McAtee v. Newhall Land & Farming Co.

California Court of Appeal Jul 8, 1985 No. B007733Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the release and waiver of liability agreement signed by the appellants was enforceable because it was clear, explicit, and did not involve the public interest.

Issues

Whether the release and waiver of liability agreement signed by the appellants is enforceable.
Whether the exculpatory agreement involves the public interest under the principles of Tunkl v. Regents of University of California.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“I find that release language to be totally unassailable.”

“[N]o public policy opposes private, voluntary transactions in which one party, for a consideration, agrees to shoulder a risk which the law would otherwise have placed upon the other party, ...”

“The order appealed from is affirmed.”

169 Cal.App.3d 1031 (1985) 216 Cal. Rptr. 465 MICHAEL McATEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

NEWHALL LAND & FARMING CO., INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Docket No. B007733. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.

July 8, 1985. [1032] COUNSEL

Robert S. Fink for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Childers & Dickinson, Lenore O. De Vita and Walter K. Childers for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

ROTH, P.J.

Appellants Michael McAtee and Jed Seybold were injured while participating in a motorcycle, or "motocross," race sponsored by respondent American Motocross Enterprises, and held on land owned by respondent Newhall Land & Farming Co., Inc. which had been rented to the sponsor for the purpose.

As a condition to entering the race appellants each signed a "Release and Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement," exact copies of which we attach as appendices to this opinion.

Based upon the injuries they suffered, appellants brought suit on the dual theories of general negligence and negligence associated with the ownership or possession of real property. After answering the complaint, respondents moved for summary judgment premised upon the respective release and waiver agreements. That motion was granted, the trial court expressing its reasoning as follows: "THE COURT: How could this be more clear, this release?

[1033] "If I were to agree with your position, Mr. Fink, then no releases would ever be good, and as a practical matter, this business would probably go out of business.

McAtee v. Newhall Land & Farming Co.

AI Brief

OPINION

ROTH, P.J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief