INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

FORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLORADO
ChiefJudgeMarciaS.Krieger
CivilActionNo.13cv01421MSKBNB
JESUSESPINOZA,JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARKANSASVALLEYADVENTURES,LLC;
Defendant.
OPINIONANDORDERGRANTINGMOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT
THISMATTERcomesbeforetheCourtontheDefendantsMotionforSummary
Judgment(#17),thePlaintiffsResponse(#22),andtheDefendantsReply(#26).
I.
JURISDICTIONANDISSUESPRESENTED
SueAnnApolinardiedonawhitewaterraftingtripconductedbyDefendantArkansas
ValleyAdventures(AVA).ThisactionisbroughtbyMs.Apolinarsson,Jesus
Espinoza,who
assertsthreeclaimsrelatedtohismothersdeath:(1)negligent,careless,andimprudent
operationofaraftresultinginwrongfuldeath;(2)negligenceandnegligenceperse;and
(3)
fraudandmisrepresentation.
AVAmovesforsummaryjudgmentonallthreeclaims.Itseekstodismissany
survivorshipclaimpremisedonC.R.S.1320101forlackofcapacity.Inaddition,it
seeks
judgmentinitsfavoronallofPlaintiffsclaimsbasedonitsaffirmativedefensethatMs.
ApolinarreleasedAVAfromliabilityandassumedallriskspriortotheraftingtrip.The
Court
exercisesjurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.1332.TheissuesaregovernedbyColorado
law.
1

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage1of
15
Page 2
II.
MATERIALFACTS
Basedupontheevidencesubmittedbytheparties,whichtheCourtconstruesmost
favorablytothePlaintiff,thematerialfactsaresummarizedbelow.Whereappropriate,
the
Courtprovidesfurtherexplicationexplicationinconjunctionwithitsanalysis.
Mr.EspinozaisMs.Apolinarsson.Thereisnoevidenceofrecordthatanestatewas
createdfollowingMs.ApolinarsdeathorwhetherMr.Espinozaactsinafiduciary
capacityfor

suchestate.
AVAisariveroutfitterlicensedunderC.R.S.3332104.Itoffersanumberofriver
raftingtripsofvaryinglevelsofdifficulty.Amongthetripsitoffersis24Hoursin
Browns
Canyon,whichMs.ApolinarbookedbasedonherreviewofAVAswebsite.Shemade
reservationsforherself,hersignificantother,hergoddaughter,andMr.Espinoza
becauseit
lookedlikefunandwasappropriatefor[thegroups]levelofexperience.
Beforebeginningtheraftingtrip,AVArequireditsparticipantstoreviewandexecutea
documententitledRaftingWarning,AssumptionofRisk,andReleaseofLiability&
IndemnificationAgreement(Agreement).Ms.ApolinarsignedtheAgreementfor
herselfand
forherminorson,Mr.Espinoza,onJune7,2011beforebeginningthetrip.
Ontheseconddayofthetrip,theraftcarryingMs.Apolinarcapsizedwhilenavigatinga
rapidknownasSeidelsSuckHole.Ms.Apolinarwasejectedfromtheraft.An
AVAguidepulledherbackintotheraft,butitcapsizedandejectedMs.Apolinar,again.
Ms.
Apolinarwassweptintoalogjam,becameentangledwiththecollectionoftreelogsand
branches,andtragicallydrowned.
2

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage2of
15
Page 3
III.STANDARDOFREVIEW
Rule56oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurefacilitatestheentryofajudgmentonlyif
notrialisnecessary.SeeWhitev.YorkIntern.Corp.,45F.3d357,360(10thCir.1995).
Summaryadjudicationisauthorizedwhenthereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterial
factand
apartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).Substantivelaw
governs
whatfactsarematerialandwhatissuesmustbedetermined.Italsospecifiestheelements
that
mustbeprovedforagivenclaimordefense,setsthestandardofproof,andidentifiesthe
party
withtheburdenofproof.SeeAndersonv.LibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986);
KaiserFrancisOilCo.v.Producer'sGasCo.,870F.2d563,565(10thCir.1989).A
factual
disputeisgenuineandsummaryjudgmentisprecludediftheevidencepresentedin
supportof
andoppositiontothemotionissocontradictorythat,ifpresentedattrial,ajudgment
couldenter
foreitherparty.SeeAnderson,477U.S.at248.Whenconsideringasummaryjudgment

