Assumption And Release Of Liability: Fill & Download for Free

The license that allows you to use open source software will spell out the liability of the authors.As an example, from the GNU Public License v3.0:15. Disclaimer of Warranty.THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.16. Limitation of Liability.IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.Quoted from: GNU General Public LicenseI don’t know of any license that allows a greater degree of liability than the above. Which makes sense, right? Why would I go to the bother of releasing software if it exposed me to liability? (I might be willing to take on liability if the contract terms were sufficiently lucrative and the damages were limited to what I was paid. More than that? Not interested.)

Sure! A vetetinarian can sue a pet owner for getting bitten by their pet. Can they win? No. Almost never. You didn’t ask THAT!There are a few reasons why suing an owner for their pet’s aggressive behavior would be unsuccessful.Firstly, veterinarians by the nature of their jobs view the possibility of bites as an occupational hazard. We accept that risk as part of our work day, and that assumption of risk frees owners from any liability if their pet chomps into us.Secondly, some states (but not all) view the veterinarian as the “owner” or “keeper” of the pet at the time of the bite, especially if that bite happened during a hospitalization or a treatment. “Temporary ownership” is implied to have transpired when the pet was placed in the veterinarian’s care, and so thus the real owners are not liable.Thirdly, owners are often released of liability if their animal bites because the victim was provoking the pet. Provocation does not need to be mean-spirited or cruel. Handling a scared dog or giving an injection is provocation. In laymen’s terms, “he asked for it.”Conversely, more owners are successful at suing their veterinarian if their own pet bites them during a vet visit! Mrs. Jones brings in a snarling, snapping Chihuahua and says, “Oh Dr. Smith, I can hold Precious for his vaccines. He’d NEVER bite me!”CHOMPMrs. Jones can successfully sue Dr. Smith for not taking proper precautions to eliminate the risk of her injury at the jaws of her own little Precious. That is why we often require pets to be removed from the owner’s grasp or given to a veterinary technician to handle during an exam or treatment. Like I used to tell all my wonderful techs: “Hey, I need you in Room 4. We get paid to be chew toys!”Of course, there are always exceptions. State laws vary widely. For example, Arizona and Ohio do not recognize an assumption-of-risk defense. If a dog attacks the veterinarian in the waiting room as he walks by without provocation, there’s a case there. If the owner purposely withholds information, like he previously had his German Shepherd’s teeth all silver-plated into pointy spikes that are then embedded into the vet’s arm, yep, there’s a lawsuit there.

Now this is an interesting question. A week or so ago, someone asked about the liability of the Task Rabbit company/website. The answer to that was no liability / very limited.With respect to the liability of the hiring party, that's a bit more interesting: I doubt the website's terms of use contain any language that would insulate the hiring party from liability. The website/Task Rabbit corporate is concerned with protecting its own interests. So the terms of use likely only release Task Rabbit corporate from liability.So now we're dealing with the question of whether an employer can be liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor in the course of performing a hired task. It's a mixed bag and hinges on a couple of different elements:(1) Control. The more control you had as the hirer/employer, the less likely the hired party is purely an independent contractor, the more likely you controlled how the work was done and the greater your risk of liability.(2) Nature of the activity. If the activity is ultra-hazardous, that might also expose the hiring party to liability-- but there would be defenses there, such as assumption of risk.