take steps to ensure the harm does not occur, he has acted willfully and wantonly or with gross negligence.

The court’s analysis of the chance of the harm occurring is a way of looking at the differences between ordinary and gross negligence that I have never seen before.

The court looked at the facts as presented by both sides and found both lacking the information the court felt would prove the plaintiff’s case. However, the court made this statement.

Under the law of gross negligence, South Dakota has recognized a plaintiff will rarely have direct evidence of the defendant’s state of mind. Rather, state of mind must be inferred from the circumstances. Id. Also, under the law of summary judgment, all inferences from the facts must be made in favor of the nonmoving party, Both sources of law, then, support taking the Reeds’ view of the inference to be drawn from the fact that defendant was chronically understaffed and did not have an employee stationed at the top of the tube run at the time of I.R.’s accident.

So, with the inferences created by the plaintiffs about the state of mind of the tubing hill, the court held that there was enough information plead to allow the gross negligence claim to continue.

The court then looked at the assumption of the risk argument made by the defendant. There was no case law in South Dakota stating that assumption of the risk was a defense to gross negligence, so the court held that assumption of the risk would not stop the gross negligence claim.

So Now What?

What did not arise in this case is whether the release stopped the claims of the minor child. The case was captioned as the parents suing on behalf of their minor child. In that regard, the release would bar the claims of the parents. However, this is a different way of suing on behalf of a minor, not away normally done in most states any more.

Also, this is a decision by a Federal District Court applying South Dakota law so, whether a not a release stops a minor’s claims is probably still up in the air until the South Dakota Supreme Court decides the issue.

However, it is a decision to lean on if you have participants who are minors in your program.

The other issues are classic situations where the defendant looks at a situation one way as a positive for patrons but the injured patron is able to turn the situation around and use it as a club against the defendant. Torn tubes were regarded by the defendant as good because they were slower than the other tubes. However, a torn tube is not a product that is 100%, in the condition it was received from the manufacturer. It was a defective product. So, the plaintiff was able to show the defendant was derelict in using them.

If they placed the tubes in a different location with a sign that said, slower tubes it might have been helpful.

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

tube, tubers, resort, top, slope, guests, collisions, tear, bottom, wanton, deliberate, recommends, descent, genuine, depo, reckless, station, appreciated, descended, nonmoving, slower

Reed v. Union Resort, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225856, 2018 WL 8332583

Posted: October 7, 2020 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Snow Tubing, South Dakota | Tags: appreciated, assumption of the risk, bottom, Collisions, deliberate, depo, descended, descent, genuine, Guests, nonmoving, Reckless, recommends, Release, Resort, Slope, Snow Tubbing, station, tear, top, Tubbing, tube, tubers, Waiver, Wanton | Leave a comment

Reed v. Union Resort, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225856, 2018 WL 8332583

United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division

November 15, 2018, Decided; November 15, 2018, Filed

5:17-CV-05047-JLV

Reporter

Brad Reed, Individually and as Joint Limited Conservators of I.R., a Minor; and Tara Reed, Individually and as Joint Limited Conservators of I.R., a Minor; Plaintiffs, vs. Union Resort, LLC, dba Mystic Miner, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Objection overruled by, Adopted by, Summary judgment granted by, in part, Summary judgment denied by, in part Reed v. Union Resort, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49327 (D.S.D., Mar. 25, 2019)

Counsel: [*1] For Brad Reed, Individually and as Joint Limited Conservators of I.R., a minor, other, I.R., Tara Reed, Individually and as Joint Limited Conservators of I.R., a minor, other, I.R., Plaintiffs: Kenneth E. Barker, LEAD ATTORNEY, Barker Wilson Law Firm, LLP, Belle Fourche, SD.

For Union Resort, LLC, doing business as Mystic Miner, Defendant: Shane E. Eden, LEAD ATTORNEY, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, Sioux Falls, SD.

Judges: VERONICA L. DUFFY, United States Magistrate Judge.

Opinion by: VERONICA L. DUFFY

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on the amended complaint of Brad and Tara Reed as conservators of I.R., their minor daughter. See Docket No. 16. The Reeds allege claims of negligence and gross negligence against defendant Union Resort, LLC, dba Mystic Miner (defendant) arising out of a tubing accident at defendant’s ski resort. Id. This matter rests on the court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Defendant has now filed a motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 21. The Reeds oppose the motion. See Docket No. 30. The motion was referred to this magistrate judge for a recommended disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the order of referral dated November 11, 2018 (Doc. 42), and the [*2] October 16, 2014, standing order of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief United States District Judge.

FACTS

Defendant filed a statement of undisputed material facts, Docket No. 22, to which the Reeds have responded, Docket No. 31. The following facts have been drawn from those pleadings with disputes or discrepancies as noted.

On March 13, 2015, Brad and Tara Reed brought their children to the defendant’s resort near Lead, South Dakota, for an afternoon of recreational snow tubing.¹ The resort was owned and operated by Union Resort, LLC, dba Mystic Miner. Among the Reeds’ children with them that day was seven-year-old I.R. Accompanying the Reeds were another couple and Alex, a social worker from the Philippines.

After signing the release and paying the admission fee, the Reeds and their kids received individual tickets for the tube park. Those tickets included additional warnings.

The Reeds were directed to select tubes from the resort’s selection of tubes, which they did. Defendant had approximately [*4] 50 to 70 tubes in inventory at the time, but there is no evidence how many of these tubes had already been selected by prior guests. No employee of defendant selected the tubes for the Reeds. Several defendant employees testified at their depositions that it was a practice at the resort to leave tubes with tears in the bottoms in circulation for guests to use. The employees explained that such tubes were slower and slower equated to safer in their minds.

On approximately two of the Reeds’ 15-20 tubing runs, there was a young man at the top of the tube runs who also appeared to be a resort employee with a radio in his possession. However, the young man never monitored the tube runs, never gave instructions to tubers, and never staged tubers going down the tube runs. “Staging” means controlling the entry of guests onto the tube runs to ensure that the prior tuber has [*5] finished the run and cleared the area before the next tuber is allowed to begin his or her descent. There was no staging and, instead, tubers decided themselves when to begin their descent, a situation Brad Reed described as a “free-for-all.”

Once both lanes were clear, Mrs. Reed and I.R. began their descents. Mrs. Reed went all the way down the run, but I.R.’s tube stopped approximately 3/4 of the way down the slope. While I.R. was stopped, Alex began her descent before I.R. cleared the lane. When Alex’s tube reached I.R.’s tube, they collided. No defendant [*6] employee told Alex to begin her descent, but no defendant employee was present at the top of the run to tell her, instruct her, or prevent her from beginning her descent until I.R. cleared the lane.

From the top of the slope, Mr. Reed testified Alex should have been able to see I.R. had not cleared the lane had Alex been paying attention. See Docket No. 25-5 at p. 7 (depo. pp. 25-26). Mr. Reed himself was able to observe the collision from his vantage point at the top of the slope. Id. at p. 6 (depo. pp. 22-24).²

If a lightweight child descended the slope with [*7] a tube with a tear in it, sometimes the tube would stop mid-way down the slope and a defendant employee would have to walk up the slope to retrieve the child. In such an instance, the defendant employee at the bottom of the slope would radio the employee at the top and tell them to stop sending guests down the slope until the child was retrieved and taken to the bottom.

The accident tube was the only tube checked out by the Reed group that had a tear in it. The Reeds did not notice the tear until after I.R.’s injury. The Reeds did not inform anyone at the resort about the tear in the tube after the accident occurred. There is no evidence that any defendant employee had specific knowledge that the Reeds had checked out a tube with [*8] a tear in it on the day of the accident, though defendant employees had general knowledge that such tubes were often retained in inventory because they were perceived to be “safer” because they were slower.

From the beginning of the 2010-11 season through the end of the 2014-15 season, defendant had incident reports of 17 collisions of tubers. During that same time frame, there were 72 total incident reports.³ Several of these collisions between tubers occurred within a few weeks and, in two examples, a few days, of I.R.’s collision. Specifically, there were 5 incident reports involving collisions between tubers going down the tube lane between December 30, 2014, and February 27, 2015. None of defendant’s incident reports record whether a hole in a tube contributed to the incident.

DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The court must view the facts, and inferences from those facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1962)); Helton v. Southland Racing Corp., 600 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Summary judgment will not lie if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc., 28 F.3d 64, 66 (8th Cir. 1994).

The burden is placed on the moving party to establish both the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Once the movant has met its burden, the nonmoving party may not simply rest on the allegations in the pleadings, but [*10] must set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (each party must properly support its own assertions of fact and properly address the opposing party’s assertions of fact, as required by Rule 56(c)).

The underlying substantive law identifies which facts are “material” for purposes of a motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice And Procedure § 2725, at 93-95 (3d ed. 1983)). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 247-48.

Essentially, the availability of summary judgment turns on whether a proper jury question is presented: “The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine [*11] factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Id. at 250.

B. Does the Release Signed by the Reeds Bar Their Claims?

Defendant’s first argument in favor of its summary judgment motion is that the clear and plain language of the release signed by the Reeds bars their claims and that there is no overriding public policy that serves to neutralize the release.

South Dakota law⁴ provides that a valid release of liability bars claims for ordinary negligence, but does not bar claims for gross or willful negligence or recklessness. Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, Inc., 2000 SD 65, 610 N.W.2d 787, 792-93 (S.D. 2000). The Reeds do not argue that the release was invalid in any way or that the activity I.R. was engaged in when she was injured was outside the scope of the release. In fact, the Reeds concede that their first claim in their amended complaint for ordinary negligence is barred by defendant’s release. See Docket No. 30 at p. 5. Accordingly, the court recommends that defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the Reeds’ claim for ordinary negligence, count one of the amended complaint, be granted.

C. Are There Material Factual Disputes as to Gross Negligence?

Defendant argues the facts alleged [*12] by the Reeds, even if true, allege a claim for ordinary negligence only, not gross negligence. Thus, since ordinary negligence is barred by the release, defendant argues it should be granted summary judgment on the Reeds’ gross negligence claim too.

Under South Dakota law, the phrase “gross negligence” is synonymous with the phrase “willful and wanton misconduct.” Fischer v. City of Sioux Falls, 919 N.W.2d 211, 2018 SD 71, 2018 WL 4779267 at *2 (S.D., 2018). Both phrases refer “to a category of tort that is different in kind and characteristics than negligence.” Id. Negligence occurs when one acts with an “unreasonable risk of harm to another.” Id. (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 34, at 212 (5th ed. 1984)). Willful and wanton misconduct requires a risk of harm that is “substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the conduct negligent.” Id. The threatened harm “must be an easily perceptible danger of death or substantial physical harm.” Id. (all quotes from Fischer cleaned up).

In addition, proof of a negligence claim focuses on the ordinary standard of care, while a gross negligence claim focuses on the defendant’s mental state. Id. 2018 SD 71, [WL] at *3. A defendant acts willfully and wantonly when it knows or has reason to know at the time of its actions [*13] of the dire risk and proceeds without concern for the safety of others. Id. The standard does not require proof of intent to harm, but it does “partake to some appreciable extent … of the nature of a deliberate and intentional wrong.” Id. Gross negligence requires “an affirmatively reckless state of mind.” Id. There must be “a conscious realization that a serious physical injury was a probable, as distinguished from a possible (ordinary negligence), result of such conduct.” Id. (all quotes from Fischer cleaned up).

The evidence must show more than “mere mistake, inadvertence, or inattention . . . there need not be an affirmative wish to injure another, but, instead, a willingness to injure another.” Gabriel v. Bauman, 2014 SD 30, 847 N.W.2d 537, 541 (S.D. 2014)). Generally, whether the facts constitute gross negligence is a question of fact “if reasonable minds might differ in interpreting the facts in arriving at different conclusions on whether the defendant was willful, wanton, or reckless.” Id. at 542. “Because willfulness, wantonness, or recklessness is almost never admitted, and can be proved only by the conduct and the circumstances, an objective standard must of necessity in practice be applied. Id. at 542-43.

Summarizing the above case law, gross negligence [*14] is distinguished from ordinary negligence by two factors. The risk of harm must be greater for gross negligence—whereas under ordinary negligence, the risk of harm can be anything from negligible harm to death, the risk of harm for gross negligence must be death or serious harm. Fischer, 2018 SD 71, 2018 WL 4779267 at *2. Secondly, the likelihood that harm will come about, phrased in terms of the defendant’s state of mind, must be greater. For example, if there is a 10 percent chance some harm will happen and the defendant fails to take steps to ensure that harm does not come about, he is merely negligent. If there is an 85 percent chance serious harm or death will happen and the defendant fails to take steps to ensure the harm does not occur, he has acted willfully and wantonly or with gross negligence.

The Reeds posit three facts in support of their assertion the defendant in this case acted grossly negligent (or willfully and wantonly) with regard to I.R. First, the defendant had a practice of leaving tubes with tears in the canvas bottoms in rotation for guests to use because the torn tubes were slower and, therefore, in the eyes of defendant’s employees, safer. Second, the defendant knew the importance of staging—having [*15] an employee at the top of the tube run to meter the guests as they descended the slope so that one guest could clear the run before the next guest began descending—but made a deliberate decision not to station an employee at the top of the tube run on the day of I.R.’s accident. And, finally, the existence of prior collisions on the tube run put the defendant on notice of the likelihood of harm.

Neither party speaks to the magnitude of the harm which, as discussed above, is one of the two factors distinguishing ordinary negligence from gross negligence. The defendant does not cite facts or circumstances to show that the prior collisions were minor bump-and-bruise types of encounters. The Reeds do not cite facts or circumstances to show the prior collisions resulted in concussions, closed head injuries, broken bones, surgeries or hospitalizations. The Reeds have supported their assertion that I.R.’s injuries were sufficiently serious—a fractured skull–something defendant does not dispute. Because the moving party has the burden, the court makes all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Accordingly, the court infers that previous accidents were sufficiently severe in nature to [*16] satisfy the standard required for gross negligence.

Likewise, with regard to the number of prior incidents, neither party has placed into the record what the total number of tubers was during the period of time covered by the incidents. This fact goes to the likelihood of a collision—for gross negligence, there must be a greater probability of harm occurring than is the case with ordinary negligence. If 17 collisions occurred between fall of 2010 and March 15, 2015, and there were 5,000 tubers during that time, the number of prior accidents takes on one type of significance. But the significance of the number of prior accidents is different if the total number of tubers during that time frame is 100, 300, or even 500. There is a significantly bigger risk of harm the smaller the total number of tubers. Although the defendant alleges there were “thousands” of tubers, it has not supported that assertion with citation to an affidavit, deposition, or authenticated document. Again, there is a lack of evidence.

Also, neither party describes the scope of defendant’s incident reports. Do they encompass all kinds of incidents—those attributable to conditions on the slopes within defendant’s control [*17] as well as incidents attributable to factors not within defendant’s control? Do they encompass heart attacks and strokes as well as collisions? Do the reports include drunken brawls between guests as well as injuries inflicted when a tow bar snaps?

Furthermore, is there any evidence suggesting that not all collisions at defendant’s resort are documented in incident reports? Are the incident reports the tip of the iceberg—or are they truly representative of all injuries occurring at defendant’s resort?

Finally, defendant does not dispute that no employee was stationed at the top of the tube run at the time of I.R.’s accident. The Reeds assert that defendant was “chronically understaffed” and that defendant made a “deliberate decision” not to place an employee at the top of the tube run that day. The Reeds have amply supported their assertion that defendant was chronically understaffed, with the result that positions that should have been filled by employees were left unattended. See Docket Nos. 33-4, 33-5, & 33-8. The Reeds also supplied testimony that, when there were not enough employees, the defendant prioritized putting an employee at the bottom of the tube slope rather than at the [*18] top of the slope. See Docket No. 33-4 at p. 5 (depo p. 20). From these two facts, the Reeds infer that defendant made a “deliberate decision” the day of the accident not to place an employee at the top of the tube slope to stage the tubers.

Defendant disputes that it made a “deliberate decision” not to have an employee staging the tubers that day. Defendant’s disagreement with the Reeds’ assertion is based solely on the fact that they do not have testimony from any witness stating outright that a calculated decision was made. Defendant seems to assert that the Reeds may not rely upon an inference, but must have affirmative evidence of the fact a “deliberate decision” was made.

The court makes two observations. Under the law of gross negligence, South Dakota has recognized a plaintiff will rarely have direct evidence of the defendant’s state of mind. Gabriel, 847 N.W.2d at 542-43. Rather, state of mind must be inferred from the circumstances. Id. Also, under the law of summary judgment, all inferences from the facts must be made in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Co., 475 U.S. at 587-88. Both sources of law, then, support taking the Reeds’ view of the inference to be drawn from the fact that defendant was chronically understaffed and did [*19] not have an employee stationed at the top of the tube run at the time of I.R.’s accident.

Defendant attempts to eliminate a genuine issue of fact as to the presence of a staging employee by asserting that there was in fact an employee at the top of the tube hill with a radio. See Docket No. 34 at p. 6. In support of this assertion of fact, defendant cites Mr. and Mrs. Reeds’ depositions and argues they cannot claim a version of facts more favorable than their own testimony, an old chestnut of South Dakota Law.

Reading the Reeds’ depositions, however, leads one to conclude defendant’s assertion is, if not outright untrue, certainly misleading. Both Mr. and Mrs. Reed testified no one was at the top of the hill staging the tubers at the time of I.R.’s accident. Docket No. 27-1 at p. 10 (depo. p. 30); Docket No. 27-5 at p. 7 (depo. p. 25). Prior to the accident, both the Reeds had observed a young man with a radio they assumed was defendant’s employee at the top of the hill during one or two of the Reed party’s previous 15-20 tube runs. However, the young man never provided instruction to the tubers about when to go down the slope—he was not staging the tubers. Docket No. 27-1 at p. 10 (depo. [*20] pp. 39-40). Thus, the Reeds have sustained their assertion of fact that defendant had no employee stationed at the top of the tube hill to stage tubers at the time of I.R.’s accident.

Defendant’s motion is decided with resort to two veins of law. First, the law applicable to summary judgment. As the movant, defendant has the burden to show that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that, based upon those undisputed facts, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All of the absences of crucial fact detailed by the court above cut against defendant as the moving party. Furthermore, all of the inferences from the facts that are present in the record must be drawn in favor of the Reeds. Applying those standards to the issue before the court, the conclusion is inescapable that there are genuine issues of material fact existing which prevent summary judgment in defendant’s favor.

The second vein of law which comes into play is the dictate of South Dakota law that, ordinarily, questions of whether a defendant acted with gross negligence are questions of fact for the jury if reasonable minds could differ as to the inferences to draw from the known facts. Gabriel, 847 N.W.2d at 542. That is the situation [*21] here. The court recommends that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Reeds’ gross negligence claim be denied.

D. Are There Material Factual Disputes as to Assumption of the Risk?

Defendant’s final argument in favor of its summary judgment motion is that the Reeds assumed the risk of their daughter’s accident as a matter of law, thereby relieving defendant of any liability. The court addresses the first question apparent by defendant’s argument: whether assumption of the risk is even a defense to a claim of gross negligence. As legal authority for its position, defendant cites only the Restatement (Second) of Torts 496A, cmt. d (1965), and a dissenting opinion in Barger for Wares v. Cox, 372 N.W.2d 161, 170-71 (S.D. 1985) (Wuest, J., dissenting). See Defendant’s Brief, Docket No. 23 at pp. 29-30. Neither of these authorities represent binding South Dakota law.

The Reeds in their brief do not address the issue of whether assumption of the risk is a defense to a claim of gross negligence. They argue only that assumption of the risk is a quintessential issue of fact for the jury. See Docket No. 30 at pp. 13-14.

In the Holzer case discussed previously, the plaintiff signed defendant’s release of liability form which defendant called an “assumption of the risk” form. Holzer, 610 N.W.2d at 790. The court held [*22] in that case that liability releases only serve to protect defendants from claims of ordinary negligence, not from claims of gross negligence. Id. at 793. However, the title the defendant chose to give its release form is not dispositive of the question in this case.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has said that when a defendant’s actions are merely negligent, the defense of contributory negligence applies. But when the defendant’s conduct is willful and wanton, the defense of contributory negligence does not apply. Carlson v. Johnke, 57 S.D. 544, 234 N.W. 25, 27-28 (S.D. 1931), overruled on other grounds Wittstruck v. Lee, 62 S.D. 290, 252 N.W. 874, 877 (S.D. 1934) (clarifying that it did not adopt the doctrine of comparative negligence in Johnke).

In a dissenting opinion in another case, Justice Henderson stated that while assumption of the risk was a defense to ordinary negligence, the plaintiff would nonetheless have recourse for willful or wanton acts of a defendant. Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass’n. , 514 N.W.2d 693, 703 (S.D. 1994) (Henderson, J., dissenting). See Rantapaa v. Black Hills Chair Lift Co., 2001 SD 111, 633 N.W.2d 196, 204 (S.D. 2001) (assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense to an ordinary negligence claim).

The court has found no South Dakota case directly on point addressing whether the defense of assumption of the risk applies to grossly negligent or willful and wanton conduct. Defendant cites § 496A, comment d, of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for the proposition that the defense is [*23] available here. The section cited stands for the proposition that assumption of the risk is a defense to both ordinary negligence and to reckless conduct. The section does not address gross negligence or willful and wanton conduct. However, it is true that the South Dakota Supreme Court has, at times, used the word “reckless” interchangeably with “gross negligence” and “willful and wanton.”

If assumption of the risk is a defense to a claim of gross negligence, it is a subjective standard. Duda v. Phatty McGees, Inc., 2008 SD 115, 758 N.W.2d 754, 758 (S.D. 2008). Defendant has the burden to prove that “the particular plaintiff in fact sees, knows, understands and appreciates” the specific risk that caused the injury. Id. The defendant must prove three elements: (1) the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk; (2) the plaintiff appreciated its character; and (3) the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk, with the time, knowledge, and experience to make an intelligent choice. Id. “A person is deemed to have appreciated the risk if it is the type of risk that no adult of average intelligence can deny.” Id. (quoting Westover v. East River Elec. Power Coop., Inc., 488 N.W.2d 892, 901 (S.D. 1992)) (cleaned up).

The Restatement states that a plaintiff who knows generally of a danger does not necessarily assume the risk if [*24] the danger appears to be slight or negligible. See
Restatement (Second) Torts §496D, cmt. b. The Restatement also echoes what South Dakota law establishes: because the standard for assumption of the risk is a subjective one based on whether the plaintiff knows of the existence of the risk as well as understands its magnitude and unreasonable character, the question of assumption of the risk is almost always a question of fact for the jury to decide. Id.; Ray v. Downes, 1998 SD 40, 576 N.W.2d 896, 900 (S.D. 1998).

Here, the Reeds have established that neither they nor their children had ever been tubing before the day they visited defendant’s resort. See Docket No. 27-1 at p.3 (depo. p. 12). They anticipated that tubing at defendant’s resort would be safe, fun and would build family memories. See Docket No. 33-1 at p. 103. Furthermore, there is no evidence produced by defendant showing that the Reeds anticipated, understood, and accepted the risk that defendant would provide no employee at the top of the tube run to stage the tubers—contrary to defendant’s own policy and its prominent signage at the resort (i.e. follow attendant’s instructions when going down the tube run).

The defense of assumption of the risk is a subjective one. There are material issues of fact as to what the [*25] Reeds knew and appreciated in terms of the risk they and I.R. would encounter when tubing at defendant’s resort. Assuming that the defense applies at all to a claim of gross negligence, the court concludes summary judgment is inappropriate on this record.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing facts, law and analysis, this magistrate judge respectfully recommends granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Docket No. 21. Specifically, the court recommends defendant’s motion should be granted as to plaintiff’s claim for ordinary negligence, but recommends defendant’s motion should be denied as to plaintiff’s claim for gross negligence.

Notice To Parties

The parties have fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. Failure to file timely objections will result in the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Objections must be timely and specific in order to require de novo review by the District Court. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1986).

DATED November 15, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Veronica L. Duffy

VERONICA L. DUFFY

United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff loses snow tubing case in PA because their experts could not argue the actions of the defendant were gross negligence.

Posted: October 28, 2019 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Skiing / Snow Boarding, Snow Tubing | Tags: anti-fatigue, bottom, deceleration, deposition, expert report, fail to meet, folded, grant summary judgment, Gross negligence, Inc., issues, kitchen, Mats, matter of law, patron's, Reckless, Resort, rider's, rubber, run-out, serious injury, Ski, Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation, Snow, Snow Time, speed, Standard of Care, stopping, Summary judgment, summary judgment motion, Trial court, tubers, Tubing | Leave a comment

Association resource guide is used against the defendants to prove the plaintiff’s case.

Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2938; 2018 WL 3868670

State: Pennsylvania, Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff: Ray M. Bourgeois and Mary Ann I. Bourgeois

Defendant: Snow Time, Inc. and Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation

Plaintiff Claims: negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and loss of consortium

Defendant Defenses: failure to state a claim and release

Holding: For the defendant

Year: 2018

Summary

In the instant matter, Appellant Ray Bourgeois was seriously injured while snow tubing when his tube crossed folded anti-fatigue rubber kitchen mats which Appellees had placed in the deceleration area of the snow tubing run. Appellants’ theory of the case is that Appellees acted recklessly and with gross negligence by placing the mats at the end of the tubing run to aid in tube deceleration.

Facts

This case stems from an incident that occurred while Appellant Ray Bourgeois (Bourgeois) was snow tubing at Roundtop Mountain Resort (the Resort), which is owned and operated by Appellees. As described by the trial court, Bourgeois

went down the hill on his stomach, [head first] on his tube, and proceeded to reach the run-out area at the bottom of the hill. To aid snow tubers in slowing down and stopping at the bottom of the hill, [Appellees] utilized deceleration mats. On his final run, [Bourgeois’s] snow tube came into contact with a deceleration mat, causing his tube to come to an abrupt stop. [Bourgeois’s] body continued forward in motion after his tube stopped, causing him to land [head first] into the snow. The resulting collision caused a hyperextension of [Bourgeois’s] spinal cord in his neck that has left him quadriplegic with limited mobility from his neck down.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted and the plaintiff’s appealed.

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

The first issue the appellate court reviewed was the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for gross negligence. The appellate court held that “we find that Appellants did not establish a prima facie claim for recklessness or gross negligence”

The court came to that conclusion because no one could state the standard of care needed to prove the actions of the defendant rose to the level of gross negligence.

In this case, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that Appellants could not establish a claim for recklessness or gross negligence. The trial court reasoned that since Appellants’ experts had not articulated the standard of care that Appellees failed to meet, a factfinder could not conclude that Appellees were aware of that standard of care and disregarded it and, thus, acted recklessly or with grossly negligence:

The court first looked at the definition of recklessness and gross negligence.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts, found that a defendant acts recklessly, when, inter alia, he owes a duty to the plaintiff and fails to meet that duty. That is, a defendant is reckless when:

he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.

The key point is the failure must be an intentional failure. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant consciously acted or failed to act. “Thus, recklessness is more closely aligned with intentional conduct than with negligence, which suggests “unconscious inadvertence.”

To prove gross negligence Pennsylvania laws requires a deviation from the standard of care.

Similarly, an element of gross negligence is the deviation from a standard of care. More precisely, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s conduct grossly and flagrantly deviated from “the ordinary standard of care.”

Normally the trier of fact, the jury must make this decision. However, Pennsylvania courts are allowed to decide this issue if the facts are “entirely free from doubt and there is no possibility that a reasonable jury could find gross negligence.”

Normally, to prove the defendant’s duty, expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care that the defendant failed to meet and how the expert deviated from that standard of care.

The plaintiff hired to experts that provided opinions as to the actions of the defendant. The first expert opined that the actions of the defendant were beyond the standard of care, but never provided an opinion about what the standard of care was.

DiNola, however, did not cite or explain the “ordinary standards of conduct for a tubing park operator” from which Appellees’ conduct had departed. He just baldly opined that the use of the mats departs from ordinary standards of conduct.

The second expert did not set forth any standards of care.

Therefore, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that Appellants failed to articulate the appropriate standard of care for the use of deceleration mats. Without such a standard of care, Appellants, as a matter of law, cannot establish Appellees’ duty to Appellants and that Appellees knew or should have known about the standard of care. Since Appellants failed to meet this element of recklessness and gross negligence, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue.

The simple negligence claims were barred by a release. The plaintiff argued on appeal that the release was void because it did not specifically name in the release one of the defendants. However, the court found that the language in the release, “and their owners” was sufficient to cover the defendant when not specifically named in the release.

There was a dissent in this case. The dissent argued the plaintiff should win because the warning on the mats used to decelerate the tubes stated that vinyl tubes were not to be decelerated by mats or other devices. The dissent also argued the opinions of the experts did provide enough information for a decision about the recklessness and gross negligence of the defendants.

In my view, Appellants have put forth enough evidence at this stage for the jury to decide the issue. I disagree with the sole focus of the Majority and trial court on the use of the folded mats, when that is but one piece of Appellants’ claims. See Appellants’ Brief at 45-47 (discussing the facts Appellees knew or should have known, including the conditions contributing to speeds as high as 30-35 miles per hour, the risk of serious injuries when a fast-traveling snow tube abruptly collides with an obstacle, the lack of sufficient run-out area, and the use of mats not designed for use in snow tubing).5 Both experts explained the ways in which Appellees’ conduct deviated from the standard of care, based upon the facts established through depositions of Appellees’ employees and officers. It is clear to me that a jury could have determined that the series of conscious decisions made by Appellees worked together to create an unreasonable risk of physical harm to Bourgeois that was substantially greater than ordinary negligence. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for trial.

So Now What?

The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic by the accident so a lot of money was at stake. The plaintiff did not hire experts correctly or did not explain what was needed from the experts. This first rule of pleading is proving your case legally on the paperwork and then prove it in the record. The plaintiff failed to do that.

The biggest hurdle was the association resource guide. The National Ski Area Association created a resource guide for tubing hills. The dissenting judge called it the standard of care. The resource guide did not contain any information on using devices to slow tubes. The resource guide said you should have a sufficient run out.

The court did not see the issue as using a mat to slow participants as a violation of the standard to use a run out.

That was the close one in this case.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Overturned by the PA Supreme Court: Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2938; 2018 WL 3868670

Posted: October 25, 2019 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Pennsylvania, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Skiing / Snow Boarding, Snow Tubing, Uncategorized | Tags: anti-fatigue, bottom, deceleration, deposition, expert report, fail to meet, folded, grant summary judgment, Gross negligence, Incl, issues, kitchen, Mats, matter of law, patron's, Reckless, Resort, rider's, rubber, run-out, serious injury, Ski, Ski Roundtop, Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation, Snow, Snow Time, speed, Standard of Care, stopping, Summary judgment, summary judgment motion, Trial court, tubers, Tubing | Leave a comment

Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2938 *; 2018 WL 3868670

Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 14, 2018, Decided; August 14, 2018, Filed

No. 1086 MDA 2017

Reporter

2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2938 *; 2018 WL 3868670

RAY M. BOURGEOIS AND MARY ANN I. BOURGEOIS, Appellants v. SNOW TIME, INC. AND SKI ROUNDTOP OPERATING CORPORATION

Notice: DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2017. In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2015-SU-001900-71.

Judges: BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER,^* J. Judge Ott joins the memorandum. Judge Strassburger files a dissenting memorandum.

Opinion by: DUBOWS

Opinion

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:

Appellants, Ray M. Bourgeois and Mary Ann I. Bourgeois, appeal from the Order entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Appellees, Snow Time, Inc. and Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation.¹ Appellants challenge the trial court’s finding that Appellants could not establish that Appellees acted recklessly or with gross negligence. After careful review, we agree with the trial court that Appellants failed to provide an expert report that articulated a relevant standard of care. As a result, Appellants failed to establish that Appellees had a duty to Appellants and, thus, acted recklessly or were grossly negligent in placing deceleration mats at the end of the tubing run. We affirm the Order of the trial court.

In the instant matter, Appellant Ray Bourgeois was seriously injured while snow tubing when his tube crossed folded anti-fatigue rubber kitchen [*2] mats which Appellees had placed in the deceleration area of the snow tubing run. Appellants’ theory of the case is that Appellees acted recklessly and with gross negligence by placing the mats at the end of the tubing run to aid in tube deceleration.

Appellants filed a Complaint against Appellees on July 24, 2015, asserting claims for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and loss of consortium.

On February 14, 2017, Appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court granted on June 19, 2017.

This timely appeal followed. Appellants filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, incorporating its Opinion in Support of the Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Appellants raise the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in granting [Appellees’] Motion for Summary Judgment when it disregarded [Appellants’] liability expert reports, which support the conclusion that, based on the evidence of record, that in placing large rubber kitchen mats, folded in half, on the snow and in the path of its patrons who were traveling at high speeds, [Appellees] acted recklessly and/or with gross negligence? [*3]

2. Did the trial court err in granting [Appellees’] Motion for Summary Judgment, by holding that, as a matter of law, [Appellees] were not reckless and/or grossly negligent, in that the trial court disregarded genuine issues of material fact showing recklessness and/or gross negligence, including but not limited to the following:

(a) the manufacturer of the inner tube [Appellees] provided Mr. Bourgeois specifically warned [Appellees] not to place obstacles, such as large folded rubber kitchen mats, in the path of tubing participants;

(b) [Appellees] deliberately placed obstacles-large, heavy, folded kitchen mats that [Appellees] knew were not designed for snow tubing and which would cause tubing participants to come to an abrupt stop during high-speed conditions-directly in Mr. Bourgeois’s path;

(c) [Appellees] knew that folding the large mats made them obstacles as the mats were fixed heavy masses that protruded high off the surface of the snow;

(d) [Appellees] had actual and/or constructive knowledge of similar incidents involving the folded kitchen mats prior to Mr. Bourgeois’s catastrophic accident;

(e) [Appellees] acknowledged in their written warnings that their tubing runs-including [*4] their use of large rubber mats to stop speeding tubing patrons-posed a risk of grievous injury or death to its patrons; and

(f) the risk of grave harm posed by the folded rubber kitchen mats to [Appellees’] snow tubing patrons was obvious and readily apparent to a reasonable person?

3. Did the trial court err in granting [Appellees’] Motion for Summary Judgment, in that the trial court relied upon the testimony of [Appellees’] own employees-in contravention of the Nanty-Glo[]² holding-to conclude as a matter of law that [Appellees] did not know or have reason to know that using folded kitchen mats to bring its fast-moving snow-tubing patrons to an abrupt stop did not pose a risk of serious bodily harm or death to its patrons?

4. Did the trial court err in granting [Appellees’] Motion for Summary Judgment as to [Appellee] Snow Time, Inc., when (a) the Release signed by Mr. Bourgeois did not name Snow Time as a signatory, and (b) there were genuine issues of fact that [Appellee] Snow Time directly participated and acted negligently with regard to Mr. Bourgeois?

Appellants’ Brief at 6-7.

Issues 1 and 2 – Summary Judgment

In their first two issues, Appellants argue that the trial court erred [*5] in granting Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment by disregarding the conclusions of their experts that Appellees’ conduct was reckless and grossly negligent. Appellants’ Brief at 35, 42. In support, Appellants emphasize certain evidence and argue that the record contains genuine issues of material fact that make the grant of summary judgment inappropriate. Based on the following discussion, however, we find that Appellants did not establish a prima facie claim for recklessness or gross negligence and thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on these issues.

Our standard of review of the grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment is as follows. We “may reverse a grant of summary judgment if there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 606 Pa. 294, 997 A.2d 1152, 1159 (Pa. 2010). However, when there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and the only issue on appeal is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo.” Id.

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party “must adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof such that a jury could return a verdict in his favor.” Washington v. Baxter, 553 Pa. 434, 719 A.2d 733, 737 (Pa. 1998) (citation omitted). If the non-moving [*6] party fails to establish one of the essential elements of her claim, the movant has valid grounds for summary judgment. Babb v. Ctr. Cmty. Hosp., 2012 PA Super 125, 47 A.3d 1214, 1223 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

It is well-established that when a trial court considers a motion for summary judgment that includes an expert report, the trial court must determine, inter alia, whether the expert sufficiently supports his conclusions in his expert report:

At the summary judgment stage, a trial court is required to take all facts of record, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. This clearly includes all expert testimony and reports submitted by the non moving party or provided during discovery; and, so long as the conclusions contained within those reports are sufficiently supported, the trial judge cannot sua sponte assail them in an order and opinion granting summary judgment. Contrarily, the trial judge must defer to those conclusions, and should those conclusions be disputed, resolution of that dispute must be left to the trier of fact.

Summers, supra at 1161 (citations omitted).

In this case, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that Appellants could not establish a claim for recklessness or gross negligence. The trial [*7] court reasoned that since Appellants’ experts had not articulated the standard of care that Appellees failed to meet, a factfinder could not conclude that Appellees were aware of that standard of care and disregarded it and, thus, acted recklessly or with grossly negligence:

[Appellants] have not produced sufficient evidence to show that an industry standard exists for placing the mats at the bottom of hills for snow tubers. . . . The absence of any standard on the record makes it difficult for the [c]ourt to find that [Appellees] knew that their conduct of using deceleration mats to stop snow tubers in the runout area would be placing [Appellant] at a higher unreasonable risk of harm than if [Appellees] had placed mats in a different manner, selected to purchase a different kind of mat, or used a different method for stopping the snow tubers.

Trial Ct. Op., 7/19/17, at 18-19. The trial court similarly found no evidence that Appellees “knew or had reason to know that folding the mats created an unreasonable risk of physical harm.” Id. Appellants challenge these conclusions.

We first turn to the definitions of recklessness and gross negligence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing the [*8] Restatement (Second) of Torts, found that a defendant acts recklessly, when, inter alia, he owes a duty to the plaintiff and fails to meet that duty. That is, a defendant is reckless when:

he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.

Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 616 Pa. 385, 47 A.3d 1190, 1200 (Pa. 2012), citing
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (emphasis added). Therefore, an element of recklessness is the failure of the defendant to do any act that he has a duty to do for the plaintiff.

That failure, however, must be an intentional failure. In other words, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant consciously acted or failed to act. Thus, recklessness is more closely aligned with intentional conduct than with negligence, which suggests “unconscious inadvertence.” Id.

Similarly, an element of gross negligence is the deviation from a standard of care. More precisely, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s conduct grossly and flagrantly deviated from “the ordinary [*9] standard of care.” Bloom v. Dubois Regional Medical Center, 409 Pa. Super. 83, 597 A.2d 671, 679 (Pa. Super. 1991).

Generally, it is for the jury to determine whether a party acted grossly negligent. Colloi v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 332 Pa. Super. 284, 481 A.2d 616, 621 (Pa. Super. 1984). However, a court may decide this question as a matter of law where the case is entirely free from doubt and there is no possibility that a reasonable jury could find gross negligence. Id.

Expert testimony is often required to opine about a defendant’s duty to the plaintiff, i.e., the standard of care that defendant failed to meet. In particular, an expert must opine about the relevant standard of care, the manner in which defendant’s actions deviated from the standard, and the manner in which that deviation caused the plaintiff’s harm. See Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., 573 Pa. 245, 824 A.2d 1140, 1145 (Pa. 2003) (medical expert report must describe standard of care so as to establish duty, breach of duty, and causation). See also Zokaites Contracting Inc. v. Trant Corp., 2009 PA Super 35, 968 A.2d 1282, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2009) (in a professional negligence action, expert testimony is required to establish the “relevant standard of care applicable to the rendition of the professional services” and that the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard); Truax v. Roulhac, 2015 PA Super 217, 126 A.3d 991, 997-99 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussing plaintiff’s use of an engineer’s expert testimony to establish the elements of negligence in a premises liability action).³ If the expert fails to provide the required information, a trial [*10] court may conclude that the report is insufficient as a matter of law. Id.

We now turn to the theory of Appellants’ case. Appellants allege in their Complaint, inter alia, that Appellees’ use of folded deceleration mats at the base of its tubing run was reckless and grossly negligent because the use of the mats caused Appellant’s snow tube to stop suddenly and unexpectedly, resulting in the serious injuries that Appellant sustained. Appellants assert the same theory on appeal by arguing that Appellees engaged in reckless and grossly negligent conduct when they placed “large, heavy rubber mats in [Appellant’s] path … and that the mats could bring [Appellant] to an abrupt, immediate stop.”⁴
See Appellants’ Brief at 36.

In support of Appellants’ response to Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Appellants presented two expert reports that concluded that Appellees engaged in reckless and grossly negligent conduct. Neither expert, however, set forth a relevant standard of care and, thus, the duty that Appellees failed to meet.

Appellants’ first expert, Mark DiNola, is an expert in the field of ski and snow tubing risk management. When addressing Appellees’ standard of care, he did so generally [*11] and failed to articulate a specific standard of care or industry standard for the use of deceleration mats in a tubing run-out area. In particular, DiNola first concluded generally that Appellees’ “decision to use deliberately deployed folded anti-fatigue rubber mats as a deceleration device constitutes an extreme departure from the ordinary standards of conduct for a tubing park operator.” DiNola Report, 3/15/17, at 40 (emphasis added). DiNola, however, did not cite or explain the “ordinary standards of conduct for a tubing park operator” from which Appellees’ conduct had departed. He just baldly opined that the use of the mats departs from ordinary standards of conduct.

In another portion of the report, however, DiNola discusses a standard of care set forth in National Ski Areas Association’s “Tubing and Operations Resource Guide.”⁵ That “standard of care,” however, addresses the length of a tubing run-out, not a standard of care for the use of mats as deceleration devices. Thus, this portion of the expert report does not sufficiently articulate the applicable standard of care or conduct to support Appellants’ theory of this case.

The second expert report, written by Gordon Moskowitz, [*12] Ph.D., a mechanical and biomechanical engineering expert, does not set forth any standards of care for tubing operators. Thus, this report is not relevant to the determination of whether Appellees engaged in reckless or grossly negligent conduct in failing to meet a standard of care by using folded rubber mats in the deceleration area.

Therefore, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that Appellants failed to articulate the appropriate standard of care for the use of deceleration mats. Without such a standard of care, Appellants, as a matter of law, cannot establish Appellees’ duty to Appellants and that Appellees knew or should have known about the standard of care. Since Appellants failed to meet this element of recklessness and gross negligence, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue.

Issue 3 – Nanty-Glo Rule

In their third issue, Appellants claim that the trial court erred in concluding, solely based on Appellees’ employees’ testimony, that Appellees were not aware of the risk of harm posed by their use of anti-fatigue mats in the deceleration areas of the tubing run. Appellants’ Brief at 55.

The Nanty-Glo Rule limits the trial [*13] court’s use of affidavits or depositions to decide motions for summary judgment. The Rule provides that a trial court, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, may not rely solely upon the moving party’s own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to determine that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Dudley v. USX Corp., 414 Pa. Super. 160, 606 A.2d 916, 918 (Pa. Super. 1992) (citation and footnote omitted).

