bdfreetuna
New member
So if you're intentionally denying yourself of an important primary sense (hearing) while skiing or riding, would that make you automatically at fault in skier to skier collisions?
Of course downhill skier has right of way but there are instances when it's not a clear case of right of way, I would think the person with headphones on would have to accept negligence in that scenario.
In a similar vein I'd say if the fault of collision is otherwise a toss-up, the person who's under the influence of drugs/alcohol would be considered automatically at-fault.
If a lawsuit developed from the incident/injury I would certainly want to add the fact the other rider was wearing headphones or a boombox to the body of evidence.
Of course downhill skier has right of way but there are instances when it's not a clear case of right of way, I would think the person with headphones on would have to accept negligence in that scenario.
In a similar vein I'd say if the fault of collision is otherwise a toss-up, the person who's under the influence of drugs/alcohol would be considered automatically at-fault.
If a lawsuit developed from the incident/injury I would certainly want to add the fact the other rider was wearing headphones or a boombox to the body of evidence.