Whenever you buy a ski lift ticket, or leave your car in a paid parking lot, or buy a theatre ticket, you get a statement on your ticket stub. This is usually written in very obscure legal lingo, and in VERY small type.
The message varies a bit, but it boils down to this:
“you have left your body, coat, automobile, etc. in our care… we assume no liability for this item… anything you do is at your own risk…blah, blah,blah…”
All the lawyers I know tell me that these things are worthless…they do not constitute contracts, and hence, you can sue them for damages to your car, coat, etc.
So why do they still print the damn things? Why don’t they put in BOLD letters: “You have just entrusted us with a thing of value. WE are not obligated to compensate you in any way for any damages incurred by you. Drop dead.”
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head, assuming you’re correct that the messages are really irrelevant in the formal legal sense: (IANAL)
-
Non-lawyer customers may believe it and in the event of a problem won’t even bother to ask a lawyer if they can sue
-
In the event of a jury trial, even if the law doesn’t find the words binding, the jury might look more favorably on defence or mitigation based on the presense of the warning.
WARNING: This posting is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to CAB approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp. Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only. Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients. Colors may, in time, fade. We have sent the forms which seem to be right for you. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Not affiliated with the American Red Cross. Drop in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly. Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file, unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles.
Thats funny Tim. I might use it myself 
Don’t count on these being unenforceable. In Illinois, they generally are. Both the Cubs and Sox have successfully used these (when fans have been hit by foul balls), and there’s a case (which I don’t have time to look up now) where a riding stable defended a horse-throw injury claim based on one of these liability waivers.
[sub]Except you forgot to put it in small print, (Tim)[/sub]
Whether the waivers are enforceable is determined by the court. The waiver does give the team a certain amount of legal defense, but it’s up to the judge. I seem to remember a case where the judge turned down a suit against a ballclub because the fan should have known that there was an element of risk in sitting in the stands.
…generally are * enforceable * I should have said.
I have a feeling that whether the waiver is enforceable probably depends on what caused the damage. To use the baseball ticket example, if you get hit with a foul ball, you should have known there was an element of risk, and it probably would be enforced.On the other hand, I don’t think it would be enforced if say, your section collapsed due to negligent maintenance,although some waivers try to cover everything.
But is the waiver relevant? Is it the waiver that reduces liability, or simply the fact that you “should have known”? How can someone write their own waiver? Seems to me that the only person that can waive liability is the would-be plaintiff.
Just in case it works:
By reading this post, sharing this message board with me, or interacting with me in any way, you waive any and all right to sue me or otherwise impose liability on me for any reason whatsoever.
Remember–No one held a gun to your head and forced you to go to baseball game (or whatever). You do so at their terms, to a point.
An example of the “to a point” would be a bat flying into the stands. If it broke and a big old hunk flew into the stands and conked you on the noggin, you’d have little, if any, chance of winning a law suit, the disclamer would hold. If the bat flew into the stands because Mr. Superstar Ballplayer was mad and struck out again and flung it in the general direction of the fans, you might actually have a good case. It would get a bit fuzzy if Mr. Superstar Player lost grip on the bat because he chased yet another breaking ball fading out of the strike zone. If you hired a lawyer and were able to show that the player regularly loses his bat and the club didn’t take steps to prevent it’s occurence. You’ld probably lose if it went to court, but you might be able to make enough of a nusence of yourself that they would offer you somehting to settle out of court.
Three points however. 1) That is a awfully big “might.” 2)Your lawyer would get a take. 3) The ballgame disclamer specifically mentions the possibility of thrown bats and you should have been paying attention. This disclamer has been held up in courts.
In the case of The Ryan’s would be waiver, it’s too broad and, in any case, it is owned by The Chicago Reader owns the rights to this board and it is unlikely (to put it mildly) that any court would even let a case on it go to trial, much less have a chance of standing up.
But is the waiver relevant? Is it the waiver that reduces liability, or simply the fact that you “should have known”? How can someone write their own waiver? Seems to me that the only person that can waive liability is the would-be plaintiff.
Just in case it works:
By reading this post, sharing this message board with me, or interacting with me in any way, you waive any and all right to sue me or otherwise impose liability on me for any reason whatsoever.
Who’s doing the waiving and who’s doing the writing are two separate issues.
Usually, it’s the would-be defendant that actually writes the waiver.The would-be plaintiff agrees to it in some fashion ( thereby waiving the rights), whether it be by signing a form ( generally, if not always written by the would-be defendant) as I did at a stable, an ice rink,a rafting outfit and for my son’s hockey and baseball teams, or using a ticket which has printed on it ( in tiny print, of course) " the holder assumes all risks, dangers and injuries incidental to the game of baseball…" (going on to list examples) and a section about giving permission for your image to be used in the broadcast of the game. This particular waiver doesn’t even attempt to eliminate all liability, but I’ve seen waivers that essentially state " I agree not to hold X responsible for anything, no matter what the cause" including negligence,incompetence or theft by employees.Those ones are not likely to hold up. If you leave your car in the sort of parking lot where you leave the keys and they park it,they may not be responsible for a lot of things, but the waiver won’t protect them if an employee smashes it or steals it with the keys the lot required you to leave.
