Turnbough v. Ladner
754 So. 2d 467, 1999 WL 1126591 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Contracts intended to release a party from liability for their own negligence are disfavored, subject to close judicial scrutiny, and will not be enforced unless the intent to release for negligence is expressed in clear, specific, and unmistakable language.
Facts:
- Michael Turnbough enrolled in a scuba diving certification class taught by instructor Janet Ladner.
- As a prerequisite for participation, Ladner required all students to sign a document titled "Liability Release and Express Assumption of Risk."
- The document stated that the signer understood the "inherent risks" of scuba diving, including "decompression sickness."
- After being told by a classmate who was an attorney that such releases were unenforceable, Turnbough signed the document.
- During the final certification dives planned and supervised by Ladner, Turnbough participated in a dive to a depth of sixty feet.
- Following the dives, Turnbough developed decompression sickness, commonly known as "the bends."
- Turnbough received medical treatment for his injuries and was informed by doctors that he could never dive again.
- A water safety expert later opined that Ladner was negligent in planning the dive depths and failing to implement required safety stops, significantly increasing the risk of decompression sickness.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Turnbough filed a negligence lawsuit against Janet Ladner in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, the trial court.
- Ladner filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the liability release.
- The trial court granted Ladner's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- Turnbough, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ladner, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted Turnbough's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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-printed liability release that acknowledges the inherent risks of an activity, such as scuba diving, bar a participant from suing an instructor for negligence when the release does not specifically and unmistakably state it releases the instructor from liability for her own negligent acts?
Opinions:
Majority - McRae, J.
No. A pre-printed liability release acknowledging inherent risks does not bar a suit for negligence unless the intent to release a party from liability for its own negligent conduct is expressed in clear and unmistakable terms. The law disfavors exculpatory contracts and subjects them to close judicial scrutiny. Such agreements, especially pre-printed forms that are not negotiated, are strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce them. While Turnbough assumed the inherent risks of scuba diving, it is not reasonable to conclude that he, a student relying on an expert instructor, intended to waive his right to recover for injuries caused by that instructor's failure to follow basic industry safety standards. The release's broad, general language failed to clearly express an intention to absolve Ladner from her own negligence.
Dissenting - Mills, J.
Yes. The unambiguous release, which explicitly mentions releasing parties from liability for "negligence ... whether passive or active," should be enforced. Turnbough, an adult, was fully aware of the risks, consulted a classmate who was an attorney, and then signed the document with the intention of not honoring it. Public policy should permit reasonable adults to assume risks associated with hazardous activities like scuba diving, and failing to enforce such clear releases will have a chilling effect on these activities. The court should not reward the conduct of an individual who signs an agreement he does not intend to honor and who may have contributed to his own injury by allegedly consuming alcohol before the dive.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Mississippi's strict scrutiny standard for exculpatory agreements, particularly in consumer contexts involving an expert and a novice. It clarifies that a general waiver acknowledging "inherent risks" is insufficient to shield a party from liability for their own specific acts of negligence that actively increase those risks. The ruling places a higher burden on the drafters of liability waivers, requiring extremely specific and unambiguous language to release a party from its own negligence. This precedent protects participants in potentially dangerous activities from unknowingly waiving their right to sue an instructor or operator for failing to adhere to basic safety protocols.
