on this language, we conclude that the release waived claims for injuries resulting from dangers inherent to riding a motorcycle, not for those resulting from defendant’s negligence. Although plaintiff waived claims for injuries resulting from dangers inherent in riding a motorcycle, the release did not cover claims for injury resulting from defendant’s alleged negligent representations to plaintiff. See Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., 800 P.2d 1291, 1295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (concluding that language in a release for ski rental alerted renter to “the dangers inherent in skiing,” but did not alert renter that she was also releasing ski area for “its own negligence in selecting appropriate skis or properly setting the bindings”); Turnbough v. Ladner, 754 So. 2d 467, 469 (Miss. 2000) (<HOLDING>). ¶20. This interpretation is supported by the
holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived holding that failure to follow state law requiring issuing judge to record testimony did not affect validity of warrant holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not holding that the failure to follow rule 252b3a was jurisdictional holding that release that participant in scuba diving class signed waived claims associated with risks inherent in sport but did not waive right to recover for instructors failure to follow accepted safety standards