2015 Ohio 3193
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On May 21, 2009 Shelley Papenfuse, a TARTA board member with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, fell from her wheelchair on a TARPS (paratransit) vehicle after an abrupt halt and was injured.
- She sued TARTA for negligence, alleging the driver operated erratically and failed to secure her with required restraints.
- TARTA moved for summary judgment relying on an exculpatory clause printed on the back of Papenfuse’s free photo bus pass, which purported to waive liability for injuries, including those due to negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for TARTA; Papenfuse appealed contesting applicability and unconscionability of the waiver and disputing that she used the pass that day.
- The appellate court found driver negligence was supported by the record but held the pass’s exculpatory language applied to Papenfuse, was unambiguous, and relieved TARTA of liability; court also found evidence she used the pass and rejected unconscionability claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driver was negligent | Driver drove erratically and failed to secure Papenfuse | Driver’s conduct not dispositive if waiver applies | Court acknowledged evidence of ordinary negligence by driver |
| Whether the exculpatory clause on the pass bars recovery | Papenfuse argued the clause didn’t apply to her (board member) and thus did not waive her claims | TARTA argued the clause applied to “the person named thereon” (Papenfuse) and waived negligence claims | Court held the clause was clear and unambiguous, applied to Papenfuse, and barred recovery |
| Whether the waiver was unconscionable or invalid | Papenfuse claimed lack of meaningful choice/procedural unconscionability | TARTA showed pass was provided as a gratuity, language was clear, and Papenfuse knew rides were free | Court found no procedural or substantive unconscionability and refused rescission |
| Whether Papenfuse used the pass on the injury date | Papenfuse disputed evidence of use that day | TARTA produced the driver manifest showing fare type ‘‘ASS’’ (assessment) and affidavit explaining code | Court accepted evidence that she used the free pass that day |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Ceccardi, 6 Ohio St.3d 110 (1992) (valid releases constitute express assumption of risk)
- Lunsford v. Cleveland Union Terminals Co., 170 Ohio St. 349 (1960) (waiver applies despite signatory’s claim of ignorance)