Understanding Waiver of Liability for Services in California

Quick back­sto­ry to the inspi­ra­tion of writ­ing this blog post.…I recent­ly draft­ed a waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty for a unique and rel­a­tive­ly uncom­mon busi­ness, and was amazed dur­ing the research process of how many in the same small indus­try had waivers of lia­bil­i­ty that were large­ly inef­fec­tive and clear­ly not writ­ten by attor­neys.
It was as if the busi­ness own­er thought, “who needs an attor­ney or the expense, I’ll just copy one from anoth­er busi­ness and change the name to my own.” I read terms in some that actu­al­ly CREATED instead of trans­fer­ring expo­sure and lia­bil­i­ty when lit­tle or none exist­ed before with­out the terms. (I assume) the writer did­n’t under­stand the legal impact of the lan­guage used, and it was­n’t any small issue. It was one of the high­est and most com­mon risks of the oper­a­tion.
I could­n’t help but think what a field day the plain­tiff attor­ney would have with the waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty in a court room, along with the fact the oper­a­tor would nev­er for­get the les­son of why copy and paste can be the most expen­sive option avail­able. Ok, on to the answer and expla­na­tion of Waivers of Lia­bil­i­ty

Chances are, you have signed waivers of lia­bil­i­ty many times if you’ve been around for a while, how­ev­er, you may not know how valid they are and what exact­ly they do.

WHY?

If you’re a ser­vice provider in Cal­i­for­nia, it is impor­tant to under­stand the legal impli­ca­tions of a waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty.

Busi­ness­es use them pri­mar­i­ly in an attempt to reduce their expo­sure to friv­o­lous law­suits and “shake­downs” from peo­ple who may have ques­tion­able claims. Lia­bil­i­ty waivers are also use­ful for busi­ness­es to estab­lish who is actu­al­ly bear­ing the risk of any giv­en activ­i­ty. For exam­ple, a ski hill may want to clar­i­fy to its guests that the guests keep the risk of using the facil­i­ties.

Absent clar­i­fi­ca­tion, people/guests/clients may legit­i­mate­ly and hon­est­ly believe that the busi­ness they are con­tract­ing with (in this case, obvi­ous­ly pro­vid­ing ser­vices and access) will pay for any injuries received while on the hill for exam­ple.

The rea­son why this may not be in any­one’s best inter­est is sim­ply because the cost of gen­er­al lia­bil­i­ty (busi­ness insur­ance) would increase dra­mat­i­cal­ly and have an impact on the price charged.

Often need­less­ly because if a ski­er has health insur­ance, that insur­ance pol­i­cy is usu­al­ly going to be in a bet­ter posi­tion in both cost and logis­tics to pro­vide insur­ance cov­er­age for a giv­en person/skier than a gen­er­al lia­bil­i­ty pol­i­cy that may require sig­nif­i­cant lit­i­ga­tion and dis­cov­ery to deter­mine “what hap­pened” and who, if any­one oth­er than the ski­er, is respon­si­ble.

WHAT?

A waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty is a legal doc­u­ment / instru­ment that spells out who is bear­ing the risk of harm if some­one is neg­li­gent in a trans­ac­tion. Gen­er­al­ly, the waiv­er will attempt to release a ser­vice provider from as much legal lia­bil­i­ty respon­si­bil­i­ty as pos­si­ble for any harm or dam­age that may occur as a result of the ser­vices pro­vid­ed.
A waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty is often used in the con­text of recre­ation­al activ­i­ties, such as sports, but can also be used for ser­vices such as con­sult­ing, tutor­ing, or oth­er ser­vices.

Gov­ern­ment orga­ni­za­tions love to use them because they know they’re at risk of being sued for just about any­thing and since they’re the gov­ern­ment, they gen­er­al­ly don’t have the same com­pet­i­tive forces most busi­ness­es are faced with in keep­ing cus­tomers happy.in oth­er words, parks and oth­er rec activ­i­ties have a take it or leave it approach because they can (to be fair, busi­ness­es gen­er­al­ly have the same, albeit out of neces­si­ty).

In Cal­i­for­nia, a waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty must meet cer­tain require­ments in order to be legal­ly bind­ing.

The waiv­er gen­er­al­ly must be in writ­ing and must be signed by both the ser­vice provider and the cus­tomer. The waiv­er must also clear­ly state that the cus­tomer is aware of the risks asso­ci­at­ed with the ser­vices and is vol­un­tar­i­ly assum­ing and or retain­ing those risks.

Addi­tion­al­ly, the waiv­er must be writ­ten in plain lan­guage that is easy to under­stand. A court isn’t like­ly to look favor­ably on a 20 page small print waiv­er for a rel­a­tive­ly small trans­ac­tion. Even rea­son­ably short waivers that bury key infor­ma­tion can be ruled improp­er.

