And I agree with your point. My understanding is waivers don't really mean much in the first place.

thats been my understanding too. in fact, as an educator, i've been told that in the huge picture, people can not sign their rights away. so, if someone wants to file suit, they can. it would always be up to the courts to decide how far the suit can go... no matter how many papers one signs promising not to hold anyone liable, they can still try to sue in court...

I agree that the op-ed person is stupid from the meek end of the risk acceptance spectrum.

The whole thing could easily be done though given the lowest common denominator our society has reached. Just like ski slopes. The moment you buy an entrance fee, or buy a seasons pass you have assumed responsibility and waived your rights to sue.

A lawyer could always try to fight it, since mosty waivers of responsibility can be argued around, but its just one more thing the lawyer must show. Now I'm not a lawyer, would the law suit end up in Federal Court and not state court since in reality, NP's like Indian Reservations are federal land.

I just think it sucks. Why are people so against taking resposibility for their actions? The guard rail was too easily climbed? What is that shit. The cables are unsafe. I don't know about that. I would say there is a chance you could fall. If people were always held acountable I think we would not have this standard of blaming others when we do dumb shit. A sign posted at the entrance to the park saying the wilderness is a dangerous place is going too far. I think it comes down to people not wanting to be responsible. I think that when the court allows this behavior by awarding people these lawsuits, it hurts us all. Survival of the fittest has never been so backwards. Humans are the superior beings and now we allow dumb genes to be passed on. Let nature take its course.

I agree Denjem. I saw a group of teenagers hop the rail and stand on the rock overhang on Glacier Point ... with a Ranger giving a presentation not 50 feet away! A good samaritan beat me to the ranger and she royally chewed them out but that was all she could do. Did it affect the kids? No.

It appears the rangers' attitude has changed over the past 101 years.

Galen Clark, first Gaurdian of Yosemite.

x15x15 wrote:

And I agree with your point. My understanding is waivers don't really mean much in the first place.

thats been my understanding too. in fact, as an educator, i've been told that in the huge picture, people can not sign their rights away. so, if someone wants to file suit, they can. it would always be up to the courts to decide how far the suit can go... no matter how many papers one signs promising not to hold anyone liable, they can still try to sue in court...

Sorry guys, but you'd be wrong. Waivers are VERY effective, particularly when they involve an activity that's perceived to be inherently riskly such as climbing. In fact, the waivers are usually so effective, they generally insulate against liability even when the person who requested the waiver was later found to have acted negligently. If waivers weren't effective, the person obtaining the waiver would never be able to get liability insurance which, for outfitter, guides, etc., is a requirement for conducting business in a National Forest or Park.

And please people, the sky isn't falling. The "opinion" piece was a two paragraph article that asked for discussion about the waiver issue. It wasn't advocating for or against them. Take the piece in the spirit in which it was intended.

If anything I think this post demonstrates how misinformed people are about the law and the legal system. Not that most people have any reason to be knowledgeable about that. Your life is probably far better never having reason to consult with a lawyer or even a doctor. It's probably a sign you've got a big problem that you can't fix by yourself and it'll probably cost you to fix it. No one wants to be in that situation.

Do you have anything to back up what you are saying fatdad? Everyone here seems to disagree with you, so something to support your statement would be nice.

fatdad wrote:

x15x15 wrote:

And I agree with your point. My understanding is waivers don't really mean much in the first place.

thats been my understanding too. in fact, as an educator, i've been told that in the huge picture, people can not sign their rights away. so, if someone wants to file suit, they can. it would always be up to the courts to decide how far the suit can go... no matter how many papers one signs promising not to hold anyone liable, they can still try to sue in court...

Sorry guys, but you'd be wrong. Waivers are VERY effective, particularly when they involve an activity that's perceived to be inherently riskly such as climbing. In fact, the waivers are usually so effective, they generally insulate against liability even when the person who requested the waiver was later found to have acted negligently. If waivers weren't effective, the person obtaining the waiver would never be able to get liability insurance which, for outfitter, guides, etc., is a requirement for conducting business in a National Forest or Park.

And please people, the sky isn't falling. The "opinion" piece was a two paragraph article that asked for discussion about the waiver issue. It wasn't advocating for or against them. Take the piece in the spirit in which it was intended.

If anything I think this post demonstrates how misinformed people are about the law and the legal system. Not that most people have any reason to be knowledgeable about that. Your life is probably far better never having reason to consult with a lawyer or even a doctor. It's probably a sign you've got a big problem that you can't fix by yourself and it'll probably cost you to fix it. No one wants to be in that situation.

Mrchad: outside Fatdad is a practicing lawyer in the State of California....Its sort of like medical advise you get on the internet.....


I'll take your opinion since you have passed the California Bar and are practicing.... but I was always under the assumption that if you can show gross or criminal negligence then a waiver can be then found void, although the dilegence to show gross or crimnal may be a high bar. That is why was recommending if it is needed that its just treated in the manner as the ski industry where purchase of a pass implies acknowledgement of the risk.