Before applying the Nanty-Glo Rule, however, the trial court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case:

Initially, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. If so, the second step is to determine whether there is any discrepancy as to any facts material to the case. Finally, it must be determined whether, in granting summary judgment, the trial court has usurped improperly the role of the fact-finder by resolving any material issues of fact. It is only when the third stage is reached that Nanty-Glo comes into play.

DeArmitt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2013 PA Super 161, 73 A.3d 578, 594-95 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted and emphasis added).

As discussed above, the trial court properly found as a matter of law that Appellants’ experts had not opined about a relevant standard of care [*14] and, thus, Appellants could not establish facts sufficient to make out a prima facie case of recklessness or gross negligence. Accordingly, Appellants have not demonstrated the applicability of the Nanty-Glo Rule. This third issue, thus, warrants no relief.

Issue 4 – The Release of Snow Time, Inc.

Lastly, Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing the negligence claim against Snow Time, Inc. because the Release at issue did not specifically name or identify Snow Time, Inc. Appellants’ Brief at 61. We disagree.

The Release at issue states, in pertinent part, that Appellants release from negligence claims Appellee Ski Liberty Operating Corporation and its owners:

In consideration of being allowed to use the tubing area at Liberty, Whitetail or Roundtop, I HEREBY AGREE NOT TO SUE AND TO RELEASE, SKI LIBERTY OPERATING CORP., WHITETAIL MOUNTAIN OPERATING CORP. AND SKI ROUNDTOP OPERATING CORP., AS WELL AS THEIR OWNERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY RELATED TO INJURY, PROPERTY LOSS OR OTHERWISE RELATED TO MY USE OF THE TUBING FACILITY, REGARDLESS OF ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SAME. I FURTHER AGREE TO INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND THE SAME, FROM ANY CLAIM FOR LIABILITY [*15] RELATED TO INJURY AS A RESULT OF MY OR MY CHILD’S USE OF THE FACILITIES, REGARDLESS OF ANY NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS OR IMPROPER CONDUCT.

Release (emphasis added).

It is undisputed that Appellee Snow Time, Inc. owns Appellee Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation. Although the Release does not specifically name Appellee Snow Time, Inc., the Release still covers Appellee Snow Time, Inc. because the Release clearly and unambiguously covers the owner of Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation.

Moreover, Appellants do not otherwise contend that the Release is ambiguous. They raise no claims as to the Release’s general validity, conspicuity, or enforceability. Further, Appellants cite no authority to support their implication that unless the Release specifically names an owner, the term “owner” does not apply to it.

We agree with the trial court that the Release applied to Appellee Snow Time, Inc., as the owner of Ski Roundtop Operating Corporation. Therefore, the Release applied to general negligence claims against Appellee Snow Time, Inc. and Appellants’ claim to the contrary is without merit.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

Judge Ott joins the memorandum.

Judge Strassburger files a [*16] dissenting memorandum.

Date: 8/14/18

Dissent by: STRASSBURGER

Dissent

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

In this case, the learned Majority holds that the trial court correctly concluded that Appellants could not establish a claim for recklessness or gross negligence as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.¹ Because I believe a reasonable jury could find that the facts constitute gross negligence and/or recklessness, I respectfully dissent. See Albright v. Abington Mem’l Hosp., 548 Pa. 268, 696 A.2d 1159, 1164 (Pa. 1997) (holding that a court may only take issue of gross negligence away from jury and decide the issue as a matter of law “if the conduct in question falls short of gross negligence, the case is entirely free from doubt, and no reasonable jury could find gross negligence“).

went down the hill on his stomach, [head first] on his tube, and proceeded to reach the run-out area at the bottom of the hill. To aid snow tubers in slowing down and stopping at the bottom of the hill, [Appellees] utilized deceleration mats. On his final [*17] run, [Bourgeois’s] snow tube came into contact with a deceleration mat, causing his tube to come to an abrupt stop. [Bourgeois’s] body continued forward in motion after his tube stopped, causing him to land [head first] into the snow. The resulting collision caused a hyperextension of [Bourgeois’s] spinal cord in his neck that has left him quadriplegic with limited mobility from his neck down.

Trial Court Order Granting Summary Judgment,² 6/19/2017, at 2-3.

What the trial court refers to as “deceleration mats” are actually rubber anti-fatigue mats commonly used as a walking surface in commercial kitchens. Spahr Deposition, 7/14/2016, at 25; Weeden Deposition, 7/20/2016, at 64-65; Whitcomb Deposition, 9/1/2016, at 95-96. The Resort inherited some of the mats from another resort. Whitcomb Deposition, 9/1/2016, at 96. When the Resort needed additional mats, Matt Weeden, the manager of the tubing park at the Resort, testified that he attempted to match the mats in use and “asked [the Resort’s] food and beverage guy where he got his and basically shopped around and compared the mats and figured out exactly what they were and ordered them.” Weeden Deposition, 7/20/2016, at 65. The mats are [*18] not specifically designed for snow tubing. Id. Appellees used the mats to assist the snow tube rider to slow down at the bottom of the hill and to minimize collisions between a snow tube and people walking around at the bottom of the hill. Reichert Deposition, 7/13/2016, at 34-35; Whitcomb Deposition, 9/1/2016, at 81, 89.

The vinyl snow tubes used by the Resort have a written warning stating that the product is designed to be used on hills with no obstacles with adequate room to stop. Appellants’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, 3/16/2017, at Exhibit E. Appellees never conducted any studies as to the effect of a vinyl tube encountering a rubber mat. Whitcomb Deposition, 9/1/2016, at 96. In 2004, Appellees added elevation to the snow-tubing hill in order to create a more fun experience for their customers. Whitcomb Deposition, 9/1/2016, at 53-54. When they did so, they extended the runout “a little bit,” because making the hill higher resulted in the riders traveling faster down the hill and a farther distance at the bottom. Id. at 54-56.

Two of the safeties³ testified that they are aware that the speed that riders travel depends on various factors, including weather conditions, [*19] the time of day, and the number of people going down a slope at a time. For example, riders went faster when it was colder. Spahr Deposition, 7/14/2016, at 34; Reichert Deposition, 7/13/2016, at 35-37. Nevertheless, the Resort did not measure speed other than by observation. The safeties and tubing supervisors determined when and how to use the mats depending on their observations of how the lanes were running, the speed riders were moving, and where the tubes were stopping, but there were no formal policies or procedures about when and how to use the mats. Reichert Deposition, 7/13/2016, at 35-38, 45; Whitcomb Deposition, 9/1/2016, at 98. The mats sometimes lay flat; sometimes they were folded. One of the tubing safeties observed that folded mats usually slowed down the rider more than flat mats due to an increase in friction. Reichert Deposition, 7/13/2016, at 36.

Appellants obtained the opinions of two experts. The first, Mark A. Di Nola, is an expert in ski and snow tubing risk management. The second, Gordon Moskowitz, Ph.D., is a an expert in mechanical and biomechanical engineering.

Di Nola opined that Bourgeois was severely injured as a direct result of Appellees’ deliberate actions, [*20] which include the following:

[1.] [Appellees’] conscious decision to employ an operationally reckless company policy mandating the deployment of deliberately placed folded anti-fatigue rubber mats at the bottom of the tubing hill as deceleration devices with explicit knowledge that the deliberately deployed folded anti-fatigue rubber mats were not designed or tested for use as deceleration devices[.]

[2.] [Appellees’] conscious decision to attempt to transfer the increased risks to their guests rather than make the tubing experience safer for consumers by eliminating the increased risk as they did only after [Bourgeois’s] tragic incident, placing their corporate financial needs over the needs of their guests.

[3.] [Appellees] consciously deployed snow tubes and provided them to their patrons in a manner that directly violated the manufacturer’s warning label by using the tubes on hill with deliberately placed obstacles that were set out in an attempt to offset the fact that the hill did not provide adequate room to stop.

[4.] [Appellees’] conscious decisions described above increased the risk of serious bodily injury to riders over and above those inherent in the activity of snow tubing [*21] in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

[5.] [Appellees’] conscious decisions increased the risk of serious injury to riders over and above those inherent in the activity of snow tubing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and constitute an extreme departure from the ordinary standards of conduct for a ski area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

[6.] [Appellees’] conscious decisions increased the risk of serious injury to riders over and above those inherent in the activity of snow tubing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are a proximate cause of [Bourgeois’s] injuries.

Di Nola Report, 3/15/2017, at 41-42.

Moskowitz opined, inter alia, that

***

2. The use of folded anti-fatigue mats as a deceleration device would expose tube riders to the likelihood of their tube encountering a sudden abrupt stop, particularly when the mats were folded with the ‘nubs’ exposed to the surface of the tube.

3. The stopping effect of a tube encountering a folded anti-fatigue mat with nubs exposed should have been readily apparent to [Appellees] well before [Bourgeois’s] accident of February 17, 2013.

4. Tube riders who travelled head [] first (on their stomachs) on ‘fast’ days would be subject to a greater [*22] risk of suffering injuries similar to those experienced by [] Bourgeois.

***

6. Arranging the mats in a folded position enhances the risk of a sudden tube stop.

7. The variations in weather … would have resulted in [Bourgeois’s] tubing experience being significantly faster at or around 3:00 p.m. when his accident occurred than [on Bourgeois’s previous runs down the hill].

Moskowitz Report, 3/14/2017, at 20. Moskowitz also opined that Appellees

knew or should have known that tubers traveling at a high rate of speed would find their tube brought to an abrupt stop when it encountered a folded mat, with that risk increasing further when the mat was folded with the nubs exposed to the bottom of the tube. Analysis indicates that a tube and rider in the prone position with [Bourgeois’s] physical measurements, facing forward and traveling at approximately 15 mph would enter into a flipping motion upon contact with a folded mat due to the resulting friction and the fold. [B]ased upon the known weather conditions and [Bourgeois’s] weight, his speed at the point of encountering the folded mat was well in excess of this speed.

Id. at 16.

After discovery closed, Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing, [*23]
inter alia, that Appellants failed to support claims for reckless conduct, because Appellants used the mats in a matter customary to the industry without incident up until the incident. Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 2/14/2017, at ¶¶ 28-41; Appellees’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, 2/14/2017, at 17-20 (pagination supplied). Appellees later argued that the record also did not support a claim of gross negligence. Appellees’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, 3/31/2017, at 24. Appellees contended that Appellants’ expert, Moskowitz, attributed Bourgeois’s injuries to a “confluence of … interlinked events” and thus, Appellees would have no way of knowing or any reason to have known such events could have arisen to cause harm. Id. Appellants opposed Appellees’ motion for summary judgment by presenting the evidence referenced supra.

As the Majority recounts, the trial court stated the following regarding its determination that Appellants failed to set forth evidence support their claims of gross negligence and recklessness:

[Appellants] have not produced sufficient evidence to show that an industry standard exists for placing the [*24] mats at the bottom of hills for snow tubers. … The absence of any standard on the record makes it difficult for the [c]ourt to find that [Appellees] knew that their conduct of using deceleration mats to stop snow tubers in the runout area would be placing [Bourgeois] at a higher unreasonable risk of harm than if [Appellees] had placed mats in a different manner, selected to purchase a different kind of mat, or used a different method for stopping the snow tubers.

Trial Court Order Granting Summary Judgment, 6/19/17, at 18-19.

The trial court further found no evidence that Appellees “knew or had reason to know that folding the mats created an unreasonable risk of physical harm.” Id. at 19. See also id. at 22-23 (discussing gross negligence).

Noticeably absent from the trial court’s discussion is any mention of Appellants’ expert reports. “At the summary judgment stage, a trial court is required to take all facts of record, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Greely v. W. Penn Power Co., 2017 PA Super 33, 156 A.3d 276, 282-84 (Pa. Super. 2017). This includes all expert reports. In fact, this Court has held that when a trial court’s opinion does not reflect consideration of the non-moving party’s expert reports, this is error as it signals [*25] a failure to consider all evidence of record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

The Majority simply ignores the trial court’s failure to consider Appellants’ expert reports and undergoes its own analysis of the reports. It concludes that neither expert set forth a relevant standard of care and thus, the duty that Appellees failed to meet. Majority Memorandum at 8-10. The Majority dismisses the Moskowitz report entirely as irrelevant, and rejects the Di Nola report as conclusory. Id.

However, in my view, both experts satisfactorily assisted Appellants in establishing gross negligence and recklessness. Woven throughout the reports are detailed references to the way that Appellees grossly deviated from the standard of care. One cannot seriously dispute that Appellees owe their patrons, who are riding on a vinyl tube without a steering or stopping mechanism down a steep snow-covered hill on a course that Appellees designed, a duty to ensure that the patrons are able to stop safely without serious injury at the bottom. One hardly needs an expert to establish that placing a stationary object, which is designed for an entirely different use, in the path of a fast-travelling [*26] snow tube rider in the hopes of slowing down the rider could instead, under certain foreseeable conditions, cause the rider to stop abruptly and eject the rider in a manner resulting in serious injury. This is particularly the case when Appellees have not conducted or reviewed studies to determine the effect of placing the mat in the rider’s path under various conditions. Further, a jury could find that risk of serious injury was substantially increased without a standardized method to measure riders’ specific speeds, assess conditions, or arrange the mats. Moreover, not only were the mats used by Appellees not designed for the purpose for which Appellees used them, they used the snow tubes in a manner that was contradicted expressly by the warning on the label – a label, by the way, which was illegible on Appellant’s tube.

The trial court states “[t]here is no evidence that [Appellants] were made aware of the risks of folding the deceleration mats and no evidence that any other incidents happened on the day Plaintiff suffered his injury[,] which would have put [Appellants] on notice that the mats were a problem. Trial Court Order Granting Summary Judgment, 6/19/2017, at 20 (emphasis [*27] added). However, Appellants need not prove that Appellees actually were aware of the risks, just that Appellants had reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize that the person’s conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another and that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the person’s conduct negligent. Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1200-01.⁴

In my view, Appellants have put forth enough evidence at this [*29] stage for the jury to decide the issue. I disagree with the sole focus of the Majority and trial court on the use of the folded mats, when that is but one piece of Appellants’ claims. See Appellants’ Brief at 45-47 (discussing the facts Appellees knew or should have known, including the conditions contributing to speeds as high as 30-35 miles per hour, the risk of serious injuries when a fast-traveling snow tube abruptly collides with an obstacle, the lack of sufficient run-out area, and the use of mats not designed for use in snow tubing).⁵ Both experts explained the ways in which Appellees’ conduct deviated from the standard of care, based upon the facts established through depositions of Appellees’ employees and officers. It is clear to me that a jury could have determined that the series of conscious decisions made by Appellees worked together to create an unreasonable risk of physical harm to Bourgeois that was substantially greater than ordinary negligence. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for trial.

End of Document

Release upheld in Ohio to stop negligence claims for indoor ski jumping. However, gross negligence claims survived.

Posted: June 11, 2018 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Indoor Recreation Center, Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Assumption of risk, claims of negligence, Commercial Recreation Center, fact remains, Flips, foam, Foam Pit, genuine, genuine issue, Gymnastics, Indemnity, inducement, Inherent Risks, initial burden, Issue of Material Fact, liability claim, loss of consortium, matter of law, moving party, nonmoving party, pit, proprietor', Punitive damages, Reckless, recklessness, recreational activities, releasee, repose, Ski Flips, Sports, Summary judgment, waiver form, Wanton, willful | Leave a comment

Motions by the defendant eliminated a lot of the claims of the plaintiff; however, the reckless claims are always a pain used to negotiate a settlement. If the judge bought the idea, maybe the plaintiff can get the jury to buy the idea.

Cantu, et al, vs. Flytz Gymnastics, Inc., et al, 2016 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 12186

State: Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Civil Division

Plaintiff: Michael A. Cantu, et al,

Defendant: Flytz Gymnastics, Inc., et al,

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence, willful, wanton and reckless action and Product Liability

Defendant Defenses: Release, Assumption of the Risk and the Statute of Repose

Holding: For the Defendant and the Plaintiff

Year: 2016

Summary

Recreation activities have moved indoors for more than 75 years. Now, all sorts of outdoor recreation activities have moved indoors and created additional activities and variations of those activities.

This decision concerns injuries received when the plaintiff jumped into a foam pit. The plaintiff and friends were there to practice skiing jumps. When the plaintiff landed he became a quadriplegic and sued for negligence, gross negligence and product liability claims.

Facts

The plaintiff and his friends decided to go to the defendant’s facility to practice skiing flips. The facility had a foam pit where the participants could land. While using a springboard to go over a vault the plaintiff landed head first in the pit sustaining a spinal cord injury rendering him a quadriplegic.

The plaintiff was a minor and had been driven to the facility by his mother. Both, he and his mother signed the release to participate in the activity. His mother claimed the form was long, and she did not read it. (The release was one page.)

Kristine Cantu testified that, consistent with her practice related to any other sports release or waiver, she “never read them” because they were “usually lengthy.” Although she indicated that the Flytz Release and Waiver Form was also lengthy, the Court notes that the form is one page long,….

The plaintiff and his parents admitted they had signed releases before, knew that the activities were risky and had participated in other risky activities and had been injured doing so.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and this is the decision of the court.

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

Ohio allows a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue. See States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue and Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998).

The release in question described the risks of the activity and included the risks and resulted in the plaintiff suffered, “including permanent disability, paralysis and death, which may be caused.”

A release is a contract and under Ohio law to be valid a contract must be “clear, unequivocal and unambiguous and it must be specific enough to cover only those claims of which the participant would be aware.” The court found this release met those requirements.

The plaintiffs argued the they were fraudulently induced to sign the release. A release signed by fraudulent inducement is voidable upon proof of the fraud. However, that fraud must be than saying you were misled if a reading of the contract would have shown that was not the case.

A person of ordinary mind cannot say that he was misled into signing a paper which was different from what he intended to sign when he could have known the truth by merely looking when he signed…. If a person can read and is not prevented from reading what he signs, he alone is responsible for his omission to read what he signs.”

The court found there was no fraud because the release itself was clear and there was no evidence from the plaintiff of any act or action that was fraudulent by the defendants.

The court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment to the negligence claims of the plaintiff.

The court also would have granted summary judgment to the defendants because the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that individuals engaged in recreational or sports activities “assume the ordinary risks of the activity and cannot recover for any injuries unless it can be shown that the other participant’s actions were either ‘reckless’ or ‘intentional’ as defined in Sections 500 and 8A of the Restatement of Torts 2d.”. “The doctrine of primary assumption of risk prevents a, Plaintiff from setting forth a prima facie case of negligence.” “Primary assumption of the risk relieves a recreation provider from any duty to eliminate the risks that are inherent in the activity…because such risk cannot be eliminated.”

The defense is not affected on whether or not the participant was able to appreciate the inherent dangers in the activity.

To defeat a primary assumption of risk defense the plaintiff must be able to prove the defendant’s conduct was reckless or intentional, and it does not matter if it is adults or minors organized or unorganized, supervised or unsupervised.

The plaintiff could not prove the actions of the defendant were reckless or intentional.

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a, Plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries.

However, this part of the decision treads a narrow classification of the facts because the court found the plaintiff had pled enough facts for the reckless or intentional conduct claims to survive. The plaintiff pleaded and argued facts along with his expert witness “Defendant level of supervision and safety procedures, and whether, Defendant’s actions or inactions rose to the level of recklessness.”

The plaintiff’s expert argued the defendant failed to:

…ensure that Michael Cantu possessed an adequate level of performer readiness to safely participate in the intended activity,” “failing to provide adequate supervision of the open gym participants,” “failing to instruct Michael Cantu on how to land safely in a loose foam landing pit,” and “failing to provide a reasonably safe physical environment for the intended gymnastics activity,” specifically directing attention to the violative nature of the foam pit. Report at 3-6. Dr. George opines, among other things, that, given these violations and conduct, Defendants actions were “grossly inadequate” reckless and that, Defendants exhibited “willful and wanton” disregard for caution.

The final claim was a product liability claim arguing the foam pit was defective. The defendant argued the statute of repose applied.

The statute of repose is a statute that says if a claim against a product has not occurred in the first ten years after its creation, then no claims can be made after that period of time.

…no cause of action based on a product liability claim shall accrue against the manufacturer or sup-plier of a product later than ten years from the date that the product was delivered to its first purchaser or first lessee who was not engaged in a business in which the product was used the component in the production, construction, creation, assembly, or rebuilding of another product.

The foam pit had been constructed in 2000, and the plaintiff’s injury occurred in 2011. Consequently, the ten-year statute of repose had run preventing the plaintiff’s product liability claim.

The court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment for all claims of the plaintiff except for the claim of recklessness, which could lead to punitive damages.

So Now What?

Foam pits, trampolines, free fall towers join climbing walls indoors as types of activities or training for outdoor recreation activities are popping up everywhere. What used to be confined to Olympic training venues can now be accessed on the corner with a credit card.

We are going to see more of these types of actions. Like any recreational activity, they advertise, make promises, and are still in a growing mode both in the number of locations and the learning process in how their liability will evolve.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

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

Cantu, et al, vs. Flytz Gymnastics, Inc., et al, 2016 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 12186

Posted: June 10, 2018 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Indoor Recreation Center, Legal Case, Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Assumption of risk, claims of negligence, fact remains, foam, Foam Pit, genuine, genuine issue, Gymnastics, Indemnity, inducement, Inherent Risks, initial burden, Issue of Material Fact, liability claim, loss of consortium, matter of law, moving party, nonmoving party, pit, proprietor', Punitive damages, Quadriplegic, Reckless, recklessness, recreational activities, releasee, repose, Ski Flips, skiing, Sports, Summary judgment, waiver form, Wanton, willful | Leave a comment

Cantu, et al, vs. Flytz Gymnastics, Inc., et al, 2016 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 12186

Michael A. Cantu, et al, Plaintiffs vs. Flytz Gymnastics, Inc., et al, Defendants.

CASE NO. CV-2014-01-0317

State of Ohio, Court OF Common Pleas, Summit County, Civil Division

2016 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 12186

June 2, 2016, Filed

CORE TERMS: summary judgment, reckless, wanton, willful, gymnastics, waiver form, moving party, nonmoving party, pit, releasee, liability claim, recreational activities, issue of material fact, genuine, foam, claims of negligence, repose, sports, genuine issue, initial burden, punitive damages, recklessness, inducement, indemnity, matter of law, fact remains, loss of consortium, inherent risks, assumption of risk, proprietor’

JUDGES: [*1] TAMMY O’BRIEN, JUDGE

OPINION BY: TAMMY O’BRIEN

OPINION

ORDER

The matters before the Court are, Defendant, Flytz Gymnastics, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 29, 2016, and, Defendant, John King’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 29, 2016., Plaintiffs filed Separate Briefs in Opposition to these motions on March 4, 2016. Both, Defendants, Flytz Gymnastics, Inc. (“Flytz”) and John King (“King”), filed Reply briefs on March 21, 2016. For the reasons which follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.

ANALYSIS

A. Facts:

The instant action arises out of an incident which occurred on August 22, 2011. On that day, Plaintiff Michael Cantu, sustained catastrophic personal injury when he attempted to use a spring board to go over a vault at Flytz Gymnastics and landed head first into a foam block pit. See, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint., Plaintiff sustained a spinal cord injury which left him a quadriplegic. See, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs, Michael Cantu and his parents, have sued Flytz and its owner, King, alleging that they are liable for his injury., Plaintiffs have alleged that Flytz was negligent with respect to the “open [*2] gym night” attended by Michael Cantu and his friends and that this negligence resulted in Michael’s injury., Plaintiffs have further alleged that the conduct of Flytz and its employees, including King, was willful, wanton and reckless. In addition, Plaintiffs have brought a product liability claim against Flytz under R.C. 2307.71 et seq., Plaintiff’s parents, Aaron and Kristine Cantu, have also asserted a loss of consortium claim.

On the day in question, Michael was with a group of friends when one of them suggested that the group go to Flytz. Michael Cantu depo. at 57. This friend had been to Flytz before to practice his skiing flips. Id. at p. 43. Michael Cantu testified that the group intended to use the trampoline to practice ski tricks. Id. at 43, 63 and 93. Michael’s mother, Kristine Cantu, drove the group to Flytz.

Cantu and his friends were given Nonmember Release and Waiver Forms to read and sign. Because Michael was a minor, his mother signed the form on his behalf. Flytz Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit B at pp. 32 and 33. Both Michael and his mother have acknowledged that neither of them read the entire form before Kristine signed it. Exhibit A at 69 and 103; Exhibit B at 34 and 35.

Subsequent [*3] to his injury, Kristine Cantu claimed that, had she read the release, she would never have allowed her son to participate in the activities. However, there is undisputed testimony from both Kristine and Michael Cantu that, throughout his life, Michael Cantu participated in many sports activities and many recreational activities, and that his mother signed release forms on his behalf in the past. Flytz Motion, Exhibit A at 18, 103; Flytz Motion, Exhibit Bat 15-16.

Plaintiff Michael Cantu, was involved in many sports and recreational activities and both he and his mother testified that they were aware that, inherent in those activities, there was always the risk of injury. Michael had previously participated in football, karate, volleyball and golf, and was interested in skiing, snowboarding and skateboarding. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledged he had sustained prior sports injuries. Flytz Motion, Exhibit B at 13-18.

Defendant Flytz moves for summary judgment on several bases which include the, Plaintiffs’ execution of a Release and Waiver form, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, lack of evidence of willful and wanton conduct by the, Defendants, and the statute of repose., Defendant [*4] King also moves for summary judgment.

B. Law and Analysis:

1. Standard.

In reviewing, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court must consider the following: (1) whether there is no genuine issue of material fact to be litigated; (2) whether in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party it appears that reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion; and (3) whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996); Wing v. Anchor Media, L.T.D., 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 570 N.E.2d 1095 (1991). If the Court finds that the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L.E.2d 265 (1986).

Civ.R. 56(C) states the following, in part, in regards to summary judgment motions:

Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts

of the evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact, if any timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Where a party seeks summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot [*5] prove its case, the moving party bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s) of the nonmoving party’s claims. Dresner, 75 Ohio St.3d at 293. The Dresner court continued, the moving party cannot discharge its initial burden under Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion that the nonmoving party has no evidence to prove its case. Rather, the moving party must be able to specifically point to some evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) which affirmatively demonstrates that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support the nonmoving party’s claims. If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the nonmovant does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party.

Banks v. Ross Incineration, 9th App. No. 98CA007132 (Dec. 15, 1999).

In this case, [*6] as demonstrated below, this Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate as to the, Plaintiffs’ claims of negligence, but finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to, Plaintiffs’ claims of reckless and wanton conduct and punitive damages.

2. Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk, and Indemnity Agreement (“Release and Waiver”).

The Release and Waiver Form signed by, Plaintiff Kristine Cantu, is entitled, “Nonmember/Special Event/Birthday Party Activity, Release and Waiver Form.” Flytz Motion, Exhibit C. After the name of the person and contact information, the verbiage of the release and waiver form warns that “this activity involves risks of serious bodily injury, including permanent disability, paralysis and death.” Id.

Kristine Cantu testified that, consistent with her practice related to any other sports release or waiver, she “never read them” because they were “usually lengthy.” Kristine Cantu depo. at 15-16. Although she indicated that the Flytz Release and Waiver Form was also lengthy, the Court notes that the form is one page long, as is shown in part below:

Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk, and Indemnity Agreement

In consideration [*7] of participating in the activities and programs at FLYTZ GYMNASTICS, INC., I represent that I understand the nature of this activity and that I am qualified, in good health, and in proper physical condition to participate in such activity. I acknowledge that if I believe event conditions are unsafe, I will immediately discontinue participation in this activity. I fully understand that this activity involves risks of serious bodily injury, including permanent disability, paralysis and death, which may be caused by my own actions, or inactions, those of others participating in the event, the condition in which the event takes place, or the negligence of the “releasees” named below, and that there may be other risks either not known to me or not readily foreseeable at this time and I fully accept and assume all risks and all responsibility for losses, cost and damages I incur as a result of my participation in the activity.

I hereby release, discharge, and covenant not to sue FLYTZ GYNMASTICS, INC., its respective administrators, directors, agents, officers, volunteers, and employees, other participants, any sponsors, advertisers and if applicable, owners and lessors of premises on which [*8] the activity takes place (each considered one of the “RELEASEES” herein) from all liability, claims, damages, losses or damages, on my account caused, or alleged to be caused, in whole, or in part, by the negligence of the “releasees” or otherwise, including negligent rescue operations and further agree that if, despite this release, waiver of liability and assumption of risk, I, or anyone on my behalf makes a claim against any of the Releasees, I will indemnify, save and hold harmless each of the Releasees from any loss, liability, damage or cost which may incur as a result of such claim.

I have read the RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABIITY, ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT, understand that I have given up substantial rights by signing it and have signed it freely and without any inducement or assurance of any nature and intend it to be a complete and unconditional release of all liability to the greatest extent allowed by law and agree that if any portion of this agreement is held to be invalid the balance, notwithstanding, shall continue in full force and effect.

The form specifically acknowledges that the activities and programs at Flytz involved “risks of serious bodily injury, [*9] including permanent disability, paralysis and death which may be caused” by the releasee’s actions or by the actions of others. It further identifies that “there may be risks either not known” or “not readily foreseeable” and that the releasee “accepts and assumes all risks for losses and damages.” Id. The form further releases claims of negligence by Flytz and includes a covenant not to sue, as well as indemnity and hold harmless provisions. The release was signed by Kristine Cantu on behalf of her son and indicated that she understood all the risks involved.

It is well established in Ohio that participants in recreational activities and the proprietor of a venue for such an activity are free to enter into contracts designed to relieve the proprietor from responsibility to the participant for the proprietor’s acts of negligence. See, Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384; Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201, 1998-Ohio-389. As noted by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, in order to be upheld, the contract must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous and it must be specific enough to cover only those claims of which the participant would be aware. Levine v. Gross, 123 Ohio App.3d 326, 330, 704 N.E.2d 262 (9th Dist. 1997). In the instant action, the Release and Waiver Form signed by Kristine Cantu clearly meets these requirements.

Plaintiffs argue [*10] that the intake clerk, Stacey King, did not specifically advise Kristine that, by signing the forms, she would be absolving Flytz of liability for injuries sustained by her son, by his negligence or the negligence of others., Plaintiffs attempt to circumvent the Release and Waiver by alleging it is unenforceable because of fraud in the inducement. They argue that Kristine Cantu was induced to sign the form upon misrepresentations made by Stacey King.

The Court notes that, Plaintiffs have not pled fraud in their Amended Complaint. Even if, Plaintiffs can be found to have properly pled a claim of fraud in the inducement, a release obtained by fraudulent inducement is merely voidable upon proof of fraud. Holler v. horror Corp., (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14 at ¶ 1 of the syllabus. “A person of ordinary mind cannot say that he was misled into signing a paper which was different from what he intended to sign when he could have known the truth by merely looking when he signed…. If a person can read and is not prevented from reading what he signs, he alone is responsible for his omission to read what he signs.” Haller, supra at 14. In the instant action, there is no evidence of fraud. The Court finds that, Plaintiffs were advised of [*11] serious inherent risks by virtue of the Release and Waiver Form. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on any claims of negligence.

3. Primary Assumption of Risk.

Even without the Release and Waiver, this Court would also find that the, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment related to the, Plaintiffs’ claims of negligence under the doctrine of primary assumption the risk.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that individuals engaged in recreational or sports activities “assume the ordinary risks of the activity and cannot recover for any injuries unless it can be shown that the other participant’s actions were either ‘reckless’ or ‘intentional’ as defined in Sections 500 and 8A of the Restatement of Torts 2d.” Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699, syllabus. “The doctrine of primary assumption of risk prevents a, Plaintiff from setting forth a prima facie case of negligence.” Aber v. Zurz, 9th Dist No. 23876, 2008-Ohio-778, ¶9. “Primary assumption of the risk relieves a recreation provider from any duty to eliminate the risks that are inherent in the activity…because such risk cannot be eliminated.” (Citations omitted.) Bastian v. McGannon, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 07CA009213, 2008-Ohio – l149, ¶11.

As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, the determining fact in such cases is the conduct of the defendant, “not the [*12] participant’s or spectator’s ability or inability to appreciate the inherent dangers of the activity.” Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141, 802 N.E.2d 1116, 2004-Ohio-

379, ¶9. To survive a primary assumption of risk claim, the, Plaintiff must prove the defendant’s conduct was reckless or intentional. Furthermore, “the reckless/intentional standard of liability applies regardless of whether the activity was engaged in by children or adults, or was unorganized, supervised, or unsupervised.” Gentry, supra at ¶8.

In the instant action, there can be no dispute that, Plaintiff Michael Cantu was engaged in a recreational activity at the time of his injury. Likewise, there can be no dispute that a fall, like that sustained by Michael, is an inherent risk in gymnastics, particularly when one is using a springboard to go over a piece of equipment. As such, there can be no recovery by, Plaintiffs unless it can be shown that Flytz’s actions were either “reckless” or “intentional.” Gentry, supra at ¶6 quoting Marchetti, supra at syllabus; see also, Mainv. Gym X-Treme, 10th Dist. No. 11A0-643, 2102-Ohio-1315 (Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a, Plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity [*13] unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries. Id. at ¶9.)

Accordingly, Defendants entitled to summary judgment related to the, Plaintiffs’ claims of negligence under the doctrine of primary assumption the risk. However, because the, Plaintiffs also claim that, Defendants acted in a reckless, willful and wanton manner, this does not end the analysis.

3. Reckless or Intentional Conduct and Punitive Damages.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that there can be no liability for injuries arising out of sporting or recreational activities unless the defendant was reckless or intentionally injured the, Plaintiff. Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 96-98, 559 N.E.2d 699 (1990). In this case, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not, Defendants engaged in recklessness or willful or wanton conduct which resulted in injury to Michael Cantu.

All parties cite to testimony which appears to create genuine issues of material fact related to the instructions given by the, Defendants, Michael Cantu’s responding behavior, Defendant level of supervision and safety procedures, and whether, Defendants actions or inactions rose to the level of recklessness.

Plaintiffs have also cited the testimony [*14] of their expert, Gerald S. George, PhD. Dr. George reviewed industry rules and regulations and examined the facts and evidence in this case. Dr. George admitted that under “appropriate conditions, gymnastics is a reasonably safe and healthy activity for young people.” He, however, cautioned that “in the absence of appropriate safeguards, however, gymnastics becomes an unreasonably dangerous activity. Report at p. 2. Dr. George opines that, Defendants violated a number of safety regulations including “failing to ensure that Michael Cantu possessed an adequate level of performer readiness to safely participate in the intended activity,” “failing to provide adequate supervision of the open gym participants,” “failing to instruct Michael Cantu on how to land safely in a loose foam landing pit,” and “failing to provide a reasonably safe physical environment for the intended gymnastics activity,” specifically directing attention to the violative nature of the foam pit. Report at 3-6. Dr. George opines, among other things, that, given these violations and conduct, Defendants actions were “grossly inadequate” reckless and that, Defendants exhibited “willful and wanton” disregard for caution. [*15]

Upon this examination, the Court determines that genuine issues of material fact related to, Defendants’ alleged recklessness and/or willful and wanton conduct exist. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate on this issue. Because a question of fact remains on the issue of reckless and/or willful and wanton conduct, summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages is also denied.

4. Ohio’s Product Liability Statute, R.C. 2307.71et seq.

Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the, Plaintiffs’ product liability claim related to the foam pit into which Michael Cantu fell., Defendants argue that this claim is barred by the statute of repose. This Court agrees.

The statute of repose applicable to claims of product liability, R.C. 2305.10 (C) (1) provides:

Except as provided in division (C)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of this section or in Section 2305.19 of the Revised Code, no cause of action based on a product liability claim shall accrue against the manufacturer or supplier of a product later than ten years from the date that the product was delivered to its first purchaser or first lessee who was not engaged in a business in which the product was used the component in the production, construction, creation, assembly, or rebuilding of another [*16] product.

The evidence demonstrated that the foam pit was constructed in 2000, and that there were no modifications to the pit at any time thereafter. John King depo. at 61, 67 and 85., Plaintiff’s accident occurred on August 22, 2011, 11 years after the installation of the foam pit. Pursuant to the specific language of R.C. 2305.10 (C) (1), Plaintiffs’ product liability claim is barred by the statute of repose.

From review of, Plaintiff’s brief, Plaintiffs appear to have abandoned this argument. Also, as discussed above, claims for negligence have been released by the, Plaintiffs. However, even barring that analysis, the statute of repose also applies to the, Plaintiffs’ product liability claim, and this claim is, therefore, barred.

5. Consortium.

The claims for loss of consortium by Michael Cantu’s parents, and punitive damages claim are directed at both, Defendants. A cause of action that is based upon loss of consortium is a derivative claim. Messmore v. Monarch Mach Tool Co., 11 Ohio App.3d 67 (9th Dist., 1983). As this Court has determined that, Plaintiff Michael Cantu is not entitled to recovery on negligence claims, the same applies to his parents. However, as genuine issues of material fact remain on the issues of reckless and/or willful and wanton conduct, as well [*17] as on punitive

damages, this Court denies summary judgment to both defendants on the loss of consortium and punitive damages claims.

CONCLUSION

Upon due consideration, after review of the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, exhibits, testimony and other evidence, the Court GRANTS, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment as a matter of law on, Plaintiffs’ negligence claims. However, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether, Defendants were reckless or acted in a willful or wanton manner. Accordingly the Court DENIES summary judgment as it pertains to, Plaintiffs’ claims of recklessness, and their claims for punitive damages.

The Final Pretrial previously schedule on July 22, 2016 at 8:30 AM, as well as the trial date of August 1, 2016, are confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ [Signature]

JUDGE TAMMY/O’BRIEN

Attorneys Terrance P. Gravens/Kimberly A. Brennan

Attorney Michael W. Czack

A Motion to Strike is used by the defendant to eliminate the threat of punitive damages in this fatality claim.

Posted: April 30, 2018 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Connecticut | Tags: #Contest, carelessness, Cause of action, common law, decedent, fatal injuries, favorably, Gross negligence, judicial district, legal sufficiency, Motion to Strike, omissions, prayer, Punitive damages, quotation marks omitted, Reckless, Reckless Conduct, reckless disregard, recklessly, recklessness, sounding, swing, viewing, wantonly | Leave a comment

The deceased had entered onto the land of the defendant and was using a rope swing to jump into a lake. She died, somehow, using the swing and her estate sued the landowner.

Kopesky v. Connecticut American Water Company, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2166

State: Connecticut, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford – Norwalk, at Stamford

Plaintiff: Renee Kopesky

Defendant: Connecticut American Water Company

Plaintiff Claims: wrongful death (?)

Defendant Defenses: Motion to Strike

Holding: for the defendant

Year: 1999

Summary

This motion to strike was used to take punitive damages off the table in the litigation. This takes a lot of pressure off the defendant and deals a significant blow to the plaintiff. The damages in the case are dropped significantly probably increasing the chance of a settlement.

Facts

The plaintiff is the administratrix of the estate for the deceased. The deceased entered on to land owned by the defendant and died when she fell off a rope swing over a lake.

The defendant filed a motion to strike. A motion to strike is a preliminary motion used to eliminate claims that have no basis in the facts or the law does not allow.

The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) For purposes of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.”

The motion to strike may also be used to contest the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief.

The defendant argued that the second count of the complaint, a claim for punitive damages was legally insufficient because it relies on the same facts the plaintiff basis their first claim on, negligence. Those facts did not support a claim for punitive damages.

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

The court first looked at the elements the plaintiff had to prove to a claim for punitive damages. To receive punitive damages the plaintiff would have to prove the defendant’s actions were reckless.

Recklessness is a state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of one’s acts. . . . It is more than negligence, more than gross negligence . . . The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct. But, in order to infer it, there must be something more than a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to avoid a danger to others or to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to them . . .”

A claim for negligence must be separate and distinct and based on additional facts from a recklessness claim.

There is a wide difference between negligence and reckless disregard of the rights or safety of others . . . A specific allegation setting out the conduct that is claimed to be reckless or wanton must be made . . . In other words, it is clearly necessary to plead a [common law] cause of action grounded in recklessness separate and distinct from a negligence action.”

For the plaintiff to prove recklessness the actions of the defendant must be intentional and the conduct must be highly unreasonable.

In order to rise to the level of recklessness, [the] action producing the injury must be intentional and characterized by highly unreasonable conduct which amounts to an extreme departure from ordinary care . . .”

Here the court found the plaintiff had not pled the facts necessary to prove a claim of recklessness. Consequently, there could be not be a claim for punitive damages and the second count must be dismissed.

So Now What?

It seems odd to file a motion to eliminate one claim. However, like bunting in baseball, it has a greater effect than sacrificing a runner.

First, it makes your insurance company rest easier because most policies do not cover punitive damages. Eliminating this claim takes tremendous burden and conflict off the defendant and the insurance company.

Second, the damages have been dropped significantly. In this case, the damages are reduced to the lost value of the life of the deceased.

Finally, it deals a blow to the plaintiff. Litigation is a lot of back and forth, minor wins or losses over the course of the litigation. This is a slightly bigger loss for the plaintiff and will put both parties in a better position to negotiate a settlement.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

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

Kopesky v. Connecticut American Water Company, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2166

Posted: April 18, 2018 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Connecticut, Legal Case | Tags: #Contest, carelessness, Cause of action, common law, decedent, fatal injuries, favorably, judicial district, Land Owner, legal sufficiency, Motion to Strike, omissions, prayer, Punitive damages, quotation marks omitted, Reckless, Reckless Conduct, reckless disregard, recklessly, recklessness, Rope Swing, sounding, swing, viewing, wantonly | Leave a comment

Kopesky v. Connecticut American Water Company, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2166

Renee Kopesky v. Connecticut American Water Company

CV 950145791

SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD – NORWALK, AT STAMFORD

1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2166

August 2, 1999, Decided

August 2, 1999, Filed

NOTICE: [*1] THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.

DISPOSITION: Defendant’s motion to strike second count of plaintiff’s amended complaint, and that portion of the prayer for relief claiming punitive damages, denied.

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant brought a motion to strike the second count of plaintiff’s amended complaint and that portion of the prayer for relief claiming punitive damages in an action alleging that decedent sustained fatal injuries on defendant’s property because of defendant’s negligence and reckless conduct.

OVERVIEW: Decedent died when she fell from a swing on defendant’s property. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant, alleging that defendant was aware that the public entered their property to go swimming. The second count of plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant’s acts or omissions were done recklessly, wantonly, carelessly, and with a reckless disregard for the consequences of its acts or omissions. Defendant brought a motion to strike count two of plaintiff’s complaint and that portion of the prayer for relief claiming punitive damages. The court ruled that a motion to strike could be used to contest the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief. Further, the court held that an action sounding in reckless conduct required an allegation of an intentional act that resulted in injury. Also, the court found that in order to rise to the level of recklessness, the action producing the injury must be intentional and characterized by highly unreasonable conduct which amounted to an extreme departure from ordinary care. The court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, denied the motion, concluding that the allegations did rise to the level of recklessness.

