Featured Article:

Is the Word “Negligence” Required for Waivers in New York Courts?

By Doyice Cotten

3081513320_6ef5ff9c6d_zIn 2016, Michelle Kalinkina, a professional model agreed to have a public haircut and styling demonstration. During the haircut, the stylist cut Kalinkina’s neck causing physical injury and scarring. She subsequently sued for damages alleging negligence and gross negligence (Kalinkina v. Martino Cartier Enterprises, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95670).

Cartier provided a waiver signed by Kalinkina as a defense against the negligence claim. The waiver read:

I am providing modeling services for International Designs Corp. and/or Bersheart LLC, their parents and subsidiaries, affiliates, and partners, in one or more modeling sessions.

I authorize and license International Designs Corp. and/or Bersheart LLC, their parents and subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, licensees, representatives, and all persons or corporations acting with their permission or upon their authority (collectively “International Designs Corp.”), to use my name, voice, photograph, likeness, video, appearance and performance (the “Material”) arising from any past or future modeling sessions in connection with the manufacturing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of International Designs Corp. products and services, and in connection with any other related activities. International Designs Corp. may edit and modify the Material, and may incorporate and use all or any part of the Material in video, audio, online and print ads, still photographs, catalogs, packaging and package inserts, and all other media (the “Advertising”), and may reproduce, exhibit, broadcast, transmit and distribute Advertising containing the Material by any [*6]  and all means, media and channels of distribution.

* * *

I hereby release International Design Corp. and/or Bersheart LLC, their parents and subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, licensees, representatives, and all persons acting with their permission or upon their authority, from all liability in connection with the Material, including without limitation any accident or unforeseen incident resulting from or occurring during any modeling session (including but not limited to, accidents during model hair cutting, preparation, and during demonstrations).[Bold added.]

Negligence Issue

A major issue in the case revolved around whether New York law required the use of the word “negligence” for waivers to be enforceable. The court cited several points summarizing New York waiver law (citations omitted).


  • Exculpatory agreements are subject to close judicial scrutiny and a general rule of strict construction.
  • Because the law “frowns upon contracts intended to exculpate a party from the consequences of his own negligence,” if the “intention of the parties is [not] expressed in unmistakable language, an exculpatory clause will not be deemed to insulate a party from liability for his own negligent acts.”
  • The Defendants are correct that “the word ‘negligence’does not have to be specifically used for the courts to give effect to an exculpatory agreement.”
  • However, “words conveying a similar import must appear.” Words of similar import include “neglect” and “fault.”


Examination of the waiver show that no such language appears in the waiver. The court stated that a release using the general terms “from all liability in connection with the Material, including without limitation any accident or unforeseen incident” was insufficient to meet the rule of strict construction; the term “accident” cannot substitute for the word “negligence.” The court cited another case in which the court ruled that “agreements to release parties from ‘any and all responsibility or liability of any nature whatsoever’ will not bar claims based on ordinary negligence.”

The Court concludes that the waiver does not preclude this action for ordinary negligence. The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claim is denied.

Gross Negligence Claim

Under New York law, a waiver can protect a defendant from liability for their own ordinary negligence; however, a waiver is not applicable to this claim of gross negligence because waivers will not protect a defendant from liability for gross negligence or a willful act.

The court noted that plaintiff alleged “that Cartier prevented her from leaving the stage to obtain treatment, that Defendants misinformed her as to the injury, and that Defendants attempted to conceal the injury from her.” In light of the claim that “Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants’ behavior at least “‘smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” or “evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others,” the court refused to dismiss the gross negligence claim. Further action will be necessary to determine if Cartier’s actions rise to the level of gross negligence.

Risk Management Take-Aways

The law discussed above is New York law. Waiver law in most states does not require the use of the word “negligence” or similar terms. Best practice, however, would be to include the term negligence in all waivers because the term clarifies intent and substantially decreases any ambiguity that might exist – and ambiguity of intent is one of the major reasons that waivers sometimes do not protect. So state clearly the signer waives liability for injury resulting from the negligence of the provider.

Photo Credit: Thanks to Kelly Sue DeConnick on Flickr.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:


University Study-Abroad Student Drowned in Costa Rica

By Doyice Cotten Note: This is the third consecutive post (involving law in three states in three types of activity) in which assumption of risk has played a major role. 20-Year-old Erik Downes, college student at Oglethorpe University, drowned in the Pacific Ocean while he was in Costa Rica attending a study-abroad program. His parents brought a wrongful death suit against the university alleging negligence and gross negligence. Oglethorpe argued that 1) it owed no legal duty to Downes;... [read more]

Adhesionary Contracts or Unconscionable Contracts: Are They Enforceable?

By Doyice Cotten A recent New York waiver case (Lobell v. Youtube, LLC and Google, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127327) involved the allegation that a waiver was not enforceable because it was both an adhesionary contract and an unconscionable contract. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York examined the issue in light of California law (as called for by the provisions of the contract). Adhesionary Contract The court defined an adhesionary contract as “a standardized contract,... [read more]

Assumption of Risk Determines Ruling in a Washington Tubing Case

By Doyice Cotten This case has some similarities to the Swigart v. Bruno California case in last week’s post.  Each case was determined by an assumption of risk and not by a waiver of liability. Pellham participated in an inner tube float in which his tube struck a fallen log in the water. The plaintiff sued the rental company claiming that the defendants owed him a duty to warn about a fallen log in the river and for gross negligence (Pellham v.... [read more]

A Waiver is not Always Necessary! Primary Assumption of Risk

By Doyice Cotten Kathleen Swigart entered a long distance horse riding event conducted by the American Endurance Ride Conference (AERC), a national governing and record-keeping body for “long distance horse riding.” An endurance ride is  “a highly competitive and demanding sport” in which the riders follow a specific course, collecting playing cards at set checkpoints along the route to verify having completed the entire course before crossing the finish line. At the eight-mile checkpoint, seven horses were close together in a single line.... [read more]


By Doyice Cotten What is Rhabdomyolysis? Regular readers of SportWaiver.com will know that this is a disease that can result from extreme exercise. The ailment is often found in sedentary adults who attempt to “get in shape” overnight. However, the disease is also found sometimes in more active and younger individuals. There have been a number of cases in recent years in which college athletes have been afflicted. Courtney Cameron in a recent AthleticBusiness.com post cites a number of cases resulting from indoor cycling and spinning classes.... [read more]

Bounce House Rental Waiver Protects One Stop Rental Tool and Party from Liability

By Doyice Cotten Richard Whitson rented an inflatable bounce house from the defendant, One Stop. Whitson had rented the house in the past.The bounce house weighs over 400 pounds and comes in a vinyl bag, uninflated.   The bag has a strap on the bottom and a cinch strap at the top to keep the bag closed. Whitson watched employees load the house into the back of his truck (Whitson v. One Stop Rental Tool & Party,... [read more]