A Court Enforces a Liability Release for Recreational Activities on Public Property

Summary: A plaintiff sued the City of Oakland for dangerous condition of public property after his bicycle hit a pothole during a training ride. The plaintiff had signed an agreement releasing the “owners/lessors of the course or facilities used in the event” from future liability. In Whitehead v. City of Oakland, (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 775, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment concluding the release was enforceable.

 Discussion: In March 2017, Ty Whitehead participated in a group training ride for AIDS Life Cycle, a multi-day group bicycle ride fundraiser from San Francisco to Los Angeles. During the ride, Whitehead, an experienced cyclist and a certified training ride leader himself, hit a pothole that was approximately one to two inches deep, 18 inches across, and 14 inches long. He flipped over his bicycle handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.

Prior to the training ride, Whitehead signed a document entitled “AIDS/Life Cycle Training Ride GENERAL INFORMATION AND RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT.” The Release contained an assumption-of-risk provision and a waiver provision related to liabilities and damages.

Whitehead claimed the City failed to maintain and repair Skyline Boulevard, and the pothole created a dangerous condition. In upholding the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case, the Court of Appeal relied on prior decisions that had concluded categorically that private agreements made “in the recreational sports context” and releasing liability for future ordinary negligence did not implicate the public interest and therefore were not void as against public policy. The Court found Whitehead executed the Release in exchange for entry into a recreational cycling activity that was organized for fundraising purposes. As such, the Court found it enforceable because the cycling event was a nonessential sports activity that did not affect the public interest within the meaning of Civil Code section 1668.

While the Court noted the Release could not relieve the City of acts of gross negligence by its employees, the evidence did not support such a finding. Whitehead argued the evidence showed a City employee suspected underreporting of data concerning falls or collisions of bicycles at the subject area based only on his personal observations, but such speculation was unpersuasive. The Court noted such speculative evidence did not mean the City’s conduct marked an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care, whether the City substantially or unreasonably increased the inherent risk of an activity, or whether the City concealed a known risk.

A copy of the case can be found here.

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Nicholas D. Syren.