Should wedding guests have to sign a waiver?
By Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz
Question: My fiancé’s wealthy aunt and uncle agreed to let us use their beautiful lake-view home for our wedding, and we’ve sent out the invitations. But now they’re insisting that each guest sign a form releasing them from any liability in the event of an accident. I’m appalled. Are they being unreasonable, or am I just naive?
Answer: You’re naïve only if you imagine that liability isn’t an issue here, because it is. Too bad no one thought of it before the invitations went out. We’d place most of the blame for that on your fiancé’s aunt and uncle, as presumably they’re worldlier, as well as wealthier, than you. But we can’t blame them for getting nervous, especially if you’re planning to serve alcohol.
So where do you go from here? These folks are sure to have homeowners’ insurance, and it almost certainly covers personal liability. If they don’t realize this, a call to their insurance agent may put their minds at ease.
If it doesn’t, talk to your insurance agent about “special events coverage.” A one day policy will insure your fiancé’s aunt and uncle against any liability arising from your wedding and will cost you a lot less than a ballroom or banquet hall.
If neither of these approaches satisfies them, then we’d agree: Your fiancé’s relatives are being unreasonable. It’s one thing to be more-than-a-little late in raising the liability issue. But once the invitations go out, it’s wrong to insist that your guests sign the kind of legal document they might expect to be handed were they signing up for skydiving lessons, not attending a wedding.
Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.
Chris, you are so right. For some reason, these clearly-fabricated "Guess what someone sued for!" stories are popular right now. The reality is, anyone can FILE a lawsuit about anything, at any time– but as you pointed out, the ridiculous suits get thrown out of court immediately. As entertaining as these stories are (like L. Houston's story about the burglar and the nail gun), they are virtually all fabricated. They are urban legends that get told over and over, and people who don't have any experience with the legal system end up believing them.
I would have to seriously disagree with you. If I owned a home and made the mistake of lending it out to a wedding party, why should I be penalized for forgetting to protect myself from liability? Why should I lose my home to some litigious gold-digging wedding guest because I'm too polite to ask everyone to sign waivers?
Honestly, I would just change the venue and send out new invitations. It would cost me more, but it would send a clear message to the fam. They should have brought this up when making the offer to let you use their home. They are being unreasonable and rude. Screw them.
Sounds like L. Houston along with his buddy Tom from New Jersey are tort deform insurance executives. These guys love spreading unbelievable, wild stories about phony lawsuits to get people upset at attorneys and our civil justice system. Propaganda 101. Does anyone with a shred of common sense believe that a judge would allow a lawsuit by a burgler to go forward and not get thrown out of court under the circumstances described by L. Houston? Are we really that dumb to believe that kind of phony, make believe story? If we are, then we have much more to worry about than signing liability waivers for a wedding. Wake up, everyone. Giant corporations almost ruined our economic system. Don't let them take your civil rights away from all of us by dissemninating false and outrageous stories about the supposed compensation people get for doing something illegal or just down right dumb. If it sounds like a fabricated story, it normally is. Let's all use some common sense.
If the Aunt and Uncle want strings attached to their offer, they need to make that known at the time of the offer, and not after an agreement has been reached. They're in the wrong.
Unfortunately for you, in the interest of family harmony (and the fact that it is their place) you're going to need to suck it up and get the guests to sign. Send them a note in advance and give them a heads-up. People will understand.
First year torts law says unless you are paying them (i.e. caterers) you only owe them a duty of telling them about known dangers; you don't have to inspect your entire premises for unknown dangers like rotten trees or uneven pathways. So if you know of a lifted sidewalk or potential ice, all you have to do is tell them and you're off the hook.
I suggest since you are saving so much money by not having to rent a venue, just pony up the money to buy a one day event policy. I'm sure the money your guests give to you for presents will more than cover whatever the policy costs.
I am not – as my comment will reveal – an attorney. Hence, I ask, does such a liability waiver actually waive any rights at all?
