Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Connecticut Supreme Court - 276 Conn. 314
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against two companies for injuries sustained while snowtubing. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, but the majority opinion reversed the decision and allowed the plaintiff's claim to proceed. The court held that a recreational operator cannot release itself from liability for its own negligence when it offers services to the public for a fee and requires patrons to sign a standardized liability release agreement. The court ruled that an exculpatory agreement must explicitly release a party from future negligence to be valid. The court concluded that enforcing a well-drafted exculpatory agreement that releases a snowtube operator from prospective liability for personal injuries resulting from their negligent conduct violates public policy. The court reverses the trial court's judgment, as contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable.
The dissenting opinion in this case argues that a release of liability for negligence signed by the plaintiff is enforceable as parties are free to contract for whatever terms they agree upon, including the assumption of known or unknown hazards and risks. However, contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable. The Tunkl factors should be given more consideration in determining the validity of release agreements. The court applied the Tunkl factors to the sport of snow-tubing and found that the release of liability for negligence signed by the plaintiff is enforceable. The release agreement affects the public interest as it is an adhesion contract and only a small class of the general public is excluded from participation in snowtubing at the defendant's facility. The release agreement does not violate public policy with regards to snowtubing, as the voluntary nature of recreational activities and the ability of participants to weigh their desire to participate against their willingness to sign a contract containing an exculpatory clause supports this view. The number of tickets sold to the public is not the only factor in determining whether an agreement affects the public interest. The Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Assn. case held that it is not lawful for one party to put the other parties to the contract at the mercy of its own misconduct.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.