Opinion
In а personal injury action, two defendants, by separate petitions for writ of mandate, seek to compel the trial court to grant thеir *936 motions for summary judgment on the basis of a release signed by the plaintiff before his injury.
Plaintiff is a professional automobile and race cаr mechanic and an experienced race car driver. On January 15, 1984, he competed in an automobile drag race at a trаck on Terminal Island. His car, a top-fuel dragster, was capable, in his words, of “unlimited” speed. With plaintiff at the wheel, the car left the starting linе in reverse gear and crashed into shipping containers. Plaintiff was removed from the car and taken by ambulance to a hospital. Hе suffered crippling injuries.
Plaintiff sued the race organizer, the landowner, the ambulance company, the hospital, a hospital physiсian, and the owner of the shipping containers. The present petitions, however, concern only the claims against the race organizer (petitioner National and International Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc.) and the landowner (petitioner City of Los Angelеs).
In connection with competing in the race, the contestants, including plaintiff, signed a printed release. The tenor of the release was an agreement that any injury the signatories might suffer would not be the legal responsibility of the track owner or the race organizer. A copy of the release is attached as an exhibit to this opinion. It contains the following language: “I . . . Do Hereby: [fl] 1. Release, Discharge аnd Covenant Not to Sue the track operators, track owners, land owners, racing association, and each of them . . . from any and all claims and liability arising out of. . . ordinary negligence of releasees or any other participant which causes the undersigned injury, death, damages or property damage. . . . [fl] 2. [I] Understand . . . that there is Inherent Danger in racing which I appreciate and voluntarily assume .... I have inspected the racing surface, access roads, shoulders, equipment, barriers or lack thereof ... I Voluntarily Elect to Accept All Risks cоnnected with my . . . participation in any racing events. ... [fl] I Have Read This Document. I Understand It Is A Release of All Claims, fl[] I Understand I Assume All Risk Inherent in Racing, [fíj I Voluntarily Sign My Name Evidencing My Acceptance of the Above Provisions.”
Petitioners moved for summary judgment on the basis of this release. In oppositiоn, plaintiff argued his injuries had been substantially aggravated by the manner in which he was rescued after the crash. He contended rescue personnel, lacking essential extrication equipment or *937 proper training, “twisted his body to work it out of the car and then wrenched his helmet from his head [and thus] left him a quadriplegic.” He sought to hold petitioners liable for failure to assure the presence of appropriate extrication equipment and of properly trained rescue personnel. Finally, he argued “the lack of competent medicаl attention and adequate rescue equipment is not an inherent risk of drag racing.”
The trial court ruled the release did not entitle petitioners to summary judgment, and these petitions followed. 1
The petitions will be granted. The release was unlimited in scope, and we have no difficulty in concluding plaintiff’s blanket release of responsibility on the part of the race organizer and landowner was all-encompassing.
Plаintiff contends that because the release at one point states, “I assume all risk inherent in racing,” claims for injuries due to risks not inherent in racing were not released, and a trial is necessary to determine whether any of the risks which harmed him was one not inherent in racing. This is a misreading оf the release, which in unqualified terms releases all claims arising from plaintiff’s participation in the race.
Drafters of releases аlways face the problem of steering between the Scylla of simplicity and the Charybdis of completeness. Apparently no releаse is immune from attack. If short and to the point, a release will be challenged as failing to mention the particular risk which caused a рlaintiff’s injury (see
Coates
v.
Newhall Land & Farming, Inc.
(1987)
In cases arising from hazardous recreational pursuits, to permit released claims to be brоught to trial defeats the purpose for which releases are requested and given, regardless of which party ultimately wins the verdict. Defensе costs are devastating. Unless courts are willing to dismiss such actions without trial, many popular and lawful recreational activities are destined for extinction.
To be effective, a release need not achieve perfection; only on Draftsman’s Olympus is it feasible to сombine the elegance of a trust indenture with the brevity of a stop sign. “Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see, Thinks what ne’er was, nor is, nor e’er shall be.” (Pope, Essay on Criticism, pp. 253-254.) It suffices that a release be clear, unambiguous, and explicit, and that it express an agreement not to hold the released party liable for negligence.
(See Madison
v.
Superior Court
(1988)
This is a proper case for issuance of peremptory writs in the first instаnce. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088;
Palma
v.
U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.
(1984)
Let perеmptory writs of mandate issue, directing respondent to vacate its orders of August 21 and 29, 1989, denying petitioners’ motions for summary judgment on the ground of release, and to enter new orders granting the *939 motions on that basis. Petitioners to recover their costs from real party in interest.
Roth, P. J., and Fukuto, J., concurred.
The petition of real party in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 1, 1990.
*940 [[Image here]]
Notes
The trial court did grant summary judgment to the City of Los Angeles on a different grоund, governmental immunity from liability for injuries to participants in hazardous recreational activities. (Gov. Code, § 831.7.) Facing the uncertainties of an appeal, however, the city petitioned for a writ of mandate based on the release.
We reject plaintiff’s contention that both defendants’ petitions must be denied as untimely filed.