release of liability

[john39]

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.

YAG said you can not waive gross negligence

"Maybe",you can waive negligence

Accidents need not be waived,they are exculpatory in them selves.The problem is,no waiver can stop the parent to attempt to prove that it was not an accident,but the event happened as a result of intentional or negligent act of commission (or omission - sometimes - fault is attributed for not acting)
what you call "accident at the zoo" is different than the term accident used in Law. "Accident at the zoo" can be a result of someones fault,and still be called "accident at the zoo" but if someones fault is proven,it is not accident,as a matter of law.

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.

If you can prove what you wrote and I underlined above,then OF COURSE you/or the school are not at fault,it was an accident.And,you did not need release of liability for that .Every time (waiver or not) one can prove that the 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".No one can be liable for actions resulting from the text I marked bold .

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.

She certainly can at any point possible,unless she waived ordinary negligence,and she could have waived ordinary negligence in that state.She could have not waived:

1.gross negligence,and still proceed to prove gross negligence,the waiver will not stop her

And,

waiving liability for accident is contradictio in adjecto (google is your friend )

 

[You Are Guilty]

I see what you're getting at now but its a simple matter of semantics. While technically, it is a "release of liability", many laypeople still refer to it as a "accident release" form. They are still the same thing, no matter how they are styled.

(And as a practical matter, are more often useless than not, but that is another thread entirely).

 

[john39]

I see what you're getting at now but its a simple matter of semantics. While technically, it is a "release of liability", many laypeople still refer to it as a "accident release" form. They are still the same thing, no matter how they are styled.

(And as a practical matter, are more often useless than not, but that is another thread entirely).

I know,they used the term accident differently .I replied to you because you didn't notice when ecmst12 switched (see post 24)

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

also #14

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.

No one told him the obvious.