## Facts

- Anthony Hulsey enrolled in Elsinore Parachute Center’s commercial “First Jump Course” with friends.
- Before participating, Hulsey signed a registration form and an “Agreement & Release of Liability.”
- Hulsey later claimed he did not remember signing the documents but admitted the handwriting, initials, and signatures were his.
- The release stated (in conspicuous, plain language) that parachute jumping is hazardous, that Hulsey assumed all risks of injury, and that he agreed not to sue and to release the operator from liability, including for negligence.
- A separately signed, bold, all-caps paragraph stated Hulsey had read and fully understood the agreement; Hulsey acknowledged he was not coerced and chose to participate.
- After instruction and warnings, Hulsey made his first jump, struck nearby power lines during descent, lost consciousness, and suffered a broken wrist and other injuries.
- Hulsey sued for negligence and strict products liability; the trial court granted summary judgment for the operator based on the release, and Hulsey appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the preinjury “Agreement & Release of Liability” was enforceable to bar claims for negligence and strict products liability, including challenges based on unconscionability, adhesion, and public policy.
2. Whether sport parachuting is an ultrahazardous activity such that a preinjury liability release is ineffective as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Elsinore Parachute Center.
- The court held the release was clear, conspicuous, and voluntarily executed, and therefore enforceable.
- The release barred both the negligence claim and the strict liability claim.
- The court held sport parachuting is not ultrahazardous in the doctrinal sense that would defeat enforcement of the release.

## Legal Principles

- A preinjury exculpatory agreement for a recreational activity is enforceable when its language is clear, explicit, and understandable, and the participant voluntarily signs it.
- A signer is generally bound by a signed release—particularly where the agreement states the signer read and understood it—even if the signer later claims not to recall reading it.
- Under California public policy limits on exculpatory clauses (including the public-interest analysis), a private, optional recreational service generally does not implicate the type of public interest that renders releases void.
- Adhesion and unconscionability require showing oppression or surprise in formation and overly one-sided terms; optional recreational participation and conspicuous risk-allocation language weigh against such findings.
- In a voluntary recreational context, a release may bar strict products liability claims when public policy does not prohibit contractual risk allocation.
- “Ultrahazardous” activity strict-liability doctrine focuses on nonparticipant risk and risks not eliminable by reasonable care; an activity primarily endangering willing participants does not necessarily qualify.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a clearly drafted, voluntarily signed preinjury release in a recreational skydiving setting, holding it barred both negligence and strict liability claims and rejecting arguments that the contract was against public policy or that sport parachuting is ultrahazardous in a way that defeats contractual risk allocation.


Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Ctr., 214 Cal. Rptr. 194 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)