Court Rules Liability Waiver Invalid When There is Gross Negligence

July 19, 2007

  • July 20, 2007 at 2:07 am
    Linda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am sorry, but a 14 year old girl drowned and that is horrible. What were the lifeguards at the pool doing? How is this the mother’s fault?

  • July 20, 2007 at 2:20 am
    Alan A. Johnson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am very sorry about the girl. Who has the responsibility to look after their children? Special need children need to be looked after to a greater extent than other children. The resonsibility is that of the mother and father. She knows her child better than anyone, she also knows the one-one-one attendant who worked with her child last year in school. People who are active sometimes are injured and killed. The CSC is interested in keeping lawyers employed. How many opportunities for adventure (like jumping off a diving board) are going to be lost because the operators are either going to stop offering the sevice, or curtail it to the point that it is no longer an adventure. Her child would be alive today if she simply had said, “No, I you can not go unless I can go with you, somthing I have to say this all the time to my daughter. But she and her lawyer will get rich, the child will still be dead, and all the kids of California can sit home and watch TV.

  • July 20, 2007 at 2:40 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No one said it was the mother’s fault, and yes it is the fault of whomever was responsible for her wellbeing at the time. On the other hand, however, the waiver she signed should be upheld. The waiver not only states that there are risks and people make mistakes AND they will not be held liable.

    So yes, it is his/her fault, but unfortunately blame will not bring back this little girl and nor will a lawsuit that shouldn’t even have made it to court. The mother knew the risks and waved bye-bye to her right to sue (unless actions that lead to injury are criminal in nature) when she signed both the notice/assumption of risk and the waiver.

  • July 20, 2007 at 3:11 am
    DG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have to disagree a little bit with the general consensus on this one. I certainly agree with the purpose of waivers as unforseen events can transpire that are of little or no fault of the insured. However, I don’t believe this should allow the insured a blank check to act irresponsibly or dangerously.

    The article did not mention what “act” or “condition” occurred that gives the plaintiffs cause to sue, so I’m not necessarily siding with the parents in this case. But, I feel that regardless of waivers, the insured does have a responsibility to act in as safe a manner as possible. I think there should be a “reasonable” amount of safety that any consumer or participant should expect.

    I fully agree that if unforseen problems occur, the insured should not be held liable, but in cases of gross negligence, a waiver should not give all of your rights away.

  • July 20, 2007 at 6:28 am
    steve says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obviously Linda has no brain and no children. To dispatch with the obvious, okay, yeah it’s sad a girl died. Now let’s talk about the important stuff and that’s the BS ruling and how this is going to have a ripple affect on the State and the possibility of them closing parks, pools and other recreational activities for fear of being sued.

    I still can’t believe Linda wants to blame the lifeguard(s) in this matter. The parents should have been at the pool and they still have the ultimate responsibility for the welfare and well being of their child. That’s basic parenting 101 but many people today refuse to accept any and all personal responsibility or accountibility for their own (in)actions.

    If Linda still can not figure out why this is the mother’s fault let me explain, she neglected her disabled daughter at the pool and she drowned. It is really that simple.

  • August 14, 2007 at 2:13 am
    Linda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Apparently Steve does not have a brain, making assumptions that I do not have any children. I have two children, a daughter who is 21 and IS a LIFEGUARD at our city pool. She and two other lifeguards were commended this year for saving children who were in trouble and sure to have drowned if they were not quick in their actions to get these kids from the bottom of the pool. Lifeguards are posted at public pools for a reason. What if the parent were not a strong swimmer? What if the parent tried to save their child and started drowning themselves? Lifeguards are not just there to guard small children but EVERYONE who is using the pool.

    Obviously, in this case the lifeguards were not doing their job if the case resulted in gross negligence. Perhaps the children in this community would be safer sitting in front of the tv with mommy and daddy. Get a clue and a life Steve.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*