Marathon Age Requirements

Concerned Citizen wrote:

If you're worried about a parent suing, they can sign a liability waiver; liability waivers are almost always valid for recreational activities.

Here you are just wrong and grossly misinformed. Parents cannot genreally waive liability on behalf of their children. So the waiver may bar the parents from suing, but the minor can sue on his/her own behalf once he reaches the age of majority, which would be highly relevant if we are talking about high school kids running marathons:

According to the state supreme court, a parent generally does not have the legal authority to waive a child's own future cause of action for personal injuries resulting from a third party's negligence

Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 834 P.2d 6 (Wash. 1992),

Keith Stone wrote:

As far as liability waivers they are worthless if negligence can be proven or claimed. A waiver in a recreational activity is an acknowledgment by the participant that there are risks involved, not an OK to the organizer to ignore potentially unsafe conditions. The more complicated the logistics for an event the more opportunities for questions of liability.

This is also generally not true. Liabilities waivers can usually (depending on state) insulate organizers from claims of ordinary negligence. States do not allow participants to waive gross negligence (as it is against public policy). The line between ordinary negligence and gross negligence depends on the state and the particulars of the case.

Here is where the Peachtree 10k waiver held up to challenge:

Williams v. Cox Enterprises Inc., 159 Ga. App. 333, 283 S.E.2d 367

Organizers who are worried about their own liability should speak with a lawyer who practices in that area in their particular state.

Liability waivers are complicated. They do provide some protection and probably (it is difficult to tell for sure) prevent a lot of nuisance suits, as there is a high probability of such suits getting tossed at a pre-trial hearing. They are not a magic bullet and have definite limitations.

One big concern is that even if the waiver holds up there may be a lot of legal fees expended in upholding it, although I guess most times that comes from the insurance carrier.

I wasn't suggesting that parents could waive liability on behalf of their children. Someone suggested that parents could potentially sue for something like wrongful death, and I was suggesting that they could waive any right they might have to sue.

Some one said that a waiver was worthless if negligence can be proven. My understanding is that waivers can protect one from negligence, but not gross negligence. Even if a waiver won't hold up, someone is still going to have to prove that you were negligent.

As far as the airline thing, that is just each airline's policy.

I remember discussing the issue with Fred Lebow.

He said that he had hundreds or even thousands of request for runners under the age of 18 to run the NYC Marathon.

Fred would have allowed anyone of them to run if the request had come from the kid......they all came from the parents!

After four decades of administering races + 36 years as a middle school teacher, I say 18!

Southern Man wrote:

Organizers who are worried about their own liability should speak with a lawyer who practices in that area in their particular state.

Liability waivers are complicated. They do provide some protection and probably (it is difficult to tell for sure) prevent a lot of nuisance suits, as there is a high probability of such suits getting tossed at a pre-trial hearing. They are not a magic bullet and have definite limitations.

One big concern is that even if the waiver holds up there may be a lot of legal fees expended in upholding it, although I guess most times that comes from the insurance carrier.

The core point is the waiver is not the magic bullet that makes the liability go away, and that perceived liability is what your ability to get coverage for your event is based on. In the "good old days" there wasn't much concern and hence few restrictions on participation. The current climate is much less friendly, and it's pretty much impossible to do anything without addressing liability.

I would agree that waivers likely prevent most nuisance suits, but not all of them, and therein lies the problem.

The insurance carrier is on the hook for the legal fees and will do everything they can to do to avoid paying them, including placing restrictions on participation. The event organizer has to be diligent that all classes of allowed participants are covered. For example both Boston and Grandmas allow wheeled participants, so they can't go with the standard USATF or RRCA coverage since those participants are excluded. Any event director is going to pick their battles, so it's perfectly understandable that they exclude certain classes (i.e. minors) and move on.

Now the advise about talking to a lawyer that's familiar with the laws in that state is spot on. While both RRCA and RRM conferences have good sessions on liability those cover general trends and some specifics cases, not the vagaries from state to state (other that saying watch out for them).

That is why I would feel pretty confident that liability concerns rather than overused sense of paternalism is the reason why some marathons are excluding minors.

