- Tags:
- Show more
- Pages:
- 1
- Words:
- 275
Law Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Brief Case Citation of the Case: Burd v. KL Shangri-La Owners, LP, 67 P.3d 927, 2003 O.K. C.I.V. A.P.P. 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).Facts: On May 12, 999, Patron, the appellant, was injured while participating in a tennis tournament held at Shangri La’s premises. Patron accidentally stripped over rolls of carpet that had been stored adjacent to the tennis court. The carpet rolls could not be seen from a plain view because of the hanging curtains in the place. On March 16, 2001, Patron filed a petition against the Shangri-La for causing damages to his body. In defense of the allegations, Shangri-La cited contributory negligence, assumption of dangers, failure to notice dangerous conditions and failure to state a claim as causes of the appellant’s injuries. On May 9, 2002, the corporate defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of exculpatory clause signed by the plaintiff before the beginning of the tennis season. On the basis of the exculpatory clause, the defendant claimed to have no responsibility to search for hidden traps or risks for protecting Patron who was a licensee at the premises. Furthermore, evidentiary material from the Missouri Waiver document proved that Patron was not a registered guest at Shangri-La and did not pay any remuneration for the use of its facilities by Patron. The trial court then granted Shangri-La motion for summary judgment forcing the plaintiff to appeal. The court of appeal, on analyzing the defendant’s request for summary judgment, the matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issue # 1: Was the court of appeal justified to reverse the
Leave feedback