P.3d at 633, which involved a similarly worded release. In Moore, the plaintiff signed a release before beginning an ATV instruction class. After noting that the release did not contain the word negligence, the court observed that the release’s “opening sentences refer only to unavoidable and inherent risks of ATV riding, and nothing in its ensuing language suggests an intent to release [the defendants] from liability for acts of negligence unrelated to those inherent risks.” 36 P.3d at 633. The court concluded that the plaintiff released the defendants “only from liability arising from the inherent risks of ATV riding and ordinary negligence associated with those inherent risks.” Id.; see Powell v. Am. Health Fitness Ctr. of Fort Wayne, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 757, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (<HOLDING>); O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So.
holding that release unambiguously released defendants from negligence liability even though the release did not include the word negligence because there was no other rational purpose for which the exculpatory language could have been intended holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release holding that exculpatory clause in release plaintiff signed as part of a health club membership agreement was not specific enough to release club from negligence liability holding that exculpatory clause in health club membership did not exculpate the facility from liability for a personal injury stemming from the facilitys negligence because the clause did not use the term negligence fault or equivalents