Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilitytrialsummary judgmentlease

plaintiffnegligenceliabilityindemnityappealtriallease

Related Cases

Brown v. Soh, 280 Conn. 494, 909 A.2d 43

Facts

On September 19, 2001, the Skip Barber Racing School held an advanced driving class where the plaintiff, a driving instructor, was required to sign a 'Release and Waiver of Liability' before participating. During the class, a student, Diane Soh, struck the plaintiff with a car, resulting in serious injuries. The plaintiff subsequently filed a negligence action against Soh, other instructors, and the racing school, which led to the defendants moving for summary judgment based on the signed exculpatory agreement.

The racing school offered to the public a one day advanced driving class focused on accident avoidance and prevention. Soh was a student in the class, and the plaintiff and Fenn were employed by the racing school as driving instructors. The driving took place in a restricted area and everyone who entered the area, including the plaintiff, was required by the racing school to sign a document entitled 'Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement' (exculpatory agreement).

Issue

Whether an employee's negligence claim is precluded when he or she has signed an exculpatory agreement releasing the employer and others from liability for negligent acts that cause injury to the employee.

The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) an exculpatory agreement prospectively releasing an employer and others from liability for negligence causing injury to an employee does not violate the public policy of Connecticut.

Rule

Exculpatory agreements that release an employer from liability for negligence towards employees are generally void as against public policy, particularly in the employment context.

In contrast to the commercial recreational services context that we examined in Hanks, exculpatory agreements are 'almost universally rejected in the employment context, where exculpatory agreements exempting an employer from all liability for negligence toward his employees [are] void as against public policy.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the exculpatory agreement under the public policy framework established in previous cases, particularly focusing on the disparity in bargaining power between the employer and employee. It concluded that the agreement, which was presented as a standardized adhesion contract, could not be enforced as it undermined the public policy aimed at protecting employees from employer negligence.

When we apply the factors that guide us, we conclude that exculpatory agreements in the employment context violate Connecticut public policy. Four of the Tunkl factors weigh strongly in favor of the plaintiff.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the exculpatory agreement was invalid as it violated public policy, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In light of our application of the Hanks analysis, we conclude that the exculpatory agreement violates the public policy of the state and is invalid.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Robert J. Brown, prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found the exculpatory agreement invalid and against public policy.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1

Culpepper v. Pearl Street Bldg., Inc., 877 P.2d 877

McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich. 15, 597 N.W.2d 148

Miller v. Willbanks, 8 S.W.3d 607

R.R. v. New Life Community Church of CMA, Inc., 303 So.3d 916, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S261