[boothg599]

I'm kinda confused. If the field's "waiver" makes no sense, is it still binding?

Take a look:

I am completely aware of all the risk, involved and that there is the possibility of additional risk if paintball gun or other equipment does not
function properly. I also indemnity the lessor and employees against and shall hold both harmless from any and all claims. actions, suits,
procedures, cost, expenses, damages and liabilities, including attorney's fees arising out of, connected with or resulting from playing Paintball
and/or the equipment, including without limitation, the manufacturer, selection, delivery, possession, use operation of the equipment and the
environment. I nevertheless wish to assume any and all risks, I hereby waive and release the lessor on behalf of my estate and all others
who may Paintball with me. I also undertake to always play Paintball only in accordance with the safety instructions, rules and suggestions
presented to me. Knowing full well the intense physical/mental exertion required to play Paintball, I further warrant that I have no medical
problems that this increase in physical/mental exertion would cause me or others harm. I have read and fully understand the terms of this
lease agreement. THIS IS FULLY INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS CONCERNING AND ASPECT
OF ITS CONTENTS, CONSULT AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT.
I STATE THAT I AM AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE AND IN GOOD HEALTH

What do you think?

[Np1]

Hogwash i say

[Paper_Cut]

Yeah, those waivers aren't really binding and if someone really wanted to sue a field they could.

[JohnSherman]

Originally Posted by Paper_Cut

Yeah, those waivers aren't really binding and if someone really wanted to sue a field they could.

This is a pretty common misconception. A well-written waiver is legally binding. However, the field owner would still have to appear in court to defend him/herself, and the judge will have to determine what the waiver says. Most judges will just throw out the case early on, unless the plaintiff could reasonable prove that gross negligence on the part of the employees was in play.

[SoulSyde]

@OP, you're agreeing to play paintball. Have fun.

[Mocking Da Bird]

Waivers don't protect fields 100%. I see waivers as being evidence that you agree to "this" and "this". Let's say that someone took their mask off in a game, and they got shot, and sue the park. The field owner can use it as evidence to say that you agreed to park regulations. You can't say "I didn't know", or anything.

[1dayteam120]

U are saying you won't be stupid just go play and have fun and listen to the rules if you don't understand something ask someone

[Frozen Ballz 69]

A waiver is a contract entered into between parties. It is necessary for every field to have in order to give them protection against many potential lawsuits. That being said, no institution is immune to lawsuits just because you signed a waiver. The language of the agreement is not the only issue. Negligence on the part of field owners, employees, or others could result in liability to the field owners. Furthermore, if you contribute to your injury and are also a responsible party, that probably wouldn't even bar you from recovering some kind of damages. Depending on your judge and jurisdiction, negligence may not even have to exist. Some hold service providers strictly liable for certain injuries regardless (similar to product liability). That being said, most people wouldn't consider bringing a lawsuit against their local field, especially if they consider the consequences lawsuits against fields/paintball companies would do to the industry. In regards to the language used in the waiver, it would be up to a judge's interpretation to decide its "reasonableness", helping to decide if a legal contract existed at all. And even if the waiver is reasonable, a plaintiff is still not necessarily barred from any form of recovery. This probably didn't help much, but analysis on a case by case basis needs to occur because the field of torts and contracts are often very unclear.

[Hot Nuts22]

Originally Posted by JohnSherman

This is a pretty common misconception. A well-written waiver is legally binding. However, the field owner would still have to appear in court to defend him/herself, and the judge will have to determine what the waiver says. Most judges will just throw out the case early on, unless the plaintiff could reasonable prove that gross negligence on the part of the employees was in play.

ding!

[LlamaRama]

Waivers and indemnity contracts are the most litigated aspects of contract law. There's no way to know whether it is binding or not withotu spending hours of research - and only then is it just a guess.

This is an indemnity and hold harmless agreement. Indemnity means that if you sue them, you will pay them to be represented, and you will pay them for whatever award you win from them. Hold harmless is a little less powerful, you just promise not to sue. Good drafters pick one or the other. Putting both in is a bit over the top. Surprised there's not an agreement to binding arbitration.

It doesn't matter if you don't understand the contract. when you sign it you are considered to understand it. However, that is a contract of adhesion (one where you don't bargain for it, you take it or leave it) so there is a little more leeway given to the consumer. Can't tell you how much.

Would it hold up? Who knows.

[sucka T.]

A waiver is to protect the field from liability from risks assumed with physical activities. The waiver never protects against negligence by the company. Any injury sustained that is an obvious assumed risk to the participating party that is covered in a waiver will usually never result in judgment against field.