Invalidation of Public Entity Exculpatory Waivers for Statutory Road-Maintenance Duties

Introduction

In Whitehead v. City of Oakland (2025), the Supreme Court of California confronted the question whether a charity‐ride liability waiver could bar a cyclist’s lawsuit against a city for failing to keep public roads safe in violation of Government Code § 835. Ty Whitehead, the plaintiff, suffered a serious head injury when his bicycle struck a deep pothole on a public roadway during a training ride for a weeklong fundraiser. Earlier that morning, he and other riders had signed a broad “release and waiver of liability” that purported to discharge not only the ride organizers but also “any public entities providing facilities for the ride” from all negligence claims.

After the trial court and Court of Appeal upheld the waiver under the common-law negligence framework of Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, the California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Civil Code § 1668 renders such a release unenforceable when it purports to relieve a public entity of liability for negligently violating a statutory duty to maintain safe highways.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Evans, writing for a unanimous court, held that Civil Code § 1668—which forbids any contract that “exempts any one from responsibility for … violation of law, whether willful or negligent”—prohibits a private release that would absolve a public entity from liability for negligently breaching its statutory duty under Government Code § 835 to maintain public roadways in safe condition. The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment enforcing the waiver and remanded for further proceedings. It emphasized that although courts may enforce releases of claims for common-law negligence in appropriate settings, any contract purporting to waive a public entity’s duty to keep its streets safe for ordinary, foreseeable uses is “against the policy of the law” and thus void under § 1668.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Union Const. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 298 – Early authority refusing to enforce a telegraph company’s blanket release when it violated a statutory duty of “great care and diligence.”
• Hanna v. Lederman (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 786 – Upheld that an exculpatory clause cannot bar recovery for negligent violation of a municipal fire-sprinkler code.
• Halliday v. Greene (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 482 – Held invalid a residential‐lease waiver that would excuse a landlord’s breach of a safety order requiring multiple exits in fire‐escape routes.
• City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747 – Recognized § 1668 balances contract freedom against public policy but did not revisit releases of ordinary common‐law negligence; employed a separate analysis for gross negligence.
• Health Net of California, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 224 – Invalidated a state-agency release of liability for statutory/regulatory violations, relying on § 1668’s scope.
• Capri v. L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1078 – Declared void an exculpatory clause for negligent breaches of pool-safety statutes under § 1668.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis rested on two pillars:

1. Statutory Duty and Public Policy. Government Code § 835 imposes on public entities a duty to maintain public property—in particular, roadways—in safe condition for public travel. A private contract cannot dispense with that duty without undermining the statutory scheme and public safety.
2. Civil Code § 1668’s Prohibition. Section 1668 flatly bars contracts that try to exempt any party “from responsibility for … violation of law, whether willful or negligent.” Releases of common-law negligence claims sometimes pass muster under a limited “Tunkl” public-interest framework, but § 1668 categorically voids any release that would excuse a statutory violation designed to protect the public.

The court rejected application of the Tunkl factors—originally crafted to assess releases of common-law ordinary negligence—because those factors do not displace § 1668’s clear command against waiving statutory duties. It also distinguished Okura v. United States Cycling Federation (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1462, which upheld a race waiver under Tunkl without addressing a statutory roadway-maintenance duty, and it refused the City’s invitation to read § 1668 as confined to statutory duties that “prescribe specific conduct.” Instead, the court followed over a century of California cases and a broad national consensus that one cannot contract away liability for negligently violating a statute enacted to safeguard public health and safety.

3. Impact on Future Cases

• This decision cements the rule that public entities cannot rely on private waivers to escape liability for statutory duties aimed at protecting the public—particularly roadway‐maintenance obligations under Government Code § 835.
• Event organizers seeking to host recreational activities on public property will no longer be able to layer “municipal releases” onto participant waivers to insulate cities from negligence suits for failing to keep the premises safe.
• Legislatures or agencies wishing to allow participants to assume certain risks will need to amend statutes explicitly authorizing contractual risk allocations—or else rely on other legal doctrines such as assumption of risk, rather than blanket waivers.
• The ruling may spur renewed attention to indemnity agreements and insurance requirements for large public events, though empirical evidence suggests that courts in many jurisdictions already require organizers and sponsors to shoulder the safety burden.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Civil Code § 1668: A long-standing law that says you cannot make a contract that says “I’m not responsible for breaking the law—even if I’m negligent.”
• Government Code § 835: A law that lets you sue a city or county if its public roads are unsafe and cause you harm, so long as you follow certain notice rules.
• Release and Waiver: A document people sign to say “I won’t sue you if I get hurt.” Such waivers can work for some private risks but cannot excuse public entities from their safety duties.
• Tunkl Factors: Six considerations—like the public importance of a service and a party’s bargaining power—used in common-law cases to decide if a liability waiver is unfair. They do not override a statute that plainly bans releasing statutory duties.

Conclusion

Whitehead v. City of Oakland reinforces the principle that no waiver can trump a statute designed to protect public safety. Contracts cannot exempt a public entity from the duty to maintain safe roads for foreseeable public use. This ruling preserves the Legislature’s role in setting safety standards and ensures that municipalities remain accountable under Government Code § 835. Going forward, event organizers and public agencies must recognize that statutory duties for public welfare lie beyond the reach of private exculpatory agreements.