Washington bill to halt out of bounds skiers is just a way to promote more lawsuits
Posted: February 2, 2011 Filed under: Criminal Liability, Skier v. Skier Leave a commentOut of bounds skiers will be easier to arrest, but lawsuits for skier collisions will be easier to sue over.
Washington Senate Bill 5186 sponsored by Senators Kastama, Delvin, and Eide would allow ski patrollers to collect information to be given to the sheriff to arrest out of bounds skiers. Besides the obvious evidentiary issues with the bill, the bill also has several deceptive parts.
Excerpts from the bill concerning the out of bounds issues are:
(7)(a) Any person skiing outside the confines of trails open for skiing or runs open for skiing within the ski area boundary shall be responsible for any injuries or losses resulting from his or her action.
(b) A person shall not ski on a ski slope, trail, or area that is designated by a ski area operator as closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a civil infraction and is subject to a monetary penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
(i) A member of the national ski patrol who witnesses a violator present in a closed area may conduct an investigation that includes preparation of an incident report form and collection of evidence or witness statements. Information pertaining to the violation may be remitted within seven days to the sheriff of the county
Don’t get me wrong, idiots who ski into closed areas of ski areas should go to jail. However, most ski resorts on US Forest Service land is required to have a gate so skiers can ski on the Forest Service land. The first issue is the closed area inside the ski area boundary our out? If out, there could be a problem with the sheriff making an arrest on federal land.
However, the deceptive part of the bill is very interesting. Those excerpts are:
(1) In addition to the specific requirements of this section, all skiers shall conduct themselves within the limits of their individual ability and shall not act in a manner that may contribute to the injury of themselves or any other person.
(6) Because of the inherent risks in the sport of skiing all persons using the ski hill shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid any collision with any person or object below him or her.
(8) Any person on foot or on any type of sliding device shall be responsible for any collision whether the collision is with another person or with an object.
These paragraphs would increase litigation significantly in the state. No other state skier statute places such a great burden on skiers, nor does any other statute reference so many ways to create liability for a skier or boarder who collides with another.
The language of the bill will make it easier to start lawsuits over ski injuries.
Ski areas will probably like the bill because it may stop people from ducking rope closures. However, they will soon come to hate the bill when their costs of sending patrollers to testify at trial for the criminal defendants and the skier v. skier collisions goes through the roof. Add to that the lost time and it can be expensive for the resort to be involved in any litigation, even if the resort is not a defendant.
For an article about the bill see Out-of-bounds skiing bill wouldn’t affect backcountry.
To see the bill:
S-0070.1
SENATE BILL 5186
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2011 Regular Session
By Senators Kastama, Delvin, and Eide
Read first time 01/17/11. Referred to Committee on Natural Resources & Marine Waters.
AN ACT Relating to skiing in areas closed to skiing; amending RCW 79A.45.030; and prescribing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 79A.45.030 and 1989 c 81 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the specific requirements of this section, all skiers shall conduct themselves within the limits of their individual ability and shall not act in a manner that may contribute to the injury of themselves or any other person.
(2) No person shall:
(a) Embark or disembark upon a ski lift except at a designated area;
(b) Throw or expel any object from any tramway, ski lift, commercial skimobile, or other similar device while riding on the device;
(c) Act in any manner while riding on a rope tow, wire rope tow, j- bar, t-bar, ski lift, or similar device that may interfere with the proper or safe operation of the lift or tow;
(d) Willfully engage in any type of conduct which may injure any person, or place any object in the uphill ski track which may cause another to fall, while traveling uphill on a ski lift; or
(e) Cross the uphill track of a j-bar, t-bar, rope tow, wire rope tow, or other similar device except at designated locations.
(3) Every person shall maintain control of his or her speed and course at all times, and shall stay clear of any snowgrooming equipment, any vehicle, any lift tower, and any other equipment on the mountain.
(4) A person shall be the sole judge of his or her ability to negotiate any trail, run, or uphill track and no action shall be maintained against any operator by reason of the condition of the track, trail, or run unless the condition results from the negligence of the operator.
