2 packed Days with information you can put to use immediately. Information compiled from 30 years in court and 45 years in the field.
Whatever type of Program you have, you’ll find information and answers to your risk management, insurance and legal questions.
Get these Questions Answered
What has changed in the law Concerning Releases? What states still allow releases and which ones do not. What changes have been made in how releases are written? How can you make sure your release is not as affected by these changes?
Everyone is excited about Certificates of Insurance. Why this excitement is not valid and why most of them don’t work. What must you do to make a certificate of insurance work for your program?
What is an assumption of risk document and why are they important. How can your website be used to prove assumption of the risk.
How should you write a risk management plan that does not end up being used against you in court?
How do you handle an accident so it does not become a claim or a lawsuit.
Put February 24 & 25th on your Calendar Now.
1. Assumption of the Risk
1.1. Still a valid defense in all states
1.2. Defense for claims by minors in all states
1.3. Proof of your guests assuming the risk is the tough part.
1.3.1. Paperwork proves what they know
1.3.2. The best education is from your website
2.1. Where they work
2.1.1. Where they work for kids
2.2. Why they work
2.2.2. Exculpatory Clause
2.2.3. Necessary Language
2.2.4. What kills Releases
184.108.40.206. Jurisdiction & Venue
220.127.116.11. Assumption of the Risk
18.104.22.168. Negligence Per Se
3. Risk Management Plans
3.1. Why yours won’t work
3.2. Why they come back and prove your negligence in court
3.2.1. Or at least make you look incompetent
3.3. What is needed in a risk management plan
3.3.1. How do you structure and create a plan
3.3.2. Top down writing or bottom up.
22.214.171.124. Goal is what the front line employee knows and can do
4. Dealing with an Incident
4.1. Why people sue
4.2. What you can do to control this
4.2.1. Integration of pre-trip education
4.2.2. Post Incident help
4.2.3. Post Incident communication
Put the date on your calendar now: February 24 and 25th 2017 at Montreat College, Montreat, NC 28757
$399 for both days and the book!
For more information contact Jim Moss firstname.lastname@example.org
Defendant loses an interesting product liability case. Usually, the replacement of a component by the owner of the product after the sale is an intervening act which releases the manufacture from harm. In this case, the change was not enough to overcome the initial negligent design.Posted: August 29, 2016
The Zip Line was designed with bungee cord that was used to break the ride. The owner of the zip line replaced the bungee cord with another bungee cord that was allegedly shorter than the initial cord in the design by the plaintiff.
State: New York, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Plaintiff: Benjamin Sanchez, Also Known as Gerard Sanchez
Defendant: Project Adventure, Inc., Appellant-Respondent and Third-Party Plain-tiff-Appellant. Bedford Central School District, Third-Party Defend-ant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant
Plaintiff Claims: Product Liability Claim
Defendant Defenses: Intervening change in the product
Holding: For the Defendant
The facts are simple. The plaintiff, a 15-year-old, was on a school trip to a challenge course. A bungee cord was used on the “zip wire” as a braking system. The bungee failed, hitting the plaintiff in the eye blinding him.
The then-15-year-old plaintiff, while on a school field trip to a challenge course located at a facility operated by third-party defendant Bedford Central School District (Bedford), was standing in line for an elevated “zip wire” ride, when the bungee cord used as a braking device on the “zip wire” snapped and hit his right eye. The injury produced by the impact of the bungee cord caused plaintiff to go blind in that eye.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The course was designed by the defendant Project Adventure. The design incorporated a bungee cord to break the zip line. The owner of the zip line replaced the original bungee cord with another bungee cord, which was shorter.
The defendant admitted liability for the accident. However, they argued the owner of the zip line who had replaced it was the party with principal liability for the injuries.
The “zip wire” had been designed and inspected by defendant, which conceded liability for the accident, but, citing evidence that the bungee cord used on the “zip wire” had been replaced before the accident by a Bedford employee, contended that Bedford was principally responsible for plaintiff’s harm.
Normally, an intervening, act, such as replacing the cord, in many types of negligence claims is enough to shift the liability of the defendant to a third party.
