korbin

Well the same is valid for certain sorts of crime. No matter the age. Say I break into your house, as "just a joke" and we are friends. And I get apprehended by the police. Certain crimes such as that can't be "retracted" by the violated party; they're matters of the state. I'd have to look for the clause you're referring to, and it might not be exclusive to minors. In one of the first cases I posted they DID define that, if the kind of thing were ever challenged again, parental gain would be checked thoroughly (as such that nobody can exploit the "minors can waive contracts" BS)

Yeah, good point. (Those fucking vultures! I want to study Criminal Defense! )

The custody thing very well could invalidate the contract, I did not think of that. I'd have to look with that. Attorney friend is in the office adjacent to mine, personal friend ;).. Is usually out due to where he is licensed to practice (Georgia) Paintball - Heavily played several seasons. Not at all unusual. (Brought quite a few businesses to several fields) Scuba - Dove once in Hawaii. Wasn't SCUBA. Was similar, except tethered. (Didn't have time to go through all of the PADI nonsense) You very well could be right about the custody changing and that kind of clause, there is a definite grey area there.

It's all pretty mislead, is what I was trying to point out.

Not sure where you're from, you could try Vitamin Water (forget the brand) Dragonfruit. The water, not the soda.

*sigh* Pretty much required to. Not a law school student, I don't know what I can give you to "prove" something that is totally irrelevant to the actual discussion.. I genuinely would like to jump. I'll probably just end up going down to West Tennessee to get licensed, it would just be far more convenient if there was some backing to jump at my local DZ.

I do understand your suspicions, but there really isn't a motive for me, especially if I am trying to establish an identity with a group. That aside, I understand what you mean. I was actually going to go for SCUBA cert, which definitely does require waive of liability. [Have been diving under waiver in the West] (Decided against it: I'm a midwesterner: Lake diving isn't all that interesting) The safety concerns with SCUBA are VERY vast. (Nitrogen narcosis, bends, safety stops, airline travel, equalization, and a whole plethora of injuries; not to mention sea life) Not to mention racing, other industries. And no, they are not regulated. Please read this: Just curious on this point: Any particular reason, if you don't mind I asking :)?

The point I really intended to make was that there was some impaired logic on this "contracts are not valid" business. I did search, and nothing actually goes into much detail about it, because, well: quite frankly, it doesn't matter to most; it just doesn't concern them. This was just the prelim research that I did, I'll talk it over at lunch tomorrow with an attorney friend in my office. (Tort) And on that note, myself, or any lawyer can't make the distinction of what's legal on this regard and what's not unless it is clearly laid down or preceded enough: and it hasn't been. Nobody is determining anything: this is just my, and four unique states' courts' decisions on the issue. It just is really upsetting. I hear "wait wait wait." In all genuine honesty not trying to troll. I'm trying to be as sincere as possible, since it probably could look like that. But in either case, for the basis of the conversation, there really is no trolling "motive." This isn't a controversial topic, it's fairly black and white.

You are incorrect on these causes. All four of the cases I cited prove this wrong, in that needs (food, medical, care, whatever), are no different than anything else, and are treated as such. If you can find evidence or a precedent countering this be my guest. Edit: I should state, that was a Florida case, so there are particulars to Florida in that. The individual cases that I stated also have the same conclusion reached on their own grounds, if you'd like to pick through them

TSA Page on Parachuting: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1147.shtm

The apples to oranges argument that makes driving seem statistically worse than skydiving is just that: statistical. There is indeed the risk of death EVERY TIME you get into a vehicle, and EVERY TIME you jump. Skydiving is unique in that a total mal WILL kill you. There really is no reason that we need to justify the decision to do either. It is up to the person jumping. When trying to tell someone that skydiving is "safe," just say that there is "definite risk but very improbable" and leave it at that.. If you're diving you have already made the decision that the dive is worth the small chance of a total mal.

According to the previously posted references (most within this decase), you are incorrect, on MANY grounds actually. If a minor is in a hospital, and needs certain operations done, they can not make these decisions or waive their rights in a hospital on their own. Their parents do this. This is clearly defined, and is outlined in the majority of those four cases. And the law does not determine because, strictly speaking, it cannot, between things.

I did not mean for this to cause such distress! I am 16, I'd post ID to authenticate it if necessary, but it really isn't for this particular question. 1) Income is NONE of the LAW'S concern when it comes to liability release. PERIOD. I do quite well for myself, I will not go into detail, you can check out my welcome thread. 2) Those three cases I posted were filed on the behalf of the defendants and were both carried out: they weren't "get me out of my liability waiver" cases from the parents. 3) Soccer moms looking at skydiving and shaking their head? That's their own decision to let them jump or not. Going to a congressman? (read edit) --I HATE to resort to the driving is "less safe" argument, but we will not contrast the two for the sake of this argument. There are MORE fatalities in driving than there are skydiving: it is the number one killer of teenagers. Here in South Dakota, you can drive at 14. That's that. Fatalities are there: sure, driving is necessary, but fatalities are still there and people ACCEPT the tragic death of minors. 4) Because I looked up "some" "BSR" -- Last I checked, if you are claiming and ADVERTISING to be a USPA DZ, you will typically show some respect with their Basic Safety Requirements, unless it involves some legality or choice. Granted this DZ is claiming it is the USPA's decision, not their own, that's that. Now we are getting way off topic. Let's stick to the topic of the waiver and liability release of parents via the use of a binding contract. No more of this nonsense. It is a valid question and I am seeking answers. The DZO does not frequent this forum, I do not expect it to change much, but there does need to be clarification on this issue. Edit: I do realize that you like skydiving to be kept out of the public eye, that is fine, but it is really preference in the end. As far as it getting "regulated"-- not sure about how that would occur or what the ramifications of that would be.

