 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Frieden8/14/2002
188 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Instead, the court has adhered to the long established rule that a party who "is able to read and has the opportunity to do so" must suffer the consequences of failing to do so. See Crum v. McCollum, 211 Iowa 319, 323, 233 N.W. 678, 680 (1930); accord Morgan v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 534 N.W.2d 92, 99 (Iowa 1995); Cronbaugh v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., 475 N.W.2d 652, 654 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). Contrast Eder v. Lake Geneva Raceway, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 429, 433 n. 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (holding racetrack release void as against public policy).
There is no question on this record that Adams was able to read despite her vision impairment and had the opportunity to do so. Before she retired, she worked for the government reviewing magnified vouchers for subsidized housing. In her free time, she enjoyed reading paperbacks with the aid of her magnifying glass. She was able to read some of the enlarged portions of the release of liability, such as the pit pass number and the line "THIS IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY," without the benefit of her magnifying glass. She conceded in her deposition testimony that, with magnification, she could read smaller print. She did not deny that she was given the chance to read and sign the release and further conceded that the release was on a clipboard, allowing her to bring the document closer to her eyes to read it. Therefore, she is bound by the terms of the release despite her eye impairment.
B. Nature of Release. Adams states she understood the release form to be simply a "pit pass" that was for entrance and head count purposes only. She notes that employees at the track referred to the release form as a pit pass and as a "free sign in sheet." She also contends her misunderstanding of the nature of the document she was signing was exacerbated by the fact that the clip on the clipboard holding the release obscured the key waiver language.
We believe Adams' misunderstanding concerning the nature of the release could have been cured by reading it, bringing us full circle to the black letter rule that failure to read a release generally is not a defense to its enforceability. Huber, 501 N.W.2d at 56. We also note that the statement "I have read the release" appeared in red ink just above Adams' signature and Adams does not contend that portion of the release was obscured by the clip on the clipboard.
For these reasons, we conclude the release was enforceable and the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|