## Facts

- Joyce A. Johnson purchased new ski boots from N.E.W., Inc., doing business as Wintersport Ski & Spa.
- Wintersport adjusted Johnson’s ski bindings to fit the new boots as part of the transaction.
- When Johnson retrieved the equipment, Wintersport presented a written release/waiver stating the boot-binding system would not always release, safety could not be guaranteed, and Wintersport was released from liability for injuries caused by its negligence in adjusting the system.
- Johnson signed the release.
- While skiing, Johnson fell; the bindings allegedly did not release, and she suffered a knee injury.
- Johnson and her husband sued Wintersport, alleging negligent adjustment of the bindings.

## Issues

1. Whether the signed release constituted a valid exculpatory agreement establishing express assumption of risk that bars a negligence claim for binding adjustment.
2. Whether Johnson’s injury from bindings allegedly failing to release due to negligent adjustment fell within the scope of the risk expressly assumed.
3. Whether enforcement of the release was barred by public policy or affected by Washington comparative-fault statutes.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Wintersport.
- The court treated the release as a contractual express assumption of risk that relieved Wintersport of a duty to use reasonable care regarding the expressly covered risk.
- The court concluded the injury alleged (bindings failing to release after a fall) was the specific risk described in the release, including injury caused by Wintersport’s negligent adjustment.
- The court declined to adopt a new limitation on express assumption of risk in this recreational ski-equipment context and found no basis to invalidate the release on public-policy grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Express assumption of risk is contract-based and arises when a plaintiff expressly agrees in advance to relieve a defendant of a duty of reasonable care as to a known risk.
- An exculpatory clause bars recovery only for damages arising from the specific risks expressly assumed; it does not bar damages from risks not covered by the agreement.
- Washington comparative negligence and contributory-fault statutes do not abolish express assumption of risk; when valid and applicable, it operates as a complete bar to recovery for the expressly assumed risk.
- Recreational activity releases may be enforceable when their language clearly allocates the relevant risk and does not violate public policy.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the ski-shop release as an express assumption of risk and held it barred the plaintiffs’ negligence claim because the alleged injury resulted from the precise risk the waiver expressly covered: bindings potentially failing to release, including due to negligent adjustment.


Johnson v. N.E.W., Inc., 89 Wn. App. 309, 948 P.2d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)