California Supreme Court Watch

#24-81 Whitehead v. City of Oakland, S284303. (A164483; 99 Cal.App.5th 775; Alameda County Superior Court; RG18896233.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does a liability release agreement between a bicyclist and the organizer of a recreational bicycle ride extend to the alleged negligent maintenance of a public road by a municipality named in the agreement but not a party to it?

Petition for review granted: 5/15/2024

Case fully briefed (primary merits briefs): 11/04/2024

Supplemental briefing ordered: 11/20/2024

The court requested supplemental briefing on the following issue: Does the release in this case extend to a claim that the City of Oakland violated Government Code section 835 et seq., in light of Civil Code section 1668, which provides in relevant part that “[a]ll contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own . . . violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law”? (Cf. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 763 [Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92 “found a release of liability for future ordinary negligence void on public policy grounds other than those set forth in section 1668”].)

Cause argued and submitted: 2/05/2025

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 5/01/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Whitehead v. City of Oakland (2015) 17 Cal.5th 735.)

“Civil Code section 1668 renders unlawful any contract that seeks, ‘directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent.’ In this case, plaintiff Ty Whitehead alleges he suffered a serious head injury during a bicycle training ride for a charity fundraiser because defendant City of Oakland (the City) breached its statutory duty under Government Code section 835 to maintain a safe roadway for public use. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, on the basis of a release and waiver of liability that Whitehead signed on the morning of the training ride. The release and waiver included a provision discharging the ride organizers, as well as any public entities providing facilities for the ride, from any liability for negligence. We conclude that such a release is ‘against the policy of the law’ under Civil Code section 1668 (section 1668) to the extent it purports to relieve the City of liability for negligently violating a statutory duty relating to public safety. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”

Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Jenkins concurred.

Justice Kruger filed a concurring opinion

In the news: Egelko, Injured cyclist can sue Oakland for damages after hitting pothole, court rules, S.F. Chronicle (May 1, 2025).