Waiver Forms

Forums › Off topic › Waiver Forms

1 | 2

Batman

Mad Scientist
30013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1237170 13-Feb-2015 11:56

Ah. Just that these forms accompany any Australian kid events. From playgrounds to gyms to water events. But they also have lawyers making sure every anti accident step is in place. And the clients pay for these measures.

spk18

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#1237174 13-Feb-2015 12:01

Negligence is not a criminal matter, it is a tort (a civil remedy), e.g. if someone does something that happens to injure someone else, and that injury was reasonably foreseeable, then the person doing the injury may be liable to the person who was injured. However gross negligence is a standard upon which some criminal behaviour can be measured (for specified criminal offences). The thing the operators are trying to ensure they are contracting out of is the former, not the latter (and to be honest I think the waiver is pretty dubious in any event). You simply cannot contract out of any criminal matter no matter how hard you try.

The comments on ACC barring anyone suing are generally correct though given there has been a narrowing over the years of what ACC covers, in some circumstances an injured party may be able to sue accordingly (I would doubt it in this fact pattern though).

In the case of any injury to said midget, the various government departments would be all over it. And note that now directors of companies can be held personally criminally liable for acts or omissions of their companies that give raise to a criminal offence. It is why most companies are going all anal over health and safety issues (Pike River anyone?).

For the avoidance of doubt while I am a practising lawyer, this isn't legal advice to anyone. There, that's a waiver of sorts...

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#1237191 13-Feb-2015 12:33

Fortunately I've never sued anyone, and I seriously doubt I'd have the money to do it anyway.

And if anything really bad happened to Midget No 3 then as you've said, most likely they'd be pounced on by people with far bigger resources than me.

Basically was wondering if said waiver would mean that they could get away with something they shouldn't but.......the waiver stands a fair / pretty good chance of not being valid anyway (though no guarantees).

Having said that, am sure they are a perfectly good and responsible company who wouldn't try to do anything naughty anyway (no I don't want to, for want of a better word, doubt them, never having dealt with them, except for said form filling).

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1237380 13-Feb-2015 14:50

Kyanar:
Geektastic:
I think ACC should have a statutory duty to sue anyone whose behaviour clearly caused an accident that they had to fund.

I bet ACC's bills would fall pretty quick....

That would result in NZ ending up with the same bollocks ambulance chasing lawyer situation that Australia and the US have. Why do you want to destroy everything good about NZ?

The reality is that if someone CAUSES an accident through negligence, the criminal justice system deals with it, as it should.

And ACCs bills don't need to fall. In the grand scheme of things, ACC holds a massive surplus of cash due to their extremely effective investment fund managers (same with the Guardians of the NZ Superannuation Fund). The only reason you ever hear that ACC is making a loss is that National changed the accounting principles, requiring ACC to bring forward the LIFETIME cost of long term claims into the current financial year (which, incidentally, no private insurer has to do - and is the exact same thing but with pension payments that made the US Postal Service look unprofitable on paper when it actually has a very large cash holding).

It's not good. And only ACC would have the right and duty to sue where the cause of the accident (and hence cost to the public purse) was the result of, say, some halfwit putting his kid on a quad bike or something. Or some moron who goes out on a motorbike with no helmet and then ends up as a claim for the next 20 years due to a head injury.

Why do you think the public should pay for their stupidity? Accidents are one thing, injuries caused by someone's failure to take sensible and adequate precautions quite another.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#1237420 13-Feb-2015 15:44

Geektastic: Why do you think the public should pay for their stupidity? Accidents are one thing, injuries caused by someone's failure to take sensible and adequate precautions quite another.

Because its cheaper for the economy as a whole do it that way,

if you start inserting abitary distinctions such as "sensible and adequate precautions" you create the requirement of an arbitor to decide that. ( likely to be the courts)

Go and read the Woodhouse report,

The transaction costs of deciding this was seen as more expensive (as a whole) than simply paying for all the accidents, sure you moan a grizzle about "paying for idiots", but if you go to the US or Australia you see where the other side of that coin.

spk18

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#1237441 13-Feb-2015 15:58

I tend to agree with WellyGary - I am not a litigator and don't want to be but the transaction costs argument is a good one. And we don't need more lawyers about the place now do we? We would be inundated with Better Call Saul advertising and ambulance chasing lawyers. None of us needs that.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1237481 13-Feb-2015 16:46

Its the Accident Compensation Commission, not the Stupidity Compensation Commission.

They already arbitrate every day of the year as to whether they will accept claims. Arbitrating as to whether they should attempt to recover the costs from firms or individuals who cause the accidents they have to pay for is a tiny step. It's why businesses have liability insurance, for example.

(a curious statistic my wife gleaned whilst working for Chapman Tripp is that NZ has the highest per capita number of lawyers of any comparable nation. Never could work out why!)

Lazarui

136 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#1237518 13-Feb-2015 18:00

rb99: Just got a waiver form from midgets school for a white water rafting trip, The interesting bit says -

'I will hold Rafting Adventure and its contracted guides harmless from any and all liability, claims, losses, damages, or expenses during or in connection with my participation in this activity''

Does anyone know if this is enforceable ? I know they will do the best job they can and there'll be a very disappointed 10 year old if I don't sign it, but should they be allowed to be as negligent as they like with (apparently) no comebacks ?

Nothing about Personal/Physical harm, It looks more like, "My camera got wet and died when I took it rafting" type of waiver. cause you know people be stupid.

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#1240006 16-Feb-2015 13:28

Geektastic: Its the Accident Compensation Commission, not the Stupidity Compensation Commission.

They already arbitrate every day of the year as to whether they will accept claims. Arbitrating as to whether they should attempt to recover the costs from firms or individuals who cause the accidents they have to pay for is a tiny step. It's why businesses have liability insurance, for example.

(a curious statistic my wife gleaned whilst working for Chapman Tripp is that NZ has the highest per capita number of lawyers of any comparable nation. Never could work out why!)

There is stupidity, and then there is self-inflicted stupidity.

Why should I pay for medical costs of a totally inebriated drunk who falls over and looses half his teeth on a pavement ?

1 | 2