Good News for RAGBRAI cyclists

The Iowa State Association of Counties has dropped its push for state legislation aimed at regulating bicycle riders. The change seems to be based on RAGBRAI agreeing to rewrite their waivers and purchase liability insurance to cover the counties.

What is really interesting here is the lawsuit that prompted the actions by the counties was the only lawsuit by a cyclist in 36 years in Iowa. You can either look at this as an extreme or over reaction to one lawsuit or the effect that one lawsuit can have on a sport not televised on Sunday’s during the fall. You can also look at this as what one lawsuit can do to scare an industry.

If you are a charity or event like RAGBRAI you should have insurance, if for no other reason to pay the attorney fees to defend a claim. More importantly you must have a release that is written by an attorney who understands the event, the law and what is required to cover you and everyone else that might be sued for you charitable event.

I had commented on the RAGBRAI issue in an earlier post: Cyclists suing over hole in bike path

Congratulations to Iowa for working things out.


Should the government keep us safe?


This is a very interesting article out of Canada about government intervention in our private activities. See If we only endanger ourselves, should government intervene?

The base of the article is the government should intervene to keep us from hurting third parties. But what right does the government have to protect us from ourselves?

The article is based proposed new rules for using ATV’s (All Terrain Vehicles). The proposed rules require the use of a helmet by ATV riders.

There are lots of arguments on both sides of this issue. Some of my favorite have to do with a little Darwinian clean up of the gene pool and the need for more organ donors.

But the real issue is freedom to experience our lives the way we want to live them.

The article also argues that the law is not going to make a difference. A law is not going to make someone do something they do not want to do. Proof of this argument is the current US prison system. If laws really did work, prisons would be empty or only holding first time offenders.

An even better argument is the following:

As troublesome as the notion is of a drunk, helmetless yahoo ripping around his acreage on an ATV, the notion of law enforcement entering that private property to write a ticket is far more disturbing.

The article correctly looks at the loss of the greater freedom. What is more important to protect the freedom to choose to not wear a helmet or the constitutionally protected freedom to be free from unreasonable searches?

A great, well written and well thought out article on the issues of the government coming into our lives to tell us to be safer.


Call for Papers & Presentations – The 21st NERR Symposium

Sunday, March 28th to Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

Now in its 21st year, the Northeastern Recreation Research (NERR) Symposium offers an unparalleled opportunity for individuals representing the governmental, educational and private sectors to share scientific knowledge, management experience and techniques; and positively influence the recreation management and tourism profession. Maintaining our tradition, this year’s meeting will take place once again at The Sagamore – a historic island resort located on west shore of Lake George in the Adirondack region of New York. 

Abstracts: Abstracts for oral presentations or posters are welcome on the following topics:

* Natural resource management

* Historical/cultural resource management

* Emerging and existing trends

* Measurement and forecasting

* Travel and tourism

* Sustainable tourism

* Human dimensions

* Policy development and planning

* Management application

* Methodological & theoretical development

Abstracts should be submitted no later than Friday November 14th, 2008. All abstracts need to be submitted using the online abstract submission interface available at the conference website: www.esf.edu/nerr

Abstracts should be 500 words or less and based on work that will be completed before the conference. Abstracts can be based on any type of data (e.g., surveys, experiments, content or historical analysis). Each abstract should provide a clear statement of the problem or objectives, give a brief description of the methods and substantive results, and end with a clear conclusion. Abstracts that describe proposed research are encouraged and will be reviewed and considered for inclusion in the poster session.

Roundtable Discussions: Once again the symposium will feature a series of Roundtable Discussions designed to get conference attendees together to share information, ideas, best practices, and research insights involving a current topic. Thus far, three Roundtable Discussion Sessions have been proposed for the 2009 conference: 

* Sustainability & Climate Change – Kelly Bricker (Univ of Utah) & John Confer (California Univ of PA)

* Urban Recreation: Challenges & Initiatives – Dave Klenosky (Purdue Univ) & Lynne Westphal (USFS)

* Private Lands & Recreation Access – Walt Kuentzel (Univ of Vermont)

Additional Roundtable Discussion and Management Sessions can be suggested. Please submit ideas for these sessions using the online abstract submission interface available at the NERR website.

Conference Proceedings: Conference attendees will have the opportunity to submit a seven-page paper based on their presentation, poster, or roundtable discussion. These papers will be published in a Forest Service technical report that will be available online thru the NERR and FS websites. 

Student Scholarships: Students are also encouraged to apply for conference scholarships (i.e., an award to cover the cost of conference registration) which are funded in part by Venture Publishing and a raffle held at the conference). Information on how to apply for a conference scholarship can also be found on the NERR website.

Thanks!

David B. Klenosky, Ph.D.

Department of Health & Kinesiology

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907-2046

(765) 494-0865

Email: klenosky@purdue.edu


Same facts difference between civil and criminal cases, same reason for using the courts.

Vail won a jury verdict in a civil suit for the alleged rape of a Vail customer by a Vail employee. See Vail Resorts wins ski instructor lawsuit. The Vail employee had been found not guilty in a criminal trial earlier, but had been convicted of Contributing to the Delinquency of a minor. See Former ski instructor gets 90 days in jail.

It is not necessary to get into the facts of the case to discuss the legal issues here. The ski instructor was charged with a criminal act. Vail was charged with a civil negligence claim.

The burden of proof, what the prosecutor has to prove, in a criminal trial is the ski instructor did the act Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The plaintiff in their civil suit against Vail must prove their case by a Preponderance of the Evidence. These are two of the hardest concepts to understand in the law.

In the US we base our system on the idea that personal freedom, not doing jail time, is the most important issue. Subsequently we have a very high burden to prove that someone should go to jail, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Any doubt at all and the alleged defendant are free, not guilty. This is very different from Europe. See Litigation v. Jail Time.

The burden to prove a civil suit is much lower, a Preponderance of the Evidence. A much lower level of proof needed to prove that someone has done a civil wrong.

There is a relationship between a criminal trial and a civil lawsuit based on the same facts. But the actual claims in both cases are very different.

In the criminal case the prosecutor must prove the alleged defendant did the act: had sexual relations with a person under the age of 18. In the civil case the argument was that Vail negligently hired the ski instructor. By not doing a background check Vail had allowed, negligently to hire someone they should not have hired.

Even though the cases stem from the same set of facts, the civil and criminal litigation are very different, very different issues to prove and very different results.

But the reasoning, the reason for both cases seems to be anger, revenge, and punishment.

See: Vail Resorts wins ski instructor lawsuit


Marketing is where lawsuits start.

This one takes a prize for being the dumbest article/press release I’ve seen in years. The article starts out talking about fatalities in whitewater rafting. The next paragraph states that whitewater rafting is safe.

Now its the midst of the busy season guides and companies want people to know the river is not only fun, but also safe.

Wiktionary describes “safe” as Not in danger; free from harm‘s reach. Free from risk; harmless, riskless. Providing protection from danger; providing shelter. Properly secured; secure.

The Free Dictionary describes “safe” about the same way. Secure from danger, harm, or evil. Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound.. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet.

I don’t see how a fatality meets the description of safe?

The article is an absurd attempt to bring tourism to an area or activity.

It gets better though. Later in the article the reporter describes the safety talk where the guide states:

“Anyone of you guys or anyone of us can be really seriously hurt and or killed out here on the water,”

But we quickly slip back into “lawsuit creation time” with the quote from the guide:

“I’m a swift water rescue instructor, I’m also certified in emergency care so you are in pretty good hands but you need to watch out for yourselves today too,”

“Everybody thinks whitewater rafting oh it’s so scary, and dangerous well, it’s really not all that dangerous.”

“If you listen to the guide and you do everything that he says then you’ll be fine as long as you just pay attention and keep your eyes open.”

