Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WEINER v. MT. AIRY LODGE

July 3, 1989

JOEL A. WEINER and PAMELA WEINER, his wife, Plaintiffs,
v.
MT. AIRY LODGE, INC., Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: NEALON

 WILLIAM J. NEALON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Currently before the court in the above-captioned action is defendant's motion for summary judgment. *fn1" For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

 Background

 
I accept for use as is the equipment listed on this form and accept full responsibility for the care of the equipment while it is in my possession and agree to reimburse Mount Airy Lodge Ski Shop for any loss or damage other than reasonable wear resulting from use.
 
I understand that insurance coverage applies to equipment breakage only, not lost, misplaced or stolen equipment.
 
I understand that the releasable bindings furnished herewith are designed to reduce the risk or degree of injuries from falling and that these bindings will not release under all circumstances and are no guarantee for my safety.
 
* * * *
 
I furthermore release Mount Airy Lodge and/or any employee thereof from any liability for damage and injury to myself or to any person or property resulting from the use of this equipment, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage or injury.

 See document 10 of record, Exhibit 2 (Rental Agreement and Receipt) (emphasis in original). During his lesson, plaintiff fell on ice that had formed on the instruction area and suffered personal injuries. See document 13 of record, at p. 2; see generally documents 1 and 12 of record.

 Plaintiffs Joel and Pamela Weiner, husband and wife, filed the instant action on February 18, 1988. In Count I, plaintiffs allege that defendant was negligent in failing, inter alia, to (1) maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, (2) close the ski area or prohibit skiing by beginners, who would not discover or appreciate the risk of the dangerous condition, (3) train, supervise, and instruct plaintiff in order to avoid injuries and appreciate the dangerous condition on the premises, and (4) to properly train its employees so they might prevent injuries to beginning skiers such as plaintiff. See document 1 of record, at paras. 4-21. Count II alleges that defendant supplied ski equipment to plaintiff that was unreasonably dangerous and unfit for the purpose intended. See id. at paras. 22-25. In Count III, plaintiffs claim that defendant failed to properly maintain, assemble, fit, install, adjust, and care for the equipment rented to plaintiff. See id. at paras. 26-30. Finally, Count IV states a cause of action for loss of consortium. See id. at paras. 31-32.

 Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment with a supporting brief and a transcript of plaintiff's deposition on May 11, 1989. See documents 10-12 of record. Defendant argues that plaintiffs' recovery is barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk as well as the exculpatory language contained in the rental agreement. Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the motion on May 25, 1989. See document 13 of record. Defendants' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.