Moore v. Hartley Motors
36 P.3d 628 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-injury release of liability for a recreational activity is valid against claims of ordinary negligence arising from the inherent risks of the activity. However, such a release does not bar a claim where a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the provider's negligence created an unnecessary or unreasonable danger beyond those inherent risks.
Facts:
- In May 1998, Gayle Moore and her husband purchased an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and were offered a $50 rebate for completing a safety class.
- On October 28, 1998, Moore attended an ATV rider safety class instructed by James Croak on property owned by Hartley Motors, Inc.
- Before the class began, Croak required Moore to sign a consent form that included a release of liability.
- The driving portion of the class was conducted on a course marked with cones on unpaved, grassy ground.
- During the class, Moore drove her ATV through high grass located just beyond a cone marking the course.
- Moore's ATV struck a rock protruding from the ground that was obscured by the high grass, causing the vehicle to roll over.
- As a result of the rollover, Moore was thrown from her ATV and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Gayle Moore (plaintiff) sued Hartley Motors, ATV Safety Institute, and Jim Croak (defendants) in superior court (trial court) in July 1995 for negligence.
- Specialty Vehicle Institute of America was added as a defendant in October 1995.
- In 1996, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the liability release Moore had signed.
- In 1997, the superior court denied the summary judgment motion, finding the release valid but holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendants' knowledge of the course's suitability.
- Defendants later filed a renewed motion for summary judgment based on the release.
- The superior court granted the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment.
- Moore (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
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 signed before participating in a recreational activity shield the providers from liability for negligence if a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the injury was caused by an unnecessarily dangerous condition that exceeds the inherent risks of the activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Fabe, Chief Justice
No. A liability release does not shield providers from liability for negligence where a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether an injury was caused by an unnecessarily dangerous condition exceeding the inherent risks of the activity. While the release signed by Moore was valid—supported by consideration (participation in the class) and not violative of public policy (ATV riding is not an essential service)—its scope was limited. The release covered liability only for the inherent risks of ATV riding and the ordinary negligence associated with those risks, not all forms of negligence. Underlying such a release is the implied presumption that the course is not unreasonably dangerous. A danger is not an 'inherent risk' if it can be eliminated or mitigated through reasonable care. Moore presented evidence that she was injured by a hidden rock on a course designed for novices, creating a triable issue of fact as to whether the course layout posed an unnecessary danger. Therefore, a jury must determine whether the risk fell outside the scope of the release, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of liability waivers in recreational activities by distinguishing between inherent risks and unnecessary dangers created by negligence. It establishes that a valid release does not provide absolute immunity; operators can still be held liable for creating unreasonably dangerous conditions. The ruling makes it more difficult for recreational providers to win on summary judgment based solely on a signed waiver, as it invites a fact-intensive inquiry into the specific circumstances of the injury and the nature of the risk. This precedent strengthens the duty of care owed by operators to participants, even those who have signed releases, by holding that they must not increase risks beyond what is inherent in the sport.
Unlock the full brief for Moore v. Hartley Motors