motion,acourtviewsallevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,
thereby
favoringtherighttoatrial.SeeGarrettv.HewlettPackardCo.,305F.3d1210,1213
(10thCir.
2002).
Ifthemovanthastheburdenofproofonaclaimordefense,themovantmustestablish
everyelementofitsclaimordefensebysufficient,competentevidence.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(A).Oncethemovingpartyhasmetitsburden,toavoidsummaryjudgmentthe
respondingpartymustpresentsufficient,competent,contradictoryevidencetoestablisha
genuinefactualdispute.SeeBacchusIndus.,Inc.v.ArvinIndus.,Inc.,939F.2d887,891
(10th
Cir.1991);Perryv.Woodward,199F.3d1126,1131(10thCir.1999).Ifthereisa
genuine
disputeastoamaterialfact,atrialisrequired.Ifthereisnogenuinedisputeastoany
material
3

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage3of
15
Page 4
fact,notrialisrequired.Thecourtthenappliesthelawtotheundisputedfactsandenters
judgment.
IV.
ANALYSIS
AVAsmotionraisesastraightforwardissueareMs.Espinozasclaimsbarredbythe
exculpatoryandreleaseprovisionsoftheAgreementexecutedbyMs.Apolinar.
However,
beforeaddressingthatquestion,AVAasksthattheCourtclarifythecapacityinwhich
Mr.
Espinozabringsthisaction.
A.
Capacity
Asnoted,Mr.EspinozaassertedthreeclaimsintheAmendedComplaint:(1)negligent,
careless,andimprudentoperationofaraftresultinginwrongfuldeath;(2)negligenceand
negligenceperse;and(3)fraudandmisrepresentation.Noneofthesearebroughtfor
injuriesto
Mr.Espinoza
1

,onlyforthedeathofhismother.
Coloradolawrecognizesthatclaimscanbebroughtonbehalfofadecedentintwo
differentcapacities.Thefirsttypeofclaimisbroughtinafiduciarycapacitybythe
personal
representativeoftheestateofthedeceasedperson.C.R.S.1320101.Claimsbrought
inthis

capacityareoftenreferredtoassurvivalclaims.Thepersonalrepresentativestandsin
the
decedentsshoesinordertoassertaclaimthatthedecedentcouldhaveassertedhadhe
orshe
beenalive.Thebeneficiaryofasurvivalclaimisthedecedentsestate.
Thesecondtypeofclaimisbroughtbythedecedentsheir.Knownasawrongfuldeath
claim,itiscreatedandlimitedbystatute.C.R.S.1321201etseq;seealsoEspinozav.
ODell,633P.2d455,462466(Colo.1981).Awrongfuldeathclaimdiffersfroma
claimthata
1

MuchofthepartiesargumentaddressesquestionsofMs.Apolinarscapacitytoexecute
the
Agreementforherson(thenaminor),Mr.Espinoza.TheCourtneednotaddressthis
debate
becauseMr.Espinozaisnotassertingclaimsforinjuriestohim.Heassertsclaimsforthe
death
ofhismother,whichgrowoutofwhatshecouldhaveassertedhadshesurvived,and
thereforeit
istheAgreementthatsheexecutedforherselfthatisatissue.
4

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage4of
15
Page 5
decedentcouldhaveassertedduringhisorherlifetime.Awrongfuldeathclaimarises
onlyupon
thedecedentsdeath,itaddresseswrongfulactsthatcausedthedeath,andtheamountof
recoveryislimitedbystatute.C.R.S.1321203;Fishv.Liley,208P.2d930,933
(1949);
ColoradoComp.Ins.Auth.v.Jorgensen,992P.2d1156,1164n.6(Colo.2000).To
provea
wrongfuldeathclaim,anheirmustestablishthat(1)thedeathofthedecedent;(2)was
causedby
awrongfulactand3)thatthedecedentwouldhavebeenabletomaintainanactionfor
injuries,
hadthepersonsurvived.Stampv.VailCorp.,172P.3d437,451(Colo.2007).A
wrongful
deathclaimissubjecttothesamelimitationsanddefensesthatwouldhaveappliedtothe
claim
hadthedecedentsurvivedandbroughttheclaim.Elginv.Bartlett,

994P.2d411,416
(Colo.1999);seealsoLeev.Colo.Dep'tofHealth,

718P.2d221,233
(Colo.1986)(comparative
negligenceofthedecedentwillreducetherecoveryavailableinawrongfuldeathaction
brought
bythedecedent'sheirs).

