Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An exculpatory clause is generally only enforceable if it does not conflict with existing public policy. [2] The two other prerequisites for an exculpatory clause to be valid are that the contract must pertain to the involved parties' private affairs, and each of the involved parties must be free bargaining agents to the contract in question ...
When the right to hold a person liable through a lawsuit is waived, the waiver may be called an exculpatory clause, liability waiver, legal release, or hold harmless clause. In some cases, parties may sign a "non-waiver" contract which specifies that no rights are waived, particularly if a person's actions may suggest that rights are being waived.
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. [1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence , which tends to present guilt.
In American tort law, the Baseball Rule [1] is an exculpatory clause applicable to baseball games with spectators; it holds that a baseball team or its sponsoring organization cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by a spectator struck by a foul ball batted into the stands, under most circumstances, as long as the team has offered some ...
An exculpatory clause is an express assumption of the risk. Implied assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff's conduct demonstrates that the plaintiff knew of the risk and proceeded anyway. [8] If the implied assumption of risk is eligible for the primary assumption-of-risk defense, the defendant has no liability.
Specifically, California courts had a history of holding exculpatory liability waivers within contracts to be valid only if they did not involve the "public interest." This case history arose in relation to Cal. Civ. Code §1668, a statute that states "All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from ...
Exculpation is a related concept which reduces or extinguishes a person's culpability, such as their liability to pay compensation to the victim of a tort in the civil law. The excuse provides a mitigating factor for a group of persons sharing a common characteristic. Justification, as in justifiable homicide, vindicates or shows the justice.
Smith v. Van Gorkom 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985) [1] is a United States corporate law case of the Delaware Supreme Court, discussing a director's duty of care.It is often called the "Trans Union case".