Littlefield v. Schaefer
33 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 990, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 76, 955 S.W.2d 272 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a contractual clause releasing a party from its own future negligence to be enforceable, it must meet the fair notice requirement of conspicuousness, which requires that the terms of the release be legible to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- Scott Schaefer and Tom Graybael promoted and operated motorcycle races in Texas.
- Buddy Walton, a novice motorcycle rider, registered to participate in one of Schaefer's races.
- Before the race, Walton signed two registration forms, each containing a six-paragraph release and waiver of liability.
- The release clauses were printed in minuscule, practically illegible typeface, compressed into a small square in the lower-left-hand corner of the forms.
- During the race, Walton died after he struck the end of an uncovered metal rail in a fence surrounding the raceway.
- The pole that Walton struck was not shielded with hay bales, while all other poles around the raceway were.
Procedural Posture:
- Marsha Littlefield, Walton's wife, filed a wrongful death and survival action against Schaefer in a Texas trial court.
- Schaefer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the release signed by Walton barred Littlefield's claims.
- The trial court granted Schaefer’s motion for summary judgment.
- Littlefield (as appellant) appealed to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Schaefer (as appellee).
- Littlefield then filed an application for writ of error to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 liability release printed in minuscule, practically illegible typeface satisfy the fair notice requirement of conspicuousness, even if its headings are in a larger font and it is set apart on the page?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Abbott
No, the release does not satisfy the fair notice requirement of conspicuousness. An exculpatory clause is not enforceable if a party is unable to know the contract terms because they are unreadable. The purpose of the conspicuousness requirement is to protect a party from surprise and an unknowing waiver of rights, and minuscule, illegible print defeats that purpose. While the placement of the release might draw attention to its existence, the terms themselves are not conspicuous if a reasonable person cannot read what is being released. The fact that the release heading has a larger font size than the release language does not, by itself, make the terms of the release conspicuous when the text is obscured by its tiny font size.
Dissenting - Justice Baker
Yes, the release does satisfy the fair notice requirement of conspicuousness. The test is whether a reasonable person should have noticed the release, not solely whether the print size is legible. Considering all the circumstances—the form being a single page titled "RELEASE AND ENTRY FORM," the clause being the only substantive writing on the form, and the use of bold, capitalized headings and a final underlined warning—the release language effectively draws a reader's attention. The petitioner's concession that the release satisfied the express negligence doctrine implies that its terms were readable and understandable, thus meeting the conspicuousness test.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'conspicuousness' element of the fair notice requirement in Texas law is not merely about placement or headings but includes the fundamental requirement of legibility. The court establishes that if the text of a risk-shifting clause is so small that a reasonable person cannot read it, the clause is unenforceable as a matter of law. This holding prevents parties from using tiny font as a method to obscure the true intent of a release, prioritizing a party's actual ability to understand the rights they are waiving over formalistic contract design. It serves as a strong warning to drafters of liability waivers that hiding terms in plain sight through illegible print is not a valid strategy.
