Waiver / Underage

[korbin 0]

Now I've read through the majority of the topics on this, checked it out. Unfortunately my attorney buddy is out of the office so I can't ask him.

I am going to jump here soon, if the season or distance/time does not stop me. I would like to go for A license, and it wouldn't be a hint of an issue except for the fact that the only DZ within 100 miles of me claims that USPA regs are to disallow all people under 18 to jump. Not one mention of liability, lack of valid waivers, etc. (To be fair this was not the DZO, just a TI), but that the USPA has stated this. I pointed him to the BSR, and he has yet to get back to me.

Be that as it may.

I keep seeing this issue whereas notarized parental consent can not waive right to sue. I am just curious as to the particular case law on this, in all honesty. I've been in similarly dangerous extreme sports and this "parents can't waive your rights or enforce your signature" issue is unique to skydiving.

Paintball, racing (of any variety), anything to do with certain sports all accept waivers, notarized or not, that waive rights on behalf of the children to sue. There are fatalities in all of those sports (similar to skydiving in numbers. yes, I know that skydiving has the definite possibility TO kill you in 100% mal, but in terms of the law that is not applicable.)... Insurance is also not involved in this discussion. (Most skydiving insurance isn't comprehensive to the actual people rather than property etc around it, from what I hear)

It should be entirely focused around the waiver and the validity of it.

There might be a bit of argument here, but this directly relates to skydiving, so there might be the inherit chance of this making it to the SC.

If I have to go a distance to get licensed, I will definitely do that. (*waves to Mike*)

So I would just like to hear your guyses thoughts on this, and how other sports can get away with these kinds of waivers. in a legal sense.

[JustChuteMeNow 0]

Maybe when you turn 18 you will learn how to troll better

Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.

[korbin 0]

Absolutely not trying to troll, I'd like this to be moved to the SC if that becomes a problem. I am just curious as to how this applies? Honest question entirely.

[Jumpah 0]

The "parents can't waive your rights or enforce your signature" isn't unique to skydiving. Other sports don't get away with it any differently than skydiving...they can either afford the insurance to cover lawsuits or they don't have anything to lose if they were sued. Airplanes are expensive.

[korbin 0]

Yeah, I am beginning to find that to be the consensus.

I just didn't know if it were different for racetracks ($$$ there), paintball fields (oh, maybe 6 figures if it is a moderately-large sized place), et al. Are those invalid, if signed by parents? Im just not too sharp on this portion of law, and would just be curious to hear a bit more on it and see some specific cases (if there are any)

[Jumpdude 0]

Come to Russellville. We're not a USPA DZ, and we do take kids. We don't pay any attention to USPA's garbage. The BSR's mean Basic Safety RECOMMENDATIONS, at least ass far as the USPA is concerned. The FAA's rules and regs are more enforcable. The only governing authority that can have any real say so in skydiving is the FAA and they don't bother us very much. Now they can ground a DZ for cloud jumping or other illegal acts. The most I've ever seen the FAA do is the occasional ramp check, and I've never seen one at Cessna DZ's.
The FAA does not dictate an age limit. They look at it just as if a kid were a passenger on American Airlines.

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Let's keep this real, real simple.

Dropzones are private businesses.

The owners are under no obligation to do business with anyone (provided they stay within any discrimination laws).

No one can force a drop zone operator to accept a waiver for a minor. This is true even if the law ALLOWS a parent to sign a wavier for a minor.

It is just a business decision... You are welcome to shop around to find a dropzone that will accept a wavier for a minor.

Case law is irrelevant. If the dropzone operator doesn't want to take on the risk... the matter is settled. You can take your business eleswhere.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[korbin 0]

Quote

Come to Russellville. We're not a USPA DZ, and we do take kids. We don't pay any attention to USPA's garbage. The BSR's mean Basic Safety RECOMMENDATIONS. The only governing authority that can have any real say so in skydiving is the FAA and they don't bother us very much. Now they can ground a DZ for cloud jumping or other illegal acts. The most I've ever seen the FAA do is the occasional ramp check, and I've never seen one at Cessna DZ's.
The FAA does not dictate an age limit. They look at it just as if a kid were a passenger on American Airlines.

