CLEVELAND (Legal Newsline) - A woman who was injured in a multi-bike crash at a cycling festival can’t sue the race organizers because she signed a release stating she assumed the risk, an Ohio appeals court ruled.
Saying “the concept of freedom to contract is fundamental to our society,” Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff signed a binding agreement that protected USA Cycling and local athletic organizations from suit.
Heather Goss sued the organizers of NEOCycle, a multi-day cycling festival at Case Western University, after she crashed in a 2016 race. The defendants moved for summary judgment, citing two releases she signed prior to racing, including one that stated she was “giving up substantial legal rights” and agreed to assume the risks of collisions, surface hazards, inadequate safety equipment and negligence.
Goss appealed, arguing the releases were vague and ambiguous or shouldn’t be enforced as a matter of public policy. She cited an expert who said the racecourse design was below standards and said she “could not have comprehended the student planners’ lack of training and experience in race-course safety” when she signed the release. But the appeals court disagreed, ruling in a July 21 decision that she had been adequately informed of her rights.
“For express assumption of risk to operate as a bar to recovery, the party waiving his right to recover must make a conscious choice to accept the consequences of the other party’s negligence,” the court ruled. The plaintiff cited two other Ohio cases where releases were found to be unenforceable because of vagueness or because the defendant was accused of going beyond mere negligence. But those cases could be distinguished the Court of Appeals ruled.
The release didn’t attempt to protect the race organizers against claims of willful or wanton conduct and the document contained the words “release” and “negligence,” making it clear who she was releasing and from what. Courts in other states including Pennsylvania and Illinois have upheld USAC releases with the same language, the court observed.
“Considering these terms collectively and in light of what an ordinary prudent person would understand, it is clear that the appellees were to be relieved from liability for any negligence claims relating to their organization of the cycling event, including pertinent hazards and the design of the racecourse,” the court said.