From: OPS Amusement Rides and Devices Program [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:26 PM
Subject: Proposed Revisions to the Amusement Rides and Devices Regulations and New Certificate of Inspection Form
Dear Amusement Rides and Devices Stakeholder,
The Amusement Rides and Devices Program hosted a stakeholder meeting on February 20, 2015, to discuss proposed changes to our rules, which included:
- adding language for the regulation of challenge courses and trampoline parks;
- improving current language in regulation regarding zip lines;
- adding language for patron responsibility;
- clarifying language for reportable injuries; and
- updating and/or including applicable standards and definitions.
We took all comments and feedback provided during the meeting into consideration and have postponed the effective date of the proposed changes to July 30, 2015, in order to conduct a second stakeholder meeting to discuss the revisions made after the meeting on February 20th. A draft copy of the revised proposed regulations is attached to this email for your review.
The second stakeholder meetings is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 1 pm in Conference Room 5C at the CDLE offices (633 17th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202). If you cannot attend the meeting, we encourage you to submit feedback to Scott Narreau at scott.narreau or 303-318-8495. If you plan to attend the meeting:
- Please RSVP by sending an email to cdle_amusements; include your organization’s name and your contact information in your email.
- When you arrive for the meeting, please check in on the 2nd floor, and then you will be directed to the 5th floor conference room.
In addition to the rule changes, we have also made changes to our Certificate of Inspection form. The purpose of changing the form is to further streamline the application process by reducing the amount of documentation submitted to our office. With the new form, a Third-Party Inspector can submit inspection certification information for up to 10 devices on one single form. We have attached a draft copy of the new Certificate of Inspection form to this email. We encourage you to review it and advise us if these or other changes would benefit you as either an operator or a Third-Party inspector.
As always, we thank you for your participation in our program.
Division of Oil and Public Safety
Amusement Rides and Devices Program
We Keep Colorado Working.
633 17th St., Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202
cdle_amusements | www.colorado.gov/ops/amusementrides
**How are we doing? Please complete this survey to provide your feedback: OPS Customer Survey.**
Sajkowski et al., v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, 269 A.D.2d 105; 702 N.Y.S.2d 66; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 968Posted: April 16, 2015
Kathleen Sajkowski et al., Appellants, v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York, Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
269 A.D.2d 105; 702 N.Y.S.2d 66; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 968
February 1, 2000, Decided
February 1, 2000, Entered
COUNSEL: [***1] For Plaintiffs-Appellants: Charles H. Dobkin.
For Defendant-Respondent: Laura Getreu.
JUDGES: Concur–Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.
[*105] [**66] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered July 20, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater New York (YMCA) sponsored a “Wellness for Life” weekend program for adults who wished to engage in exercise and outdoor activities. Among the activities [**67] that were offered at the program was an obstacle course that included an event called the Nitro Crossing. This event involved nothing more than swinging from a rope. The rope dangled just about 1 1/2 feet from the ground in the center of an imaginary pit that was actually flat, bare dirt. Those who chose to participate in the Nitro Crossing would start out by standing on a log that was lying at ground level. Then, holding on to the rope, they would swing approximately five to seven feet to another log that was also lying at ground level.
Plaintiff, Kathleen Sajkowski, an attendee [***2] at the weekend program, stood in line with several other participants and waited for her turn to swing on the rope. While she was waiting, she observed that several participants lost their grip and fell while swinging. When her turn came, she grasped the rope and began to swing. Approximately at the midway point of the imaginary pit, plaintiff lost her grip and fell, injuring her ankle. Plaintiff, alleging, inter alia, that defendant YMCA was negligent in failing to place shock absorbing material such as wood chips below the Nitro Crossing, commenced this action. No claim was made that the rope broke or was otherwise defective. Thereafter, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, asserting that plaintiff assumed the risk of participating in this activity. We conclude that the assumption of risk doctrine is applicable to plaintiff’s injury.
In Morgan v State of New York (90 NY2d 471, 484), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that, [HN1] “by engaging in a [*106] sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly [***3] appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation.” This encompasses those risks that are associated with the construction of the playing field and any open and obvious defects on it ( Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277). Thus, if the risks of an activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, one who participates in the activity is deemed to have consented to the risks ( Morgan v State of New York, supra; see also, Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439). Furthermore, where the risk is open and obvious, the mere fact that a defendant could have provided safer conditions is irrelevant ( Simoneau v State of New York, 248 AD2d 865).
In considering plaintiff’s injury, it is apparent that the risk of falling while swinging from a rope is inherent in participation in such an activity (cf., Hofflich v Mendell, 235 AD2d 784; compare, Roska v Town of Cheektowaga, 251 AD2d 984). It is also incontrovertible that the risks involved were not concealed and that plaintiff fully comprehended them since she had seen several [***4] other participants fall just moments earlier. Moreover, to the extent that the Nitro Crossing failed to have shock absorbing material beneath it, this was nothing more than an open and obvious condition of the playing surface, which, as noted, is not actionable ( Maddox v City of New York, supra; see also, Sheridan v City of New York, 261 AD2d 528; Paone v County of Suffolk, 251 AD2d 563; Brown v City of New York, 251 AD2d 361; compare, Warren v Town of Hempstead, 246 AD2d 536 [defect concealed]; Cronson v Town of N. Hempstead, 245 AD2d 331).
