jrmagic
New member
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.
Then I guess we will have to disagree. When using the reaonable man standard, a jury needs to put themsevles in the shoes of the plaintiff and decide whether the person took reasnable care which really comes down to an opinion, which makes it far from impossible to occur and ilkely if you looked at enough case law, I'm sure there have been numerous cases where this standard was applied and Joe skier was found to be at fault.