the

The  Impact  of  State  Parental  Rights  Law  on  Youth  Sports

Is  that Liability  WaiverWorth Paper

...it’s Printed On?

Dina RaymondBusiness  Affairs  Manager

ESPN  Wide  World  of  SportsrunDisney

•Exculpatory clauses are widely disfavored everywhere so to be enforceable courts will impose stringent and exacting requirements for them to be upheld

•This discussion below sets forth the general landscape for the enforceability or non-enforceability of waivers/releases of liability

•Waiver agreements should only be drafted and updated by experienced individuals

•This presentation does not address the recreational use statutes that all states have

DisclaimersI would not be a proper lawyer if I didn’t have disclaimers…

4

UNDERLYING LEGAL THEORIES

•Contract  Law  –  Freedom  to  contract  and  typically  enforced  contract  provisions  vs.  protecEons  of  tort  law  and  public  policy

•Inherent  Risks  /  Implied  and  Express  AssumpEon  of  Risk  /  Contributory  Negligence

•Parental  Rights  (ConsEtuEonal  Law)  vs.  Parens  Patriae  

•Simple  Negligence  vs.  Willful  Misconduct  /  Gross  Negligence

•Governing  Law

5

CONTRACT LAW

•Offer,  Acceptance,  ConsideraEon  (and  not  illegal)

•Competency

•ConstrucEon

•Indemnity  Clause  -­‐  shiSs  the  enEre  loss  from  one  to  another  who  bears  all  of  the  costs  for  damages  resulEng  from  contract  breach  or  torEous  acEvity.

6

ASSUMPTION OF RISK/CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

•AssumpEon  of  the  risk  is  a  defense  of  varying  degrees.

•Is  it  just  contributory  negligence?  

•Complete  defense  or  parEal  defense  depending  on  jurisdicEon

•Implied  assumpEon  -­‐  reasonable  vs.  unreasonable

•Some  courts  do  not  recognize  assumpEon  of  risk  principal  at  all  and  use  contributory  negligence  principals  instead.

•Many  allow  express  assumpEon  of  inherent  risk

7

PARENTAL RIGHTS

•The  Court  consistently  recognizes  that  parental  rights  are  consBtuBonal  rights  (14th  Amendment  Due  Process).

•However,  in  the  absence  of  expressed  statutory  or  judicial  authorizaBon  to  do  so,  parents  tradiBonally  have  had  no  legal  authority  to  waive,  release,  or  compromise  tort  claims  by  or  against  their  child.

•The  common  law  rule  that  a  parent  cannot  compromise  their  minor  child's  tort  claims  is  based  on  the  proposiBon  that  "the  guardian  has  no  authority  to  do  any  act  which  is  detrimental  to  his  ward.“

•Many  of  the  courts  that  have  held  parental  pre-­‐injury  waivers  invalid  have  done  so  based  on  the  fact  that  parental  post-­‐injury  waivers  are  invalid.

8

PARENTS PATRIAE

•LaBn  for  "parent  of  his  of  her  country."  •Is  the  doctrine  by  which  the  state  acts  "in  its  capacity  as  provider  of  protecBon  to  those  unable  to  care  for  themselves.

•Given  the  rights  of  parents  to  make  decisions  for  their  minor  children,  parental  waivers  stand  between  two  compeBng  interests:  the  duty  of  the  state  to  protect  children  and  the  right  of  parents  to  raise  their  children

9

WILLFUL MISCONDUCT/GROSS NEGLIGENCE

•Exculpatory  agreements  "generally  are  not  construed  to  cover  the  more  extreme  forms  of  negligence,  described  as  willful,  wanton,  reckless  or  gross,  or  to  any  conduct  which  consBtutes  an  intenBonal  tort…”  PROSSER  AND  KEETON  ON  THE  LAW  OF  TORTS  484  (5th  ed.  1984)

•Forget  it

10

GOVERNING LAW

•Is  it  possible  to  increase  enforceability  of  a  waiver  by  choice  of  law  and/or  forum?

•Conflicts  of  Law/Choice  of  Law-Forum  state’s  choice  of  law  rules  will  apply-Must  be  a  conflict  in  the  potenBally  applicable  laws-Which  jurisdicBon  has  a  more  substanBal  interest

•Forum  Non  Conveniens-PlainEff’s  choice  of  forum  is  usually  given  a  strong  presumpEon

•Roll  the  Dice!

