 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adloo v. H.T. Brown Real Estate Inc.12/16/1996
re, even if it is assumed that the unit was not a part of the plumbing system, it would not be unreasonable to include an air conditioning unit as another source from which leakage of water might be expected.
Id. at 417, 226 A.2d at 261 (citation omitted). See Christhilf v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 152 Md. 204, 208, 136 A. 527, 528 (1927).
Courts in other jurisdictions apply the same analysis. Alack v. Vic Tanny International, 923 S.W.2d 330, 334 (Mo. 1996)(quoting Hornbeck v. All American Indoor Sports, Inc., 898 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Mo. App. 1995) ("contracts exonerating a party from acts of future negligence are to be 'strictly construed against the party claiming the benefit of the contract, and clear and explicit language in the contract is required to absolve a person from such liability."'); Audley v. Melton, 138 N.H. 416, 640 A.2d 777, 779 (N.H. 1994) (language of release clearly and specifically must indicate intent to release the defendant from liability for personal injury caused by the defendant's negligence; general release language does not suffice); Michel v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company, 554 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. App. 1989)(exculpatory contracts relieving a party of his or her own negligence are valid and enforceable where such intention is made clear and unequivocal in the contract); Baker v. Stewarts', Inc., 433 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Iowa 1988) ( "[contract provisions that are subject to construction which a party claims relieve him from liability for his own negligence] are not held to cover such negligence unless the intention to do so is clearly expressed."); Colgan v. Agway, Inc., 150 Vt. 373, 553 A.2d 143, 145 (Vt. 1988) (" a greater degree of clarity is necessary to make the exculpatory clause effective than would be required for other types of contract provisions.") (emphasis added); Larsen v. Vic Tanny International, 130 Ill. App. 3d 574, 474 N.E.2d 729, 731, 85 Ill. Dec. 769 (Ill. App. 1984) ("exculpatory contracts or clauses are subject to the general rule that they are to be construed most strongly against their maker"); Wenzel v. Boyles Galvanizing Co., 920 F.2d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 1991). See University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla. 1973), in which the Florida Supreme Court applied the principle in the same context as this Court has done - to the construction of an indemnity clause in a contract.
The standard thus developed and required is a stringent and exacting one, under which the clause must not simply be unambiguous but also understandable. Alack, 923 S.W.2d at 334. Just how stringent and exacting may be demonstrated by reviewing a few of the cases.
Audley, (supra) , 640 A.2d 777, was a negligence action by a model, who had been bitten on the head by a lion during a photography shoot. Id. at 778. The photographer moved to dismiss, relying on the following release:
I ... realize that working with the wild and potentially dangerous animals (i.e. lion, white tiger, hawk) can create a hazerdous situation, resulting in loss of life or limb. I take all responsibility upon myself for any event as described above that may take place. I hold Bill Melton and T.I.G.E.R.S. or any of their agents free of any or all liability. I am signing this of my on free will.
Denying the motion, the court explained:
The ... release recognizes certain risks inherent in working with wild animals, and then promises to hold the defendant "free of any and all liability." Although this release insulates the defendant from liability for injuries inflicted by wild animals when no negligence on the part of the defendant is involved, it does not effectively release the defendan
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|