Opinion ID: 874025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Invalidate the Hold Harmless Agreement Due to the Inequality in Bargaining Power?

Text: Freedom of contract is a fundamental concept underlying the law of contracts and is an essential element of the free enterprise system. Rawlings v. Layne & Bowler Pump Co., 93 Idaho 496, 499, 465 P.2d 107, 110 (1970). Agreements exempting a party from liability for negligence will be upheld unless the party owes to the other party a public duty created by statute or the other party is at an obvious disadvantage in bargaining power. Lee v. Sun Valley Co., 107 Idaho 976, 978, 695 P.2d 361, 363 (1984). In this case, there is no allegation of any public duty that the University owed to Morrison. However, he contends that there was an obvious disadvantage in bargaining power because his employer required that he sign the hold harmless agreement. The existence of unequal bargaining power is not, by itself, sufficient to relieve a party from the provisions of a hold harmless agreement. Rather, the party must be compelled to submit to a provision relieving the other from liability for future negligence [because] . . . the party injured has little choice, as a practical matter, but to use the services offered by the party seeking exemption. 57A Am. Jur.2d Negligence § 63 (2004). It is essentially the same test for determining whether unequal bargaining power between parties to a contract is sufficient to constitute procedural unconscionability. See Lovey v. Regence BlueShield of Idaho, 139 Idaho 37, 42, 72 P.3d 877, 882 (2003) (Lack of voluntariness can be shown . . . by great imbalance on the parties' bargaining power with the stronger party's terms being nonnegotiable and the weaker party being prevented by market factors, timing, or other pressures from being able to contract with another party on more favorable terms or to refrain from contracting at all.) In this case, Morrison stated in his affidavit: My said employer told us before we went to the team building exercises that I needed to sign the release in order to participate. All employees were expected to participate and I signed it. He also stated that he was not given the option of refusing to sign the release and it was required by his employer. Morrison was not injured by signing the release. He was injured by falling from the climbing wall. Absent from his affidavit is any statement that he told his employer that he did not want to climb the climbing wall and that his employer ordered him to do so anyway. [1] With respect to adult participants, the general rule is that releases from liability for injuries caused by negligent acts arising in the context of recreational activities are enforceable. 57A Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 65 (2004). The agreement that Morrison signed stated as a separate paragraph: The undersigned has read and voluntarily signs this release and waiver of liability and indemnity agreement. The undersigned further agrees that no oral representations, statements or inducements apart from the foregoing agreement have been made. Morrison has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact showing that there was an obvious disadvantage in bargaining power sufficient to relieve him of the provisions of the hold harmless agreement that he signed.