## Facts

- Tricia Cahalane went to Skydive Cape Cod, Inc. (SCC) to make a tandem parachute jump and understood beforehand that the activity carried risks of serious injury or death.
- Before jumping, Cahalane signed several written documents stating that she assumed the risks of parachuting and agreed never to sue SCC or other involved parties; the documents also stated she had been adequately informed of the risks and was giving up important legal rights.
- The paperwork required extensive signatures/initials (described in later summaries as dozens of signature/initial locations), reinforcing that the releases were presented as formal contract terms.
- An SCC employee offered Cahalane the option to pay $750 to “buy” a release from the waivers. Cahalane declined. When she asked what the option meant, the employee told her it was “standard waiver language” and that nobody ever bought it.
- Cahalane completed the tandem jump with an instructor. Shortly before landing, the instructor performed a “hook turn,” a sharp turn (at least 180 degrees) used to increase speed; at the time, hook turns were not yet prohibited by the governing rules.
- Cahalane did not land in the seated position she said she had been instructed to use. Instead, she landed with her legs extended straight down and fractured both femurs.
- Cahalane sued SCC (and related defendants) for negligence, alleging that the waivers were unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. She also asserted separate claims for deceit and misrepresentation based on the employee’s statements about the waiver/buy-out option.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Cahalane’s pre-jump releases and covenants not to sue were enforceable to bar her negligence claims arising from the tandem jump.
2. Whether the waivers were unenforceable as unconscionable in light of the circumstances of signing, including the $750 buy-out option and the employee’s “standard waiver language” statement.
3. Whether Cahalane produced admissible evidence sufficient to create a triable issue on her deceit and misrepresentation claims.

## Decision

- The Superior Court allowed defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all counts.
- The court held that the signed waivers were enforceable in this voluntary recreational setting and barred Cahalane’s negligence claim.
- The court rejected Cahalane’s contention that the waivers were unconscionable and therefore void.
- The court entered summary judgment on deceit and misrepresentation because Cahalane did not submit admissible evidence sufficient to support those claims.

## Legal Principles

- Massachusetts generally enforces clear, unambiguous exculpatory agreements used in voluntary recreational activities to allocate the risk of injury and to bar ordinary negligence claims, absent recognized defenses such as fraud or duress.
- A participant’s written acknowledgment that she was informed of serious risks (including severe injury or death) and that she is relinquishing legal rights supports enforcement where the language is conspicuous and direct.
- Unconscionability requires more than a consumer’s limited ability to negotiate standard-form terms in a nonessential recreational transaction; courts examine both the manner of contracting and the fairness of the substance.
- A defendant moving for summary judgment is entitled to judgment where the plaintiff cannot point to record evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on an essential element of a claim.
- Claims of deceit or misrepresentation must be supported by admissible evidence of a false statement of material fact, reliance, and resulting harm; conclusory allegations or unsupported assertions are not enough to defeat summary judgment, especially where the written contract terms are explicit.

## Conclusion

In *Cahalane v. Skydive Cape Cod, Inc.*, the Superior Court enforced the skydiving releases Cahalane signed before her tandem jump, ruling that the waivers barred her negligence claim and were not unconscionable, and it granted summary judgment for defendants on her deceit and misrepresentation counts because she failed to present admissible evidence supporting those theories.


Cahalane v. Skydive Cape Cod, Inc., 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 474 (2016)