Waiver / Underage

[Piece 0]

This isn't entirely a legal issue, but I would prefer not to see minors skydive because of the potential for getting people that would otherwise not care thinking about skydiving. Today a soccer mom looks at a dropzone, shakes her head and drives away. Tomorrow a soccer mom may look at a dropzone, think of the children, and write a letter to her congressman. Once that door opens it may be hard to close.

Unlike, say, motocross, skydiving is easily within reach of regulators. We're kind of safe because they couldn't care less about a couple of crazies when charter flights crash daily. If the soccer moms start caring, that may change.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/28/funny-pictures-i-come-with-sarcasm/
Proudly uncool since 1982.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

This isn't entirely a legal issue, but I would prefer not to see minors skydive because of the potential for getting people that would otherwise not care thinking about skydiving. Today a soccer mom looks at a dropzone, shakes her head and drives away. Tomorrow a soccer mom may look at a dropzone, think of the children, and write a letter to her congressman. Once that door opens it may be hard to close.

Unlike, say, motocross, skydiving is easily within reach of regulators. We're kind of safe because they couldn't care less about a couple of crazies when charter flights crash daily. If the soccer moms start caring, that may change.

I understand what you mean, but I do not agree on this very much.

The only possible outcome IMO could be that it would cause restricting the rules for underage skydiving. (which are non existant at the moment)

If you are suggesting that skydiving in general could be restricted or even banned, I would remind you that civil rights such as the right to personal freedom are institutions that are not within reach of a soccer moms making noice out of nothing..

[normiss 622]

I think in some areas it IS entirely legal.
A minor does not yet have the LEGAL ability to enter into a binding contractual agreement, therefore a legal guardian / parent does not have the legal authority to waive rights the minor doesn't have.
It could be a legal nightmare if something went bad.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

Quote

What are we calling 'business' here? Are we afraid that the short attention spans of those under 18 will cause them to forget that they want to go skydiving? What is the harm in waiting a few years? I had to do it for my skydiving license just like my drivers license. What's the diff?

Just because you had to, does not necessarily make it correct.

I understand your point.

Think of all of the business we're missing on with the 21-year old drinking age. Also, the required 18-year old age for buying cigarettes and porn. I'm thinking there is a HUGE market here in the under 18 age group.

I know it sounds ridiculous. But I had to do it. But just because I had to do it doesn't make it correct. So, I'm open.

I've always liked the line, "If you don't want to get sued...don't drop kids."

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[korbin 0]

I did not mean for this to cause such distress! I am 16, I'd post ID to authenticate it if necessary, but it really isn't for this particular question.

1) Income is NONE of the LAW'S concern when it comes to liability release. PERIOD. I do quite well for myself, I will not go into detail, you can check out my welcome thread.

2) Those three cases I posted were filed on the behalf of the defendants and were both carried out: they weren't "get me out of my liability waiver" cases from the parents.

3) Soccer moms looking at skydiving and shaking their head? That's their own decision to let them jump or not. Going to a congressman? (read edit)

--I HATE to resort to the driving is "less safe" argument, but we will not contrast the two for the sake of this argument.
There are MORE fatalities in driving than there are skydiving: it is the number one killer of teenagers. Here in South Dakota, you can drive at 14.

That's that. Fatalities are there: sure, driving is necessary, but fatalities are still there and people ACCEPT the tragic death of minors.

4) Because I looked up "some" "BSR"

-- Last I checked, if you are claiming and ADVERTISING to be a USPA DZ, you will typically show some respect with their Basic Safety Requirements, unless it involves some legality or choice.

Granted this DZ is claiming it is the USPA's decision, not their own, that's that.

Now we are getting way off topic. Let's stick to the topic of the waiver and liability release of parents via the use of a binding contract.

No more of this nonsense. It is a valid question and I am seeking answers. The DZO does not frequent this forum, I do not expect it to change much, but there does need to be clarification on this issue.

Edit: I do realize that you like skydiving to be kept out of the public eye, that is fine, but it is really preference in the end. As far as it getting "regulated"-- not sure about how that would occur or what the ramifications of that would be.

[korbin 0]

Quote

I think in some areas it IS entirely legal.
A minor does not yet have the LEGAL ability to enter into a binding contractual agreement, therefore a legal guardian / parent does not have the legal authority to waive rights the minor doesn't have.
It could be a legal nightmare if something went bad.

According to the previously posted references (most within this decase), you are incorrect, on MANY grounds actually.

