|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
On Feb 10, 7:00*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 11:42 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote: On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, wrote: Has anybody seen a scarier waiver? Speaking as a lawyer, I don't have any problem with it. *Since I went to law school in the 1960s, there has been an explosion in tort liability, reaching into nooks and crannies that one never would have imagined. ... My solution is legislation to restore a broad degree of charitable and religious immunity. *But there's a powerful political party that is in the hip pocket of the trial lawyers' lobby, among other lobbies, and a legislative solution is difficult. *So you can look for prudent event sponsors to be asking for waivers. But seriously, is it really necessary to contrive a list of a dozen or so improbable, terrifying disasters to construct a workable waiver? As many here know, I'm dismayed by the fashion for treating bicycling as extreme and death-defying. *I think it hurts cyclists as a whole, because it discourages people from riding, and it leads to unsympathetic motorists, cops, judges and juries. *("What the hell is he doing riding his bike on the road?" and "He should have known the risks before he got hit by the guy running the stop sign.") I understand that there are people who need to be sued; but yes, I do think there are far too many predatory lawyers. Still, other event organizers seem to get by with waivers that are far less fear-mongering. *I thought this one went far beyond "excessive," and well into "ludicrous." Do you really disagree? *Should _all_ waivers read like that? - Frank Krygowski I agree. The laundry list style makes it seem like it is all inclusive (and off putting at that!). It should be enough to say that unforeen things may happen resulting in injury. Joseph |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
On Feb 10, 12:00*am, wrote:
Still, other event organizers seem to get by with waivers that are far less fear-mongering. *I thought this one went far beyond "excessive," and well into "ludicrous." Do you really disagree? *Should _all_ waivers read like that? - Frank Krygowski I don't disagree with that. A short form, worded well, would be as effective. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
Frank wrote:
Still, other event organizers seem to get by with waivers that are far less fear-mongering. I thought this one went far beyond "excessive," and well into "ludicrous." Maybe GOBA 2007 featured an excess of whining ("Make it stop raining!") and maybe someone went dancing in cleats on a city street. I'm on the GOBA discussion group, will float this over there. --Karen D. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
... Consider, for example, this argument - adapted only slightly from a case in which I was actually involved - on behalf of the family of a man killed when he hit a sinkhole and veered into the path of an oncoming car: the sponsors knew or should have known the Smith road had a bunch of sinkholes, but negligently failed to re-route on Jones road, just a mile away. Also, the city is liable for not fixing the sinkhole, and architect who designed the road some years earlier is liable for failing to properly specify how to compact the base, the contractor is liable for not compacting it properly, and the inspector is liable for watching the contractor mess up.... Hey, when did architects get into the business of designing roads and pavements? I have the understanding that the civil drawings would be signed and stamped by a PE, not an architect (at least they have been on the few hundred plan sets I have looked at). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
On Feb 10, 8:38*am, Tom Sherman
wrote: Ron Wallenfang wrote: ... Consider, for example, this argument - adapted only slightly from a case in which I was actually involved - on behalf of the family of a man killed when he hit a sinkhole and veered into the path of an oncoming car: *the sponsors knew or should have known the Smith road had a bunch of sinkholes, but negligently failed to re-route on Jones road, just a mile away. *Also, the city is liable for not fixing the sinkhole, and architect who designed the road some years earlier is liable for failing to properly specify how to compact the base, the contractor is liable for not compacting it properly, and the inspector is liable for watching the contractor mess up.... Hey, when did architects get into the business of designing roads and pavements? I have the understanding that the civil drawings would be signed and stamped by a PE, not an architect (at least they have been on the few hundred plan sets I have looked at). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful You are correct. In the case at issue, where I in fact represented the design professional, it was a PE. I use the terms "architect" and "professional engineer" interchangeably, because the construction contracts I write include definitions that do that. Specifically AIA 1997 forms B141 and B151, and 2007 forms B101 and B102 are called "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect", but are regularly used for PEs as well, with the contract draftsman adding the needed clarification. But the reader here would have no reason to know that. Mea culpa. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
I wrote:
MaybeGOBA2007 featured an excess of whining ("Make it stop raining!") and maybe someone went dancing in cleats on a city street. I'm on the GOBA discussion group, will float this over there. A pair of respondents are saying that GOBA has always used this waiver (one says she's done 11 GOBAs, and went on to explain the concept of liability to moi, thankyouverymuch). But Columbus AYH/Outdoor Pursuits would not have known, in the first year or two, that participants would be dancing or swimming or "dining." FWIW, GOBA was probably the first major ride to prohibit participation by children of a certain age (two years old, if memory serves). The reason? Someone brought a trailer tot on a local COP ride, an incident occurred, and either the parent sued or TPTB decided to reduce their exposure. Many family riders were displeased with the GOBA action, "we have to stay home because Jeffie's birthday is two weeks after the ride," etc. I have no knowledge of the current restrictions. HTH --Karen D. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?)
wrote in message ... I've long been dismayed at the liability waivers for invitational rides. I understand their purpose - but is it really necessary to make a bike ride sound like such an extreme danger? Anyway, I think the all-time champion waiver has arrived by mail. It's from Columbus Outdoor Pursuits, for GOBA, the Great Ohio Bicycle Adventure. I've pasted about a third of it below. (Surprisingly, no mention of meteorite strikes!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In signing this agreement for myself or for the named participant (if the participant is under age 18), I know that those participating in The 2008 Great Ohio Bicycle Adventure (GOBA) will be exposed to the risks of serious bodily injury, sickness, death, or loss of property due to the circumstances inherent in this event including the negligent acts or omissions of others. I also understand and am aware that there are a variety of specific risks and dangers inherent in a voluntary bicycling event such as GOBA including, without limitation, falls, collisions with other bicyclists, motor vehicles or stationary objects; adverse weather conditions; and those caused by conditions of the road. I also understand that by participating in GOBA I will be riding my bicycle on public roads with many other bicyclists, some of whom may be inexperienced at riding in groups. I also understand that the large number of bicyclists in GOBA many of whom are inexperienced, adds a further element of danger. I understand that during GOBA I may suffer serious bodily injury, sickness, or death, while walking or travelling via bus or other motor vehicle or boat, due to my own carelessness or because of the negligence of others. I further understand that I may be exposed to these same risks while engaged in other voluntary activities such as dancing, swimming, and dining during GOBA. I understand as well that I will be camping outdoors during GOBA and that this necessarily involves being exposed to the elements including the risk of unpredictable and possibly dangerous weather conditions such as severe or violent thunderstorms, rain, hail, lightning, wind, and tornadoes either during the day or at night. In exchange for being permitted to participate in GOBA I voluntarily agree to assume all of these and the other risks inherent in GOBA.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... and then it gets into permitting medical treatment, required hat styles, indemnifying & holding harmless, choice of courts of law, and all the rest. Dancing! Dining! Wind! Rain! Has anybody seen a scarier waiver? - Frank Krygowski thats why i have nothing to do whatsoever with group sponsered rides peter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DO NOT WEAR YOUR HELMLET!! DANGER, DANGER, danger | TJ | Mountain Biking | 4 | December 23rd 06 06:03 PM |
More Age: Danger in a roundabout way | cfsmtb | Australia | 3 | October 2nd 06 11:47 PM |
Deer Danger | Garrison Hilliard | General | 46 | June 1st 05 04:52 AM |
Bread Danger! | Just zis Guy, you know? | Social Issues | 3 | April 25th 05 10:31 PM |
Perceptions of Danger | Michael MacClancy | UK | 14 | June 4th 04 05:57 PM |