Wagenblast v. Odessa School Dist. No. 105-157-166J
| Decision Date | 07 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | R,No. 1 and R,54295-3,No. 1,Nos. 53627-9,1 and R,1,s. 53627-9 |
| Citation | 110 Wn.2d 845,758 P.2d 968 |
| Parties | , 85 A.L.R.4th 331, 57 USLW 2039, 48 Ed. Law Rep. John E. WAGENBLAST, as Guardian Ad Litem for Alexander C. Wagenblast, a minor, and John E. Wagenblast and Jacklyn M. Wagenblast, husband and wife, John E. Wagenblast, as Guardian Ad Litem for Charles B. Wagenblast, a minor, and Melvin A. Herdrick, as Guardian Ad Litem for Ethan A. Herdrick, and Katie E. Herdrick, minors, and Melvin A. Herdrick and Judith Ann Herdrick, husband and wife, Respondents, v. ODESSA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 105-157-166J, Gordon Wallace, Superintendent of Odessa School District, Eugene C. Claassen, Merlin K. Jantz, Robert Shofner, William G. Schlimmer and Lorus W. Scrupps, all School Board Directors, Appellants. Arthur R. VULLIET, Joanna S. Vulliet, individually, and as next friends for Richard Vulliet, and Paul Vulliet, Appellants, v. SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTobert Nelson, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Seattle Public School Districtespondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Bassett & Morrison, Mark S. Northcraft, Margaret A. Morgan, Seattle, for Odessa School Dist. No. 53627-9 and Seattle Public School Dist.
Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, William Rutzick, Seattle, for appellants Vulliet.
Wagenblast & Strohmaier, John F. Strohmaier, Odessa, Wagenblast, et al.
Bryan P. Harnetiaux and Robert H. Whaley, Spokane, for Washington Trial Lawyers Ass'n, amici curiae.
In these consolidated cases we consider an issue of first impression--the legality of public school districts requiring students and their parents to sign a release of all potential The plaintiffs in these cases are public school children and their parents.
future claims as a condition to student participation in certain school-related activities.
Odessa School District students Alexander and Charles Wagenblast and Ethan and Katie Herdrick all desired to participate in some form of interscholastic athletics. As a condition to such participation, the Odessa School District requires its students and their parents or guardians to sign a standardized form which releases the school district from "liability resulting from any ordinary negligence that may arise in connection with the school district's interscholastic activities programs." The releases are required by a group of small Eastern Washington school districts, including Odessa, which "pooled" together to purchase liability insurance.
The Seattle School District also requires students and their parents to sign standardized release forms as a condition to participation in interscholastic sports and cheerleading. When Richard and Paul Vulliet turned out for the Ballard High School wrestling team, they and their parents were required to sign release forms which released the Seattle School District, its employees and agents "from any liability resulting from any negligence that may arise in connection with the School District's wrestling program."
The Wagenblasts and Herdricks brought suit in the Superior Court for Lincoln County to enjoin the Odessa School District's use of its release forms. The Vulliets brought their action in the Superior Court for King County, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Superior Court for Lincoln County eventually granted the Wagenblast and Herdrick motions for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the Odessa School District from requiring the students and their parents to sign the releases. The court gave several grounds for its decision, chief among them that the release form is an unconscionable contract of adhesion and that the School In King County, after a trial, the Superior Court rejected the Vulliets' challenge to the Seattle School District releases and denied their request for injunctive and declaratory relief.
District's attempt to limit its liability is void as against public policy.
When the Odessa School District appealed directly to this court, we retained the appeal. We transferred the Vulliets' separate appeal, which had originally been filed in the Court of Appeals, to this court and consolidated it with the Odessa appeal. 1
One issue is determinative of these appeals.
Can school districts require public school students and their parents to sign written releases which release the districts from the consequences of all future school district negligence, before the students will be allowed to engage in certain recognized school related activities, here interscholastic athletics?
CONCLUSION. We hold that the exculpatory releases from any future school district negligence are invalid because they violate public policy.
The courts have generally recognized that, subject to certain exceptions, parties may contract that one shall not be liable for his or her own negligence to another. As Prosser and Keeton explain:
It is quite possible for the parties expressly to agree in advance that the defendant is under no obligation of care for the benefit of the plaintiff, and shall not be liable for the consequences of conduct which would otherwise be negligent. There is in the ordinary case no public policy which prevents the parties from contracting as they see fit, as to whether the plaintiff will undertake the responsibility of looking out for himself.
