Dear State Supreme Court,

I'd sue the mother for letting her daughter out of the womb where she'd be exposed to things that would put her in harm's way.

SilentStrider: Dear State Supreme Court,

Those slippers look comfy.

Not News: Courts sometimes rule that waivers don't immunize a party from liability.

/the more you know
//swooshy .jpg

dahmers love zombie: Not News: Courts sometimes rule that waivers don't immunize a party from liability.

/the more you know
//swooshy .jpg

Seriously. Duh. Just because a piece of paper says "You can't sue us if your arms and legs become detached from your body due to use of our machine" doesn't mean it'll hold water in court.

Although I don't see why they felt the need to sue over a bat to the noggin. I think many kids have had the same experience and maanged to get through life just fine without bilking their city out of its money.

neapoi: SilentStrider: Dear State Supreme Court,

Those slippers look comfy.

I feel bad for the lions who were beheaded to make those slippers.

Again, proof the English language doesn't mean the same for lawyers as it does for normal people.

So... I'm getting the impression Iowa sucks.

Vanetia: Seriously. Duh. Just because a piece of paper says "You can't sue us if your arms and legs become detached from your body due to use of our machine" doesn't mean it'll hold water in court.
This.

I've heard that a liability waiver is mostly just a piece of paper that makes you think you cant sue.

Waivers are frequently unenforcable. Have been for quite some time, and should remain so.

any first year law student could tell you most waiver forms aren't completely enforceable. "take it or leave it" type contracts are looked at with great scrutiny and often found to be invalid.

Vanetia: dahmers love zombie: Not News: Courts sometimes rule that waivers don't immunize a party from liability.

/the more you know
//swooshy .jpg

Seriously. Duh. Just because a piece of paper says "You can't sue us if your arms and legs become detached from your body due to use of our machine" doesn't mean it'll hold water in court.

True, although getting hit by a foul ball or a loose bat seems to be a reasonable risk to expect at a baseball game. My cousin nearly got creamed in the face by a Kent Hrbek foul ball as a kid. He was just able to get his hand up in time so that he just sprained his finger.

He and his father was so excited about snagging a foul ball and the accompanying story that suing never even dawned on them.

Neuffy: Waivers are frequently unenforcable. Have been for quite some time, and should remain so.

Yes, especially in this case when you were mandated to sign it!

I mean, being forced to agree to not suing someone if they injure your kill you through their own incompetence. How illegal is that?!

I've been to probably 400 major and minor league games and there are certain parts of the park I won't sit in again for this reason. When you sit along the baselines in the front rows you have to watch every pitch for your own good.

cuzsis: Yes, especially in this case when you were mandated to sign it!

I mean, being forced to agree to not suing someone if they injure your kill you through their own incompetence. How illegal is that?!

2/10

cuzsis:
Yes, especially in this case when you were mandated to sign it!

I mean, being forced to agree to not suing someone if they injure your kill you through their own incompetence. How illegal is that?!

Take a look at ski resort waivers. Every ticket I've ever seen has a "waiver" on the back, and renting equipment requires signing a waiver. Still, if the resort is negligent (eg. doesn't close dangerous trails, fails to perform avalanche control, keeps the mountain open when visibility drops to zero in -40C etc) the waivers are never valid.

Nothing new...

Kids > law.

Shocktopus:

It's like contract law. You can't sign away your rights. A contract making you a slave is unenforcable. A contract giving away your right to legal protections is unenforcable.

All this is before it is even considered that informed consent may or may not have been obtained.

Dreadskull So... I'm getting the impression Iowa sucks.

meh, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

I'm glad my lawyer/law school brethren stepped in here. I knew it would happen soon in the thread.

However, I would like to impart upon Farkers a little tidbit of useful legal knowledge. When you take shirt to the dry cleaner, or leave a coat at a coat check, or park your car in a lot...and the ticket says that they aren't liable for damages caused to your property? Yeah that's not true. They are. They put that in to deter people from suing/collecting what they rightfully owe.

I know many of you might've known that, but if one person doesn't and is glad to know that, I'll be happy.

Ugh. This is why I dislike going to local baseball games. Drinking beer and talking with friends in the stands is fun, but every now and then there's a crack of the bat, one or more missiles go flying, and I'm never really paying attention. There's no netting for the cheap seats. It makes me feel like I'm in a warzone.

