This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P went to D's motorcycle dealership to test drive a motorcycle. P spoke with a salesperson and indicated that although she was a relatively new rider, she had a valid motorcycle driver's license and had experience riding a motorcycle with a 200cc engine. After further discussion with the salesperson, P signed a single-page release. As part of a group, P took a promotional test ride on a 750cc motorcycle. During the test ride, as P was turning, she downshifted, but was unable to control the bike, and she hit a guardrail, injuring herself. P sued D, claiming that D's agents were negligent in encouraging her to ride a bike that they knew or should have known was too big for her and that she could not operate safely. P and D both filed motions for summary judgment. P claimed the release was ambiguous and thus did not waive actions for D's negligence and that the release was contrary to public policy, which encourages motorcycle safety. The court granted P's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding simply that “D's release was void for being contrary to public policy.” D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.