PDA

View Full Version : Martial Arts instructor has to pay student 155,000


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Joseph Madden
12-08-2007, 10:22 AM
For injuries received. Now, the martial art involved really isn't important.
My question to you is; Should any instructor ever be liable for an injury that occurs in the dojo? Apparently the injured party signed a waiver which the judge said was inadmissable. Also, the injured party stated he never involved himself in any competition for fear of injury, and merely wanted to enjoy the physical and spiritual aspects of the martial art. We've all been injured in some form or other. What are your feelings regarding this incident. Be aware that the injury occurred in Canada.

Dan Rubin
12-08-2007, 10:30 AM
What are your feelings regarding this incident.

Well, what was the incident?:straightf

Joseph Madden
12-08-2007, 10:47 AM
Apparently the injured party's knee required surgery. The instructor was demonstrating shoot-fighting on the plaintiff,although he is primarily a karate instructor. The defendant argued that the knee in question wasn't even involved in the pin used. It looks like he will have to close down his dojo as a result. Make sure you use BIG spelling in your waivers as the judge in the case said the writing was too small.

Joseph Madden
12-08-2007, 10:52 AM
www.karatebc.org/newsletter/eNews/kbcJuly_2006_web1.pdf
This is the link for the original incident. The damages were awarded today.

Rocky Izumi
12-08-2007, 10:58 AM
For injuries received. Now, the martial art involved really isn't important.
My question to you is; Should any instructor ever be liable for an injury that occurs in the dojo? Apparently the injured party signed a waiver which the judge said was inadmissable. Also, the injured party stated he never involved himself in any competition for fear of injury, and merely wanted to enjoy the physical and spiritual aspects of the martial art. We've all been injured in some form or other. What are your feelings regarding this incident. Be aware that the injury occurred in Canada.

Tort law in Canada suggests that due to part and partial liability principle, the instructor and any owners of the dojo (that includes anyone who helps pay for the dojo, but not members) are part and partially responsible for any injury that occurs in a dojo as part of the dojo activities. If one individual does not have the financial means to pay for the lawsuit, any other individuals who are part and partially responsible must pay that person's share.

Canadian case law also suggests that a waiver does not abrogate an individual's responsibility no matter what is written on the waiver. So a waiver saying that the individual signing the waiver is fully responsible for any injuries that occur due to the signing of the waiver does not necessarily get the instructor out of hot water. That said, not having a waiver is not an admission but almost close to an admission of liability. Thus, it is better to have a waiver than not have one. It is important to have the waiver written by a legal adviser. Many times, the waiver is ruled inadmissible due to technical errors like not having an independent witness, contradicting itself in the body of the text, and the individual who signs the waiver does not fully know what is involved in the activities so they may signed the waiver under false pretenses. That last point is what often invalidates a waiver. How can you say you take full responsibility for injuries occurring in an activity if you don't know what activities that entails. The instructor must take responsibility since the instructor should know what is involved and what possible repercussions those activities might have. Now, if an instructor warned the individual to not do an activity since it was dangerous, and the individual still did that activity and got hurt doing it, then the instructor is not at fault, unless the instructor was not watching, and should have been. Since the instructor is the instructor and the individual should have some reasonable expectation that the instructor would be watching in the dojo to ensure that the individual did not do something stupid, if someone does something stupid and the instructor did not try and stop them, then the instructor is liable for any injuries incurred.

So, the upshot of this is that I consider waivers rather useless. I also consider not having a waiver as stupid. Just make sure you never let anyone likely to blame the instructor for any injuries to stay in the dojo. At least this is what three semesters of tort law and the General Commercial Code has taught me.

Rock

mickeygelum
12-08-2007, 11:01 AM
Be aware that the injury occurred in Canada.
...there you have it. Your laws and legal opinions are different.

Here in the states, consensual participation in an action where prudent and reasonable individuals believe that there is an imminent risk of injury, by the nature of the action alone...the hold harmless waiver does carry standing. Only through malice or negligence will it lose standing.

