 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
You do have to be very thoroughly qualified to instruct skiing here in France easiski.
|
Eggs. Grandmother. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Paris7 wrote: |
| You do have to be very thoroughly qualified to instruct skiing here in France easiski. |
You are skating on thin ice there mate.
As far as the legals, you can sue either in the defendants state of residence or or where the contract was made for the service. That applies to France and England/Wales (don't know about other countried). As French courts as a general rule are less generous (it would depend on your age, job etc, you may be looking at 250K)l
Suing Snowbizz in the UK looks like a much sounder option, assuming the injured man had a contract with Snowbizz for the provision of tuition.
I assume if you ski with Inghams and let them arrange tuition you could also sue them rather than the ski school. That's my understanding of the law regarding TOs in any case.
It is an interesting case. I feel sorry for the man in the wheelchair, terrible, he must have got up a lot of speed to have been so badly injured.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 17-11-08 21:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I have been on holiday with Snowbizz and as far as I know the situation with the ski school is that Michel (the co-owner of snowbizz the holiday company) also owns the school and runs it with his own instructors. It operates under the ESI framework/award scheme. In my opinion Snowbizz and the ski school are excellent and provide a thoroughly professional service. I think it a shame that the judgement appears to have gone against the instructor (who I imagine is employed by Snowbizz/Michel and which would explain why they are being sued).
Since Paris7 is new I see no reason why he would know that Easiski or anyone else for that matter are instructors - so no reason to take the p155 out of his comments - he was only explaining the situation correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| johnnyh wrote: |
Since Paris7 is new I see no reason why he would know that Easiski or anyone else for that matter are instructors - so no reason to take the p155 out of his comments - he was only explaining the situation correctly. |
he got personal, if he had made a general comment fair enough, but Arno had it about right earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
red 27, How about  would you prefer that. I can do those in spades, each time you post if you prefer. Maybe Paris7 is your sock puppet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Paris7 wrote: |
You do have to be very thoroughly qualified to instruct skiing here in France easiski. It has been seen as something of a closed shop, but the French attitude was born out of just too many 'chalet girls' (yes I know but that's what they were called at the time) ski bum boyfriends pitching to innocent punters to earn a bob or six - and getting it horribly wrong.
I think you should read the judgement and assume that His Lordship may not have been a skier, but he learned a very great deal and is most certainly no fool. He knows very well indeed how to get to the bottom of things and is wise. As to the rest I guess that's all just now except to say that Off-Piste is just that, Off-Piste and it had better be treated with a great deal of caution and the respect that any hostile environment deserves. So very many skiers think pisted slopes are nature in the raw and are so lulled that off-piste they simply can't imagine what might be only just under the snow surface. An unpisted, uncleared wooded hillside could well look OK, it may be OK but could very well prove to be lethal. |
Actually - these are very fair points.
The judge was Foskett J. I don`t know him personally but has a reputation as being able and fair and is highly thought of.
The judgment is pretty thorough. It runs to 38 pages (151 para.s).
The following emerges (obviously - very brief summary)
1. The central issue was whether the ski instructor should have allowed the claimant to ski in the off-piste area in question. It was suggested that the particular area was too difficult for the claimant.
2. Snowbizz was the tour operator. There was no suggestion that the Snowbizz partnership was in any way at fault. However, under English law it was the responsible tour operator under regulation 15 of the [Package Tours 1992 Regulations].
3. Snowbizz played no active part in the trial. The battle was between the claimant and the instructor.
4. The Judge found that the evidence indicated that the claimant had not mastered, to a sufficient level, the skills necessary to undertake a piece of off-piste terrain of this nature in reasonable safety.
5. The Judge concluded that the instructor had assumed that everybody in the group was up to the task, and capable of safely completing it.
6. The instructor had not consciously considered the position of all persons in the group, including the weakest skiers (the claimant's wife and two other group members).
7. The Judge stated that the test was whether the terrain, in the condition that it was in, was a reasonably safe piece of terrain for all members of the group. Was it reasonably foreseeable that any one of the three identified individuals would have fallen or lost control when negotiating this terrain? The answer, according to Judge, was "yes".
8. However, the Judge did not consider this to be determinative of liability. What was determinative was the answer to the second question: namely, was there a reasonably foreseeable risk of impacting with a tree in consequence of losing control? The Judge held "yes".
