Claudia Piña Martínez

Jones v. Dressel:
Facts: P, who was then seventeen years old, signed a contract with the defendant, Free Flight
Sport Aviation, Inc. The contract allowed Jones to use Free Flight's recreational skydiving
facilities, which included use of an airplane to ferry skydivers to the parachute jumping site.
A covenant not to sue and a clause exempting Free Flight from liability were included in the
contract. On October 19, 1974, P suffered serious personal injuries in an airplane crash which
occurred shortly after takeoff from Littleton Airport. Free Flight furnished the airplane as part
of its skydiving operation.
The contract had exception for liability and he agreed to it. When did he suffer the injury?
When he was 18. When did he file for lawsuit? 2 years later.
He claims:
First, he claims that he disaffirmed the contract with Free Flight within a reasonable time
after he attained his majority by filing suit. Second, he asserts that the exculpatory
agreement is void as a matter of public policy. Third, he contends that inasmuch as an
exculpatory agreement must be strictly construed against the party seeking to avoid liability
for negligence, the injuries which he sustained as a result of the airplane crash were beyond
the scope of the agreement.
Motion for summary judgement: petition to the court that either the P or D can file saying
that it isn’t an issue as a fact that has any type of relevance to the case and therefore the
case should be decided strictly on law. There is no case because the evidence that is given
does not establish any type of genuine issue. You shouldn’t even file a lawsuit because you
have no right.
Minors can enter into a contract except that the contract voidable by the minor and not by
the person who enter into the contract. The other body.
Issue: Whether or not an adhesion contract is valid when it has very tough exculpatory
provisions.
Rule: We think that the true rule of law is that a person who for his own purposes brings on
his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it
at his peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is a
natural consequence of its escape.
Doctrine of liability without fault when one uses on his own lands something inherently
dangerous and likely to damage his neighbor's property.
In determining whether an exculpatory agreement is valid, there are four factors which a
court must consider:
 Claudia Piña Martínez

1) the existence of a duty to the public;

2) the nature of the service performed;
3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and
4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.
Holding:
We conclude that the exculpatory agreement was not void as a matter of public policy, and
that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact.
Analysis:
P ratified the contract, as a matter of law, by accepting the benefits of the contract when he
used Free Flight's facilities on October 19, 1974.
The contract between Jones and Free Flight affected the public interest. The service provided
by Free Flight was not a matter of practical necessity for even some members of the public;
because the service provided by Free Flight was not an essential service, it *378 did not
possess a decisive advantage of bargaining strength over Jones; and the contract was not an
adhesion contract.
Conclusion: The trial court properly granted a partial summary judgment on the simple
negligence issue and the court affirms the decision of the court of appeals.