Liability Waivers

[Divin'Papaw]

More than likely he didn't want to tell them the injuries were because of the parties own fault not the quarries negligence.

If the quarries had done something negligence or reckless they can be sued no matter what you sign.

Perhaps but I don't believe so. The accident was directly due to lack of maintenance at the facility. It was an issue MANY OF US who dived it regularly knew was an accident waiting to happen. It has since been resolved (the unsafe situation) but it was a dangerous situation for several years that was not addressed. However, due to the liability release this individual was told that they had assumed significant liability themselves to dive there.

I'm not a lawyer. Just sharing first hand information. It sure does appear to me that in some states and in some instances the liability release absolutely does result in sharing a significant liability with the customer vs the operator.

 

[boulderjohn]

It is my understanding that liability waivers protect you from nuisance lawsuits. They are supposed to keep people from suing you for their accident just because you exist. If you are negligent and your negligence is in any way responsible for the accident, the waiver is worthless, regardless of what it may say.

 

[formernuke]

It is my understanding that liability waivers protect you from nuisance lawsuits. That are supposed to keep people from suing you for their accident just because you exist. If you are negligent and your negligence is in any way responsible for the accident, the waiver is worthless, regardless of what it may say.

Pretty much

 

[Scraps]

scuba2you,

Yeah, you might be overthinking it.

A lot of personal injury law firms have web sites that discuss where and how those liability releases are enforceable. It varies from state to state, and it depends on individual circumstances. It probably varies even more from country to country.

Personally, I assume I'm responsible for my own safety, and I willingly accept the risks of diving.

I have no problem signing waivers in order to dive.

If I get hurt and it's my own dumb fault, I intend to honor the waiver I signed.

If I die, I'll at least know in my last seconds of consciousness that the kids are grown and independent, and I've arranged things so my wife will not be poor.

So I don't worry about them. I sign them, and I go dive.

 

[Wookie]

Remember, it isn’t the waiver-signer that sues, it’s the spouse who just lost $80k a year in support, because the waiver-signer didn’t properly plan for the spouses future.

The waiver, as Scraps says, is to give an indication to the judge/jury of the waiver-signers mindset and their willingness to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Now, if the boat is grossly negligent, and the waiver-signer dies as a result of that gross negligence, that’s a whole nother story.

 

[formernuke]

Perhaps but I don't believe so. The accident was directly due to lack of maintenance at the facility. It was an issue MANY OF US who dived it regularly knew was an accident waiting to happen. It has since been resolved (the unsafe situation) but it was a dangerous situation for several years that was not addressed. However, due to the liability release this individual was told that they had assumed significant liability themselves to dive there.

I'm not a lawyer. Just sharing first hand information. It sure does appear to me that in some states and in some instances the liability release absolutely does result in sharing a significant liability with the customer vs the operator.

scuba2you,

Yeah, you might be overthinking it.

A lot of personal injury law firms have web sites that discuss where and how those liability releases are enforceable. It varies from state to state, and it depends on individual circumstances. It probably varies even more from country to country.

Personally, I assume I'm responsible for my own safety, and I willingly accept the risks of diving.

I have no problem signing waivers in order to dive.

If I get hurt and it's my own dumb fault, I intend to honor the waiver I signed.

If I die, I'll at least know in my last seconds of consciousness that the kids are grown and independent, and I've arranged things so my wife will not be poor.

So I don't worry about them. I sign them, and I go dive.

These things are very fact specific and vary some state to state. Also bear in mind torts and civ pro are first year classes and I graduated in 2010 and I don't know every state. When talking about business there is also duty's that come in, way to complex to get into that if you want more, go to law school. I'm going to give a very outlandish example of how facts and varies laws can affect whether or not a party is actually negligence just to show a little.

I'm working on my house and I dig a hole in my yard, the mail man falls and hurts himself in the hole- chances are I'm screwed.