Now Fatdad... would the lawsuit be in California court or in Federal Court since its in Federal jurisdiction. I take it, what court it is held would have a significant affect on the outcome of the trial.

Differing lawyers have differing options, that's why there is always one on both sides.

Would still have been better if the statement was backed up with something, rather than just an opinion (educated or not).

mrchad9 wrote:Differing lawyers have differing options, that's why there is always one on both sides.

True, but it's precedent that will ultimately decide who's right, so opinions and advocacy are not always worth alot.

I don't have any cites handy since I do probate and trust law presently, but out of school I did work with a firm that essentially did insurance defense and the issue of waivers came up frequently. I also acquired something of an academic interest in the outdoor liability cases since I participated in them. That was a good 15 years ago though. I'll see what I can dig up.

CClaude is right in that gross or criminal negligence may overcome a waiver, but that's a really strong standard to overcome. There was a recent decision concerning some divers who were forgotten by their dive boat and ultimately perished. That case was rare in finding liability, but only because there appeared to be actual knowledge of the missing divers and either no action or or attempts to hide their lack of action. Again, I'm speaking from a very general recollection, but the facts were pretty egregious.

By way of comparison, there was another relatively recent case in Utah where a dude offered to teach a (cute?) girl how to rock climb. He took her toproping and, since the guy didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, threaded the top rope through a sling, not biners. Yup, when he lowered her the rope burned through the sling and she grounded and was pretty badly hurt. She sued, claiming he was negligent, but the court failed to find fault since, because rock climbing is an inherently risky activity, she assumed the risk of injury, even her partner's subsequent negligence. So, like I said, the sky is not falling.

my point that i was unable to make was that anybody can sue, regardless of waivers, or contracts promising not to sue. whether or not the suits go anywhere is whole different story.

am i wrong? hopefully, i am wrong. it seems to me that frivelous suits could cost the states money...

OK, so here's a 1996 California case where a guy died top roping after the anchor built by the climbing instructors failed. That's pretty hard to do, even if you're only mildly incompetent. No liability.

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1040, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 922

"Under doctrine of primary assumption of risk, university regents who sponsored top rope rock climbing class were not liable for student's death in fall that allegedly resulted from defendant's instructors' negligence; student was not taken beyond his level of experience and capability in activity culminating in his fall, and risk to him was not beyond that inherent in any top rope climbing activity, as falling, whether because of one's own slip, co-climber's stumble, or anchor system giving way, is very risk inherent in sport of mountain climbing, and cannot be completely eliminated without destroying sport itself. "

If you guys are interested, the case briefly goes through the case law establishing the doctrine.

Anyone heard of nature deficite disorder? Basically this is what happens when you have a large portion of the current population who treats nature as an amusement park, something seperate and isolated from everyday life. Sure, as climbers and hikers we choose to recreate in the outdoors but I would argue that most of us find, in some capacity, that connection that wholistically links our "technological" lives with our "outdoor" lives. The idea of fencing this off, and blocking that off in the outdoors in an attempt to control peoples sensless impulses reflects a society that is attempting to rule nature. Nature, in its "nature" (sorry about that one) is dangerous. Remove the danger and you have a cheap immitation whoes only purpose is to provide people with a artificial, souless thrill.

No matter how much we pad ourselves, life will never be safe. Are we really doing our children a favour by sheltering them to the point of paranoia? In the end, the danger is still there and someday the time will come to pass the responsibilty over to our children who will be completly unprepared.

You mean Yosemite isn't just one more level to conquer?






Educator Humor?



The graph below could be a good thing, if it were due to more of us appreciating and embracing nature in our neighborhoods and close to our communities, but I doubt that plays much of a role in these stats.



As far as the attitude that nature is something for humans to rule over, I'm optimisitic that although we have a long way to go, one can find many signs of progress in that realm. Then again, many of my neighbors regularly talk about getting rid of various animals, pruning trees to perfect shapes, and the dangers one must do battle with when leaving the pavement.

An aside to the graph I posted:
The per capita trend for system-wide visitation to National Parks held steady through 2010. I'm not sure how significant the number of foreign visitors to parks is, but I have met many.

Yosemite vistation peaked in the mid-1990s, but has been on the rise again the past couple of years to nearly 4 million visits per year.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm


A liability waiver to visit Yosemite?

Funny thing is that due to my experience in education, and IIRC advice from paranoid in-laws, I actually had some parents sign one prior to my wife and I taking their kids (who were living with us at the time) to Yosemite, but wasn't expecting to be sued, nor for the waiver to protect us much if we were. Thanks to Fatdad for giving some perspective on that and some real examples. Another strange thing is that I never worried about a waiver when I took the same at risk teenagers to all kinds of other places in California prior to that, many of them more remote and with riskier activities than what we did on that trip to Yosemite. I guess Yosemite is just a scary and dangerous place. I shall always try to avoid it from this day forward.......................................OK, maybe just Yosemite Valley June-Aug. as well as refrain from entering swollen rivers and hiking peaks during thunderstorms on general principle.

The middle school I taught at for many years sends a large group of seventh graders to Yosemite every February. I'm surprised the adults survive that!