I am interested to hear your opinions on this.

[eboos]

Florida Supreme Court: Parents Cannot Sign Binding Liability Waivers For Kids Who Race

[BCT748]

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

I'm a 17-year-old track day rider and mechanic. This is nuts, what's next, Pee Wee Football, how about High School Football?

Then there's Little League. My brother broke his nose playing Basketball; if the bone was just 3mm up and to the right, it would have killed him.

How about the kid that was paralyzed a couple of years ago playing football? I saw that on CNN Sports News.

If we are going to go thru life looking over our shoulders, what's the point of living? I've been riding since I was 5 years old. I've been hurt and I understand the dangers that lurk around the corner. BUT, I'm still going to turn the corner.

Blair Ramey
Lemoore, California

Pretty much sums up my opinion right there.

[Cerberus]

blame the lawyers..

[Gecko]

blame the lawyers..

I do not recall the article saying that a lawyer stepped forward and filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators. In fact, the article states that "a representative of the child’s estate stepped forward and filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators. Lawyers are instruments of their clients. Except in very limited circumstances, lawyers don't do things that their clients don't want to have done.

[Pittenger5]

Pretty much sums up my opinion right there.

They pass laws like this, and then wonder why kids sit inside all day and get fat. Cause they're not allowed to do anything physical anymore.

[daviid]

I do not recall the article saying that a lawyer stepped forward and filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators. In fact, the article states that "a representative of the child’s estate stepped forward and filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators. Lawyers are instruments of their clients. Except in very limited circumstances, lawyers don't do things that their clients don't want to have done.

a lawyer will also tell a client we can make you millions by suing this guy.

[Gecko]

a lawyer will also tell a client we can make you millions by suing this guy.

Its never a guarantee. But who makes the decision to sue? Do you mean to tell me that if you were the representative of the child’s estate and a lawyer told you that you could make millions . . . that you would not be able to control yourself from filing a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators?

[Gecko]

They pass laws like this, and then wonder why kids sit inside all day and get fat. Cause they're not allowed to do anything physical anymore.

It's not really "passing" a law. It's a judicial decision that has precedential value. The legislature passes laws.

You raise an interesting point though. If the people of Florida do not fundamentally agree with the allegedly "new" public policy declare by the Florida Supreme Court they can petition the Florida State Legislature to enact a statute that in effect makes such parental waivers “enforceable." Its all in the hands of the public.

[hammadown]

Let us all hope the public does its job here. The implications to this decision are sweeping and serious. One part of the decision was based on the parent is not acting in the best interest of the child by letting them do these things. We are not far from a court saying a liability waiver for such activities is not acting in your own interest, which would make any waiver worth less than dog shit. Sure any lawyer worth his salt should be able to counter that an adult is able to make their own decisions etc and so forth, but there are arguments for the other side too.

More important, perhaps, is how much say a parent has over raising their child. I mean the pc crowd has already dug their paws into people's parenting, but how far are they going to take it before people take it back? Remember when spanking your kid when he acted like an ass was a good thing (not beating, just a good whack on the ass)...now its child abuse

It's not really "passing" a law. It's a judicial decision that has precedential value. The legislature passes laws.

You raise an interesting point though. If the people of Florida do not fundamentally agree with the allegedly "new" public policy declare by the Florida Supreme Court they can petition the Florida State Legislature to enact a statute that in effect makes such parental waivers “enforceable." Its all in the hands of the public.

[Pittenger5]

It's not really "passing" a law. It's a judicial decision that has precedential value. The legislature passes laws.

Well whatever, I dont got all sorts of fancy book learnding in. All I know is if this starts a precedent it will become a VERY slippery slope very quickly. And I live in a town where it took like 5 years to approve a PRIVATELY funded skatepark because of insurance issues. The fact that theres about 10 basketball courts, and 5 baseball fields in the town doesnt matter, 1 skatepark is a huge problem. If this passes through and appeals fail, it will be a matter of time before all private physically active activities for children go away. Its hard enough keeping kids in shape and exercising now a days, let alone if there's nothing to do.

[eboos]

And I live in a town where it took like 5 years to approve a PRIVATELY funded skatepark because of insurance issues. The fact that theres about 10 basketball courts, and 5 baseball fields in the town doesnt matter, 1 skatepark is a huge problem.

Funny how perception of an activity being dangerous prevents things like skateparks from opening. I guess that no one has ever got hurt playing basketball, football, baseball or soccer.

