404 S.W.3d 469
Tenn. Ct. App.2013Background
- Maxwell sued MTMEC, Upchurch, and MSF for injuries from a motorcycle safety course; she signed a Waiver releasing MTMEC and its staff from liability before the course.
- The course, a three-day Learn to Ride Basic Rider Course, was voluntary and designed to qualify for a motorcycle endorsement; Maxwell attended with a friend who arranged the enrollment.
- On the second day Maxwell crashed during a riding exercise after deviating from the course; her instructor, Upchurch, provided supervision and later assisted.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, enforcing the Waiver as a release of ordinary negligence and dismissing gross negligence claims; MSF was dismissed from gross negligence claim.
- The court held the Waiver was not unconscionable or against public policy under Tennessee law and was valid; Maxwell appealed the summary judgment on both negligence and gross negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Waiver valid against Maxwell's negligence claims? | Maxwell (Maxwell) contends the Waiver is void as public policy and unconscionable. | Defendants argue the Waiver is valid exculpatory agreement enforceable under public policy and regulatory framework. | Waiver valid; negligence claims dismissed. |
| Does public policy invalidate the Waiver given the services involved? | Maxwell asserts public policy exception applies to high-importance services. | Defendants assert course is voluntary recreational/educational and not essential public service. | Waiver not contrary to public policy. |
| Is the Waiver unconscionable? | Maxwell argues unequal bargaining power and prepayment timing render it unconscionable. | Defendants contend Maxwell read and understood the Waiver; tuition was paid before signing but contract terms were reasonable. | Waiver not unconscionable. |
| Do Maxwell’s gross negligence claims survive the Waiver? | Maxwell argues defendant acted with utter disregard for safety and gross negligence. | Defendants contend the record shows only ordinary negligence in a beginner course and not gross negligence. | Gross negligence claims dismissed; standard not met. |
| Is a motorcycle a dangerous instrumentality elevating ordinary negligence to gross negligence? | Maxwell posits motorcycle danger could trigger gross negligence. | Court holds motorcycle not a dangerous instrumentality; operation within supervised course does not create gross negligence. | Motorcycle not a dangerous instrumentality; gross negligence claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Molzen, 558 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn. 1977) (public policy limits on exculpatory agreements in certain relationships)
- Henderson v. Quest Expeditions, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 730 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (public policy factors for exculpatory releases; regulated activities)
- Carey v. Merritt, 148 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (home inspections; public necessity; exculpation invalid in certain purchases)
- Buckner v. Varner, 793 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (gross negligence standard: utter unconcern for safety or conscious indifference)
- Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (automobiles not inherently dangerous instruments; public usage reduces danger)
- Goodman v. Wilson, 166 S.W. 752 (Tenn. 1914) (automobiles not inherently dangerous instruments; baseline risk assessment)