Legal Liability, Park Passes and a Legislative Solution

[five4ty]

There have been a lot of discussion of legal liability and terrain parks following the questionable RCR "moral" decision late last week to eliminate park jumps.

Especially, people have been discussing ticket waivers and park passes and the role they play in liability for resorts.

*The following is a semi-legal analysis of the situation. I'm not a lawyer yet, so if anyone here is more knowledgeable on law, please feel free to add to, or correct, my points*



On Ticket Waivers:

This has been brought up by a couple of people, thinking that it declares the ski resort free of liability.

The simple legal reality is that one cannot contract out of liability.

Certainly the use of these waivers is useful, but it does not, nor

legally should, free the resort from any liability. Take for instance a

crevase is unmarked and you ski into it and are badly injured.

Obviously one may want to sue civilly for medical costs and lost

earnings etc. The resort in this case could be held liable for

negligence - in this case the ski ticket waiver of liability is by

passed

The waivers exist simply as a legal precaution, but they are not an

escape clause from legal action. Especially since the "contract"

involved in purchasing a ticket is an iffy legal defense on the ski

hills part.



On the topic of park passes:

Park passes are an unclear legal area,

since from my knowledge they have not been tried in court. I think they

definitely shelter the hill from liability, since they involve an

explicit signed contract acknowledging the dangers. It may fail, and in

such cases it may predominantly due to negligence on the part of the

resort and its park maintenance and construction.



On the Legislative Alternative:
On

While park passes are safe, I think the real answer may be legislative.

Take Colorado's 1979 Ski Safety Act. Colorado's law defines

resort requirements for reasonable care and safety like signage but



essentially places the responsibility for safety on the skier, noting

the sport's "inherent dangers and risks."



A KEY ASPECT IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILING TO

SKI WITHIN THEIR OWN ABILITIES. IN 2004 IT WAS UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE

CONTEXT OF TERRAIN PARKS



The Colorado act also imposeslimitations on damages that can be collected from a ski-area operator. While those limitations can be lifted in the case of resort negligence,

several Colorado resorts increased their protection from lawsuits by

requiring skiers to sign waivers promising never to sue, even in thecase of negligence.



Conclusion - legislation as an answer (though not fullproof):

It appears that legislation may be the proper answer; washington's

legislation is not as comprehensive as an example. Collarado's law seems to be a great balance between protecting the rights of the resort and the rights of the individual.

Thus, to ensure that

that your local park is shutdown due to a lawsuit, look into your

states own laws and the idea of discussing the problem with your

congressional representative.

For us Canadians, I am unfamilar with our own legislation; I'll try to look into it.

 

[I_liketobutter]

Ski hills, resorts or whatever w/o the CO ski safety act are fucking retarted.

 

[five4ty]

^ NIce elaboration on how park park passes are conducted.

Yes, in Canada it would fall under the occupiers liability act. Though you have to take into account that the "standard of care" when one is a paying customer (invitee) is the highest level of care required. In this case, the occupier owes it to the customer to provide them with the highest standard of care possible in protecting the customers safety - that the occupier made the invitee aware of risk to the best of their knowledge and did everything to protect their safety.

Arguments from this stance should not be depended on for a solution for the standard of care imposed under the occupiers liability act on a occupier with paying customers is (disturbingly close) to being synonymous with strict liability - that the only way they can defend against cases is to prove that the aforementioned duty of care was exercised. This is a difficult duty to prove for there are many factors to take into account - signage, slope conditions, proper park supervision, proper grooming etc. Certainly its a defense, but not a defense that will provide the level of legal liability protection resorts need to feel secure.

Once more, as we both agree, a strong park pass approach is essential more and more in the modern world. WIth numerous waivers and videos, a resort is able to meet well the requirements for a strict liability defense under the occupiers liability act. As I said in my initial piece, park passes are wonderful, but should not be a final solution. I hold the combination of park passess and legislation to be the safest and most effective solution for the future longevity of terrain parks in north america.

I fully support those drafting waivers for park passes to be used across north america. However, the fight to ensure park safety should not simply stop there if there are even higher levels of protection (legislative) to aid the strength of the park pass movement.

 

[Klick_2_klaim]

this is kind of unprecidented i would think.

Its too bad we live in a legal system not a justice system. It would be pretty radical if people took responsibility for their actions. But that isnt the case. i think it is going to suck for kids to grow up in a world like this.

we still have the good old cheese wedge on the side of the road though. You cant sue the road. lol