Cahalane v. Skydive Cape Cod, Inc.
Massachusetts Superior Court
33 Mass. L. Rptr. 474 (2016)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Tricia Cahalane (plaintiff) knew before she went skydiving with Skydive Cape Cod, Inc. (SCC) (defendant) that it entailed risks of serious injury or death. That day, she signed several documents that said she “assumed the risk of serious injury and/or death and agree[d] never to sue SCC or any other parties involved.” By signing, she acknowledged that she had “been adequately informed about [the] dangers and risks” to sign waivers. An employee offered Cahalane an opportunity to buy a release from the waivers for $750, but she declined. When she asked what the release meant, an employee explained that “it was just standard waiver language and nobody ever bought it.” Cahalane jumped tandem with an instructor who performed a “hook turn” just before landing, pivoting at least 180 degrees. At the time, hook turns were not yet prohibited. Instead of landing in a seated position as instructed, Cahalane landed with her legs straight down and broke both femurs. Cahalane sued for negligence, claiming the waivers were unconscionable and thus unenforceable. Cahalane also pleaded separate claims alleging deceit and misrepresentation, but submitted no admissible evidence to support those claims. Skydive Cape Cod requested summary judgment as to all claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Curran, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.