Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort
119 Wash. 2d 484, 834 P.2d 6, 1992 Wash. LEXIS 205 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent may not bind a minor child to a pre-injury exculpatory agreement waiving the child's future cause of action for negligence. Such agreements are unenforceable as a matter of public policy with respect to the minor's claim, though they can be effective in waiving the parents' own claims.
Facts:
- Justin Scott, a 12-year-old, was a student at the Grayson Connor Ski School, which operated at the Pacific West Mountain Resort.
- Justin's mother, Barbara Scott, signed an application for him to join the ski school's racing program.
- The application included an exculpatory clause stating she would "hold harmless Grayson Connor, and the Grayson Connor Ski School... from all claims arising out of the instruction of skiing."
- On March 11, 1989, Justin was practicing on a slalom race course set up by the ski school owner.
- While skiing the course, Justin missed a gate and veered off the packed course into wet, heavy snow.
- He was unable to stop and collided with an unpadded, 12-by-12-inch support pillar of an unused tow-rope shack located approximately 40 feet from the course.
- As a result of the collision, Justin Scott sustained severe head injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Justin Scott and his parents sued the Grayson Connor Ski School and Pacific West Mountain Resort for negligence in a state trial court.
- The ski school filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the exculpatory clause signed by Justin's mother barred the suit.
- The trial court granted the ski school's motion and dismissed the claims against it.
- The ski resort filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing Justin had impliedly assumed the risks of skiing.
- The trial court granted the ski resort's motion and dismissed the claims against it.
- The Scotts, as appellants, petitioned for direct review of both dismissals to the Supreme Court of Washington, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a parent, by signing a pre-injury exculpatory agreement, validly waive a minor child's future potential cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Andersen, J.
No, a parent does not have legal authority to waive a child's own future cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence. Such releases violate public policy and are therefore unenforceable as to the child's claim. Washington law requires court approval for a parent to settle a child's claim after an injury has already occurred; it would be illogical to grant parents broader authority to release a child's cause of action before an injury even happens. While the release is void as to Justin's claim, it is valid to bar his parents' separate cause of action. Furthermore, while a participant in a sport assumes the risks inherent in that sport (primary implied assumption of risk), they do not assume the risk of a defendant's negligence that unduly enhances those inherent risks, such as providing an unsafe facility. Placing a race course for beginners dangerously close to an unpadded, fixed object is not an inherent risk of skiing, and therefore the doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not act as a complete bar to recovery against the ski resort.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant child-protective public policy precedent in Washington, holding that a parent's signature on a liability waiver cannot extinguish a minor's right to sue for negligence. It clearly distinguishes between a parent's waivable claim and a child's non-waivable claim, impacting any organization that serves minors. The court also refines the post-comparative negligence landscape for the assumption of risk doctrine, clarifying that primary assumption of risk (negating duty for inherent risks) remains a complete defense, while secondary assumption of risk (voluntarily encountering a known risk) is merely a form of contributory fault that reduces, but does not bar, recovery.
