-
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!
what music do you like to ski to?
- Thread starter KustyTheKlown
- Start date
Funky_Catskills
Well-known member
Hardly - making a strong statement..
Please sue me for something that is legal.. I could care less...
Smellytele
Well-known member
Hard pack/frozen granular/ frozen solid corduroy. I am talking can't hear when I don't have music on.
bdfreetuna
New member
On a 2 foot powder day you might get off on a technicality. Otherwise my "expert witness" will bury you... lol
Hmm archive.org shows the ski resort showing "packed powder and variable conditions" on the day the incident occurred.
Just saying... and I'm not a letigious person and have never sued anyone... if you crash and injure me wearing headphones I would easily own you and rightly so. If you drank a few beers same deal.
If you're willing to assume the additional risk to your person you must also assume potential risk to others.
Smellytele
Well-known member
Not sure I have ever heard of a driver being sued for hitting another car while playing music...
bdfreetuna
New member
If the music was playing at a certain volume and evidence was collected they could be charged with criminal negligence and be open to a civil suit.
A quick search pulls up lots of results on similar topics... actually the search results are so bountiful on the topic you may want to search yourself so you know this is a realistic legal issue. I'm just linking a weird loosely related case but you'll find lots more about this. The automobile "loud music" amounts to "distracted driving" legally. From what I've found I suspect this gets played out in court a lot more often than some of us would imagine.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...-pedal-bar-sprocket-rocket-lawsuit/792527001/
There's a ton of lawyers out there who list "distracted driving" as one of their specialties and mention loud music as a cause for complaint. It would not be hard to find a lawyer willing to take on the case with confidence.
All I know is if I get seriously hit in a ski accident, and I can still operate my body, I'm hitting "record" on my cell phone with intent to collect potential evidence (intoxication, headphones, other signs of negligence). I feel this is an appropriate use of civil suit especially if I have medical bills to pay and downtime from work due to someone else not taking the sport seriously.
No injuries and no medical bills and we can brush it off.
A quick search pulls up lots of results on similar topics... actually the search results are so bountiful on the topic you may want to search yourself so you know this is a realistic legal issue. I'm just linking a weird loosely related case but you'll find lots more about this. The automobile "loud music" amounts to "distracted driving" legally. From what I've found I suspect this gets played out in court a lot more often than some of us would imagine.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...-pedal-bar-sprocket-rocket-lawsuit/792527001/
There's a ton of lawyers out there who list "distracted driving" as one of their specialties and mention loud music as a cause for complaint. It would not be hard to find a lawyer willing to take on the case with confidence.
All I know is if I get seriously hit in a ski accident, and I can still operate my body, I'm hitting "record" on my cell phone with intent to collect potential evidence (intoxication, headphones, other signs of negligence). I feel this is an appropriate use of civil suit especially if I have medical bills to pay and downtime from work due to someone else not taking the sport seriously.
No injuries and no medical bills and we can brush it off.
Last edited:
Smellytele
Well-known member
The downhill skier always has the right of way and I can see downhill skiers. Doesn't matter what is going on behind me. You could yell at the top of your lungs no matter what I would still have the right of way as the downhill skier.
case closed
Also not sure what the hell that article has to do we a skier or a driver. The guy was on a multiple pedal bar bike.
shwilly
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 311
- Points
- 16
Not a lawyer, but I think you're dramatically overstating how easy it would be to demonstrate anyone else's liability for a crash on the slopes. There's a strong assumption that you accept the inherent risks of skiing, including the existence of other skiers of varying abilities.
Unless it were a super obvious case of one person running into another from behind, with either documentary evidence or multiple eyewitnesses, you'd have a very difficult time even establishing exactly what happened. You'd have no luck arguing that wearing headphones constituted negligence in itself if you couldn't establish who was at fault.
Driving isn't a good comparison since there are so many laws regulating driving and standards to determine fault.
Anyone can file any suit they want, but I think chances of prevailing in a "that crash was his fault" lawsuit would be very low in all but the most egregious cases.
Funky_Catskills
Well-known member
/\ This /\
I don't like to listen to music because I like to hear what is going on around me, but at the same time I fail to see how someone listening to music could be liable for a crash skiing. As has been said, downhill skier has the right of way. So even if a downhill skier can't hear you coming, the uphill skier still has to be responsible for avoiding them. If I'm the uphill skier and listening to music, that doesn't change my ability to see what is in front of me. I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario where being unable to hear results in that person causing the crash. It could potentially impact their ability to avoid one being caused by someone else behind them, but that still doesn't make them liable.
