## Facts

- Christine McCune participated in a paintball match at an indoor shooting range that offered paintball games and rented protective equipment, including face masks.
- McCune used a face mask provided by the facility.
- Before playing, McCune signed a written waiver releasing the facility from liability for known or unknown dangers for any reason, except gross negligence.
- During play, McCune experienced that the mask was loose and ill-fitting; she sought adjustment or replacement several times, and an employee attempted to fit the mask.
- While playing, McCune caught the mask on a tree branch that was obscured by the top of the mask; the snag lifted the loose mask off her face.
- With the mask displaced, a paintball struck McCune in the eye, leaving her legally blind in that eye.
- McCune sued the facility alleging negligence and strict liability based on failure to properly fit the mask and protect her during play.
- The facility asserted the waiver as a complete bar and also argued McCune’s comparative negligence barred recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether the signed waiver was an enforceable exculpatory agreement that barred McCune’s negligence and strict-liability claims for injuries arising from paintball play.
2. Whether enforcing the waiver violated public policy, particularly given its express exception for gross negligence.
3. Whether McCune’s comparative negligence was so great that recovery was barred as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the facility.
- The court held the waiver was unambiguous and constituted express assumption of risk that released the facility from liability for ordinary negligence connected to the paintball activity.
- The court held enforcement did not violate public policy because the waiver did not purport to release gross negligence, and McCune did not plead gross negligence.
- The court further held McCune’s comparative negligence was “overwhelming,” providing an independent basis to bar recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory agreements in recreational settings are enforceable when clearly drafted and voluntarily executed, and they may bar claims based on ordinary negligence.
- A waiver that expressly preserves claims for gross negligence is less likely to be void on public-policy grounds; if gross negligence is not pleaded, ordinary-negligence claims remain within the waiver’s scope.
- A written release can operate as express assumption of risk, barring recovery for risks covered by the agreement.
- Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff whose fault exceeds the defendant’s may be barred from recovery as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a clearly worded recreational waiver as an express assumption of risk barring negligence and strict-liability claims arising from paintball play, and it also affirmed that McCune’s overwhelming comparative negligence independently precluded recovery.


McCune v. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range, Inc., 364 S.C. 242, 612 S.E.2d 462 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)