• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

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

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
The only legal protection from the Skiers Responsibility Code is for the ski areas, and even that is weak.

But if it exists and delays further regulation somehow I'm all for it. Even though I believe sometimes the downhill skier has the right of way (like if you are crossing the trail sideways, the downhill skier always has the right of way. You don't just make people stop or drastically avoid you, that's dick)

That is sort of what rule #4 says but not exactly. I think rule #2 should be edited to clarify that if you are dicking around on the trail and there are serious skiers around, you forfeit your right of way.
 

KevinF

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
568
Points
18
Location
Marlborough, Massachusetts
The only legal protection from the Skiers Responsibility Code is for the ski areas, and even that is weak.

But if it exists and delays further regulation somehow I'm all for it. Even though I believe sometimes the downhill skier has the right of way (like if you are crossing the trail sideways, the downhill skier always has the right of way. You don't just make people stop or drastically avoid you, that's dick)

That is sort of what rule #4 says but not exactly. I think rule #2 should be edited to clarify that if you are dicking around on the trail and there are serious skiers around, you forfeit your right of way.

LOL. "Serious skiers around"? Do you get a little sign to put on your head once you graduate to "serious skier"?
 

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
Based on your signature I suspect, although you may take issue with my wording, that you probably agree with me.

And yeah I wear a sign. Except it's hard to read at 80mph.
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,711
Points
83
Ok where to begin.

There is a saying in the law that "bad facts make bad law" and i suspect that is the situation here although i havent had a chance to read the actual decision yet. While the courts decision may be just under the facts before it because the accident was truly an accident and not the defendants fault, the courts holding that skiers assume the risk of all skier on skier collisions, i think is wrong. Forget about the close cases that a jury should decide (but wont after this case), there are countless scenarios where a skier undoubtedly causes the injury and should be legally responsible for. Does a child on a green trail assume the risk of a drunk/high skier bombing down the trail, taking a jump and taking the kid out? What if youre standing on the side of a trail and someone comes out of the woods without looking and creams you? Anyone want to argue that we assume those risks? I dont think so. Obviously, i can throw out a million other scenarios where we would all agree that the defendant should be legally responsible. And conversely, there are even more examples where the incident is truly an accident and no one should be responsible. The point is, these are factual issues which should be decided by a jury after hearing both sides. The courts holding means that no one can be held legally responsible for a skier on skier collision no matter how egregious the conduct.
Gotta run but more later.
 

KevinF

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
568
Points
18
Location
Marlborough, Massachusetts
Based on your signature I suspect, although you may take issue with my wording, that you probably agree with me.

Ummmm, no I don't. I'm not sure how the downhill skier (who is presumably the one who is "dicking around") is supposed to know that the uphill skier (presumably the "serious one") is there, at least not without the benefit of a rear-view mirror. And I have yet to see somebody skiing with a rear-view mirror.
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,711
Points
83
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.

This is exactly why the courts holding that we assume the risk of ALL skier on skier collisions is wrong (even though the outcome in this particular case may be right). the cases should be decided on the facts of each case based on whether there was negligence. negligence is the lack of ordinary care. If a skier is under control but hits a patch of ice they shouldnt be responsible. on the other hand, if they are not exercising ordinary care, by skiing under the influence, out of control or without due regard to others, they should be responsible. its really common sense, but this decision will preclude that.
 

kartski

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
97
Points
0
Location
Newburgh, NY.
In NYS they have Laws about it.


http://www.skiandrideny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=12
[h=1]NYS Article 18 Safety In Skiing Code[/h] Signed by Governor Mario Cuomo and enacted into law in 1989, the New York State Safety In Skiing Code is detailed here.
TO BE A SAFE SKIER
NYS LAW REQUIRES YOU TO KNOW AND OBSERVE
THE FOLLOWING DUTIES OF SKIERS:

