“She suffered beck and back strain injuries and a cracked tooth.”
so what is a beck strain?
if she signed a liability form, that meant she did not read it! she was so looking forward to getting $$$. i bet she will now turn her lawsuit to the manufacturer. i bet that won’t fly either.
I don’t see how the waiver could hold up personally. If the gym failed to keep the equipment properly maintained, I think they bear some liability. Now, if the injured person wasn;t operating the machine properly, thats a different story all together. But I’m sure we aren’t getting the whole story here.
Its just like those big dump trucks that have the “NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BROKEN WINDSHIELDS” sign on the back. If they fail to properly secure their load, they are liability for possible damages that might arise.
Spinners are required to set their bikes handlebars and seats to accomodate their height. Perhaps she did not secure her own bike prior to her use.
Dump trucks also say KEEP BACK 50 FEET. If drivers did not want their windshields broken by falling debris, which sometimes occurs even when the load is secured, then they should read the signs on the back of the truck. Another way to pass the responsibility buck.
Yeah, but what if you get hit with debris from the dump truck because you had to get closer than 50 feet to be able to read that the sign said keep back 50 feet. A conundrum….
It’s nothing like the sign on the back of a truck. The drivers behind the truck don’t sign something stating that the truck is not liabile even if negligent. The club member signed a contract stating the club wouldn’t be liable even if the club was negligent. Unless they coerced her into signing or told her not to read it, then this case is closed.
Believe me, liability waivers do hold up, depending on what state you are in. We are insurers of high risk recreation activities. Without the waiver, we wouldn’t be able to provide the coverage. The participants are generally waiving liability as a result of simple negligence, not gross negligence. If you dont sign, you dont participate.
i have seen waivers signed for children/minors by parents and they have been renigged by a judge…apparently the judge stated that the parent did not have the right to sign a waiver for their minor…interesting that in this case, because the parent is the guardian is reponsible for the child but not allowed to sign the waiver…
It was good to see that at least one other person out of all these commenters had a sense of humor about this. It apparently went right by the rest of them.
Yea, I read an article about that on IJ not too long ago. Wasn’t it in regards to one of those large inflatible rooms that kids can bounce around in?
So, the judge said the parents didn’t have the right to sign the wavier, but the kid who is obviously a minor can’t sign a legal document and have it hold up, so what did the judge expect the company to do if the company was not negligent at all?
exactly, but if my son/dau were to throw a rock into your windshield, i, the parent would have to be responsible for his actions. it did not make any sense.
Gees wudchuck. Do you ever see a suit that has merit? Some suits really do have merit. The owner who has a faulty bike in a spin studio should have known about it. Having done this activity often over the years, it is not hard for the operator to regularly check on the equipment. A waiver for faulty equipment is rediculous. The handle should never have broken off like that. I hate frivilous suits as much as anyone. But, they should pay. They were negligent. That is what the CGL policy is for.
You just gotta love people that hate our system of Justice. Wudchuck must think we should just do away with lawsuits and handle our business in the street. If I went to a restaurant and ate a piece of contaminated meat because it wasn’t stored properly, he would say, “hey, you don’t have to eat there.”
Fact: people don’t read paperwork. In this case it doesn’t matter. She signed a freakin’ WAIVER. That means you give up some “rights”. The handle bar adjustment on spinning bikes is not complicated nor prone to being “faulty”. The probable cause is she didn’t secure it. This suit, like so many others, is a vain attempt to shift personal responsibility to someone else. The fact that she was 4’11” and weighed 395# had nothing to do with it.
Holey-freakin’-moley! The revelation of physical stats puts a whole new spin-no pun intended!- on this story. Where can the full story be found, anyone?
I think IJ purposefully leaves out a lot of information in their stories, just to spark commentary, conversation and/or debate; why else are the majority of articles bare-bones?
i think you are missing the whole point… most folks don’t anything they sign, because they take the word of the person in front of them. how many of them actually take the document to a lawyer for a review? our society today is such a quick rush into doing things, that we just run and gun w/o the luxury of re-reading things before we sign. our society is full of going after everyone else for their big pockets, they forget about their own personal responsibility. you are right, if it is faulty equipment, then they should be liable. we all know that it’s illegal to assault one another and yet, we see it all the time. we all know that we are supposed to obey the speed limit but many don’t. it’s until we get a ticket or a claim, then we stop and think. how many times are we trying to get ourselves out of trouble and find someone else to be responsible. back to the spinner, when she mounted the bike did she not have her hand on the handle to begin with? she should have known then that it was a bad handle. how many of you check your car before you start it before you hop in and go? if something happened to your car, who’s at-fault? in a place like a gym, you would think that someone would go around and check the equipment prior to opening the shop. but in the end, it was her responsibility to read the paper she signed, because it could have been worse – she could have died and the gym would have been absolved of the situation. this is the tragedy i think we all fear.
It sounds like the waiver is too broad in nature; while it may have survived a defense in this case, I guarantee the defendent counsel is currently
1. delighted it worked
2. surprised it worked
3. glad this isn’t a bigger case, or it would get appealed and overturned.
It seems like the waiver actually delves into the negligence of the business, which to a certain point seems so broad it absolves them of all negligence, which would clearly be adverse to public policy…if this was a death claim, it would have been settled out before the waiver was tested; the only reason the defendent was willing to test the waiver would have been the limited exposure in this case.
“She suffered beck and back strain injuries and a cracked tooth.”
so what is a beck strain?
if she signed a liability form, that meant she did not read it! she was so looking forward to getting $$$. i bet she will now turn her lawsuit to the manufacturer. i bet that won’t fly either.
funny, how we proof read these articles… they corrected it to neck & back strain…
I don’t see how the waiver could hold up personally. If the gym failed to keep the equipment properly maintained, I think they bear some liability. Now, if the injured person wasn;t operating the machine properly, thats a different story all together. But I’m sure we aren’t getting the whole story here.
