Yauger v. SKIING ENTERPRISES, INC.
557 N.W.2d 60, 206 Wis. 2d 76 (1996)
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory contract is void as against public policy if it fails to clearly, unambiguously, and unmistakably inform the signer what rights are being waived, particularly regarding negligence, and if the form in its entirety fails to conspicuously alert the signer to the nature and significance of the document.
Facts:
- On October 8, 1992, Michael Yauger purchased a 1992-93 season family ski pass from Hidden Valley.
- To purchase the pass, Yauger completed and signed a form titled 'APPLICATION' for himself, his wife Brenda, and his daughters, including ten-year-old Tara.
- The form contained a paragraph stating that the signer agreed to hold Hidden Valley harmless for any injury incurred on the premises due to 'certain inherent risks in skiing.'
- This exculpatory clause was one of five paragraphs, was not titled or highlighted, used the same font as the rest of the text, and did not require a separate signature.
- On March 7, 1993, Tara Yauger was skiing at Hidden Valley when she collided with the unpadded concrete base of a chair lift tower.
- Tara Yauger died from the injuries sustained in the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- The Yaugers filed a wrongful death suit against Hidden Valley in the circuit court for Manitowoc County.
- Hidden Valley filed a motion for summary judgment based on the exculpatory clause signed by Michael Yauger.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment for Hidden Valley, finding the exculpatory clause valid and binding.
- The Yaugers appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the exculpatory contract barred the Yaugers' negligence claim.
- The Yaugers sought review from the Wisconsin Supreme 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 contract contained within a season pass application void as against public policy when it uses the ambiguous phrase 'inherent risks in skiing' without explicitly mentioning a waiver of negligence, and the waiver provision is not conspicuous?
Opinions:
Majority - William A. Bablitch, J.
Yes. An exculpatory contract is void as against public policy when it is ambiguous and not presented conspicuously. The waiver signed by Michael Yauger is unenforceable for two primary reasons. First, it failed to clearly, unambiguously, and unmistakably inform him that he was waiving claims arising from Hidden Valley's own negligence; the phrase 'inherent risks in skiing' is ambiguous and does not explicitly encompass the operator's negligence. The court noted that if judges disagree on the meaning of 'inherent risks,' a layperson cannot be expected to understand its scope. Second, the form, viewed in its entirety, failed to alert the signer to the nature and significance of the waiver. The document was titled 'APPLICATION,' misleadingly suggesting a dual purpose without clarity, and the waiver clause itself was inconspicuous, lacking any highlighting, separate signature line, or distinct formatting to draw attention to its legal importance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens consumer protection against boilerplate exculpatory clauses in Wisconsin. It establishes a demanding two-part public policy test focusing on both the contract's language and its physical presentation. By requiring waivers to explicitly mention 'negligence' and be conspicuous, the court makes it much harder for businesses to enforce releases that a reasonable person may not fully understand or even notice. This precedent shifts the burden onto businesses to be overtly transparent about liability waivers, likely influencing how such forms are drafted and presented in consumer and recreational contracts throughout the state.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Yauger v. SKIING ENTERPRISES, INC. (1996)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"