Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinion Whitehead v. City of Oakland. (Briefs here; oral argument video here.)
When the court granted review in Whitehead in May 2024, the only issue was expected to be whether a liability release agreement between a bicyclist and the organizer of a recreational bicycle ride extends to the alleged negligent maintenance of a public road by a municipality named in the agreement but not a party to it. However, in November, the court asked for supplemental briefing on this issue: “Does the release in this case extend to a claim that the City of Oakland violated Government Code section 835 et seq., in light of Civil Code section 1668, which provides in relevant part that ‘[a]ll contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own . . . violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law’? (Cf. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 763 [Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92 ‘found a release of liability for future ordinary negligence void on public policy grounds other than those set forth in section 1668’].)” More about the case here and here.
The court issued a section 1668 opinion just last week.
This will be the third of four opinion for cases argued in February. The last February case should be decided on Monday. Other argued but undecided cases are the two March calendar matters (one opinion due by June 2; in the other, the People v. Barrett death penalty appeal, the opinion could be filed as late as June 26 because of post-argument briefing) and the six on the April calendar.
The Whitehead opinion can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
