waiver forms for organized hikes
- Thread starter bill bowden
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
Wrong on both counts:Tramper Al said:
* A few years ago I had to pay $1 or so to go on a Boston Chapter trip as a non-member, this must be a chapter policy as the leader has known me since birth
* Some leaders receive compensation in the form of free lodging, meals, activity fees etc. when their cost is split among other participants' trip fees, this can run into the $1000s for Major Excursions
Yes, and landowners such as the National Forest require separate licensing (discussed here previously)twigeater said:
The AMC administration has been trying to eliminate volunteer-led trips for years, in favor of trips led by paid staff, but there are many other clubs that run outings with no insurance or waivers.
I'm curious as to why Bill and Mohamed are so negative. Do you think people are more likely to sue you if they sign the waiver?
T
Tramper Al
Guest
Do you really think the question above was regarding major excursions to Tibet or the like, or maybe more like day hikes in the White Mountains?RoySwkr said:
One can hike all the 48 or 67 or whatever in summer, winter, or whatever, led by trained and experienced AMC chapter leaders, and it has never cost me a dime to join these day hikes. If a multi-day AMC chapter-led hike has an expense like a fee for camping, then the participants split the cost for the volunteer leader (of course). This is all spelled out with the trip announcements in Outdoors magazine.
If you still want to believe that AMC chapter hikes are not an incredible resource for New England hikers, then that's up to you. Enjoy.
Last edited:
Not a group hiker ... just pointing out that it would be real easy for someone to shadow or sabotage an outing in protest.
Did someone say harmonica? Why as a matter of fact I have one right here.
Did someone say harmonica? Why as a matter of fact I have one right here.
amstony
New member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 732
- Reaction score
- 142
Kevin,
Those are some great excuses......... If the hiker gets to be a problem you have one advantage most of us don't have: you can always send Brutus after them........ He can sit on the itinerant hiker while we get our distance!!!
Tony
Those are some great excuses......... If the hiker gets to be a problem you have one advantage most of us don't have: you can always send Brutus after them........
He can sit on the itinerant hiker while we get our distance!!! Tony
Whiteman
New member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2004
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 24
More on those pesky releases
I am an attorney, practicing in Massachusetts for about 20 years. Releases are of particular interest to me. My two cents:
1. Releases fail to discourage reckless conduct. Say what you will, civil litigation for negligence which causes injury reduces negligent conduct. If you do not think this is true, ask yourself why GM no longer has a solid steering axle (from the steering wheel to the gear box) in its cars, and why you see so many wet floor signs when floors are wet. I could go on. But now we are seeing releases absolving people from responsibility for everything, even after school programs, where agencies recruit companies to allow students to volunteer for academic credits. Releases ensure that nobody need take the time to see that our kids are safe. As I said, I could go on.
2. Releases are a windfall for insurance companies. If you read this release carefully (posted by Dave Metsky above), you can see that any injuries arising out of activities associated with a hike are released. Using Dave as a subject again (sorry Dave, I hope you don't mind), suppose he forgets to check his rearview mirror after leading a great hike, and accidently runs over my legs which I use for hiking. I know that he has bought car insurance (and paid a bundle for it). I can't make an insurance claim and his company walks, and I'm left with broken legs. Is that wise? I was able to re-write the releases for a local cycling club to exclude claims otherwise covered by homeowner's or auto insurance, up to the limits of the policies, so there was no excess exposure to the involved individuals, and there is no reason why the AMC and every other club, company, association or other entity can't, or should not, do the same. This allows for compensation for badly hurt peope, such as folks who have no or inadequate health insurance.
3. Releases are definitely enforceable. Don't kid yourself. For example, in the last dozen cases decided in Massachusetts, the releases were upheld except in one exceptional case. Our courts don't care if you are a kid, a cop, at work, driving a race car, going to school, playing sports or anything else. You sign, even without reading the release, and you have no recourse.
4. Yes, the severability clause is in the release. So if any part happens to not work in your state (even though they picked Massachusetts law for the substantive law, so it will work), the rest will apply.
I urge everybody to fight the tide of releases. Where they have to be used because of paranoid insurance companies, then clubs should craft intelligent releases which cover only the actual intended activity, such as getting injured during a hike, specifically excluding from the release such things as auto accidents.
