to wear a helmet). Given this focus, we conclude that public policy, in general and as expressed through statute, does not prevent a motorcycle dealership from limiting its liability for injuries sustained during a test ride. See Moore v. Hartley Motors, Inc., 36 P.3d 628, 632 (Alaska 2001) (concluding that the release plaintiff signed to participate in an ATV safety class was not void for public policy in part because the legislature chose not to regulate ATV course operators in the same way as other industries); Jones, 623 P.2d at 377 (concluding that exculpatory contract the plaintiff signed before participating in a parachute jump was not void for public policy where commercial carrier safety regulations did not apply because it was a commercial flight); Mann, 785 P.2d at 1066 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14. Plaintiff also contends that case law
holding that school officials could prevent a student from distributing invitations in a public elementary school a nonpublic forum because the restraint was reasonable holding it against public policy for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption of liability in the event its negligence results in injury to its passengers holding that diving school did not provide an essential public service holding that there were no public policy considerations to prevent a diving school from limiting liability for its own negligence holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury