## Facts

- Leo Richards worked as a truck driver for Monkem Company, Inc.
- Jerilyn Richards sought permission to ride as a passenger in Monkem’s truck while Leo was driving.
- Monkem provided Jerilyn a preprinted “Passenger Authorization” form that both authorized her to ride and purported to release Monkem and related entities from liability.
- The form stated Jerilyn released “all past, present and future claims of any kind” for “any injuries” sustained as a passenger in any vehicle or while on Monkem-related property.
- Jerilyn signed the form.
- While Jerilyn was riding in the truck, it overturned on a curve, and she was injured.
- Jerilyn sued Monkem for negligence; Monkem asserted the signed form barred her claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the “Passenger Authorization” form constituted a valid and enforceable exculpatory contract that released Jerilyn Richards’s claims and barred her negligence action against Monkem.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Monkem and reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held the form was an exculpatory contract void as against public policy and therefore unenforceable.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings because the release did not bar Jerilyn’s negligence claim.
- The court treated the validity of the exculpatory contract as a question of law reviewable on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory contracts are disfavored and are strictly construed against the drafter.
- An exculpatory clause may be void as against public policy where, in context, it fails to provide fair notice and is not fairly obtained.
- A combination of factors can render a release unenforceable, including:
  - A confusing dual-purpose document where a permission/authorization function obscures the waiver of liability.
  - Overbroad, all-inclusive waiver language that extends beyond the specific activity and foreseeable risks.
  - Unequal bargaining and lack of meaningful, informed choice where the release is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without realistic opportunity to negotiate.

## Conclusion

The court held that Monkem’s preprinted ride-along “Passenger Authorization” was unenforceable because its dual-purpose presentation, sweeping waiver language, and the circumstances of execution together violated public policy, so it could not bar the passenger’s negligence suit.


Richards v. Richards, 513 N.W.2d 118 (Wis. 1994)