[out thumped]

Ya Gecko,
Lawyers are our saiviors. Thank God for the hoards of civil minded good hearted lawyers.
I just finished a 3 year civil battle that has left me scarred for life. I , my picture and name were the center piece of the paper the "Big Story" on the local news it even made made the MSNBC.
All nasty allegations I might add. They took the word of the dirt bag and his paid mouth piece as fact and paraphrased my side as alledged.
The Lawyer recrewted other like persons from my small community to join the law suit and she found another criminal to join in. And yes the guy had been arrested for murder and several armmed robberies.
Now it was really looking bad for the home team.
I had a reporter track down where I live and knock on my very hidded and private home at night and question me in front on my children. Afterwards my 8 year old asked me, Dad are we famous for something bad? I had to tell him YES.
Gecko, Please dont tell me the system worked in the end.
I have a dangerous job, the persons at work treated me as if I had the plaugue.
I had sleepless nights and chest pains of anxiety. My Lawyer was a pussy and wanted to pay the dirtbag off. Thank God I was covered by works insurance and did not have to pay out for these wonderful Lawyers. I also did not have a say in my future.
They agreed he was worthless and ditched him for a new one. Wait I could not get a honerable lawyer from anywhere inside my own county. I had to go over an hour away. That helped my case.

Well in the end they paid one criminal off, against my will, but I coulnd not afford to do anything on my own, because it is cheaper than going to court to win.
You see in the end the Lawyers run the system. You are held hostage by lawyers fees. The Lawyer is asking for a 1/4 million for her valiant work in this case.
In the end the Jury cleared me of the all the charges the Lawyer/Judge allowed them to decide. The pompas Judge decided one issue was just to complex for these idiots to understand.
Well I guess I am not quite over the job this lawyer did on me, and please dont tell me they are not all like this, I know that, I had an honest decent guy on my side, but he is an extreme minority.
OT

[out thumped]

On a more similar note.
I have a Kids mx track at my house. My lawyer said I am crazy. I don't want high risk kids off at the mall smoking dope and snorting pills all day.
I do not have a waiver. I verbally ask all adults not to sue me and let them know it was made by idiots.
Thanks to the Lawyers I am going to rethink this,
oh that did not take long, I am still going to do the right thing, despite what the wise Lawyers have decided.
Any kid who likes to rail berms and sky off jumps is at risk to other dangers. This is still a healthy, but risky alternative. All kids have a parent trailing allong behind most laps. It is a great family bond the kids will not forget.
OT

[Gecko]

Ya Gecko,
Lawyers are our saiviors. Thank God for the hoards of civil minded good hearted lawyers.
I just finished a 3 year civil battle that has left me scarred for life. I , my picture and name were the center piece of the paper the "Big Story" on the local news it even made made the MSNBC.
All nasty allegations I might add. They took the word of the dirt bag and his paid mouth piece as fact and paraphrased my side as alledged.
The Lawyer recrewted other like persons from my small community to join the law suit and she found another criminal to join in. And yes the guy had been arrested for murder and several armmed robberies.
Now it was really looking bad for the home team.
I had a reporter track down where I live and knock on my very hidded and private home at night and question me in front on my children. Afterwards my 8 year old asked me, Dad are we famous for something bad? I had to tell him YES.
Gecko, Please dont tell me the system worked in the end.
I have a dangerous job, the persons at work treated me as if I had the plaugue.
I had sleepless nights and chest pains of anxiety. My Lawyer was a pussy and wanted to pay the dirtbag off. Thank God I was covered by works insurance and did not have to pay out for these wonderful Lawyers. I also did not have a say in my future.
They agreed he was worthless and ditched him for a new one. Wait I could not get a honerable lawyer from anywhere inside my own county. I had to go over an hour away. That helped my case.

Well in the end they paid one criminal off, against my will, but I coulnd not afford to do anything on my own, because it is cheaper than going to court to win.
You see in the end the Lawyers run the system. You are held hostage by lawyers fees. The Lawyer is asking for a 1/4 million for her valiant work in this case.
In the end the Jury cleared me of the all the charges the Lawyer/Judge allowed them to decide. The pompas Judge decided one issue was just to complex for these idiots to understand.
Well I guess I am not quite over the job this lawyer did on me, and please dont tell me they are not all like this, I know that, I had an honest decent guy on my side, but he is an extreme minority.
OT

Hey Thump, you don't know me and I don't know you (but I now know you a little bit more than you know me). I know nothing about your situation other than what you've provided here (though I'd be interested to learn more). In the end, who ultimately brought the suit against you, the lawyer or the dirt-bag? If the suit was so bogus, why did you not win on a motion to dismiss or perhaps a summary judgment motion? That is where a lot of frivolous lawsuits bite the dust.

