Search Results for: “gross negligence”

3-inch Gap in Sauna Floor: Was It Ordinary or Gross Negligence?

By Doyice Cotten

Cynthia MacAdams, age 75, signed a YMCA waiver prior to using the sauna. The floor consisted of two separate platforms made of wood slats on top of a concrete base; they could be lifted and pushed apart for cleaning, but were not pushed back together after cleaning. This resulted in a 3 inch gap in the flooring.  When she got ready to leave, one of her feet went into the gap causing her to fall onto her right side.

Gross Negligence Claim in California Motocross Case Fails

By Doyice Cotten

Scott Champion and some other motocross racers filed suit against Feld Entertainment, Inc. claiming injury because defendants, in order to dry the track, used caustic lime on the soil and failed to mix it properly (Champion v. Feld Motor Sports, Inc., 2021). Feld argued that the waiver signed by plaintiffs protected against claims for ordinary negligence; further, plaintiffs failed to plead gross negligence.

California Gross Negligence Law

The Court then set out to ascertain whether plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.

California “Boot-Camp” Fitness Patron’s Gross Negligence Claim Fails

By Doyice Cotten

Patricia Washington was injured in a “boot-camp” group fitness class taught by Alisson Rosales (Washington v. Rosales, 2020). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Rosales based on the waiver of liability signed by Washington. She claimed the waiver was rendered invalid by the Health Studio Services Act (Civ. Code, § 1812.80 et. seq.). In addition, she said the court erred by shifting the burden to her to demonstrate a triable issue of fact on the issue of gross negligence.

Niagara Jet Boat: Was there Gross Negligence?

By Doyice Cotten

This post examines another important issue in the Witkowski v. Niagara Jet Boat Adventures, LLC, 2020 case – Gross Negligence or Ordinary Negligence.

In the jet boat case, the Witkowski’s took a jet boat ride and Sarah Witkowski suffered injury. The reader is referred back to last week’s post for the facts of the case.

The final issue addressed in the case was the allegation that Niagara Jet was grossly negligent.

Multiple negligent acts do not Equal Gross Negligence in the Pennsylvania Triathlon Case

By Doyice Cotten

We have written before about the distinction between ordinary negligence and gross negligence:

Ordinary negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would under similar circumstances. It is an unintentional act or failure to act that causes harm to another party.

Gross Negligence is an extreme form of negligence in which one fails to use the care that even a careless person would use.

Gross Negligence Law in Pennsylvania

By Doyice Cotten

 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Tayer v. Camelback Ski Corporation, Inc., 2012) addressed the issue of the

enforceability of waivers when the act in question was recklessness; it ruled that there is a dominant public policy against enforcing waivers seeking to protect reckless behavior. Unfortunately, the court left unaddressed the issue of waivers when the action involved gross negligence.

It was not until 2019 when the question was answered.

The Difference Between Ordinary Negligence and Gross Negligence

By Doyice Cotten

Most sport, recreation, and fitness professionals have an idea (though they are often incorrect) of what constitutes ordinary negligence. Many understand that

ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. Many understand that negligence is indicated by  inattention, irresponsibility, and actions that are careless.  

A California federal court (Kabogoza v. Blue Water Boating,

Summary Judgment Rulings in Recent New Jersey Waiver Cases when Gross Negligence is Alleged

By Doyice Cotten

Plaintiffs often allege both negligence and gross negligence when injured and seeking redress. New Jersey law generally holds that “contracting parties are afforded the liberty to bind themselves as they see fit.” Waivers of provider negligence, however, are disfavored in law and must be subjected to close judicial scrutiny. Such waivers must reflect the intent of the party giving up rights to do so voluntarily and with knowledge of the consequences. Further the signer of a contract,

Do Texas Courts Enforce Waivers for Gross Negligence?

By Doyice Cotten

Last week’s post, Court in Texas Trampoline Park Case Enforces Waiver for Gross Negligence, involved an occasion when a Texas Appellate court did enforce a waiver for gross negligence. But, when one looks at previous court rulings, it becomes clear that there are two schools of thought on the matter of whether waivers can protect against liability for gross negligence.

Some Texas courts feel that gross negligence is not a separate cause of action from that of negligence.

Court in Texas Trampoline Park Case Enforces Waiver for Gross Negligence

By Doyice Cotten

Graciela Quiroz and her sixteen-year-old son went to Jumpstreet for trampolining. Before jumping, she signed a pre-injury waiver of liability “Jumpstreet, LLC Release and Parent/Guardian Waiver of Liability and Assumption of Risk.” After signing the waiver, Graciela attempted to do a flip and injured her neck; this resulted in paralysis from the waist down. She sued Jumpstreet for negligence and gross negligence and as next friend of two minor children for their loss of parental consortium and for mental anguish;