Grand Canyon LTEMP EIS Scoping Report Available and Web-Based Meetings
Posted: March 27, 2012 Filed under: Arizona | Tags: #AZ, Arizona, Colorado River, EIS, Environmental impact statement, Glen Canyon Dam, Grand Canyon, LTEMP, LTEMP EIS, NationalParkService, NPS, United States Bureau of Reclamation Leave a commentLTEMP EIS Scoping Report Available
**********************************
Image via Wikipedia
Public comments on the scope of the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Glen Canyon Dam operations were gathered by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the National Park Service (NPS) during the Public Scoping Period, which closed on January 31, 2012. A series of public scoping meetings were held in November 2011. During these meetings, Reclamation and the NPS provided the public with information about the LTEMP EIS and opportunities to meet with and ask questions of technical experts.
Reclamation and the NPS have reviewed and evaluated the comments received and developed the “Summary of Public Scoping Comments on the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement” (Scoping Report), which is now available on the Documents page of the LTEMP EIS Web site at http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/
Upcoming Web-Based Public Meetings
**********************************
Two Web-based public meetings will be held on March 27, 2012 at 1:00pm and 6:00pm Mountain Daylight Time. The public is invited to participate in these meetings, which will provide a summary of public comments on the scope of the LTEMP EIS. The public will be able to watch a live overview of the Scoping Report, and will have an opportunity to ask questions of technical experts and managers involved in the EIS.
Those wishing to participate are encouraged to register through the LTEMP EIS Web site at http://ltempeis.anl.gov/involve/pubschedule/, but registration is not required. Participants are encouraged to log on to the webcast about 15 minutes before the start of each meeting to ensure they are connected before the meeting begins. For instructions on how to join and how to ask questions during the meetings, see
http://ltempeis.anl.gov/involve/pubschedule/
For More Information
********************
To learn more about how you can participate in the EIS process, visit the “Getting Involved” page of the LTEMP EIS Web Site
(http://ltempeis.anl.gov/involve/index.cfm).
If you have questions or need more information, contact the LTEMP EIS Webmaster at ltempeiswebmaster@anl.gov
Please forward this message to any party you feel may be interested in the LTEMP EIS.
_________________CONTACTS/SUBSCRIPTIONS________________
FEEDBACK
AZ Republic – Congress must not derail anti-noise plan
Posted: March 6, 2012 Filed under: Arizona | Tags: Arizona, Federal Aviation Administration, Grand Canyon, NationalParkService Leave a commentCongress must not derail anti-noise plan
Mar. 1, 2012
The Republic | azcentral.com
After years of work, and decades of delay, the National Park Service is about to adopt a plan to manage aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon.
Bright Angel Point trail - Grand Canyon North Rim (Photo credit: Al_HikesAZ)
Congress must not derail it.
The 1987 National Park Overflights Act called for the substantial restoration of natural quiet at the Grand Canyon.
Now, with that goal in sight, a proposed amendment to the Senate surface transportation bill would throw the process off track. It would change the wording of the 1987 law — setting the stage for years of litigation and yet more delay.
Sen. John McCain is sponsoring this measure. And Sen. Jon Kyl has signed on as a co-sponsor. So have Nevada’s Dean Heller and, making this a bipartisan misconcieved idea, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Why such high interest in Nevada? Air tours to the Grand Canyon happen to be big business in Las Vegas.)
This is their second effort. In 2010, when since-resigned John Ensign was Reid’s Senate mate, the four Arizona and Nevada senators proposed an end-run around the planning process. That legislation was ultimately withdrawn. This one should be dropped, too.
The National Park Service released its draft environmental document last year. The “preferred alternative” strikes a well-calibrated balance between reduced noise and opportunities for air tours. It would allow up to 65,000 air tours a year, 8,000 more than the total when the plan was written. It includes changes in routes and altitudes, plus at least one hour of quiet time before sunset and after sunrise.
The park service received nearly 30,000 comments from individuals and organizations. The final plan, which will likely be tweaked in response to some of those concerns, will be out this spring. Then the Federal Aviation Administration will consider the plan for safety issues.
McCain’s office says the proposed amendment would incentivize quiet technology and address FAA safety concerns. The plan, however, includes incentives for quiet technology that don’t conflict with the goal of reducing noise. The FAA’s concerns can and should be worked out in the final stages of the plan.
The majesty of the Grand Canyon includes the chance to experience natural quiet. The swish of wind through pines and the rush of the Colorado River echoing up the trail are valuable resources that need protection, just as archaeological sites do. We are so close to achieving that protection. Congress should not change the rules of the game in the very last minutes of play.
