Olsen v. Breeze, Inc.

55 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, is an attorney and “avid recreational skier” who has represented in personal injury litigation plaintiffs who sustained injuries skiing. P took his skis to a shop operated by Breeze, Inc. (D) to be serviced, including the adjustment of his ski bindings. As a condition for the return of his equipment, P was required to sign a form that described the risks of skiing and released D from any liability for injury resulting from the use of the equipment, including injury caused by negligence, breach of warranty, or product defect. P refused to sign the form and was denied the return of his equipment. Ski equipment distributors throughout the state offer indemnity to retail and service outlets in the event of injury caused by the failure of ski bindings to release properly but only if the retailer or service provider has obtained the customer's signature on a release form supplied by the distributor, or one substantially similar thereto. P brought this action on behalf of himself and all others who own or seek to rent or purchase ski bindings of various brands. P claimed the practice was unconscionable and alleged a violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and unfair competition. Some of the defendants modified the language of their releases to be in line with Westlye, where it was ruled that an express disclaimer of liability or assumption of risk will not insulate a distributor of ski equipment from strict liability for injuries caused by defective products. The releases now detailed the (1) release of a finite list of claims that did not include strict liability, or (2) a release of all claims, excluding those that the law prohibits. Ds then moved for summary adjudication of the unfair competition cause of action and for a determination the CLRA claim is without merit. The court granted the motion except for two defendants. They went to trial and eventually, the court entered a judgment of dismissal against the last two defendants. P appealed. P contends the releases are unlawful because they are overly broad, purport to cover strict product liability claims and widespread industry use of general releases is unconscionable.