9. The Judge accepted that the ski instructor was an honest witness and a conscientious instructor. However, he thought that on this occasion he had "taken his eye off the ball". Something, the Judge observed, which happens on occasion, to many highly competent and conscientious doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, players and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
jonty, This is interesting.
red 27, If you're talking about what the poster said to me then I'm astonished to be considered one of the 'in'crowd! In fact I have the impression that I'm very much 'out' with the powers that be in SH these days!  However my signature does actually give a huge hint, so the poster didn't have to be a long-term snowhead to know what I do for a living and where. Those of us who've been around since nearly the beginning and have contributed consistently to SH throughout the years do not deserve to be lambasted for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
red 27, I like to think of myself as 'pending'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27, What an absolutely ludicrous post.
I don't think it even slightly unreasonable, when a new poster says to somebody well known to be a very good ski instructor (and said it specifically to her) that "You do have to be very thoroughly qualified to instruct skiing here in France", to point out to him what she does for a living.
It is nothing to do with any "in-crowd" (I'm by no means sure any such thing even exists).
And there isn't any "laughing-at-you" emoticon, and changing a poster's name rather pointlessly is something about the level of the 8 year old skool (sic) playground you mention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
jonty, Thank you for posting that summary it certainly clears up a few areas of thought!
One wonders if the title of this thread should be changed in the light of,
| Quote: |
3. Snowbizz played no active part in the trial. The battle was between the claimant and the instructor.
|
However,
| Quote: |
2. Snowbizz was the tour operator. There was no suggestion that the Snowbizz partnership was in any way at fault. However, under English law it was the responsible tour operator under regulation 15 of the [Package Tours 1992 Regulations].
|
Perhaps a timely warning to all those taking groups to the Alps.
Whether the judge is a skier or not I find the final quote very fair
| Quote: |
9. The Judge accepted that the ski instructor was an honest witness and a conscientious instructor. However, he thought that on this occasion he had "taken his eye off the ball". Something, the Judge observed, which happens on occasion, to many highly competent and conscientious doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, players and the like.
|
I would imagine lawyers for the skiclub insureres are following this case very closely 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Boredsurfing wrote: |
I would imagine lawyers for the skiclub insureres are following this case very closely |
Can we talk about that?
I'm not sure it is the same though. In this case Snowbizz took money in exchange for a service so there is some kind of contract and duty of care.
In the Ski Club's case the guiding is voluntary - well ok you need to join the club if you continue using the service but your first hit is for free. This would seem to change the nature of the relationship. It will be interesting to see what a court decides.
The Snowbizz case made me think of a day I spent with the Ski Club guiding service about 10 years ago. The day was advertised as "blue and twos" but because there was fresh snow the ski club guide decided to turn it into an "introduction powder ski day". Clearly by the second run there were people who could not cope and were getting quite distressed but persisted because they were with the rep and either didn't feel comfortable leaving the group and returning to resort alone or felt constrained by group dynamics. The rep was quite obstinate, in reality I suspect he didn't want to miss a powder day due to having to nanny intermediate skiers around.
I therefore sympathize with both the skier who died in Verbier and the disabled man in this case. You do tend to put a lot of trust (perhaps wrongly) in group leaders and it takes some experience to say no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
davidof, In a wider discussion, liability in group skiing organised from a website would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Boredsurfing, subtle as usual eh  Indeed a legitimate subject for discussion, but if anyone wishes to do so I suggest a new thread so as not to further derail this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Yoda, or indeed an old thread. there's 24 pages-worth somewhere on this very subject!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
In light of the discussion above and some comments on the assumed liability of Package Tour ops in certain circumstances you may be interested in these cases (which are from the law reports) where two claimants failed in their cases against the tour ops
1. G brought an action in negligence against a tour operator, A, with which she had booked a skiing holiday. The booking made and paid for by G was for the provision of international flights, chalet accommodation, coach transfers to and from the airport and the services of a local representative. On the transfer coach journey between the airport and resort, G purchased a "ski-pack" from A's representative, which included the hire of skis and boots, lift passes and a course of lessons with a ski school, ESF. In the course of a lesson, G was attempting to follow the ESF tutor, a probationer, in executing a tricky, off-piste manoeuvre. She lost control of her trajectory and skied over a 40 foot cliff sustaining serious multiple orthopaedic injuries. G claimed that the tuition was negligent in quality and in choice of skiing location and sued A for breach of the package holiday contract and under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 Reg.15 alleging that A was responsible for the ski tutor's negligence.