I suspect it’s the “should have known” part that’s really important when you actually get to a court and the waiver ias an attempt to keep it from getting to court. I know a lot of the things ( ice skating, horseback riding, rafting etc) that I’ve had to sign waivers for recently did not require them when I was a kid ( or even last year, for rafting at the same place). The activities didn’t get more dangerous, people got more litigious. There was a time when people didn’t look for someone to sue over every misfortune.
In general, given that the cost of printing the ‘waiver’ is negligible, I think we’ve answered the first question asked in the OP. The answer to the second is that the suggested message would annoy the customers.
Thanks, handy. I must admit that it wasn’t original to me, I copied it from a net posting three years ago, and didn’t remember the specifics. I just searched and found it in the rec.humor.funny site. I did change the word ‘product’ to the word ‘posting’, otherwise it’s unchanged. I have no idea why it’s funny.
Chronos- good point.
[sub] WARNING: Some restrictions may apply. Not valid with any other offer. All coverage terminates at age 71. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. For further details, see reverse side. No Cholesterol. Shots do not hurt other players- Yet. All other brands and products are trademarks of their respective holders. In case of tie, there will be a 30-minute overtime battle. CA, CT, PA, and NJ residents add sales tax. Beware your dark side. Keep out of reach of children. The word presence is not spelled “presense”. Return for refund where applicable. No material contained in this post may be republished or reposted without express written consent of the Chicago Reader, Inc., except that I retain the right to republish or repost my own work. Five is right out. No artificial flavors or colors. Arithmetical skill-testing question required. If you go to Z’ha’dum, you will die. Do not reuse tray. I’m not left-handed either. Protected when completed. Not your father’s Oldsmobile.
[/sub]
It seems to be common knowledge that the signs on trucks that say “Not responsible for broken windshields” are bogus. Haulers are required by law to secure their loads. I think that deliberately misinforming the public about their rights under the law should be punishable. I guess the argument is that such “waivers” help promote safety conciousness (and discourage tailgating)
OK. Here is a question for you folks, and it is a true thing that happened to me and my company 4 months ago.
We were getting a shipment of freight in and the truck flipped and totally destroyed all of our goods. The “waiver” on the waybill said that they were responsible for $2 per lb of goods, and that worked out to $840. However, the goods were valued at our cost of over $4000.
In my mind, regardless of the waiver, they were at fault and thats that. They didn’t see that way and cut a cheque for $840.
Opinions on this?
Eric
If you’ve already endorsed the check, it’ll be hard to fight. Otherwise, I’d suggest sending them a bill. It will cost virtually nothing to do so, and who knows? Perhaps they’ll pay it. I’ve heard stories about people that simply send official-looking bills to companies, and had them paid without the company actually checking to see if they’re valid. If the bill isn’t paid, you can still file suit. You won’t necessarily win, but you can file.
Speaking of a truck flipping. This isn’t really the same but somewhat in the same vein. My son was driving down the freeway minding his own business and a truck 2 or 3 cars in front of him blew a retread. The other cars missed it somehow, but my son ran over the tread, causing approx. $500.00 in damage to his car. He followed the truck to the next exit and into a truck stop. He approached the driver and told him what had happened and basically asked what the drivers’ company was going to do about it. The driver said, and I quote, “Prove it”. Needless to say, my son had to pay the repairs out of his own pocket. And a call to the company main office got just about the same B.S. Bunch of jerks.
These type of waivers are generally very enforceable as this is a shipment of goods in interstate commerce. I think this is goverened by the Carmack Amendment. This is why, for instance, you must pay extra to get “insurance” on a USPS item over $100. Of course, as an attorney, I’ll tell you there are always exceptions. But my instincts are that unless you purchased some extra coverage you’re not going to get anywhere in court.
Your friend is the proof, if he can pin the tail on that particular donkey. As a practical matter you probably can’t do much more than push because hiring an attorney will not make economic sense when the damages are only $500. If you have an attorney friend ask him for a letter as a favor, this will get the attention of their claims department and (unless they are self-insured) their independent insurer, from whom they probably would rather this whole thing just be hidden. Or visit your local plaintiff’s lawyer. We often will write a letter at no charge, not only because that kind of stuff pisses us off, but also for the “goodwill”, i.e. if there ever is a big case your friend will remember who helped him out when he needed a hand.