According to a recent Florida Supreme Court decision that parents do not have authority to sign away children's right to sue before they take part in potentially dangerous commercial activities.

Most activities participating like theme parks and sports activities require that the parents sign waivers. What's your opinion?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/family/orl-bizwaivers18031809mar18,0,5245347.story

if I read this correctly....it could protect the child if thy get hurt. that might be why they won't let the parents sign away rights to sue. if it is the negligence of the park or whatever...the child gets hurt....they have a right to be taken care of.

Gross negligence is rarely covered by a waiver. It's simply saying there's a chance you could get hurt that is inherent in the activity....we're telling you now... you can't sue us later for it. We don't know if you have a heart condition or an aneurysm that might let go while on the 5G Rocket Express.

In my opinion parents do have the right as long is it is something that is generally considered safe (I realize that's a little grey). I mean you'd be responsible if you signed a waiver for your child that put them in obvious danger.

what is safe? football activities, the potential for a broken bone and or head injury (among others).

Lol.. yes, it's a bit grey, I agree. It would have to be a pretty obvious case, but it's somewhere between letting them play football with the proper equipment, and letting them compete in the little league WFC.

that might be why they won't let parents sign a waiver....to protect the kids

I would then see no more school activities, as sports have an injury risk, theme parks, even restaurants and sidewalks could also be a danger zone.

Parents are responcible for the actions of their children until age 18 so why would you put this type of responcibility in the hands of a child instead of the parents.

Children do not have the knowledge to know what is best for them at a young age. This is why the laws governing children at certain ages can only do certain things. Take the employment issue for instance. A child age 14 can only do certain work for a certain amount of hours, these change as the older the child gets

Which only lends support to my practice of locking my kids in the basement until they're 21.

I agree. I'm just trying to figure out their thinking. I wouldn't sign a waiver myself. if someone told me I had to, then I'll find something else for my child to do.

Then your child won't be able to participate in any sport, including tennis, bowling, etc. Every sport that my children participate in requires I sign a waiver.

Is that the same as, between a rock and a hard place.
But, Ma, ya' gotta' sign it or they won't let me play.

and that is a choice.

BTW...I'm not saying wether I agreed with the decision or not...I'm trying to think of what they may have been thinking

The controversy erupted in December, when the state Supreme Court ruled in a case in which a father took his 14-year-old son to an all-terrain-vehicle course near Okeechobee. The teen was thrown from his ATV while attempting a jump; it landed on and killed him.

The father had signed a liability waiver on his son's behalf. But his mother, who was divorced from the father, said she was unaware her son was participating in the activity, and the boy's estate subsequently sued the owners of the course.

In its ruling, the court said there is "injustice" when parents deprive their child of legal relief when the child is then injured by someone else's negligence. It also said waivers eliminate an incentive for businesses to take safety precautions for minors.

this is what sparked it

Sue the dad. He didn't sign a waiver.

you maybe right. the dad wasn't very smart IMO. but that is what sparked it

agree sue the Dad. While tragic, what gross negligence was done by the course?

I have to sign those waivers every single time my child participates in an activity or a sport. I do wish there was a sentence on those waivers giving the organizations some responsibility if they are negligent in any way.