The issue of waiver and releases for recreational activities was recently at issue in Weinrich v. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc., Weinrich was completing his third lap at the Lehigh Valley Grand Prix go-cart track, when he passed by a protruding piece of plastic that had come loose from the track’s guard rail and was sticking out into the path of the track. Weinrich struck the piece of plastic with his go-cart, causing the plastic to whip back and strike him in the leg, leaving him with a two-inch laceration on his leg. Weinrich sued the track because of his injuries.

During depositions it was established that Weinrich previously patronized the facility, approximately six months before his accident. At that time, Weinrich signed a waiver of liability before being permitted to use the track. On the date of his accident, Weinrich was not required to sign a waiver, as it was the facility’s policy to permit repeat customers to use the track if they already had a waiver on file.

Pennsylvania courts strictly construe and disfavor waivers of liability as a matter of public policy but nonetheless uphold such waivers when three requirements are met: (1) the waiver must not infringe on public policy; (2) the agreement must be between persons relating to their own individual actions and affairs; and (3) the agreement must not be a “contract of adhesion,” meaning that each party must have free bargaining abilities.

Further, when it comes to recreational activities and facilities, these waivers are generally upheld as they do not interfere with public policy, absent reckless or grossly negligent behavior, and the patrons are usually free to decide that they would rather not partake in the activity.

Here, the defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the waiver precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit.  But the waiver at issue was silent as to the duration of applicability. Applying traditional contract-interpretation principles, the court explained that when a contract is silent as to duration, Pennsylvania courts must infer that the parties intended that terms of the contract be completed within a reasonable amount of time. The court  denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, stating that what constitutes a reasonable amount of time is an appropriate question to be decided by the jury. Had the waiver simply stated that such waiver was “valid now and for any and all future use of the facility,” defendant’s motion for summary judgment would likely have been successful.

Thanks to Jim Stinsman for his contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.