▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court reversed the dismissal. It found the contract's language did not clearly and unmistakably say UBM Holdings was excused from its own negligence. The words were too general. The court also found UBM Holdings did not prove it lacked notice of the hole. UBM's evidence only described general inspection routines. It gave no details about when someone actually checked that specific area before Vella's fall. Because of these gaps, the case was allowed to move forward again.
Dolores Vella ran a business that rented booth space at a trade show at the Jacob Javits Center. The rental agreement said her business took on 'all risk' for injuries at the show and agreed to protect UBM Holdings, the show's organizer, from claims. The day before the show opened, Vella tripped on a hole in plastic sheeting covering the carpet. She sued UBM Holdings for her injuries. UBM asked the court to dismiss the case. UBM argued the contract removed its duty of care, and also said it didn't create the hole or know about it. A lower court agreed and dismissed Vella's case. Vella appealed.
Two questions came up. First, did the contract language clearly free UBM Holdings from responsibility for its own negligence? Second, did UBM Holdings prove it had no advance warning of the dangerous hole in the plastic covering? A company must show it didn't know, or couldn't have known, about a hazard before asking a court to end a case early.
This case shows that liability waivers must use very clear language to protect a business from negligence claims. It also confirms that vague references to 'regular inspections' aren't enough. Property owners need specific evidence about when an area was actually checked before an accident happened.
Talk to a licensed personal injury lawyer in New York.