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

[HowieT2]

Yes but if someone pops out of the woods and gets hit - who's fault?

The uphill skier is supposed to avoid people downhill of him and a person entering a trail is supposed to look up and make sure it's safe..

This is my problem with the subjectiveness of this BS...
My only accident involving "hitting" someone was when a guy was making big sweeping turns near the bottom by the lift..
One of his sweeps had him coming at me diagonally - I was already against the woods and was nervous about the guy...
He basically came in from behind me on an angle and ended up in front of me and I knocked the snot out of him. He tried to say it was my fault! Saying I need to "avoid the downhill skier" the patroller that witnessed it said it was BS and the guy wasn't downhill of me until he sped his way in front of me on an angle..

The patroller asked if I wanted to make a complaint... I did not.. I felt his yard sale and embarrassment was enough...

there are two sides to every story. its reasonable to disagree and there are countless scenarios that are open to debate. it may be that neither skier is negligent or that both were to varying degrees. My only point is that these are fact dependent issues which should be decided by triers of fact, to wit, a jury upon hearing the evidence from both sides. They should not be precluded by a blanket rule of law that holds that skiers assume the risk of injury ANY time there is a skier on skier collision.

 

[dmc]

Again.... I'm glad I don't go on the AZ trips with you all...

One little mistake and I'm in court with this crew....Glad the people i ride/ski with aren't all litigious and understand the inherent risk..

 

[Cheese]

My worst collision was with a teenager. I was skiing down through a narrow cat track between trails and he was skiing uphill through the same cat track. It was too blind for either of us to see one another until it was too late, closing seconds were too short since it was head on and I certainly was not expecting someone to be skiing uphill. We hit hard and I slammed on the brakes. He double ejected, left his poles lying neatly beside the skis and sailed a good 10' in the air before hitting the ground. I should have taken a picture because it looked funny how his gear almost looked purposely parked. Once I knew he was okay, I read him the riot act about how dangerous it was to ski uphill. He apologized and went on his way.

Since he was coming up the mountain and I was going down, clearly he had the right of way and I was at fault.

 

[Breakout12]

My worst collision was with a teenager. I was skiing down through a narrow cat track between trails and he was skiing uphill through the same cat track. It was too blind for either of us to see one another until it was too late, closing seconds were too short since it was head on and I certainly was not expecting someone to be skiing uphill. We hit hard and I slammed on the brakes. He double ejected, left his poles lying neatly beside the skis and sailed a good 10' in the air before hitting the ground. I should have taken a picture because it looked funny how his gear almost looked purposely parked. Once I knew he was okay, I read him the riot act about how dangerous it was to ski uphill. He apologized and went on his way.

Since he was coming up the mountain and I was going down, clearly he had the right of way and I was at fault.

That's the joke, right? It's like backing into someone with your car, then claiming that you were hit from behind!

 

[KevinF]

My worst collision was with a teenager. I was skiing down through a narrow cat track between trails and he was skiing uphill through the same cat track. It was too blind for either of us to see one another until it was too late, closing seconds were too short since it was head on and I certainly was not expecting someone to be skiing uphill. We hit hard and I slammed on the brakes. He double ejected, left his poles lying neatly beside the skis and sailed a good 10' in the air before hitting the ground. I should have taken a picture because it looked funny how his gear almost looked purposely parked. Once I knew he was okay, I read him the riot act about how dangerous it was to ski uphill. He apologized and went on his way.

Since he was coming up the mountain and I was going down, clearly he had the right of way and I was at fault.

By "skiing uphill", I assume that you mean he was skinning up to (presumably) get some "earned turns" in? And generally people who are walking uphill can stop immediately. Off-hand, I'm not sure how this scenario is that different then avoiding somebody who has fallen in a "bad" spot.

Between you reading him the riot act and your saying that "clearly he had the right of way", I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here though.

 

[AdironRider]

Again.... I'm glad I don't go on the AZ trips with you all...

One little mistake and I'm in court with this crew....Glad the people i ride/ski with aren't all litigious and understand the inherent risk..

Hear hear!

This thread is rediculous.

 

[Gilligan]

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.

80 mph? I thought you topped out around 70 mph? We so have to get you on the World Cup circuit.

 

[Cheese]

By "skiing uphill", I assume that you mean he was skinning up to (presumably) get some "earned turns" in? And generally people who are walking uphill can stop immediately. Off-hand, I'm not sure how this scenario is that different then avoiding somebody who has fallen in a "bad" spot.

