what music do you like to ski to? - Page 8

AlpineZone

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 92
  1. #71
    I'm pretty sure the Skier's Code of Responsibility does not have the force of law. That being said, 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes - Title 33 - Parks and Wildlife Recreational Areas and Ski SafetyArticle 44 - Ski Safety and Liability 33-44-109. Duties of skiers does place the primary duty on the uphill skier to avoid a collision:



    "(2) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him."

    If I collide with an uphill skier while bee-bopping out to my favorite yacht rock trio and cutting across the trail to catch some super rare Pokemon, I could very well be found to be the responsible party under Colorado law. However, I very much doubt that listening to music (however loud) would by itself constitute negligence per se.

  2. #72
    You guys need to keep up with the thread. I guess it's difficult when we have to scroll through a bunch of music videos. I've already stated this is likely only to be a determining factor in cases where there is no clear uphill/downhill skier.

    Side swipes, certain trail merges, reckless skiing, disobeying signage. How about two woods zones merging into one zone?

    Of course I'm oversimplifying the ease of winning any case. But if you get into a skier collision and it goes to court, do you think a lawyer would decline to mention the supposed fact that the at-fault party was wearing headphones?

    None of this is open/shut and as Domeskier said the Skier's Code of Responsibility does not have the force of law, however it can be used as part of an argument. Likewise headphones, intoxication, reckless behavior [Pokemon catching], and any other contributing factors will be used as part of an argument.

    I'm not saying the person with headphones will be liable when the other party is at fault due to other considerations. But if it's a close call -- good luck.

  3. #73
    How exactly are you planning to prove someone was using headphones (or more likely actually either earbuds under a helmet or speakers built into a helmet that you won't be able to visually see)? Even if they had on headphones, you'd still need to prove they were actually in use and loud enough to drown out surrounding sounds and were a significant contributor to the crash. I'd say in all the cases you mentioned that the music would be essentially a non-factor and you'd have little ground to argue otherwise even if you could prove they were actually listening to music at the time. Reckless skiing is reckless skiing and has nothing to do with hearing. Disobeying signage is disobeying signage and has nothing to do with hearing. A merge should mostly be relying on visual cues.

    Way too many "ifs" to allow you to come close to even having a chance at proving anything. I can't see any reputable lawyer agreeing to try to litigate that weak of a case. Reckless behavior or intoxication are completely different on the other hand.

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Funky_Catskills View Post
    Hardly - making a strong statement..

    Please sue me for something that is legal.. I could care less...
    I thought Funky Catskills was supposed to be a kinder, gentler DMC? Idk why you're mad bro... I was just having a little fun. I'm not really concerned enough about this issue to argue with you anymore. You've been around AZ forever and I think you would be a pretty cool guy to hang out with.

    Sent from my LG-K373 using Tapatalk
    Life's to short for warm-up runs
    All skis are rock skis

  5. #75
    Funky_Catskills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hunter, NY
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by twinplanx View Post
    I thought Funky Catskills was supposed to be a kinder, gentler DMC? Idk why you're mad bro... I was just having a little fun. I'm not really concerned enough about this issue to argue with you anymore. You've been around AZ forever and I think you would be a pretty cool guy to hang out with.

    Sent from my LG-K373 using Tapatalk
    hahahahaha.. I'm definitely a cool person to hang with... I was just pushing a point.
    I'll be stepping away from AZ again soon.. It was feeling cool for a bit.. But... hahaha...

    PEace..

  6. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Funky_Catskills View Post
    hahahahaha.. I'm definitely a cool person to hang with... I was just pushing a point.
    I'll be stepping away from AZ again soon.. It was feeling cool for a bit.. But... hahaha...

    PEace..
    Hope you will be back for the winter.

    Sent from my LG-K373 using Tapatalk
    Life's to short for warm-up runs
    All skis are rock skis

  7. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by bdfreetuna View Post
    You guys need to keep up with the thread. I guess it's difficult when we have to scroll through a bunch of music videos. I've already stated this is likely only to be a determining factor in cases where there is no clear uphill/downhill skier.

    Side swipes, certain trail merges, reckless skiing, disobeying signage. How about two woods zones merging into one zone?

    Of course I'm oversimplifying the ease of winning any case. But if you get into a skier collision and it goes to court, do you think a lawyer would decline to mention the supposed fact that the at-fault party was wearing headphones?

    None of this is open/shut and as Domeskier said the Skier's Code of Responsibility does not have the force of law, however it can be used as part of an argument. Likewise headphones, intoxication, reckless behavior [Pokemon catching], and any other contributing factors will be used as part of an argument.

    I'm not saying the person with headphones will be liable when the other party is at fault due to other considerations. But if it's a close call -- good luck.
    Do you also plan on suing the helmet manufacturer for putting the speakers in the helmet?

  8. #78
    Nah. Helmet speakers are merely a tool, what matters is how you use them.




  9. #79
    Smellytele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Right where I want to be
    Posts
    6,823
    Quote Originally Posted by bdfreetuna View Post
    Nah. Helmet speakers are merely a tool, what matters is how you use them.



    Same with any headphone then
    2010/11 - 30days 2011/12 - 29days 2012/13 - 40 days 2013/14 - 39 days 2014/15 - 42 days
    2015/2016 -27 days 2016/17 - 51 days 2017/18 - 57 days

  10. #80
    no argument here. I could care less what people do when they ski and my personal choice is to not wear headphones, someday that might change.

    I'm also one of the least likely people on the hill to actually sue somebody so sort of a devil's advocate on this. Getting seriously injured due to other party at fault might be the common exception.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:21 AM.