Without the docket entry, or the narrative of the complaint...one would be lost to comment intelligently on the incident.

I have been in this position, I would recommend when there is an injury during training, document everything. It will provide you the ability to litigate, and build reputation.

Mickey

Rocky Izumi
12-08-2007, 11:47 PM
I would say that the laws and legal opinions don't differ that much in terms of the issue of what a waiver does cover. What is at odds is the interpretation of malice and negligence. The question is, was the instructor doing something which he was qualified to do and would be expected in a karate dojo?

Taking the case out of reality to a more clear hypothetical case, we can ask, if an Aikido instructor was teaching his or her students to catch bullets in their teeth as part of Ki development, if a student took a bullet to the back of their head, would the instructor be liable even if the students signed a waiver regarding the danger inherent in the practice of Aikido? Even if the waiver was considered good, the instructor would still be considered liable by any reasonable person, the yardstick by which common law (both USA and Canada) is often decided.

Okay, that was a little extreme. So let's say that the instructor was teaching a variation of Shihonage that was not part of the regular curriculum of the Shihan or their federation. Is the instructor liable if the student is injured by the Shiho Nage variant? By extrapolation of the reasonable man Ocham's razor, the instructor is liable since the Shiho Nage variant is not part of the normal curriculum.

Let's say that the instructor signed up the student saying that Aikido is very safe and there is hardly any chance of getting hurt real bad but the waiver is there just in case something does happen? If the student can show, after injury, that the instructor said that to other people by bringing in witnesses that will testify that the instructor says that Aikido is very safe or that the chances of being injured are very small, the instructor has already invalidated the waiver.

The case I wrote about above where the instructor was not watching to ensure that students were practicing safely, the instructor is again negligent since the instructor is reasonably expected to ensure the safety of participants. It would be no different than a sky diving instructor not watching carefully enough to notice that one of the students packed their chute incorrectly. Would an instructor who did not stop a couple newbies from practicing tachi-dori techniques with a shinken in the dojo during regular practice times be liable for injuries to one of the stupid students? Of course they would!

Does this mean that an instructor can stop all stupidities from happening on his or her mat? No. Are they still liable? Yes. That is what it means to be a Sensei and if you don't understand that the buck stops with you, then you shouldn't be a Sensei.

The only real safe zone is to have the trust of the students and for them to believe that you only have their best interests at heart. And, if you don't, you SHOULD BE sued!

Rock

Dan Rubin
12-09-2007, 12:48 AM
His student’s right knee was dislocated, and the instructor insists that it was purely coincidental that he was applying a hold to the student’s other knee at the time. And besides, he’s not liable because the student signed a waiver. Well, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

I don’t know what came next, but the instructor, who owns the dojo, should have taken care of his injured student, including doing his wash and mowing his lawn. And if the student insisted, the instructor should have reimbursed the student for any damages, which were probably a few thousand dollars. Instead, the student had to hire a lawyer and spend almost five years fighting with the instructor about this.

So now he’s paying for the injury and for the costs of his student’s lawsuit and for his own stubbornness.

Amir Krause
12-09-2007, 06:17 AM
M.A. are a dangerous practice, and some injuries are a real possibility if one practices seriously for a long duration (the same could be said about most sports).
A good instructor should do his best to try and reduce the probability of severe injuries. But, he can not prevent all.

Instructor mal-practice or negligence, is not a simple issue and could always be brought in front of some judge (and jury in the some places).

The problem is that some people are more likely to get injured due to health issues. Said people might not be aware of that situation.

Amir

charyuop
12-09-2007, 12:38 PM
I have talked about this subject with my wife (her being an ex MAist), about the chances of that happening to me. We both agree that if you go to a dojo, you are aware of possible injuries and accept them. Personally I would never sue my Sensei or my Senpai for an injury occured while training.
True tho that there are teachers who enjoy in showing their abilities and give eccessive show of thei skills and thus cross certain limits...

