Court Opinion

ID: 9646347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:57:37.450172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.523756
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
Appellant asserts that the lower court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. I agree and *481would, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On January 6, 1973, appellant entered appellee’s rental business, a concession located at the Camelback Ski area. Appellant, who had never skied, rented skis, boots, and poles from appellee and proceeded to the beginner’s slope. During his descent, appellant fell. His bindings failed to release and he sustained several injuries including a spiral fracture of the left distal tibia.
On February 24, 1975,1 appellant filed a complaint in trespass and assumpsit against appellee and the Camelback Ski Corporation.' Appellant set forth the above facts and alleged: “The injuries and losses suffered by the plaintiff, as more fully hereinafter described, were caused solely by reason of the negligence and recklessness of the defendants herein, and were due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant, Mitchell & Ness, by its agents, workmen and employees, negligently rented to the plaintiff, skis, boots and bindings which were not appropriate nor of safe design, fit, assembly, and adjustment, as a consequence of which the bindings did not release when he suffered the aforementioned fall.”2 On May 12, 1975, appellee filed an answer and new matter alleging that prior to using the ski equipment appellant signed a rental agreement which fully and completely released appellee.3 In appellant’s reply to new matter, he *482admitted signing a rental agreement and receipt but denied that it released appellee from liability.4 After the parties took interrogatories,5 appellee moved for summary judgment on August 2, 1976. The lower court granted the motion on October 29, 1976, and held that, as a matter of law, the clause exculpated appellee. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the rental agreement clause did not operate to exculpate appellee, and therefore, the grant of summary judgment was improper. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035(b) provides that summary judgment is to be rendered only if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” The burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that one is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, is on the moving party, and the record must be examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Amabile v. Auto Kleen Car Wash, 249 Pa.Super. 240, 376 A.2d 247 (1977); Bowman v. Sears Roebuck, 245 Pa.Super. 530, 369 A.2d 754 (1976); Husak v. Berkel, Inc., 234 Pa.Super. 452, 341 A.2d 174 (1975). In the instant case, therefore, I address the question of whether, as a matter of law, the contract exculpated appellee.
“Generally speaking, an exculpatory clause is valid if: (a) ‘it does not contravene any policy of the law, that is, if it is *483not a matter of interest to the public or State. (Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, 411 Pa. 425, 434, 192 A.2d 682 (1963) and authorities therein cited); (b) ‘the contract is between persons relating entirely to their own private affairs’ (Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra, page 433); (c) ‘each party is a free bargaining agent’ and the clause is not in effect ‘a mere contract of adhesion, whereby [one party] simply adheres to a document which he is powerless to alter, having no alternative other than to reject the transaction entirely’ (Galligan v. Arovitch, 421 Pa. 301, 304, 219 A.2d 463 (1966)).” Employers L.A.C. v. Greenville B. Men’s A., 423 Pa. 288, 291-292, 224 A.2d 620, 622-623 (1966); Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra. However, even if the clause is generally valid, Pennsylvania case law requires that the exculpatory clause meet certain additional standards. “Such standards are: (1) contracts providing for immunity from liability for negligence must be construed strictly since they are not favorites of the law (Galligan v. Arovitch, supra, 421 Pa. 303, 219 A.2d 463; Crew v. Bradstreet Co., 134 Pa. 161, 169, 19 A. 500 (1890)); (2) such contracts ‘must spell out the intention of the parties with the greatest of particularity’ (Morton v. Ambridge Borough, 375 Pa. 630, 635, 101 A.2d 661 (1954)) and show the intent to release from liability ‘beyond doubt by express stipulation’ and ‘[n]o inference from words of general import can establish it’ (Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 262, 66 A. 553 (1907)); (3) such contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability (Crew v. Bradstreet, supra, 134 Pa. 169, 19 A. 500); (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity (Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra, 411 Pa. 436, 192 A.2d 682).” Employers L.A.C. v. Greenville B. Men’s A., supra 423 Pa. at 292, 224 A.2d at 623. In Crew v. Bradstreet, supra, the contract provided “that the company shall not be liable for any loss or injury caused by the neglect or other act of any officer or agent of the company in procuring [financial information].” By strictly construing the contract, the Supreme Court held that “this contract provides for exemption from the negligence of the officers and *484agents of the company, but not from its own.” 134 Pa. at 169, 19 A. at 500. Following the precedent of Crew v. Bradstreet, Pennsylvania courts have frequently held that in order to exculpate oneself from the results of one’s own misconduct, the contract must be clear and unequivocal. Employers L.A.C. v. Greenville B. Men’s A., supra; Galligan v. Arovitch, supra; Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra; Perry v. Payne, supra.
