Waivers in Fishing Events

Are wearing PFD's required usually during a fishing tournament? Or are they optional
so long as you sign a release waiver?

I wanted to know if wearing a PFD during a tournament was usually a required condition, or whether signing the release waiver covers the liability of the person putting on a fishing tournament.

Law: you must have a PFD on board....but you don't have to wear it.

I knew you have to have a PDF on your kayak.

I was considering putting on a fishing derby next spring, and I wanted to get an idea of the normal procedure at a tournament/derby, regarding people wearing PDF's. 

From your experience, do you find that wearing a PDF is usually optional (so long as they have a PDF on board) or from your experience is wearing a PDF mandatory at tournaments?

I wasn't sure if signing the release waiver would release the person who is sponsoring the tournament, if someone elects not to wear their PDF during the tournament and drowns.

Sky, I am not a lawyer, no where near it, but a liability waiver, properly written, should cover you. You, as a tournament director, can not possibly make people obey the law. It is not your responsibility. Also getting some insurance can help ease your mind and CYA.

Get a lawyer to review any waiver you put together, but I am sure you know that.   

Maybe one of our lawyer types will weigh in.

I knew you have to have a PDF on your kayak.

I was considering putting on a fishing derby next spring, and I wanted to get an idea of the normal procedure at a tournament/derby, regarding people wearing PDF's. 

From your experience, do you find that wearing a PDF is usually optional (so long as they have a PDF on board) or from your experience is wearing a PDF mandatory at tournaments?

I wasn't sure if signing the release waiver would release the person who is sponsoring the tournament, if someone elects not to wear their PDF during the tournament and drowns.

the waiver would release the liability of the organizers but i can see how people who do tournaments would rather have people wearing pfd's since kayak fishing can be dangerous. You have guys fishinig with 40-50lb test line sometimes and as a diver myself i know how hard it is to break free of this stuff underwater. i dont know anyone that can swim with enough force to the surface to break a tangle in that stuff.

i think that tournament organizers may want to take into account that kayak fishing is a growing sport and there are a lot of new people getting into it and taking to the ocean before they have been trained on how to deal with falling off a kayak. proper ways of flipping the kayak back over, re-entry onto the kayak. I think its wise that organizers make wearing pfd's mandatory at events such as this just to reduce the chance of a fatal accident. sure someone can still drown but they have a higher probability of survival having a pfd.

even if participants do sign a waiver and someone without a pfd drowns at such an event the family can still sue and make life miserable for the organizers and the name of the organization. to make wearing pfd's mandatory i think is a wise decision on the part of an organizer. its always better in the face of the public to have an organization that takes a stand for safety.

take this as an example:

bob just bought an ocean kayak and loves fishing, he signs up for an ncka tournament and arrives at mbk to launch. he launches and leaves his pfd in his kayak. out along cannery row he is a little shaky being on the kayak since he never really spent that much time on it. he is unstable and after snagging the bottom its obvious he is unstable as he tries to break the line free to rig up again.

paddling out towards deeper water , maybe 50 feet,  he drops his rig down with strong 40lb test line, great for lings he thinks as he hits bottom. a ling takes the bait and bob starts cranking upwards, halfway up the ling fights and its a big one. the ling is maybe 20 lbs.

as shaky as bob is he keeps cranking the fish up and a swell hits him from the side. he falls off and grabs at the kayak with one hand but misses. the line from the fishing pole tangles around a leg and the ling heads to the bottom with bob in tow. the ling does what lings do and holes up at the bottom. bob is still tied up and cant do nothing about it. he cant see and everything is happening too fast.

i think this scenario, as silly as it sounds is very possible. fish are strong when they are underwater and we all know that much. having a pfd would be helpful in a case like this because of the added buoyancy.

The next day in the local paper the article talks about bob and who he is and what he's all about also pointing out that wearing pfd's were "not a requirement" in this event he participated in. What a bummer.


