holding that motorcycle training course is not a matter of public necessity and release does not violate public policy
Summary of this case from Thompson v. Hi Tech Motor Sports, Inc.No. 50579-3-I.
September 2, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 01-2-09755-3, Kenneth L. Cowsert, J., entered May 17, 2002.
Reversed by unpublished opinion per Cox, A.C.J., concurred in by Coleman and Agid, JJ.
holding that motorcycle training course is not a matter of public necessity and release does not violate public policy
Summary of this case from Thompson v. Hi Tech Motor Sports, Inc.holding that, although motorcycle driving courses are favored as a mechanism for gaining proficiency, "this does not create an unfair bargaining advantage because there was no need for [the plaintiff] to take the course at all"
Summary of this case from Hinely v. Florida Motorcycle Tra.Full title:SUSAN PETERSEN, ET AL., Respondents, v. GARY H. SORENSEN, Appellant
Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Date published: Sep 2, 2003
Id. at 554. Even if we accepted that motorcycle instructors could not exculpate themselves from negligence…
Hinely v. Florida Motorcycle TrainingFinally, Hinely also failed to demonstrate that FMT exercised superior bargaining power. See, e.g., Petersen…