MikeE
12-09-2007, 07:55 PM
Since this rolls in the civil circles in the U.S.:

Rocky is right. Common sense is paramount. The waiver saved my butt twice.

Aran Bright
12-10-2007, 06:38 AM
The article also says he didn't have appropriate insurance, now that's just nasty.

jonreading
12-10-2007, 12:21 PM
I'll wait until one of our lawyers users posts this bad boy. Martial arts instructors are responsibible for the activities of their students. Waivers are procedural tools to reduce exposure to lawsuits; insurance is used to absorb costs related to lawsuits.

Rocky said some great advice. Instructors are always at risk for lawsuits, frivolous or not, from students injured during training. The attitude of, "this isn't my responsibility," is nieve at best.

Think this is outrageous? Wait until students start suing instructors over injuries they received training with others, even if the class instructor is not involved in the incident...

Taliesin
12-11-2007, 08:52 AM
Going way back to my Tort Law (way, way back, so please forgive me) -There are two issues

Was the instructor Negligent ie

was there

1. A Duty of Care?
2. A Breach of that Duty?
3. Harm Suffered as a result of that breach of duty?

Secondly we come to the 'manly pursuits' or 'violently non fit injurer', which waivers attempt to bring the injured person within (the rough or working translation of violenty non fit injurer - the risk of harm to which one has consented).

I would start with the assertion that there was a duty of care, the next thing is was there a breach of that duty - now that is when all the issues kick in.

Which leads to the questions - what sort of harm did the injured party believe he was at risk of suffering? were all reasonable steps taken to prevent them?

It seems in this case the conclusion was that the Judge/Jury took the view that the instructor did breach his duty of care, by not taking sufficient reasonable steps to avoid injuring the student.

Which leads to two conclusions - the fact that someone acknowledges a risk does not mean the instructor is relieved of the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid injury. It also means that the injured party cannot claim there were unaware of the risk (although the nature of the wavier and the specific risks mentioned will decided how properly informed he was).

So if we use Rocky example of a Shioh Nage variant - Did the instructor go through it step by step - demonstrate the ukeme - emphaise the steps to prevent injury and do everything he could reasonabley be expected to do to prevent injuries - if yes then the waiver is fair and the instructor should not be liable.

If on the other hand this variation is an applied Shioh Nage upon brand new white belts and he/shejust tells them to get on then the Waiver is no protection whatsoever.

So the probelms seem to arise when instrutors believe that a Waiver is a complete shield rather than an acknowledgement that some risk is unavoidable.

It's all really a queation of fact

Rocky Izumi
12-11-2007, 12:40 PM
So if we use Rocky example of a Shioh Nage variant - Did the instructor go through it step by step - demonstrate the ukeme - emphaise the steps to prevent injury and do everything he could reasonabley be expected to do to prevent injuries - if yes then the waiver is fair and the instructor should not be liable.

Dave, I would like your opinion on this argument. Beyond the issue of Duty of care, in the case of the Shiho Nage variant which the instructor was not certified to teach, in other words, this variant is not a standard part of the curriculum of the Ryu or Federation, the instructor had gone to instruct beyond what he was certified to instruct. In other words, the ranking the instructor received is akin to a license to instruct certain forms or techniques. If the instructor teaches things outside that curriculum, then, even if the instructor did show duty of care, the instructor is not certified to give instruction in that technique so duty of care is not an issue, the instructor is liable.

This would be the same as a person who is not certified to perform CPR giving CPR and breaking someone's ribs. In some jurisdictions there is no "good samaritan" law so that person giving CPR could be liable for damages.

Here in Saskatchewan, it is illegal for persons not certified in using the portable defibrillators to use one even though they are almost idiot proof. Using one without certification can result in criminal assault charges being laid. First aid or medical training still does not allow an individual to use the portable defibrillators. This is stressed in our first aid training courses here. As first aid givers, we must also ask the injured person for permission to give assistance. If refused, we must back off. If the person is unconscious, we must only give what assistance we are trained to do. Going beyond may result in charges being laid or lawsuit. Admittedly, I need to be recertified again but this was the case six-seven years ago. Things may have changed in the meanwhile.

Rock

Taliesin
12-11-2007, 01:34 PM
Rocky

Tort law is a little bit outside my area - although I did have to study it (or more accurately attend classes) as part of my degree.

My starting point is that it is a question of fact. The second point is that this debate is based on the somewhat large assumption that the action is likely to be in the tort of negligence

The big issue you seem to be looking at is 'certified qualification to teach' subject X, Y, or Z and how that would fit in to actions in the tort of negligence.

BTW - as far as the tort of negligence is concerned - duty of carre is ALWAYS an issue

The question you seem to be asking is whether teaching a non-syllabus technique automatically a BREACH of that duty of Care. (assuming this is purely a matter of negligence and not another matter such as 'breach of instructor's licence').

On that issue I have more questions than answers.

Firstly - how broadly or narrowly is the licence drawn.

Is it to 'teach Aikido safely'?
Is it to specifically teach X, Y or Z?

Let's assume it is to teach A, B & C and the instructor taught 'D' - both case law and statute can put forward the assertion that teaching subjects outside the parameters of the licence is automatically a breach of a duty of care. (again I don't know whether there is any law either Federal or Provincial, Statute or Case Law to say so but there may be).

You would then still need to move onto the question as to whether the breach caused the harm. - Again a question of fact - although in the scenario we have - there must be a very large presumption in favour of this. (after it it may be the injury was pre-exisitng that happened to manifest duing the 'forbidden' technique rather than being caused by it).

Last we come to the compensation issue - which if I remember rightly is calculated in 'General' and 'Special Damages'. One of these (i think Special) is the quantifiable losses suffered - ie the guy lost X days work and x days pay etc, legal costs, the second is (I think general) what is the financial 'value' of the injury in and of itself is - on the basis that a lost finger is 'worth' say $1,000.

So before we can comment on the effect of the liscence on the proceedings we have to discover whether there is any specific offence in relation to compensation for breach of license.

Secondly is there any law that tells you how breach of the license is viewed in actions for negligence - it it automatically regarded as a breach of duty? is it automatically deemed to be the cause of the injury? or is it merely one of the facts to be taken into account?

I suspect it would be regardeded as one of the facts to be taken inot account - after all in cases of a Road Traffic Accident - the driver has a liscence(we hope) but breached the conditions of that liscence in driving above the speed limit (say 65 miles an hour instead of 60) - are they automatically liable becasue they were speeding or is it a fact to be considered?. I would expect it to be a fact that is considered givne that the questions would be - a) did he stop in time? and if he was driving within the speed limit could he have stopped in time?

That's why there is a third question of whether the breach caused the harm. And why it' so important

Sorry to give you a reply instead of an answer - but that's the best i can come up with given how rusty i am on this point.

So my guess, and it is a guess - is that the breach of the liscence would be a fact to be taken into account by the Court rather than the be-all and end all of the matter.

Rocky Izumi
12-11-2007, 06:27 PM
All right. Calling all aikidoists who are tort lawyers. Dave and I are discussing this based on our limited tort knowledge both from a limited number of tort classes for our degrees. We need a tort lawyer here, please!

I think you gave a really good answer Dave. You sound like my old law professor. He never gave straight answers and he pointed out that straight answers were not good things in court. :)

I guess this is where CoQB may differ from your situation (I don't know what state you are from.) I think the breach of license issue would be of great concern here in Saskatchewan given the provincial legislation on a number of licensing and qualification issues like the defibrillator issue I mentioned and the first aide issue as well. These are considered more than summary conviction offenses but are not indictable offenses. One of those funny areas of Canadian law due to separation between provincial and federal jurisdictions. In other words, it is not criminal negligence but it is a crime but not indictable. For it to be criminal negligence, it would be a federal offense and indictable. But since it is not a federal law or federal licensing but a sports licensing which is under provincial jurisdiction, it cannot be a criminal offense which is under federal jurisdiction. Most licensing issues are provincial in nature. Thus breach of license is a criminal act but not indictable as a criminal offense.

I think the same holds true in Manitoba and much of the Maritimes. I am not sure for Alberta, B.C., Ontario, and Quebec where I have not had to deal with policing issues.

Rock

Rocky Izumi
12-12-2007, 02:53 AM
All right. Calling all aikidoists who are tort lawyers. Dave and I are discussing this based on our limited tort knowledge both from a limited number of tort classes for our degrees. We need a tort lawyer here, please!

I guess this is where CoQB may differ from your situation (I don't know what state you are from.) I think the breach of license issue would be of great concern here in Saskatchewan given the provincial legislation on a number of licensing and qualification issues like the defibrillator issue I mentioned and the first aide issue as well. These are considered more than summary conviction offenses but are not indictable offenses. One of those funny areas of Canadian law due to separation between provincial and federal jurisdictions. In other words, it is not criminal negligence but it is a crime but not indictable. For it to be criminal negligence, it would be a federal offense and indictable. But since it is not a federal law or federal licensing but a sports licensing which is under provincial jurisdiction, it cannot be a criminal offense which is under federal jurisdiction. Most licensing issues are provincial in nature. Thus breach of license is a criminal act but not indictable as a criminal offense.

Rock

I must have been brain-dead when I wrote this one. :crazy: Wish I could erase that posting.

Since the "certification" is not a government certification, provincial law has no standing on this issue. Guess the "licensing" of the instructor is more akin to a "professional certification," I would guess it is up to the federation or Shidoin to make an administrative decision if the instructor is not following guidelines. If the instructor does not abide by the administrative decision or if the Shidoin does not keep a close eye on the instructor, it COULD be a negligence issue due to breach of duty of care.

In this province, if an administrative decision by a professional body is not followed by a professional certified or licensed by the body, the professional body has to go to the civil courts to have the administrative decision enforced unless the professional accepts the decision of the professional body (been there, done that). The only alternative of the professional body is to kick the individual out of the professional body and restrict them from using any mention regarding certification, licensing, or approval of the professional body in marketing themselves (been there, done that).

I am NOT sure whether the professional body can also go to the courts to have the individual kicked out of the professional body from practicing that profession in the province without having recognition by the province as a professional body with responsibility for licensing or certification of professionals. I don't think the issue of martial arts instructors has ever been tested in the courts here. Usually those martial artists kicked out of a federation simply created their own organization and continued to do what they liked to do (seen this one a lot).

I do know that the prior federal government had been trying to get all sports organizations that got money from any government to require all coaches or instructors to pass level one coaching certification (big issue in Kendo we avoided by not accepting any government money even when it was offered). Walter - you could comment on that with more knowledge about the topic.

While the case of harm to the student due to actions by the instructor is interesting, I find the more interesting issue is how liable is the Shidoin if the instructor was negligent when teaching something outside the normal curriculum since the "license" or "certification" is something that is often not written down in specifics.

Maybe I should be carrying more professional liability insurance?

Again, HELP! There has got to be a tort lawyer practicing Aikido out there somewhere!

Rock

Walter Martindale
12-12-2007, 03:43 AM
(snip)

I do know that the prior federal government had been trying to get all sports organizations that got money from any government to require all coaches or instructors to pass level one coaching certification (big issue in Kendo we avoided by not accepting any government money even when it was offered). Walter - you could comment on that with more knowledge about the topic.

