Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
23 Cal.App.4th 748, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 177 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A broadly worded liability release for a hazardous recreational activity, which clearly and unequivocally waives liability for future negligence without temporal or geographic limitations, is enforceable and bars a subsequent wrongful death claim by the decedent's heirs, so long as the fatal injury was reasonably related to the purpose for which the release was given.

Facts:

Approximately three years before his death, Alan David Levin, an experienced skydiver, signed a broad liability release with Paralift, Inc.
The release stated Levin 'forever' released Paralift from liability arising out of 'parachuting activities,' including losses caused by Paralift's own negligence.
The release document made numerous references to Paralift's operations at the Perris Valley Airport but contained no expiration date or explicit geographic limitations.
On July 4, 1991, Levin participated in a demonstration jump using Paralift's aircraft near the Del Mar Fairgrounds, a different location from Perris Valley.
The jump took place over the ocean with cloud cover present, whereas the Perris Valley location is inland.
A year before the fatal jump, Levin had made four successful parachute jumps with Paralift in the Del Mar area.
During the July 4th jump, Levin separated from his team, dove through clouds, emerged over the ocean, disconnected his parachute from his harness, and was killed upon impact with the water.

Procedural Posture:

Alan David Levin's heirs filed a wrongful death complaint against Paralift, Inc. in California superior court (trial court), alleging negligence.
Paralift filed an answer, asserting the liability release signed by Levin as an affirmative defense.
Paralift moved for summary judgment, arguing the release completely barred the plaintiffs' claims.
The trial court denied Paralift's motion for summary judgment.
The trial court ruled that the waiver did not apply to the fatal jump due to the three-year time lapse and the different risks associated with jumping over the ocean versus the land-based location mentioned in the waiver.
Paralift petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to vacate its denial and grant summary judgment in Paralift's favor.

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 broad, comprehensive, and non-expiring liability waiver for parachuting activities, signed by a decedent, bar a subsequent wrongful death claim by his heirs, even when the fatal accident occurred three years later at a different location and under different conditions than those specifically mentioned in the waiver?

Opinions:

Majority - Huffman, J.

Yes. A broad and unequivocal liability release for a hazardous activity bars a subsequent wrongful death claim when the injury is reasonably related to the purpose of the release. The court reasoned that the release signed by Alan David Levin was clear, unambiguous, and explicit in its intent to release Paralift from liability for its future negligence. The document's use of terms like 'forever' and 'parachuting activities' indicated an intent for broad, ongoing application, unlimited by time or specific location. Since the fatal jump was a 'parachuting activity'—the very object for which the release was given—the waiver remains enforceable. The court held that where a release covers any act of negligence, it is not necessary for the releasor to have had specific knowledge of the particular risk that resulted in death; it is only necessary that the negligent act be reasonably related to the object of the release.

Analysis:

This case significantly reinforces the enforceability of broadly drafted liability waivers in the context of high-risk recreational activities. It establishes that such releases do not need to be re-executed for each event and can remain valid over long periods and across different locations, provided the language is comprehensive. The decision prioritizes the 'object or purpose' of the agreement over specific, unenumerated factual circumstances, such as location or weather conditions. This provides substantial legal protection to operators of dangerous activities and places a heavy burden on participants who sign such waivers.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992)

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