In Singapore’s yoga and wellness industry, many studio businesses assume that once a client or student has signed a waiver, the studio or the instructor’s responsibility has been discharged. Some studios reinforce this impression, treating the signed form as a box-ticking exercise that settles the question of liability before class begins.
As we have already established in an earlier post on liability, when something goes wrong (e.g. a practitioner is injured in class or if a complaint is lodged), what matters (in determining whether liability arises for the teacher) is whether the teacher has satisfied the duty of care owed to his/her students. The inquiry would be whether the teacher’s conduct met the standard of reasonable care, which in turn is based on what a reasonable yoga teacher, with comparable training and experience, would have done in the same situation.
This post zooms in on waivers and indemnity clauses, to examine what they can and cannot do – and why their protection is more limited in reality.
What a waiver actually is
A waiver is a risk allocation tool. It is a signed acknowledgment by a student that yoga practice involves certain inherent risks and that the student voluntarily assumes responsibility for those risks. When properly drafted, waivers serve an important function – they demonstrate that students were informed of risks before participating and that they consented to assume those risks.
Waivers also serve an evidentiary function. If a claim is made, the existence of a signed waiver can demonstrate that the student was warned of potential dangers and participated voluntarily. This can strengthen the defence against claims that the teacher or studio failed to provide adequate information.
What a waiver cannot do
Under Singapore’s Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA), contractual terms that attempt to exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence are void. This prohibition is absolute. No matter how clearly a waiver is worded, and no matter how prominently it is displayed or how explicitly a student has consented to it, the waiver cannot exclude liability for negligence that results in serious harm.
This does not mean waivers are useless. They remain valuable in managing liability for risks that are part of the practice itself and that do not result from negligence. A student may experience muscle soreness, temporary discomfort, or minor strain as a natural consequence of engaging in physical activity. A waiver can cover these inherent risks and confirm that the student voluntarily chose to participate.
The distinction between inherent risk and negligence is therefore critical. A student who experiences stiffness after a vigorous class has encountered an inherent risk of physical practice. A student who sustains a shoulder injury because a teacher applied excessive force in a hands-on adjustment without checking for pre-existing conditions has potentially experienced the consequences of negligence. A waiver may help with the first scenario, but will not help with the second.
Waivers do not remove the teacher’s obligation to act with reasonable care in the specific circumstances of each class. A signed waiver cannot override the duty of care or exclude liability for negligence under Singapore law.
Who does the waiver actually protect?
A question that many teachers overlook is who benefits from the waiver that students sign. In many cases, waivers are drafted to protect only the studio or the company operating the studio. The language may refer to “the Studio”, “the Company”, or “the Business”, but it may not expressly include individual teachers employed or engaged by the studio.
This gap in coverage matters. If a student brings a claim alleging injury due to a teacher’s negligence, and the waiver does not expressly release the teacher from liability, the student may still be able to pursue a claim directly against the teacher. In such a situation, the studio may be protected by the waiver, but the teacher may not be.
To address this, waivers should ideally be drafted to include not only the studio but also “its directors, employees, contractors, teachers, and staff”. This broader language ensures that individual teachers, whether employed or freelance, benefit from the protection the waiver is intended to provide.
This is particularly important in Singapore’s yoga industry, where a significant proportion of teachers work as freelance contractors. Freelance teachers who are not expressly included in the waiver’s scope may find themselves personally exposed to claims, even if the studio itself is shielded. If you teach at a studio, it is worth asking to see the waiver your students sign, and checking whether you are covered by its terms.
How indemnity clauses work differently
Waivers and indemnity clauses serve different purposes. A waiver asks a client to accept certain risks and to agree not to hold the studio or teacher liable for those risks. However, an indemnity clause requires a party to compensate another party for losses arising from specified events.
In the yoga context, indemnity clauses appear most commonly in two situations. The first is studio contracts, where a teacher may be required to indemnify the studio against claims arising from the teacher’s conduct. If a student sues the studio for an injury caused by the teacher, the studio can require the teacher to cover the studio’s losses – including legal costs and any damages awarded. For a freelance teacher without substantial savings or insurance, this exposure can be significant.
The second situation is corporate and off-site engagements. A corporate client may require the teacher or studio to indemnify the corporate client against claims arising from the yoga classes. If an employee attending a lunchtime yoga class is injured, the corporate client may invoke the indemnity clause, requiring the teacher or studio to bear the financial consequences.
The key difference is directional. A waiver operates between the service provider and the participant (i.e. the student agrees not to bring certain claims). An indemnity clause operates between contracting parties (typically the teacher and the studio, or the studio and a corporate client), and determines who bears the financial burden when claims arise. Teachers should pay close attention to indemnity provisions in their contracts because these can create financial exposure that extends well beyond the teacher’s direct relationship with students.
Indemnity clauses should be negotiated to cover only risks within the teacher’s control. A clause requiring a teacher to indemnify the studio for all claims arising “in connection with” the teacher’s services is far broader than one limited to claims arising from the teacher’s proven negligence.
What this means in practice
Both waivers or indemnity clauses serve legitimate risk management functions.
However, yoga teachers should resist the assumption that a signed waiver settles the question of liability (NB. it does not). Waivers manage some risks – primarily inherent risks – but they cannot override the duty of care or exclude liability for negligence under Singapore law. Indemnity clauses, meanwhile, can shift financial risk onto teachers in ways that may not be apparent until a claim is made.
By understanding waivers and indemnity clauses – what they protect, what they do not cover, and who benefits from them – you teach with greater professional awareness.
This post is part of an ongoing series on legal resources for yoga teachers in Singapore. A comprehensive toolkit covering this topic and more is coming soon!
The information in this article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice. Laws and regulations may change, and the information provided may not reflect the most current legal developments. For advice specific to your circumstances, please consult a qualified lawyer. No solicitor-client relationship is created by reading this content.