Will this sign protect me from frivolous lawsuits?

[MioProton]

I live in the part of Florida where you have very dishonest ambulance chasing attorneys looking for a quick payday on frivolous lawsuits. Such as faked slip and falls where a person fakes an injury to spills stuff themselves then slips in it on purpose or has pre-existing injuries but then tries to pin it on an innocent business owner, etc..

Would having a sign like this and having it acted on by the person continuing inside the business or on the property give legal protection against these frivolous lawsuits?

Thanks.

 

[Just Blue]

I live in the part of Florida where you have very dishonest ambulance chasing attorneys looking for a quick payday on frivolous lawsuits. Such as faked slip and falls where a person fakes an injury to spills stuff themselves then slips in it on purpose or has pre-existing injuries but then tries to pin it on an innocent business owner, etc..

Would having a sign like this and having it acted on by the person continuing inside the business or on the property give legal protection against these frivolous lawsuits?

Thanks.

No, probably not.

 

[MioProton]

No, probably not.

Why not? It's a contract, and walking on the property acknowledges their acceptance. The same as the click though agreement on websites which say they can spy on you and sell your info to data brokers.

The same as ROKU TV forcing you to agree to arbitration and unless you agree, it will brick your TV (render it useless)

Websites, cell phone apps, social media, etc... They all do it.

Why would a business owner with a sign be any difference? Can't a restaurant even put a tip on your bill as long as they have a sign-up or print it somewhere on the menu?

Don't court reliably enforce the " Terms of services/TOS" on click though agreements that 99.999999% people never read?

South Park even lampooned this concept on their human centipede episode in which they agreed it is as part of the TOS a new apple phone.

How tech companies make people agree to anything under these click though agreements that no one ever reads.

 

[adjusterjack]

Why not? It's a contract, and walking on the property acknowledges their acceptance.

No, it's not a contract, it's a disclaimer. Big difference. To a certain minimal extent it does afford some protection. But it also gives your customers the opportunity to turn around and walk away.

But you don't get to disclaim away the consequences of your own negligence.

And NOTHING prevents lawsuit papers from being handed to you.

 

[quincy]

Why not? It's a contract, and walking on the property acknowledges their acceptance. The same as the click though agreement on websites which say they can spy on you and sell your info to data brokers.

The same as ROKU TV forcing you to agree to arbitration and unless you agree, it will brick your TV (render it useless)

Websites, cell phone apps, social media, etc... They all do it.

Why would a business owner with a sign be any difference? Can't a restaurant even put a tip on your bill as long as they have a sign-up or print it somewhere on the menu?

Don't court reliably enforce the " Terms of services/TOS" on click though agreements that 99.999999% people never read?

South Park even lampooned this concept on their human centipede episode in which they agreed it is as part of the TOS a new apple phone.

How tech companies make people agree to anything under these click though agreements that no one ever reads.

You are speaking above of contracts of adhesion - essentially a “take it or leave it” contract.

Here is some information on adhesion contracts written by the FreeAdvice Staff: https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/what-is-an-adhesion-contract/

The “Not Responsible for Accidents or Injuries” or “Enter At Your Own Risk” type warning signs can help to mitigate damages in the event an accident or injury on the premises results in a lawsuit but, like disclaimers in written contracts, the signs alone cannot prevent a lawsuit or (necessarily) absolve the premises owner of all liability.

To be effective, the signs must be placed where everyone will see them, and they must be written in large enough type and in a language or languages understood by those who will be encountering the signs.

Your Florida Governor, by the way, recently signed a law that makes it more difficult to file frivolous lawsuits.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Would having a sign like this and having it acted on by the person continuing inside the business or on the property give legal protection against these frivolous lawsuits?

No. Having such a sign will not prevent some loon from filing a *frivolous* lawsuit. You would still have to legally respond, which takes time and money.

Furthermore, having such a sign will *not* necessarily provide legal protection if someone files a *non-frivolous* lawsuit.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to Florida’s new Tort Reform Act:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/837

 

[MioProton]

No, it's not a contract, it's a disclaimer. Big difference. To a certain minimal extent it does afford some protection. But it also gives your customers the opportunity to turn around and walk away.

But you don't get to disclaim away the consequences of your own negligence.

And NOTHING prevents lawsuit papers from being handed to you.

