Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc.
331 P.3d 342
Alaska2014Background
- Claire Donahue, a novice climber, signed a two‑page “Participant Release of Liability” at Alaska Rock Gym before taking classes; the release expressly mentioned risks of falling and "negligent acts or omissions" of the gym and its employees and contained bolded language acknowledging waiver of lawsuit rights.
- During a bouldering lesson Donahue dropped ~3–4.5 feet to the mat on instructor suggestion and suffered a comminuted tibia fracture; she sued for negligence (inadequate training/supervision/instruction) and for violation of Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA) based on gym advertising.
- The gym moved for summary judgment arguing the signed release bars negligence claims and moved to dismiss the UTPA claim; Donahue cross‑moved to invalidate the waiver and for UTPA relief.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the gym (release enforceable), dismissed the UTPA claim, and awarded the gym attorney’s fees under Civil Rule 82; the gym cross‑appealed seeking fees under Rule 68 instead.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed: release was valid and precluded negligence claims; UTPA does not cover personal injury damages; the trial court did not clearly err in finding the gym waived a Rule 68 fee request and properly awarded Rule 82 fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre‑activity release bars Donahue’s negligence claim | Release was unclear/hidden; did not specifically notify her she waived claims for instructor negligence | Release explicitly listed falling and instructor/employee negligence and used the word “negligence”; emphasized warnings were present | Release enforceable; it clearly and conspicuously covered falling and negligence by gym/employees and bars negligence claims |
| Whether the UTPA permits recovery for personal injury (loss of money or property phrase) | UTPA should allow personal injury damages for deceptive advertising that induced participation | UTPA remedial purpose is economic restitution for loss of money/property; allowing personal injury would conflict with tort reform and existing remedial schemes | UTPA does not apply to personal injury; claim dismissed |
| Whether gym advertising (promoting safety) creates ambiguity undermining the release | Ads promising a “safe place” and “safe way to learn” conflicted with waiver and created ambiguity | Release specifically and repeatedly warned of risks and addressed instructor fallibility; specific contract terms control over general advertising | Advertising did not create a material ambiguity sufficient to invalidate the release |
| Whether the gym waived entitlement to Rule 68 attorney’s fees | Offer of judgment under Rule 68 entitles gym to scheduled fees after judgment; plaintiff rejected the offer | Gym failed to timely or adequately press Rule 68 below (only mentioned in footnote and later in reconsideration), so argument was waived | Trial court did not clearly err in finding Rule 68 claim waived and awarding Rule 82 fees instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Kissick v. Schmierer, 816 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1991) (pre‑activity releases must be conspicuous and unequivocal; use of the word “negligence” required to bar negligence claims)
- Moore v. Hartley Motors, Inc., 36 P.3d 628 (Alaska 2001) (upheld ATV course release against public policy challenge but held scope must clearly encompass the specific negligence that caused the injury)
- Ledgends, Inc. v. Kerr, 91 P.3d 960 (Alaska 2004) (construed similar gym release and invalidated it where release suggested safety promises that conflicted with an intent to exculpate negligence)