General Discussion

maxrandb

(15,334 posts) Sat Jun 13, 2020, 07:15 PM Jun 2020

Question for Legal Scholars - Are disclaimers a shield from lawsuits?

We've all seen these things. When you park your car at the airport, you see the "not responsible for loss or damage'.

When you go to an amusement park, the roller coasters have disclaimers regarding liability.

I have always understood that these little disclaimer statements go out the window when there is negligent behavior.

The parking lot is not responsible for damage, but a drunk construction worker can't run over my car with a bulldozer.

The amusement park may not be liable if I have a heart condition, or try to climb out of my seat, but if they've failed a structural inspection, or sunk one of the footings in sand, or if loose bolts cause the ride to collapse, then they are surely liable.

The Donnie Shit for Brains campaign and this venue in Tulsa surely know what the governments own standards and recommendations are.

I don't think signing a disclaimer excuses negligent acts.

What does the law say?

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question for Legal Scholars - Are disclaimers a shield from lawsuits? (Original Post) maxrandb Jun 2020 OP

'I don't think signing a disclaimer excuses negligent acts,' elleng Jun 2020 #1

If an activity is so inherently dangerous (e.g., harm, injury, death) that the potential or actual no_hypocrisy Jun 2020 #2

I think I understand the hockey game and baseball game risk maxrandb Jun 2020 #3

That's why the rally would be defined by strict liability, not negligence. no_hypocrisy Jun 2020 #4

Thanks maxrandb Jun 2020 #5

Can the mentally impaired execute an enforceable waiver? Gothmog Jun 2020 #6

elleng

(130,965 posts)

1. 'I don't think signing a disclaimer excuses negligent acts,'

Reply to maxrandb (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2020, 07:16 PM

Jun 2020

and you are correct.

crap-head probably thinks it will deter some (which may be true,) but also provide fodder for all those lawyers he 'pays.'
(I'm a lawyer, so not slamming all of us.)

no_hypocrisy

(46,121 posts)

2. If an activity is so inherently dangerous (e.g., harm, injury, death) that the potential or actual

Reply to maxrandb (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2020, 07:20 PM

Jun 2020

damage can't be avoided, then it's a strict liability tort and therefore no disclaimer can protect the sponsor of the activity or event.

Example: If a hotel/motel is cleaning its pool with concentrated chlorine and has a sign that swimming could be dangerous and if you do, it's not their fault. A toddler goes into the water and suffers skin irritation or burns, eyesight damage, or drowns, the disclaimer won't protect the hotel/motel. There has been a lot of litigation if the pool were just plain water, whether a disclaimer is enough.

OTOH, if you go to a hockey game and sit where there is no plexiglass, and you get hit with a a puck, and there's a disclaimer, you likely won't be successful in court with a disclaimer. You assumed the risk of harm by sitting where you did at a hockey game.

maxrandb

(15,334 posts)

3. I think I understand the hockey game and baseball game risk

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 13, 2020, 07:31 PM

Jun 2020

However, with the Coronovirus, isn't it more like, no matter where you sit, we're going to shoot a thousand pucks at you and hope you don't get hit, but it's not our fault if you do.

There's no one on earth that would deserve 19,000 lawsuits filed against him more than Donnie Short Fingers.

I'm willing to bet there's quite a few lawyers that would do it for free.

no_hypocrisy

(46,121 posts)

4. That's why the rally would be defined by strict liability, not negligence.

Reply to maxrandb (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 13, 2020, 07:47 PM

Jun 2020

Negligence: There is a duty of care that you have allowed to be breached by your act or forbearance.

Strict Liability: There is no way to protect against harm. Like playing catch with a lit stick of dynamite.

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.[3] It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

maxrandb

(15,334 posts)

5. Thanks

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 13, 2020, 07:53 PM

Jun 2020

Gothmog

(145,312 posts)

6. Can the mentally impaired execute an enforceable waiver?

Reply to maxrandb (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2020, 10:26 PM

Jun 2020

All trump supporters are mentally impaired and so this waiver may not be enforceable

Link to tweet

Reply to this discussion