Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc. Supreme Court of Colorado, 223 P3d 724 (2010). www.cobar.org/ors.cfm We granted Boles's petition for legitimizing such disclaimers or IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT a writ of certiorari [a request by the exculpatory agreements. Not least A Ain. 'ustice COATS delivered losing party asking the higher court among these is the deliberate prothe opinion of the court. to hear the case] challenging the vision of economic incentives for * court of appeals' determination that manufacturers to improve product Savannah Boles the exculpatory agreement barred safety and take advantage of their products liability claim for personal "Strict products liability" has product." injury.SunErgolinemovedforbeendescribedasa"termofartthat***TheSecondRestatementof summary judgment, countering that reflects the judgment that prod- Torts clearly indicates that exculpa- Boles's claim was barred by a release ucts liability is a discrete area of tory agreements between a manufac- she signed prior to using its product. tort law which borrows from both turer and an end-user can have no The trial court agreed and granted negligence and warranty" but "is effect. * * * The Third Restatement Sun Ergoline's motion on the basis not fully congruent with classical would even more emphatically of the following undisputed facts. tort or contract law." Rather than prohibit "contractual exculpations" Executive Tans operated an resting on negligence principles, from barring or reducing otherwise upright tanning booth manufac-_ it "is premised on the concept of valid products liability claims for tured by Sun Ergoline. Prior to enterprise liability for casting a personal injuries by ordinary con- using the booth, Boles signed a defective product into the stream of sumers against sellers or distributors release form provided by Executive commerce." In strict products liability, of new products. Tans that contained the following the focus is on the nature of the product There appears to be virtually exculpatory agreement: "I have read rather than the conduct of either the universal agreement on this point the instructions for proper use of manufacturer or the person injured. among the other jurisdictions con- the tanning facilities and do so at [Emphasis added.] sidering the question. my own risk and hereby release the As such, strict products liability * An agreement releasing owners, operators, franchiser, or evolved to accommodate, and is a manufacturer from strict prod- manufacturers, from any damage driven by, public policy consid- ucts liability for personal injury, in or harm that I might incur due to erations surrounding the rela- exchange for nothing more than use of the facilities." After entering tionship between manufacturers an individual consumer's right to the booth, several of Boles's fingers and consumers in general, rather have or use the product, necessar- came in contact with an exhaust than any particular transaction or ily violates the public policy of this fan located at the top of the booth, contract for sale. In addition to the jurisdiction and is void. appeals affirmed. [It found] power inherent in any disclaimer in finding the exculpatory that the language of the release was or ordinary consumer's agreement agreement in this case enforcebroad enough to include any damage to release a manufacturer, a claim able, the judgment of the court of or harm that might occur due to for strict products liability is also appeals is reversed with directions Boles's use of the facilities [and] * * * premised on a number of public to remand for further proceedings found no violation of public policy. policy considerations that would consistent with this opinion. be flatly thwarted [prevented] by tured by Sun Ergoline. Prior to enterprise liability for casting a personal injuries by ordinary conusing the booth, Boles signed a defective product into the stream of sumers against sellers or distributors release form provided by Executive commerce." In strict products liability, of new products. Tans that contained the following the focus is on the nature of the product There appears to be virtually exculpatory agreement: "I have read rather than the conduct of either the universal agreement on this point the instructions for proper use of manufacturer or the person injured. among the other jurisdictions conthe tanning facilities and do so at [Emphasis added.] sidering the question. my own risk and hereby release the As such, strict products liability An agreement releasing owners, operators, franchiser, or evolved to accommodate, and is a manufacturer from strict prodmanufacturers, from any damage driven by, public policy consid- ucts liability for personal injury, in or harm that I might incur due to erations surrounding the rela- exchange for nothing more than use of the facilities." After entering tionship between manufacturers an individual consumer's right to the booth, several of Boles's fingers and consumers in general, rather have or use the product, necessarcame in contact with an exhaust than any particular transaction or ily violates the public policy of this fan located at the top of the booth, contract for sale. In addition to the jurisdiction and is void. partiallyamputatingthem.Ondirectappeal,thecourtofappealsaffirmed.*Itfound]typicalinaccessibilityofinforma-tionandinequalityofbargainingpowerinherentinanydisclaimerBecausethelowercourtserredinfindingtheexculpatory thatthelanguageofthereleasewasbroadenoughtoincludeanydamageorordinaryconsumersagreementtoreleaseamanufacturer,aclaimabrentinthiscaseenforce- or harm that might occur due to for strict products liability is also appeals is reversed with directions Boles's use of the facilities [and] * * * premised on a number of public to remand for further proceedings found no violation of public policy. policy considerations that would consistent with this opinion. be flatly thwarted [prevented] by 1. What did the court mean when it stated that strict product liability laws are "not fully congruent" with classical tort law? 2. Why would the enforcement of the exculpatory clause in this case conflict with the rationale underlying strict product liability? a. Under the heading "Opinions," select "Colorado Supreme Court Opinions." When that page opens, select "February 8 , 2010" from the list of dates under the heading "Cases published announced on." When that page appears, scroll down the page to the case title and click on the link to vlew the opinion. The Colorado Bar Association maintains this Web site. 1. What happened to Savannah Boles and what is the legal basis of her claim against Sun Ergoline? 2. What did the trial court and the court of appeals decide? 3. What is strict product liability and when is a manufacturer liable under this theory? 4. Can a manufacturer avoid strict liability by having a product user sign a release? What did the court Colorado Supreme Court say?|