(snip)

Rock

Hi Rock,
The tort lawyers will probably want you to pay them for their advice.
;)
The Coaching Association of Canada (CAC) and the National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) really only affect those sports that want to have it affect them, or who want to have government funding for their national team coaches. For example - my "Level 4" coaching certificate in rowing would permit Rowing Canada (were I employed or coaching on contract there) to apply for my salary and expenses to be paid by financial support from the Canadian sport arm of the gov't "Sport Canada" or from the Canadian Olympic Committee/Association. A Level 3 certified coach employed coaching a national team would have to be paid out of funds derived otherwise.

Now, the organisation that started out as the "Canadian Assoc. of National Coaches" (a very small group) became the "Canadian Professional Coaches Association" (bigger) and is now "Coaches of Canada" (bigger still) have developed a qualification/license titled "Chartered Professional Coach (ChPC)" (I'm one), and Sport Canada and the COA require that any coach named to the Olympic team(s) be "Chartered Members" (i.e., ChPC) - as in - recognized professionals in coaching - similar to but in no way paid as well as LLB or DDS - not in rowing, anyway. Requirements for ChPC include things like a degree or post-graduate degree in sports sciences or coaching science, several years of full time professional coaching experience, Level 4 coaching certification under the "old NCCP system" or "High Performance Coach" (or whatever it's now called) qualification in "new NCCP" - I'm in New Zealand now, and I haven't re-read the material on the "new NCCP" stuff recently.

If you're receiving funding from Sport Canada, and if you're in the sports covered by the Paralympics, Special Olympics, Olympics, Pan-American Games, Commonwealth Games, Universiade, Canada Games, Northern Games, Western Canada Games and possibly some others, you have to have a coaching certification/development program, and the development of that programme is funded by the Coaching Assoc. of Canada (federal funds). There's also a responsibility to have a code of conduct, train coaches in "making ethical decisions", and so on, and so on. Sports where there is any risk of injury (breaking a fingernail, getting blisters from oar-handles, or falling out of a coach boat and being run over by the propeller, for example) or death have to have insurance and are urged to a) have a waiver, b) ensure it's well prepared, c) ensure that the waiver is properly executed (informed, witnessed, etc.,), d) ensure that the waiver is kept secure in case it's needed in the future, and e) ensure that the coach they've hired has some qualifications. The Centre for Sport and Law
http://www.sportlaw.ca/
used to publish a pamphlet entitled "Waivers and other agreements" or something very similar - it may still be available but I didn't see it in a quick look at the web site.

The system in Canada has changed since Rock (and I, I suppose) started up the Regina Aikido Dojo in 1995 - Rocky did most of the work - OK, Rocky did almost all of the work - and a "level 1" can no longer be obtained. Now it's called something like "Fundamentals of Coaching part A (and B)" or something like that, but it contains most of the same stuff - role of the coach, ethical decision making procedures, safety, how to coach, sensitivity to the developmental age of the athlete being coached, and stuff like that.

Not sure if that answered your question, Rock, but it sure got long :D . However, if the karate instructor hadn't properly advised the fellow he was using as a demo model on how to protect himself, or if the demo-model person wasn't skilled enough and consented only because the instructor was the instructor and the guy didn't know what he was getting into, then the instructor may be considered a bit of a meathead, and should probably be held liable. Yes, taking part in a martial arts training programme involves taking on a modicum of risk, but that risk should not include stupidity or brutality from an instructor. (my opinion, anyway)

Better go - it's late, and I'm coaching at 5:30 AM...
(it's 22:40 right now)
Walter Martindale

Taliesin
12-12-2007, 04:55 AM
Rocky

I've covered the issue of negligence and breach of licence as best I could. On the criminal side there may very well be a seperate penalty imposed that is one of the facts taken into account in the Negligence matter. (For example the speeding motorist I suggsted earlier - could be prosecuted for the speeding, but that does not automatically mean he would be found liable for the injury)

With regard to liability - my guess is that the student had a contract with the Dojo - so it is those persons who have responsibility for the Dojo would be liable. - the old examples I had was of a bus driver - if a driver is doining his job albeit negligently and you are injured because of it - then you sue the bus company. However there is the possibility of a 'Romford v Lister Ice' - whereby the employer then sues the employee.

