Henderson v. Quest Expeditions, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2005
• Citation: 174 S.W.3d 730
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: Nathan & Brandy HENDERSON, v. QUEST EXPEDITIONS, INC.

Page 730

174 S.W.3d 730

Nathan & Brandy HENDERSON, v. QUEST EXPEDITIONS, INC.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville.

April 4, 2005 Session.

June 8, 2005.

Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court October 24, 2005.

H. Franklin Chancey, Cleveland, Tennessee, for appellants.

Gary A. Cooper, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for appellee.

OPINION

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly due to defendant's negligence, the Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs had executed a Waiver and Release of Liability which was required by defendant prior to plaintiffs' participation in white water rafting. Plaintiffs have appealed, insisting the Release is void as against the public policy of this State. We affirm.

Plaintiffs' Complaint alleged that Henderson was injured while on a white water rafting expedition operated by defendant. The Complaint alleged that defendant "ferries rafters to and from the Ocoee River by means of a series of dilapidated school buses.", and that after Henderson had completed his rafting trip, he and other rafters were put on a bus, and then told to get on another bus, and when disembarking from the first bus he slipped and fell, sustaining severe personal injuries. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Defendant in its Answer admitted that Henderson had participated in a rafting trip sponsored by defendant, and among its defenses raised was waiver, because plaintiff had signed a "Waiver and Release of Liability", which defendant attached to its Answer.

In their Answers to Requests for Admissions, plaintiffs admitted that the waiver in question had been signed by Henderson. Defendant then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which plaintiffs opposed and Henderson filed his Affidavit which stated that Henderson had no previous white-water rafting experience, and was given a pre-printed document to sign prior to the excursion which was not reviewed with him by an employee of defendant. He further stated that he was not advised whether there were any other rafting companies who would allow him to go rafting without having to sign a waiver, or whether he could pay additional money to not have to sign the waiver.

The Trial Court determined that the waiver in this case did not affect the public interest, and thus the waiver was not void as against public policy. The court noted that Olson v. Molzen, 558 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn.1977) did not apply to this situation and he was guided by the rule adopted in California, which states that "exculpatory agreements in the recreational sports context do not implicate the public interest." Citing Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 813, 823 (Ca.App.1996).

Plaintiffs on appeal insist the Waiver is void against public policy, and in the alternative, that the Waiver was void on the grounds it was too excessive in scope.

Plaintiffs concede that if the Waiver is enforceable then this action is barred, but argue the waiver violates the public policy of this State.

As our Supreme Court has explained:

It is well settled in this State that parties may contract that one shall not be liable for his negligence to another but that such other shall assume the risk incident to such negligence.... Further, it is not necessary that the word `negligence' appear in the exculpatory clause and the public policy of Tennessee favors freedom to contract against liability for negligence.

Empress Health and Beauty Spa, Inc. v. Turner, 503 S.W.2d 188 (Tenn.1973).

An exception to this rule was recognized by the Supreme Court in Olson v. Molzen, wherein the Court held that certain relationships required greater responsibility which would render such a release "obnoxious". Olson, at p. 430. The Court adopted the opinion of the California Supreme Court in Tunkl v. Regents of University of California, 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441 (Ca.1963), which held that where the public interest would be affected by an exculpatory provision, such provision could be held invalid. Olson, at p. 431.

Our Supreme Court adopted the six criteria set forth in Tunkl as useful in determining when an exculpatory provision should be held invalid as contrary to public policy. See Olson. These criteria are:

(a.) It concerns a business of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation.

(b.) The party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity for some members of the public.

(c.) The party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member of the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established standards.

(d.) As a result of the essential nature of the service, in the economic setting of the transaction, the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services.

(e.) In exercising a superior bargaining power the party confronts the public with a standardized adhesion contract of exculpation, and makes no provision whereby a purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against negligence.

(f.) Finally, as a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller or his agents.

Olson, at p. 431.

In Olson, the Supreme Court invalidated a contract between a doctor and patient which attempted to release the doctor from liability for his negligence in the performance of medical services. Also see Carey v. Merritt, 148 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004) and Russell v. Bray, 116 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003). In Russell, this Court refused to enforce an exculpatory contract between home buyers and the home inspectors who were hired by the buyers, because the Court found that the home inspectors were professionals whose services affected the public interest, and thus the contracts were offensive to public policy, based on the factors enumerated in Olson. In Carey, this Court made clear that not all of the factors had to be present in order to invalidate an exculpatory agreement, but generally, the factors were limited to circumstances involving "a contract with a profession, as opposed to `tradesmen in the marketplace'." Carey, at p. 916; cf. Parton v. Mark Pirtle Oldsmobile-Cadillac-Isuzu, Inc., 730 S.W.2d 634 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (auto repair shop is not "professional" as would qualify it as service affecting public interest in order to invalidate exculpatory contract).

This case is factually different from Olson, Carey, and Parton because the white-water rafting service offered by defendant is not a "professional" trade, which affects the public interest. As discussed in factor number two quoted above, this is not a service of "great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity for some members of the public." See Olson. There is no necessity that one go white-water rafting. In fact, many jurisdictions have recognized that such recreational sporting activities are not activities of an essential nature which would render exculpatory clauses contrary to the public interest. See Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc., 132 Md.App. 271, 752 A.2d 631 (2000) (health club services not essential for purposes of holding exculpatory clause unenforceable as offensive to public interest); Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc., 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 813 (1996) ("voluntary participation in recreational and sports activities [skiing] does not implicate the public interest"); Schutkowski v. Carey, 725 P.2d 1057 (Wyo.1986) (sky diving and other private recreational businesses generally do not involve services which are necessary to the public such that exculpatory contract would be invalidated).

Plaintiffs argue that the Release in this case does affect the public interest because the business involved, i.e. commercial white-water rafting, is subject to regulation. While this is true, the presence of this factor does not render this Release offensive to the public interest. In fact, recent legislation passed by the Tennessee Legislature "recognizes that the State has a legitimate interest in maintaining the economic viability of commercial white water rafting operations" because the State and its citizens benefit thereby. 2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts 169. This act states the legislative intent is to "encourage white water rafting by discouraging claims based on injury, death or damages resulting from risks inherent in white water rafting." Id. Thus, the Tennessee legislature has evidenced that the public policy of this State is that commercial white water rafting companies be protected from claims for injuries to patrons.

Accordingly we affirm the Trial Court's determination that the exculpatory contract in this case does not affect the public interest such that it should be invalidated pursuant to the Olson criteria.

Finally, appellants argue that the Release in this case should not operate as a bar to their claims because the injury suffered by Henderson was not within the "inherent risks" of the sport of white water rafting, and thus was not within the contemplation of the parties when the release was signed.

In the cases relied on by the plaintiffs regarding the scope of exculpatory provisions in the context of a sport, there are no provisions in those agreements which purport to release the defendant from its own negligence. For example, in Johnson v. Thruway Speedways, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 204, 407 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y.App.Div.1978), the Court refused to uphold a grant of summary judgment based on a release signed by the plaintiff prior to the...