Analysis: Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals referred to Griffiths v. Henry, Inc., 23' Wn. 2d 901, 182 P.2d 13, 1?5 A.L.R. 1 (19:1?) and Union Pac. RR. v. Ross Transfer Co., Wold 436, 392 P.2d 451:] (1964]. These cases are not disclaimer contracts but rather indemnity contracts. Neither of the two is directly in check. Courts consider the principle that the best interests of the society demand that persons should not be restricted unnecessarily in their freedom to contract. However, they do not hesitate to declare void as against public policy contracbial provisions that clearly tend to the injury of the public in some way. l-lodniclr v. Fidelity Tmst Co, 96 Ind. App. 342 183 NE. 433 {App Ct. 1932}. In light of the state's policy of validating exculpatory agreements in general, Gn'ffiths v. Henry Broderick, Inc, supra, and in the absence of any legislative expression to the contrary it was discerned that no public policy was violated by the exculpatory clause in question. Conclusion: The court viewed this as an area for distinct concern due to the potentiality for unwarranted abuse, however, deem it as a subject peculiarly appropriate for legislative, rather than judicial, action. The judgment of the trial court and of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the matter remanded for trial. The case is affirmed