I put a post in the hole with flashing lights and a huge sign to stay x number of feet away from the sign, he ignores the sign falls and hurts himself- some states say I warned him about the hole he disregarded I'm fine, others say nice try but you didn't do enough to warn him so your still responsible.

I put in the post with the flashing lights and sign and I build a 8 foot high fence completely covering the area of the hole, he climbs the fence falls and hurts himself- I'm probably fine as I have done enough to warn and mitigate the risk.

I have him sign a waiver saying I'm doing this house work deliver at your own risk there will be holes proceed carefully- some might say I've warned him because the waiver warns of risk of holes, other states will say no thats not enough of a warning

He signs the waiver and I have a sign up over the hole- some states might say the sign isn't enough or the waiver isn't enough however the combination of the two is enough that I'm not responsible for his injuries.

I know that outlandish but it shows how a small change in details affects the likely outcome.

In cases where the party is actually negligent waivers are worthless.

 

[TMHeimer]

I'm sure how binding these forms are varies from place to place (country to country). My guess is that I agree with many here in that they are pretty worthless. I think what it comes down to (at least in U.S./Canada) is if an accident is their fault you can sue, if it's your fault you can still sue but will lose (that may be where this form comes in).

Sign in the parking lot-- "Not responsible for items stolen from your car".-- I've heard in many places these are meaningless since you are parked on their property. But if you are robbed, you may not sue because you read that sign.

 

[-JD-]

These things are very fact specific and vary some state to state. Also bear in mind torts and civ pro are first year classes and I graduated in 2010 and I don't know every state. When talking about business there is also duty's that come in, way to complex to get into that if you want more, go to law school. I'm going to give a very outlandish example of how facts and varies laws can affect whether or not a party is actually negligence just to show a little.

I'm working on my house and I dig a hole in my yard, the mail man falls and hurts himself in the hole- chances are I'm screwed.

I put a post in the hole with flashing lights and a huge sign to stay x number of feet away from the sign, he ignores the sign falls and hurts himself- some states say I warned him about the hole he disregarded I'm fine, others say nice try but you didn't do enough to warn him so your still responsible.

I put in the post with the flashing lights and sign and I build a 8 foot high fence completely covering the area of the hole, he climbs the fence falls and hurts himself- I'm probably fine as I have done enough to warn and mitigate the risk.

I have him sign a waiver saying I'm doing this house work deliver at your own risk there will be holes proceed carefully- some might say I've warned him because the waiver warns of risk of holes, other states will say no thats not enough of a warning

He signs the waiver and I have a sign up over the hole- some states might say the sign isn't enough or the waiver isn't enough however the combination of the two is enough that I'm not responsible for his injuries.

I know that outlandish but it shows how a small change in details affects the likely outcome.

In cases where the party is actually negligent waivers are worthless.

Mailman? What mailman? You know I haven't been getting my mail half the time ...

Alternative solutions, friends.

 

[Manatee Diver]

I understand this is all driven by lawyers and insurance carriers etc. I also know there are limits on a companies ability to use these waivers to get out of gross negligence court findings, but in my case this company is registered in China so a different rule of law applies....

I'd be less concerned about the contents of the waiver, and more concerned about this. I've heard, from people who have lived and worked in China long term, that non-Chinese Nationals almost always lose in Chinese courts when suing a Chinese National.

 

[scuba2you]

scuba2you,

Yeah, you might be overthinking it.

A lot of personal injury law firms have web sites that discuss where and how those liability releases are enforceable. It varies from state to state, and it depends on individual circumstances. It probably varies even more from country to country.

Personally, I assume I'm responsible for my own safety, and I willingly accept the risks of diving.

I have no problem signing waivers in order to dive.

If I get hurt and it's my own dumb fault, I intend to honor the waiver I signed.

If I die, I'll at least know in my last seconds of consciousness that the kids are grown and independent, and I've arranged things so my wife will not be poor.

So I don't worry about them. I sign them, and I go dive.

Positive outlook if I ever saw one...