I understand what is going on. In an effort to get people back on the river after several fatalities a first time rafting reporter was offered a trip down the river. The reporter thought he was reporting well. The raft company thought they were doing a good job telling the reporter how safe the river was. The guides were in heaven because the reporter was having them repeat their quotes; they were going to be famous.

From a legal standpoint they are making very conflicting and haunting statements. From a casual reader’s standpoint the statements don’t make sense. What you have is a very confused article that is guaranteed to surface in the next claim or lawsuit over rafting.

Rafting: Is it or is it not safe?

Based on the definition of the word safe, whitewater rafting is not safe. But based on the definition, nothing is safe. You can put the risks in perspective but you cannot tell your customers that rafting is safe. But life can be a lot more fun if you are willing to undertake some risk.

See: Whitewater Rafting Safety


SGMA’s Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Conference Call

SGMA’s Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Conference Call

September 11, 2008

AGENDA

Black is the original Agenda from the SGMA

Red is my notes from the conference call

Blue are hyperlinks

Introduction and Welcome

    Tom Cove, President and CEO of SGMA

    Mark Granger, Partner, Morrison Mahoney LLP

Overview of CPSC Act

    Paul Rosenlund, Partner, Duane Morris LLP

  1. Very interested in sporting goods and athletic product in general.
    1. Does surveys and statistical surveys of product related injuries and deaths and because sporting goods are at the top they are watched.
  2. Substantial powers over all manufactures, importers, retailers; everyone in the chain of distribution
  3. Products:
    1. Any product sold to the consumer at a household, school or recreation or otherwise
      1. Exception is those governed by other federal agencies
        1. Vehicles
        2. Food & drugs
        3. Airplanes
      2. Some overlap in
        1. Child seats
        2. PFD’s
  4. CPSC job is to review any death and gather of data
    1. Survey’s emergency room info
    2. Consumer reports
    3. Plaintiff’s reports
    4. Manufactures voluntary reports
      1. Voluntary under the law
  5. Enforce better reporting from manufactures
    1. More penalties for manufactures who don’t report on time
  6. How to deal with imports
    1. The proportion of recalls are now imports
  7. New act triggered due to toy recalls but went beyond that
    1. $15 mill can be levied for some penalties
    2. Lower burdens of proof for criminal prosecution
      1. Knowingly imports or manufactures a safety rule
    3. New whistleblower protection for employees to violate
      1. Can’t be fired or have pay reduced
  8. Definitions
    1. Manufacture: any person who manufactures or imports a product
    2. Distribution in commerce: prohibits distributing something commerce. Sell, deliver or even hold for sale for distribution in the future.
    3. Children’s product: children 12 years of age or under

Compliance with and Implications of Phthalate and Lead Restrictions    

Gary Wolensky, Partner, Snell & Wilmer LLP

  1. Section 108 bans all Phthalate in all children’s toys
  2. Child defined as a toy Designed for child 12 years or younger for use when a child plays
    1. Goes into effect 2/12/09
    2. Sporting goods do not fall under the definition of a toy under the act according to the CPSC
  3. Sporting goods are still subject to a lot of new and amended provisions under the act
  4. If a product is a toy under Section 108
    1. Then you must determine that your toy not have more than 1% phthalate (.1% of the total weight or total volume of the product)
  5. You must self certify for at least until 9/09 you must self certify because the rules will not be out yet
  6. Section 101, Lead
    1. Rules go into effect automatically.
      1. 8/14/08 signed so effective 9/13/08 and rules must be issued by this date
      2. 180 days after the act or 2/13/09 new 600 ppm lead limit goes into effect
      3. 365 (1 year) new 300 ppm lead goes into effect and paint goes down to 90 ppm
        1. New lead limits on inaccessible parts and components
      4. 3 years lead limits go down to 100 ppm if technological feasible
        1. Applies to parts individually
          1. Each component will be evaluated separately
    2. Once it becomes mandatory you will be required to test you products for soluble lead

Third Party Certification

    Mark Granger, Partner, Morrison Mahoney LLP

  1. Right now there are only 20 labs in the US that can comply with the requirements for self certification.
    1. There is going to be a big crunch
      1. Labs have to get their applications in now
        1. Deadline is November
      2. If request is not in before the November they will not be accredited
    2. Accreditation is a list of rules on testing
  2. Labs must be out of reach of the manufactures influence
    1. Must be totally independent
  3. Products will not be let into the US without the certifications
    1. There will be a new import surveillance group to check on these products

Label Tracking and Certificates

    Bruce Cranner, Partner, Frilot LLC

  1. Certifications
    1. The act requires that manufactures or labels create a certificate for their products
    2. Two types
      1. A general certificate created by the manufactures based on a 3rd party test or a reasonable testing program that complies with the regulations
      2. Certificate must state the rules, regulations or certifications the label is complying with
      3. Comes into play with 90 days of the act (mid November)
      4. Can be done based on a reasonable testing program
    3. Children’s products certificate
      1. Conforms with the act
      2. Tested by a third party
      3. Must be issued for each children’s product
        1. Lead
        2. Metal jewelry
      4. Must contain
        1. Date and place of manufactures
        2. Date and place of testing
          1. How it was tested
          2. Who tested
        3. Must be available to the buyer of the product
        4. Must be turned over to retailers upon request
        5. Available to turned over to the CPSC or the commissioner of customs
          1. System to file 24 hours before the arrival of the certificate product
    4. New requirement that manufactures tag and label children’s product
      1. Includes the packaging of the product
        1. Must contain distinguishing marks on the product
          1. Batch
          2. Lot
          3. Manufactures date & time
          4. Manufactures location
        2. Ultimate purchase must be able to ascertain
          1. Manufactures date & time
          2. Manufactures location
          3. Batch and lot number
        3. All on the product and the packaging
      2. By 2/14/09

Inventory Issues

    Paul Rosenlund, Partner, Duane Morris LLP

  1. Area with a lot of gray on what, when and where
    1. A lot of the deadlines will slide based on when the CPSC issues the regulations
  2. CPSC did issue preliminary deadlines on an excel spreadsheet
  3. Xmas time proposed deadline for lead
  4. Labels 1 year after deadline after the date of enactment
  5. Toy safety standard F9 63-07 apply to all products manufactures after 2/10/09
  6. Lead is effective immediately and applies to existing inventory
  7. Phthalate applies 100 days after enactment, 2/10/09 to all products distributed in commerce
    1. Effectively if too much Phthalate must be destroyed or fixed after 2/10/09
      1. The act prohibits selling, exporting or distributing
  8. 3 wheel all terrain vehicles banned now!
  9. 4 wheel all terrain vehicles new rules
  10. 90 day testing??

Question and Answer Session

    E-mail Mark Granger at MGranger@morrisonmahoney.com with any questions     you would like to have discussed at this time.

What about state rules and regulations that are more stringent than the Federal rules

    Gary Wolensky: state law will not be pre-empted by the federal act. State law will still apply, except for Phthalate.

    The act is it pre-emptive by CA Proposition 65

Any damage claims (plaintiff’s claims) is still based on state law

Sporting good designed for educational use, is that a toy?

    Gary Wolensky: Get advice, go through the product and product line and figure out whether the article is sporting good or something else.

    Personal use, consumption use or enjoyment in or around personal residence, school recreation or otherwise

What about certifications provided by foreign countries?

    Barring some sort of treaty or CPSC agreement those certifications will not work and must be certified under US rules

    Not just a function of what the product is made of

        Small parts

        Children’s products

        Everything will require 3rd party certification

    You will need to find lawyers skilled in this and independent labs skilled in this

Paul Rosenlund: there will be a separate set of rules for foreign labs

    EU standard will not exempt you from the CPSC

Is children’s footwear children’s toys?

    Arguably under the definition it is a consumer product and used to play.

    Can it end up in the kid’s mouth, then it might be a toy

Inaccessible parts made of Phthalate or lead?