If a minor is in a hospital, and needs certain operations done, they can not make these decisions or waive their rights in a hospital on their own. Their parents do this. This is clearly defined, and is outlined in the majority of those four cases. And the law does not determine because, strictly speaking, it cannot, between things.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

I think in some areas it IS entirely legal.

What is legal ? Skydiving as a minor ? Sure its legal. Where wouldnt it be legal ?

Quote

A minor does not yet have the LEGAL ability to enter into a binding contractual agreement, therefore a legal guardian / parent does not have the legal authority to waive rights the minor doesn't have.

Well 1st of all minor does most certainly have right to sue anyone who violates his rights. (so you are wrong in saying that minor doesnt have the right to sue and therefore it may not be waivered away)

Secondly, minors most certainly can do have the power to do legal transactions to some point. (in example go to a grosery store and buy a carton of milk)

It is only the legal transactions that surpass the line of being consequential enough to be not binding if not made under approval by the guardian of a minor. (in example sell a house the child has inherited) (in finland this actually even needs to be approved by the authorities to prevent possible exploitation of the minors assets)

Anyhow the question weather the guardian may waiver rights in behalf of the minor is a valid question.

What people should anyhow understand in this case is that waivering rights doesnt mean you give away your right to sue no matter what. It moreless documents that you are aware of the possible and hazards that might actualize, and can be upheld in court to prove this person was actually aware of this possible scenario happening. There are just things you cannot waiver away. This apllies to adults as well.

As an extreme example: no one can give another person a right to kill him.

Quote

It could be a legal nightmare if something went bad.

Thats for sure. IMHO the whole US legal system is a nightmare..

[Piece 0]

Quote

The only possible outcome IMO could be that it would cause restricting the rules for underage skydiving. (which are non existant at the moment)

If you are suggesting that skydiving in general could be restricted or even banned, I would remind you that civil rights such as the right to personal freedom are institutions that are not within reach of a soccer moms making noice out of nothing..

You are probably right and, frankly, I would not shed any tears if underage skydiving became illegal. However, your belief in the right to personal freedom with regards to skydiving may be misplaced. Skydiving is an aeronautical activity and is already within the jurisdiction of the FAA, it's the easiest thing in the world for politicians to kill skydiving through the FAA, no need to ban it.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/28/funny-pictures-i-come-with-sarcasm/
Proudly uncool since 1982.

[normiss 622]

A number of dropzones I'm familiar with choose to not enter into a contract with a minor, given such contracts are not legally binding.
Given legal contracts are not legal with minors, parents cannot grant those rights, nor waive them.
The only legally binding contracts with minors are for need - and you don't need to skydive. You need food and care.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

However, your belief in the right to personal freedom with regards to skydiving may be misplaced. Skydiving is an aeronautical activity and is already within the jurisdiction of the FAA, it's the easiest thing in the world for politicians to kill skydiving through the FAA, no need to ban it.

Any human activity restricted by society has to be weighed agianst civil rights and has to be in parallel with the civil & human rights in general. Therefore you need to evaluate the importance of the objective of legislative act X and the amount of it restricting civil right Y.

The restriction of a civil right is acceptable if X outweighs Y and the objective may not be achieved without restricting Y any less.

In example criminalizing heroin is in conflict with the right to personal freedom, but it has been politically agreed that the importance of criminalizing heroin is worth restricting this civil right. (due to its effects on society in general)

[korbin 0]

Quote

A number of dropzones I'm familiar with choose to not enter into a contract with a minor, given such contracts are not legally binding.
Given legal contracts are not legal with minors, parents cannot grant those rights, nor waive them.
The only legally binding contracts with minors are for need - and you don't need to skydive. You need food and care.

You are incorrect on these causes. All four of the cases I cited prove this wrong, in that needs (food, medical, care, whatever), are no different than anything else, and are treated as such. If you can find evidence or a precedent countering this be my guest.

Quote

Parents’ authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 23
encompasses decisions on the activities appropriate for their children––whether they
be academically or socially focused pursuits, physically rigorous activities such as
football, adventure sports such as skiing, horseback riding, or mountain climbing,
or, as in this case, an adventure vacation in a game reserve. Parents who choose to
allow their children to engage in these activities may also legitimately elect on their
children’s behalf to agree in advance to arbitrate a resulting tort claim if the risks of
these activities are realized.
Just as the mother in this case had the authority to enter into a contract for
herself and her minor child to travel to Africa for a safari, she also had the authority
to agree to arbitrate claims on his behalf arising from that contract.

Edit: I should state, that was a Florida case, so there are particulars to Florida in that. The individual cases that I stated also have the same conclusion reached on their own grounds, if you'd like to pick through them

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Given legal contracts are not legal with minors, parents cannot grant those rights, nor waive them.

