Are Online Waivers Legal in Connecticut?

The Connecticut Supreme Court has refused to enforce even a clearly worded release of negligence when a business offers a recreational activity to the general public for a fee, so in Connecticut a release isn't a dependable way to rule out negligence claims at a public venue. A signed participant agreement still does real work for Connecticut parks, gyms, stables, ski areas, camps and tours. The court's own ruling stops short of the activity's inherent risks, Connecticut's ski and horseback riding laws put those risks on participants, and the agreement is the record of the risks, rules and health information each guest acknowledged. This guide covers each of these, how Connecticut treats injury releases, and how to get the most from the agreement your guests sign.

This guide is general information about Connecticut law, with links to the statutes and cases, so you and your attorney can look into anything that applies to your business.

What a Signed Waiver Does in Connecticut

Are Electronic Signatures Legal in Connecticut?

Yes. Connecticut adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-266 through 1-286. Section 1-272 says a record or signature "may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because the record or signature is in electronic form," and that "if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law." The federal ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.) says the same for transactions in interstate commerce. A form signed on a phone, computer or tablet counts as signed, and it carries the same weight as the paper version.

What a Signed Waiver Does for Connecticut Businesses

It Records the Inherent Risks Each Guest Acknowledged

Connecticut's courts separate two kinds of risk: the risks inherent in an activity, and injuries caused by the operator's own carelessness. Its public policy rulings are aimed at the second. In Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314 (2005), the court said: "We clarify that our conclusion does not extend to the risks inherent in the activity of snowtubing," describing inherent risks as those that are innate to the activity, "beyond the control of the [recreational] area operator and cannot be minimized by the operator's exercise of reasonable care." A year later, in a horseback riding case, the court noted that the rider "does not challenge the fact that there were risks inherent in the activity of horseback riding that she otherwise was prepared to assume" (Reardon).

A signed form that describes your activity's inherent risks in plain language, with the guest's acknowledgment of each, is evidence of what they were told and accepted before taking part. How much it matters in a given case depends on the facts, including whether the injury came from an inherent risk or from something the operator controlled.

It Works Alongside Connecticut's Ski and Riding Laws

Two Connecticut statutes put inherent risks on participants:

• Skiing (Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-212). Skiers assume the risk of hazards inherent in skiing, such as marked variations in terrain, variations in snow or ice conditions (other than ones the operator caused, outside snowmaking, grooming and rescue), bare spots, conspicuous lift towers and collisions with other skiers. The statute's definition of skiing excludes snow tubing provided by a ski area operator.
• Recreational horseback riding (Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557p). Each rider "shall assume the risk and legal responsibility for any injury to his person or property arising out of the hazards inherent in equestrian sports," unless the injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the person providing the horse or a failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition.

Neither statute requires a signed form. A signed description of the same hazards is a record that the participant was told about them, which complements the protection the statutes give.

It Binds Guests to Your Rules

Your agreement is where guests accept the rules that keep everyone safe: age and height limits, required gear, following staff instructions and staying in marked areas. It's also where they can agree to take responsibility for equipment they use. A rules acknowledgment isn't a release of the operator's negligence, so the public policy concern in Hanks isn't aimed at it.

It Collects Medical Information and Consent

A signed form is where you collect health conditions, allergies, emergency contacts, consent to emergency treatment, pickup authorization and photo consent before anyone takes part. For families, the parent's form is the record that a parent or guardian approved the child's participation and agreed to your rules.

How Connecticut Treats Injury Releases

Three Connecticut Supreme Court decisions set the rules:

• Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc., 265 Conn. 636 (2003). "A party cannot be released from liability for injuries resulting from its future negligence in the absence of language that expressly so provides." A snowtubing release that mentioned "inherent and other risks" but not negligence didn't cover the operator's negligence.
• Hanks (2005). This release used the word NEGLIGENCE, in capitals, and the court still held it "unenforceable because it violates public policy." Weighing the totality of the circumstances, the court pointed to factors including: the operator invited the public generally, regardless of ability; patrons were under the operator's care and control "as a result of an economic transaction"; the operator, not patrons, had the expertise to keep the runs safe and could insure against the risk; the form was a standardized, take-it-or-leave-it agreement with no option to buy protection for a reasonable added fee; and patrons weren't told before they arrived that they would have to give up legal rights. The court acknowledged its view is the "distinct minority" among the states.
• Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, 280 Conn. 153 (2006). The court applied Hanks to a release signed before a riding lesson at a stable that served the general public, holding that the attempt "contractually to extend the plaintiff's assumption of risk one step beyond that identified by the legislature in § 52-557p violates the public policy of the state."

