California Supreme Court decides waivers are not a shield from liability for public roadway injuries

By Sheri Chapman, general counsel

Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled that a cyclist who was injured after striking a pothole during an organized bike ride may pursue a claim against the city of Oakland. The court held that signing a waiver did not shield a city from liability for injuries allegedly caused by dangerous street conditions. It concluded that the waiver was unenforceable, as it relieved the city of liability for violating statutory duties related to public safety.

Along with other associations, Cal Cities filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the court to uphold the waiver and citing important public policy considerations.

Case background for lower court rulings

In 2017, the plaintiff participated in an organized group training ride for an AIDS/LifeCycle fundraising event. He signed a release, waiving liability and assuming the risk of injury. A provision of the agreement discharged event organizers, as well as the owners/lessors of the course or facilities used in the event, from liability for negligence.

The plaintiff sued Oakland after becoming injured during the training ride. He alleged a dangerous condition of public property claim under Government Code section 835, arguing the waiver was invalid because it involved a matter of public interest.

California Civil Code section 1668 prohibits contracts that exempt anyone from responsibility for fraud, willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law — willful or negligent.

The trial court and the court of appeals found the waiver was enforceable, stating the cycling event was a non-essential sports activity that did not affect the public interest within the meaning of Civil Code section 1668.

Supreme Court decision

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and reversed the appellate court’s ruling. It found the release was “against the policy of the law” under Civil Code section 1668, to the extent it relieved the city of liability for “negligently violating a statutory duty relating to public safety” in Government Code section 835. Therefore, the agreement was unenforceable.

The city warned that invalidating the release could force it to close public premises to recreational activities or impose regulatory and indemnification requirements that would make recreational events harder to host and more expensive.   

The court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim — only on the enforceability of the waiver. In further legal proceedings, the city may still litigate its defense of primary assumption of risk: that the plaintiff assumed the risk of a type of injury that is inherent in long-distance bike rides on public roads.

The decision in Whitehead v. City of Oakland, along with the court’s recent ruling in New England County Foods v. Vanlaw Food Products, underscores the narrowing scope of enforceable liability waivers in California.

City officials with questions about the impact of this ruling should consult their city attorney.