Only 2 things scare me......and one is ski law

Saw this link posted on Epicski

http://www.epicski.com/t/115343/good-verdict-or-bad-verdict-skier-lawsuit-dismissed
Couple can’t sue teen over ski crash at Boston Mills


Beacon Journal staff report
Published: November 23, 2012 - 11:25 PM
A couple cannot seek damages against a Sagamore Hills teen and his family over a collision on the slopes of Boston Mills Ski Resort, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week.
Essentially, the court’s 6-1 decision finds that skiers must assume “ordinary risks” that come with the activity, including potential injury.
Skiers Angel and Eugene Horvath of Rocky River had sued the family of 14-year-old David Ish after the teen snowboarder collided on the slopes with Angel Horvath in March 2007. Horvath suffered a fractured leg, according to court records. Her suit claimed the teen was speeding down the hill and not watching for others.
Summit County Common Pleas Judge Brenda Burnham Unruh dismissed the suit. She found the collision was not reckless, but rather a result of the risk skiers take on the slopes.
The Horvaths’ lawsuit was revived in a 2-1 decision by the 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals, which found in 2011 that the common pleas court did not consider the potential recklessness of the teen before the collision.
The Supreme Court essentially sided with the late Unruh, who died in 2011, and said existing law precludes one skier from suing another skier under normal conditions.
“We agree that collisions between skiers are an inherent risk of skiing,” Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton wrote. “Accordingly, we hold that skiers assume the ordinary risks of skiing, which include collisions with other skiers, and cannot recover for an injury unless it can be shown that the other skier’s actions were reckless or intentional.”



I'm not a lawyer, and know little about law, so I know I may word some things incorrectly here.

I think this was ruled correctly, but I've seen a couple cases where it has gone the other way. What bothers me is if I was hypothetically coming to a stop on the side of a trail where a couple was already stopped, and I hit a nasty patch of ice in front of them and went down, sliding into them, taking them out and maybe fracturing their leg, I could be held liable. Where does inherited risk end and recklessness begin? That is the million dollar question (literally) that lawyers will debate with each other.

I've almost been in an accident a couple times, always been the same scenario though. I like to speed down groomers a little faster than cruising speed, and sometimes there will be someone in front of me making normal turns. I turn to the side of the trail so that I can pass them by 25-30 feet, and then they see the person they are skiing with and make a hard turn in their direction. I'm parallel or just behind them at this point, so I've had to really get on my edges and make a hard turn to avoid hitting them

I would think if I hit the person though, it would be both our faults. Mine for not "yielding" (even though I tried) to the skier in front of me, but also the other skier for making such an erratic turn without looking uphill. Here in Colorado they have billboards all along I-70 that advertise ski-lawyers, even giving "examples" of what would be an "offense" that could be taken to trial. Even if I win the case, I still end up spending $1,000's in lawyer fees.

This seems to be true in a lot of civil trials, but especially so in "ski-law". The other lawyer wouldn't say, "I'm only gonna sue then for $10,000, that should suffice." No. They will try to take every nickel and dime I have.

I'm rambling.....But ladies and gentlemen, the fact that my whole livelihood could be taken away doing what I love most, scares the s%&$ out of me.

It's always been my personal belief that a special layer of hell is set aside for people that sue after "incidental contact" or hitting clearly marked obstacles...

That's a good ruling by the court. F*ck being held liable for accidentally crashing into someone. I mean, I've never done that (at least not at high speed or in a dangerous way), but shit happens.

I think if someone can be proven to be intoxicated or otherwise severely lacking in judgement, that is a different story. If somebody hits me because they think they can ski with a BAC of .21 or if they were trying to play with their cell phone or camera while skiing and plowed into me, then I want their money.

bdfreetuna said:

That's a good ruling by the court. F*ck being held liable for accidentally crashing into someone. I mean, I've never done that (at least not at high speed or in a dangerous way), but shit happens.

