 Poster: A snowHead
|
In a ruling yesterday [Tuesday] the Supreme Court in Maine, USA, said that a woman injured in a tubing accident had no claim against the ski resort involved.
Rhonda Maddocks was injured at New Hermon Mountain when her tube hit a bump and went airborne in 2003. She held the ski area liable for her injuries.
In common with a number of other US states, Maine indemnifies its ski areas from liability for a number of inherent or associated risks in sliding down mountains.
Rhonda Maddocks' lawyer had argued that his client was hurt because the equipment was virtually uncontrollable.
This report from The Boston Globe.
Was the court right?
Tubing certainly carries significant risks - I was at a resort in Washington State some years ago where they'd had a collision on a tubing slope which had resulted in a holidaymaker breaking his neck.
Is tubing a good idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yes, the court was right. Another frivolous lawsuit by someone who wanted all the thrills but without the responsibility for her own actions.
As for whether tubing is a good idea, well, why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
David, some very odd thinking seems to be going on here. This woman gets in an inner tube (which I would contend is uncontrollable), presumably of her own free will, and then complains when she gets injured.  Just how could it be anyone else's fault but her own.
Am I missing something?
I suggest she tries suing the Mountain God, or the Snow God.
Is there a Bump God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Seems a sensible outcome to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Oi, leave me out of it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I agree (waits for squeals), you can't have faulty or miss-serviced equipment with a tube. I'm assuming it was segregated from other hill users on the basis that tubes are pretty much uncontrolled ballistic objects.
Though if it was on the open hill with other users there would be some big issues. There is a thing called an airboard http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11022621/
That may be in the mix with other hill uses and that does worry me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
| Is there a Bump God? |
Yes. His name is David Murdoch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, under a different jurisdiction (perhaps, even, a British one) this woman may have had a case.
Having seen a little bit of tubing at ski resorts, I'd hazard a guess that the scenario was something like this: Rhonda Maddocks sees a sign saying "Tubing. Huge Fun! $10 for 5 slides". She pays her money goes to the top of the track and is given a big fat inner tube. She plonks herself on the thing and off she goes. There's a prepared track (probably), possibly in the form of defined channels down the slope with banked sides.
Should the track have had a bump?
The point is that tubing is inherently risky: the things accelerate, there's no realistic means of braking, and any tom, dick or rhonda is going to use one. So ... what kinds of features should the track contain? Should a defined and designed limit of risk be built into the track?
I mean - it's the equivalent of a theme park ride, isn't it? It's hardly a sport. It's a pre-defined ride ... and one wouldn't expect a rollercoaster to throw people in the air and get hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
David Goldsmith, Interestingly theme-park rides are heavily legislated and liability can be clearly defined (if there is any breach of regulation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The woman chose to ski in Maine. So she chose to ski under Maine law:
| Quote: |
Under the law, skiing is defined broadly to include the use of a ski area "for sliding downhill on snow or ice on skis or a toboggan, sled, tube, snowboard" or "for similar uses of the ski slopes and trails. |
Seems clear to me that she had no case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Yes, I don't think that's in doubt.
The point is whether ski resorts should be given blanket indemnity against liability for risks which they may be artificially creating.
What duty of care, if any, should exist if you're giving someone a virtually uncontrollable tube to slide down a mountain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The duty of care is with the rider, Take a look at what is involved and decide if it's for them or not. Instead of devoiding yourself for all your actions.
As Wear The Fox Hat, said
| Quote: |
someone who wanted all the thrills but without the responsibility for her own actions.
|
Far to much of this sort of attitude nowadays.
I refuse to do parachute jumping even for charity, I know thousands of people do it. But to me (with my luck) it's far from safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Much to my suprise I'm with the 'it's more like a ride' view on this - to my mind it's the frozen equivalent of a water tube slide and I'd be mighty miffed if the preprepared track caused me serious injury! Something you have no control over once you have begun and that is preprepared should be safe - if they were arguing that it was a freak accident then fair enough but they seem to be arguing it's not their responsibility at all which sounds wrong to me.
aj xx
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Have a lot of sympathy with the 'want the thrills but not the risk' argument.
But I would consider the operator had a duty to make sure the ride was inherently safe given that the rider has no control of the tube. A bump on a prepared run makes it unsafe. Indeed, it would appear to me that it is the exact opposite of skiing/boarding, where the duty to ensure a safe route is taken lays entirely with the skier/boarder - here, it should lay with the operator.
Thinkof the parallel with parachute jumping - if you get injured and its your fault - tough. If its an equipemnt malfunction on provided equipment, its the operators fault. The surface of the run, which is entirely within the control of the operator, is surely part of the 'equipemnt' provided.
