Van Tuyn v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
447 So. 2d 318 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory clause is effective to absolve a defendant from liability for its own negligence only if it clearly and unequivocally states that intent; additionally, express assumption of risk requires a showing that the plaintiff subjectively understood and intended to assume the specific risks, including the defendant's negligent conduct.
Facts:
- Sabina Van Tuyn went to Club Dallas, which had a mechanical bull named "J.R." that patrons were invited to ride.
- Van Tuyn observed other patrons riding the bull for 15-20 minutes.
- Deciding to ride, Van Tuyn told the bull's operator that she had never ridden before and asked him to go slowly, to which he responded, "Don't worry about it. We'll take care of it."
- Prior to mounting the bull, Van Tuyn was asked to sign a written waiver, which she signed without reading.
- Van Tuyn rode the bull for approximately 10-15 seconds without incident.
- The operator then suddenly and rapidly sped up the bull, making its front come up at high speed.
- Van Tuyn lost her balance, fell forward onto the bull's head, and then fell off, sustaining personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Sabina Van Tuyn (Plaintiff) sued Zurich American Insurance Company and Marr Investments, Inc., d/b/a Club Dallas (Defendants) in a trial court for injuries she sustained after falling from a mechanical bull.
- The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff.
- Sabina Van Tuyn (Appellant) appealed the final summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
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 general waiver and assumption of risk agreement signed by a plaintiff bar recovery for injuries when the agreement does not clearly and unequivocally release the defendant from liability for its own negligence, and the plaintiff claims the injury was caused by the defendant's employee's negligent or intentional operation of an amusement device?
Opinions:
Majority - WALDEN, Judge
No, the waiver and assumption of risk agreement do not, as a matter of law, bar Sabina Van Tuyn's recovery. An exculpatory clause, while permissible, must clearly and unequivocally state that it releases the party from liability for its own negligence to be effective, as established by cases like Ivey Plants, Inc. v. F.M.C. Corp. and University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart. The waiver signed by Van Tuyn was "devoid of any language manifesting the intent to either release or indemnify Club Dallas, Marr Investments, Inc., for its own negligence." Furthermore, for express assumption of risk to apply, the plaintiff must have subjectively understood that she was assuming the particular conduct by the defendants which caused her injury, according to the Restatement of Torts, Second, § 496B, comment d. The defendants failed to establish, for summary judgment purposes, that Van Tuyn fully understood the risks and dangers involved in riding the bull, or that she understood and agreed to assume the risk of the defendants' negligence in operating the ride. The court noted that a jury could conclude the injury was caused by the employee's negligent or intentional conduct, not by an inherent characteristic of the device, which would preclude summary judgment under the theory of "primary-implied assumption of risk" (where a duty arises if a defendant's actions increase risks not normally inherent in the activity).
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the strict construction of exculpatory clauses and assumption of risk defenses in Florida. It clarifies that general language in a waiver is insufficient to release a party from liability for its own negligence, requiring explicit wording. The ruling also reinforces that express assumption of risk is a high bar, demanding a showing of the plaintiff's subjective understanding and intent to assume the specific risks, especially those created by the defendant's potential negligence. This case provides important guidance for drafting waivers and for evaluating summary judgment motions where such defenses are raised, making it harder for businesses to use broad waivers to escape liability for employee misconduct or heightened risks.