TheAmendedComplaintdoesnotclearlyidentifyinwhatcapacityMr.Espinozaasserts
theclaimsinthisaction,butintheabsenceoftherepresentationthataprobateestatehas
been
createdforMs.ApolinarandthatMr.Espinozaistheappointedexecutororpersonal
representative,theCourtassumesthathebringsthisactionforwrongfuldeathofhis
mother.
Thus,thethreeclaimsaremerelyalternatetheoriesofallegedwrongfulconductleading
to
wrongfuldeath.Withthatclarification,theCourtturnstoAVAsaffirmativedefense.
B.TheAgreement
AVAarguesthatitisentitledtojudgmentonMr.Espinozaswrongfuldeathclaim,
regardlessofthetheoryuponwhichitispremised,becauseMs.Apolinarcontractually
released
AVAfromanyclaimsandliabilityandassumedallrisksassociatedwithwhitewater
rafting.
5

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage5of
15
Page 6
TheseargumentsareinthenatureofaffirmativedefensesuponwhichAVAbearsthe
burdenof
proof.SeeSquiresexrel.Squiresv.Goodwin,829F.Supp2d1062,1071(D.Colo.
2011).
Thereisnodisputethatpriortotherafttrip,AVApresentedandMs.Apolinarexecuteda
twopageAgreementthatprovidesinpertinentpart:
2.RisksofActivity.TheUndersignedagreeandunderstandthattaking
partintheActivitycanbyHAZARDOUSANDINVOLVESTHERISKOF
PHYSICALINJURYAND/ORDEATH.TheUndersignedacknowledgethatthe
Activityisinherentlydangerousandfullyrealizethedangersofparticipatingin
theActivity.Therisksanddangersoftheactivityinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
choiceofraftingcourse,...choiceofoutfitter,negligenceofraftingorclimbing
orzipliningguides,changingweatherconditions,changingwaterconditions,
coldwaterimmersion,hiddenunderwaterobstacles,treesorotherabovewater
obstacles,...changingandunpredictablecurrents,drowning,exposure,
swimming,overturning,...entrapmentoffeetorotherbodypartsunderrocksor
otherobjects....THEUNDERSIGNEDACKNOWLEDGEAND
UNDERSTANDTHATTHEDESCRIPTIONOFTHERISKSLISTEDABOVE
ISNOTCOMPLETEANDTHATPARTICIPATINGINTHEACTIVITYMAY
BEDANGEROUSANDMAYINCLUDEOTHERRISKS.
3.Release,Indemnification,andAssumptionofRisk.Inconsideration
oftheParticipantbeingpermittedtoparticipateintheactivity,theUndersigned
agreeasfollows:
(a)Release.THEUNDERSIGNEDHEREBYIRREVOCABLYAND

UNCONDITIONALLYRELEASE,FOREVERDISCHARGE,ANDAGREE
NOTTOSUEORBRINGANYOTHERLEGALACTIONAGAINSTTHE
RELEASEDPARTIESwithrespecttoanyandallclaimsandcausesofactionof
anynaturewhethercurrentlyknownorunknown,whichtheUndersignedorany
ofthem,haveorwhichcouldbeassertedonbehalfoftheUndersignedin
connectionwiththeParticipantsparticipationintheActivity,including,butnot
limitedtoclaimsofnegligence,breachofwarranty,and/orbreachofcontract.
(b)Indemnification.TheUndersignedherebyagreetoindemnify,defend
andholdharmlesstheReleasedPartiesfromandagainstanyandallliability,cost,
expenseordamageofanykindornaturewhatsoeverandfromanysuits,claimsor
demandsincludinglegalfeesandexpenseswhetherornotinlitigation,arisingout
of,orrelatedto,ParticipantsparticipationintheActivity.Suchobligationonthe
partoftheUndersignedshallsurvivetheperiodoftheParticipantsparticipation
intheActivity.
(c)AssumptionofRisk.TheUndersignedagreeandunderstandthatthere
aredangersandrisksassociatedwithparticipationintheActivityandthat
INJURIESAND/ORDEATHmayresultfromparticipatingintheActivity,
including,butnotlimitedtotheacts,omissions,representations,carelessness,and
negligenceoftheReleasedParties.Bysigningthisdocument,theUndersigned
recognizethatpropertyloss,injuryanddeathareallpossiblewhileparticipating
6