You mention the dirt-bag has been arrested for murder and several armed robberies. You mention nothing about convictions. Do we not still presume innocents in our society until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt? Does this mean the dirt-bag looses all rights because he's been arrested?

There are always two sides to every story. Was the dirt-bag's case improper merely because he claimed you wronged him? What if the dirt-bag was right? Who is to judge what is a "proper" case or not? You? Doesn't that seem a little bit biased?

You say your "lawyer was a pussy and wanted to pay the dirt-bag off." But didn't you also say that you were covered by your employer's insurance so you did not have to pay for the lawyers? If that is the case, they were not your lawyers, they were the insurance company's lawyers. If it was in employer's insurance company's best interest to pay him off rather than to risk a high dollar hit from a plaintiff's verdict don't you think they have the right to make that call? It’s their money on the line after all. You also had the right to hire your own attorney to represent your personal rights . . . but you choose to ride on the insurance company's dollar, correct? Your own attorney could have been doing PR and telling your side of the story to help protect your personal interests.

If the dirt-bag's case was so improperly brought against you, then I assume you have brought a suit against him for vexatious litigation, maybe slander or liable? Yes/No?

As for your MX track, I think that’s great. You say you are not going to ask for waivers despite what “wise Lawyers have decided.” Lawyers don’t decide, they advise. It is up to you to heed their advice or not. It is ultimately your decision not to listen to their advice. Personally, I think you are foolish. Does your current homeowners insurance insure your MX track? Do you carry any additional insurance to protect yourself from any occurrences on your MX track? My guess is that some day you will be right back here posting how lawyers wronged you when a neighbor you thought wouldn’t, but in reality did sue you because you created a dangerous condition on your MX track. Why not try to protect yourself the best you can and offer your MX track to the neighborhood kids? It seems like you are trying to prove a point that will ultimately do no good and will only hurt you. I say this with the best intentions, seriously, think with your head and not so much with your heart.

[ThisBitch]

[eboos]

[out thumped]

Aaahh yes. I should pay more for insurance to cover me for being a decent person and doing the right thing to cover the lawyers fees of future litigation.
You are right the world is made a better and safer ploace every day by lawyers.
OT

[ThisBitch]

Aaahh yes. I should pay more for insurance to cover me for being a decent person and doing the right thing to cover the lawyers fees of future litigation.
You are right the world is made a better and safer ploace every day by lawyers.
OT

Thus far all you've done is tell a very vague, very obviously biased story that isn't very credible and makes little sense. You enjoy the liberties and protections afforded to you by a judicial system that needs all parts in motion, even those you don't agree with, to work. Is society too litigous? Probably, but your blind hatred of Lawyers is ridiculous. All things exist to satisfy a need. Lawyers are merely doing their jobs. There are good ones and bad ones but the same could be said for any profession, including whatever it is you do for work.

[Cerberus]

I do not recall the article saying that a lawyer stepped forward and filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators. In fact, the article states that "a representative of the child’s estate stepped forward and filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators. Lawyers are instruments of their clients. Except in very limited circumstances, lawyers don't do things that their clients don't want to have done.

hmm, lets see.. a "representative of the child's estate"? sounds like PC for a damned lawyer to me. i mean 98% of the time, suits are brought by lawyers on the behalf of the plantiff, not by the plaintiff themselves, and if there weren't so many lawyers with nothing better to than to talk people into suing for millions, all these suits wouldn't happen.
And just for a moment lets consider this; the parent signed a waiver and then decided, 'you know what? screw it, i wanna get paid'.. somehow this does not sound like the act of a normal person, this sounds like a lawyer cam along and aid, 'no worries man, i can get that shit thrown out and get you and your family some money to ease your pain'.
Classic asshole about-face there, and i'd like to believe that very few people would pull that move without outside influence..

Its never a guarantee. But who makes the decision to sue? Do you mean to tell me that if you were the representative of the child’s estate and a lawyer told you that you could make millions . . . that you would not be able to control yourself from filing a lawsuit for wrongful death against the park’s operators?

what ever happened to doing what you said you were going to do?
and not even what you said, but what you said, and signed a legal document attesting that you will not do? you just change your mind and say screw that, i changed my mind?
thats bullshit and a symptom of all that is wrong with america today.
no one takes responsibility for their actions or stands by their word.. and fucking lawyers are the worst of that bunch!

btw, my brother is a lawyer

[Pittenger5]

And just for a moment lets consider this; the parent signed a waiver and then decided, 'you know what? screw it, i wanna get paid'..

From what I heard on the WERA boards, dunno the full truth of it, mommy and daddy are divorced. Daddy gets junior for the weekend, brings him to track, junior dies. Mommy is now pissed off, since she probably cant sue daddy, she's going after the track.