Finally, a reality check. In the last twenty years that I have been practicing, not once have I heard of a claim arising from a club-led hike. Am I wrong about this?
/Rant off./
I am an attorney, practicing in Massachusetts for about 20 years. Releases are of particular interest to me. My two cents:
1. Releases fail to discourage reckless conduct. Say what you will, civil litigation for negligence which causes injury reduces negligent conduct. If you do not think this is true, ask yourself why GM no longer has a solid steering axle (from the steering wheel to the gear box) in its cars, and why you see so many wet floor signs when floors are wet. I could go on. But now we are seeing releases absolving people from responsibility for everything, even after school programs, where agencies recruit companies to allow students to volunteer for academic credits. Releases ensure that nobody need take the time to see that our kids are safe. As I said, I could go on.
2. Releases are a windfall for insurance companies. If you read this release carefully (posted by Dave Metsky above), you can see that any injuries arising out of activities associated with a hike are released. Using Dave as a subject again (sorry Dave, I hope you don't mind), suppose he forgets to check his rearview mirror after leading a great hike, and accidently runs over my legs which I use for hiking. I know that he has bought car insurance (and paid a bundle for it). I can't make an insurance claim and his company walks, and I'm left with broken legs. Is that wise? I was able to re-write the releases for a local cycling club to exclude claims otherwise covered by homeowner's or auto insurance, up to the limits of the policies, so there was no excess exposure to the involved individuals, and there is no reason why the AMC and every other club, company, association or other entity can't, or should not, do the same. This allows for compensation for badly hurt peope, such as folks who have no or inadequate health insurance.
3. Releases are definitely enforceable. Don't kid yourself. For example, in the last dozen cases decided in Massachusetts, the releases were upheld except in one exceptional case. Our courts don't care if you are a kid, a cop, at work, driving a race car, going to school, playing sports or anything else. You sign, even without reading the release, and you have no recourse.
4. Yes, the severability clause is in the release. So if any part happens to not work in your state (even though they picked Massachusetts law for the substantive law, so it will work), the rest will apply.
I urge everybody to fight the tide of releases. Where they have to be used because of paranoid insurance companies, then clubs should craft intelligent releases which cover only the actual intended activity, such as getting injured during a hike, specifically excluding from the release such things as auto accidents.
Finally, a reality check. In the last twenty years that I have been practicing, not once have I heard of a claim arising from a club-led hike. Am I wrong about this?
/Rant off./
Sierra Club Waiver FAQ
As a leader for the Boston Chapter Ski Committee (I cannot speak for other committees) we charge $1/night for overnights that go directly into the committee account. Day hikes have no fees, ever. Other committees have different policies, but as far as I know, leaders never get paid. Having gone on many trips led by others, I've never been charged a fee other than expenses.
For workshops where there is a fee, volunteer instructors get our expenses paid.
I've only been leading trips for 3 years, but I haven't seen any evidence of the club trying to eliminate volunteer led trips. It may be happening, but we are leading more trips every year, with encouragement from the chapter to retain and increase our volunteer leaders. Leader training is conducted twice a year, and each committee gets money for leader recognition.
-dave-
As a leader for the Boston Chapter Ski Committee (I cannot speak for other committees) we charge $1/night for overnights that go directly into the committee account. Day hikes have no fees, ever. Other committees have different policies, but as far as I know, leaders never get paid. Having gone on many trips led by others, I've never been charged a fee other than expenses.
For workshops where there is a fee, volunteer instructors get our expenses paid.
I've only been leading trips for 3 years, but I haven't seen any evidence of the club trying to eliminate volunteer led trips. It may be happening, but we are leading more trips every year, with encouragement from the chapter to retain and increase our volunteer leaders. Leader training is conducted twice a year, and each committee gets money for leader recognition.
-dave-
Just to clarify, on some overnight trips the leaders' lodging is paid for. I think this is reasonable, as usually the leaders have to front the reservation money (often several thousand dollars) out of their own pockets.
-dave-
-dave-
bill bowden
New member
Reply to Roy on waivers followed by other rants
Roy:
I don't like the waiver as a trip leader because I generally despise paper work and hate to have to collect signatures (in a pre-dawn parking lot in the winter?) for a series of releases and a form for the Forest Service.
