Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages, Inc.

California Court of Appeal
226 Cal. App. 3d 758, 276 Cal. Rptr. 672 (1990)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A clear, unambiguous, and explicit release and assumption of risk agreement, where a participant in a recreational activity agrees to assume all risks and hold the provider harmless, constitutes a valid express assumption of the risk that bars a subsequent wrongful death action for ordinary negligence.

Facts:

Pat DeBurgh organized a three-day whitewater rafting trip on the American River with Whitewater Voyages, Inc.
Edward Saentz, a 28-year-old man, was a participant on this trip.
On the morning of the first day, Saentz signed a document titled 'Release and Assumption of Risk Agreement.'
Before the trip began, a guide gave a safety talk, warning participants that whitewater rafting is dangerous and could result in injury or even death.
Over the three-day trip, Saentz was repeatedly given the option to scout difficult rapids or walk around them instead of rafting through them.
On the third day, before the final Class IV rapid, 'Murderer’s Bar,' a guide directly explained the specific dangers of the rapid to Saentz and asked him twice if he wanted to proceed.
Saentz affirmatively agreed to run the rapid both times.
While navigating Murderer's Bar rapid, Saentz fell out of the raft and drowned.

Procedural Posture:

The heir of Edward Saentz filed a wrongful death action against Whitewater Voyages, Inc. in the trial court.
Whitewater moved for summary judgment, arguing that the signed release constituted an express assumption of the risk.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Whitewater.
Saentz's heir, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary 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:

Does a release and assumption of risk agreement, which explicitly states the participant assumes all risks of an activity and agrees to hold the provider harmless from liability except for gross negligence, operate as a valid express assumption of the risk that bars a subsequent wrongful death action?

Opinions:

Majority - Anderson, P. J.

Yes. A validly executed express assumption of risk agreement serves as a complete bar to a wrongful death action based on ordinary negligence. The court reasoned that express assumption of risk is a contractual matter that survived the adoption of comparative fault in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. and remains a total defense. A wrongful death plaintiff is subject to any defense the defendant could have asserted against the decedent. The court found that the release signed by Saentz, while not perfectly drafted, was clear, unambiguous, and explicit enough to convey the parties' intent. It expressed that Saentz was aware of the dangers, agreed to assume all risks, and would hold Whitewater harmless for any liability short of gross negligence. The court held that such private, voluntary transactions where one party agrees to shoulder a risk do not violate public policy, especially when the provider is a private carrier, and that a release need not list every specific danger, such as drowning, to be effective.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the enforceability of liability waivers in the context of high-risk recreational activities. The court's decision clarifies that a release does not require specific 'magic words' like 'negligence' or a list of all conceivable injuries to be valid, so long as the overall intent to release the provider from liability for its own negligence is clear from the contract's language. This provides significant protection for businesses offering recreational services by upholding the principle of express contractual assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery. The decision distinguishes between waivable ordinary negligence and non-waivable gross negligence, setting a clear boundary for the effectiveness of such releases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages, Inc. (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"