There are quite a few of you gems out there! How do you guys deal with release of liability waivers?

Quote

Let's keep this real, real simple.

Dropzones are private businesses.

The owners are under no obligation to do business with anyone (provided they stay within any discrimination laws).

No one can force a drop zone operator to accept a waiver for a minor. This is true even if the law ALLOWS a parent to sign a wavier for a minor.

It is just a business decision... You are welcome to shop around to find a dropzone that will accept a wavier for a minor.

Case law is irrelevant. If the dropzone operator doesn't want to take on the risk... the matter is settled. You can take your business eleswhere.

We are talking about Case Law here. Not the decision of the DZ. (Possibly influenced by liabilities etc.)

[Jumpdude 0]

Quote

Quote

Come to Russellville. We're not a USPA DZ, and we do take kids. We don't pay any attention to USPA's garbage. The BSR's mean Basic Safety RECOMMENDATIONS. The only governing authority that can have any real say so in skydiving is the FAA and they don't bother us very much. Now they can ground a DZ for cloud jumping or other illegal acts. The most I've ever seen the FAA do is the occasional ramp check, and I've never seen one at Cessna DZ's.
The FAA does not dictate an age limit. They look at it just as if a kid were a passenger on American Airlines.

There are quite a few of you gems out there! How do you guys deal with release of liability waivers?

Quote

Let's keep this real, real simple.

Dropzones are private businesses.

The owners are under no obligation to do business with anyone (provided they stay within any discrimination laws).

No one can force a drop zone operator to accept a waiver for a minor. This is true even if the law ALLOWS a parent to sign a wavier for a minor.

It is just a business decision... You are welcome to shop around to find a dropzone that will accept a wavier for a minor.

Case law is irrelevant. If the dropzone operator doesn't want to take on the risk... the matter is settled. You can take your business eleswhere.

We are talking about Case Law here. Not the decision of the DZ. (Possibly influenced by liabilities etc.)

Simple, keep it safe, use the proper equipment and don't get hurt or killed.

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org

[Jumpdude 0]

Another thing is that the DZ's that don't take kids are cutting off about possibly as much as 30% of the business that they could have.

Good business????????

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org

[korbin 0]

Quote

Another thing is that the DZ's that don't take kids are cutting off about possibly as much as 30% of the business that they could have.

Good business????????

No, not necessarily. I would COMPLETELY agree with a DZ 100% if it were a complete liability and they could risk quite a bit if it were indeed valid.

Business or not, that Otter on the runway isn't worth the 2000 or whatever the DZ might gross from that one person. (Even collectively many people), if there indeed is a liability.

I just am curious as to the loopholes in the law or whatever is going on so that sports like Racing, and others, can have deaths/damages and not be concerned with liability.

[BIGUN 1,323]

Quote

We are talking about Case Law here. Not the decision of the DZ. (Possibly influenced by liabilities etc.)

There are only three states in the country--California, Ohio and Massachusetts--that allow a parent to sign a release on behalf of a minor child," Gregg said.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-miscellaneous/4133910-1.html

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[korbin 0]

Thanks for that. Context is key, too:
"Well-crafted releases stand up," he said. "If the waivers are drawn the way they should be drawn, and have a component that alerts the child and the family to the activities and their hazards, they offer some protection."

Some still meaning a liability. Without a precedent case set, this seems fairly grey. (I suppose you could consider the Colorado case a precedent, somewhat)

[korbin 0]

Well, Cha ching. This is a great precedent case, for anyone who actually cares to read this sort of thing.

http://floridaarbitrationlaw.com/cases/global_travel_v_shea.pdf

Basically, parents say that kid can go on Safari. Kid gets eaten. Parents want to sue, but signed that exculpatory agreement.

This document here really puts it into perspective the way that a court might see this kind of case.