    Inaccessible part the issue is the part really inaccessible? You are comparing the percentage concentration to the totality to the product whether accessible or not.

Probably specific regulations on accessible issues

How do I tell if I am a child’s product toy or just a sporting good?

    Clearly sporting goods fall within the definition of child’s products

    The critical inquiry is “is your product a toy or sporting goods”

        Look at the intended use

        Look at the advertising and marketing

        Is it used in team sports or individual sports

        Is it cute, colorful etc is a toy

        Are your instructions, warnings, etc aimed at a child above age 12?

        Do the instructions say only for use by children over age 12?

Certificates?

    A lot of information is not known yet on labels and certificates. Waiting on CPSC to provide more guidance.

    Everyone who manufactures a product must be on the certificate

        Where it came from, who manufactured it

    Tracking label must provide opportunity for the ultimate purchase to determine manufactures date time and location and batch run and time.

Paul: another provision of the act CPSC now has authority without a complaint or investigation the right to ask any importer retailer or manufactures for all supply chain information including component suppliers.

Gary W. as of this morning on the CPSC the PowerPoint’s are up from the presentations made by the CPSC last week.

Ended at 12: 30 PM MST

SGMA Conference Call Sponsored by:

KEY CONTACT INFORMATION

Bruce Cranner     Mark Granger      Tom Cove

Frilot LLC     Morrison Mahoney LLP             SGMA

504.599.8151         617.439.7518          202.349.9422


BCranner@frilot.com
MGranger@morrisonmahoney.com
TCove@sgma.com

 

Paul Rosenlund     Gary Wolensky             Bill Sells

Duane Morris LLP     Snell & Wilmer LLP             SGMA

415.957.3178     714.427.7022          202.349.9417


PSRosenlund@duanemorris.com
GWolensky@swlaw.com     BSells@sgma.com


Mother Nature is fickle, beautiful, cruel and creates lawsuits

The Canyons Resort is being sued for the death of a patron from an inbounds avalanche. The Canyons had just opened up a new run for the day and Jesse Williams, 30, from Grand Junction Colorado was skiing the run. An 11 year old boy, Max Zilvitis, was also skiing the run. Both were caught in the avalanche Max survived. See Canyons Resort Avalanche Tragedy

Consequently the mother and wife of the deceased skier, Williams have sued a broad group of people over Williams’s death. See Lawsuits filed in slide death at The Canyons. Just recently the plaintiffs, survivors of the deceased added the new owner of the resort to the list of defendants. See Talisker added to case.

There are several issues that warrant discussion here.

The claims outlined in the plaintiff’s complaint are allegedly that the resort failed to hire ski patrollers “capable of keeping the mountain safe.”

Someone is an idiot here. No mountain is safe. Unless the resort said or marketed itself as safe this claim is just stupid. More importantly one of the greatest groups of people who walk on the earth are ski patrollers. They study hard, they train hard and they work even harder. No one can predict avalanches and too say that the patrollers did not do their job is an insult. The good news is that any “expert witness” the plaintiff’s find to support their theory will easily be proved a liar. No mountain is safe and no one can keep a mountain safe from an avalanche.

The complaint reportedly goes on to state:

“Defendants failed to properly and adequately train personnel responsible for avalanche forecasting and avalanche control,”

“Defendants owed the duty to deny public access to the ski run if the run was unsafe for skiing,”

Again this falls into the category that man knows everything and man can control Mother Nature. These are very stupid ideas at the least. What they plaintiffs may be playing is the financial condition of American Skiing Co. ASC owned the resort when the avalanche occurred. They had been operating all of their resorts with little money and running on the edge. Finally this last year all of their resorts were sold and ASC no longer exists. See American Skiing to Sell Last Remaining Resort: The Canyons

This may also answer why the plaintiff’s have added the new owner of the resort as a defendant. Talisker added to case. ASC has no money, no longer exists except to defend claims and the plaintiff’s argument is that Talisker bought the liabilities as well as the resorts. Allegedly Talisker is obligated to indemnify ASC for any claims brought after the sale. Ten individuals were also added as defendants also.

The land under part of the resort is also privately owned and leased to the resort. The land holder is a defendant. The landowner was all ready in a lawsuit against ASC over the land. By bringing in feuding defendants the plaintiff has strengthened its chances of winning because the defendants can never get together to raise an effective defense.

The individuals were added probably to guaranty that someone would be left holding the bag. The individuals would be protected, as employees, by their employer. Dependent upon the paperwork someone will step up to defend the employees. This is another effective ploy by the plaintiffs.

Feuding defendants make the best lawsuit for the plaintiffs. This is a common tactic used in product liability cases to weaken the defendants, prevent them from creating a solid defense and making the suit much easier to win. See Sports Authority artfully disentangles itself from a product liability lawsuit (Subscription).

This is not going to be a good case. It might be easily winnable because experts can prove that no amount of avalanche work can make a run safe. But whether the defendants can field an effective defense will be the real issue behind the scenes and the big reason why the case will be won or lost by the defendants.


Town sued over “camp” near drowning

Many community recreation programs have summer camps for the kids in their community. These camps are not the pack a trunk and go to the woods, but a program where the kids are entertained and energized through part or all of the summer in the local recreation program. They may take field trips, but they usually spend every night in their own beds at home. It is a cheap, sometimes free way for parents to not worry about their kids or hire someone to watch them while they work.

Most of these programs have some type of swimming/water activity. In this case the program allowed swimming as part of its program. There were allegedly six counselors, one assistant counselor and five lifeguards on duty when a camper nearly drowned during this program. The camper now suffers from serious brain injury and his parents have sued the town and many of the counselors.

There is an interesting discussion in the article about why the plaintiff sued the individual counselors. Probably because the town that ran the camp has governmental immunity defenses that the individuals do not. However, as an employee, the town is providing the defense of the individual counselors in this action. Again this is a review of a lawsuit by a non-lawyer, being interpreted by a lawyer so the facts are very confusing.

First remember that an injury like this is expensive. There is no way that you can have enough health insurance to cover all of the medical costs. Usually insurance stops, at some point and the home care costs start to rise. This looks like a forever financial nightmare. You cannot buy disability insurance on a minor. To some extent you can understand the reasons for the lawsuit from a financial perspective. The cost to this family in dollars is never going to end.

The emotional cost is also unlimited.

What struck me as tragic, as of these cases are and at the same time very interesting is the statement released by the family.

“On behalf of our son, we have filed a lawsuit because, despite the best efforts of so many dedicated physicians, therapists, and teachers, Chandler has been left with a serious brain injury that affects him every day. This injury was preventable and occurred because of the negligence of people to whom we had entrusted our son.

“However, we are grateful for the support that our family has received from the community in Redding and regret the fact that all of the persons named in our suit needed to be defendants as we had hoped that the town would have accepted responsibility for its employees and this tragic event.

“We understand that the town reviewed and revised its procedures at Topstone after Chandler was injured and that the state of Connecticut has recently undertaken a review of the procedures at all state parks as well. We sincerely hope that these steps prevent another young child from nearly drowning,”

This press release was not written by a grieving family. A few of the lines seem to indicate they had some input into the press release. But overall it just does not sound like what parents of a severely injured young boy would say.

This press release is what occurs when attorneys get involved. Obviously they were involved quite early from the way the article describes the facts. What we don’t know but can surmise is why the attorneys were involved so early. The parents wanted to know what happened. Towns, cities, governmental entities always have risk managers and attorneys and probably the family was stonewalled. Probably the only answers they received were from the police investigation.

If you had a loved one severely injured you probably would want to talk to someone about what happened. If you had a child injured you would want to know what happened. I suspect that this family will never really find out.

However from previous articles you can clearly see the handiwork of several years of law school versus no lawyers in the case. This is a no win situation for everyone.

