was not providing a necessary service akin to that provided by a public utility or common carrier. Thus refined, our analysis in this matter turns on the first two inquiries identified in Gershon, supra: whether enforcement will implicate a matter of public interest and the related question of whether Powerhouse is under some legal duty to perform. 368 N.J.Super. at 248, 845 A.2d 720. B. When considering whether enforcement of the instant exculpatory agreement would adversely affect the public interest, the inquiry naturally blends into an examination of whether the exculpated party is under a legal duty to perform. Exculpatory agreements that attempt to release liability for statutorily imposed duties have been held invalid. See, e.g., McCarthy, supra, 48 N.J. at 543, 226 A.2d 713 (<HOLDING>). When the subject of an exculpatory agreement
holding exculpatory clause limiting liability arising out of car racing unenforceable due to statute regulating field and its expressed public policy in protecting participants and spectators holding it against public policy for a hospital to extract an exculpatory agreement from its patients prior to treatment holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy holding unenforceable parents execution of exculpatory agreement on behalf of child