## Facts

- Murphy paid to participate in a commercially guided whitewater rafting trip operated by North American River Runners, Inc. (NARR).
- Before the trip, Murphy signed a written document describing dangers of rafting and purporting to (1) have the participant assume the risks of the activity and (2) release NARR from liability for injuries, including injuries allegedly caused by NARR’s negligence.
- Murphy was injured during the rafting trip.
- Murphy sued NARR for negligence, alleging his injury resulted from NARR’s acts or omissions in conducting the trip and/or conditions associated with rafting.
- NARR asserted the signed release and assumption of risk as defenses.
- The trial court entered judgment for NARR on the theory that the release barred Murphy’s negligence claim.
- Murphy appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a commercial rafting outfitter may enforce a pre-injury release to bar a participant’s negligence claim under West Virginia law.
2. Whether participation in an inherently dangerous recreational activity constitutes assumption of risk that categorically bars recovery against a commercial operator.
3. How strictly courts must construe exculpatory language in a consumer recreational setting, including questions of clarity and scope.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the judgment for NARR and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the release could not be enforced as a complete bar to Murphy’s negligence claim against the commercial outfitter.
- The court recognized that a participant may assume inherent risks of whitewater rafting, but that doctrine does not automatically immunize an outfitter from liability for negligent conduct that adds to or increases the risks.
- The release could be treated as evidence of Murphy’s awareness of inherent risks, but not as dispositive protection for NARR against negligence liability.

## Legal Principles

- Pre-injury exculpatory agreements that attempt to relieve a party from liability for its own negligence are disfavored and strictly construed against the drafter.
- A release that purports to waive negligence liability must be clear and unequivocal; ambiguity is resolved to preserve the injured party’s ability to pursue tort recovery.
- Public policy limits enforcement of negligence waivers in consumer, standard-form agreements used by commercial providers of hazardous recreational services.
- Assumption of risk applies to ordinary, obvious, and necessary dangers inherent in an activity, but does not extend to risks created or increased by the defendant’s negligence.
- In evaluating liability for injuries in risky recreation, assumption-of-risk concepts may function as part of fault allocation rather than an automatic bar to suit.

## Conclusion

West Virginia refused to treat a commercial rafting outfitter’s standard-form release as a complete defense to negligence, distinguishing inherent risks of rafting from risks attributable to the operator’s failure to use reasonable care, and remanded for litigation of the negligence claim under ordinary tort principles and defenses.


Murphy v. N. Am. River Runners, Inc., 412 S.E.2d 504 (W. Va. 1991)