Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court
Citation | 23 Cal.App.4th 748,29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177 |
Decision Date | 20 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. D018950,D018950 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PARALIFT, INC., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Diego County, Respondent; Danielle Davida LEVIN, a Minor, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown & Frank, Michael I. Neil and Tim S. McClain, San Diego, for respondent.
Singleton & Dean, Peter L. Dean and Terry Singleton, Escondido, for real parties in interest.
Paralift, Inc. (Paralift) is a defendant in a wrongful death action filed by Danielle Davida Levin by and through her guardian ad We agree with Paralift that no triable issues of material fact exist with respect to the scope and legal effect of decedent's release of liability and that, by reason of this release, Paralift has no liability to plaintiffs as a matter of law. Accordingly, without reaching the issue of primary assumption of the risk in this factual context, we grant the petition.
litem Lisa Smalley, Stanley Levin, Estelle Levin and James T. Rinn, representative of the estate of Alan David Levin. Paralift seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant its motion for summary judgment on either of two theories: A release executed by the decedent, Alan David Levin (decedent), constitutes a complete bar to any recovery by his heirs; or, in the alternative, the trial court should have found applicable in this factual context of skydiving the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk as explained in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696 and Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal.4th 339, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 834 P.2d 724.
Decedent was a highly qualified and licensed skydiver who had made over 900 skydives prior to the fatal jump which gave rise to this action. On July 4, 1991, decedent, as part of a four-person team of skydivers, flew on a DC-3 aircraft owned and piloted by Paralift and its personnel. The pilot flew the aircraft in accordance with the directions of a designated spotter for the jump, according to the usual skydiving procedures. Decedent exited the aircraft at an altitude of approximately 13,000 feet. Far below there was cloud cover over the Del Mar Fairgrounds, the intended area of landing for this demonstration jump. The four skydivers engaged in aerial maneuvers together while falling through 10,000 feet of altitude. At approximately 2,100 feet above the earth, decedent disengaged from the others and dove through cloud cover to emerge above the ocean. According to witnesses, he disconnected his parachute from his parachute harness at an altitude of between 50 and 150 feet above the water and then was killed by the impact of his body on the surface of the water.
Approximately three years before the fatal jump, the decedent signed a release agreement with Paralift containing the following text in pertinent part:
This release contains numerous references to Paralift's previous theatre of operations at the Perris Valley Airport, which is well inland from the location of the fatal jump, Del Mar. The release does not contain any expiration date. It makes no reference to jumps over large bodies of water or in particular weather conditions. However, one year before Decedent's heirs filed a wrongful death complaint in six causes of action alleging that Paralift was negligent in its operations and breached nondelegable duties to insure that the parachute jumping operations were conducted in a proper manner. As against the landowner, the State of California, premises liability was alleged. Compensatory and punitive damages were sought.
the fatal jump, the decedent had made four parachute jumps in the Del Mar Fairgrounds vicinity.
Paralift answered, raising a number of defenses, including a 13th affirmative defense alleging that the decedent was aware of the inherent danger of parachuting, "and voluntarily assumed the risk of such danger by a written instrument releasing and discharging [Paralift] from any duty of care to him." Paralift thus alleged that any recovery was barred or diminished to the extent that any damages were attributable to assumption of the risk.
Paralift brought a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication. 1 (Code Civ.Proc., § 437c.) The motion was based on the argument that the decedent had expressly assumed the risks involved in parachuting, a sporting activity. The motion further argued a number of issues concerning a lack of duty on the part of Paralift to the decedent, based upon his assumption of the risk. Lack of proximate cause was also argued, based upon the decedent's disconnection of his canopy from his parachute harness. In support of the express release argument, Paralift pointed out that the decedent had signed the release and initialed it in 22 places. Prior to signing the document, he had witnessed a videotape explaining the waiver and advising the viewer not to sign the release until the advice of independent counsel was obtained.
In opposition to the motion, the decedent's heirs argued that the release did not apply to the skydiving operation at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, which was a public demonstration flight near an ocean area, as contrasted to the private sport parachuting operations out of the Perris Valley Airport which were the original subject of the release. The plaintiffs also argued that Paralift increased the risk of harm to the decedent by letting him out over cloud cover where the shoreline was unknown. Issues of proximate causation were also argued.
In its reply, Paralift argued that under Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 333, 214 Cal.Rptr. 194, exculpatory contracts for participation in parachuting activities are not against public policy. Paralift argued that the particular release was not limited to any time, place, or type of activity on the part of Paralift. 2
In ruling on the motion, the court made the following finding concerning the express release issues:
In its ruling, the trial court further stated that Paralift owed a duty of reasonable care to the decedent not to place him in a condition where there was a foreseeable risk of harm, i.e., not to drop him too far out over the ocean or in dangerous weather conditions likely to cause him injury. The court then made a number of other findings concerning We issued an order to show cause and notified the parties that oral argument would be restricted to the issues presented concerning the effect of the written waiver and release form signed by the decedent. We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of the effect of the passage of time upon a release, where it applies to the same parties and the same activity continuing over a period of time.
the issues of duty, breach, and causation, finding that there were triable issues of fact on all those matters. Paralift timely petitioned for this writ of mandate. (Code Civ.Proc., § 437c, subd. (l).)
DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue before this court is whether the release applies to the fatal jump event, which took place some three years after the release was signed and in a different location than where the activities covered by the release originally began. To resolve this issue, we conduct not only a de novo examination of the moving and opposing papers to determine whether Paralift is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Madison v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 595-596, 250 Cal.Rptr. 299), but also conduct a de novo interpretation of the release document. Where, as here, no conflicting parol evidence is introduced concerning the interpretation of the document, (Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1166, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 554.) The threshold determination of whether a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heilig v. Touchstone Climbing, Inc., A113901 (Cal. App. 10/30/2007)
...[Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Madison v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 597, italics omitted; see also Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 755, quoting from Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 758, The agreement upon which express assumpti......
-
Brown v. El Dorado Union High Sch. Dist.
...plaintiff have had a specific knowledge of the particular risk that ultimately caused the injury. ( Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court [ (1993)] 23 Cal.App.4th [748,] 757, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177.) If a release of all liability is given, the release applies to any negligence of the defendant . ‘ "......
-
Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable
...of the instrument is a question of law, and the appellate court will independently construe the writing."' (Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 754 .) `It therefore follows that we must independently determine whether the release in this case negated the duty element......
-
Eriksson v. Nunnink
...(See, e.g., Horwich v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 285, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 980 P.2d 927; Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 755, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177; Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 758, 763–764, 276 Cal.Rptr. 672.) As the Madison......
-
Signed School Release Form Barred High School Football Player's Claim
...that the act be reasonably related to the object or purpose for which the release is given." Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 748, The crux of the question is not whether the specific activity causing the injury is mentioned in the release, but rather the scope of the ......