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage6of
15
Page 7
intheActivity.RECOGNIZINGTHERISKSANDDANGERS,THE
UNDERSIGNEDUNDERSTANDTHENATUREOFTHEACTIVITYAND
VOLUNTARILYCHOOSEFORPARTICIPANTTOPARTICIPATEINAND
EXPRESSLYASSUMEALLRISKSANDDANGERSOFTHE
PARTICIPATIONINTHEACTIVITY,WHETHERORNOTDESCRIBED
ABOVE,KNOWNORUNKNOWN,INHERENT,OROTHERWISE.
Asnotedearlier,Mr.Espinozaswrongfuldeathclaimissubjecttothedefensesthat
couldhavebeenassertedagainstMs.Apolinar,hadshelivedandbroughttheclaim.The
issueis
whethertheexculpatoryprovisioninParagraph3(a)ortheassumptionofriskprovision
in
Paragraphs2and3(c)oftheAgreementwouldhavebarredMs.Apolinarsclaims.Ifso,
Mr.
Espinozaswrongfuldeathclaimissimilarlybarred.
TheCourtbeginswiththeexculpatoryprovisionoftheAgreement.Coloradolawfavors
enforcementofcontracts,butexculpatoryprovisionsthatshieldonepartyfromitsfuture
negligencemustbecarefullyscrutinized.
2

Whetheranexculpatoryprovisionisenforceableisa

questionoflaw.Inordertodeterminewhetheranexculpatoryclauseisenforceable,
courts
evaluatethefourJonesfactors
3

:(1)theexistenceofadutytothepublic;(2)thenatureofthe
serviceperformed;(3)whetherthecontractwasfairlyenteredinto;and(4)whetherthe
intention
ofthepartiesisexpressedinclearandunambiguouslanguage.
1.DutytothePublic
Thisfactorfocusesonwhetherthepartyseekingtoenforcethecontract(here,AVA)
providedsuchanecessaryandimportantservicetothepublicthatthereleasingparty
(Ms.
2

Indeed,therearesometypesofconductforwhichexculpatoryclausesarenever
enforceable.
Forexample,theycannotbeusedasashieldagainstaclaimforwillfulandwonton
negligence.
See,e.g.,Chadwickv.ColtRossOutfitters,Inc.,100P.3d465,467(Colo.2004);Jonesv.
Dressel,623P.2d370,376(Colo.1981);Barkerv.ColoradoRegion,532P.2d372
(1974).
3

ThesecomefromJonesv.Dressel,623P.2d370,376(Colo.1981).Although
colloquially
referredtoasfactors,theyreallyarenottreatedassuchtheyarenotweighed,
comparedor
tallied.Instead,theymightbebetterunderstoodassituationsinwhichanexculpatory
clause
shouldnotbeenforced.
7

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage7of
15
Page 8
Apolinar)couldnotreasonablybeexpectedtorefusetheserviceinordertoavoidthe
exculpatoryprovision.DrawingfromTunklv.RegentsofUniversityofCalifornia,383
P.2d
441,444(1963),Coloradolawrecognizesthatwhenaservicehasgreatimportancetothe
public
anditisamatterofpracticalnecessitytosomemembersofthepublic,thentheprovider
ofthe
servicehasunduebargainingpowerinsettingthetermsofthecontract.Insuchcase,an
exculpatoryagreementmaybevoidasanadhesioncontract.SeeJones,623P.2dat
376;Potter
v.Nat'lHandicappedSports,849F.Supp.1407,1409(D.Colo.1994).
Bytheirnature,recreationalactivitiesgenerallyarenotconsiderednecessarypublic

services.Instead,participationintheseactivitiesisoptional.See,e.g.,Chadwick,100
P.3dat
467;Mincingv.VailHoldings,Inc.,308F.3d1105,1110(10thCir.2002);Potter,849F.
Supp.
at1409.Indeed,atleastonecourthasspecificallyfoundthatwhitewaterraftingactivities
are
notnecessarypublicservices.SeeLaheyv.Covington,964F.Supp.1440,1445(D.Colo
1996).
Mr.Espinozadoesnotdisputethisauthority.Instead,hearguesthatbecausewhitewater
raftingisregulatedbyColoradostatute,ithasapublicaspect
4

