Contents of consent forms to play?

Sandman,

I agree that the wording is somewhat alarming.

I think this is a sign of the times. Frivolous law suits are very common and often they are based on negligence. For example, player gets hurt and coach wasn't watching at the time. I think in this case they are just trying to protect themselves from others who might consider negligence almost anything.

On the other hand, if you think it is possible that the coach could do something like you mentioned (BP from 40’ without L-Screen) maybe finding another team would be in order.

I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

IMO, most release forms such as this are to meant to prevent the uninformed from going to a lawyer in the first place. I imagine that often a lawyer could show that the form was signed under duress and that one just can't sign away responsibility for negligent actions. I tend to sign these type of forms assuming that they have little or no legal standing but I could be wrong.

Let's hear from the lawyers or at least somebody who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
I tend to sign these type of forms assuming that they have little or no legal standing but I could be wrong.

Ditto.

The first time I saw a document like this I showed it to my uncle, an attorney. He said it would never hold up in court if the team is truly negligent. These documents are designed to prevent frivilous lawsuits.

What would happen if every parent told the coach they were advised not to sign?

I dunno. But I wouldn't wanna be the guy starting such a demonstration, as my son would likely just get dropped from the team and everyone else move on.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
The first time I saw a document like this I showed it to my uncle, an attorney. He said it would never hold up in court if the team is truly negligent. These documents are designed to prevent frivilous lawsuits.

What would happen if every parent told the coach they were advised not to sign?

Buddy of mine is a asst. prosecuting attorney and he said the same thing. You can't eliminate a person's negligence just by signing a piece of paper.

Several years ago a local travel softball coach was sued for negligence for not developing a girl into a D1 softball prospect. Afterall, she was on a showacase team. I believe there was a similar case relative to high school baseball in Orange County, CA a few years ago.

My sister is an attorney. She has always said that the only purpose for a consent form is to try and convince people not to get a lawyer if something happens but that basically they are completely worthless. Something about how you cannot enter into contract biased on unforeseeable events.

Our players/parents sign nothing--no need to because the paper does not hold water anyway--I still go by handshakes and words--if anyone asks for an agreement they do not play-- their paying to play is contract enough for me

quote:

even if arising from the negligence of the releasees. ... Hereby release and hold harmless..

You can't contract away risk due to negligence.

To the contrary, a properly crafted and worded consent/release form is fully valid and can afford protection to a coach or baseball organization for risks that are obvious or inherent in the sport and from claims of negligence.
Here is one case with a good legal summary of the issues and protection available in CA:

Saenz v Whitewater Voyages, Inc; 226 Cal App 3d 758; 276 Cal Rptr 672 (1980).

Here is a more general article on the fact that such consent and release forms, in sports situations, are valid, lawful and enforceable in many states, if properly drafted:

http://iplj.net/blog/wp-conten...Recreation-Cases.pdf

In general, what cannot be released is liability for intentional, deliberate, fraudulent, grossly negligent, or willful and wanton type conduct.

Infieldad,
Believe it or not I actually read through it. It looks like there would be considerable uncertainty as to the results of action brought as a result of negligent actions by the coaches. The language in the release is pretty clear. However, the language of the release in and of itself would lend one to believe that any negligence may be intentional.

I think it would be risky to sign this particular release given the wording if you believe there's a real risk involved. If on the other hand you trust the coaches to do the right thing and not be negligent then you would assume the normal risks of the sport and not have a valid right to sue unless the coaches were intentionally or grossly negligent in any case.

Eventually, it all comes down to asking yourself if you would sue just because something happened to your child even if it were something you know could happen as a matter of course as unlikely as it might be.

I really don't like the wording of the release and question the motives of anyone who would insist on release from their own negligent actions as a condition of participation.

Yes assumption of risk is a defense. If a team does something or fails to do something that results in negligence and an injury the contract is worthless. Assumption of risk doesn't require a contract to spell things out.
For example a goal judge was speared by a hockey stick that came through a small wire screen where therwas no glass. The hockey club was held resposible for failing to protect the goal judge.

Lady falls off a horse when she signed a contract waiving liablity for injury at a riding school. There were also signs everywhere saying ride at your own risk.
Stable was held resposible because the saddle was not properly tightened by an employee. Horse back riding is inherently risky but the rider had reasonable expectations that the saddle would be installed properly. Assumption of risk clearly doesn't apply.

