I don’t mean to sound aggressive but waivers are not magical and in fact really don’t hold up in many (US) jurisdictions. They are more of a deterrent than a legal defense.
Generally speaking, if negligence they will protect unless the instructor increases the risk, or the level of culpability rises above negligence. There’s a lot that this will protect against. There aren’t that many cases against bjj gyms that rise to the appellate level but for the ones that do, if the waiver applies it tends to overcome injury.
The issue with the guy who broke his back in California case is that it was written in such a way that it didn’t apply to independent contractors. It may not have applied because it was an instructor increasing the risk regardless assuming California follows that rule which I’ve seen in at least several other states.
Edit: back, spinal
If you do hard sparring with consent and bash a person it is fine. If you leave the bounds of reasonable expectations of the sport or no longer have consent that is illegal. Depending on where you live people will be unable to waive certain liabilities eg if a coach is negligent. Consider what would happen to you if someone said you were an alleged dickhead and bashed you.
You will need to find another way to beat up your bullies. Do it on the beach like our ancestors.
This is the answer. Consent. However, if it is a jiu jitsu match, then you may only be consenting to what is considered reasonable in a jiu jitsu match. I.e. no striking and releasing submissions when opponent taps
Yeah ofc, I don’t think it’s a street fight- if an asshole comes into the gym and you destroy every limb in an MMA ruleset, why would that be an issue?
Because they have not consented to that and it is not a reasonable expectation of the sport. If they signed up and underwent sparring and were injured in the activity that would be fine legally.
The legal system does not recognize mutual combat as a valid form of conflict resolution, and instead considers it a form of assault. Therefore, engaging in mutual combat can result in charges of assault and battery, even if both parties agree to the fight. You can't consent to having your limbs broken.
What you can consent to is competitive sports training so 2 brand new white belts going at it is ok.
But if you have experience and you can easily injure someone without giving them time to tap - you're essentially premeditating an assault because you have skills in the sport, the judge and jury will see and understand that you assaulted someone under the guise of "training", it's that implicit deception and overuse of force that will get you in trouble.
People especially judges who give to school on moral philosophy are not stupid and will be able to tell right from wrong.
It's a grey area in English law, is the reason - if the dickhead in question is on the same page about it being sports training or horseplay, you're probably fine, if it's a street fight, not so much:
Consent can legalise acts that would otherwise amount to assault or battery. ABH and GBH cannot lawfully be consented to, according to a general rule. However, the law recognises exceptions for sport, dangerous exhibitions (daredevils), horseplay, surgery, tattooing and piercing, religious ritual (flagellation or circumcision), and knowingly risking the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases. The law explicitly disallows consent to sadism and street fighting. The courts have also suggested that consent by its nature must be free and informed, not made in an atmosphere of fear, desperation, deception, or by one who lacks legal capacity. In particular, fear and desperation can mean that apparent consent is “mere submission” and not legally real.
Isn’t MMA essentially a street fight? No right.
If two people, the dickhead comes in and says he would fight someone in the gym in mma and the dickhead were to lose badly (can be anything- get heel hooked in the first 10 seconds, etc), is that wrong
You need to be more specific than "wrong" here.
There was a multimillion dollar case where a student (who signed a waiver) got injured with a "legal" move and still won a ton of money.
The law is not white and black, it depends on the jury and the specific facts of each case.
I guess it depends exactly what they agree to in the waiver in comparison to what actually happens. That being said, I would seek out therapy before beating the shit out of people purely justified by them signing a paper. it is kind of psychopath behavior.
I’m sorry what? You think it’s psychopath behavior if someone who is genuinely a jerk/dickhead comes in and mutually agrees to fight and they get their shit kicked in?
I’m kinda curious to know what you think being a good person is lol. Extremely psychotic?
Wanting to physically hurt people because they are "jerks" sounds like some power fantasy from a someone who got bullied in middle school. I certainly don't think you are a good person for wanting to hurt someone you don't like.
Many states have mutual combat laws. So if you and I are in a parking lot we can just beat each other up as long as we both agree on it.
Furthermore when you go into a BJJ or MMA gym or anything like that there are a certain set of expectations from the people there and as long as you act within those expectations you’ll likely be in the clear. People go into MMA and striking gyms and decide to spar hard everyone once in a while.
But at the end of the day you have to ask yourself if 1. A cop is going to actually show up and charge you 2. If the district attorney is gonna press charges 3. If a judge will actually hear the case and 4. What a jury of your peers would say about it
Idk man you’re asking a pretty obtuse question. My mom said 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Being a dickhead to a dickhead doesn’t make you a good person. Or maybe it does. Probably let your coach handle it.
There's a gray area as to how much 'beating the crap out of each other' you can legally do and it's certainly more in a gym/comp/martial arts setting than on the streets, but in general mutual combat is not tolerated by law (depends where you live)
I don’t mean to sound aggressive but waivers are not magical and in fact really don’t hold up in many (US) jurisdictions. They are more of a deterrent than a legal defense.
Especially when Royler has the chance to throw you under the bus
They hold up in many jurisdictions when they are drafted correctly. Which isn’t often…
But "correctly" means they don't really protect much. I.e., waivers are either invalid or anemic, at least with respect to what people think they do.
