The plaintiffs, mountain bike race participants, sustained fatal injuries following a collision with a truck. The defendants were the promoters, organizers and promoters of the open course race. The participants shared the open course with regular vehicle traffic. The heirs to the decedents sued the defendant for both gross negligence and ordinary negligence. Before the decedent participated in the race, he signed a release and waiver agreement, in which he accepted to waive all claims including his own negligence, in addition to releasing defendants from all liability for death or injuries sustained while participating in the race. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that the release agreement shielded them from liability for negligence. Furthermore, the defendants claimed that the release was preclusion from liability for any alleged gross negligence. The defendants also argued that they were not liable due to the fact that the plaintiffs could not substantiate their claim of gross negligence by any evidence.The undisputed facts showed that the defendants placed a sign on the course prior to the race to inform passers-by about the event. In addition, there were parking attendants and marshals at the area of the race. The race official for the defendants also cautioned all participants to the race at the starting line about the dangers of using the open course with vehicle traffic. Lastly, the defendants placed a person on the course to conduct traffic control during the race.The court ruled that Utah law provided for a party to obtain contractual releases from liability where a party enters into an agreement to release the other party from liability for future injuries. According to the court, the release agreement was clear. There was an unequivocal expression of an intention by the decedent to release the defendants from any liability. Therefore, the court ruled that there was a proper waiver and release from liability for ordinary negligence. In relation to the claims of gross negligence, the court observed that the Supreme Court of Utah had repeatedly held that releases are invalid against gross negligence claims.With regard to the second issue as to whether the issue of gross negligence was a matter of law, the court described gross negligence as a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in the given circumstances. According to the court, gross negligence results from the failure to exercise even slight care. It refers to a careless act which implies absolute unresponsiveness to possible consequences. The onus was on the plaintiff to show, in addition to an unrealistic risk of physical harm to another party, that the risk was substantially higher than that which is sufficient to make the conduct of the defendant negligent.Though the court accepted the plaintiffs account of events, its position was that undisputed facts did not necessarily demonstrate that the risk was substantially higher than ordinary negligence. The defendants had informed at least three prospective motorists within the location of the race. They had put a sign on the course prior to the beginning of the race to notify passers-by about the event. They had also implemented minimal traffic control, even though the manner of implementation could be deemed as insufficient. In addition, the defendants had warned the participants of the race both orally and in writing in relation to the dangers caused by vehicle traffic on the course. With regard to these facts, the court ruled, as a matter of law, that the defendants were not liable for gross negligence. The rationale behind determining the issue of gross negligence as a matter of law was that granting summary judgment on gross negligence or ordinary negligence is commonly disfavored because of the exceptional role of the jury in these types of cases.Basing on previous Supreme Court cases, the court held that the waiver and release agreement precluded the defendants from claims of wrongful death. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court had not put much emphasis on the need for any assessment to be carried out when the issue of applying a defense in such circumstances is presented.The court basically used previous rulings of the Supreme Court in similar cases (Lee, 2013). The court predicted that the Supreme Court would allow the defense of waiver of liability through release. This prediction was made despite the fact the Supreme Court had not stated the rule very broadly.The court ruled in favor of the defendants that the waiver and release agreement barred the defendants from liability (). What the court clearly brought about is that there is barely any Utah law which directly addresses waiver and release, as well as express assumption of risk agreements, in relation to dangerous recreational activities (Lee, 2013). Utah has been described as undecided in terms of this area of law. This case is a benchmark for similar future cases, in respect of getting rid of frivolous allegations of gross negligence that aim at circumventing the release agreements (Anthony, 2007).Anthony, W. (2007). Milne v USA Cycling, Inc. (Utah). Collision Course. Retrieved from: http://defendingsportsblog.com/2007/06/20/collision-course/#more-23Lee, W. D. (2013). Handbook of Section 1983 Litigation 2013. CCH Incorporated.Milne v. USA Cycling Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1283, (D.Utah 2007).Utah State Bar. . Retrieved from:

Case summary. Summarize the Supreme Court case of RJR Nabisco found at this LINK . You will need to identify the legal issue or issues being decided by the court in each case, describe how those issues were resolved, discuss the relevant facts of each case and summarize the reasoning used by the court to reach its decision. You can find an example of a full credit case summary HERE. This assignment is worth 90 points. Identifying the legal issues is worth 15 points. Discussing the holdings on those legal issues is worth 15 points. Summarizing the relevant facts of the case is worth 30 points. Summarizing the court’s reasoning is worth 30 points.