## Facts

- Linda LaFrenz was fatally injured on August 19, 1972, during a demolition derby at the Lake County Fair when a participating car crossed a barrier and struck her in the restricted pit area.
- Linda was twenty-six years old, a high-school graduate, and had completed two years of part-time college coursework.
- She had prior exposure to demolition derbies: she watched from the grandstand in 1970 and sold tickets at the event in 1971; she understood that derby cars crash into each other.
- Several weeks before the event, she signed an entry blank to participate and attended both an afternoon and evening derby session in the pit area rather than the grandstand.
- To access the pit, she signed paperwork and obtained a pit pass.
- Before entering the pit, she signed a document titled “WAIVER AND RELEASE FROM LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT.”
- The release was conspicuous, repeatedly marked “THIS IS A RELEASE” at signature lines, and expressly covered injuries caused by the defendants’ negligence.
- The estate administrator brought a wrongful-death action against multiple defendants; only the Lake County Fair Board and Variety Attractions, Inc. are relevant to the appeal.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to those defendants based on the release.
- The estate relied in part on testimony that a different participant was allegedly told the document was an “insurance form,” but there was no evidence a similar statement was made to Linda when she signed.

## Issues

1. Whether the exculpatory release Linda signed was valid and enforceable to bar the estate’s negligence claims against the Fair Board and the event promoter.
2. Whether alleged disputes about Linda’s knowledge, voluntariness, and assumption of risk—or alleged misrepresentations to others—created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Lake County Fair Board and Variety Attractions, Inc.
- The court held the release was valid and enforceable under Indiana law and barred recovery for ordinary negligence.
- The court found no genuine issue of material fact as to Linda’s knowledge and voluntariness in signing the release.
- Evidence of alleged misrepresentations to third parties did not, without proof they were made to Linda, create a triable issue about inducement or understanding.

## Legal Principles

- Parties may contract in advance to allocate the risk of ordinary negligence, subject to public-policy limits.
- An exculpatory clause is generally enforceable when bargaining is free and open, the transaction does not affect the public interest, and the agreement does not involve a professional bailee relationship.
- Releases are not construed to cover extreme negligence or intentional torts absent clear basis.
- Conspicuousness and specificity matter: a clearly titled release, with prominent warnings and express reference to negligence, supports enforcement.
- Alleged misrepresentations made to persons other than the signer do not, standing alone, establish that misrepresentations were made to the signer.
- Summary judgment is proper when, even viewing the record in the nonmovant’s favor, no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a prominently labeled pit-area release that expressly waived negligence claims, concluding that the decedent voluntarily chose pit access without compulsion and that the record contained no evidence she was misled about the document’s nature; accordingly, summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.


LaFrenz v. Lake Cnty. Fair Bd., 172 Ind. App. 389, 360 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)