Here the appellate court agreed with the jury and found that the design was negligent, and the shortness of the replacement bungee was not the cause of the accident. The use of a bungee as a breaking device was the cause of the accident, no matter the length.
Defendant urges that this finding was contrary to the weight of the evidence. We disagree. The evidence fairly interpreted permitted the jury to conclude that while Bedford had been negligent in utilizing a replacement bungee cord that was too short, this negligence merely echoed a design defect for which defendant was responsible, and thus did not appreciably augment the injury-producing risk.
The appellate court agreed with the jury and held the designer of the course liability for the injuries of the plaintiff.
So Now What?
As stated above, this is an odd case because of the intervening act. However, a bad or negligent design, no matter what the intervening act, will not release the defendant from liability.
Product liability cases are hard to win if the design is found to be negligent.
Retailers need to be aware that any act that modifies or changes a product in any way, other than how it arrived from the manufacturer may place them in the same position as a manufacture.
Examples of this are bindings that are mounted on skis or scuba tanks that are filled. In both cases, the general liability policies of ski shops and scuba shops usually understand and have coverage for this. Make sure if you are modifying a product other than how the manufacturer suggested that you understand the risks and have the coverage you need.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
By Recreation Law Recemail@example.comJames H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Ropes Course, Zip Line, Challenge Course, Project Adventure, Product Liability, Negligent Design,
Benjamin Sanchez, Also Known as Gerard Sanchez, Respondent-Appellant, v. Project Adventure, Inc., Appellant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Bedford Central School District, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
12 A.D.3d 208; 785 N.Y.S.2d 46; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13184
November 9, 2004, Decided
November 9, 2004, Entered
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Sanchez v. Project Adventure, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 151, 687 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t, 1999)
CORE TERMS: bungee, cord, wire, zip, school district, design defect, injury-producing, replacement, appreciably, augment, echoed
Contribution–Apportionment of Liability among Joint Tortfeasors.–Evidence permitted jury to conclude that while third-party defendant school district had been negligent in using replacement bungee cord that was too short, this negligence merely echoed design defect for which defendant was responsible, and thus did not appreciably augment injury-producing risk.
COUNSEL: Iona Preparatory School, Carol R. Finocchio, New York, for appellant-respondent/appellant.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
O’Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle & Oleson, White Plains (Montgomery L. Effinger of counsel), for respondent.
JUDGES: Concur–Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
[*208] [**47] Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about February 6, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, as reduced, awarded plaintiff damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The then-15-year-old plaintiff, while on a school field trip to a challenge course located at a facility operated by third-party defendant Bedford Central School District (Bedford), was standing [*209] in line for an elevated “zip wire” ride, when the bungee cord used as a braking device on the “zip wire” snapped and hit his right eye. The injury produced by the impact of the bungee cord caused plaintiff to go blind in that eye. The “zip wire” had been designed and inspected by defendant, which conceded liability [***2] for the accident, but, citing evidence that the bungee cord used on the “zip wire” had been replaced before the accident by a Bedford employee, contended that Bedford was principally responsible for plaintiff’s harm. The jury, however, found that although Bedford had been negligent, its negligence was not a substantial cause of plaintiff’s harm. Defendant urges that this finding was contrary to the weight of the evidence. We disagree. The evidence fairly interpreted (see Kennedy v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 300 A.D.2d 146, 147, 751 N.Y.S.2d 728 ) permitted the jury to conclude that while Bedford had been negligent in utilizing a replacement bungee cord that was too short, this negligence merely echoed a design defect for which defendant was responsible, and thus did not appreciably augment the injury-producing risk.
The damage award, as reduced, did not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]) under the circumstances.
Concur–Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
Dear CEFF friends and filmmakers,
The Colorado Environmental Film Festival (CEFF) is an exciting, inspiring, and energizing event that includes world-class environmental films with representatives from local, national and international organizations. We are thrilled to announce our Call for Entries for our 11th annual CEFF is now OPEN for submission!
CEFF seeks unique and meaningful films that aim to inspire, educate, and call to action. The largest environmental film festival between the coasts, CEFF celebrates our 11th annual festival taking place February 23-25, 2017 in downtown Golden, Colorado. Filmmakers of all abilities and backgrounds are invited to submit their films in the categories of Short Films, Feature Length Films and Youth Films (Submission open to for filmmakers under 19 years of age). True to the spirit of Colorado, this event is supported and attended by people who value the natural world and share a passion for the power and beauty of film.