1. Not to ski in any area not designated for skiing;
2. Not to ski beyond their limits or ability to overcome variations in slope, trail configuration and surface or subsurface conditions which may be caused or altered by weather, slope or trail maintenance work by the ski area operator, or skier use;
3. To abide by the directions of the ski area operator;
4. To remain in constant control of speed and course at all times while skiing so as to avoid contact with plainly visible or clearly marked obstacles and with other skiers and passengers on surface operating tramways;
5. To familiarize themselves with posted information before skiing any slope or trail, including all information posted pursuant to subdivision five of section 18-103 of this article;
6. Not to cross the uphill track of any surface lift, except at points clearly designated by the ski area operator;
7. Not to ski on a slope or trail or portion thereof that has been designated as "closed" by the ski area operator;
8. Not to leave the scene of any accident resulting in personal injury to another party until such times as the ski area operator arrives, except for the purpose of summoning aid;
9. Not to overtake another skier in such a manner as to cause contact with the skier being overtaken and to yield the right of way to the skier being overtaken;
10. Not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles;
11. To yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill;
12. To wear retention straps or other devices to prevent runaway skis;
13. To report any personal injury to the ski area operator before leaving the ski area; and
14. Not to willfully remove, deface, alter or otherwise damage signage, warning devices or implements, or other safety devices placed and maintained by the ski area operator pursuant to the requirements of section 18-103 of this article.

TO BE A SAFE LIFT PASSENGER
NYS LAW REQUIRES YOU TO KNOW AND OBSERVE
THE FOLLOWING DUTIES OF PASSENGERS:

1. To familiarize themselves with the safe use of any tramway prior to its use;
2. To remain in the tramway if the operation of a passenger tramway, as defined pursuant to section two hundred two-c of the labor law, is interrupted for any reason, until instructions or aid are provided by the ski area operator;
3. To board or disembark from passenger tramways only at points or areas designated by the ski area operator;
4. Not to eject any objects or material from a passenger tramway;
5. To use restraint devices in accordance with posted instructions ;
6. To wear retention straps or other devices to prevent runaway skis;
7. Not to interfere with the operation of a passenger tramway;
8. Not to place or caused to be placed on the uphill track of a surface lift any object which may interfere with its normal operation; and
9. Not to wear loose scarves, clothing, or accessories or expose long hair which may become entangle with any part of the device.


Skiers shall have the following additional duties
to enable them to make informed decisions as to the advisability of their participation in the sport:
a. To seek out, read, review, and understand, in advance to skiing, the 'WARNING TO SKIERS' displayed where tickets are sold; and
b. To obtain such education in the sport of skiing as the individual skier shall deem appropriate to his or her level of ability, including the familiarization with skills and duties necessary to reduce the risk of injury in such sport.


© 1989/90 Ski Areas of New York, Inc.
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,711
Points
83
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.



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

you are really only looking at one side of the story. what if you're just standing around and get hit by some drunken idiot who is totally out of control. As the result of the incident, your injuries preclude you from ever skiing again and you are responsible for 100k in medical bills. who should bear responsibility for your losses? shouldn't the person who caused the incident? as a society, dont we want to encourage reasonable behavior? shouldnt people bear the personal responsibility for the actions when those actions cause harm to others. That's what we have courts and juries to decide. what this court is saying is that when there is a skier on skier collision under no circumstances can someone be held responsible.

your larger point is similarly off base. certainly no one would argue that someone should sue someone just to make money. But on the other hand, shouldnt we be held responsible for our actions? shouldnt the law provide for reasonable compensation to those injured due to someone elses lack of ordinary care? or do we want to live in society where the victim bears the costs no matter what? try selling that to the family of someone killed by a drunk driver.
 

skiNEwhere

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
4,141
Points
38
Location
Dubai
HowieT2,

I didn't state that scenario because that's not what I'm debating or talking about. That's a black and white, slam dunk case where the plantiff has every right to and should sue.

I'm talking about the gray area's where people sue for areas that's I consider part of the hazard of the sport, so take that into consideration before assuming I'm "offbase"
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,711
Points
83
Didnt see the exception the court found for reckless or intentional conduct. That is not nearly as bad as I had thought. But proving reckless or intentional conduct is exceedingly difficult and I would argue that a negligence (lack of ordinary care) standard is a better approach.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Didnt see the exception the court found for reckless or intentional conduct. That is not nearly as bad as I had thought. But proving reckless or intentional conduct is exceedingly difficult and I would argue that a negligence (lack of ordinary care) standard is a better approach.

I don't think a skier should be found responsible in civil court for negligent behavior. It would be a whole lot easier to prove that a ski area was negligent (i.e. the trail should have never been open under those conditions)
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,711
Points
83
HowieT2,

I didn't state that scenario because that's not what I'm debating or looking about. That's a black and white, slam dunk case where the plantiff has every right to and should sue.

