Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.
340 P.3d 27
Or.2014Background
- Plaintiff (experienced snowboarder) bought a season pass from Mt. Bachelor and signed a standard printed release/indemnity that disclaimed liability for injury “even if caused by negligence.”
- The release appeared on the season-pass agreement, on the lift ticket, and in lift terminal signage; plaintiff used the pass many times before injury.
- While snowboarding in defendant’s terrain park on a human-made jump, plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries and sued for negligence in design, construction, maintenance, and inspection of the jump.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting the release barred plaintiff’s negligence claim; trial court granted the motion and Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide whether enforcement of the anticipatory release is contrary to public policy or unconscionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of an anticipatory release disclaiming liability for operator’s negligence | Bagley: the release is unconscionable and violates public policy and therefore unenforceable in these circumstances | Mt. Bachelor: release is conspicuous, unambiguous, concerns a recreational (nonessential) activity, so enforceable; patrons may choose not to ski | Release unenforceable: court holds release is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable in these circumstances and enforcement would violate public policy |
| Procedural unconscionability (formation) | Release was adhesive, offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; plaintiff lacked meaningful choice | Release was clear and not surprising; plaintiff voluntarily used facilities | Procedural unconscionability established: significant disparity in bargaining power and lack of meaningful alternative weighed against enforcement |
| Substantive unconscionability (terms & public interest) | Enforcement would produce a harsh, inequitable result because operator, not patrons, is best placed to prevent and insure against risks it creates | Operator stresses inherent risks of skiing and that release limits only ordinary negligence; enforcement preserves recreational opportunities | Substantive unconscionability established: broad release would remove incentives for operator to prevent negligence and affects important public interests tied to premises liability |
| Role of "essential public service" in analysis | Bagley: public-policy concerns extend beyond traditionally "essential" services when business serves large public and creates risks | Mt. Bachelor: anticipatory releases should be invalid only when provider performs an essential public service | Court rejects narrow ‘‘essential service’’ rule; whether business is tied to public interest depends on totality (here, public-accommodation/premises-liability concerns prevail) |
Key Cases Cited
- K-Lines v. Roberts Motor Co., 273 Or. 242 (discussion of enforcement of limitation-of-liability provisions in commercial settings)
- Real Good Food v. First Nat’l Bank, 276 Or. 747 (banks and entities performing public functions cannot contract away negligence duties)
- Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or. 548 (business invitee duty to make premises reasonably safe)
- Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd., 670 A.2d 795 (Vt. 1995) (anticipatory ski-area release unenforceable under public-policy/premises-liability considerations)
- Hanks v. Powder Ridge Rest. Corp., 885 A.2d 734 (Conn. 2005) (anticipatory release for recreational activity unenforceable given public-safety and unequal bargaining power concerns)