Featured Article:

Tough Mudder’s Waiver Prohibited by NY GOL § 5-326

By Doyice Cotten

In the June 14 post (Do You Have a “Landmine” in Your Electronic Waiver?), we focused on electronic waivers. The case, Scotti v. Tough Mudder Inc. (2019), however, dealt also with whether the waiver was enforceable in light of New York’s General Obligations Law § 5-326. The law provides:

[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable (emphasis added).

Stated briefly, the law prohibits the use of waivers of liability for negligence by operators of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation or similar establishment.  The plaintiff claimed the waiver he signed was invalid pursuant to GOL § 5-326.

Tough Mudder first argued that TM Events are “unique to their participants,” and pose risks and challenges exclusive to obstacle courses, thereby rendering such events completely distinct from the recreational activities engaged in by the “general public” as contemplated by GOL § 5-326.

Interestingly, the second response of Tough Mudder drew more attention from the court; Tough Mudder claimed that their obstacle course by its nature is a “rigorous, athletic competition requiring proper training” and not a place of amusement or recreation. They argued that other activities, such as horseback riding, auto racing, cycling and skiing (activities which have been held to be covered by GOL § 5-326) were less demanding and more relaxed. The court stated that Tough Mudder’s assertion that such activities are “relaxed and undemanding” and “do not necessitate any research or physical preparation” was inaccurate and absurd; further, it pointed out that the statute makes no such distinction between types of activities.

The court then ruled that the waiver in question violated GOL § 5-326 and was void.

Photo Credit: Thanks to thecollectivity via Flickr.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

Do You Have a “Landmine” in Your Electronic Waiver?

By Doyice Cotten Ten years ago, electronic waivers were the exception; now, they are the rule. A New York court recently ruled that an arbitration agreement in a Tough Mudder waiver was not enforceable (Scotti v. Tough Mudder Inc., 2019). In the discussion, the court gave an excellent update on the enforceability of  electronic waivers and pointed out some “landmines” of which providers need to be aware. Electronic Waiver Fundamentals The court provided some fundamentals that one should know about electronic waivers.... [read more]

Defective Rowing Machine & No “Out of Order” Sign — Waiver Protected

By Doyice Cotten AnneMichelle Johnson, a member of Gold’s Gym Rockies, LLC, sustained an injury when trying to use a rowing machine. She set her usual resistance, tried to pull, heard a pop in her back, and the pull bar did not move. She set resistance at zero, tried to pull again, and it did not move. About that time an employee came over and told her it was broken and he was there to fix it. She found her back was severely injured and filed a premises liability suit alleging negligence (Johnson v.... [read more]

Illinois Racetrack Protected from Negligence Liability by Liability Waiver

By Doyice Cotten Amber Rady, the wife of a racecar driver, sued Southern Illinois Raceway, Inc., for negligence after being injured while in the pit area of the racetrack. Her husband was driving in the event and she signed a waiver in order to be admitted into the restricted pit area. While in the pit area, she stepped into a hole filled with water and subsequently sued the racetrack for negligence (Rady v. S. Ill. Raceway,... [read more]

Tennessee Supreme Court Establishes New Standards for Waiver Enforcement

By Doyice Cotten Courts in Tennessee have long held that waivers of liability for negligence are enforceable; in fact, waivers were not disfavored and the bar for enforcement was fairly low. Things may be changing because the Tennessee Supreme Court, in a non-sport case (Copeland v. HealthSouth/Methodist Rehab. Hosp., 2018), reiterated that the public policy in Tennessee has historically favored freedom of contract.  Nevertheless, the court made it emphatically clear that “not all exculpatory agreements should be enforceable,” and established new criteria for enforcement that are now in effect.... [read more]

A Reason Waivers Sometime Fail — Incident is Beyond the Scope of a Waiver and/or Not Within the Contemplation of Plaintiff

By Doyice Cotten We know that in most states, a well-written waiver of liability will protect a sport, recreation, or fitness provider from liability for injuries to an adult resulting from the ordinary negligence of the provider. Such waivers, however, are not limitless; there are situations and circumstances in which even a well-written waiver will fail to provide protection for the negligent provider. The following Illinois appellate case (Offord v. Fitness International, LLC,,2015) illustrates one circumstance in which a waiver fails to protect.... [read more]

Do the Waiver-signing Patron and the Sport Business Have Equal Bargaining Power?

By Doyice Cotten In contract law, it is generally considered manifestly unfair if a stronger party has an advantage in bargaining power over a weaker party. Thus, a court may intervene by setting aside or modifying the contract to restore equity. What effect does this have on liability waivers where one party (the provider) requires that the patron sign a waiver releasing the provider from liability in the event of an injury caused by the negligence of the provider?... [read more]