Posted On: July 20, 2007, 2:11 pm CDT

Posted By: DG

I have to disagree a little bit with the general consensus on this one. I certainly agree with the purpose of waivers as unforseen events can transpire that are of little or no fault of the insured. However, I don't believe this should allow the insured a blank check to act irresponsibly or dangerously.

The article did not mention what "act" or "condition" occurred that gives the plaintiffs cause to sue, so I'm not necessarily siding with the parents in this case. But, I feel that regardless of waivers, the insured does have a responsibility to act in as safe a manner as possible. I think there should be a "reasonable" amount of safety that any consumer or participant should expect.

I fully agree that if unforseen problems occur, the insured should not be held liable, but in cases of gross negligence, a waiver should not give all of your rights away.