UnoriginalAndrew: I'm glad my lawyer/law school brethren stepped in here. I knew it would happen soon in the thread.

However, I would like to impart upon Farkers a little tidbit of useful legal knowledge. When you take shirt to the dry cleaner, or leave a coat at a coat check, or park your car in a lot...and the ticket says that they aren't liable for damages caused to your property? Yeah that's not true. They are. They put that in to deter people from suing/collecting what they rightfully owe.

I know many of you might've known that, but if one person doesn't and is glad to know that, I'll be happy.

I actually did NOT know that. Thank You.

judge who said his fellow justices have "taken a mighty swing ... and missed by a mile."

"There is no joy on this day around Iowa's ballparks."

Maybe if the dissenting judge spent more time sounding like a farking judge and less time writing up an opinion peppered with clever baseball puns, he might be more persuasive with his fellow justices.

beantowndog: I've been to probably 400 major and minor league games and there are certain parts of the park I won't sit in again for this reason. When you sit along the baselines in the front rows you have to watch every pitch for your own good.

This is the only way watching baseball is acceptable. It's just too boring otherwise.

/play or GTFO in my very humble opinion.

joelybarger: UnoriginalAndrew: I'm glad my lawyer/law school brethren stepped in here. I knew it would happen soon in the thread.

However, I would like to impart upon Farkers a little tidbit of useful legal knowledge. When you take shirt to the dry cleaner, or leave a coat at a coat check, or park your car in a lot...and the ticket says that they aren't liable for damages caused to your property? Yeah that's not true. They are. They put that in to deter people from suing/collecting what they rightfully owe.

I know many of you might've known that, but if one person doesn't and is glad to know that, I'll be happy.

I actually did NOT know that. Thank You.

a) depends on the jurisdiction; and
b) it's not automatic either way.

But you're right in that it's not a supreme sheild or anything of that matter. It's just often one of many relevant factors.

Burn_Atlanta: Again, proof the English language doesn't mean the same for lawyers as it does for normal people.

When a waiver I sign says "This is dangerous" I agree. I take the risk.

If I get hit on the head by a baseball at a farking baseball game, I accept the risk.

/Same goes for bats, seeing as they're made to hit said "baseballs".

You can't sign away your right to sue with a one-page piece of paper. I know this, and I'm not a lawyer.

mavrickatubc: joelybarger: UnoriginalAndrew: I'm glad my lawyer/law school brethren stepped in here. I knew it would happen soon in the thread.

However, I would like to impart upon Farkers a little tidbit of useful legal knowledge. When you take shirt to the dry cleaner, or leave a coat at a coat check, or park your car in a lot...and the ticket says that they aren't liable for damages caused to your property? Yeah that's not true. They are. They put that in to deter people from suing/collecting what they rightfully owe.

I know many of you might've known that, but if one person doesn't and is glad to know that, I'll be happy.

I actually did NOT know that. Thank You.

a) depends on the jurisdiction; and
b) it's not automatic either way.

But you're right in that it's not a supreme sheild or anything of that matter. It's just often one of many relevant factors.

Not that I don't understand the reasoning behind the use of these waivers. Basically they're saying accept responsibility for the inherent risk, or don't participate. Seems absolutely reasonable to me.

joelybarger: UnoriginalAndrew: I'm glad my lawyer/law school brethren stepped in here. I knew it would happen soon in the thread.

However, I would like to impart upon Farkers a little tidbit of useful legal knowledge. When you take shirt to the dry cleaner, or leave a coat at a coat check, or park your car in a lot...and the ticket says that they aren't liable for damages caused to your property? Yeah that's not true. They are. They put that in to deter people from suing/collecting what they rightfully owe.

I know many of you might've known that, but if one person doesn't and is glad to know that, I'll be happy.

I actually did NOT know that. Thank You.

Likewise with the signs on the backs of gravel trucks that say "Not Responsible for Broken Windshields". They have a responsibility to properly secure their loads, no matter what their sign says.

Also, you're not legally obligated to stop at the exit of Wal-Mart, Fry's, etcetera and let them compare the contents of your shopping cart to your receipt, even though there's usually a sign in the store saying that they have the right to search your bags. If you refuse, all they can do without evidence that you're shoplifting is ask you to leave, which is generally what you were trying to do in the first place.

