The court found that the Plaintiff’s Release or Waiver,
which was signed before engaging in the off-road riding, was valid and served
to preclude the Plaintiff’s cause of action.
The court found that, since the activities involved were
purely private, the Release did not contravene any public policy interest. The court additionally noted that Releases
involved in voluntary sporting an recreational activities are not contracts of
adhesion.
The court
additionally noted that, even though the Plaintiff did not sign a waiver on the
date of the injury, the Plaintiff had previously signed a waiver while using
the same facility, and that waiver was clearly and unequivocally binding for
“all time thereafter.”
![]() |
Judge Karoline Mehalchick U.S. M.D.Pa. M.J. |
The court additionally found that conspicuousness was not a
requirement for the validity of the document that the Plaintiff was actually
required to sign. Judge Mehalchick
found that, in any event, the language at issue in the Release was indeed
conspicuous in the court’s determination.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck, of the Philadelphia
office of the Reed Smith law firm and the writer of the excellent Drug and
Device Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.