 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holzer v. Dakota Speedway5/17/2000
ed the same agreement on June 14, 1995 and July 29, 1995.
[ ] At the time of the accident, K & K, an underwriting agent for Transamerica Insurance Group, provided liability insurance coverage to Speedway. K & K had nothing to do with vehicle inspection. A Speedway official was responsible for inspecting racecars before each race for safety precautions.
[ ] On July 27, 1998, Holzer filed a complaint against Speedway and K & K in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, South Dakota. The complaint alleged negligence and reckless disregard against Speedway for the life, safety and health of Holzer and negligent inspection and breach of duty to third parties against K & K. Both Speedway and K & K filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Holzer now appeals raising several issues for our review, one of which is dispositive:
Do genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the waiver and release signed by Holzer was valid and enforceable, thus relieving Speedway and its insurer, K & K from liability.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Our standard of review for a circuit court's grant of a motion for summary judgment is well settled. As we recently stated in Kimball Investment Land, Ltd. v. Chmela:
Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." SDCL 15-6-56(c). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. Bego v. Gordon, 407 NW2d 801, 804 (SD 1987). All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 NW2d 783, 785 (SD 1990). The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 SD 207, 212, 157 NW2d 19, 21 (1968). 2000 SD 6, , 604 NW2d 289, 292 (citing Mattson v. Rachetto, 1999 SD 51, , 591 NW2d 814, 816-17 (quoting Shuck v. Perkins County, 1998 SD 32, , 577 NW2d 584, 586. "Summary judgment will be affirmed if there exists any basis which would support the trial court's ruling." Wolff v. SD Game, Fish and Parks Dept., 1996 SD 23, , 544 NW2d 531, 537 (citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Schilling, 520 NW2d 884, 886 (SD 1994)) (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[ ] Do genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the release signed by Holzer was valid and enforceable, thus relieving Speedway and its insurer, K & K from liability.
[ ] Holzer argues the release violates public policy and therefore is ineffective and unenforceable. He also contends granting the motion for summary judgment was improper because whether he knowingly and voluntarily signed the release is a question of fact for the jury. We disagree with both arguments.
[ ] A. Public Policy
[ ] A review of cases involving releases concerning recreational activity establishes two general trends: (1) anticipatory, pre-injury releases are much more likely to be deemed valid and enforceable when they are written on a separate document and not as part of separate written material and (2) the more inherently dangerous or risky the recreational activity, the more likely an anticipatory release will be held valid. Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'n., 514 NW2d 693, 700 (SD 1994) (Wuest, J. concurring in result and concurring specially).
[ ] T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|