release of liability

[ecmst12]

Where did I say anything like that?

 

[Humusluvr]

Where did I say anything like that?

This thread seemed to get turned around a bunch of different directions. I don't think anyone said that a teacher can make a parent sign a release that absolves them of negligent behavior.

But I don't think a field trip to the zoo, where the school sends home a release form that says you won't sue the school if the kid gets hurt at the zoo, is improper.

And I think we all agree that a kid on fire is a problem.

 

[FlyingRon]

One cannot get a release for negligent behavior, or at least not a valid release. Liability for negligence is not releasable. Liability for accidents NOT resulting from negligence is releaseable, and that is likely all you are being asked to waive. Read the form.

If this is a part of the curriculum and not some extracurricular activity, attempting to make parents sign a waiver for even accidents is improper (and in the case of public schools probably illegal). Parents should not need to sign any rights away in order for their children to be given the mandated public education. If the activity is so dangerous that accidental injury is likely, the schools should be well advised to determine if it is appropriate at all.

Waivers are fine for things that are intended to be risky (like skydiving), they shouldn't be necessary for things that are supposed to be of normal risk.

 

[ecmst12]

This is a field trip and accidents can happen and the field trip is not mandatory.

For Humus' class, I think the safety contract is certainly an appropriate teaching tool even though it's not an enforceable contract (since it's signed by minors).

 

[Humusluvr]

This is a field trip and accidents can happen and the field trip is not mandatory.

For Humus' class, I think the safety contract is certainly an appropriate teaching tool even though it's not an enforceable contract (since it's signed by minors).

It is also signed by the parents.

It is designed so that the students are aware of the rules of the laboratory, and that they must behave safely - and if they do not, there will be ramifications. If a student or parent refused to sign, then they would be given a book to read while the rest of the class participated in my awesome, fun, highly entertaining, highly informative lab. If students want to do the fun stuff, rather than book stuff, then they have to behave safely.

I have never never never had, and never heard of a student refusing to sign a safety contract. I have heard of some parents who refused to sign a field trip release, and their kids had to sit in study hall while all the other kids got to enjoy themselves. It's really really sad that parents would rather sue over a stubbed toe, than have their kids participate in what should be the easy decision.

 

[ecmst12]

Even if it doesn't absolve the school of liability if anything happens, it DOES prove that the students knew the rules and the students and parents were aware of potential risks and chose to participate anyway.

 

[Humusluvr]

Even if it doesn't absolve the school of liability if anything happens, it DOES prove that the students knew the rules and the students and parents were aware of potential risks and chose to participate anyway.

Exactly. and it's a good thing, if the parents really had no idea of what went into doing labs.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Not to get on too far a tangent here, but

So a release saying "I won't sue if Teacher intentionally lights me on fire" is binding?

Where did I say anything like that?

Liability for [highlight]accidents NOT resulting from negligence[/highlight] is releaseable, and that is likely all you are being asked to waive.

Intentional acts are not the result of negligence. So where would they fall in?


Incidentally, although it is state-specific, you can usually waive "ordinary" negligence via a release. Gross negligence, however, is not permitted to be waived in any state.

 

[ecmst12]

They are also not ACCIDENTS. I didn't address intentional acts at all; that's a criminal issue.

 

[john39]

They are also not ACCIDENTS. I didn't address intentional acts at all; that's a criminal issue.

You are confused.That is not (only) criminal issue

You can breach duty (obligation) in civil law (and criminal law) with intent,or with negligence.

With omission (failing to act,when you had duty to act)
Or commission (acting and the act infringed upon .....-put here- what)

Also,whether injury is caused by negligent/or intentional act of another,or by accident,is question of fact, yet to be determined.
How do you release someone from "accident" before is determined it was an accident?Can you explain that?

If one can determine it was an accident,no need for release is needed - what do you need it for?

If one claims it wasn't an accident,one will take you to court to prove liability,anyway,even though you have release of liability "for an accident" .

No one needs release from liability from an accident.We all have one,don't worry

 

[john39]

One cannot get a release for negligent behavior, or at least not a valid release. Liability for negligence is not releasable. Liability for accidents NOT resulting from negligence is releaseable, and that is likely all you are being asked to waive. Read the form.

Hey,You Are Guilty
You Are Guilty for not telling ecmst12 we are all deemed not liable for accidents and release is obsolete.

 

[You Are Guilty]

They are also not ACCIDENTS. I didn't address intentional acts at all; that's a criminal issue.

They can be both. If my intent is to scare you by jumping out from behind a door, and you get so scared you run across the room, slipping and falling on some water someone else left behind - am I not still responsible despite having no intent to injure you? Where does the accident start and the intent end?

Hey,You Are Guilty
You Are Guilty for not telling ecmst12 we are all deemed not liable for accidents and release is obsolete.

What?

 

[john39]

What?

If an event that caused injury to plaintiff,was not caused as a result of defendant action,or omission to act,when he had duty to act,and the event that caused the injury was not controlled,and couldn't have been controlled by defendant,we have a so called "accident".

I am saying no one can bear liability,for such event.

Am I right?

If I am right,and no one can bear liability for such event,why is the need for "release of liability for accidents"? When everybody is released from liability from accidents as a matter of law.If its proven it was an accident,how can you attribute,guilt/fault?

The problem is,proving it was an accident,and not result of negligence or intentional act of another.

And any time one says...it was an accident...it is not my fault....no paper with release from liability for an accident will preclude/stop the injured to file the lawsuit and prove it wasn't an accident.

What is the purpose of release of liability for an accident?What would one need it for?


You guys talk about that kind of accidents,not "traffic accidents" right?Traffic accidents are called accidents,but guilt and liability is attributed to those all the time - they are not accidents,in the meaning I spoke of

For example

Teacher A. and teacher B....have a class outside with the students.Teacher A has ,so called release of liability,teacher B doesn't.
Out of nowhere....bum... a crazy driver just drove from the road,crushed the school fence and hit one of the students....

A says...I have release of liability for accidents look...
B says...I don't but I am not liable for accidents too,how can I be?

Students guardians say...doesn't matter if you have release of liability or not,we are taking you both to court,to prove you neglected your duties...

result no 1...
There was trial and it was determined it was an accident.Both teachers are off the hook
result no2
There was a trial and it was determined negligence can be attributed to the teachers..they are both in trouble

What did the release do?

 

[john39]

Incidentally, although it is state-specific, you can usually waive "ordinary" negligence via a release. Gross negligence, however, is not permitted to be waived in any state.

Can you waive accidents?
No.
Why
They are waived anyways,as a matter of law.
The problem always is,proving it was an accident

 

[Humusluvr]

Can you waive accidents?
No.
Why
They are waived anyways,as a matter of law.
The problem always is,proving it was an accident

The whole point of this thread is that -

1. If the school is taking a field trip to the zoo, the school has the parents sign a waiver that if the child is hurt at the zoo, they won't sue the school. If the kid get s hurt at the zoo, by either accident or negligence of the zoo, that would be taken up with the zoo.

2. If the child is taking a chemistry lab, then the parent signs a safety contract that says, "These are the rules of the lab, if you don't follow them, OF COURSE you will get hurt." If a kid gets burned on a bunsen burner because they were playing with it at an inappropriate time and trying to create a fireball, then of course the student knew what they were doing.

The practical use of this thread is that either mom doesn't understand a release, or mom doesn't want to sign it because she wants to sue at any point possible.