Quick answer: Yes, liability waivers are enforceable in Connecticut unless they violate public policy. “Public policy” is a broad term that incorporates many factors. Liability waivers are certainly not airtight, but depending on the circumstances they may be upheld.

A Closer Look

Everybody is responsible for the damages that their negligent actions may cause in the course of living in society.

But one can waive the right to sue a person with a liability waiver.

A liability waiver is a contract between two parties in which both parties agree that one will not sue the other in case of an accidental inury, property damage, or anything else the parties specifically agree on. One party “waives” the right to sue the other in the event of an accident caused by the other party.

Whenever you go to a ski resort, a trampoline park, a climbing wall, or whenever you sign up for a gym, the operators usually have you sign a liability waiver. The waiver basically says “if you fall and get hurt, you will not sue the gym.”

The waivers are also like 5 pages long and in fine print. As a side note – I went to a ski resort in Connecticut last year and was handed a waiver. For the first time in my life I actually sat down and read the whole thing while the staff and the counter people all rolled their eyes and scoffed at me for doing so. My point is – NEVER sign anything without reading it. Who cares if the staff gets mad that you’re taking your time reading a legal contract.

Enforceability of Liability Waivers

The good news is that Connecticut Courts do not love liability waivers. In fact, it has been repeated time and again in Connecticut caselaw: “The law does not favor contract provisions which relieve a person from his own negligence …” Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC (2006), Roman v. Bristol (2007),Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp.(2005), etc.

Courts don’t want us living in a society where people are able to freely and easily waive liability for everything they may do in advance. That’s why liability waivers kind of get the side eye from judges. So in order to ensure that people are well informed and that the decision to waive liability is thoroughly considered, CT law requires that waivers be unequivocally “clear,” “understandable,” and “unambiguous.” This seems like an intuitive concept but Connecticut caselaw has shown that even some waivers that may seem clear and unambiguous at first glance, were actually more confusing upon closer inspection.

But even a clear and understandable liability waiver may be unenforceable if it violates “public policy”. “Public policy” is a term to describe the effects that the contract has on the public at large if it were enforced. If a contract is against public policy it means that the public would suffer if we allowed contracts like the one in question to be enforced.

For example, criminal contracts are against public policy. Having a contract to murder someone would violate public policy and be unenforceable. It violates public policy because if we allowed and enforced those contracts then society at large would suffer.

In Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp. (2005), the court discussed several factors (called the “Tunkl” factors) that are used to decide whether a liability waiver violates public policy. The court also said that the factors only guide their determination but ultimately courts will look at the “totality of the circumstances.” Stating that: “noo definition of the concept of public interest can be contained within the four corners of a formula…” and “the ultimate determination of what constitutes the public interest must be made considering the totality of the circumstances of any given case against the backdrop of current societal expectations.”

The bottom line –> Courts rely on the “totality of the circumstances” guided by the “Tunkl” factors to determine if a waiver violated public policy and is thus unenforceable.

For your reference, here are the 6 “Tunkl” factors adopted from the California case Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California:

[1] [The agreement] concerns a business of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation. [2] The party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity for some members of the public. [3] The party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member of the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established standards. [4] As a result of the essential nature of the service, in the economic setting of the transaction, the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services. [5] In exercising a superior bargaining power the party confronts the public with a standardized adhesion contract of exculpation, and makes no provision whereby a purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against negligence. [6] Finally, as a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller or his agents

Practical v. Legal Considerations

There is a practical aspect of law which doesn’t rely on law at all and relies moreso on strategy, bargaining, and deal making.

Practically speaking, if you signed a waiver at a gym but then the gym exploded because of a broken gas line and you broke your legs as a result… The gym’s premise liability insurance may want to settle with you, even though you signed a waiver. They’d have a lot of incentive to do so. The gym’s insurance might want to pay you $20k as a settlent rather than risk going to trial and risk having a court find that the waiver was against public policy, invalid, and order a judgment of $200k. So practically speaking, depending on the facts, circumstances, and egregiousness of the case… the legality of your waiver might not ever even come into question.