Richards v Richards

Facts
P --> release waiver for D of all liability to it as a result of anyone's actions while P is passenger in D's property
D --> permission for P to ride as passenger without driving in P's husband's (D's employee's) truck
P gets into accident, sues D

Analysis

The contract is against public policy, or the principle of law under which "freedom of contract is restricted by law for the good of the community." First, the waiver did not clearly state that permission to ride in D's property was consideration for P's liability waiver. Second, the waiver was overly broad, as it waived any liability of D for any injuries of any person while P was in D's property, with no time limits. "The very breadth of the release raises questions about its meaning and demonstrates its one-sidedness." Third, P and D had grossly unequal bargaining power to negotiate the standardized contract.

Given the three factors, the court rules that a tort-like liability rule is a more appropriate distribution of entitlements in this case than a property rule allowing P to contract away her right to sue. Thus, P can recover from D despite the liability waiver.

See generally adhesion contract