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

contractlawsuitnegligenceliabilityappealsummary judgmentwillleasesustained
contractdamagesnegligenceliabilityhearingmotionsummary judgmentleasemotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School Dist., 247 F.3d 1123, 153 Ed. Law Rep. 68, 2001 DJCAR 2086
View Case »
In re Fox River Real Estate Holdings, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 759
View Case »
Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 116 S.Ct. 2116, 135 L.Ed.2d 521, 152 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2513, 64 USLW 4554, 131 Lab.Cas. P 11,588, 1996-1 Trade Cases P 71,445, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4419, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7174, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8318
View Case »
Kent State Univ. v. Ford, 26 N.E.3d 868, 314 Ed. Law Rep. 1067, 39 IER Cases 1183, 2015-Ohio-41
View Case »
Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 1980-2 Trade Cases P 63,496, 1980-81 Trade Cases P 63,700, 6 Media L. Rep. 2163
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sinu v. Concordia University, 313 Neb. 218, 983 N.W.2d 511, 411 Ed. Law Rep. 342

Facts

Konrad Sinu, a scholarship athlete at Concordia University, suffered an eye injury during a mandatory fitness training session involving an elastic resistance band. Prior to participating, both he and his mother signed a release titled 'Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release,' which purported to release the university from liability for injuries sustained during university activities. After the injury, they filed a negligence lawsuit against the university, which the university defended by citing the signed release. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, leading to an appeal by Sinu and his mother.

Before the student moved to Nebraska from his home in England, he signed an 'Assumption of Risk and Waiver of Liability Release.' Because the student was 18 years old, his mother also signed the release.

Issue

Did the release signed by the student and his mother effectively bar their negligence claim against the university?

Did the release signed by the student and his mother effectively bar their negligence claim against the university?

Rule

An exculpatory clause is a contractual provision that relieves a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act. Such clauses are enforceable only if the intention to be relieved from liability is made clear and unequivocal in the contract. The language must be clear enough that an ordinary party understands what they are contracting away. Courts are cautious in declaring contracts void as against public policy, and a release will not be enforceable if it limits liability for gross negligence or willful misconduct.

An exculpatory clause is a contractual provision relieving a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act.

Analysis

The court found that the release signed by Sinu and his mother was clear and unambiguous, despite not explicitly mentioning 'negligence.' The title and language of the release indicated a clear intent to release the university from liability for injuries sustained during activities, including those resulting from negligence. The court also noted that the release was not unconscionable or void as against public policy, as there was no significant disparity in bargaining power and the services provided by the university were not deemed essential.

The release placed no liability on the university for any injury suffered by the student. The language plainly stated that the student released the university 'from and against any and all claims, demands, injuries, actions or causes of actions, for costs, expenses or damages to personal property, or personal injury, or death, which may result from my presence at or participation in any such [u]niversity activities.' This language covers 'any' claim for ordinary negligence, which includes any claim caused by the university's ordinary negligence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the university, holding that the release was enforceable and barred the negligence claim.

We find no error in granting summary judgment. Although the release did not mention negligence, its language was broad and clear and did not contravene public policy.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was Concordia University. The court upheld the university's defense based on the release signed by the student and his mother, determining that the release was valid and enforceable. The court found that the language of the release clearly indicated the intention to waive any claims for personal injury, including those arising from negligence. Additionally, the court ruled that the release was not unconscionable or against public policy, as the circumstances did not demonstrate a significant imbalance in bargaining power.

The court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment and received a number of exhibits. It subsequently entered summary judgment in the university's favor and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

You must be