I'm talking about the gray area's where people sue for areas that's I consider part of the hazard of the sport, so take that into consideration before assuming I'm "offbase"

I used a black and white example to point out a scenario where we would all agree the victim should be allowed to recover. but when rules are imposed preventing people from access to the courts, meritorious claims are denied justice. this is throwing out the baby with the bath water. The grey area is what we have courts and juries to decide. There are always 2 sides (or more) to every story and having 20 years experience trying cases, I can tell you that the juries most often get it right. of course, it is the aberration when a jury doesnt get it right, that gets reported in the media.
 

SIKSKIER

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Location
Bedford and Franconia NH
I don't get Sunday Rivers "Go With The Flow"

Go With The Flow focuses on three key messages:
  • Be Aware - Pay attention to your surroundings.
  • Respect Slow Zones - Slow down at orange signs and trail junctions.
  • Follow The Pace - Faster than those around you is too fast.

So they are saying you can't pass anybody or your going too fast?
 

Breakout12

New member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
120
Points
0
I wonder if we will see a rise in the use of helmet cam footage to prove negligence.
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
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!

Shrooms maybe... haha....
 

jrmagic

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
1,939
Points
0
Location
Hartsdale NY/Londonderry VT
I don't think a skier should be found responsible in civil court for negligent behavior. It would be a whole lot easier to prove that a ski area was negligent (i.e. the trail should have never been open under those conditions)

I totally disagree. It is absolutely possible for someone to be negligent and if that is the case, there should be responsible for their actions and making restitutions to the injured party. While obviously no defendant wants to lose their case, the basis here in civil court is to make up for the event and try to put each party back to where they were before the incident happened. To me what your saying is no different than a driver speeding down a dark road well above the speed limit and crashing into the driver in front obeying the regulatins and then saying that the person that caused the accident shouldn't be negligent and that it should be the municipality for not ahving lights on the road.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
I totally disagree. It is absolutely possible for someone to be negligent and if that is the case, there should be responsible for their actions and making restitutions to the injured party. While obviously no defendant wants to lose their case, the basis here in civil court is to make up for the event and try to put each party back to where they were before the incident happened. To me what your saying is no different than a driver speeding down a dark road well above the speed limit and crashing into the driver in front obeying the regulatins and then saying that the person that caused the accident shouldn't be negligent and that it should be the municipality for not ahving lights on the road.

There is a small but important difference between negligence and what the court referred to as "reckless or intentional". A simple way to understand negligence is that you or a company had a duty to act and didn't. I would be hard pressed to find a situation where an every day skier would be found negligent of something on the slopes. I could see a patroller or maybe an instructor but that's about it.
 

jrmagic

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
1,939
Points
0
Location
Hartsdale NY/Londonderry VT
There is a small but important difference between negligence and what the court referred to as "reckless or intentional". A simple way to understand negligence is that you or a company had a duty to act and didn't. I would be hard pressed to find a situation where an every day skier would be found negligent of something on the slopes. I could see a patroller or maybe an instructor but that's about it.
Your definition of negligence is much narrower than how its used in law and I absolutely understand the difference between that and "reckless or intentional". In cases where someone was reckless, is when punitive damages may be awarded. Unlike the damages awarded for restitution, punitive damages are meant as a penalty. You may find it hard to find a situation but I'm sure if you look at enough case law, there are plenty of examples. As has been discussed in theis thread, someone uphill running into and injuring someone below him/her could be construed as being negligent when using "the reasonable man standard" and not necessarily "reckless or intentional". I do agree that a ski resort has to show due care to their patrons and its a higher standard of care than applies in the case of 2 patrons involved in a case against each other but it can still happen that way.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Your definition of negligence is much narrower than how its used in law and I absolutely understand the difference between that and "reckless or intentional". In cases where someone was reckless, is when punitive damages may be awarded. Unlike the damages awarded for restitution, punitive damages are meant as a penalty. You may find it hard to find a situation but I'm sure if you look at enough case law, there are plenty of examples. As has been discussed in theis thread, someone uphill running into and injuring someone below him/her could be construed as being negligent when using "the reasonable man standard" and not necessarily "reckless or intentional". I do agree that a ski resort has to show due care to their patrons and its a higher standard of care than applies in the case of 2 patrons involved in a case against each other but it can still happen that way.

I would say it would be impossible to prove negligence on the everyday weekend warrior skier because the test that you are referring to has to make assumptions about what the individual knew and what they were thinking. Negligence is a lot easier to prove when it comes to licensed drivers, doctors, and gun owners because their are certain expectations and responsibilities. Like you said, a skier is expected to understand the risks and take action to prevent things from happening. That's why they are almost always the ones being sued.
 
Top