Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

February 2, 2026 Issue  By: Ray Coates

Civil Procedure - Release From Liability

City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court

 (January 26, 2026)

Court of Appeal, Second District

It is common to have participants in a dangerous activity sign a release of liability prior to participating. This case discusses whether such a release extends to claims of gross negligence.

Katie Janeway, a disabled fourteen year old child, drowned while participating in a recreational activity program for developmentally disabled children operated by the City of Santa Barbara. Her parents filed a wrongful death action, alleging the accident was caused by the negligence of the City and the program counselor. The City of Santa Barbara and the counselor filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that a release agreement signed by Katie’s mother barred liability. The trial court denied the motion. The City of Santa Barbara filed a petition for Writ of Mandate to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, denied the petition. The Court, in its decision, noted that Katie suffered epileptic seizures, often while in water. She had suffered seizures while attending a prior camp. Special precautions were taken during her activities at this camp. Katie drowned while diving into the pool under the supervision of the counselor. The counselor’s attention had been momentarily distracted, and when the counselor looked back, Katie had disappeared from sight. Five minutes later, Katie was found at the bottom of the pool, and later died.

The Court ruled that the release did not violate public policy. The City of Santa Barbara was providing a non-essential recreational activity, and the Janeways were not compelled to send their daughter to that activity. Releases for ordinary negligence

for injuries arising from sports and recreational activities have been uniformly held valid. The Court therefore concluded that the release was valid and enforceable. The Court held the release in this case was not unduly oppressive or unconscionable.

However, the Court held the release did not extend to gross negligence. This type of conduct is conduct which is aggravated, reckless, or flagrant so as to show a lack of care to the consequences of one’s act or failure to act. The Court noted that no California case had expressly invalidated a release of liability for gross negligence. However, the Court noted that the current view is that there can be no exemption for liability for intentional wrongdoing, gross negligence, or violation of law. The language of the release did not contain a release for gross negligence. Because it did not explicitly notify the Janeways that the release was intended to cover such acts, such a claim was not barred.

The Court held that the issue of gross negligence was a triable issue of fact for a jury. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the Janeways were allowed to continue prosecution of their case based on a gross negligence theory of liability.

A dissent indicated that he disagreed that a release is invalid as a matter of public policy to the extent it purports to release conduct that could be characterized as gross negligence. The dissent noted that the case had not been pled as a gross negligence action. In addition, he found no support in the authorities cited that a release could not be given for gross negligence. The dissent would have granted the petition and dismissed the Complaint.

       
COMMENT

Due to the split in the Court, and the characterization of this case as one of first impression, it is likely a petition for review will be filed in the Supreme Court. Given the potential implications of this decision, this is a case where the Supreme Court may well grant review.

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.