Paragliding Waivers: No minors permitted beyond this point.

Waivers.

Where would extreme sports (and adventure tourism for that matter) in North America be without them?

Odds are, non-existant.

If there is one thing that stands out in differentiating us in North America from our European cousins it is the degree with which we employ litigation to seek damages (coupled with an implicit assignment of blame) from another party.

For better or worse, it is the reality in which we live.

In addressing this reality, we have devised the waiver - an agreement to hold harmless another party during a given activity. Without this waiver, any activity that holds a chance of injury or death above a statistical zero will likely find itself litigated into non-existence in aftermath of a single incident.

Again, the reality in which we live.

The validity and extent of protection provided by one of these agreements will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In British Columba, with a thriving adventure tourism sector, a waiver can carry quite a bit of weight. A participant signs one with the understanding stuff happens (potentially from simple negligence) and they accept responsibility for the risks involved. In fact the risks are often part of the draw, causing the activity to be added to ones 'bucket list' as it were.

In the case of paragliding, expect to sign multiple waivers - holding harmless the:

1. National Association (including the instructor, all members, and landowners).
2. Local Club (including all members and, again, land owners).
3. School (including its instructional staff).

Now here in BC there is one catch - the Infant Act.

The Infant Act in its current form states a minor cannot enter into a contract of non necessity. Huh? Basically if the contract doesn't involve putting food on the table or a roof over their head, anyone in BC under the age of majority (19 years of age) cannot be held to the contract terms. 

This includes waivers.

Hold on, can't parents sign a waiver on behalf of the minor - we see them doing it all the time at the go-kart track and paintball field.

Enter 2009 BC Supreme Court Case 1385.

It is a fascinating read, but I will cut to the chase - the last line:

"The Act does not permit a parent or guardian to bind an infant to an agreement waiving the infant's right to bring an action in damages or tort"

Yep. You read it correctly. That waiver mommy or daddy signed is not worth the paper it is printed on. This includes the go-kart track, the paintball field, and ... paragliding.

Litigation lawyer is probably loading up the proverbial 'notice' shotgun with size 7 at this point.

'But' you say...
The parents are friends and they won't sue. Maybe the participant is your own child?
Say hello to the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, the mission statement of which includes:

Interested in going toe to toe with a Crown Corp?

Minor seriously injured as a result of flying - what are the odds of these folk getting involved?

Now add to the mix a notice from our National Association stating early last year that our insurance provider will not offer coverage where a waiver is invalid.

Mark K. is the NACs legal counsel.

The landowners require that we have coverage to protect their significant assets that we use as launches and LZs. This includes the Crown. Our land tenure agreements include language such as:

"You must:
(a) without limiting your obligations or liabilities under this Agreement, at your expense, purchase and maintain during the Term the following insurance with insurers licensed to do business in Canada:
(i) Commercial General Liability insurance [...] "

(it goes on to specify amounts and rules about presenting to the Crown upon demand proof of possession).

Comments in the quarterly newsletter from the NAC relay a similar concern regarding minors and landowner liability:

Minor in the air -> no valid waiver -> no valid insurance -> violated tenure -> lose site.

Under 19? They can wait until the law judges them mature enough to appreciate the contract/waiver which we (and our insurers, and thus the landowners/Crown) require them to sign. To do otherwise is jeopardizing the very existence of our sport.

For better or worse, it is the reality in which we live.

Now the global caveat: don't take any of this as gospel, consult a lawyer for I am not one. I simply want to make you think about the potential ramifications of having a minor participate in the sport in our current legal environment.