Search Results for: “gross negligence”

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;

Niagara Jet Boat Patron Challenges Waiver on Negligence, Violation of a Safety Statute, Breaching a Condition of a Contract, and Gross Negligence

By Doyice Cotten

Scott and Sarah Witkowski and their son rode a Niagara Jet Adventures(referred to as Niagara) jet boat after having signed a waiver of liability. The boat hit a large wave throwing Scott and the son into Sarah causing injury.  The Witkowskis sued Niagara alleging negligence and gross negligence. They also alleged negligence per se claiming Niagara violated a safety statute (This was not properly pled and was dismissed.)

The Waiver

Pertinent parts of the waiver read:

“In consideration of participating in whitewater,

Michigan Court Explains Distinction between Negligence & Gross Negligence in Roller Derby Case

By Doyice Cotten

Elizabeth Dudros was injured when she struck a wall located only five feet from the roller derby track during a non-contact drill. She had to swerve to avoid a pile-up causing her to strike the wall (Budros v. Womens’ Flat Track Roller Derby Association, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1525).

Budros had purchased WFTDA insurance before skating; the policy included a waiver of liability. The Traverse City Roller Derby (TCRD) athletic director showed Budros around the track prior to the drill.

Check Your LIABILITY IQ: Was it Ordinary Negligence or Gross Negligence in Climbing Wall Case?

By Doyice Cotten

In a Michigan rock wall climbing injury case (Alvarez v. LTF Club Operations Company Inc., 2016), the plaintiff had climbed the wall and started to belay down when his harness broke because he had it on backwards and incorrectly hooked to the belay system. He fell from the wall and was seriously injured. Subsequently, he filed suit claiming the waiver of liability of ordinary negligence he signed was not applicable because LTF was guilty of gross negligence.

Indiana Waiver Law as to Gross Negligence

By Doyice Cotten

Indiana law regarding waivers and extreme forms of negligence (gross negligence, reckless conduct, willful/wanton conduct and intentional acts) was addressed in Sportsdrome Speedway, Inc. v. Clark (2016 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 363).

In this case, Sportsdrome appeal a trial court ruling denying Sportsdrome’s motion for summary judgment. Jason Clark, an employee/volunteer was injured at the racetrack when a car struck him while being propelled from the track during an accident. Clark filed suit alleging the racetrack was grossly negligent and acted in a willful and wanton manner because 1) it knew the risk faced by Clark and stationed him alone in a dangerous area and 2) because the management knew that the design and layout of the track was unreasonably dangerous.

Michigan Waiver Case Examines Ordinary vs. Gross Negligence When the Steering Wheel Comes Off a Racecar

By Doyice Cotten

Michigan courts have consistently ruled that a liability waiver can insulate a defendant against ordinary negligence. Likewise they have on many occasions held that such a release cannot protect a party against gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. In Gonzalez v. Rusty Wallace Racing Experience (2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 25), the Court of Appeals of Michigan considered the enforceability of two waivers signed by a plaintiff prior to engaging in the Racing Experience.

Missouri Supreme Court Provides an Interesting Ruling Regarding a Gross Negligence and Reckless Disregard Claim

By Doyice Cotten
Cynthia DeCormier signed up for a motorcycle training course, signed a liability waiver, and attended the course. On the day of the course there was rain, drizzle, snow, and mist; there was also ice on the pavement. As a consequence, she and her bike took a spill and she suffered injury. She subsequently sued alleging negligence, gross negligence, and reckless disregard (DeCormier v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, Inc., 2014 Mo.

D.C. Court Rules on Opportunity to Negotiate, Gross Negligence/Recklessness, and Lack of Consideration

By Doyice J. Cotten

In a case  in which a client was injured on a Segway[1] tour, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia addressed several aspects of waiver law in the District of Columbia. (Hara v. Hardcore Choppers, LLC (2012))

Opportunity to Negotiate

The court said that the waiver in the case was not against public policy. Regarding unequal bargaining power, the court stated that it did not suppose that the parties were of equal bargaining power;