Sue Ann Apolinar hired a guide with the help of a tour company that was required to accompany her throughout her river rafting trip. Apolinar was aware of the risks and the release of Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC from liability for the risks and hazards. Nevertheless, her knowledge of the risks did not keep her safe, and Apolinar died. The plaintiff, her son Jesus Espinoza, Jr, filed suit in an appeals court to prove that the company should be held liable.
Arguments For
The Supreme Court relied on four factors that apply to agreements entered into by different parties. From these, arguments can be derived for holding that Arkansas Valley Adventures was not liable for Apolinar’s death. First and foremost, it must be recognized that the agreement signed by Apolinar does not conflict with the first two laws of Jones: the existence of an obligation to the public and the nature of the service rendered (Espinoza v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, 2016). The full awareness provided by the rafting company and the range of their services meets the tenets of the law and does not override public policy.
Second, the agreement also does not violate Jones’ third and fourth law: the fairness of the contract and its clarity and unambiguity. Here one must turn to how the service document was drafted. The statement states that “the document proceeded to offer a detailed picture of the sorts of problems that could be (and sadly were) encountered,” so one cannot say that Ms. Apolinar was unaware (Espinoza v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, 2016, 13). In addition, a separate document delineates all potential risks with detailed descriptions. Consequently, approaching the case only from a legal perspective and the relationship of public policy, no clear violation of Jones’ laws was found, so Arkansas Valley Adventures cannot be held liable.
Arguments Against
The peculiarities of the case and the specificity of the exemption situations make it impossible to fully agree that Arkansas Valley Adventures is not at fault. This is primarily due to whether the company’s definition of hazard classes is consistent with the actual situations that occur during the provision of services (Espinoza v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, 2016). Although the organization designates the risks in full, the terms of the oral agreement and any other negotiations do not appear in the case, so an act of fraud by the company could potentially be considered.
Second, consumer protection is violated in this case because entertainment products should not harm customers. The point to be made here again is that there may have been acts of misrepresentation on the part of Arkansas Valley Adventures that would have prevented Apolinar from making an informed decision about the dangers of rafting on the river. In addition, factors outside the legal system should be considered: whether the company’s disclaimer is relevant to its role in the community.
Court’s Decision
The court’s final judgment, which Jesus Espinoza, Jr. announced, is that Arkansas Valley Adventures should indeed be discharged from liability for Mrs. Apolinar’s death. The court’s decision is based on complete confidence in the Jones factors’ performance and considering that the plaintiff’s arguments are insufficient. Arguments of fraud, forgery, or incomplete notice are irrelevant because the execution company provided all of the statements that Apolinar signed (Espinoza v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, 2016). For my part, I agree with the ruling, as the weakness of Mr. Espinoza Jr.’s arguments suggests intentional defamation. While philosophically, the issue is complex and should be resolved in favor of the victim; there can be no legal support for such a decision.
Reference
Espinoza v. Arkansas Valley Adventures, LLC, 809 F.3d 1150. (10th Cir. 2016). Web.