 Poster: A snowHead
|
For some years, many US ski resorts have been protected from skier lawsuits by ski safety laws - e.g. the Colorado Ski Safety Act - which emphasise the inherent risks of skiing and the obligation of skiers to accept these.
Two recent cases - involving an avalanche and a closed ski run - have seen judges tip the scales of justice the other way ...
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20130225/NEWS/130229901/1078&ParentProfile=1055
| Quote: |
| Last month, Routt County District Court Judge Shelley Hill refused to dismiss a case brought by the family of 19-year-old Cooper Larsh, who died skiing the Howelsen Hill ski area in Steamboat Springs in March 2011. Hill sided with the family's argument that the trail where Larsh died was not properly closed, ruling that the resort operator's failure to rope off the permanently closed terrain was “an unreasonable risk” and “negligent omission.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I continue to be startled that it is possible to do any sort of business in the US at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Closed pistes though, it's not completely unlike the situation where a property owner is responsible for the injuries caused by accident to a trespasser; they'll have to make it impossible to access a closed piste in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Serriadh, the legal business is very profitable I believe 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Something has to keep all this Law schools graduates occupied. But I also find it quite puzzling in the light of the first case. If you are hit by someone skiing to fast in a busy area and losing control surely this someone could be held responsible? In the other case, it should be enough for resort to put a note saying CLOSED. I mean even if you rope the entrance it is usually possible to duck under ropes which in this case will mean that the closure is insufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| never summer wrote: |
| I mean even if you rope the entrance it is usually possible to duck under ropes which in this case will mean that the closure is insufficient. |
Prison style fences with sniper watchtowers ready to take down poachers will probably suffice. Swift, Silent, Deep will be needed more than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an obvious out. If it was 'permanently closed terrain' then it was outside the bounds of the ski resort and therefore outside their responsibility. Their only laibility is for on piste skiing, if some numpty chooses to get himself killed off piste then it's his own lookout. Even if it was a 'marked' trail I suspect they can show that he skied off piste at some point that day and therefore knowingly assumed the risk. It's a political move by the judge - I suspect it's re-election time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DidierCouch wrote: |
The victim in one case allegedly sidestepped uphill to access closed terrain, seems harsh to blame the ski area?! |
Most definitely, the guy obviously went out of his way to access the closed area. Not really the resorts fault eh?
But the judge did make a reasonable point although not wholly appropriate in this case :
"“Resorts don't have complete immunity,” said James Heckbert, the attorney representing the family of Conlin in the lawsuit against Vail Resorts. “If people or companies are not responsible for their own conduct, then they just keep on being careless. Immunity breeds irresponsibility, and I think the ski areas have been lax with their safety programs. They try to put everything on the skier and have no responsibility of their own. When they are held responsible, hopefully they will tighten up their conduct.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course resorts shouldn't have a complete immunity, but the boundaries of their responsibility should be clearly outlined. Because any closure can be insufficient and there are too many skiers for resorts to be able to ensure that none of them will break though the closed area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