OUTCOME: Motion to strike the second count of plaintiff’s complaint and that portion of the prayer for relief claiming punitive damages was denied where, viewing the complaint in the light most favorably to plaintiff, plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to state causes of action sounding in negligence and recklessness.

CORE TERMS: recklessness, quotation marks omitted, reckless, sounding, reckless disregard, judicial district, favorably, prayer, decedent, common law, reckless conduct, legal sufficiency, cause of action, contest, viewing, fatal injuries, punitive damages, carelessness, recklessly, omissions, wantonly, swing

JUDGES: D’ANDREA, J.

OPINION BY: D’ANDREA

OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE

The plaintiff, Renee Kopesky, the administratrix for the estate of Tiffany Jean Kopesky, brought this action against the defendant, Connecticut American Water Company, for damages sustained by the plaintiff’s decedent. The plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff’s decedent sustained fatal injuries on the defendant’s property, when she fell from a rope swing as she attempted to swing out into the water. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant was aware that the public entered their private property to go swimming, hiking, camping and fishing. In the first count of the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff’s decedent suffered severe painful and fatal injuries as a result of the defendant’s negligence and carelessness. In the second count, the plaintiff alleges that [*2] the defendant’s “acts and/or omissions . . . were done recklessly, wantonly, carelessly and with a reckless disregard for the consequences of its acts and/or omissions.”

The defendant moves to strike count two of the plaintiff’s amended complaint and that portion of the prayer for relief claiming punitive damages. The defendant argues that “count two is legally insufficient because a claim for recklessness cannot be established by relying upon the same set of facts used to establish negligence. The second count of plaintiff’s amended complaint simply restates the facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim for negligence. Reiterating the same underlying facts of a negligence claim and renaming the claim as one for recklessness does not transform ordinary negligence into recklessness.”

” [HN1] The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates, 244 Conn. 269, 270, 709 A.2d 558 (1998). ” [HN2] For purposes of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994); [*3] see also Ferryman v. Groton, 212 Conn. 138, 142, 561 A.2d 432 (1989). “The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576, 580, 693 A.2d 293 (1997).

The motion to strike may also be used to contest the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief. See Kavarco v. T.J.E., Inc., 2 Conn. App. 294, 298 n.4, 478 A.2d 257 (1984); Central New Haven Development Corp. v. Potpourri, Inc., 39 Conn. Supp. 132, 133, 471 A.2d 681 (1993); Practice Book 10-39(a)(2).

” [HN3] Recklessness is a state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of one’s acts. . . . It is more than negligence, more than gross negligence . . . The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct. But, in order to infer it, there must be something more than a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to avoid a danger to others or to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to them . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubay v. Irish, 207 Conn. 518, 532, 542 A.2d 711 (1988). [*4]

This court has previously held that “the allegations of one count of a complaint based on a common law reckless conduct must be separate and distinct from the allegations of a second count sounding in negligence . . . There is a wide difference between negligence and reckless disregard of the rights or safety of others . . . A specific allegation setting out the conduct that is claimed to be reckless or wanton must be made . . . In other words, it is clearly necessary to plead a [common law] cause of action grounded in recklessness separate and distinct from a negligence action.” (Alterations in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Thompson v. Buckler, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 199, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 153798 (Jan. 27, 1999) ( D’Andrea, J.), Epner v. Theratx, Inc., 1998 Conn. Super. LEXIS 603, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 161989 (Mar. 10, 1998) (D’Andrea, J.). “In short, [HN4] an action sounding in reckless conduct requires an allegation of an intentional act that results in injury.” Id.

” [HN5] In order to rise to the level of recklessness, [the] action producing the injury must be intentional and characterized [*5] by highly unreasonable conduct which amounts to an extreme departure from ordinary care . . .” (Alterations in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Epner v. Theratx, Inc., supra, 1998 Conn. Super. LEXIS 603, Superior Court, Docket No. 161989, citing Dubay v. Irish, 207 Conn. 518, 532, 542 A.2d 711 (1988). In the present case, viewing the allegations in the light most favorably to the plaintiff, the allegations do rise to the level of recklessness.

“If the alleged facts constitute recklessness . . . using the same facts in the negligence count does not prevent them from also being reckless. The test is whether the alleged facts amount to recklessness.” Walters v. Turrisi, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1011, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 541162 (Apr. 15, 1997) ( Hurley, J.). “The mere fact that the allegations and factual assertions in a reckless count are the same or similar to one in a negligence count shouldn’t ipso facto mean the reckless count cannot be brought. The test is whether the facts alleged establish a reckless count. If they do all it would mean is that the plaintiff is pleading in the alternative.” Cancisco v. Hartford, 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1885, Superior Court, judicial [*6] district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 519929 (June 26, 1995) (Corradino, J.).

In this case, viewing the complaint in the light most favorably to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state causes of action sounding in negligence and recklessness. The first count of the plaintiff’s amended complaint contains twenty-five paragraphs of allegations relating to the defendant’s conduct regarding the incident in question. In the first count, the plaintiff alleges that that conduct amounts to the defendant’s negligence and/or carelessness.

In the second count, the plaintiff realleges and incorporates those twenty-five paragraphs from the first count and then alleges, in paragraph twenty-six, that the aforementioned conduct indicates that the defendant acted recklessly, wantonly and with a reckless disregard for the consequences. The allegations in the second count do rise to the level of recklessness. Accordingly, the plaintiff has pled an alternative cause of action sounding in recklessness, separate and distinct from the negligence count. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to strike the second count of the plaintiff’s amended complaint, [*7] and that portion of the prayer for relief claiming punitive damages, is hereby denied.

So Ordered.

D’ANDREA, J.

The New York Court found the injuries received by the Plaintiff, there was an inference that the collision was violent.

Posted: November 6, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, New York, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: beginner, Beginner Slope, Collision, Inherent Risk, Reckless, Reckless Conduct, skier v. skier, Skier v. Skier Collision, skiing, snowboarding, Standing, Unreasonably Increased Risk, Violent Collision | Leave a comment

Snowboarder standing at the base of the hill talking was injured when a skier struck here when he could not stop.

Horowitz v Chen, 141 A.D.3d 410; 35 N.Y.S.3d 60; 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5179; 2016 NY Slip Op 05335

State: New York; Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department

Plaintiff: Keri Horowitz

Defendant: Ethan Chen

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Inherent Risk

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 2016

Summary

The entire case resolves around two issues. The inherent risks of skiing do not include standing at the bottom of the hill and getting hit when just talking and the plaintiff’s injuries were so bad; she was obviously hit by the defendant at a high rate of speed.

Facts

The facts are best described by the court.

Plaintiff snowboarder was injured when, while standing at the base of a beginner ski slope and speaking with a friend, defendant struck her while skiing at approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. Although there are inherent risks in the sports of skiing and snowboarding, “participants do not consent to conduct that is reckless, intentional or so negligent as to create an unreasonably in-creased risk

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

A very simple case. When a skier is skiing out of control at a high rate of speed in the beginner area and knows he has limited ability to stop, is he liable if he hits someone standing in the beginner area. This court said yes.

Collisions are an inherent risk of skiing in New York. However, as here, the collision could not be expected. The plaintiff was not skiing, was barely “on the slope” and was still hit by a skier.

The court found that those factors possibly gave rise to reckless conduct. Reckless conduct is not an inherent risk of skiing.

The supporting statement the court made about reckless conduct is interesting. The court found the injuries the plaintiff received could also infer the plaintiff was skiing recklessly.

Furthermore, in view of the significant injuries sustained by plaintiff, reasonable inferences may be drawn that she endured a violent collision, which raises an issue as to whether the speed at which defendant was skiing was reckless under the circumstances.

Rarely are the injuries to the plaintiff ruled as indicative of something other than the injuries the plaintiff received unless an expert opines that the injuries could only have occurred by something specific happening. Meaning an expert witness is required to say that an injury that bad meant the defendant was traveling so fast.

So Now What?

It’s really hard to argue with this decision. When you get to the bottom of the hill, you should be slowing down and under control. Here the defendant was not doing either and hit the plaintiff. No one skiing could expect to be hit when standing at the bottom of the ski area. Consequently, a collision like that is not an inherent risk of skiing.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw, Skiing, Snowboarding, Collision, Skier v. Skier, Skier v. Skier Collision, Standing, Beginner, Beginner Slope, Reckless, Reckless Conduct, Inherent Risk, Unreasonably Increased Risk, Violent Collision,

Horowitz v Chen, 141 A.D.3d 410; 35 N.Y.S.3d 60; 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5179; 2016 NY Slip Op 05335

Posted: November 5, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, New York, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: beginner, Beginner Slope, Collision, Inherent Risk, Reckless, Reckless Conduct, skier v. skier, Skier v. Skier Collision, skiing, snowboarding, Standing, Unreasonably Increased Risk, Violent Collision | Leave a comment

Horowitz v Chen, 141 A.D.3d 410; 35 N.Y.S.3d 60; 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5179; 2016 NY Slip Op 05335

Keri Horowitz, Respondent, v Ethan Chen, Appellant.

1649, 152242/14

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

July 5, 2016

July 5, 2016, Entered

PRIOR HISTORY: Horowitz v Chen, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4314, 2015 NY Slip Op 32238(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 2015)

CORE TERMS: skiing, reckless conduct, snowboarding, reckless, beginner’s, slope, speed

HEADNOTES

Negligence–Assumption of Risk–Skiing and Snowboarding Accident–Possibility of Reckless Conduct by Defendant

COUNSEL: [***1] Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman, New York (Stuart B. Cholewa of counsel), for appellant.

Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C., New York (Michael Chessa of counsel), for respondent.

JUDGES: Concur–Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

OPINION

[*410] [**61] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered November 24, 2015, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Here, the record presents triable issues as to whether defendant had engaged in reckless conduct as he skied into a crowded area at the base of a beginner’s slope, which was at or near a marked safety zone, and that he did so despite his awareness of his limited abilities to safely handle such speed under the snow surface conditions presented. Furthermore, in view of the [***2] significant injuries sustained by plaintiff, reasonable inferences may be drawn that she endured a violent collision, which raises an issue as to whether the speed at which defendant was skiing was reckless under the circumstances (see Moore v Hoffman, 114 AD3d 1265, 980 NYS2d 684 [4th Dept 2014]). Concur–Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 32238(U).]

To prove gross negligence under Washington State law you have to show intentional or reckless misconduct. Assumption of the risk prevents river tuber for suing for his injuries hitting a strainer.

Posted: August 28, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Paddlesports, Rivers and Waterways, Washington | Tags: Assumption of risk, assumption of the risk, comparative negligence, contributory negligence, Duty to Warn, encounter, fallen, fault, Gross negligence, Hazard, impliedly, Inherent Risks, Inner Tube, Livery, log, negligence claim, Outdoor, peril, Reckless, relieve, Rental, risks inherent, River, River Tubing, site, Sport, Summary judgment, Survive, swift, tuber, Tubing, Tubing Livery, warn, Water Sports | Leave a comment

Washington defines assumption of the risk the same way most other courts do. However, the names they sue to describe assumption of the risk are different in some cases and confusing in others.

Here, assumption of the risk stopped claims both for negligence and gross negligence for this tubing case.

Summary

Assumption of the risk is growing again as a defense to different types of claims by plaintiffs. In this case, the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries for a tubing accident which barred his negligence claim and his gross negligence claim. The standard of proof needed to prove a claim that cannot be defeated by assumption of the risk in Washington is a much higher level of action on the part of the defendant.

Here the plaintiff failed to plead or allege that level of acts by the defendant.

Washington also uses different names for the types of assumption of the risk that are applied to cases, which can lead to greater confusion.

If you are a defendant, instead of attempting to understand what is or is not assumption of the risk. Spend your time educating your customers, so they know and assume the risk they may be facing.

Pellham, v. Let’s Go Tubing, Inc., et al., 199 Wn. App. 399; 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 1525

State: Washington, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three

Plaintiff: Brian Pellham

Defendant: Let’s Go Tubing, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff Claims: presented sufficient evidence of gross negligence because Let’s Go Tubing chose the excursion lo-cation, knew of the existence of a hazard, and failed to warn Pellham of the hazard. He argues that the rental company’s gross negligence supersedes any release of liability and assumption of the risk contained in the form he signed.

Defendant Defenses: that summary judgment was appropriate because Pellham failed to establish a duty, the liability release disposes of the claim, and Pelham’s evidence does not create [**7] a genuine issue as to any fact material to establishing gross negligence.

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2017

Facts

The plaintiff rented an inner tube from the defendant. The rental included delivery to the put in by the defendant. This is commonly described as a livery operation as compared to a pure rental where the renter takes the inner tube and goes wherever.

Upon arrival, the plaintiff signed a release and rented an inner tube. The plaintiff uses releases in his business, although what type of business was never discussed by the court.

The bus driver for the defendant told most of the tubers that upon entry they should push off to the far side of the river to avoid a tree that had fallen into the river immediately downriver but out of sight of the put in.

The plaintiff did not hear this warning. The plaintiff and four friends tied their inner tubes together. The current was swift and they quickly rounded the bend where they saw the tree across the river. The rental company gave each renter a Frisbee to use as a paddle. Everyone used the Frisbee to paddle away from the tree, but the plaintiff hit the tree. Falling into the river the plaintiff broke his ear drum. He went under the tree and upon resurfacing; he struck a large branch which gave him a whiplash.

The plaintiff swam to shore and ended his tubing trip. The plaintiff eventually underwent a neck fusion surgery.

The defendant was legally not allowed to remove the strainer from the river.

The plaintiff sued the defendant. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

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

Washington has defined four types of assumption of the risk and has identified them slightly differently than most other states.

Washington law and most other states’ jurisprudence recognize four taxonomies of the assumption of risk doctrine: (1) express, (2) implied primary, (3) implied unreasonable, and (4) implied reasonable.

The first two, Express Assumption of the Risk and Implied Assumption of the Risk are still complete bars to a claim of negligence. The second two, Implied Unreasonable and Implied Reasonable have merged into contributory negligence and simply reduce the plaintiff’s damages.

Washington defines the types of assumption of the risk the same way most other states do.

Express assumption of risk arises when a plaintiff explicitly consents to relieve the defendant of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding specific known risks.

Implied primary assumption of risk follows from the plaintiff engaging in risky conduct, from which the law implies consent.

Implied unreasonable assumption of risk, by contrast, focuses not so much on the duty and negligence of the defendant as on the further issue of the objective unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct in assuming the risk.

Implied reasonable assumption of risk is roughly the counterpart to implied unreasonable assumption of risk in that the plaintiff assumed a risk but acted reasonably in doing so.

Washington also names Implied Primary Assumption of the Risk as Inherent Peril Assumption of the Risk.

Inherent peril assumption bars a claim resulting from specific known and appreciated risks impliedly assumed often in advance of any negligence of the defendant. Plaintiff’s consent to relieve the defendant of any duty is implied based on the plaintiff’s decision to engage in an activity that involves those known risks. One who participates in sports impliedly assumes the risks inherent in the sport.

How the plaintiff was injured defines whether or not Inherent Peril Assumption of the Risk applies. The court went on to define the inherent peril assumption of the risk as:

One who engages in sports assumes the risks that are inherent in the sport. To the extent a risk inherent in the sport injures a plaintiff, the defendant has no duty and there is no negligence. A defendant simply does not have a duty to protect a sports participant from dangers that are an inherent and normal part of a sport.

Inherent peril assumption of the risk extends to water sports. One who plays in the water assumes the reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in the activity. Water sports include inner tubing and canoe rentals. Inherent risk applies because “Bodies of water often undergo change, and changing conditions in the water do not alter the assumption of risk. There is no duty to warn of the presence of natural transitory conditions.”

For the plaintiff to assume the risk, three elements must be found.

Inherent peril assumption, like express assumption of risk, demands the presence of three elements. The evidence must show (1) the plaintiff possessed full subjective understanding (2) of the presence and nature of the specific risk and (3) voluntarily chose to encounter the risk.

Washington also requires the plaintiff to understand the risk. “The rule of both express and inherent peril assumptions of risk requires a finding that the plaintiff had full subjective understanding of the presence and nature of the specific risk.”

However, that does not require knowledge of the specific issues that caused the injury, just knowledge that the injury could occur. Meaning, if the injured party knows that trees fall into rivers, would be enough. There is no requirement that the injured plaintiff knew that a tree fell into the river.

…Brian Pellham assumed the risks involved in river tubing, including the fallen tree. Pellham may not have precisely and subjectively known how the combination of a swift current, a bend in the river, and a fallen tree would produce his injury. Nevertheless, he knew of the potential of all factors. He may not have known of the location of any fallen tree in the river, but he knew of the potential of a fallen tree somewhere in the river.

However, even if the plaintiff assumed the risks, a plaintiff cannot assume the risk where the defendant unduly enhanced the risk.

While participants in sports are generally held to have impliedly assumed the risks inherent in the sport, such assumption of risk does not preclude a recovery for negligent acts that unduly enhance such risks.

This difference places a burden on the plaintiff, in what he or she has to prove to win their claim and a burden on the courts to define what is an increase in the level of danger.

Courts have struggled to properly distinguish between inherent peril assumption of risk (implied primary assumption of risk), which bars the plaintiff’s claim, and increased danger assumption of risk (implied unreasonable assumption of risk), which simply reduces the plaintiff’s damages.

However, here any negligence upon the part of the defendant did not increase the risk. The negligence occurred prior to the plaintiff entering the water. The danger was the tree in the river which the defendant could not do anything about.

When he noticed the risk, he lacked time to avoid the hazard. Pellham did not voluntarily proceed after knowing of the alleged negligence of Let’s Go Tubing. Any alleged negligence of Let’s Go Tubing occurred before Pellham entered the river. Therefore, increased danger assumption of risk does not apply.

The plaintiff also argued in this complaint, that the actions of the defendant were grossly negligent. Gross negligence in Washington is defined as failure to exercise slight care.

Gross negligence claims survive when a release has been signed. The issue before the court was whether gross negligence claims can be stopped if the plaintiff assumed the risk.

At the same time, gross negligence claims survive a release against liability. A sporting participant’s assumption of inherent risks effectively acts as a release from liability. Since gross negligence claims survive a release, gross negligence maybe should survive inherent peril assumption of risk.

The court then redefined how gross negligence was going to be reviewed in Washington applying an intentional reckless standard as the level required proving gross negligence when a plaintiff assumes the risk.

We join the other jurisdictions in imposing an intentional and reckless standard, rather than a gross negligence standard, when the plaintiff assumes the risks of inherent perils in a sporting or outdoor activity.

There is a difference between gross negligence and reckless misconduct under Washington’s law.

Gross negligence consists of the failure to exercise slight care. Reckless misconduct denotes a more serious level of misconduct than gross negligence. An actor’s conduct is in “reckless disregard” of the safety of another if he or she intentionally does an act or fails to do an act that it is his or her duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him or her.

Because reckless conduct is a higher burden to meet, assumption of the risk becomes a defense that can beat a gross negligence claim in some situations in Washington. The plaintiff never pleaded reckless conduct on the part of the defendant so the plaintiff’s gross negligence claim was also denied.

Brian Pellham does not allege that Let’s Go Tubing engaged in reckless conduct. No evidence supports a conclusion that the inner tube rental company bus driver purposely omitted a warning to Pellham with knowledge that Pellham would suffer substantial harm.

So Now What?

Understanding the different slight subtlest between the various forms of assumption of the risk is difficult. Comparing them between states does nothing but create a confusing group of definitions that cross one another and at best confuse one another.

Better, set up a system to educate your guests or clients on the risks they may encounter. That time spent educating the guests can pay dividends both in keeping you out of court and keeping your guests happy and coming back.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, assumption of risk, peril, tubing, river, sport, gross negligence, risks inherent, fallen, rental, summary judgment, log, reckless, relieve, hazard, warn, impliedly, encounter, survive, swift, site, inherent risks, water sports, duty to warn, inner tube, outdoor, fault, tuber, negligence claim, contributory negligence, comparative negligence, River Tubing, Tubing, Tubing Livery, Livery, Gross Negligence, Assumption of the Risk,

Pellham, v. Let’s Go Tubing, Inc., et al., 199 Wn. App. 399; 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 1525

Posted: August 27, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, Paddlesports, Rivers and Waterways, Washington | Tags: Assumption of risk, comparative negligence, contributory negligence, Duty to Warn, encounter, fallen, fault, Gross negligence, Hazard, impliedly, Inherent Risks, Inner Tube, log, negligence claim, Outdoor, peril, Reckless, relieve, Rental, risks inherent, River, site, Sport, Strainer, Summary judgment, Survive, swift, tuber, Tubing, warn, Water Sports | 1 Comment

Pellham, v. Let’s Go Tubing, Inc., et al., 199 Wn. App. 399; 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 1525

Brian Pellham, Appellant, v. Let’s Go Tubing, Inc., et al., Respondents.

No. 34433-9-III

COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE

199 Wn. App. 399; 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 1525

March 21, 2017, Oral Argument

June 27, 2017, Filed

SUMMARY:

WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY Nature of Action: A participant in an inner tube float on a river sought damages for personal injury incurred when his tube struck a fallen log. The plaintiff sued the company and its owners who rented him the inner tube and who selected the site where participants entered the river, claiming that the defendants owed him a duty to warn about a fallen log in the river that was hidden from but was near the entry site. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act.

Nature of Action: A participant in an inner tube float on a river sought damages for personal injury incurred when his tube struck a fallen log. The plaintiff sued the company and its owners who rented him the inner tube and who selected the site where participants entered the river, claiming that the defendants owed him a duty to warn about a fallen log in the river that was hidden from but was near the entry site. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 13-2-00663-9, Lesley A. Allan, J., on April 14, 2016, entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims.

Court of Appeals: Holding that the defendants did not have a duty to warn the plaintiff about the fallen log because the plaintiff assumed the risk of a fallen log and swift current by voluntarily participating in the activity, the court affirms the judgment.

HEADNOTES WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES

[1] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Sports — River Float — Assumed Risks — Fallen Trees — Swift Current. By voluntarily participating in a float on a wild river, one assumes the inherent risks of fallen trees in the water and a swift current. The assumption of risk may relieve the organizer of the activity of an actionable duty to warn about or to prevent injury from trees in the river.

[2] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Sports — Nature of Assumed Risk. Assumption of risk in the context of participating in a sport is in reality the principle of no duty to warn of the hazards of the sport, in which case there can be no breach of duty and no actionable claim for negligence.

[3] Negligence — Duty — Necessity — In General. A cause of action for negligence will not lie absent the existence of a duty of care.

[4] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Effect — Relief From Duty. The tort concept of duty overlaps with the contract and tort principles of assumption of risk. An assumption of risk can sometimes relieve a defendant of a duty.

[5] Negligence — Duty — Question of Law or Fact — In General. Whether a defendant owed a duty to a plaintiff is a question of law.

[6] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Classifications. The term “assumption of risk” expresses several distinct common law theories, derived from different sources, that apply when one is knowingly exposed to a particular risk. The general rubric of assumption of risk does not signify a singular doctrine but, rather, encompasses a cluster of discrete concepts. The law recognizes four taxonomies of assumption of risk: (1) express, (2) implied primary, (3) implied unreasonable, and (4) implied reasonable.

[7] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Effect — In General. Express assumption of risk and implied primary assumption of risk operate as complete bars to a plaintiff’s recovery. Implied unreasonable assumption of risk and implied reasonable assumption of risk are merely alternative names for contributory negligence and merely reduce a plaintiff’s recoverable damages based on comparative fault pursuant to RCW 4.22.005 and RCW 4.22.015.

[8] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Express Assumption — What Constitutes — In General. Express assumption of risk arises when one explicitly consents to relieve another of a duty regarding specific known risks.

[9] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Implied Primary Assumption — What Constitutes — In General. Implied primary assumption of risk follows from one’s engaging in risky conduct, from which the law implies consent.

[10] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Implied Unreasonable Assumption — Focus of Inquiry. Implied unreasonable assumption of risk primarily focuses on the objective unreasonableness of one’s conduct in assuming a risk.

[11] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Implied Reasonable Assumption — What Constitutes. Implied reasonable assumption of risk is roughly the counterpart to implied unreasonable assumption of risk in that one assumes a risk, but acts reasonably in doing so.

[12] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Implied Unreasonable Assumption — Implied Reasonable Assumption — Comparison. The gist of implied reasonable and implied unreasonable assumption of risk is that a defendant performed conduct that increased the risk of an activity or situation beyond the inherent risks thereof and the plaintiff reasonably or unreasonably encountered the increased risk. The categories of implied unreasonable and implied reasonable assumption of risk hold no meaningful distinction since both reduce rather than bar a plaintiff’s recovery.

[13] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Risk of Activity — Assuming the Dangers. Inherent peril assumption of risk–also known as implied primary assumption of risk–bars a plaintiff’s claim resulting from specific known and appreciated risks impliedly assumed, often in advance of any negligence by the defendant. A plaintiff’s consent to relieve a defendant of any duty is implied based on the plaintiff’s decision to engage in an activity that involves the known risks.

[14] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Sports — Implied Assumption. One who participates in a sport impliedly assumes the risks inherent in the sport.

[15] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Applicability — Sports — In General. Under the theory of inherent peril assumption of risk, a plaintiff assumes the dangers that are inherent in and necessary to a particular activity. To the extent a risk inherent in a sport injures a plaintiff, the defendant has no duty and there is no negligence. A defendant does not have a duty to protect a sports participant from dangers that are an inherent and normal part of the sport.

[16] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Applicability — Sports — Water Sports. Inherent peril assumption of risk extends to water sports. One who engages in a water sport assumes the reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in the activity. This assumption of risk includes inner tubing on water. Bodies of water often undergo change, and changing conditions in the water do not alter the assumption of risk. There is no duty to warn of the presence of natural transitory conditions in the water.

[17] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Test. Inherent peril assumption of risk requires evidence that (1) the plaintiff possessed at least an understanding (2) of the presence and nature of the specific risk and (3) voluntarily chose to encounter the risk. In the usual case, a plaintiff’s knowledge and appreciation of a danger is a question of fact, but if it is clear that any person in the plaintiff’s position would have understood the danger, the issue may be decided by a court as a matter of law.

[18] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Sports — Negligence Enhancing Assumed Risk. While participants in sports are generally held to have impliedly assumed the risks inherent in the sport, such assumption of risk does not preclude recovery for the negligent acts of others that unduly enhance such risks.

[19] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Limited Application. Inherent peril assumption of risk is the exception rather than the rule in assumption of risk situations.

[20] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Increased Danger — What Constitutes. Increased danger assumption of risk–also known as implied unreasonable assumption of risk and implied reasonable assumption of risk–does not involve a plaintiff’s consent to relieve a defendant of a duty. In this type of assumption of risk, the defendant breached a duty that created a risk of harm, and the plaintiff chose to take that risk. Increased danger assumption of risk involves a plaintiff’s voluntary choice to encounter a risk created by a defendant’s negligence. Increased danger assumption of risk arises when a plaintiff knows of a risk already created by the negligence of the defendant, yet chooses voluntarily to encounter it. In such a case, the plaintiff’s conduct is not truly consensual, but is a form of contributory negligence, in which the negligence consists of making the wrong choice and voluntarily encountering a known unreasonable risk.

[21] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Increased Danger — Applicability. Increased danger assumption of risk does not apply in circumstances where the defendant did not create and could not remove the risk and where the plaintiff did not voluntarily take the risk because the plaintiff did not know the precise nature of the risk beforehand and lacked time to avoid the risk once it became apparent.

[22] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Knowledge of Risk — Warning — Statements in Written Release — Sufficiency. A recitation in a release of liability warning of dangers inherent in an activity can be sufficient to notify a person of the risks of the activity that may give rise to inherent peril assumption of risk where the person chooses to engage in the activity and sustains injury from such dangers.

[23] Negligence — Assumption of Risk — Inherent Peril — Scope of Defense — Gross Negligence — Intentional or Reckless Conduct. Inherent peril assumption of risk in a sporting or outdoor activity may allow a defendant to avoid liability for gross negligence but not for intentional or reckless conduct. A recklessness standard encourages vigorous participation in recreational activities, while still providing protection from egregious conduct. An actor’s conduct is in “reckless disregard” of the safety of another if the actor intentionally does an act or fails to do an act that it is the actor’s duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to the other. Fearing, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.

COUNSEL: Richard D. Wall (of Richard D. Wall PS), for appellant.

Kristen Dorrity (of Andrews o Skinner PS), for respondents.

JUDGES: Authored by George Fearing. Concurring: Kevin Korsmo, Laurel Siddoway.

OPINION BY: George Fearing

OPINION

[*403] ¶1 Fearing, C.J. — This appeal asks: does an inner tube rental company owe a duty to warn a renter about a fallen log in a river when the log is hidden from but near the launch site, the river’s current draws the tuber toward the log, the company knows of the fallen log, the company warns other tubers of the log, and the company chooses the launch site? To answer this question, interests such as exhilarating and uninhibited outdoor recreation, retaining the natural environment, and freedom to contract compete with cautious business practices, full disclosure of risks, and compensation for injury. Based on the doctrine of inherent peril assumption of risk, we answer the question in the negative. We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of renter Brian Pellham’s suit for personal injury against the tube [**2] rental company, Let’s Go Tubing, Inc.

FACTS

¶2 Brian Pellham sues for injuries suffered while inner tubing on the Yakima River. Because the trial court dismissed Pellham’s suit on summary judgment, we write the facts in a light favorable to Pellham.

¶3 Melanie Wells invited Brian Pellham and his domestic partner to join her and three others on a leisurely unguided excursion floating the Yakima River. Wells arranged the expedition and reserved equipment and transportation from Let’s Go Tubing, Inc.

¶4 [*404] On July 30, 2011, Brian Pellham met the Wells party at the Let’s Go Tubing’s Umtanum gathering site, where additional tubers waited. Before boarding a bus, each participant signed a release of liability and assumption of risk form. Pellham felt rushed but read and signed the form. The form provided:

I, the renter of this rental equipment, assume and understand that river tubing can be HAZARDOUS, and that rocks, logs, bridges, plants, animals, other people, other water craft, exposure to the elements, variations in water depth and speed of current, along with other structures and equipment, and many other hazards or obstacles exist in the river environment. In using the rental equipment or any facilities [**3] or vehicles related thereto such dangers are recognized and accepted whether they are marked or unmarked. River tubing can be a strenuous and physically demanding activity. It requires walking, bending, lifting, paddling, swimming, and awareness of the outdoor environment. I realize that slips, falls, flips, and other accidents do occur and serious injuries or death may result and I assume full responsibility for these risks … . “IN CONSIDERATION FOR THIS RENTAL AND ANY USE OF THE FACILITIES, VEHICLES, OR ENVIRONMENT RELATED TO THE USE OF THIS EQUIPMENT, I HEREBY RELEASE HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY LET’S GO TUBING, INC. ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND ITS AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THIS RENTAL EQUIPMENT.”

Clerk’s Papers at 46. On other occasions, such as a rafting trip, Brian Pellham has signed a waiver. In his business, he employs release forms.

¶5 Let’s Go Tubing launches its customers from the Umtanum site unless the Yakima River level runs low. With low water, the company buses customers to one of two other Yakima River sites, Big Horn or Ringer Loop.

¶6 On July 30, 2011, Let’s Go Tubing’s shuttle bus, because [**4] of a low river level, transported Brian Pellham, his group members, and other customers eight miles upstream [*405] to Ringer Loop. Ringer Loop maintains a public concrete boat ramp and public restroom. The total number of customers on the excursion approached twenty. During transport, Steff Thomas, the Let’s Go Tubing bus driver, told Melanie Wells and a handful of others seated at the front of the bus to push into the middle of the river once they embarked, because a fallen tree obstructed the river immediately downriver but out of sight from the launch site. We do not know the number of customers the driver warned. Thomas did not warn Pellham of the obstructing tree. Nor did anyone else. Someone, possibly Thomas, warned everyone not to leave the river except at designated spots because private owners own most of the riverbank.

¶7 At the launch site, Let’s Go Tubing handed each person a Frisbee to use as a paddle. Brian Pellham requested a life jacket, but Steff Thomas ignored him. Fifteen inner tubers entered the river first. Pellham and four others followed in a second group with their tubes tied together. They encountered a swift current. As soon as the flotilla of five rounded the [**5] first bend in the river, they saw a fallen tree extending halfway across the river. Many branches extended from the tree trunk. Each paddled furiously with his or her Frisbee, but the fleet of five inner tubes struck the tree. Brian Pellham held the tree with his left hand and attempted to steer around the tree. The current grabbed the inner tubes and Pellham fell backward into the river. The fall broke Pellham’s eardrum. The current forced Pellham under the tree and the water level. When Pellham resurfaced, his head struck a large branch. He sustained a whiplash injury. His chest also hit the branch.

¶8 Brian Pellham swam to shore and ended his river excursion. Pellham told Steff Thomas of his dangerous encounter, and the driver admitted he knew about the fallen tree but laws prevented Let’s Go Tubing from removing the obstacle.

[*406] ¶9 Brian Pellham later underwent a neck fusion surgery. The accident also caused damage to a low back disk, and the damage creates pain radiating to his left foot.

PROCEDURE

¶10 Brian Pellham sued Let’s Go Tubing for negligent failure to warn and Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, violations. Let’s Go Tubing answered the complaint and raised affirmative defenses, including release of liability and [**6] assumption of the risk. The company filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal based on the release and on assumption of risk. In response to the motion, Pellham argued that he did not waive liability because Let’s Go Tubing committed gross negligence. He also argued he did not expressly or impliedly assume the risk of floating into a hazard. Pellham agreed to dismissal of his consumer protection claim. The trial court granted summary dismissal of all of Pellham’s claims.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

¶11 On appeal, Brian Pellham contends the trial court erred in dismissing his claim because he presented sufficient evidence of gross negligence because Let’s Go Tubing chose the excursion location, knew of the existence of a hazard, and failed to warn Pellham of the hazard. He argues that the rental company’s gross negligence supersedes any release of liability and assumption of the risk contained in the form he signed. On appeal, he does not argue liability against Let’s Go Tubing for failing to provide a life vest.

[1] ¶12 Let’s Go Tubing responds that summary judgment was appropriate because Pellham failed to establish a duty, the liability release disposes of the claim, and Pellham’s evidence does not create [**7] a genuine issue as to any fact material to establishing gross negligence. We affirm based on the inherent risks in river tubing. Because of Pellham’s [*407] voluntary participation in the outdoor recreation activity, he assumed the risk of a fallen log and swift current. Conversely, Pellham’s assumption of the risk created no duty for Let’s Go Tubing to warn Pellham of or prevent injury to him from trees in the river. Because we rely on the inherent risks in river tubing, we do not address whether the written agreement signed by Pellham bars his suit.

¶13 Because we hold that Brian Pellham assumed the risk and thereby rendered Let’s Go Tubing dutyless, we do not address whether Pellham created an issue of fact with regard to gross negligence. We conclude that, to avoid application of inherent peril assumption of risk, Pellham needed to show intentional or reckless misconduct of the rental company, and Pellham does not show or argue either.

Summary Judgment Principles

¶14 We commence with our obligatory recitation of summary judgment principles. [HN1] This court reviews a summary judgment order de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court. Highline School District No. 401 v. Port of Seattle, 87 Wn.2d 6, 15, 548 P.2d 1085 (1976); Mahoney v. Shinpoch, 107 Wn.2d 679, 683, 732 P.2d 510 (1987). [HN2] Summary judgment is proper if the records on file with the [**8] trial court show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56(c). [HN3] This court, like the trial court, construes all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Brian Pellham, as the nonmoving party. Barber v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 81 Wn.2d 140, 142, 500 P.2d 88 (1972); Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). [HN4] A court may grant summary judgment if the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29, 34, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000).

[*408] Defenses on Review

¶15 Let’s Go Tubing seeks affirmation of the summary judgment dismissal of Brian Pellham’s claim based on both an absence of duty and Pellham’s assumption of risk. In turn, Pellham argues that, under RAP 2.5(a), the rental company may not assert a lack of duty because the company did not raise this defense before the trial court.

[2] ¶16 We need not address Brian Pellham’s objection to Let’s Go Tubing’s argument of lack of duty. We base our decision on inherent peril assumption of risk, and the rental company raised the defense of assumption of risk below. Anyway, assumption of risk in this context is equivalent to a lack of duty. [HN5] Assumption of the risk in the sports participant context is in [**9] reality the principle of no duty and hence no breach and no underlying cause of action. Brown v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 97 Wn. App. 519, 523, 984 P.2d 448 (1999); Codd v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 45 Wn. App. 393, 401-02, 725 P.2d 1008 (1986).

Assumption of Risk

[3, 4] ¶17 [HN6] A negligence claim requires the plaintiff to establish (1) the existence of a duty owed, (2) breach of that duty, (3) a resulting injury, and (4) a proximate cause between the breach and the injury. Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society, 124 Wn.2d 121, 127-28, 875 P.2d 621 (1994). Thus, to prevail on his negligence claim, Brian Pellham must establish that Let’s Go Tubing owed him a duty of care. Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 671, 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [HN7] The tort concept of duty overlaps with the contract and tort principles of assumption of risk. As previously mentioned, sometimes assumption of risk relieves the defendant of a duty. Brown v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 97 Wn. App. at 523 (1999); Codd v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 45 Wn. App. at 402 (1986).

[5] ¶18 [HN8] The threshold determination of whether a duty exists is a question of law. Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological [*409] Society, 124 Wn.2d at 128; Coleman v. Hoffman, 115 Wn. App. 853, 858, 64 P.3d 65 (2003). We hold that, because of Brian Pellham’s assumption of the risk of fallen trees in the water, Let’s Go Tubing, as a matter of law, had no duty to warn Pellham of the danger or, at the least, the rental company possessed only a restricted duty to not intentionally injure Pellham or engage in reckless misconduct.

[6] ¶19 We first briefly explore the variegated versions of assumption of risk in order to later analyze the application of inherent peril assumption of risk. [HN9] The term “assumption of the risk” expresses [**10] several distinct common law theories, derived from different sources, which apply when a plaintiff knowingly exposes himself to particular risks. Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 148 N.H. 407, 807 A.2d 1274, 1281 (2002); Francis H. Bohlen, Voluntary Assumption of Risk (pt. 1), 20 Harv. L. Rev. 14, 15-30 (1906); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 68 (5th ed. 1984). Stated differently, the general rubric of assumption of risk does not signify a singular doctrine but rather encompasses a cluster of discrete concepts. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d 448, 453, 746 P.2d 285 (1987). Washington law and most other states’ jurisprudence recognize four taxonomies of the assumption of risk doctrine: (1) express, (2) implied primary, (3) implied unreasonable, and (4) implied reasonable. Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 170 Wn.2d 628, 636, 244 P.3d 924 (2010) (plurality opinion); Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. 788, 794, 368 P.3d 531 (2016); 16 David K. DeWolf & Keller W. Allen, Washington Practice: Tort Law and Practice § 9:11, at 398-99 (4th ed. 2013).

[7] ¶20 Before the enactment of comparative negligence and comparative fault statutes, practitioners and courts encountered little reason to distinguish the four versions of assumption of risk because at common law all assumption of the risk completely barred recovery. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d 484, 496, 834 P.2d 6 (1992). [*410] Today, [HN10] the first two categories of assumption of risk, express assumption and implied primary assumption, on the one hand, continue to operate as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 453-54; Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 794. On the other hand, implied unreasonable and implied [**11] reasonable assumption meld into contributory negligence and merely reduce the plaintiff’s recoverable damages based on comparative fault pursuant to RCW 4.22.005 and .015. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 497. The last two types are merely alternative names for contributory negligence. Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 170 Wn.2d at 636 (2010). Our decision relies on implied primary assumption, but we will discuss other renderings of assumption of risk in order to sculpt our decision.

[8-11] ¶21 [HN11] Express assumption of risk arises when a plaintiff explicitly consents to relieve the defendant of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding specific known risks. Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 170 Wn.2d at 636; Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 453. [HN12] Implied primary assumption of risk follows from the plaintiff engaging in risky conduct, from which the law implies consent. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 453; Erie v. White, 92 Wn. App. 297, 303, 966 P.2d 342 (1998). [HN13] Implied unreasonable assumption of risk, by contrast, focuses not so much on the duty and negligence of the defendant as on the further issue of the objective unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct in assuming the risk. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 454. [HN14] Implied reasonable assumption of risk is roughly the counterpart to implied unreasonable assumption of risk in that the plaintiff assumed a risk but acted reasonably in doing so. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 454.

[12] ¶22 We confront difficulty in distinguishing among at least three of the four categories because of the [**12] nondescript identifiers and near homophonic labels of some classifications. Therefore, we recommend that the Supreme [*411] Court rechristen the categories as express assumption, inherent peril assumption of risk, and increased danger assumption of risk. [HN15] The gist of implied reasonable and implied unreasonable assumption of risk is that the defendant performed conduct that increased the risk of an activity or situation beyond the risks inherent in the activity or situation and the plaintiff reasonably or unreasonably encountered this increased risk. The traditional categories of implied unreasonable and implied reasonable assumption of risk hold no meaningful distinction since both reduce rather than bar the plaintiff’s recovery, and so we urge combining the two concepts into increased danger assumption of risk. We hereafter use these new terms.

Inherent Peril Assumption of Risk

[13, 14] ¶23 We now focus on inherent peril assumption of risk. [HN16] Inherent peril assumption bars a claim resulting from specific known and appreciated risks impliedly assumed often in advance of any negligence of the defendant. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 497 (1992); Boyce v. West, 71 Wn. App. 657, 666-67, 862 P.2d 592 (1993). Plaintiff’s consent to relieve the defendant of any duty is implied based on the plaintiff’s decision [**13] to engage in an activity that involves those known risks. Egan v. Cauble, 92 Wn. App. 372, 376, 966 P.2d 362 (1998); Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 797 (2016). [HN17] One who participates in sports impliedly assumes the risks inherent in the sport. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 498; Boyce v. West, 71 Wn. App. at 667.

[15] ¶24 [HN18] Whether inherent peril assumption of risk applies depends on whether the plaintiff was injured by an inherent risk of an activity. Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 797. The plaintiff assumes the dangers that are inherent in and necessary to a particular activity. Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society, 124 Wn.2d at 144 (1994); Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 500-01; Gleason [*412] v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 797; Lascheid v. City of Kennewick, 137 Wn. App. 633, 641-42, 154 P.3d 307 (2007); Taylor v. Baseball Club of Seattle, LP, 132 Wn. App. 32, 37-39, 130 P.3d 835 (2006); Dorr v. Big Creek Wood Products, Inc., 84 Wn. App. 420, 427, 927 P.2d 1148 (1996).

