Cynthia DeCormier v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, Inc. and St. Louis Motorcycle, Inc. d/b/a Gateway Harley-Davidson
2014 Mo. LEXIS 215
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Ms. DeCormier sued Harley-Davidson and Gateway for injuries from a Rider’s Edge course funded by Harley-Davidson and conducted by Gateway staff in St. Louis.
- Before the course, she signed a Release and Waiver releasing Released Parties from any claims arising out of participation in the course, including negligence.
- In her petition, DeCormier alleged negligent instruction on icy conditions and premises negligence due to a dangerous wet/icy track.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment solely on the release; the circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, DeCormier argues the release cannot bar claims for gross negligence or recklessness and there is a genuine dispute about recklessness.
- The supreme court reviews de novo and ultimately affirms the circuit court, enforcing the release and finding no genuine dispute to reckless conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the release bars DeCormier's claims. | DeCormier argues release cannot waive recklessness/gross negligence. | Release bars all claims arising from participation, including negligence. | Release can bar liability; court affirms summary judgment. |
| Whether DeCormier showed a genuine dispute that Harley-Davidson and Gateway acted with reckless disregard. | Evidence shows continued training despite icy conditions; instructors knew risks. | No admissible evidence creates a genuine issue; Petitions or exhibits insufficient. | No genuine dispute; defendants entitled to judgment on release. |
| Whether the trial court erred in applying Rule 74.04(c)(2) burden on proving facts to defeat summary judgment. | Plaintiff attached admissible facts supporting recklessness beyond pleadings. | Additional facts relied on must be supported by proper evidentiary materials; plaintiff failed. | Correct with Rule 74.04(c)(2) requirements; no triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alack v. Vic Tanny Int’l of Mo., Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. banc 1996) (exculpatory agreements protect against liability for own negligence)
- Fowler v. Park Corp., 673 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. banc 1984) (Missouri does not recognize degrees of negligence at common law)
- Warner v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 428 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. 1968) (recklessness considered under Missouri law)
- Edwards v. Gerstein, 363 S.W.3d 155 (Mo. App. 2012) (recklessness framework in Missouri appellate context)
- Nichols v. Bresnahan, 212 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. App. 1948) (recklessness defined as conduct creating high risk of substantial harm)
- Hoover’s Dairy, Inc. v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc./Special Prods., Inc., 700 S.W.2d 426 (Mo. banc 1985) (Restatement-based recklessness standard applied in Missouri)