Between you reading him the riot act and your saying that "clearly he had the right of way", I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here though.

Think of an area that has two base areas. Typically there are directional cat tracks for guests to move between areas (although they don't have "Do Not Enter" signs because uphill and downhill normally imply this). In this case he had gained speed from another trail, cut the corner hard and shot up the cat track in the wrong direction at me. The momentum required to carry enough speed to ski uphill meant he came at me quite rapidly. A skinner or snow shoe hiker I could have avoided without issue.

In this case even though he was speeding against traffic, he was the downhill skier and I would technically be at fault. Correct?

 

[bdfreetuna]

You'd be amazed how often saying "on your right" (or left...) causes the person being warned to go in the direction specified.

In cycling, "on your left (right)" is a standard communication, basically meaning "hold your line, I'm coming past you". But a huge percentage of people who are "just out riding" hear "on your left" and will swerve left. This has to be one of the most-discussed topics (along with helmets...) on the various cycling forums I partake in.

Edit: hit "submit" to soon.

This is true; there are a large % of people who are right / left dyslexic (most of them are otherwise normal).

I am one of these people. If you want me to be able to figure out "right" or "left" in less than a few seconds, you're better off pointing. Obviously this does not work from behind while skiing.

 

[bdfreetuna]

80 mph? I thought you topped out around 70 mph? We so have to get you on the World Cup circuit.

I know, right?! :flag:

 

[legalskier]

Fwiw-

*** Twenty three states have specific ski liability statutes, and each differ substantially. But throughout the United States, laws hold skiers & snowboarders financially responsible to other skiers for negligent or reckless skiing resulting in a skier/skier collision.
When skiing downhill, skiers typically assume risks inherent in the sport. However, skiers typically do not assume the risk of another skier’s negligence. The question of precisely which risks are “inherent”- especially in the context of modern, highly groomed, controlled, and heavily marketed skiing, - is debatable in many cases
Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier is at fault in acollision accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below him or her. In this context skier refers to both alpine skiers and snowboarders. Thus, one of the key issues in any skier/skier case is who was the uphill or overtaking skier. The nature of the injury often gives substantial clues as to how the accident occurred, the speed at which the skiers were skiing, and the relative angles to each other. All skiers are under a general duty to ski cautiously, within their ability and to maintain control. The Colorado Ski Safety Statute provides that skiers are obliged to maintain a lookout. If one fails to ski in control or to maintain a lookout, the skier is negligent and responsible for the injuries and damages caused. ***

More here: www.skisafety.com/ski_collision_cases.html

 

[skiNEwhere]

Fwiw-

*** Twenty three states have specific ski liability statutes, and each differ substantially. But throughout the United States, laws hold skiers & snowboarders financially responsible to other skiers for negligent or reckless skiing resulting in a skier/skier collision.
When skiing downhill, skiers typically assume risks inherent in the sport. However, skiers typically do not assume the risk of another skier’s negligence. The question of precisely which risks are “inherent”- especially in the context of modern, highly groomed, controlled, and heavily marketed skiing, - is debatable in many cases
Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier is at fault in acollision accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below him or her. In this context skier refers to both alpine skiers and snowboarders. Thus, one of the key issues in any skier/skier case is who was the uphill or overtaking skier. The nature of the injury often gives substantial clues as to how the accident occurred, the speed at which the skiers were skiing, and the relative angles to each other. All skiers are under a general duty to ski cautiously, within their ability and to maintain control. The Colorado Ski Safety Statute provides that skiers are obliged to maintain a lookout. If one fails to ski in control or to maintain a lookout, the skier is negligent and responsible for the injuries and damages caused. ***

More here: www.skisafety.com/ski_collision_cases.html

I'd expect nothing less from an AZ'er with the handle "legalskier". Thanks!

 

[bcasey]

Skiing in Ohio is risky in general.

 

[jaywbigred]

Skiing in Ohio is risky in general.

Correct!!!

I believe in assumption of risk. Most other people do too, but I find that that belief tends to wain when it is your 5 year old that is injured. It is a tough situation where someone is clearly at fault (the "crasher") and someone clearly the victim (the "crashee") but where the crash falls within the assumed risk such that their is no penalty or consequences to the "crasher."