at risk from negligent training in the use of motorcycles. Trainees, unfamiliar with motorcycles, are particularly vulnerable to hazards associated with improper or negligent training. Id. at 552. We find the present case readily distinguishable because Fortson focuses on the strong legislative policy of providing proper instruction during a motorcycle-safety class. As the court explained in Fortson, once the defendant “entered into the business of instructing the public in motorcycle safety, the defendant [could not], by contract, dispense with the duty to instruct with reasonable safety.” Id. at 554. Even if we accepted that motorcycle instructors could not exculpate themselves from neg ligence liability, cf. Petersen v. Sorensen, 118 Wash. App. 1027, 2003 WL 22040908, at *5 (2003) (<HOLDING>), this situation is much different, and the
holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy recognizing that some police records must remain secret and free from public inspection as a matter of public policy holding that motorcycle training course is not a matter of public necessity and release does not violate public policy holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public