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

lawsuitnegligenceliabilitypleamotionsummary judgmentlease
negligenceliabilityplealeasesustained

Related Cases

Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 131 Cal.Rptr. 854
View Case »
Cheong v. Antablin, 16 Cal.4th 1063, 946 P.2d 817, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8851
View Case »
Harris ex rel. Harris v. McCray, 867 So.2d 188, 186 Ed. Law Rep. 990
View Case »
Time, Inc. v. Johnston, 448 F.2d 378
View Case »
Brass v. American Film Technologies Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1992 WL 47982
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99, 769 N.E.2d 738, 165 Ed. Law Rep. 742

Facts

Merav Sharon, a sixteen-year-old student, was injured during a cheerleading practice at Newton North High School when she fell from a pyramid formation, resulting in a serious arm injury. Prior to her injury, Merav had participated in cheerleading for four seasons. In August 1995, her father signed a release form allowing her to participate in the cheerleading program, which included a waiver of liability for any injuries. After reaching the age of majority, Merav filed a lawsuit against the city of Newton, alleging negligence and negligent hiring of the cheerleading coach.

On November 8, 1995, sixteen year old Merav Sharon was injured while participating in a cheerleading practice at Newton North High School. Merav fell from a teammate's shoulders while rehearsing a pyramid formation cheer and sustained a serious compound fracture to her left arm that required surgery.

Issue

Whether the release signed by Merav's father on her behalf was valid and enforceable, thereby barring her negligence claims against the city.

Whether the release signed by Merav's father on her behalf was valid and enforceable, thereby barring her negligence claims against the city.

Rule

In Massachusetts, a release must be raised as an affirmative defense, and failure to do so generally constitutes a waiver. A party may amend its pleading with leave of court, which should be freely given when justice requires. The law favors the enforcement of releases, allowing parties to allocate risk and exempt themselves from liability for future negligence, provided there is no fraud or duress involved.

The defense of a release must be raised as an affirmative defense, and omission of an affirmative defense from an answer generally constitutes a waiver of that defense. A party may amend its pleading by leave of court, and such leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

Analysis

The court found that the release signed by Merav's father was valid, as both had ample opportunity to read and understand it before signing. The release was clearly labeled and included necessary information about Merav's participation. The court also noted that Merav's participation in cheerleading was voluntary and nonessential, thus not violating public policy. The argument that the release was signed under duress was waived since it was not presented to the motion judge. The court concluded that the release was enforceable and that the city was entitled to summary judgment.

Failure of student or her father to read and understand release which relieved city of any liability arising out of student's voluntary participation in cheerleading program did not avoid effects of release as a matter of law, where both student and her father had ample opportunity to read and understand release before signing it, release was a clearly labeled, two-sided document, and student and parent filled out back of release that called for information regarding student's address, date of birth, health insurance provider, and emergency contacts, and which provided for the purchase of optional student accident insurance through the school.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the release signed by Merav's father was valid and barred her claims against the city.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The city of Newton prevailed in this case because the court upheld the validity of the release signed by Merav's father, which effectively waived any claims Merav had against the city for her injuries. The court emphasized that the release was a clear and informed agreement that allowed Merav to participate in a voluntary extracurricular activity, aligning with public policy that encourages youth athletic programs.

The city of Newton prevailed in this case because the court upheld the validity of the release signed by Merav's father, which effectively waived any claims Merav had against the city for her injuries.

You must be