johnny99

I've heard people claim that those liability releases that bicycling events make the participants sign are not taken seriously by the courts. This article says those folks are wrong.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/...tail/2878.html

One quote: “When you enter a race, join a club, or sign up for a ride, if you’re not ready to accept the risks emotionally and financially, don’t sign the release, don’t race, join or ride. In a majority of states, releases stop lawsuits and if it weren’t for releases we wouldn’t have races, rides or be able to enjoy this sport."

Booger

According to my extensive legal knowledge (many episodes of Judge Judy in college), a release cannot absolve promoters of negligence.

umd

I think they they would be enforceable for trivial suits like "they didn't tell me racing would be dangerous", but I don't think it would protect anyone from gross negligence. For example if the organizers put up barriers and straw bales, etc. then those are reasonable safety precautions. If there was an obvious hazard in the road and they didn't do anything about it and somebody hit it and died then there might be a case, especially if they were warned and chose to ignore it and continued to do nothing about it. What exactly constitutes "reasonable", "obvious", "negligent", etc. would be up to the courts/jury to decide.

KiuBWhy

lol Jack McCoy Agrees.

merlinextraligh

The actual answer is going to depend on the wording of the release, the jurisdiction, and the facts of the particular incident causing injury.

That said I wouldn't bank on avoiding the effect of a release.

El Diablo Rojo

This is America...sue baby sue!!!!

Jynx

they don't mean a thing. you can have a person sign every waiver under the sun and they can still sue (and win if they have a good case). sad but true. a lot of people are sue happy.

johnny99

That may be true, but very few bicycle crashes during organized events are due to the negligence of the organizers. People usually crash because they bump wheels with another rider or they are going too fast on a steep downhill and lose control. In the case mentioned in the article, the rider was going too fast in a corner and rode off the pavement.

Jynx

Regarless of the waiver lawyers will say...

was there a safety breifing?
did they mention how tight this corner was and to be careful on it?
was there adequate safety items around the turn?
was the road swept clean?
ect...

you can find negligence in anything.

I_Like_Bike

They still owe the participants a legal duty to use reasonable care. The release is a defense measure called Assumption of Risk doctrine. Really though it depends on what a jury thinks about a particular case.

merlinextraligh

Incorrect. See e.g. Buchan v. United States Cycling Fed'n, 227 Cal. App. 3d 134

OUTCOME: The court reversed the denial of defendant bicycle race sponsor's motions for summary judgment and directed verdict in plaintiff bicyclist's negligence suit. The release plaintiff signed barred her action as it was clear, unambiguous, and explicit, and expressed an agreement not to hold defendant liable for negligence. There was no pervading public interest in amateur bicycle racing, and thus, the release was not void.

I am certain with a few minutes of research, I can find a number of cases like Buchan that have upheald releases, and barred actions based on negligence.

I'm equally certain with some more research I can find cases that have invalidated releases in other jurisdictions.

Hence, I go back to my original post, it depends on the release's language, the jurisdiction, and the facts of the particular case.

merlinextraligh

Not if you get your case booted via Summary Judgement or directed verdict, before the jury gets it. See Buchan, supra.

jsonnabend

In New York, liability for negligence can be waived by contract, but not gross negligence. So much for the "still owe participants a duty of reasonable care" and "was there a safety briefing . . ." bits.

And "assumed risk" doesn't really have anything to do with the agreement. Cyclists generally know that ***** happens on a bike -- more so for racers racing -- and they assume the risk for that. Maybe the agreement expressly points out some additional risks, but the defense is generally available anyway.

banerjek

fify

Jynx

There are plenty of cases where the waiver has held up but there are plenty where they didn't. In reality that means that even though people sign a liability release they can still sue and may win. I agree there are a lot of cases thrown out because of them but they aren't the final say they try to be.

Geoffrey

As already mentioned, local law varies in every jurisdiction, and this is not legal advice.

A common rule as I understand it is that ordinary negligence may be effectively waived (i.e. waiver is binding). However, gross negligence (again, definition may vary) may not be waived as a matter of public policy. So failure to discover a tack in the road that led to a flat that led to a crash that led to an injury, probably waivable. If the organizer discovers that the road is completely COVERED with tacks and decides to not clean them up, not tell anyone, and hold the race regardless, probably you have a case, waiver notwithstanding. Likewise, intentional acts are usually not waivable, meaning, e.g., the organizer can't intentionally push you over and make you crash and then hide behind the waiver.

merlinextraligh

Depending on th release, and the facts and the jurisdiction, it may well be a cut and dried answer. As in the example I cite where the plaintiff lost on directed verdict. It's not like this just depends on the vagaries of a particular judge or jury.

But , it does depend on the 1) the language of the release, 2) the jurisdiction, and the particular facts.

Unless someone wants to a 50 state survey, you're not going to get a much more definitive answer.

If anyone actually cares, they can consult a lawyer in their jurisdiction, or research it themselves.

I'd be glad to do the 50 state survey, but the budget for it would be about $20,000, Or we could outsorce the project to India, and get it for $10,000.

Booger

That may be true, but there is always potential for oversight. I wouldn't limit this to the safety of the course. What if you sustained a serious head injury and received no medical care because, hey, you signed a waiver?

RVD72

As another poster said, this is America. You take the good with the bad in this country. If you signed a waiver but you feel wronged, you can find a lawyer working pro bono and sue. The reality is that chances are fairly high that the race organisers don't have attorneys are staff and they won't be able to find one to work for free so they will settle. I don't condone this action but anyone can do it.

This may sound obvious but I've heard some dumb people in my lifetime...if you're going to take this to court, you better be able to prove that you actually got hurt. Judges aren't stupid. Saying "well, they didn't up the oil slick on turn 8 so I could have fallen and killed myself" isn't going to get you anywhere. You actually had to have fallen and really hurt yourself.

In short, some things can be waived and some things (gross negligence, etc.) cannot so argue away.

RVD.

banerjek

This will be considerably cheaper than the suggested safety briefing, sweeping of the roads, and safety barriers suggested in another post, though we still aren't off the hook for someone who overexerts themselves and induces a heart attack.

But then again, when Ford Motor Company under Iacocca made such a callous financial calculation concerning the Pinto, they really got burned (no pun intended)

prathmann

That's exactly what our club was told by a trial lawyer specializing in cycling cases in California. He indicated that the waiver had been upheld by the courts here in cases of simple negligence and that therefore it was very important to be sure we had everyone sign one and keep it in our records. Gross negligence would not be covered by the waiver but was unlikely to arise as long as we took normal safety precautions.

I_Like_Bike

I guess by Risk Management class is a bunch of bull and I should just drop out right now. Sarcasm aside, you are right that it can vary from state to state. "Assumed risk" or the legal defense known as the assumption of risk doctrine is a defense that states the person understands and recognizes the danger inherent in a particular activity and cannot recover damages in the event of an injury. How does that really have nothing to do with the agreement, is it not proof that the person understands and recognizes the danger and yes I know it could be used with out a waver.

gregf83 

If the organizers can't afford a lawyer it's unlikely anyone would want to settle with them as they wouldn't get any money.

Booger

Half the guys at bicycling events are lawyers. The other half are doctors. What a perfect storm.

Ex Pres 

Just don't try to apply your common law learnin' and precedents from the other 49 down in Napoleonic Louisiana. Boudreax might have somethin' to say about that.

But I doubt promoters would be a good target. No money there. The real target would be the USCF. I'll bet that's who the release is really intended to protect. It comes from them. You can guarantee they had attorneys concoct the language.