AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 4 litigation Background This case arose from the drowning death of Katie Janeway in a city swimming pool operated by the city of Santa Barbara in 2002. Janeway was developmentally disabled and was participating in the Adventure Camp program, which was specifically designed for developmentally disabled children. Katie's parent had signed a release that indemnified the city and held it harmless from all liability. After Katie's death, the Janeways sued the city for wrongful death. The city sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the Janeways waived their legal rights against the city by signing the release. The trial court declined to dismiss the lawsuit and Santa Barbara appealed to Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the release was effective as to the city's "ordinary negligence: but was not effective as to the city's "gross negligence: The Court of Appeal found that a jury could conclude from the facts that the city had been grossly negligent and that this led to Katie's drowning. The case was ordered to proceed to jury trial. Santa Barbara then appealed to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court began by defining .ordinary negligence" as a "failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm." In contrast, the court defined "gross negligence" as "a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct: The court emphasized that not all waivers of future liability for negligence were void. In this case, the court noted that the Court of Appeal held the liability waiver was effective to the extent it waived liability for the city's ordinary negligence. Instead, the California Supreme Court focused on whether the liability waiver was effective as to the city's gross negligence. The court concluded that an agreement purporting to release liability for future gross negligence violates public policy and is unenforceable. The League of California Cities encourages cities to consult with their city attorneys and risk managers regarding this case. The League thanks Don Margolis of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for writing the friend-of-the-court brief to the California Supreme Court on behalf of the League. Letters Needed in Support of a Temporary Extension of the Internet Tax. Moratorium With the temporary extension of the Internet Moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce set to expire on Nov. 1, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is set to re-examine the Issue. The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing to discuss the Internet Moratorium next week. The committee also plans to mark.up legislation on this issue during the week of July 30. Currently. no House version of the temporary extension of the Intemet Moratorium legislation has been introduced. although several permanent extension measures have. Take Actionl The League of California Cities is in support of a temporary extension and is asking Utility Users Tax (UUT) cities with Democratic members on the House Judloiary Committee to write their Congress member, urging them to introduce or co-sponsor legislation that would extend the Intemet Moratorium for another three years. A sample letter is located at www.cacities.ora/federslresources. 4