N.J. Senate approves bills requiring helmets

[jaywbigred]

Lawyers would love to make the ski areas responsible for kids wearing helmets. Lawyers will be salivating by sides of the trails waiting for a child to get injured not wearing a helmet. We are now talking 10s of millions of dollars for just one child injury being paid out by the ski area because somehow this child was skiing down the hill without a helmet and its the ski areas fault for letting it happen. Employees at the mountain could get some very nice finders fees just by calling lawyers when they know of a child that is hurt while not wearing a helmet.

If you think a ski areas insurance costs would change with this bill, your probably right it would change. It would be an increase not a decrease in ski area insurance cost.

Nothing personal, but this analysis is pretty ignorant. #1, you don't let a kid on a chair lift without a helmet. It's ridiculously enforceable. #2, there is nothing to say that this law, a quasi-criminal safety law, in any way creates a duty of conduct that effects tort liability. #3, relatedly, there is nothing to say that this law in anyway negates the general assumption of liability requisite with being a ski customer. #4, there is nothing in this law to suggest that posting signs and warnings can't exculpate the area.

To me, it is similar to requirements to use the safety bar on the chair lift. The signs are there. I think some states have laws. People ignore them; resorts fail to enforce them. But i've never heard of a flood of suits against resorts from people who fell off lifts and were injured.

And, most importantly, no one is winning any money here unless a jury awards it to them. So rather than blame the lawyers, think about how our society treats the concept of jury duty. If juries didn't award such astronomical amounts, lawyers would be nowhere near the case. Demand for the lawyers' services results from the jury awards, not from the lawyers themselves. Maybe if juries were made up of rational citizens rather than a group of people who "couldn't get out of it," we'd have a different state of affairs.

All that being said, I am not sure why they don't just model the law after the bike helmet law, and fine the parents rather than the resort: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/helmet/helm_nj.htm

 

[legalskier]

Lawyers would love to make the ski areas responsible for kids wearing helmets. Lawyers will be salivating by sides of the trails waiting for a child to get injured not wearing a helmet. We are now talking 10s of millions of dollars for just one child injury being paid out by the ski area because somehow this child was skiing down the hill without a helmet and its the ski areas fault for letting it happen. Employees at the mountain could get some very nice finders fees just by calling lawyers when they know of a child that is hurt while not wearing a helmet.

If you think a ski areas insurance costs would change with this bill, your probably right it would change. It would be an increase not a decrease in ski area insurance cost.

Check you totem, please.

 

[legalskier]

Demand for the lawyers' services results from the jury awards

....or rather from how the awards are reported in the media, which make a splash reporting the initial large award but rarely follow up when it gets knocked down later. Probably the most egregious example was the McDonalds coffee case, where the jury awarded $2.86 million but the trial judge slashed it to $640k. While the appeal was pending, the parties settled in secret, possibly for even less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

[jaywbigred]

....or rather from how the awards are reported in the media, which make a splash reporting the initial large award but rarely follow up when it gets knocked down later. Probably the most egregious example was the McDonalds coffee case, where the jury awarded $2.86 million but the trial judge slashed it to $640k. While the appeal was pending, the parties settled in secret, possibly for even less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Good point, good point.

 

[campgottagopee]

Just plain silly.

 

[Chris Sullivan]

From what I understand the bill now reads like this.
SCS for S130 A.R.BUCCO, PENNACCHIO
2
AN ACT concerning the act 1 ivity of downhill skiing and
2 supplementing Title 5 of the Revised Statutes.
3
4 BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State
5 of New Jersey:
6
7 1. a. A person under 18 years of age engaged in the activity of
8 downhill skiing or operation of snowboards, including the use of ski
9 tows, lifts and tramways, shall wear a securely fitted protective
10 helmet. As used in this act, “helmet” means a type of molded
11 headgear equipped with a neck or chin strap specifically designed
12 by the manufacturer to be used while engaged in the activity of
13 recreational downhill skiing.
14 b. The parent, legal guardian, or adult acting in a supervising
15 position of a person under 18 years of age shall ensure that the
16 person wears a protective helmet as required by subsection a. of this
17 section. A parent, legal guardian or adult acting in a supervising
18 position who does not comply with this requirement shall be fined a
19 maximum of $25 for the person’s first offense and a maximum of
20 $100 for a subsequent offense. Local law enforcement agencies
21 shall have exclusive authority to enforce this section and the penalty
22 imposed shall be collected and enforced by summary proceedings
23 under the “Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999” P.L.1999, c.274
24 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).
25 c. Nothing in this act shall be construed to extend liability to
26 the ski area operator.
27
28 2. This act shall take effect on the first day of the seventh
29 month after enactment.

 

[gmcunni]

From what I understand the bill now reads like this.
blah
blah
blah

so it sounds like the shifted the burden to the parent/guardian?

if CT passed a similar law would Sundown care? view it positive or negative?

