## Facts

- Gayle W. Moore and her husband bought a four-wheel ATV in Fairbanks, Alaska, and were offered a $50 rebate upon completing an ATV rider safety class.
- The Moores attended an ATV safety course held on Hartley Motors’ property and taught by instructor Jim Croak using the ATV Safety Institute curriculum.
- Before instruction began, participants were required to sign a consent form and liability release; Moore signed the document.
- The driving exercises occurred on an unpaved area marked with cones.
- Moore drove beyond a cone into tall grass, struck a rock protruding from the ground, was thrown from the ATV, and was injured.
- Moore sued Hartley Motors, the ATV Safety Institute, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, and Croak, alleging negligent failure to provide a safe course and negligent concealment of unsafe conditions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment based on the release; the superior court granted summary judgment, and Moore appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Moore’s ability to participate in the ATV safety course supplied legally sufficient consideration for the pre-injury release.
2. Whether the release was unenforceable on public policy grounds because it exculpated negligence in a recreational/instructional setting.
3. Whether the release’s language clearly and unequivocally barred claims alleging injuries from unnecessary dangers beyond the inherent risks of ATV riding.
4. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the course layout created an unnecessarily dangerous condition, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held the release was supported by consideration because participation in the course was a bargained-for benefit conditioned on signing the release.
- The Court held the release was not void as against public policy because the course was voluntary, not a practical necessity, and defendants lacked a decisive bargaining advantage.
- The Court held the release, strictly construed against its drafters, covered inherent risks of ATV riding and ordinary negligence associated with those inherent risks, but did not clearly extend to unreasonable risks or unnecessary dangers not inherent in the activity.
- The Court reversed summary judgment and remanded because evidence could support a finding that a concealed rock hazard on a novice safety-training course was an unnecessary danger outside the release’s scope.
- The Court indicated that even if misrepresentation theories presented no triable issue, the trial court still had to analyze the scope of the release as applied to the alleged course hazard.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration for a liability release may consist of the opportunity to participate in a voluntary recreational or instructional activity offered on condition of signing the release.
- Pre-injury exculpatory clauses may be enforced when the activity is voluntary and not an essential or heavily regulated service, and when there is no decisive disparity in bargaining strength.
- Exculpatory clauses are strictly construed against the drafter and must clearly and unequivocally express the intent to release liability.
- A release for a dangerous activity generally bars claims tied to inherent risks and ordinary negligence associated with those risks, but does not automatically bar claims arising from unreasonable risks or unnecessary dangers not inherent in the activity.
- Whether a particular condition constitutes an inherent risk or an unnecessary danger may present a fact question that can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court enforced the release as supported by consideration and consistent with public policy, but held that the release did not clearly bar claims that the safety course was designed or maintained with unnecessary, non-inherent dangers; it therefore reversed summary judgment and remanded for factfinding on whether the course layout was unnecessarily dangerous.


Moore v. Hartley Motors, Inc., 36 P.3d 628 (Alaska 2001)