Hamill v. CHELEY COLORADO CAMPS, INC.
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 495
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hamill, a minor, signed a Liability/Risk Form before each Cheley Colorado Camps session in 2002–2004.
- In July 2004, at age 15, Hamill fell from a Cheley horse during a camp activity and injured her arm.
- Hamill sued Cheley for negligence and gross negligence; Cheley moved for summary judgment alleging the release barred claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment on negligence claims and dismissed gross negligence as a matter of law.
- The appeals court reviews de novo the validity of exculpatory agreements and the informed-consent requirement under Colo. law.
- The court analyzes the four Jones factors (duty, nature of service, fairness, clarity of language) and the 13-22-107 informed-consent standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the exculpatory agreement | Hamill argues four Jones factors show invalid waiver. | Cheley contends agreement is valid and clearly expresses waiver of negligence. | Agreement valid; four Jones factors satisfied. |
| Informed consent under section 13-22-107 | Mother did not understand scope; consent not informed. | Mother knew activities and risks; signed repeatedly; consent informed. | Consent informed; release bars prospective negligence claims. |
| Public policy relevance | Public policy disfavors waivers for minors in hazardous activity. | Statute 13-22-107(1)(b) supports informed waivers; Cooper superseded by statute. | Public policy does not invalidate the waiver; statute supports informed waiver. |
| Gross negligence | Evidence creates triable issue about willful or wanton conduct. | Record shows no willful, reckless conduct by Cheley; no issue for trial. | No genuine issue of material fact; gross negligence claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370 (Colo. 1981) (four-factor Jones test for exculpatory agreements)
- B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1998) (contract clearly expresses intent to release from liability)
- Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465 (Colo. 2004) (exculpatory language can bar negligence claims when terms unambiguous)
- Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1989) (exculpatory agreements construed against drafter)
- Wycoff v. Grace Community Church, 251 P.3d 1260 (Colo. App. 2010) (informed consent requires more than Jones factors when minor waivers are involved)
- Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002) (public policy disfavors waivers for minors; statute later governs)
- Mincin v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 308 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2002) (bargaining power and nonessential activity context in waivers)
- USI Properties East, Inc. v. Simpson, 938 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1997) (contract interpretation—clear meaning in instrument as a whole)
- Kuta v. Joint District No. 50(J), 799 P.2d 379 (Colo. 1990) (contract interpretation—ambiguity analysis; whole-instrument approach)