Coates v. Newhall Land & Farming, Inc.
191 Cal. App. 3d 1, 236 Cal. Rptr. 181, 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1574 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A decedent's preinjury contractual assumption of risk, if valid and not against public policy, eliminates the possibility of tortious conduct by a potential defendant and thus precludes a wrongful death action by the decedent's heirs.
Facts:
- Newhall Land & Farming Co. owned and operated a recreational park that included a trail for off-road motorcycle (dirtbike) riding.
- Charles Coates paid an admission fee to enter the park to ride his dirtbike.
- Before entering the park, Charles Coates signed a 'general release' document.
- The release explicitly stated in bold red letters that 'Motorcycling Is Dangerous' and that Coates released the park owner from liability for injuries or death, including those caused by the park's negligence, and voluntarily assumed all risks.
- While using the dirtbike trail in the park, Charles Coates was fatally injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Coates's heirs (appellants) sued the recreational park owners (respondents), Newhall Land & Farming Co., for wrongful death in trial court.
- The heirs' first amended complaint alleged that Coates's fatal injury was caused by respondents' negligence in designing, building, and maintaining the park, and by breach of an express warranty that the park was safe.
- Respondents generally denied the allegations and raised assumption of the risk and contributory negligence as affirmative defenses.
- Respondents later moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the preinjury release signed by Coates precluded the wrongful death action, and appellants filed a timely notice of appeal 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 decedent's preinjury contractual assumption of risk bar a wrongful death action brought by the decedent's heirs if the contract is not against public policy and the risk encountered is inherent in the activity or contemplated by the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Lui, J.
Yes, a decedent's preinjury contractual assumption of risk bars a wrongful death action brought by the decedent's heirs if the contract is not against public policy and the risk encountered is inherent in the activity or contemplated by the parties. The court distinguished this case from Earley v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co. and Robison v. Leigh, where releases were signed after an injury had occurred, extinguishing a vested right to sue. Here, Charles Coates signed the contract before he was injured. The court reasoned that an express assumption of risk, signed in advance, eliminates the potential defendant's duty of care, thereby eliminating the possibility of tortious conduct itself. Behavior that is authorized, the court explained, is not wrongful and cannot logically form the basis of a wrongful death action. Citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 496B, the court noted that a plaintiff who contractually agrees to accept a risk cannot recover unless the agreement is invalid as contrary to public policy. The court found the release was not against public policy under the test established in Tunkl v. Regents of University of California, characterizing the recreational park/dirtbike rider contract as a 'private, voluntary transaction' that does not involve the public interest in the same way essential services like hospital care do. This was consistent with prior rulings in McAtee v. Newhall Land & Farming Co. and Okura v. United States Cycling Federation. Furthermore, the court held that knowledge of a particular risk is unnecessary when there is an express agreement to assume all risk, as a plaintiff may undertake to assume all risks 'whether they are known or unknown to him' (Rest.2d Torts, § 496D). The court concluded that the only reasonable inference from the facts was that the risk Coates encountered (injury from a fall while riding over uneven terrain) was inherent in dirtbike riding and the type of risk the parties contemplated when the contract was executed. The court also briefly addressed and rejected appellants' argument regarding recklessness, finding it was not properly before the court due to discovery issues and irrelevant to the negligence claim.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarity on the enforceability of preinjury liability waivers and express assumption of risk agreements in the context of wrongful death actions. By distinguishing these pre-incident contracts from post-incident releases, the court established that such agreements can eliminate a defendant's duty of care, thus negating the basis for a negligence claim. The ruling reinforces the principle that individuals can contractually assume risks for inherently dangerous recreational activities, provided the agreement is not against public policy and covers the type of risk encountered. This decision has significant implications for operators of recreational facilities, encouraging the use of robust waiver forms, and for participants, underscoring the importance of understanding the legal implications of signing such documents.
