Please readBaker v. City of Seattle.This is a 1967 Washington State case.

Please brief this case using IRAC.

IRAC

Issue -

Rule -

Analysis -

Conclusion

Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wash.2d 198 (1971) 484 P.2d 405, 9 UCC Rep. Serv. 226 47 Cases that cite this headnote KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Superseded by Statute as Stated in Buttelo v. S.A. Woods-Yates American Mach. Co., Inc., Wash.App. Div. 2, December 14. 1993 79 Wash.2d 198 Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Attorneys and Law Firms Robert BAKER, Petitioner, V. #198 **405 Levinson & Friedman, Robert D. Duggan. CITY OF SEATTLE and Paul Billingsley and Seattle, for petitioner. Jane Doe Billingsley, d/b/a Westweld Metal Works, Respondents Jack E. Hepfer, Seattle, for respondents. No. 41697. Opinion April 22, 1971. WRIGHT, Associate Justice. Synopsis Plaintiff, a golf course patron and electric golf cart lessec On July 7, 1967, the plaintiff, Robert Baker, went to the brought suit against golf course owner and golf cart Jackson Municipal Golf Course to play golf. The golf lessors for personal injuries sustained when rented golf course is owned by the City of Seattle. Plaintiff signed a cart turned over. The Superior Court, King County, printed form denominated a 'Golf Cart Rental rendered summary judgment for defendants, and plaintiff Agreement' and took possession of an electric golf cart appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jerome Farris, J., 2 manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. The cart was Wash. App. 1003, 471 P.2d 693, affirmed. The Supreme owned and leased by the defendants Billingsley who do Court, Wright, J., held that disclaimer clause placed *199 business under the trade name of Westweld Metal inconspicuously at about middle of golf cart rental Works and are engaged in the business of renting out golf agreement entered into by lessors, which regularly leased carts. carts, was void as against public policy. Plaintiff was lessee of the golf cart. When returning the Judgment of trial court and of Court of Appeals reversed cart, plaintiff alleges the brakes failed and the cart and matter remanded for trial. overturned *#406 resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff. The golf cart rental agreement was as follows: West Headnotes (1) 111 Bailment Bailments for Mutual Benefit Contracts Exemption from Liability Disclaimer clause placed inconspicuously at about middle of golf cart rental agreement entered into by lessors, which regularly leased carts, was void as against public policy; overruling Broderson v. Rainier National Park Co., 187 Wash. 399, 60 P.2d 234. RCWA 62A.2-316(2), 62A.2-719(1, 3). WESTLAW @2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Goverment Works.Baker v. City of Seattle, 79 Wash.2d 198 (1971) 484 P.2d 405, 9 UCC Rep. Serv. 226 GOLF CART RENTAL AGREEMENT P.2d 18 (1947) and Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ross LESSOR - Westweld Metal Works Transfer Co., 64 Wash.2d 486, 392 P.2d 450 (1964). JA 3/2 These cases are indemnity contracts rather than disclaimer GOLF COURSE contracts. Neither Griffiths nor Union Pacific is directly LESSEE . CUSTOMER. ROBERT P. BAUEL in point. ADDRESS. Public policy dictates that the disclaimer clause placed in CITY - STATE CYMUNDOD, WASH the rental agreement in this case is void. In Henningsen v. NO. OF HOLES 18 AMOUNT 3 26 Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358. 161 A.2d 69 (1960) CARI NO. it was said, in part: The above numbered MODEL IEE Golf Corlis hereby loaned to the lines for the number al helen a play on the do's and on the poll cours Indicated abars. lavies retains said coat oher expiration thermo, such rulelion in a now nurial of the same rate of canal, and under the lan shall be cors Public policy is a term not easily lilian an contained in its spiesme at bold carl is not to be removed from It defined. Its significance varies as the shore named poll courts and around promptly Is the leiser allor use. with the sis and operation al nod cort, Le habits and needs of a people may cart in ho longs's curtly and soi to soblame or need rome. Lester agrees to beop and relem an'd coit in the come gooden vary. It is not static and the field of when revived, louse agrees that is ving said cart, he desk in of Me a especialy understood and agreed that the Leiser shall not be Sable is application is an ever increasing one. comments whatisever orising heem injuries is the person and or properly dam in love of the beings aching from the pie . spermtime al, or in any A contract, or a particular provision moved with told cord on any pari it creed, Mon whalers some arising rivier contained herein comlittle he sabre and therein, valid in one cra may be the parties. Any promises, rapresentations, wholly opposed to the public policy moising directly or indirectly are borgby we'red. of another. See Collopy v. Newark mepair, In hereby manylodged by tenes, Eye & Ear Infirmary, 27 N.J. 29, 39, THIS CART SHALL BE USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES DESIGNED AND NO MORE THAN ONE FEESON AND TWO GOLF 141 A.2d 276 (1958). Courts keep in AT ANY ONE TIME mind the principle that the best interests of society demand that 3448 persons should not be unnecessarily restricted in their freedom to contract. But they do not hesitate to declare Although many references are made to "fine print,' the void as against public policy disclaimer of liability is exactly the same size print as the contractual provisions which clearly body of the golf cart rental agreement. The disclaimer, tend to the injury of *201 the public *200 about in the middle of the agreement, would have in some way. Hodnick v. Fidelity been observed only by reading the entire agreement. Trust Co., 96 Ind.App. 342, 183 N.E. 488 (App.Ct. 1932). The primary issue is whether one whose business is regularly, at least in part, the leasing of chattels can avoid liability for injuries to customers by placing a disclaimer clause in a standard form rental agreement. Even though Henningsen involved the sale of a chattel. We held in Broderson v. Rainier National Park Co., 187 we do not think a proper distinction can be drawn Wash. 399, 60 P.2d 234 (1936), that such an agreement between the lease or rental of a chattel and the sale of a was valid. The Broderson case cannot be distinguished chattel. from the case at bar. The trial court relied on Broderson in granting a summary judgment of dismissal on the basis of The absence of such a distinction was clearly pointed out the disclaimer clause in the rental agreement. The Court in the Florida case of W. E. Johnson Equipment Co. v. of Appeals relied on Broderson in affirming, 2 Wash. App. United Airlines, Inc., 238 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1970): 1003, 471 P.2d 693 (1970). The reasons for imposing the We now hold Broderson v. Rainier National Park Co., warranty of fitness in sales cases are Supra, must be and is hereby expressly overruled, in so far as it holds a plaintiff who has unwittingly signed, 'is often present in lease transactions. Public policy demands that in this day not thereby relieved from the consequences of his act.' of expanding rental and leasing Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals cited **407 enterprises the consumer who leases Griffiths v. Henry Broderick, Inc., 27 Wash.2d 901, 182 be given protection equivalent to the consumer who purchases. WESTLAW @ 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.\f