in tort; that will depend on whether the plaintiff can prove the elements of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress that we set out in this opinion. The extent to which tort claims could be disclaimed, liquidated or otherwise limited by contract is beyond the scope of this opinion. We note, however, that we generally permit exculpatory clauses so long as they do not purport to waive liability for gross negligence, fraud or other willful wrongful conduct. See Carleton v. Winter, 901 A.2d 174, 181 (D.C.2006). Such clauses may not be valid, however, in the context of transactions that affect the public interest. See Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525, 644 A.2d 522, 525-26 (1994) (citing Tunk1 v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 495-46 (1963) (<HOLDING>)). 19 . Alabama does not recognize the separate
holding that public policy claims are unavailable where the statute in question provides the employee with a wrongful discharge remedy holding that release of patients claims for negligent and wrongful conduct in hospitals preadmission form was against public policy and not enforceable holding that claims for relief premised on alleged negligent wrongful or unauthorized conduct by the irs are based in tort and not within the jurisdiction of this court recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy holding that motorcycle training course is not a matter of public necessity and release does not violate public policy