In the finnish legal system the child has the same rights as everyone else. However before the child is 18 years old his legal guardian / parents will have the right to use these rights in BEHALF of the child. (with some exeptions) Therefore every legal act (that is more than customary) has to be done by the childs parents in BEHALF of the child.

I would be suprised if the US system would approach the subject in substantially different way.

So it isnt so that the child wouldnt have any power to make legal acts. It is just that someone else is using this power in his behalf.

Now we get to the area of the OP´s question:

Are there any legal acts the parents /legal guardian cannot make in behalf of the child.

Answer: ofcourse there are

The pending question remains:

What are the kind of legal acts parents have the right to perform in behalf of a minor and what are the kind that parents dont have the right to.

Example:

Do parents have a right to circumcise a child if there is no medical reason ?

Example2 : Can parents sign a liability waiver in behalf of a minor ?

[ladydyver 0]

mmm...haven't seen many 16 year olds research case law to determine wether or not the liability waiver is sufficient or not for you to be able to learn to skydive. you are quite unusual in that respect - hence the comment about trolling. if you are who you say you are kudos to you for researching what you want to do before you get into it. our dz doesn't take anyone under 18 and there are very few that do....but this subject has been breached before and fairly recently - in the last couple of months if I remember correctly....do a search on the site, some of your answers may be there.

DPH # 2
"I am not sure what you are suppose to do with that, but I don't think it is suppose to flop around like that." ~Skootz~
I have a strong regard for the rules.......doc!

[korbin 0]

Quote

mmm...haven't seen many 16 year olds research case law to determine wether or not the liability waiver is sufficient or not for you to be able to learn to skydive. you are quite unusual in that respect - hence the comment about trolling. if you are who you say you are kudos to you for researching what you want to do before you get into it. our dz doesn't take anyone under 18 and there are very few that do....but this subject has been breached before and fairly recently - in the last couple of months if I remember correctly....do a search on the site, some of your answers may be there.

The point I really intended to make was that there was some impaired logic on this "contracts are not valid" business.

I did search, and nothing actually goes into much detail about it, because, well: quite frankly, it doesn't matter to most; it just doesn't concern them.

This was just the prelim research that I did, I'll talk it over at lunch tomorrow with an attorney friend in my office. (Tort)

And on that note, myself, or any lawyer can't make the distinction of what's legal on this regard and what's not unless it is clearly laid down or preceded enough: and it hasn't been. Nobody is determining anything: this is just my, and four unique states' courts' decisions on the issue.

It just is really upsetting. I hear "wait wait wait." In all genuine honesty not trying to troll. I'm trying to be as sincere as possible, since it probably could look like that. But in either case, for the basis of the conversation, there really is no trolling "motive."

This isn't a controversial topic, it's fairly black and white.

[ladydyver 0]

Quote

Quote

mmm...haven't seen many 16 year olds research case law to determine wether or not the liability waiver is sufficient or not for you to be able to learn to skydive. you are quite unusual in that respect - hence the comment about trolling. if you are who you say you are kudos to you for researching what you want to do before you get into it. our dz doesn't take anyone under 18 and there are very few that do....but this subject has been breached before and fairly recently - in the last couple of months if I remember correctly....do a search on the site, some of your answers may be there.

The point I really intended to make was that there was some impaired logic on this "contracts are not valid" business.

I did search, and nothing actually goes into much detail about it, because, well: quite frankly, it doesn't matter to most; it just doesn't concern them.

This was just the prelim research that I did, I'll talk it over at lunch tomorrow with an attorney friend in my office. (Tort)

And on that note, myself, or any lawyer can't make the distinction of what's legal on this regard and what's not unless it is clearly laid down or preceded enough: and it hasn't been. Nobody is determining anything: this is just my, and four unique states' courts' decisions on the issue.

It just is really upsetting. I hear "wait wait wait." In all genuine honesty not trying to troll. I'm trying to be as sincere as possible, since it probably could look like that. But in either case, for the basis of the conversation, there really is no trolling "motive."

This isn't a controversial topic, it's fairly black and white.

unfortunately there have been people here who have posed....not that you are mind you...but you speak very eloquently for your age - hence the suspicion. as for actual case law....mmmm.....most of us have learned to skydive as adults so it doesn't really apply to us....unless we want our children to jump...and mine have to wait until their 18. It is interesting though as I have some friends who have had their children certified to scuba dive - under the age of 18.

DPH # 2
"I am not sure what you are suppose to do with that, but I don't think it is suppose to flop around like that." ~Skootz~
I have a strong regard for the rules.......doc!