Marx family is suing town over near drowning


Another Ski Area lawsuit

 

A skier is claiming that Sunlight Mountain Resort is at fault for his injuries after he was knocked down by a chair lift. Allegedly the plaintiff was boarding the Number 1 lift this past spring (2008) when he was knocked to the ground by the chair.

The complaint alleges employee negligence, failure to properly train and supervise employees, and the employees failed to follow rules and regulations

The plaintiff suffered a fracture of the neck of his femur.

Absent a release, this will start off as a contest to determine where the injury occurred. If the injury occurred outside of the lift then the Colorado Skier Safety Act will control and the plaintiff will have a difficult time winning.

If the plaintiff can convince everyone the injury occurred once he had boarded the lift then the lift operator owes the plaintiff the highest duty of care. (See Bayer, v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70; 1998 Colo. LEXIS 391; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2416)

However the fight will not end there. The Colorado Skier Safety Act requires that a passenger have the skills, dexterity, ability, and knowledge to negotiate or load and unload the lift.

C.R.S. 33-44-104(1) No passenger shall board a passenger tramway if he does not have sufficient physical dexterity, ability, and knowledge to negotiate or use such facility safely or until such passenger has asked for and received information sufficient to enable him to use the equipment safely. A passenger is required to follow any written or verbal instructions that are given to him regarding the use of the passenger tramway.

A passenger must also obey any instructions and any posted information.

C.R.S. 33-44-104 (2) No passenger shall:

(g) Disobey any instructions posted in accordance with this article or any verbal instructions by the ski area operator regarding the proper or safe use of a passenger tramway unless such verbal instructions a

However is there a duty on the part of the ski area to have someone there to slow (swing back) the chair as a passenger boards it? The statute only speaks to the lift attendant being in a position to stop the lift.

See Sunlight facing lawsuit over March lift accident

Accidents at ski resorts or anywhere for that matter are bad occasions. Ski resort accidents compound the problem because a person is injured while they are on their vacation. However, at some point we must determine when we are going to learn, assume the risk and take a chance on life if we want to enjoy it.

 


Another case where anger starts and continues a lawsuit.

Cheryl Swanson is appealing a lawsuit she is fighting pro se against the Boy Scouts of America. Pro Se means without an attorney. Swanson has all ready lost her case at the trial court level and at the Ohio Appellate Court. She claims she was injured at a Boy Scout Camp on a slip ‘n’ slide. She alleged received a traumatic brain injury.

Her first case and her appeal were dismissed because she had not filed her lawsuit within the time allowed. Legally, she had missed the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is the time within which a lawsuit must be filed. In Ohio the statute of limitations to file a tort claim is two years. Tort is the name given to lawsuits filed for personal injuries. This suit was filed five years after the accident.

What is interesting is the plaintiff’s statements in the article. “…she filed the appeal because she’s right. “They were at fault,” Swanson said of the Boy Scouts organization. “They knew they were at fault and they’re dragging it out.” See Case against Scouts heads to higher court

This is an angry person. You read the article and it is clear where the anger comes from. You can read clearly that the anger is what is fueling this litigation.

Statutes of limitations are cut and dried and the plaintiff’s chance at success is nil in this case. She probably has been told that, but anger can fuel the energy to go up against an insurmountable fortress.


Lawsuit to stop a lawsuit


A youth services agency in Doylestown a suburb of Philadelphia PA is suing the Doylestown Township to force them to protect their climbing wall and ropes course. The youth services agency rents the first floor of a converted barn from the township. Located on that floor are an indoor ropes course and a climbing gym. The township controls the rest of the building and allegedly is allowing people to access the ropes course and climbing gym when the youth services agency is not around. See Lawsuit: Town allowing access to climbing wall.

The suit claims by allowing access to the leased premises where the ropes course and climbing wall are located the town is exposing the agency to a risk of a lawsuit. They are asking for an injunction, (a court order to immediately stop the access) and their costs to allegedly protect themselves.

Seems a little oxymoronic to use one lawsuit to stop a possible lawsuit?


IQ Test not required to enter National Park Service Land

The National Park Service Morning Report for July 24, 2008 is reporting the arrest of several men for violating the NPS rules on commercial filming in the park. See Fines issued after fatality for failing to have proper permits on USFS land for more information on the requirements for commercial filming on NPS land. In this case, I suspect the filming was the least likely problem when the violators were spotted.

Five men holding guns, two of which were AK-47’s had a sixth man handcuffed and on his knees. They appeared to be executing the handcuffed man.

The men, ages 18 to 24 where using BB guns, except the AK-47’s were real. There was also a tripod and camera; however it would be easy to miss the tripod when you are looking at AK-47’s.

See the full report below.

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (GA)

Illegal Filmmakers Cited For Weapons, Permit Violations

A park visitor spotted five men with assault rifles and pistols in the woods near a popular visitor area early on the afternoon of July 11th. The five men had a sixth man on his knees with hands handcuffed behind his back and were pointing two AK-47’s at his head. They also had a video camera on a tripod nearby and were filming this apparent execution. Local police responded and detained the men, ages 18 to 24, at gunpoint. Ranger Jose Rochez also responded and helped officers collect evidence and conduct interviews. It turned out that the six were filming a movie without a permit, using several BB/pellet guns and two real AK-47s. The owner of those guns was arrested, while the others received violation notices for weapons and permit violations. [Submitted by Scott Pfenninger, Chief Ranger]


Therapeutic Recreation Educator’s Conference

TREC II is now available for registration at http://www.okstate.edu/education/trec/

June 18th thru 21st, 2009, educators and practitioners interested in therapeutic recreation curricula will join together on the campus of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The conference, which will occur over two full days on June 19th & 20th, is sponsored by the American Therapeutic Recreation Association (ATRA) and the National Therapeutic Recreation Society (NTRS), a branch of the National Recreation and Park Association. The conference will be hosted by the Therapeutic Recreation Association of Oklahoma (TRAO) and Oklahoma State University. The focus of this conference is to build upon the TREC 2005 conference document and to address new issues which have come to the forefront of the profession since that time. The potential for the publication of a refereed manuscript also exists for conference presenters and discussions are currently taking place with the editors of the TRJ to ensure the possibility of a special issue devoted to Higher Education. The Conference Program Committee, Chaired by Dr. Tim Passmore at Oklahoma State University will be sending out a call for papers within the next month.

For additional information or specific questions please contact Dr. Tim Passmore at tim.passmore@okstate.edu or Dr. Jerry Jordan at jerry.jordan@okstate.edu for additional information.


California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Training Conference

California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Training Conference

Leisure Education & Research Symposium Call for Abstracts

March 6, 2009

Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara, CA

Description

The Leisure Education & Research Symposium provides a forum for exchange and discussion of new knowledge developed through research. The Symposium welcomes studies, both theoretical and applied research that contributes to the development of the leisure, recreation, and tourism professions.

Date

The 2009 Leisure Education & Research Symposium has been scheduled on Friday, March 6 from 9:00am – 4:30 pm. Due to the limited number of time slots available for oral presentation, there will be an opportunity for poster session to allow more researchers to share their research findings.

Abstract Submission

Research abstracts are invited which report either empirical studies or contribute to the development and refinement of conceptual and theoretical perspectives related to leisure, recreation, or tourism. Please note the following conditions for submission of abstracts:

  1. Only completed studies on empirical, conceptual, or theoretical aspects of leisure, recreation, or tourism will be considered.
  2. Graduate students whose thesis research will be completed by March 2009 are also encouraged to submit.
  3. The lead author must present the paper or arrange for a co-author to present the paper.
  4. All abstracts for oral presentations and poster presentations will be blind and peer reviewed by the symposium co-chairs and a review committee. Submissions will be assessed progressively to ensure quick turn around.

