Legal query

[Peter Morris]

From the Million Dollar Challenge rules

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

What actual effect does this have in law? What legal actions are prevented by this clause that would normally be permitted?

If an applicant is injured through JREF's negligence, would they be unable to sue?

If the JREF published an inarrurate and damaging report of the test, would it prevent a libel action? As an example, suppose a test had an agreed passmark of 8 out of 10. The claimant scores 6 out of 10. Randi's report claims he only scored 1 out of 10, damaging his professional reputation. Could the applicant sue?

Only lawyers need answer.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Actually, A Florida lawyer would be better. Most states do not allow a disclaimer of damages caused by negligence without an express mention to that effect -- thus the as far as this may be done by established statutes portion of that language. This language (IMO) would not stop a claim for negligence.

I do not believe that it would stop a claim for some types of libel cases -- where results were fabricated, for example -- but may be sufficient to stop actions for libel where the claim is that the person was damaged by publication of the (accurate) results.


NA

 

[Peter Morris]

You appear to be saying that a libel action would be possible for an accurate account of the test. Is that right?

In British Libel law, truth (justification) is an absolute defence. Is Florida libel law really different? Is it possible to successfully sue someone for a true statement?

If so, would the clause really prevent such an action?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You appear to be saying that a libel action would be possible for an accurate account of the test. Is that right?

In British Libel law, truth (justification) is an absolute defence. Is Florida libel law really different? Is it possible to successfully sue someone for a true statement?

If so, would the clause really prevent such an action?

To pilfer from Douglas Adams: That is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what I said.

I believe that the language used in the disclaimer would not -- read as a whole -- prevent an action based on fabricated facts. I believe that the language might prevent a suit that the true test results were defamatory. But that would merely be an extra obstacle - as a suit for damages on publishing true material should not win, regardless.

NA

 

[Peter Morris]

I'm still not with you.

You said the clause "may be sufficient to stop actions for libel where the claim is that the person was damaged by publication of the (accurate) results."

If such actions are invalid anyway, what difference does the clause make?

 

[Michael Redman]

The clause seems overreaching, but limits itself to what is legally enforceable, so that they don't have to figure out and list the specific level of liability waiver, but still give notice that they intend to waive as much liability as possible. (Another terrible sentence. Sorry.)

Not all liability can be waived by such general statements (Like the example NoZed gave of negligence), but these issues are often due to state cases and statutes, and can vary widely, so you would really need to talk to a Florida lawyer to get specifics. In Texas, if I remember correctly, you can't waive implied warranties, but you can waive express warranties. I wouldn't expect that the same rule works in all other states.

 

[Peter Morris]

Another query- would Florida law be binding, given that most preliminary tests are taken in other states, or other countries?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm still not with you.

You said the clause "may be sufficient to stop actions for libel where the claim is that the person was damaged by publication of the (accurate) results."

If such actions are invalid anyway, what difference does the clause make?

The short answer is that I have never known an attorney to eliminate clauses because they provide his client TOO MANY ways of winning a lawsuit. Many believe in the "belt and suspenders" principle -- the extra language cannot hurt the client, and at worst it is merely a redundancy.

NA

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Another query- would Florida law be binding, given that most preliminary tests are taken in other states, or other countries?

Choice of law analysis is a full class during law school. I would not attempt to summarize even the basics in a forum posting.

Florida law will -probably- control in most or all situations (especially if there is language to that effect in the challenge - I haven't looked), but there are so many potential factors involved in trying to predict this with any certainty that I just cannot spend the time necessary to look at it.

There are a lot of things that this will depend on, including any agreement of the parties (of course, before deciding if there is an agreement, you may need to apply choice of law analysis to decide if an agreement exists, etc.).


NA

 

[ceo_esq]

The general rule is that exculpatory clauses can absolve a party from liability for its own negligent acts provided that the intention to release the party from such liability is clear. In my experience, different states take different approaches to applying this rule; some states' laws consider that a release from "any and all claims" (or words to that effect) is sufficient to indicate the requisite intention, other states' laws don't, and still others look at the specific facts in order to determine the parties' true intention.

Based on a very quick review of relevant Florida caselaw, I think that the clause in question is probably inadequate to release the JREF from liability for its own acts of ordinary negligence. It almost certainly would not get JREF off the hook for willful misconduct or grossly negligent actions.

None of this should, of course, be relied upon as legal advice.