Brooks v. Paul
219 So. 3d 886
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Myra L. Brooks sued her surgeon and practice for negligence after her ureter was cut during spinal-fusion surgery. Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment based on a pre‑surgery release Myra signed stating the doctor/practice would not carry malpractice insurance and that she "agree[d] not to sue... for any reason."
- The release included a third sentence explaining her reason: she believed the doctor and staff would “do the very best to take care of me according to community medical standards.”
- The trial court found the release "completely unambiguous" and barred negligence claims; the appeals court reviewed that ruling de novo.
- The appeals court analyzed whether the release unambiguously waived negligence claims, focusing on ambiguity created by language promising reasonable care alongside a blanket no‑suit statement.
- Court reversed and remanded, holding the release was ambiguous as to whether it waived claims for the defendants’ own negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre‑surgery release unambiguously bars negligence claims | Brooks: the release is ambiguous because it states the doctor will do his "very best" and thus does not clearly waive negligence | Defendants: the broad "agree not to sue... for any reason" language unambiguously releases all claims, including negligence | Release is ambiguous when read in full; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
| Proper construction of exculpatory clauses | Brooks: exculpatory clauses must be clear and are construed against drafter; ambiguous text defeats enforcement | Defendants: Sanislo supports enforcing broad releases even if "negligence" not expressly used | Court applied precedent requiring clear, unequivocal language; ambiguous qualifiers defeat enforcement |
| Effect of juxtaposing insurance waiver and no‑sue language | Brooks: coupled with a statement that doctor will provide care to community standards, the no‑sue phrase could be read narrowly | Defendants: placement and plain wording show intent to waive claims despite insurance notice | Court found the juxtaposition created uncertainty whether waiver covers negligent care |
| Whether Sanislo controls | Brooks: Sanislo distinguishable because that release clearly covered broad categories of liability without equivocal qualifiers | Defendants: Sanislo permits releases to bar negligence even without the word "negligence" | Court distinguished Sanislo and followed cases (Goyings, Murphy, UCF) finding similar language ambiguous |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015) (release can bar negligence claims if language unambiguously shows intent to be relieved of liability)
- Murphy v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of Lake Wales, Inc., 974 So.2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (juxtaposition of "every reasonable precaution" language can render waiver ambiguous)
- Goyings v. Jack & Ruth Eckerd Found., 403 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (release ambiguous where contract also promises reasonable care)
- UCF Athletics Ass’n v. Plancher, 121 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (preamble describing inherent risks can create reasonable reading that waiver covers only inherent risks, not negligent supervision)
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Montagano, 359 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (exculpatory clauses disfavored and must be drafted in clear, unequivocal language)
- Kirton v. Fields, 997 So.2d 349 (Fla. 2008) (standard for reviewing enforceability of pre‑injury releases is de novo)