Madison v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
203 Cal. App. 3d 589, 250 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A clear, unambiguous, and explicit pre-injury release agreement in which a person expressly assumes the risk of and waives liability for future negligence in a non-essential recreational activity provides a complete defense to a subsequent wrongful death action brought by that person's heirs. While a decedent cannot release their heirs' independent wrongful death claim, their express assumption of the risk of negligence bars the claim by negating the defendant's duty of care.


Facts:

  • Ken Sulejmanagic, age 19, enrolled in a scuba diving course offered by the YMCA and taught by Norman Madison.
  • Upon enrollment on July 29, 1986, Ken signed a 'Waiver, Release and Indemnity Agreement.'
  • The agreement explicitly stated he released the YMCA and Madison from any and all actions for wrongful death arising from the activity, even if caused by their negligence.
  • On November 15, 1986, Ken was participating in a final makeup dive for the course.
  • During the dive, instructor Rene Rojas brought Ken to the surface because he was low on air.
  • Rojas instructed Ken to swim to a buoy and then left him alone on the surface to continue the dive with another student.
  • Approximately 10 minutes later, when Rojas and the other student surfaced, Ken was missing.
  • Ken's body was later found on the ocean floor; he had drowned.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sulejman and Maida Sulejmanagic, the decedent's parents, filed a wrongful death action against Norman Madison and the YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles in a state trial court.
  • The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the release signed by the decedent barred the lawsuit.
  • The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that triable issues of material fact existed.
  • The defendants (petitioners) then sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal, asking it to direct the trial court to vacate its order and grant their summary judgment motion.

Locked

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 clear and unambiguous pre-injury release, in which the decedent expressly waived claims for future negligence related to a non-essential recreational activity, bar the decedent's heirs from bringing a subsequent wrongful death action?


Opinions:

Majority - Croskey, J.

Yes, a clear and explicit pre-injury release waiving claims for future negligence bars a subsequent wrongful death action by the decedent's heirs. A plaintiff in a wrongful death action is subject to any defense that could have been asserted against the decedent. Although a decedent cannot directly release their heirs' future wrongful death claim, they can execute a release that expressly assumes the risk of the activity, thereby relieving the defendant of any duty of care. The release signed by Ken was clear, unambiguous, and explicitly relieved the defendants from liability for their own negligence. Scuba diving is not a service affecting the public interest under the Tunkl test, so a waiver of liability for simple negligence is not against public policy. Because Ken expressly assumed the risk of the defendants' negligence, the defendants owed him no duty, providing them with a complete defense to the wrongful death action brought by his parents.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the enforceability of well-drafted liability waivers for dangerous recreational activities, so long as the activity does not involve a matter of public interest. The court distinguishes between the ineffective act of a decedent releasing their heirs' future wrongful death claim and the effective act of a decedent expressly assuming the risk of negligence, which provides a complete defense to such a claim. This ruling provides significant legal protection to organizers of high-risk activities by affirming that a clear, explicit waiver of negligence can bar claims not only from the participant but also from their heirs after a fatal accident.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Madison v. Superior Court (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"