I’m taking my ball and going home because I don’t like you!

Come on folks, we are not six year olds…..although that is really hard to determine in the ski industry.

An article in the Durango Herald titled Durango Mountain Resort pulls critic’s pass states that a woman who made critical comments about the resort had her season pass revoked by the ski resort.

For a ski area to operate with such a blatant disregard for the idea upon which this country was founded is plain stupid. Criticism is the backbone of our government and our economy. The free speech protection of the first amendment states a government cannot stop us from speaking our mind. The first amendment does not apply to a business. A business can do about anything it wants, including looking stupid.

At the end of a disastrous economic slump, that has had a very negative effect on ski areas; the loss of $539 is just not bright.

This type of action can be seen every day at any elementary school playground. You do not expect it from a ski resort that is so dependent upon the word of mouth and locals who buy season passes each year.

By the way, the resort’s name is Purgatory!


 

20 Year Veteran of Ski Patrol Dies performing avalanche control work

Jackson Hole and the Resort in mourning

A 20-year veteran of the Jackson Hole ski patrolled died Saturday. He was injured performing avalanche work January 6, 2010. A break in the pack occurred above him sweeping him and another patroller. The other patroller could grab a tree and arrest his slide.

See the following articles for more information on this tragedy.

Patroller buried in avalanche

Big Wally revived after avalanche 
in memoriam: Big Wally  
Another Inbounds Tragedy at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (Updated 1/8/2010 7:31 PM)

For a well written and thoughtful article about the risks of ski patrolling at Jackson Hole see Ski Patroller Death Highlights the Real Price of Powder Turns.

OSHA Officially recommending helmets for ski area employees

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has posted a recommendation on its website for employees of ski areas to wear helmets. The post is:

The OSHA post can be found at OSHA Quick Takes for December 1, 2009, Volume 8, Issue 22.

Ski Season Kickoff Party

Air Force going to have a Ski Area – Only Hill AFB could and should pull this one off!

The majority if not every Air Force Base has an MWR program. Morale, Welfare & Recreation programs although the Air Force calls them Airman & Family Readiness Centers. The program serves a great function; it gives members of the military the opportunity to experience all sorts of recreation. Another major feature is helps returning servicemen the opportunity to burn off and learn how to control adrenalin. After spending a year or more in a battlefield I would suspect you become quite addicted to adrenalin. Outdoor recreation is one big component of the MWR program.

I’ve done a lot of work with several different military MWR programs and gotten to know a lot of the civilians who run them. One of my favorites is the crew at Hill Air Force Base north of Salt Lake City, Utah. A great group of people run the Outdoor Recreation Program who understand and take outdoor recreation in ever different direction, all good directions. Well now it seems they might have found another direction, and a good one.

The air force owns land near Park City, Utah which they intend to lease for a Ski Resort. See Air Force plans to lease land for ski resort. Congrats and good luck to the Hill AFB MWR program.

Terrain Park Injury prompts Lawsuit against Idaho Resort

Schweitzer Mt. Resort is being sued for the injuries suffered by young snowboarder who fractured a femur, hip, vertebrae and a head injury. The plaintiff maintains the jump subjected the boy to physical forces and danger above those inherent in the sport as reported from the Bonner County Daily Bee.

The defense is arguing the Idaho statute states the snowboarder expressly assume the risk of the injury and requires a rider to know the range of their abilities and ski within their limits.

The specific statute being referenced is:

Idaho Code § 6-1106 (2008)

§ 6-1106. Duties of skiers
It is recognized that skiing as a recreational sport is hazardous to skiers, regardless of all feasible safety measures which can be taken.

Each skier expressly assumes the risk of and legal responsibility for any injury to person or property which results from participation in the sport of skiing including any injury caused by the following, all whether above or below snow surface: variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots, rocks, trees, other forms of forest growth or debris, lift towers and components thereof; utility poles, and snowmaking and snowgrooming equipment which is plainly visible or plainly marked in accordance with the provisions of section 6-1103, Idaho Code. Therefore, each skier shall have the sole individual responsibility for knowing the range of his own ability to negotiate any slope or trail, and it shall be the duty of each skier to ski within the limits of the skier’s own ability, to maintain reasonable control of speed and course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted warnings, to ski only on a skiing area designated by the ski area operator and to refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of anyone. The responsibility for collisions by any skier while actually skiing, with any person, shall be solely that of the individual or individuals involved in such collision and not that of the ski area operator.

See Schweitzer Mt. Resort challenging negligence lawsuit.

