Question

Yu rents out All Terrain Vehicles for customers to ride on his property along the Mississippi River. Yu makes each renter sign a contract agreeing to pay for the rental and also agreeing to hold Yu harmless for any injuries they suffer while riding the ATV; including "any injuries suffered as a result of Yu's failure to adequately maintain the ATV," Peter rents an ATV and the ATV engine explodes due to poor maintenance by Yu, while Peter is riding under normal conditions at a reasonable speed. Peter is burned and sues Yu. Which best describes the likely result?

1) Yu will win because, Peter is a competent adult and he agreed to the contract not holding Yu liable.

2) Peter will likely win a lawsuit because Yu cannot use an exculpatory clause to disclaim his own liability in this manner

3) Peter will win because in no case is an exculpatory clause enforceable.

4) Yu will win because Peter is likely more than 50% at fault.

Answer 1

Here is my response:

Best answer as per my recommendation is the following:

1) Yu will win because, Peter is a competent adult and he agreed to the contract not holding Yu liable.

The contract clearly outlines that Yu will not be liable for any injuries. Peter has signed the same.

Burn injury law definitely brings in the angle of lack of maintenance in this case which has led to the possible explosion. So without the contract, Peter would have to prove the negligent maintenance as the root cause to derive the lawsuit and the compensation therein. Of-course, in case of the ATV engine itself exploding, the maintenance issue would have been a difficult one to highlight for sure. When burns are a result of someone’s direct act or gross negligence, the settlement might be higher, because the judge or jury could award the victim punitive damages. However proving the point or the negligence is a tough one in this case.

If you find the response useful, please do up-vote. This will help me improve the quality of the responses.