Case: Markovitz v. Cassenti, August 18, 2016, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Brief Fact Summary: A woman who fell off a horse during a riding lesson in 2011 filed a Massachusetts personal injury lawsuit against the farm that provided the lessons. The trial court granted defendant’s request for summary judgment on grounds plaintiff signed a waiver of liability prior to beginning lessons, more than a year before her fall. Plaintiff appealed, arguing she was entitled to relief under M.G.L. c. 128 § 2D (c)(1)(ii), which she asserted created a new duty of care – in addition to those that already exist under common law – that precluded the waiver of liability. Alternatively, she argued a question of fact remained as to whether defendant committed gross negligence, which would have allowed her to sidestep the waiver, per the precedent set in the 1997 case of Zavras v. Capeway Rovers Motorcycle Club, Inc.

Synopsis of Rule of Law: Massachusetts courts have generally upheld waivers of liability and release agreements that immunize defendants from future liability for negligent acts – particularly for cases related to sports and recreation. This precedent was first set in 1965 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of Lee v. Allied Sports Assocs., Inc., a car race track accident. Successful challenges to releases from liability, which are issued via summary judgment, are generally done on the grounds that the waiver was unclear or ambiguous. In order for such waivers to be binding, defendants have show the language was clear and conspicuous, all parties were properly named, the party in question (or his/ her guardian or legal representative) signed the waiver and that there was a valid contractual consideration. That last part means something of value was exchanged. In the Zavras case, the state high court ruled that while a party may contract against liability for harm caused by its own negligence, it may not do so with respect to harm caused by gross negligence or harm caused by a violation of statutory duty. Meanwhile,  M.G.L. c. 128 § 2D (c)(1)(ii) indicates that while equine activity sponsors can’t be held liable for an injury or death resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities, these parties can be held liable if they provided the horse and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine both the ability of the participant to safely engage in the activity.