Plaintiff attempts to avoid the foregoing analysis by establishing that the Nitro Crossing was constructed or operated in violation of prevailing industry standards. Specifically, it is alleged that shock absorbing material beneath the Nitro Crossing was required, as well as proper training for plaintiff with regard to her participation in the activity. These violations, it is asserted, exposed plaintiff to unreasonably enhanced risks, which she cannot be deemed to have assumed (see, Morgan v State of New York, supra, at 485; [***5] [**68] see also, Greenburg v Peekskill City School Dist., 255 AD2d 487; Clark v State of New York, 245 AD2d 413; Stackwick v Young Men’s Christian Assn., 242 AD2d 878). In seeking to demonstrate such violations, plaintiff submitted expert evidence that analogized the Nitro Crossing to a gymnastics event and pointed to the requirements for construction of playgrounds built for children under 12 years of age.
[*107] What becomes apparent is that the comparison of the Nitro Crossing to a gymnastics event is incongruous. * Simply stated, plaintiff was not dismounting from uneven bars, or doing a tumbling routine during a floor exercise–activities completely different in degree, complexity, and danger from the activity at issue here. Nor was she engaged in an activity that required any specialized kind of training, instruction, or skill. She was only swinging from a rope with her body suspended just barely off the ground. The instructions for such an activity are simple and straightforward–hold the rope and swing. Similarly incongruous was plaintiff’s reliance on standards for the proper construction of playgrounds built [***6] for children under 12 years of age. The Nitro Crossing, after all, was not part of a children’s playground.
* For the same reasons plaintiff’s claim that defendant should have provided a spotter is without merit. Moreover, since plaintiff immediately fell to the ground when she lost her grip on the rope, the presence of a spotter would not have prevented this accident.
We also note that the balance of the expert evidence failed to demonstrate that defendant violated any prevailing standards in constructing the Nitro Crossing (see, Simoneau v State of New York, supra; cf., Greenburg v Peekskill City School Dist., supra; Clark v State of New York, supra; Stackwick v Young Men’s Christian Assn., supra).
In view of the foregoing, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint.
Concur–Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.
Another Bike Book Coming from Carlton Reid about Cycling after the 60’s. A follow up to Roads Were Not Built for CarsPosted: March 3, 2015
Fast After 50 Shows Athletes That Age Is Just a Number-and Race Results Are the Only Numbers That Count
The baby boomers aren’t giving up, and coach Joe Friel isn’t giving up on them. Friel’s groundbreaking new book, Fast After 50, is for every endurance athlete who wants to stay fast for years to come. For runners, cyclists, triathletes, swimmers, and cross-country skiers, getting older doesn’t have to mean getting slower. Drawing from the most current research on aging and sports performance, Joe Friel-America’s leading endurance sports coach-shows how athletes can stay fast and extend their racing careers. Fast After 50 is now available in bookstores; bike, tri, and running shops; and online. The e-book edition will release this spring. Preview the book at http://www.velopress.com.
In Fast After 50, Friel offers a smart approach for athletes to ward off the effects of age. Friel shows athletes how to extend their racing careers for decades-and race to win. Fast After 50 presents guidelines for high-intensity workouts, focused strength training, recovery, crosstraining, and nutrition for high performance. Friel shows:
* How the body’s response to training changes with age, how to adapt your training plan, and how to avoid overtraining
* How to shed body fat and regain muscle density
* How to create a progressive plan for training, rest, recovery, and competition
* Workout guidelines, field tests, and intensity measurement.
In Fast After 50, Joe Friel shows athletes that age is just a number-and race results are the only numbers that count. Includes contributions from: Mark Allen, Gale Bernhardt, Amby Burfoot, Dr. Larry Creswell, John Howard, Dr. Tim Noakes, Ned Overend, Dr. John Post, Dr. Andrew Pruitt, and Lisa Rainsberger.
Fast After 50: How to Race Strong for the Rest of Your Life Joe Friel Paperback with illustrations throughout. | 7″ x 9″, 336 pp., $21.95, 9781937715267
Joe Friel is the best-selling author of The Triathlete’s Training Bible, The Cyclist’s Training Bible, Going Long, Your Best Triathlon, and Your First Triathlon. His TrainingBible Coaching franchise is one of the most successful and respected in endurance sports. Joe has trained endurance athletes since 1980, including national champions, world championship contenders, and Olympic athletes in triathlon, duathlon, road cycling, and mountain biking. He is an elite-certified USA Triathlon and USA Cycling coach and holds a master’s degree in exercise science. He conducts training and racing seminars around the world and provides consulting services for corporations in the fitness industry. He has also been active in business as the founder of Ultrafit, an association of coaching businesses; TrainingPeaks, a web-based software company; and TrainingBible Coaching.