Resource Stewardship & Natural Areas Program Seasonal Position Announcement Colorado State Parks

http://www.simplyhired.com/job-id/ugxupbaaj3/gis-and-jobs/

Company: Colorado State Parks:
Location: Denver, CO
Date Posted: December 24, 2010

COLORADO STATE PARKS Resource Stewardship and Natural Areas Program SEASONAL POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT/DESCRIPTION Colorado State Parks has available a 6 month temporary position for 40 hours per week, as internship or entry level position. The position is based in downtown Denver. There are no health benefits, but employees are eligible to contribute to a 401k program and the state PERA retirement fund, and overnight trips will be reimbursed according to state travel policies, and a state vehicle will be provided. This position is a great entrance into the Conservation Biology and GIS working worlds in the beautiful state of Colorado. GIS and stewardship technician – Applicant should have a background in wildlife, botany, or natural resources management and have 1 year or more of work…

View full job description

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, #Colorado State Parks, #Stewardship, #Natural Areas, #job,
Technorati Tags: Resource,Stewardship,Natural,Areas,Program,Seasonal,Position,Announcement,Colorado,State,Parks,jobs,Company,Location,Denver,Date,December,DESCRIPTION,hours,internship,downtown,health,employees,PERA,retirement,policies,vehicle,Conservation,Biology,technician,Applicant,wildlife,resources,management,View,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,negligence
Windows Live Tags: Resource,Stewardship,Natural,Areas,Program,Seasonal,Position,Announcement,Colorado,State,Parks,jobs,Company,Location,Denver,Date,December,DESCRIPTION,hours,internship,downtown,health,employees,PERA,retirement,policies,vehicle,Conservation,Biology,technician,Applicant,wildlife,resources,management,View,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,negligence
WordPress Tags: Resource,Stewardship,Natural,Areas,Program,Seasonal,Position,Announcement,Colorado,State,Parks,jobs,Company,Location,Denver,Date,December,DESCRIPTION,hours,internship,downtown,health,employees,PERA,retirement,policies,vehicle,Conservation,Biology,technician,Applicant,wildlife,resources,management,View,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,negligence
Blogger Labels: Resource,Stewardship,Natural,Areas,Program,Seasonal,Position,Announcement,Colorado,State,Parks,jobs,Company,Location,Denver,Date,December,DESCRIPTION,hours,internship,downtown,health,employees,PERA,retirement,policies,vehicle,Conservation,Biology,technician,Applicant,wildlife,resources,management,View,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,negligence

Man sues landowner and hunting guide for bear attack………….

Additional damage is done by a stupid news account of the incident.

A hunter has sued a guide and the landowner for damages he received when he was hunting in grizzly country and was attached by a bear. The outfitter dropped the plaintiff off to watch for elk and took another hunter to shoot a deer. The outfitter was on his way back to the first hunter when he heard a shot. Upon arriving on the scene, he found the hunter on the ground who said he had been slapped by a grizzly. The hunter allegedly lost an eye in the attack.

At this point, I think I would be grateful I was not grizzly lunch. However, it gets better or actually worse.
The hunter is suing the landowner because the landowner was paid so the hunter could hunt on the land (OK, grizzlies are owned by the state, but the land owner is liable for them….). The hunter is suing the guide for “not give him training on how to deal with bears or provide him with bear spray.”

I bet he did not give the plaintiff pants either. Seriously, rarely do I bring up personal responsibility, but in this case, who is responsible for whom? Besides he had a gun that was big enough to bring down an elk supposedly. Let’s see, I made a grizzly mad do I want a gun or bear spray.

Sort of like the joke when walking in bear country you should take a bell and bear spray with you. To help identify black bear scat, they are smaller and are various colors. To identify a grizzly scat, it has bells in it and smells of pepper spray. See photo below!

But this story takes a new twist when one journalist decides to add new requirements to Montana’s state law and the duties of a guide or outfitter. He takes off comparing the training of government employees working in bear country have 112 hours of training to an outfitter and guest. The outfitter/guide did not give the client any?

I can see the advertisement now. Come to Montana to for a one week hunt lasting four weeks. After your three weeks of grizzly training we’ll let you out of the classroom to shoot something.

These hunts should be a big seller.

