Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GoldCountryRedneck

I doubt that the contest release would exonerate them. In most states, those releases are held invalid when you are dealing with bodily injury. Sometimes an assumption of risk argument works, but you better have a pretty clear disclosure of what the risk is.


25 posted on 01/18/2007 11:22:55 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Brilliant

I think I read that the contest release was more geared toward a publicity release anyway.


28 posted on 01/18/2007 11:28:23 AM PST by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Brilliant; Churchillspirit
I doubt that the contest release would exonerate them.

Bet the promoters of all those all-you-can-eat contests will be following this one?

I've often wondered after watching that guy down 52 dogs what legalities would reign if in fact something ruptured internally...

29 posted on 01/18/2007 11:30:39 AM PST by GoldCountryRedneck ("Idiocy - Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers" - despair.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Brilliant
"Although in the academic literature 'express assumption of risk' often has been designated as a separate, contract‑based species of assumption of risk distinct from both primary and secondary assumption of risk (see e.g., Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed.1984) § 68, p. 496), cases involving express assumption of risk are concerned with instances in which, as a result of an express agreement, the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from an injury‑causing risk. Thus in this respect express assumption of risk properly can be viewed as analogous to primary assumption of risk. One leading treatise describes express assumption of risk in the following terms: 'In its most basic sense, assumption of risk means that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his express consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone.... The result is that the defendant is relieved of legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, he cannot be charged with negligence.' (Prosser & Keeton on Torts, supra, § 68, pp. 480‑481, fn. omitted, second italics added.)

"Since Li. [v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804], California cases uniformly have recognized that so long as an express assumption of risk agreement does not violate public policy (see e.g., Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, 95‑101 [32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 6 A.L.R.3d 693] ), such an agreement operates to relieve the defendant of a legal duty to the plaintiff with respect to the risks encompassed by the agreement and, where applicable, to bar completely the plaintiff's cause of action. (See, e.g., Madison v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 597‑602 [250 Cal.Rptr. 299], and cases cited.)" (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308‑309, fn 4.)

"[W]hat the language of [a release] means is a 'matter of interpretation for the courts and not controlled in any sense by what either of the parties intended or thought its meaning to be....' [Citation.]" (Citizens Utilities Co. v. Wheeler (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 423, 432.) Mr. Conway's subjective understanding that he thought the release applied to what might happen " 'up the trail' not in the paddock area," without more, does not affect our analysis.

As this court has said before, " '[t]he standards which a release such as this one must meet are well established. "To be effective, a release need not achieve perfection...." [Citation.] Thus, "[a]s long as the release constitutes a clear and unequivocal waiver with specific reference to a defendant's negligence, it will be sufficient. [Citations.] For it to be valid and enforceable, a written release exculpating a tortfeasor from liability for future misconduct must be clear, unambiguous and explicit in expressing the intent of the parties. [Citation.] If a tortfeasor is to be released from such liability the language used 'must be clear, explicit and comprehensible in each of its essential details. Such an agreement, read as a whole, must clearly notify the prospective releasor or indemnitor of the effect of signing the agreement.' [Citation.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Allabach, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1015.)

Conway v. Holman Ranch, California Court of Appeals, 2003 WL 22138983 (September 16, 2003)

----

The bottom line is that the civil case will come down to the language on the release, which is not public at this time.

48 posted on 01/18/2007 12:33:00 PM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson