N.J. Court Allows Wrongful Death Suit Despite Waiver
East News • April 14, 2004
A New Jersey Appeals Court has ruled that a waiver signed by participants in high risk sports activities does not prevent relatives from pursuing a wrongful death suit when the sports enthusiast ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: wrongful death suit despite waiver.....
Posted On: March 27, 2006, 7:59 pm CST
Posted By: Geoff
Comment:
So, you believe that people who are involved with high-risk activities should not be able to assert claims of negligence, gross negligence, or willful/criminal conduct against others because of the high degree of risk involved with their activity? Keep in mind that it is one thing for a person to take responsibility for their own actions, and quite another for a person to take be required to take responsibility for other people's actions.
Suppose that your sky-diving instructor gave a student a defective parachute. By your logic, since sky-diving is inherently risky, the student should be "responsible" for the outcome. Take it a step further: Suppose that the instructor knew, or should have known that the parachute was defective. Suppose the instructor was blitzed out of his/her mind at the time. Still -- by your logic, its all on the student.
Can I also conclude from your posting that it is OK to hold people responsible for their negligence when the activities involve low or no risk? Say, you walk into the lobbey of a building, open for business, and fall through a floor to the parking garage and get run-over by a moving car. Merely walking into a building is not an inerently risky thing to do. You fell through the floor because of shoddy maintenance work. In this case, whoever is responsible for the shoddy work should be held to account for your injuries, right?
So, please tell me, how is this any different from becomming injured or dying due to a negligent sky-diving instructor? Just as the guy who walked into the building reasonably expected he would not fall through the floor, the student reasonably expects that the parachute that the instructor gave him is not defective.
I fail to see why someone should not be allowed to hold others responsible for their negligent acts and misdeeds because of the degree of risk involved.
Subject: RE: wrongful death suit despite waiver.....
Suppose that your sky-diving instructor gave a student a defective parachute. By your logic, since sky-diving is inherently risky, the student should be "responsible" for the outcome. Take it a step further: Suppose that the instructor knew, or should have known that the parachute was defective. Suppose the instructor was blitzed out of his/her mind at the time. Still -- by your logic, its all on the student.
Can I also conclude from your posting that it is OK to hold people responsible for their negligence when the activities involve low or no risk? Say, you walk into the lobbey of a building, open for business, and fall through a floor to the parking garage and get run-over by a moving car. Merely walking into a building is not an inerently risky thing to do. You fell through the floor because of shoddy maintenance work. In this case, whoever is responsible for the shoddy work should be held to account for your injuries, right?
So, please tell me, how is this any different from becomming injured or dying due to a negligent sky-diving instructor? Just as the guy who walked into the building reasonably expected he would not fall through the floor, the student reasonably expects that the parachute that the instructor gave him is not defective.
I fail to see why someone should not be allowed to hold others responsible for their negligent acts and misdeeds because of the degree of risk involved.