,andthatenforcementofthe
exculpatoryclauseintheAgreementwouldfrustratethepurposesofregulation.Mr.
Espinozais
quitecorrectthatwhitewaterraftingenterprisesareregulatedundertheColoradoRiver
OutfittersAct(CROA),C.R.S.3332101etseq.CROAmakesitunlawfulanyriver
outfitter,guide,tripleader,orguideinstructorto(i)violateCROAssafetyequipment
provisions;(ii)operateavesselinacarelessorimprudentmannerwithoutdueregardfor
river
conditionsorotherattendingcircumstances,orinsuchamannerastoendangerany
person,
property,orwildlife;or(iii)operateavesselwithwantonorwillfuldisregardforthe
safetyof
4Presumably,thisargumentisbasedonasentencefoundinTunklsexplanationofthe
typesof
servicesthatmightcreatepublicduties:Itconcernsabusinessofatypegenerally
thought
suitableforpublicregulation.Tunkl,383P2dat444.
8

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage8of
15
Page 9
personsorproperty.AnoutfitterorguidethatdoesnotcomplywithCROAssafety
obligations
commitsamisdemeanor.3332107.
Theregulationofwhitewaterraftingenterprises,however,doesnotchangethenatureof
theservicethatAVAprovides.Whitewaterraftingisapurelyrecreationalactivity,as
compared
toanessentialornecessaryone.Therafterisfreetodeclinetheserviceiftherafteris
unwilling
toacceptthetermsoftheexculpatoryclause.Indeed,sinceCROAwasenacted,several
courts
haveenforcedexculpatoryagreementsprotectingwhitewaterraftingoperators.See
Lahey,964

F.Supp.at1446;Formanv.Brown,944P2d559,56364(Colo.App.1996).
Furthermore,enforcementoftheexculpatoryprovisiondoesnotlogicallyorpractically
haveanyimpactonregulationunderCROA.ThereisColoradoauthoritythatrecognizes
that
whenastatutedefinesthescopeofcivilliability,individualscannotcontractaroundit;
however,
suchauthorityisnotinstructivehere.
InStanleyv.CreightonCo.,911P.2d705,708(Colo.App.1996),theColoradoCourtof
AppealscomparedtheprovisionoftheColoradoPremisesLiabilityActthatmadea
landowner
liabletoinviteesfordamagescausedbythelandownersunreasonablefailureto
exercise
reasonablecaretoprotectagainstdangersofwhichheactuallykneworshouldhave
known
5

withconflictingexculpatorylanguageinalease,Lessorshallnotberesponsibleforany
damage
orinjurysaidLesseemaysustainfromanycausewhatsoeverunlessinjuryisadirect
resultof
theLessorsgrossnegligence.TheCourtcharacterizedtheissueofthevalidityofthe
leases
exculpatoryclauseasimplicatingcompetingprinciples:freedomofcontractand
responsibility
fordamagescausedbyone'sownnegligentacts.Stanley,at706(citingHailValley
Ranch,Inc.
5

C.R.S.1321115(3)(c)(I).
9

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage9of
15
Page 10
v.Simkin,784P.2d781(Colo.1989)).Ultimately,itheldthatwheretheGeneral
Assemblyhas
expresseditsintentinanareaofclearpublicpolicy,acontracttothecontraryisinvalid.
However,theStanleytypesituationisnotpresenthere.CROAdoesnotaddressthe
scopeofcivilliabilityofraftingoperators.
6