¶25 [HN19] The classic example of inherent peril assumption involves participation in sports when a participant knows that the risk of injury is a natural part of such participation. Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798. One who engages in sports assumes the risks that are inherent in the sport. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 498; Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798. To the extent a risk inherent in the sport injures a plaintiff, the defendant has no duty and there is no negligence. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 498; Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798. A defendant simply does not have a duty to protect a sports participant from dangers that are an inherent and normal part of a sport. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 498; Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798.

[16] ¶26 [HN20] Inherent peril assumption extends to water sports. One who engages in water sports assumes the reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in the activity. DeWick v. Village of Penn Yan, 275 A.D.2d 1011, 713 N.Y.S.2d 592, 594 (2000). This assumption of risk includes inner tubing on water and canoe rentals. Record v. Reason, 73 Cal. App. 4th 472, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547 (1999); Ferrari v. Bob’s Canoe Rental, Inc., 143 A.D.3d 937, 39 N.Y.S.3d 522 (2016). Bodies of water often undergo change, and changing conditions in the water [**14] do not alter the assumption of risk. DeWick v. Village of Penn Yan, 713 N.Y.S.2d at 594. There is no duty to warn of the presence of natural transitory conditions. DeWick v. Village of Penn Yan, 713 N.Y.S.2d at 594.

¶27 DeWick v. Village of Penn Yan, 275 A.D.2d 1011 is illustrative of the application of inherent peril assumption in the context of water. Trina Kerrick and Daniel DeWick [*413] drowned in Keuka Lake on June 19, 1995. Kerrick allegedly gained access to the lake from the beach at Indian Pines Park, which was owned by defendant Village of Penn Yan. While wading in the water, she stepped from a sandbar where the lake bottom drops off and became caught in an undertow or current. DeWick drowned trying to save her. Neither could swim. The accident occurred on a hot day, four days before the beach officially opened for the season. The plaintiffs alleged that the village failed to warn specifically about the dangers of the drop-off and swift current. The court summarily dismissed the suit. The risk of reaching a drop-off was a reasonably foreseeable risk inherent in wading into a lake.

[17] ¶28 [HN21] Inherent peril assumption, like express assumption of risk, demands the presence of three elements. The evidence must show (1) the plaintiff possessed full subjective understanding (2) of the presence and nature of the specific risk and (3) voluntarily [**15] chose to encounter the risk. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 453 (1987). The participant must know that the risk is present, and he or she must further understand its nature; his or her choice to incur it must be free and voluntary. Brown v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 97 Wn. App. at 523. In the usual case, his or her knowledge and appreciation of the danger will be a question for the jury; but where it is clear that any person in his or her position must have understood the danger, the issue may be decided by the court. Brown v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 97 Wn. App. at 523; Keeton et al., supra, § 68, at 489.

¶29 [HN22] The rule of both express and inherent peril assumption of risk requires a finding that the plaintiff had full subjective understanding of the presence and nature of the specific risk. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 453. Depending on how specific the risk must be, this statement of the rule taken literally would abrogate the rule of inherent peril assumption because one rarely, if ever, anticipates the full particulars of an accident producing injury. One can never predict all of the variables that [*414] combine to cause an accident and injury. Also, the doctrine might not apply in wrongful death cases, because the judge or jury will lack evidence of the subjective understanding of the decedent. Washington courts’ applications of the rule suggest, however, that the plaintiff need only know [**16] the general nature of the risk. One case example is Boyce v. West, 71 Wn. App. 657 (1993).

¶30 In Boyce v. West, a mother brought a suit against a college and its scuba diving instructor after the death of her son, who died during a scuba diving accident while engaging in the college course. The mother claimed the instructor negligently taught and supervised her son. The son, Peter Boyce, signed a document acknowledging the possibility of death from scuba diving and assuming all risks in connection with the course, whether foreseen or unforeseen. This court affirmed summary judgment dismissal of the claims against the school and the instructor. The court reasoned that negligent instruction and supervision are risks associated with being a student in a scuba diving course and were encompassed by the broad language of the contract. Although Peter may not have specifically considered the possibility of instructor negligence when he signed the release, this lack of consideration did not invalidate his express assumption of all risks associated with his participation in the course. [HN23] Knowledge of a particular risk is unnecessary when the plaintiff, by express agreement, assumes all risks.

¶31 Boyce v. West entails express assumption of [**17] risk, but [HN24] the same rule of subjective knowledge of risk applies to both express assumption and inherent peril assumption. Based on Boyce v. West and cases involving water sports, we hold that Brian Pellham assumed the risks involved in river tubing, including the fallen tree. Pellham may not have precisely and subjectively known how the combination of a swift current, a bend in the river, and a fallen tree would produce his injury. Nevertheless, he knew of the potential of all factors. He may not have known of the location of any [*415] fallen tree in the river, but he knew of the potential of a fallen tree somewhere in the river. He had more reason to know of the dangers that caused his injury when he started his excursion than Peter Boyce had reason to know of the risks that led to his death when Boyce signed his college course form. In the setting of inherent peril assumption, New York courts have ruled that, [HN25] if the participant fully comprehends the risks of the activity or if those risks are obvious or reasonably foreseeable, he or she has consented to those risks and the defendant has performed its duty. Ferrari v. Bob’s Canoe Rental, Inc., 143 A.D.3d at 938 (2016); Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439, 502 N.E.2d 964, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 (1986).

[18] ¶32 [HN26] While participants in sports are generally held to have impliedly assumed the risks [**18] inherent in the sport, such assumption of risk does not preclude a recovery for negligent acts that unduly enhance such risks. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 501; Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798. This principle leads us to a discussion of increased danger assumption.

[19] ¶33 [HN27] Courts have struggled to properly distinguish between inherent peril assumption of risk (implied primary assumption of risk), which bars the plaintiff’s claim, and increased danger assumption of risk (implied unreasonable assumption of risk), which simply reduces the plaintiff’s damages. Barrett v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 179 Wn. App. 1, 6, 324 P.3d 688 (2013). This court warned long ago that courts must carefully draw the line between these two types of assumption of risk. Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 795; Dorr v. Big Creek Wood Products, Inc., 84 Wn. App. at 425-26 (1996). A rigorous application of inherent peril assumption of risk could undermine the purpose of comparative negligence. Kirk v. Washington State University, 109 Wn.2d at 455-56. Significantly, [HN28] inherent peril assumption is the exception rather than the rule in assumption of risk situations.

[20] ¶34 [HN29] Increased danger assumption of risk does not involve a plaintiff’s consent to relieve the defendant of a [*416] duty. Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 796. In this type of assumption of risk, the defendant breached a duty that created a risk of harm, and the plaintiff chose to take that risk. Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 796. Specifically, increased danger assumption involves the plaintiff’s voluntary choice to encounter a risk created [**19] by the defendant’s negligence. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 499; Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 796. Increased danger assumption of risk arises when the plaintiff knows of a risk already created by the negligence of the defendant, yet chooses voluntarily to encounter it. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 499 (1992); Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798. In such a case, a plaintiff’s conduct is not truly consensual but is a form of contributory negligence, in which the negligence consists of making the wrong choice and voluntarily encountering a known unreasonable risk. Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 796.

¶35 Dorr v. Big Creek Wood Products, Inc., 84 Wn. App. 420, 927 P.2d 1148 (1996) presents a good illustration of increased danger assumption of risk. Michael Dorr entered a forest where his friend John Knecht cut trees. Dorr knew of the phenomenon of “widow-makers,” large limbs caught in surrounding trees after a tree is felled. Nevertheless, after Knecht cut a tree, Knecht waved Dorr forward to meet him. As Dorr proceeded, a large limb fell on him. This court affirmed a verdict favoring Dorr. Although Dorr in general assumed the risk of “widow-makers,” Knecht’s misleading directions led to implied unreasonable or secondary assumption of risk. The jury could still find and did find Dorr comparatively at fault for proceeding with the knowledge of “widow-makers,” but Dorr’s fault would be compared with Knecht’s fault. The negligence of Knecht [**20] arose after Dorr entered the forest.

[21] ¶36 Brian Pellham alleges that Let’s Go Tubing was negligent by reason of sending him and others on inner tubes in fast moving water with a downed tree in the middle [*417] of the water without warning to the tuber. Let’s Go Tubing did not create the risk and could not remove the risk. Although Pellham knew of the risks of logs and current, Pellham did not know of the precise risk when he first encountered it. When he noticed the risk, he lacked time to avoid the hazard. Pellham did not voluntarily proceed after knowing of the alleged negligence of Let’s Go Tubing. Any alleged negligence of Let’s Go Tubing occurred before Pellham entered the river. Therefore, increased danger assumption of risk does not apply.

¶37 Let’s Go Tubing performed no act that created the swift current or felled the log into the water. [HN30] The cases that decline application of inherent peril assumption involve a positive act of the defendant, such as the implanting of a post or snow shack adjacent to a ski run. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d 484 (1992); Brown v. Stevens Pass, Inc., 97 Wn. App. at 521 (1999).

¶38 One might argue that Let’s Go Tubing’s failure to warn increased the risk attended to the fallen log in the Yakima River. [HN31] A defendant may be held liable when a reasonable person would customarily [**21] instruct a plaintiff in respect to the dangers inherent in an activity. Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 807 A.2d at 1288. Thus, a defendant may be held liable if the plaintiff alleges that a reasonable person would customarily warn, advise, inform, and instruct regarding the risk of injury to participants and the manner in which such risks could be minimized and their failure to do so caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 807 A.2d at 1288. Brian Pellham presents no evidence that those who rent out watercrafts customarily warn of fallen natural objects in the water.

[22] ¶39 The document signed by Brian Pellham contained terms in addition to releasing Let’s Go Tubing from liability. In the instrument, Pellham also recognized that the hazards of river tubing included the existence of rocks, logs, plants, and variations in water depth and speed of [*418] current. Pellham agreed to assume full responsibility for all risks involved in river tubing, including serious injuries and death resulting from the hazards. Although we do not base our holding on express assumption of risk, we note that the release’s recitation of dangers warned Pellham of the inherent perils attended to inner tubing and those dangers that led to Pellham’s injuries.

Gross Negligence

¶40 Brian Pellham argues that the waiver [**22] form he signed does not bar a claim for gross negligence. The parties, in turn, devote much argument to the issue of whether Pellham creates a question of fact as to gross negligence. Since we do not rely on express assumption of risk, we need not directly address this argument. Instead, we must ask and answer whether a tuber may overcome the defense of inherent peril assumption of risk by showing gross negligence by the inner tube rental company.

¶41 [HN32] When inherent peril assumption of risk applies, the plaintiff’s consent negates any duty the defendant would have otherwise owed to the plaintiff. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d at 498 (1992); Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. at 798 (2016). Based on this premise of inherent peril assumption, the defendant should avoid liability for gross negligence. Gross negligence constitutes the failure to exercise slight care. Nist v. Tudor, 67 Wn.2d 322, 331, 407 P.2d 798 (1965). The lack of duty resulting from inherent peril assumption should extend to an absence of any obligation to exercise slight care.

¶42 At the same time, [HN33] gross negligence claims survive a release against liability. A sporting participant’s assumption of inherent risks effectively acts as a release from liability. Since gross negligence claims survive a release, gross negligence maybe should survive inherent peril assumption of risk. [**23]

¶43 No Washington case directly holds that a claim for gross negligence survives the plaintiff’s express assumption [*419] of risk. Nevertheless, in at least two decisions, Washington courts assumed that a gross negligence cause of action endured. Boyce v. West, 71 Wn. App. 657 (1993); Blide v. Rainier Mountaineering, Inc., 30 Wn. App. 571, 636 P.2d 492 (1981). In Boyce v. West, the surviving mother failed to present evidence of gross negligence. In Blide v. Rainier Mountaineering, Inc., an injured climber did not argue gross negligence. Other jurisdictions have held that express assumption of risk does not bar a claim for gross negligence since public policy does not allow one to exonerate oneself from gross negligence. Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 437 S.W.3d 184, 193 n.3 (Mo. 2014); Kerns v. Hoppe, 128 Nev. 910, 381 P.3d 630 (2012); Perez v. McConkey, 872 S.W.2d 897, 904 (Tenn. 1994).

¶44 [HN34] Since express assumption of risk and inherent peril assumption of risk both result in the bar of the plaintiff’s claim and arise from the plaintiff’s voluntary assumption of risk, one might argue that a gross negligence claim should survive assumption of risk by inherent peril if it survives express assumption of risk. Nevertheless, the two varieties of assumption of risk promote different interests and raise disparate concerns. A signed assumption of all risks could be the result of unequal bargaining power and apply to activities that involve little, or no, risks. The bargaining [**24] power with regard to inherent peril assumption is immaterial. Assumption follows from hazards the plaintiff voluntarily assumes because of the thrill and enjoyment of an activity.

[23] ¶45 We find no foreign decisions in which the court holds that a cause of action for gross negligence survives the application of inherent peril assumption of risk in the context of sports or outdoor recreation. Instead, other courts addressing the question consistently [HN35] limit the liability of the defendant, when inherent peril assumption applies, to intentional or reckless conduct of the defendant. Ellis v. Greater Cleveland R.T.A., 2014-Ohio-5549, 25 N.E.3d 503, 507 (Ct. App.); Custodi v. Town of Amherst, 20 N.Y.3d 83, [*420] 980 N.E.2d 933, 957 N.Y.S.2d 268 (2012); Cole v. Boy Scouts of America, 397 S.C. 247, 725 S.E.2d 476, 478 (2011); Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392, 404 (Ind. 2011); Yoneda v. Tom, 110 Haw. 367, 133 P.3d 796, 808 (2006); Peart v. Ferro, 119 Cal. App. 4th 60, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885, 898 (2004); Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 807 A.2d at 1281 (2002); Behar v. Fox, 249 Mich. App. 314, 642 N.W.2d 426, 428 (2001); Estes v. Tripson, 188 Ariz. 93, 932 P.2d 1364, 1365 (Ct. App. 1997); Savino v. Robertson, 273 Ill. App. 3d 811, 652 N.E.2d 1240, 1245, 210 Ill. Dec. 264 (1995); King v. Kayak Manufacturing Corp., 182 W. Va. 276, 387 S.E.2d 511, 518 (1989). A recklessness standard encourages vigorous participation in recreational activities, while still providing protection from egregious conduct. Behar v. Fox, 642 N.W.2d at 428 (2001). We join the other jurisdictions in imposing an intentional and reckless standard, rather than a gross negligence standard, when the plaintiff assumes the risks of inherent perils in a sporting or outdoor activity.

¶46 [HN36] Gross negligence consists of the failure to exercise slight care. Nist v. Tudor, 67 Wn.2d at 331 (1965). Reckless misconduct denotes a more serious level of misconduct than gross negligence. An actor’s conduct is in “reckless disregard” of the safety of another if he or she intentionally [**25] does an act or fails to do an act that it is his or her duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him or her. Adkisson v. City of Seattle, 42 Wn.2d 676, 685, 258 P.2d 461 (1953); Brown v. Department of Social & Health Services, 190 Wn. App. 572, 590, 360 P.3d 875 (2015). Brian Pellham does not allege that Let’s Go Tubing engaged in reckless conduct. No evidence supports a conclusion that the inner tube rental company bus driver purposely omitted a warning to Pellham with knowledge that Pellham would suffer substantial harm.

[*421] CONCLUSION

¶47 We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of Brian Pellham’s suit against Let’s Go Tubing.

Korsmo and Siddoway, JJ., concur.

LexisNexis Practice Guide: Washington Torts and Personal Injury

LexisNexis Practice Guide: Washington Trial and Post-Trial Civil Procedure

Annotated Revised Code of Washington by LexisNexis

When an organization makes rules and regulations that a subsidiary organization is supposed to obey, and then fails to follow, both organizations are liable to any plaintiff injured due to the failure to follow or enforce the organizational rules, policies, regulations or standards.

Posted: July 31, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Illinois, Minors, Youth, Children, Youth Camps | Tags: ACA, American Camping Association, Boy Scouts of America, Boys & Girls Clubs, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Child Care, Child Care Facility, cognizable, conscious disregard, exclusive control, factual allegations, farm, GSS, Guide to Safe Scouting, Guidelines, indifference, legal conclusions, Licensed Child Care, Licensed Child Care Facility, medical expenses, National Organization, negligence claims, Negligence per se, Notice, owed, pleaded, Policies, public highway, public road, pulled, pulling, Reckless, Regulations, res ipsa loquitur, right to relief, Rules, seat, speculative, Standards, supervise, Supervision, trailer, Transport, Wanton, wanton misconduct, willful | Leave a comment

In this case, the national organization was also sued for failing to instruct and enforce the regional organization in the rules, regulations, standards or policies. If you are going to make rules, and you say the rules must be followed you have to make sure you train in the rules and that everyone follows the rules.

If you make a rule you have to enforce it if you are in charge of making rules.
Otherwise, don’t make rules!

T.K., a minor, v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, et. al. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87005

State: Illinois, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division

Plaintiff: T.K., a minor, by and through his natural Father and Next Friend, Timothy Killings, and Timothy Killings, individually

Defendant: Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Boys and Girls Club of Decatur, Inc., and Mary K. Paulin

Plaintiff Claims: negligence and willful and wanton misconduct

Defendant Defenses: Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted filed in a Motion to dismiss

Holding: for the plaintiff

Year: 2017

This case is a federal diversity case. That means the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) were legally residents of different states, and the amount claimed by the plaintiff was greater than $75,000.00. In this case, the plaintiff was from California, and the Defendant was located in Illinois.

The plaintiff was in Illinois and attending the Decatur Boys & Girls Club, which was part of the America Boys & Girls Club. America Boys & Girls Club was based in Georgia.

America Boys & Girls Club provided policies, procedures, rules, guidelines and instructions to the Decatur Boys & Girls Clubs, and all other Boys & Girls Clubs. The Boys & Girls Clubs are required to follow the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions.

While attending the club, the plaintiff was taken to a local farm. Neither of the defendants had permission to transport the minor plaintiff to the farm. While there the plaintiff was riding on a trailer (probably a hay ride)that did not have guardrails, seats, seatbelts or other equipment designed from keeping people from falling off. (But then very few hay rides do.) The tractor and trailer were pulled onto a public highway with 15-20 children on it. While on the highway the plaintiff either jumped or fell off or might have been pushed
off sustaining injuries.

The farm trailer was not designed or intended to transport people, and the trailer lacked guardrails, seats, seatbelts, and other equipment that might prevent people from falling off it. Defendant Paulin pulled the trailer, with T.K. and 15 to 20 additional children riding on it, onto a public highway with a tractor defendant.

The issue that the trailer was not designed to be on a highway and did not have seats, seatbelts or other equipment to keep people from falling off was repeatedly brought up by the court.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and this opinion is court’s response to that motion.

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

A motion to dismiss is a preliminary motion filed when the allegations in the complaint do not meet the minimum requirements to make a legally recognizable claim.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Plausibility means alleging factual content that allows a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. A plaintiff’s complaint must suggest a right to relief, “raising that possibility above a speculative level.” “The required level of factual specificity rises with the complexity of the claim.”

When reviewing a motion to dismiss the court must look at the plaintiff’s pleadings as true and any inference that must be drawn from the pleadings is done so in favor of the plaintiff.

To plead negligence under Illinois’s law the plaintiff must prove “…that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty, it breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.” In Illinois, every person owes all other persons “a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury which naturally flows as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of his act.”

Whether this duty arises in a particular context depends on “the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on defendants.” Id. A child’s caretaker has a duty to protect the child from harm.

It is a legal question to be decided by the court if a legal duty exists.

…the relationship between him and America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club imposed on the two organizations a duty of care to adequately supervise him and protect him from harm, any unreasonable risk of harm, dangerous instrumentalities, and dangerous conditions.

The plaintiffs argued the duty of care of the two organizations was breached by:

(1) negligently supervising him, (2) allowing and causing him to be placed on a farm trailer that was not designed for transporting children and was therefore dangerous and not reasonably safe for him, (3) failing to warn or failing to adequately warn him of the potential for injury before putting him on the trailer, (4) failing to properly supervise the minors they placed on the trailer, and (5) failing to provide enough staff members to monitor the children they placed on the trailer.

The plaintiff’s also argued there was a greater responsibility and as such duty on the part of the America Boys & Girls Club to train the Decatur club on its rules, regulations and policies and failing to train on them was also negligent.

T.K. further alleges that it failed to properly train Decatur Boys & Girls Club on the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions of America Boys & Girls Club, and that it failed to supervise Decatur Boys & Girls Club to ensure that the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions were followed.

In this case, the duty of care was created by the rules, regulations, policies and procedures created by the America Boys & Girls Clubs upon the Decatur Boys & Girls Club.

The plaintiff went on to argue, and since it was quoted by the court, accepted by the court that:

Defendant Paulin put him on the farm trailer even though Defendant Paulin did not have the requisite permission to give him a ride on the trailer. Defendant Paulin towed the trailer, while T.K. and 15 to 20 additional children were on board, with a tractor onto a public highway. According to T.K., Defendant Paulin owed him a duty of care to protect him from any unreasonable risk of harm and breached that duty by (1) allowing and causing him to be placed on a farm trailer that was not designed for transporting children and was therefore dangerous and not reasonably safe for him; (2)
failing to warn him of the potential for injury before putting him on the trailer and pulling the trailer onto a public highway; (3) failing to warn him that the trailer was dangerous and not reasonably safe given that the trailer had no railings, barriers, walls, or seats; and (4) creating a dangerous condition by placing him on the trailer and pulling it onto a public highway.

The court held this was enough to create a duty of care and proved a possible negligence claim.

Furthermore, of note was a statement that a statutory violation of a statute in Illinois does not create a negligence per se claim.

A violation of a statute or ordinance designed to protect human life or property is prima facie evidence of negligence. . . . The violation does not constitute negligence per se, however, and therefore the defendant may prevail by showing that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.”

The court then looked at the minor plaintiff’s father claims to see if those met the requirements to prove negligence in Illinois.

To state a negligence cause of action, Mr. Killings must plead enough facts to make it plausible that he was harmed as a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of a duty they owed to him.

However, the father was not able to prove his claim because it is separate and distinct from the minor’s claim. “The fact that Defendants were responsible for T.K.’s well-being on July 17, 2015, does not mean that Defendants had any duty to Mr. Killings.”

It was T.K., not Mr. Killings, who was placed on an unsafe farm trailer and pulled onto a public road. Defendants, therefore, had a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to T.K., not Mr. Killings. Further, Mr. Killings does not claim that he was physically injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence; his only claimed injury is the money he has spent and the money he will spend in the future for T.K.’s past and future medical treatment. In short, Mr. Killings has not met the pleading requirements for a negligence claim against any Defendant.

The father also pleaded a claim for loss of aid, comfort, society and companionship of his child. However, Illinois’s law does not allow for recovery of those emotional damages unless the child’s injury is a fatality.

The claim is not one for damages stemming from the child’s physical injury, but one founded on the parents’ liability for the minor’s medical expenses under the Illinois Family Expense Act.

However, the father did have a claim for the medical expenses the father paid on behalf of his minor son for the injuries he incurred.

The plaintiff also pleaded res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur allows “proof of negligence by circumstantial evidence when the direct evidence concerning cause of injury is primarily within the knowledge and control of the defendant.” The doctrine “is meant to bridge an evidentiary gap when an injury could not have happened but for the defendant’s negligence.” Accordingly, res ipsa lo-quitur applies only when the facts “admit of the single inference that the accident would not have happened unless the defendant had been negligent.”

Res ipsa loquitur is a claim that when an incident has occurred, the control of the instrumentality was solely within the control of the defendant.

An example of res ipsa loquitur is a passenger in an airplane that crashes. The pilot is the defendant, and the
control of the airplane is solely with the pilot.

Indeed, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be appropriate if the instrument that caused the injury was in the defendant’s exclusive control “at a time prior to the injury and there is no change in conditions or intervening act that could reasonably have caused the event resulting in the injury.

However, the allegations of the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of res ipsa loquitur in Illinois.

Plaintiff’s final allegation discussed in the opinion was one for willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the defendants. Under Illinois’s law to establish a claim for willful and wanton conduct, the plaintiff must.

…plead facts establishing the elements of a negligence claim–duty, breach, proximate causation, and harm–and “either a deliberate intention to harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the plaintiff.

Generally, this is the same standard to prove willful and wanton conduct in most states. Once the negligence claim is proved, then the allegations only need to support the additional acts as willful and wanton.

Therefore, to state claims for willful and wanton misconduct against Defendants, T.K. need only additionally allege either intentional or reckless willful and wanton misconduct committed by Defendants.

The court defined willful and wanton conduct.

Reckless willful and wanton misconduct is conduct committed with an utter indifference of or a conscious disregard for the safety of others. To meet this standard, the defendant “must be conscious of his conduct, and, though having no intent to injure, must be conscious, from his knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and existing conditions, that his conduct will naturally and probably result in injury.

With the allegations plead, the court found sufficient information to confirm the plaintiff going forward with willful and wanton claims. Those allegations include:

Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club placed him and 15 to 20 other minors on an unsafe farm trailer with no guardrails, sidewalls, barriers, or seats while providing inadequate supervision. T.K. further alleges that the trailer was not designed to transport people.

Putting kids on a trailer was a major issue for the court. Kids on a highway on a vehicle not created to transport people were enough to create willful and wanton conduct.

The defendant argued that the allegations that created the negligence claim were also allowed to be the same facts. No new allegations needed to be plead to support the claims for willful and wanton conduct.

Under Illinois’s law, “[t]he same acts by a defendant, if sufficiently egregious, can constitute both negligence and willful and wanton conduct.” Therefore, “one can plead the same facts in two counts, one characterizing them as negligence and the other as willful and wanton conduct, if the same facts could support both theories.

The plaintiff had pled enough facts that the court found relevant and substantial to continue with the negligence and willful and wanton claim.

So Now What?

The actual rules, regulations, procedures were not identified by the court in making its decision. However, the continuous restatement of the plaintiff’s allegations in the same order and words. However, the court specifically stated the defendants failed to follow their own rules.

If you have rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or you must abide by such you MUST follow them. There are no loop holes, exceptions or “just this one time” when dealing with rules, policies and procedures that affect safety or affect minors. If you make them, you must follow them.

If you make them, you must make sure everyone is trained on them. One of the big issues the plaintiff pleads and the court accepted was the rules made by the parent organization were not known or followed by the subsidiary organization. The parent organization when making rules is under a requirement to make sure
the rules are understood and followed according to this decision in Tennessee.

The other major issue was transporting the plaintiff away from the location where the parents thought the plaintiff would be without their permission and then transporting the plaintiff on a road without meeting the requirements of state law, seats, seat belts, etc.

When you have minors, especially minors under the age of ten, you are only acting within the realm and space permitted by the parents. The line that makes me cringe every time I hear it on the news is “If I would have known they were going to do ______________, I never would have let me kid go.” Listen and you
will realize you will hear it a lot when a minor is injured.

You need to prepare your program and your parents so that line is never spoken about you.

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

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw,
#AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps,
#ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw,
#FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,
#IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw,
#Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer,
#RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom,
#Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer,
#RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding,
#SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, trailer,
willful, farm, wanton misconduct, res ipsa loquitur, negligence claims, pleaded,
cognizable, exclusive control, wanton, medical expenses, supervision, pulled,
negligence per se, public road, legal conclusions, pulling, seat, factual
allegations, right to relief, conscious disregard, indifference, speculative,
supervise, reckless, notice, owed, public highway, guidelines, transport, Guide
to Safe Scouting, GSS, Standards, Rules, Regulations, Policies, National
Organization, Boy Scouts of America, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Boys
& Girls Clubs, Child Care, ACA, American Camping Association, Child Care
Facility, Licensed Child Care, Licensed Child Care Facility,

T.K., a minor, v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, et. al. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87005

Posted: July 18, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Illinois, Minors, Youth, Children, Youth Camps | Tags: ACA, American Camping Association, Boys & Girls Clubs, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Child Care, Child Care Facility, cognizable, conscious disregard, exclusive control, factual allegations, farm, GSS, Guide to Safe Scouting, Guidelines, Hay Ride, Hayride, indifference, legal conclusions, Licensed Child Care, Licensed Child Care Facility, medical expenses, National Organization, negligence claims, Negligence per se, Notice, owed, pleaded, Policies, public highway, public road, pulled, pulling, Reckless, Regulations, res ipsa loquitur, right to relief, Rules, seat, speculative, Standards, supervise, Supervision, Tractor, trailer, Transport, Wanton, wanton misconduct, willful | Leave a comment

T.K., a minor, v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, et. al. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87005

T.K., a minor, by and through his natural Father and Next Friend, Timothy Killings, and Timothy Killings, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Boys and Girls Club of Decatur, Inc., and Mary K. Paulin, Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03056

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87005

June 6, 2017, Decided

June 7, 2017, E-Filed

CORE TERMS: trailer, willful, farm, wanton misconduct, res ipsa loquitur, negligence claims, pleaded, cognizable, exclusive control, wanton, medical expenses, supervision, pulled, negligence per se, public road, legal conclusions, pulling, seat, factual allegations, right to relief, conscious disregard, indifference, speculative, supervise, reckless, notice, owed, public highway, guidelines, transport

COUNSEL: [*1] For T.K., a Minor, By And Through His Natural Father and Next Friend, Timothy Killings, Timothy Killings, Plaintiffs: Christopher Ryan Dixon, THE DIXON INJURY FIRM, St Louis, MO.

For Boys & Girls Club of America, Boys and Girls Club of Decatur, Inc., Defendants: Randall A Mead, LEAD ATTORNEY, DRAKE NARUP & MEAD PC, Springfield, IL.

For Mary K Paulin, Defendant: Daniel R Price, LEAD ATTORNEY, WHAM & WHAM, Centralia, IL.

JUDGES: SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

OPINION BY: SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

OPINION

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:

Before the Court are Defendants Boys & Girls Clubs of America and Boys & Girls Club of Decatur, Inc.’s Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Portions of Count I of the Second Amended Complaint (d/e 32) and Defendant Mary K. Paulin’s Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Portions of Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint (d/e 33). The motion filed by Defendants Boys and Girls Club of Decatur, Inc. (Decatur Boys & Girls Club) and Boys & Girls Clubs of America (America Boys & Girls Club) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Paulin’s motion is DENIED. In the Second Amended Complaint, T.K., a [*2] minor, through his father, Timothy Killings, sufficiently pleads negligence and willful and wanton misconduct causes of action against all Defendants. In addition, Mr. Killings pleads cognizable claims for T.K.’s past and future medical expenses against all Defendants. However, the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint are not sufficient to render the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable against Decatur Boys & Girls Club or America Boys & Girls Club.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts come from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The Court accepts them as true at the motion to dismiss stage. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).

On July 17, 2015, T.K., a then-eight-year-old resident of California, was a member of Decatur Boys & Girls Club, a corporate citizen of Illinois and a licensed child-care facility. On that same date, Decatur Boys & Girls Club was operating a summer camp through its agents and employees, and T.K. was under the paid care and supervision of Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club. America Boys & Girls Club, a corporate citizen of Georgia, provides operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions regarding how Decatur Boys & Girls Club is to operate. Decatur [*3] Boys & Girls Club is required to follow these operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions.

On July 17, 2015, T.K. was taken from the premises of Decatur Boys & Girls Club in Decatur, Illinois, to property in Clinton, Illinois, owned by Defendant Paulin, an Illinois citizen. Neither Decatur Boys & Girls Club nor America Boys & Girls Club had permission to transport T.K. from Decatur to Defendant Paulin’s property in Clinton. Defendants,¹ again without permission, put T.K. on a farm trailer owned by Defendant Paulin and located on Defendant Paulin’s property. The farm trailer was not designed or intended to transport people, and the trailer lacked guardrails, seats, seatbelts, and other equipment that might prevent people from falling off it. Defendant Paulin pulled the trailer, with T.K. and 15 to 20 additional children riding on it, onto a public highway with a tractor Defendant Paulin owned. The trailer was not being used in connection with a parade or a farm-related activity.

1 The use of “Defendants” in this Opinion will refer collectively to Decatur Boys & Girls Club, America Boys & Girls Club, and Mary K. Paulin.

While riding on the trailer, T.K. fell or jumped off the trailer or was pushed off. As a result, T.K. sustained injuries to his head, face, eyes, chest, neck, back, arms, lungs, hands, legs, [*4] and feet. T.K. underwent medical treatment for his injuries and will have to undergo additional treatment in the future. T.K’s father, Timothy Killings, a citizen of California, has incurred expenses related to his son’s medical care and will incur additional expenses in the future for his son’s future medical care.

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint (d/e 1) against Defendants. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their First Amended Complaint (d/e 26) on May 23, 2016, and their Second Amended Complaint (d/e 31) on June 17, 2016. The Second Amended Complaint contains five counts. Counts 1 through 3 allege claims against Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club for, respectively, negligence, negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and willful and wanton misconduct. Counts 4 and 5 allege negligence and willful and wanton misconduct claims, respectively, against Defendant Paulin.

On June 27, 2016, Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club filed their Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Portions of Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, asking the Court to dismiss Counts 1 through 3 for failing to [*5] state cognizable claims or, in the alternative, to strike certain paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint. On June 30, 2017, Defendant Paulin filed her Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Portions of Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint, asking the Court to dismiss Counts 4 and 5 for failing to state cognizable claims or, in the alternative, to strike certain paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because no Plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any Defendant and Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); McMillian v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839, 844 (7th Cir. 2009) (“When the jurisdictional threshold is uncontested, we generally will accept the plaintiff’s good faith allegation of the amount in controversy unless it appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Plausibility means alleging factual content that allows a court to reasonably infer [*6] that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). A plaintiff’s complaint must suggest a right to relief, “raising that possibility above a speculative level.” Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir. 2016). “The required level of factual specificity rises with the complexity of the claim.” McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616-17 (7th Cir. 2011).

When faced with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court “accept[s] as true all of the well-pleaded facts in the complaint and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2016). “[L]egal conclusions and conclusory allegations merely reciting the elements of the claim are not entitled to this presumption of truth.” McCauley, 671 F.3d at 616. Further, the Court is “not obliged to ignore any facts set forth in the complaint that undermine the plaintiff’s claim.” R.J.R. Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 895 F.2d 279, 281 (7th Cir. 1989). The Court may “strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Count I and Count IV Sufficiently Plead Negligence and Medical Expense Claims Against All Defendants.

1. T.K. has pleaded cognizable negligence claims against all Defendants.

In a case where federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “[s]tate substantive law applies, but federal procedural rules govern.” Doermer v. Callen, 847 F.3d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 2017). “To state a claim for negligence under Illinois law, a plaintiff must plead [*7] that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty, it breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.” Allstate Indem. Co. v. ADT LLC, 110 F. Supp. 3d 856, 862-63 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2012 IL 110662, 965 N.E.2d 1092, 1097, 358 Ill. Dec. 613 (Ill. 2012). In Illinois, “every person owes to all other persons a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury which naturally flows as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of his act.” Jane Doe-3 v. McLean Cnty. Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 2012 IL 112479, 973 N.E.2d 880, 890, 362 Ill. Dec. 484 (Ill. 2012). Whether this duty arises in a particular context depends on “the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on defendants.” Id. A child’s caretaker has a duty to protect the child from harm. Ryan v. Yarbrough, 355 Ill. App. 3d 342, 823 N.E.2d 259, 262, 291 Ill. Dec. 249 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). Whether a duty exists is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Simpkins, 965 N.E.2d at 1096.

In support of his negligence claims against America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club, T.K.² alleges that he was a member of Decatur Boys & Girls Club and was entrusted to the care of both organizations on July 17, 2015. Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 15-16. America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club agreed to accept the “care, custody, and control” of T.K. for the purpose of providing child care. Id. ¶ 16. T.K. also alleges [*8] that on July 17, 2015, the relationship between him and America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club imposed on the two organizations a duty of care to adequately supervise him and protect him from harm, any unreasonable risk of harm, dangerous instrumentalities, and dangerous conditions. Id. ¶¶ 42-43.

2 Plaintiffs do not separate T.K’s claims from Mr. Killings’ claims in the Second Amended Complaint. To avoid confusion, the Court will address the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint as those of T.K. when analyzing T.K’s claims and as those of Mr. Killings when analyzing Mr. Killings’ claims.

Further, according to T.K., America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club breached the duty of care they owed him in several ways, including by (1) negligently supervising him, (2) allowing and causing him to be placed on a farm trailer that was not designed for transporting children and was therefore dangerous and not reasonably safe for him, (3) failing to warn or failing to adequately warn him of the potential for injury before putting him on the trailer, (4) failing to properly supervise the minors they placed on the trailer, and (5) failing to provide enough staff members to monitor the children they placed on the trailer. Id. ¶ 45. With respect to America Boys & Girls Club, T.K. further alleges that it failed to properly train Decatur Boys & Girls Club on the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions of America Boys & Girls Club and [*9] that it failed to supervise Decatur Boys & Girls Club to ensure that the operating policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, and instructions were followed. Id. ¶¶ 46-47. In addition, T.K. claims that the actions of America Boys & Girls Club and Decatur Boys & Girls Club proximately caused his injuries. Id. ¶¶ 33-39, 49.

In support of his negligence claim against Defendant Paulin, T.K. alleges that on July 17, 2015, Defendant Paulin put him on the farm trailer even though Defendant Paulin did not have the requisite permission to give him a ride on the trailer. Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 21, 23. Defendant Paulin towed the trailer, while T.K. and 15 to 20 additional children were on board, with a tractor onto a public highway. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. According to T.K., Defendant Paulin owed him a duty of care to protect him from any unreasonable risk of harm and breached that duty by (1) allowing and causing him to be placed on a farm trailer that was not designed for transporting children and was therefore dangerous and not reasonably safe for him; (2) failing to warn him of the potential for injury before putting him on the trailer and pulling the trailer onto a public highway; (3) failing to warn [*10] him that the trailer was dangerous and not reasonably safe given that the trailer had no railings, barriers, walls, or seats; and (4) creating a dangerous condition by placing him on the trailer and pulling it onto a public highway. Id. ¶¶ 72-73. In addition, T.K. alleges that the actions of Defendant Paulin proximately caused his injuries. Id. ¶¶ 33-39, 75.

Based on these allegations, T.K. has sufficiently pleaded negligence claims against Decatur Boys & Girls Club, America Boys & Girls Club, and Defendant Paulin. The allegations in Count I and Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint give Defendants notice of the basis for T.K.’s negligence claims against them and are sufficient to establish that T.K. has a plausible, as opposed to speculative, right to relief against Defendants. This is all that is required of a plaintiff under the federal notice pleading regime. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547.

Defendants do not seem to dispute such a finding. Indeed, their arguments for the dismissal of Count I and Count IV focus on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint relating to an alleged violation of 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-1408, a provision of the Illinois Vehicle Code, and claims that their alleged statutory violations constitute [*11] negligence per se. See Mot. to Dismiss (d/e 32), at 1-2; Memorandum of Law (d/e 21), at 4-6; Mot. to Dismiss (d/e 33), at 1-2; Memorandum of Law (d/e 34), at 1-2. Defendants are correct that Illinois does not recognize statutory violations as negligence per se. See Kalata v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., 144 Ill. 2d 425, 581 N.E.2d 656, 661, 163 Ill. Dec. 502 (Ill. 1991) (“A violation of a statute or ordinance designed to protect human life or property is prima facie evidence of negligence. . . . The violation does not constitute negligence per se, however, and therefore the defendant may prevail by showing that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.”). But the inclusion of allegations regarding violations of 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-1408 and negligence per se do not require the dismissal of Count I or Count IV. As the Court has explained above, T.K. has sufficiently pleaded negligence claims against Defendants without the allegations relating to statutory violations. Cf. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he complaint need not identify a legal theory, and specifying an incorrect theory is not fatal.”).

2. Timothy Killings has pleaded cognizable medical expense claims against all Defendants.

Just because T.K. has cognizable negligence claims against Defendants does not mean that Timothy Killings, T.K.’s father, also has such claims. To state a [*12] negligence cause of action, Mr. Killings must plead enough facts to make it plausible that he was harmed as a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of a duty they owed to him. Allstate, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 862-63. Mr. Killings has failed to meet his burden. The fact that Defendants were responsible for T.K.’s well-being on July 17, 2015, does not mean that Defendants had any duty to Mr. Killings. See Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, 385 Ill. Dec. 215, 18 N.E.3d 215, 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (“The criterion in a duty analysis is whether a plaintiff and a defendant stood in such a relationship to each other that the law imposed an obligation upon the defendant to act for the protection of the plaintiff.”). It was T.K., not Mr. Killings, who was placed on an unsafe farm trailer and pulled onto a public road. Defendants therefore had a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to T.K., not Mr. Killings. Further, Mr. Killings does not claim that he was physically injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence; his only claimed injury is the money he has spent and the money he will spend in the future for T.K.’s past and future medical treatment. See Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 38-39. In short, Mr. Killings has not met the pleading requirements for a negligence claim against any Defendant.

But just because Mr. [*13] Killings has not pleaded cognizable negligence claims against Defendants does not mean that he has pleaded no cognizable claims against them. In Illinois, parents have a cause of action against a tortfeasor who injures their child and causes them to incur medical expenses. Pirrello v. Maryville Acad., Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 133964, 386 Ill. Dec. 108, 19 N.E.3d 1261, 1264 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). The claim is not one for damages stemming from the child’s physical injury, but one founded on the parents’ liability for the minor’s medical expenses under the Illinois Family Expense Act. Id.; see also 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 65/15(a)(1) (obligating parents to pay for the “expenses of the family”). T.K. has pleaded cognizable negligence claims against Defendants. Mr. Killings alleges that he has been saddled with bills stemming from T.K.’s medical care, some of which he has paid, and that he will incur additional medical bills in the future as a result of the injuries T.K. suffered on account of Defendants’ negligence. Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 38-39. Mr. Killings is the father of T.K., a minor, and is required by law to pay for T.K.’s medical expenses, Mr. Killings has adequately pleaded claims against Defendants for the recovery of the amounts paid or to be paid for T.K.’s past and future medical expenses stemming from Defendants’ negligence.

One [*14] final point merits a brief discussion. In the Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Killings alleges that he has suffered, as a result of T.K.’s injuries, “loss of aid, comfort, society, companionship, pleasure, and the family relationship.” Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶ 40. However, in Illinois, a parent may not “recover for loss of the society and companionship of a child who is nonfatally injured.” Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76, 806 N.E.2d 632, 633, 282 Ill. Dec. 335 (Ill. 2004). Therefore, Mr. Killings has no valid claim for loss of society and companionship in this case.

3. The Court strikes paragraph 27 from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

As an alternative to the dismissal of Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club ask the Court to strike paragraphs 50 through 55 of the Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss (d/e 32), at 2. Similarly, Defendant Paulin asks the Court, as an alternative to the dismissal of Count IV, to strike paragraphs 76 through 81 of the Second Amended Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss (d/e 33), at 1-2. According to Defendants, the Court should strike these paragraphs because they are ultimately used to claim that Defendants’ alleged statutory violations constitute negligence per se.

