Waivers

Articles relating to waiver law and/or how to write an effective waiver.

WAIVERS FOR MINOR PARTICIPANTS: States with Likely Enforcement of Commercial and Non-Profit Entities — Part VI

By Doyice Cotten

This is the sixth of an eight-part series on the enforceability of liability waivers of negligence when the sport or recreation participant is a minor.

Three states will be discussed in this post. Courts in each state enforce parental waivers utilized by both commercial and  non-profit entities. In the seventh post next week, three more states will be addressed. Parental waivers are likely to be enforced in each.

California

California was the first state in which the courts enforced a parental waiver.

WAIVERS FOR MINOR PARTICIPANTS: States Enforcing Only School-Community Recreation Waivers — Part V

 

By Doyice Cotten

This is the fifth of an eight-part series on the enforceability of liability waivers of negligence when the sport or recreation participant is a minor.

As discussed in a previous post, some states distinguish parental waivers utilized by commercial entities from parental waivers relied upon by schools and community recreation entities.

Florida

Florida, too, was mentioned in an earlier post in regard to F.S. 744.301 [2017] which established the enforceability of parental waivers of the inherent risks of the activity;

WAIVERS FOR MINOR PARTICIPANTS: Enforced in the Past but Unlikely in the Future — Part IV

 

By Doyice Cotten

This is the fourth of an eight-part series on the enforceability of liability waivers of negligence when the sport or recreation participant is a minor.

Parental waiver law in three states will be addressed in this post. Parental waivers have been enforced by appellate courts on several occasions in the past in two of the states (Connecticut and Wisconsin) and by a U.S. District Court in New York.

WAIVERS FOR MINOR PARTICIPANTS: Broad Statutes Relating to Enforcement of Parental Waivers — Part III

 

By Doyice Cotten

This is the third of an eight-part series on the enforceability of liability waivers of negligence when the sport or recreation participant is a minor.

 

Statutes Allowing Parental Waivers for Negligence

Three states have statutes that specifically state that parental waivers are enforceable under certain circumstances. These are Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota.

Alaska

A.S. 09.65-292 [2012] provides the following:

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section,

WAIVERS FOR MINOR PARTICIPANTS: States Yielding Insufficient Enforcement Information — Part II

minor b

By Doyice Cotten

This is the second of an eight-part series on the enforceability of liability waivers of negligence when the sport or recreation participant is a minor.

 

In Part I of this series, states in which court rulings, public policy, or statute forbid the enforcement of parental waivers were listed. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to confidently predict whether courts in a state will enforce such waivers. There are seventeen states from which there is insufficient information from caselaw to forecast the way in which courts might rule.

WAIVERS FOR MINOR PARTICIPANTS: Statutes Relating to Particular Activities — Part I

Minor a

 

By Doyice Cotten

This is the first of an eight-part series on the enforceability of liability waivers of negligence when the sport or recreation participant is a minor.

 It is well-established that a liability waiver will protect sport, recreation, and fitness providers from liability for injury resulting from provider negligence in almost every state when the waiver is well-written, properly administered, and voluntarily signed by an adult participant. Many providers,

Adhesionary Contracts or Unconscionable Contracts: Are They Enforceable?

5480863464_5dd73d1199_z

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,

Is the Business Liable for Falls in the Parking Lot?

11865793525_8be6fbf31f_z

By Doyice Cotten

Jade Kindermann was carrying her 22-month old son when she tripped over uneven pavement in the parking lot of the Lifetime Fitness Center (LTF Club Operations Company). Jade was unhurt, but her son suffered serious injuries when she landed on him. Jade sued the owner of the facility on her son’s behalf, alleging negligence and premises liability under state law.

Business owners sometimes forget that they may be held liable for injuries occurring on their sidewalks,

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

3081513320_6ef5ff9c6d_z

By Doyice Cotten

In 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.

Assumption of Risk Determines Ruling in a Washington Tubing Case

35237457441_3e0936be44_z

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.