brief Case

Law
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Brief Case
Citation of the Case: Burd v. KL Shangri-La Owners, LP, 67 P.3d 927, 2003 O.K. C.I.V. A.P.P. 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).Facts: On May 12, 999, Patron, the appellant, was injured while participating in a tennis tournament held at Shangri La’s premises. Patron accidentally stripped over rolls of carpet that had been stored adjacent to the tennis court. The carpet rolls could not be seen from a plain view because of the hanging curtains in the place. On March 16, 2001, Patron filed a petition against the Shangri-La for causing damages to his body. In defense of the allegations, Shangri-La cited contributory negligence, assumption of dangers, failure to notice dangerous conditions and failure to state a claim as causes of the appellant’s injuries. On May 9, 2002, the corporate defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of exculpatory clause signed by the plaintiff before the beginning of the tennis season. On the basis of the exculpatory clause, the defendant claimed to have no responsibility to search for hidden traps or risks for protecting Patron who was a licensee at the premises. Furthermore, evidentiary material from the Missouri Waiver document proved that Patron was not a registered guest at Shangri-La and did not pay any remuneration for the use of its facilities by Patron. The trial court then granted Shangri-La motion for summary judgment forcing the plaintiff to appeal. The court of appeal, on analyzing the defendant’s request for summary judgment, the matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue # 1: Was the court of appeal justified to reverse the order and remand the matter for further proceedings?
Issue # 2: Are the exculpatory promised-based obligations a valid defense against public health injuries?
Decision Yes/No
Reason Issue 1: The Court of Appeal passed that the trial court order be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings after examining the exculpatory clause in defendant’s evidentiary material. This is because the document raised new issues into the case an in order for the final decision to favor both parties, all the elements needed examination by fact and law. The evidentiary material was submitted late and this could not allow enough time for making a rational judgment, thus, the court recommended further proceedings to look into the matters.
Reason Issue 2: The enforcement of the exculpatory clause can be distasteful to the law because they tend to cover the defendant from liability of his offenses to the law. The validity of the clauses should be ascertained before enforcement since to avoid them being injurious to the public health, morals, and confidence in the judicial system. The defendant’s use of the documents signed by the appellant in prove of his innocence can be viewed as undermining the security and safety of individuals using his private property. The fact that the appellant had not paid for the services of the facility does not qualify defense for the injuries causes since this does not reflect in their agreement. Finally, Patron’s stripping down the carpet rolls does not show ignorance and lack of care because, as a tennis player, he does not expect carpet rolls in a tennis pitch.