I also have kind of a philosophical problem with establishing a gap between an unpaid volunteer leader and participants (who may well have more experience than the leader). There should be sense that "we are all in this together" for these trips rather than "I important mountain guide; you dumbass participants." This is poorly phrased but I hope my concern comes through.
As an unpaid volunteer trip leader I feel I am doing enough by paying to take the training and volunteering my time and effort to lead hikes for folks who like the social interaction of hiking in a group or may not be completely confident in their own route finding skills. (end of responce, rant begins)
My conception of what I should do is limited to identifying people who are sufficiently well equipped and conditioned to do the hike, meeting them at the trailhead and taking them on the hike. arranging car pools, dinners etc is definitely not part of the job description.
I personally also have a huge problem with the way these waivers are being introduced-No publication ahead of time in the club bulletin, no public discussion through the letters column or debate-only e-mail to leaders saying you have to have this form signed by all particpants after this date. (end of harangue)
Bill
Roy:
I don't like the waiver as a trip leader because I generally despise paper work and hate to have to collect signatures (in a pre-dawn parking lot in the winter?) for a series of releases and a form for the Forest Service.
I also have kind of a philosophical problem with establishing a gap between an unpaid volunteer leader and participants (who may well have more experience than the leader). There should be sense that "we are all in this together" for these trips rather than "I important mountain guide; you dumbass participants." This is poorly phrased but I hope my concern comes through.
As an unpaid volunteer trip leader I feel I am doing enough by paying to take the training and volunteering my time and effort to lead hikes for folks who like the social interaction of hiking in a group or may not be completely confident in their own route finding skills. (end of responce, rant begins)
My conception of what I should do is limited to identifying people who are sufficiently well equipped and conditioned to do the hike, meeting them at the trailhead and taking them on the hike. arranging car pools, dinners etc is definitely not part of the job description.
I personally also have a huge problem with the way these waivers are being introduced-No publication ahead of time in the club bulletin, no public discussion through the letters column or debate-only e-mail to leaders saying you have to have this form signed by all particpants after this date. (end of harangue)
Bill
Jaytrek57
New member
I have led both youth and adults in the outdoors for a great many years, both as staff and as a volunteer. It has been my experience that waivers, and any form that that takes, is SOP for any trip that is "led".
Seems to me that the AMC is making volunteer led trips more up to industry standards and perhaps people who have been doing things "their" way for a while are a little upset. I do agree the way they (AMC) introduces these changes could be different and at the very least, buy-in from all should be the goal.
I don't see how any "gap" is established between leaders and particpants over waivers. This speaks more to a leader's "soft" skills, confidence in their own skills (soft/hard) and abilities to establish roles. Also, I may be mistaken, but don't volunteer leaders have to sign the waiver as well?
Interesting discussion.
Peace.
Seems to me that the AMC is making volunteer led trips more up to industry standards and perhaps people who have been doing things "their" way for a while are a little upset. I do agree the way they (AMC) introduces these changes could be different and at the very least, buy-in from all should be the goal.
I don't see how any "gap" is established between leaders and particpants over waivers. This speaks more to a leader's "soft" skills, confidence in their own skills (soft/hard) and abilities to establish roles. Also, I may be mistaken, but don't volunteer leaders have to sign the waiver as well?
Interesting discussion.
Peace.
T
Tramper Al
Guest
Yes
Kevin, yes, much more than just a fine day in the park.
If I haven't made it clear before, I think that people who volunteer their time and effort to lead (AMC chapter, GMC, Catamount, etc.) trips abolutely ROCK.
Kevin, yes, much more than just a fine day in the park.
If I haven't made it clear before, I think that people who volunteer their time and effort to lead (AMC chapter, GMC, Catamount, etc.) trips abolutely ROCK.
Peakbagr
Well-known member
Bill,
Believe it or not, NO ONE likes extra paperwork including the folks at your headquarters who've asked for this to be done. The fact that you screen sign-ups on the phone, email and at the trailhead is expected of any leader. You're not doing a favor to the club by having the releases signed. You're this for yourself and those of coming after us by safeguarding the organization from potential lawsuits. Your screening the participants is the first and basic part of your responsibility as trip leader. Because they have the gear, stamina and experience doesn't mean that Mr Murphy doesn't step in and cause an accident where you and your outing club can be sued.
Believe it or not, NO ONE likes extra paperwork including the folks at your headquarters who've asked for this to be done. The fact that you screen sign-ups on the phone, email and at the trailhead is expected of any leader. You're not doing a favor to the club by having the releases signed. You're this for yourself and those of coming after us by safeguarding the organization from potential lawsuits. Your screening the participants is the first and basic part of your responsibility as trip leader. Because they have the gear, stamina and experience doesn't mean that Mr Murphy doesn't step in and cause an accident where you and your outing club can be sued.
SAR-EMT40
Well-known member
Does anyone else object to Tramper Al using his son as a chest protector during the games at Fenway park?
Keith
Keith
Last edited:
Peakbagr
Well-known member
Not much danger while the Sawx are pitching to the Bombers.
Jaytrek57
New member
His grandson signs a waiver.
SAR-EMT40
Well-known member
Apologies Al. I took my best guess. Repairs have been made. Very cute son. Congratulations.
Keith
Keith
Last edited:
Just to bring things back to the basics of the situation:
1) No-one to my knowledge in the AMC wanted to have waivers.
2) Insurance is now very diffuclt to get for an organization like the AMC. The insurance company requires the waiver. Thjis is not negotiable.
3) The AMC may be big but in no way is it rich. One big lawsuit could cost millions just in legal fees. I'm pretty sure the resources are not there to self insure. People already are complaining about the first dues increase in many years.
4) If the club had no insurance, I believe most leaders would stop leading trips. Would you put your own personal insurance policy at jeopardy to lead a bunch of stranger sinto the woods? I don't need the AMC to have fun Outdoors. I lead trips because I enjoy anabling others to enjoy wiolderness who otherwise would not get out there. But I would not put my own insurance on the line for the cause...
1) No-one to my knowledge in the AMC wanted to have waivers.
2) Insurance is now very diffuclt to get for an organization like the AMC. The insurance company requires the waiver. Thjis is not negotiable.
3) The AMC may be big but in no way is it rich. One big lawsuit could cost millions just in legal fees. I'm pretty sure the resources are not there to self insure. People already are complaining about the first dues increase in many years.
4) If the club had no insurance, I believe most leaders would stop leading trips. Would you put your own personal insurance policy at jeopardy to lead a bunch of stranger sinto the woods? I don't need the AMC to have fun Outdoors. I lead trips because I enjoy anabling others to enjoy wiolderness who otherwise would not get out there. But I would not put my own insurance on the line for the cause...
Peakbagr
Well-known member
A couple of differences of opinion.
While its possible, I highly doubt whether AMC's insurance company requires liability releases.
As to jeopardizing your own liability insurance. It is highly unlikely that an attorney operating on a contingency fee basis would sue an individual trip leader. The amount of work would not be commensurate with the potential return, in particular when the trip leader was not "negligent".
I don't know about you, but I lead trips as a service to my outing club and chapter. Its my way of repaying the great times I've had in the mountains by showing others what others once showed me. I can have a great time by myself, but I don't think thats what motivates most trip leaders.
While its possible, I highly doubt whether AMC's insurance company requires liability releases.
As to jeopardizing your own liability insurance. It is highly unlikely that an attorney operating on a contingency fee basis would sue an individual trip leader. The amount of work would not be commensurate with the potential return, in particular when the trip leader was not "negligent".
I don't know about you, but I lead trips as a service to my outing club and chapter. Its my way of repaying the great times I've had in the mountains by showing others what others once showed me. I can have a great time by myself, but I don't think thats what motivates most trip leaders.
"While its possible, I highly doubt whether AMC's insurance company requires liability releases. "
Its a fact - the insurance company requires it.
And while nobody may actually sue a leader (it probably depends on their personal wealth) most leaders who have been asked have indictaed they would not take the risk.
Its a fact - the insurance company requires it.
And while nobody may actually sue a leader (it probably depends on their personal wealth) most leaders who have been asked have indictaed they would not take the risk.
Peakbagr
Well-known member
In the 75 plus year history of the ADK, and tens of thousands of outings, there has never been a suit against a trip leader. Thats NEVER.