>>

i know that i have kayak fished out in MB and hooked some large bat rays that i fought for over 10 minutes and practically getting spooled in 100 ft of water. my biggest nightmare would be to get pulled down and drowned doing something i love.

i think pfd's should be mandatory but thats just my take. i freedive a lot off my kayak and wear a full dive suit that is pretty buoyant. when i kayak fish my wife and i both keep it a rule to wear pfd's.

i think i am pretty proficient in the water but i still think that a pfd is probably one of  the most important pieces of equipment one can have while kayak fishing. besides that you can keep a knife, radio, sunglasses on it too.

john

Thank you John for your well thought out input.

The ranger at the lake informed me I needed to carry 1 million dollars insurance policy in order to have a tournament with cash prizes.  I was looking  further into the financial liability of holding a fishing tournament.

I agree with your opinion.  I was uncomfortable putting on a tournament, if wearing a PDF was optional. 

I just assumed everyone in a fishing tournament wore a PFD, which is why I inquired.

Thank you John for your well thought out input.

The ranger at the lake informed me I needed to carry 1 million dollars insurance policy in order to have a tournament with cash prizes.  I was looking  further into the financial liability of holding a fishing tournament.

I agree with your opinion.  I was uncomfortable putting on a tournament, if wearing a PDF was optional. 

I just assumed everyone in a fishing tournament wore a PFD, which is why I inquired.

wow! a million dollars is a lot of coverage but i can see why.

as for my opinions about wearing a pfd, i know its not anybody's responsibility to tell someone whats safe and whats not when they sign themselves up for an event like a tournament.

i just think that though people are not stupid and should be responsible for themselves its not uncommon that people get in over their heads and dont realize how quick things can get dangerous.

by making it mandatory to wear a pfd there is no harm done and a proper fitting pfd can only help in case something does happen.

even people signing waivers can and do make mistakes. mbk also has a waiver signed for kayak rentals yet they require all participants to wear life vests, these folks are just paddling and not juggling around gear, rods and other fishing tackle. even after the pre paddling briefing with lessons on how to uncapsize and re-enter your kayak they still make people wear pfds.

i'd love to try a kayak fishing tournament someday. i hope i get my chance soon!

I don't want to hijack this thread but do want to say that John and Sky have made some thoughtful comments.

though people are not stupid and should be responsible for themselves its not uncommon that people get in over their heads and dont realize how quick things can get dangerous

The fact is, people can be stupid and irresponsible and YOU can be made to pay for it!

even if participants do sign a waiver and someone without a pfd drowns at such an event the family can still sue and make life miserable for the organizers and the name of the organization. to make wearing pfd's mandatory i think is a wise decision on the part of an organizer. its always better in the face of the public to have an organization that takes a stand for safety.

There are thousands of personal injury lawyers out there who would drool at the chance to represent the case of John's hypothetical "Bob's" grieving, and now destitute, widow and two little children, waiver notwithstanding.

Waiver's are not legal "bullet proof vests" as some might believe.  Just ask the radio station that sponsored the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest.

Because personal injury lawyers work on a contingency basis (he's paid only if he wins), the widow can be penniless, but he can take you to court and bleed you dry, making your life Hell, even in a losing battle. (How many of use can afford $200-$400/per hour legal fees?)

Is it totally out of the question to think that a jury of twelve nonfishermen, (with a few granny’s and tree hugger types in the mix) might side with the widow, concluding that her normally "prudent" husband was enticed into an activity that was far more risky than he could "reasonably" comprehend, by a group that thought DFG regs were of greater importance than following Coast Guard regs meant to protect his life?  And now he's dead!

We don't babysit people Sky. Especially since they are adults...

Is like waving a red flag in front of a personal injury lawyer's nose. What will nail the radio station, I'm sure, are the dismissive statements made by jockeys when warned before hand about the dangers:

     1) People called, warning of the danger
     2) DJs KNEW of the risk (which many people do NOT know of)
     3) DJs said contestants signed released forms which relieve them from responsibility

In legal cases "appearances" can make or break a case.  Sounding cavalier about risk could hurt you big time; Preemptive, due diligence in historically establishing the "appearance" that safety is a priority could save your legal hide. 

Doctors know that waivers will not preclude "career stopping" suits.  In our litigious society, when something bad goes down, someone has to pay, even it it's no one's fault.

