Bennett v. United States Cycling Federation
193 Cal. App. 3d 1485, 239 Cal. Rptr. 55 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a release agreement to be effective in exculpating a party from its own future negligence, the release must be clear and explicit, and its terms must apply to the particular misconduct of the defendant. Such agreements are strictly construed against the drafter and do not cover risks that are not reasonably foreseeable to the person signing the release.
Facts:
- Albert Bennett entered an amateur bicycle race organized and sanctioned by the United States Cycling Federation (USCF).
- Prior to the race, Bennett signed a document titled 'Southern California Cycling Federation Standard Athlete’s Entry Blank and Release Form.'
- Bennett observed that the racecourse was blocked off to vehicular traffic by barriers before the race began.
- During the race, a USCF agent permitted a non-participating automobile to drive onto the closed racecourse.
- While cycling at a high rate of speed, Bennett collided with the automobile that had been allowed onto the course, sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert Bennett filed a complaint against the United States Cycling Federation (USCF) and others in a California superior court (trial court).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bennett's claims were barred by the release agreement he had signed.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Bennett's complaint.
- Bennett, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-injury release agreement, signed by a participant in a bicycle race, bar a claim for negligence when the injury arises from a risk that was not reasonably foreseeable to the participant, such as a motor vehicle being allowed onto a closed racecourse?
Opinions:
Majority - Epstein, J.
No. A pre-injury release agreement does not bar a claim for negligence when the injury results from a risk that was not reasonably foreseeable to the participant at the time of signing. To be effective, the terms of a release must be clear, explicit, and intended by both parties to apply to the particular conduct of the defendant which caused the harm. The court reasoned that exculpatory clauses must be strictly construed against the defendant, who is typically the drafter. While a participant in a bicycle race reasonably foresees and assumes risks like collisions with other cyclists, poor road surfaces, or faulty equipment, they do not reasonably foresee the risk of a motor vehicle being negligently permitted onto a course that was represented as closed to traffic. The court distinguished its prior holding in Okura v. United States Cycling Federation, where the same release form was upheld against a claim for injury caused by loose debris on the course—a foreseeable hazard. Because the presence of a car on a closed course is not an obvious or reasonably foreseeable risk of bicycle racing, a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the release covers this specific act of negligence. Therefore, summary judgment was improper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of express assumption of risk agreements, establishing that a general release for negligence does not provide blanket immunity. It moves the legal analysis beyond the mere text of the release to include the context and the reasonable expectations of the signing party. The case sets a precedent that the enforceability of a release hinges on whether the specific cause of injury was a reasonably foreseeable risk of the activity. This forces organizers of recreational activities to be highly specific in their waivers and prevents them from using broad language to escape liability for active negligence that creates risks outside the normal contemplation of the participants.
