Fl Court Ruling May Affect Young Eagles

silver-eagle

En-Route
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
4,649
Location
Massachusetts
Display Name

Display name:
~John
The story, as reported on Aero-news, says parents can't sign away their youngsters rights. So if the parents aren't their children's guardians, who is? It's about time the courts start supporting the laws on the books and not writing them! Based on other court rulings, wouldn't this mean the court should be paying support for ALL children?
 
As a ten-year-old, I seem to recall I was willing to cut off my right arm or most anything else in order to fly airplanes or other such similar adventure. I think that's where my dad came into play on making sure I wasn't exposed to something that was a risk.

I have no problem with liability waivers. But, if during an investigation an organization is found to have been blatantly violating regulations or reasonable safety procedures, they should be held liable. I'd say the waiver should go only as far as protecting the company if the participant does something stupid that results in injury to themselves during the event.
 
The Supreme Court Ruling can be read here. I still say the court has further limited parental rights. It's time for the state to pay up.
 
I think we should all realize that when we sign a release for either our children or for ourselves, we are giving permission for sloppy and hazardous maintenance and practice. Just don't sign anything that says you cannot sue for liability for any form of negligence. EAA and schools are, and should be, very careful and mindful of mitigating the dangers to children. If they decide to forego safety features they should be liable.

This decision just lets the child's estate sue the company for operating a very unsafe business without the safeguards they should have had in place.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the problem lies in defining ordinary versus gross negligence. It's reasonable to ask someone to waive claims for ordinary negligence, which I define as "we did what we were supposed to have done within the normal human performance envelope".

Gross negligence, which I define as "we deliberately chose to not meet any reasonable standard of performance" should be grounds for suit regardless of any waivers.

A waiver should be like any other contract. In exchange for something of value to you, like a ride in an airplane, you give over your right to sue for damages. The value of what you get and what you give should be in your mind relatively equal. There's almost nothing that you can get that would be worth signing away all your rights.
 
It seems to me that the problem lies in defining ordinary versus gross negligence. It's reasonable to ask someone to waive claims for ordinary negligence, which I define as "we did what we were supposed to have done within the normal human performance envelope".

Gross negligence, which I define as "we deliberately chose to not meet any reasonable standard of performance" should be grounds for suit regardless of any waivers.

A waiver should be like any other contract. In exchange for something of value to you, like a ride in an airplane, you give over your right to sue for damages. The value of what you get and what you give should be in your mind relatively equal. There's almost nothing that you can get that would be worth signing away all your rights.

I agree. A court of law should have the opportunity to determine whether this was a case of gross negligence rather than ordinary. Something also tells me the father was negligent in allowing this teen to get back on the vehicle while still healing from a previous injury. That is a judgement call for a court.

[A]pproximately one month prior to the accident causing Christopher's death, he had attempted the same jump, resulting in a fractured rib and mild concussion.
...
[T]he ATV fourteen-year-old Christopher Jones was "racing and jumping" on "the course set up and maintained by Defendants" was recommended "only for use by those over the age of 16" by the manufacturer. Significantly, the allegations also asserted that "the subject four wheel all terrain vehicle was not designed by the manufacturer or recommended for racing or jumping on a course such as the course constructed and maintained by Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents and employees."

Moreover, the amended complaint alleged that the Kirtons had prior knowledge of Christopher Jones’s limited experience based on a serious injury he had sustained on the same course with the same ATV approximately one month before:
...
The amended complaint further alleged that the negligent design of the course and the failure to have a "flag man" to alert riders to the dangers of the course and to prevent the fatal injuries directly caused or substantially contributed to the death of Christopher Jones.
...
For instance, the decision to allow one’s child to engage in scuba diving or sky diving involves the acceptance of certain risks inherent in the activity. This does not contemplate that a dive instructor will permit or encourage diving at depths beyond safe recreational limits, or that the pilot of the plane on a sky diving venture is intoxicated or otherwise impaired, both situations which could cause injury to the minor.
 
Still, do we parents have a legal duty to our children (and our society) to keep them alive by denying activities because they are risky? Where do we draw the line between "this is ok" and "this is not"?

One could take the logic expressed here and apply it to the parents - their kid was injured but they still let him continue the activity. Perhaps the state should take away my daughter if she breaks a bone learning to ride her bicycle.
 
I think we should all realize that when we sign a release for either our children or for ourselves, we are giving permission for sloppy and hazardous maintenance and practice. Just don't sign anything that says you cannot sue for liability for any form of negligence. EAA and schools are, and should be, very careful and mindful of mitigating the dangers to children. If they decide to forego safety features they should be liable.

This decision just lets the child's estate sue the company for operating a very unsafe business without the safeguards they should have had in place.

WRT "any" negligence I agree, but if providers of various forms of risky experiences aren't allowed any protection most such experiences will simply cease to exist. By way of example, the negligence in this particular case involves the park operator's allowing a 14 year old onto a track that the "manufacturer" of said track recommended 16 as the minimum age for riders plus the operator didn't require that the customer supplied four wheeler be "approved" for the track. IMO calling that negligence is pure nonsence. Now if there was a 3 ft sharpened spike sticking up out of the ground in an area where riders were likely to land on it and the track operator knew about it and chose to ignore the danger I could see a liability there, but not in this case.

Seems to me if this goes nationwide it will also eliminate all opportunities for minors to participate in downhill skiing among other things. That's just nuts.
 
This is insane.

"Florida's children and parents need not worry, after today's decision, that careless commercial operators may be immunized from their carelessness by the presence of an exculpatory clause in a ticket for admission," Justice Harry Lee Anstead wrote in his opinion on the decision.
(my emphasis)

If I understand correctly, a hold harmless does not "immunize" anyone from carelessness or negligence. It simply says, "I understand that this activity is more dangerous than sitting on my fat ass watching the Food Network and I'm OK with that."

Good lord, what a bunch of ******* (OK, pansies) we've become. I'm really very tired of everyone trying to protect me from myself. If you want to make your child wear a helmet to go to bed that's your business, but please stay out of mine.
 
I agree. A court of law should have the opportunity to determine whether this was a case of gross negligence rather than ordinary. Something also tells me the father was negligent in allowing this teen to get back on the vehicle while still healing from a previous injury. That is a judgement call for a court.

And that is how it has always been. It's been long standing that one cannot waive Gross Negligence. Waivers have been a standard in the diving industry for decades and it has worked very well.
 
Back
Top