## Facts

- Shayne E. Thompson visited Hi Tech Motor Sports, Inc., a motorcycle dealership, to participate in a promotional group motorcycle test ride.
- Thompson told the salesperson she was a relatively new rider but had a valid motorcycle license and prior experience riding a 200cc motorcycle.
- Before riding, Thompson signed a one-page release stating, among other things, that she had experience and a valid license, was familiar with the motorcycle, understood motorcycle operation was inherently dangerous, and waived rights to claims for injuries.
- Thompson rode a 750cc motorcycle, which was significantly more powerful than the motorcycle she had previously ridden.
- During the group ride, Thompson lost control while turning after downshifting, struck a guardrail, and was injured.
- Thompson sued for negligence, alleging the dealership’s agents negligently encouraged her to ride a motorcycle they knew or should have known was too powerful for her to operate safely.

## Issues

1. Whether the test-ride release was void as against public policy and therefore unenforceable.
2. If not void, whether the release’s exculpatory language barred Thompson’s negligence claim by releasing the dealership from liability for its own negligence.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court held the release was not void as against public policy as a matter of law.
- The Court held the release did not clearly and unequivocally waive claims based on the dealership’s own negligence.
- The Court reversed the trial court’s ruling invalidating the release on public policy grounds.
- The Court affirmed the denial of the dealership’s summary judgment motion because the release did not bar the negligence claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory agreements are disfavored and strictly construed against the party seeking immunity, but they are not automatically void on public policy grounds.
- Public policy invalidation depends on context, including the nature of the activity, the parties’ relationship, and whether broader public interests or quasi-public operations justify refusing enforcement.
- A release bars negligence claims only if it clearly and unambiguously communicates that the signer is waiving claims arising from the defendant’s own negligence.
- General language referencing inherent dangers or waiving “any and all claims” may cover inherent risks of the activity but does not necessarily cover risks created by the defendant’s negligent conduct without unmistakable negligence-waiver language.

## Conclusion

A motorcycle dealership’s test-ride release was not categorically unenforceable on public policy grounds, but it failed to bar the injured rider’s negligence claim because it did not clearly state that the rider was releasing the dealership from liability for the dealership’s own negligent acts.


Thompson v. Hi Tech Motor Sports, Inc., 945 A.2d 368 (Vt. 2008)