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 ...
The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). [5] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant. [6]
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.
A release from future negligence liability imposed as a condition for entry to a charitable hospital is invalid as a matter of public policy, under Cal. Civ Code §1668, which prohibits exempting a person from fraud, willful injury, or violation of law in contexts that affect the public interest. Court membership; Chief Justice: Phil S. Gibson
Courts often refuse to enforce a general liability waiver if it fails to inform the signer of the specific risk that caused the injury. [9] Additionally, even express assumption of risk cannot absolve a defendant of liability for reckless conduct (only negligent conduct). [10] An exculpatory clause is an express assumption of the risk.
A subsequent remedial measure is an improvement, repair, or safety measure made after an injury has occurred. FRE 407 [dead link ] prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show defendant's (1) negligence; (2) culpable conduct; (3) a defect in defendant's product; (4) defect in the design of defendant's product; or (5) the need for a warning or instruction.
United States (312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 444) is a 1963 United States Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) court case which has become known as the Christian Doctrine. The case held that standard clauses established by regulations may be considered as being in every Federal contract.
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.