And yes, there are more good lawyers than bad, however, the bad ones set back this society further than anyone aside from politicians. Like Dane Schulman and those dipshits that advertise on tv. Slip and fall? Accident? Dog pooped on your lawn? Its not your fault youre a clumsy asshole, sue the fuck out of the other person.

[Cerberus]

From what I heard on the WERA boards, dunno the full truth of it, mommy and daddy are divorced. Daddy gets junior for the weekend, brings him to track, junior dies. Mommy is now pissed off, since she probably cant sue daddy, she's going after the track.

And yes, there are more good lawyers than bad, however, the bad ones set back this society further than anyone aside from politicians. Like Dane Schulman and those dipshits that advertise on tv. Slip and fall? Accident? Dog pooped on your lawn? Its not your fault youre a clumsy asshole, sue the fuck out of the other person.

it sounds like she might actually have better grounds to sue the ex-husband.. but i doubt she'll get much out of him that she didn't get in the divorce settlement.. so lets dig into some really deep pockets, the insurance carrier for the track!

i just hate sue-happy ass-clowns.
i got called for jury duty back in june.
they pulled me for a jury pool on a slip and fall case.
as it turns out, i knew an attorney from the plaintiff's firm, was neighbors with an attorney from the defendant's firm, and generally despise assclowns that would sue anyone over the fact that they are too fucking clumsy to walk without ending up on their ass...
take some friggin responsibility!
they're your feet, learn how to work them damn it!

[Gecko]

hmm, lets see.. a "representative of the child's estate"? sounds like PC for a damned lawyer to me. i mean 98% of the time, suits are brought by lawyers on the behalf of the plantiff, not by the plaintiff themselves

Simply not true. A lawyer cannot commence a suit without his/her client's consent. The client pulls the trigger, the lawyer is just his/her advocate in the court . . . and yes, a zealous advocate at that (if it was your attorney you would demand nothing less).

and if there weren't so many lawyers with nothing better to than to talk people into suing for millions, all these suits wouldn't happen.

Again, simply not true. If there weren't so many people looking for a quick, lazy fix to getting rich, then all these suits wouldn't happen. Ever see those "get rich quick infomercials"? Ever play the lottery? They are pandering to somebody.

And just for a moment lets consider this; the parent signed a waiver and then decided, 'you know what? screw it, i wanna get paid'.. somehow this does not sound like the act of a normal person, this sounds like a lawyer cam along and aid, 'no worries man, i can get that shit thrown out and get you and your family some money to ease your pain'.

Nope. As Pittenger pointed out, and is my understanding too, mom and dad are divorced. Mom is now pissed off and she's going after the track. And why not sue the track if they were negligent? Again, read if the track was negligent, why should she not be allowed to sue the track? Assume with me that the track was in fact negligent. From a public policy stand point, who is in the better position to bear the cost of the track's negligence? The kid? Mom and Dad? Or the track who is a commercial establishment, charging a fee and making a profit? Without direction from the Florida legislature, the Florida Supreme Court made a public policy decision that the commercial establishment is in the best position to bear the cost of its negligence. As I mentioned, if the people of Florida (or even your state) do not fundamentally agree with the allegedly "new" public policy declare by the Florida Supreme Court they can petition the Florida State Legislature to enact a statute that in effect makes such parental waivers “enforceable." Its all in the hands of the public.

Classic asshole about-face there, and i'd like to believe that very few people would pull that move without outside influence.

Again, not really . . . but I must admit the facts of this case are unique. As far as your view of people . . . while admirable, I believe you have too much faith in mankind especially in today’s materialistic society.

what ever happened to doing what you said you were going to do? and not even what you said, but what you said, and signed a legal document attesting that you will not do? you just change your mind and say screw that, i changed my mind?

That is not what the court is saying here. The court is in effect saying that it will presume that the parent is not acting in the best interests of the child when the parent signs waivers for the undertaking of dangerous activities. It's like the court stepping in as a guardian ad litem.

thats bullshit and a symptom of all that is wrong with america today. no one takes responsibility for their actions or stands by their word.. and fucking lawyers are the worst of that bunch!

Exactly . . . which is why I find lawyer hate speech so interesting. Lawyers are instruments of their client, a reflection of ourselves. As a client of a lawyer, people don't have to take any responsibility for the actions taken by the lawyer. Without the client directing the lawyer, there would be no action to take. When we look at lawyers we hate what we see because it is a reflection of ourselves, and we seek to avoid that realization by using lawyers as scapegoats.

btw, my brother is a lawyer

My condolences to you both.

