Elizabeth Budros v. Womens' Flat Track Roller Derby Association
334189
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Budros injured her arm during a non-contact roller-derby practice at Traverse City Roller Derby (TCRD) when she swerved to avoid a pile-up and struck a wall near the track.
- TCRD was a member of Womens’ Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA); WFTDA published a safety protocol requiring five feet of clearance between track edge and walls for insurance purposes.
- TCRD admitted a wall was within fewer than five feet of the track edge, violating the WFTDA guideline; defendants explained the facility layout made relocation impracticable.
- Budros purchased WFTDA insurance before skating and electronically signed a WFTDA “Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk, and Indemnity Agreement.”
- Budros sued for ordinary negligence and gross negligence against WFTDA and TCRD; the trial court granted summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: the waiver barred ordinary negligence claims, and the record did not show facts sufficient to support gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of waiver for ordinary negligence | Waiver invalid because it was embedded in an insurance purchase form, not separately labeled, and she was not told it contained a waiver | Waiver was clear, prominently captioned, and fairly/knowingly made; no fraud or deceit; failing to read form does not invalidate it | Waiver effective; ordinary negligence claims barred |
| Whether waiver named defendants specifically | Waiver ambiguous/insufficient because it did not list WFTDA or TCRD by name | Waiver’s broad language covering sanctioning organizations, premises owners/lessees, and participants reasonably encompassed defendants | Waiver’s general language was sufficient to cover defendants |
| Misrepresentation about the nature of the document | Defendants misled Budros into buying insurance without disclosing that the agreement contained a waiver | No evidence of deceptive intent, concealment, or prevention from reading document | No fraud or misrepresentation shown; waiver enforceable |
| Gross negligence — whether defendants acted with reckless disregard | Failure to warn about the wall and allowing practice despite violation shows substantial lack of concern | Although wall placement violated guideline, defendants mitigated risks (taped markings, verbal warnings, shout protocol) and could not relocate wall | Evidence insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact for gross negligence; summary disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Xu v. Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Paterek v. 6600 Ltd., 186 Mich. App. 445 (waiver must be fairly and knowingly made; failing to read a release without fraud does not invalidate it)
- Dombrowski v. City of Omer, 199 Mich. App. 705 (a release need not name each party; general references can suffice)