Tag Archives: overly broad

Very Broad Waiver Protects in Spite of Fact a Signed Waiver was not Produced

 By Doyice Cotten

Theresa Brigance was injured at Vail while taking beginning skiing lessons. Vail claimed no liability on the basis of a required liability waiver. Brigance’s ski boot became wedged under the chair in the ski lift. Interestingly, Vail was unable to produce a signed waiver in court.(Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5447)

Liability waivers sometimes fail because they are not broad enough to cover the circumstances of the incident;

How Broad Should Your Waiver Be?

By Doyice Cotten

Can a waiver fail to protect the service provider because it is too broad in scope?  YES.  Can a waiver fail to protect the service provider because it is not broad enough in scope?  YES. Where does the provider or the waiver writer go from here? One might answer “Make it as broad as you can without making it too broad . . . but, be sure you cover everything.” That doesn’t help much, does it?

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reinforces its Stand Against the Enforcement of Waivers

By Doyice Cotten

Several liability waivers have been enforced by Wisconsin appellate courts over the years; more important, however, is the fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has never enforced a liability waiver. With the advent of Roberts v. T.H.E. Insurance Company (2016), that record is still intact.

Patti Roberts attended a charity event at which Sundog Ballooning, LLC, offered tethered hot air balloon rides. After watching the event for a few minutes, Roberts decided to take a ride.

Should You Worry about your Waiver Being Overly Broad?

By Doyice Cotten Waivers can fail to protect providers for a number of reasons. Often, they fail for being too narrow – for example, having the language fail to include the cause of the injury. Sometimes, however, the waiver writer attempts to be too inclusive and the waiver fails for being overly broad. In a Wisconsin equine case (Mettler v. Nellis, 2005), the waiver failed because the waiver was considered overly broad. The court ruled the language “any liability or responsibility for any accident damage,