Featured Article:

Waivers & Non-Readers: Another Factor to Think About!

By Doyice Cotten

250510822_ac46c0f229_zThe author has written about some of the problems with having non-readers sign a waiver.  There can be problems whether the person is simply illiterate or does not speak and read English. Some courts have ruled that one is responsible for what one signs and have enforced waivers signed by non readers.

For instance, an Iowa court (Adams v. Frieden, Inc., 2002) ruled against a legally blind woman who had sued challenging a waiver protecting against liability for injuries incurred in the pit area of an auto racetrack The court stated that the state supreme court had not carved out a disability exception to the rule that people are bound by documents they sign even if they have not read them.

In contrast, in Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015), the California health club discovered that the provider is on safer ground if they make sure the non-reader understands what he or she is signing. The employee failed to call for a Spanish-speaking employee to assist even though this was his usual policy. The court ruled that non-verbal gestures could be considered affirmative misrepresentation when parties did not speak the same language. The court felt that reasonable persons could find that the employee’s actions constituted fraud and misrepresentation; thus this created a fact issue and should be determined by the jury. The court reversed the trial court summary judgment ruling and remanded it for trial.

The Cruz Case

In Cruz v. Atco Raceway, Inc. (2015), the husband, Jose Cruz, died as a result of a drag racing crash. One of the issues in the case was the enforceability of the waiver produced by the raceway. It was questioned because it was not dated (important because Jose had raced at the raceway on prior dates) and the fact that the wife said Jose did not sign the waiver – in fact, the wife claimed that she signed the waiver because her husband was illiterate.

The New Jersey court explained that even if Evelyn Cruz signed the waiver on behalf of her husband, there is no evidence that she read the document to him or that he affirmatively indicated that he agreed to the terms of the waiver.

As a consequence, the court denied summary judgment in favor of the defendant and sent the case to trial for a ruling on the disputed facts.


Service providers need to develop policies with regard to persons with reading disabilities – whether in the case of illiterates or non-readers/speakers of English. While some courts still will rule that one is responsible for what he or she signs, other courts require some evidence that the signer understood the impact of the document.

It would seem to be good policy to have personnel on hand to explain the waiver clearly and be sure the releasing party understands the effect of the document. If the patron does not read or speak English and you have no person on hand that speaks the client’s language, have an English speaking friend of the client (if there is one) explain it to them in the presence of the employee. In the case of one party signing for another, as in the Cruz case, the use of a witness (who can testify that the document was explained and the client seemed to understand and agree to it) might be helpful.


Photo Credit: Thanks to Tirebiterz  at Flickr.


Read the Article

Recent Articles:


A Tale of Two Florida Water Sport Waivers

By Doyice Cotten When I travel, I make it a habit to pick up liability waivers wherever I go. On a recent trip to Florida I visited a number of water sport businesses. Of the waivers I obtained, I would like to compare two. To protect the innocent, I will call one Oops Watersports and the other OK Watersports. The Oops agreement is primarily an equipment rental agreement; the OK agreement is a full-fledged, full page waiver agreement. The reader is invited to compare the two agreements and see which would allow him or her,... [read more]

Interpreting a Waiver: Can you do it?

By Doyice Cotten The Waiver “I understand that there are inherent and other risks involved in the sport for which this equipment is to be used and that injuries are a common and ordinary occurrence of the sport, and I freely assume those risks.” The release also states that the signer “hereby release[s] the Inn and its owners, agents and employees from any and all liability for damage to [the signer] . . . resulting from negligence: installation,... [read more]

Ph.D. Fails to Read Waiver for FlowRider . . . Risk Management Signage and Waiver Protect

By Doyice Cotten In a recent case (Steinberg v. Sahara Sam’s Oasis, LLC, 2014), the plaintiff was injured when he attempted the FlowRider. He sued alleging negligence and gross negligence on the part of the provider. One of the issues was that the provider did not meet 2008 standards, but that was not necessary since the company was given a three year certification to operate the ride prior to the issuance of 2008 standards.... [read more]

Group Waivers and the Risk of Fraud

By Doyice Cotten Scott Storer was injured while riding his motorcycle on a motocross track  (Storer v. E Street MX, Inc., 2015 Cal App. Unpub. LEXIS 4029). Prior to beginning his ride, Scott was handed a clipboard and asked to sign his name. He said the only thing on the clipboard that he could see were names of other riders that signed in. He explained there was one folded sheet of paper with signature lines at the top of the clipboard,... [read more]

Make Certain your Waiver Protects You against Your own Negligence!

By Doyice Cotten Roseann Jablanofsky died in an accident while taking a motorcycle safety training program. She wanted to be able to accompany her husband on motorcycle rides. Prior to the course, she signed a waiver of liability; the course included classroom instruction and riding practice in a parking lot. In addition, the class was shown a video that warned of the risks associated with operating a motorcycle, and all participants were verbally warned. At one point during the riding class,... [read more]

Regular Inspections, and Complete Records!! A MUST for Health Clubs . . .

By Doyice Cotten In Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015), Stacey Chavez was injured when the back panel of a “FreeMotion” cable crossover machine (“cross trainer”) struck her in the head. She subsequently filed suit. The machine was still in service despite a missing bracket and missing magnetic strips that were to secure the back panel. 24 Hour Fitness claimed it was not liable because she had signed a waiver of liability – a complete defense against negligence claims.... [read more]