Rather,itprovidesforthecreationofsafety
standardsthatareenforceablebycriminalpenalty.SeeC.R.S.3332107,108.Ifthe
exculpatoryprovisionoftheAgreementweretobarMr.Espinozaswrongfuldeath
claim,
ColoradoneverthelesscouldimplementitspublicpolicyunderCROAbyprosecuting
and
punishingAWAundertheCROAsafetystandards.Infact,therecordreflectsthatCROA

enforcementoccurredinthiscase.TheColoradoStateParks(CSP)conductedan
investigation,
andfoundthatallrequiredsafetyequipmentwasonthetrip,allequipmenttowasin
serviceable
condition,andalloftheguideswerequalifiedasrequiredbyColoradolaw.CSP
concludedthat
otherthanfilingalatewrittenreportthattherewere[n]ootherviolationsofColorado
law.
Becauseraftingisnotanecessary,publicserviceanditsregulationisunaffectedbythe
termsoftheexculpatoryprovision,thisfactordoesnotcompeladeterminationof
unenforceability.
6

Inthisrespect,CROAdiffersfromthestatutoryschemesinotherstatescitedbyMr.
Espinoza
inhisResponsetotheMotionforSummaryJudgmentbecausethosestatutesestablishthe
limits
oncivilliabilityforrecreationaloutfitters,ratherthanapublicrightenforcedthrough
criminal
penalties.SeeW.Va.CodeAnn.203B5(West)(Nolicensedcommercialwhitewater
outfitterorcommercialwhitewaterguideactinginthecourseofhisemploymentisliable
toa
participantfordamagesorinjuriestosuchparticipantunlesssuchdamageorinjurywas
directly
causedbyfailureofthecommercialwhitewateroutfitterorcommercialwhitewaterguide
to
complywithdutiesplacedonhimby[statuteorrule].);IdahoCodeAnn.61206
(West)(No
licensedoutfitterorguideactinginthecourseofhisemploymentshallbeliabletoa
participant
fordamagesorinjuriestosuchparticipantunlesssuchdamageorinjurywasdirectlyor
proximatelycausedbyfailureoftheoutfitterorguidetocomplywiththedutiesplaced
onhim
by[statuteorrule].).
10

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage10
of15
Page 11
2.NatureofServicePerformed
Somewhatduplicativeofthefirstfactor,thesecondconcernsthenatureoftheservice
thatwasperformed.Anexculpatoryprovisioncanbeinvalidatedwhentheactivitycan
be
describedasanessentialservice.SeeLahey,964F.Supp.at1445.Thepartiesagreethat
white

waterraftingisnotanessentialservice.Thus,thisfactordoesnotinvalidatethe
exculpatory
provisionintheAgreement.
3.WhethertheAgreementwasFairlyEnteredInto
Thethirdfactorfocusesonwhetherthepartybenefittedbytheexculpatoryclause
overreachedthereleasingparty.Coloradolawspecifiesthatacontractisfairlyentered
intoif
neitherpartyissoobviouslydisadvantagedwithrespecttobargainingpowerthathe/she
is
placedatthemercyoftheotherparty'snegligence.Hamillv.CheleyColoradoCamps,
Inc.,
262P.3d945,949(Colo.App.2011).Simplybecauseacontractisonaprintedformand
is
offeredonatakeitorleaveitbasisdoesnotnecessarilymakeitunfair,especially
when
similarservicescanbeobtainedbyanotherprovider.SeeJones,623P.2dat375;Mincin,
308
F.3dat1111;Hamill,262P.3dat949.Analysiswithregardtothisfactorturnsonthe
particular
factssurroundingtheexecutionoftheAgreement.
Mr.EspinozaarguesthatAVAdefraudedMs.Apolinaratthetimesheselectedand
reservedseatsfortheraftingtrip.Hecontendsthatonitswebsite,AVAmisrepresented
thatthe
tripwasforbeginnersandwassafeforfamiliesonitswebsite.Inparticular,hecontends
that
AVArepresentedthatthistripincludednorapidsratedhigherthanClassIIIrapids,when
in
realityonerapidknownasSeidelsSuckHolewasaClassIVrapid.Hestatesthathad
Ms.
ApolinarknownthatSeidelsSuckHolewasaClassIVrapid,shewouldnothave
selectedthe
particularraftingtrip,participatedinthetriporsignedtheAgreement.
11

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage11
of15
Page 12
TheCourtrecognizesthatthereisagenuinedisputeastothedifficultylevelofSeidels
SuckHoleandassumesthatitwasaClassIVrapidforpurposesofthismotion.The
Court
furtherassumesthatAVAdidnotdisclosetheseverityoftherapidtoMs.Apolinaronits
websiteorlaterwhenMs.ApolinarsignedtheAgreement.Thenatureoftheomitted
information(severityoftherapid)arguablywasmaterialtoquestionsofriskofinjuryor
death.

