Tag Archives: ambiguous

High Ropes Course Waiver Protects Provider and Builder Under Colorado Law

By Doyice Cotten

In  June, 2018, Jodi Sheldon was seriously injured while participating in a high ropes course at the Golden Bell Ranch. She sued Golden Bell Retreat, Cross Bearing Adventures (“CBA”), the company which constructed the course and trained employees, and it’s owner Kent McIlhany. alleging negligence (Sheldon v. Golden Bell Retreat, 2020). All three defendants claimed Ms. Sheldon’s claims are barred by a waiver and indemnification agreement signed by Sheldon.

The Waiver

The waiver read,

How Ambiguous Language Can Cause a Waiver to Fail

By Doyice Cotten

A waiver of liability is a contract intended to relieve a service provider from liability for injuries resulting from the negligence of the provider. Such waivers are enforceable in at least 45 states providing they meet certain requisites. A major requirement in all states is that the waiver must be clear and unambiguous to be enforceable. Some examples of requirements regarding language include 1) A clear and unambiguous contract must be enforced… 2) Language must be unambiguous,

Costa Rica Bike Tour Waiver Fails to Protect Colorado Tour Company

By Doyice Cotten

Sandra Steinfield fell from her bicycle and was injured during a bicycle tour vacation in Costa Rica. She and her husband filed suit in their home state of Pennsylvania; the case was moved to Colorado for trial under Colorado law (Steinfield v. EmPG Int’l, LLC, 2015).

The major issue in the case was whether a waiver and release signed by Steinfield barred the claims by Steinfield. The waiver was in two forms.

Oregon Supreme Court Rules on Enforceability of Liability Waivers

By Doyice Cotten

Author’s Note: It is rare that a court clearly defines and explains waiver law in a state. The Oregon Supreme Court made an effort to explain both the law and their reasoning; and, unlike many courts, explained the law in an understandable manner. The reader is urged to read the entire case. Much can be learned from the opinion.   From the opinion, it would seem that the Oregon Supreme Court is moving closer to the restrictive stances held by courts in Wisconsin,

Utilize the “Negligence of the Provider” — But Address Negligence Risks and Inherent Risks Separately

By Doyice Cotten

On countless occasions, this author has stressed two points. First, is the value (or even necessity) of including specific reference to the “negligence of the provider” in the exculpatory language of a waiver. In many states, the term is mandated in order for a waiver to be enforced; in others, it is strongly recommended. Alternately, in some states, general language such as “any and all claims” is sufficient. In Florida, four of its Districts require the use of the term “negligence.” In its 5th District (the district hearing this case),

Waivers Protect Georgia Health Club and Personal Trainer

 By Doyice Cotten

A man and his wife joined a gym, signing a total of 3 waivers of liability. He began working with a personal trainer and on the day he suffered a stroke, he took a food supplement (R.A.G.E.), which he had bought elsewhere, and did a workout with the trainer. He sued the gym alleging the workout was too vigorous and sued the drug manufacturer.

The first document he signed was a membership agreement with an exculpatory agreement within it:

“WAIVER AND RELEASE LIABILITY”:

The Club urges you and all members to obtain a physical examination from a doctor before using any exercise equipment or participating in any exercise class.

Court Makes Clear the Texas Waiver Law

By Doyice Cotten

Note: This is a common negligence suit in which the defendant claims protection from a waiver of liability. Seldom do courts describe state waiver law so clearly.

Kimberly Ramirez , while a member of 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc, slipped and fell when she stepped into a puddle of water on the floor (Ramirez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69451).