Question

Sue Ann Apolinar hired a guide through Arkansas River. At the outfitter’s office, Apolinar signed a release that detailed potential hazards and risks, including “overturning”, “unpredictable currents”, “obstacles” in the water, and “drowning”. The release clearly stated that her signature discharged Arkansas Valley from liability for all claims arising in connection with the trip. On the river, while attempting to maneuver around a rapid, the raft capsized. The current swept Apolinar into a logjam where, despite efforts to save her, she drowned. Her son, Jesus Espinoza Jr filed a suit in a federal district curt against the rafting company, alleging negligence. What are the arguments for an against enforcing the release that Apolinar signed? Discuss.

Answer 1

In such kind of adventure sports, the service provider signed bond about the likelihood of inident and the responsibility of the user in facing suc extremalitiesif any. In this case Apoliner have signed the release which absolve Arkansas Valley from any liability from risk asociated with the trip. This document which have signed of Apoliner who agreed to the terms and put own signature is sufficient to proof in the court that drowning of Apoliner was due to the risk asociated in the trip and there is not any foul play and negligence of duty from the service provider.

Arguments against the release by the plaintiff will be the stated format and standard release prevalent in that area and that of Arkansas Valley. They can also argue about negligence of duty like safety measure to be taken while indulging in such activity by the service provider. Her son can also demand about legality of the release also.