"Stay back 100 ft"

[Los Feliz Slim]

I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. I think you were being asked to agree to arbitration in case of a dispute.

[Los Feliz Slim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. I think you were being asked to agree to arbitration in case of a dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right...arbitration and litigation being different things. You're correct I wasn't being asked to surrender all my rights, just the right to take them to court. Minutes before I'm about to be operated on, I'm not giving up my rights to anything in case the people doing the operating are negligent.

[WackityWhiz]

What about sporting events where the ticket says "not responsible for injuries caused at the event"? Like if a puck hits you in the head or a tire comes off a car and hurts/kills you.

Does that warning mean anything?

[antidan444]

[ QUOTE ]
What about sporting events where the ticket says "not responsible for injuries caused at the event"? Like if a puck hits you in the head or a tire comes off a car and hurts/kills you.

Does that warning mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is, this falls under the "Act of God" category.

If you park your car in, say, the Walmart parking lot, and some other [censored] leaves their shopping cart out in the middle of the lot, and the wind pushes the cart into your car or the cart rolls downhill into your car, Walmart is not legally liable for the damages.

I think your situation is pretty similar.

(Edited because Walmart doesn't have an 'e' in it ...)

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about sporting events where the ticket says "not responsible for injuries caused at the event"? Like if a puck hits you in the head or a tire comes off a car and hurts/kills you.

Does that warning mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is, this falls under the "Act of God" category.

If you park your car in, say, the Walmart parking lot, and some other [censored] leaves their shopping cart out in the middle of the lot, and the wind pushes the cart into your car or the cart rolls downhill into your car, Walmart is not legally liable for the damages.

I think your situation is pretty similar.

(Edited because Walmart doesn't have an 'e' in it ...)

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The sporting event is an assumption of the risk issue.

Assumption of the risk is merely a defense to a negligence claim. In the case you are describing, it would be for premises liability.

Generally, A commercial property owner (or operator, etc.) has the duty to warn of any risks that it knows or should know of as well as protect patrons from unusually dangerous conditions.

Of course, if the dangers are open and obvious, there is no need to warn.

A defense to a negligence claim arising from a known risk is called assumption of risk. This is applicable and controlling at sporting events. For example, a puck flying into the stands at high speeds, is a known risk of watching a hockey game.

HOWEVER, if a particular aspect of the area is unusually dangerous (or comparably dangerous where the increased risk would not be apparent) the patron (arguably) would not assume the risk. I believe a young girl sued a hockey franchise and arena and either won a judgment or procured settlement. The particular area she was sitting in was considered to be unusally dangerous under the circumstances and thus, the risk of sitting there could not be assumed.

Thus, the basis of the suit is negligence in that the area of the area's design fell below the standard of care and that the owner's failed to warn and protect of those dangers not apparent to the patron. The defense of assumption of the risk does not apply because the patron could not properly appreciate the nature and scope of the risks presented.

2. Shopping carts.

If the positioning of the carts is known to cause property damage, the store has a duty to keep them in a safe place. Wind blowing shopping carts is foreseeable and not considered a force majure.

Again, the patron who's car gets dinged will first have to establish that the store's handling of the carts fell below the standard of care. The store can attempt to argue assumption of the risk, if for example, the patron pulled right up next to the cart and left the car there even though it was a windy day. If the risk was appreciable, arguably, the patron assumed the risk of leaving the care there.

Its all bullshit anyway; make sure you have insurance.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
"Stay back 100ft. Not responsible for damaged vehicles"

I scoff whenever I see this sign on the back of a dumptruck, but I'm curious, does it actually prevent lawsuits or relieve them of any legal liability?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without any kind of express agreement, if a party breaches its duty of care, it can ALWAYS be sued. Thus, if the truck spits a rock at your car and chips the windshield, that company can be sued for its negligence. The sign is either/or both a deterrent (the small amount of damage is usually deterrent enough) or an attempt to claim contributory negligence/assumption of risk in that the car was warned to stay away. This sign would likely have little value in court.

[Voltron87]

ok, heres an example. im kind of freestyling here though, and i dont know much about law relative to law students.

say a school group takes kids on a camping trip. they all have the kids rbing forms home to their parents waiving responsibility, etc. from what i understand, this means that if the kid gets hurt by a falling tree, gets bitten by a spider, or otherwise gets hurt by a natural danger of the wilderness the school is not responsible. but if the counselor tells the kid "oh yeah go swimming in that river i'll be there in a minute", and the river turns out to have a current which drowns the kid and the counselor is off sitting on his ass out of sight, that counselor is responsible.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. I think you were being asked to agree to arbitration in case of a dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right...arbitration and litigation being different things. You're correct I wasn't being asked to surrender all my rights, just the right to take them to court. Minutes before I'm about to be operated on, I'm not giving up my rights to anything in case the people doing the operating are negligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what happened when you refused to sign? I find this interesting because there is no law that this surgery center has to accept you as a patient. They do not have to accept you on your terms. Of course, onerous clauses are generally, non-enforceable, but an arbitration clause is not usually considered to be onerous.

Arbitration is usually more efficient as the case is admistered by a case manager from the Arbritrator's office who is usually exeperienced in the types of cases assigned. You can chose whether you want just one arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. You will get a fair shake and it will usually be completed in much less time and cost much less money.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, heres an example. im kind of freestyling here though, and i dont know much about law relative to law students.

say a school group takes kids on a camping trip. they all have the kids rbing forms home to their parents waiving responsibility, etc. from what i understand, this means that if the kid gets hurt by a falling tree, gets bitten by a spider, or otherwise gets hurt by a natural danger of the wilderness the school is not responsible. but if the counselor tells the kid "oh yeah go swimming in that river i'll be there in a minute", and the river turns out to have a current which drowns the kid and the counselor is off sitting on his ass out of sight, that counselor is responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the first aspect is an assumption of the risk.

The second has to do with the negligence of the supervisor, which is not assumed.