[Tweeters] Negligence Waiver
vickibiltz at gmail.com
Sun Mar 3 04:14:30 PST 2019
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Experienced guides know that a client
could try to sue you because a terrible storm came up the days you were
scheduled to spend time at the Strait of Gibraltar. There is always legal
recourse if there is a truly negligent case that caused you harm. The guide
being looked at is a one day trip to see rare Hawaiian birds in a very
delicate habitat, and integrity of the birder should be at its very best.
We had several guides to special locations both inCosta Rica, who were part
of the preservation caretakers, and only they can take you certain places.
They are there to protect the wildlife from us. Which should be required
due to so many birders breaking rules and not following the birding ethics
Same for Israel, they are part of the parks and preservation program,
they require the same.
I would think a birder should look at the whys of this waiver. We just
ran across unhappy birders in a group who were unable to bird the Strait,
due to terrible storms preventing the migration to move forward at that
time. The guides are doing what is best for their birds and that should
take presidents over our desires.
There are many birders of integrity in the world, but just as many are
These guides do have insurance and they do take injuries and neglect
seriously, and they do take care of you, but I’ve heard many stories over
the years if birders whose demands were not met, even if it was
unavoidable, and try to sue the guide for just that.
I’ll leave this topic now, as I’ve said my peace, as politely as I can.
I hope all professional guides are smart enough to have this waiver
Currently on train from Seville to Madrid, where my plane awaits.
PO Box 7241 Bonney Lake, WA 98391
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 9:43 PM Daniel R Froehlich <danielfroehlich at gmail.com>
> I'm a tour guide and run into waivers like that at some private
> campgrounds and other service providers.
> I think that waivers that demand indemnification against NEGLIGENCE are
> appalling and a disgusting ploy devised by some self-important, twisted
> lawyers reveling in the sense of power they get from generating Orwellian
> They can't be legally binding--if not, liability insurance would not be a
> viable business. Any judges out there disagree?
> Their purpose is to intimidate clients who turn into victims.
> I take them as a clear sign of terrible judgment on the part of the
> service provider. I always take my business elsewhere if possible, telling
> them their waiver leaves the safety of their services in grave doubt.
> But I'm interested in hearing if any birding lawyers defend the practice.
> Dan Froehlich
> Poulsbo, WA
> Go eBird <https://ebird.org/profile/MzAyNDkz>ing!
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
vickibiltz at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tweeters