Sports and adventure lovers, visitors to amusement parks and recreational grounds seldom pay attention to the fine print on their entrance tickets.

If read carefully, this will show that it is a waiver or release of liability which prevents an injured person from taking legal action and suing for personal injury in case of an accident at that location.

When you and your loved ones are out for a day’s kayaking, zip-lining, bungee-jumping or you’ve taken the kids to a theme park, etc, the waiver means that the organizers, parks or company running the event/sport have no responsibility for injuries that could have resulted from their failure to take reasonable care.

This is common practice, and that’s probably why most people tend to take them lightly, or ignore them. Many people are under the impression that such waivers cannot stand up in a court. However, a spate of recent cases has shown alarmingly different results.

What Are Waivers?

The term “waiver” is a short form for waiver of liability for negligence. It is basically a contract in which the signatory agrees to give up something, usually a right or entitlement, that they would normally have.

In the sports or adventure context, this means that the person who participates in such a program agrees that they will voluntarily give up their right to sue the organizer of the program for negligence in case of injury while participating. This is also an issue in the context of granting of school permissions by parents. The term takes its meaning from the Latin phrase used in jurisprudence:  volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, injury is not done)

Essentially, this is a method that organizers use to transfer the risk back to the participant instead of taking responsibility for it. In activities which are inherently risky, this may be a good practice to protect organizers, though they have been criticized on moral and ethical grounds.

Are They Legally Enforceable?

In a recent case, Dr Blake Jamieson was seriously injured during mountain-biking at the Whistler Mountain Resort, owned and operated by a corporation. He signed a risk and indemnity release as part of the requirements for using the facilities at the park. The park also had several signs and warnings placed at prominent locations which warned participants of the inherent risks involved while using the park’s features and trails.

Whistler contended that it had provided enough information to Dr Jamieson when he signed the release. Patrons had been asked to read the contents of the release, confirm that they had read and understood them and then sign.

The judge opined that the release was valid in its content and presentation and that “any reasonable person, who can read English, faced with the document, would understand that the risks of using the Park are very serious, and that by signing it, the person waives his or her right to sue Whistler.”

Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court have usually upheld the validity of waivers. Experienced personal injury lawyers like Barbara Stratton opine, “You’re not really protected. You chose to engage in that sport. You knew or should have known what you were signing.”