 Poster: A snowHead
|
The Utah resort of Snowbird has introduced an unusual policy to give skiers summer action, while telling them "the responsibility is yours".
Rather than close their cablecar at the end of the season - and Snowbird has a very long season - it is still open for those who want to hike around the high slopes looking for some action. The catch is that passengers have to sign a liability waiver (so the resort can't be blamed for accidents or lack of ski patrolling), and must carry an avalanche shovel and transceiver.
This report from Deseret News.
Discussion on EpicSki.com
Any views on the pros and cons of this idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
How cool.
How can that be a bad thing? The responsibility is ALWAYS "Yours". Why would anyone presume that a ski resort should have any responsibility over their personal actions and behaviour (I know, it's the USA so personal responsibility takes a back seat to lawyers income requirements)? Well done Snowbird.
Curious. Why then mandate that they should carry avalanche kit? I mean yes, of course they should, but does that also apply to anyone foolish enough to be off back-country on their own?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Well done Snowbird (yes, I know it may seem obvious to us but it's a bit of a leap for the US). I hope it gets extended to every resort and everytime but I seriously doubt it.
And I await with interest the first accidents and absence of court case (or not. Probably not).
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 7-07-05 10:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
snowball, I would doubt that there will be a problem, as a lot of the guys who will use the tram are hard-core skiers, who are used to accepting responsibility for their own actions. (At least I hope that remains the case)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
On the other hand, can you imagine the reaction if they started asking you to sign a waiver before getting on the Aiguille du Midi cablecar or the lifts at La Grave?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Well, nobody would sue a resort over here in those circumstances, but if it ever became like the US over here I hope one would sign an off-piste disclaimer when buying a lift-ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, If my memory serves me, there is a large sign at the start of the Vallee Blanche, in several languages before you leave the cable car station. From recent experience in VT, the company that manages the slopes advised me that there are no statutory laws which apply to behaviour of skiers on a mountain. So there may be a legal statute difference between Europe/US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowbunny, there are signs at la grave too but it's a bit different from having to sign a bit of paper which supposedly has legal effect. interestingly, the town of la grave was successfully sued by the family of a snowboarder who followed tracks without knowing where they led and went off a cliff.
i am not sure that the basic priciples of the law are that different on either side of the atlantic. americans are more litigous and the amounts of damages paid are often much greater, which leads to a much more risk adverse culture
interesting comment about VT. i think he might have been referring to a law which i think was passed in Colorado which restricted liability of resort owners - so the statute reduces their liability rather than creates it. this sort of "negligence" liability is a common law (rather than statutory) thing in the UK and I think that it is the same in the US. i stand to be corrected by any american lawyers out there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
snowball, I think you'll find that buying a lift ticket subjects you to the rules and regs off the area - and I think it also means you sign away any rights you might think you have to suing the resort if you hurt yourself.
Arno, "i am not sure that the basic priciples of the law are that different on either side of the atlantic. americans are more litigous and the amounts of damages paid are often much greater, which leads to a much more risk adverse culture"
I have heard that the headline sums awarded are drastically reduced on appeal. I think I heard they are set by the jury in the first court then by a (hopefully more sane) judge in the second. So you get headlines screaming that "MacDonalds pay out $x million for over hot coffee" but not the "Macdonalds pay $200 for stained pants and minor burns to driver who had coffee held between knees on freeway" reality.
As ever, I may be wrong though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowbunny, so far as I know (which is a little way but not very far) there is little practical difference between civil law on the consequences of negligence between US, UK and Europe; what differs enormously between UK and Europe on the one hand and US on the other is the attitude that the courts take to personal reponsibility and to what damges should be awarded. That is more a cultural thing than a legal thing, probably (although US courts will be bound by precedent which will make silly awards more likely).
What does seem to be different are the criminal consequences. Europe seems much more effective at prosecuting those (ir)responsible for negligent acts than does UK (I don't know about US; I suspect that they prefer to deal with it through punitive damages)). UK law is being changed, but it remains to be seen whether those responsible for ghastly happenings in the UK will be subject to appropriate criminal sanctions. It's not part of our culture, in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
richmond, the owner of our lift company was successfully prosecuted after two younsters were killed about 5/6 years ago in the summer. The situation was that the lift company refused the advice of the pisteurs to close La lauze (as it was busy), and in two completely unrelated incidents in the same week these unfortunate youngsters ended up off the marked area and in large crevasses. In this sort of case the guy responsible does deserve to be prosecuted - oh BTW he pays much more attention to the pisteurs now - their word is law!
WELL DONE SNOWBIRD - MAY MANY MORE US SKI RESORTS DO LIKEWISE.
PS: is it in any way relevant that Snowbird's in Utah?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| easiski wrote: |
| is it in any way relevant that Snowbird's in Utah? |
In what way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, I suspect that in UK, your lift co owner might well have got away it. In US, he'd probably have been bankrupted by a ludicrously large damges award. Do you know what his punihment was?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
David Murdoch, in the US, the courts and juries are much more likely to award puntive damages (ie damages in excess of compensation for the relevant loss). over here this is very rare. agreed on your point about damages being reduced on appeal. however, I am sure the high figures which get reported add to the generally risk adverse attitude
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Arno, I understand that in UK (and so far as I know in Europe) there is no provision in law for punitive damges; damages are compensation, nothing else. UK libel juries (the only civil juries in UK, I think, in contrast to US) did sometimes award what were effectively punitive damges, but the law was changed a few years ago to make this less likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
richmond, that sounds about right. it's a long time since i studied defamation 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I was thinking that perhaps the Mormon church is more into personal responsibility than others in the US - don't know though.
richmond, He/the company were fined a large amount, but I don't know how much. It's a private company though - he was supposed to be 6 months in jail, but I should think he managed to wriggle out of that one. His deputy was also prosecuted and found guilty BTW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
easiski, in my experience out there, there's not that many mormons who are hard core skiers, but the real hard core skiers in Utah are a very responsible bunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
In a way, Snowbird is merely extending the existing policy of many North American resorts governing backcountry skiing that is accessed from their areas.
Big Sky and Sunshine Village, among others, already insist that people carry beacons & shovels for access to certain areas, and backcountry access gates always have signs saying "You ski at your own responsibility". Isn't that always the case, you may ask. Yes, regarding collisions with obstacles or other skiers. (Not with resort vehicles though, and we'll see what happens with this case: http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050106/RECREATION11/101040001/-1/RECREATION07&template=printart .)
But regarding avalanches, the North American resorts have always considered it their responsibility to secure the entire area within their boundary. (I suspect that their usage permit from the US Forest Service, which usually owns the land, may even stipulate this - but don't quote me on that.)
That is why the inbounds avalanche fatality at A-Basin a couple of months ago was such a significant incident, and it may be that Snowbird's insistence on waivers could be a reaction to that accident.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 11-07-05 21:50; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The big McDs payout over the hot coffee burns was mainly due to them constantly ignoring H&S warnings over serving coffee too hot to drive by customers so when someone did get burnt they threw the book at them in the courts. Serves em right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Scarpa, it does serve 'em right, but it means that someone gets a massive payout for being stupid. It'sd be better if McD had been subjected to criminal prosecution. (I believe that in that case, the coffe was fantastically hot and the woman was not in a moving car at the time (contrary to popular rumour), so she may not have been that stupid.)
Puntive damages seem a poor way to punish someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
