Can liability waivers protect recreational businesses from all negligence claims in Utah? Pearce v. Utah Athletic Foundation Explained

Background and Facts

In Pearce v. Utah Athletic Foundation, James Pearce, a 59-year-old mechanical engineer, suffered a serious spinal injury while participating in the Public Ride Program at Utah Winter Sports Park’s bobsled track. Before riding, Pearce signed a liability release but testified he did not fully understand its scope. During the ride, Pearce was positioned in the fourth seat, which Sports Park managers knew exposed riders to greater g-forces than other positions. The forces caused his L1 vertebrae to shatter, propelling bone fragments toward his spinal column.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: first, whether the preinjury release Pearce signed barred his ordinary negligence claim; and second, whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on Pearce’s gross negligence claim. Pearce argued the release was ambiguous and violated public policy, while also contending that UAF’s conduct rose to the level of gross negligence based on their failure to warn about known risks and inadequate safety measures.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the ordinary negligence claim, establishing an important precedent that recreational activities generally do not constitute a public interest under the Tunkl factors. The court adopted the majority rule that preinjury releases for recreational activities are enforceable unless they violate specific limitations: public policy violations, public interest exceptions, or ambiguity. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on gross negligence, holding that without an identified standard of care fixed by law for bobsled operations, the trial court could not determine whether UAF’s conduct constituted gross negligence as a matter of law.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly strengthens the enforceability of liability waivers in Utah’s recreational industry while providing important guidance for gross negligence claims. Practitioners representing injured plaintiffs should focus on ambiguity arguments and specific statutory violations rather than broad public interest challenges when attacking recreational liability waivers. For gross negligence claims, establishing an applicable standard of care through expert testimony becomes crucial, as summary judgment is inappropriate without clearly defined standards.