## Facts

- Angela White applied for a firefighter/paramedic position with the Village of Homewood.
- As part of the selection process, applicants had to complete a physical agility test administered under the Village’s authority and its Fire and Police Commission.
- Before taking the test, White was required to sign a broad “Agility Test Release of All Liabilities” purporting to release the Village and its personnel from “any and all” claims for injuries arising from the test.
- During the test, White fell while traversing horizontal bars and injured her wrist and elbow.
- White sued, alleging the test was conducted negligently and that the negligence caused her injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether the exculpatory agreement barred White’s negligence claim arising from the agility test.
2. Whether the release was supported by adequate consideration.
3. Whether enforcing the release in a public-employment application testing context was void as against public policy.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the negligence count and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the release did not bar the negligence claim because it lacked adequate consideration.
- The court also held the release was unenforceable as contrary to public policy where it was required as a condition of pursuing public employment under unequal bargaining power and economic compulsion.

## Legal Principles

- An exculpatory agreement is enforceable only if supported by valid consideration.
- No consideration exists where the defendant is already legally obligated to provide the claimed benefit and the plaintiff already has a legal right to receive it.
- Exculpatory clauses may be void on public-policy grounds when imposed in an employment (or prospective employment) setting involving significant bargaining-power disparity and economic compulsion, particularly when the clause attempts to immunize the employer from its own negligence.
- The breadth of a release, combined with the circumstances of its execution, may support invalidation where it operates as a blanket waiver in a compelled public hiring process.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reinstated White’s negligence claim, concluding that a municipality could not enforce a broad pre-test liability release required of a public-employment applicant where the testing opportunity was an entitlement within a mandated hiring process and where the release functioned as a compelled waiver inconsistent with Illinois public policy.


White v. Village of Homewood, 256 Ill. App. 3d 354, 628 N.E.2d 616 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)