(5) Any person who boards a rope tow, wire rope tow, j-bar, t-bar, ski lift, or other similar device shall be presumed to have sufficient abilities to use the device. No liability shall attach to any operator or attendant for failure to instruct the person on the use of the device, but a person shall follow any written or verbal instructions that are given regarding the use.
(6) Because of the inherent risks in the sport of skiing all persons using the ski hill shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid any collision with any person or object below him or her.
(7)(a) Any person skiing outside the confines of trails open for skiing or runs open for skiing within the ski area boundary shall be responsible for any injuries or losses resulting from his or her action.
(b) A person shall not ski on a ski slope, trail, or area that is designated by a ski area operator as closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a civil infraction and is subject to a monetary penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
(i) A member of the national ski patrol who witnesses a violator present in a closed area may conduct an investigation that includes preparation of an incident report form and collection of evidence or witness statements. Information pertaining to the violation may be remitted within seven days to the sheriff of the county in which the violation occurred or to the director of fish and wildlife.
(ii) The sheriff of the county in which the violation occurred or a fish and wildlife officer as defined in RCW 77.08.010 may issue a citation to a person who violates this subsection (7)(b).
(8) Any person on foot or on any type of sliding device shall be responsible for any collision whether the collision is with another person or with an object.
(9) A person embarking on a lift or tow without authority shall be considered to be a trespasser.
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com
Ski Area Fatalities 2010-11 Ski Season to date: 1/5/2011
Posted: January 5, 2011 Filed under: Ski Area, Skier v. Skier Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.
Highlighted incidents are employees who were working.
|
Date
|
Resort
|
State
|
Run Difficulty
|
Age
|
Skier Ability
|
Ski/ Tele /Boarder
|
Cause
|
Helmet
|
| 11/22/2010 | Wolf Creek Ski Area |
CO
|
Expert | 41 | Expert | Skier | Avalanche | |
| 12/2/2010 | Snowmass |
CO
|
Interm | 22 | Skier |
Yes
|
||
| 12/12/2010 | Cannon Mountain |
NH
|
Expert | 18 | Skier |
No
|
||
| 12/18/2010 | Wolf Creek Ski Area |
CO
|
Closed | 35 | Expert | Boarder | hyperextended neck | |
| 12/19/2010 | Cannon Mountain ski resort |
NH
|
Closed | 31 | Boarder | |||
| 12/21/2010 | Beaver Creek Ski Area |
CO
|
Expert | 59 | Skier | blunt force trauma |
Yes
|
|
| 12/22/2010 | Mt Hood Meadows Ski Area |
OR
|
15 | Boarder | *Might be medical | |||
| 12/24/2010 | Hogadon Ski Area |
WY
|
Expert | 5 | Skier | blunt force trauma |
Yes
|
|
| 12/24/2010 | Hogadon Ski Area |
WY
|
22 | Boarder | blunt force trauma |
No
|
||
| 12/26/2010 | Aspen Mountain |
CO
|
77 | Expert | Skier | broken neck | ||
| 12/27/2010 | Mountain High ski resort |
CA
|
24 |
No
|
||||
| 12/28/2010 | Discovery Ski Area |
MT
|
Interm | 21 | Expert | Skier | blunt force trauma |
Yes
|
| 12/28/2010 | China Peak Ski Area |
CA
|
29 | Boarder |
First Update: Ski Area Fatalities 2010-11 Ski Season
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com
Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #skiing, #ski area, #snowboarding, #fatality, #skier, #helmet,
Technorati Tags: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Interm,Cannon,Mountain,neck,Beaver,trauma,Meadows,Hogadon,Aspen,High,Discovery,China,Peak,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
Windows Live Tags: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Interm,Cannon,Mountain,neck,Beaver,trauma,Meadows,Hogadon,Aspen,High,Discovery,China,Peak,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
WordPress Tags: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Interm,Cannon,Mountain,neck,Beaver,trauma,Meadows,Hogadon,Aspen,High,Discovery,China,Peak,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
Blogger Labels: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Interm,Cannon,Mountain,neck,Beaver,trauma,Meadows,Hogadon,Aspen,High,Discovery,China,Peak,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence
Ski Area Fatalities 2010-11 Ski Season
Posted: December 17, 2010 Filed under: Ski Area, Skier v. Skier Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.
