Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp.
885 A.2d 734 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory agreement that purports to release a commercial operator of a recreational activity from prospective liability for negligence is unenforceable because it violates public policy when the activity is open to the general public.
Facts:
- The defendants, Powder Ridge Restaurant Corporation and White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc., operated a commercial snowtubing facility known as Powder Ridge.
- Powder Ridge offered its snowtubing services to the general public for a fee, with minimal restrictions on participation.
- On February 16, 2003, Gregory D. Hanks brought his children to Powder Ridge to snowtube.
- As a condition of participation, Powder Ridge required Hanks to sign a “Waiver, Defense, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement, and Release of Liability.”
- Hanks read and signed the agreement, which explicitly stated that he assumed all risks associated with snowtubing, even those caused by the “NEGLIGENCE” of the defendants.
- While snowtubing, Hanks’s right foot became caught between his tube and the man-made bank of the run, resulting in serious injuries that required multiple surgeries.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory D. Hanks filed a negligence action against the defendants in the trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the release of liability agreement signed by Hanks barred his claim.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Hanks's motion to reargue was denied by the trial court.
- Hanks, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself for consideration.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-injury release of liability for negligence, required as a condition for participating in a recreational activity open to the public, violate public policy and is therefore unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, C. J.
Yes, a pre-injury release of liability for negligence in this context violates public policy and is unenforceable. Although the agreement was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to release the defendants from liability for negligence, its enforcement would contravene public policy. The court adopted a 'totality of the circumstances' approach, determining that the public interest is adversely affected when an operator open to the general public requires patrons to sign a standardized adhesion contract waiving liability for negligence. Key factors include the societal expectation of safety in family-oriented recreation, the operator's superior knowledge and control over the premises and equipment, and the operator's ability to insure against risks and spread costs. Enforcing such waivers would remove a significant incentive for operators to maintain safe conditions, shifting the cost of injuries to the public. Furthermore, the inherent disparity in bargaining power, where patrons are presented with a 'take it or leave it' contract, supports the conclusion that the agreement is unenforceable.
Dissenting - Norcott, J.
No, a pre-injury release of liability for negligence in the context of a recreational activity does not violate public policy and should be enforced. The dissent advocates for freedom of contract and follows the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that uphold such releases for voluntary recreational activities. Applying the well-established 'Tunkl' factors, the release does not implicate the public interest because snowtubing is not an essential public service or a matter of practical necessity, and the defendants did not possess a decisive bargaining advantage. Patrons willingly assume risks to participate in such activities and can choose not to participate if they disagree with the terms of a release. Invalidating such agreements disregards the parties' right to contractually allocate risk and places Connecticut in a distinct minority of states on this issue.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, patron-protective precedent in Connecticut, placing it in the minority of states regarding the enforceability of liability waivers for recreational activities. By rejecting the more common 'Tunkl' factor analysis in favor of a broader 'totality of the circumstances' test, the court prioritizes tort principles of deterrence and compensation over the freedom to contract in the context of public amusements. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for commercial recreational operators in Connecticut to shield themselves from liability for their own negligence, thereby increasing the legal incentive to maintain high safety standards. This may lead to higher insurance costs and operational expenses for such businesses but provides greater protection for consumers.