In the case at bar, the exculpatory clause in the rental agreement states: “I furthermore release Mitchell and Ness from any liability for damage and injury to myself or to any person or property resulting from the use of this equipment, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage or injury.” This clause does not involve the public interest; it is a contract between private parties relating solely to their own affairs. Each party to the contract was a free bargaining agent and there is no allegation of coercion. Therefore, the contract is generally valid.
However, I must now measure the clause against the additional standards set forth above. The clause at issue is a general one which does not specifically exculpate Mitchell and Ness for its own negligent conduct. If appellee intended to exculpate itself from its own negligence, it should have clearly and explicitly so stated in its contract. It did not do so. I cannot infer that appellee intended such a release when the contract does not specifically so provide. Reading the clause strictly and with every intendment against appellee, I find that Mitchell and Ness failed to exempt itself explicitly from liability for its own negligent conduct.
Moreover, a close scrutiny of the clause in the instant case reveals that it exculpates Mitchell and Ness only from liability for damage resulting from the use of the equipment. (emphasis added). In Darrow v. Keystone Stores, Inc., 365 Pa. 123, 74 A.2d 176 (1950), plaintiff-lessee sued defendant-lessor for damages suffered in a fire negligently caused by defendant. The lease contained an exculpatory clause which stated that the lessee expressly agreed to assume all liability of accident or damage due to said occu*485pancy. The Supreme Court reversed the entry of judgment on the pleadings and held that the clause was in no way sufficiently specific to relieve the defendant from liability due to his own negligence. Moreover, the clause exculpated defendant only for damage due to said occupancy. (Emphasis added) The damage therein arose from defendant’s negligence not from plaintiff’s occupancy of the apartment. Applying Darrow to the case at bar and viewing the pleadings in the light most favorable to appellant, I find that the damage in the instant case did not result from the use of the equipment, but from the alleged negligence of appellee. Because the exculpatory clause applies only to damage resulting from the use of the equipment and does not apply to damage arising from appellee’s negligence, it does not release appellee under the facts presented.
Finally, the alleged negligence may have occurred prior to the signing of the rental agreement, when Mitchell and Ness allegedly failed to adjust the ski bindings. The clause in question does not specifically exempt appellee for negligent conduct which occurred prior to entering into the agreement and there is no indication that the parties intended that result. When parties enter into a lease agreement they are contemplating a status which will be created in the future. If a party seeking immunity from liability for negligent conduct intends exculpation for past as well as future negligent conduct it is his obligation to express that intent in the agreement in an explicit manner. Appellee has failed to do so. See Kotwasninski v. Rasner, 436 Pa. 32, 258 A.2d 865 (1969). Therefore, the clause fails for this reason as well.
In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, I believe that, as a matter of law, the clause does not exculpate appellee because: (1) it does not explicitly release appellee from its own negligence, (2) the damage did not arise from appellant’s use of the equipment and, (3) the alleged negligence may have occurred prior to entering into the agreement. Having decided that appellee is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, I must determine whether a triable issue of fact exists. In the instant case, *486appellant alleged that appellee negligently rented skis, boots, and bindings, to appellant which were not of safe design, fit, assembly, and adjustment. Appellant also alleged that as a result of appellee’s negligence, he suffered serious injuries. The parties have not addressed the issue of negligence6 in their affidavits or interrogatories. Therefore, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.
SPAETH, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. Appellant filed a summons in trespass on January 3, 1975, thereby tolling the statute of limitations.

. Appellant also pleaded causes of action under § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and for breach of warranty.

. The contract provided as follows:
“RENTAL AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT
“I accept for use as is the equipment listed on this form and accept full responsibility for the care of the equipment while it is in my possession, and agree to reimburse Mitchell and Ness Ski Shop for any loss or damage other than reasonable wear resulting from use.
“I understand that insurance coverage applies to equipment breakage only, not lost, misplaced or stolen equipment.
“I understand that so-called safety bindings furnished herewith are releasable bindings designed to reduce the risk or degree of injuries *482from falling and that these bindings will not release under ALL circumstances and are no guarantee for my safety.
“I furthermore release Mitchell and Ness from any liability for damage and injury to myself or to any person or property resulting from the use of this equipment, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage or injury.”

. Appellee joined the following parties as additional defendants: G. P. I., Inc., Head Ski Co., Division of A. M. F., Rieker Ski Equipment Corp. Neither the additional defendants nor Camelback Ski Corp. has appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Mitchell and Ness.

. The parties took depositions but never made them a part of the record.

. The parties have not addressed the other two causes of action pleaded by appellant. See footnote 2 above.