I Signed a Liability Waiver in Ohio — Can I Still Sue?

Gyms, trampoline parks, gun ranges, horseback rides, zip lines, youth sports, tour operators, and recreation companies almost all hand you a liability waiver, sometimes called a release, an exculpatory agreement, or an assumption-of-risk form, before you participate. If you sign one and then get hurt, the business will often wave the waiver in your face and say your case is over before it starts.

The short answer: in Ohio, signing a waiver does not automatically end your right to sue. Ohio courts disfavor these releases, read them narrowly, and refuse to enforce them in several common situations — when the waiver doesn’t clearly cover what actually happened, when it’s too vague or poorly drafted to be valid, or when the injury was caused by reckless, willful, or wanton conduct. Whether a waiver bars your claim is a fact-specific legal question, and it is one worth having a lawyer evaluate before you assume the worst.

Ohio law disfavors liability waivers

A release that tries to excuse a business from its own future negligence is not something Ohio courts rubber-stamp. Releases for future tortious conduct are generally disfavored and are narrowly construed. To be enforced at all, the agreement must spell out the intent to release the business from liability for its own negligence in clear and unambiguous terms. If the language is ambiguous, what the waiver was meant to cover becomes a question for the jury, and the ambiguity is construed against the party that wrote it and is trying to escape responsibility. (See, e.g., Swartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp., 117 Ohio App.3d 420, 690 N.E.2d 941 (4th Dist. 1997).)

1. The waiver may not cover what actually happened to you

This is the issue defendants most often gloss over. A waiver only releases the risks and activities within its scope. When the thing that injured you falls outside what the document actually describes, the release doesn’t apply — no matter how broadly it’s worded.

Ohio courts look at the precise language and ask whether your injury is “the type of injury to which the release speaks.” A release that covers being hurt while “using,” “riding,” or “operating” a piece of equipment speaks to injuries from that activity, not to an injury that happens when you’re doing something the operator told you to do that has nothing to do with the activity you signed up for. Appellate courts have refused to grant summary judgment on a waiver where the evidence didn’t show the release language fit the actual facts of the injury.

Put simply: the question isn’t whether you signed something. It’s whether what you signed actually covers how you got hurt.

2. The waiver itself may be invalid

Even when an injury is arguably within the general subject of a release, the document can fail because it was drafted too loosely to be enforceable. Because Ohio strictly construes these provisions against the drafter, courts have found releases invalid or unenforceable for problems such as:

• No clear heading or label identifying the document as a waiver or release of legal rights.
• No conspicuous formatting — the release language isn’t set off in different font, size, or color to draw attention to it.
• A group or roster-style signature block that treats signing as a formality rather than a knowing release.
• Failure to warn of the possibility of serious permanent injury or death.
• Failure to spell out the assumption of unknown risks in clear terms.
• Overbreadth — sweeping language purporting to bar “all claims” and “any action” without the clarity Ohio requires to release a party from its own negligence.

No single defect is automatically fatal in every case, but these weaknesses give an injured person real arguments that the release should not be enforced.

3. A waiver can’t bar claims you couldn’t have known about

Ohio follows a well-recognized rule: a release written so generally that it sweeps in claims the signer was ignorant of — claims that weren’t within the contemplation of the parties when the release was signed — will not bar recovery on those claims. The injury has to fall within the “orbit” of the risk the person actually assumed or that was incident to the activity they were engaged in. You can’t knowingly release a risk that no reasonable participant would ever have imagined and that the company itself never intended the form to cover.

4. Beyond the waiver: Ohio’s “primary assumption of risk” doctrine

Separate from any signed form, businesses often argue that you can’t recover because you voluntarily assumed the inherent risks of a recreational activity. This is the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and it is powerful — but it is also limited. It bars claims only for the ordinary, customary, foreseeable, and inherent risks of an activity: the kinds of dangers that simply can’t be eliminated without changing the activity itself.

It does not cover injuries from conduct that unreasonably increases the risk beyond what is inherent in the activity. Ohio courts have repeatedly declined to apply the doctrine where someone made the activity far more dangerous than it had to be — for example, where a boat driver towing a tube traveled at an excessive, unnecessary speed (Aber v. Zurz, 9th Dist.), or where a hayride tractor cascaded down a steep hill out of control (Byer v. Lucas, 7th Dist.). As the Tenth District has cautioned, courts must “proceed with caution” before letting primary assumption of risk completely cut off a person’s recovery. Falling within the general activity isn’t enough; the specific risk has to be one truly inherent to it.

5. Waivers never protect reckless, willful, or wanton conduct

This is the most important limit of all. Even a valid waiver — and even primary assumption of risk — does not shield a defendant whose conduct was reckless, willful, or wanton. Ohio courts have held that operators and instructors who owe participants a duty not to unreasonably increase the risks of an activity can be held liable when they cross that line, regardless of any release. (See, e.g., Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Ath. Comm., 2022-Ohio-2296 (10th Dist.); Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384 (1992).)

Recklessness is a conscious disregard or indifference to a known or obvious risk of harm that is unreasonable under the circumstances and substantially greater than ordinary negligence. Willful and wanton misconduct involves an even higher level of disregard for the safety of others. When the evidence supports it, these claims survive a waiver and survive an assumption-of-risk defense — and they often carry the strongest facts in the case.

What this means if you were hurt after signing a waiver

Don’t assume a signature ended your rights. Before you give up, an experienced Ohio injury attorney will look at:

• Exactly what the document says — and whether your injury actually falls within its scope.
• How the release is drafted — heading, conspicuousness, warnings, signature format, and breadth.
• Whether the risk that hurt you was truly inherent in the activity, or was created or magnified by the business.
• Whether the conduct was reckless, willful, or wanton — which no waiver can excuse.

Frequently asked questions

Does signing a liability waiver mean I can’t sue in Ohio?

No. In Ohio, a signed waiver does not automatically bar a lawsuit. Courts narrowly construe these releases and will not enforce them when the waiver doesn’t clearly cover what happened, when it is too vague or poorly drafted to be valid, or when the injury was caused by reckless, willful, or wanton conduct.

Can a waiver cover an injury it never mentions?

Generally no. A release only covers risks and activities within its scope. If your injury is not the type of harm the release describes, Ohio courts have refused to enforce the waiver — even when its language is broad.

Are there injuries a waiver can never excuse?

Yes. A liability waiver cannot shield a business from liability for reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct. Those claims can proceed even when a valid release exists.

What is “primary assumption of risk,” and does it always apply?

It is a defense that bars claims for the ordinary, inherent risks of a recreational activity. It does not apply when a defendant’s conduct unreasonably increased the risk beyond what is naturally part of the activity. Ohio courts apply it cautiously.

Should I have a lawyer review the waiver I signed?

Yes. Whether a waiver bars your claim is a fact-specific legal question. An attorney can assess the document’s scope, its validity, and whether the conduct that injured you falls outside what any waiver can excuse.

Talk to a Rinehardt Injury Attorney

If you were seriously hurt after signing a waiver in Ohio, don’t assume your case is over. We can review the release and the facts and tell you where you stand. Contact Rinehardt Injury Attorneys for a free consultation — Mansfield 419-529-2020 or Columbus 614-686-2020.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Ohio law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The enforceability of any waiver depends on its exact wording and the specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Ohio attorney.