[Russ]

I have not read the Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages for several years. To be correct, it was an appeals court decision that the Calif. Supreme declined to hear.

I have no idea how an indemnification clause would fit it to the hold harmless form as no one is presumed to be reimbursed. In any event, the court did not mention it in their decision.

Here is a key excerpt from the decision:

"B. Express Assumption of the Risk​

Whitewater maintains that the release 7 which decedent signed was an express assumption of risk which served to bar this wrongful death action. We agree.


FOOTNOTES

7 The agreement provided: "I am aware that certain risks and dangers may occur on any river trip with Whitewater . . . . These risks include, but are not limited to, hazards of and injury to person and property while traveling in rafts on the river, accident or illness in remote places without medical facilities, the forces of nature . . . . [para.] . . . I hereby assume all of the above risks and, except in the case of gross negligence, will hold Whitewater . . . harmless from any and all liability, actions, causes of action, debts, claims, and demands of every kind and nature whatsoever which I now have or which may arise out of or in connection with my trip or participation in any activities with Whitewater . . . ." The agreement further stated it operated as a release and assumption of risk for his heirs."


The age of the decision is not material. Hold harmless agreements are generally upheld in California if properly constructed, including the case published last week.

Do you have any specific knowledge of hold harmless not working in Florida. If so, post it up.

Russ

 

[mngundog]

Do hold harmless agreements work with employees? If they did, I would think that half the businesses in the country would have their employees sign them, no need for workers comp. insurance.

 

[Russ]

Do hold harmless agreements work with employees? If they did, I would think that half the businesses in the country would have their employees sign them, no need for workers comp. insurance.

Employees cannot waive their rights in advance to workers compensation benefits.

 

[mngundog]

Employees cannot waive their rights in advance to workers compensation benefits.

In this discussion, isn't the bird boys being discussed as employees, therefore not being able to waive their rights?

 

[Raymond Little]

In this discussion, isn't the bird boys being discussed as employees, therefore not being able to waive their rights?

Original issue was to have entrants sign waiver to bE on grounds which nobody will do because it is useless. Easier to cover BB's under work comp and let it ride. Paperwork is a nightmare for including volunteers and not worth the time and effort.

 

[Russ]

In this discussion, isn't the bird boys being discussed as employees, therefore not being able to waive their rights?

Bird boys are employees if paid to do the work.