JC wrote
Hoo wrote
While that MAY be the law in the UK (but I'm quite sure it is not), these two statements are definitely incorrect with regards to the US. There is plenty of case law which permits the "contracting out" of negligence in activities such as Scuba -- i.e., inherently dangerous activities. In addition, heirs ARE bound by the waivers signed by the actor (as are insurance companies!). (Google Boyce v. West, a Washington case -- also, for the standard of normal Scuba practice, one might want to Google Rasmussen vs. Bendotti where the Court found that "buddy diving" was the industry standard and thus would create a rationale for liability IF this boat operator knowingly permitted solo diving in this situation. [Disclaimer -- I am still NOT saying the operator did anything other than maintain the highest standard of care in this situation and yes, I have dived off this boat and will do so again whenever I can.])my understanding is that you cannot contract out negligence. Documentation be damned when it comes to negligent actions - waivers don't count for anything.
Plus, a waiver of the deceased cannot waive the rights of an heir.
Hoo wrote
While I must say that I agree in part with this statement and sentiment, I really do find it offensive. If we didn't have our tort system, with what would you replace it? Do you want the government (at any level) to identify, regulate and enforce "reasonable actions" so as to prevent, or remedy, injuries? Or do you just want people to be able to do anything they want and say "Too bad, you shouldn't have done this, or been there, or operated this machine -- you did it yourself" when they get injured through someone else's negligence?It still amazes me that we have a tort system where you can get rich from being injured due to your own stupidity (but not as rich as your lawyer gets).