Hanks rested on a combination of factors, and the court left open (in its footnote 11) whether unequal bargaining power alone would be enough. We didn't find a Connecticut appellate decision applying Hanks to a members-only, private or non-commercial setting, or a later Supreme Court decision narrowing it, so how a court would treat a release outside public, fee-based recreation is unsettled. Connecticut doesn't recognize gross negligence as a separate claim, and Hanks treated reckless conduct as beyond what an operator could release.

For children, no Connecticut appellate court has decided whether a parent can release a child's future negligence claims. In Cannon v. Rock Climb Fairfield, LLC (Conn. Super. Ct. 2020), a birthday party host who wasn't the injured child's parent signed a climbing gym's release for the group. The court rejected the gym's claim for indemnity from the host, calling the release a "classic contract of adhesion" whose enforcement would violate public policy. It's worth having a Connecticut attorney review your agreement and your process.

What Makes a Connecticut Waiver Work Harder

WaiverFile doesn't draft waivers, and the wording of your agreement is a job for you and your attorney. Based on the statutes and cases above, these are points worth raising with your attorney when preparing a Connecticut agreement:

• A specific, plain description of your activity's inherent risks, kept separate from any release of negligence, since Hanks distinguished the two.
• Language that expressly covers negligence, if the agreement includes a release at all. Hyson found a release without it didn't cover negligence.
• How the Hanks factors apply to your business: who you serve, whether customers learn about the agreement before they arrive, and whether the form is take-it-or-leave-it.
• Rules, equipment terms and health questions in their own acknowledgments.
• A clear record of who signed, when, and which version of the form they saw.

How WaiverFile Helps Connecticut Businesses

Once your agreement is written, WaiverFile makes it easy for every guest to sign it and keeps a complete, easy-to-find record of each one:

• Your agreement, laid out your way. Add the agreement text you and your attorney prepared, and use the editor's formatting options (bold, capitals, font size) to lay it out the way it was written. The wording and format are up to you.
• A checkbox or initials where you want them. Add initial boxes inside the agreement text and required checkboxes for the risks, rules and clauses you choose, so each one has its own acknowledgment.
• A record of what was signed. Each signed form stores the signature, the answers, and the date and time, plus the IP address and device for online signing. Add a photo of each signer or their ID if you like.
• Experience and medical questions. Required questions capture experience level, health conditions and emergency contacts before guests arrive. HIPAA features add extra protection for health information.
• Families on one form. A parent adds each child by name and date of birth, and minors are flagged at check-in.
• Sign before arrival. Guests sign ahead by email, text, QR code or your website, or on a tablet at the door, and the Venue app works offline. Waivers are built into online booking, so guests see the agreement when they book and you see each guest's status at check-in.
• Records you can produce. Search any waiver in seconds, or download them in bulk as a ZIP file for any date range.

Start with one of our free waiver templates, adapt it for Connecticut with your attorney, and set up a free account to start collecting signatures.

Sources and Further Reading

• Connecticut Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-266 et seq.
• 15 U.S.C. 7001 (federal ESIGN Act)
• Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 885 A.2d 734 (2005) (also discusses Hyson v. White Water Mountain Resorts, 265 Conn. 636 (2003))
• Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, 280 Conn. 153, 905 A.2d 1156 (2006)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-212 (skiing, inherent hazards)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557p (recreational equestrian activities)
• Recreation Law: Cannon v. Rock Climb Fairfield, LLC (Conn. Super. Ct. 2020)

Published November 1, 2020 · Updated November 4, 2026