11

OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS

•Against Public Policy - Tunkl Test-Activity suitable for public regulation-Party seeking exculpation performs a public service-Party seeking exculpation willing to perform service for any of the public-Party seeking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage in bargaining power-Party seeking exculpation uses power in a contract of adhesion-Public seeking services must be under the control of service provider and subject to service provider’s carelessness

Tunkl  v.  Regents  of  University  of  California,  383  P.2d  441  (Cal.  1963)

12

OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS

•Profit  vs.  Not-­‐for-­‐Profit  -­‐  public  policy  desire  to  discourage  negligent  commercial  endeavors

•Tort  Bar

•Economically  Important  Groups  (those  offering  recreaEonal  opportuniEes)

•Enforceability  of  a  Parental  Indemnity  -­‐  parEes  intended  for  the  indemnifying  party  to  act  as  a  liability  insurer  for  the  negligent  conduct  of  the  indemnified  party

•RecreaEonal  Use  Statutes

13

ELEMENTS OF A WELL DRAFTED WAIVER

•Clear  &  unambiguous•Needs  to  be  conspicuous•Needs  to  be  understandable  to  an  average  person•Needs  to  spell  out  all  possible  consequences  of  assumed  [inherent]  risks  (death)  and  all  risks  whether  know  or  unknown.

14

ELEMENTS OF A WELL DRAFTED WAIVER

•Should  not  be  over-­‐reaching

•Needs  to  be  enforceable  to  the  fullest  extent  of  the  law

•Needs  to  have  consideraBon  like  any  contract

•Comply  with  any  applicable  statutory  requirements

15

NEW STRATEGIES?

•IndemniBes  –  Rely  on  parental  indemniBes  rather  than  waivers  where  enforceable

•For  companies,  parBcularly  with  acBviBes  in  mulBple  jurisdicBons,  a  well  wrigen  waiver  could  sBll  be  very  useful  as  they  more  ohen  than  not  are  decided  on  a  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis

•SelecBon  or  non-­‐selecBon  of  governing  law  /  forum

ConclusionEven setting aside the exceptions, it is very difficult to draft a release/waiver that is guaranteed to withstand judicial scrutiny in every state or multiple states given the variations in standards for each. Moreover, because state statutes can affect whether or not an exculpatory clause will be enforced (for example, non-profit vs. profit, inherent risk vs. negligence), a “one size fits all” approach is simply not feasible. A waiver/release that is clear, unambiguous and as thorough as possible may nevertheless be deemed sufficient for the jurisdictions that favor enforceability or courts taking a different stance.

States Not Permitting Not Addressed / Unsure

Alabama - J.T. v. Monster Mountain, LLC (754 F. Supp. 2d 1323) (December 2010) District of Columbia

Arizona- question of fact for jury (not contractual), Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403, 111 P.3d 1003, 1010 (2005) Kansas

Arkansas- Williams v. United States, 660 F.Supp. 699 (E.D.Ark. 1987) Kentucky

Connecticut (Tunkl Test/negligence vs. inherent risk), Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 885 A.2d 734 (Conn. 2005) Mississippi (not likely)

Hawaii – negligence, Leong v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 71 Haw. 240 (1990), Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc., 110 Haw. 520 (2006).

Missouri

Illinois - Simmons v. Young Life, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78034 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2008) Nebraska

Iowa - Galloway v. State, 790 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 2010) Nevada

Louisiana - La. C. C. Art. 2004, Costanza v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21991 (E. D. La. 2002) New Hampshire

Maine - Rice v. American Skiing Company, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 90 (Me. Super. Ct. 2000) New Mexico (Follows Tunkl for sports waivers for adults Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp., 134 N.M. 341 (N.M. 2003)

Montana - Mont. Code Anno. §28-2-702 Oklahoma (follows strict public policy test for adults, Burd v. KL Shangri-La Owners, L.P., 2003 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Ct. App. 2002)

New Jersey - Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 901 A.2d 381 (N.J. 7/17/2006)

Oklahoma (follows strict public policy test for adults, Burd v. KL Shangri-La Owners, L.P., 2003 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Ct. App. 2002)

New York – for profit, place of recreation /amusement, NY CLS Gen Oblig § 5-326

Oklahoma (follows strict public policy test for adults, Burd v. KL Shangri-La Owners, L.P., 2003 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Ct. App. 2002)

North Carolina – Kelly v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 2d 429 (E.D.N.C. 2011), only possibly enforceable for non-profit activities sponsored by schools, volunteers, or community organizations

Oregon – But see Oregon - Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 258 Ore. App. 390, 400 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) under review, Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 2014 Ore. LEXIS 1 (Or. Jan. 7, 2014)Pennsylvania - Simmons v. Parkette Nat'l Gymnastic Training Ctr., 670 F. Supp. 140, 142 (E.D. Pa. 1987).

