(Download) "Jerilyn Richards v. Leo J. Richards" by Supreme Court of Wisconsin # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Jerilyn Richards v. Leo J. Richards
- Author : Supreme Court of Wisconsin
- Release Date : January 08, 1994
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 77 KB
Description
ABRAHAMSON, J. This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals filed on January 20, 1993, affirming a
judgment of the circuit court for Barron County, the Honorable Edward R. Brunner, Judge. The circuit court granted summary
judgment to Monkem Company, the defendant, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It held that the form signed by Jerilyn
Richards, the plaintiff, was an exculpatory contract that was not void or unenforceable as contrary to public policy. It further
held that the plaintiff's claim for injuries suffered while riding as a passenger in a truck operated by Leo Richards, her
husband, and owned by Monkem Company, her husband's employer, was clearly within the contemplation of the parties at the time
the exculpatory contract was executed. The circuit court thus foreclosed the plaintiff's claim as a matter of law. The court
of appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. The issue before this court is whether the form the plaintiff executed constitutes a valid exculpatory contract releasing
the plaintiff's claims against Monkem Company, thereby barring this lawsuit. This issue arose in a motion for summary judgment,
and this court is reviewing a decision affirming the summary judgment. Therefore the standard of review is the same as the
standard used by the circuit court to determine whether to grant the motion for summary judgment. Dobratz v. Thomson, 161
Wis. 2d 502, 513, 468 N.W.2d 654 (1991). If an exculpatory contract is found to be invalid on its face, the defendant's motion
for summary judgment will be denied. Dobratz v. Thomson, 161 Wis. 2d at 526. Thus, this court must determine whether, as a
matter of law, the form was a valid exculpatory contract that bars the plaintiff's claim.