Let’s hope we do not fill the chart this year
| Date | Resort | Age | Board /Ski | Ability | Cause | Doing | Helmet | |
| 11/22/2010 | Wolf Creek | 41 | Ski | Expert | Avalanche | Patroller | ||
| 12/2/10 | Snowmass | 22 | Ski | Tree | lost control | Yes | ||
| 12/12/10 | Cannon Mountain | 19 | Ski | |||||
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com
Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #skiing, #ski area, #snowboarding, #fatality, #skier, #helmet,
$5 Million because a church took a kid skiing and allowed him to……..ski
Posted: October 5, 2010 Filed under: Skier v. Skier Leave a commentThe young man was unsupervised and was hit by another skier.
A Tampa, Florida jury awarded $5 million dollars to a then 14 year old boy who was injured in skier v. skier accident. The church, Idlewild Baptist Church took the plaintiff skiing to North Carolina in 2003. The plaintiff had never been skiing before. While skiing, he ended up on an expert slope and was hit by another skier, allegedly going fifty-five miles an hour.
How can you achieve a speed of 55 miles per hour in North Carolina? It is almost impossible on 95% of the slopes in Colorado. Someone’s expert was blowing snow to a Florida jury.
The collision left the boy with spinal damage and never injuries, which created a permanent limp, leg atrophy and a drop foot.
However, the church did screw up. The church told the mother, there would be one chaperone for every ten kids. The defendant church did not have enough chaperones. This allowed the plaintiff’s attorney to claim: “So his mother relied on Idlewild — of which they’d been members for 10 years — to act as a surrogate parent on the out-of-state trip….”
Surrogate parent? Do you believe the mother intended to create a surrogate parent relationship with the church when her son went skiing or this was a great trial argument?
The lawsuit also claimed that “… the teen did not receive ski lessons or instructions and no chaperone or ski partner stayed with him, according to the lawsuit.”
The boy’s mother was found 5% liable, which will reduce the damages paid to $4.75 million.
The plaintiff’s attorney is quoted at the end of the article as saying “”We hope this verdict will help other kids be protected in the future….”
I suspect the only thing that will change is churches will no longer take kids skiing. It will be considered too risky. Lose track of a 14 year old kid and lose $4.75 million.
However, there is a lesson to be learned from this.
- Don’t make promises you can’t keep. If you say you are going to have X number of chaperones have at least that many chaperones.
- If you say the youth will receive lessons, make sure he gets a ski lesson.
- If you say the chaperones will be with the kids at all times, cancel the trip. You can’t stay with kids on a ski area, unless you have a one-to-one ration of adults to kids and even then I think you will lose some.
- Tell the parents what skiing is, tell them you are transporting the kids up and back, but you can’t stay with the kids all the time. Tell the mother if she is worried she should come on the trip or not send her child. Tell the mother if she sends her child it is her responsibility to make sure the child knows and obeys the rules.
To see the article read Jury awards nearly $5 million to young man hurt on Idlewild church ski trip.
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com
Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #Idlewild Baptist Church, #church group, #collision, #skier collision, #skiing accident, #surrogate parent, #
Technorati Tags: church,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,negligence,Idlewild,Baptist,collision,accident,parent
Windows Live Tags: church,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,negligence,Idlewild,Baptist,collision,accident,parent
WordPress Tags: church,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,negligence,Idlewild,Baptist,collision,accident,parent
Another lawsuit between a skier and a snowboarder
Posted: July 24, 2008 Filed under: Skier v. Skier | Tags: Alpine skiing, Colorado, Colorado Mountain College, Leadville Colorado, Ski, Ski Resort, Sports 1 CommentAs I have talked about before, skier v. snowboard litigation is growing and a real mess. See 8 Year old boy sued in Colorado for ski collision. That case settled, see Lawsuit settles. However another lawsuit has been filed in Colorado see: Lawsuit filed in Snowmass skiing accident.