Additionally, Defendants [*15] Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club request that the Court strike paragraph 27 from the Second Amended Complaint for being duplicative of paragraph 25 and strike paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 48, 68, 69, and 70 because those paragraphs are legal conclusions. Mot. to Dismiss (d/e 32), at 4. But even assuming that the aforementioned paragraphs are legal conclusions, as opposed to factual allegations, that is no reason to strike them from the Second Amended Complaint. Although Plaintiffs are required to plead facts that indicate they have a plausible, as opposed to a speculative, right to relief, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, they are not prohibited from also pleading legal conclusions that might help to provide Defendants with notice of the claims brought against them or provide context for the factual allegations. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989)) (noting that “legal conclusions are an integral part of the federal notice pleading regime” and that Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires parties to respond to all allegations contained within a pleading, including legal conclusions). Therefore, the Court strikes only paragraph 27 of the Second Amended Complaint, as it is duplicative of paragraph 25.

B. The Allegations of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended [*16] Complaint Are Insufficient to Render the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Applicable Against Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club.

Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence applicable to a negligence claim, not a distinct theory of recovery. Rice v. Burnley, 230 Ill. App. 3d 987, 596 N.E.2d 105, 108, 172 Ill. Dec. 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992). Res ipsa loquitur allows “proof of negligence by circumstantial evidence when the direct evidence concerning cause of injury is primarily within the knowledge and control of the defendant.” Metz v. Cent. Ill. Elec. & Gas Co., 32 Ill. 2d 446, 207 N.E.2d 305, 307 (Ill. 1965). The doctrine “is meant to bridge an evidentiary gap when an injury could not have happened but for the defendant’s negligence.” Buechel v. United States, 746 F.3d 753, 765 (7th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, res ipsa loquitur applies only when the facts “admit of the single inference that the accident would not have happened unless the defendant had been negligent.” Britton v. Univ. of Chi. Hosps., 382 Ill. App. 3d 1009, 889 N.E.2d 706, 709, 321 Ill. Dec. 441 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies is a question of law to be determined by the Court. Imig v. Beck, 115 Ill. 2d 18, 503 N.E.2d 324, 329, 104 Ill. Dec. 767 (Ill. 1986).

Under Illinois law, a plaintiff bringing a negligence claim based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must plead that he was injured “in an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence” and that it was caused “by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control.” Avalos-Landeros v. United States, 50 F. Supp. 3d 921, 927 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 877 N.E.2d 1064, 1076, 315 Ill. Dec. 735 (Ill. 2007)). Although, in the past, [*17] a plaintiff had to allege that the “the injury occurred under circumstances indicating that it was not due to any voluntary act or neglect on the part of the plaintiff,” this requirement was removed due to the adoption of comparative fault principles in Illinois. Heastie, 877 N.E.2d at 1076. With respect to the requirement of “exclusive control,” a defendant’s control over the instrumentality “at the time of the alleged negligence is not defeated by lack of control at the time of the injury.” Darrough v. Glendale Heights Cmty. Hosp., 234 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 600 N.E.2d 1248, 1252-53, 175 Ill. Dec. 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992). Indeed, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be appropriate if the instrument that caused the injury was in the defendant’s exclusive control “at a time prior to the injury and there is no change in conditions or intervening act that could reasonably have caused the event resulting in the injury.” Id. at 1253.

T.K. alleges that “a minor child under the care and supervision of a registered, licensed professional child care facility does not ordinarily sustain serious injuries when properly supervised in the absence of negligence.” Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶ 60. Further, T.K. claims that at the time he sustained his injuries, the farm trailer that injured him was under the exclusive control of Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys [*18] & Girls Club. Id. ¶ 61. These allegations are not sufficient to render the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable here. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (noting that “a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements” will not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). And although the Second Amended Complaint contains numerous factual allegations regarding the incident in which T.K. was injured, those allegations do not indicate a plausible right to relief for T.K. under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Because the facts pleaded in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint provide no support for the second prong in the res ipsa loquitur analysis–whether an injury was caused by an object within the defendant’s exclusive control–the Court’s res ipsa loquitur analysis will begin and end with that prong. Even assuming that the incident in which T.K. was injured was one that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, T.K.’s account of the circumstances surrounding the accident indicate that it was Defendant Paulin, not Decatur Boys & Girls Club or America Boys & Girls Club, who had exclusive control of the farm trailer. According to the Second Amended Complaint, the farm trailer that injured T.K. was owned [*19] by Defendant Paulin and located on Defendant Paulin’s property. Defendant Paulin was the one who pulled the trailer onto a public road with T.K. and several other minor children on board. Defendant Paulin owned the tractor with which the trailer was pulled. Although T.K. claims that Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club were responsible for placing him on the farm trailer, he makes the same allegation with respect to Defendant Paulin. See Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 22-23. In short, there is nothing in the Second Amended Complaint to support T.K.’s allegation that Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club were in exclusive control of the farm trailer at any time.

Based on this analysis, the Court has determined that the factual allegations of the Second Amended Complaint are not sufficient to render the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable. In doing so, the Court again notes that res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule, not a distinct theory of recovery. If facts uncovered through the discovery process sufficiently support the application of res ipsa loquitur against any Defendant, the Court will allow T.K. to rely on the doctrine at the summary judgment [*20] stage and will allow the trier of fact to consider and apply the doctrine as to that Defendant.

C. Count III and Count V Sufficiently Plead Willful and Wanton Misconduct Claims Against the Defendants.

To state a claim under Illinois law for willful and wanton misconduct, a plaintiff must plead facts establishing the elements of a negligence claim–duty, breach, proximate causation, and harm–and “either a deliberate intention to harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the plaintiff.” Kirwan v. Lincolnshire-Riverwoods Fire Protections Dist., 349 Ill. App. 3d 150, 811 N.E.2d 1259, 1263, 285 Ill. Dec. 380 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (quoting Adkins v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., 129 Ill. 2d 497, 544 N.E.2d 733, 743, 136 Ill. Dec. 47 (Ill. 1989)). As noted above, T.K. has sufficiently pleaded negligence causes of action against all Defendants. T.K. has incorporated the allegations comprising his negligence claims into his willful and wanton misconduct claims against Defendants. Therefore, to state claims for willful and wanton misconduct against Defendants, T.K. need only additionally allege either intentional or reckless willful and wanton misconduct committed by Defendants. Reckless willful and wanton misconduct is conduct committed with an utter indifference of or a conscious disregard for the safety of others. Kirwan, 811 N.E.2d at 1263. To meet this standard, the defendant “must be conscious of his conduct, [*21] and, though having no intent to injure, must be conscious, from his knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and existing conditions, that his conduct will naturally and probably result in injury.” Id.

In the Second Amended Complaint, T.K. alleges that on July 17, 2015, Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club placed him and 15 to 20 other minors on an unsafe farm trailer with no guardrails, sidewalls, barriers, or seats while providing inadequate supervision. Sec. Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 22, 65. T.K. further alleges that the trailer was not designed to transport people. Id. ¶ 24. T.K claims that Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club failed to take necessary safety precautions and operated their summer camp recklessly or with gross negligence. Id. ¶¶ 64, 68. According to T.K., the actions and inaction of Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club were “willful, wanton, grossly negligent, careless, [and] reckless” and “showed an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of [T.K.].” Id. ¶ 70.

T.K. also includes several allegations in Count III about what Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club “knew or should have [*22] known.” Specifically, according to T.K., Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club knew or should have known that the farm trailer was unreasonably dangerous, that additional supervision was required for the 15 to 20 children riding on the farm trailer, and that there was no way for the children to be properly seated on the farm trailer. Id. ¶¶ 66-68. Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club also knew or should have known that placing children on the farm trailer and pulling it with a tractor without proper supervision posed a high probability of serious physical harm to T.K. Id. ¶ 69.

With respect to Defendant Paulin, T.K. alleges that Defendant Paulin placed T.K. on a farm trailer that was not designed or intended to transport people and had no guardrails, seats, or seat belts to prevent people from falling off it. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25-26. Further, T.K. claims that Defendant Paulin had no intention of making sure that T.K. was safe when she placed him on the farm trailer and pulled it onto a public road. Id. ¶ 83. T.K. also claims that Defendant Paulin failed to take necessary safety precautions. Id. ¶ 85. Defendant Paulin’s conduct, according to T.K., was “willful, [*23] wanton, grossly negligent, careless, [and] reckless” and showed a “conscious disregard for the safety of [T.K.].” Id. ¶ 87.

As with Decatur Boys & Girls Club and America Boys & Girls Club, T.K. includes allegations in the Second Amended Complaint regarding what Defendant Paulin “knew or should have known.” Specifically, T.K. alleges that Defendant Paulin knew or should have known that the farm trailer was unreasonably dangerous, that pulling children onto a public road while on the trailer was unreasonably dangerous, and that placing children on the farm trailer and pulling the trailer onto a public roadway without proper supervision posed a high probability of serious physical harm or death. Id. ¶¶ 83-84, 86.

T.K.’s allegations are sufficient to plead willful and wanton misconduct claims against Defendants. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff need not plead enough facts to show that he is likely to prevail on his claim; rather, he is required only to include enough facts to raise his claim from speculative to plausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The allegations set forth [*24] above are sufficient to make it plausible that Defendants committed willful and wanton misconduct when they put T.K. on an unsafe farm trailer not designed for transporting people, failed to take necessary safety precautions, and either failed to properly supervise T.K. or pulled the trailer, with T.K. on it, onto a public road. See Worthem v. Gillette Co., 774 F. Supp. 514, 517 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded willful and wanton misconduct claims where she alleged that “willful and wanton acts or omissions [were] committed or omitted with conscious indifference to existing circumstances and conditions” and went on to “enumerate specific instances of willful and wanton conduct”).

Although T.K.’s “knew or should have known” allegations against Defendants may have been insufficient to meet his pleading burden with respect to willful and wanton misconduct claims, see id. (admitting that the court “might agree” with the defendant’s arguments that “knew or should have known” allegations are mere negligence allegations insufficient to merit punitive damages), T.K. does not rely solely on these allegations in his willful and wanton misconduct claims against Defendants. Indeed, as the Court has noted above, Count III [*25] and Count V of the Second Amended Complaint, which incorporate the allegations from the counts preceding them, contain specific factual allegations regarding the actions Defendants took. Further, the Court does not view T.K.’s “knew or should have known” allegations as completely irrelevant to a willful and wanton misconduct claim under Illinois law, which holds that willful and wanton misconduct can be found where there is a failure to discover a danger through carelessness when it could have been discovered through the exercise of ordinary care. Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 161 Ill. 2d 267, 641 N.E.2d 402, 406, 204 Ill. Dec. 178 (Ill. 1994).

The fact that T.K. bases his willful and wanton claims on the same facts as his negligence claims is of no concern. Under Illinois law, “[t]he same acts by a defendant, if sufficiently egregious, can constitute both negligence and willful and wanton conduct.” Bastian v. TPI Corp., 663 F. Supp. 474, 476 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (citing Smith v. Seiber, 127 Ill. App. 3d 950, 469 N.E.2d 231, 235, 82 Ill. Dec. 697 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984). Therefore, “one can plead the same facts in two counts, one characterizing them as negligence and the other as willful and wanton conduct, if the same facts could support both theories.” Bastian, 663 F. Supp. at 476 (citing O’Brien v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, 83 Ill. 2d 462, 415 N.E.2d 1015, 1018, 47 Ill. Dec. 702 (Ill. 1980).

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Boys & Girls Club of America and Boys & Girls Club of Decatur, Inc.’s Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion [*26] to Strike Portions of Count I of the Second Amended Complaint (d/e 32) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count II of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, the Court STRIKES paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint as duplicative. Defendant Mary K. Paulin’s Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Portions of Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint (d/e 33) is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants have 14 days from the date they receive a copy of this Order to file an answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

ENTER: June 6, 2017.

/s/ Sue E. Myerscough

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Ohio Appellate decision defines assumption of the risk under Ohio law and looks at whether spectators assume the risk.

Posted: July 3, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Ohio, Racing | Tags: assignments of error, Assumption of risk, curve, customary, driver's, Driving, eliminated, Express Assumption of the Risk, finish line, foreseeable, genuine, Go Kart, Go Karting, Guest, headband, host, Implied Assumption of the Risk, inform, Inherent Risks, intentionally, kart, paved, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Reckless, recreational activity, risk of injury, risks inherent, safe, Secondary Assumption of the Risk, Spectator, speed, Sport, Summary judgment, track | Leave a comment

Spectators are always the biggest risk of many outdoor recreational activities. Even if they are behind fences or lines, the creep closer to the event and if a competitor leaves the track or run, it is the event host who might pay for the damages to the spectators.

Ochall et al., v. McNamer et al., 2016-Ohio-8493; 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 5337

State: Ohio, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, Franklin County

Plaintiff: Andrea Ochall et al.,

Defendant: William M. McNamer et al.,

Plaintiff Claims: negligence, recklessness, negligent and/or reckless design, construction, operation and maintenance, failure to warn or instruct, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, vicarious liability, and loss of consortium

Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk

Holding: for the Defendants

Year: 2016

This court was almost tedious in its review of the facts and the application of the law to the facts in this case. This case is another one outside of the normal scope of this review; however, it covers assumption of the risk in infinite detail under Ohio’s law and deals with claims of spectators. Spectators are present at most sporting events and in some cases assume the risk, like the baseball rule at baseball games and sometimes do not.

The defendant land owner’s kids built a go-kart track. The decision involves a go-kart track in a homeowner’s back yard. The track was just a simple asphalt track. There were no barriers, no bleachers, nothing else except one bench. The land owner worked for a paving company so the track was paved. There was also a paved driveway from the barn where the go-karts were kept to the track. The track was built for no other purpose than for the use and enjoyment of the landowners and people they might invite over.

The track owner’s next-door neighbors used the track a lot and owned a go-kart that was stored with the landowner’s go-karts. However, the neighbors never used the track without asking permission before hand.

One day, the neighbors wanted to invite their friends to the track. Those friends became the plaintiffs.

Everyone took turns driving go-karts around the track, including the plaintiff. When not driving the go-karts, most of the people seemed to congregate on the asphalt drive between the track and the barn. The plaintiff argued this was a safe environment and the place to stand. There were no barriers between this or any place around the track and the track.

Various times during the day, different people drove off the track. After going off the track people simply drove back on the track and kept racing.

When not racing, the plaintiff was taking pictures. Taking pictures obscured the plaintiff’s view of what was going on sometimes.

During one race, the headband of one of the go-kart drivers slid down over her eyes. She grabbed the headband and through it off. While doing so she drove off the track striking the plaintiff.

The last picture the plaintiff took was the driver throwing her headband off.

The plaintiff’s sued the paving company the landowner worked for, as well as the landowner. The paving company was dismissed earlier on its motion and was not part of this discussion.

The plaintiff’s sued the landowner and the neighbors who invited them. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims based on various motions filed by the different defendants. The plaintiff appealed. The arguments presented in the various motions were boiled down to two and discussed without regard to the plaintiffs and all defendants even though they filed separate motions.

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

The appellate court first looked at assumption of the risk and whether it applied to this case. Assumption of the risk means the defendant owes the plaintiff no duty. Therefore, there is no negligence. Ohio recognizes three types of assumption of the risk: express, primary and secondary (implied).

Ohio law recognizes three categories of assumption of the risk as defenses to a negligence claim: express, primary, and implied or secondary.” “Express assumption of the risk applies when parties expressly agree to release liability.” “Implied assumption of risk is defined as plaintiff’s consent to or acquiescence in an appreciated, known or obvious risk to plaintiff’s safety.” “Under this approach to assumption of risk, defendant owes to plaintiff some duty, but it is plaintiff’s acquiescence in or appreciation of a known risk that acts as a defense to plaintiff’s action.”

Primary assumption of the risk is the defense that is applied to people who voluntarily engage in sports or recreational activities.

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries.”

The argument for this is some sports or recreational activities cannot be played without risk. If the risk is removed from the sport, then the value in playing or the sport disappears. Another baseball example is the batter assumes the risk of being hit by a badly thrown pitch. If you remove that risk, the batter has nothing to swing at and there is no game of baseball.

By participating in an activity, the plaintiff “tacitly consent[s]” to the risk of injury inherent in the activity. Id. The test requires that: “(1) the danger is ordinary to the game, (2) it is common knowledge that the danger exists; and (3) the injury occurs as a result of the danger during the course of the game.”

Ohio law applies the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to participants and spectators alike [emphasize added].

Thus, courts apply the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to cases involving sporting events and recreational activities, and generally extend the doctrine to relieve liability of owners, operators, and sponsors of recreational activities. The doctrine applies regardless of whether the activity was engaged in by children or adults, or was organized, unorganized, supervised, or unsupervised. The doctrine also applies to spectators and participants alike.

Assumption of the risk when applied to a sport or recreational activity is not dependent upon the plaintiff’s knowledge and appreciation of the risks of the sport or activity. Normally to assume the risk a person must know and understand the risk as required in primary assumption of the risk. In sporting or recreational activities, knowledge of the risk is immaterial. Whether a participant assumes the risk is solely based on the risks of the sport, not what the participant knows.

Furthermore, when considering primary assumption of the risk, “the injured plaintiff’s subjective consent to and appreciation for the inherent risks are immaterial to the analysis.” (Noting that the plaintiff’s subjective consent to the inherent risks of an activity are immaterial, because “[t]hose entirely ignorant of the risks of the activity, still assume the risk by participating in the activity”). Indeed, “primary assumption of risk requires an examination of the activity itself and not plaintiff’s conduct.”

Those risks that apply are the ones directly associated with the activity. Consequently, a court must proceed with caution when examining the activity and the risks because assumption of the risk is a complete bar because no negligence can be proved. Was the risk that injured the plaintiff a risk of the sport and if so, was that risk increased by the activity of the defendant. If the risks are part and parcel of the sport, then the defendant does not owe a duty to the plaintiff.

[O]nly those risks directly associated with the activity in question are within the scope of primary assumption of risk.'” “The affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk completely negates a negligence claim because the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff against the inherent risks of the recreational activity in which the plaintiff engages.”

The doctrine of applying primary assumption of the risk to sports and recreational activities was created to ensure the sport was played vigorously and freely without fear of reprisal.

The “goal” of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine “is to strike a balance between encouraging vigorous and free participation in recreational or sports activities, while ensuring the safety of the players.” that the “overriding consideration in the application of primary assumption of risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature”);…

That doctrine then defines primary assumption of the risk when applied to a sport as:

…where injuries stem from ‘conduct that is a foreseeable, customary’ part of the activity, the defendant ‘cannot be held liable for negligence because no duty is owed to protect the victim from that conduct.’

The test is then applied with a three-part test.

Under the three-part test, a danger ordinary to a game is a danger which is customary to the game. (observing that “[f]alling is an ordinary danger of ice-skating,” and that “[c]olliding with the perimeter boards is an ordinary danger of ice rink skating”). When a danger is a foreseeable part of a game, there will be common knowledge that the danger exists.

Risks that are “foreseeable, common, and customary risks of the activity” are therefore assumed by participants whether they knew of the risks or not. The Ohio Supreme Court further defined the definition to mean “‘[t]o be covered under the doctrine, the risk must be one that is so inherent to the sport or activity that it cannot be eliminated.’”

Looking at the risks of go-karting the court found that it was an inherent risk of the sport for a go-kart to leave the track. (Since go-karts had been leaving the track all day, this seems pretty implicit and also gives the plaintiff notice of the risk, although not required by the definition of primary assumption of the risk.)

Pursuant to our de novo review, we have determined that an inherent risk of go-karting is the risk that a go-kart will deviate from its intended course upon the track and strike any object, which may be present around the track. As such, absent evidence of reckless or intentional conduct, primary assumption of the risk applies to the facts of this case and defeats appellants’ negligence claims. Accordingly, we have reached the same result as the trial court, albeit for different reasons.

Primary assumption of the risk barred the claims of the plaintiffs.

The court then looked at whether the actions of the driver who left the track and struck the plaintiff where reckless which would defeat the defense of assumption of the risk. The court looked at the definition of recklessness under Ohio’s law.

An actor’s conduct is reckless when the actor “‘does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another,'” but also “‘that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.

That conduct must be measured against how the sport is played.

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.”

Thus, “[i]f the rules of a sport allow conduct intended to harm another player, as they do in boxing or football, for example, it follows that those same rules allow behavior that would otherwise give rise to liability for recklessness.”

The plaintiff argued the defendants were reckless in failing to inform the plaintiff of the rules of the track. The court found there were no rules and there was no obligation to create them. The track was a backyard track built by the songs of the landowner for their enjoyment. There were no rules nor was there a requirement for the landowner to create rules for the use of the track.

Additionally, there is no duty to reduce or eliminate the risks of a recreational activity. The only duty is to not increase the risk of the activity. Consequently, the land owners did not owe a duty to create rules for the track or to inform the spectators of any rules if they were created.

Courts from other jurisdictions, however, have held that “operators, sponsors and instructors in recreational activities posing inherent risks of injury have no duty to eliminate those risks, but do owe participants the duty not to unreasonably increase the risks of injury beyond those inherent in the activity

The son of the landowner who built the track stated he had a ruled that spectators should stay in the barn. However, he had never enforced the rule. The court found that rule of no real value and no duty to create, enforce it or tell the plaintiff about it.

Accordingly, as the organizer of the go-karting event that day, the McNamers owed appellants the duty to not increase the risk of harm beyond the risks inherent in the activity. Failing to inform appellants about Brian McMillen’s rule did not increase the risks inherent in the activity of go-karting, as it did not increase the risk that go-karts would crash into one another, or that a driver would lose control of their go-kart and deviate from the track. Accordingly, the McNamers did not have a duty to inform the Ochalls about Brian McMillen’s rule. Construing the evidence in appellants favor, we find no evidence demonstrating that the McNamers intentionally failed to inform the Ochalls about Brian’s rule when they had a duty to do so. Accordingly, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the McNamers were reckless by failing to inform the Ochalls about Brian McMillen’s rule.

There was a bench located near the track. The defendant land owner’s son argued it was for racers to sit on between races to rest. The plaintiff argued it was there for spectators and built to entice the plaintiff to stand near it where she was injured. However, the court did not agree with this argument either.

However, there is no evidence indicating that the McMillens placed the bench there to “entice” people to congregate in that area. More importantly, the bench did not conceal any danger from appellants. The bench did not obscure appellants’ ability to see the barrier-less nature of the track or the go-karts driving off the track. There also was no evidence indicating that Mrs. Ochall ever sat on the bench; rather, the evidence indicated that Mrs. Ochall “moved around quite a bit to take photographs.”

The plaintiff’s then argued it was reckless of the defendants to conceal the dangers of the track by failing to warn them of the risks or educating them of the dangers. However, they could not tie these arguments, failing to warn, to the injury received by the plaintiff. The court found even if they had been informed of the risks, it would not have changed anything; the plaintiff would still have probably been injured.

Another recklessness claim was directed at the adults in charge of the minor driver who injured the plaintiff when she drove off the track. However, again, they could not relate those claims to the cause of the accident.

Indeed, appellants fail to make any connection between Doe’s allegedly aggressive driving and the accident. The record indicates only that it was an unfortunate slip of Doe’s headband, and Doe’s attendant need to remove her hand from the wheel in order to remove the headband from her face, which caused the accident. There is nothing in the record indicating that Doe’s alleged aggressive driving caused the accident.

Finally, the plaintiff claimed the minor driver was reckless in how she drove.

Finally, Doe’s act of removing her headband from her line of vision did not amount to reckless conduct. Doe did not remove the headband with any conscious choice of action, or with knowledge that doing so would cause her go-kart to jerk, veer off the track, and strike Mrs. Ochall.

This argument failed because reckless conduct is a conscious act. There was no conscious decision to drive off the track. The decision was to remove the headband when it was blinding her.

…reckless misconduct requires a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it or with knowledge of facts which would disclose this danger to any reasonable man

The court could not find in the plaintiff’s recklessness arguments, a proximate cause or a relationship in the arguments that might have or would have changed the way things happened.

However, every tragic accident does not result in tort liability. Because Mrs. Ochall primarily assumed the risk of injury when she stood 10 to 12 feet away from the McMillens’ go-kart track, and no defendant engaged in reckless or intentional misconduct, the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Having overruled appellants’ first and second assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. As we have overruled the appellants’ assignments of error, the McMillens withdraw their assignment of error on cross-appeal.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court, and the case was dismissed.

So Now What?

The first issue is assumption of the risk applies to spectators. Spectators have always been the unknown possible lawsuit at events. Spectators usually pay to see the event so recreational use statutes provide no protection. They do not sign releases because they are not participating. However, based on this definition of assumption of the risk and the idea that a spectator should assume the risk because they watch the sport, a spectator is prevented from sung when injured under Ohio Law.

The second issue is the clear definitions of assumption of the risk defined in this.

On a side note, the plaintiff hired an expert witness who opined that the landowner should have built a small elevated wooden platform for spectators to stand on next to the track.

Hawn stated that a “reasonable solution to the safety issue for persons afoot” was to construct “a small elevated wooden platform (~7-8 inches in height) on the infield side of the start/finish/staging area.” Hawn concluded that the “failure to either provide a safe observation location or to otherwise dictate, communicate and enforce safety rules to protect guests from the potential hazard associated with spectating was unreasonable and made this an unsafe environment for persons afoot.”

The expert also opined that the spectator’s area should have been relocated to the inside of the track and elevated. (So you have a group of people above the track level all turning around together to watch the race……)

Can you see what would happen at backyard playgrounds, sandboxes and every other play or recreational device in backyards? Sand boxes would have to come with sneeze guards you see on salad bars so sand could not accidentally be thrown in a grandparent’s face.

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

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

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

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, track, go-kart, spectator, driving, reckless, driver’s, guest, eliminated, summary judgment, inherent risks, foreseeable, go-karting, paved, finish line, recreational activity, sport, assignments of error, safe, curve, speed, kart, customary, host, risks inherent, assumption of risk, intentionally, inform, risk of injury, headband, genuine, Express Assumption of the Risk, Implied Assumption of the Risk, Secondary Assumption of the Risk, Primary Assumption of the Risk,

Rarely do you see recreation or release cases from the District of Columbia; in this case, the appellate court upheld the release for an injury in a gym

Posted: June 26, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: District of Columbia, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: affiliates, attendance, bag, bargaining, body bag, boxing, causes of action, DC, demonstration, exculpatory clauses, exempt, fitness, Fitness Center, Gross negligence, Guests, Health club, intentional torts, intentionally, kick, Membership, own negligence, personal injury, property loss, Public Policy, Reckless, recklessness, signing, Summary judgment, unenforceable, waive, waiver provisions, Wanton, Washington DC. District of Columbia | Leave a comment

Plaintiff’s arguments about the release and attempt to invalidate the release by claiming gross negligence all failed.

Moore v. Waller, et al., 930 A.2d 176; 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 476

State: District of Columbia, District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Plaintiff: Richard J. Moore

Defendant: Terrell Waller and Square 345 Limited Partnership T/A Grand Hyatt Hotel

Plaintiff Claims: negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: for the defendant health club

Year: 2007

The plaintiff was a member of the exercise facility and had signed a release when he joined. One day while at the facility to exercise, he was asked by a kick boxing instructor to hold an Everlast body bag so the instructor could demonstrate kicks to the class. The plaintiff reluctantly did so.

The kick boxing instructor showed the plaintiff how to hold the bag. The instructor then kicked the bag five times in rapid succession. The plaintiff was out of breath after the demonstration and stated with irony that it was not hard to do.

A month after the class the plaintiff determined he had been injured from holding the bag and sued.

The defendants motioned for summary judgment with the trial court which was granted, and the plaintiff appealed.

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

The court stated that it did not often look at releases in this context. The court looked at Maryland and other states for their laws concerning releases as well as the release law in DC, which was mostly in other types of business contracts.

DC like most other states will not allow a release to stop claims for “intentional harms or for the more extreme forms of negligence, i.e., reckless, wanton, or gross [negligence].” The plaintiff did not argue the acts of the defendant were grossly negligent, but did argue the acts were reckless.

However, the court could find nothing in the pleadings that indicated the defendant’s actions were reckless. In fact, the pleadings found the instructors efforts to show the plaintiff how to hold the bag was for safety purposes and as such; safety is inconsistent with recklessness or gross negligence.

The appellate court also looked at the release itself and found it was clear and unambiguous.

…”exculpation must be spelled out with such clarity that the intent to negate the usual consequences of tortious conduct is made plain”; also recognizing that in most circumstances modern law “permit[s] a person to exculpate himself by contract from the legal consequences of his negligence”

The plaintiff also argued the release was written so broadly that it was written to cover reckless or gross negligence and as such should be thrown out. However, the court looked at the issue in a different way. Any clause in a release that attempts to limit the liability for gross negligence is not valid; however, that does not invalidate the entire release.

We disagree. “‘A better interpretation of the law is that any “term” in a contract which at-tempts to exempt a party from liability for gross negligence or wanton conduct is unenforceable, not the entire [contract].

This is the acceptable way under contract law to deal with clauses or sections that are invalid. However, many contracts have clauses that say if any clause is invalid only that clause can be thrown out; the entire contract is still valid.

DC recognizes that some releases can be void if they reach too far.

We, of course, would not enforce such a release if doing so would be against public policy. “An exculpatory clause [in a will] that excuses self-dealing [by the personal representative] or attempts to limit liability for breaches of duty committed in bad faith, intentionally, or with reckless indifference to the interest of the beneficiary, is generally considered to be against public policy.”)

However, releases found within health club agreements do not violate public policy.

However, we agree with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and with numerous other courts which have held that it does not violate public policy to enforce exculpatory clauses contained in membership contracts of health clubs and fitness centers.

The appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court.

So Now What?

This decision does not leap with new information or ideas about releases. What is reassuring are two points. The first is releases are valid in DC. The second is when in doubt the court looked to Maryland, which has held that a release signed by a parent can stop a minor’s right to sue. See States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

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

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, gross negligence, fitness, exculpatory clauses, reckless, personal injury, public policy, membership, kick, summary judgment, unenforceable, guests, demonstration, intentionally, recklessness, attendance, affiliates, boxing, wanton, body bag, property loss, intentional torts, health club, bargaining, signing, exempt, waive, bag, waiver provisions, causes of action, own negligence, Washington DC. District of Columbia, DC, fitness center, health club,

Ochall et al., v. McNamer et al., 2016-Ohio-8493; 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 5337

Posted: June 23, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, Ohio | Tags: assignments of error, Assumption of risk, curve, customary, driver's, Driving, eliminated, Express Assumption of the Risk, finish line, foreseeable, genuine, Go Kart, Go Karting, Guest, headband, host, Implied Assumption of the Risk, inform, Inherent Risks, intentionally, kart, paved, Primary Assumption of the Risk, Reckless, recreational activity, risk of injury, risks inherent, safe, Secondary Assumption of the Risk, Spectator, speed, Sport, Summary judgment, track | Leave a comment

Ochall et al., v. McNamer et al., 2016-Ohio-8493; 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 5337

Andrea Ochall et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. William M. McNamer et al., Defendants-Appellees, Mark McMillen et al., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 15AP-772

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

2016-Ohio-8493; 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 5337

December 29, 2016, Rendered

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. (C.P.C. No. 14CV-5498).

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL: On brief: Kitrick, Lewis & Harris, Co. LPA, Mark Lewis, Mark Kitrick, and Elizabeth Mote, for appellants. Argued: Mark Lewis.

On brief: The Carr Law Office, LLC, Adam E. Carr, and Eric K. Grinnell, for appellees William M. and Elizabeth McNamer. Argued: Adam E. Carr.

On brief: Lane Alton, Joseph A. Gerling, and Monica L. Waller, for appellees/cross-appellants Sharon and Mark McMillen. Argued: Monica L. Waller.

On brief: Hollern & Associates, and Edwin J. Hollern, for appellees James Porter and Jane Doe # 1. Argued: Edwin J. Hollern.

JUDGES: KLATT, J. SADLER, J., concurs. DORRIAN, P.J., concurs in and part dissents in part.

OPINION BY: KLATT

OPINION

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

DECISION

KLATT, J.

[*P1] Plaintiffs-appellants, Andrea Ochall, her husband Robert Ochall, and their two minor children, appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, granting the motions for summary judgment of defendants-appellees, Sharon and Mark McMillen, James Porter and his minor daughter, Jane Doe, and William and Elizabeth McNamer (“Liz”). For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[*P2] On May 23, 2014, appellants [**2] filed a complaint against the McNamers, the McMillens, Porter, Doe, McMillen Paving and Sealing, Inc. (“MP&S”), and McMillen Paving, Inc. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, recklessness, negligent and/or reckless design, construction, operation and maintenance, failure to warn or instruct, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, vicarious liability, and loss of consortium. The events giving rise to the complaint occurred on September 20, 2013, when Mrs. Ochall was seriously injured while watching a go-kart race on the McMillens’ property.

[*P3] On the day of the incident, the McNamers had invited the Ochalls to their home in Hilliard, Ohio, for the purpose of using the go-kart track located on the McMillens’ property. The McNamers and the McMillens are next-door neighbors and very good friends. Liz McNamer and Robert Ochall are co-workers, and Liz McNamer had previously invited the Ochalls over to use the McMillens go-kart track in 2011. The Ochall family, both the adults and their two children, drove go-karts on the McMillens’ track during their visit in 2011. The Ochalls, however, had never met the McMillens before filing the [**3] present lawsuit.

[*P4] The McMillens’ son, Brian McMillen, with assistance from his younger brother Scott, constructed the go-kart track in the McMillens’ backyard between 1994-1995, when Brian was between the ages of 18 and 19-years-old. The McMillens own and operate a paving and sealing company, MP&S. Brian is now the vice president of MP&S, but was not when he originally constructed the track.

[*P5] Brian and his brother built the track in their spare time, and used some company equipment to build it. The McMillens routinely used company equipment on their home projects. Brian explained that the track “basically is a twisted up driveway.” (Jan. 5, 2015 Brian McMillen Dep. at 62.) The McMillens have never charged anyone money to use the track and they do not operate the track commercially, it is something they simply use “to [their] liking.” Id. at 88.

[*P6] Although the McNamers and the McMillens are close frends, the McNamers would always ask the McMillens for permission before bringing guests over to use the track. Thus, prior to the Ochalls’ 2013 visit, Liz McNamer asked the McMillens if they could bring the Ochalls over to use the track. The McMillens said yes, and Mark McMillen opened the McMillens’ [**4] barn and prepared the go-karts for the group’s use.

[*P7] The McMillens own five go-karts and the McNamers own one go-kart, but the go-karts are all the same make and model. Brian McMillen purchased all the go-karts from the same vendor shortly after he constructed the track, and the McNamers paid the McMillens directly for their one go-kart. Brian explained that he selected these specific go-karts because he “didn’t want to go so fast out there” so that people would “need helmets.” Id. at 109. Brian noted that the go-karts have “a bumper, * * * a full harness and had a roll cage,” and could reach a maximum speed of 28 miles per hour. Id. Brian also noted that he could not “recall whether or not we actually got a manual for the karts,” noting that he did not “remember even seeing a manual.” Id. at 115. The go-karts all have stickers on the back which advise the drivers that there is no bumping.

[*P8] The McMillens store their go-karts in their barn, and there is a paved driveway which connects the barn to the track. The driveway connects with the track at the track’s start/finish line. Porter explained that people would generally congregate on the paved area next to the start/finish line in order “to trade positions [**5] with the drivers or to watch people driving by.” (Dec. 30, 2014 James J. Porter Dep. at 41.) Liz McNamer stated that she “always stood” on the paved area near the start/finish line when she was at the track. (Feb. 10, 2015 Elizabeth G. McNamer Dep. at 56-57.) Mrs. Ochall stated that, during her visit in 2011, she was “instructed to stand in that — that particular area” by Liz McNamer. (Dec. 4, 2014 Andrea L. Ochall Dep. at 29.) No one told Mrs. Ochall where to stand during the 2013 visit. Id. at 135-36.

[*P9] Brian McMillen testified that he designed the track “not to have any spectators.” (B. McMillen Dep. at 168.) Brian explained that, when he took “people out there, that’s part of my deal: Stay up in the barn until you come up and get in a kart.” Id. at 175. He also noted that anyone at the track had to “be aware. You’ve got cars going around the track. You have to be aware that that’s an issue.” Id. Mark McMillen had placed a bench at the back edge of that paved area next to the start/finish line. Brian explained that the bench was “by no means a bleacher,” as it was there simply for drivers to rest on between and after races. Id. at 170-71.

[*P10] There are no barriers around the McMillens’ go-kart track, only painted edge lines. [**6] Brian McMillen explained that he purposely did not construct barriers because barriers “would just be something for a kart to hit,” and would “give a much greater probability of making a car go airborn and possible flipping.” Id. at 168, 232. Accordingly, when driving on the McMillens’ go-kart track, “there are times you go off the track on a turn or you veer off for some reason or another. * * * And that happens regularly.” (J. Porter Dep. at 38.) Liz McNamer noted that she “went off into the grass” the first time she drove on the track. (L. McNamer Dep. at 40, 42.) She explained that it was “safe” for a driver to “go off the track and come back on.” Id. at 108-09. Porter noted that he had seen go-karts go off the track on the “big turns, * * * on the little turns, * * * on the straightaways,” and specifically stated that he had seen go-karts go off the track “coming out that final turn into the start/stop” area. (J. Porter Dep. at 38-39; 45-46.)

[*P11] On the day of the incident, the Ochalls arrived with their two minor children, and two of their children’s friends. The McNamers’ son-in-law, Porter, was also present with his daughter, and the McNamers’ granddaughter, Doe. Doe was 11 years old; the Ochall children [**7] and their friends were all 13 years old. The group met at the McNamers’ house, and walked through the adjoining backyards to the McMillens’ go-kart track. The McMillens were not present at the track; Sharon McMillen was at the grocery store and Mark McMillen was inside his home watching a football game.

[*P12] Liz McNamer gave the group instructions regarding how to operate the go-karts, telling them, “the gas was on one side, the brake was on the other, the steering wheel.” (L. McNamer Dep. at 103.) Liz McNamer observed the children as they drove, noting that “[t]hey seemed to be doing pretty well. They seemed like they were able to manage going around the track.” Id. at 106. Liz McNamer noted that she watched the children driving to make sure that no one was “at risk,” and noted that she “didn’t see that.” Id. at 117.

[*P13] There were more people than go-karts during the 2013 event, so both the adults and the children rotated using the go-karts throughout the day. As was typical at the McMillens’ track, multiple drivers drove off the track that day. Doe’s go-kart came all the way off the track and went into the grass, and Porter’s go-kart came partially off the track. One of the Ochall children drove off the track, “[a]ll [**8] four wheels were off the track,” and Porter “had to push him out.” (J. Porter Dep. at 93, 95-96.) Liz McNamer stated that she “observed that day each child went off the track at some capacity.” (L. McNamer Dep. at 109.) Liz McNamer testified that, when Doe’s go-kart left the track earlier in the day, she spoke to her granddaughter and “cautioned her and advised her just to be careful. The ground was pretty saturated. * * * There was water standing, so I just wanted her to be aware and, you know, just cautioned her.” (L. McNamer Dep. at 129.)

[*P14] Mrs. Ochall was aware that there were “no barriers, there’s no safety barriers” around the track. (A. Ochall Dep. at 137.) Mrs. Ochall also witnessed go-karts driving off the track on the day of the incident, and admitted that she knew “that [a go-kart] could come off the track.” Id. at 139. Indeed, two photographs Mrs. Ochall took that day depict go-karts which had driven partially and completely off the track. (See A. Ochall Dep; Defs.’ Exs. 3 and 4.) However, Mrs. Ochall believed that the paved area next to the start/finish line was “a safe environment. That is a safe zone.” (A. Ochall Dep. at 137.) No one ever told Mrs. Ochall that the paved area was [**9] a safe zone. (See Dec. 4, 2014 Robert W. Ochall Dep. at 13; A. Ochall Dep. at 191.)

[*P15] Mrs. Ochall drove a go-kart on the day of the incident. After driving, she stood around the track taking pictures. Mrs. Ochall’s camera had a telephoto lens, and there was a cup she had to put her eye up to in order to use the camera. Because she was taking pictures “one right after the other,” Mrs. Ochall admitted that she was “[n]ot always” able to see what was going on around her. Id. at 139-40. She admitted that her vision was “[p]robably” obstructed by her camera. Id. at 140.

[*P16] After one to two hours at the track, the group decided they would hold one last race. Porter, Mr. and Mrs. Ochall, Mr. and Mrs. McNamer, and an Ochall child were all standing in the paved area adjoining the track near the start/finish line; the others participated in the race. During the second lap of the race, as Doe came into the turn which approached the start/finish area, “her hair band went over her eyes. She had grabbed it and thrown it off to get better vision. So as she grabbed it and thrown it off, * * * she went straight through” the paved area next to the track and struck Mrs. Ochall. (J. Porter Dep. at 117.) Mrs. Ochall was standing “10-12 feet to [**10] the south of the painted edge line which delineated the marked boundary of the track surface” when the accident occurred. (Pls.’ Ex. C., Apr. 9, 2013 Choya R. Hawn Acc. Reconstruction Report at 8.) Porter noted that, the cars are “hard to steer with one hand,” so when Doe threw her headband “she kind of jerked as well,” which caused her to veer off the track. (J. Porter Dep. at 117.) Doe confirmed these events and told her father immediately after the incident that her “headband slipped over her eyes, and she threw it out and lost control.” Id. at 130.

[*P17] Doe’s go-kart struck Mrs. Ochall directly and flung her into the air. When Mrs. Ochall landed, she suffered a serious spinal cord injury. The last photograph Mrs. Ochall took that day depicts Doe throwing her headband. (See A. Ochall Dep.; Defs.’ Ex. 5.) Prior to Mrs. Ochall’s injury, no one had ever been injured at the McMillens’ go-kart track. (L. McNamer Dep. at 44-45.)

[*P18] Although each defendant filed separate motions for summary judgment, all defendants alleged that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred appellants’ negligence claims, and that there was no evidence of reckless or intentional misconduct. The McMillens further asserted [**11] that, as they did not invite the Ochalls to their property, they could not be considered the social hosts of the Ochalls. The McNamers asserted that, as they were not the property owners, they could not be held liable for any condition on the McMillens property. MP&S and McMillen Paving, Inc. argued that McMillen Paving, Inc. was a shell corporation with no assets, and that MP&S did not design or construct the track.

[*P19] Appellants filed a memorandum contra the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, asserting that “[n]othing occurred to alert [Mrs. Ochall] to any danger of go-karts driving into spectators in the seating area.” (Apr. 14, 2015 Pls.’ Memo. Contra at 8.) Appellants argued that primary assumption of the risk did not apply to the facts of this case, because the track was designed defectively and because all of the defendants had acted recklessly.