David Katz wrote:

After four decades of administering races + 36 years as a middle school teacher, I say 18!

So you would have denied Cathy O'Brien if she had requested to run your race, even though she was fit enough to run 2:34 and place 9th in the Olympic Trials.

Your reasoning seems to be based more on convenience and sterotype than any science or reason.

Maybe would should ban anyone over 65 because they have more heart trouble than anyone else in my experience in working with the elderly.

Maybe we should just make stereotyped assumption about groups and let them in accordingly. Or maybe, just maybe we should people run if they have shown reasonable fitness to do so.

I see no benefit from denying young runners who have shown the fitness necessary, from competing. Certainly someone such as a young Ms. Hadley could handle a marathon in the next year or two. Someone such as this poses far less risk for a race than some middle aged man running it ill prepared and based on a whim.

As someone mentioned, the stats shown that the 19 and under age group has statistically the highest completion rate of any age group. But you want to ban that group, so obviously it is not a health issue, it is a convenience issue. So just state that rather than saying based on yoru experience as a middle school teacher .....

As for Mr. Lebow, he let in Wesley Paul (a kid) year after year and he always finished and ran well.

Seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is to allow minors into the race as long as the parent signs the waiver form and the kids has passed some sort fo fitness test, such as completed a half marathon under some time limit. That way we aren't denying capable people based on a bad sterotype.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But I think if you were with me at the 2500+ races that I have worked you might feel different.

Mr Katz,

We would love to learn from your worlds of experience, but it is hard for many educated adults to just trust someone blindly because they say they have alot of experience. So if you don't mind can you educate us with specific information/examples as to why you think a 18 yr old age requirement is best for marathons. That way we can all be educated and come to an informed decision rather than taking your word on it.

Thanks,

Person for the education of the masses

Given your considerable standing in the sport (as evdienced by the link above). I too would greatly like to understand why you feel strongly enough baout this issue to take this public stance. Please educate me as well.

Intereting comment.

"trust someone blindly because they say they have alot of experience"

Anything I say would (and should) be considered my opinion and there will always be opposing views.

I suggest that someone contact SEVERAL of the major marathons that have age limits and find out why.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4507907&page=1#ixzz1qRF1rDF3

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

oops

my cut and past should have not included the last few lines of my last post

As the last poster said, given your considerable standing in sport and experience in administering the sport of road racing, we find it powerful at that you decided to offer us your opinion. We simply would like to know what your reasoning is for that opinion.

Certainly we could contact SEVERAL races and ask for their reasoning, but it seems far simpler to ask an inside person such as yourself, who is on already on this board and stating opinions, for his reasoning as it is likely similar or the same as the races discussed.

Respectfully,

Seeker of answers

You're missing a key point, the person suing doesn't have to win to inflict financial hardship. That means one of the liability considerations will be are you doing something that will make you more likely to get sued, regardless if you prevail. The plaintiff just needs to find someone willing to work on contingency, the defendant (or defendant's insurance company) gets stuck with the defense tab. Some states have "loser pays" laws to avoid that, but again, that's state by state. The waiver serves to scare away bottom feeders, and I was a bit extreme with the "worthless" comment, but it isn't a silver bullet.

You're missing another key point. Airlines aren't making up these policies out of whole cloth just to pick on minors. The policies exist specifically to comply with legal and liability obligations, or more specifically to avoid legal or liability obligations. The policy is the reaction, not the law itself, and I look at age restrictions the same way. I've seen minors excluded from many of the "warrior runs" or other so-called extreme events for likely the exact same reasons marathons exclude them

Back to the topic at hand, I think it's wonderful when individuals can be accommodated as in examples noted earlier but there's a big step from accommodating an individual special case and having an overall policy that says minors are always welcome. I don't question the motives of an event director that puts in an age restriction and I wouldn't say it's due to stereotypes or age bias, etc.

That RD may not be able to make accommodations for someone, for example I once had to decline a wheeled participant when though he and his family said they'd sign all sorts of waivers because the insurance company said if we made an exception they would void our coverage. You can try to be a nice guy all you want, but it's not always possible for very legitimate reasons.

I'm not missing the point. I think any such fears are overblown.