## Facts

- Jacqueline Ervin entered Hosanna Ministry, Inc.’s residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in December 1992.
- As a condition of admission, Hosanna allegedly required Ervin to sign a “general waiver” (general release) that purported to release Hosanna from liability for any claims.
- The waiver stated that Ervin executed it freely and with full comprehension on January 17, 1993.
- While residing at Hosanna, Ervin allegedly suffered injuries after a fall that she attributed to Hosanna’s failure to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
- Jacqueline Ervin and Curtis Ervin sued Hosanna in Connecticut state court, alleging negligence based on unsafe premises conditions and seeking damages (including derivative damages claimed by Curtis Ervin).
- Hosanna moved for summary judgment, arguing the general waiver barred the lawsuit.
- In opposing summary judgment, the Ervins submitted Jacqueline Ervin’s affidavit asserting that, when she entered Hosanna and at the time she purportedly signed the waiver, she was addicted to and under the influence of cocaine and alcohol.
- Ervin stated she had no recollection of signing the waiver because of her substance use and claimed that, if sober, she would not have agreed to the waiver’s terms.
- Ervin also asserted that the waiver contained fraudulent misrepresentations, which she contended further undermined its enforceability.

## Issues

1. Whether the general waiver barred the Ervins’ negligence claims as a matter of law on summary judgment when the plaintiff produced evidence that she was intoxicated and unable to comprehend the waiver at the time of signing.
2. Whether the record presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding Ervin’s capacity to execute the waiver and the validity of her assent, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The court denied Hosanna’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court determined that Ervin’s affidavit and related circumstances created genuine issues of material fact about whether she had the capacity to understand the waiver and whether her execution of it was knowing and voluntary.
- Because the waiver’s enforceability depended on disputed facts (including Ervin’s condition at the time of signing), the court held the case could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
- A contract or release may be voidable if, at the time of execution, the signer was so intoxicated by alcohol or drugs that she lacked the ability to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction.
- The party seeking to avoid a contract or release based on intoxication bears the burden to produce evidence of incapacity at the time of execution.
- Capacity and voluntary assent commonly present fact questions; when the nonmovant offers evidence calling capacity into question, the enforceability of a release is ordinarily for the factfinder rather than for resolution on summary judgment.
- Contractual recitals that a waiver was signed “freely” and “with full comprehension” are not dispositive if the opposing party produces evidence that could support a finding of diminished capacity or lack of meaningful assent.

## Conclusion

The court denied summary judgment because the general waiver’s validity turned on disputed factual questions about Jacqueline Ervin’s condition and ability to comprehend the waiver when she allegedly signed it, so the release could not be enforced to bar the negligence action as a matter of law on the summary-judgment record.


Ervin v. Hosanna Ministry, Inc., 1995 WL 681532 (1995) (Unpublished)