We welcome and encourage you to submit your films today! Early bird registration ends August 15, 2016 so submit your film early for the best value!
Colorado Environmental Film Festival prefers online entries submitted via Withoutabox.com, which provides cost-saving, paperless submission to film festivals around the world. Deadlines and entry fees:
● Early bird – August 15th, 2016 – Price: Regular $30.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $20.00
● Regular – September 15th, 2016 – Price: Regular $40.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $25.00
● Late – October 30th, 2016 – Price: Regular $50.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $30.00
● Extended – November 15th, 2016 – Price: Regular $60.00 – Student/Youth/Colorado Filmmaker – $45.00
If you have questions please visit go to our website at www.ceff.net
or drop me a note dave.steinke
CEFF hosts local and national feature length and short films for all ages, thought-provoking dialogue, festival celebrations for both filmmakers and audience members, children’s films, a filmmaker forum, and information from a variety of environmental groups. The festival presents informative and entertaining films that explore interconnected ecological, social, and economic themes. Audiences have the opportunity to be more than passive viewers – they will leave inspired, surprised, motivated, entertained, and transformed.
2016 Climbing for Kids
What: Each year we climb 14,000 feet to the summit of Mt. Bierstadt to honor children with much bigger mountains to climb
When: August 12th, 2016
Where: Mt. Beirstadt
Beneficiaries:Children’s Hospital Colorado Learning Services and Pediatric Mental Health Institute
JASON KOOP LEADS AN ULTRAMARATHON TRAINING REVOLUTION
Koop’s New Book, Training Essentials for Ultrarunning, Reveals His Unique Training Approach
When elite ultrarunners have a need for speed, they turn to coach Jason Koop. Now the sport’s leading coach makes his highly effective ultramarathon training methods available to ultrarunners of all abilities in his new book, Training Essentials for Ultrarunning. Koop’s book is now available in bookstores, running shops, and online. See a preview at velopress.com/koop.
Ultramarathoners have traditionally piled on the miles or tried an approach that worked for a friend. Yet ultramarathons are not just longer marathons; simply running more will not prepare you for the race experience you want. Ultramarathon requires a new and specific approach to training. Training Essentials for Ultrarunning will revolutionize training for those who want to race an ultramarathon instead of just gutting it out to the finish line.
Koop’s race-proven ultramarathon program is based on sound science, the most current research, and years of experience coaching the sport’s star runners to podium performances. Packed with practical advice and vetted training methods, Training Essentials for Ultrarunning is the new, must-have resource for first-timers and ultramarathon veterans.
Runners using Training Essentials for Ultrarunning will gain much more than Koop’s training approach:
* The science behind ultramarathon performance.
* Common ultramarathon failure points and how to solve them.
* How to use interval training to focus workouts, make gains, reduce injuries, and race faster.
* Simple, effective fueling and hydration strategies.
* Koop’s A.D.A.P.T. method for making the right decisions to solve a race-day crisis.
* How to plan your ultra season for better racing.
* Course-by-course coaching guides to iconic U.S. ultramarathons: American River 50, Badwater 135, Hardrock 100, Javelina 100, JFK 50, Lake Sonoma 50, Leadville 100, Vermont 100, Wasatch 100, and Western States 100.
* How to achieve your goal, whether it’s finishing or winning.
A revolution is coming to ultrarunning as ultramarathoners shed old habits and embrace the smarter methods that science and experience show are better. Featuring stories and advice from ultrarunning stars Dakota Jones, Kaci Lickteig, Dylan Bowman, Timothy Olson, and others who work with Koop, Training Essentials for Ultrarunning is the go-to guide for first-time ultrarunners and competitive ultramarathoners.
NAAEE is seeking compelling proposals that inform environmental educators about proven practices; explore emerging issues in EE research; advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field; and motivate the pursuit of excellence.
Please help us spread the word by sharing this announcement with your professional networks.
Visit NAAEE.org/conference for information on submitting proposals or volunteering as a reviewer.