DUMMASS!

[andyhinds]

"Yeah, except in Arizona, waivers indemnify the party from nothing, they have no legal value in this state due to certain sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes

depends on how the waiver itself is carried out, i believe.

if its just some parent signing 'i wont sue you' paper... ya... not really to valid.  But if its been set up by a lawyer (the waiver, that is), and then the waiver has been notarized... you're going to have a bit more of an obstacle to get around in court...

Elsewise, why would arizona even bother with waivers in the first place...?"


Not that I would know anything here but waivers can have legal force - and it has nothing to do with a lawyer or notarized signatures.

The caveat is that a waiver is a written expression of a defense to a tort before the tort occurs. For example, negligence requires a showing of a breach of a duty of due care that actually and proximately causes measurable damage, without a valid defense. In Arizona (and the majority of jurisdictions) certain defense will prevent a plaintiff from recovering. For example, assumption of the risk - meaning the defendant was fully informed of the risks involved in certain conduct, and concurrently with that knowledge the defendant engages in the conduct anyway, to his or her benefit. Another defense is comparative negligence -the plaintiff failed to meet the duty of due care for his or her own protection and was negligent him or herself and that actually and proximately caused, in some percentage, his or her damage. The Plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of his or her own negligence.

The law generally does not allow minors to "waive" into the assumption of risk because a minor is presumed incapable of fully understanding the risks of certain conduct. Neither does the law allow someone to "waive" for another person because knowledge of the risks is measured by a subjective standard. This means a parent can not sign a waiver for their children to create a bar to suit. The minor's claim does not fully mature until the minor reaches 18 and only then does the statute of limitations begin to run as to the minor. The only legal claim a parent can waive in regard to a minor is the PARENTS' right to sue for their out of pocket medical expenses in treating that minor.

Certain sports have been granted statutory protections, such as horse riding. In these instances a waiver that meets the requirement of the statutes will bar suit so long as the waiver was entered into willingly.

That said - no matter what you do by way of legal protections, you can still be sued. Maybe you will get out of it on summary judgment - maybe not. Either way its going to cost you to get there, and you don't get attorneys' fees in tort actions.

The upside is, based on the games I have been to so far locally, there is no "defendant" to sue other than the individual who causes the injury. Like the guy who lost his tooth in Prescott. He could still sue the person who shot him and broke his tooth, because his waiver only applies to AA. But AA is not a corporal entity that can sue or be sued - so AA really can't be sued anyway. Even if he could identify the person who shot the tooth, he still was knowingly playing in an activity that can cause harm, and maybe he failed to use protective equipment that was reasonably available(full face mask). He would loose the suit unless he could prove intent to harm. But intentional torts are a whole other subject.....

Doc

Sounds like somebody has been taking an on-line law course