Opinion ID: 2135031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Policy ConsiderationsExculpatory Releases

Text: It has been stated that, `anticipatory releases are neither unusual nor per se void as a matter of public policy.' SPEISER, AMERICAN LAW OF TORTS § 5.39 at 1085 n. 98 (quoting American Druggists' Ins. Co. v. Equifax, Inc., 505 F.Supp. 66, 68 (S.D.Ohio 1980) and citing Colton v. New York Hosp., 98 Misc.2d 957, 414 N.Y.S.2d 866, 874 (N.Y.Sup.1979)). The line of cases cited therein all concern purely voluntary activity by the promisor and involved no relationship or activity affected by a public interest. All were activities which could be considered societally insignificant. Id. The present case, however, may involve a matter of public interest worthy of attention 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 participation in extra-curricular sports and other activities. 758 P.2d at 969. The court framed the issue as follows: 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? Id. at 969-70. Obviously, the question in the case before us does not involve a school district. However, we are faced with an issue involving city baseball, softball, and other athletic fields. There is a great deal of emphasis on sports and athletics in our society. If an individual wishes to play in an organized softball leaguein Rapid City, as well as many other towns and cities in South Dakotathey must play on fields owned and maintained by the city. There is no choice to play elsewhere. Do we wish it to be the law in South Dakota that those athletic fields may be negligently maintained with impunity? Are all participantsadults and children who participate in organized athletics to be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it choice when presented with such anticipatory releases, as a condition of participation? If we uphold these types of releases, that is what we are saying the law is in South Dakota. Guidance is found in Wagenblast, wherein the court carefully reviewed exculpatory agreement cases, and formulated six characteristics, the more [of which] appear in a given exculpatory agreement case, the more likely the agreement is to be declared invalid on public policy grounds. 758 P.2d at 971. Thus, all six factors need not apply to a given situation; instead, these factors would be applied in weighing the equities of the situation. These six characteristics are listed here: 1. The agreement concerns an endeavor of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation. 2. 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. 3. Such party holds itself 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. 4. Because 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 the services. 5. In exercising a superior bargaining power, the part 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. 6. The person or property of members of the public seeking such services must be placed under the control of the furnisher of the services, subject to the risk of carelessness on the part of the furnisher, its employees or agents. Id. at 972-73. These six characteristics appear to be well-considered and have applicability to the present case. It is generally thought proper that municipalities offer opportunities to participate in organized athletics, such as softball and baseball leagues. Municipalities generally own and maintain the athletic fields. While athletics are not necessary to survival, there is certainly a great deal of emphasis in our society on community recreational sports. Those members of our communities wishing to participate in organized sports usually do not have a choice to go elsewhere to play; they must play on the public athletic fields. It is possible that for an additional fee, additional protection against negligence could be purchased. Similarly, the court in Dobratz acknowledged the Wagenblast factorsand pointed out that they were not particularly helpful to the plaintiff. 468 N.W.2d at 660 n. 5. The court noted that water-skiing is not a subject `generally thought suitable for public regulation,' or `a service of great importance to the public'[.] Nor did the defendant in this case have a `decisive advantage in bargaining strength.' Id. The Dobratz court also applied the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 195 which lists certain situations where exculpatory contracts are unenforceable on grounds of public policy. The pertinent language states: (2) A term exempting a party from tort liability for harm caused negligently is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if... (b) the term exempts one charged with a duty of public service from liability to one to whom that duty is owed for compensation for breach of that duty.... 468 N.W.2d at 659 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 195 (1979)). Under the circumstances of that case, the court did not find that the Dobratz water-skiing club release was unenforceable on grounds of public policy. Whether cities should be able to free themselves for all liability for negligence in the maintenance of public athletic fields is questionable public policy. Application of either the six factors listed in Wagenblast, or the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 195, would militate against validating anticipatory exculpatory agreements in situations like that presented here. The case at bar presents us with this question, and it is an issue that should be faced by this court.