Barth v. Blue Diamond, LLC
N15C-01-197 MMJ
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Scott Barth was injured in an off‑road dirt‑bike race and sued Blue Diamond, LLC (track owner), East Coast Enduro Association (ECEA), and Delaware Enduro Riders (DER) for negligent/reckless course marking.
- Prior to the race Barth signed a broad "Release and Waiver of Liability" purporting to release defendants for "negligence . . . or otherwise."
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the release and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bar liability; Blue Diamond additionally argued reduced duties due to Barth’s club membership.
- The court declined to grant summary judgment on recklessness, finding genuine disputes of material fact about course signage and warnings.
- The court held the release is enforceable and bars negligence claims but does not bar claims for recklessness or intentional misconduct.
- The court also found Barth was a business invitee for the race (membership did not alter status for that event), but that issue was rendered moot by dismissal of negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of waiver (consideration/language) | Barth: waiver unenforceable for lack of consideration and unclear notice. | Defendants: waiver is "crystal clear" and enforceable; riders could inspect course per rules. | Waiver enforceable; language clear and similar releases upheld. |
| Scope of waiver — negligence vs recklessness | Barth: waiver cannot absolve reckless/willful conduct. | Defendants: waiver bars claims arising from event generally. | Waiver bars negligence but does not bar claims for recklessness or intentional torts. |
| Implied primary assumption of risk (without express waiver) | Barth: implied assumption should not bar reckless conduct claims. | Defendants: implied primary assumption applies to dangerous sports and bars liability. | Court recognizes implied primary assumption for certain sports but holds it does not shield defendants from intentional or reckless conduct that increases ordinary risks. |
| Plaintiff status as invitee (Blue Diamond membership) | Barth: paid entry; was business invitee for the race. | Blue Diamond: membership converts relationship, reducing duty. | Barth was a business invitee for the race; membership did not alter duties for that event (but decision moot as negligence claims dismissed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Ave., LLC, 107 A.3d 1074 (Del. 2014) (defines primary assumption of risk doctrine in Delaware)
- Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56 (Del. 1991) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts in favor of non‑movant)
- Wooten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238 (Del. 1967) (when facts permit only one inference, question may be resolved as matter of law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden‑shifting principles)
- Peart v. Ferro, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (framework for implied primary assumption: analyze nature of activity and parties’ relationship)
- Storm v. NSL Rockland Place, LLC, 898 A.2d 874 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005) (discusses express and implied consent and sports‑related assumption of risk)
- Fell v. Zimath, 575 A.2d 267 (Del. Super. Ct. 1989) (distinguishes primary and secondary assumption of risk)
- McCormick v. Hoddinott, 865 A.2d 523 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004) (no evidence of express or implied assumption precludes that affirmative defense)