Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc.

Connecticut Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceExculpatory ClausesIndemnityRecreational Liabilityrelease from liabilityexculpatory clauseindemnification

Facts

The defendant operated Powder Ridge, where members of the public could ski, snowboard, and snowtube for a fee. Before snowtubing there, the plaintiff signed a document titled "RELEASE FROM LIABILITY" that described inherent and other risks of snowtubing and stated that she agreed to hold the defendant harmless and indemnify it for loss or damage related to the use of a snowtube or lift. The plaintiff was later injured when her inner tube allegedly failed to stop at the bottom of the hill and continued over a cliff, and she sued alleging the defendant's negligence in maintaining the hill, barriers, stopping mechanisms, and warnings. The defendant argued that the signed release barred her negligence claim and also supported indemnification.

Issue

Does a release and indemnification agreement that does not expressly mention the defendant's negligence bar the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence at a recreational facility? More specifically, can such general language release or indemnify a party for its own future negligence absent an express statement to that effect?

Rule

A party cannot be released from liability for injuries resulting from its future negligence, and an indemnification provision cannot operate to that effect, unless the agreement contains language that expressly provides for release from liability for the party's own negligence.

🔒

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.

At a zip-line park outside Asheville, Nora Kim signed a form stating that zip-lining involves inherent risks, including changes in weather, uneven terrain, and collisions with trees or platforms. The form also said she released Blue Ridge Canopy Adventures from any injuries arising out of her participation. Nora was later injured when an employee allegedly failed to secure a braking system properly.

If Nora sues the park for negligence, what is the strongest argument against enforcing the release to bar her claim?

Explanation. The majority adopted the rule that a party cannot be released from liability for injuries resulting from its future negligence unless the agreement expressly so provides. General references to inherent risks or injuries arising from participation do not clearly inform a person of ordinary intelligence that she is surrendering claims based on the operator's own negligence. The court did not hold that all recreational waivers are invalid, nor did it require recklessness.