It is impor­tant to note that a waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty does not pro­tect a ser­vice provider from all legal respon­si­bil­i­ty.

For exam­ple, in Cal­i­for­nia, as well as most juris­dic­tions, a waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty does not pro­tect a ser­vice provider from lia­bil­i­ty for gross neg­li­gence or inten­tion­al mis­con­duct.

It’s also impor­tant to note that the terms used in this arti­cle encom­pass both tech­ni­cal def­i­n­i­tions and more lay/common use def­i­n­i­tions, and are not appro­pri­ate to deter­mine an out­come of an action or even used as part of a legal analy­sis.

Only a well-trained attor­ney work­ing in lia­bil­i­ty and/or lit­i­ga­tion is going to have the skills required to put all the pieces togeth­er. Also, Juries almost always decide if a defen­dant is liable based on a “neg­li­gent” act or a gross neg­li­gent act, and often ver­dicts don’t align well with how a law is writ­ten or meant to be inter­pret­ed.

That said, gross neg­li­gence is real­ly going off the deep end and act­ing in a way that is so bad it’s often crim­i­nal.

For exam­ple, using our ski slope as an exam­ple, if the oper­a­tor knew the bolts on the chair lifts were break­ing and did­n’t care because s/he was think­ing “that’s what the safe­ty chain is for” instead of fix­ing the prob­lem, that might rise to gross neg­li­gence com­pared to know­ing it was time to replace/tighten the bolts but delay­ing the quar­ter­ly ser­vice a cou­ple of weeks due to being on vaca­tion and with­out know­ing the bolts were break­ing (even if they were). As you may notice, a lot of the dif­fer­ence is in the mind of the defen­dant and their atti­tude.

Also, gen­er­al­ly, a busi­ness can’t pro­tect itself using a lia­bil­i­ty waiv­er for inten­tion­al acts. If an own­er of the ski hill decides to loosen up the bolt on a chair­lift on pur­pose (inten­tion­al­ly) hop­ing the user will fall and break their leg (because they have a love inter­est in the same per­son who broke their leg, think­ing it will be help­ful to gain the atten­tion of the love inter­est), a waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty, regard­less of how word­ed is like­ly most­ly mean­ing­less in the defense of a civ­il action against it.

That said, let’s use an employ­ee as the exam­ple, now, it’s pos­si­ble the waiv­er may be help­ful. In part because the employ­ee was­n’t act­ing on behalf of the employ­er (employ­ers gen­er­al­ly don’t instruct or want employ­ees to cause the clients/customers to sus­tain injuries), and lia­bil­i­ty isn’t as clear.

Ulti­mate­ly, the ski hill may have to pay out, how­ev­er, it’s like­ly any means, includ­ing the waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty will be ben­e­fi­cial in set­tling the final res­o­lu­tion recov­ery amount.

The take­away is that even in cas­es when a waiv­er isn’t a “get out of jail free” card, it can dimin­ish the amount the com­pa­ny (or insur­ance car­ri­er) ulti­mate­ly pays as part of the set­tle­ment. In oth­er words, prop­er­ly draft­ed waivers of lia­bil­i­ty are gen­er­al­ly good and effec­tive to have from the busi­ness point of view even when all lia­bil­i­ty expo­sure isn’t removed.

As a Cal­i­for­nia busi­ness want­i­ng a pro­fes­sion­al­ly and well craft­ed waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty spe­cif­ic to your busi­ness, you may spend any­where from $300 to over $10,000+ depend­ing on the com­plex­i­ty and nature of the busi­ness. A more gen­er­al­ized waiv­er may only be $100-$300 if it’s rel­a­tive­ly com­mon and case law is well estab­lished with clear direc­tion.

If you’re a Cal­i­for­nia busi­ness seek­ing a cus­tom waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty, give me a call and let’s dis­cuss your objec­tives and see what we can do togeth­er.

Regard­less, don’t fall for the trap of copy and paste. Few things in life are more hum­bling and embar­rass­ing than being in a depo­si­tion or wit­ness box while an attor­ney makes you appear incom­pe­tent to run your own busi­ness and you’re feel­ing like the vil­lage idiot.

Even if your insur­ance pays the claim, you can believe the insur­ance com­pa­ny is like­ly to require you have your waiv­er pro­fes­sion­al­ly draft­ed, and increase your insur­ance rates for a few years if an oth­er­wise ques­tion­able claim would­n’t have gone any­where but for an inef­fec­tive waiv­er of lia­bil­i­ty.

Leave a Comment