Excerpt: "Just as the mother in this case had the authority to enter into a contract for
herself and her minor child to travel to Africa for a safari, she also had the authority
to agree to arbitrate claims on his behalf arising from that contract. "

"Parents’ authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 23
encompasses decisions on the activities appropriate for their children––whether they
be academically or socially focused pursuits, physically rigorous activities such as
football, adventure sports such as skiing, horseback riding, or mountain climbing,
or, as in this case, an adventure vacation in a game reserve. Parents who choose to
allow their children to engage in these activities may also legitimately elect on their
children’s behalf to agree in advance to arbitrate a resulting tort claim if the risks of
these activities are realized. "

This is just one states case, but based on all of the previous Supreme Court references in that agreement, they state that exculpatory arbitration clauses signed by parents on a minor's behalf ARE legitimate, and furthermore they are legitimate in cases involving commercial businesses and entities.

I'd say that is pretty damn good.

Some of the case basis:
http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/waivkid.html -- Ski club: kid gets injured (blindness + other injuries), waiver upheld.


http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/1998/1998-ohio-389.pdf
-- mom waives rights for a youngster in a soccer club.


I think that there is more than enough precedent to blow Bill Booth's argument that "underage waivers" are not permissible. Those are three different states than ones previously stated, in modern cases.

Only one or two of them were cross-referenced, meaning they were reaching independent verdicts that surmounted the same conclusion without any sort of previously set precedent from each other.

Tort law is bogus, but I believe this solidifies something or another.

But hey, I'm on a forum just speaking openly. I'm not a lawyer yet.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

Another thing is that the DZ's that don't take kids are cutting off about possibly as much as 30% of the business that they could have.

Good business????????

What are we calling 'business' here? Are we afraid that the short attention spans of those under 18 will cause them to forget that they want to go skydiving? What is the harm in waiting a few years? I had to do it for my skydiving license just like my drivers license. What's the diff?

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[korbin 0]

Quote

What are we calling 'business' here? Are we afraid that the short attention spans of those under 18 will cause them to forget that they want to go skydiving? What is the harm in waiting a few years? I had to do it for my skydiving license just like my drivers license. What's the diff?

Just because you had to, does not necessarily make it correct.

[dqpacker 7]

For some reason I doubt this is some 16 year old kid.
And if you are 16, why don't you do normal 16 yr old stuff, like chase girls, steal your parents booze, and wreck your car. At least quit bitching about the dz's that won't let you jump, they aren't going change their mind because you looked up some Bsr's and think since they let kids play paintball they are going to let you jump at 16.
REMEMBER ITS THE DZO"S CHOICE. He can deny anyone he wants, even if they are 18. Life's tough, than you die.

[Andy9o8 2]

Based on factors on which I will not educate you, I am strongly convinced that you are NOT a 16-year old, as you profess to be.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

For some reason I doubt this is some 16 year old kid.
And if you are 16, why don't you do normal 16 yr old stuff, like chase girls, steal your parents booze, and wreck your car. At least quit bitching about the dz's that won't let you jump, they aren't going change their mind because you looked up some Bsr's and think since they let kids play paintball they are going to let you jump at 16.
REMEMBER ITS THE DZO"S CHOICE. He can deny anyone he wants, even if they are 18. Life's tough, than you die.

Why exactly do you want to attack this OP for asking questions ? Furthermore with your attack you are actually counter-argumenting with irrelevant issues here.

It is irrelevant to the OP´s question whether DZ´s themselves will not want underage customers. May it be so that the DZ´s has every right setting any requirements they like, as long as they are not discriminating. It is not the question he was asking.

Second thing. Who cares if the guy isn´t actually under 18 ? What does that have to do with the issue here either ? IMO he is asking a perfectly good questions and so far the only answer to his question has been from the OP himself. If you cant answer the question, then dont answer.


EDIT: Seems there was also BIGUN who actually answered the question.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Second thing. Who cares if the guy isn´t actually under 18 ?

I do. If I'm right that he's an adult deliberately misrepresenting himself as a juvenile on here (and I think I am), then I question his motives, I don't appreciate the deception, and I don't want to be his enabler.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

I do. If I'm right that he's an adult deliberately misrepresenting himself as a juvenile on here (and I think I am), then I question his motives, I don't appreciate the deception, and I don't want to be his enabler.

May I ask you what ill-motives he could ever achieve, if you just give him an honest answer to an honest question ?

Is it you fear that he might actually find out the truth ?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I do. If I'm right that he's an adult deliberately misrepresenting himself as a juvenile on here (and I think I am), then I question his motives, I don't appreciate the deception, and I don't want to be his enabler.

