Winterstein v. Wilcom - 16 Md. App. 130, 293 A.2d 821 (1972)

Rule:

In the absence of legislation to the contrary, the law, by the great weight of authority, is that there is ordinarily no public policy which prevents the parties from contracting as they see fit, as to whether the plaintiff will undertake the responsibility of looking out for himself. It is quite possible for the parties expressly to agree in advance that the defendant is under no obligation of care for the benefit of the plaintiff, and shall not be liable for the consequences of conduct which would otherwise be negligent. In other words, the parties may agree that there shall be no obligation to take precautions and hence no liability for negligence.

Facts:

Plaintiff alleged that at defendant's racetrack, his car hit a cylinder head, which was not visible to him when he commenced the race but was visible to defendant's employees from a tower. Thus, plaintiff alleged the crash and resulting injuries were due solely to defendant's negligence. Plaintiff had signed an exculpatory clause, but claimed the releases were void as against public policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment to and dismissed plaintiff’s action in tort based on the exculpatory clause signed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Was the exculpatory clause in question void as against public policy? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment below and held that the exculpatory provisions were not void as against public policy and effectively released defendant. Defendant's business was not one affected with the public interest. Defendant had no decisive advantage of bargaining strength because the service was not essential. The document anticipated the alleged negligence of defendant and held him harmless. Any joint claim for loss of consortium necessarily fell as dependent upon the avoidance of the releases.