Factual Background: The plaintiff, a vegan, wished to promote her love of tofu and requested a personalized license plate reading, “ILVTOFU.” She was denied permission to have this plate because the phrase could be interpreted to be derogatory. The plaintiff wanted to know whether there were any legal grounds to protest this decision.

  1. In California, a person who chooses what is considered an offensive combination of letters for a personalized license plate may be denied the opportunity to have that plate. Courts have interpreted a combination of letters as offensive if they have a sexual connotation, suggest a derogatory meaning, or if they are insulting to a certain segment of the population. The standard used to assess offensiveness is the “reasonable person who understands the language [being used].” The non-offensive intent of the person using the phrase/letters in question is irrelevant. Because the letters “FU” are commonly understood as shorthand for a sexual phrase, it is likely that a court would find the plaintiff’s requested plate offensive. It is irrelevant that the plaintiff did not intend to convey a derogatory meaning. As a result, it is likely that the plaintiff will be denied the right to have the ILVTOFU license plate.
  1. The standard used to assess offensiveness is the “reasonable person who understands the language [being used].” Courts have interpreted a combination of letters as offensive if they have a sexual connotation, suggest a derogatory meaning, or if they are insulting to a certain segment of the population. In California, a person who chooses what is considered an offensive combination of letters for a personalized license plate may be denied the opportunity to have that plate. Because the letters “FU” are commonly understood as shorthand for a sexual phrase, it is likely that a court would find the plaintiff’s requested plate offensive. It is irrelevant that the plaintiff did not intend to convey a derogatory meaning. The non-offensive intent of the person using the phrase/letters in question is irrelevant. As a result, it is likely that the plaintiff will be denied the right to have the ILVTOFU license plate.
  1. Courts have interpreted a combination of letters as offensive if they have a sexual connotation, suggest a derogatory meaning, or if they are insulting to a certain segment of the population. Because the letters “FU” are commonly understood as shorthand for a sexual phrase, it is likely that a court would find the plaintiff’s requested plate offensive. In California, a person who chooses what is considered an offensive combination of letters for a personalized license plate may be denied the opportunity to have that plate. The standard used to assess offensiveness is the “reasonable person who understands the language [being used].” It is irrelevant that the plaintiff did not intend to convey a derogatory meaning. The non-offensive intent of the person using the phrase/letters in question is irrelevant. As a result, it is likely that the plaintiff will be denied the right to have the ILVTOFU license plate.

Factual Background: Larry Morton goes skiing and signs a release saying that he will release the ski resort from any injuries suffered on the premises. After falling from a chair lift, Morton sues the ski resort claiming that he believed he was promising not to sue for injuries he sustained while skiing.

1. Under California law, the general rule regarding a release statement is that such a statement is valid if it is clear and explicit. In addition, it is logical to assume that riding a chair lift is related to skiing such that it would be covered by a broad release and need not be specifically stated. An exception to this rule occurs when the risk is so far afield from the activity that it could not have been contemplated by the lease. In addition, the courts have also upheld the theory that when there is an express agreement to assume all risks of a given situation, it is not necessary to designate a particular risk inherent to that situation within that release. The situation presented in Morton appears to involve a clear statement of release. As a result, it is unlikely that Morton’s action will succeed.

2. The situation presented in Morton appears to involve a clear statement of release. Under California law, the general rule regarding a release statement is that such a statement is valid if it is clear and explicit. An exception to this rule occurs when the risk is so far afield from the activity that it could not have been contemplated by the lease. In addition, the courts have also upheld the theory that when there is an express agreement to assume all risks of a given situation, it is not necessary to designate a particular risk inherent to that situation within that release. As a result, it is unlikely that Morton’s action will succeed. In addition, it is logical to assume that riding a chair lift is related to skiing such that it would be covered by a broad release and need not be specifically stated.

3. Under California law, the general rule regarding a release statement is that such a statement is valid if it is clear and explicit. In addition, the courts have also upheld the theory that when there is an express agreement to assume all risks of a given situation, it is not necessary to designate a particular risk inherent to that situation within that release. An exception to this rule occurs when the risk is so far afield from the activity that it could not have been contemplated by the lease. The situation presented in Morton appears to involve a clear statement of release. In addition, it is logical to assume that riding a chair lift is related to skiing such that it would be covered by a broad release and need not be specifically stated. As a result, it is unlikely that Morton’s action will succeed.