Use the IRAC Method to breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Test),

Question

Use the IRAC Method to breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Test), the Facts Applied to the Test (Analysis), and the Conclusion/ Holding of the following case:

Holmes v. Multimedia KSDK, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two, 395 S.W.Bd 557 (2013).

In the Language of the Court

Kathianne KNAUP CRANE, Presiding Judge.

* * On or about May 12, 2009, plaintiff Colleen M. Holmes signed and dated an Entry Form for the 2009 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure (the Event) to be held on Saturday, June 13, 2009 [in St. Louis, Missouri]. The one-page entry form contained a section titled, “RACE WAIVER AND RELEASE.” This section contained the following language:

I understand that I may be removed from this competition if I do not fol­low all the rules of this Event. I am a voluntary participant in this Event, and in good physical condition. I know that this Event is a potentially hazardous activity and I hereby vol­untarily assume full and complete responsibility for, and the risk of, any injury or accident that may occur dur­ing my participation in this Event or while on the premises of this Event. I * * * hereby release and hold harmless and covenant not to file suit against The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc., * * * D/B/A Susan G. Komen for the Cure, The St. Louis Affiliate of The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation * * *, their Affiliates and any affiliated Individu­als, any Event spon­sors and their agents and employees, and all other persons or entities associ­ated with this Event (collectively, the “Releasees”) for any injury or damages I might suffer in connection with my participation in this Event or while on the premises of this Event. This release applies to any and all loss, liability, or claims I may have arising out of my participation in this Event, including but not limited to, personal injury or damage suffered by me or others, whether such losses, liabilities, or claims be caused by fiills, contact with and/or the actions of other partici­pants, contact with fixed or non-fixed objects, contact with animals, condi­tions of the premises of the Event, negligence of the Releasees, risks not known to me or not reasonably fore­seeable at this time, or otherwise.

On June 1, 2009, defendant Mul­timedia KSDK, Inc. (KSDK) executed a Race Sponsorship Agreement with the St. Louis Affiliate of the Event.

This agreement governed the terms of KSDK’s sponsorship of the Event in 2009. KSDK, as an Event sponsor, agreed to, and did, broadcast the Event. Defendants Lynn Beall and Michael Shipley, KSDK employees, were involved in arranging the live coverage.

On February 23, 2011, Mrs. Holmes and her husband, Rick W. Holmes (col­lectively, plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Plaintiffs alleged that while Mrs. Holmes was a participant in the Event, she was caused to trip and fall over an audio­visual box, and she sustained injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that the audio-visual box was owned and operated by KSDK and was placed on the ground without barricades or warnings in a high pedes­trian traffic area.

The circuit court entered summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the language of the release, the release was not ambiguous, and the release applied to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

* * * *

[The plaintiffs] on appeal claim the release is ambiguous. Whether a release is ambiguous is a question of law. Inter­pretation of a release or settlement agree­ment is governed by the same principles as any other contract. * * * Contract terms are ambiguous only if the language may be given more than one reasonable interpretation. Simply because parties dis­agree over the meaning of a contract does not mean that it is ambiguous. [Emphasis added.]

* * Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because the release was ambiguous in that it did not clearly and explicitly set forth the individuals and entities it purported to release from liability. We disagree.

The release described the individuals and entities to be released in the follow­ing language:

The St. Louis Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, their affiliates, and any affiliated individuals, any Event sponsors and their agents and employees, and all other persons or entities associated with this Event.

Plaintiffs argue that the * * * langue is ambiguous because it does not specifically name the individuals and entities being released. They contend that such specificity is required in a pro­spective release.

We have routinely held that the word “any” when used with a class in a release is all-inclusive, it excludes nothing, and it is not ambiguous. * * * A release that releases claims against “any and all persons" is unambiguous and enforce­able to bar claims against third parties who were not parties to the release, and it is not necessary that the release identify those persons by name or otherwise. Thus, the release of “any Event sponsors” unambiguously releases all Event spon­sors without exclusion, and it is not necessary that each sponsor be named. [Emphasis added.]

However, plaintiffs argue that this reasoning does not apply to the use of “any” with classes of persons in a prospective release for future acts of negligence because courts require more specificity in a prospective release. We disagree.

Public policy disfavors but does not prohibit releases of future negligence.

* * * To be enforceable in Missouri, exculpatory clauses must contain clear, unambiguous, unmistakable, and con­spicuous language in order to release a party from his or her own future negli­gence. The exculpatory language must effectively notify a party that he or she is releasing the other party from claims arising from the other party’s own neg­ligence. * * * The words “negligence” or “fault” or their equivalents must be used conspicuously so that a clear and unmistakable waiver and shifting of risk occurs. There must be no doubt that a reasonable person agreeing to an excul­patory clause actually understands what future claims he or she is waiving

* * [It is] not required that for a release of liability for future negligence to be effective, it must identify every individual sought to be released by name.

The release of “any Event sponsors and their agents and employees” from liability for future negligence clearly releases all Event sponsors and their agents and employees without exclusion. It is not ambiguous because it does not name each individual Event sponsor it purported to release from liability.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Explanation / Answer

Holmes v. Multimedia KSDK, Inc.

Background

Issue

Is the language in the release ambiguous?

Rule:

Exculpatory clauses help to release a party from liability in case of monetary/ physical injury whoever may be at fault

Analysis:

Courts accept exculpatory clauses

The plaintiffs argue

Arguments against the plaintiff

Conclusion

No, the release is not ambiguous

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse U
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.