If so, is negligence on the part of the homeowner given a free pass if I attend this wedding party and "waive," my rights? Suppose I fall down a flight of stairs with rotten wood risers, as a contrived example?
I am trying to determine what the net affect of signing such a document would really be – said another way, exactly WHAT protection would such a hassle afford the "wealthy," family?
Special events coverage might set aside some fears – but in reality, these people are simply balking at having a collection of inebriated guests on their property.
Skip the booze; better yet, find another venue for the reception.
Depending on the number of attendees, the event policy is not very expensive and IS available. Google "wedding insurance" for vendor in CA.
I think that the Aunt and Uncle are perfectly within their realm to request that your guests sign a liability waiver – after all, isn't the reason that you asked to use their lake house so you wouldn't have to pay a fee for a banquet facility? Well, banquet facilities are insured. If you were in the position of owning a beautiful lake front home and a relative wanted to use your home, wouldn't you want the same comfort knowing that you will be protected from someone who acts like a moron at your wedding by drinking too much and then getting behind the wheel? Anything can happen, and there are many stories of weddings ending in disaster because someone was thoughtless. I think you need to get over the fact that you're appalled and act like a responsible adult.
I have weekend parties a few times a year, and I ALWAYS have guests sign a waiver of liability, and I let them know what kind of behaviour is expected. I love my friends, and will do what's necessary to make the home as comfortable and issue-free as possible, but you never know when things might happen, and as the organizer, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
I agree with NJTom. I have a friend who was sued by a burglar who broke into his business building and got himself shot by a nail gun. The burglar won.
Wedding preparations bring out the best in everybody. We had ours at a facility on the beach fairly close to a beach house owned by relatives. We didn’t even ask to use it because of reasons like this, though a few years later we learned that they were a little offended that we didn’t ask. You really can’t win. Back on topic though, another issue we wanted to avoid was who was in charge and responsible for making things happen — we figured everybody would have a better time if it was clear who was in charge, and we didn’t [want to] put the stress on family members to have to pull things together. Thinking back though, had we had our wedding and reception at the house, and we were asked to have folks to sign a waiver, I would not have had a problem sending our guests, just under 100 of them, a letter. It would have said that the house had generously been offered, it is beautiful and we look forward to it, but we want to impose as little as possible, and one thing we know we can do is to take away any liability concerns by having everybody sign the enclosed waiver. Now, the reason I would have been comfortable doing this is because we knew everybody really well. If you are having a huge wedding with a bunch of young folks bringing random plus ones, that waiver is sounding like a decent idea. Think about it from your guest’s perspective, why would they care? They will have a pretty good idea it wasn’t your idea, and it will probably be obvious what happened, and they will know it put you in an awkward position. If they want to think the uncle is overly risk adverse, paranoid, or a fuddy duddy, who cares! They won’t care if your names are printed slightly off center on the personalized water bottles either. Anybody that wouldn’t just roll with it and sign it probably doesn’t belong at your wedding.
Only in the U.S. could people be afraid to have guests into their home out of fear that some dirtbag lawyer will rape them over a sprained ankle.
It's not that hard to find an underwriter to accept this type of policy – you just have to realize that it's not free and be ready to pay what is necessary.
Do the aunt and uncle require insurance waivers every time they have a party, or is this just an assumption based on the fact that the guests are going to be "young and rowdy"?
The "special events coverage" mentioned in the article does exist. However, getting the underwriter to acctually accept it in todays economy is rare. I wish you good luck and many yaers of happiness.
Money Magazine's ethicists, Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D., and Leonard Schwarz, are the authors of "Isn't It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?" (Free Press, 2008).
Why don't you guys sign an agreement with your aunt and uncle for renting out their place for the wedding day and assuming all the liability for any accidents that happen on that day? It is perfectly normal in any rental agreements for a lot of event hosting halls. You can put in a nominal rent of, say, $100 for the event.