Abstract Requirements

  1. A one-page cover sheet containing the title, author(s), contact information, and affiliate institution information. Please indicate whether the abstract should be reviewed as an oral presentation or a poster presentation.
  2. The abstract should not be longer than ONE single-sided page: 1″ margins; 10 to 12-point font size and 500 words maximum. Please do not put the author’s name(s) on the abstract.
  • Empirical papers must be based on completed research and must contain the following elements: Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion.
  • Conceptual or theoretical papers should include a comparable system of organization and/or a theoretical framework.

Accepted Abstracts

  1. An author must attend the Symposium to present the paper if it is accepted. Due to limited oral presentation slots available, please do not submit an abstract unless it is certain that this responsibility can be fulfilled.
  2. During the presentation, 10 copies of the abstract or completed paper with the author'(s) name and affiliation must be available to the audience during the presentation.
  3. If the abstract is accepted, conference educational session registration for the author is complimentary, only one per abstract, for March 6th only.
  4. The author is allowed 15 minutes for the presentation, followed by 5 minutes for questions and discussion.
  5. The use of audio-visual aids is strongly encouraged. An IBM compatible notebook PC with CD-ROM and 3.5″ floppy drive and a LCD projector will be available. If other A-V equipment is needed, please notify either of the two co-chairs.
  6. For full consideration abstracts should be received by October 3, 2009
    by 5:00 pm EST. E-mail submissions are encouraged. Please save your work as a MS Word or Rich Text document and send as an attachment. Submission by fax is acceptable if followed by an original.
  7. E-mail notification of acceptance will be made by December 5, 2008.

Leisure Education and Research Symposium Co-Chairs

The 2009 Leisure Education & Research Symposium has two designated Co-Chairs.

The First Co-Chair is Richard O.B. Makopondo, PhD., MIH. Email: Richard.makopondo@csueastbay.edu

The Second Co-Chair is Suzy Ross, PhD., CTRS, RTC. Email.sross@casa.sjsu.edu

Please Submit Abstracts to:

Richard O. B Makopondo, Leisure Education and Research Symposium Co-Chair

Department of Leadership in Hospitality and Leisure Services

College of Education and Allied Studies

California State University, East Bay

AE 246, 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard,

Hayward, CA 94542

Phone: (510) 885-3043 Dept Office

Fax No. (510) 885-7413

Richard.makopondo@csueastbay.edu


Trade Association of Paddlesports (TAPS) and Paddlesports Industry Association (PIA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
TO COMBINE
PADDLESPORTS INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS

This Memorandum of Understanding shall serve as a nonbinding statement of the mutual desires and intentions of the Trade Association of Paddlesports (“TAPS”) and the Professional Paddlesports Association, Inc. d/b/a the Paddlesports Industry Association (“PIA”) to combine operations and memberships into one paddlesports industry association to build and strengthen the industry and serve the needs of their memberships. As contemplated, this transaction will have the following significant terms and conditions which will be incorporated into a mutually acceptable Asset Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”):

1. Prior to, and during the period from the date of this Memorandum of Understanding through the closing of the transaction, it is anticipated that any party may disclose or reveal to any other, either orally or in writing, or by inspection, confidential information as to the respective operations of TAPS and PIA that would be helpful in evaluating the proposed transaction. Such “Confidential Information” to be disclosed or inspected, as the case may be, would include information as may be supplied by the respective parties that is not generally ascertainable from public or published information or trade sources. The parties agree to retain in confidence, all such “Confidential Information” transmitted by them to any other party, and not to disclose to others, or permit the use or disclosure of, any such Confidential Information obtained from or revealed by the other party.

2. Recognizing that cooperation and coordinated communications will be essential to achieving unification of the two organizations, the parties agree that from the date of this Memorandum of Understanding through the earlier of December 31, 2008 or the preparation, execution and closing of the Agreement, the parties will collaborate and cooperate to facilitate the completion of the transaction, using their best efforts to blend the cultures of the organizations, their Boards, and their memberships, in order for the unified organization to immediately commence operations in a cooperative manner.

3. Recognizing that industry perceptions are critical to the success of this effort, the transaction is to be characterized as an industry unification. The transaction is not to be characterized as a takeover, acquisition, purchase, or similar terms indicating that either party is stronger than, or superior to, the other. Neither party, nor their Board members, shall disparage the other party or its Board members or personnel. Any statements about the transaction to the public or the memberships of either organization will require the prior approval of the other organization. The primary contacts to negotiate, coordinate, and publicly speak about or comment on the transaction will be one individual from each existing association, likely to be Landis Arnold and Michael Prom. The parties will jointly create and follow a written communications plan for the transaction, to include immediate joint announcement of this Memorandum of Understanding, membership notifications and meetings, and public announcements. It is the mutually understood goal of this process to complete the MOU and announce its intentions and meanings to the industry no later than the Outdoor Retailer Show in August 2008.

4. If unification discussions are terminated for any reason, the parties will issue a joint public statement and neither party shall make any other comment or independent statements to its membership, third parties, press or the public regarding the transaction or its failure to close. Such termination shall leave the parties in status quo, with the “Let’s Go Paddle” Joint Marketing Plan to remain in place.

5. The existing TAPS entity, including its federal tax exemption, will serve as the vehicle for the combined organizations and will sometimes be referred to herein as the “Unified Organization.” This will avoid starting over with a new entity and obtaining a new tax exemption, thereby saving the combined organizations’ capital, simplifying the transaction, and providing control over the timing of the combination. It is also intended to allow for select assets and liabilities to be included in the combination, as representatives of the parties discussed in meetings in Madison, Wisconsin, on March 7, 2008. The organizational documents of the Unified Organization, including Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Board Policies shall be amended and readied for approval and implementation prior to, and as a condition of, the closing. The intent is for these documents to be industry best practices, rather than those of either constituent party.

6. PIA will convey all of its assets, other than its insurance subsidiary known as RIA, and its interest in Paddlesports Publishing, Inc., to the Unified Organization. Both of these residual assets will be wound up or sold, and liquidated by PIA. Proceeds from these dispositions will be applied, first, to the liquidation of any residual PIA liabilities. PIA shall then be dissolved as soon as practical and any net residual assets will be contributed to the Unified Organization. Such net residual contributions, after being used to reimburse accrued Unification expenses, shall be earmarked by the Unified Organization’s Board, to the extent the Board deems it fiscally responsible in light of other budget priorities, to support the business needs of the paddlesports rental and outfitter sector, to the extent approved by a vote of three-quarters of the Board members.

7. The Unified Organization will assume the following PIA liabilities: credit card debt, not to exceed the amount currently outstanding, and term debt, not to exceed the amount currently outstanding, and PIA’s employment contract with Matt Menashes.

8. PIA member benefits contracts or agreements will be assumed (or renegotiated) by the Unified Organization, and in its discretion, to the extent they do not conflict with existing TAPS/OIA member benefit programs, and will not conflict with or hinder the Unified Organization’s ability to secure support from third parties such as Outdoor Retailer or Outdoor Industry Association. These include affinity/benefit partners including US Bank/Elavon merchant credit card processing; GE Money consumer financing; GTS transportation services, CBIZ and MMIC health insurance marketing. The Unified Organization will also negotiate a new shared membership agreement with the American Canoe Association.

9. The Joint Marketing Agreement between TAPS and PIA will be terminated as a self standing program at the closing, with the understanding that the Unified Organization will continue to operate the “Let’s Go Paddle” cooperative marketing campaign, and pursue the underlying mission of that agreement after the closing for the benefit of the combined memberships.

10. The parties will jointly agree on which member programs to retain, it being the general intent of the parties to retain PIA’s National School for Paddleports Business, the Paddlesports Pro conference series, the Certified Paddlesports Professional program, and Disaster Assistance programs, and TAPS’ current program offerings. Ultimately, it is understood that the ongoing program slate will require the Unified board’s support and approval.