(Footnotes omitted.) W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 68, at 482 (5th ed. 1984). 2
In accordance with the foregoing general rule, appellate decisions in this state have upheld exculpatory agreements where the subject was a toboggan slide, 3 a scuba diving class, 4 mountain climbing instruction, 5 an automobile demolition derby, 6 and ski jumping. 7
As Prosser and Keeton further observe, however, there are instances where public policy reasons for preserving an obligation of care owed by one person to another outweigh our traditional regard for the freedom to contract. Courts in this century are generally agreed on several such categories of cases.
Courts, for example, are usually reluctant to allow those charged with a public duty, which includes the obligation to use reasonable care, to rid themselves of that obligation by contract. Thus, where the defendant is a common carrier, an innkeeper, a professional bailee, a public utility, or the like, an agreement discharging the defendant's performance will not ordinarily be given effect. 8 Implicit in such decisions is the notion that the service performed is one of importance to the public, and that a certain standard of performance is therefore required.
Courts generally also hold that an employer cannot require an employee to sign a contract releasing the employer from liability for job-related injuries caused by the employer's negligence. 9 Such decisions are grounded on the recognition that the disparity of bargaining power between employer and employee forces the employee to accept such agreements.
Consistent with these general views, this court has held that a bank which rents out safety deposit boxes cannot, by contract, exempt itself from liability for its own negligence, 10 ] and that if the circumstances of a particular case suggest that a gas company has a duty to inspect the pipes and fittings belonging to the owner of the building, any contractual limitation on that duty would be against public policy. 11
This court has also gone beyond these usually accepted categories to hold future releases invalid in other circumstances as well. It has struck down a lease provision exculpating a public housing authority from liability for injuries caused by the authority's negligence 12 and has also struck down a landlord's exculpatory clause relating to common areas in a multi-family dwelling complex. 13
In reaching these decisions, this court has focused at times on disparity of bargaining power, at times on the importance of the service provided, and at other times on other factors. In reviewing these decisions, it is apparent that the court has not always been particularly clear on what rationale it used to decide what type of release was and was not violative of "public policy". 14 Undoubtedly, it has been much easier for courts to simply declare releases violative of public policy in a given situation than to state a principled basis for so holding.
Probably the best exposition of the test to be applied in determining whether exculpatory agreements violate public policy is that stated by the California Supreme Court. In writing for a unanimous court, the late Justice Tobriner outlined the factors in Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92, 383 P.2d 441, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 6 A.L.R.3d 693 (1963):
Thus the attempted but invalid exemption involves a transaction which exhibits some or all of the following characteristics. It concerns a business of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist.
...103 P.3d 753 (quoting Yakima Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12, 122 Wash.2d at 393, 858 P.2d 245 ); see also Wagenblast v. Odessa Sch. Dist. No. 105-157-166J, 110 Wash.2d 845, 855, 758 P.2d 968 (1988) (concluding that a contract was adhesive because ‘‘[s]tudent athletes and their parents or guardians......
-
Conway v. Town of Wilton
...duty separate and apart from its responsibilities as an owner to make a reasonable site selection. See Wagenblast v. Odessa School District, 110 Wash.2d 845, 852-56, 758 P.2d 968 (1988) (due to intimate relationship between interscholastic sports and other aspects of public education, schoo......
-
Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'n, 18269
...by this court. The nature of this public interest is found in a line of cases represented by Wagenblast v. Odessa Sch. Dist. No. 105-157-166J, 110 Wash.2d 845, 758 P.2d 968 (1988). Wagenblast involved releases signed by public school students and their parents as a condition of participatio......
-
American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards
...rule is that a party to a contract can limit liability for damages resulting from negligence. See Wagenblast v. Odessa Sch. Dist. 105-157-166J, 110 Wash.2d 845, 848, 758 P.2d 968 (1988). However, historically there are specific exceptions where limitations on liability are void as against p......
-
CONTRACT REMEDIES NEED NOT UNDERCOMPENSATE ASPIRING PARENTS WHEN CRYOPRESERVED REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL IS LOST OR DESTROYED: RECOVERY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE WHEN BREACH OF CONTRACT RESULTS IN THE LOST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PREGNANT WITH ONE'S OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILD.
...v. Emory Univ., 275 S.E.2d 163, 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980), affd. 282 S.E.2d 903 (Ga. 1981)(same); Wagenblast v. Odessa School District, 758 P.2d 968, 971-72 (Wash. 1988) (same); R-1 Assocs., Inc. v. Goldberg-Zoino & Assocs., Inc., No. CIV. A. 91-7417-E, 1995 WL 517554, at *4 (Mass. Super.......