Tunkl v. Regents of University of California

383 P.2d 441 · California Supreme Court · 1963

Facts

Hugo Tunkl, a patient at the University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, a charitable research hospital, signed a document releasing the hospital from liability for the negligent acts of its employees. After Tunkl's death, his executrix sued for negligence, but the trial court upheld the release. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the validity of the exculpatory clause.

Issue

Is an exculpatory clause in a contract for admission to a charitable research hospital, which releases the hospital from liability for future negligence, valid under Civil Code section 1668, or does it violate public policy because it affects the public interest?

Holding

The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the exculpatory clause in the hospital's admission contract was invalid. The court found that the agreement affected the public interest and therefore fell under the proscription of Civil Code section 1668.

Rule

An exculpatory clause is invalid if the contract involves the 'public interest,' which is determined by considering factors such as whether the business is suitable for public regulation, provides an essential service, involves unequal bargaining power, is an adhesion contract, and places the purchaser under the seller's control.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-07. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.