 

[drjeff]

so it sounds like the shifted the burden to the parent/guardian?

if CT passed a similar law would Sundown care? view it positive or negative?

My guess is *most* ski areas would view a similar law as a positive(atleast publically), since many already require helmet use for kids in their ski school programs, and also via the National Ski Area Association, kids helmet use is already strongly encouraged via their nationwide "Lids on Kids" program

 

[jaywbigred]

From what I understand the bill now reads like this.
SCS for S130 A.R.BUCCO, PENNACCHIO
2
AN ACT concerning the act 1 ivity of downhill skiing and
2 supplementing Title 5 of the Revised Statutes.
3
4 BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State
5 of New Jersey:
6
7 1. a. A person under 18 years of age engaged in the activity of
8 downhill skiing or operation of snowboards, including the use of ski
9 tows, lifts and tramways, shall wear a securely fitted protective
10 helmet. As used in this act, “helmet” means a type of molded
11 headgear equipped with a neck or chin strap specifically designed
12 by the manufacturer to be used while engaged in the activity of
13 recreational downhill skiing.
14 b. The parent, legal guardian, or adult acting in a supervising
15 position of a person under 18 years of age shall ensure that the
16 person wears a protective helmet as required by subsection a. of this
17 section. A parent, legal guardian or adult acting in a supervising
18 position who does not comply with this requirement shall be fined a
19 maximum of $25 for the person’s first offense and a maximum of
20 $100 for a subsequent offense. Local law enforcement agencies
21 shall have exclusive authority to enforce this section and the penalty
22 imposed shall be collected and enforced by summary proceedings
23 under the “Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999” P.L.1999, c.274
24 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).
25 c. Nothing in this act shall be construed to extend liability to
26 the ski area operator.
27
28 2. This act shall take effect on the first day of the seventh
29 month after enactment.

SCORE!!!!

That is exactly what I was saying when I said they should really, instead, model it after the bike helmet law. This reads much closer to the bike helmet law now. Thanks Chris!!!

Again, doesn't bother me in the least. If you are going to require kids to wear seatbelts, sit in car seats, wear helmets when they bike and skateboard, then I think its a logical extension to make them wear them when skiing, given that "skiing" to today's kids largely means roaming around the park with a lot of metal features.

Written this way, there is NO way this could give rise to a new tortuous cause of action against a ski resort, and I would think it would positively impact resort insurance rates if it ups the % of kids who wear helmets, overall.

 

[campgottagopee]

Isn't it sad that people feel the need to make "laws" helping people parent??? I really don't get it---guess I mean how the hell did anyone over the age of 40 ever make it this far without "Big Brothers" help. Very sad.

 

[Glenn]

Isn't it sad that people feel the need to make "laws" helping people parent??? I really don't get it---guess I mean how the hell did anyone over the age of 40 ever make it this far without "Big Brothers" help. Very sad.

x2.

It's absurd.

 

[dmc]

People will not be happy until the very soul is ripped out of the culture...

Free GSS!!!

 

[drjeff]

Isn't it sad that people feel the need to make "laws" helping people parent??? I really don't get it---guess I mean how the hell did anyone over the age of 40 ever make it this far without "Big Brothers" help. Very sad.

As someone who gets to see plenty of young parents/kids of all socio-economic levels, in my line of work on an almost daily basis, the sad thing is that many parents these days DO need help at parenting(or maybe the better way to put it is the parents still need some parenting!)

Sometimes I really feel the urge to smack the parents and at the same time feel a huge amount sympathy/compassion for the kids when you see the results of what more times than not can only be attributed to lack of common sense on the part of the parents instead of just a kid being a kid.

 

[campgottagopee]

People will not be happy until the very soul is ripped out of the culture...

Free GSS!!!

Right on "D"

As someone who gets to see plenty of young parents/kids of all socio-economic levels, in my line of work on an almost daily basis, the sad thing is that many parents these days DO need help at parenting(or maybe the better way to put it is the parents still need some parenting!)

Sometimes I really feel the urge to smack the parents and at the same time feel a huge amount sympathy/compassion for the kids when you see the results of what more times than not can only be attributed to lack of common sense on the part of the parents instead of just a kid being a kid.

Good point Doc----i've said this be4 in other threads......

My father taught school for 35 years---now, when asked what was the biggest difference you noticed in kids over the years. He always says, "kids are the same, parents have changed more than anything."


What a effed up world this has turned into.

 

[ctenidae]

As someone who gets to see plenty of young parents/kids of all socio-economic levels, in my line of work on an almost daily basis, the sad thing is that many parents these days DO need help at parenting(or maybe the better way to put it is the parents still need some parenting!)

Sometimes I really feel the urge to smack the parents and at the same time feel a huge amount sympathy/compassion for the kids when you see the results of what more times than not can only be attributed to lack of common sense on the part of the parents instead of just a kid being a kid.

Parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur.
Alvin Toffler

 

[gmcunni]

considered posting this in the "youtube gems" thread but figured it was worth sharing here since it is about parents being accountable...

