Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center
214 Cal. Rptr. 194, 168 Cal. App. 3d 333, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2098 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory agreement, clearly and explicitly worded, can effectively relieve a commercial recreational operator of liability for simple negligence or strict liability for injuries to participants, provided the activity is not considered essential to the public interest or ultrahazardous, and the agreement does not defeat the participant's reasonable expectations.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Coates, accompanied by three friends, went to defendant Elsinore Parachute Center (EPC) and enrolled in its 'First Jump Course.'
- Upon arriving at EPC, Coates signed a 'Parachute Center Adult Registration Form' and an 'Agreement & Release of Liability,' later admitting his signature and initials were on the forms, though he disclaimed recollection of reading or signing them, and acknowledged he enrolled voluntarily without coercion.
- Coates received a United States Parachute Association-approved course of instruction in sport parachuting, consisting of about three hours of classroom training and an additional hour of practical training, during which the instructor advised that students occasionally break their legs.
- After instruction, Coates was issued equipment including a jumpsuit, boots, goggles, harness with main and reserve parachutes, a helmet, and a life vest, which he admitted he had no problems with.
- Coates's actual jump was postponed several hours due to wind, but he recalled the wind being 'still' or 'very calm' when he boarded the aircraft for his first jump.
- Coates's exit from the aircraft was normal, but he was unable to steer toward the target area, collided with electric power lines as he neared the ground, and sustained a broken wrist.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Coates sued defendant Elsinore Parachute Center in the trial court (court of first instance) for personal injuries suffered during a parachute jump, alleging negligence and strict liability.
- After discovery, defendant Elsinore Parachute Center filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Defendant's motion was supported by declarations including plaintiff's deposition and copies of the 'Registration Card' and 'Agreement of Release of Liability' signed by plaintiff.
- Plaintiff opposed the motion with a declaration from counsel and excerpts from his deposition.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the release was enforceable and that parachute jumping was not an extra-hazardous activity.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Is an exculpatory agreement signed by a participant in a recreational sports activity enforceable against a claim of negligence or strict liability, particularly when the participant claims not to have read or understood it? 2. Is sport parachuting an ultrahazardous activity such that an exculpatory agreement is unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - McDaniel, J.
Yes, the exculpatory agreement is enforceable against the plaintiff's claims of negligence and strict liability, as it was clearly worded, prominently displayed, and voluntarily signed, and the plaintiff's failure to read it does not negate its terms. The court first rejected Coates's argument that he should be relieved of the agreement's consequences because he did not read or understand what he was signing. Citing established law, the court held that in the absence of fraud or overreaching, one who signs an instrument cannot avoid its terms by claiming a failure to read it (Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals). The court noted the release was printed in readable 10-point type, included bold-faced acknowledgments of danger and a release of liability, and did not meet the 'fine print' concerns raised in Conservatorship of Link. The court then addressed the public policy argument, applying the six factors from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. It found that sport parachuting is not a service of great importance or practical necessity to the public, is not subject to extensive public regulation like medical services, and the defendant did not hold a decisive bargaining advantage. Therefore, the agreement was not against public policy under Civil Code section 1668, which does not invalidate contracts excepting liability for simple negligence or strict liability. Finally, the court determined the agreement was not unconscionable or beyond Coates's reasonable expectations, given its clear language and format, which effectively notified him of its legal effect as required by Ferrell v. Southern Nevada Off-Road Enthusiasts, Ltd. No, sport parachuting is not an ultrahazardous activity that would preclude the effectiveness of the release. The court applied the definition of ultrahazardous activity from Luthringer v. Moore, which requires an activity to (a) necessarily involve a risk of serious harm to others that cannot be eliminated by utmost care, and (b) not be a matter of common usage. The court concluded that while dangerous, parachuting can be performed safely, with critical risks primarily to the participants rather than causing unavoidable serious harm to others or their property (unlike, for example, hot air ballooning in certain scenarios). It also noted that parachuting is 'far from uncommon.' Furthermore, even if parachuting were deemed ultrahazardous, the plaintiff's recovery under a strict liability theory would be barred by his assumption of the risk, as reaffirmed in Lipson v. Superior Court.
Analysis:
This case significantly upholds the enforceability of clear exculpatory agreements in the context of voluntary recreational activities, even those with inherent dangers. It reinforces the application of the Tunkl factors to distinguish between activities affecting the 'public interest' (where waivers are disfavored) and purely recreational pursuits, thus narrowing the scope of public policy objections to such contracts. The ruling also clarifies the definition of 'ultrahazardous activity,' emphasizing that the potential for harm must extend beyond the participant and be largely unavoidable despite maximum care, before strict liability applies to preclude the effectiveness of a waiver. This decision encourages participants in voluntary high-risk sports to exercise personal responsibility and be fully aware of the legal implications of waivers they sign.
