2022 Ohio 2500
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- NEOCycle 2016 was a criterium cycling event organized by Greater Cleveland Sports Commission (GCSC) with Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) club volunteers; USA Cycling, Inc. (USAC) sanctioned the races.
- Several student organizers with minimal or no specialized training participated in designing the racecourse.
- Heather Goss signed two pre-event releases: a USAC "Event Release" and a USAC "Licensing Release," both expressly waiving claims including those arising from the releasees' own negligence.
- During a late-afternoon criterium, a rider crashed on the final turn; Goss crashed into a barrier and sustained serious injuries. She sued USAC, CWRU, and GCSC for negligence, alleging unsafe course design (insufficient distance from final corner to finish).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding Goss’s signed releases validly barred negligence claims; Goss appealed arguing (1) ambiguity as to whether the releases covered race-course design/negligence by inexperienced student planners, and (2) that broad waivers should be void on public policy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Event Release unambiguously waived negligence claims related to racecourse safety/design | Goss: release was too general/ambiguous to show conscious acceptance of risk from inexperienced student planners and specific course-design negligence | Defendants: release expressly referenced "negligence," named releasees, and clearly covered risks inherent to cycling and releasees' negligence | Court: Release was clear and unambiguous; it barred Goss's negligence claims as a matter of law (express assumption of risk) |
| Whether broad waivers of negligence should be void as against public policy | Goss: void broad/nonspecific waivers because they remove incentives for owners/organizers to keep premises/events safe | Defendants: exculpatory clauses are enforceable unless against important public policy, unconscionable, or ambiguous; freedom to contract and recreational promotion weigh in favor of enforcement | Court: No overwhelming public policy reason to void the release; it was neither unconscionable nor ambiguous, so enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of review: summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 44 (1987) (releases of future tort liability are disfavored but enforceable if intent is clear)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (when contract is clear and unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law)
- Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez, 120 Ohio St.3d 47 (2008) (ambiguity exists only if a provision is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation)
- Holmes v. Health & Tennis Corp. of Am., 103 Ohio App.3d 364 (1995) (express assumption of risk must state clear and unambiguous intent to release negligence)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Scandinavian Health Spa, Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 582 (1996) (party waiving right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept consequences of other party's negligence)
- Tanker v. N. Crest Equestrian Ctr., 86 Ohio App.3d 522 (1993) (discusses requirements for express assumption of risk language to bar negligence claims)