Its just like those big dump trucks that have the “NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BROKEN WINDSHIELDS” sign on the back. If they fail to properly secure their load, they are liability for possible damages that might arise.
Spinners are required to set their bikes handlebars and seats to accomodate their height. Perhaps she did not secure her own bike prior to her use.
Dump trucks also say KEEP BACK 50 FEET. If drivers did not want their windshields broken by falling debris, which sometimes occurs even when the load is secured, then they should read the signs on the back of the truck. Another way to pass the responsibility buck.
Yeah, but what if you get hit with debris from the dump truck because you had to get closer than 50 feet to be able to read that the sign said keep back 50 feet. A conundrum….
It’s nothing like the sign on the back of a truck. The drivers behind the truck don’t sign something stating that the truck is not liabile even if negligent. The club member signed a contract stating the club wouldn’t be liable even if the club was negligent. Unless they coerced her into signing or told her not to read it, then this case is closed.
Believe me, liability waivers do hold up, depending on what state you are in. We are insurers of high risk recreation activities. Without the waiver, we wouldn’t be able to provide the coverage. The participants are generally waiving liability as a result of simple negligence, not gross negligence. If you dont sign, you dont participate.
i have seen waivers signed for children/minors by parents and they have been renigged by a judge…apparently the judge stated that the parent did not have the right to sign a waiver for their minor…interesting that in this case, because the parent is the guardian is reponsible for the child but not allowed to sign the waiver…
It was good to see that at least one other person out of all these commenters had a sense of humor about this. It apparently went right by the rest of them.
Yea, I read an article about that on IJ not too long ago. Wasn’t it in regards to one of those large inflatible rooms that kids can bounce around in?
So, the judge said the parents didn’t have the right to sign the wavier, but the kid who is obviously a minor can’t sign a legal document and have it hold up, so what did the judge expect the company to do if the company was not negligent at all?
exactly, but if my son/dau were to throw a rock into your windshield, i, the parent would have to be responsible for his actions. it did not make any sense.
LOL! Reminds me of a certain commercial exchange:
Tourist: What if mother won’t let me drive?
Flo: Then, you probably wouldn’t have had an accident in the first place! And we’re walking…
Gees wudchuck. Do you ever see a suit that has merit? Some suits really do have merit. The owner who has a faulty bike in a spin studio should have known about it. Having done this activity often over the years, it is not hard for the operator to regularly check on the equipment. A waiver for faulty equipment is rediculous. The handle should never have broken off like that. I hate frivilous suits as much as anyone. But, they should pay. They were negligent. That is what the CGL policy is for.
You just gotta love people that hate our system of Justice. Wudchuck must think we should just do away with lawsuits and handle our business in the street. If I went to a restaurant and ate a piece of contaminated meat because it wasn’t stored properly, he would say, “hey, you don’t have to eat there.”
Fact: people don’t read paperwork. In this case it doesn’t matter. She signed a freakin’ WAIVER. That means you give up some “rights”. The handle bar adjustment on spinning bikes is not complicated nor prone to being “faulty”. The probable cause is she didn’t secure it. This suit, like so many others, is a vain attempt to shift personal responsibility to someone else. The fact that she was 4’11” and weighed 395# had nothing to do with it.
Holey-freakin’-moley! The revelation of physical stats puts a whole new spin-no pun intended!- on this story. Where can the full story be found, anyone?
I think IJ purposefully leaves out a lot of information in their stories, just to spark commentary, conversation and/or debate; why else are the majority of articles bare-bones?
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=(A-43-09)&s=NJ&d=44504 (copy of the waiver that she signed).
i think you are missing the whole point… most folks don’t anything they sign, because they take the word of the person in front of them. how many of them actually take the document to a lawyer for a review? our society today is such a quick rush into doing things, that we just run and gun w/o the luxury of re-reading things before we sign. our society is full of going after everyone else for their big pockets, they forget about their own personal responsibility. you are right, if it is faulty equipment, then they should be liable. we all know that it’s illegal to assault one another and yet, we see it all the time. we all know that we are supposed to obey the speed limit but many don’t. it’s until we get a ticket or a claim, then we stop and think. how many times are we trying to get ourselves out of trouble and find someone else to be responsible. back to the spinner, when she mounted the bike did she not have her hand on the handle to begin with? she should have known then that it was a bad handle. how many of you check your car before you start it before you hop in and go? if something happened to your car, who’s at-fault? in a place like a gym, you would think that someone would go around and check the equipment prior to opening the shop. but in the end, it was her responsibility to read the paper she signed, because it could have been worse – she could have died and the gym would have been absolved of the situation. this is the tragedy i think we all fear.
It sounds like the waiver is too broad in nature; while it may have survived a defense in this case, I guarantee the defendent counsel is currently
1. delighted it worked
2. surprised it worked
3. glad this isn’t a bigger case, or it would get appealed and overturned.
It seems like the waiver actually delves into the negligence of the business, which to a certain point seems so broad it absolves them of all negligence, which would clearly be adverse to public policy…if this was a death claim, it would have been settled out before the waiver was tested; the only reason the defendent was willing to test the waiver would have been the limited exposure in this case.
SecretAgentMan, the link isn’t working…any others?
The link works fine, you just have to cut and past it since the article isn’t HTML.
This is what I got when I tried the cut-n-paste route:
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
——————————————————————————–
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?
The following error was encountered:
Read Error
The system returned:
(104) Connection reset by peer
An error condition occurred while reading data from the network. Please retry your request.
What up wit’ that? No big deal, though…