I have read all these papers by Mr. Watters, and I think the Club should embrace this concept as other paddle clubs have done. Club officers and members are rightfully concerned about potential liability if someone gets injured during a paddle trip. And I think the club is doing the right things to protect everyone with a three sided defense: Insurance for club sponsored events, waivers/releases for all club trips, and embracing the common adventure model for pop-up trips. I think for this last defense to work we should remind all participants to pop ups (trips not associated with or sponsored by the club), that the event is NOT a club trip, but is a "common adventure" trip and everyone participates at their own risk. In fact, it's probably a good idea to periodically remind members that participation in all club activities are at their own risk. I see that Pop Up trips are now Common Adventure trips on the website. Perhaps it would be a good idea to state on that web page that "a common adventure trip is two or more individuals working cooperatively for common goals, and sharing expenses, decision making, and responsibilities as equitably as possible" and that by participation in C.A. trips the participant assumes the risk of injury or death.
I no longer have access to Westlaw/Lexis, so I've not been able to determine whether the "common adventure" model alone has been successfully used as a defense in litigation, and if anyone does have Westlaw/Lexis I'd be interested to know. But I believe it can certainly help as support for the assumption of risk defense.
Also, if we're going to promote the common adventure model in our club, I think we should consider bringing the issue up often at club meetings, i.e., remind members that pop-up trips are undertaken under that model and that everyone assumes the risk when they participate in them. And perhaps have a tab/link on our website for more information on what C.A. is and means.