Moore v. Hartley Motors

Alaska Supreme Court · Torts

TortsExculpatory releasesAssumption of riskNegligencerelease of liabilityconsiderationpublic policyinherent risk

Facts

Before taking an ATV rider safety class, Moore signed a consent form and release requested by the instructor. During the driving portion of the class, she drove through high grass beyond a cone marking the course, hit a rock obscured in the grass, and was thrown from the ATV and injured. She sued the instructor, the organizations affiliated with the course, and the property owner, alleging they negligently failed to provide a safe course and concealed that the site was unsafe. The defendants obtained summary judgment based on the release.

Issue

Was the pre-injury release invalid for lack of consideration or as against public policy, and if valid, did it nevertheless fail to bar Moore's negligence claim because a factual dispute existed over whether the course layout created an unnecessary and unreasonable danger beyond the inherent risks of ATV riding?

Rule

Participation in a recreational safety class can supply consideration for a liability release. A release is not void as against public policy when the service is nonessential and the provider lacks decisive bargaining power of the kind described in Locker and Tunkl. But a release bars only those negligence claims that are conspicuously and unequivocally covered by its language; where the release speaks in terms of inherent risks of the activity, it does not extend to injuries caused by unnecessary or unreasonable dangers that could be eliminated or mitigated through reasonable care.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boise, Nadia Flores enrolled in a weekend snowmobile-handling clinic run by Silver Basin Outdoor Training. A salesperson had earlier told her she would receive a $40 store credit if she completed the clinic, but before the first session the clinic required her to sign a liability release as a condition of participating. Nadia was injured halfway through the clinic and never received the store credit.

If Nadia argues the release failed for lack of consideration because she never received the store credit, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. Participation in the recreational training program is sufficient consideration for the release. The majority distinguished inducement from consideration: even if a coupon, rebate, or store credit motivated attendance, the bargained-for exchange is the participant's release for access to the class. The absence of the separate incentive does not negate consideration where participation was provided. (Derived from Moore v. Hartley Motors (n.d.).)