I think if someone can be proven to be intoxicated or otherwise severely lacking in judgement, that is a different story. If somebody hits me because they think they can ski with a BAC of .21 or if they were trying to play with their cell phone or camera while skiing and plowed into me, then I want their money.

Click to expand...

What if they were plugged in?

Mine for not "yielding" (even though I tried) to the skier in front of me, but also the other skier for making such an erratic turn without looking uphill

Click to expand...

I have stayed out of the Epic thread, but against my better judgement, here I go.

The skier responsibility code says, and I quote: "Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects". It does not say anything about the downhill skier having to ski in some sort of rhythmic, predictable fashion. I have momentarily lost my balance, caught an edge, dodged an exposed rock, or otherwise done stuff that's caused my "predictability" to vanish at times. If you hit the person in front of you, then you weren't in control (as "control" is defined by the responsibility code).

What bothers me is if I was hypothetically coming to a stop on the side of a trail where a couple was already stopped, and I hit a nasty patch of ice in front of them and went down, sliding into them, taking them out and maybe fracturing their leg, I could be held liable

Click to expand...

There's a reason every ski school instructor tells their students to stop BELOW the group. That way, if you fall / slip while stopping, you don't act as a bowling ball taking out everybody else.

KevinF said:

"Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects"

Click to expand...

This is why I hate ski law. My interpretation says that the person in front of you changing from small turns to one wide one is not being in control. IMO, each skier has their own lane they dictate by making turns of similarly consistent size. Taking such a wide turn like that is similar to merging trails without looking uphill, in my eyes.

KevinF said:

There's a reason every ski school instructor tells their students to stop BELOW the group. That way, if you fall / slip while stopping, you don't act as a bowling ball taking out everybody else.

Click to expand...

Let take this a little further. You hit a nasty patch of ice well above a group of people, but due to the steepness of the trail and the ice, and the fact the people at the bottom aren't paying attention, you take them out. Should you have every dime you've earned in your life taken away because of that? Is it even fair to have to pay a lawyer 1,000's of dollars to state that this was an accident?

Part of my point of this thread is much larger than the context of it. It is sad that people will sue someone for anything to make money

skiNEwhere said:

I've almost been in an accident a couple times, always been the same scenario though. I like to speed down groomers a little faster than cruising speed, and sometimes there will be someone in front of me making normal turns. I turn to the side of the trail so that I can pass them by 25-30 feet, and then they see the person they are skiing with and make a hard turn in their direction. I'm parallel or just behind them at this point, so I've had to really get on my edges and make a hard turn to avoid hitting them

I would think if I hit the person though, it would be both our faults. Mine for not "yielding" (even though I tried) to the skier in front of me, but also the other skier for making such an erratic turn without looking uphill. Here in Colorado they have billboards all along I-70 that advertise ski-lawyers, even giving "examples" of what would be an "offense" that could be taken to trial. Even if I win the case, I still end up spending $1,000's in lawyer fees.

This seems to be true in a lot of civil trials, but especially so in "ski-law". The other lawyer wouldn't say, "I'm only gonna sue then for $10,000, that should suffice." No. They will try to take every nickel and dime I have.

I'm rambling.....But ladies and gentlemen, the fact that my whole livelihood could be taken away doing what I love most, scares the s%&$ out of me.

Click to expand...

FWIW in the example you gave, according to the code, you are the one at fault and if I was the plaintiff's attorney (pure speculation. I'm not a lawyer) I would be using the skier's responsiblity code to prove your liability.

In general though I hear where you're coming from and agree with you.

I try to ski in control at all times and try to follow the skiers responsibility code at all times. On the other hand, I'm on an angled slippery surface and my boots are attached to the only means of control I have by a releasable binding. Probably several seconds before my binding releases and certainly after my binding releases I am out of control. Yes, my bindings have released multiple times in my years of skiing so by definition I am an irresponsible skier.

This is going NEwhere fast. We need a lawyer here STAT.

skiersleft said:

This is going NEwhere fast. We need a lawyer here STAT.

Click to expand...

