Free New York Liability Waiver Form

New York is the state where a well-drafted liability waiver most often does nothing at all, and the reason is a single statute. General Obligations Law section 5-326 voids negligence releases used by fee-charging pools, gyms and places of amusement or recreation, which describes most of the businesses that ask customers to sign waivers. Outside that statute New York's courts enforce releases, but only when the language is plain and precise. This page explains how the statute and the common law fit together, the instructional-versus-recreational line the courts draw, what a parent's signature does and does not do, gross negligence, New York's own electronic signature law, and how a New York business should use the downloadable form. Sources are linked at the bottom.

This is general information, not legal advice. Have a New York attorney review your form before you use it.

How New York treats liability waivers

Start with the common law, because it still governs businesses the statute does not reach. In Gross v. Sweet a parachuting student signed a release before his first jump and was injured on landing. The Court of Appeals held the release did not bar his negligence suit: the law frowns on agreements that exempt a party from its own negligence, they receive close judicial scrutiny, and they are enforced only when it appears plainly and precisely that the limitation of liability extends to negligence or fault. The word negligence is not mandatory, but words of similar import are, and a release will not be stretched beyond its precise words. In Alexander v. Kendall Central School District a release for any and all injuries at a wrestling tournament failed on exactly that ground.

Now the statute. General Obligations Law section 5-326 provides that every covenant, agreement or understanding in or connected to a contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of its facilities, under which the owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for their use, which exempts the owner or operator from liability for damages caused by the negligence of the owner, operator or their agents, servants or employees, is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. There is no drafting around it. If a New York gym, climbing wall, trampoline park, skating rink, race track or amusement venue charges a fee, its negligence release is void, however clearly it is written.

The courts have drawn one line inside the statute: facilities used for purely instructional purposes are outside it, even when the subject is a recreational sport. In Lemoine v. Cornell University a student who paid tuition for a rock-climbing course signed a release that expressly covered the university's negligence; the Third Department held section 5-326 did not apply and enforced it. In Debell v. Wellbridge Club Management the First Department held a health club's release void even though the plaintiff was injured during a personal-training session, because the test looks at the purpose of the facility, not what the plaintiff was doing that day. Bacchiocchi v. Ranch Parachute Club and Fusco v. Now & Zen show the middle ground: a skydiving business that called itself a club and emphasised having a good time, and a karate school whose attendees said they came recreationally, each produced a fact question that had to go to a jury. Courts read the organisation's name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose, its advertising and whether it charges tuition or a use fee.

Waivers signed for minors in New York

The rule is stated flatly in Alexander v. Kendall Central School District: a minor is not bound by a release executed by his parent. Its roots are in Valdimer v. Mount Vernon Hebrew Camps, where the Court of Appeals refused to enforce a parent's release and indemnity agreement settling a child's camp-injury claim, because a compromise of an infant's claim is unenforceable without court approval, a procedure now found in CPLR 1207 and 1208. Shields v. Gross, in which a parent's consent to the use of a child's photographs was held binding, is the exception that proves the rule: the Court enforced the consent only because the Civil Rights Law specifically authorised parental consent for that purpose, and it distinguished the general right of an infant to disaffirm.

For a New York business the practical position is that a parent's signature will not bar the child's own claim, and for a fee-charging recreational facility section 5-326 would void the release anyway. The signature still has value. It can waive the parent's own derivative claims for medical expenses and loss of services, provided the release meets Gross v. Sweet and the statute does not apply; it records that the family was told the risks, which supports an assumption-of-risk defence; and it carries the consent to participate and the medical authorisation. After an injury, any settlement with a minor needs court approval under CPLR 1207 and 1208.

What the waiver must say to hold up in New York

Where a New York release can be enforced, the requirements are about clarity of language more than typography. Three rules come out of the cases. First, state in clear, unequivocal and unmistakable terms that the participant releases claims arising from the operator's own negligence or fault, using negligence or an equivalent such as regardless of who is at fault. Second, identify the activity and the risks specifically enough that the signer is told what claims are being given up. Third, do not rely on generic any-and-all language, which Gross and Alexander both reject. Lemoine is the model of language that worked: an acknowledgment of the inherent risks of climbing and falling, plus an express agreement to hold the university harmless from any negligence on its part.

Because a release is not stretched beyond its precise words, list the things you want covered: supervision, instruction, equipment, the premises, transport, and any related activity. The downloadable form does this, and it keeps the release in its own headed section so the signer's attention is drawn to it, which helps in any state.

Gross negligence and what a New York waiver cannot cover

New York's public policy forbids a party from insulating itself from liability for grossly negligent or willful conduct, no matter how flat and unqualified the clause. Kalisch-Jarcho v. City of New York said so about an exculpatory clause in a construction contract, and Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp. restated it for a fire-alarm company, defining gross negligence for this purpose as conduct that smacks of intentional wrongdoing or shows reckless indifference to the rights of others. Gross v. Sweet itself notes that agreements exempting willful or grossly negligent acts are wholly void. The courts do, however, dismiss gross-negligence labels that merely repackage ordinary negligence, as Lemoine did.

The template states in terms that gross negligence, recklessness and intentional misconduct are not released. A clause that tried to release them would not work, and it would invite a public-policy attack on the whole document.

Electronic signatures in New York

New York is the one state that did not adopt the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Its Electronic Signatures and Records Act, article III of the State Technology Law, does the same job. Section 304(2) provides that an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand, and that its use has the same validity and effect. The Office of Information Technology Services administers the act, and its regulation at 9 NYCRR Part 540 defines an electronic signature as an electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with intent to sign the record. Section 307 excludes wills, trusts, powers of attorney, health care proxies and negotiable instruments; recreational waivers are not excluded, and the federal E-SIGN Act applies as well.

For an online waiver keep the evidence that lets the signature be authenticated: the intent-to-sign step, a timestamp, device and address data, and a tamper-evident PDF of the exact text signed. Health clubs should also comply with the Health Club Services law, General Business Law article 30, which regulates membership contracts and voids any waiver of its protections; combined with section 5-326, a New York gym should treat its negligence release as void and its membership contract as regulated.

How to use this form in New York

First decide which side of section 5-326 your business falls on. If you charge a fee for the use of a pool, gymnasium or place of amusement or recreation, assume the release clause is void and use the rest of the document for what it can still do: a specific, honest description of the inherent risks; an acknowledgment of the rules and instruction; emergency and medical information; the parent's consent and the parent's own release; and the electronic record that the participant saw and agreed to all of it. That document supports a primary assumption-of-risk defence, which for a New York recreational operator can matter more than the waiver itself. If your business is genuinely instructional, with tuition, courses and a corporate purpose and marketing that say school, the release may be enforced, so keep the name, purpose, advertising and pricing consistently instructional and draft the release to Gross v. Sweet.

Either way, download the Word template, replace the square-bracket placeholders with your business, activity, location, and New York and your county in the governing-law clause, keep the release's express negligence language, and delete the note to the business before publishing. Then have a New York attorney review it; in this state the answer to whether the release works depends on facts about your business that only you and your lawyer can weigh. To sign it online, paste each section into a Waiver.com template, add the participant and guardian fields, and publish a version so every signature is tied to the text the participant saw.