Fitzgerald v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1970
• Parties: Steven A. FITZGERALD, an infant by his Guardian ad Litem, Arthur W. Fitzgerald and Arthur W. Fitzgerald, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. NEWARK MORNING LEDGER COMPANY, trading as Newark Star Ledger, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 104

111 N.J.Super. 104

267 A.2d 557

Steven A. FITZGERALD, an infant by his Guardian ad Litem, Arthur W. Fitzgerald and Arthur W. Fitzgerald, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. NEWARK MORNING LEDGER COMPANY, trading as Newark Star

Ledger, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division.

June 29, 1970.

Ronald W. Spevack, Perth Amboy, for plaintiffs (Spevack & Kogos, Perth Amboy, attorneys).

Lawrence S. Grossman, Jersey City, for defendant (Burton, Quackenboss & Axelrod, South River, attorneys).

CONVERY, J.S.C.

This suit arises out of personal injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiff Steven A. Fitzgerald while on a trip to Bear Mountain sponsored by defendant, Newark Morning Ledger Company, trading as Newark Star Ledger. The infant plaintiff was a newsboy for defendant and entered a contest wherein, if he got additional subscribers on his route, he would be given the opportunity to go on a trip to Bear Mountain. A condition to being allowed to go on the trip was that his parents had to sign an agreement to release defendant from any and all claims for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff on the trip and also to indemnify defendant for any and all injuries claimed by the infant plaintiff. The form was shown to the father and the infant plaintiff and was signed by them. The infant plaintiff was then allowed to go on the trip, and while walking around Bear Mountain Park was accosted by a group of teenagers and allegedly injured.

Defendant moves for summary judgment against plaintiffs based on the release signed by Arthur W. Fitzgerald, father of the infant plaintiff, and also requests the court to grant judgment on defendant's counterclaim for indemnification against plaintiff Arthur W. Fitzgerald.

Plaintiffs move to strike the defenses of release and indemnification as being against public policy.

In support of its summary judgment motion defendant argues that in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or overreaching by the release, and in the absence of a showing that the releasor suffered from an incapacity affecting his ability to understand the meaning of the release, and in the absence of any other equitable ground, a release is binding and the releasor will be held to the terms of the bargain he willingly and knowingly entered. Raroha v. Earle Finance Copr., Inc., 47 N.J. 229, 220 A.2d 107 (1966); Wojcik v. Pollock, 97 N.J.Super. 319, 235 A.2d 58 (Law Div.1967). While these cases accurately set out the general law of releases in this State, in both of them the release was tendered and executed After the alleged tortious conduct of defendant and as part of a settlement of plaintiff's claim.

The release in the instant case might better be characterized as a contract exempting liability for future negligent acts.

A contract exempting a person from liability for future negligent acts is subject to the objection that it tends to induce a want of care, and such agreements are often declared invalid on the grounds of public policy. Much depends upon the positions of the contracting parties. If they do not stand on a footing of equality, so that one is compelled to submit to a stipulation relieving the other from liability for future negligence, the stipulation is invalid. * * * On the other hand, situations may exist where the relationship of the parties is such as to compel recognition of the validity of a contract limiting liability for negligence. In fact, it is said that contracts against liability...