Wolf v. La. State Racing Com. - 545 So. 2d 976 (La. 1989)

Rule:

As a part of the legislative enactment of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4:191-197, the legislature included the following provision: Nothing contained in the provisions of this Act should in any way affect or be construed to limit or modify the proprietary rights of any owner of any establishment licensed to operate or conduct any exotic wagering or pari-mutual wagering or pools.

Facts:

The Fair Grounds Corporation required jockeys who race at its track to sign an agreement whereby the track would pay worker's compensation benefits to an injured jockey in exchange for the jockey's waiver of the right to sue the track for its negligence. After the jockeys signed under protest, both the jockeys and the Fair Grounds asked the Louisiana State Racing Commission to rule on the validity of the agreement. The Commission found the agreement was a valid exercise of the Fair Grounds' proprietary rights. The plaintiffs and the defendants then filed separate suits in district court, the jockeys seeking review of the commission decision and the Fair Grounds seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the agreement's validity. The trial judge ruled for the jockeys, finding the agreement invalid. However, the court of appeal reversed, agreeing with the commission that the agreement was within the scope of the racetrack's reserved proprietary rights 532 So.2d 822.

Issue:

Did the Fair Grounds, as a private corporation, have a basic proprietary right to condition race participation on execution of an agreement relegating duly licensed jockeys to the remedies afforded under worker's compensation?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the agreement between the jockeys and the Fair Grounds was unlawful and unenforceable. It was beyond the scope of authority of the corporation to unilaterally condition the participation by jockeys in its race meetings, thus, excluding them in violation of the statutory scheme. The court also held the contract did not represent a bargained for agreement because the jockeys' consent was obtained through duress and vitiated consent. By the contract's own terms, it was deemed null and void ab initio and had no effect.