When is a Release from Liability, not a Release?
September 16, 2022 • By Eric Wert
It’s a situation everybody has been in – we are excited to participate in a local race, activity, or fundraiser, but when we show up to register for the event, we are told that we are required to sign a document releasing the property owner and event organizer from any liability for injuries we suffer during the event.
These types of releases are sometimes legally effective. However, Pennsylvania courts often view them with scrutiny. For example, in Degliomini v. ESM Productions, Inc. and City of Philadelphia, 253 A.3d 226 (Pa. June 22, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that in one situation, this type of release was against public policy and therefore invalid.
In this case, Degliomini, the plaintiff, was participating in a Philadelphia charity bike ride when he rode into an unmarked and unbarricaded portion of public road where there was an unrepaired sinkhole. He sustained severe and extensive injuries in the accident, including severe spinal cord injuries and broken bones.
Degliomini filed suit against the City of Philadelphia, amongst other defendants, for negligence. The City sought to dismiss Degliomini’s claims arguing that it had governmental immunity under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and because Degliomini had signed a Liability Release before the event.
Generally, the Tort Claims Act shields municipalities (like Philadelphia or your local Township or Borough) from tort liability. However, the Act provides certain exceptions to this immunity. The Tort Claims Act provides that a municipality would be liable for damages for an injury where the municipality is negligent in creating “dangerous condition of streets owned by the local agency” when the condition created a “reasonably foreseeable risk” of the kind of injury suffered, and when “the local agency had actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice under the circumstances.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542.
In essence, the state legislature decided that there is a well-defined public interest in maintaining and safely repairing dangerous conditions existing on government-owned streets for which the Tort Claims Act will not protect.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RELEASE FROM LIABILITY?
The Degliomini Court found that the maintenance and repair of streets is an “essential public function”, and both the common law and home rule charter of the City of Philadelphia imposed an affirmative, non-waivable duty on the City to perform this function.
Therefore, the Court found that the Liability Release was invalid and concluded that enforcing the release to immunize the City would jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the people by removing any incentive for the City to exercise minimal standards of care to maintain public streets in reasonably safe conditions.
If you have been injured or suffered damages after signing an agreement to waive or release your rights, don’t assume that the agreement is valid and carries the force of law. The law often contains provisions to protect individuals in these situations despite the agreement signed.
Please contact me at (215) 362-2474 if you have any questions. I look forward to talking with you.