11. In order to ensure that the best interests and productivity of the Unified Organization are met in a cost effective manner, an evaluation of support staff and their salaries must be conducted. It is the goal of the parties to honor PIA’s remaining contract term with Matt Menashes, and to retain Michael Pardy as a full-time or part-time contractor at a compensation level that is proportionate to full-time equivalent pay parity with Mr. Menashes. These individuals would hold the roles of operational directors with separate responsibility areas, reporting to the Chairman of the Unified board, however they will together be responsible for cooperating, designing and implementing an industry unification plan. The parties recognize the financial pressure this will put on the Unified Organization, and will work to modify employment relationships (on a parity basis) and consolidate all staff and what have heretofore been outsourced projects in the two directors. No other PIA employees or contractors would join the Unified Organization. It is contemplated that the Unified board would advertise for and seek applications for one Executive Director to commence employment in Spring 2010.

12. All members of both existing organizations will be issued memberships in the Unified Organization, valid through the expiration of their existing memberships in PIA and TAPS. Thereafter, memberships will be offered on terms offered by the Unified Organization, which terms shall be agreed upon and announced prior to the closing.

13. At the time of closing the transaction, PIA will terminate the memberships of its members, discontinue operations, enter into a non-competition agreement, liquidate its assets, dissolve and distribute residual funds as soon as reasonably possible yet while maximizing the value of its residual assets.

14. At the time of closing the transaction, the name of the Unified Organization will be changed to a mutually acceptable name, with the tagline “The Paddlesport Industry’s Association” (to be spelled out, and not printed or stated as PIA initials). Its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws will be amended to include terms agreed upon by the parties, and its Board of directors shall be reconstituted to include members from both organizations mutually agreed upon by the parties through 2009 (the “Reorganization”). The parties acknowledge that PIA’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws have undergone extensive review and should be given due consideration as the model for the Unified Organization.

15. The closing of the transaction would occur by November 30, 2008. Public announcement of the MOU and its timeline and process will occur by or at the Outdoor Retailer Trade Show in August 2008.

16. TAPS will pay for the preparation of the Agreement and services in connection with the closing by Faegre & Benson LLP, which shall act as counsel to TAPS and the Unified Organization. Faegre & Benson LLP shall be available, if requested by PIA, and to be paid for out of the Unified Organization (or by PIA if the closing fails to occur) to assist PIA with legal compliance in obtaining membership approval and winding up PIA’s operations. If the combination fails to close for any reason other than the wrongful refusal of TAPS to close, PIA shall reimburse TAPS for one-half of the legal expenses incurred by TAPS in connection with the preparation of this Memorandum of Understanding and with the transaction. In the event of any dispute between the parties that cannot be resolved by the parties, Faegre & Benson LLP shall withdraw from the representation and shall not represent either party in connection with such dispute.

17. Promptly upon the execution of this Memorandum of Understanding by all parties, the unification working group shall jointly prepare a comprehensive transition plan, membership integration plan and program, including networking and membership education benefits, detailed pro forma budget and assumptions, and such other documents as are necessary, and Landis Arnold and Mike Prom shall prepare a proposed combined Board slate. Faegre & Benson LLP shall prepare the Agreement and required ancillary documents.

18. It is understood that the Agreement and the Reorganization will need to be approved by the Boards of Directors of TAPS and PIA, and by the members of PIA, and that the Reorganization will need to be approved by the members of TAPS. Information about the combination including such disclosures as are reasonably necessary to allow for informed votes by the parties shall be mutually agreed upon prior to distribution.

It is understood that this Memorandum of Understanding is intended to be, and shall be construed only as, a summary of intentions evidencing the discussions between TAPS and PIA to the date hereof; and the respective rights and obligations of TAPS and PIA remain to be defined in the Agreement, into which this Memorandum of Understanding and all prior discussions shall be merged; provided, however, that the respective obligations of the parties under Paragraphs 1 and 16 of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be binding when this Memorandum of Understanding shall be executed and delivered. Absent an Agreement, neither party shall be obligated to proceed with this unification effort.

Dated: August ___, 2008

TRADE ASSOCIATION OF PADDLESPORTS INDUSTRY PADDLESPORTS ASSOCIATION
By:____________________________ By:____________________________

Title:__________________________ Title:__________________________


UK court holds climber 75% responsible for his injuries


A UK court has held that Gary Poppleton, 32 was 75% responsible for his injuries when he fell from a climbing wall. The fall paralyzed Mr. Poppleton from the neck down. The lower court had awarded Mr. Poppleton £4 million. Mr. Poppleton has fallen 1.45 m (4.75 ft) while bouldering at the Peter Ashley Activity Centre in Portsmouth, UK.

The appellate court found that Mr. Poppleton was fool hard in his climbing.

“I am quite satisfied that the maneuver carried out by Mr. Poppleton which gave rise to this accident was foolhardy, especially for a climber of his very limited experience.

The division of the fault under UK law means Mr. Poppleton will not receive any money for his damages.

See: Paralysed climber was ‘foolhardy’, Climber stripped of damages and People injured in hazardous activities only have themselves to blame, court rules


2008 Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium Deadline Extended for Abstracts

The deadline for abstracts for the 2008 Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium has been extended to September 22. For submission guidelines, please visit: http://www.watereducation.org/userfiles/scienceabstracts2.doc

This 2 ½ day Symposium, Coming Together: Coordination of Science and Restoration Activities for the Colorado River Ecosystem will be held November 18-20, 2008 at the Doubletree Resort Hotel in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This basin-wide Symposium will promote the exchange of information on research and management activities related to the restoration/conservation of the Colorado River and its major tributaries from the headwaters to the U.S./Mexico border.

Plenary sessions and concurrent technical sessions, vendors and poster sessions will be featured. Registration is $250 – fee includes lunches and reception on November 18 & 19. A PDF copy of the draft program along with a flyer for the event is attached above.

We look forward to seeing you there!


Camp Business July/August 2008


July 7, 2008

Rodney J. Auth, Publisher
Camp Business
PO Box 1166
Medina, OH 44258-1166

Re: Good Sense: The legalities of horseback riding at camp
Camp Business July/August 2008

Dear Mr. Auth:

The article Good Sense was very well written and very informative. I would like to point out two instances where the story may be misleading.

In the story the statement is made that liability releases may deter lawsuits but not for negligence. Releases stop lawsuits based on claims for negligence in 45 out of 50 states. Releases do not work for claims made by minors except in three states: California, Colorado and Ohio. The Florida Supreme Court is currently looking at this issue. So releases do work to stop suits, they only work when signed by someone over the age of consent.

The article also states that horses are “attractive nuisances.” They are not. An attractive nuisance is a condition on the land or a premises issue. The definition usually revolves around the term “artificial condition” upon the land.

Tennessee used the term creates a condition to define attractive nuisance as:

One who has that on his own premises, or who creates a condition on the premises of another, or in a public place, which may reasonably be apprehended to be a source of danger to children of tender years, is under a duty to take such precautions as a reasonably prudent person would take to prevent injury to such children whom he knows to be accustomed to resort there, or who may, by reason of something there which may be expected to attract them, come there to play. Mead v. Parker, 340 F.2d 157; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6909

The basis of the doctrine is to protect children from dangerous conditions on the land. Farm animals and pets have never been considered an attractive nuisance. A child should be instructed by their parents as to the dangers present in land; it is the special features of the premises created by man that a child may not know about that creates the liability.

The best example is a swimming pool is an attractive nuisance and a pond is not.

This article is needed because too often camps rely on equine liability acts to protect their business. When speaking to groups about equine liability acts I always make sure I tell them that those laws are 100% effective. Since their enactment no horse has been sued. However suits against horse owners have not changed. A horse cannot be held liable for negligence, which is what the acts cover, but a horse owner still can.

