Nemo v. Smith
Nemo was an owner/operator of an over-the-road trucking service. He made shipments under contract using his truck. Smith was the owner of four wild tigers. He contracted with Nemo to have the tigers trucked across the country. The contract (that Smith drafted) contained a clause that stated that Smith could not be held liable for any injuries caused by the tigers. Nemo accepted this clause and signed the contract. The animals were placed in cages and loaded into Nemo's truck. Smith was in a hurry to complete the loading and did not securely lock one of the tiger's cages. During the trip, while Nemo was getting fuel at a truck stop, the tiger escaped and severely injured Nemo. Nemo sued Smith for his injuries. Smith argued that the case should be dismissed because the agreement clearly stated that Smith could not be held liable for any injury caused by the tigers.
Decide this case, and discuss your decision and reasoning in depth.