Evenifviewedasmisrepresentationbyomission(failuretodiscloseSeidelsSuckHole
asa
classIVrapid)orfalserepresentation(thatSeidelsSuckHolewasaClassIIIrapid),
thereisno
evidencethatsuggeststhatMs.Apolinarreliedonsuchdesignationinexecutingthe
Agreement.
ThechronologyofeventsshowstwoindependentdecisionsbyMs.Apolinar.She
viewedthewebsiteandbookedthetriponlinebeforetravelingtoColorado.But,Ms.
Apolinar
executedtheAgreementaftershearrivedinColoradobeforethetripbegan.Thereisno
evidenceintherecordaddressingthemannerinwhichtheAgreementwaspresentedto
Ms.
ApolinaroranyrepresentationsmadetoherbyAVAbeforeoratthetimeofits
execution.
Thereisnoevidence,forexample,thatanAVAemployeetoldMs.Apolinarthatthe
Agreement
orreleaselanguagewasnotimportant,wasnotaccurate,wouldnotbeenforced,ordid
notmean
whatitsaid.
TurningtotheAgreement,itbothappliedtoallraftingtrips(notjusttheoneMs.
Apolinarhadchosen)anditdescribedtherisksinthecontextsofallraftingactivity.It
characterizesallraftingactivityasHAZARDOUSANDINVOLVESTHERISKOF
PHYSICALINJURYAND/ORDEATHanditstatesthatthereareparticularrisksand
dangers
thatcannotbeanticipatedincludingchangingwaterconditions,obstacles,currents,etc.In
capitalizedprint,itstatesthatTHEUNDERSIGNEDACKNOWLEDGEAND
UNDERSTANDTHATTHEDESCRIPTIONOFTHERISKSLISTEDABOVEIS
NOT
12

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage12
of15
Page 13
COMPLETEANDTHATPARTICIPATINGINTHEACTIVITYMAYBE
DANGEROUS
ANDMAYINCLUDEOTHERRISKS.Italsocontainsanintegrationandmerger
clause.
Paragraph(6)(c)statesthattheAgreementsrepresentationssupersedepriorcontracts,
arrangements,communicationsorrepresentations,whetheroralorwritten,betweenthe
parties
relatingtothesubjectmatterhereof.
AssumingthatAVAswebsiteportrayed,andMs.Apolinarbelieved,thattheraftingtrip
shebookedwassafeforfamiliesbeforeparticipating,shewaspresentedwithan
Agreementthat

containedcomprehensive,evendire,descriptionsoftherisksshewasundertaking.There
isno
evidencethatMs.Apolinarreliedonthewebsiteinformationinlieuoftherisksoutlined
inthe
AgreementatthetimeshesignedtheAgreement,noranyevidencethatshewasmisledor
overreachedbyAVAemployees.Facedwithstarkrepresentationsofriskinthe
Agreement,
Ms.Apolinarcouldhavecancelledherreservationanddeclinedtoparticipateinthe
raftingtrip.
Thus,theCourtfindsthatMs.ApolinarfairlyenteredintotheAgreement.Onthisrecord,
the
Courtcannotfindthatshewaseitheroverreachedordefrauded.SeeSquiresv.
Breckenridge
OutdoorEduc.Ctr.,715F.3d867,879(10thCir.2013)(Plaintiffhasfailedtoprovide
any
evidencethat[hermother]reliedonthismisrepresentationindecidingtosignthe
Release.).
4.WhethertheAgreementisClearandUnambiguous
ThefinalJonesfactoraskswhethertheexculpatoryprovisionwasclearand
unambiguous.Toevaluatethisfactor,acourtexamine[s]theactuallanguageofthe
agreement
forlegaljargon,lengthandcomplication,andanylikelihoodofconfusionorfailureofa
partyto
recognizethefullextentofthereleaseprovisions.SeeChadwick,100P.3dat467.
Mr.EspinozaarguesthatAgreementisnotclearandunambiguousbecauseitisbroad,
undulylong,andobscuresthekeyterms.TheCourtdisagrees.
13

