SF Chronicle Covers Veen Firm’s California Supreme Court Landmark Victory

A bicyclist who was seriously injured after he hit a pothole on an Oakland street during an organized ride may sue the city for damages — even though he had signed a waiver of liability required by the ride’s organizers, California’s highest court ruled Thursday.

Ty Whitehead of San Francisco was on a training ride in preparation for an AIDS fundraising bike trip to Los Angeles in March 2017 when his bicycle struck a pothole while going downhill on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. His lawyers said Whitehead was thrown over the handlebars, suffered brain damage, was in a coma for two weeks and remains disabled.

When he sued for his injuries, the city cited a release Whitehead and other riders were required to sign on the morning of the ride, releasing the trip’s organizers and government agencies from liability for any negligence that caused them harm.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt and the state’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the release required dismissal of the suit, but the state Supreme Court unanimously reinstated it Thursday.

Such agreements may be enforceable if they do not violate a city’s obligations under state law, Justice Kelli Evans said in the 7-0 decision. But in this case, she said, Whitehead’s lawsuit relies on a California law requiring a city “to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public.”

“An agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is against the policy of the law … and is not enforceable,” Evans wrote. “To hold otherwise would substantially undermine the Legislature’s ability to protect the public.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean Oakland was negligent in maintaining its streets, but it could allow the claim to go to a jury, Evans said. She said Oakland might still seek dismissal of the suit if it can show Whitehead knowingly “assumed the risk” of such an accident.

In a filing with the court, the city attorney’s office said allowing such lawsuits would have “dire consequences for public entities, inevitably increasing their liability.” But Evans said Oakland’s warning that such liability would lead cities to make recreational use of their property prohibitively expensive — or even illegal — “seems exaggerated.”

“The city already owes a duty to the public to maintain its public roadways in a safe condition,” and even before the ruling it could have been sued by any cyclist who was injured while on a personal trip and had not signed a waiver of liability, the justice said.

Anthony Label, a lawyer for Whitehead and his family, said the ruling “emphasizes that California cities must proactively maintain public roads and facilities, rather than relying on overreaching waivers to escape accountability. This outcome is not only crucial for public safety but also sets a new statewide precedent that will compel cities to prioritize infrastructure repairs to prevent injuries.”

The city’s lawyers were not immediately available for comment.

The case is Whitehead v., City of Oakland, S284303.