$16$

In the case in the text, Walters v$.$ YMCA, $437$ N$.$J$.$ Super. $111($N$.$J$.$ Super. Ct$.$ App. Div. $2014),$ what was the court's holding?

Multiple Choice

The language of the exculpatory clause was void and unenforceable as against public policy.

Then language of the exculpatory clause was overly broad and unenforceable as against public policy.

The language of the exculpatory clause was appropriate under the circumstances and Walters could not recover.

The language of the exculpatory clause was unenforceable because parties cannot free themselves of negligence liability.