[*P20] Appellants supported their memorandum contra with the report of their accident reconstruction expert, Choya Hawn. Hawn observed that, “[i]n the absence of any persons afoot the original track design was in [his] opinion reasonably safe for the ‘go-kart operators.'” (Emphasis sic.) (Acc. Reconstruction Report at 13.) Hawn stated that a “reasonable [**12] solution to the safety issue for persons afoot” was to construct “a small elevated wooden platform (~7-8 inches in height) on the infield side of the start/finish/staging area.” Id. at 16. Hawn concluded that the “failure to either provide a safe observation location or to otherwise dictate, communicate and enforce safety rules to protect guests from the potential hazard associated with spectating was unreasonable and made this an unsafe environment for persons afoot.” Id. at 16, 18.

[*P21] On May 6, 2015, the court issued a decision and entry denying the McMillens’ motion for summary judgment, in part, and granting the business entities’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, as the McNamers had asked the McMillens if they could bring the Ochalls to the McMillens property, and the McMillens had granted the McNamers permission to do so, “an implied invitation between the McMillens and Plaintiffs occurred.” (May 6, 2015 Decision & Entry at 4.) As such, the court concluded that the Ochalls were the social guests of the McMillens. Regarding the entities, the court determined that McMillen Paving, Inc. had “never performed any business nor held assets, and never acted in the creation of the go-kart [**13] track,” such that the company was an “inappropriate party to the suit.” Id. at 5. Regarding MP&S, the court concluded that the company “was not employed to create or maintain the go-kart track,” and that Brian McMillen was not acting in his capacity as an employee of the company when he constructed the track. Id.

[*P22] On July 31, 2015, the trial court issued a decision and entry granting the McMillens’, the McNamers’, and Porter’s and Doe’s motions for summary judgment. The court observed that go-karting is a recreational activity, and concluded that, “[s]ince the risk of being injured by a go-kart leaving the track [was] a foreseeable risk of go-kart racing on the McMillen track,” the risk was “inherent to go-kart racing on a private, barrier-less backyard track.” (July 31, 2015 Decision & Entry at 7-8.) As such, the court concluded that primary assumption of the risk applied to bar appellants’ negligence claims, and that appellants could only recover if the defendants acted intentionally or recklessly to cause Mrs. Ochall’s injuries.

[*P23] The “parties agree[d] that no one acted intentionally to injure Andrea Ochall on that day.” Id. at 8. Accordingly, the court addressed whether any of the defendants engaged in reckless [**14] misconduct. Appellants argued that the defendants were reckless because they failed to enforce Brian McMillen’s no-spectator rule. The court observed that, while Brian McMillen had a no-spectator rule when he was at the track, Brian was not the property owner, and neither the McMillens nor Brian McMillen acknowledged Brian’s personal rule as a track rule. As such, the court concluded that “not allowing adult spectators at or near the track for races [was] not a rule, regulation, custom, or common practice of the track or races conducted at the McMillen track.” Id. at 11. The court also addressed appellants’ argument that the defendants were reckless because they had not read or implemented safety guidelines from the go-kart manufacturer’s or owner’s manuals. The court concluded that no defendant had a duty to inform appellants about those safety guidelines.

[*P24] Regarding the McMillens, the court noted that, as the property owners, the McMillens had no duty to improve their track, as they only had a duty to “exercise ordinary care to prepare the property for social guests.” Id. at 12. Accordingly, the McMillens did not have “a duty to instruct guests on how to go-kart race or to implement any rules other [**15] than those which the family uses on their land.” Id. at 14. The court observed that the McMillens merely allowed their neighbors and their neighbor’s guests to use their go-kart track. As such, the court did not find any evidence of reckless conduct by the McMillens.

[*P25] Regarding the McNamers, the court noted that the McNamers similarly “did not have a duty to instruct guests on how to drive a go-kart.” Id. at 16. Regarding the McNamers supervision of Doe, the court noted that Liz McNamer told her granddaughter once to slow down. The court observed that “[a] single admonishment by a grandparent in the presence of the child’s parent” was “not sufficient evidence of recklessness.” Id. at 19. As there was no evidence indicating that the McNamers told appellants “they ‘had to’ stand on the adjacent asphalt area,” and as Liz McNamer also stood on the adjacent asphalt area, the court could not find that the “McNamer’s action of standing on the adjacent area rose to the level of reckless required by the theory of primary assumption of the risk.” Id. at 20.

[*P26] Regarding Doe, the court concluded that Doe was not reckless, “because removing a hand from the steering wheel to clear one’s vision is the lesser of two evils. * * * [Doe] [**16] did not intentionally drive into the spectator area, but was unable to correct her kart’s path in time to not strike Plaintiff.” Id. at 21. Regarding appellants claim that Porter was reckless by not removing Doe from the track earlier in the day, the court concluded that, as there was no evidence demonstrating that Doe was driving recklessly throughout the day, there was no reason why Porter should have removed Doe from the track.

[*P27] Accordingly, the court concluded that primary assumption of the risk applied to the case, and that there was no evidence of reckless or intentional misconduct. As such, the court found the defendants entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

[*P28] Appellants appeal, assigning the following two assignments of error for our review:

1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED APPLYING PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK TO HOLD THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE EXISTED NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT CONCERNING DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ RECKLESS-NESS, THUS ENTITLING THEM TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The McMillens have also filed a contingent cross-appeal, asserting the following sole, [**17] assignment of error:

The Trial Court erred in denying in part the Motion for Summary Judgment of Appellees/Cross-Appellants Sharon McMillen and Mark McMillen and concluding that Appellants were social guests of the McMillens rather than licensees. The McMillens’ assignment of error is conditional upon the Courts’ ruling on the assignment of error of Appellants. If the Court overrules Appellants’ assignment of error, the McMillens will withdraw the cross-appeal.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[*P29] [HN1] Appellate review of summary judgment motions is de novo. Helton v. Scioto County Bd. of Comm’rs, 123 Ohio App. 3d 158, 162, 703 N.E.2d 841 (4th Dist.1997). “When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court.” Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp., 122 Ohio App. 3d 100, 103, 701 N.E.2d 383 (12th Dist.1997). We must affirm the trial court’s judgment if any of the grounds raised by the movant at the trial court are found to support it, even if the trial court failed to consider those grounds. Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41-42, 654 N.E.2d 1327 (9th Dist.1995).

[*P30] [HN2] Summary judgment is proper only when the party moving for summary judgment demonstrates that: (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 and that conclusion is adverse [**18] to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence most strongly construed in that party’s favor. Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Rels. Bd., 78 Ohio St. 3d 181, 183, 1997 Ohio 221, 677 N.E.2d 343 (1997).

[*P31] [HN3] When seeking summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, the moving party bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claims. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 1996 Ohio 107, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). A moving party does not discharge this initial burden under Civ.R. 56 by simply making a conclusory allegation that the nonmoving party has no evidence to prove its case. Id. Rather, the moving party must affirmatively demonstrate by affidavit or other evidence allowed by Civ.R. 56(C) that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support its claims. Id. If the moving party meets this initial burden, then the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the nonmoving party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party. Id.

IV. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF [**19] ERROR — PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK

[*P32] Appellants’ first assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by applying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to the instant dispute. Appellants asserted various negligence claims against the defendants, and [HN4] “in order to establish actionable negligence, one seeking recovery must show the existence of a duty, the breach of the duty, and injury resulting proximately therefrom.” Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285, 423 N.E.2d 467 (1981), citing Feldman v. Howard, 10 Ohio St.2d 189, 193, 226 N.E.2d 564 (1967). “[A] successful primary assumption of risk defense means that the duty element of negligence is not established as a matter of law.” Wolfe v. Bison Baseball, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-905, 2010-Ohio-1390, ¶ 21, quoting Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427, 432, 1996 Ohio 320, 659 N.E.2d 1232 (1996).

[*P33] [HN5] “Ohio law recognizes three categories of assumption of the risk as defenses to a negligence claim: express, primary, and implied or secondary.” Schnetz v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 195 Ohio App. 3d 207, 959 N.E.2d 554, 2011-Ohio-3927, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing Crace v. Kent State Univ., 185 Ohio App.3d 534, 2009-Ohio-6898, ¶ 10, 924 N.E.2d 906 (10th Dist.). “Express assumption of the risk applies when parties expressly agree to release liability.” Crace at ¶ 11. “Implied assumption of risk is defined as plaintiff’s consent to or acquiescence in an appreciated, known or obvious risk to plaintiff’s safety.” Collier v. Northland Swim Club, 35 Ohio App.3d 35, 37, 518 N.E.2d 1226 (10th Dist.1987). “Under this approach to assumption of risk, defendant owes to plaintiff some duty, but it is plaintiff’s acquiescence in or appreciation of a [**20] known risk that acts as a defense to plaintiff’s action.” Id.

[*P34] [HN6] “Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries.” Morgan v. Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-405, 2012-Ohio-453, ¶ 13, citing Crace at ¶ 13, citing Santho v. Boy Scouts of Am., 168 Ohio App.3d 27, 2006-Ohio-3656, ¶ 12, 857 N.E.2d 1255 (10th Dist.). See also Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus. “The rationale is that certain risks are so inherent in some activities that the risk of injury is unavoidable.” Crace at ¶ 13, citing Collier at 37. By participating in an activity, the plaintiff “tacitly consent[s]” to the risk of injury inherent in the activity. Id. The test requires that: “(1) the danger is ordinary to the game, (2) it is common knowledge that the danger exists; and (3) the injury occurs as a result of the danger during the course of the game.” Santho at ¶ 12.

[*P35] Thus, [HN7] courts apply the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to cases involving sporting events and recreational activities, and generally extend the doctrine to relieve liability of [**21] owners, operators, and sponsors of recreational activities. Crace at ¶ 12, 20. The doctrine applies regardless of whether the activity was engaged in by children or adults, or was organized, unorganized, supervised, or unsupervised. Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141, 2004-Ohio-379, ¶ 8, 802 N.E.2d 1116. The doctrine also applies to spectators and participants alike. Id. at ¶ 10.

[*P36] Furthermore, [HN8] when considering primary assumption of the risk, “the injured plaintiff’s subjective consent to and appreciation for the inherent risks are immaterial to the analysis.” Crace at ¶ 16, citing Gentry at ¶ 9. See also Foggin v. Fire Protection Specialists, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-1078, 2013-Ohio-5541, ¶ 10 (noting that the plaintiff’s subjective consent to the inherent risks of an activity are immaterial, because “[t]hose entirely ignorant of the risks of the activity, still assume the risk by participating in the activity”). Indeed, “primary assumption of risk requires an examination of the activity itself and not plaintiff’s conduct.” Gehri v. Capital Racing Club, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 96APE10-1307, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2527 (June 12, 1997). See Rees v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 8th Dist. No. 84183, 2004-Ohio-6112, ¶ 20, quoting Gum v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 8th Dist. No. 70833, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 503 (Feb. 13, 1997) (explaining that “‘the baseball fan assumes the risk of being hit by a foul ball when [**22] he takes his place in the stands, not at the moment the foul ball comes flying his way'”). Accordingly, Mrs. Ochall’s personal belief that the paved area next to the track was a safe zone is irrelevant to the primary assumption of the risk analysis.

[*P37] [HN9] “‘[O]nly those risks directly associated with the activity in question are within the scope of primary assumption of risk.'” Horvath v. Ish, 134 Ohio St.3d 48, 2012-Ohio-5333, ¶ 19, 979 N.E.2d 1246, quoting Gallagher at 432. “The affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk completely negates a negligence claim because the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff against the inherent risks of the recreational activity in which the plaintiff engages.” Morgan at ¶ 14, citing Crace at ¶ 15. See also Pope v. Willey, 12th Dist. No. CA2004-10-077, 2005-Ohio-4744, ¶ 11. “Because of the great impact a ruling in favor of a defendant on primary assumption of risk grounds carries, a trial court must proceed with caution when contemplating whether primary assumption of risk completely bars a plaintiff’s recovery.” Gallagher at 432.

[*P38] [HN10] The “goal” of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine “is to strike a balance between encouraging vigorous and free participation in recreational or sports activities, while ensuring the safety of the players.” Marchetti at 99. See also Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65, 32 Cal. App. 4th 248, 253 (observing [**23] that the “overriding consideration in the application of primary assumption of risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature”); Yancey v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777, 28 Cal. App. 4th 558, 565 (noting that “[d]uty is constricted in such settings because the activity involves inherent risks which cannot be eliminated without destroying the sport itself”).

[*P39] [HN11] Whether to apply the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk presents an issue of law for the court to determine. Crace at ¶ 12, citing Gallagher at 435. We therefore review the trial court’s application of the doctrine de novo. Id.

[*P40] Appellants contend that the trial court disregarded relevant authority when it “looked only to ‘foreseeable’ and ‘common’ risks to invoke the doctrine.” (Appellant’s brief, at 16.) Appellants assert that the trial court “misunderstood and misapplied Ohio law” when it held that the risks which are foreseeable and common in the course of a sport or activity are the inherent risks of the activity. Id. at 16-17. The trial court observed that “[a] risk is found to be ordinary or inherent to the recreational activity when it arises from conduct that is ‘a foreseeable, customary part of the activity.'” [**24] (Decision & Entry at 4, quoting Gentry at 144.)

[*P41] In Gentry the Supreme Court of Ohio held that [HN12] “where injuries stem from ‘conduct that is a foreseeable, customary’ part of the activity, the defendant ‘cannot be held liable for negligence because no duty is owed to protect the victim from that conduct.'” Id. at ¶ 10, quoting Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 104, 559 N.E.2d 705 (1990), modified on other grounds by Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380, 2012-Ohio-5711, 983 N.E.2d 266. The court in Gentry noted that, “[o]bviously,” in Thompson, the court had “applied ‘primary’ assumption-of-risk principles in limiting the defendant’s liability.” Id. at ¶ 11. See Thompson at 106 (noting that, because “[s]hanking the ball is a foreseeable and not uncommon occurrence in the game of golf,” the plaintiff primarily assumed the risk of being hit by a golf ball by playing the game of golf).

[*P42] [HN13] Under the three-part test, a danger ordinary to a game is a danger which is customary to the game. See Santho at ¶ 13 (observing that “[f]alling is an ordinary danger of ice-skating,” and that “[c]olliding with the perimeter boards is an ordinary danger of ice rink skating”). When a danger is a foreseeable part of a game, there will be common knowledge that the danger exists. See id. (noting that it is “foreseeable that any time an individual, regardless of skill, steps onto ice, they risk falling or coming into contact with [**25] the barriers that set the perimeter of the skating surface”); Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175, 180-81, 3 Ohio Law Abs. 164, 147 N.E. 86 (1925) (noting that it is “common knowledge that in baseball games hard balls are thrown and batted with great swiftness, that they are liable to be thrown or batted outside the lines of the diamond, and that spectators in positions which may be reached by such balls assume the risk thereof”).

[*P43] Thus, [HN14] for primary assumption of the risk purposes, the risks inherent in an activity are the foreseeable, common, and customary risks of the activity. See also Foggin v. Fire Protection Specialists, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-1078, 2013-Ohio-5541, ¶ 9 (noting that the “types of risks associated with the activity are those that are foreseeable and customary risks of the activity”); Deutsch v. Birk, 189 Ohio App.3d 129, 2010-Ohio-3564, ¶ 13, 937 N.E.2d 638 (12th Dist.). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by concluding that the foreseeable and cutomary risks of an activity are the inherent risks of the activity. See Gentry at ¶ 10, quoting Thompson at 104 (primary assumption of the risk applies to “‘conduct that is a foreseeable, customary part’ of the activity”).

[*P44] Appellants further contend that the the “trial court improperly applied the doctrine when it failed to analyze whether the risks that injured Plaintiff-Appellant were inherent, necessary or unavoidable, [**26] i.e., whether they could be eliminated.” (Appellant’s brief, at 17.) Appellants assert that the trial court “ignored” the “various ways” the danger to spectators “could have been eliminated.” Id. at 23. Relying on the accident reconstruction report, appellants assert that “the ‘potential’ danger to spectators could have been easily eliminated by (1) moving the spectator area, (2) elevating the spectator area by wooden deck, (3) installing simple barriers between the track and spectators, or (4) warning guests about the no-spectator rule.” Id. Appellants, however, misconstrue the meaning of risks which “cannot be eliminated.”

[*P45] [HN15] The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “‘[t]o be covered under the doctrine, the risk must be one that is so inherent to the sport or activity that it cannot be eliminated.'” Horvath at ¶ 19, quoting Konesky v. Wood Cty. Agricultural Soc., 164 Ohio App.3d 839, 2005-Ohio-7009, ¶ 19, 844 N.E.2d 408 (6th Dist.). In Horvath, the court observed that “collisions between skiers are an inherent risk of skiing,” as “‘other skiers are as much a part of the risk in downhill skiing, if not more so than the snow and ice, elevation, contour, speed and weather conditions.'” Id. at ¶ 20, quoting Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 563 Pa. 501, 511, 762 A.2d 339 (2000). See also Morgan v. Kent State Univ., 2016-Ohio-3303, 54 N.E.3d 1284, ¶ 25 (noting that, “by its very nature, karate, [**27] as a martial art, is an inherently dangerous activity from which the risk of harm cannot be eliminated”). To determine the risks which are so inherent in an activity that they cannot be eliminated, a court must “focus[] exclusively upon the activity itself.” Schnetz at ¶ 28. See also Crace at ¶ 25.

[*P46] For example, in Brumage v. Green, 2d Dist. No. 2014-CA-7, 2014-Ohio-2552, the court observed that “‘[l]osing control and flipping an ATV is a foreseeable and customary risk associated with the activity of driving or riding on an ATV.'” Id. at ¶ 14, quoting Curtis v. Schmid, 5th Dist. No. 07 CAE 11 0065, 2008-Ohio-5239, ¶ 56. The plaintiff argued that certain factors specific to the incident, including that he was driving the ATV on a public roadway, made the risks he faced “greater than are customary in the recreational activity of riding ATVs.” Id. at ¶ 15. The court refused to address the plaintiff’s incident specific arguments, because “flipping off an ATV and getting injured is a risk that is inherent in the recreational activity of riding an ATV.” Id. at ¶ 16. The Brumage court observed that, “‘[w]hat causes the driver to lose control is better addressed when determining whether the driver acted intentionally, [or] recklessly.'” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting West v. Devendra, 7th [**28] Dist. No. 11 BE 35, 2012-Ohio-6092, ¶ 26, 985 N.E.2d 558. See also Morgan v. Kent State Univ. at ¶ 22, 25.

[*P47] Accordingly, in analyzing the risks inherent to go-karting, we must focus exclusively on the activity of go-karting, and not on the actions or omissions of the defendants in this case. See Crace at ¶ 25 (observing that, if the law treated participants differently from nonparticipants, the primary assumption of the risk analysis would shift “away from the activity and its inherent risks,” and would “unnecessarily focus upon the extent of the defendant’s involvement and the defendant’s classification as a participant, non-participant, * * * sponsor, provider, or otherwise,* * * with no regard for the inherent risks of the activity”). Appellants’ contentions regarding the things the defendants could have done to alter the McMillens’ track for the benefit of spectators essentially amount to claims that the various defendants were reckless. See Morgan v. Church of Christ at ¶ 16.

[*P48] Additionally, appellants’ arguments regarding the “risks to spectators” at the McMillens’ track improperly attempts to shift the focus of the analysis away from the risks inherent in the activity. (Appellant’s brief, at 20.) [HN16] Because the primary assumption [**29] of the risk analysis focuses on the risks inherent in the activity at issue, spectators and participants are treated the same. Indeed, “spectators as well as participants ‘must accept from a participant conduct associated with that sport’ or activity.” Gentry at ¶ 10, quoting Thompson at 104. See also Taylor v. Mathys, 3rd Dist. No. 14-04-32, 2005-Ohio-150, ¶ 10, citing Gentry at ¶ 6 (noting that primary assumption of the risk’s “limitation on liability extends to the spectators of a recreational activity as well as the participants”); Crace at ¶ 25. “‘[T]hose entirely ignorant of the risks of a sport, still assume the risk * * * by participating in a sport or simply by attending the game.'” Gentry at ¶ 12, quoting Gilles, From Baseball Parks to the Public Arena: Assumption of the Risk in Tort Law and Constitutional Libel Law, 75 Temple L.Rev. 231, 236 (2002).

[*P49] Focusing on the activity at issue herein, we observe that go-karting is a recreational activity involving motorized go-karts which are propelled forward around a racetrack by a driver. During a race, a go-kart driver will attempt to drive their go-kart past the other go-karts in the race in order to be the first go-kart to cross the finish line. The joy of go-karting derives from attempting to maintain control over one’s go-kart while maneuvering, [**30] at speed, around the go-kart track and the other go-karts present on the track. Accordingly, [HN17] the inherent risks of go-karting include running into other go-karts on the track, or deviating from the track and running into any object present around the track. See Loewenthal v. Catskill Funland, 237 A.D.2d 262, 263, 654 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1997) (where the plaintiff’s “go-kart veered off its intended course, striking the wall in the pit area head on,” the court observed that, “[i]n riding the go-cart, the plaintiff * * * assumed the risks inherent in the activity,” which included that the “go-cart would bump into objects”); Garnett v. Strike Holdings LLC, 131 A.D.3d 817, 820, 15 N.Y.S.3d 786 (2015) (noting that “the operator of the track does not have a duty to protect the go-kart rider from the inherent and foreseeable risk of being bumped by another go-kart”). Compare Jussila v. United States Snowmobile Ass’n, 556 N.W.2d 234, 237 (Minn.App.1996) (noting that “a snowmobile takes on a more dangerous character when operated on a racetrack by competitors attempting to win races”).

[*P50] Accordingly, [HN18] the risk that a go-kart may veer off the track and strike any object present nearby is a risk inherent to go-karting. As such, Mrs. Ochall assumed that risk in the primary sense when she stood 10 to 12 feet away from the McMillens’ go-kart track while a go-kart race was in process.

[*P51] Appellants [**31] assert that the trial court erred “by conflating the duty analysis under primary assumption of the risk with the social host duty of care in premises liability cases.” (Appellant’s brief, at 27.) The trial court noted appellants’ argument that “a risk is not inherent if it can be eliminated with due care,” but concluded that, because “[d]efendants, as social hosts, did not have an additional duty to make adjustments to the private, residential track, * * * the risk in question [was] a risk inherent to go-kart racing on a private, barrier-less backyard track.” (Decision & Entry at 5, 7-8.) Appellants contend that the trial court’s analysis improperly mixed “duty with breach.” (Appellant’s brief, at 27.) We agree.

[*P52] The trial court erred in its primary assumption of the risk analysis because it failed to ascertain the risks inherent in the activity of go-karting. Instead, the trial court wrongly focused on the defendants, and the duty they owed to appellants, rather than focusing on the activity at issue. See Schnetz at ¶ 30 (finding that the trial court erred by concluding that primary assumption of the risk did not apply “to inmate claims against a prison because a prison owes a duty of care to inmates in its custody and [**32] control,” as such a “holding shift[ed] the focus of the analysis away from the activity and its inherent risks and improperly focuse[d] upon the extent of the defendant’s involvement and the defendant’s classification”).

[*P53] Although the trial court erred by considering the defendants’ duty under the primary assumption of the risk analysis, this error does not amount to reversible error. Pursuant to our de novo review, we have determined that an inherent risk of go-karting is the risk that a go-kart will deviate from its intended course upon the track and strike any object which may be present around the track. As such, absent evidence of reckless or intentional conduct, primary assumption of the risk applies to the facts of this case and defeats appellants’ negligence claims. Accordingly, we have reached the same result as the trial court, albeit for different reasons. See Phillips v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 93 Ohio App.3d 111, 115, 637 N.E.2d 963 (2d Dist.1994) (noting that, since the reviewing court must independently determine, as a matter of law, whether summary judgment was properly granted, “[a] summary judgment based on a legally erroneous analysis of the issues must be affirmed if the appellate court independently determines that upon the record summary judgment should have been rendered [**33] as a matter of law, albeit for different reasons”).

[*P54] Appellants assert that the trial court disregarded the two Ohio go-karting cases, Goffe v. Mower, 2d Dist. No. 98-CA-49, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 308 (Feb. 5, 1999) and Reed v. Cassidy, 3d Dist. No. 2-01-36, 2002-Ohio-1672 (Apr. 10, 2002), in reaching its summary judgment decision. The trial court noted the cases, but correctly found the cases inapplicable to the present dispute. (See Decision & Entry at 5-6.)

[*P55] In Reed the plaintiff was injured at a charity go-kart race being held on city streets. The race organizers had placed a four-foot high fence and bales of hay around the race perimeter to separate the sidewalk from the racetrack. The plaintiff was “initially watching the race from a spectator area,” but had moved to another area to watch the race, which was still “protected by the orange fencing” but had “fewer hay bales.” Id. Two go-kart drivers collided during the race, causing one go-kart to veer off the track and strike the plaintiff. The court stated that it was “not convinced that injury to a spectator [was] the kind of risk so inherent to the sport of go-kart racing that the appellant could be deemed to have consented to it.” Id. The court noted that the plaintiff “testified that she observed [**34] other accidents during go-kart races and that there had, in fact, been several other accidents on the day she was hit.” Id. The court concluded that simply observing other go-karts run into each other did “not mean that injury to spectators as a result of karts leaving the track [was] inherent to racing,” but stated that it “raise[d] a question of fact as to whether such risk was obvious to appellant.” Id.

[*P56] As Reed is a decision from the Third District Court of Appeals, it holds no precedential value in this district. Furthermore, as the Reed court failed to engage in a proper primary assumption of the risk analysis, we do not find the decision persuasive. Reed did not attempt to ascertain the risks inherent to the activity of go-karting. Instead, the court simply concluded that injury to spectators was not an inherent risk of go-karting. In so concluding, the court treated spectators differently from participants, in violation of Gentry. The Reed court also inappropriately considered the plaintiff’s subjective understanding of the risk, in further violation of Gentry.

[*P57] Unlike the present case which concerns a private, free, backyard go-kart track, in Goffe the plaintiff was a business invitee [**35] at a commercial go-kart track. The plaintiff was injured exiting her go-kart at the end of the ride when another driver accidently accelerated and “struck a parked go-cart in the off-loading area of the track,” which then “struck Ms. Goffe in the leg.” Id. The plaintiff alleged defective design had caused her injury because, at the end of the ride, a gate would funnel the go-karts “into a confined pit area so that a runaway go-cart had no option but to strike go-carts in the unloading area.” Id. The court observed that “[o]ne who rides an amusement device assumes the ordinary risks inherent in the ride, insofar as those risks are obvious and necessary, but only so long as the device is properly designed and the operator has used proper care in its construction and operation.” Id., citing Pierce v. Gooding Amusement Co., 55 Ohio Law Abs. 556, 90 N.E.2d 585 (1949). The court concluded that the business had breached its “duty of ordinary care to Ms. Goffe by desiging an amusement ride which created an unreasonable danger that the rider would be injured while exiting the ride but before reaching a place of safety.” Id.

[*P58] Relying on Goffe, appellants contend that primary assumption of the risk cannot apply in this matter, because defendants “enhanced the unusual risk [**36] to spectators by operating a defective track.” (Appellant’s brief, at 23.) Appellants assert that defendants “failed to design, build and operate the track to account for spectator safety by, among other steps, moving the spectator area inside the track and elevating it.” Id. at 24. Appellants argue that the track was defective because defendants “built and maintained a ‘short chute’ at the final high-banked turn to create faster go-kart speeds approaching the spectator area.” Id. However, there is no evidence in the record indicating that either the short-chute or the high-banked turn created faster go-kart speeds, or that these aspects of the track caused the accident.

[*P59] Brian McMillen explained that, in 2010-11, he “raised the elevation” on the curve approaching that start/finish area in order to “control flooding from the pond and the ground water.” (B. McMillen Dep. at 135.) The alteration resulted in the track “dropping three or four inches over that 30-40 feet” as a kart approached the straightaway into the start/finish line. Id. at 149. Brian referred to the straightaway as a “short chute,” explaining that a “short chute” is just a “small piece of straightaway between two turns.” Id. at 150. Notably, Brian [**37] confirmed that this alteration did not affect a driver’s “ability to change speed or how they had to maneuver that part of the track.” Id. at 149.

[*P60] Hawn concluded that “it was mathematically possible for a kart to be driven successfully through the high-banked curve at the south end of the track” approaching the start/finish area “at full (maximum) speed,” and explained that “[t]he laws of Newtonian physics dictate that if a kart were to exceed the critical speed of the high-banked curve or fail to maintain a traversable line through the curve, the kart will break tracation and likely slide towards the outside of the curve beyond the apex.” (Acc. Reconstruction Report at 10, 13. ) Hawn stated that Doe’s go-kart was travelling between 18 to 25 miles per hour when it struck Mrs. Ochall, “which was consistent with the critical speed calculations for the kart traversing the high-banked curve.” Id. at 11. Thus, Doe did not exceed the critical speed of the high-banked curve. Although Hawn referred to the high-banked curve as the “fastest curve of the track,” he did not find that the curve created unreasonably fast go-kart speeds or that the curve would cause a driver to lose control of their go-kart. Id. at 13.

[*P61] Indeed, Hawn [**38] concluded that the “design, layout, construction and overall environment of the track facility (with the generous clear zone) was reasonably safe for the ‘operators of the karts.'” Id. at 17. Hawn also stated that the “the original track design was in [his] opinion reasonably safe for the ‘go-kart operators.'” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 15. Thus, appellants own expert concluded that the design of the track was safe. Appellants have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the track was designed defectively.

[*P62] Appellants’ contention that the McMillens’ track was defectively designed because there was no infield, elevated, spectator platform, does not amount to an argument that the track was designed defectively. An elevated viewing platform would not be part of the track itself; rather, it would be a separate structure near the track. Appellants’ contention that defendants should have constructed a viewing platform for spectators, or taken other actions for spectators, do not allege that the track itself was designed defectively, but are essentially claims that the defendants were reckless by failing to build a spectator platform.

[*P63] Based on the foregoing, we find that Mrs. Ochall [**39] primarily assumed the risk of injury when she stood 10 to 12 feet away from the McMillens’ go-kart track. Appellants’ first assignment of error is overruled.

V. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR – RECKLESSNESS

[*P64] Appellants’ second assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding defendants’ recklessness.

[*P65] [HN19] An actor’s conduct is reckless when the actor “‘does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another,'” but also “‘that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.'” Marchetti at 96, fn. 2, quoting 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 500, at 587 (1965). “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.” Thompson at 105.

[*P66] Thus, “[i]f the rules of a sport allow conduct intended to harm another player, as they do in boxing or football, for example, [**40] it follows that those same rules allow behavior that would otherwise give rise to liability for recklessness.” Id. Conversley, “any conduct which is characterized by the strong probability of harm that recklessness entails, and which occurs outside the normal conduct and customs of the sport, may give rise to liability.” Id. In assessing recklessness, courts must recognize the “inverse relationship between duty and dangerousness,” as the “‘quid pro quo of an “assumed greater risk” is a diminished duty.'” Id., quoting Hanson v. Kynast, 38 Ohio App. 3d 58, 64, 526 N.E.2d 327 (5th Dist.1987).

[*P67] Appellants assert that the trial court “wrongly construed evidence regarding Defendants’ failure to warn Andrea Ochall about the track builder Brian McMillen’s design and rule prohibiting spectators in a light most favorable to [plaintiffs].” (Appellant’s brief, at 34.) Appellants assert that, construing the evidence in their favor, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether McMillens and/or McNamers disregarded Brian McMillen’s rule and “knowingly failed to warn or inform Andrea Ochall about the Brian McMillen’s design and policy.” Id. at 38.

[*P68] As noted above, Brian McMillen testified that he did not design the track to account for spectators. (B. McMillen Dep. [**41] 169.) Brian explained that he “rarely” had spectators at the track, but that when he did, he told them to “[s]tay up in the barn.” Id. at 172, 175. However, Brian also did not enforce his no-spectator rule when he was at the track. Brian noted that when the track was first built his “dad may come out or one of [his] friends may come out and stand somewhere in that vicinity,” of the paved area next to the start/finish line, “and watch us turn a couple laps.” Id. at 172. Brian stated that he had never kicked any spectator of the paved area next to the start/finish line. Id. at 182-83.

[*P69] Sharon McMillen noted that Brian told her “[a] couple of years ago” that he had a no-spectator rule when he was at the track, but she clarified that he never told her that the track wasn’t designed for spectators. (Feb. 10, 2015 Sharon McMillen Dep. at 104-05. Sharon noted that, when she was out at the track, she would stand “[u]sually in the grass out by the corner where the bench sits,” explaining that’s “just where we stand.” Id. at 100, 102. Sharon stated that she previously stood on the paved area next to the start/finish line when Brian was also present at the track, and that he never told her to move from that location. Id. at 130.

[*P70] Indeed, for adult spectators at the McMillens’ [**42] go-kart track, there “was no rule” regarding where they had to stand. Id. at 108-09. Sharon McMillen noted, “[t]here’s seven acres they can stand on. They can stand anywhere.” (S. McMillen Depo. 108.) Sharon believed it was safe for people to stand on the paved area next to the start/finish line at the track, “[a]s long as they’re watching what’s going on.” Id. at 102, 108.

[*P71] The McMillens, as the property owners who granted the McNamers permission to bring the Ochalls upon their land, were the implied social hosts of the Ochalls. See Estill v. Waltz, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-83, 2002-Ohio-5004, ¶ 32 (noting that, [HN20] to be classified as a social guest, “the evidence must show the host extended to the guest an actual invitation, express or implied”). As social hosts, the McMillens owed their guests the following duties: (1) to exercise ordinary care not to cause injury to their guests by any act of the host or by any activities carried on by the host while the guest is on the premises, and (2) to warn the guest of any condition of the premises which is known to the host and which one of ordinary prudence and foresight in the position of the host should reasonably consider dangerous, if the host has reason to believe that the guest does not know and will [**43] not discover such dangerous condition. Scheibel v. Lipton, 156 Ohio St. 308, 102 N.E.2d 453 (1951), paragraph three of the syllabus. Accordingly, the McMillens had a duty to warn the Ochalls of any dangerous condition on their premises which the McMillens had reason to believe the Ochalls did not know about and could not discover.

[*P72] As the lack of barriers around the McMillens’ track was readily apparent, there was no dangerous condition about the track which the McMillens should have had any reason to believe the Ochalls did not know about or could not discover. Indeed, Mrs. Ochall saw go-karts driving off the track throughout the day, and admitted that she knew that there “was no barrier in front of [her] * * * to protect [her] from getting hit by a car if it left the track.” (A. Ochall Dep. at 172-73.) Accordingly, the McMillens had no duty to warn appellants about Brian McMillen’s personal track rule. As such, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Ochalls, we are unable to find a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the McMillens intentionally failed to inform the Ochalls about Brian’s rule when they had a duty to do so. Marchetti at 96, fn. 2, quoting 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Section 500, at 587 (1965). As such, the McMillens were not reckless by failing to inform [**44] appellants about Brian’s rule.

[*P73] Regarding the McNamers, appellants assert that the McNamers were reckless because they “knew of [Brian McMillen’s] prohibition and failed to inform guests.” (Appellant’s brief, at 36.) Liz McNamer stated that she could not recall if Brian McMillen ever told her about his no-spectator rule, noting that “[h]e could have told [her] husband, but * * * [she didn’t] recall.” (L. McNamer Dep. at 66.)

[*P74] During Brian McMillen’s deposition, counsel asked him if he ever told “people, including the McNamers or anybody, that if you’re not driving a go-kart, then you better not be standing anywhere on this track, whether it’s the access road, sitting on that bench, anywhere on this asphalt period?” (B. McMillen Dep. at 175.) Brian responded, stating:

Absolutely. Absolutely we’ve talked about that with the McNamers, with Michael, their son, with my brother, myself, my dad, we’ve all discussed the common sense rules of the road that we’re going to follow out here on this go-kart track. Absolutely.

* * *

And, again, you know, it’s not like we sat down and said, hey, let’s write a rule book for the track. I’m talking about general guys hanging out in the garage, garage talk, hey, [**45] these are the rules of the road we’re going to follow. Again, we’re not putting together a commercial facility here. We’re going — we’re putting together a little backyard toy here.

Id. at 175-76.

[*P75] When asked if he told the McNamers that he “didn’t build this track for there to be any bystanders. And that if you’re not racing, no one is allowed to be standing around watching people racing or in go-karts going around the track on any part of this asphalt,” Brian stated “[t]hat’s just generally speaking what we have always gone with.” Id. at 177.

[*P76] Liz explained that everytime she had ever been to the track people would be standing in the paved area adjacent to the start/finish line. (L. McNamer Dep. at 67.) Liz also always stood in that area and believed it was safe to stand there as long as “you’re observing and — and paying attention and watching what’s occurring.” Id. at 56-57. Porter similarly testified that whenever he had been to the track, people always stood on the asphalt near the start/finish line. (J. Porter Dep. at 44.)

[*P77] To determine whether the McNamewrs were reckless in failing to inform the Ochalls about Brian McMillen’s personal track rule, we ask whether the McNamers intentionally failed to inform the Ochalls about [**46] Brian’s rule when they had a duty to do so. Marchetti at 96, fn. 2, quoting 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 500, at 587 (1965). As noted, [HN21] primary assumption of the risk “‘relieves a recreation provider from any duty to eliminate the risks that are inherent in the activity.'” Lykins v. Fun Spot Trampolines, 172 Ohio App.3d 226, 2007-Ohio-1800, ¶ 34, 874 N.E.2d 811 (10th Dist.), quoting Whisman v. Gator Invest. Properties, Inc., 149 Ohio App.3d 225, 236, 2002 Ohio 1850, 776 N.E.2d 1126 (1st Dist.2002).

[*P78] The parties do not direct us, and our independent research has failed to produce, an Ohio case delineating the duty which a non-landowner, sponsor or organizer of a free activity owes to the participants of the activity. [HN22] Courts from other jurisdictions, however, have held that “operators, sponsors and instructors in recereational activities posing inherent risks of injury have no duty to eliminate those risks, but do owe participants the duty not to unreasonably increase the risks of injury beyond those inherent in the activity.” Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 55 Cal. 4th 1148, 1162, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551, 290 P.3d 1158 (2012).1 See also Saville v. Sierra College, 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 515, 133 Cal. App. 4th 857 (2005) (noting that an “organizer of an activity is under a duty not to increase the risk of injury inherent in the activity”); Estate of McNeil v. FreestyleMX.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.3d 1260 (S.D.Cal. 2016) (noting that the “organizer and promoter of the freestyle motocross event” owed the plaintiff a limited duty of care, “breached only if they increased the risk beyond that which is inherent to the activity itself”); Amezcua v. Los Angeles Harley-Davidson, Inc., 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 567, 200 Cal. App. 4th 217 (2011) (concluding that the sponsor of the activity, had not “increased the inherent danger [**47] of riding in an organized motorcycle ride,” because “traffic slowing and other drivers not paying attention are inherent risks of riding in an organized motorcycle ride on public highways,” and to close down the freeway in order to eliminate these risks “would alter the parade-like nature of riding in a motorcycle procession on a public highway”).

1 In Nalwa the plaintiff argued that sponsors of recreational activities should owe a greater duty to participants. The court disagreed, holding as follows:

[HN23] A rule imposing negligence duties on sponsors, organizers and operators of recreational activities would encompass not only commercial companies like defendant but also noncommercial organizations without extensive budgets or paid staff. Such groups might not easily afford insurance to cover injuries that are inherent risks of the activity; nor could they readily collect large fees from participants to cover that cost. The primary assumption of risk doctrine helps ensure that the threat of litigation and liability does not cause such recreational activities to be abandoned or fundamentally altered in an effort to eliminate or minimize inherent risks of injury.

Nalwa at 1162.

[*P79] Accordingly, as the organizer of the go-karting event that day, the McNamers owed appellants the duty to not increase the risk of harm beyond the risks inherent in the activity. [**48] Failing to inform appellants about Brian McMillen’s rule did not increase the risks inherent in the activity of go-karting, as it did not increase the risk that go-karts would crash into one another, or that a driver would lose control of their go-kart and deviate from the track. Accordingly, the McNamers did not have a duty to inform the Ochalls about Brian McMillen’s rule. Construing the evidence in appellants favor, we find no evidence demonstrating that the McNamers intentionally failed to inform the Ochalls about Brian’s rule when they had a duty to do so. Accordingly, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the McNamers were reckless by failing to inform the Ochalls about Brian McMillen’s rule.

[*P80] Appellants next assert that the trial court “ignored factual issues regarding Defendants’ concealing the danger from Andrea Ochall by installing a bench to entice her to congregate on the paved area next to the track not designed for spectators.” (Appellants’ brief, at 38-39.) Mr. McMillen had placed a light, moveable, park style bench on the back of the paved area adjoining the start/finish line. (S. McMillen dep. at 106.) Brian McMillen explained that the bench was for drivers to [**49] sit on following a race, noting that, after a race, “you’re tired, your back hurts, your legs are sore, you’re sweating. * * * A guy will sit on that bench and relax for a minute.” (B. McMillen Dep. at 170.)

[*P81] Sharon McMillen agreed with counsel that someone might think “if there’s a bench around, that that may be a safe place to be because there’s a bench where you could sit.” (S. McMillen Dep. at 106.) However, there is no evidence indicating that the McMillens placed the bench there to “entice” people to congregate in that area. More importantly, the bench did not conceal any danger from appellants. The bench did not obscure appellants’ ability to see the barrier-less nature of the track or the go-karts driving off the track. There also was no evidence indicating that Mrs. Ochall ever sat on the bench; rather, the evidence indicated that Mrs. Ochall “moved around quite a bit to take photographs.” (J. Porter Dep. at 107.) Compare Kacsmarik v. Lakefront Lines Arena, 8th Dist. No. 95981, 2011-Ohio-2553, ¶ 10, 13 (concluding that the “bench was not the proximate cause of [plaintiff’s] injuries,” as the plaintiff was not “sitting on the bench when she was injured” as she had “left the bench, [and] opened the ice rink door”).

[*P82] Construing the evidence in appellants’ favor, [**50] we cannot find that the McMillens knew or had reason to know of facts which would have lead them to realize that placing a bench near their go-kart track created an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, or amounted to conduct substantially greater than negligent conduct. Simply placing a bench by the track did not create an unreasonable risk of physical harm to others, as the bench did not obsecure anyone’s ability to appreciate the barrier-less nature of the go-kart track.

[*P83] Appellants also state that Hawn concluded that Brian McMillen’s 2010-11 alteration to the track, “enhanced the danger to spectators by creating greater risk go-karts would lose control.” (Acc. Reconstruction Report at 13-14.) (Appellant’s brief, at 41.) Appellants assert that “[t]his remodeling and the enhanced risk were not known to Andrea Ochall, whereas McMillens knew that they had made the track faster for go-karts approaching the spectator area where they had placed the bench.” (Appellant’s brief, at 41.) Although appellants do not directly argue that the McMillens acted recklessly by altering their track, we observe that the McMillens were not reckless in this regard, as there is no evidence linking the [**51] 2010-11 alteration to an increased risk that a driver would lose control of their go-kart.

