Court Opinion

ID: 9677119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:43:59.023348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:53.984774
License: Public Domain

TOMLIN, Presiding Judge (Western Section),
concurring.
I readily concur in the excellent opinion written by my colleague. In addition, I would hold that even if the law in this state was to the effect that Mrs. Childress could execute a valid release as to the rights of her son, the release, as executed, as I interpret it, attempts to release only the mother’s rights and not those of her son. For instance, the first sentence, acknowledging that young Childress was using the facilities at his own risk, begins with the language: “I, the undersigned, individually and on behalf of the above-named en-trant_” [emphasis added] However, the language purporting to release the Special Olympics and others reads as follows: “I, on my own behalf, hereby, release, discharge and indemnify_” [emphasis added] It is obvious that the language last used purports only to release the rights of the “undersigned,” i.e., Mrs. Childress, and not those of her handicapped son.