McCune v. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range, Inc.
612 S.E.2d 462, 2005 S.C. App. LEXIS 90, 364 S.C. 242 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unambiguous exculpatory clause in a contract, which explicitly states that a participant in a voluntary recreational activity releases the provider from liability for its own negligence, is enforceable and bars a subsequent negligence claim.
Facts:
- Christine McCune participated in a paintball game at the Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range (the Range).
- Prior to playing, McCune signed a general waiver releasing the Range from liability for any injuries, including those arising from the Range's own negligence.
- The Range provided McCune with a protective face mask that was loose and ill-fitting.
- An employee of the Range attempted to properly fit the mask for McCune on several occasions, but it remained loose.
- During the game, the loose mask caught on a tree branch, lifting it from her face.
- A paintball pellet then struck McCune in the unprotected eye, causing her to become legally blind in that eye.
Procedural Posture:
- Christine McCune brought a suit for negligence and strict liability against the Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range in a state trial court.
- The Range filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the waiver and McCune's comparative negligence barred her claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Range, finding the waiver constituted an express assumption of the risk.
- The trial court denied McCune's subsequent motion for reconsideration.
- McCune, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
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 liability waiver that explicitly releases a recreational facility from its own negligence bar a participant's subsequent negligence claim for an injury sustained during the activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Beatty, J.
Yes. A pre-injury liability waiver that explicitly releases a recreational facility from its own negligence bars a participant's subsequent negligence claim. This case involves an express assumption of the risk, which is governed by contract law. Exculpatory contracts, while not favored and strictly construed against the party relying on them, are enforceable in South Carolina if their language is clear and unambiguous. The waiver signed by McCune explicitly stated that she assumed all risks, 'EVEN IF ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE' of the Range, and released the Range from liability for injuries 'CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASEES OR OTHERWISE.' This language clearly indicates the parties' intent. Upholding such agreements for voluntary recreational activities serves the public interest by encouraging organizations to sponsor such events. The waiver is distinguishable from prior cases where waivers were found to be ambiguous or overly broad, and it does not contravene public policy as it still permits claims for gross negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the enforceability of clear and specific exculpatory agreements in the context of voluntary recreational activities in South Carolina. It establishes that for a waiver to effectively bar a negligence claim, it must contain explicit language releasing the provider from liability for its own negligence. The court's distinction between this unambiguous waiver and the overly broad one in Fisher v. Stevens provides a clear guideline for businesses on drafting effective liability releases. The ruling solidifies the contractual nature of express assumption of risk and its power as a complete defense against ordinary negligence claims in this context.
