People that design or own skateparks being held liable for injurys?
- Thread starter NoTeefa
- Start date
five4ty
Member
Interesting example.
I would think the defining difference exists in differences in the duty of care. Mountains have a higher duty of care for one is an invitee, a paying one at that. In contrast, the skatepark is a public place so the duty is not as high, though still there.
Certainly, if a skatepark is negligently constructed leading to an injury, a lawsuit could result. However, the payouts may be different as the same duty of care does not exist for the public skatepark.
Another interesting difference is in who designs the park. Public skateparks are typically designed externally, allowing liability to be split between the city and the designing company. In the mountain case, in many (though not all) instances the park is designed by an average joe on the mountain - leading the mountain to foot the entire liability.
This has not been a definitive answer by any means, but I think two overall reasons exist for why less public skateparks and cities have been sued complementary to the reasons above. Firstly, because skateparks do not lead to as many largely debilitating (spinal) injuries as a mountain does because of a difference in the sports conducted. Secondly, alot of recent mountain cases have been due to negligence in jump constuction. I think negligence in skate park design is different for, due to the nature of the sports within, design does not typically lead to injuries.
I would think the defining difference exists in differences in the duty of care. Mountains have a higher duty of care for one is an invitee, a paying one at that. In contrast, the skatepark is a public place so the duty is not as high, though still there.
Certainly, if a skatepark is negligently constructed leading to an injury, a lawsuit could result. However, the payouts may be different as the same duty of care does not exist for the public skatepark.
Another interesting difference is in who designs the park. Public skateparks are typically designed externally, allowing liability to be split between the city and the designing company. In the mountain case, in many (though not all) instances the park is designed by an average joe on the mountain - leading the mountain to foot the entire liability.
This has not been a definitive answer by any means, but I think two overall reasons exist for why less public skateparks and cities have been sued complementary to the reasons above. Firstly, because skateparks do not lead to as many largely debilitating (spinal) injuries as a mountain does because of a difference in the sports conducted. Secondly, alot of recent mountain cases have been due to negligence in jump constuction. I think negligence in skate park design is different for, due to the nature of the sports within, design does not typically lead to injuries.
solitaryman
Active member
at first, i thought that this was happening and i was like WTF, but no..
AngryFromBend
Member
the idea of suing someone has completely ruined america.
i cant fucking ride my skateboard in a parking lot cause "i could sue the company"
fuck rcr
fuck lawyers
and fuck california (im sure this all started there)
i cant fucking ride my skateboard in a parking lot cause "i could sue the company"
fuck rcr
fuck lawyers
and fuck california (im sure this all started there)
DaLiNeRiDEr21
Active member
tru dat