DIANA GOHL V ANDERSON SALES AND SERVICE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DIANA GOHL,
UNPUBLISHED
July 5, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V
ANDERSON
SALES
AND
SERVICE,
MOTORCYCLE
SAFETY
FOUNDATION,
STEVE BROOK and BILL KRAUS,
No. 228062
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-016229-NI
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Saad and E. M. Thomas,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants’ motions for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen
v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000). A motion brought under MCR
2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court must
consider not only the pleadings, but also depositions, affidavits, admissions and other
documentary evidence, MCR 2.116(G)(5), and must give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to
the nonmoving party, being liberal in finding a genuine issue of material fact. Summary
disposition is appropriate only if the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence
establishing the existence of a material factual dispute. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich
446, 455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
It is not contrary to public policy for a party to contract against liability for damages
caused by its own negligence. Skotak v Vic Tanny Int’l, Inc, 203 Mich App 616, 617-618; 513
NW2d 428 (1994). “When a release is challenged, the party seeking to avoid the release must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the release should be set aside.” Binard v
Carrington, 163 Mich App 599, 603; 414 NW2d 900 (1987). A release must be supported by
consideration, i.e., a legal detriment which induced the plaintiff’s promise to release the
defendant from liability, which promise in turn induced the defendant to suffer the detriment.
Paterek v 6600 Ltd, 186 Mich App 445, 451; 465 NW2d 342 (1990).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained when an allegedly defective motorcycle
provided by defendants stalled and fell over during a training course. Prior to starting the course,
plaintiff signed a release/waiver/indemnification agreement, the clear and unambiguous language
of which released defendants from liability for plaintiff’s injuries. Batshon v Mar-Que Gen’l
Contractors, Inc, 463 Mich 646, 649 n 4; 624 NW2d 903 (2001). There is no dispute that
plaintiff knew the nature of the document and voluntarily signed it, Skotak, supra, and the fact
that she may not have read it before she signed it does not preclude its enforcement.
Dombrowski v City of Omer, 199 Mich App 705, 710-712; 502 NW2d 707 (1993); Paterek,
supra at 450. We reject plaintiff’s claim that the release was invalid for lack of consideration;
plaintiff signed the agreement before she was allowed to participate in the course. Paterek,
supra at 451.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Edward M. Thomas
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
