Wait so the tragically injured/deceased party can freely enter into an agreement but then when something bad happens the agreement does not mean what it says? Well that makes almost as much sense as holding McDonalds liable for you putting hot coffee between your legs and getting burnt. Things like this never happen in our stellar judicial system.
Not sure there’s enough detail in this article to know exactly what happened and why. Pretty typical of these types of business to require a waiver to be signed but it doesn’t absolve them of doing their job to protect the participants. If I go horseback riding and fall off because I’m a dufus, that’s one issue. But if it’s proven that the horse I’m riding has a history of throwing off male riders, then it probably doesn’t matter if I signed a waiver.
SWFL: I understand your point, but must disagree. Rafting is an inherently dangerous “sport”. There is an understanding of the dangers. That being said, the release is a valid contract. There is case law here in Texas that is on point. One case involved a paint ball company. Participants had to sign a waiver or they didn’t get to play. Player lost an eye and sued. Court upheld the waiver and said that the sport had obvious dangers. Assumption of risk. Also a case concerning a fitness center and the equipment used by members. Rafting a real river is not like a ride at an amusement park.
All great points Retired and I would typically agree that a release should be a valid contract. I’ve signed plenty over the years. The waiver may not absolve the rafting company if they overloaded the boat for example.
Retired, the example of the paint ball to the eye is exactly what SFL is talking about. Shooting paint balls is an inherent part of paintball games. An eye out is an expected result. The waiver provides protection. Even then there can be liability: What if the company provided eye protection that wasn’t shatter proof?
The waiver is useless if the paint ball company didn’t maintain their facility and someone got hurt because something fell on them or ramps, ladders or other equipment fails and causes an injury.
Retired Risk manager.. That could very well be true…. But if the paintball arrangers had a bad face mask then they would be culpable because of their faulty equipment. I agree with SWFL that there is too little background on this loss to defend. My instinct would be that if there was no fault on the paintball organizers then a hold harmless agreement would be fine. If they added to the injury or death in any slight way then they would be accountable for their fault of the action.
Wait so the tragically injured/deceased party can freely enter into an agreement but then when something bad happens the agreement does not mean what it says? Well that makes almost as much sense as holding McDonalds liable for you putting hot coffee between your legs and getting burnt. Things like this never happen in our stellar judicial system.
Not sure there’s enough detail in this article to know exactly what happened and why. Pretty typical of these types of business to require a waiver to be signed but it doesn’t absolve them of doing their job to protect the participants. If I go horseback riding and fall off because I’m a dufus, that’s one issue. But if it’s proven that the horse I’m riding has a history of throwing off male riders, then it probably doesn’t matter if I signed a waiver.
SWFL: I understand your point, but must disagree. Rafting is an inherently dangerous “sport”. There is an understanding of the dangers. That being said, the release is a valid contract. There is case law here in Texas that is on point. One case involved a paint ball company. Participants had to sign a waiver or they didn’t get to play. Player lost an eye and sued. Court upheld the waiver and said that the sport had obvious dangers. Assumption of risk. Also a case concerning a fitness center and the equipment used by members. Rafting a real river is not like a ride at an amusement park.
All great points Retired and I would typically agree that a release should be a valid contract. I’ve signed plenty over the years. The waiver may not absolve the rafting company if they overloaded the boat for example.
Retired, the example of the paint ball to the eye is exactly what SFL is talking about. Shooting paint balls is an inherent part of paintball games. An eye out is an expected result. The waiver provides protection. Even then there can be liability: What if the company provided eye protection that wasn’t shatter proof?
The waiver is useless if the paint ball company didn’t maintain their facility and someone got hurt because something fell on them or ramps, ladders or other equipment fails and causes an injury.
Retired Risk manager.. That could very well be true…. But if the paintball arrangers had a bad face mask then they would be culpable because of their faulty equipment. I agree with SWFL that there is too little background on this loss to defend. My instinct would be that if there was no fault on the paintball organizers then a hold harmless agreement would be fine. If they added to the injury or death in any slight way then they would be accountable for their fault of the action.