A lawyers take would only depend on whether they were representing the plaintiff or defendant. The beauty of law in general. :angry:

I just realized now I probably could have gotten the same differentiated results by asked if romney or obama would make a better president

bdfreetuna said:

That's a good ruling by the court. F*ck being held liable for accidentally crashing into someone. I mean, I've never done that (at least not at high speed or in a dangerous way), but shit happens.

Click to expand...

Not trying to start stuff, but if someone rear ends you while driving that person is not liable? Just as someone should be in control of their vehicle they should be in control of themselves while on the slopes.

Most beginners are out of control because they don't know how to control themselves on skis/boards. Should they be held liable if they hit someone?

First, I agree that the skier responsibility code (SRC), as currently written, is poorly written as it is quite vague.

Secondly, I don't think that people should be able to win lawsuits simply because they got hit. If they got hurt is another matter. And I think far too few people understand how much damage ~170 pounds of you hitting somebody else at ~20mph can cause.

skiNEwhere said:

This is why I hate ski law. My interpretation says that the person in front of you changing from small turns to one wide one is not being in control. IMO, each skier has their own lane they dictate by making turns of similarly consistent size. Taking such a wide turn like that is similar to merging trails without looking uphill, in my eyes.

Click to expand...

To my reading (and I'm not a lawyer), "control", as defined by the SRC means you're able to avoid things, not that you're in perfect balance, and not that you're acting in some entirely predictable manner. The person making the sudden direction change could be doing so because they're trying to avoid somebody (or something) as well.

Anybody who thinks they're in "perfect balance" all the time while skiing is fooling themselves.

skiNEwhere said:

Let take this a little further. You hit a nasty patch of ice well above a group of people, but due to the steepness of the trail and the ice, and the fact the people at the bottom aren't paying attention, you take them out. Should you have every dime you've earned in your life taken away because of that? Is it even fair to have to pay a lawyer 1,000's of dollars to state that this was an accident?

Part of my point of this thread is much larger than the context of it. It is sad that people will sue someone for anything to make money

Click to expand...

If they were so far away that you had a chance to sound some sort of warning, then I wouldn't say it's your fault that they got hit. And again, as I stated above, I believe there should be a distinction between getting "hit" and getting "hurt". We could always come up with scenarios where a "hit" will occur

KevinF said:

First, I agree that the skier responsibility code (SRC), as currently written, is poorly written as it is quite vague.

Click to expand...

Totally...

KevinF said:

I think far too few people understand how much damage ~170 pounds of you hitting somebody else at ~20mph can cause.

Click to expand...

On the road, accidents are not caused by speed, but rather a difference in speed between two objects on a similar path. I suspect the same holds true on the slopes so if everyone is descending at ~20mph an accident would be rare. It's when somebody decides to go a different speed than everyone else, either accelerating or braking, that everyone is put at risk. One would think that the one at fault should be the one who isn't going the speed limit on the trail and has placed everyone else on the trail at risk ...

Can I be part of writing the revised version of the code and setting the speed limits on trails?

I strongly believe that the burden of proof should be whether a persons actions were "reckless or intentional". There is plenty of precedence in other sports like hockey, football, etc. Marty McSorley is a great example of when an individual crosses the line of doing something that is reckless or intentional.

In cases of skiing accidents, the injured party usually has a better chance suing the mountain than the skier that hit them

Tin said:

Not trying to start stuff, but if someone rear ends you while driving that person is not liable? Just as someone should be in control of their vehicle they should be in control of themselves while on the slopes.

Click to expand...

Yeah the driver should be liable because basically our whole society needs to drive to get to work and for other reasons. It's something the vast majority of adults do.

But then again if somebody Slaaaaaaams on the brakes right in front of you and you rear end them, it's not really your fault. But yeah, you'll be eating the insurance.

Skiing is a different scenario. While for some people it is a casual sport, for many people it is a high performance or even extreme activity. People need to accept the elements of the weather, the mountains, and the way other people choose to ski as all part of inherent risk in the sport of sliding fast, downhill, on snow.