Joseph Madden
12-12-2007, 12:43 PM
http://www.curie.org/extdoc/rmnl200612.pdf
Here's the above case in greater detail. It mentions the importance
of waivers specifically.

Will Prusner
12-13-2007, 11:35 AM
Please forgive my possible ignorance, but don't they have free universal health care in Canada? What's all this about insurance?

Joseph Madden
12-13-2007, 11:43 AM
We do have universal health care in Canada William, but it will only cover medical costs to a specific level. Additional supportive care is often the responsibility of the injured person themselves (knee braces, pain medication etc.) Also, it just makes sense for martial art instructors to carry a certain amount of insurance to protect them in case of "accidents".Otherwise their on the hook to take care of their students.

Will Prusner
12-13-2007, 11:51 AM
aha! Thanks for the clarification on that, Joseph.

Walter Martindale
12-16-2007, 01:11 PM
Please forgive my possible ignorance, but don't they have free universal health care in Canada? What's all this about insurance?

To expand on the "universal" health care in Canada. Each province does it differently, too - after all, there is a cost that has to be paid. The government of each province sets a fee structure for payment of medical procedures. These fees are paid from government coffers, which are filled from a combination of taxes on wages, general revenue, and in some, provincial health care insurance plans - (in Alberta you pay $132 every 3 months as an adult, and then go for GP and general hospital services as needed - but the ambulance to get to the hospital is extra.) Depending, again, on the province, you get a set number of physio, chiropractic, massage treatments on the government, and then you start paying from your pocket. Dentists and optometrists are not generally covered, and you need employee health benefits or "blue cross" for example, as additional insurance...

Here in NZ it's A and E - accident and emergency - is covered by the government - but doctors charge you directly for things like check-ups and so on.
HTH
W

philipsmith
12-17-2007, 05:58 AM
Just came accross this thread.

Couple of examples from the UK
a Judo instructor was successfully sued many years ago for allowing a student to practice a technique which was considered too advanced for his level of experience (and grade) which resulted in injury as it was ruled that the instructor had failed in his duty of care.
Conversely I have direct personal experience of two cases where claims for quite serious injuries incurred during Aikido training have been dismissed because the training partners were of a similar standard and were being supervised appropriately.
In fact in one case the judge summed up by stating that practitioners must accept a level of risk whilst training, and that accidents were inevitable.

I guess the message is if you supervise/teach correctly you shouldn't have a problem.

Cypher
12-29-2007, 04:52 PM
For injuries received. Now, the martial art involved really isn't important.
My question to you is; Should any instructor ever be liable for an injury that occurs in the dojo? Apparently the injured party signed a waiver which the judge said was inadmissable. Also, the injured party stated he never involved himself in any competition for fear of injury, and merely wanted to enjoy the physical and spiritual aspects of the martial art. We've all been injured in some form or other. What are your feelings regarding this incident. Be aware that the injury occurred in Canada.

First off, who would enter a dojo and never have the thought of "Hey, I might get my neck broken" cross their mind?, Which mean that you thought about it and you knew the risk. Also if you sign a waiver, that means you are liable for any injuries to your-self I broke my arm and dislocated my shoulder without signing any waiver, my sensei and I had a verbal agreement that if I began taking Aikido that i was going to get hurt.......

Tony,

Taliesin
12-31-2007, 07:28 AM
Tony - may I suggest you read some of the posts above becasue the question is not simply about risk and acceptance or not - it is about the level of risk, and to what extent there should be liability for the instructor.

BTW - you cannopt truly accept a risk you do not understand.

crbateman
12-31-2007, 09:51 AM
It's also about law, about interpretation of law, and about what can happen when the letter of a law obscures the spirit of a law.

Cypher
12-31-2007, 11:22 PM
I am just replying to Joseph's post, no one else. But I am sorry if I interupted anyone else's discussion.

Tony,