What do you recommend a landlord do when a tenant wants to have a trampoline in the yard of the home the landlord owns? Is it enough to recommend the tenants get renters insurance? Can a waiver release the landlord from liability should tenant, tenant's children or anyone else get injured?

In NY the landlord remains partially liable for any accidents on the property if there is a known risk and the landlord allows it - whether the renters have insurance.

I wouldn't allow it.

The lease agreement has a section (pasted below)that, I believe, addresses my question though I'm uncertain as to whether it would hold up in court. After reading previous comments I don't think it will. Thoughts?

INDEMNIFICATION. Lessor shall not be liable for any damage or injury of or to the Lessee, Lessee's family, guests, invitees, agents or employees or to any person entering the Premises or the building of which the Premises are a part or to goods or equipment, or in the structure or equipment of the structure of which the Premises are a part, and Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims or assertions of every kind and nature.

First, its not a good idea to piggyback your question on another thread. This can cause confusion. So your question has been moved to its own thread.

The clause you cite is fairly standard. It seeks to remove the landlord from liability. But, from a practical standpoint, it is unlikely to hold up in court because you can't sign away your rights. And that's what that clause is doing.

What you CAN do, is add a clause to the lease that would allow the tenant to install the trampoline as long as a) the tenant specifically takes FULL responsibility for its use and maintenance and b) pays for a rider to the landlord's insurance to specifically cover liability for the trampoline as well as procure renter's insurance that also covers the tenant.

Thanks. My insurance agent only suggested we make sure the tenants have renters insurance but made no mention of a ride on our homeowners policy. I will check with them again. Thanks very much for your feedback.

I'm a liability investigator, in NY. I don't know where you are. You CANNOT waive your legal rights. If someone is injured on that trampoline YOU are going to be mentioned in a lawsuit if one is filed. As the property owner you have the responsibility to make sure people "visiting" the property are safe. I work on dog bite incidents all the time when the tenant has signed everything under the sun to hold the landlord not responsible AND the tenant has insurance. I look at the homeowner to see if he/she is negligent... and he/she gets sued.

I very seldom disagree with my colleague, Scottgem, but I do in this instance. A clause whereby the tenant takes full responsibility for anything will very likely be set aside because (in its own fashion) it waives the rights of the injured person.

I own property. I will not allow my tenants to have a trampoline. I've worked too many personal injury cases on rental properties.

You have to weigh all the advice you've received and choose what is best for you.

Very good points taken. I will consider them all. Thanks for your valuable perspective.

First, I think you need a new insurance agent. Renters insurance generally covers property damage and theft. Any liability coverage is minimal. So for your agent to just tell you to have them get renters insurance is not protecting you.

Judy and I aren't really disagreeing. If it comes to court, such a clause as the one you have and the one I described will probably not protect you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have it anyway. It may intimidate someone from filing suit against you.

But the key is to get SPECIFIC insurance coverage for the trampoline. If the tenant was just to get renters without mentioning the trampoline, their carrier might not protect them because of that. So you need to see that they have insurance covering their liability in case of problems and you want them to pay for coverage for your liability.

Of course all this may discourage them from getting the trampoline.

The next point of course is to just tell them no they can't have one.

The lease agreement has a section (pasted below)that, I believe, addresses my question though I'm uncertain as to whether it would hold up in court. After reading previous comments I don't think it will. Thoughts?

INDEMNIFICATION. Lessor shall not be liable for any damage or injury of or to the Lessee, Lessee's family, guests, invitees, agents or employees or to any person entering the Premises or the building of which the Premises are a part or to goods or equipment, or in the structure or equipment of the structure of which the Premises are a part, and Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims or assertions of every kind and nature.

As ScottGem and JudyKayTee have suggested, this clause is not absolute protection for the landlord. The principal reason is that anybody mentioned in the clause ("Lessee, Lessee's family, guests, invitees, agents or employees or to any person entering the Premises"), with the exception of the lessee, is not a party to the lease and doesn't even know about the clause. A suggestion that this clause somehow "waive's" that stranger's right to sue the landlord would be preposterous. And, while under the claiuse, the tenant is responsible to protect the landlord should someone be injured, that is only protection if the tenant is financially responsible. If the tenant is judgment-proof, the landlord would be left holding the bag.

As ScottGem and JudyKayTee have suggested, this clause is not absolute protection for the landlord. The principal reason is that anybody mentioned in the clause ("Lessee, Lessee's family, guests, invitees, agents or employees or to any person entering the Premises"), with the exception of the lessee, is not a party to the lease and doesn't even know about the clause. A suggestion that this clause somehow "waive's" that stranger's right to sue the landlord would be preposterous. And, while under the claiuse, the tenant is responsible to protect the landlord should someone be injured, that is only protection if the tenant is financially responsible. If the tenant is judgment-proof, the landlord would be left holding the bag.


And I will add that if the injuries are above and beyond the tenants' amount of insurance coverage I (or someone like me) will be looking at someone else for other coverage - and that will be the landlord.

I have investigated many, many incidents/accidents involving a dog owned by tenants who HAVE insurance. Bite to a child? Permanent injury? Scarring? Guess who I look at next?

In NY I have seen two vehicles registered in the same household, separate insurance policies. Not enough coverage on the first policy? The second gets pulled in. Sometimes the person collects from the second policy. Sometimes he/she does not. That doesn't mean you or your company don't have to defend.

You may wish to purchase a one million dollar umbrella policy for the liability the trampoline will expose you to. And recommend your tenant get a one million dollar umbrella policy as well. Trampolines mean lawsuit and big bucks to the winner. Be prepared.