CADad,
Here is a quote from a California Supreme Court case that makes clear that ordinary negligence can be the subject of a release which is lawful and enforceable in CA if properly worded, but liability for future gross negligence cannot be released.

"The mother of Katie Janeway, a developmentally disabled 14-year-old, signed an application form releasing the City of Santa Barbara and its employees (hereafter the City or defendants) from liability for "any negligent act" related to Katie's participation in the City's summer camp for developmentally disabled children. Katie drowned while attending the camp, and her parents (plaintiffs, real parties in interest in the present proceedings) commenced this suit. The Court of Appeal below (1) held unanimously that the agreement embodied in the application form was effective and enforceable insofar as it concerned defendants' liability for future ordinary negligence, but (2) concluded, by a two-to-one vote, that a release of liability for future gross negligence generally is unenforceable, and that the agreement in this case did not release such liability.

In granting review, we limited the issue to be briefed and argued to the second issue -- whether a release of liability relating to recreational activities generally is effective as to gross negligence. fn. 1 As explained below, we answer that question in the negative, and affirm the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal. We conclude, consistent with dicta in California cases and with the [41 Cal.4th 751] vast majority of out-of-state cases and other authority, that an agreement made in the context of sports or recreational programs or services, purporting to release liability for future gross negligence, generally is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Applying that general rule in the case now before us, we hold that the agreement, to the extent it purports to release liability for future gross negligence, violates public policy and is unenforceable."

I would be happy to provide the cite if needed. As you can see, the Court reiterated that a releases of future ordinary negligence are valid and enforceable in CA for sports and recreational activity.
This is also a State specific issue. The OP in Rhode Island may have different laws that govern the issue.

BBHD,
By signing this particular release one is saying in effect that one knows that these coaches are a bunch of idiots who are likely to be negligent and that one has assumed that risk. That's a very different situation from the riding stables waiver of liability. Would it be overturned in court? It might and it might not. Why take the chance?

The best thing to do is find another team.

infielddad,
Whew! You're out of my league on this. I'll leave that one up to my wife who has gotten stuck with running Parks and Rec at times in addition to her normal duties. Interesting to note though given that our child will be going swimming with the new program they've got her moving to now that she's too old for the school based programs.

CADad,
I would not have even posted because it can be a complex legal area.
However, after reading so many posts that suggested the release was worthless, I thought a different view, with legal support might be needed.
I think we are very much in agreement that parents should not sign the document thinking it doesn't mean what it says or does not apply to them.

I would agree if you are developmentally challenged and living in CA.

Every pro tryout requires carefully worded waivers before you step on the field. They are covered for frivolous suits but gross negligence is another question. Each case is judged on it's facts and I am sure you signed lots of waivers over the years.

I have no idea what those last posts mean.
I think the OP deserves to have some accurate information.
The initial posts with the blanket statement that future negligence cannot be released is not correct. The OP would need to look at that issue in Rhode Island. The law journal article indicates properly worded releases in New York can release future ordinary negligence. The release the OP presented might well come from Connie Mack nationally and be drafted accordingly to protect both the coaches and the league.
Clearly, comments that future negligence cannot be released are not accurate in CA and many other jurisdictions/States.
Thanks for confirming that gross negligence cannot be released.

The guy who runs this team is a longtime friend from my son's LL days (my son played a couple years for him before I took over the team for the last couple years).

I really don't expect any gross negligence, but then... $hit does happen, right? For example, the coach of this team is the same guy who co-owns the facility at which I was injured in March. [See my Warning! Always inspect your L-screen before each use post back then. Quick summary of that is that my son is almost certain that the ball that shattered my nose went THROUGH the [faulty, worn, loose] L-screen net. Did I sue the owners? No, because (a) my only out-of-pocket expenses have been $100 emergency room copay and some copays on some meds and (b) he's a friend. Now, if my injuries were more substantial, maybe I would've pursued legal remedy. [FWIW, my son had already been invited to this team before my injury, so it wasn't a pity invite.]

So I don't know if this contract wording has always been the same or did they perhaps revise it after my injury? Hmmm...

California decisions are treated with the same dignity as opinions from Mars in my state.

Pre-event releases don't work here as you can't waive negligence in advance of the act. The forms may help with an assumption of risk argument, but you can't waive something that hasn't happened.

As some have posted, in this state, it may chill a potential plaintiff, but not much help otherwise.