Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.
258 Or. App. 390
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bagley was injured Feb. 16, 2006 snowboarding Mt. Bachelor’s terrain park jump; injury caused permanent paralysis.
- He signed a release before turning 18; his father signed a minor-release for him.
- The release purports to release Mt. Bachelor from negligence claims; only intentional misconduct is excluded.
- Bagley turned 18 less than two weeks after signing and used the season pass 119 times over 26 days prior to injury.
- Mt. Bachelor moved for summary judgment on the release defense; Bagley cross-moved for partial summary judgment on disaffirmance/ratification.
- In the trial court, Bagley’s ratification argument rested on after-majority use, knowledge of the release, and the time to disaffirm; the court ruled for Mt. Bachelor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bagley ratified the release after reaching majority | Bagley contends disaffirmance within a reasonable time; argues lack of timely disaffirmance or express intent to affirm. | Bagley’s post-majority use of the pass demonstrated intent to affirm; ratification defeats power to disaffirm. | No genuine issue; Bagley ratified the release by majority-age conduct. |
| Whether the release is contrary to public policy | Release for negligence should be void as against public policy given bargaining power and public interest. | In recreational context, such releases are permissible where activity is non-essential and language is clear. | Not contrary to public policy as applied to this case. |
| Whether the release was procedurally or substantively unconscionable | Release was adhesive and unconscionable in light of unequal bargaining power and form drafting. | As to recreational activity, form release not inherently adhesively unconscionable; terms were clear. | Not procedurally or substantively unconscionable under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Mt. Hood Meadows Ltd., 146 Or App 215 (Or. App. 1997) (public-policy as-applied analysis for releases in recreational context)
- Steele v. Mt. Hood Meadows Oregon, Ltd., 159 Or App 272 (Or. App. 1999) (release language must clearly express intent to disclaim liability for negligence)
- Mann v. Wetter, 100 Or App 184 (Or. App. 1990) (recreational activity releases not inherently adhesive or violative of policy)
- Highland v. Tollisen, 75 Or 578 (Or. 1915) (former minor disaffirmance within reasonable time; maturity factors)
- Haldeman v. Weeks, 90 Or 201 (Or. 1918) (ratification when former minor engages in conduct indicating acceptance)
- NW Pac. Indem. v. Junction City Water Dist., 295 Or 553 (Or. 1984) (objective theory of contracts; failure to read not defense)
- Estey v. MacKenzie Engineering Inc., 324 Or 372 (Or. 1996) (clarifies standard for contract interpretation in ratification context)
- Campbell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 307 Pa 365 (Pa. 1932) (foreign authority; ignorance of law not defense to contract)