Featured Article:

Unforced Errors: The Scope of the Waiver MUST be Clear!!!

Doyice J. Cotten

8445130077_4c18bacd25_zFACT: A well-written waiver willingly signed by an adult participant can protect the service provider from liability for the provider’s negligence in most states.

FACT: Many waivers fail because of what might be termed “unforced errors” on the part of the writer in making clear the scope of the waiver.

In this post, I am reporting several recent cases in which the waiver failed to protect the provider from negligence. The reader should be able to understand why the failure was preventable.

Case 1

Schlumbrecht-Muniz v. Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125899.

Plaintiff, a member of a ski team, signed a waiver in order to participate in ski race completion in Colorado. She was injured after a race when she struck a parked ski mobile while skiing to the lift. In interpreting the waiver, the court indicated that the language releases the defendant from liability “for any injuries . . . that are caused or alleged to be caused by [the Defendant], [its] negligent or reckless acts or omissions, hazards that are normally associated with participating in the Event, or the condition of the property, facilities, or equipment used for the Event.” The court held that “event” might be understood to bar 1) all claims for injuries to a race participant based on any injury that occurred anywhere at the sponsoring ski area before, after, or during the time of the race; or it could be interpreted to 2) be so narrow as to be limited to injuries that occur only on the race course during the race. The court ruled the waiver to be unenforceable due to ambiguity. Clearly an unforced error; the waiver could have been written to more clearly express the intent of the provider.

Case 2

Strickert v. Neal, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160442.

This case involved a maritime wrongful death. Mark Strickert was drowned on a snorkeling trip after having signed a waiver. His wife filed suit alleging negligence. The waiver relied on by the provider included the crucial wording “I further release and hold harmless the Discover Scuba Diving program …” The waiver named scuba diving and scuba diving risks more than once, but nowhere did it specify snorkeling. The court noted that the scope of the waiver was in question and denied summary judgment based on the waiver. Another unforced error resulted in unnecessary failure of the waiver.

Case 3

Serna v. Lafayette Nordic Village, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92669.

Adriana Serna was injured when, after ice skating, she slipped and fell while walking back to the warming gazebo. The provider claimed protection from the waiver Serna signed prior to skating. The waiver read, in part, “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.” It also released the provider from “any and all liability for damage to [the signer] . . . resulting from negligence: installation, maintenance, the selection, adjustment and use of the equipment…”  The court felt that the waiver clearly released the provider from liability for injuries while skating, but did not apply to walking to the heating gazebo. Once again, an unforced error regarding the scope of the waiver resulted in waiver failure.

Risk Management Take-away

It is time to re-read the waiver you are using. Did the writer make it sufficiently broad to cover your risks? Does it specify provider negligence? On the premises? Use of equipment? If you find even one gap, it is time to re-write that waiver.

Photo Credit: Thanks to Christine Alder from Flickr.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

WAQ

We Know Delta and Greyhound are Common Carriers … But is a Zipline a Common Carrier in Illinois?

By Doyice Cotten April Dodge was a paying customer of Grafton Zipline Adventures when the braking system failed causing April to collide with a tree and suffer injury. She sued alleging that Grafton was negligent. Grafton claimed protection from the liability waiver signed by April prior to participation to which the plaintiff asserted that the waiver was unenforceable because Grafton is a common carrier and cannot exempt itself from liability for its negligence (Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures,... [read more]
P1100449.jpg

Liability Waivers are Prohibited in Louisiana! But Should Providers Continue to Use Them?

By Doyice Cotten Brenda Fecke, a senior at LSU, fell while bouldering at the LSU Recreation Center indoor rock climbing wall facility. The fall resulted in an ankle injury; this was followed by a lawsuit alleging negligence on the part of LSU (Fecke v. The Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 1357). Among the many allegations was that the university gave minimal instructions and failed to determine her skill level prior to allowing participation.... [read more]
250510822_ac46c0f229_z.jpg

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

By Doyice Cotten The 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.... [read more]
Florida-202.jpg

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]
3251366809_70181f4b00_z.jpg

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]
650279548_04c445a274_z.jpg

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]