"The present tort system does not set any boundaries on the compensation or its relation to the original damage. It does not even concern itself with who was the cause of the injury. The only question is: ''Has there been damage?'' If the answer is yes, then the victim deserves to be compensated - never mind by whom. Whoever can be found will have to provide compensation, and it is the one with the deepest pockets who gets the bill.

This means, in effect, that anyone who has suffered deserves to be rewarded. The lawyer makes sure of reward by suing everyone who is remotely connected: if one is found faultless, another can bear the burden. All the lawyer has to show is that there has been injury. The court will assign the damage, if it agrees that compensation is deserved."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE0DA1231F934A15754C0A960948260
 

E.g.:  In my office waiting room, which I share with 4 others, (at the direction of my malpractice attorney) I placed a small sign that explicitly says:

   

Each Provider Is An Independent Practitioner

That's because a doctor had been successfully sued after being drawn into another doctor's malpractice case solely because a lawyer convinced a jury that a "prudent person" might reasonably conclude that the doctor was affiliated with the plaintiff's doctor even though the only connection was that they shared office space.  The jury concluded that having a common waiting room gave the appearance (the impression) to a "reasonable person" that they were partners.


Attenttiveness to "appearance" can be all important as is preemptive risk assessment:

The two words you never want to use in defending your self legally is:  "I thought..."

Thank you Marmite for making excellent points, with the feedback from you and John I realize I need to evaluate this situation further.

I also apologize if I lead the MBK thread astray.

Yes Doug anyone can sue anyone for any thing. A waiver and insurance can go a long way to mitigating the impact of this event, however unlikely it is. However having insurance can increase it happening since people feel like they are getting money from the insurance company and not individuals.

Her are some good lawyer talk on the issue.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2007/08/extreme-sports-extreme-liability.html - Don't think this one applies as clearly the mega ramp is an ahem... "extreme" case

These are a lot closer - http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/03/extreme-sports-and-assumption-of-risk.html

Doug, Medical Malpractice has a lot of differences to what we are talking about here. You have standards bodies, review boards and big money hungry lawyers. The closet standards body we have are DFG regs, which we clearly state must be followed. The Hawaii case above (2nd link) is a good indication that those would constitute due care on an organizers part.

John, are you a lawyer? Just wondering, not trying to be an ass 

I don't want to hijack this thread but do want to say that John and Sky have made some thoughtful comments.

though people are not stupid and should be responsible for themselves its not uncommon that people get in over their heads and dont realize how quick things can get dangerous

The fact is, people can be stupid and irresponsible and YOU can be made to pay for it!

even if participants do sign a waiver and someone without a pfd drowns at such an event the family can still sue and make life miserable for the organizers and the name of the organization. to make wearing pfd's mandatory i think is a wise decision on the part of an organizer. its always better in the face of the public to have an organization that takes a stand for safety.

There are thousands of personal injury lawyers out there who would drool at the chance to represent the case of John's hypothetical "Bob's" grieving, and now destitute, widow and two little children, waiver notwithstanding.

Waiver's are not legal "bullet proof vests" as some might believe.  Just ask the radio station that sponsored the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest.

Because personal injury lawyers work on a contingency basis (he's paid only if he wins), the widow can be penniless, but he can take you to court and bleed you dry, making your life Hell, even in a losing battle. (How many of use can afford $200-$400/per hour legal fees?)

Is it totally out of the question to think that a jury of twelve nonfishermen, (with a few granny’s and tree hugger types in the mix) might side with the widow, concluding that her normally "prudent" husband was enticed into an activity that was far more risky than he could "reasonably" comprehend, by a group that thought DFG regs were of greater importance than following Coast Guard regs meant to protect his life?  And now he's dead!

We don't babysit people Sky. Especially since they are adults...

Is like waving a red flag in front of a personal injury lawyer's nose. What will nail the radio station, I'm sure, are the dismissive statements made by jockeys when warned before hand about the dangers:

     1) People called, warning of the danger
     2) DJs KNEW of the risk (which many people do NOT know of)
     3) DJs said contestants signed released forms which relieve them from responsibility

In legal cases "appearances" can make or break a case.  Sounding cavalier about risk could hurt you big time; Preemptive, due diligence in historically establishing the "appearance" that safety is a priority could save your legal hide. 

