1.  What statute will govern William Winston's case?  What does this statute say (in your own words)?

 

2.  In reviewing relevant case law interpreting this statute, what factors do the courts consider when assessing whether a facility is "recreational"?

 

3.  Do you think our client should win this case?  Why or why not?  What missing facts do you need in order to more accurately determine what the court might decide in our client's case?

 

 Agreements  exempting  pools,  gymnasiums,  places  of public  amusement or recreation and similar establishments  from  liability  for  negligence   void   and  unenforceable.  Every  covenant,  agreement  or  understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any  contract,  membership  application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered  into between the owner or operator of  any  pool,  gymnasium,  place  of  amusement  or  recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such  facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a  fee  or  other  compensation  for  the  use of such facilities, which exempts the  said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting  from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge  of  such  establishment,  or  their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed  to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.