Held, giving judgment for the defendant, that (1) on the facts, and in the absence of any expert evidence from G as to the standard to be expected of ESF in providing tutors and choosing teaching locations, it had not been proved that the tutor or ESF had been negligent in any of the respects alleged; (2) even if negligence had been established, A was not liable for such negligence; (3) A's fair trading charter was plain. Liability was accepted in the contract for "the holiday sold to you". A's brochure made it clear that the "holiday sold" to G comprised only those items confirmed in A's invoice and that ski-packs were not included in the holiday sold to consumers, and (4) the Regulations did not apply to the ski-pack because the ski-pack had been sold separately at extra cost and therefore could not fall within the meaning of a "pre-arranged combination" of holiday components; neither could it be said that it had been sold at an "inclusive price" as part of a regulated package within the meaning of Reg.2.
2. The claimant (D) brought an action against the defendant tour operator (F) for damages following a skiing accident which occurred whilst D was on a package holiday booked with F. The holiday price had included accommodation, return flights, hotel transfer and the services of a local representative. D could have pre booked and paid in advance for his skiing equipment and lessons (the ski pack) but instead chose to book it once on holiday, using an independent local business S. D made a payment to F's local representative for lessons and the hire of the ski equipment and in return received a ski pack ticket bearing S's name at the top and also F's logo. D presented the ticket to S for the provision of the equipment and the lessons. F had selected S to provide ski equipment to all of its guests. D attended S's shop where he was provided with boots and skis which he wore for the first day's lessons and skiing without incident. The following day, as D was attempting a simple turn, his ski stopped suddenly whilst his body continued to rotate resulting in D falling to the ground. D's right ski detached from his foot, but the other remained attached causing D to sustain a cruciate ligament injury to his left knee. The left ski had failed to detach because S had supplied the wrong sized boot for D's left ski and bindings. D brought an action against F on the grounds of negligence on the part of S's employee, relying upon causes of action in contract pursuant to the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 and F's booking conditions. Further and alternatively, D argued that he had a separate contract parallel to the main package holiday contract, for the fitting and hire of his ski equipment which he had entered into with F at the ski resort, through F's local representative. Further, that F had negligently selected an unsafe supplier of ski equipment for its guests.
Held, giving judgment for F, that the purchase of the ski pack was not regulated in accordance with the 1992 Regulations because it was neither pre arranged nor inclusively priced and was sold separately outside the United Kingdom. Therefore it was not part of the "package" as defined in Reg.2(1) to which the 1992 Regulations applied by virtue of Reg.3(1). On a true construction of the contract made for the fitting and provision of skiing equipment, D's contract was with S and F's local representative had simply acted as their agent. F's promotional literature for ski packs clearly stated that F only recommended suppliers of ski packs rather than supplied the same itself. F's status as agent was not affected by the fact that F's local representative had taken the money for the ski pack. There was no evidence that F had been negligent in failing to select an appropriate local supplier for the fitting and hiring out of ski equipment. Therefore no liability arose on that basis. The accident was the result of an isolated lapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Thanks Malcolm, the message is clear, don't purchase overpriced ski packs from the Tour Operator because they won't want to know if there is a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27, if you're buying, mine's a champagne cocktail in the Windsor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27, But I'm cheap a small shandy would do nicely - be VERY careful - we'll probably hold you to that offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
OK so Sham-pagne and Shandy - I'll get a pitcher that should keep you both happy for about 20 minutes. But tell me there's not really a place called the Windsor... The owner is called Babs right?  All velour banquettes and horse-brasses, just like yer good olde worlde Cock-er-ny pub innit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27, the owner is called Frank and the banquettes are burgundy leather. But there are very probably some horse brasses, indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Frank - you're kidding right... Second name Butcher perchance? Are you sure they even stock Champagne?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
red 27, champagne, range of Belgian beers, zillions of whiskies. And I know the difference between champagne and cheap sparkling wine, so don't get any funny ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27, Of course it's pronounced Fronk, and his enligh wife who runs the Mark Warner operation here ...... Looks like an old fashioned englih pub and has a very french atmosphere ........
Lizzard, I thought the leather was green - must check soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
easiski, they could be green. Clearly I don't go out boozing often enough!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Dear me, a bit of a hornet's nest! I wasn't having a go at easiski or anyone in particular. I was just gingerly trying to inject a bit of first hand knowledge and pointing out that those involved were reading the thread.