Sincerely,



James H. Moss
Editor Outdoor Recreation Law Review
www.snewsnet.com/lawreview
http://rec-law.blogspot.com/


Introducing JUPTRR A New Kind of Electronic Journal


We are pleased to announce the publication of the Journal of Unconventional Parks, Tourism & Recreation Research (JUPTRR). We hope you share in our excitement about the launch of this new venue for publication of recreation research.

JUPTRR is designed as a resource for educators, professionals, and students in recreation, parks, and tourism. As with all academic journals, manuscripts accepted to JUPTRR provide research that contributes to the body of knowledge in a field. What makes this journal unique is the focus on unconventional methodologies and topics.

The journal adheres to standard academic practices whereby all research manuscripts go through a blind, peer-review process. We are slightly unconventional in that submissions are sent to two associate editors and one “tyro editor” for review. A tyro is someone new to an activity or learning a skill, and the tyro editor designation includes doctoral students and recreation practitioners. If you are interested in serving on the editorial board, please complete the form at http://juptrr.asp.radford.edu/Editor_Form.htm.


All articles can be accessed free of charge at http://juptrr.asp.radford.edu/Current.htm. In the first issue you will find an exploration of prostitution as leisure, a study measuring wisdom and values of teens in a service-learning environment, another examining the benefits of half-day challenge course participation on leadership and work efficacy, and a theoretical model of experiential andragogy.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Submission deadline for the next issue is August 15th. Applied researchers, first-time authors, practitioners, graduate students, and researchers with a sense of exploration are encouraged to participate.

Email articles to juptrr@radford.edu in Word or rich text format. Include a cover page with a manuscript title and complete list of authors. Provide contact information for primary author (i.e., institution, mailing address, email, and telephone). Author names should not appear elsewhere in the manuscript to assist in blind review. Include an abstract of 120 words or less. Papers must be in English and formatted using the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition) and the APA Style Guide for Electronic References.

Articles submitted to JUPTRR should not be under review by any other journal or previously published. Published articles will be archived and may be used and shared in accordance with fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law.

For additional information, please visit the Journal’s website at http://juptrr.asp.radford.edu or contact us at juptrr@radford.edu.



Published in cooperation with the National Recreation and Park Association


Ski Resort Employee convicted of theft for staging a worker’s compensation accident.

An employee of a ski resort has been convicted of grand theft. The employee tried to stage an accident to collect from the resorts worker’s compensation insurance. The employee talking with another employee realized a 4′ to 5′ deep hole had been dug to test drainage on the resort. After work, Nicholas Jason Beaver jumped repeatedly on the snow bridge covering the hole until he fell through and into the hole. Beaver was angry because he had been told he was not going to be hired back the next ski season. Two friends witnessed the incident.

While falling into the hole Mr. Beaver actually hurt his knee which required extensive medical care and arthroscopic surgery.

The fraud was uncovered after Beaver and his attorney turned down a $110,000 offer to settle the claim. A friend who knew of the fraud felt Beaver was cheating the resort and turned him in.

See Staged accident at ski resort leads to theft conviction and Resort employee convicted of grand theft for faking fall.

Sentencing is scheduled for August 22, 2008. The resort claims the medical care and legal fees are in excess of $65,000 and are asking for that in restitution from Beaver.


2009 International Conference on Strategic Management Focusing on Environment Protection and Eco-Tourism

Call for Papers

2009 International Conference on Strategic Management (2009 ICSM)

Focusing on Environment Protection and Eco-Tourism

http://www.icsm.com.cn

Sichuan University, Chengdu, P.R. China

Jiu Zhaigou

Conference Venue : Jiuzhaigou Valley—“A paradise in the Earth”, a listed nature reserve of world heritage by UNESCO
in 1992.

http://www.frommers.com/destinations/jiuzhaigou/3415010001.html

Conference Host: Business School, Sichuan University—one of the top ten business schools in China.

Conference Registration: Chengdu— an ancient city and capital of Sichuan Province in southwestern China with 10 million population

Date:
June 25-29, 2009

Conference Theme:

Strategic Management Engineering: Enterprise, Environment and Crisis

Strategic management is a growing professional and research field in both business and the public sector. The goal of the 2nd annual (2009) international conference on strategic management is to discuss strategies for innovation and sustainable development, balancing growth of large-sized, small and medium sized enterprises and the promotion of eco-tourism with concern for the protection of the environment as the strategic base. The conference seeks to provide a forum for distinguished speakers from academia, government and industry to discuss new approaches for balancing enterprise development with balanced-growth, share experiences of success and failure in enterprises strategic management; explore changes and promote international co-operation in the field of strategic management of enterprises, sustainable development and eco-tourism in China’s western development, especially in light of economic globalization.

Place: Sichuan University & Jiu Zhaigou County, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, P.R. China

Institutions:

Specially Sponsored by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China

 

Co-sponsored by:

 

        Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, P. R. China Business School, Sichuan University & Strategy and Development Research Center

        County of Jiu Zhaigou, Chengdu city, Sichuan Province, P. R. China

        University of Minnesota, USA; Department of Forest Resources and Tourism Center

        The Nature Conservancy; Asia Pacific

        University of St. Thomas, USA; Opus College of Business

 

2009 ICSM Honorary Chair: Shaker A. Zahra, Robert E. Buuck Chair of Entrepreneurship and Professor of strategy and organization in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA

2009 ICSM Chair: Professor Xie Heping, President of Sichuan University;

2009 Vice Chairs: Professor Xu Jiuping, Vice Dean of Business School, Sichuan University,

                 Mr. Yang Hongshou, President of Jiu Zhaigou County

 

2009 ICSM Organizing Committee Chair: Professor Yang Jiang, Executive Vice Dean of Business School of Sichuan University, China; Vice Chair: Professor Jie Xiaowen, Business School, Sichuan University, China, and Mary Maloney Assistant PhD. Opus College of Business, University of St Thomas, St Paul, MN USA.

 

2009 ICSM Academic Chair: Professor Xu Erming, Vice-Dean of the Graduate School and the supervisor of the PhD candidates of Renmin University of China, Beijing, China, also Director of Small and Medium Enterprise Research Center of Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Ingrid Schneider, Professor and Director Tourism Center, University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources, Minneapolis, MN USA 

 

2009 ICSM Academic Co Chair: Assistant Professor Mary Maloney, Opus College of Business, University of St Thomas, Minneapolis, MN USA

 

2009 ICSM Members of Academic Committee:

Lee Munnich, Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, USA

Jay Ebben, School of Business, University of St Thomas, USA

Professor Tang Xiaowo, Sichuan Educational Bureau, P. R. China

Professor Chen Aimin, Vice-president of Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Ding Renzhong, Vice-president of South Western University of Finance and Economics

Professor Du Kentang, Economics School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Zeng Xianzhang, Nan Kai University, P. R. China

Professor Huang Dengshi, Vice-dean of Business School, Southwest Jiao Tong University, P. R. China

Professor Xu Jiuping, Vice-dean of Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Ren Peiyu, Vice-dean of Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Li Guangjin, Vice-dean of Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Jie Xiaowen, Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Chen Weizheng, Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Zhu Xinmin, Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Mao Daowei, Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Gu Xin, Business School, Sichuan University, P. R. China

Professor Li Shiming, School of Management, University of Electronic Science and Technology, P. R. China

Professor Shi Yingping, School of Tourism, Sichuan University, P. R. China

 

2009 ICSM U.S. Coordinator: Dr. Thomas Walkington, University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management, Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Minneapolis, MN USA

 

2009 ICSM Secretariat:

Secretary-general: Professor Zhang Liming (00)86-13709031166

Secretary: Zhao Lu (00)86-13550079339; Yan Shu (00)86-13880385281; Zhang Liangliang (00)86-13880646283

 

Paper topics include but are not limited to:

        Environment and Crisis Management

        Innovation in the Tourism industry
and Strategies for Sustainable Regional
Development

        Strategies for Eco-tourism and Cluster Development in Jiu Zhaigou District

        SMEs’ Entrepreneurship and Development Strategies in Transition period

        Strategies for balancing Enterprise and Sustainable Development in Western China in Transition period

        Self-innovation and the Strategy of Sustainable
Enterprise Development

        Globalization and the Strategy of Enterprise Development

        IT and the Strategy of Sustainable Enterprise Development

 

Special Instructions:

All abstracts and papers should be written in English. Abstracts should be between 500 and 800 words, prepared in 11 point Times Roman font, and use 1 inch margins on all page sides. Abstracts invited for full papers should be expanded to between 5000 and 8000 words and processed in Microsoft Word 2000 or higher edition.