Township is probably broke so let’s charge the people who make the 911 phone call

People who got hurt are not responsible in this township, let alone the person who legally owes the money.

Brandywine Ski Resort is located in Ohio near Cleveland. Ohio is a state with 88 counties (from grade school in Ohio). Each county is divided further into townships. A township controls the township roads, and in a lot of cases the fire department/ambulance service. A couple of years ago the Sagamore Hills Township passed a law saying if a “business” calls for help more than six times they have to pay $836 for each call.

A lot of cities and counties have a law like this, sort of. The laws are in place because alarms go off all the time and the police show up for no reason other than a big truck drove by in the middle of the night setting off the alarm. Some business will have bills for thousands of dollars because their alarms are going off all year long. However, I have never heard of billing for medical calls.

Brandywine as a ski resort has a lot of people who get hurt. It is a ski resort. Hurt people need transported to the hospital (or at least off the ski area property…). Consequently Brandywine can put them in the back of a truck and take them to the hospital, but that creates liability, greater liability because you are now on the road. You can call a cab for them. Of course the injured person would have to pay the cab driver at the end of the ride and skier wallets are always locked in a locker at the lodge.

But that is the issue, the injured skier is the one responsible for the cost of the ride to the hospital.

The trustees though seem to have forgotten this and on top of that taken the who owes the money idea and twisted it into a pretzel. “Trustees defended the resolution, saying companies like Brandywine should be responsible for handling many of the injuries caused by the inherent dangers of skiing and other activities they offer.” If the dangers are inherent why is Brandywine liable. If the dangers are inherent, then the liability lies solely with the injured party.

“”We’re not going to subsidize a private business for profit,” said Trustee Richard Barrett.” The Trustee is not real sharp. The township is not subsidizing the ski area they are subsidizing the injured skier. That is the person who owes the money for the ride.

Maddening. Next time you are in this township would you pick up the phone to call 911, you might get billed!

See: Trustees say ski resort still owes $30,000 bill: Brandywine officials decline comment; township lawyer says discussions continue on EMS fees

And you guys think that attorneys in elected office are a bad thing. At least attorneys would know who is liable.

Lawsuit against Colorado Ski Resort Continues

I talked about a suit against Ski Sunlight in an earlier post Another Ski Area lawsuit. The Glenwood Springs Post Independent is reporting in Attorney asks for more time in Sunlight Mountain Resort lawsuit that the case continues. The attorney representing the plaintiff is asking for a second 90 day extension on filing expert witness reports.

Expert witness reports are the written findings of the experts hired by the plaintiffs to give opinions as to what was done wrong by the defendant. The defendant will also hire experts to counter those opinions.

Probably, possibly, the plaintiff is having a hard time finding an expert that is willing to say the ski resort did anything wrong.

Telluride enforcing its rules

We may find out again if Telluride is going to go exercise its right to banish people who violate their rules (contractual requirements) and state laws. See A snow-lover’s nightmare: banishment. Banishment not only means not allowed to ski the rest of the season, but banned from skiing, in the case in the article for the next two years.

Most ski resorts in the West are on land owned by the Federal Government, the U.S. Forest Service. The resorts operate under a Special Use Permit. The USFS owns the land and basically leases it to the ski area. The lease, called a Special Use Permit, allows the ski area to operate on the land. A simple comparison would be the same as a landlord tenant arrangement when renting an apartment. The tenant, in this case the ski area has the right to control who enters their apartment, land, when and how.

Telluride revoked 47 passes last year. Telluride pays ticket checkers a $50 bonus for catching people trying to sneak onto lifts without paying for a ticket. Most resorts reward their ticket checkers for catching cheats.

The subject in the story was banned for two years for attempting to access a lift without buying a ticket.

Ski Resorts ban Burton Snowboards because of the Graphics

Several ski resorts have banned employees from using two different lines of Burton Snowboards while on the job. The Love line has a former Playboy model on it and the Primo line shows a cartoon character mutilating himself.

The resorts have the right to do this because they are a private organization/business and have the right to restrict service or what their employees wear. Similar to the requirement that an employer will require an employee to wear a specific uniform the employer has the right to tell an employee not to wear or in this case ride a specific board.

At present three eastern resorts and Vail Resorts 5 ski areas are banning the specific boards.

See Lawyers: Burton ban legal

Several Ski and Snowboard shops are also not going to sell the controversial boards. Ski Shops Won’t Sell Controversial Snowboards

It is one way to get press for you company.

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.

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.

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.