Businesses often enter into release agreements with their customers/clients where there is a possibility of injury. The release should allow the released person or entity to avoid litigation and procedurally acts as an affirmative defense. Where a release agreement is entered into, the defendant can move for summary disposition after the injured plaintiff has filed his/her complaint. If the release agreement is proper and applicable to the situation, the Court will grant summary disposition, dismissing the complaint and avoiding prolonged, expensive litigation.
However, it is important in drafting the release agreement to consider all situations in which the parties want to release liability. In Bujanda v. Spartan Athletics, LLC, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to Spartan, a facility that offers CrossFit training.
The trial court had granted summary disposition based on a release that was entered into between the injured plaintiff and Spartan, releasing Spartan from any claims for injuries arising from “physical training.” The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that there was a factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff was injured while engaging in “physical training.”
The plaintiff, a participant in CrossFit training at Spartan, was injured at the facility while waiting for a class to begin. The plaintiff argued that his injury occurred while he was talking to a classmate and tripped over a ladder. In contrast, Spartan argued that his injury occurred while he was working out. Since the release between plaintiff and Spartan only included claims for injuries arising from “physical training,” the Court of Appeals found that there was a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff was injured while engaged in “physical training” and further litigation would be necessary to determine this issue.
Spartan likely could have avoided further litigation if it had drafted the release to include all injuries occurring on the premises and not simply limited to “physical training.” In a similar case involving an injury sustained at a gym in 1994, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the defendant gym because the release in that case released the gym from “any damages arising from personal injuries sustained . . . in, on or about the premises.” Skotak v. Vic Tanny International, 203 Mich App 616 (1994). The Court also found this inclusive language to include injuries arising from the gym’s own ordinary negligence.
Although Spartan may win at trial, they will still incur the expenses of litigation. These expenses could have been avoided by simply drafting a better release agreement.
In drafting a release agreement, the scope of the parties and all potential claims should be covered and the parties’ intent clearly established. The release should also be specific enough that the parties understand what they are agreeing to.
If you own a business and have questions about drafting or enforcing a release agreement, or you have any other questions, please contact the attorneys at Demorest Law Firm.
