Walton v. Fujita Tourist Enterprises Co.
380 N.W.2d 198, 1986 Minn. App. LEXIS 3890 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory clause is unenforceable as against public policy when there is a significant disparity in bargaining power between the parties and the service provided is a practical necessity. Furthermore, parties engaged in a joint venture are jointly liable for a co-venturer's negligence, even if they have delegated specific operational duties to one another.
Facts:
- Florence Walton, a travel agent, received an offer from Northwest Airlines, Inc. to participate in a 10-day familiarization ('fam') tour to Japan.
- The tour was co-sponsored by Northwest and Pacific Delight Tours, Inc. to allow travel agents to gain firsthand information about hotels and tours.
- Walton paid a $199 fee and signed a document prepared by Northwest containing an exculpatory clause that limited Northwest's liability to its role as a common carrier.
- Northwest and Pacific Delight shared revenues and jointly contributed money, time, and effort to organize and market the tours.
- Northwest provided the air transportation, while Pacific Delight, through its Japanese agent Fujita Tourist Enterprises, handled all ground arrangements, including hotel accommodations.
- A Northwest employee accompanied the tour group in Japan.
- While on the tour, Walton fell on a staircase at a hotel after passing through a doorway, injuring her ankle.
- Evidence indicated that the top step of the staircase was narrower than the other steps.
Procedural Posture:
- Florence Walton sued Pacific Delight Tours, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc. in trial court, alleging negligence.
- The trial court, in a bifurcated trial, first determined liability, finding that the exculpatory clause was unenforceable and that Northwest and Pacific Delight were joint venturers.
- The trial court found Pacific Delight 50% negligent, Northwest 30% negligent, and Walton 20% contributorily negligent.
- A subsequent trial on damages resulted in a net award of $80,392.51 to Walton.
- Pacific Delight settled with Walton regarding its portion of the damages.
- Northwest's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Northwest appealed the judgment and the denial of its new trial motion to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota, the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an exculpatory clause in a contract for a familiarization tour unenforceable against a travel agent when there is a disparity of bargaining power and the tour is a practical necessity for her business, thereby making the tour operator liable as a joint venturer for negligence that occurred during the ground portion of the tour?
Opinions:
Majority - Crippen, Judge
Yes, the exculpatory clause is unenforceable. A clause exonerating a party from liability is void as against public policy when there is a disparity in bargaining power and the service is of practical necessity. Here, the agreement was a 'take it or leave it' contract offered by a dominant airline for a tour that was a practical necessity for Walton's business success. The court also found the clause to be ambiguous. Furthermore, Northwest and Pacific Delight were engaged in a joint venture, as they satisfied the four elements: contribution, joint control, profit sharing, and contract. The right of mutual control is sufficient to establish a joint venture, even if day-to-day control is delegated. Because a joint venture existed, Pacific Delight's negligence in failing to provide a safe hotel is attributable to Northwest, making them jointly liable for Walton's injuries.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the judicial disfavor of exculpatory clauses, particularly in contexts involving adhesion contracts where one party lacks meaningful bargaining power. By applying the two-prong public policy test, the court makes it difficult for service providers in a dominant market position to disclaim liability for negligence. The case also clarifies the 'control' element of a joint venture, establishing that the legal right to control is sufficient, even if that control is delegated. This broadens the scope of liability for companies that collaborate on projects, as they cannot easily escape responsibility for their partners' torts by merely dividing operational duties.
