|
|
REARDON v. WINDSWEPT FARM
Superior Court of Connecticut
2005 WL 896018
March 15, 2005
Summary of Case
In a suit for damages for injuries sustained in a fall from a horse rented from defendant, Windswept Farm, plaintiff claimed that the release she signed before the ride should not bar her claim. The release contained a waiver, a warning, and an indemnification clause. Plaintiff claimed that the release was ambiguous.. The court found the "warning" section of the waiver "somewhat flawed", but that is not what plaintiff relied upon. Plaintiff did rely on any internal ambiguities but on the meaning when section s were read together. The court found the the sections clearly labeled with separate captions and held that it was not ambiguous.
Text of Case
DAVID
R. TOBIN, Judge.
This
is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in an action
brought by plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries suffered by
her on October 24, 2002 after being thrown from a
horse
rented to her by defendant, Windswept Farm, LLC. The complaint claims
that plaintiff's injuries were the result of the defendants'
negligence. The defendants' answer pleads several special defenses
including the claim that the plaintiff's claims are barred by a
release/waiver she signed.
In support of their motion of summary
judgment the defendants filed an affidavit from a court reporter
verifying deposition testimony of the plaintiff in which she admitted
signing a document prior to riding the defendants' horse. The
defendants claim that this document bars the plaintiff from prosecuting
her claims of negligence. In response, the plaintiff claims that the
document is ambiguous and that evidence must be heard by a finder of
fact before it can be determined that the waiver of claims based on
defendants' negligence is valid.
The document, dated October 24, 2002,
consists of three sections. The first section, which is set apart from
the rest of the document by horizontal lines, is entitled "WARNING."
The second section is entitled "RELEASE." The third section is entitled
"INDEMNITY AGREEMENT."
The Warning section reads as follows:
Pursuant to
Connecticut
General Statutes § 52-577p a person
engaged in recreational activities assumes the risk and responsibility
for any injury to his person or property arising out of the hazards
inherent in equestrian sports, unless the injury was proximately caused
by the negligence of the person providing the horse or horses to the
individual engaged in the equestrian activities or the failure to guard
or warm against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity by
the person provided [sic] the horse or his agents or employees.
The Release section reads as follows:
For, and in consideration of, the privilege
to participate in an equine activity at Windswept Farm this date, receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned hereby
agrees to release and discharge and acquit WINDSWEPT FARM, its owners
stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents and servant from
any and all claims, demands, sums of money, actions, rights, causes of
action, liabilities and obligations of any kind or nature whatsoever,
including ordinary negligence, which I may have had now have or
hereafter may have, or assert to have, which arise out of, or is in any
manner whatsoever directly or indirectly, connected with or related to
my participation in the
equine
activity on this date.
The undersigned further warrants and
represents that the information contained in this form is true and
correct; and that he or she has read this release and fully understands
its terms. No promise or representation had been made to the
undersigned other than the terms contained herein.
The Indemnification Agreement section of the
document states, in relevant portion: "The undersigned represents and
warrants that he/she has read and understands the above-captioned
Warning and Release."
The plaintiff concedes that the "Release"
portion of the document standing alone would be sufficient to bar the
plaintiff's action. However, the plaintiff claims that in the context
of the entire document the "Release" section is rendered ambiguous when
read in conjunction with the "Warning" section.
The "Warning" section is somewhat flawed. It
refers to
Connecticut
General Statutes § 52-577p. However,
that statute was renumbered to
Connecticut
General Statutes § 52-557p in 1997, five
years prior to the date of the document. In addition, although wording
of the warning for the most part tracks the statutory language, the
word "providing" in the last line is changed to "provided" somewhat
confusing the import of the warning.
The plaintiff does not rely upon any
internal ambiguities within the body of the Warning section. Instead
the plaintiff claims that release of all claims "including ordinary
negligence" set forth in the Release section becomes ambiguous when it
is read together with the statement in the Warning section excluding
injuries "proximately caused by the negligence of the person providing
the horse or horses to the individual engaged in the equestrian
activities." The court does not agree.
The document in question consists of
separate and independent sections. The Warning section purports to
state Connecticut law and alert the rider of the assumption of risks
inherent in participation in equestrian sports. The section is
separately labeled and separated from the remainder of the document by
horizontal lines. The Release section bears a separate caption and
states in unambiguous language that the release includes "ordinary
negligence" of the defendants. There is no cross reference between the
two sections to make the understanding of both essential to the
understanding of one. Under these circumstances the court finds that
the release is clear and unambiguous.
There is no genuine issue of fact regarding
the release. The defendants are entitled to Summary Judgment as a
matter of law. Their motion for summary judgment is granted.
Return to Liability Releases Page