Discussion Board 6QuynhCao
Classmate's posts (It needs some comments for each person)
1. Describe what happened in the case and what the court decided? In this case study, Minor Hamill attended a summer camp program at Cheley in years for three years. In July 2004, she fell off a horse and suffered a broken arm. She sued for her damages. The court decided the agreement didn’t implicate a public duty, didn’t involve essential service, was fairly entered, and it plainly expressed the intent to release prospective negligence claims. The agreement was valid. 2. Was there a contract between the parties? If so, list all the elements of the contract you can identify from the court decision. Are any elements missing? I think the formal and Informal Contract was signed between two parties, which is written agreement signed by the parties to abide by the terms. It is called liability/risk release form. Court decided the contract was valid and it is binding and enforceable. 3. Is the contract unilateral or bilateral? The contract is unilateral contract which is simply means only one party makes a promise. 4. What issues were raised in this case as far as contract law and liability for a business engaged in activities that involve risks (such as sports)? Only the validity of Exculpatory Agreement raised in the court to see, if the contract is valid and fairly entered and clearly written. But no sports risk involving issue was raised because Hamill’s mother filed the case claiming negligence and gross negligence, arguing that a Cheley wrangler had inappropriately saddled the horse she rode. Challenge Discussion Topic----How does this decision relate to our discussion of tort law (in Chapter 8 of the textbook)? This decision was related to a tort law which means civil wrong that interferes with one’s property and person. There are three types of torts: intentional torts, negligence and strict liability. This case study belongs to a two type of tort law negligence and strict liability. Hamill’s mom claims the, Negligence is failure to exercise due care under the circumstances in consequence of which harm is proximately caused to one to whom the defendant owed a duty to exercise due care. Hamill ‘s mom want Cheley to pay her suffering and damages due to horse riding where she was demanding a Strict liability is a type of tort that imposed liability without regard to whether there was any intent to harm or any negligence occurred. Strictly liability is imposed without regard to fault. Strict or absolute liability is imposed because the activity involved is so dangerous that there must be full accountability. Nonetheless, the activity is necessary and cannot be prohibited. The compromise is to allow the activity but ensure that sit dangers and resulting damages are fully covered through he imposition of full liability for all injuries that result.
● The case is between the camp (Cheley) and a camper (Chelsea Hamill). Chelsea was riding one of the camp's horses when she fell off and broke her arm. Her family sued the camp despite both Chelsea and her mother signing a liability waiver. A waiver is a release relinquish of a known right or objection (19-2a). The mother's claim was that Chelsea only skimmed the document and that she did not think negligent claims were not included. The court decided that the waiver was still effective despite not listing out specific scenarios.
● There was a contract between the camp and the Hamill family. The elements of a contract are (1) an agreement (2) between competent parties (3) based on the genuine assent of the parties that is (4) supported by consideration, (5) made for a lawful objective, and (6) in the form required by law, if any (11-1b). Both the mother and daughter along with the camp agreed to the provision of the waiver. The mother and the camp are both competent and since the daughter is under the age of 18 the mother has to sign as well. As for the remaining elements, both parties signed the waiver to ensure an understanding of the liabilities while the daughter was at camp which is required by law in order for the camp to operate properly.
● I think the contract was bilateral. According to the text, if the offeror extends a promise and asks for a promise in return and if the offeree accepts the offer by making the promise, the contract is called a bilateral contract (11-2e). The camp is allowing Chelsea attend only if the the family signs a release waiver.
● Negligence is a key issue brought up in cases that involve risky activities like horseback riding. However since Mrs.Hamill signed a release form, declaring that the camp shall not be liable for injuries sustained by participants because of its negligence, the waiver is binding and the lawsuit not valid.
This decision relates to our discussions on tort law in that negligence is a type of tort. In this case, the harm against Chelsea was not intended by the camp but accidental harms due to the camp's horses is falls under negligence. If the camp didn't have the release waiver that was discussed then they would've been liable. Robert Dlugaszewski In the Hamill vs. Cheley Colorado Camps case Chelsea Hamill attended a summer camp where they participated in multiple activities including horseback riding and when Chelsea was participating in the horseback riding she fell off and broke her arm. She then brought a negligence and gross negligence lawsuit against the summer camp. Before attending the summer camp Chelsea's parents had voluntarily signed a liability/risk release form after skimming over it. In this contract,"a binding agreement based on the genuine assent of the parties, made for a lawful object, between competent parties, in the form required by law,"(Textbook, pg.206, para 2), that the parents signed they waived any claim of liability against Chelsea occurring to her while participating in any and all camp programs and activities, gave permission to participate in all camp activities, assuming the risks involved in these
activities, and for any damages, illness, injury or death resulting from such risks. This is considered a unilateral contract by definition that is a, "contract under which only one party makes a promise," (Textbook, pg.210, para 7) which is shown by the fact that by signing the form the parents are making the promise not to sue if anything is to happen to there child while at this summer camp. So in conclusion of the case the court decided that there was a lack of evidence for gross negligence since they were informed of the intent to the release of all claims including prospective negligence claims. This relates to tort law in the fact that after Chelsea's parents signing a liability form to not take action against Cheley Colorado Camps for anything that happens to their daughter while at the summer camp they went and tried to file a lawsuit for gross negligence for the broken arm their daughter suffered from after an accident while horseback riding claiming they weren't aware of what the liability form entitled since they skimmed over it. This then resulted in the loss of the lawsuit for the Hamill family. Mikayla McLeod In the Hamill V. Cheley case, "How to handle risky business," a daughter is sent to a summer camp. Before sending her, the mother signed a waiver that released the camp of any liability due to possible injury. While at camp, the daughter fell off a horse and broker her arm. The mother brought charges against the camp claiming gross negligence. The court ruled in favor of the camp. (Section 19-4d). There is a unilateral contract between the camp and the mother. This means that, "the offeror may promise to do something or to pay a certain amount of money only when the offeree does an act... The offeree does not accept the offer by express agreement, but rather by performance" (Section 11-2e, para. 3). The camp provides activities for the daughter if the mother agrees to release liability. The elements of a contract are "an agreement, between competent parties, based on genuine assent of the parties, supported by consideration, made for a lawful objective, in the form required by law, if any" (Section 11-1b). The only one missing is the support of consideration since the mother only skimmed the form. The issues raised include using clear language. Also, both parties need to completely understand the agreement.