Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd.
192 Cal. App. 4th 1072
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dover operates Starwest Motocross Track at Lake Perris Fairgrounds and requires a waiver at entry.
- Jerid Rosencrans, 38, signed the Release at the booth after being told to sign in, without receiving a copy.
- Release language waives all liability for injuries related to use of the Premises, including negligence.
- Signatures were obtained in a 30-second exchange with approximately 10 cars in line; Jerid had time to read but did not read the Release.
- Jerid fell on the track during practice; after his fall, two riders struck him within about 50 seconds; a caution flagger was not at the immediate location of the fall, though one was on the track later.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Dover on all claims; the appeal concerns enforceability of the Release, gross negligence, causation, and loss of consortium.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the Release against ordinary negligence | Rosencrans argues the Release is void for fraud in execution or lack of knowledge. | Dover contends Jerid had a reasonable opportunity to read and sign, making the Release enforceable. | Release enforceable for ordinary negligence. |
| Gross negligence not barred by the Release | Gross negligence not barred; there is extreme conduct by Dover (flagger duty) and training/supervision issues. | Gross negligence not supported by enforceable scope of Release; implied public policy limits. | Question of gross negligence remains triable. |
| Duty and breach owed by track owner to minimize risks | Track owed duty to provide warning system (caution flaggers) to minimize collisions. | Motocross inherently risky; no duty to eliminate all risks beyond warning system. | Owed duty to provide warning system; breach possible (flagger absence at critical location). |
| Causation and foreseeability of injuries | Delay in warning contributed to two subsequent collisions; foreseeability supports causation. | Inherent sport risks and intervening acts complicate causation; not necessarily foreseeability issues. | Triable issue on causation remains. |
| Loss of consortium not derivative | Loss of consortium is a standalone claim, not merely derivative. | Derivative of Jerid's negligence claims. | Court affirms dismissal as to loss of consortium is not derivative; however, remand on gross negligence remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2007) (recreational releases generally not applicable to public policy concerns)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (Cal. 1992) (duty in sports and inherent risks; primary vs. secondary assumption of risk)
- Saffro v. Elite Racing, Inc., 98 Cal.App.4th 173 (Cal. App. 2002) (duty to minimize risk in races; warning systems)
- Distefano v. Forester, 85 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. App. 2001) (duty analyzed among participants vs. owner; not controlling for track owner)
- Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority, 31 Cal.4th 1175 (Cal. 2003) (gross negligence requires extreme conduct)
- Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, 112 Cal.App.4th 1527 (Cal. App. 2003) (elements of gross negligence; substantial factor standard)
- Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist., 38 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2006) (primary vs. secondary assumption of risk; policy considerations)