New Ruling in Iowa on Waivers and Student Field Trips

Posted on November 5, 2010 by Matt Gardner

The Iowa Supreme Court released an interesting decision today setting a new legal precedent for the state of Iowa.  Normally, when someone signs a release form, whether or not they read it, they are bound to the terms of the waiver.  For those of you who have kids, you are used to getting the request that you sign those field trip waiver forms that provide you will not hold the school or other organization responsible for any injuries that occur on the field trip.  Most groups will require that they get a signed waiver or the child cannot participate.

The Iowa Supreme Court today ruled in Galloway v. State of Iowa that such a release by a parent of a child are void as they violate public policy.  The rationale by the court is that in other areas of the law there are certain limitations that a parent has over the rights of the child. Release of a child's rights to recover from another party for their damages is an important legal right of a child.  The public policy purpose of protecting the child's legal rights is greater than the concerns of the child's access to these types of activities.

The Court also indicated that if the legislature wants to change the law, they should be free to do so.  However, for the time-being, it will be interesting to see the approach that Iowa schools, and any other organization that transports kids on trips, will handle the increased liability.  (I'm sure my kids would not appreciate having their field trips canceled.)

Tags: , , , ,

US Supreme Court: Are Video Games Obscene?

Posted on November 3, 2010 by Benjamin Clark

On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants.  The case tests the constitutionality of a California law that bans the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.  The Court's ruling in this area will likely have a drastic impact on the status of First Amendment law. 

Supporters of the law provide studies that show a correlation between playing these video games and a desensitization to real violence.  They argue that this law gives parents more control over the actions of their children.  In terms of their legal support, supporters argue that these violent video games are akin to obscene sexual material, and the law prohibiting sale of these games to minors should be subject to a rational basis test, as opposed to strict scrutiny.

Opponents of the California law provide their own studies that deny any correlation between playing these games and the player's propensity to commit actual violence.  The law's opponents further argue that if violent video games are subject to this law, what would prevent states from prohibiting sales of books or movies that contain violence.  Further, what level of violence would the game need to contain for it to be regulated under the law.  Opponents argue that the California law restricts protected speech, and the law should accordingly be held to a strict scrutiny standard.

The transcript of the oral argument is linked above.  If you have the time, it provides interesting insight into how the US Supreme Court (and state supreme courts) have to deal with a number of legal precedent standards, statutes, and policy issues in each decision they make. 

Tags: , , ,