those who run the program to act out of a concern for lawsuits rather than effective preparation of competent law enforcement officers. Although our courts have not previously considered the enforceability of an exculpatory agreement in this or any other similar context, we do not find similarities in those situations where exculpatory agreements have been stricken because of the public interest. The experiences of our courts with exculpatory agreements have largely been on opposite ends of the spectrum. That is, we have considered and negated these agreements when extracted from an individual seeking a necessity, such as a place to live during a housing shortage, Kuzmiak, supra, 38 N.J.Super. at 587, 111 A.2d 425. See also Horelick v. Pa. R.R. Co., 13 N.J. 349, 357, 99 A.2d 652 (1953) (<HOLDING>); Tunkl, supra, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d at
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 the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding that congress did not intend to preempt state common law actions for personal injury based on the negligence of the airline or its employees holding that there is no common law duty of a carrier or its agents to advise an insured concerning the possible need for higher policy limits upon renewal of the policy absent a special relationship holding the measure of damages in a negligence action is the reasonable necessary cost of restoring the injured automobile to its condition prior to its injury thereby giving it the same value it possessed immediately before its injury