A recent case decided by the California Court of Appeal, Diamond v. Schweitzer, is encouraging for HOAs seeking to limit their exposure to premises liability. In that case, the Plaintiff suffered severe injuries during an altercation in the restricted pit area at Bakersfield Speedway. He sued the Speedway for negligence in failing to provide reasonable security, adequately responding to the altercation, and undertaking reasonable rescue efforts. The court held that the lawsuit was barred by a release and waiver of liability that he signed to gain admission to the pit area.
As stated by the court, an enforceable release of liability for ordinary negligence must satisfy three criteria: (1) the release must be clear, unambiguous and explicit; (2) the negligence must be reasonably related to the object or purpose for which the release is given; and (3) the release cannot contravene public policy. Because the language of the release was clear and was sufficiently broad to explicitly encompass the altercation, the Speedway escaped the lawsuit without any liability. This result is encouraging for HOAs because it reinforces the principle that a properly drafted release can protect against liability.
One caveat: the criterion of not contravening public policy depends on the nature of overall transaction and industry involved. That analysis focuses on the leverage over the releasor. For example, if the transaction involves an essential service depriving the public of a meaningful capacity to say “no,” the release can be considered to be against public policy. The same applies to industries that are regarded as suitable for public regulation. Possible examples of businesses in which a release would be contrary to public policy include banks, hospitals and other healthcare providers, childcare services, and common carriers. Examples of activities that seem to be consistent with public policy include participating in recreational sports, watching sports, and attending concerts and entertainment events.
|
Call |
|