Published on:

Supreme Court in Oregon Finds Ski Resort Indemnity Clause is Unconscionable

Late last week, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled on a pending personal injury claim. The case considered a claim made by a plaintiff who was injured at a ski resort. Apparently, the plaintiff was an experienced snowboarder and purchased a season ski pass from a ski resort. The ski resort mandated that an indemnity agreement be signed, which basically released the ski resort from any liability, even for its own negligence. At some point during the season, the snowboarder was boarding in the ski resort’s terrain park, at which point he suffered a severe injury that resulted in his permanent paralysis.

skilift-1160983-mThe snowboarder brought a suit against the ski resort, claiming that it was negligent in its maintenance, design, and construction of the terrain park. The ski resort claimed that the snowboarder signed the release, and therefore it was not liable. The plaintiff claimed that the indemnity clause is against public policy. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion, but the plaintiff appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Oregon ruled that the release is unconscionable, and the case should be remanded.

Premises Liability in Florida

There are several categories of law that govern the duty owed by property owners. This includes the duty owed to trespassers, licensees, and invitees. Amusement park attendees and those attending other attractions, such as the ski resort discussed above, are considered invitees on the property. In Florida, invitees are given the most amount of protection under the statutory regulations of the state.

There are two types of invitees, a public invitee and a business invitee. A public invitee is an individual who is invited on the property for a purpose that the land was intended for and is opened to the public for. A business invitee is one who goes on another’s property to discuss business dealings with the individual or entity that possesses the land. In an amusement park situation, the invitee is considered public.

In the case of a public invitee, the owner of the property must ensure that the property is maintained in a reasonably safe manner. And if there are areas of the property that are not safe, the business owner must warn any person on its land or correct the deficiencies.

In many situations, such as the one above, the property owner may try to assert that the invitee signed an agreement that would indemnify the property owner. In some situations, this may be held up in court, but many times these agreements are struck down as being unconscionable and against public policy. If an individual has been hurt at an amusement park but has signed one of these agreements, it is important to contact an attorney to determine the likelihood that it will be held up in court.

Have You Been Injured at an Amusement Park?

If you or a loved one has been injured at an amusement park, and you believe the park was unreasonably unsafe, you may be able to bring a personal injury claim against the park. You may be entitled to monetary compensation for your injuries. This compensation includes your past medical bills, future medical expenses, and possibly pain and suffering that resulted from the accident. It is important to contact an attorney in cases involving a slip and fall because many times they are difficult to comprehend, and the legality of the agreements is questionable. An experienced attorney at Cecere Santana can assist you in determining whether your case is viable. Contact our office today at (800) 75-FL-LAW to schedule a free initial consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Are You a Victim of Personal Injury?, Cecere Santana Injury Lawyers Blog, published August 26, 2014.

Save Money on Auto Insurance, Cecere Santana Injury Lawyers Blog, published July 23, 2014.

Contact Information