What about the TOS on all websites, cell phone apps, video games,etc... Is that a disclaimer or a biding contract?

They don't have my signature on it, but maybe an " accept button" or maybe entering the website or using the app is the acceptance.
What also a sign for binding arbitration in the event of a dishonest attorney or maybe a QR code on the sign that brings you to an arbitration clause like roku did with the smart TV. Where there was no way to use the TV unless you agreed to the new terms?

Also, I am talking about con-artist who will be professional slip and fall people who will like to throw a cup of ice on the floor then lie down in it or just tell people they fell when they did not. All stuff I have seen from surveillance video on youtube.

How much extra protection does a disclaimer sign give me? Like 25% more? Can I force arbitration vs courts via disclaimer/QR code agreement?

 

[MioProton]

You are speaking above of contracts of adhesion - essentially a “take it or leave it” contract.

Here is some information on adhesion contracts written by the FreeAdvice Staff: https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/what-is-an-adhesion-contract/

The “Not Responsible for Accidents or Injuries” or “Enter At Your Own Risk” type warning signs can help to mitigate damages in the event an accident or injury on the premises results in a lawsuit but, like disclaimers in written contracts, the signs alone cannot prevent a lawsuit or (necessarily) absolve the premises owner of all liability.

To be effective, the signs must be placed where everyone will see them, and they must be written in large enough type and in a language or languages understood by those who will be encountering the signs.

Your Florida Governor, by the way, recently signed a law that makes it more difficult to file frivolous lawsuits.

Good call on the new Florida law by our Governor. This may help me unless the cases get grandfathered in. I may consider a counter-claim against the frivolous lawsuit by this shyster attorney. I will probably make a dedicated post about that option later. I am going to need to study this new law to find out if they might help me in my current situation.

On the " contracts of adhesion - essentially a “take it or leave it” contract” it said that "These contracts can be just as binding as regular contracts. However, on occasion, adhesion contracts – or clauses within the contracts – will not be considered enforceable. "

So there is a hurdle the plaintiff would have to overcome first saying they never read the sign, or it was too small or not in a visible place,etc before able to advance a lawsuit?

Would the sign placed perhaps at all entry points to the property be considered a contract of adhesion? As far as language, I live in America so of course it will be in English however if some Russian or Muslim decides to go on my property, he can argue that I would have to sign in Arabic or Russia ? Seems kind of unfair it would have to be in anything other than the language of the country you are in. It's unreasonable to have it in every language in the world on a single sign. Unless I could do a QR code and link it to an extensive contact on the internet which would be hundreds of pages made for all languages including Klingon. I was also thinking of maybe doing a forced arbitration via QR code on the sign for extra security.

 

[MioProton]

No. Having such a sign will not prevent some loon from filing a *frivolous* lawsuit. You would still have to legally respond, which takes time and money.

Furthermore, having such a sign will *not* necessarily provide legal protection if someone files a *non-frivolous* lawsuit.

I am sort of getting mixed messages, I was linked to information saying "These contracts can be just as binding as regular contracts. However, on occasion, adhesion contracts – or clauses within the contracts – will not be considered enforceable. "

What protection will it give me and what would the opposite side have to overcome to advance a lawsuit even with a sign present.

This guy father spent his life making a castle and no insurance company will take him as a client, but he has a sign instead telling people to enter at their own risk. (time stamp 10:14)

"Enter at your own risk, if you do not agree do not enter" and I think he has never been sued.

What has to happen for a lawsuit to advance in the court system despite having a adhesion contracts ?

 

[MioProton]

Here is a link to Florida’s new Tort Reform Act:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/837

Do you know if lawsuit filed before the bill was signed by the Governor are "grandfathered" in ? As in, subject to the old law vs the new law? I read that something like 100,000 lawsuits filed before the law took effect, maybe due to new statute of limitations timeline.

There is something in the law that used to say that if you are like suing for $1,000,000 and the jury finds you are 60% responsible, then you would get like 40% of the award but under the new law, if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible, then they get nothing.

This would be a drastic reduction of frivolous lawsuits. For some reason, Florida has so many frivolous lawsuits. People who see an expensive car behind them and slam on the brakes to cause a "accident" to get rich quick, or spill liquid on the flood and fake a fall. This new law seems like a great win for innocent people who fall victim to these con-artist.

