Moreau v. Feld Motor Sports, Inc.
8:22-cv-01295
| M.D. Fla. | Jul 30, 2025Background
- Brian Moreau, a French professional motocross rider, was severely injured during a 2020 Supercross event in Tampa, Florida, becoming paraplegic as a result.
- Prior to the event, Moreau signed liability waivers and assumption of risk agreements before his 18th birthday, which were required to participate in the race.
- The lawsuit asserts negligence against various defendants, including the event promoter, medical personnel, and The Medic Rig, LLC, involved in Moreau’s post-crash care.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the enforceability of the waivers and arguing no gross negligence or vicarious liability; Moreau cross-moved for partial summary judgment on certain defenses.
- The court had to consider issues involving ratification of releases by a newly-minted adult, the reach of liability waivers (especially under Florida motor sports law), and the sufficiency of claims for gross negligence and punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of Pre-Event Releases | Releases are void for technical defects; not enforceable as signed by minor; no parental signature; not in proper type | Releases became enforceable when ratified post-majority by Moreau through participation; technical defects do not void | Releases enforceable against ordinary negligence, not gross negligence; Plaintiff ratified them by participating post-18th birthday |
| Scope of Waivers under Fla. Stat. § 549.09 | Waivers do not protect medical rescue defendants | Waiver protections should extend to all defendants, including medical providers | Statute does not limit waivers to event sponsors; releases protect medical defendants as well |
| Apparent Agency/Vicarious Liability | Feld Motor Sports is vicariously liable for medical staff under apparent agency | Feld is not liable under respondeat superior or actual agency | Apparent agency theory remains for trial; Feld did not show entitlement to judgment |
| Good Samaritan Act/Affirmative Defense | Defendants are not entitled to Good Samaritan Act immunity under § 768.13(2)(b)(1) | Asserted defense under the Act | Court grants summary judgment precluding reliance on § 768.13(2)(b)(1), but not on other Good Samaritan provisions due to factual disputes |
| Punitive Damages | Conduct rises to gross negligence; punitive damages should be available | No gross negligence; punitive damages not warranted | Gross negligence claim survives; punitive damages claim may proceed to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256 (summary judgment burden)
- Sutton v. Crane, 101 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (presumption of knowing contract contents)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1995) (apparent agency standard)
- Roessler v. Novak, 858 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (apparent agency by actions or words)