[*P84] Hawn stated that the paved area next to the start/finish line, and “just beyond the exit to the fastest curve of the track,” would be a danger zone to persons afoot, but only “if a driver should experience such a loss of control and deviate from the track.” (Acc. Reconstruction Report at 13.) Similarly, Hawn stated that the paved area next to the track was dangerous for spectators, but only in the event that “a kart deviated from the track, at speed, due to driver loss of control in the curve.” Id. at 14. Thus, Hawn’s opinion that the paved area next to the start/finish line was unsafe for spectators was based on if a driver should lose control of their go-kart. Hawn did not find that the elevation of the curve, or that the straightaway itself, would cause a driver to lose control of their go-kart. Brian confirmed that the 2010-11 alteration did not affect a driver’s “ability to change speed or how they had to maneuver that part of the track.” (B. McMillen Dep. at 149.)

[*P85] Furthermore, Hawn opined, and the record supports, that it was Doe’s act of “discarding an unwanted headband” which caused her to fail [**52] to “maintain steering control [which] was a significant causative factor” of the accident. (Acc. Reconstruction Report, 14-15.) Thus, it was Doe’s act of removing her hand from the steering wheel to remove her headband from her face, and not the elevation of the high-banked curve, which caused the accident.

[*P86] Appellants also state that “an easy, inexpensive precaution” for the McMillens was to “relocate the spectator area to the inside of the track and raise the elevation where their guests stood.” (Appellant’s brief, at 41.) Appellants do not directly assert that the McMillens acted recklessly by failing to construct an elevated spectator platform. Regardless, the McMillens were not reckless by failing to construct a spectator platform, because they had no duty to do so. [HN24] “‘There is no duty on the part of the host to reconstruct or improve the premises for the purpose of making his house more convenient or more safe for those accepting his hospitality, gratuitously extended. The guest assumes the ordinary risks which attach to the premises.'” Scheibel at 315, quoting 38 American Jurisprudence 778, Section 117.

[*P87] Appellants next assert that defendants concealed the “danger by failing to educate themselves about [**53] safety or warn guests of known danger.” (Appellant’s brief, at 43.) Appellants observe that Sharon McMillen instructed drivers, “don’t be bumping into anybody,” but assert that she was reckless because she did not know how fast the go-karts traveled, wasn’t aware of the go-kart’s maintenance schedule, and did not follow the go-kart manufacturer’s height or age restrictions. Id. at 44-45. Appellants similarly assert that Liz McNamer was reckless because she did not know the make or model of the go-karts, did not know the go-kart manufacturer’s age or height restrictions, and did not know how fast the go-karts traveled. Id. at 45-46.

[*P88] Appellants, however, fail to explain what any of these facts have to do with the accident. The accident did not result from unsafe go-kart operation; it occurred because Doe’s headband slipped into her eyes. See Thompson v. Park River Corp., 161 Ohio App.3d 502, 2005-Ohio-2855 (1st Dist.), ¶ 43, 830 N.E.2d 1252 (observing that, although the plaintiffs “presented evidence that the handrail was deteriorating and that a 1 to 50 instructor-to-student ratio was too high to be considered safe, they presented no evidence that either of these factors played even the slightest role in causing Eric’s injury”). Appellants fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether [**54] the defendants intentionally failed to educate themselves about go-kart safety when they had a duty to do so, or that they intentionally failed to warn appellants about the dangers of go-karting when they had a duty to do so. Marchetti at 96, fn. 2, quoting 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 500, at 587 (1965). Accordingly, the record fails to demonstrate that any of the defendants acted recklessly by failing to educate themselves about safe go-kart operation or by failing to warn guests of the dangers of go-karting.

[*P89] Appellants lastly assert that the trial court “construed evidence regarding [Doe’s] driving and supervision of her by Liz McNamer and James Porter in a light most favorable to Defendants.” (Appellant’s brief, at 48.) Appellants note that, earlier in the day before the accident, Doe drove off the track, and that “[o]ther children came partially off the track as well.” Id. at 48. McNamer went and spoke to Doe after she drove off the track, and “cautioned her and advised her to be careful.” (L. McNamer Dep. at 129.) McNamer explained that “all the children had went off” the track that day, but that she only spoke to Doe because she was Doe’s “grandparent.” Id. at 131. McNamer noted that, “[n]o one else said anything to me that anyone was driving reckless or [**55] that [Doe] wasn’t in control.” Id. Porter testified that Doe’s driving that day was “[t]ypical for past driving and typical of the driving of all of the other children who were racing that day.” (J. Porter Dep. at 105.) Porter stated that he never told his daughter, or anyone, to slow down. Id. at 152.

[*P90] Mrs. Ochall testified that Doe “had been asked numerous times to slow down and watch her speed. * * * She was warned by her father, by Liz.” (A. Ochall Dep. at 27.) Mrs. Ochall characterized Doe’s driving as “out of control,” because she had “gotten off the track” and “was just driving aggressively.” Id. at 45-46. Mr. Ochall stated that Doe was “driving aggressively,” by “[p]assing other cars.” (R. Ochall Dep. at 53.) However, Mrs. Ochall explained that she took no precautions for her own personal safety in light of Doe’s allegedly aggressive driving, because she “felt that [Doe’s] grandmother and father addressed the behavior with [Doe].” (A. Ochall Dep. at 48.)

[*P91] Accordingly, construing the evidence in appellants’ favor, Porter and McNamer watched the children driving, all the children drove off the track that day, and McNamer and Porter cautioned Doe about her driving. Although Mrs. Ochall characterized Doe’s driving as aggressive, [**56] she felt that McNamer and Porter adequately addressed Doe’s behavior by speaking to her. Appellants fail to demonstrate how Porter or McNamer engaged in conduct which was substantially greater than negligent conduct by keeping an eye on Doe and cautioning her.

[*P92] Appellants assert that the trial court “ignored the Ochalls’ testimony that [Doe] was driving aggressively.” (Appellant’s brief, at 50.) The trial court, however, did not ignore this evidence. The court noted appellants’ contention that Doe was driving aggressively by “passing other karts and veering off the track.” (Decision & Entry at 20.) The trial court observed that Mr. Ochall admitted that “he passed other karts while driving on the track that day,” and that Doe “was not the only child to veer off the track that day, as one of [apppellants’] children also veered off the track while driving.” Id. at 21. The court concluded that there was no evidence that Doe’s “actions prior to the accident amounted to aggressive driving.” Id.

[*P93] Indeed, appellants fail to make any connection between Doe’s allegedly aggressive driving and the accident. The record indicates only that it was an unfortunate slip of Doe’s headband, and Doe’s attendant need to remove her hand [**57] from the wheel in order to remove the headband from her face, which caused the accident. There is nothing in the record indicating that Doe’s alleged aggressive driving caused the accident. See Thompson v. Park River Corp., 161 Ohio App.3d 502, 2005-Ohio-2855, ¶ 43, 830 N.E.2d 1252 (1st Dist.).

[*P94] Finally, Doe’s act of removing her headband from her line of vision did not amount to reckless conduct. Doe did not remove the headband with any conscious choice of action, or with knowledge that doing so would cause her go-kart to jerk, veer off the track, and strike Mrs. Ochall. See West v. Devendra, 7th Dist. No. 11 BE 35, 2012-Ohio-6092, ¶ 37, 985 N.E.2d 558, quoting 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 500, Comment g (1965) (noting that [HN25] “reckless misconduct requires a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it or with knowledge of facts which would disclose this danger to any reasonable man”).

[*P95] Because appellants fail to establish any genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendants engaged in reckless misconduct, appellants’ second assignment of error is overruled.

VI. CONCLUSION

[*P96] The incident at the McMillens’ go-kart track which caused Mrs. Ochall’s injury was, unquestionably, a terrible and tragic accident. However, every tragic accident does not result in tort liability. Because Mrs. Ochall [**58] primarily assumed the risk of injury when she stood 10 to 12 feet away from the McMillens’ go-kart track, and no defendant engaged in reckless or intentional misconduct, the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Having overruled appellants’ first and second assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. As we have overruled the appellants’ assignments of error, the McMillens withdraw their assignment of error on cross-appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

SADLER, J., concurs.

DORRIAN, P.J., concurs in and part dissents in part.

CONCUR BY: DORRIAN (In Part)

DISSENT BY: DORRIAN (In Part)

DISSENT

DORRIAN, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

[*P97] I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

[*P98] I concur with the majority that primary assumption of the risk requires an examination of the recreational activity or sport itself. For this reason, and pursuant to Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141, 2004-Ohio-379, ¶ 10, 802 N.E.2d 1116, I also agree with the majority that spectators and participants are to be treated the same and appellants’ arguments regarding the “risks to spectators” improperly attempt to shift the focus of the analysis away from the risks inherent in the activity. (Lead opinion at ¶ 48.) Consistent with [**59] this, I concur with the majority and am not persuaded by the Third District Court of Appeals’ decision in Reed v. Cassidy, 3d Dist. No. 2-01-36, 2002-Ohio-1672 (Apr. 10, 2002).

[*P99] I concur with the majority that the trial court erred when it conflated the duty analysis under primary assumption of the risk with the social host duty of care under premises liability.

[*P100] I concur with the majority that the trial court did not err when it observed that “[a] risk is found to be ordinary or inherent to the recreational activity when it arises from conduct that is ‘a foreseeable, customary part[‘] of the activity.” (Emphasis added.) (July 31, 2015 Decision at 4, quoting Gentry at ¶ 10.) (Lead opinion at ¶ 43.) However, I would find further, notwithstanding the trial court’s correct legal statement, that the trial court erred by concluding that “foreseeable risks are inherent risks of recreational activities” and in not conducting the additional analysis of whether the risk is ordinary or customary to the game. (July 31, 2015 Decision at 7.) Given this court’s three part test in Santho v. Boy Scouts of Am., 168 Ohio App.3d 27, 2006-Ohio-3656, 857 N.E.2d 1255 (10th Dist.), which requires that in order to be considered inherent, a risk be both ordinary and foreseeable, I would interpret the term “customary” [**60] in this context as “ordinary.” To interpret “customary” as “common” or “foreseeable” would merge the doctrines of primary and implied assumption of the risk.

[*P101] I concur with the majority that the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “‘[t]o be covered under the * * * doctrine, the risk must be one that is so inherent to the sport or activity that it cannot be eliminated.'” Horvath v. Ish, 134 Ohio St.3d 48, 2012-Ohio-5333, ¶ 19, 979 N.E.2d 1246, quoting Knoesky v. Wood Cty. Agricultural Soc., 164 Ohio App.3d 839, 2005-Ohio-7009, ¶ 19, 844 N.E.2d 408 (6th Dist.). (Lead opinion at ¶ 45.) I would note further that contrary to appellees’ suggestion that courts do not typically conduct a detailed analysis of whether a risk cannot be eliminated, a survey of Tenth District case law reveals that this court adheres to this requirement. “If the activity is one that is inherently dangerous and from which the risks cannot be eliminated, then a finding of primary assumption of risk is appropriate.” Gehri v. Capital Racing Club, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 96APE10-1307, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2527 (June 12, 1997) (finding the plaintiff’s “injuries occurred as a result of a commonly known danger ordinary to the sport of thoroughbred horse racing”). See also Morgan v. Kent State Univ., 2016-Ohio-3303, 54 N.E.3d 1284, ¶ 13, 15, 25 (noting that, “by its very nature, karate, as a martial art, is an inherently dangerous activity from which [**61] the risk of harm cannot be eliminated”); Crace v. Kent State Univ., 185 Ohio App.3d 534, 2009-Ohio-6898, ¶ 35, 924 N.E.2d 906 (10th Dist.) (noting that in cheerleading, “the risk [of injury] is forever present and may only be reduced to manageable levels. Manageable risks are nevertheless risks. It necessarily follows that the risk of injury is incapable of being completely eliminated”); Morgan v. Ohio Conference of the United Church of Christ, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-405, 2012-Ohio-453, ¶ 16 (affirming the trial court’s finding “that hiking is a recreational activity to which the doctrine [of primary assumption of the risk] applies, and hiking contains an inherent risk of slipping, tripping or falling that cannot be eliminated, even more so with hiking at night”); Main v. Gym X-Treme, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-643, 2012-Ohio-1315, ¶ 9, 12-13 (noting “[t]he rationale behind the doctrine [of primary assumption of the risk] is that certain risks are so intrinsic in some activities that the risk of injury is unavoidable,” and finding that “tripping, slipping, and falling are all normal inherent risks” with “‘play time and gymnastic activities'”); Schnetz v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 195 Ohio App. 3d 207, 959 N.E.2d 554, 2011-Ohio-3927, ¶ 30, 49 (10th Dist.) (noting that “[i]f that activity is one that is inherently dangerous and from which the risks cannot be eliminated, a finding of primary assumption of the risk is appropriate” and finding that “[i]njury resulting [**62] from colliding with another player on the field of play, even accidentally, is an ordinary danger of the sport of football”).

[*P102] I concur with the majority that to determine the risks that are so inherent in an activity that they cannot be eliminated, a court must “‘focus[] exclusively upon the activity itself.'” (Lead opinion at ¶ 45, quoting Schnetz at ¶ 28.) I would clarify further that the contention that a risk must be one that is so inherent to the sport or activity that it cannot be eliminated is appropriately considered in the context of the ordinary or customary analysis. I would also suggest that in determining the same, a court should consider the goal of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine as discussed by the majority: “‘to strike a balance between encouraging vigorous and free participation in recreational or sports activities, while ensuring the safety of the players.'” (Lead opinion at ¶ 38, quoting Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 559 N.E.2d 699 (1990), and Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, 32 Cal.App.4th 248, 253, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65 (3d Dist.1995) (observing that the “overriding consideration in the application of primary assumption of the risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature”); Yancey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.4th 558, 565, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777 (5th Dist.1994) (noting that “[d]uty is constricted [**63] in such settings because the activity involves inherent risks which cannot be eliminated without destroying the sport itself”).)

[*P103] Finally, I concur with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the trial court erred in its primary assumption of the risk analysis because it failed to ascertain the risks inherent in the activity of go-karting. I dissent, however, with the majority’s consideration and determination, in the first instance, of the same.

[*P104] Because the Supreme Court in Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427, 432, 1996 Ohio 320, 659 N.E.2d 1232 (1996), instructs that courts must proceed with caution when contemplating whether primary assumption of the risk completely bars a plaintiff’s recovery and because of the great impact a ruling in favor of a defendant would have, I would not determine the issue in the first instance on appeal. Rather, I would remand this case to the trial court with instructions to consider whether the risk of a go-kart veering off the track and striking objects/persons in its path meets the criteria that “(1) the danger is ordinary to the game; (2) it is common knowledge that the danger exists; and (3) the injury occurs as a result of the danger during the course of the game.” (Emphasis added.) Santho at ¶ 12. In considering whether [**64] such risk is ordinary to the game, I would instruct the court to (1) focus on the activity of go-karting itself; and (2) consider whether such risk can be eliminated without inhibiting vigorous and free participation, fundamentally changing or destroying the activity of go-karting. Such consideration necessarily involves an examination of the nature of the activity, the purpose or goals of the activity, and the rules or customs of the activity, where applicable.

[*P105] Finally, I dissent from the majority’s consideration of the second assignment of error. Because I would reverse and remand this case for the trial court to determine, in the first instance, whether primary assumption of the risk applies, I would find to be moot the second assignment of error regarding whether the trial court erred in holding appellees did not act recklessly.2

2 I would note that appellants’ argument, pursuant to Goffe v. Mower, 2d Dist. No. 98-CA-49, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 308 (Feb. 5, 1999), that primary assumption of the risk cannot apply because appellees “enhanced” the risk by defective design or operation, would be appropriately addressed when considering whether the exception of recklessness or willfull or wanton conduct applies to application of primary assumption of the risk.

Moore v. Waller, et al., 930 A.2d 176; 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 476

Posted: June 19, 2017 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Health Club, Legal Case, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: affiliates, attendance, bag, bargaining, body bag, boxing, causes of action, DC, demonstration, exculpatory clauses, exempt, fitness, Fitness Center, Gross negligence, Guests, Health club, intentional torts, intentionally, kick, Membership, own negligence, personal injury, property loss, Public Policy, Reckless, recklessness, signing, Summary judgment, unenforceable, waive, waiver provisions, Wanton, Washington DC. District of Columbia | Leave a comment

Moore v. Waller, et al., 930 A.2d 176; 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 476

Richard J. Moore, Appellant, v. Terrell Waller and Square 345 Limited Partnership T/A Grand Hyatt Hotel, Appellees.

No. 05-CV-695

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

930 A.2d 176; 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 476

June 20, 2006, Argued

August 2, 2007, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]

Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (CA-1522-04). (Hon. Michael L. Rankin, Trial Judge).

COUNSEL: John P. Fatherree for appellant.

Terrell Waller, Pro se.

Rocco P. Porreco for appellee, Square 345 Limited Partnership.

JUDGES: Before GLICKMAN, KRAMER, and FISHER, Associate Judges.

OPINION BY: FISHER

OPINION

[*177] FISHER, Associate Judge: Appellant Richard Moore claims that he was injured on February 26, 2001, while participating in a demonstration of kick boxing at Club Fitness, which is operated by the appellee, Square 345 Limited Partnership (hereinafter Grand Hyatt). Relying on a waiver and release of liability Moore signed when he joined the fitness center, the Superior Court granted summary judgment, first for Grand Hyatt and then for Terrell Waller, the instructor who allegedly injured Moore. We affirm.

Plaintiff Moore alleged that he had gone to the fitness center on February 26, 2001, to exercise. Although “he was not participating in the kick boxing classes, the instructor [*178] , defendant Waller, asked [Moore] to hold . . . a detached Everlast body bag, so [Mr.] Waller could demonstrate a kick to his class.” According to Mr. Moore, he “reluctantly agreed, saying to [Mr. Waller], ‘Not hard.’ Defendant [**2] Waller showed [Mr. Moore] how to hold the bag, braced against his body, and then kicked the bag five times, in rapid succession, with great force.” He claims that when Waller finished, “he was out of breath from the strenuous effort, and commented with obvious sarcasm and irony, ‘That wasn’t hard, was it.'” Moore states that he “immediately felt trauma to his body,” felt “stiff and achy” the next day, and consulted a physician about one month later. Mr. Moore asserts that “[h]e has been diagnosed as having torn ligaments and tendons from the trauma of the injury, and may have neurological damage, as well.” The resulting limitations on his physical activity allegedly have diminished the quality of his life in specified ways.

Mr. Moore had joined the fitness center on January 16, 2001, signing a membership agreement and initialing that portion of the agreement that purports to be a waiver and release of liability.

Article V – WAIVER AND LIABILITY

Section 1. The Member hereby acknowledges that attendance at or use of the Club or participation in any of the Club’s activities or programs by such Member, including without limitation, the use of the Club’s equipment and facilities, . . . exercises [**3] (including the use of the weights, cardiovascular equipment, and apparatus designed for exercising), [and] selection of exercise programs, methods, and types of equipment, . . . could cause injury to the Member or damage to the Member’s personal property. As a material consideration for the Club to enter into this Agreement, to grant membership privileges hereunder and to permit the Member and the Member’s guests to use the Club and its facilities, the Member, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Member’s guests, agrees to assume any and all liabilities associated with the personal injury, death, property loss or other damages which may result from or arise out of attendance at or use of the Club or participation in any of the Club’s programs or activities, notwithstanding any consultation on any exercise programs which may be provided by employees of the Club.

By signing this Agreement, the Member understands that the foregoing waiver of liability on its behalf and on the behalf of the Member’s guests will apply to any and all claims against the Club and/or its owners, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents or affiliates . . . for any such claims, demands, personal [**4] injuries, costs, property loss or other damages resulting from or arising out of any of foregoing risks at the Club, the condominium or the associated premises.

The Member hereby, on behalf of itself and the Member’s heirs, executors, administrators, guests and assigns, fully and forever releases and discharges the Club and the Club affiliates, and each of them, from any and all claims, damages, demands, rights of action or causes of action, present or future, known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated resulting from or arising out of the attendance at or use of the Club or their participation in any of the Club’s activities or programs by such Member, including those which arise out of the negligence of the Club and/or the Club and the Club affiliates from any and all liability for any loss, or theft of, or damage to personal property, including, without limitation, automobiles and the contents of lockers.

[*179] THE MEMBER, BY INITIALING BELOW, ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS CAREFULLY READ THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS THAT IT IS A WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY, AND ASSUMES THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM HIS/HER GUESTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

If effective, [**5] this provision waives and releases not only claims against the Club but also claims against its “employees [and] agents.” 1

1 We assume for purposes of analysis that the Grand Hyatt is responsible for the conduct of Mr. Waller at issue here, but we need not determine whether he was an employee or an independent contractor.

Ruling on Grand Hyatt’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded:

The Waiver and Liability section of the contract . . . expresses a full and complete release of all liability for personal injury occurring in the fitness center. Moore signed an acknowledgment indicating that [he] had read and understood that he was releasing Grand Hyatt from all liability for personal injuries that he might sustain. Furthermore, there is no allegation of fraud or overreaching in the amended complaint. In the circumstances, the court finds that the waiver and release is valid and enforceable and is a complete defense for Grand Hyatt in this action.

The court later held “that the terms of the waiver . . . apply equally to defendant Terrell Waller….”

II.

This court has not often addressed the validity of exculpatory clauses in contracts. We have enforced them, however. For [**6] example, “[i]t is well settled in this jurisdiction that a provision in a bailment contract limiting the bailee’s liability will be upheld in the absence of gross negligence, willful act, or fraud.” Houston v. Security Storage Co., 474 A.2d 143, 144 (D.C. 1984). Accord, Julius Garfinckel & Co. v. Firemen’s Insurance Co., 288 A.2d 662, 665 (D.C. 1972) (“gross negligence or willful misconduct”); Manhattan Co. v. Goldberg, 38 A.2d 172, 174 (D.C. 1944) (“a bailee may limit his liability except for gross negligence”). We recently considered such a clause contained in a home inspection contract and concluded that it would be sufficient to waive or limit liability for negligence. Carleton v. Winter, 901 A.2d 174, 181-82 (D.C. 2006). However, after surveying “leading authorities” and cases from other jurisdictions, we recognized that “courts have not generally enforced exculpatory clauses to the extent that they limited a party’s liability for gross negligence, recklessness or intentional torts.” Id. at 181. See also Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525, 644 A.2d 522, 525 (Md. 1994) ( [HN1] “a party will not be permitted to excuse its liability for intentional harms or for the more extreme forms of negligence, i.e., reckless, [**7] wanton, or gross”); Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc., 132 Md. App. 271, 752 A.2d 631, 638 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (exculpatory clause will not be enforced “when the party protected by the clause intentionally causes harm or engages in acts of reckless, wanton, or gross negligence”). In Carleton, the court remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the conduct of the defendants “was not just simple negligence, but rather gross negligence.” 901 A.2d at 182.

As Moore’s counsel conceded at oral argument, he does not claim that Waller intentionally or purposefully injured [*180] him. The complaint does allege reckless conduct, however, 2 and he argued to the trial court, as he does to us, that the fitness center could not exempt itself from liability for reckless or wanton behavior or gross negligence. Nevertheless, the defendants had moved for summary judgment, and [HN2] “[m]ere conclusory allegations on the part of the non-moving party are insufficient to stave off the entry of summary judgment.” Musa v. Continental Insurance Co., 644 A.2d 999, 1002 (D.C. 1994); see also Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56 (e) (“the . . . response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Rule, must set forth specific [**8] facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). “‘[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.'” Brown v. George Washington Univ., 802 A.2d 382, 385 (D.C. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). “‘The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].'” LaPrade v. Rosinsky, 882 A.2d 192, 196 (D.C. 2005) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252).

2 In his second amended complaint, Moore alleged that “defendant Waller recklessly disregarded [his] duty of due care [and] acted with deliberate indifference to the likelihood that his action would injure the plaintiff. Defendant Waller’s reckless action was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.” He also alleged that the Grand Hyatt was responsible for Waller’s actions.

Nothing Moore presented in opposition to summary judgment would be sufficient to prove gross negligence or reckless conduct. Indeed, in one of his affidavits Mr. Moore stated that “as I was shown by defendant [**9] Waller exactly how to hold the body bag while he demonstrated his kick(s), the purpose of his directions as communicated to me as to how to hold the bag were plainly for safety.” Such concern for safety is inconsistent with recklessness or gross negligence. See generally In re Romansky, 825 A.2d 311, 316 (D.C. 2003) (defining “recklessness”); District of Columbia v. Walker, 689 A.2d 40, 44 (D.C. 1997) (defining “gross negligence” for purposes of D.C. Code § 2-412 (2001) (formerly D.C.Code § 1-1212 (1981)). Moreover, Moore did not allege that defendant Waller kicked an unprotected portion of his body. Nor did he proffer expert testimony suggesting that the demonstration was so hazardous that it was reckless to undertake it, even with the protection of the Everlast body bag.

Because there is no viable claim for gross negligence, recklessness, or an intentional tort, we turn to the question of whether this particular contractual provision is sufficient to bar claims for negligence. 3 Although this is a suit for personal [*181] injury, not merely for economic damage, the same principles of law apply. See Wright v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 2d 27, 34 (D.D.C. 2005) (“by voluntarily [**10] signing the Contestant Release Form, plaintiff waived his right to bring any claims for negligently caused personal injury”; applying District of Columbia law). This court has not previously considered the effect of an exculpatory clause in a membership agreement with a health club or fitness center, but many jurisdictions have done so. After surveying the legal landscape, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals concluded that most courts hold “that [HN3] health clubs, in their membership agreements, may limit their liability for future negligence if they do so unambiguously.” Seigneur, 752 A.2d at 636. We have found the analysis in Seigneur to be very helpful.

3 Appellant’s brief explains that he “claims damages from Waller based upon negligent infliction of injury, and against Square 345 Limited Partnership based upon respondeat superior and upon apparent agency and authority, as well as negligent failure to properly select, train and supervise a person whose services were retained to provide lessons in an activity which would certainly be dangerous if not expertly and responsibly performed.” He later elaborates: “While kick boxing is an inherently dangerous activity, had the demonstration [**11] been conducted in a responsible, non-negligent way, it would not have been dangerous.” The words “strict liability” appear under the caption of the second amended complaint, but appellant has not cited any statute or regulation that purports to impose strict liability on demonstrations of kick boxing, nor has he alleged the common law elements of strict liability in tort. See Word v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 742 A.2d 452, 459 (D.C. 1999). Neither has he proffered facts which would support such a theory. In sum, the waiver is sufficient to cover any theory of liability which is supported by more than conclusory allegations.

[HN4] A fundamental requirement of any exculpatory provision is that it be clear and unambiguous. Maiatico v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 109 U.S. App. D.C. 310, 312, 287 F.2d 349, 351 (1961) (“exculpation must be spelled out with such clarity that the intent to negate the usual consequences of tortious conduct is made plain”; also recognizing that in most circumstances modern law “permit[s] a person to exculpate himself by contract from the legal consequences of his negligence”). Cf. Adloo v. H.T. Brown Real Estate, Inc., 344 Md. 254, 686 A.2d 298, 305 (Md. 1996) (“Because it does not clearly, [**12] unequivocally, specifically, and unmistakably express the parties’ intention to exculpate the respondent from liability resulting from its own negligence, the clause is insufficient for that purpose.”). The provision at issue here meets the requirement of clarity. Article V is entitled, in capital letters, “WAIVER AND LIABILITY.” The Article ends with a prominent “box” containing a sentence typed in capital letters. Appellant Moore initialed that box, verifying that he had “carefully read this waiver and release and fully understands that it is a waiver and release of liability . . . .” By accepting the terms of membership, Moore “agree[d] to assume any and all liabilities associated with the personal injury, death, property loss or other damages which may result from or arise out of attendance at or use of the Club or participation in any of the Club’s programs or activities . . . .” He understood that this waiver of liability would “apply to any and all claims against the Club and/or its owners, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents or affiliates . . . for any . . . personal injuries . . . resulting from or arising out of any of [the] foregoing risks at the Club . [**13] . . .” He “release[d] and discharge[d] the Club . . . from any and all claims, damages, demands, rights of action or causes of action…, including those which arise out of the negligence of the Club . . . .” This release is conspicuous and unambiguous, and it is clearly recognizable as a release from liability. Moreover, the injuries alleged here were reasonably within the contemplation of the parties. “Because [HN5] the parties expressed a clear intention to release liability and because that release clearly included liability for negligence, that intention should be enforced.” Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 796, 801 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (health and fitness club). 4

4 Because this waiver expressly refers to “claims . . . which arise out of the negligence of the Club,” its effect is clear. We have held, however, that it is not always necessary to use the word “negligence” in order to relieve a party of liability for such conduct. See Princemont Construction Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. 131 A.2d 877, 878 (D.C. 1957) (“the terms of an indemnity agreement may be so broad and comprehensive that although it contains no express stipulation indemnifying against a party’s [**14] own negligence, it accomplishes the same purpose”); see also Avant v. Community Hospital, 826 N.E.2d 7, 12 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)( [HN6] “an exculpatory clause need not include the word ‘negligence’ so long as it conveys the concept specifically and explicitly through other language”).

[*182] Appellant protests that the waiver provisions are so broad that they could be construed to exempt the Club from liability for harm caused by intentional torts or by reckless or grossly negligent conduct. Because such provisions are unenforceable, he argues that the entire release is invalid. We disagree. “‘A better interpretation of the law is that [HN7] any “term” in a contract which attempts to exempt a party from liability for gross negligence or wanton conduct is unenforceable, not the entire [contract].'” Anderson, 712 N.W.2d at 801 (quoting Wolfgang v. Mid-American Motorsports, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 783, 788 (D. Kan. 1995) (which in turn quotes RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 195(1) (1981) (“A term exempting a party from tort liability for harm caused intentionally or recklessly is unenforceable on grounds of public policy.” (emphasis added))). See Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc., 565 A.2d 615, 617 (D.C. 1989) [**15] (“The Restatement sets forth the relevant principles. Where less than all of an agreement is unenforceable on public policy grounds, a court may nevertheless enforce the rest of the agreement ‘in favor of a party who did not engage in serious misconduct.'” (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 184(1) (1981))).

Nor is Article V (the waiver and release) unenforceable due to unequal bargaining power, as Mr. Moore asserts. We do not suppose that the parties in fact had equal power, but Moore does not meet the criteria for invalidating a contract on the grounds he invokes. He does not invite our attention to any evidence that he objected to the waiver provision or attempted to bargain for different terms. Nor has he shown that the contract involved a necessary service.

[HN8] Even though a contract is on a printed form and offered on a “take it or leave it” basis, those facts alone do not cause it to be an adhesion contract. There must be a showing that the parties were greatly disparate in bargaining power, that there was no opportunity for negotiation and that the services could not be obtained elsewhere.

Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920, 924-25 (Minn. 1982) (emphasis in [**16] original). “Health clubs do not provide essential services[,]” Shields v. Sta-Fit, Inc., 79 Wn. App. 584, 903 P.2d 525, 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995), and “[t]he Washington metropolitan area . . . is home to many exercise and fitness clubs.” Seigneur, 752 A.2d at 639 (rejecting argument that patron’s bargaining position was grossly disproportionate to that of the fitness club).

We, of course, would not enforce such a release if doing so would be against public policy. See Godette v. Estate of Cox, 592 A.2d 1028, 1034 (D.C. 1991) ( [HN9] “An exculpatory clause [in a will] that excuses self-dealing [by the personal representative] or attempts to limit liability for breaches of duty committed in bad faith, intentionally, or with reckless indifference to the interest of the beneficiary, is generally considered to be against public policy.”); George Washington Univ. v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43, 47 (D.C. 1983) (exculpatory clause in lease was ineffective to waive tenants’ rights under implied warranty of habitability); see also Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525, 644 A.2d 522, 526 (Md. 1994) (public policy will not permit exculpatory agreements in certain transactions affecting the performance of a public service obligation or “so important [*183] [**17] to the public good that an exculpatory clause would be patently offensive”). However, we agree with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and with numerous other courts which have held that it does not violate public policy to enforce exculpatory clauses contained in membership contracts of health clubs and fitness centers. Seigneur, 752 A.2d at 640-41 (and cases cited therein); see also, e.g., Schlobohm, 326 N.W.2d at 926 (“the exculpatory clause in the contract before us was not against the public interest”); Ciofalo v. Vic Tanney Gyms, Inc., 10 N.Y.2d 294, 177 N.E.2d 925, 927, 220 N.Y.S.2d 962 (N.Y. 1961) (“there is no special legal relationship and no overriding public interest which demand that this contract provision, voluntarily entered into by competent parties, should be rendered ineffectual”); Massengill v. S.M.A.R.T. Sports Medicine Clinic, P.C., 996 P.2d 1132 (Wyo. 2000). 5

5 The Supreme Court of Wisconsin refused to enforce one such clause on grounds of public policy. Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4, 277 Wis. 2d 303, 691 N.W.2d 334 (Wis. 2005). That decision was based on several factors, however, and we do not understand the court to have announced a categorical rule. See id. at 340-42 (waiver was “overly broad [**18] and all-inclusive,” the word “negligence” was not included, the provision was not “sufficiently highlight[ed],” and there was “no opportunity to bargain”).

The trial court properly held that “the waiver and release is valid and enforceable and is a complete defense for Grand Hyatt [and Mr. Waller] in this action.” The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby

Affirmed.

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

Posted: August 15, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Swimming | Tags: drowning, Lifeguard, Ohio, Reckless, Release, Sign in Sheet, swimming, Willful & Wanton | Leave a comment

Willful and Wanton actions by a defendant are hard to prove unless the defendant actually did something. Mere failure to do something is rarely a willful and wanton act; it requires an act to prove.

Bishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504

State: Ohio, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Portage County

Plaintiff: Robert Bishop, Executor of the Estate of Eric E. Bishop, Deceased, et al.,

Defendant: Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al.,

Plaintiff Claims: The trial court erred in failing to apply the standards for determination of motions for summary judgment. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Ltd. based on alleged lack of possession or control of leased premises. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for appellees on the ground that a valid release executed by Eric Bishop released appellees from liability.”

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: For the Defendant

Year: 2005

The deceased was an 18-year-old man who went swimming at the plaintiff’s swimming area with several other friends. Nelson Ledges is like many swimming “holes” in Ohio, old quarries that have flooded or dammed areas that are privately owned and turned into swimming, camping and boating recreation areas. They are open to the public, like this one, for a fee. Here the fee was $5.00 per person.

Upon arriving at the defendants, the decedent and his friends paid their fee and signed a release. From the description, the release might have been on a sign-in sheet. Besides being on a sign-in sheet with multiple signatures, it was poorly written.

The deceased and his friends skipped the beach where a life guard was located and went to another area that people did swim. The deceased and a few friends swam out to an island; however, the deceased did not make it, drowning 15’ from the island shore.

The decedent’s estate sued. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The trial court held:

That, even when reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including the report of Tom Griffiths, defendants’ conduct did not rise to a level of reckless, willful or wanton conduct, but at most, suggested there may be a genuine issue of material fact as to negligence. 3) The waiver was valid, as a matter of law, thus, Eric waived all claims of negligence, and Bishop was barred from recovering on the wrongful death claim.

The plaintiff’s appealed.

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

The court first set forth the requirements to prove a wrongful-death claim.

1) a wrongful act, neglect or default of defendant which proximately caused the death and which would have entitled the decedent to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued; 2) that a decedent was survived by a spouse, children, parents, or other next of kin; and 3) that the survivors suffered damages by reasons of the wrongful death.

Than the Court took the arguments out of order, from the plaintiff’s appeal, starting with the validity of the release. (Ohio’s law is probably the most supportive of all states on release law.)

It is well-settled in Ohio that participants in recreational activities and the proprietor of a venue for such an activity are free to enter into contracts designed to relieve the proprietor from responsibility to the participant for the proprietor’s acts of negligence, but not for his willful or wanton misconduct.

Clauses limiting liability shall ordinarily be construed strictly against the drafting party. Moreover, matters involving the interpretation of contract terms, when such terms are unambiguous, are questions of law.

The issue then was whether the acts of the defendants were willful and wanton, which would void the release. The court first looked at the release which it found wanting to an extent. “While inartfully drafted, the sheet Eric signed is clearly labeled at the top as a “Liability Waiver Form” in bold type.”

The court followed up a review of the release with this statement.

…although “the better practice would certainly be to expressly state the word ‘negligence’ somewhere in the exculpatory provision the absence of that term does not automatically render the provision fatally flawed.

The plaintiff also argued the release was no clear because the type was small. However, the court found this argument not to be valid under Ohio’s law and not an issue in this case.

Ohio has no such provisions. While we agree in broad principle that contract provisions, particularly those which purport to waive liability, should be printed in type large enough for a person of normal vision to read easily, the waiver in the case at bar satisfies these requirements. As we already mentioned, we find the terms of the waiver in this case were sufficiently clear to put the person signing it on notice. We agree with the trial court that Eric effectively waived all claims based on negligence by signing the waiver form. Thus, Bishop’s third assignment of error is without merit.

The court found the release to be valid and blocked the negligence claims of the plaintiff’s. The court then looked at the plaintiff’s argument that the actions of the defendants were willful and wanton.

Willful and wanton misconduct has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as the equivalent to reckless conduct. An actor’s conduct is reckless when “he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty *** to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which could lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.” “An act is negligent if it ‘falls below a standard established by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.” While the act must be intended by the actor to be reckless, “the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it.”

Consequently, the court found the actions did not rise to the level of being willful and wanton.

The plaintiff also argued, through its expert witness that the release was void for violating several state and county rules and regulations. The court spent a fair amount of time reviewing this and basically said not a chance.

The first regulations were not in place at the time of the accident, so they could not be used to prove negligence. “This court has held that “subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event at issue.”

The next issue was the health department of the county where the accident occurred, based upon a state statute issued regulations requiring additional lifeguards and life boats. The court again through this out because the statute did not require it, and the health department did not have statutory requirement to issue safety rules. (This section seemed down right fishy!)

A plain reading of both statutes clearly indicates that neither expressly delegates to public health departments the authority to regulate public swimming areas. Moreover, even if we were to presume that public swimming areas fell under the ambit of the more general authority of R.C. 3709.21, the authority to regulate under this statute is limited only to public health matters, and not matters of public safety.

The court then when back and looked at the willful and wanton conduct issue because the decedent was a business invitee under Ohio’s Land Owner Liability laws.

The threshold issue in determining willful and wanton misconduct is to determine what legal duty Kelley owed Eric as a visitor to the park. Since Eric paid an admission charge to Kelley for the purpose of swimming at the park, it is clear that Eric was a business invitee on the day of his drowning. The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined a business invitee as “one rightfully on the premises of another for the purposes in which the possessor of the premises has a beneficial interest.”

A landowner owes a business invitee the duty to exercise ordinary care and to maintain the premises in a safe condition.

Under common law, the duty owed by an owner of a premises to a business invitee is to “exercise ordinary care and to protect [the invitee] by maintaining the premises in a safe condition.

Again, the court could not find the actions of the defendants amounted to willful and wanton care.

The difference between negligence and willfulness is a difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree *** in order to establish wantonness; the conduct must be supported by evidence that shows a disposition to perversity, such as 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”) (emphasis added). Though the circumstances surrounding Eric’s death are, indeed, unfortunate, “willful conduct implies design, set purpose, intention, or deliberation,” and “wanton conduct comprehends an entire absence of all care for the safety of others and a complete indifference to the consequences of the allegedly negligent act.”

There were two dissenting opinions in the case. Both dissenting judges approved the majority’s reasoning in counts one and three of the opinion. However, they both found fault with the second count. The second issue was the requirements by the state to have more lifeguards and a boat on the water. One found the way the argument was raised was insufficient; the second found that there was a genuine issue of fact.

So Now What?

You know you have a bad release when an appellate court tells you so. In this case the defendant squeaked by and still won. The release language needed to be corrected, by an attorney. The release needed to be in larger print and now as a sign-in sheet but as a proper release. The decision also mentioned the decedent, and his friends were not given a copy of the release.

The other issue was the rules adopted by the county and the state. It does not matter who adopts the rules, State, County or if labeled standards groups of people, if they require you to operate a different way, you better change your ways. Here two judges felt the case should be sent back to trial, even though the way the rules were implemented was declared invalid by the majority.

You may not have the luxury of having a court tell you those rules you can ignore. If it is issued by someone with a seal in the letterhead, you better follow it.

The defendant got luck in this one.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

Bishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504

Posted: August 14, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Legal Case, Ohio, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Swimming | Tags: drowning, Lifeguard, Ohio, Reckless, Release, Sign in Sheet, swimming, Willful & Wanton | Leave a comment

Bishop vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., 2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504

Robert Bishop, Executor of the Estate of Eric E. Bishop, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, – vs – Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Limited, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

CASE NO. 2004-P-0008

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, PORTAGE COUNTY

2005-Ohio-2656; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504

May 27, 2005, Decided

COUNSEL: J. W. Fodor, Warren, OH (For Plaintiffs-Appellants).

James T. Millican, II, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Cleveland, OH (For Defendants-Appellees).

JUDGES: DIANE V. GRENDELL, J. DONALD R. FORD, P.J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion. CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with a Concurring/Dissenting Opinion.

OPINION BY: DIANE V. GRENDELL

OPINION

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.

[*P1] Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Bishop (“Bishop”), appeals from the judgment of the Portage County Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Ltd. (“Nelson Ledges”) and Evan Kelley (“Kelley”). We affirm the decision of the trial court.

[*P2] The appeal before this court arises from the tragic drowning death of Eric Bishop (“Eric”), which occurred at Nelson Ledges Quarry Park (“the park”) on July 31, 2000.

[*P3] The park is a campground, situated on approximately 110 acres, and includes a 30 acre swimming lake for its patrons. The park is owned by Nelson Ledges, an Ohio Limited Liability Corporation, owned by Joretta (“Joretta”) [**2] and Glenn (“Glenn”) Frohring. The park is operated by J&E Management, (“J&E”), a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Kelley, Joretta’s son and Glenn’s stepson.

[*P4] The relevant facts of the incident are as follows. On the afternoon of July 31, 2000, Eric and five of his friends came to Nelson Ledges to swim. Upon entry to the park, each vehicle is stopped at the gate. A fee of $ 5 is collected from each visitor and each visitor is required by a park employee to sign a sign-in sheet, containing a waiver of liability clause, before entry to the park is granted. If some of the visitors are children, their parent, or another responsible adult, is required to sign the form.