May I ask you what ill-motives he could ever achieve, if you just give him an honest answer to an honest question ?

The point is the apparent deliberate deception of what he is, and in particular, what he's apparently trying to deceive us about. If he'd simply posed the question without apparently posing as a 16-year old kid, I'd simply go ahead and discuss it with him. But the deception, plus the "ick" factor, makes the discussion a non-starter. I'm not going to discuss it further.

Quote

Is it you fear that he might actually find out the truth ?

Oh, stop. This is a forum for grown-ups.

[riggerrob 643]

Sorry kid, but most DZOs see you as high-risk, low-return.

While you might be able to afford one tandem, you probably cannot afford to graduate AFF, much less buy a shiny new set of equipment (remember no profit in second-hand gear). Ergo, not much money to be made from you.

On the flip side, there have been several accidents involving minors who were not bright enough to handle the stress of skydiving and suffered major injuries.
Rather than admit that their child was not competent, vengeful parents tried to sue the DZ out of business.

For example, in the mid-1980s, a girl did a static-line jump in Winchester, Ontario. She did nothing when her Para-Commander malfunctioned, broke her back on landing and spent the rest of her life in a wheel chair. She successfully sued the DZ for many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You do not want to hear the character-reference given to me by the driver of the wheel-chair capable bus she later rode in.

Most DZs are sole proprietorships that can refuse to do business with anyone.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Well, Cha ching. This is a great precedent case, for anyone who actually cares to read this sort of thing.

http://floridaarbitrationlaw.com/cases/global_travel_v_shea.pdf

Basically, parents say that kid can go on Safari. Kid gets eaten. Parents want to sue, but signed that exculpatory agreement.

This document here really puts it into perspective the way that a court might see this kind of case.

Excerpt: "Just as the mother in this case had the authority to enter into a contract for
herself and her minor child to travel to Africa for a safari, she also had the authority
to agree to arbitrate claims on his behalf arising from that contract. "

"Parents’ authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 23
encompasses decisions on the activities appropriate for their children––whether they
be academically or socially focused pursuits, physically rigorous activities such as
football, adventure sports such as skiing, horseback riding, or mountain climbing,
or, as in this case, an adventure vacation in a game reserve. Parents who choose to
allow their children to engage in these activities may also legitimately elect on their
children’s behalf to agree in advance to arbitrate a resulting tort claim if the risks of
these activities are realized. "

This is just one states case, but based on all of the previous Supreme Court references in that agreement, they state that exculpatory arbitration clauses signed by parents on a minor's behalf ARE legitimate, and furthermore they are legitimate in cases involving commercial businesses and entities.

I'd say that is pretty damn good.

Some of the case basis:
http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/waivkid.html -- Ski club: kid gets injured (blindness + other injuries), waiver upheld.


http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/1998/1998-ohio-389.pdf
-- mom waives rights for a youngster in a soccer club.


I think that there is more than enough precedent to blow Bill Booth's argument that "underage waivers" are not permissible. Those are three different states than ones previously stated, in modern cases.

Only one or two of them were cross-referenced, meaning they were reaching independent verdicts that surmounted the same conclusion without any sort of previously set precedent from each other.

Tort law is bogus, but I believe this solidifies something or another.

But hey, I'm on a forum just speaking openly. I'm not a lawyer yet.

Seems to me that this provides wiggle room for the person signing the waiver/release; not more (or any) protection for the business. It occurs to me that the any arguement for allowing minors to skydive would rely on the waiver being enforceable in terms of protecting the business from a suit. The information posted seems to go in the opposite direction; allowing the minors parents to file suit even though they may have agreed not to.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[BMFin 0]

Quote

The point is the apparent deliberate deception of what he is, and in particular, what he's apparently trying to deceive us about. If he'd simply posed the question without apparently posing as a 16-year old kid, I'd simply go ahead and discuss it with him. But the deception, plus the "ick" factor, makes the discussion a non-starter. I'm not going to discuss it further.

Andy, why do you think he would try to deceive us as being under 18 ? Any reason for that ? What would be his motives you were questioning and you therefore see as a non acceptable cunduct ?