Arizona limited right for parent to waive child’s right to sue
Posted: February 17, 2012 Filed under: Arizona, Minors, Youth, Children | Tags: Animal, Arizona, Arizona State University, Equine, health, Horse, Minor, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Release 1 Comment
Image via Wikipedia
TITLE 12. COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER 5. LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS
ARTICLE 3. PERSONAL ACTIONS
Go to the Arizona Code Archive Directory
A.R.S. § 12-553 (2011)
§ 12-553. Limited liability of equine owners and owners of equine facilities; exception; definitions
A. An equine owner or an agent of an equine owner who regardless of consideration allows another person to take control of an equine is not liable for an injury to or the death of the person if:
1. The person has taken control of the equine from the owner or agent when the injury or death occurs.
2. The person or the parent or legal guardian of the person if the person is under eighteen years of age has signed a release before taking control of the equine.
3. The owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or equipment or the person has personally tacked the equine with tack the person owned, leased or borrowed. If the person has personally tacked the equine, the person assumes full responsibility for the suitability, installation and condition of the tack.
4. The owner or agent assigns the person to a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person’s representation of his skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines.
B. Subsection A does not apply to an equine owner or agent of the equine owner who is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.
C. An owner, lessor or agent of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property that is used by a rider or handler of an equine with or without the owner’s permission is not liable for injury to or death of the equine or the rider or handler.
D. Subsection C does not apply to an owner, lessor or agent of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property that is used by a rider or handler of an equine if either of the following applies:
1. The owner, lessor or agent knows or should know that a hazardous condition exists and the owner, lessor or agent fails to disclose the hazardous condition to a rider or handler of an equine.
2. The owner, lessor or agent is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.
E. As used in this section:
1. “Equine” means a horse, pony, mule, donkey or ass.
2. “Release” means a document that a person signs before taking control of an equine from the owner or owner’s agent and that acknowledges that the person is aware of the inherent risks associated with equine activities, is willing and able to accept full responsibility for his own safety and welfare and releases the equine owner or agent from liability unless the equine owner or agent is grossly negligent or commits wilful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.
HISTORY: Last year in which legislation affected this section: 1998
NOTES:
Premises Liability
SCOPE OF IMMUNITY.
This section does not shield stable owners from claims for negligent supervision, which do not involve horseback riding or activities directly relating thereto. Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, 965 P.2d 47 (Ct. App. 1998).
Grant of summary judgment in favor of the riding stable operator was proper where the document that the rider signed contained sufficient information to have been considered a release; further, this section does not completely deprive injured equine riders of a remedy and thus it does not violate the anti-abrogation clause, Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6. Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C., 207 Ariz. 487, 88 P.3d 557, 2003 Ariz. App. LEXIS 162 (Ct. App. 2003).
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #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, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #Arizona, #AZ, Parental Rights,
WordPress Tags: Arizona,TITLE,COURTS,CIVIL,PROCEEDINGS,CHAPTER,LIMITATIONS,ACTIONS,ARTICLE,PERSONAL,Code,Archive,Directory,owners,facilities,exception,definitions,owner,agent,person,injury,death,guardian,equipment,installation,interpretation,representation,skills,health,knowledge,Subsection,omissions,rodeo,rider,handler,permission,Equine,horse,pony,Release,welfare,HISTORY,Last,legislation,NOTES,LexisNexis,State,Surveys,Regulations,Premises,SCOPE,supervision,Bothell,Point,Acres,Ariz,Grant,judgment,operator,information,riders,abrogation,clause,Const,Lindsay,Cave,Creek,Outfitters,LEXIS,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Parental,Rights,wilful,lessor
Guiding Opportunity at Grand Canyon National Park
Posted: February 3, 2012 Filed under: Arizona | Tags: Arizona, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Hiking, NationalParkService, Park, South Rim Leave a commentArizona Outback Adventures will be conducting a series of day hikes on various trails at the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park on May 19th 2012.
We are recruiting guides to join our existing staff for three days of work on a contract basis.
