Olsen v. Breeze
California Court of Appeal
55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818 (1996)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Philip Olsen (plaintiff) took his skis to Breeze, Inc. (defendant) to adjust the bindings. As a condition of Breeze returning Olsen’s skis, Breeze required Olsen to sign a release form that released Breeze from all liability for injury resulting from use of the skis. Olsen refused to sign the form, and Breeze refused to return his skis. These types of releases were standard in the ski equipment industry. Ski-equipment distributors indemnified equipment retailers, but only if the retailers obtained a release from the end user. Olsen sued ski-equipment distributors (defendants) and Breeze, alleging that the requirement of a release constituted unfair competition because it was unconscionable. Ski distributors quickly modified their required releases to be either (1) a release of a finite list of claims that did not include strict liability, or (2) a release of all claims, but expressly excluding claims that the law prohibits. The superior court granted the defendants summary judgment. Olsen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Puglia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.
