Sulejmanagic’s parents sued the
YMCA and the instructor for
the wrongful death of their son.
In the end, the California appel-
late court determined that the
waiver was sufficient to protect
the YMCA and the instructor
from being held responsible for
their negligence.
Though the instructor was
clearly negligent, the waiver
stood up against a wrongful
death lawsuit brought on his
behalf because he signed the
waiver when he joined the cer-
tification course:
“Here, Ken certainly had the
option of not taking the class.
There is no practical necessity
that he do so. In view of the dangerous nature of this particular activity defendants could reasonably re-
quire the execution of the release as a condition of enrolment. Ken entered into a private and voluntary
transaction in which, in exchange for enrolment in a class which he desired to take, he freely agreed to
waive any claim against the defendants for a negligent act by them.”
However, as we see in the case of Diodato v. Islamorada Asset Management, Inc., the wording of the
waiver can have bearing.
When Aviva Diodata arrived to participate in a recreational dive in Monroe County, Florida, she was
already late, so the instructors let her board without signing the required waiver.
At an early point in the dive, she was separated from the boat and not found until it was too late.
Aviva’s husband brought a wrongful death suit, and the dive company argued that waivers she had
signed with them on previous dives should also cover this particular dive. This held up in a summary
judgment but was reversed by Third District Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals found the language addressing the scope of the releases she had signed at earlier
dive events ambiguous. In addition, the earlier dives she had participated in were of a different nature
than the fatal deep-water dive.
In the end, the waivers were not upheld.
Reprinted with Permission
from Enjuris