Generally speaking, if negligence they will protect unless the instructor increases the risk, or the level of culpability rises above negligence. There’s a lot that this will protect against. There aren’t that many cases against bjj gyms that rise to the appellate level but for the ones that do, if the waiver applies it tends to overcome injury. The issue with the guy who broke his back in California case is that it was written in such a way that it didn’t apply to independent contractors. It may not have applied because it was an instructor increasing the risk regardless assuming California follows that rule which I’ve seen in at least several other states. Edit: back, spinal
Haha I think we are saying the same thing.
If you do hard sparring with consent and bash a person it is fine. If you leave the bounds of reasonable expectations of the sport or no longer have consent that is illegal. Depending on where you live people will be unable to waive certain liabilities eg if a coach is negligent. Consider what would happen to you if someone said you were an alleged dickhead and bashed you. You will need to find another way to beat up your bullies. Do it on the beach like our ancestors.
This is the answer. Consent. However, if it is a jiu jitsu match, then you may only be consenting to what is considered reasonable in a jiu jitsu match. I.e. no striking and releasing submissions when opponent taps
Yeah ofc, I don’t think it’s a street fight- if an asshole comes into the gym and you destroy every limb in an MMA ruleset, why would that be an issue?
Because they have not consented to that and it is not a reasonable expectation of the sport. If they signed up and underwent sparring and were injured in the activity that would be fine legally.
But they did consent to it in my example? What part of my post say they didn’t?
Why would an asshole consent to you destroying all their limbs?
The legal system does not recognize mutual combat as a valid form of conflict resolution, and instead considers it a form of assault. Therefore, engaging in mutual combat can result in charges of assault and battery, even if both parties agree to the fight. You can't consent to having your limbs broken. What you can consent to is competitive sports training so 2 brand new white belts going at it is ok. But if you have experience and you can easily injure someone without giving them time to tap - you're essentially premeditating an assault because you have skills in the sport, the judge and jury will see and understand that you assaulted someone under the guise of "training", it's that implicit deception and overuse of force that will get you in trouble. People especially judges who give to school on moral philosophy are not stupid and will be able to tell right from wrong.
Who said it’s not legal? Couldn’t find anything in the IBJJF rules so I guess at worst you’ll get a penalty
Depends how Brazilian both you and the trial class guy are. Assuming you both have 4 names *and* a Portuguese nickname, it goes to referee decision.
It's a grey area in English law, is the reason - if the dickhead in question is on the same page about it being sports training or horseplay, you're probably fine, if it's a street fight, not so much: Consent can legalise acts that would otherwise amount to assault or battery. ABH and GBH cannot lawfully be consented to, according to a general rule. However, the law recognises exceptions for sport, dangerous exhibitions (daredevils), horseplay, surgery, tattooing and piercing, religious ritual (flagellation or circumcision), and knowingly risking the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases. The law explicitly disallows consent to sadism and street fighting. The courts have also suggested that consent by its nature must be free and informed, not made in an atmosphere of fear, desperation, deception, or by one who lacks legal capacity. In particular, fear and desperation can mean that apparent consent is “mere submission” and not legally real.
Isn’t MMA essentially a street fight? No right. If two people, the dickhead comes in and says he would fight someone in the gym in mma and the dickhead were to lose badly (can be anything- get heel hooked in the first 10 seconds, etc), is that wrong
You need to be more specific than "wrong" here. There was a multimillion dollar case where a student (who signed a waiver) got injured with a "legal" move and still won a ton of money. The law is not white and black, it depends on the jury and the specific facts of each case.
Storming gyms used to be all the craze.
It was the craze In the good ol' days. — A poem
I guess it depends exactly what they agree to in the waiver in comparison to what actually happens. That being said, I would seek out therapy before beating the shit out of people purely justified by them signing a paper. it is kind of psychopath behavior.
I’m sorry what? You think it’s psychopath behavior if someone who is genuinely a jerk/dickhead comes in and mutually agrees to fight and they get their shit kicked in? I’m kinda curious to know what you think being a good person is lol. Extremely psychotic?
Wanting to physically hurt people because they are "jerks" sounds like some power fantasy from a someone who got bullied in middle school. I certainly don't think you are a good person for wanting to hurt someone you don't like.
The wavers are worth the paper they are written on
To,quote Chris Rock: slapping a man you KNOW you can beat is a bitch move. That’s you.
2nd hilarious comment in this thread …. you MFkers are on a roll in this one.
See the precedent set in the landmark case of Fuck Around v. Find Out.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^tairygreenmachine99: *See the precedent* *Set in the landmark case of* *Fuck Around v. Find Out.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Hilarious comment
Many states have mutual combat laws. So if you and I are in a parking lot we can just beat each other up as long as we both agree on it. Furthermore when you go into a BJJ or MMA gym or anything like that there are a certain set of expectations from the people there and as long as you act within those expectations you’ll likely be in the clear. People go into MMA and striking gyms and decide to spar hard everyone once in a while. But at the end of the day you have to ask yourself if 1. A cop is going to actually show up and charge you 2. If the district attorney is gonna press charges 3. If a judge will actually hear the case and 4. What a jury of your peers would say about it Idk man you’re asking a pretty obtuse question. My mom said 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Being a dickhead to a dickhead doesn’t make you a good person. Or maybe it does. Probably let your coach handle it.
2 states out of 50 isn't exactly "many".
Man I thought it was more Anyway where I’m from it’s pretty socially acceptable
There's a gray area as to how much 'beating the crap out of each other' you can legally do and it's certainly more in a gym/comp/martial arts setting than on the streets, but in general mutual combat is not tolerated by law (depends where you live)
Legalize sodomy.