## Facts

- Paul M. Vinikoor, an experienced bicyclist, joined a multi-day bicycle tour organized by Pedal Pennsylvania, Inc.
- While riding on a public roadway during the tour, Vinikoor’s right front tire became lodged in a roadway groove, causing him to fall.
- Vinikoor suffered serious injuries, including a central dislocation of his right pelvis and loss of cartilage in the joint.
- Vinikoor alleged Pedal represented the route as safe despite a hidden roadway danger, failed to inspect or discover the defect, and failed to warn riders (including by omission from the cue sheet).
- Vinikoor also alleged the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was negligent regarding the roadway’s design, construction, or maintenance at the accident site.
- Before participating, Vinikoor signed a written release and waiver in favor of Pedal that purported to release Pedal from liability, including for Pedal’s own negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Pedal based on the release (while denying the Department’s summary judgment motion), and Vinikoor obtained permission to take an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the written release Vinikoor signed was clear, unambiguous, and enforceable to exculpate Pedal from liability for its own negligence.
2. Whether Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence regime precludes enforcement of express assumption-of-risk defenses such as contractual exculpatory waivers as a complete bar to recovery.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Pedal.
- The court held the waiver was clear, unambiguous, and enforceable, and it released Pedal from negligence liability arising from the tour.
- The court rejected the argument that comparative negligence eliminated express assumption of risk through a valid exculpatory clause.
- Because the release barred the claim as a matter of law and there was no genuine dispute regarding execution and understanding of the waiver, the court did not reach whether Pedal was negligent in route selection, inspection, or warnings.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory clauses are strictly construed and disfavored, but enforceable when they do not violate public policy, concern private affairs, are not adhesive, and are entered into by free bargaining agents.
- To release a party from its own negligence, the contract must express that intent in clear and unambiguous language.
- In voluntary recreational activities, a clearly drafted and voluntarily executed release may allocate risk to the participant and bar negligence claims against the organizer.
- Comparative negligence does not negate express assumption of risk created by a valid written waiver; an enforceable exculpatory clause can operate as a complete defense.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a recreational tour’s written release because it plainly covered negligence and was knowingly signed, holding that express contractual assumption of risk remains a complete bar to claims against the organizer even under comparative negligence.


Vinikoor v. Pedal Pa., Inc., 974 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009)