Featured Article:

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.

The Copeland court held that

… the enforceability of an exculpatory agreement should be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances and weighing these non-exclusive factors: (1) relative bargaining power of the parties; (2) clarity of the exculpatory language, which should be clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable about what the party who signs the agreement is giving up; and (3) public policy and public interest implications.

The court made clear that

  • The totality of the facts and circumstances of each case will dictate the applicability of and the weight to be given to each of these factors.
  • The factors do not have to be weighed equally in any given case – but should be determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding the formation of the agreement.
  • Further, the court made it clear that these criteria apply to all waivers or exculpatory agreements – not just to exculpatory agreements used for “professional services.”

The court then addressed each of the three factors beginning with relative bargaining power. It noted that there is no precise rule by which to determine whether a difference in bargaining power is sufficient to invalidate a waiver. It explained, however, that the two crucial criteria are 1) how important the service at issue is for the physical/economic well-being of the signing party, and 2) the amount of free choice that the signing party has in seeking alternate services.

As to clarity of language, the intent of the agreement to relieve the provider of liability must be clear and unequivocal; in fact, the court stipulated that the wording must be “so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting away.” Further, the court clarified that the language must 1) alert the party agreeing to the waiver that the provision concerns a substantial right, and 2) not be so broad as to release the provider from liability “for any injury for any reason.” The court cited several cases in which the language “from any and all liability . . . relating to participation in these events” was held to be overly broad. Finally, the court added that ambiguous language must be construed against the drafting party.

The Copeland court noted that the third factor, public policy and the public interest, is the most difficult to articulate. The court quoted the Wisconsin Supreme Court definition of public policy, “that principle of law under which freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community” (Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness, Ctr., 2005). The Copeland court explained that “a private contract violates public policy if it conflicts with the constitution, statutes, or judicial decisions of this state or tends to be harmful to the public good, public interest, or public welfare.”  It added, however, that public policy is also determined by societal expectations, thus public policy is flexible and may change over time.

Whether a contract is of public interest depends on the totality of the circumstances in light of current societal expectations. Two factors in determining if a waiver is of public interest are 1) whether the provider has a public service obligation or it is an essential service (e.g., public utility, common carrier, innkeeper, hospital) and 2) whether the transaction is related to the public good or affects a relatively small number of persons. Note: When considering public policy or public interest, one should keep in mind that recreational activities generally do not affect the public interest or raise public policy concerns.


It appears that Tennessee courts will be examining waivers of liability more closely than in the past. This is not bad. However, the court cited cases from both Connecticut and Wisconsin in the Copeland case. Courts in those states are very reluctant to enforce waivers; in fact, very few are enforced. It would be unfortunate if Tennessee follows the paths of those two states. We really will not know until some sport, recreation, or fitness waivers appear before the court.

Photo Credit: Thanks to  Jerry “Woody”  via Flickr.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

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]

Promises of Safety Can Disable Your Waiver

By Doyice Cotten The Alaska Supreme Court has provided a 6-Element test for liability waivers. One of these elements is that “the release agreement must not represent or insinuate standards of safety or maintenance.”  In other words, watch the language of the waiver and do not promise the patron they will be safe from injury. Langlois v. Nova River Runners, Inc. In Langlois v. Nova River Runners, Inc.... [read more]

Multiple Outbreaks of Rhabdomyolysis in University Sports

By Doyice Cotten First, What is Rhabdomyolysis? Rhabdomyolysis is a serious syndrome due to a direct or indirect muscle injury. It results from the death of muscle fibers and release of their contents into the bloodstream. This can lead to serious complications such as renal (kidney) failure. This means the kidneys cannot remove waste and concentrated urine. What Causes Rhabdomyolysis? Rhabdomyolysis is a potentially life-threatening syndrome resulting from the breakdown of skeletal muscle fibers with leakage of muscle contents into the circulation.... [read more]

Another Look at Club Liability on Slip & Falls

By Doyice Cotten It is well-established that the common law imposes a duty of care on business owners to maintain safe premises for their business invitees (clients or potential clients). Justification of this is that the law recognizes that an owner is in a better position to prevent harm than is the invitee. Courts in most states recognize, however, that participation in sports will result in injuries and grant businesses providing sport, recreation, and fitness activities permission to contract away their liability for injuries resulting from provider negligence through the use of waivers of liability.... [read more]

Do You have a Liability Insurance Policy? Yes, but do you REALLY know what it says?

By James H. Moss, J.D. James Moss is a highly recognized lawyer in the outdoor recreation industry. He is a well-known authority in the sport and recreation law field and is the author of a top book in the field, Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management, and Law. We can all learn some lessons from this article illustrating that nothing good comes from not understanding your insurance policy. Check out his popular blog Recreation-Law.com . An event organizer of a 5K Extreme Rampage purchased an insurance policy that specifically excluded coverage for a 5K run with obstacles,... [read more]