 

[quincy]

Do you know if lawsuit filed before the bill was signed by the Governor are "grandfathered" in ? As in, subject to the old law vs the new law? I read that something like 100,000 lawsuits filed before the law took effect, maybe due to new statute of limitations timeline.

There is something in the law that used to say that if you are like suing for $1,000,000 and the jury finds you are 60% responsible, then you would get like 40% of the award but under the new law, if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible, then they get nothing.

This would be a drastic reduction of frivolous lawsuits. For some reason, Florida has so many frivolous lawsuits. People who see an expensive car behind them and slam on the brakes to cause a "accident" to get rich quick, or spill liquid on the flood and fake a fall. This new law seems like a great win for innocent people who fall victim to these con-artist.

The new law became effective on March 24, 2023, and only applies to causes of action arising after this effective date and filed after this effective date.

Under the new law, an action founded on negligence must be filed within 2 years from the time the cause of action arises, is discovered or should have been discovered. The 2-year limitations period is a reduction from the previous 4-year statute of limitations.

Florida now uses contributory fault in determining damages. If a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% at fault for an accident or injury, there is no recovery of damages. And there must be evidence of damages in order to collect on past medical treatment or services (e.g., actual amounts paid or obligated to pay) and evidence to support future payments.

In other words, those looking to make an easy buck might find that staging accidents is not the best way to do it.

As to using warning signs in your place of business, you might drive more people away from your business than you want. Certainly having signs to warn of known hazards (like wet/slippery floors) is important. Warning that your entire place of business is hazardous seems unnecessary - having a well-maintained place of business and a good premises liability insurance policy in place seems to me to be better courses of action.

 

[zddoodah]

Would having a sign like this and having it acted on by the person continuing inside the business or on the property give legal protection against these frivolous lawsuits?

Not even a little.

Why not?

Because no law says it would work at all.

It's a contract

No it isn't.

Why would a business owner with a sign be any difference? Can't a restaurant even put a tip on your bill as long as they have a sign-up or print it somewhere on the menu?

None of your examples involve damages resulting from negligence or personal injuries.

I am talking about con-artist who will be professional slip and fall people who will like to throw a cup of ice on the floor then lie down in it or just tell people they fell when they did not. All stuff I have seen from surveillance video on youtube.

You didn't bother to tell us anything about your personal situation that has led you to inquire about this, but the solution for things like this in a retail business situation is to have appropriate surveillance cameras. The other solution is to carry appropriate liability insurance coverage.

 

[quincy]

... I may consider a counter-claim against the frivolous lawsuit by this shyster attorney. I will probably make a dedicated post about that option later. I am going to need to study this new law to find out if they might help me in my current situation. ...

MioProton, IF you decide to tell us about your current situation and what has given rise to your questions here, PLEASE add the additional information to THIS thread rather than starting a new thread.

It helps us help you better to have all related information in a single thread. Thanks.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Would having a sign like this and having it acted on by the person continuing inside the business or on the property give legal protection against these frivolous lawsuits?

It won't prevent anyone filing a lawsuit against you or your business, if you have LLC, corporation, etc. And if they file the lawsuit, you'll still have to answer the lawsuit and move to dismiss because it's frivolous and the court will then dismiss if it is frivolous. Exactly the same thing that would happen without the sign.

Whether you'd be protected from liability by the sign should the claim NOT be frivolous will depend on the exact details of the claim made. Signs like the one you propose to put up are not generally complete shields against your own negligence, for example.

It doesn't hurt (in a legal sense) you to put up a sign like that. It just may not provide what you are looking for. If you want to know exactly what the sign will and will not do for you, you really need to sit down with a local attorney and explain the details of how your business operates. If I were in your shoes, I would not take too much comfort from putting up that sign. The sign is vague and there's the issue of what you'd need to do to ensure the customer sees it and what limitations the courts or state statutes put on the reach of such signs. What effect it might have on your would be customers is something I can't predict as I know nothing about your business and what competitors you have.

Do you have liability insurance for the business? If you do, that is generally your best protection against having to pay out any personal injury claims based on negligence. The insurance company provides you the attorney to defend the claim, so you don't pay for that, and if there is some liability on your part, the insurance company will negotiate to what it has to pay out as small as possible. As long as the amount paid for the claim is less than your limitation on coverage, the insurance pays it, other than any deductible you have pay as set out in the insurance contract.