David, I must admit I laughed out loud at your online "contract" with Jay.
....
I aim to please!
A basic premise of contracts: you've got to have a fair opportunity to read the thing before you enter into it.
If we didn't have that rule, I could mail you some books, with a letter inside the box saying, "if you open this box, you agree to purchase these books for $X," and then I could haul you into court and enforce it -
and make you pay for it (if I included a fees provision in the contract, which I obviously would, because I am a bad person).
And
that's the problem with these kind of "blanket" releases that are on the back of things like ski lift tickets. Nobody really has a fair opportunity to read them. It's not like you're standing at the ticket window discussing the terms of a liability waiver with the person in the booth. Instead, you find out about that liability waiver when you're on the lift heading up the hill, if at all - and by then, you've already done the deal.
But, if you've got a fair opportunity to understand what you're getting into, that's a completely different story. Keep in mind, that doesn't require that you actually
understand what you're getting into, or what you're reading, or that you even read it. It just requires that you have the opportunity. Even then, there are certain instances where it won't be effective (for instance, a nondelegable duty imposed by statute, such as my duty to refrain from murdering you in cold blood - we, as society, are not going to let you waive that obligation on my part!), but as a general matter, these are an important tool for something like whitewater rafting companies.
And, there's always the doctrine of assumption of risk. Regardless of the existence of a contractual waiver, if you know that what you're getting into might get you hurt, you're deemed to have assumed that risk. There are some weird intersections with tort law (e.g., just because you realize that you might get hurt by helping me fix my roof doesn't mean that I don't have to do my best to keep you from getting hurt), but for something like attending an air race it could, depending on circumstances, be applicable.
Anyway, I think I mentioned it above: Colorado's got the Ski Safety Act, which has insulated the ski industry from stupid lawsuits, while also providing a pretty good degree of protection to the skiing public.
I see no reason why that couldn't, or shouldn't, be adapted to air racing. And I think it would make everyone, except perhaps the most hypersensitive, happy.
I'm sure that the Reno Air Races are overall a good thing for both Reno and Nevada. If anyone feels strongly about it, it'd be worth making suggestions to the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the State Legislature, etc. The worst they can say is no.