Oregon – But see Oregon - Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 258 Ore. App. 390, 400 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) under review, Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 2014 Ore. LEXIS 1 (Or. Jan. 7, 2014)

Tennessee - Childress v. Madison County, 777 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) Rhode Island

Texas – commercial activities, Paz v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 2d 658 (S.D. Tex. 2010) South Carolina (generally not favored in adult cases)

Utah - Hawkins v. Peart, 37 P.3d 1062 433 (Utah 10/30/2001) (minors only, superseded by statutes for skiing and equine, Tunkl test used in adult)

South Dakota (upholds broad pre-injury releases for adults, Couch v. Lyon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160770 (D.S.D. Nov. 5, 2013))

Virginia - Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association, 418 S.E.2d 894 (Va. 1992), Aldridge v. Atl. Rural Exposition, 67 Va. Cir. 404 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005)

South Dakota (upholds broad pre-injury releases for adults, Couch v. Lyon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160770 (D.S.D. Nov. 5, 2013))

Washington - Vodopest v. MacGregor, 128 Wn.2d 840 (Wash. 1996) Vermont (assumption of inherent risks skiing adults, 12 V.S.A. § 1037

West Virginia - Johnson v. New River Scenic Whitewater Tours, Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 621 (S.D.W.Va. 2004) Wyoming

States Permitting In Certain Circumstances

Alaska - Alaska Stat. §09.65.292 (2006)

Arizona-equine only Ariz. Rev. Stat. §12-553 A.2

California – non-profit only (Tunkl Test), Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1559 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1990)

Colorado – all C.R.S. § 13-22-107 (2003), must be voluntary and informed, Squires v. Breckenridge Outdoor Educ. Ctr., 715 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. Colo. 2013)

Connecticut – Public Policy (Tunkl Test), CONN. GEN. STAT. § 45a-631(b), only up to $10,000 (minors), CONN. GEN. STAT. § 52-557, inherent risks for equine

Delaware- inherent risks, negligence must be called out in release, Jahndee Hong v. Hockessin Ath. Club, 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 340 (Del. Super. Ct. July 18, 2012)

Florida – inherent risks only; Fla. Stat. § 744.301(3), parental indemnity also against public policy

Georgia – (possible) Geo. R. Lane & Associates v. Thomasson, 156 Ga.App. 313 (Ga. App. Ct. 1980); DeKalb County School System v. White, 260 S.E. 2d 853 (Ga. 1979).

Hawaii- motorsports facilities, inherent risks only H. R. S. §663-10.95

Idaho – inherent risks for skiing, equine, outfitters, guides and probable subject to public policy analysis , Idaho Code § 6-1106, Idaho Code §§ 6-1801 to 1802, Idaho Code § 6-1201to 1206 , Davis v. Sun Valley Ski Educ. Found., 130 Idaho 400 (Idaho 1997). No assumption of risk.

Indiana – emancipated minors in motorsports, Indiana Code, §34-28-3-2, inherent risks, Wabash County YMCA v. Thompson, 975 N.E.2d 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), Negligence must be specifically listed in release.Maryland - BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 2013 Md. LEXIS 897 (Md. Nov. 27, 2013), rejects Tunkl Test

Massachusetts- non-profit only, Sharon v. City of Newton (Mass. 6/10/2002), Quirk v. Walker's Gymnastics and Dance, 2003 Mass. Super. LEXIS 210(Mass. Super. Ct. 2003)

Minnesota – Public Policy (Tunkl Test) Moore v. Minn. Baseball Instructional Sch., 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2009)

North Dakota –ordinary negligence only, must not be ambiguous, Kondrad v. Bismarck Park Dist., 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3 (N.D. 2003), Hillerson v. Bismarck Pub. Schs., 2013 ND 193 (N.D. 2013)

Ohio - non-profit only, Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St. 3d 367; 696 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 6/29/1998)

Virginia – equine activities only, VA. CODE ANN. 3.1-796.132(B) (Michie 1993), charitable organizations

Utah –equine and livestock only, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-203, ordinary negligence included, Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, LTD, 2013 UT 22 (Utah 2013), skiing inherent risks only, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-4-401 Washington – enforceable in adult high risk sports only

Wisconsin –Wis. Stat. § 895.525, subject to public policy test, Osborn, v. Cascade Mountain, Inc. and American Home Assurance Company 2002 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1216