Yoga teachers in Singapore may assume that paperwork such as waivers and insurance policies can operate as shields against individual or personal liability which may arise if something goes wrong (e.g. if a practitioner is injured in class or if a complaint is lodged).

For example, a teacher may believe she is shielded from liability because the studio has a written waiver notice or policy in place.  Another teacher may assume that because the studio has an insurance policy in place, individual teachers employed or engaged by the studio are automatically protected.  Some other teachers may take the general view (rightly or otherwise) that yoga is inherently low-risk, and therefore serious legal consequences are unlikely.

These assumptions are not always correct or accurate.  When something goes wrong, the teacher’s intention, care, or goodwill does not matter.  What matters is what was done, what should have been done, and what can be demonstrated or proved.  Below, we will talk about the duty of care that yoga teachers owe to their students, and how liability arises for yoga teachers in practice.

Low visibility does not mean no risk

As a preliminary, to address the view that yoga is low-risk and serious legal consequences are therefore unlikely, it is true that compared to jurisdictions such as the United States, litigation rates in Singapore are lower.  When disputes arise in the wellness sector in Singapore, they are more likely to be handled through informal channels such as calls, written communication and negotiation(s), which may lead to an informal settlement.  Alternatively, complaints may be lodged with bodies such as the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

Also, litigation and court proceedings tend to be less common in Singapore’s wellness industry due to the generally lower degree of complexity in the factual scenario of such disputes, and the comparatively higher cost of legal representation, versus the remedies that can be obtained.  The 2 factors above thus operate to create the impression that legal risk from disputes in the Singapore wellness industry is minimal.

However, the relative absence of high-profile litigation does not mean that liability or the risk of being involved in costly disputes does not exist.  It only means that legal exposure is often absorbed privately – by teachers who bear the financial cost of informal settlements, by studios which suffer reputational damage without formal legal proceedings, or by students who choose not to pursue claims despite having valid grounds for their claims.  The absence of visibility of legal disputes should therefore not be mistaken for the absence of risk.

The duty of care

Under Singapore law, yoga teachers owe a duty of care to their students.  It is grounded in the law of negligence, which forms part of Singapore’s tort law framework.  The duty of care is not absolute – it does not require a teacher to guarantee that no student will ever be injured.  What it requires is that the teacher acts as a reasonably competent professional would act in similar circumstances.  Courts will consider what a reasonable yoga teacher, with comparable training and experience, would have done in the same situation.  The inquiry is not whether the teacher acted with good intentions, nor whether the teacher followed the studio’s written policies.  The inquiry is whether the teacher’s conduct met the standard of reasonable care.

This duty exists independently of contractual arrangements or insurance coverage.  A teacher may have signed a well-drafted contract, may work for a studio with comprehensive insurance, and may require students to sign waivers before every class.  None of these protections, however, remove the teacher’s duty of care.

How liability arises

Liability often turns on decisions that may appear minor in the moment but carry significant consequences.  Consider the following scenarios:

A teacher provides a hands-on adjustment to a student without checking whether the student is comfortable with physical contact.  The student, who has a history of shoulder instability that was disclosed on the registration form but not verbally communicated before class, experiences a rotator cuff issue (e.g. dislocation) as a result of the adjustment.

A teacher observes a student visibly struggling with a pose (e.g. the student’s face is flushed, breathing is laboured), but the teacher does not intervene, reasoning that the student will stop if they need to.  The student continues, collapses, and sustains an injury.

A teacher is informed before class that a student has a lower back condition, acknowledges this information, but does not offer options or modifications during the class.  The student follows the general instructions for a deep forward fold and aggravates the condition, which requires medical treatment.

In each of these scenarios, liability arises because the teacher’s conduct has arguably fallen below the standard of reasonable care expected of a competent yoga teacher in Singapore.  Liability did not arise simply because a waiver was absent or because insurance coverage was inadequate.

Inaction can also give rise to liability

It is important to understand that liability can arise from both action and inaction.  A teacher who intervenes inappropriately – for example, by applying excessive force in an adjustment – may be found to have been negligent.  Equally, a teacher who fails to intervene when intervention is clearly warranted may also be found negligent.  The omission to act can be just as consequential as the commission of an unsafe act, insofar as it relates to whether the yoga teacher has fulfilled his/her duty of care.

It is also important to understand that following studio policies is not synonymous with fulfilling one’s duty of care.  A studio may have internal training guidelines in writing instructing teachers to remind students to listen to their bodies, or requiring teachers to offer modifications for common issues or conditions.  While these written policies may be useful, they do not absolve teachers of responsibility for exercising professional judgment in real time.  If a studio’s policies are inadequate, or if a teacher fails to apply them appropriately in a specific situation, liability may still attach personally to the teacher.

What this means for you

None of this is intended to suggest that teaching yoga is inherently risky or dangerous.  The intention of this article is simply to clarify that liability follows behaviour, not documentation.  Waivers, contracts, and insurance policies are risk management tools – they do not replace the fundamental obligation of each yoga teacher to teach safely, and to respond appropriately to the circumstances of each class and each practitioner.

In upcoming posts in this series, we will look more closely at how waivers and indemnity clauses operate in practice, and where their limits lie.  We will also look at what insurance actually covers and what it does not.  For now, the most important thing a yoga teacher can do is understand that the duty of care is real, that it exists independently of any document you or your practitioners have signed, and that meeting that duty requires professional judgment exercised in the moment – not reliance on paperwork completed before the class began.

 

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.