Three hurt in Harpers Ferry zipline accident-6/10/2012

[Tony]

I'm calling you out on this one, Tony. Are you saying that if an operator was negligent (speaking hypothetically), that waiver prevents an injured patron from recovering damages? If this were true, why would places like swimming pools still need million dollar general liability coverage?

I'm saying that everything I could find shows these waivers to be upheld by the courts. But if you want to prove otherwise, have at it.

I think having a good umbrella insurance policy is still good practice for any company. There's no shortage of people that will try to sue for all kinds of silly things, and it's not cheap to defend yourself. See Chut's previous post about settlements.

[chipgallo]

I'm saying that everything I could find shows these waivers to be upheld by the courts.

What you may not find are the out-of-court settlements where Non Disclosure Agreements are used. I'd love to see your list of WV court cases where these waivers were upheld. That would represent a good list of attorneys to *not* use as a plaintiff anyway.

[LFE]

1. 4:09
   Tom Petty - Free Falling - Official Music Video
   
   

[Tony]

What you may not find are the out-of-court settlements where Non Disclosure Agreements are used.

No argument there. I think I just said that myself. But if your point is that people should go ahead and participate in dangerous activities and ignore the waivers they sign then I must disagree vehemently.

It is quite possible to sign away all your rights, and people do it all the time. I think it's important they understand this. Conversely, I think it's very irresponsible to imply to someone they can zipline, bull ride, skydive, etc. without risk of serious health and financial consequences.

[chipgallo]

Tony, you initially caught my attention in the first post by recommending that people forget lawsuits due to the iron-clad waiver. Now you have tried to twist this into an imagined suggestion that people ignore risk on a general list of extreme activities. Let's stay on topic here and you provide the list of cases you found where the courts upheld these waivers. It is a disservice to suggest that parents or any other injured party just give up. I am not talking about slip-and-fall scams, but legit mistakes that an attraction can have lurking.

[andrave]

My girlfriend and I just rode the zipline about 2 hours prior to the reported accident, so we were very curious to see what happened, and very disappointed that they initially reported 3 people had "traumatic injuries" when the "zipline broke" when that turned out to be very very far from the truth. Even their later correction that "2 people collided" doesn't tell the true story. My girlfriend has lots of connections and relatives throughout the county, and she finally got the real story as told by a River Riders worker. You do each zipline by yourself, but on the last zipline, you are given the choice to double up with your partner. My girlfriend and I weigh a combined 400 lbs or so and we did it together safely. Apparently an adult and a child partnered up and rode the last zipline together as well. As they coasted in to the platform, the adult fell on top of the child and into the ramp leading to the platform, breaking one or the other's leg and getting scraped up. My mother and her boyfriend did the zipline tour with us, and they also did the last zipline together, and just like the 2 in the story, they also fell on the last platform. Its a very steep platform and when riding tandem, its a very fast entrance, and a lot of weight moving in so the guides may have trouble effectively slowing you down. We felt like it was a little bit irresponsible to snap couples onto one of the faster ziplines without any preparation because it is a very fast ride and its difficult to coordinate the landing. All the same, thats exactly the sort of injury that is par for the course in a zipline/canopy tour operation. Accidents happen. My girlfriend and I discussed it and neither of us would have any concerns about doing the tour over again, and in fact we had so much fun we will definitely consider it again should we have guests come in that we want to show around and have some outdoor fun with.

If you are not overly athletic and you are doing the canopy tour, I'd strongly advise that you do the last zipline solo to prevent this. However, its a lot of fun to share the sensation of flying with your arms wrapped around your partner if you can just work out the landing.

As for the liability waivers, thats a different issue. I'm an attorney and liability waivers are one of those things we could sit down and talk about for hours. The bottom line is that waivers aren't generally enforceable just because you signed one, but they do usually affect the amount of liability left on the company... in this case, since the participants were advised that this type of thing was possible, had just done many other ziplines, and were given the option to go tandem on the last line, and it appears their injuries were due to their own misteps on landing, and not due to negligence on the part of the operators, nor defective equipment, I'd say the company would be fairly well shielded by the waivers (which i read in full before signing). That the injuries were relatively minor really makes liability fairly moot. A broken leg isn't the type of injury that will typically get the ambulance chasers foaming at the mouth.

[Tony]

you provide the list of cases you found where the courts upheld these waivers.

I already did. Now it's your turn to show waivers that have failed. And I don't mean back in the 60's or settlements. I mean in the modern era. It's the least you can do before you mislead people into thinking those waivers mean nothing.

Thanks Andrave for the lawyers view of things. I think you're agreeing with me that in most cases people sign away virtually all their right to sue in cases like this - especially if the attorneys are going to be expected to work only on contingency.

[chipgallo]

Andrave says nothing of the sort. Quote: "The bottom line is that waivers aren't generally enforceable just because you signed one, but they do usually affect the amount of liability left on the company..."

but go ahead and believe what you will. I just told you that the NDAs hide the waivers that fail. Even the fact that a Non Disclosure was signed can be gagged.

I can't believe your evidence is a Bing query and a Canadian hit. Weak sauce, man.

[Willis]

Thanks andrave, for your account. AND welcome to our forum and the latest episode of "The Bickersons". Stick around and join in the conversations. There's plenty of variety and many topics are a mite less disputatious than the one in which you've chosen to debut

[ministerswife]

I have a relative who was working out in a gym. A popular chain of gyms. The treadmill they were running on full-speed broke, and it injured them severely. The person signed a liability release waiver. The person still pursued them, and got a settlement just days before it went to court.

That's more than likely due to two facts I believe the law demands, despite any waivers (despite what postings above say re waivers as overall coverage); and the two facts are 1) there must be proven negligence by the person(s) being sued and 2) the injury caused is due to the negligence. I think this is correct; but what the hey, I could be wrong (it’s been known to happen).

[cindylu]

After reading "Andrave" posting you'd think someone would like the real story in the news.

[TheHurtOne]

It as a Zip line fail. No one got it right, not even the INSIDE track from an employee

My child and I (tandum) were sent while my other child was hung up on the line. CRASH!!!!

We did nothing wrong to cause our incident. We are suffering with major and permanent injuries.

No waiver excuses faulty policy or procedure by the company. Simple

[TheHurtOne]

WRONG, they are way off base.

[TheHurtOne]

Try a child going blind from the impact!!

[AAT53]

No waiver excuses faulty policy or procedure by the company. Simple

Confused if I am reading this right. I'm getting "the companies fault, so we will get $$$ (smile)"....is that right?

Not saying there is/isn't anything wrong with that, just not sure if I am reading it right.