Minor Waiver questions

[bryancohnracing]

Today I went to the Solo Tour event at Miller Park in Milwaukee to visit with a few friends. Decided to take my wife and daughter along at the last minute. (what were they thinking?)

Anyway, we arrive to find we have to fill out the silly Minor Waiver form at the gate. Typical union job, three guys standing around, only one working.....

My wife, an attourney, starts to fill out the form when she realizes that it has/is supposed to be Notarized!. Hmmmm she says and continues to fill out the form. Further on she realizes that if I had brought Emma without my wife we (in theory) could not enter the event since both parents (or gaurdians) are required to sign.

So, as far as I can tell, we signed our names to a perfectly useless and most likely illegal document. The man at the gate had no idea what he was doing, didn't check to make sure we filled it out correctly, didn't fill in the event location and date at the top of the page and most likely had about 30 seconds of training.

I have a really nice Minor Waiver Document that is not worth the paper it is printed on. There is no possible way this document protects SCCA in anyway, given the circumstances in which we filled it out.

If Club Racing/Regions has found a way around this stoopid form (for the most part) why hasn't the Solo gang?

For what it's worth we did have a nice visit with friends, which was the goal.

Rant over. Have a nice day!

[Joefisherff]

Bryan,

I filled out the form completely, had it notarized prior to attending and then they tell me, "why did you put the specific event in there?" "If you would have put something generic like SCCA Race then you could have used it the whole year, now you have to do another one for the next event". I agree that if they are going to have the forms they should provide some training for the people filling them out (how about a PDF document), and some training for the folks taking them so they are completed correctly.

Joe

[Peter Horvath]

The Minor's Waiver is superfluous, but not because it's incomplete or because it's handed out in a routine fashion, but rather because it's completely unnecessary.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled, in Gentry v. Craycraft, that:
"We hold that in a personal injury action brought for injuries sustained while an individual is a participant in or a spectator at a sport or recreational activity, the age of the participant or spectator and whether he or she was capable of appreciating the inherent risks is immaterial. Instead, recovery is dependent upon whether the defendant’s conduct was either reckless or intentional."
The point is that, at least in Ohio, and perhaps most states, the track owners, directors, supervisors, staff, etc. are completely immune from injury lawsuits brought by the adults as well as children, who are present in any capacity, whether it be participating or spectating (unless the degree of culpability exceeds that of negligence).
I suspect that the reason for the "Waiver" is to verify that in fact a legal or natural guardian of the minor is present, so as to prevent kids from running around unsupervised.

[Jim Garry]

From my talks with SCCA Topeka, if the minor is going to be a participant, both parents must sign. If the child is a spectator and is accompanied by only one parent then just that one parent can sign. The notarization on a signature is needed when the minor participant is accompanied by only one parent. You should write "ALL EVENTS" and then the one waiver is good for the calendar year. The registrar should then give you a colored card (different color for different years) with the information filled out and all you need to do is display that and your minor gets into all events for the year.

Waivers are necessary if for no other reason than all car clubs (or other clubs) require them. If you want to change that, then petition the BOD but I don't think you'll get the results you're looking for. At the very least, waivers indicate that some form of attention is being paid by the sancitioning body.

[tonyc]

I was told that waivers don't really stand up in court (especially if you have a really expensive lawyer).

I think that waivers exist simply so that many more lawyers (and ultimately insurance companies) can get involved in any dispute or litlgation that may arise so that they can all make money off the situation and do their part to further escalate the cost of participating in motorsports.

just my 2 cents

[R. Pare]

Quite the contrary - it has been the solidity of the waivers to date that has allowed this business/sport to survive! If and when someone gets around the waiver (other than by being able to show gross negligence on the part of the track or the organizer), you can kiss this sport goodby - the only thing that keeps the insurance companies interested in our premiums is the historically low risk that the waiver imparts. Let the waiver lose their effectiveness, and they'll abandon us faster than you can blink! Source: straight from high level contacts at K&K Insurance

[Daryl DeArman]

Doug Wolfgang signed a waiver, the way I remember it there was a huge delay in going to trial just because of the waiver. However, given the right lawyers Wolfgang was awarded more than 1 Million USD over 10 years ago. It was not "gross negligence", but rather "wanton conduct"---not certain of the legalease difference.

[Peter Horvath]

Quite the contrary - it has been the solidity of the waivers to date that has allowed this business/sport to survive! If and when someone gets around the waiver (other than by being able to show gross negligence on the part of the track or the organizer), you can kiss this sport goodby - the only thing that keeps the insurance companies interested in our premiums is the historically low risk that the waiver imparts. Let the waiver lose their effectiveness, and they'll abandon us faster than you can blink! Source: straight from high level contacts at K&K Insurance

That's right. Lawyers, at least in Ohio, are not getting rich by litigating track-injury lawsuits. That cause-of-action has disappeared, just like alienation-of-affection, common-law marriage or lawsuits against your employer or your state government.
If it's possible to sue the track for negligence in your state, blame your legislature or state supreme court.

[R. Pare]

You can sue for negligence in any state of the union right now. The issue then becomes proving that negligence, and that it was of a sort that breaches the reasonable expectations of reasonable men.

[ghoneycutt]

"by becoming a member of SCCA, I hereby...yada yada yada.. And my minor shildred....yada..yada...In effect, have membership materials include a universal events waiver. Show your current membership card at the gate, they record the number.

Make it part of the membership application

[bryancohnracing]

I understand the "WHY" behind the minor waiver or any waiver, but by having untrained persons administering a document that is given such weight (by SCCA) that in use ends up exposing them to MORE potential harm and litigation is the problem.

Minors are not considered able to accept responsability in this country. It's such a crock of bull....Here is a gun, go kill people, but don't drink or have sex or vote. Thanks and have a nice day! Sorry, mini rant over.

I can understand when a local region member might get it wrong at a locally run event, but when the program is RUN by the National Staff I'd expect them to get it right. The event in question was a National Tour Solo, run by the National Office.

[Jim Garry]

Bryan,

I don't understand your last post in which you say "I can understand when a local region member might get it wrong at a locally run event, but when the program is RUN by the National Staff I'd expect them to get it right."

What is it they got wrong? They had you guys sign the minor waiver that is required by SCCA. I must be missing something ...

Jim