Why do offroad clubs have waivers, specifically for rides on public lands?

[xyoverland]

Here's a question I have after looking at websites for some of the offroading clubs around me: why do they have waivers for every single meet-up or trail ride? Most of the ones I've found don't even seem to be drafted by an attorney, but rather copied and pasted from various other places.

If it's an event at a private place like Big Dog's or Rausch and organized by the club, I fully get the waiver situation. I'm not talking about that. But when a club does a trail ride on public lands (Peter's Mill Run, Flagpole, etc.) it seems they always have a waiver as well. And in the case of some of these, the restrictions of the trail you agree to when buying the pass include built-in indemnity, for example entering Peter's Mill you agree to the following: You are responsible for your own safety. Trail use has inherent risks and you may encounter a variety of unexpected and /or dangerous conditions. It is your responsibility to be informed and take precautions.

Does anyone know if there's an actual legal precedent whereby a club (or trip organizer) somehow assumes some sort of legal liability for individuals getting together for a ride? Or is this something where somebody decades ago threatened to sue, and they just decided to do waivers as a CYA method, and everybody else just carried it on? I'm willing to bet the latter, but I'd be interested to know.

 

[xyoverland]

Here's an example of a local club's standard waiver: Example: https://core4x4.org/wp-content/uplo..._of_Liability_and_Indemnity_AgreementV1.1.pdf

This release indemnifies/releases from liability the "officers, members, and sponsors" of the club "whether caused by the negligent act or omission of Releasees or otherwise."

This is something that I likely wouldn't sign, and quite frankly nobody should sign. The reason is that instead of the waiver being intended to protect the organization, it's overly broad and releases/indemnifies all the way down to the individual members. This would mean that if somebody started acting stupid and accidentally (or "negligently" in keeping with the theme) plowed into everyone's trucks and totaled them all, nobody has any legal recourse. None.

Again, speaking of just publicly accessible places (some technically public roads) like Peter's Mill Run, Long Run Rd, the various routes to Flagpole Knob, etc., I don't see how any organizer of a trail ride would have any liability in the first place (assuming of course no promises or expectations of rules, enforcement, etc.. were made beforehand), and any individual that suffers damage, loss, harm, etc. would have legal remedies available against somebody else if necessary. Essentially, every adult is responsible for themselves, as it should be. If a recovery situation comes up where there is a definite increased risk, at that point the two drivers should agree on assumption of risk verbally, ideally with witnesses to verify it. That's all that should be necessary.

But if you were doing the same thing as part of a ride with that linked waiver signed, not only do you lose that ability to seek damages if somebody were truly being negligent, but the club is no further protected.

 

[JeffPro4x]

Because Americans are a ridiculously litigious society and no one one wants to get sued. As an organizer of any type of event, you are ultimately assuming responsibility for the participants. Hence the waiver.

In your scenario, you'd be able to sue the negligent driver bashing into people, but not the event organizers.

 

[xyoverland]

Because Americans are a ridiculously litigious society and no one one wants to get sued. As an organizer of any type of event, you are ultimately assuming responsibility for the participants. Hence the waiver.

In your scenario, you'd be able to sue the negligent driver bashing into people, but not the event organizers.

What I am asking is what legal precedent establishes the assumption of responsibility as an organizer. If I were to say "I'm holding this event and as an expert in the field of off-roading, can show get you through without breaking your vehicle" then yes I'm creating liability. But absent any actual representations, there is no default assumption of liability just by organizing a ride.

And in the scenario of the C.O.R.E. waiver, no you would not be able to sue the negligent driver if that person is a member of the club. If they were a guest you could, but the waiver covers individual members. You would not be able to sue a member after signing a form releasing liability against them and indemnifying them against damage occurring on that trip. That's the whole premise of my argument against it.

Edit to clarify: when I say "not be able to sue" I mean successfully sue. Obviously, anybody can sue anyone else, even if they have a signed waiver. They just won't win.

 

[xyoverland]

This is about biking, but still applicable and breaks it down very well:

A group ride by its very nature does not make the leader liable

And just because I lawyer writing in a bicycle magazine says it does, does not change the law. The article Be a Fearless Leader gives the impression that being a group leader in a ride and offering…

recreation-law.com

To be liable, you must be negligent. Negligence has four components. All four components must be proven for someone to be negligent. Those components or steps are:

1. Duty
2. Breach of the Duty
3. Injury proximately caused by the breach of duty
4. Damages

Step one is the major stumbling block in a situation like this. What duty does a group ride leader owe to anyone else in the group ride? If everyone is riding voluntarily, then there is no duty unless you create a duty.

 

[JeffPro4x]

I'm not a lawyer. But I would assume any competent lawyer would be able to make a case against the person bashing trucks. Waivers typically cover ordinary negligence, not gross negligence.

 

[Prime]

Our waiver at gone basically says that we (the event) are not responsible for the actions of others or if you ufck your shiat up.