Sample Law Essay Paper on Negligence and Gross Negligence

Negligence and Gross Negligence: Van Voris and Josephine Durkin, Appellants v.  Team Chop Shop, appellees.

In the case Brendan Van Voris and Josephine Durkin, Appellants v.  Team Chop Shop, LLC D/B/A/ Chop Shop MMA’S and Jerry Howell’s appellees, Van Voris and Durken had applied the judgment made  in the trial court in favor of Team  Chop shop in terms of Van Voris’ execution of a pre-injury release. It has been indicated that the appellants did not provide adequate evidence of material factor on the summary judgment and they failed in providing the supporting case laws regarding their arguments to the pre-injury release.  Thus, the claims made by the appellants could qualify as a matter of law, since the appeal could not overcome the fatal defects.  Based on the facts of the case, Van Voris took part in a missed martial art classes at his will (Herring 128). Before starting the classes, he signed a “Release and waiver of liability and indemnity agreement.”In attending the classes twice, it was was clear of his execution of the release.  In one of the classes, Van Voris had volunteered to show a move called a “hip toss.”

After completing the move and going home, he started complaining that he was injured. Thus, he filled a suit against the appellees to recover his alleged injuries.  The appellants wanted actions to be taken for negligence and gross negligence.  Later the appellees field a responded to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court was keen to consider the legal issues surrounding the case to determine the claims of negligence and gross negligence.   The arguments of case by the appellees were that Van Voris had executed the pre-injury release. As a result, the court favored Chop Shop providing that the release operational and effective calling for a summary judgment. Considering the implication of the Texas public policies, the trial court was right based on the Texas case laws on the enforceability of the release.

It also ascertained that there were no evidence on the lack of appreciation of the risk faced Van Voris.  In contrast to the Appellants, arguments that the Texas Court of Appeal discovered that negligence and gross negligence could be separated. The case laws indicate that the verse versa was true.  For example, in Olin Corp. v. Dyson, 678 S.W.2d 650, it explored whether gross negligence and negligence could be said to be  separable.  However, the court summarized that negligence and gross negligence were not separable actions, but are intertwined together.  Thus, the public policy in Texas could not prohibit the operation of a pre-injury release in restricting the claims on gross negligence.  Thus, there was no any legal basis to reverse the initial decision of the granted summary judgment by the trial court.

Another major aspects form the case was that the release was enforceable due to its compliance with the fair notice provisions.  During the trial prices, the applets did not consider the provisions of fair notice.  In our case, Van Voris admits to signing the release in earlier data.  Even though the release might be applicable, it should be meet the doctrine of express negligence and the requirements must be adequate for the formulation of the fair notice test.  The doctrine provides that the release must be written in specific and simple terms that can be easily understood.  However, the appellants did not argue on the basis of the release as ambiguous, bust focused on the specific terms of in the release.

The application of the release also requires for sufficient legislation in matters of law.  The appellants do not address the content and language used in the release. The nature of activity and type of release would affect the application of the release in the case.  The implication of the release to Van Voris  that is understood the risks and dangers associated with taking part in martial arts activities including body injuries, disability or even death (Herring 128). The risks and dangerous could in turn leads to social and economic losses. Therefore, Van Voris was aware of the risks available in taking part in the martial arts and activities.  In the past, Texas courts have investigated the applicability of the release to the different activities and events. In the case OF Willis v. Willoughby, 202 S.W.3d 450, the court had a handled a similar situation of a proper signing for taking part in self-defense class.

The conclusion of the case upheld the decision of the trial court providing that the summary judgment was based on the release that met the fair notice rule and express negligence provisions.  By affirming the trial court decision, the Supreme Court relied on the application of general rules on punitive damages requested by the appellees. Van Voris was not able to provide any legal background to substantiate his gross negligence claims.  Even the Texas policies and provisions did not have any contrasting actions to the ruling made by the trial court. Therefore, Van Voris would not recover any injuries resulting from the martial classes.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Herring, Jonathan. Criminal law: Text, cases, and materials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014.