When I said: "You do have to be very thoroughly qualified to instruct skiing here in France easiski. It has been seen as something of a closed shop, but the French attitude was born out of just too many 'chalet girls' (yes I know but that's what they were called at the time) ski bum boyfriends pitching to innocent punters to earn a bob or six - and getting it horribly wrong."
it wasn't having a go at you for goodness sakes! It's a simple truth, not a snipe at anyone, certainly not at a ski Instructor. But then why would I know that easiski is a ski instructor? and why would that concern me or alter my opinion in any way? easiski doesn't know who I am either ... why should she?
I could (maybe should) have gone on to say that in the many French resorts I've worked in there appeared to be this closed shop attitude to foreign instructors, it may partly be symptomatic of a more general French protectionist xenophobia; I would say that could be true. However, the British "chalet girl's" (I don't like that term either) often Antipodean (now who's being xenophobic?) skibum boyfriend had a lot to do with it too .... Yes it really did ...... yes it did!
It's frustrating that I may not comment more on this case, except to say that I'm pleased that Jonty took the trouble to post the Judgment and make those comments, now we're getting somewhere so thank you for that.
Moving on rapidly and talking generally, of course I'm hooked on skiing, I love it to bits, I started in Switzerland at the age of 4, lived off-piste in the Highlands when winters were winters and chalet girls were ... were really respectable, helpful people. I worked in many ski resorts in Europe, the USA and Canada but does it matter? No not a lot really.
My opinion - and that's always important - is that Off Piste really has to be very much better understood for what it actually is before taking off into it - even close to a resort's graded runs. Too few people understand that pisted slopes are not nature in the raw, rather, well tended areas that have more in common with a golf course with slopes than to life in a raw high altitude environment. In fact in a way it's a testimony to piste directors and to pisteur's work that holiday skiers so often misunderstand this. The number of off-piste deaths and dire injuries in France alone between December and April each year is truly shocking, so while wake-up calls may be 'tedious' boy are they needed or what.
Peace and good will to you all, may your kneezzzz never give out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Paris7, speaking for myself, I found your post funny just because easiski is well known to people here as an instructor - obviously you weren't to know that, so my reply wasn't intended to be nasty.
The upshot of the whole thing seem to be that red 27, has promised me a champagne cocktail, so cheers, I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Paris7, Lummy - that's a long post... Are you VolklAttiva55 in disguise my Parisien Ami?
Peut-etre you can join us with to meet 'Fronk', Mrs Fronk and the elusive 'Mark Warner' in the Olde Windsor where Lizzard has generously offered to smuggle in a bottle of Cava from the Spar, and easicome-easigo can intruct us how to bend ze kneezzzz so that we don't join the shocking numbers of dead and direly injured!
Ladies - is it snowing yet there? I'm not coming if conditions are sub-optimal, I'm a bit diva-esque like that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Paris7, I wasn't having a go at you either, but my sinature does say "Charlotte Swift, Private & small group tuition in Les Deux Alpes
www.easiski.com" I've been working in LDA for 18 years, and don't find it a closed shop or any problems - you just have to be properly qualified, learn to speak french, and make the effort to fit in. I think you're absolutely right about the chalet girl syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| easiski wrote: |
| I think you're absolutely right about the chalet girl syndrome. |
Which isn't to say ex-chalet girls can't make ITSD - I know one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
ITSD? Internationally Transmitted Sexual Disease?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Paris7 wrote: |
| ......My opinion - and that's always important - is that Off Piste really has to be very much better understood for what it actually is before taking off into it - even close to a resort's graded runs. Too few people understand that pisted slopes are not nature in the raw, rather, well tended areas that have more in common with a golf course with slopes than to life in a raw high altitude environment. In fact in a way it's a testimony to piste directors and to pisteur's work that holiday skiers so often misunderstand this. The number of off-piste deaths and dire injuries in France alone between December and April each year is truly shocking, so while wake-up calls may be 'tedious' boy are they needed or what............ |
Search this forum for 'off piste SCGB rep' (all the words). You'll find a bunch - the topic's been well covered. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed again - but you might find it useful to see what's gone before, this time. You might want to start here. Welcome to sH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
'In Crowd', even as in this case by an a new member who only states a fact, and they all descend like pack animals to defend their own and heap riducule and humiliation of the 'outsider' with the usual gross overuse of the oh-so-funny emoticons. I think 
