Powder Ridge Ski Resort Case Study

Summary of the fact of the case:

Plaintiff Gregory D. Hanks enjoyed his vacation and went to snowtube with four children at Powder Ridge Ski Resort on February 16 2003, where is a place for ski, snowboard and snowtube. Neither the Plaintiff nor these four children had experiences of using snowtube at Powder Ridge Ski Resort. This facility was opened for all guests, but there were 2 restrictions of age and height that players at least 6 years old or 44 inches tall were allowed to participate. Furthermore, who wants to snowtube at Powder Ridge Ski Resort were asked to sign a “Waiver, Defense, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement, and Release of Liability” (Agreement written by Powder Ridge, 2003). The Agreement declared that by signing this

Gilmore, 248 Conn. 769, 774, 731 A.2d 280 (1999)”, it is well established “that contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable.” (Borden, 1999). There is a frequently cited standard for determining whether exculpatory agreements violate public policy was set forth by the Supreme Court of California, is called Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California, supra, 60 Cal.2d at 98-1-1, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441. In Tunkl, it identified six factors (well-known as Tunkl factors), in this case, to analyzing by using Tunkl factors could find that may be relevant given the factual circumstance of the case and current social expectations, such as this case violated third and fifth factors “The party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member of the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established standards.”, “In exercising a superior bargaining power the party confronts the public with a standardized adhesion contract of exculpation, and makes no provision whereby a purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against negligence.” (Tobriner, 1964), as a next step I will explain the reason of violation of Tunkl