Hike n Huck Still on????
- Thread starter AGrizSki
- Start date
JockinJLoads
Active member
please nobody say it
Gnl.Weirdness
Active member
lol jumps aren't closed
thejackal11177
New member
yea I talked to them about it today and I guess they dont feel like taking the risk. this sucks.
skimanskimanskim
Active member
so gay, i can't beleve its canceled, this sucks.
skithedirt
Active member
skiierman strikes again hes almost to 20,000
LATARIANmilton
Member
this sucks, this means my season is over
DynastarriderGP
Active member
i hate you
that link isn't working... but im assuming that it has to do with the washington case.
when this semester is overim gunna look up that case. im in law school and i wonder how the court overcame the liability waiver - since it is really basic contracts common law theory. from all the cases that ive read there have been lots of people paralyzed or injured in outdoor-sporting activities... from skiing, to triathlons, pucks to spectators in hockey games, baseballs which struck spectators at baseball games etc etc and the courts continually hold that liability waivers will excuse that party from liability - no matter how negligent they were. I'm really interested in this case... and wonder how it will effect ski area terrain parks elsewhere (just because a court ruled this way in washington state... doesn't mean that its binding elsewhere - but other courts can follow it if they choose to overturn existing case law)
when this semester is overim gunna look up that case. im in law school and i wonder how the court overcame the liability waiver - since it is really basic contracts common law theory. from all the cases that ive read there have been lots of people paralyzed or injured in outdoor-sporting activities... from skiing, to triathlons, pucks to spectators in hockey games, baseballs which struck spectators at baseball games etc etc and the courts continually hold that liability waivers will excuse that party from liability - no matter how negligent they were. I'm really interested in this case... and wonder how it will effect ski area terrain parks elsewhere (just because a court ruled this way in washington state... doesn't mean that its binding elsewhere - but other courts can follow it if they choose to overturn existing case law)
*freeskierpj*
Active member
Yea but it is hike and huck...That means that you don't take the chair...you hike!!!
Waivers really dont do shit...
A waiver protects against any action not resulting from "negligence" on the part of the resort. There is no precedent for what consitutes a safe jump. Odds are this kid convinced a jury that the resort was negligent in maintaining a safe terrain park...
A waiver protects against any action not resulting from "negligence" on the part of the resort. There is no precedent for what consitutes a safe jump. Odds are this kid convinced a jury that the resort was negligent in maintaining a safe terrain park...
Waiver's definitely do "do shit"
A waiver is an express assumption of the risk - by contractual consent. Although it does not preclude liability of negligent maintenance as you mentioned... from the brief news article it seemed like the lawyer argued that the jump was negligently built since it was 'eyeballed'. I guess negligent maintenance of the terrain park might be a reason that the ct ruled this way - but I remember a case where this guy was diving into the water for a triathlon and the event holders were negligent b/c it wasn't safe for people to dive into this section but the waiver was upheld.
The only way around an exculpatory clause(liability waiver) is if it violates public policy... which it obviously doesn't since it has been used for decades in the instance of ski areas.
The best argument here would be that skiers have implied assumptions of the risk which is inferred from the inherently dangerous activity (this is most often applied to people who get hit with baseballs at games).
Anyway... that was way too long - but bottom line this sucks if they're really cancelling hike n huck becuase of that effin case.
A waiver is an express assumption of the risk - by contractual consent. Although it does not preclude liability of negligent maintenance as you mentioned... from the brief news article it seemed like the lawyer argued that the jump was negligently built since it was 'eyeballed'. I guess negligent maintenance of the terrain park might be a reason that the ct ruled this way - but I remember a case where this guy was diving into the water for a triathlon and the event holders were negligent b/c it wasn't safe for people to dive into this section but the waiver was upheld.
The only way around an exculpatory clause(liability waiver) is if it violates public policy... which it obviously doesn't since it has been used for decades in the instance of ski areas.
The best argument here would be that skiers have implied assumptions of the risk which is inferred from the inherently dangerous activity (this is most often applied to people who get hit with baseballs at games).
Anyway... that was way too long - but bottom line this sucks if they're really cancelling hike n huck becuase of that effin case.
Waivers get court cases thrown out, but a waiver cannot stop someone from sueing. No document can. If someone signs a waiver and sues, the resort is still going to have to hire a lawyer to take the case to court on their behalf. If that lawyer presents the waiver, and wins the case for the resort, the resort still has to chunk down a fair ammount of dough to that lawyer who defended them AND won the case on their behalf. If customers are getting hurt in parks (which is most often the case now adays) and suing the resorts, even though those cases are being thrown out, it is still costing the resorts money. Whether a park is worth the amount of money it brings in is debatable, but you need to keep in mind, the number one goal of any ski resort is to MAKE MONEY, not "progress the sport".
totally agree... especially with resorts as businesses - they're out to make money. And attorney's fees of course do suck... but the resort can recover attorney's fees if the ct finds that the lawsuit is frivolous. Which i would think that everyone that tries to sue because they got injured would be.
In any matter - hike n huck better still be on cuz i wanna still ski. Although I might not be able to go since my heel is still hurting from a couple of weeks ago when i overshot the first jump at loon throwin a 5.
In any matter - hike n huck better still be on cuz i wanna still ski. Although I might not be able to go since my heel is still hurting from a couple of weeks ago when i overshot the first jump at loon throwin a 5.
Uncle_Remus
Active member
So is hike and huck on???
it might not make sense but its true. Risk managment is a shitty class but u learn about all this bullshit. If waivers got rid of liability it would be bad too. You could make the sketchiest shit and if people died it woudlent matter as long as u had a waiver. We need to find somthing in the middle.
