Business Law Journal

Plaintiff Zackary Diamond (“Plaintiff”) suffered serious injuries from a punch inflicted by a third party during an altercation in the restricted pit area at Bakersfield Speedway. Plaintiff alleged Defendants Scott Schweitzer, Schweitzer Motorsports Productions doing business as Bakersfield Speedway, and Christian Schweitzer, an individual doing business as Starting Line Refreshment (collectively “Defendants”) were negligent in failing to provide reasonable security, adequately responding to the altercation, and undertaking reasonable rescue efforts. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff's negligence claims were barred by the release and waiver of liability form Plaintiff had signed to gain admission to the pit area. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion, concluding the release's language was clear, unequivocal, broad in scope, and included the negligent conduct alleged in this case. The trial court interpreted the release as including risks arising out of or related to racing activities, and the assault was a risk anticipated and covered by the release. 

Plaintiff contended that the assault was not reasonably related to the purposes for which Plaintiff signed the release – to watch racing from the racetrack’s pit area – and also argued that the release should be limited to racing or the operation of a motor vehicle. In pressing this argument, Plaintiff relied extensively on another Court of Appeal opinion in which injuries resulting from the collapse of bleachers at a raceway were found not to be reasonably related to the purpose of the release in that case. 

The Court of Appeal here disagreed, affirming that Defendants had met their burden on summary judgment to establish that the release barred Plaintiff’s negligence claims, and that the release was enforceable because: (1) the release contained a clear, unambiguous, and explicit expression of the parties' intent to release all liability for Plaintiff's injury; (2) the alleged acts of negligence resulting in the injury were reasonably related to the object or purpose for which the release was given; and (3) the release did not contravene public policy. 

First, the release was clear, unambiguous and explicit because it required in relevant part for Plaintiff to: immediately advise officials and leave the restricted areas as necessary if he felt “anything” was unsafe; release Defendants from “all liability … for any and all loss or damage … arising out of or related to the event(s), whether caused by the negligence of the [Defendants] or otherwise”; and assume “full responsibility for any risk of bodily injury … arising out of or related to the event(s) whether caused by the negligence of [Defendants] or otherwise.” Not only did the release explicitly refer to any injury caused by the negligence of Defendants, the release was further meant to be a “complete and unconditional release of all liability to the greatest extent allowed by law.” The Court of Appeal contrasted this to the release in the prior opinion that Plaintiff relied upon, which release was found to be ambiguous due to extensive use of “and/or” modifiers, and which only released the track owner in that case for negligence relating to a location (i.e. the restricted area) or an activity (i.e. observing the event). That is, the scope of that release was held to pertain only to risks related to automobile racing (which collapsing bleachers were not). 

In determining that Defendants’ release here was clear, unambiguous, and explicit, the Court of Appeal examined only whether a patent ambiguity (i.e. appearing on the face of the document) existed in the release because Plaintiff did not argue any latent ambiguity (i.e. appearing from extrinsic evidence) existed. Consequently, the Court of Appeal concluded the release was not facially ambiguous, and the scope of the release was broad (not narrow) and encompassed injuries having a causal connection to the events or having a logical connection to the events. Plaintiff’s injury was related to the races because but for the races, Plaintiff and the third party would not have been in the racetrack’s pit area on that date and the altercation which resulted in Plaintiff being punched would not have occurred. 

Second, the scope of the release was reasonably related to the object or purpose for which the release was given.  In particular, the Court of Appeal found that the release specifically mentioned the activity for which Plaintiff sought entrance to the racetrack – observation of the race – and the purpose and object of the release clearly related to the alleged negligence arising out of conduct related to the race. 

Finally, the release did not contravene public policy because an automobile race did not rise to the level of benefit provided by essential services such as banks, hospitals, childcare services, or common carriers (which services place members of the public at a distinct bargaining disadvantage because they lack a meaningful capacity to refuse to sign a release due to the essential nature of the service). Exculpatory agreements in the recreational sports context do not implicate the public interest and therefore cannot be void as against public policy. 

In sum, while a well-drafted release and waiver of liability form can do much to protect your business, simply requiring patrons to sign as broad a release as possible is not always a cure-all against all future liability. Multiple issues can affect the enforceability of a release and should be taken into detailed consideration. For a thorough review of the considerations to best protect your specific business, please contact the authors or your usual counsel at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo for assistance.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo