Liability Waiver & Release

State-by-state differences

• TX — Texas (Dresser Indus. v. Page Petroleum, 853 S.W.2d 505): waivers releasing ordinary negligence are enforceable if conspicuous and express (fair-notice rule) — keep the release language bold and specific.
• CA — California: adult waivers of ordinary negligence are generally enforceable; gross negligence can never be waived (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court).
• FL — Florida: parents may waive a child's injury claims for inherent risks of an activity only with the exact statutory wording (Fla. Stat. 744.301) — use it verbatim for minors.
• NY — New York: GOL §5-326 VOIDS waivers at pools, gyms and places of amusement where a fee is paid — rely on assumption-of-risk language and insurance instead.
• VA — Virginia: pre-injury liability waivers are VOID as against public policy (Hiett v. Lake Barcroft) — use assumption-of-risk acknowledgments and insurance, not releases.
• LA — Louisiana: Civil Code art. 2004 NULLIFIES advance waivers of liability for physical injury — rely on risk acknowledgment and insurance.
• CT — Connecticut: recreational-activity waivers of negligence are unenforceable (Hanks v. Powder Ridge) — keep the assumption-of-risk section, drop reliance on the release.
• WI — Wisconsin (Atkins v. Swimwest, 2005 WI 4): courts strike nearly all broad waivers as against public policy — keep them narrow, activity-specific and conspicuous, and carry insurance.
• UT — Utah: adult waivers generally enforceable, but a parent CANNOT waive a minor's claims (Hawkins v. Peart) — for kids rely on insurance and safety documentation.
• GA — Georgia (My Fair Lady of Ga. v. Harris, 185 Ga. App. 459): waivers of ordinary negligence are generally enforceable if clear and prominent; gross negligence cannot be waived.
• WA — Washington (Wagenblast v. Odessa Sch. Dist., 110 Wn.2d 845): enforceable if conspicuous, but void for gross negligence and where the six public-interest factors apply (e.g. school/child programs).
• IL — Illinois (Garrison v. Combined Fitness Centre, 201 Ill. App. 3d 581): enforceable if specific about the risks covered; ambiguity is construed against the business — name the activity's actual risks.
• AZ — Arizona (Ariz. Const. art. 18 §5): assumption of risk is ALWAYS a jury question by the state constitution — waivers help but are never a guaranteed defense; insurance is essential.
• OH — Ohio (Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367): clear adult waivers enforceable; parents may waive a child's claims for NONPROFIT community sports — commercial operators should not rely on that.
• NC — North Carolina (strict construction; cf. N.C.G.S. 22B-1 voiding construction indemnity): waivers are disfavored and fail for ambiguity or public-interest conflict — name the specific risks.
• MI — Michigan: adult waivers enforceable; by statute (MCL 700.5109) a parent CAN waive a minor's claims for recreational activities run by nonprofits — commercial operators should not rely on parental waivers.
• TN — Tennessee: enforceable for adults under the Olson factors (bargaining power, clarity); parents cannot waive a minor's own claims (Blackwell v. Sky High).
• NV — Nevada: waivers generally enforceable if clear and conspicuous; cannot cover gross negligence; recreation statutes add protections (e.g. NRS 455A skier responsibility).
• OR — Oregon: hostile terrain after Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor — broad recreational waivers can be voided as unconscionable; keep waivers narrow and rely on insurance.
• MD — Maryland: adult waivers enforceable; a parent cannot waive a minor's claims (BJ's Wholesale v. Rosen) — for kids, use risk acknowledgment + insurance.
• MN — Minnesota (Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, 326 N.W.2d 920): enforceable only if narrowly drawn to ordinary negligence; overbroad releases are void; parents cannot waive minors' claims.