Waiver Form Legality Question

[chuckcouples]

Where are all the legal experts?

In order for me to play rec hockey this season, the league is making everyone sign a waiver form. The waiver form includes the following item:

11. The Participant agrees that the Organization is not responsible or liable for any losses or damage to the Participant’s bodily person, vehicle, property, or equipment that may occur as a result of negligence by the Organization or any third parties, DUE TO ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF ANY STATUTORY OR OTHER DUTY OF CARE, INCLUDING ANY DUTY OF CARE UNDER THE OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT ON THE PART OF THE ORGANIZATION, AND ALSO INCLUDING THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ORGANIZATION TO SAFEGUARD OR PROTECT FROM THE RISKS DANGERS AND HAZARDS OF ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO ABOVE.


Am I incorrect in assuming that this waiver will mean absolutely nothing in the court of law? I don't think you can force someone to sign something that eliminates all of your liability but I am not a lawyer.

Please let me know ASAP as game 1 is Friday night.

[2014olympicgold]

Does this league not have insurance?

I've been in a bunch of leagues and all have insurance. I've broken my ankle during a game and ended up getting $175 for physio from them through their insurance. I've chipped a tooth and got dental coverage. To me it sounds like this league doesn't have insurance? Weird. I'm no lawyer so I'm def interested if someone can really answer this.

[senryu]

It appears to read "even if the Organization did something that caused you to get hurt, you're waiving the right to go after the Organization." I don't know whether full responsibility is something that can be waived in a release agreement like this; that'll depend on the laws of the province/state where you are. The thing that seems strange to me is that you'd expect them to say that they have no obligation to safeguard you from the acts of others, which makes sense because they can't control what people do. But this language goes farther, saying that you are releasing them from stuff that they do. If you go to a roller coaster park and the park hasn't performed maintenance for years and the coaster flies off the rails causing injury, that should be the park's fault. But this language is saying that in that kind of circumstance, you'd have no recourse against the park. With this language, someone from the organization could shoot you in the leg and you'd be out of luck.

There's probably a body of Albertan/Canadian law that governs the enforceability of release agreements like this. A real lawyer from there might now. But from what I can tell, this release goes farther than you'd expect, which would give me pause.

[Invictus]

With this language, someone from the organization could shoot you in the leg and you'd be out of luck.

So a waiver isn't going to protect the organization from liability if they commit a criminal act, in this case shooting someone.

Also a waiver is not enforceable if the party signing it is a minor or if they lack capacity. Alcohol or drug-related impairment may result in a person being deemed to have lacked capacity.
So just take a video of you being really intoxicated and signing the waiver.

[LawMan]

Welcome to “Law for Dummies” which is a very dumbed down version of the law, and should in no way be taken as legal advice, and if you want to point it the below post has, at least; one thousand; flaws, oversimplifications, and contradictions.

Facts: You joined a league and they require you to sign the attached waiver.

Issue: What if any legal impact does signing the waiver have.

Mainly I’m going to be discussing the rink owner (as subcontractor of the league) because most injuries that can occur, if there is fault, are the fault of the rink owner (due to poor maintenance). Really the only injury that is a direct result of the league is failure to ban a player who goes crazy and seriously harms another player.

The Law (before you sign a waiver):
There are two competing concepts: Duty of Care and Inherent Risk (and acceptance of same).
Duty of Care. Simply put the owner/manager of a facility has a reasonable duty of care to ensure that attendees are not injured at the facility when being used for its intended purpose and from reasonably foreseeable events.
In short, the ice needs to be frozen, the boards safe, the lights cannot fall on anyone etc.
Inherent risk. The counter-balance to making sure the rink is “reasonably safe” is that players need to acknowledge that sports contain a certain level of risk. The league (and the facility) can do everything right and a player can still be injured. Whether by the actions of another player, or just bad luck.
This balance should make sense to most people. If you get a puck to the face, or a slash or a check, or wipe-out and break your ankle you knew that was possible. If, however you are checked into the boards, and the plexi-glass falls on you, or you’re electrocuted in the shower, that was not foreseeable and the rink should be liable for your injuries.

The above is the law, without or without a waiver.

The Law (of waivers):
Legally speaking, typically you cannot waive a “claim in negligence”, or sometimes it is argued you cannot “waive a claim in gross negligence”. There will always be some liability on the league.
I also assume there is much more to the waiver then quoted, because the clause quoted is likely not enforceable.

What the waive does do:
1. Confirms risks and acceptance. As mentioned above, whether signed or not this would apply but this confirms said acknowledgment in writing. (there is probably another paragraph that says “hockey is a fast paced physical game and the player acknowledges injuries can occur, including death”).
2. To frame and define “negligence”. As mentioned above the rink likely cannot be covered for “negligence” and certainly not “gross negligence” but, if under contract the parties agree that actions x,y, and z are NOT negligence, then injuries flowing from those failures do not create liability. Where a waiver goes to far the courts will ignore what it says but again it is useful. In the hockey rink case an acknowledgment that uneven ice, loose boards and uneven floors may exist would likely be upheld. An acknowledgment that “hey sometimes scoreboards fall down and kill people” would not.
3. Creates a defence at first instance. “You cannot sue us, you signed a waiver”. An offshoot to points 1 and 2 having a waiver to hold-up creates an initial defence, which the player would have to overcome to sue successfully. This stops a lot of small dollar lawsuits in their tracks.
4. Mentally stops players from suing. Similar to #4, it puts most players in a frame of mind of “I signed a waiver that I would not sue so I cannot sue.” Again for most “minor” and recoverable injuries many players will not even consider suing thinking “they can’t”.

Conclusion:
1. The rink owner has a duty to provide a “safe” rink and ensure preventable injuries do not occur.
2. Hockey is inherently dangerous. By playing players accept this risk. Any injury that occurs from a “hockey play” that is “reasonably foreseeable” is not a lawsuit vs. the rink.
3. This is the law without a waiver.
4. A waiver has a player acknowledge risk, tries to define most injuries as “not due to negligence”, and puts an additional hurdle in the way of success. Finally, a waiver makes most minor injuries a non-issue as players think “ I can’t sue”.

The waiver provides the league with some legal protection, generally for more minor injuries and damages but it is not a complete blanket protection.

[Invictus]

Username checks out.

[chuckcouples]

Thank you for your help Lawman.