 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holzer v. Dakota Speedway5/17/2000
ersed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the raceway.
[ ] The circumstances and facts involved in Eder are distinguishable from the case before us. First, Eder involved two spectators, who were observing the races from the grandstand when they were injured. In this case, Holzer was actually participating in the races as a pit crew member. Second, the plaintiff in Eder was stopped in the parking lot before entering the track while she was still in her vehicle, with other spectators waiting behind her. Id. at 430. The court stated " e cannot believe Raceway intended that entrants would hold up the progression of cars into the racetrack in order to read the release." Id. at 432. Finally, the injured spectators had never been to the racetrack before the accident. The court concluded " ignificant familiarity with the dangers involved plus knowledge of the terms of the release are necessary conditions precedent" to enforce the release. Id. at 433.
[ ] Holzer relies on the affidavit of Jay Sanner, a regular pit crew worker at the Speedway. Sanner stated in his affidavit that upon entrance to the pit area, pit workers were required to sign a waiver form and "that there are several people waiting to gain entrance to the pit area at the same time. The only thing on Affiant's mind at the time of entering the gate is racing and therefore no attempt is made to read the aforementioned waiver form." However, there is no evidence in the record that Holzer was denied the opportunity to step out of any line that may have existed and read the release had he so desired. There is no evidence in the record that he was forced to sign it. While "several people" may have been waiting at the same time to enter the pit area, there is no evidence pit workers were denied the opportunity to read the release or ask questions about it. See Lee, 209 NE2d at 332 (stating " lthough the line of people at the table on which the release sheets were located was 'rolling along,' there was no evidence that Lee was denied the opportunity to read the release had he so desired.").
[ ] 1. Misrepresentation
[ ] This Court has held " release is not fairly made and is invalid if the nature of the instrument was misrepresented or there was other fraudulent or overreaching conduct." Johnson, 514 NW2d at 697 (citing Paterek, 465 NW2d at 344); see also LPN Trust, 1996 SD 97, , 552 NW2d at 799. Other courts also look for evidence of fraud or breach of trust:
In the absence of fraud or a relation of trust and confidence between the parties, a releasor can ordinarily not avoid the effect of a release upon the ground that at the time he signed the paper he did not read it or know its contents, but relied on what another said about it. Seaton, 582 A2d at 1383 (citing 66 AmJur2d Release ยง 15 (1973); Ackler v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 380 PaSuper 183, 190, 551 A2d 291, 294-95 (1988); Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Ins. Co., 503 Pa 300, 469 A2d 563 (1983)). "The question whether there is fraud in obtaining a release is generally one of fact." Lee, 209 NE2d at 333 (citing Barrett v. Conragan, 302 Mass 33, 35, 18 NE2d 369)). Here, however, there are no facts indicating Speedway made any representations to him, let alone false representations as to what he was signing. There is also no evidence and no contention that the printing on the release sheet was covered or otherwise concealed from Holzer. Id. at 332; see also Seaton, 582 A2d at 1383 (finding plaintiff did not make an allegation that the release he signed was folded or otherwise hidden so as to constitute fraud).
[ ] This is also not a case where Holzer was told he was signing a roster or some other document
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.
|
|