[*P5] The top portion of the sign-in sheet contains a waiver of liability statement in print which fits within the top approximately two-and-a-half to three inches of the sheet, including margin spaces, with rectangular spaces for the signatures of park patrons contained below. The sign-in sheet is kept with park employees. The waiver language at the top of the sign-in sheet, states as follows:

NELSON LEDGES QUARRY PARK LIABILITY WAIVER FORM

Persons under 18 years of age must have an adult/guardian [**3] sign for them

CUSTOMERS AND COMPANY AGREE: When you enter Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, LLC, you agree that it is at your sole risk; that you will abide by all the park rules; that you will retain care and control of your car: its parts and contents. Company is not responsible for your car, articles left in your car, loss of use; all liability for any loss including but not limited to, any loss arising from bodily injury, personal injury or drowning. (Emphasis added). We the company do not accept responsibility of any personal injury or loss caused due to the influence of alcohol or other mind altering substances, or food consumed from private vendors. NO ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ARE PERMITTED IN THE CAMPGROUND. I/We hearby (sic) release Nelson Ledges Quarry Park LLC and J&E Management from any liability whatsoever arising from use of the park. No employee may modify any of the terms herein. ¹

1 The language of the waiver is reproduced verbatim. No attempt is made herein to reproduce the type or font size as they actually appear on the sign-in sheet. This is a matter of argument in the respective briefs submitted to this court.

[*P6] [**4] It is undisputed that Eric, who was eighteen years of age, and his friends all signed the sheet prior to their admission to the park on the day of the incident. Once inside the park, Eric and his friends decided not to go to the designated beach area, but instead decided to go to another area, called the “stony outcropping” or alternatively, the “drive-down area”. There is a small island located in the water about 40 to 50 yards from the shore of the “drive down” area. Shortly after arriving, Eric and two of his friends decided to swim out to the island.

[*P7] Eric began to experience difficulty about 10 to 15 feet short of the island, and began thrashing about and calling for help. His friends, who had reached the island before Eric, at first thought that he was goofing around. When they realized he was serious, his friends dove into the water to try to save him. Despite his friends’ efforts to save him, Eric slipped under the water. People on the shore who witnessed the incident ran off to summon park personnel for help.

[*P8] Within a few minutes after arriving, park personnel, who were certified in lifesaving, located Eric about 10-15 feet away from the spot where [**5] he had initially gone under the water. Park personnel then took Eric back toward the island, so that they could try to resuscitate him, but they were unsuccessful. All of these events, from the time Eric began to experience trouble, to the time park personnel attempted to revive him, took place within the span of 17 to 20 minutes.

[*P9] On June 10, 2002, Bishop and his wife Janine, as co-executors of their son Eric’s estate, filed wrongful death action, pursuant to R.C. 2125.01 et. seq. against Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, LLC, Glenn and Joretta, and Kelley, alleging that all named defendants were negligent, and that their negligence was the direct and proximate cause of Eric’s death.

[*P10] On October 1, 2003, Nelson Ledges, Glenn and Joretta, and Kelley collectively moved for summary judgment.

[*P11] Bishop then filed a memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, attaching as support an affidavit from Tom Griffiths, Ed.D. (“Griffiths”), an aquatic safety expert, along with a report, incorporated by reference, in which Griffiths testified to “a high degree of aquatic certainty,” that “the conduct of allowing swimming in unrestricted areas, given the [**6] numerous instances highlighted in this report regarding the failure of the defendants to comply with even the most basic water safety requirements *** created a risk that was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make their conduct simply negligent.”

[*P12] On January 12, 2004, the trial court, after reviewing all of the pleadings, motions, and evidence filed, issued a four page order and judgment entry granting summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants. After setting forth the standards for summary judgment, the court made the following conclusions of law: 1) That defendants Glenn and Joretta Frohring are entitled to summary judgment, pursuant to R.C. 1705.48(A) and (B), since they are principals of a limited liability company ². 2) That, even when reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including the report of Tom Griffiths, defendants’ conduct did not rise to a level of reckless, willful or wanton conduct, but at most, suggested there may be a genuine issue of material fact as to negligence. 3) The waiver was valid, as a matter of law, thus, Eric waived all claims of negligence, and Bishop [**7] was barred from recovering on the wrongful death claim.

2 On appeal, Bishop’s counsel admitted at oral argument and in their brief that Glenn and Joretta Frohring would not be personally liable as principals of a limited liability company under R.C. 1705.48 (A). Therefore, this court, sua sponte, formally dismisses the Frohrings as parties to this appeal.

[*P13] Bishop timely appealed and raised the following assignments of error:

[*P14] “[1.] The trial court erred in failing to apply the standards for determination of motions for summary judgment.

[*P15] “[2.] The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Nelson Ledges Quarry Park, Ltd. based on alleged lack of possession or control of leased premises.

[*P16] “[3.] The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for appellees on the ground that a valid release executed by Eric Bishop released appellees from liability.”

[*P17] As all of Bishop’s assignments of error question the propriety [**8] of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we will first address the applicable standards of review.

[*P18] [HN1] “Summary judgment is a procedural device to terminate litigation and to avoid formal trial when there is nothing to try. It must be awarded with caution.” Murphy v. Reynoldsburg (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 1992 Ohio 95, 604 N.E.2d 138. Summary judgment is proper when three conditions are satisfied: 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 party against whom the motion form summary judgment is made. See, Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1976), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46; Civ.R. 56(C). [HN2] “If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R.56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if the nonmovant does not so respond, summary judgment, [**9] if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party.” Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 1996 Ohio 107, 662 N.E.2d 264. [HN3] In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390, 2000 Ohio 186, 738 N.E.2d 1243. Moreover, an appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Id. Thus, we, as an appellate court, owe no deference to the conclusions of the trial court.

[*P19] [HN4] In order to prevail in a wrongful death cause of action, the personal representative of the decedent must prove these elements: “1) a wrongful act, neglect or default of defendant which proximately caused the death and which would have entitled the decedent to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued; 2) that a decedent was survived by a spouse, children, parents, or other next of kin; and 3) that the survivors suffered damages by reasons of the wrongful death.” McCormac, Wrongful Death in Ohio § 2.02. Bishop’s assignments of error challenge the court’s conclusions related to the first element, which may sound in either [**10] negligence or willful misconduct.

[*P20] For the purposes of judicial economy, Bishop’s assignments of error will be discussed out of order.

[*P21] In his third assignment of error, Bishop claims that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment, because there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the validity of the release executed by Eric on the day he drowned. We note at the outset, that Bishop does not argue that Eric did not sign the waiver form. However, Bishop does argue that if the exculpatory provisions in this waiver were strictly construed, the waiver would fail as a matter of law, because the intent to release the party was not expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. We disagree.

[*P22] [HN5] It is well-settled in Ohio that participants in recreational activities and the proprietor of a venue for such an activity are free to enter into contracts designed to relieve the proprietor from responsibility to the participant for the proprietor’s acts of negligence, but not for his willful or wanton misconduct. See, Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384 (auto racing); Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 1998 Ohio 389, 696 N.E.2d 201 [**11] (soccer); King v. United Skates of America (Nov. 10, 1994), 11th Dist. No. 93-L-199, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5089 (roller skating); Cain v. Cleveland Parachute Training Ctr. (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 27, 9 Ohio B. 28, 457 N.E.2d 1185 (skydiving); Schwartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp. (1997), 117 Ohio App. 3d 420, 690 N.E.2d 941 (horseback riding). Clauses limiting liability shall ordinarily be construed strictly against the drafting party. Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co. (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 44, 29 Ohio B. 393, 505 N.E.2d 264 at paragraph one of syllabus, ; Cain, 9 Ohio App.3d at 28. Moreover, [HN6] matters involving the interpretation of contract terms, when such terms are unambiguous, are questions of law. See, Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107, 108, 1995 Ohio 214, 652 N.E.2d 684.

[*P23] Reviewing the terms of the waiver language in the light most favorable to Bishop, we hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact related to the validity of the waiver that Eric signed. While inartfully drafted, the sheet Eric signed is clearly labeled at the top as a “Liability Waiver Form” in bold type. Moreover, the form states, in relevant part, that the company and [**12] customers agree that the company is not responsible for, “all liability for any loss, including, *** any loss arising from *** drowning.” (Emphasis added). Thus, any person signing the waiver sheet was on notice that the company was attempting to disclaim all liability for drowning, which is certainly a foreseeable risk of the activity. The term, “all liability” in this case is sufficient to encompass a loss from drowning due to any alleged negligence on the part of Nelson Ledges or Kelley. See, e.g. Schwartzentruber, 117 Ohio App.3d at 425 [HN7] (although “the better practice would certainly be to expressly state the word ‘negligence’ somewhere in the exculpatory provision *** the absence of that term does not automatically render the provision fatally flawed.”) For the reasons mentioned in Bowen, such a broad disclaimer of liability would not, as a matter of law, operate to relieve them from willful or wanton misconduct. Moreover, the obvious purpose of the writing on the document was to release Nelson Ledges and Kelley, d.b.a. J&E, from liability. This argument is not well-taken.

[*P24] Bishop additionally argues that the waiver cannot pass [**13] the test of clarity, since the exculpatory provisions appear in extremely small type. We disagree. Bishop, relying on the California case, Link v. NASCAR, Inc., (Cal.App.1984), 158 Cal. App. 3d 138, 205 Cal. Rptr. 513, argues that if an express release is not easily readable, then it is not enforceable. Bishop’s reliance on Link is misplaced.

[*P25] We first note that [HN8] the rules of law from other states are not controlling in Ohio, but may be used as persuasive authority, particularly when deciding a case of first impression. Certain facts of Link are similar to the instant case, in that the suit was brought for wrongful death as the result of injuries the deceased received after he had signed a waiver sheet which had places for multiple signatures. However, the purported releases that the deceased in Link signed were printed in five-and-one-half point type and could not easily be read by persons of ordinary vision. Furthermore, the court in Link found that the language was so lengthy and convoluted, it was almost incomprehensible to the average person. In deciding the case, the court in Link relied heavily on numerous provisions of the California Civil Code, which [**14] regulate the size of the type to be used in contract provisions, to support their argument. [HN9] Ohio has no such provisions. While we agree in broad principle that contract provisions, particularly those which purport to waive liability, should be printed in type large enough for a person of normal vision to read easily, the waiver in the case at bar satisfies these requirements. As we already mentioned, we find the terms of the waiver in this case were sufficiently clear to put the person signing it on notice. We agree with the trial court that Eric effectively waived all claims based on negligence by signing the waiver form. Thus, Bishop’s third assignment of error is without merit.

[*P26] Under Bishop’s first assignment of error, he argues that even if the court was correct in declaring that the waiver is valid as a matter of law, summary judgment should not have been granted, since the report of Bishop’s aquatic safety expert raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kelley and Nelson Ledges engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. We disagree.

[*P27] We note at the outset, that since we have found Eric’s waiver of liability to be effective against negligence claims, [**15] Griffiths’ report may only be used to demonstrate willful and wanton misconduct. [HN10] Willful and wanton misconduct has been defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as the equivalent to reckless conduct. Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 104 n.1, 559 N.E.2d 705. An actor’s conduct is reckless when “he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty *** to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which could lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.” Id. at 104-105 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). [HN11] “An act is negligent if it ‘falls below a standard established by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.” Id. at 103 (citation omitted). While the act must be intended by the actor to be reckless, “the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it.” Id. at 105 (citation omitted). Moreover, the risk itself must be “an unreasonable one under the circumstances.” Id. (emphasis sic).

[*P28] [**16] [HN12] An expert opinion may be incorporated by reference into a motion for summary judgment by means of a properly framed affidavit. See, e.g., Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977. However, it is axiomatic that facts presented in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment must be of the type which would be admissible at trial. Civ.R. 56(E); Nu-Trend Homes, Inc. v. Law Offices of DeLibera, Lyons, & Bibbo, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1137, 2003 Ohio 1633, at P71.

[*P29] Griffiths’ report makes reference to recommendations made by the Portage County Health Department (“the Department”), which is responsible for establishing licensing and health requirements for bathing beaches in the county. Kelley’s duty as operator of the park is predicated by regulations set by the Department. The referenced recommendations were suggested improvements made by the Department in 2001, almost an entire year after Eric’s accident, and a major portion of Griffiths’ report is devoted to Kelley’s response to these recommendations.

[*P30] This court has held that [HN13] “subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence [**17] or culpable conduct in connection with the event at issue.” DiCesare v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Dec. 19, 1986), 11th Dist. Nos. 3620 & 3622, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 9404, at *6, citing Evid.R. 407. Thus, none of the evidence of subsequent measures in Griffiths’ report is admissible under Evid.R. 407 to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with Eric’s drowning.

[*P31] Griffiths’ report also bases its conclusion, in part, on Resolution 95-01, which was promulgated by the Department and in effect at the time of the accident. Specifically, Griffiths’ points to the provisions of Resolution 95-01 which called for “one or more qualified lifeguards for each 300 linear feet of occupied bathing beach” to be on duty and “when swimming outside of designated swimming and diving areas *** is permitted *** at least one rescue boat, or rescue board shall be provided and manned with a qualified lifeguard.”

[*P32] Kelley and Nelson Ledges do not dispute that there was only one lifeguard on the beach and no one patrolling in a kayak, at the time of the accident, even though there were staff working at the park [**18] that day who were certified lifeguards. The reason given for only one lifeguard on duty that day was that it was a slow day, as it had rained earlier that morning. The sole lifeguard on duty that day was stationed at the beach, watching over children who were swimming in the designated swimming area.

[*P33] However, the absence of a rescue boat on duty on the date of Eric’s drowning, as required by Resolution 95-01 does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kelley’s or Nelson Ledges’ conduct was willful and wanton. To hold otherwise would misconstrue the meaning of the term “standard established by law for the protection of others,” pursuant to Thompson.

[*P34] The threshold issue in determining willful and wanton misconduct is to determine what legal duty Kelley owed Eric as a visitor to the park. Since Eric paid an admission charge to Kelley for the purpose of swimming at the park, it is clear that Eric was a business invitee on the day of his drowning. [HN14] The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined a business invitee as “one rightfully on the premises of another for the purposes in which the possessor of the premises has a beneficial interest.” Scheibel v. Lipton (1951), 156 Ohio St. 308, 102 N.E.2d 453, [**19] at paragraph one of the syllabus; Monaco v. Red Fox Gun Club, Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2000-P-0064, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 6008, at *21, 2001 Ohio 4040.

[*P35] [HN15] Under common law, the duty owed by an owner of a premises to a business invitee is to “exercise ordinary care and to protect [the invitee] by maintaining the premises in a safe condition.” Id. at *21-*22. Thus, the next question then becomes, whether Resolution 95-01 imposes an additional legal duty on Kelley over and above the common-law duty of ordinary care.

[*P36] [HN16] Courts in Ohio uniformly recognize that the violation of legislative enactments which create a specific and mandatory duty for the protection of others constitutes negligence per se. Klyn v. Aruta (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 152, 154, 517 N.E.2d 992; Tome v. Berea Pewter Mug, Inc. (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 98, 103, 4 Ohio B. 181, 446 N.E.2d 848; Parker v. Copey’s Butcher Shop (Dec. 14, 1992), 2nd Dist. No. 2820, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 6496, at *6; Starost v. Bradley (Jan. 29, 1999), 2nd Dist. No. 17319, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 324, at *12 (“proof of negligence per se means that the Defendant possessed a duty imposed by statute [**20] and breached that duty”). Thus, in cases where a mandatory legal duty is imposed by statute, the “specific requirements of the statute or ordinance replace the rule of ordinary care.” Kehrer v. McKittrick (1964), 176 Ohio St. 192, 198 N.E.2d 669. (emphasis sic).

[*P37] [HN17] According to their express terms, Resolution 95-01 and the regulations created thereunder were adopted by the Portage County Department of Health for the licensing and health requirements of bathing beaches. The resolution purportedly derives its power to adopt regulations under the authority of R.C. 3707.01 and R.C. 3709.21, as well as under Ohio Administrative Code 3701-31-10.

[*P38] [HN18] R.C. 3707.01 charges boards of health of cities or general health districts with the obligation of “abating and removing all nuisances within its jurisdiction,” granting such boards the authority to “regulate the location, construction, and repair *** of yards, pens, and stables, and of water closets, privies, cesspools, sinks, plumbing and drains.”

[*P39] R.C. 3709.21 provides, in relevant part, that [HN19] “the board of health [**21] of a general health district may make such orders and regulations as are necessary for *** the public health, the prevention and restriction of disease, and the prevention, abatement, or suppression of nuisances.”

[*P40] [HN20] A plain reading of both statutes clearly indicates that neither expressly delegates to public health departments the authority to regulate public swimming areas. Moreover, even if we were to presume that public swimming areas fell under the ambit of the more general authority of R.C. 3709.21, the authority to regulate under this statute is limited only to public health matters, and not matters of public safety. Jackson v. City of Franklin (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 431, 446, 594 N.E.2d 1018 (“R.C. 3709.21 does not authorize a board of health to regulate matters pertaining to public safety.”) Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the regulation also purports to rely on [HN21] former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-31-10 ³, regulating “other public bathing places,” which was repealed in January of 1996, over four years before the current incident occurred. See 1995-1996 Ohio Monthly Record 1-1110, eff. Jan. 1, 1996. Thus, any attempt [**22] by the Portage County Board of Health to promulgate and enforce safety regulations under either of the aforementioned statutes or the administrative code section, would be without legal effect.

3 [HN22] Ohio Adm. Code 3701-31-01 et. seq. is authorized by R.C. Chapter 3749.02, which was enacted in 1987. R.C. 3749.02 grants public health departments the right to regulate “the issuance of licenses, *** sanitation, safety, and operation of public swimming pools, public spas, and special use pools.” R.C. 3749.02 (emphasis added). We note, however, that according to R.C. 3749.01, “public swimming pools”, “spas,” and “special purpose pools” have specifically defined meanings. Although 3749.01(J) defines “public bathing areas” as “an impounding reservoir, basin, lake, pond, creek, river, or other similar natural body of water,” no other section within R.C. Chapter 3749 makes any mention of “public bathing areas.” Thus, we can only conclude that a public health department’s regulation of “public bathing areas” is not specifically authorized by this chapter. See also, 1994 Ohio Atty. Gen. Ops. No. 94-044. (“A public bathing beach *** is not subject to regulation under R.C. Chapter 3749, unless such beach constitutes a ‘public swimming pool,’ as defined in R.C. 3749.01(G), a ‘public spa,’ as defined in R.C. 3749.01(H), or a ‘special use pool,’ as defined in R.C. 3749.01(I).”

[*P41] [**23] Even if we were to assume that the administrative code section to which Resolution 95-01 cites was a valid means of enacting sufficiently specific safety regulations, [HN23] administrative code sections cannot, as a matter of law, be used to support a finding of negligence per se. Jaworowski v. Medical Radiation Consultants (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 320, 329, 594 N.E.2d 9 (“The only ‘laws’ in Ohio which historically have been held to create specific and mandatory duties the violation of which constitutes negligence per se are legislative enactments, not administrative regulations.”) (citations omitted); see also, Whitener v. Firwood Investment Co. (Sep. 13, 1995), 2nd Dist. No. 14938, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 3986, at *22. Thus, we find that in the absence of valid and enforceable safety regulations, Kelley’s legal duty was one of ordinary care, i.e., an ordinary negligence standard of care.

[*P42] Since we have already determined that Eric validly waived all claims sounding in negligence, we see no conceivable means by which the requirements of Resolution 95-01 may be used, to find that Kelley’s conduct rose to the level of willful and wanton misconduct. See [**24] Roszman v. Sammett, (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 94, 96-97, 269 N.E.2d 420 [HN24] (“The difference between negligence and willfulness is a difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree *** in order to establish wantonness, the conduct must be supported by evidence that shows a disposition to perversity, such as 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”) (emphasis added). Though the circumstances surrounding Eric’s death are, indeed, unfortunate, [HN25] “willful conduct implies design, set purpose, intention, or deliberation,” and “wanton conduct comprehends an entire absence of all care for the safety of others and a complete indifference to the consequences of the allegedly negligent act.” Rinehart v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Assn. (1993), 91 Ohio App. 3d 222, 229, 632 N.E.2d 539 (citations omitted). Since there is nothing in the record supporting a finding that Kelley’s conduct was willful or wanton as a matter of law, Bishop’s first assignment of error is without merit.

[*P43] In his second assignment of error, Bishop alleges that Nelson Ledges maintained [**25] significant possession and control over the park as lessor and is therefore liable for Eric’s death. Since we determined in assignments of error one and three that Eric validly waived all claims sounding in negligence, and Kelley’s conduct as operator and lessee of the park did not rise to the level of willful and wanton misconduct, there is no liability to be imputed to Nelson Ledges. Bishop’s second assignment of error is without merit.

[*P44] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.

DONALD R. FORD, P.J., concurs with a Concurring Opinion.

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with a Concurring/Dissenting Opinion.

CONCUR BY: DONALD R. FORD; CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE (In Part)

CONCUR

DONALD R. FORD, P.J., concurring.

[*P45] Although I concur with the majority, I believe that the following language cited in the opinion is subject to further qualification. The majority states that: “an expert opinion may be incorporated by reference into a motion for summary judgment by means of a properly framed affidavit. See e.g., Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977. However, it is axiomatic that [**26] facts presented in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment must be of the type which would be admissible at trial. Civ.R. 56(E), Nu-Trend Homes, Inc. v. Law Offices of DeLibera, Lyons, and Bibbo, 10th Dist. No. 01AO-1137, 2003 Ohio 1633, at 71.”

[*P46] This writer notes that when there is no timely objection to submissions that otherwise could be excluded, the trial court might include such material in its analysis regarding a decision on a motion for summary judgment. Rodger v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Ohio, Inc. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 256, 8 Ohio B. 347, 456 N.E.2d 1262, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Chiles v. Cuyahoga Community College (Dec. 5, 1996), 8th Dist. No. 70658, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5466, at *4; Christe v. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App. 3d 84, 90, 705 N.E.2d 691; Sreshta v. Kaydan (May 6, 1999), 8th Dist. No. 74081, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2066, at *6-*7; Jarrell v. Englefield (Mar. 17, 2000), 11th Dist. No. 98-P-0105, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1076, at *2; Ryser v. Conrad (Mar. 31, 2000), 11th Dist. No. 98-T-0088, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1428, at *8; Kanu v. George Dev., Inc., 6th Dist. Nos. L-02-1140 and L-02-1139, 2002 Ohio 6356, at P13. [**27] (Citations omitted.)

DISSENT BY: CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE (In Part)

DISSENT

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.

[*P47] I concur with the majority’s resolution of appellant’s first and third assignments of error as they relate to the validity of the waiver Eric signed and its release of appellees from claims sounding in negligence. I dissent with respect to the resolution of appellant’s second assignment of error.

[*P48] As Judge Ford correctly notes in his concurring opinion, “when there is no timely objection to submissions that might otherwise be excluded, the trial court might include such material in its analysis regarding a decision on a motion for summary judgment.”

[*P49] Here, appellees failed to raise any objection to Griffith’s reference to recommendations made by the Portage County Health Department and the trial court could include such material in its analysis.

[*P50] Further, the majority concedes appellees were in violation of Resolution 95-01 at the time Eric drowned, yet summarily conclude that this evidence, “while likely sufficient to support a finding of negligence per se *** [is] insufficient as a matter of law, to find Kelly’s conduct [**28] rose to the level of willful and wanton misconduct.”

[*P51] The majority defines willful and wanton conduct as equivalent to reckless conduct and then states:

[*P52] “An actor’s conduct is reckless when ‘he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty *** to do knowing or having reason to know of facts which could lead a reasonable man 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.’ *** An act is negligent if it ‘falls below a standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.’ *** While the act must be intended by the actor to be reckless, ‘the actor must not intend to cause the harm which results from it.’ *** Moreover, the risk itself must be ‘an unreasonable one under the circumstances.‘” (Emphasis sic.) Supra, at 10.

[*P53] Here, Resolution 95-01 required a manned rescue boat to be on duty. Appellees concede no manned rescue boat was on duty and this decision was an intentional one. Thus, appellees concede they intentionally failed to do an act they were [**29] required by law to do. Appellant’s expert opined that appellees’ failure “to comply with even the most basic water safety requirements *** created a risk that was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make their conduct simple negligence.”

[*P54] Appellant’s expert’s opinion establishes a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether appellees’ conduct was willful or wanton. For these reasons, I find appellant’s second assignment of error has merit.

Why is the Standard of Care lower in Skiing than in other Sports?

Posted: April 6, 2016 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Assumed Risk, assumption of the risk, Collision, Ordinary Negligence, Reckless, skier v. skier, skiing, snowboarding, Standard of Care | Leave a comment

Sport and Recreation Law Association Annual conference 2016

Merry Moiseichik, R.Ed, J.D, University of Arkansas

Jim Moss, Esq, Recreation Law

Why is the Standard of Care lower in Skiing than in other Sports?

This presentation looks at the different standards of care applied to collisions between people on a ski slope. Some states apply a negligence standard, some a reckless standard and some say the participants assume the risk of their injury in the sport.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

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

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

Whitman et al., v. Zeidman, 16 A.D.3d 197; 791 N.Y.S.2d 54; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505

Posted: October 10, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, New York, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: arranging, assumption of the risk, bunny, canceled, causal, Downhill, essons, failed to raise, instructing, interrupted, issue of fact, Negligence, novices, reasonable care, Reckless, risk of injury, risk-enhancing, ski area, Skier, skiing, Slope, snowboarding, sponsored, Sport, Summary judgment, supervising, trip | Leave a comment

Whitman et al., v. Zeidman, 16 A.D.3d 197; 791 N.Y.S.2d 54; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505
Harrison Whitman et al., Appellants, v. Michael Zeidman, an Infant, by Sarit Zeidman, His Parent and Legal Guardian, et al., Respondents.
5616
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
16 A.D.3d 197; 791 N.Y.S.2d 54; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505
March 15, 2005, Decided
March 15, 2005, Entered
CORE TERMS: lessons, snowboarding, risk of injury, summary judgment, failed to raise, issue of fact, reasonable care, risk-enhancing, supervising, instructing, interrupted, sponsored, arranging, downhill, reckless, canceled, skiing, novices, causal, skier, bunny, slope, sport, trip

COUNSEL: Law Offices of Renee Simon Lesser, P.C., New York (W. Matthew Sakkas of counsel), for appellants.
Acito, Klein & Candiloros, New York (Francesca A. Sabbatino of counsel), for Zeidman respondents.
Carol R. Finocchio, New York (Mary Ellen O’Brien of counsel), for National Council of Young Israel, respondent.
JUDGES: Concur–Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny, JJ.
OPINION
[*197] [**55] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered January 9, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Harrison Whitman was injured in a collision with defendant Michael Zeidman while snowboarding. By “engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” ( [***2] Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484, 685 NE2d 202, 662 NYS.2d 421 [1997]). The risk of injury caused by another skier is inherent in downhill skiing (General Obligations Law § 18-101). Defendant submitted proof that he did not engage in instances of reckless, intentional or other risk-enhancing conduct not inherent in snowboarding that might have caused the accident, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Kaufman v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 240 AD2d 371, 657 NYS2d 773 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 805, 668 NYS2d 560, 691 NE2d 632 [1998]).
Although defendant National Council of Young Israel sponsored the trip, it exercised reasonable care in supervising the participants by arranging for lessons to be provided, and once the lessons were canceled, instructing those who were novices to stay on the “bunny” slope (see generally Fintzi v New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 NY2d 669, 765 NE2d 288, 739 NYS2d 85 [2001]). Furthermore, the actions of the participants interrupted the causal link between National Council’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injury (see [***3] Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617, 490 NE2d 527, 499 NYS2d 660 [1986]). Concur–Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Herbst et al. v. The Guilford Yatch Club Association, Inc. et al., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 765

Posted: August 29, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Connecticut, Cycling, Legal Case | Tags: bicycle, biking, contributory negligence, Cycling, Duty to Wear a Helmet, helmet, malicious, Reckless, Wanton, Yacht Club | Leave a comment

Herbst et al. v. The Guilford Yatch Club Association, Inc. et al., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 765
Sharon Herbst et al. v. The Guilford Yatch Club Association, Inc. et al.
NNHCV085022625S
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN AT NEW HAVEN
2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 765
March 30, 2009, Decided
March 31, 2009, Filed

NOTICE: THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.
JUDGES: [*1] John F. Cronan, J.
OPINION BY: John F. Cronan
OPINION
FACTS
This personal injury action was commenced on August 14, 2008, by plaintiff Sharon Herbst, via service of writ, summons and complaint on the agents for service of defendants Guilford Yacht Club Association, Inc. and Unit Owners Association at Guilford Yacht Club, Inc. The plaintiff alleges that she suffered serious injuries when, as a business invitee of the defendants, she was thrown off of a malfunctioning bicycle owned and maintained by the defendants.
The plaintiff’s ten-count complaint alleges five counts against each defendant, with counts six through ten re-alleging the facts and claims in counts one through five. Counts one and six allege negligence for failure to inspect, maintain, house, and test the defective bicycle, failure to warn that the bike was unsafe, and failure to provide the plaintiff with a helmet or access to helmets. Counts two and seven allege loss of consortium on the part of Richard Herbst, husband of plaintiff Sharon Herbst. ¹ Counts three and eight allege recklessness for the same acts or omissions described in counts one and six. Counts four and nine allege Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) ² violations [*2] on the ground that the defendants advertised free use of bicycles to increase business from transient club members while failing to take steps to ensure that the bicycles were safe for use, thus violating Connecticut public policy by placing profits ahead of safety and causing substantial injury to consumers and/or providing the defendant with an unfair advantage over competing marinas. Counts five and ten allege spoliation of evidence on the ground that the defendants repaired the bicycle in question while aware of the impending action.
1 Although Richard Herbst is a plaintiff in this action, the claims central to this motion solely involve Sharon Herbst and therefore the court will refer to her as “the plaintiff” for purposes of this decision.
2 Although the plaintiff fails to allege the violation of a particular statute in her complaint, both parties make arguments referring to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §42-110a et seq., therefore the court will address their arguments under that statute.
On November 28, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to strike (# 117) paragraphs 12(e) and 12(f) of counts one and six, and counts three, four, eight and nine entirely. [*3] The defendants filed a memorandum of law in support (# 118). The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to strike (# 120) and corresponding memorandum of law in opposition (# 121) on December 11, 2008. The parties presented oral arguments to the court on January 12, 2009.
DISCUSSION
[HN1] “The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). “A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 286 Conn. 548, 552, 944 A.2d 329 (2008). “[I]n determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant’s motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted.” Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 318, 907 A.2d 1188 (2006).
Counts One and Six
The defendants move to strike paragraphs 12(e) and (f) of counts one and six. These [*4] two paragraphs allege that the defendants negligently caused the plaintiff’s injuries “in that the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with a bicycle helmet when they could and should have done so” and “in that the defendant failed to make bike helmets visible and/or readily assessable [sic] to business invitees.” The defendants argue that “there exists no legal duty on the part of the defendants to provide and/or make available a bicycle helmet to an adult.” (Motion to Strike, p. 5.) The plaintiff responds that the defendant cannot move to strike only certain portions of a count, but rather only a count as a whole, and that, even if the court were to examine the merits of the defendants’ arguments, the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a claim for common-law negligence on the ground that the defendants failed to maintain safe premises for business invitees by offering bicycles to visiting boaters without providing helmets. (Memorandum in Opposition, pp. 4-5.)
[HN2] “‘Although there is a split of [opinion], most trial courts follow the rule that a single paragraph of a pleading is subject to a motion to strike only when it attempts to set forth all of the essential allegations of a cause [*5] of action or defense . . . [O]nly an entire count of a counterclaim or an entire special defense can be subject to a motion to strike, unless the individual paragraph embodies an entire cause of action or defense . . . Prior to the 1978 Practice Book revision, a motion to strike . . . individual portions or paragraphs of a count did not lie if the count as a whole stated a cause of action . . . Arguably under the present rules, a motion to strike may properly lie with respect to an individual paragraph in a count . . . However, the weight of [opinion] in the Superior Court is that the motion does not lie, except possibly where the subject paragraph attempts to state a cause of action.’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Trimachi v. Workers’ Compensation Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 97 0403037 (June 14, 2000, Devlin, J.) (27 Conn. L. Rptr. 681, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1548).” Wright v. 860 Main, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 06 5007079, (May 21, 2007, Tanzer, J.) (43 Conn. L. Rptr. 458).
The plaintiff alleges the breach of a variety of duties under its general claim of negligence in counts one and six. The plaintiff’s [*6] claims relating to the defendants’ alleged failure to provide bicycle helmets identifies a purported duty that may be properly recognized as a claim entirely distinct from the alleged duties pertaining to the maintenance of the bicycle. As such, this is an instance where it is appropriate to review the legal sufficiency of the identified individual paragraphs via a motion to strike.
The claims in paragraphs 12(e) and (f) of counts one and six are not legally sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and therefore the court grants the defendant’s motion to strike those paragraphs. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants had a common-law duty to provide bicycle helmets to adults finds no support in Connecticut law. The only bicycle helmet statute in Connecticut, General Statutes §14-286d, requires protective headgear solely for children under the age of sixteen. ³ The plaintiff is older than sixteen and therefore the requirements of §14-286d are inapplicable.
3 The relevant portions of §14-286d state: [HN3] “(b) No child fifteen years of age or under shall operate a bicycle on the traveled portion of any highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which conforms [*7] to the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation’s Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling. Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action . . . (d) A person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of renting bicycles shall provide a bicycle helmet conforming to the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation’s Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling to any person under sixteen years of age who will operate the bicycle if such person does not have a helmet in his possession. A fee may be charged for the helmet rental. Violation of any of the provisions of this subsection shall be an infraction.”
[HN4] “The existence of a duty is a question of law and only if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the particular [*8] situation at hand . . . [T]he test for the existence of a legal duty of care entails (1) a determination of whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result, and (2) a determination, on the basis of a public policy analysis, of whether the defendant’s responsibility for its negligent conduct should extend to the particular consequences or particular plaintiff in the case . . . The first part of the test invokes the question of foreseeability, and the second part invokes the question of policy . . . [W]e are not required to address the first prong as to foreseeability if we determine, based on the public policy prong, that no duty of care existed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Neuhaus v. Decholnoky, 280 Conn. 190, 217-18, 905 A.2d 1135 (2006).
The plaintiff has not identified any prior Connecticut court that recognizes the duty of a bicycle purveyor to provide a helmet to a would-be cyclist over the age of sixteen. Several superior court decisions have addressed the related question of whether there exists a duty [*9] to wear a bicycle helmet in the context of a special defense of contributory negligence. The court in Dubicki v. Auster, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 107712 (March 8, 1996, Hendel, J.) (16 Conn. L. Rptr. 301, 1996 Conn. Super. LEXIS 671), considered the question of “whether an adult bicycle rider can be considered contributorily negligent for his or her failure to wear a bicycle helmet while riding his or her bicycle.” The court noted that the language of §14-286d, “as well as a review of the legislative history . . . reveals that the statute was primarily designed to encourage the use of headgear by children” and that “[t]here is no similar statute for adults.” Id., 302, 1996 Conn. Super. LEXIS 671. The court concluded that “[t]here being no statutory duty imposed on an adult rider to wear [a helmet], there can be no contributory negligence for an adult rider’s failure to do so.” Id.
In an analogous case, the court in Ruth v. Poggie, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. CV 93 52750 (November 22, 1993, Klaczak, J.) [10 Conn. L. Rptr. 412, 1993 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3090], concluded that an injured motorcyclist could not be found contributorily negligent for failing to wear a helmet because “there is [*10] no duty, statutory or otherwise, for motorcycle operators in Connecticut to take the safety precaution to wear a protective helmet. Thus . . . it cannot be said that the failure to wear a motorcycle helmet amounts to negligence on the party of the rider.”
As this court agrees with those decisions holding that an adult cyclist does not have a duty to wear a helmet, and further observes that the legislature clearly decided to limit any such duty to children under the age of sixteen, this court now holds that a bicycle purveyor is under no duty to provide an adult bicyclist with a helmet. The practical reason for drawing this line is self-evident: an adult is fully capable of rationalizing the risks of riding a bicycle with or without a helmet, and may choose to act accordingly. The legislature’s policy of allowing each individual adult to choose whether to use a helmet is exemplified by the age cap on the protective headgear requirement for bicyclists in §14-286d as well as the legislature’s repeal of the so-called “motorcycle helmet law” in 1976. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) §14-289e; Ruth v. Poggie, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV 93 52750. As illustrated in this case, if [*11] the plaintiff was concerned about her lack of a helmet, she could have chosen not to ride the bicycle. The defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty to provide a bicycle helmet and the court therefore grants the defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 12(e) and (f) of counts one and six.
Counts Three and Eight
The defendants move to strike counts three and eight on the ground that the plaintiff has “failed to plead facts alleging malicious, wanton and/or reckless conduct on the part of the defendants” and “merely reiterate the claims made in the negligence counts.” (Motion to Strike, p. 9.) The plaintiff responds that “the specific facts alleged in the case at bar are sufficient to satisfy the elements necessary to support a claim for reckless conduct so as to survive a motion to strike.” (Memorandum in Opposition, p. 6.) The court agrees with the plaintiff and denies the defendants’ motion to strike counts three and eight.
[HN5] “Recklessness is a state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of one’s acts . . . It is more than negligence, more than gross negligence . . . The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct. But, in order to infer it, there [*12] must be something more than a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to avoid danger to others or to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to them . . . [S]uch aggravated negligence must be more than any mere mistake resulting from inexperience, excitement, or confusion, and more than mere thoughtlessness or inadvertence, or simply inattention . . . Although there is a difference between negligence and a reckless disregard of the rights or safety of others, a complaint is not deficient so long as it utilizes language explicit enough to inform the court and opposing counsel that both negligence and reckless misconduct are being asserted.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Craig v. Driscoll, 262 Conn. 312, 342-43, 813 A.2d 1003 (2003).
The plaintiff utilizes language explicit enough to inform the court and the defendants that both negligence and reckless misconduct are being asserted. Furthermore, the plaintiff has alleged facts that, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the claim and treated as admitted for purposes of deciding this motion, support a claim for recklessness. The plaintiff’s detailed allegations regarding the purchase, [*13] maintenance and inspection of the bicycle are sufficient to sustain a claim of recklessness. The defendants’ motion to strike counts three and eight is therefore denied.
Counts Four and Nine
The defendants move to strike comas four and nine on the ground that the plaintiff’s CUTPA claims are legally insufficient because “(1) the alleged wrongful act was not conducted in the course of the defendant’s primary line of business; and (2) the plaintiffs cannot establish that Sharon Herbst suffered an ‘ascertainable loss’ as required by General Statutes §42-110g(a).” (Motion to Strike, pp. 14-15.) The plaintiff argues that she has established a prima facie CUTPA claim because she alleges in the complaint that the defendants operate a full service recreational facility that includes the advertising and provision of bicycles to increase business at the expense of competitors and that the solicitation of cycling business while providing unsafe bicycles offends public policy. (Memorandum in Opposition, pp. 10-11.) The plaintiff also argues that her personal injuries are an ascertainable loss recoverable in a claim for a CUTPA violation. Id. The defendants’ arguments rely on questions of fact not [*14] properly addressed at this juncture and therefore the court denies the motion to strike counts four and nine.
[HN6] “It is well settled that whether a defendant’s acts constitute . . . deceptive or unfair trade practices under CUTPA, is a question of fact for the trier . . . To establish a CUTPA violation, a claimant’s evidence must establish that the conduct at issue falls within one of three criteria. A court must decide whether the conduct (1) offends public policy, (2) is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous or (3) causes substantial injury to consumers, competitors or other businessmen . . . Whether the defendant is subject to CUTPA is a question of law, not fact.” McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc., 93 Conn.App. 486, 520-21, 890 A.2d 140 (2006). “[A] CUTPA violation may not be alleged for activities that are incidental to an entity’s primary trade or commerce.” Id., 523. “[T]he touchstone for a legally sufficient CUTPA claim is the implication that the acts complained of have ‘an entrepreneurial or business aspect.'” Simms v. Candela, 45 Conn. Supp. 267, 273, 711 A.2d 778 (1998) [21 Conn. L. Rptr. 479], quoting Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17, 38, 699 A.2d 964 (1997).
Without [*15] evidence from either party, and accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true for purposes of resolving this motion, the court cannot say definitively that cycling is not a component of the defendants’ primary line of business. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant operated and managed a commercial boating marina but also repeatedly alleges that bicycling was a component of that operation. The court is unwilling to draw adverse factual inferences that the bicycling business was merely incidental to the marina business without additional facts not properly presented in a motion to strike. As such, the court cannot strike counts four and nine on this ground.
Similarly, the plaintiff alleges a variety of losses including those for physical injuries, medical care, lost wages, and the loss of enjoyment of life, and alleges that her damages resulted in part because of the defendants’ alleged CUTPA violations. Both parties acknowledge that there is a split of opinion in the superior court regarding whether damages for personal injuries may be recoverable under CUTPA. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Westland Properties, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford at Milford, [*16] Docket No. CV 02 077228 (March 17, 2004, Upson, J.) (36 Conn. L. Rptr. 702, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 615) (“[d]espite CUTPA’s broad language and remedial purpose, the plaintiff’s alleged [slip and fall] injuries do not satisfy the distinction alluded to in Haynes because they are personal, rather than economic”); Simms v. Candela, supra, 45 Conn.Sup. 274 (“[the plaintiff], like most personal injury plaintiffs, alleges that he has suffered economic losses, including medical expenses and lost wages, as a result of his fall. Assuming this allegation to be true, he is a ‘person who suffers [an] ascertainable loss of money’ “). Although the plaintiff’s claims may appear to be only tenuously derived from the defendants’ “entrepreneurial or business aspect”; see Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, supra, 243 Conn. 32-35; the plaintiff has adequately pleaded conduct and damages that could potentially be construed as ascertainable losses derived from a violation of CUTPA. The “issue as to whether this loss resulted from the CUTPA violation complained of . . . is a factual issue appropriately left to the judge or jury hearing the case.” Simms v. Candela, supra, 45 Conn.Sup. 274. The court therefore denies the defendants’ [*17] motion to strike counts four and nine.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 12(e) and 12(f) of counts one and six, and denies the motion to strike counts three, four, eight and nine.
The Court
Cronan, J.

It's not what I write, It's what you Learn

McGowen v. Montes, 152 N.E.3d 654; 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 335; 2020 WL 4516816

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

T.K., a minor, v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, et. al. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87005

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Spectators are always the biggest risk of many outdoor recreational activities. Even if they are behind fences or lines, the creep closer to the event and if a competitor leaves the track or run, it is the event host who might pay for the damages to the spectators.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Plaintiff’s arguments about the release and attempt to invalidate the release by claiming gross negligence all failed.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

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

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

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this: