Mohler v. Kipu Ranch Adventures, LLC, 1:13-cv-00611

Mohler purchased and participated in a paid, guided ATV tour on Kipu Ranch property; she signed an Acknowledgment of Risk and Release of Liability before the tour.
The Release broadly disclaimed liability for injuries "whether or not Kipu Ranch . . . are negligent"; Mohler testified she did not read the Release and has a practice of not reading waivers.
Tour instructors gave a short orientation and arena practice laps; Mohler rode a two-person ATV with a passenger and was not given the ATV Operator’s Guide or specific warnings about passenger handling or braking downhill.
On a gravel, downhill section leading to a right turn, Mohler fishtailed, left the trail, struck a tree, and sustained serious injuries; the lead guide later commented she may have been going too fast.
Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Mohler’s Release bars negligence claims, (2) Hawaii’s Recreational Use Statute (HRUS) bars liability, and (3) the trail did not present an unreasonable risk of harm.
The court denied summary judgment on all claims, finding genuine issues of material fact under Hawaii law (including statutory limits on waivers) and that HRUS does not apply to paid recreational use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of signed Release as waiver of negligence	Mohler contends the release cannot bar negligence claims under HRS § 663-1.54 unless inherent risks were fully disclosed and the release meets statutory requirements	Kipu Ranch contends Courbat permits enforcement of waivers and Mohler is bound by her signed release	Denied — § 663-1.54 precludes waivers of negligence except for inherent risks fully disclosed; whether risks were disclosed is a fact question for the trier of fact, so summary judgment inappropriate
Applicability of Hawaii Recreational Use Statute (HRUS)	Mohler argues HRUS does not apply because she paid for the commercial tour	Kipu Ranch argues HRUS limits landowner liability for recreational users on their land	Denied — HRUS applies only to users "without charge;" paid commercial participants are not covered, so HRUS does not bar Mohler’s claims
Premises liability — whether trail posed an unreasonable risk and whether defendant had notice	Mohler asserts lack of adequate warnings/training about passenger handling and downhill techniques; factual disputes exist about warnings and trail conditions	Kipu Ranch argues no unreasonable condition existed and no notice of a dangerous condition	Denied — material factual disputes exist about the trail’s riskiness and defendant’s knowledge, so summary judgment improper

Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc., 111 Haw. 254, 141 P.3d 427 (Haw. 2006) (analyzes enforceability of waivers in recreational settings and lays out general waiver principles)
King v. CJM Country Stables, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (D. Haw. 2004) (discusses legislative history and application of HRS § 663-1.54)
Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 93 Haw. 477, 6 P.3d 349 (Haw. 2000) (interprets HRUS limitation of liability and the importance of whether user was charged)
Corbett v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Wailua Bayview Apartments, 70 Haw. 415, 772 P.2d 693 (Haw. 1989) (premises liability standard — duty for unreasonably dangerous conditions)
Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc., 69 Haw. 376, 742 P.2d 377 (Haw. 1987) (elements of negligence in Hawaii)