The judge has ruled in accordance with the law - looks like the law maybe inappropriate in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I have to say, the lack of personal responsibility people equate to their own actions these days make me sick. If you choose to do something that is inherently dangerous you should either take out your own injury insurance for that eventuality or, in the words of Dennis Leary, 'shut the f@*k up'. Everybody seems to want to blame someone else for their own misfortunes these days and it really is ruining the world around us. How many small businesses do you know of that have had to close up due to spiralling insurance costs? I certainly know of several and not just those in the 'adventure sports' market.
In saying that I know nothing of these tubing rides, or the duty of care being assumed by the operator. However, on the few facts I have been privy to i certainly agree with the verdict of the court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Mark2010, that's a very broad brush you're using. You're at the mercy of thousands of people every day and I doubt that you personal insurance covers any eventuality, particularly if the other parties are uninsured. There are lots of problems and court cases for pedestrian/cyclist collisions. There are an extraordinary number of things that you are not insured for, here's an example. You have a tree in your garden, it's a bit old but you've never had it checked or pruned by a qualified arborialist(sp?), it overhangs a road, a branch falls off (killing a pedestrian on the way down) forcing a car into the opposite lane and crashing head on into another. Other cars are scattered into neighboring gardens . . . messy
You are liable not only for civil damages but could possibly be prosecuted for manslaughter . . . are you insured? . . . Not all home policies cover this and if they do, you have to follow the instructions in the policy.
Sometimes someone else does carry a share in a problem and if they're not insured there is only one other course of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I should perhaps narrow my brush a little then 
I really only intended to refer to activities of a recreational and discretionary nature, but i see on rereading that I didnt make that at all clear. Obviously the normal day to day activities generate risks which quickly become far to complex to allow for a personal policy to cover all eventualities. I just think that someone choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity, whether skiing, mountain biking, sailing etc, should be prepared to shoulder the liability should anything happen that isnt as a direct and clear consequence of the negligence of the potential head of liability should he/she decide to sue. By this i mean, had the tube burst due to poor maintenance resulting in the individual sliding along sheet ice on their backside, then i think I would be on the side of the injured party. However, the risk of falling off the tube due to undulations in the ground (again here i must caveat by saying i have no idea how big the undulation was. If it was a large and obvious danger negligently disregarded by the operator then my opinion would differ) appears to me to be a very high one. Indeed, if i were to go on the ride, i would expect to fall off. I would weigh this in mind before deciding whether or not to go on it. If i fell and got hurt, I would consider that to have been a result in my own poor judgement and my own tough luck. I decide to go skiing every year, I consider this to contain a healthy degree of risk, so i take insurance for this possibility. I acknowledge that I will likely fall, and may hurt myself. If I do only i am at fault. Outdoor pursuits by their very nature contain a high degree of unpredictability. I would not on the other hand ever even contemplate a parachute jump, as for me the risk is too high.
My point is that we owe a duty of care to ourselves to decide on potential danger, and if deciding to take the risk, we must (Or ought to IMHO) bear the brunt of the responsibility. It may still sound a little draconian, but if something like this got through, i think it really does open the door to skiing related claims, which could have dire consequences for the industry as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
Is there a Bump God? |
She's called Kari Traa and was robbed at the olympics, but her bumps look good in the body armour 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| But I would consider the operator had a duty to make sure the ride was inherently safe |
Tubing is by it's very nature inherently UNSAFE. Track conditions can change rapidly, at kirkwood I've seen the track go from tubes not getting half way down, to about 10-15minutes later one teenage boy going right over the huge berm at the bottom, ripping out the saftey fence and continuing several hunrdred yards to come to a stop outside the Redcliffs Dayloge. Unharmed, but it underlined that there are risks that are hard to control when you are sliding down a mountian on an uncontrollable device. I have no doubt that in this case, as the track speed up people were trying their hardest to get over the stop berm at the bottom, you admittedly have little control, but with technique you can maximise your speed.
Should resorts be doing this? Yes, why should those uncappable of taking any responsibility for their own actions and decisions ruin it for everyone else? At Kirkwood each participant has to sign a disclaimer waiving Kirkwood Mountain Resort LLC of any liability related to tubing, indeed by signing the disclaimer you are deemed to acknowledge that tubing is "highly dangerous and carries inhernt and other risks of injury and DEATH".
If there are any legal eagles out there, what is their views on the Land Reform Act in Scotland, I would suggest that it actually indeminfies the ski areas in Scotland against any liability for snowsport accidents unless possibly if they occur while using uplift and as a direct result of neglegent operation of uplift. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