In the case of the unskilled skiier suddenly cutting across the trail in an unpredictable way VS. the skilled faster skier carving nice arcs down the hill... it's pretty clear to me that neither party is fully at fault. Both both parties are partly at fault. The shitty skier should be looking uphill before darting across the trail and should probably also be sticking to terrain where there aren't a lot of fast skiers there in the first place. The skilled faster skier should be experienced enough to recognize a n00b skier who doesn't know what they're doing on the mountain and give them *extra* space.

The worst obstacles on the mountain are bad skiers but everyone starts out as a bad skier. And skiing is also about freedom.

So unless one party is intoxicated or otherwise irresponsible beyond the inherent nature of the sport there is not sufficient blame for any party involved. If you choose to ski on LSD I respect that but you need to be extra careful and maybe spend some time skiing slower in the woods by yourself until you start to come down, or something. Because you would be responsible!

I thought the SRC is for all skiers to reference to ensure they have a safe experience. I didn't realize it is grounds for sueing if broken (once again I'm not a lawyer), especially since you aren't signing a contract every day you ski saying you acknowledge and will abide by the SRC

skiNEwhere said:

I thought the SRC is for all skiers to reference to ensure they have a safe experience. I didn't realize it is grounds for sueing if broken (once again I'm not a lawyer), especially since you aren't signing a contract every day you ski saying you acknowledge and will abide by the SRC

Click to expand...

The SRC is not law, so its violation does not automatically give rise to legal liability even if someone is hurt as a consequence of a violation of the SRC.

Nevertheless, the SRC is the most conventionally accepted code of conduct for skiing out there. It's printed on trail maps and posted all over ski resorts. If injury results as a direct consequence of a violation of the SRC, the plaintiff will likely point to the violation of the SRC as evidence of an industry custom that courts should take into account. So the evidence will likely be relevant in a legal proceeding, but not determinative of legal liability.

By the same token, abiding by the SRC will likely be presented as evidence by the defendant to demonstrate that he did not behave negligently. Once again, the SRC becomes relevant not because it's law, but rather because it's probative of industry custom. The SRC will thus be considered relevant evidence. And compliance with it will significantly increase the chances that the defendant will be relieved of liability.

The most basic rule of evidence in American courts is that evidence is admissible as long as it's relevant and unless there is an exclusionary rule that forbids its use as evidence. In a tort suit for injury suffered while skiing, compliance or non compliance with SRC will usually be relevant and, thus, admissible as evidence, for it is probative of industry custom and industry custom informs judgments about what is reasonable (non-negligent) and unreasonable (negligent) under the circumstances. It's admissibility does not entail that it will be the only evidence that is taken into account. The parties are allowed to introduce other evidence to demonstrate that in that particular case compliance or noncompliance with SRC should not be considered determinative of negligence.

uphillklimber said:

From The Sunday River Site:

Your Responsibility Code

Skiing and riding can be enjoyed in many ways. At ski areas you may see people using alpine, snowboard, telemark, cross country, and other specialized equipment, such as that used by disabled or other skiers and riders. Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing and riding that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce. Observe the code listed below and share with other skiers and riders the responsibility for a great on-hill experience.

• Always stay in control and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
• People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
• You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
• Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
• Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
• Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
• Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride, and unload safely.
  
  2 things stand out to me:
  
  First line, in part, says to be able to avoid other people or objects. One way to avoid other people is to not ski erratically. Sometimes I wonder if people drive like they are the only one on a multi lane highway. I'll ski tight on a crowded trail or loop all over it if it is clear. But I would never do so without looking over my shoulder for other skiers, responsibility code or not. I'm not the only skier out there and there is always someone faster than me looking to pass.

Second thing is "Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others." I have ten days on mountain thus far, and generally give a wide berth with watchful eyes. I have yet to see one person look uphill before starting from anywhere in the middle of the trail. Again, I wonder if they drive like that?

Click to expand...

yes some people drive like that!!