Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

plaintiffdamagesnegligenceliabilitytrialsummary judgmentleaseadoptioncomparative negligence
plaintiffdamagesnegligenceliabilitytrialsummary judgmentleaseadoptionsustainedcomparative negligence

Related Cases

Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S101, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,793
View Case »
Agnew v. Porter, 23 Ohio St.2d 18, 260 N.E.2d 830, 52 O.O.2d 79
View Case »
Sepaugh v. LaGrone, 300 S.W.3d 328
View Case »
Smith v. Tucker, 151 Tenn. 347, 270 S.W. 66, 41 A.L.R. 830, 24 Thompson 347
View Case »
Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Scott By and Through Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wash.2d 484, 834 P.2d 6

Facts

On March 11, 1989, 12-year-old Justin Scott was injured while skiing at a commercial ski resort owned by Pacific West Mountain Resort. He was a student at the Grayson Connor Ski School, which offered lessons at the resort. While attempting to ski on a slalom race course, Justin left the course and collided with an unfenced tow-rope shack, resulting in severe head injuries. His mother had signed an application for the ski school that included a hold harmless clause, which the ski school used to seek summary judgment against the claims.

On March 11, 1989, 12-year-old Justin Scott sustained severe head injuries while skiing at a commercial ski resort owned by Pacific West Mountain Resort. Justin was a student of the privately owned Grayson Connor Ski School which offered lessons at the ski resort. At the time of his injury, Justin was attempting to ski on a slalom race course which had been laid out by the ski school owner, allegedly according to instructions from an agent of the ski resort.

Issue

1. Was the language of the purported exculpatory clause sufficiently clear to release the ski school for negligent conduct? 2. May a parent legally waive a child's future potential cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence? 3. Does the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk act to bar recovery or only to reduce damages after the adoption of comparative negligence laws? 4. Did the trial court properly apply the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk as a complete bar to plaintiff's recovery against the ski resort operator?

1. Was the language of the purported exculpatory clause sufficiently clear to release the ski school for negligent conduct? 2. May a parent legally waive a child's future potential cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence? 3. Subsequent to the adoption of comparative negligence, does the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk act to bar recovery or only to reduce damages? 4. Under the facts of this case, did the trial court properly apply the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk as a complete bar to plaintiff's recovery?

Rule

Exculpatory clauses are enforceable unless they violate public policy, the negligent act falls below the standard of care, or they are inconspicuous. Primary implied assumption of risk continues as a complete bar to recovery after the adoption of comparative negligence laws.

Exculpatory clauses are enforceable unless (1) they violate public policy, or (2) the negligent act falls greatly below the standard established by law for protection of others or (3) they are inconspicuous.

Analysis

The court found that the exculpatory clause in the ski school application was sufficiently clear to release the ski school from liability for its negligent conduct. However, it held that a parent does not have the legal authority to waive a child's future cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence. The court also concluded that while Justin assumed the risks inherent in skiing, the trial court improperly applied the doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery against the ski resort operator, as there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the operator's negligence.

The court found that the exculpatory clause in the ski school application was sufficiently clear to release the ski school from liability for its negligent conduct. However, it held that a parent does not have the legal authority to waive a child's future cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the parents' claims against the ski school but reversed the dismissal of Justin's claims against both the ski school and the ski resort, remanding for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the parents' claims against the ski school but reversed the dismissal of Justin's claims against both the ski school and the ski resort, remanding for further proceedings.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Justin Scott, as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the ski school and ski resort, allowing his claims to proceed.

The prevailing party was Justin Scott, as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the ski school and ski resort, allowing his claims to proceed.

You must be