Just because you had to, does not necessarily make it correct.

Well, Cha ching. This is a great precedent case, for anyone who actually cares to read this sort of thing. http://floridaarbitrationlaw.com/cases/global_travel_v_shea.pdf Basically, parents say that kid can go on Safari. Kid gets eaten. Parents want to sue, but signed that exculpatory agreement. This document here really puts it into perspective the way that a court might see this kind of case. Excerpt: "Just as the mother in this case had the authority to enter into a contract for herself and her minor child to travel to Africa for a safari, she also had the authority to agree to arbitrate claims on his behalf arising from that contract. " "Parents’ authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 23 encompasses decisions on the activities appropriate for their children––whether they be academically or socially focused pursuits, physically rigorous activities such as football, adventure sports such as skiing, horseback riding, or mountain climbing, or, as in this case, an adventure vacation in a game reserve. Parents who choose to allow their children to engage in these activities may also legitimately elect on their children’s behalf to agree in advance to arbitrate a resulting tort claim if the risks of these activities are realized. " This is just one states case, but based on all of the previous Supreme Court references in that agreement, they state that exculpatory arbitration clauses signed by parents on a minor's behalf ARE legitimate, and furthermore they are legitimate in cases involving commercial businesses and entities. I'd say that is pretty damn good. Some of the case basis: http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/waivkid.html -- Ski club: kid gets injured (blindness + other injuries), waiver upheld. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/1998/1998-ohio-389.pdf -- mom waives rights for a youngster in a soccer club. I think that there is more than enough precedent to blow Bill Booth's argument that "underage waivers" are not permissible. Those are three different states than ones previously stated, in modern cases. Only one or two of them were cross-referenced, meaning they were reaching independent verdicts that surmounted the same conclusion without any sort of previously set precedent from each other. Tort law is bogus, but I believe this solidifies something or another. But hey, I'm on a forum just speaking openly. I'm not a lawyer yet.

Thanks for that. Context is key, too: "Well-crafted releases stand up," he said. "If the waivers are drawn the way they should be drawn, and have a component that alerts the child and the family to the activities and their hazards, they offer some protection." Some still meaning a liability. Without a precedent case set, this seems fairly grey. (I suppose you could consider the Colorado case a precedent, somewhat)

Technology is fancy. Maybe they think most "middle class" people use eBay?

Well, they really aren't unboxing their real selves. if they let loose on one another, it'd be bad PR. typical politics in a sensitive election.

No, not necessarily. I would COMPLETELY agree with a DZ 100% if it were a complete liability and they could risk quite a bit if it were indeed valid. Business or not, that Otter on the runway isn't worth the 2000 or whatever the DZ might gross from that one person. (Even collectively many people), if there indeed is a liability. I just am curious as to the loopholes in the law or whatever is going on so that sports like Racing, and others, can have deaths/damages and not be concerned with liability.

There are quite a few of you gems out there! How do you guys deal with release of liability waivers? We are talking about Case Law here. Not the decision of the DZ. (Possibly influenced by liabilities etc.)

Yeah, I am beginning to find that to be the consensus. I just didn't know if it were different for racetracks ($$$ there), paintball fields (oh, maybe 6 figures if it is a moderately-large sized place), et al. Are those invalid, if signed by parents? Im just not too sharp on this portion of law, and would just be curious to hear a bit more on it and see some specific cases (if there are any)

Right on. 2.99 at one of the more expensive stations here in South Dakota

Absolutely not trying to troll, I'd like this to be moved to the SC if that becomes a problem. I am just curious as to how this applies? Honest question entirely.

Now I've read through the majority of the topics on this, checked it out. Unfortunately my attorney buddy is out of the office so I can't ask him. I am going to jump here soon, if the season or distance/time does not stop me. I would like to go for A license, and it wouldn't be a hint of an issue except for the fact that the only DZ within 100 miles of me claims that USPA regs are to disallow all people under 18 to jump. Not one mention of liability, lack of valid waivers, etc. (To be fair this was not the DZO, just a TI), but that the USPA has stated this. I pointed him to the BSR, and he has yet to get back to me. Be that as it may. I keep seeing this issue whereas notarized parental consent can not waive right to sue. I am just curious as to the particular case law on this, in all honesty. I've been in similarly dangerous extreme sports and this "parents can't waive your rights or enforce your signature" issue is unique to skydiving. Paintball, racing (of any variety), anything to do with certain sports all accept waivers, notarized or not, that waive rights on behalf of the children to sue. There are fatalities in all of those sports (similar to skydiving in numbers. yes, I know that skydiving has the definite possibility TO kill you in 100% mal, but in terms of the law that is not applicable.)... Insurance is also not involved in this discussion. (Most skydiving insurance isn't comprehensive to the actual people rather than property etc around it, from what I hear) It should be entirely focused around the waiver and the validity of it. There might be a bit of argument here, but this directly relates to skydiving, so there might be the inherit chance of this making it to the SC. If I have to go a distance to get licensed, I will definitely do that. (*waves to Mike*) So I would just like to hear your guyses thoughts on this, and how other sports can get away with these kinds of waivers. in a legal sense.

Cat 5 cable with 8P8C connectors: $5 bucks : 6 ft. $10 maybe for 20 ft.