Parents can't sign away their minor child's right to sue businesses, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday, a decision that threatens the ability of kids to participate in risky pursuits like motocross or scuba diving, according to one lawyer.
Had I only known at the tender age of .......... I could sue. There was this girl............ ah now that is another story
Before 14-year-old Christopher Jones was killed in 2003 at the now-defunct Thunder Cross Motor Park in Okeechobee, his father signed a waiver barring a lawsuit in the event of injury.
Jones's mother sued, saying the course let her son ride a motorcycle that was too big and powerful for children younger than 16. The lawsuit was thrown out by a lower court, saying the waiver blocked it.
The Supreme Court, however, in a 4-1 decision, ruled otherwise in a decision it limited to commercial operations. A concurring opinion said school and non-profit activities — like football or cheerleading — were not part of the court's ruling.
And here we can not help but wonder at the logic of our esteemed justices. Like is a death from a for profit activity more dead than a not for profit activity? Does this mean that as a parent you can be stupid and and decide to allow a high school football or cheerleading coach to stupidly kill your kid?People who run Not for Profit activities are deemed more capable of knowing whats best for your kids than YOU? Is your baby sitter for profit or not for profit?
"We find that public policy concerns cannot allow parents to execute pre-injury releases on behalf of minor children," wrote Chief Justice Peggy Quince, for the majority. "It cannot be presumed that a parent who has decided to voluntarily risk a minor child's physical well-being is acting in the child's best interest."
Unless of course they have "decided to voluntarily risk a minor child's physical well-being" of that child in a "Not for Profit" manner?????
That's bad news not just for business, but also for kids, said Richard Lee Barrett, an Orlando attorney who represented the former park manager where Jones died and a half dozen motocross parks across the state.
"It's going to have a devastating effect not only on their businesses, but children's ability to participate in motocross," Barrett said.
Businesses will respond by excluding children from risky activities that previously required waivers. Barrett mentioned scuba diving and horseback riding as examples.
"It's just going to shut these kids out," Barrett said.
Justice Charles Wells, in his dissent, said the majority's ruling was more properly a matter for the Legislature decide.
Whoa now wait a second Justice Charles Wells. Although we are glad for your dissent we are a bit concerned that you didn't say something like, "it is the parents province to make the decision!"
"I conclude that the questions presented by this case demonstrate a need for the Court to exercise judicial restraint, recognize that the Legislature is the policy-making branch of government, and defer to the Legislature by respecting the Legislature's non-action to date," Wells wrote.
Yes sir Mr. Wells, (note that we have abandoned the "justice" title since the Judge apparently does not understand the term "justice") the "legislature is" the policy making branch of the "government". However the "legislature is not" the policy making branch of the "Family"!!!
Barrett said that's where the issue will likely show up next, as the full ramifications become evident to all businesses that require liability waivers for children.
"I imagine Disney World is already on the phone to its lobbyist," Barrett said.
Here's the gig. The world is full of stupid people. Many of them are parents. And many of them are probably to stupid to be parents. But we allow them to vote, drive, buy guns, operate chainsaws, and all sorts of fun stuff. Hell, smart, successful people make stupider decisions re their kids than stupid people. They try and be friends with their kids, they buy them cell phones and let them text and drive, they give them money without having to work for it, etc.
Hell smart people are the ones that turn out to vote for the people that got this country in the mess that it is currently in. It just may be that Smart people are Stupider that Stupid people!!!So whats the answer if you want to live in a free society? Because the last thing we need is a legislative approach to family form and function. Them folk live in Disney World!Add to Technorati Favorites
Laws are legislated to cause some members of society who, haven't the judgment required to make safe and sensible choices about potentially dangerous situations to take the safest choice and, in this case, protect their children.
ReplyDeleteYou, in this case, are advocating that it is the right of every parent in a free society to choose to place their child in a situation regardless of that danger.
Freedom is not the absence of legislation nor is it the right of any parent simple because they are a parent to place their child in a potentially dangerous activity.
A free societies duty is to protect every member of that society when the members of that society refuse to do so on their own.
Freedom should never give us the right to place our children or anyone in danger.
Do not get me wrong. I am not an anarchist. A free society must have good and just laws to protect the rights of those who are unable to protect their own rights.
ReplyDeleteThe attorney Barrett makes a good point when he say's "I imagine Disney World is already on the phone to it's lobbyists"
Part of growing up is exploring and experiencing a world full potential dangers. Little League, carnival rides, swimming, crossing the street by ourselves for the first time.
Who determines when we are ready for such activities? Our parents or the state?
It is a slippery slope we play on when we abandon personal and parental responsibilities to the state.
In this case the court determined that it not o.k. to put your child at risk in a "for profit" activity, but is o.k. to put your child at risk in a "not for profit" activity.
"Laws are legislated to cause some members of society who, haven't the judgment required to make safe and sensible choices about potentially dangerous situations to take the safest choice"
Life is inherently dangerous. I do not believe that our forefathers meant for safety to trump liberty.
But hey I am often wrong and your comment is much appreciated and much food for thought. rc
Depending on how this is enforced, this could be a terrible decision. The line between "commercial" and "noncommercial" is rarely clear, and why should it matter if the event is for-profit or not?
ReplyDeleteKarting in Florida could be wiped out by this decision, along with other sports mentioned. Every activity has a bit of danger in it, and children place themselves in danger (with the consent of their parents) all the time. We can't eliminate risk, we just need to place it in the hands of the people best able to deal with it.
Do you think this tends to be the child and his parents (as they both must agree to participate) or the state?
Based on the current governmental state of affairs I'm not sure i would trust the state with walking my dog.rc
ReplyDelete