The Rec Center I occasionally swim at has starting blocks. I am aware that is a swim device that I am supposed to use once in awhile. The pool is very deep and used for daily swim team practice and some meets. Yet, there is always a bright yellow cone placed on the blocks during lap swimming hours. No one may use the starting blocks at this time. I find it irritating. No one could possibly get hurt unless they were especially idiotic. I guess they're worried about lawsuits. I saw someone doing backstroke starts once, but who wants to do those? This practice will discourage me from ever entering a non-OW event.
Waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Geek:
I must respectfully disagree. This is just the insurance company perspective on waivers.
In fact, most written waivers are enforceable if they are well-drafted and if they comply with applicable state laws.
What waivers will not do, however, is insulate you from being sued, which is probably the genesis of your comment. No matter how airtight the waiver is, some idiot can still sue. If the waiver is well-drafted, the case could be gone a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. If it's not well-drafted, or there is some obvious loophole, it is conceivable the case might go to a jury. Very unlikely. In fact, most valid waivers are enforced. They are just often enforced in court, unfortunately, after someone has been sued. So, from your perspective, they probably aren't any good because insurance companies are required to defend (or pay for the defense of) the insured (who holds the waiver) in court.
Another exception to the general rule that waivers are enforceable is where the entity/policy holder has behaved recklessly. This might vitiate the waiver. For example, every time we go to masters meets, we sign a waiver. The pool can enforce this waiver if we somehow manage to hurt ourselves on a starting block or elsewhere and the waiver will likely be upheld even if we sued. But, if the pool is reckless -- the lifeguard dumped too many chemicals in the pool or no one checked the starting blocks and they are loose or defective or if someone dumped glass in the pool -- then the pool owners may be liable for the ensuing damages.
Same thing applies when you go skiing, for example. (Granted, skiing is, by definition, more dangerous.) When you ski, you sign a waiver. You could decapitate yourself on the slopes, but the waiver will still be enforced. I think there may be state laws even that protect ski resorts and provide for the enforcement of waivers.
Bottom line: waivers are not worthless. They just don't protect you from being sued because a lot of idiots file completely meritless lawsuits. This is not the fault of lawyers; it is the litigious nature of our society.
Not to be argumentative, but just so you know, it is a meet rule that also applies to practice. You can have a look at www.usms.org/.../safetyed.pdf
OK, Speedo, very interesting. Almost no one follows this rule at my masters practices.
I sure am glad that they can't wear great big hand paddles though. I'm a paddle hater and I want to be protected from paddles until I go to the tomb. If someone gashes my head during practice with one of those awful devices, I'll sue. Har, har.
Rich:
I am always happy to admit when I'm wrong. I just did. I just quibble with people when they're not making sense or they're dissing me or my USMS "family."
Isn't this a meet rule, not a practice rule?
Not to be argumentative, but just so you know, it is a meet rule that also applies to practice. You can have a look at www.usms.org/.../safetyed.pdf
Not to be argumentative, but just so you know, it is a meet rule that also applies to practice. You can have a look at www.usms.org/.../safetyed.pdf
Oh don't worry Speedo. Fortress loves to argue... it's that lawyer thing! :thhbbb:
I never made a single comment about lawyers. It was the lawyer who brought this up. The presence or absense of a waiver has zero impact on the cost, time or effort of defending either a valid or ridiculous lawsuit or claim. Some could even suggest that waivers have spawned their own niche legal market, making them not only worthless but an added financial burden to the people and companies they purport to protect.
I never made a single comment about lawyers. It was the lawyer who brought this up. The presence or absense of a waiver has zero impact on the cost, time or effort of defending either a valid or ridiculous lawsuit or claim. Some could even suggest that waivers have spawned their own niche legal market, making them not only worthless but an added financial burden to the people and companies they purport to protect.
And I only made a joke about waivers, which was followed by others commenting on the prevailing fear of litigation or joking about lawyers.
The above statement, however, is just exaggeration. A lot of plaintiff's lawyers won't even take a case involving a waiver. If they do, the case will usually end early. When a case ends before trial, there is, by definition, less cost and time involved.
If they do, the case will usually end early. When a case ends before trial, there is, by definition, less cost and time involved.
Wrong. Only legal fees MAY be less. There are many costs to a lawsuit/claim. Legal fees are but a part of them, albeit a large cost. With all those effective waivers out there we sure have seen reduced legal fees, fewer lawsuits, right?
With all those effective waivers out there we sure have seen reduced legal fees, fewer lawsuits, right?
I'm not sure the presence or absence of effective waivers is at all relevant to any purported rise in litigation.
But here's a way to reduce litigation and legal bills. Insurance companies could actually do something other than collect huge premiums and routinely deny coverage of claims or force policy holders to appeal and appeal and appeal the denial of coverage. And I believe there is a new niche market in your industry: home owners making more than one claim are subject to abrupt cancellation of their home owners policy, leaving them no recourse except to obtain outrageously priced emergency coverage to comply with their mortgage obligations. How dare they make a claim after paying all those premiums.
Now, we could just go back to discussing starting blocks and stupid rules, as Allen mentioned earlier.
Hence, them not being worth the paper they are written on. As a family that relies on the insurance industry for our income I don't need a thesis to know they are worthless.
Bet you'd be a lot less happy defending or paying out on a lawsuit without a valid waiver. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No McDonald's coffee for me, thanks. I don't drink coffee at all. No risk of crotch burns.
Not all plaintiffs are ridiculous, just some.
We can go back to starting blocks issue or the incessant kising up that is pervasive on this forum lately. Alternatively, we can have further exposure of igorance on insurance matters, which is actually more entertaining.