[Cerberus]

Simply not true. A lawyer cannot commence a suit without his/her client's consent. The client pulls the trigger, the lawyer is just his/her advocate in the court . . . and yes, a zealous advocate at that (if it was your attorney you would demand nothing less).

who files the paperwork? were it not for the glut of lawyers (who are looking to get PAID), there would not be so many ambulance chasers and frivolous lawsuits.

Again, simply not true. If there weren't so many people looking for a quick, lazy fix to getting rich, then all these suits wouldn't happen. Ever see those "get rich quick infomercials"? Ever play the lottery? They are pandering to somebody.

and yet without all the lawyers, NONE of the suits could happen.. do you not see the point here?!

Nope. As Pittenger pointed out, and is my understanding too, mom and dad are divorced. Mom is now pissed off and she's going after the track. And why not sue the track if they were negligent? Again, read if the track was negligent, why should she not be allowed to sue the track? Assume with me that the track was in fact negligent. From a public policy stand point, who is in the better position to bear the cost of the track's negligence? The kid? Mom and Dad? Or the track who is a commercial establishment, charging a fee and making a profit? Without direction from the Florida legislature, the Florida Supreme Court made a public policy decision that the commercial establishment is in the best position to bear the cost of its negligence. As I mentioned, if the people of Florida (or even your state) do not fundamentally agree with the allegedly "new" public policy declare by the Florida Supreme Court they can petition the Florida State Legislature to enact a statute that in effect makes such parental waivers “enforceable." Its all in the hands of the public.

I'm not so ready to make the assumption that the track was negligent.
If they were negligent (or even if they weren't) and the father signed a waiver, the mother's issue should be with the father's act of signing a waiver that he should not have signed because of the track's alleged negligence.
Regardless of circumstance, and in the absence of GROSS negligence, the waiver should stand as a contract of absolution between the track and the father.
as I said, Her issue is really with the EX, but i suspect he's already tapped.

Again, not really . . . but I must admit the facts of this case are unique. As far as your view of people . . . while admirable, I believe you have too much faith in mankind especially in today’s materialistic society.

you're right, i probably do.. but the way i see it, we all have to choose whether to believe in mankind and try to support it, or not believe in mankind and let it fall to destruction. (and yes, those are the only two options that make sense to me) I believe that by having some belief in your fellow man, you are possibly fighting a losing battle, but you are on the side of the angels. If you have no faith in mankind, and just let it all fall apart (do nothing to help), then you are in some small way also responsible for that downward slide.
Call it a perspective of social responsibility... and it is sorely lacking in the world today.

That is not what the court is saying here. The court is in effect saying that it will presume that the parent is not acting in the best interests of the child when the parent signs waivers for the undertaking of dangerous activities. It's like the court stepping in as a guardian ad litem.

right, effectively taking the natural born parental rights away from the parents and placing them in the hands of the state..
when did this become communist russia pray tell?
and how far we from having the courts say that we are not acting in our own best interests? we're already halfway there with seatbelts and helmet laws..
ironic that the original home of democracy and one-time sworn enemy of communism is slowly become communists

Exactly . . . which is why I find lawyer hate speech so interesting. Lawyers are instruments of their client, a reflection of ourselves. As a client of a lawyer, people don't have to take any responsibility for the actions taken by the lawyer. Without the client directing the lawyer, there would be no action to take. When we look at lawyers we hate what we see because it is a reflection of ourselves, and we seek to avoid that realization by using lawyers as scapegoats.

Lawyers may well be instruments of their client, but they have an agenda too.. getting PAID. why else would there be ambulance chasers? they're damned sure not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts!
Also, the idea that a client doesn't have to take any responsibility for the actions of his/her lawyer is EXACTLY the kind of crap i am talking about. on one hand you say lawyers are an instrument of the client, but the client bears no responsibility for the lawyers actions?! i feel like i'm playing a shell game with responsibility.. which way did it go? round and round, see if you can find a donkey to pin the dreaded responsibility on..
smoke and mirrors.. deep stinkin piles of BS.

Lastly, i don't dislike lawyers for being a reflection of myself, they could never/have never/will never be that to me.
i dislike SOME lawyers for a lot of what they do in the course of their work.. defending dirtbags so they can get back out on the street and keep doing the shit they do.. like killing people..
or filing lawsuits that will slowly but surely suck all the fun out of the world to where we have become a friggin saran-wrapped-for-your-protection joke of a society full of pussies who won't eat a cheese burger or the dreaded frigging transfat.. its a fucking JOKE!

[/rant]

[ThisBitch]

Honestly? With the multi-quotes? Necessary? Jesus christ.

[Cerberus]

Honestly? With the multi-quotes? Necessary? Jesus christ.

quid pro quo