Broadley v. Mashpee Neck Marina

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Contracts

ContractsAdmiraltyExculpatory clausesNegligenceadmiralty lawexculpatory clauseordinary negligencegross negligence

Facts

Broadley was injured at the marina when his foot became caught in a gap between the main dock and a floating dock, fracturing his ankle and causing permanent loss of function. He alleged the marina negligently failed to mitigate the hazard posed by the gap. The marina relied on a seasonal mooring contract containing a broad boilerplate clause barring Broadley from making any claims for personal injury and requiring him to defend, indemnify, and hold the marina harmless, with attorney's fees for breach. Broadley conceded the marina's conduct did not amount to gross negligence.

Issue

May a marina enforce, under federal admiralty law, a boilerplate exculpatory clause that broadly bars all personal-injury claims and also purports to cover gross negligence and intentional wrongdoing by having a court narrow or sever the clause so that it applies only to ordinary negligence?

Rule

In admiralty, a clause expressly limited to ordinary negligence may be valid if entered into freely and not inflicted by a monopolist or party with greatly superior bargaining power. But where an exculpatory clause is extremely overbroad and plainly illegal because it purports to absolve liability for gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional wrongdoing, and where it is boilerplate, not specifically negotiated, lacks an explicit reference to negligence, and is coupled with an attorney's-fees provision that may chill suit, a court should not rescue it by reformation, severance, or narrowing.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Kim rents a seasonal slip from Harbor Crest Marina in Portland, Maine. The dockage agreement, in a separately labeled paragraph, states that Nora releases the marina only from claims caused by the marina's ordinary negligence, expressly excludes gross negligence and intentional misconduct, and Nora had several comparable marinas available nearby.

If Nora later sues for injuries allegedly caused by the marina's ordinary negligence, which is the best assessment of the release under the governing admiralty rule?

Explanation. The majority adopted the better rule that, in admiralty, an exculpatory clause limited to ordinary negligence can be valid if not inflicted by a monopolist or one with greatly superior bargaining power. The opinion rejected a flat rule invalidating all waivers of simple negligence. Because the clause here expressly covers only ordinary negligence and excludes more serious misconduct, it is potentially enforceable.