## Facts

- Norman Haines, an experienced race car owner, went to St. Charles Speedway’s infield to help prepare his sprint car for a race; he had hired another person to drive.
- Entry into the infield required signing a “Release and Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement” that broadly released the racetrack, promoter, and others from “any and all” liability for injuries arising from presence in the restricted area.
- Haines had signed similar racing releases many times, had a second- to third-grade reading level, did not read the release, and did not ask anyone (including his wife, a racing association official) to explain it.
- While the car was being push-started in the infield, Haines was struck by his own car and injured.
- Haines sued the track owner and event promoter for negligence (inexperienced push-car operator, unsafe premises, and failure to warn); Barbara Haines asserted loss of consortium.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on the release; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the pre-injury release was valid and enforceable under Missouri law to bar Haines’s negligence claims.
2. Whether the release was unenforceable as an unconscionable contract of adhesion given the standardized, non-negotiable form and Haines’s limited reading ability.
3. Whether the release’s scope covered the alleged negligence and barred the derivative loss-of-consortium claim.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the racetrack and promoter.
- The court held the release was clear, broad, and enforceable under Missouri law to bar ordinary negligence claims arising from infield racing activities.
- Haines’s limited literacy and failure to read or seek an explanation did not void the release.
- The release was not an unconscionable contract of adhesion because infield entry and racing participation were voluntary and the terms were not shown to be shockingly unfair.
- Barbara Haines’s loss-of-consortium claim failed because it was derivative of Norman Haines’s barred claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Missouri law, an exculpatory clause may bar negligence liability when it clearly and unambiguously expresses an intent to release a party from its own negligence.
- A person who signs a written agreement is generally bound by it; inability to read well or failure to read does not excuse performance absent a recognized contract defense (e.g., fraud or duress), and a non-reader must seek assistance before signing.
- A standardized, take-it-or-leave-it release used for a voluntary, recreational activity is not unenforceable solely because it is non-negotiated; unconscionability requires a showing of extreme unfairness.
- A broadly worded release covering injuries arising from presence in a restricted area can encompass negligence claims tied to the activity occurring there.
- Derivative consortium claims fail when the injured spouse’s underlying tort claim is barred.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a racetrack infield liability release as a complete defense to negligence claims arising from racing-related infield activities, rejecting arguments based on limited literacy and adhesion, and it barred the spouse’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim.


Haines v. St. Charles Speedway, Inc., 874 F.2d 572 (8th Cir. 1989)