How to Handle a Risky Business Chelsea Hamill attended Camp Cheley for three years Before attending camp each summer her parents signed a liability/risk release form. In July 2004, when Hamill

How to Handle a Risky Business

Chelsea Hamill attended Camp Cheley for three years. Before attending camp each summer her parents signed a liability/risk release form. In July 2004, when Hamill was 15 years old, she fell off a Cheley horse and broke her arm. Chelsea brought a negligence and gross negligence lawsuit against the summer camp. Hamill's mother testified at her deposition that she voluntarily signed the release after having "skimmed" it. The release language stated in part:

I, on behalf of myself and my child, hereby release and waive any claim of liability against Cheley ... with respect to any injury ... occurring to my child while he/ she participates in any and all camp programs and activities.

I give my permission for my child to participate in all camp activities, including those described above. I acknowledge and assume the risks involved in these activities, and for any damages, illness, injury or death ... resulting from such risks for myself and my child.

(Emphasis Added.)

Hamill's mother's interpretation of the release is that prospective negligent claims were not waived. The camp disagreed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the camp, and Hamill appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

LAKE, J....

Parental Consent to Exculpatory Agreements Affecting Minors

Hamill argues that the exculpatory clauses in the agreement do not bar her negligence claims. She reasons ... that her mother did not make an informed decision under ... [state law] to release her prospective negligence claims. This statute states that "[s]o long as [a parent's] decision [to waive the child's claims] is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education." We disagree with Hamill's position.

Degree of Risk

... [T]he undisputed facts in the record show that Hamill's mother knew the activities Cheley offered. Hamill had attended Cheley and ridden the camp horses for two years before the accident. The agreement clearly indicated that horseback riding was an activity available to campers. The agreement described many of the risks associated with horseback riding at camp, and notified Hamill's mother that it was impossible to list all risks.

...

The agreement included language that informed Hamill's mother that the equipment used by Cheley could fail and that the wranglers might "misjudge" situations. Both of these possibilities envision forms of negligence. As discussed above, the agreement itself directly contradicts Hamill's mother's objectively unreasonable interpretation of the contract that prospective negligence claims were not waived.

...

Hamill's mother testified at her deposition that she voluntarily signed the release after having "skimmed" it. She had signed the same agreement in 2002 and 2003 and agreed that, by signing the waiver, she understood that she was accepting certain risks of injury to her child. See Rasmussen v. Freehling, 159 Colo. 414, 417, 412 P.2d 217, 219 (1966) (if a person signs a contract without reading it, she is barred from claiming she is not bound by what it says); Day, 810 F. Supp. at 294 (a party signing a contract without reading it cannot deny knowledge of its contents, and is bound by what it says)....

That Hamill's mother may not have contemplated the precise mechanics of her daughter's fall does not invalidate the release and does not create a genuine issue of material fact. She knew her daughter would be riding horses and she was advised that there were risks, known and unknown, associated with the activity. Indeed, Hamill's mother acknowledged in her deposition testimony that when horseback riding, there is "a risk of a child being thrown or falling off a horse." Hamill's argument that her mother did not give informed consent, despite her signature on the agreement and the language in the agreement indicating the contrary, is not persuasive and does not create a genuine issue of material fact. As a matter of law, the agreement sufficiently informed Hamill's mother about the risks involved in horseback riding.

Extent of Injury

The broad release language in the agreement waiving "any claims of liability," for "any injury," even "death," evidences that Hamill's mother was informed that she was waiving Hamill's prospective claims, including negligence, and had sufficient information to assess the extent of possible injuries to Hamill. At her deposition, Hamill's mother testified as follows:

Attorney: And, you know, you knew that someone such as Christopher Reeve had been tragically injured falling off a horse?

Ms. Hamill: Yes.

Attorney: Did you personally know Mr. Reeve?

Ms. Hamill: Yes.

Attorney: And so you were aware that there were significant risks associated with horseback riding?

Ms. Hamill: Yes.

Attorney: And you were aware that your daughter was going to be doing a significant amount of horseback riding?

Ms. Hamill: Yes.

The agreement did not need to include an exhaustive list of particularized injury scenarios to be effective.

Our review of the entire record leads us to conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Hamill's mother had more than sufficient information to allow her to assess the extent of injury possible in horseback riding, and to make an "informed" decision before signing the release. See Black's Law Dictionary 346 (definition of informed consent).

We conclude that the agreement adequately disclosed the extent of potential injuries. Moreover, because the agreement was fairly entered into and the language clearly and unambiguously presents no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hamill's mother was informed of the agreement's intent to release "all claims," including prospective negligence claims, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Cheley.

...

[The court concluded that the agreement was not contrary to public policy; nor was there any evidence of gross negligence on the part of the camp.]

Judgment affirmed.

Was Hamill's mother sufficiently informed about the risks involved in horseback riding, including the extent of possible injury, so as to have made an informed decision when she signed the release? Should the camp have included a list of particularized injury scenarios to be effective?