In Whitehead v. City of Oakland, published May 1, 2025, the California Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the defendant city, and the court of appeal decision upholding summary judgment. The plaintiff was participating in a group training ride in preparation for a fundraising ride. Before his training ride, the plaintiff signed a release form. The form included a provision discharging any public entities providing facilities for the ride, from any liability for negligence. The form specifically identified as a potential risk associated with the event "using public streets and facilities where hazards such as broken pavement and road debris may exist . . . " During the training ride, the plaintiff's front tire went down sharply into a pothole, and the plaintiff flipped over the front of the bike and hit the pavement, suffering a traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff sued the city that owned the road under Government Code section 835, alleging that the roadway was a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the city, holding that the release was valid, enforceable, and barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed.
The Supreme Court ruled that the release was invalid under Civil Code section 1668. Section 1668 renders unlawful any contract that seeks to exempt anyone from responsibility for violation of the law, whether willful or negligent. Under the statute, an agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is against the policy of the law and not enforceable. Government Code section 835 imposes a statutory duty upon public entities to maintain their roadways in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public. Therefore, the release could not be applied to exempt public entities from liability under section 835 for failing to maintain its roadways in a safe condition.
Leave a Reply