 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats8/4/2005
y Voyagaire as a "resort" subject to regulation under Chapter 157 of Minnesota Statutes. As a resort offering sleeping accommodations to the public in its lodge rooms as well as on its houseboats, Voyagaire meets the statutory definition of an "innkeeper" in Minn. Stat. § 327.70, subds. 3-4.
Therefore, it is appropriate to treat Voyagaire as an innkeeper providing a public service in determining the enforceability of the exculpatory clause in the houseboat rental agreement. Innkeepers generally have a duty to take reasonable action to protect their guests. See Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 254 Minn. 373, 380, 95 N.W.2d 657, 663 (1959) (stating that an "innkeeper owes a duty to the public to protect it against foreseeable risk of danger attendant upon the maintenance and operation of his property"); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(2) (1965) (stating that an innkeeper has a duty to its guests to take reasonable action to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm). This duty applies regardless of whether the guests are occupying lodge rooms or houseboats. We conclude that as a matter of public policy, Voyagaire cannot circumvent its duty to protect its guests by requiring the guests to sign a rental agreement containing an exculpatory clause that purports to release Voyagaire from liability for the resort's negligence. See 2 J.D. Lee & Barry A. Lindahl, Modern Tort Law: Liability & Litigation § 22:10 (2d ed. 2002) (noting that " t common law, a hotel or innkeeper could not contract away liability for negligence" because " he innkeeper was bound by a public or quasi-public duty"). Therefore, we conclude that the exculpatory clause in the houseboat rental agreement is contrary to public policy and is not enforceable.
III.
Next, we examine the enforceability of the indemnification clauses in the houseboat rental agreement. "Agreements seeking to indemnify the indemnitee for losses occasioned by its own negligence are not favored by the law and are not construed in favor of indemnification unless such intention is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms, or unless no other meaning can be ascribed to it." Nat'l Hydro Sys. v. M.A. Mortenson Co., 529 N.W.2d 690, 694 (Minn. 1995) (quotations omitted). We also will not enforce an indemnification clause if it is contrary to public policy. See, e.g., Zerby v. Warren, 297 Minn. 134, 144, 210 N.W.2d 58, 64 (1973) (concluding that an indemnity agreement that seeks to relieve a party of the consequences of a violation of a public duty imposed by statute is void); 8 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 19:19 (4th ed. 1998) (stating that indemnity clauses are not upheld if they tend to promote a breach of a duty to the public); cf. Minn. Stat. § 337.02 (2004) (stating that " n indemnification agreement contained in, or executed in connection with, a building and construction contract" is generally unenforceable).
There are two indemnification clauses in the houseboat rental agreement. The first clause provides:
I further agree at my cost and expense, to defend and save Voyagaire Houseboat harmless on account of any and all suits or demands brought or asserted by reason of injuries to any person, persons or property whatsoever caused by the use or operation of said equipment while in my possession * * * .
The second clause provides:
Renter shall indemnify and hold harmless Owner from and against all claims, actions, proceedings, damage and liabilities, arising from or connected with Renter's possession, use and return of the boat, or arising at any time during the term of this rental.
Again, we focus our analysis on the public policy considerations. As
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.
|
|