Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractnegligenceliabilityappealtrialleaseregulation
contractnegligenceliabilityappealtriallease

Related Cases

Blasius v. Angel Automotive, Inc., 839 F.3d 639
View Case »
In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litigation, 744 F.3d 326
View Case »
Martinez v. Walgreen Company, 935 F.3d 396
View Case »
Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 361 Mont. 241, 257 P.3d 383, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,669, 2011 MT 175
View Case »
Borg & Powers Furniture Co. v. Clark, 194 Minn. 305, 260 N.W. 316
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, 106 Cal.App.4th 662, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1693, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2157

Facts

Gavin W.'s parents enrolled him in the YMCA child care program in June 1996, signing a waiver and release of liability. In September 1997, Gavin was involved in an incident with another child, Emilio B., which led to allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior. The parents discovered that the YMCA had prior knowledge of Emilio's inappropriate conduct and filed suit against the YMCA for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, among other claims. The trial court ruled that the release barred their claims, leading to the appeal.

Gavin W.'s parents, Calvin and Annette W., both worked full time. In June 1996 they enrolled Gavin in the child care program at the YMCA and, as part of the enrollment process, signed a waiver and release of liability in favor of the YMCA. In September 1997, when Gavin was not quite four years old, he and four-year-old Emilio B. were observed in the bathroom at the child care center with their pants down. Gavin later told his mother Emilio had made him put Emilio's penis in his mouth. Gavin's parents subsequently discovered Emilio had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with another boy at the child care center some weeks earlier and had reported being molested by his grandfather. They also learned the YMCA had been aware of those facts before the incident between Gavin and Emilio.

Issue

Is a release of claims that purports to exculpate a child care provider from its own negligence enforceable, or is it void as against public policy?

Is a release of claims that purports to exculpate a child care provider from its own negligence enforceable, or is it void as against public policy?

Rule

A release of claims that seeks to exempt a party from liability for its own negligence is void if it affects the public interest, as established in Tunkl v. Regents of University of California.

Accordingly, we hold a release of claims that purports to exculpate a child care provider from its own negligence is void as against public policy under Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441 (Tunkl).

Analysis

The court analyzed the YMCA's release under the Tunkl factors, determining that child care services are subject to public regulation, are of vital importance to the public, and that the YMCA holds a decisive advantage in bargaining power over parents seeking child care. The court concluded that the release was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and that the nature of child care inherently involves placing children under the control of the provider, which implicates public interest.

Like the relationship between a hospital and its patients, the relationship between a child care provider and the families who use and depend upon its services has all the characteristics of a contract affecting the public interest, as set forth in Tunkl. Indeed, in enacting the California Child Day Care Facilities Act nearly 20 years ago, providing a comprehensive licensing system 'to ensure a quality day care environment,' the Legislature specifically found that 'good quality child day care services are an essential service for working parents' (Health & Saf.Code, § 1596.72, subds. (b), (e)) and further declared that 'affordable, quality licensed child care is critical to the well-being of parents and children in this state.'

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the release signed by Gavin's parents was void as against public policy, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed as to the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth causes of action. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Gavin W. and his parents prevailed in the appeal because the court found the release unenforceable due to public policy considerations.

Gavin and his parents prevailed in the appeal because the court found the release unenforceable due to public policy considerations.

You must be