In this current case a husband and wife from Illinois are suing a snowboarder from New York. Allegedly the snowboarder was uphill from the plaintiffs and traveling at a high rate of speed when he hit the husband. The husband suffered a broken leg, broken collarbone and a torn rotator cuff. The spouse is suing for Loss of Consortium. Loss of Consortium is the loss of the services a spouse provides to a marriage. Loss of consortium includes the loss of sex. If you married sex has a value.
Colorado specifically allows for skier v. skier litigation in its Skier Safety Act. C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) (see below) when many states have said that skier v. skier collisions are a risk you assume when skiing. (Skiing here is interchangeable for any activity at a ski resort using the snow and mountain.)
The legal basis of the complaint is the failure of the snowboarder to comply with the Colorado Skier Safety Act. The Colorado skier safety act is a statute first passed in 1979 and amended several times. It is the strongest legislation protecting ski areas in the US. The act does have several requirements for skiers. Colorado Revised Statutes § 33-44-108 states:
As you read through this section of the act, you will notice however that the act places burdens on all skiers that must be followed. If you don’t you could be sued.
When you ski, you have to follow the rules and the laws. Everyone worries about the speed patrol or the ski patrol yanking their ski passes if they ski too
fast or out of control. Here you can see if you ski out of control the repercussions can be much worse.
If you would like more education about ski area liability I teach a college level ski area risk management course through Colorado Mountain College. The course is SAO 110. The course is taught in Leadville Colorado for 10 weeks in the fall and is available online year round.
Lawsuit settles
Posted: June 26, 2008 Filed under: Skier v. Skier | Tags: Colorado, Denver Post, Lawsuit, Sports 1 Comment
A lawsuit we wrote about in “8 Year old boy sued in Colorado for ski collision” has settled according to the Denver Post
Boy’s family settles skiing suit . The Denver Post is reporting the suit settled for $25,000.
8 Year old boy sued in Colorado for ski collision
Posted: March 27, 2008 Filed under: Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Beaver Creek, Beaver Creek Resort, Colorado Skier Safety Act, Lawsuit, Ski, Vail Daily Leave a commentMost state Skier Safety Acts and several court decisions have stated that skier v. skier collisions are an inherent risk of skiing. Colorado is one of the exceptions to that rule. The Colorado Skier Safety Act specifically allows people involved in a collision to sue each other. Colorado Revised Statute § 33-44-109. Duties of skiers – penalties.
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law or statute to the contrary, the risk of a skier/skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another.
This seems to have been taken to a new level in a case over a collision January 2007 at Beaver Creek‘s Arrowhead Ski Resort. The Vail Daily is reporting in Boy, 8, sued in Beaver Creek ski collision that an eight year old boy allegedly skied into a 60 year old man causing him injuries.
The 8 year old boy claims he only tapped the elderly gentleman with his ski boots. The 60 year old claims he tore a tendon in his shoulder and suffered considerably medical expenses. The suit is in Federal District Court in Denver meaning the damages allegedly suffered are at a minimum in excess of $75,000. The boy’s father is being sued because you cannot sue a child in Colorado; you sue the parents of the child for the child’s actions.
The issue has escalated with the plaintiff requesting a gag order be imposed on the parties. The plaintiff was receiving so many nasty phone calls and hate communications he hoped it would keep the defendant from commenting and stirring people up over the suit. The plaintiff, no matter whom, good or bad, should not be receiving this type of communications. We are of course a civilized society. As long as civilized societies allow you to sue kids. (See Gag order denied in Beaver Creek collision lawsuit)
Nor are we discounting the injuries the plaintiff received.
The bigger problem is Colorado allows lawsuits by people for things that most states call an accident. You assume the risk of all the things that can go wrong when skiing. The Colorado Ski Act in the same section that allows people involved in a collision to sue each other prohibits the parties in a collision from suing the resort for the collision.
If the actions of a collision are so severe then the reckless party can be charged with a criminal act that should be enough of a deterrent. If you are skiing so recklessly that your actions are criminal, if you hit someone you will be charged with a criminal act. (See SkiSafety.com)