I'm pretty sure the Skier's Code of Responsibility does not have the force of law. That being said, 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes - Title 33 - Parks and Wildlife Recreational Areas and Ski SafetyArticle 44 - Ski Safety and Liability § 33-44-109. Duties of skiers does place the primary duty on the uphill skier to avoid a collision:
"(2) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him."
If I collide with an uphill skier while bee-bopping out to my favorite yacht rock trio and cutting across the trail to catch some super rare Pokemon, I could very well be found to be the responsible party under Colorado law. However, I very much doubt that listening to music (however loud) would by itself constitute negligence per se.
"(2) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him."
If I collide with an uphill skier while bee-bopping out to my favorite yacht rock trio and cutting across the trail to catch some super rare Pokemon, I could very well be found to be the responsible party under Colorado law. However, I very much doubt that listening to music (however loud) would by itself constitute negligence per se.
bdfreetuna
New member
You guys need to keep up with the thread. I guess it's difficult when we have to scroll through a bunch of music videos. I've already stated this is likely only to be a determining factor in cases where there is no clear uphill/downhill skier.
Side swipes, certain trail merges, reckless skiing, disobeying signage. How about two woods zones merging into one zone?
Of course I'm oversimplifying the ease of winning any case. But if you get into a skier collision and it goes to court, do you think a lawyer would decline to mention the supposed fact that the at-fault party was wearing headphones?
None of this is open/shut and as Domeskier said the Skier's Code of Responsibility does not have the force of law, however it can be used as part of an argument. Likewise headphones, intoxication, reckless behavior [Pokemon catching], and any other contributing factors will be used as part of an argument.
I'm not saying the person with headphones will be liable when the other party is at fault due to other considerations. But if it's a close call -- good luck.
Side swipes, certain trail merges, reckless skiing, disobeying signage. How about two woods zones merging into one zone?
Of course I'm oversimplifying the ease of winning any case. But if you get into a skier collision and it goes to court, do you think a lawyer would decline to mention the supposed fact that the at-fault party was wearing headphones?
None of this is open/shut and as Domeskier said the Skier's Code of Responsibility does not have the force of law, however it can be used as part of an argument. Likewise headphones, intoxication, reckless behavior [Pokemon catching], and any other contributing factors will be used as part of an argument.
I'm not saying the person with headphones will be liable when the other party is at fault due to other considerations. But if it's a close call -- good luck.
How exactly are you planning to prove someone was using headphones (or more likely actually either earbuds under a helmet or speakers built into a helmet that you won't be able to visually see)? Even if they had on headphones, you'd still need to prove they were actually in use and loud enough to drown out surrounding sounds and were a significant contributor to the crash. I'd say in all the cases you mentioned that the music would be essentially a non-factor and you'd have little ground to argue otherwise even if you could prove they were actually listening to music at the time. Reckless skiing is reckless skiing and has nothing to do with hearing. Disobeying signage is disobeying signage and has nothing to do with hearing. A merge should mostly be relying on visual cues.
Way too many "ifs" to allow you to come close to even having a chance at proving anything. I can't see any reputable lawyer agreeing to try to litigate that weak of a case. Reckless behavior or intoxication are completely different on the other hand.
Way too many "ifs" to allow you to come close to even having a chance at proving anything. I can't see any reputable lawyer agreeing to try to litigate that weak of a case. Reckless behavior or intoxication are completely different on the other hand.
twinplanx
Active member
I thought Funky Catskills was supposed to be a kinder, gentler DMC? Idk why you're mad bro... I was just having a little fun. I'm not really concerned enough about this issue to argue with you anymore. You've been around AZ forever and I think you would be a pretty cool guy to hang out with.
Sent from my LG-K373 using Tapatalk
Funky_Catskills
Well-known member
hahahahaha.. I'm definitely a cool person to hang with... I was just pushing a point.
I'll be stepping away from AZ again soon.. It was feeling cool for a bit.. But... hahaha...
PEace..
twinplanx
Active member
Do you also plan on suing the helmet manufacturer for putting the speakers in the helmet?
bdfreetuna
New member
Nah. Helmet speakers are merely a tool, what matters is how you use them.
:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:
Smellytele
Well-known member
Same with any headphone then
bdfreetuna
New member
no argument here. I could care less what people do when they ski and my personal choice is to not wear headphones, someday that might change.
I'm also one of the least likely people on the hill to actually sue somebody so sort of a devil's advocate on this. Getting seriously injured due to other party at fault might be the common exception.
I'm also one of the least likely people on the hill to actually sue somebody so sort of a devil's advocate on this. Getting seriously injured due to other party at fault might be the common exception.