 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats9/14/2004
In this appeal from an order for summary judgment, appellant argues that (1) the claim against respondent Voyagaire is not barred by the exculpatory clause; (2) there are fact issues regarding whether the contract was the product of mutual mistake; and (3) appellant is not required to indemnify respondent Voyagaire. Because appellant's claims are barred by the exculpatory clause, because the contract is not a product of mutual mistake, and because appellant is required to indemnify respondent Voyagaire, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Lao Xiong is a resident of St. Paul. Respondent Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc. owns and operates a resort on Crane Lake in northern Minnesota, where it leases both lodge rooms and houseboats. Respondent B.J.M. owns the houseboats leased by Voyagaire.
In 2002, Xiong rented a houseboat from Voyagaire for himself and his girlfriend and her family. Voyagaire's policy required Xiong to pay a deposit after making a reservation and to pay for the rental in full, two months in advance. On June 8, 2002, Xiong and the other members of his party made what Xiong claims was a 450-mile trip from Minneapolis to Crane Lake. Upon arriving, Xiong met with James Janssen, co-owner of Voyagaire, who presented Xiong with a rental contract. Xiong reportedly read the contract and then told Janssen that he did not understand some of the contract's language. Xiong claims that Janssen said that he "[did not] understand it either" but that a $25 insurance fee would "cover everything that could happen to the boat." During his deposition, Janssen testified that if Xiong had refused to sign the contract, he would not have rented the boat to Xiong.
Xiong rented the houseboat, and five days into their trip, Xiong and other members of his party became ill. Six of the houseboat's occupants were taken to the International Falls Hospital, where they were diagnosed with carbon-monoxide poisoning. Shortly thereafter, a Voyagaire employee entered the houseboat and found that the carbon-monoxide detector was unhooked.
On October 2, 2002, Xiong sued Voyagaire and BJM, Inc., alleging that Voyagaire was negligent by (1) advising Xiong's party that they could run the boat's generator continuously; (2) failing to warn the party that carbon-monoxide poisoning was a risk if the boat were not properly ventilated; (3) disconnecting the carbon-monoxide detector aboard the boat; and (4) putting the detector's connection wire behind a drawer where it was not visible. The other members of Xiong's party also sued Voyagaire, and on November 19, 2002, the district court consolidated the cases.
In July 2003, Voyagaire moved for summary judgment, arguing that Xiong's claims were barred by the exculpatory and indemnification clauses in the contract that Xiong signed and that the indemnification clause required Xiong to indemnify Voyagaire against the other plaintiffs' claims. Xiong filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, claiming that the exculpatory and indemnification clauses are unenforceable under the facts of this case and the law.
On October 30, 2003, the district court granted Voyagaire's motion for summary judgment. The district court issued a clarifying order on December 8, 2003, dismissing Xiong's claims and requiring Xiong to indemnify Voyagaire, and on December 9, 2003, entered final judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. This appeal follows.
DECISION
I.
On appeal from summary judgment, this court must ask (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the district court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|