 

All accepted papers will be published by Press of Sichuan University and indexed by ISTP (index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings) and by ISSHPIndex to Social Sciences & Humanities Proceedings. (ISTP and ISSHP are two foundational Index of ISI Web of Knowledge in the USA. (The acceptance of index depends on the quality of papers)

 

Significant Deadlines and Schedule:

        Author Profile and Abstract due (500-800 words):    October 15, 2008            

      Due date for full accepted papers December 15, 2008

        Notification for accepted papers /        

and Confirmation of participation                 February 28, 2009

˜ International conference
in Sichuan University


June 25 –29, 2009

and Jiu Zhaigou District

        

Papers from inside China should be sent by email directly to

icsm2007@163.com, rcsd_scu@hotmail.com

 

Any problem related to papers, please contact:

Professor Jie Xiaowen

Business School of Sichuan University

Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China

Post Code: 610064

Tel: 86-28-85410771

Fax: 86-28-85410771

 

Papers from outside China should be sent by email directly to: walki004@umn.edu

Dr. Thomas Walkington

Human Resources and Industrial Relations

Carlson School of Management

University of Minnesota

321 19th Ave. South

Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

For more information please visit 2009 ICSM Conference website: http://www.icsm.com.cn


 

 

Author Profile (First Author)

Name:
Gender:

Position:
The title of a technical post:

Job and work place:

Address (including post code):

Tel:

Email:

Title of paper (For Chinese participator: both in Chinese and English):

 

Abstract: (500-800 words; 11 point Times Roman font)

 
 

Ingrid E. Schneider, Ph.D.

Professor & Director

Department of Forest Resources & Tourism Center

University of Minnesota

115 Green Hall

1530 Cleveland Avenue North

St. Paul, MN 55108

(v) 612 624 2250

(f) 612 625 5212


Plaintiff claims website said raft trip was safe for beginners

Jennifer Caffarella has filed a lawsuit against Laurel Highlands River Tours for injuries she received rafting on the Youghiogheny River. She was injured when her unguided raft flipped and she stood up in the water trapping her foot. She claims she suffered disfiguring injuries and brain damage.

The basis of her claim is the raft company misrepresented its claims that the raft trip was safe for beginners. The raft company claims they require all rafters to watch a safety video and take a 30 minute training course before they are permitted down the river. The company claims that the plaintiff was specifically told not to stand up in the river which she did causing the foot entrapment.

Press releases or interviews with the press by the defendants usually don’t talk about releases. They normally just respond to the questions which are usually based on what the reporter knows, so we don’t know if the outfitter has a release.

At the same time, a training course is a lot of information. Add a thirty minute training course and you would have to think there was some risk involved or you would not get that much information. Foot entrapment is also one of the issues covered in every pre-trip safety talk because people want to stand up in rivers. The higher your head is above the water the safe you feel. It is tough and not understood by the ill informed that keeping your body low in the river is the safest course of action.

At the same time, dimple rock, is a dangerous river section where several people have died. The state of Pennsylvania just completed a study where they determined that Dimple Rock was not going to be removed. The study was prompted because of the safety issues presented by the rock. See Dimple Rock will remain unchanged in lower Youghiogheny River.

For the complete article see: Injured woman sues rafting company

It might be better to create a purely rental operation. If a car rental company can rent someone the most dangerous machine we have invented, the automobile, then a raft rental is easy. However, the course of attempting to make the experience easy and “safer” has lead the outfitters out of the protection afforded by a rental program and into a guide program where the liabilities are much greater. For that same reason, you probably cannot go back.


New Approach to Winning Lawsuits against Ski Areas

The Brattleboro Vermont Reformer is reporting that Stratton Ski Area lost a lawsuit over the injuries to a 9 year old skier. The articles is reporting the court award the injured boy $137,500 for injuries he received when he skied into a rope closing a trail. The article reports the court found the resort negligent both in the way it closed the trail and the braking strength of the rope supposedly used to close the trail.

This is the first case I’ve seen where the tensile strength of the rope used to close a trail was at issue. The allegation was that a rope is not the proper way to close the trail is at odds with several other state statutes and court decisions. C.R.S. 33-44-107(4) specifically allows a rope to be used to close a trail. Numerous other states refer to rope as a proper way to close a trail in the state statutes.

C.R.S. 33-44-107(4) If a particular trail or slope or portion of a trail or slope is closed to the public by a ski area operator, such operator shall place a sign notifying the public of that fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved. Alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences.

Alaska also allows a ski trail to be closed by using a rope. Alaska Stat. § 05.45.060(d) (2008)

At the other end of the spectrum, the Ohio General Assembly has listed ropes as a hazard that skiers assume. O.R.C. § 4169.08(a)(1)

Other courts have ruled that ropes for closure or use at resorts are proper.

Withers v. Bogus Basin Rec. Ass’n, 156 P.3d 579 (ID 2007)

Kidd v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 88 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 1996)

See: Stratton loses lawsuit over injured skier

This is always dangerous when a state allows a suit for an injury that other state say you cannot sue over. Besides being difficult for ski areas to determine what is going to work and what isn’t, the issue of skiing under control and on a closed trail seems to get ignored.


Integrating Human Dimensions into Fisheries and Wildlife Management

Join us in the Colorado Rockies!

2008 Pathways to Success Conference & Training:

Integrating Human Dimensions into Fisheries and Wildlife Management

Increasing human capacity for global human-wildlife coexistence

Still accepting posters

Registration rates for the Pathways to Success: Integrating Human Dimensions into Fish and Wildlife Management Conference and Training will increase on August 2, 2008. If you have not registered and wish to take advantage of the lower rates, please do so by the end of the day on Friday, August 1, 2008.

If you choose to remit the registration fees by check you must fill out the registration form online by August 1 and get us the check by August15th.

Instructions for check or wire transfer are available on the registration page at the conference website.

The conference program, custom itinerary builder and information about special trainings and field trips are all available on the conference website at www.hdfwconference.org.

If you have any questions or need more information, please email the conference coordinator, Esther Duke, at conference@warnercnr.colostate.edu or call her at 970-491-2197.

We hope to see you in the Colorado Rockies!

Mike Manfredo

Conference Co-Chair, Pathways to Success Integrating Human Dimension into Fish and Wildlife Management

Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department

Colorado State University

Jerry Vaske

Conference Co-Chair, Pathways to Success Integrating Human Dimension into Fish and Wildlife Management

Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department

Colorado State University


Esther Duke

Coordinator, Pathways to Success: Integrating Human Dimension into Fish and Wildlife Management Conference

Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department

Colorado State University


Update on SBTW right to raft case

I reported in an early article Historical Use v. Money, Control & Power that a summer camp in Pennsylvania was suing the state to regain access to raft in a

Campers and staff of Camp Becket of the Becket...

Image via Wikipedia

state park. The Tribune Democrat is reporting that the summer camp, Summer’s Best Two Weeks lost their attempt to receive an injunction. The article, Raft trip runs aground in court states a three judge panel denied the injunction.

An injunction is as it sounds, an immediate court order requiring someone to do or not to do something.

The article is unclear and I have not seen pleadings to determine if the attempts by SBTW are over or they are continuing their suit. Many times you can be successful on the main litigation after you have lost the injunction motion.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta