273 P.3d 1253
Idaho2012Background
- Morrison signed a university-prepared hold harmless/waiver before participating in a university climbing-wall activity.
- Morrison was injured in the climbing activity and sued the university for negligence alleging improper supervision/training of a belayer.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the action barred by the hold harmless agreement.
- Morrison presented evidence that participation was required by his employer and that he had no real choice but to sign.
- The court analyzed (1) whether unequal bargaining power invalidates the agreement and (2) whether the agreement’s language bars the negligence claim.
- The court ultimately affirmed, ruling the hold harmless agreement was valid and applicable to Morrison’s claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does unequal bargaining power nullify the hold harmless? | Morrison argues employer pressure created a bargaining imbalance. | NNU contends unequal power alone does not invalidate the clause. | No; unequal power alone is insufficient. |
| Is the hold harmless agreement valid and enforceable against Morrison's negligence claim? | Morrison contends the clause is overbroad and ineffective. | NNU argues the clause covers negligence arising from participation. | Yes; the district court correctly held it valid and enforceable. |
| Does the language of Release/Hold Harmless/Indemnity/Assumption of Risk render the negligence claim barred? | Release did not clearly cover NNU’s negligence; the language is overly broad. | The hold harmless/indemnity paragraph expressly includes negligence. | The hold harmless/indemnity paragraph suffices to bar, release not required. |
| Should the university recover attorney fees on appeal? | Not specifically addressed in argument section. | Requests fees per statutes/rules. | No award of attorney fees on appeal; compliance with Rule 35. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rawlings v. Layne & Bowler Pump Co., 93 Idaho 496 (Idaho 1970) (hold harmless clauses preclude liability for installation-related damages)
- H.J. Wood Co. v. Jevons, 88 Idaho 377 (Idaho 1965) (exculpatory clause excludes liability for damages tied to the contract's scope)
- Anderson & Nafziger v. G.T. Newcomb, Inc., 100 Idaho 175 (Idaho 1979) (exculpatory language need not list the precise negligent act if it clearly covers the risk)
- Lee v. Sun Valley Co., 107 Idaho 976 (Idaho 1984) (rider agreement holding harmless for injuries from riding did not require specific negligence language)
- Steiner Corp. v. American District Telegraph, 106 Idaho 787 (Idaho 1984) (exculpatory clause covering failures in service to detect/avoid damage can bar claims for negligence)
- Empire Lumber Co. v. Thermal-Dynamic Towers, Inc., 132 Idaho 295 (Idaho 1998) (lease clause barring negligence not clearly stated; general terms insufficient)
- Jesse v. Lindsley, 149 Idaho 70 (Idaho 2008) (contracts disfavoring liability construed strictly; must clearly express intent to exonerate from negligence)