Personal responsibility is the mantra that the business community chants when confronted with legal action taken when their employees or safety practices fall below what is generally accepted and result in serious injury to an individual or their children. The worst example of trying to avoid responsibility for their actions is by requiring users of particular services to sign waivers or releases of potential liablility for whatever harm results. Assumption of the risk is the basis for insisting that adults and even children sign away whatever rights they might have based upon latent or hidden dangers not assumed by anyone that result often in catestrophic injuries.
 
Certain risks are assumed by individuals who want to engage in various types of activities: river rafting, snow or water skiing, surfing, bungee jumping, etc. These activities all involve obvious risks of potential injury no matter how safe you might try to be. However, there are a number of other activities that hide behind the legal doctrine of assumption of the risk to ignore taking reasonable precautions to avoid users from becoming exposed to serious injury. One of the worst examples are the trampoline parks, which advertise that their patented interconnected design is safer than conventional trampolines. However, the risks of doing forward and backward flips have been warned against by the Federal Safety Commission and the Insurance Industry for over thirty years. These types of companies that have their employees demonstrating and encouraging their customers to engage in these manuevers, no matter how well trained they might be, can lead to horrible spinal cord injuries leaving the person paralyzed with a broken neck. This type of
 
Gross negligence is not protected by any release or waiver. However, the public acceptance and willingness to sign away potential protections provided by California Law does erode the obligation of companies engaged in these type of services from trying to provide as much safety and well trained employees as possible. This would significantly minimize these inherenent risks recognized assciated with these types of activities. The lapses in safety often compound these risks increasing their probabilility of occurring. No parent should have to worry that their child will be subjected to serious harm because the company providing the activity they want to engage in just didn’t care about overall safety.
 
I have been fighting against this type of indifference for many years. I have represented clients who have suffer serious injuries including partial and complete quadriplegia. The defendants try to avoid their responsibilty by presenting the release signed by the injured party warning them of the harm they might be exposed to. It’s clear that if anyone really thought that terrible injuries or death probably would result they wouldn’t engage in the activity. If you have experienced serious harm from this type of circumstance please contact Gary Sernaker to discuss your rights and options.