Posted On: October 30, 2007, 2:14 pm CDT

Posted By: clm mgr

One of the most salient points to be made in opposition to such waivers is the comparative exercise of control over the device that caused the injuries. For instance, a horse riding enterprise waiver is upheld because the horse is not a piece of equipment under the absolute control of the operator of the enterprise...the rider exercises substantial control over the horse and the horse itself has emotions, fears, opinions about how it wants to be ridden, and therefore it is beyond the enterprise renting the horse to guarantee anyones' safety while riding. Not so with a hot air balloon. The pilot is supposedly trained to deal with any sort of weather or other condition applicable to his balloon at any given time, and has a duty to ensure that his balloon does not come into contact with any other objects such as power lines or other obstructions. In addition, no other passenger has any control over the flight of the balloon...the pilot is in complete control over the balloon insofar as weather conditions and other prevailing conditions are concerned. This one will likely go to the plaintiffs.