 

[jaywbigred]

Again, I think this is such an egocentric view, thinking that today is the "worst" and that there previously existed some "golden era" where things were "much better." Every society has narratives and works of fictions that reflect elements of this sentiment, and yet, in almost every facet, as a race, humans have improved their lives for the better as time has marched on.

There was a time when parents inflicted many harms upon their children, and it was the norm. Severe physical, mental, and sexual abuse where the norm, and you don't have to go back many generations to find it. Child labor was rampant. Kids were betrothed into marriage arrangements like property, with little or no regard for their well-being. Incest was commonplace. Children with disabilities were considered black sheep, and often times treated in facilities akin to prisons, or worse. Infanticide was a normal practice in many cultures.

Today's parents aren't perfect, but we have made a lot of progress. The laws have evolved to reflect society's changed/changing attitudes, as laws should and normally do.

Which means that, if the institution of a law like this is any signal, we have some indication as to which side is "winning" the helmet argument in our society.

Further, a lot of you seem to be attacking the law based on how it infringes on personal freedoms. This places the law in the spectrum of legal paternalism (i.e. laws the protect people from their own actions), which is not new in our society, as we've had drug laws and seatbelt laws and the like for a long time.

But I think this is a poor attack. Any law that seeks to govern aspects of the parent-child relationship really has its roots in the parens patriae role of the state in protecting children who have parents who don't know how or don't want to protect them themselves (or who, worse, have parents who not only fail to protect, but who actively inflict harm). It's a pretty old legal principal, going back to pre-enlightenment England (I think), and I think it has been a pretty effective tool in the way society has been able to force progress on its members (compulsory education, minimum health standards, etc), which, in the long run, should benefit society, as the welfare of children ultimately results in the welfare of the next generation of that society.

 

[campgottagopee]

Again, I think this is such an egocentric view, thinking that today is the "worst" and that there previously existed some "golden era" where things were "much better." Every society has narratives and works of fictions that reflect elements of this sentiment, and yet, in almost every facet, as a race, humans have improved their lives for the better as time has marched on.

There was a time when parents inflicted many harms upon their children, and it was the norm. Severe physical, mental, and sexual abuse where the norm, and you don't have to go back many generations to find it. Child labor was rampant. Kids were betrothed into marriage arrangements like property, with little or no regard for their well-being. Incest was commonplace. Children with disabilities were considered black sheep, and often times treated in facilities akin to prisons, or worse. Infanticide was a normal practice in many cultures.

Today's parents aren't perfect, but we have made a lot of progress. The laws have evolved to reflect society's changed/changing attitudes, as laws should and normally do.

Which means that, if the institution of a law like this is any signal, we have some indication as to which side is "winning" the helmet argument in our society.

Further, a lot of you seem to be attacking the law based on how it infringes on personal freedoms. This places the law in the spectrum of legal paternalism (i.e. laws the protect people from their own actions), which is not new in our society, as we've had drug laws and seatbelt laws and the like for a long time.

But I think this is a poor attack. Any law that seeks to govern aspects of the parent-child relationship really has its roots in the parens patriae role of the state in protecting children who have parents who don't know how or don't want to protect them themselves (or who, worse, have parents who not only fail to protect, but who actively inflict harm). It's a pretty old legal principal, going back to pre-enlightenment England (I think), and I think it has been a pretty effective tool in the way society has been able to force progress on its members (compulsory education, minimum health standards, etc), which, in the long run, should benefit society, as the welfare of children ultimately results in the welfare of the next generation of that society.

Not sure where/when you grew up, but that statement is total shit......just sayin'

 

[jaywbigred]

Not sure where/when you grew up, but that statement is total shit......just sayin'

You kiddin me? My grandma was teacher in 30-60s. Kids coming to school with black eyes was a normal occurrence. Mental abuse was basically undiagnosed, and sexual abuse was never discussed, let alone treated...but if you don't think it was happening at at least the same incidence rate as it is today, then that is pretty naive.


And let the record be clear, I am not talking about "when I grew up", I am talking about the last few hundred years. My point being that parenting, and laws effecting same, have both generally improved over the years.

 

[dmc]

You kiddin me? My grandma was teacher in 30-60s. Kids coming to school with black eyes was a normal occurrence. Mental abuse was basically undiagnosed, and sexual abuse was never discussed, let alone treated...but if you don't think it was happening at at least the same incidence rate as it is today, then that is pretty naive.


And let the record be clear, I am not talking about "when I grew up", I am talking about the last few hundred years. My point being that parenting, and laws effecting same, have both generally improved over the years.

Yeah - but we never wore helmets growing up.. We got away with fighting.. Learned how to deal with bullies without a social worker.. Blew shti up... Did all kinds of stuff that we couldn't get away with now and we're fine!

I don't think he's talking about incest here.. Which still does occur regularly.. Or Child abuse of any kind..