Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clause & Effect <b>Contestant Releases/Physical Injury Claims
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that a contestant on the TV game show “Wheel of Fortune” was barred by a release he signed from pursuing a negligent conduct claim against the show's producer over alleged injuries he sustained during taping. But the court also ruled that the contestant could proceed with his claims of reckless or intentional conduct. Wright v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., 03-2083 (JDB). Will Wright was the winning contestant on a “Wheel of Fortune” segment taped in Washington, DC. In the contestant release form he signed, Wright acknowledged that he waived the right to bring any claims arising from “participation on the program or from use of any prize.” The release also stated in capital letters:
“I AGREE THAT I WILL NOT BRING OR BE A PARTY TO ANY LEGAL ACTION OR CLAIM AGAINST THE RELEASED PARTIES, BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION ON THE PROGRAM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE PROGRAM, OR ANY EXPLOITATION OF THE PROGRAM, ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERSONAL INJURY …)”
Wright claimed that when show host Pat Sajak approached to congratulate him on winning the show segment, instead of shaking Wright's hand, Sajak “jumped on” Wright, wrapped his arms and legs around him and “kind of like bounced.” The district court first found that District of Columbia law should apply to the suit Wright filed, even though he lived in Virginia, because the contestant release form was “negotiated, signed, and substantially performed” in DC, and because Wright's tort claims arose in DC. The court went on to note that for Wright's negligent conduct claim, “there is no public policy prohibition on enforcing prospective liability waivers. … [T]he Contestant Release Form … is unambiguous and clear so that plaintiff would understand he was waiving his right to bring a claim for personal injuries suffered as a result of his participation as a contestant on Wheel of Fortune.” However, the court also concluded: “[Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 195(1)] articulates a public policy that prohibits enforcement of prospective liability waivers for recklessly or intentionally caused harms. Under that principle, plaintiff's claims of negligence and infliction of emotional distress, to the extent they allege (and plaintiff ultimately proves) reckless or intentional conduct, cannot be waived by the Contestant Release Form signed by plaintiff.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that a contestant on the TV game show “Wheel of Fortune” was barred by a release he signed from pursuing a negligent conduct claim against the show's producer over alleged injuries he sustained during taping. But the court also ruled that the contestant could proceed with his claims of reckless or intentional conduct. Wright v.
“I AGREE THAT I WILL NOT BRING OR BE A PARTY TO ANY LEGAL ACTION OR CLAIM AGAINST THE RELEASED PARTIES, BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION ON THE PROGRAM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE PROGRAM, OR ANY EXPLOITATION OF THE PROGRAM, ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERSONAL INJURY …)”
Wright claimed that when show host Pat Sajak approached to congratulate him on winning the show segment, instead of shaking Wright's hand, Sajak “jumped on” Wright, wrapped his arms and legs around him and “kind of like bounced.” The district court first found that District of Columbia law should apply to the suit Wright filed, even though he lived in
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?