Richards v. Richards
Supreme Court of
181 Wis.2d 1007, 513 N.W.2d
118.
Facts: Jerilyn wanted to ride in Leo’s truck. Leo’s employer made her sign a “passenger
authorization”, which included exculpatory language. Then they got into an accident in the truck
where Jerilyn got injured. Jerilyn tries
to sue her husband and his employer. The
trial court found for the defendants by summary judgment, citing the
exculpatory clause in the contract. The intermediate
appellate court affirmed, and Jerilyn appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Issue: Shall the exculpatory agreement be enforced against
Jerilyn, barring her suit?
Rule: A court may find an exculpatory agreement void if on
balance the interest in compensating injured people outweighs the freedom of contract.
Analysis: The majority says that three factors come together to
make the exculpatory agreement void:
1.
The contract has
two purposes, but they aren’t both clear at a glance. The contract both serves as a “permission
slip” in a sense and also as a release of the company from liability. The court says that the two parts should have
been split up into separate agreements to make it clear to the signer just what
they were getting into.
2.
The release is
very broad, which means that it is vague as well as too biased towards the
company which drafted the contract.
3.
The contract is a
standardized form that is “take it or leave it” without room to bargain.
Any of the factors alone
would not be enough to void the agreement, but the court says that taken
together they swing the balance in favor of the public policy that injured
people should have the opportunity to be compensated.
Conclusion: The lower courts are reversed.