Pay is $100.00-$120.00 per day dependent upon experience and qualifications
Guaranteed gratuity plus additional tips possible
All meals, park entrance and camping fees included
Applicants are required to have:
· Current WFR certification (or higher)
· Current CPR certification
· Good general knowledge of Grand Canyon’s history, geology, flora and fauna
· Experience hiking the main trails from the South Rim
· The ability to handle a group of seven diverse hikers on your own
· The ability to follow specific instructions and procedures
· A day pack, comprehensive first aid kit, trowel and all appropriate clothing and footwear for changing weather conditions
· Be physically fit
· Have a pleasant, friendly and engaging personality
· Have a presentable appearance
· Be available from 5:00am 5/17 through 9:00pm 5/19
· Experienced Grand Canyon hiking and rafting guides preferred
To apply email tim@aoa-adventures.com with a brief outline of your experience and qualifications, list all trails that you have hiked from the Main South Rim area (Hermit to Grandview) and the approximate number of times on each trail. Attach a current photo and a single sheet with a color scan of your Driver’s License, WFR Card and CPR card (if separate) with expiration dates clearly showing.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #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, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Arizona Outback Adventures, Grand Canyon, hiking, job, hiking job,
WordPress Tags: Grand,Canyon,National,Park,Arizona,Outback,Adventures,series,South,basis,qualifications,Applicants,Current,certification,knowledge,history,flora,fauna,Experience,hikers,instructions,procedures,appearance,Main,area,Hermit,Grandview,Attach,sheet,Driver,License,Card,expiration,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents
Guiding Job in the Grand Canyon
Posted: February 3, 2012 Filed under: Arizona | Tags: Angel’s Gate Tours, Arizona, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Guide, Hiking, National Parks and Monuments, Park, Travel and Tourism Leave a commentAngel’s Gate Tours is looking for experienced Grand Canyon guides to lead sightseeing tours, day hikes and the occasional backpacking trip in Grand Canyon. We are specifically recruiting experienced Grand Canyon boatman and other Grand Canyon backcountry professionals. Please contact us if you meet the following requirements:
- Minimum WFR certified, with CPR. (More advanced med certs are also acceptable).
- Good driving record. (1 minor ticket is usually OK)
- Must be able to pass Arizona DOT physical (this is pretty simple, basically it verifies that you can see, hear and move well enough to drive a vehicle).
- Outstanding Grand Canyon knowledge. (You know your schist from Shi-nola, and can present complex material in an entertaining manner).
- Hiking experience on all South Rim trails.
This is an excellent opportunity for Grand Canyon backcountry professionals that need to spend more time in town due to family, children, dog issues or other constraints. The majority of our tours and hikes depart from and return to Flagstaff daily. Please visit our website at www.SeeGrandCanyon.com and call (928) 814-2277 to schedule an interview. Angel’s Gate Tours is an EOE.
States that do not Support the Use of a Release
Posted: December 16, 2010 Filed under: Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, Montana, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), West Virginia | Tags: Duty of care, Insurance, Law, Liability insurance, Louisiana, Montana, Release, Virginia 9 CommentsAssumption of the risk is your best defense in these states
These states do not allow a recreational business or program to use a release to stop litigation.
|
State |
Citation |
Issues |
||||||
|
Releases are Void |
||||||||
|
C.C. Art. 2004 (2005) |
Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for intentional or gross fault that causes damage to the other party. Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for causing physical injury to the other party. |
|||||||
|
MCA § 27-1-702 |
All contracts that have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for the person’s own fraud, for willful injury to the person or property of another, or for violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. |
|||||||
|
Johnson’s Adm’x v. Richmond and Danville R.R. Co., 86 Va. 975, 11 S.E. 829 (1890) |
||||||||
|
Use of a Release is Restricted |
||||||||
|
Arizona |
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 2005 Ariz. LEXIS 53 |
|||||||
|
New Mexico |
Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corporation, 132 N.M. 332;2002 NMCA 60;48 P.3d 70;2002 N.M. App. 39;41 N.M. St. B. Bull. 25 |
|||||||
|
West Virginia |
Kyriazis v. University of West Virginia; 192 W. Va. 60; 450 S.E.2d 649; 1994 W. Va. LEXIS 161 |
|||||||
|
Use of Releases is Probably Void |
||||||||
|
Connecticut |
Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 885 A.2d 734 (2005) and Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, Et Al., 280 Conn. 153; 905 A.2d 1156; 2006 Conn. LEXIS 330 |
|||||||
|
Wisconsin |
Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2 |
|||||||
|
Vermont |
Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd, 164 Vt 329; 670 A.2d 795; 1995 Vt. Lexis 127 |
|||||||
|
Specific uses of Releases are Void |
||||||||
|
Alaska |
Sec. 05.45.120(a). Use of liability releases |
A ski area operator may not require a skier to sign an agreement releasing the ski area operator from liability in exchange for the right to ride a ski area tramway and ski in the ski area. A release that violates this subsection is void and may not be enforced. |
||||||
|
Hawaii |
King v. CJM Country Stables, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511 (D. Haw. 2004) |
Found that Hawaii statute § 663-1.54. Recreational activity liability prevented the use of a release |
||||||
|
New York |
Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. |
|||||||
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
