Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Cline v. Homouth CA3

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 2015No. C073999Unpublished

1Concurrence

DUARTE, J.,

Concurring. — Although unnecessary to our disposition here, I feel compelled to echo the concerns expressed by my colleagues in other districts regarding the use of “overly broad, loose terms in release agreements.” (Neverkovec v. Fredericks (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 337, 354 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 856]; see Hess v. Ford Motor Company (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516, 530 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 220, 41 P.3d 46].)

The widespread use of global “all other persons” releases raises policy concerns as to fairness. (See Rodriguez v. Oto (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1031 [151 Cal.Rptr.3d 667].) As we see here, the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rodriguez v. OtoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Hess v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Neverkovec v. FredericksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API