And SoxSweepAgain beat me to it...

/Thanks. I know I'm not the only one.

Good arguement there, Judge.

Because everyone knows that by walking across a street at a crosswalk with the signal you run the risk of being run over by a drunk driver. Surely we can't hold them responsible when the person in question knew that might happen.

There are solutions to the problem, it would cost money to do so, though. A pro sports field should be responsible for the safety of the paying audience.

This seems to be what insurance was made for, not wavers. Increase the prices of the tickets a bit and give the pile of money to injured morons to get them to go away. Everybody wins loses.

Barnacles!

Awesome. Yours?

TFA:Friday's decision moves the case back to Scott County court. Neither Cynthia Sweeney nor her attorney could be immediately reached for comment.

No one's paying damages yet. The lawsuit is just being permitted to move forward; it's not necessarily a good decision, but it's still just a decision that a decision should be made, rather than having the lawsuit thrown out.

Adults can waive their rights for foreseeable consequences. You show up for a knife fight and the other guy has a gun. . . you probably haven't waived your right to collect for being shot.
Doesn't matter though, generally you can't waive someone else's rights and kids can't contract. A kid can't make an enforceable contract and mom can't make an enforceable contract on behalf of the kid.

Didn't you use that to get out of your Columbia House contract in high school?

Not sure how that works with child actors.

HE - MAY - GO - ALL - THE - WAY!


Oh, wrong game... Never mind.

Simple rule: high up behind home plate... Ya ain't gonna get hit, and you can watch the kids run all thru the park (Under the grandstand was escort required). Mine grew up on Tacoma Tigers (Now Rainiers). Good times.

If Baseball bars kids from games because of a retarded judge
then this game will die a fast and cruel death.

Failing_Junk: This seems to be what insurance was made for, not wavers. Increase the prices of the tickets a bit and give the pile of money to injured morons to get them to go away. Everybody wins loses.

But at least everyone loses equally.
God bless the american dream.

Failing_Junk, what the heck is a waver?

If there is one way in which this thread has failed miserably, it is in helping people learn how to spell "waiver".

so..... what kind of injuries did the girl get? If she is now mentally retarded or brain damaged I see the point in the lawsuit...if it was just a bump and a bruise then wtf?

ScottRiqui: joelybarger: UnoriginalAndrew: I'm glad my lawyer/law school brethren stepped in here. I knew it would happen soon in the thread.

However, I would like to impart upon Farkers a little tidbit of useful legal knowledge. When you take shirt to the dry cleaner, or leave a coat at a coat check, or park your car in a lot...and the ticket says that they aren't liable for damages caused to your property? Yeah that's not true. They are. They put that in to deter people from suing/collecting what they rightfully owe.

I know many of you might've known that, but if one person doesn't and is glad to know that, I'll be happy.

I actually did NOT know that. Thank You.

Likewise with the signs on the backs of gravel trucks that say "Not Responsible for Broken Windshields". They have a responsibility to properly secure their loads, no matter what their sign says.

Also, you're not legally obligated to stop at the exit of Wal-Mart, Fry's, etcetera and let them compare the contents of your shopping cart to your receipt, even though there's usually a sign in the store saying that they have the right to search your bags. If you refuse, all they can do without evidence that you're shoplifting is ask you to leave, which is generally what you were trying to do in the first place.

You are obligated to stop at Sams Club to let them look through your bags/cart since it is in the contract you sign when you apply for the membership. You COULD refuse, but then they'll cancel your membership and you cant buy anything there anymore.

Vio: so..... what kind of injuries did the girl get? If she is now mentally retarded or brain damaged I see the point in the lawsuit...if it was just a bump and a bruise then wtf?

Well, should she develop an acute fear of balls and long cylindrical object coming at her face, it will certainly impact her chances of finding a husband.

Maybe that's where lesbians come from.

Malicoire_: Vio: so..... what kind of injuries did the girl get? If she is now mentally retarded or brain damaged I see the point in the lawsuit...if it was just a bump and a bruise then wtf?

Well, should she develop an acute fear of balls and long cylindrical object coming at her face, it will certainly impact her chances of finding a husband.

Maybe that's where lesbians come from.

Maybe you're on to something...

Fark.com-Solving the universe's deepest questions one snarky comment at a time. (TM)