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, #release, #Montana, #Louisiana, #Virginia, #New York, #Hawaii, #Alaska, #Vermont, #Wisconsin, #Connecticut, #New Mexico, #Arizona, West Virginia
WordPress Tags: States,Support,Release,Assumption,litigation,State,Citation,Issues,Releases,Void,Louisiana,clause,injury,Montana,negligence,Except,skill,management,person,Virginia,Johnson,Richmond,Danville,Arizona,Phelps,Firebird,Raceway,Ariz,LEXIS,Mexico,Berlangieri,Corporation,NMCA,Bull,West,Kyriazis,Connecticut,Hanks,Powder,Ridge,Restaurant,Corp,Conn,Reardon,Windswept,Farm,Wisconsin,Atkins,Swimwest,Center,Wisc,Vermont,Dalury,Specific,Alaska,area,operator,agreement,subsection,Hawaii,Country,Stables,Supp,Dist,Found,statute,Recreational,York,General,Obligation,Agreements,gymnasiums,amusement,recreation,establishments,covenant,connection,collateral,membership,ticket,admission,owner,gymnasium,establishment,user,facilities,compensation,agents,servants,employees,policy,Leave,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,unenforceable,blog
Four State Supreme Courts Reverse their Positions on Release
Posted: February 11, 2008 Filed under: Arizona, New Mexico, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Wisconsin | Tags: Arizona, Arizona Supreme Court, Connecticut Supreme Court, New Mexico Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court Leave a commentReleases are the foundation of most adventure outfitters program to prevent lawsuits. Dependent upon your base of operation and/or your area of operation a release or waiver is the best way to inform your guests of the risks and stop lawsuits. However, the law concerning releases has changed dramatically in four states over the past 18 months.
Changes started February of 2005 when the Wisconsin Supreme court overturned its law on releases. In a case involving a drowning at a
Image via Wikipedia
health club, Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2 the Wisconsin Supreme Court set up a series of requirements for releases which will be impossible to meet. Each of the requirements allows the guest to invalidate the release or takes the legal teeth out of the release. The final requirement is a bargain for exchange requirement. This means the outfitter must offer the guest the opportunity to take the trip without signing a release for an additional charge. The additional charge to enjoy the adventure without signing a release must only be a nominal amount; however that does not make economic sense. (For a more thorough analysis see the Outdoor Recreation Law Review
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision threatens businesses relying on releases.)
Image via Wikipedia
In Arizona, in a race car mishap, the Arizona Supreme Court took an approach to releases no other state has adopted. In Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 2005 Ariz. LEXIS 53, the Arizona Supreme Court held that releases, written contracts, are only an acknowledgement of risk. As such, the trier of fact, normally the jury, must decided whether the injured patron understood the risk of the activity and the release is additional, but not substantive proof of the knowledge. As such, releases in Arizona are not just proof of acknowledgement of risk rather than a contract to prevent a lawsuit. In the future, a defendant relying upon a release will be forced to go to trial to prove the injured guest understood the risk of the activity that injured him. (See the Outdoor Recreation Law Review
Surprising Arizona Supreme Court Decision Further Endangers Release Language.)
The New Mexico Supreme Courtdetermined that a statute designed to protect the Equine industry prevented the use of a release by a stable.
Image via Wikipedia
In Berlangieri et al. v. Running Elk Corporation, et al., 48 P. 3d 70 (N.M. App. April, 2002 the New Mexico Supreme Court stated the New Mexico Equine Liability act provided the only protection for equine outfitters and therefore it prevented the use of a release. This decision is limited to only equine activities; however a similar decision in West Virginia was the beginning of a series of decisions invalidating releases. This is an example of a statute that was meant to protect an industry doing more harm than good. (See the Outdoor Recreation Law Review
Release of Liability Found to Violate Public Policy.)
Image via Wikipedia
The final decision is a Connecticut Supreme Court decision, Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corporation et al. 276 Conn. 314, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 500 that overruled a case with the identical fact situation six years earlier. In this case a patron at a tubing hill signed a release and was injured tubing. He sued and the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled itself stating releases were no longer valid in the state because it removed the incentive for the tubing operator to keep the premises safe. The Supreme Court held that releases for recreational activities violate public policy. Public policy is the protection the courts extend to the public to protect them when they cannot protect themselves. Those protections are normally limited to those necessities of live that the public cannot live without such as utilities or public transportation. (See the Outdoor Recreation Law Review Connecticut Supreme Court takes yet another bite out of releases with latest decision.)
All of these decisions are discouraging; however there are methods to change the results for a particular outfitter. The easiest and most important way is by using an effective Jurisdiction and Venue clause in a release. Jurisdiction means the law that will be applied and Venue means the location of the court that will hear the case. If you are operating in any of these four states, or another state that prohibits the use of a release, you can specify in the release the state where the case will be heard and the law that will be applied.
For Additional Analysis of these cases or to read the legal opinion, go to the Outdoor Recreation and Fitness Law Review.