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage13
of15
Page 14
First,atlessthantwopages,theAgreementisnotinordinatelylongorcomplicated.
SeeBrooksv.TimberlineTours,Inc.,127F.3d1273,1275(10thCir.1997);Lahey,964
F.Supp.
at1445(concludingthatareleaseagreementofjustoveronepagewasshort).
Second,theAgreementrepeatedlyandclearlystatesthatthesignorisreleasingAVA
fromliability.ThetitleofthedocumentisRAFTINGWARNING,ASSUMPTIONOF
RISK,
RELEASEOFLIABILITYANDINDEMNIFICATIONAGREEMENT.Thisis
immediately
followedbyadirective,PLEASEREADCAREFULLYBEFORESIGNING.THISIS
A
RELEASEOFLIABILITY&WAIVEROFLEGALRIGHTS.
ThebodyoftheAgreementcontainssixmainparagraphstitledinboldfaceprint.For

example:2.RisksofActivityand3.Release,IndemnificationandAssumptionof
Risk.
Keyportionsareprintedinallcapitalletters.Forexample,theReleaseclauseindicates
the
signorsagreementtoTHEUNDERSIGNEDHEREBYIRREVOCABLYAND
UNCONDITIONALLYRELEASE,FOREVERDISCHARGE,ANDAGREENOTTO
SUE
ORBRINGANYOTHERLEGALACTIONAGAINSTTHERELEASEDPARTIES
with
respecttoanyandallclaimsandcausesofactionofanynaturewhethercurrentlyknown
or
unknown,whichtheundersignedofanyofthemhaveorwhichcouldbeassertedon
behalfofthe
UndersignedinconnectionwiththeParticipantsparticipationintheActivity.Thereis
nolegal
jargonthatimpairsthemeaningofthisorotherprovisions.
Third,theAgreementclearlyexpressesintentforthereleasetoapplytoclaimsbasedon
injuryordeathresultingfromwhitewaterrafter,includingthetypeofcircumstancesthat
ledto
Ms.Apolinarsdeath.Itexpresslystatesthereisariskofphysicalinjuryordeathand
lists
specificriskssuchastreesorotherabovewaterobstacles,drowning,overturning,and
entrapmentoffeetorotherbodypartsunderrocksorotherobjects.TheCourtfinds
thatthe
14

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage14
of15
Page 15
AgreementclearlyandunambiguouslyarticulatestheintentofthepartiestoreleaseAVA
from
allliabilityresultingfromMs.Apolinarsparticipationintheraftingtrip.
Asexplainedabove,noneoftheJonesfactorscompelsafindingthattheAgreements
exculpatoryclauseisinvalid.Thus,asamatteroflaw,theexculpatoryclausewouldhave
barred
claimsforinjurytoMs.Apolinar,hadshesurvived.Similarly,itbarswrongfuldeath
claimsby
Mr.Espinozaasherheir.C.R.S.1321202;seealsoRowanv.VailHoldings,Inc.,31
F.Supp.2d889,895(D.Colo.1998)(Coloradocourtsinterpretingthestatutehold,
consistent
withtheplainlanguageofthestatute,thattherighttobringawrongfuldeathclaimis
dependent
onthedecedentsabilitytohavebroughttheclaim.).Becausethisactionisbarred,itis
not

necessarytoaddressthepartiesargumentsastotheAgreementsassumptionofrisk
provisions.
Asamatteroflaw,AVAisentitledtodismissalofallclaimswithprejudice.
ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatAVAsMotionforSummaryJudgment(#17)is
GRANTED.AVAisentitledtojudgmentonitsaffirmativedefenseasagainstallclaims
ofthe
Plaintiff.TheClerkshallenterjudgmentinfavoroftheDefendantandagainstthe
Plaintiffon
allclaimsandclosethiscase.
Datedthis26thdayofSeptember,2014.
BYTHECOURT:
MarciaS.Krieger
ChiefUnitedStatesDistrictJudge
15

Case1:13cv01421MSKBNBDocument29Filed09/26/14USDCColoradoPage15
of15