[korbin 0]

I do understand your suspicions, but there really isn't a motive for me, especially if I am trying to establish an identity with a group.

That aside, I understand what you mean. I was actually going to go for SCUBA cert, which definitely does require waive of liability. [Have been diving under waiver in the West] (Decided against it: I'm a midwesterner: Lake diving isn't all that interesting)

The safety concerns with SCUBA are VERY vast. (Nitrogen narcosis, bends, safety stops, airline travel, equalization, and a whole plethora of injuries; not to mention sea life)

Not to mention racing, other industries. And no, they are not regulated.

Please read this:

Quote

Thousands of such releases are signed each year by parents enrolling their children in almost every kind of school and recreational activity. Parents in executing or not executing such releases make conscious choices on behalf of their children concerning risks and benefits of participation in a program that may involve risk. Those decisions are individual and based upon circumstances of each family and activity. Those are proper parental choices on behalf of their children which should not be ignored. So long as the decision is voluntary and informed, it should be given the same dignity as decisions regarding schooling, medical treatment and religious education.

Just curious on this point:

Quote

..and mine have to wait until their 18.

Any particular reason, if you don't mind I asking :)?

[jumpwally 0]

I agree, this does kid not sound like a teenage kid,,,they just dont "write" like this,,i suspect a law student doing reaserch for god knows what..

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[korbin 0]

*sigh* Pretty much required to. Not a law school student, I don't know what I can give you to "prove" something that is totally irrelevant to the actual discussion..

I genuinely would like to jump. I'll probably just end up going down to West Tennessee to get licensed, it would just be far more convenient if there was some backing to jump at my local DZ.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

*sigh* Pretty much required to. Not a law school student, I don't know what I can give you to "prove" something that is totally irrelevant to the actual discussion..

I genuinely would like to jump. I'll probably just end up going down to West Tennessee to get licensed, it would just be far more convenient if there was some backing to jump at my local DZ.

That's what I was going to suggest. You're wasting your time with all of this. You're not going to convince a DZ to let you jump.

[korbin 0]

It's all pretty mislead, is what I was trying to point out.

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

You write and spell very well (better than many on this forum). You research case law and lunch with attorneys. You scuba dive, race, play paintball (apparently) and want to skydive. Very unusual for a 16-year old. I'm not saying you are lying, just pointing out reasons for suspicions.
Didn't Morelli have a letter in Parachutist a year or so ago about this? If I remember correctly, it wasn't that a parent couldn't sign the waiver, it was more along the lines that custody wasn't permanent, and if custody changed the waiver would no longer be valid. If I'm wrong, please point it out.
Just like the rest of life, its a risk/reward equation, and most DZ's don't want to take the risk

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[packing_jarrett 0]

Quote

You're not going to convince a DZ to let you jump.

Not entirely true. I've done it for a few dropzones. But it did take more than just, "papapapapleeeaaase!"

Na' Cho' Cheese

[flyangel2 2]

Quote

Just curious on this point:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


..and mine have to wait until their 18.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Any particular reason, if you don't mind I asking :)?

I don't mean to answer for Ladydyver, but if she's thinking along the same lines as myself, a mother of two, the reason my boys had to wait is because I KNEW the risk.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[korbin 0]

Quote

You write and spell very well (better than many on this forum). You research case law and lunch with attorneys. You scuba dive, race, play paintball (apparently) and want to skydive. Very unusual for a 16-year old. I'm not saying you are lying, just pointing out reasons for suspicions.
Didn't Morelli have a letter in Parachutist a year or so ago about this? If I remember correctly, it wasn't that a parent couldn't sign the waiver, it was more along the lines that custody wasn't permanent, and if custody changed the waiver would no longer be valid. If I'm wrong, please point it out.
Just like the rest of life, its a risk/reward equation, and most DZ's don't want to take the risk

The custody thing very well could invalidate the contract, I did not think of that. I'd have to look with that.

Attorney friend is in the office adjacent to mine, personal friend ;).. Is usually out due to where he is licensed to practice (Georgia)

Paintball - Heavily played several seasons. Not at all unusual. (Brought quite a few businesses to several fields)

Scuba - Dove once in Hawaii. Wasn't SCUBA. Was similar, except tethered. (Didn't have time to go through all of the PADI nonsense)

You very well could be right about the custody changing and that kind of clause, there is a definite grey area there.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

It's all pretty mislead, is what I was trying to point out.

DZOs are just protecting themselves from our legal system and the fucking vultures we call attorneys. Get over it unless you have a way to change the whole system.