Murphy v. Richardson CA4/1
D067245
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Robert Murphy signed an Admission Agreement and Waiver of Liability to enter a Christian sober-living program (In His Steps Christian Recovery Home, "IHS") that provided room, board, religious support, and assistance applying for public benefits. The agreement stated IHS was not a treatment program.
- As a condition of admission, Murphy was told he needed a California ID to apply for public assistance; IHS employee David Richardson drove him to the DMV in a van registered to board member Paul Ransom.
- Richardson ran a red light while driving to the DMV, causing an accident that injured Murphy; Murphy was hospitalized for three days.
- Murphy sued for negligence; defendants (IHS, Richardson, and Ransom’s estate) moved for summary judgment based on the written waiver.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the waiver validly barred Murphy’s negligence claim. Murphy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver is void as against public policy under Civil Code §1668/Tunkl factors | Waiver is void because drug/alcohol rehabilitation is of great public interest and cannot be waived for negligence | IHS is a private, religious sober-living program (not a licensed treatment facility); many Tunkl factors are absent so waiver is enforceable | Waiver not void; most critical Tunkl factors (essential public service, public regulation) not met; enforceable |
| Whether the waiver is ambiguous as to scope (e.g., "related activities") | Phrase "related activities" ambiguous and should not be read to cover off-site transportation/negligence | Waiver language is broad but clear; "related activities" reasonably includes off-site actions necessary to program participation (e.g., DMV trip) | Waiver unambiguous and encompassed the DMV trip; negligence was reasonably related to waiver's purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Tunkl v. Regents of University of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92 (1963) (establishes six-factor test for when exculpatory clauses violate public policy)
- Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 748 (1993) (scope of releases judged by express language; broad waivers can be enforceable)
- Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica, LLC, 104 Cal.App.4th 1351 (2002) (general releases need not list the specific risk causing injury if within release scope)
- YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.App.4th 22 (1997) (upholding waiver for nonessential recreational services; public benefit from permitting waivers)
- Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal.App.3d 1559 (1990) (public benefit argument for enforcing waivers to allow low-cost charitable/private programs to operate)
Disposition: Judgment affirmed; respondents awarded costs on appeal.