Legal Opinion · Dissent

Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided May 20, 2002No. 21,807Published

1DissentSutin, Judge

{33} I respectfully dissent.

I. Word Usage

{34} For convenience, I refer to one providing an opportunity to engage in recreational activity as an “operator”; an exculpatory contract clause by which an operator disclaims or absolves itself from liability for negligence that causes personal injury or death as a “release”; and an individual who chooses to engage in recreational activity as a “recreation seeker.”

II. Introductory Observations

{35} The majority holds that public policy imposes on operators a non-disclaimable duty of due care. This means no release is enforceable. Some risk of harm is…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  3. Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Jones v. DresselSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
  5. Trujillo v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1998

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API