## Facts

- UCLA Medical Center, operated by the Regents of the University of California as a nonprofit charitable research hospital, admitted patients in part to support medical research and education.
- Hugo Tunkl was admitted on June 11, 1956, as a patient associated with a research project.
- Admission required signing a printed “Conditions of Admission” form containing a clause releasing the Regents and the hospital from liability for employees’ negligent or wrongful acts or omissions, provided the hospital used due care in selecting employees.
- Tunkl later sued for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligence of two hospital-employed physicians.
- After Tunkl’s death, his wife, Olga Tunkl (as executrix), was substituted as plaintiff.
- Plaintiff stipulated that the hospital used due care in selecting its employees.
- The trial court bifurcated proceedings; a first jury upheld the release’s validity, and judgment was entered for the Regents; an intermediate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether an exculpatory clause releasing a hospital from liability for future negligence, required as a condition of admission, is void as against public policy under California Civil Code § 1668.
2. Whether the hospital–patient admission contract is a transaction affecting the public interest such that liability waivers for negligence are unenforceable.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the Regents.
- The court held the exculpatory clause invalid because the hospital–patient admission agreement affects the public interest.
- The court concluded that, under Civil Code § 1668, a hospital may not contractually exempt itself from responsibility for future negligence in the admission setting presented.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Code § 1668 renders unenforceable contracts that, directly or indirectly, exempt a party from responsibility for violation of law, whether willful or negligent, when public policy so requires.
- Exculpatory clauses may be enforced in some private transactions, but are void when imposed in contracts affecting the public interest.
- A contract tends to affect the public interest when characteristics such as the following are present: (1) the service is the type subject to public regulation; (2) the service is of great public importance and practical necessity for some; (3) the provider holds itself out as willing to serve the public (or a qualifying segment); (4) the provider has decisive bargaining advantage; (5) the agreement is a standardized adhesion contract without a realistic option to obtain protection from negligence; and (6) the customer’s person or property is placed under the provider’s control, exposing the customer to risk from the provider’s carelessness.
- Hospital admission agreements commonly satisfy these characteristics because medical care is essential, bargaining power is typically unequal, the forms are standardized, and the patient is placed under the hospital’s control.
- A hospital’s nonprofit or charitable status does not justify contractual immunity for negligence and cannot be used to recreate immunity inconsistent with § 1668.

## Conclusion

The court held that a hospital’s required admission release purporting to waive liability for future negligence is void under Civil Code § 1668 because the hospital–patient relationship implicates the public interest and the waiver is imposed through a standardized, nonnegotiable admission contract in an essential service setting.


Tunkl v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal. 2d 92, 383 P.2d 441 (Cal. 1963)