Doctors know that waivers will not preclude "career stopping" suits.  In our litigious society, when something bad goes down, someone has to pay, even it it's no one's fault.

"The present tort system does not set any boundaries on the compensation or its relation to the original damage. It does not even concern itself with who was the cause of the injury. The only question is: ''Has there been damage?'' If the answer is yes, then the victim deserves to be compensated - never mind by whom. Whoever can be found will have to provide compensation, and it is the one with the deepest pockets who gets the bill.

This means, in effect, that anyone who has suffered deserves to be rewarded. The lawyer makes sure of reward by suing everyone who is remotely connected: if one is found faultless, another can bear the burden. All the lawyer has to show is that there has been injury. The court will assign the damage, if it agrees that compensation is deserved."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE0DA1231F934A15754C0A960948260
 

E.g.:  In my office waiting room, which I share with 4 others, (at the direction of my malpractice attorney) I placed a small sign that explicitly says:

   

Each Provider Is An Independent Practitioner

That's because a doctor had been successfully sued after being drawn into another doctor's malpractice case solely because a lawyer convinced a jury that a "prudent person" might reasonably conclude that the doctor was affiliated with the plaintiff's doctor even though the only connection was that they shared office space.  The jury concluded that having a common waiting room gave the appearance (the impression) to a "reasonable person" that they were partners.


Attenttiveness to "appearance" can be all important as is preemptive risk assessment:

The two words you never want to use in defending your self legally is:  "I thought..."

wow Marmite!

thanks some good info right there.

I guess what it comes down to is to cover yourself in every way possible when putting on an event.

its amazing for what, how and why people sue.


thanks for the insight,
john

John, are you a lawyer? Just wondering, not trying to be an ass 

nope!

i just have an inherent fear of being dragged to the depths of the sea by a fish. i think it all stemmed from watching a shark fishing contest and a guy came out of the boat and got pulled down.

i need to stop watching tv: )

john

On the PFD issue, I think there have been some good comments made, however in my opinion, a dose of reality is needed as well.  Waivers can require anything they want, but if people don't follow them, then they aren't worth the paper they are written on. 

Don't get me wrong... I am an advocate for using PFD's, especially in the bays and ocean.  But if it were up to me, the use of a PFD would not be included on my waiver because it is only one of many considerations that a person must make to ensure their safety.  There are dozens of things that could go wrong to an inexperienced, careless, or unfortunate person while fishing from a kayak, and a PFD may help with surviving some of them, but not all of them.  Even in John's scenario, it isn't clear that a PFD would have saved "Bob's" life.  If you're being held underwater by Lingzilla and mono wrapped around your ankle, a PFD isn't going to get you any closer to the surface. 

I'm just saying that there are many risk-mitigation measures that could be considered for language on a waiver... and it can go all the way to the point of becoming onerous. 

Some examples if you wanted to take this to the extreme...
- Must have a GPS to ensure safe navigation in the fog.
- Must wear a wetsuit to ensure x-minutes of survival in cold water in the event of capsizing.
- Must have VHF radio to summon help in an emergency.
- Must have flairs in case you are stranded into the evening.
- Must have a water pump in case your kayak springs a leak offshore.
- Must have a kayak that is greater than x-inches wide so that it isn't tippy.
- Must not consume alcoholic beverages while on the water (is this more dangerous than not wearing a pfd? something to think about).
- Must have a knife attached to your PFD so you can cut yourself free of the line when lingzilla drags you to Davy Jones' locker.
- etc.

Some good strong disclaimer language that describes the risks inherent in the sport and possibly includes some suggested safety equipment is about where I'd draw the line.  Each person must take personal responsibility for their own safety.  That much should be made abundantly clear in any waiver.

Now... if the insurance company is willing to reduce your premium if you require PFD's in your waiver, then you might have a good reason to include it.

Anyhoo... that's my two-cents... and no... I'm not a laywer... so anything I say may be considered pure hogwash.