The article gets worse. “Do guides and outfitters like Johnson have the training and skills necessary to protect their clients during a worst-case scenario with a bear?”

I can’t believe this journalist has been outdoors. Having participated in a lot of Search and Rescues for hunters, no one can keep a hunter safe. Besides it is outdoors, there are a million ways anyone can get into trouble in the woods. No one person, let alone the Montana National Guard can keep some hunters safe.

1. If you are going hunting/walking/anything in grizzly country you better know what you are doing.
2. If you don’t know what to do in grizzly country don’t go.
3. If you don’t know what type of animals are going to be in the woods with you, stay out of the woods until you do. Most second class members of the BSA can help you with this.
4. If you are a journalist and believe that outfitters need to keep their clients perfectly safe, go back to New York City.

To see the original article Man Sues Church Universal And Triumphant, Hunting Outfitter. To see the article that would give grizzlies pause see Lawsuit will bring scrutiny to Montana hunting guides.

The only thing that will bring scrutiny to Montana’s hunting guides is dumb articles that encourage hunters to sue.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Happy New Year

Grand Canyon Association needs a Outreach and Public Relations Assistant

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT


Grand Canyon Association, a cooperating association partner at Grand Canyon National Park, seeks an Outreach and Public Relations Assistant to provide assistance in facilitating various events and creating consistent messaging within the media and promotional materials. This position will report to the Outreach and Public Relations Manager.

This is a part-time position with a flexible schedule. The successful candidate will typically work a schedule consisting of approximately 5-10 hours per week, performed over the course of regular business hours. The position is not benefit-eligible and housing is not available with the position. The position can be based in either our Grand Canyon or Flagstaff offices. Some travel may be required.

DUTIES
The assistant duties include but are not limited to the following areas of assignment:

Celebration of Art

· Work with OPR Manager to coordinate event

· Gather artist submissions and help prepare for jury process

· Assist with planning process and gather feedback

· Assist with gathering artists content needed for show catalog, website and promotional materials.

· Upload event on websites around the country

· Assist with all events during the “event week”

Canyon Country Lecture Series

· Assist in scheduling speakers for lectures in Flagstaff, Glendale and Prescott

· Gather content for promotional flyers and websites

· Upload event in selected websites around the state of Arizona

· Follow up with venues on technical needs for each speaker

New Book Promotion

· Assist with promotional efforts for all new and backlist GCA publications

Kolb Studio Exhibit Program

· Assist in the planning and implantation process for each exhibit.

· Upload exhibits on targeted web calendars

SKILLS NECESSARY FOR THE POSITION:

• Excellent communication skills, both oral and written

• Positive can-do attitude and good customer service skills

• An ability to exercise good judgment and posses problem solving skills

• The ability to multi-task with minimal supervision in a fast-paced work environment

• Excellent attention to detail and great organizational skills

• Good proofreading skills

• Good working knowledge of or an ability to quickly learn software programs, including but not limited to MSWord, Excel, Outlook and PowerPoint.

The incumbent will have contact with the general public, National Park Service, park concessioners, and Grand Canyon Association staff.

DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS

• Two years of clerical experience, including experience in drafting professional correspondence
• General knowledge of the Grand Canyon region

PHYSICAL DEMANDS:
The work is primarily sedentary office work with frequent periods of standing, walking, bending, and lifting. Frequent use of a keyboard is expected.

TO APPLY: Contact: Patty Brookins, Grand Canyon Association, P.O. Box 399, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023, (928) 638-7037, pbrookins@grandcanyon.org

Grand Canyon Association is an Equal Opportunity Employer

UIAA New Year E Card

Money is important in some lawsuits, but the emotions that starts a lawsuit.

Acting and dealing with the issues may end the anger and may prevent litigation.

I’ve written twice about Adam Dzialo. He was a young boy who suffered serious brain trauma at a summer camp. He was in a whitewater course or program at the camp when he suffered a foot entrapment. The legal issues in this case are numerous and the case for the family is a never ending nightmare in the eyes of most people.

In doing some research for a book I stumbled upon this article about an apology the Dzialo family received from the school that held the camp that injured Adam. I knew the college had apologized, see Wow, someone apologized when Adam’s father posted a comment to a prior post Serious Disconnect: Why people sue.

However, I did not know the extent of the apology and more importantly how much it meant to the family until I stumbled across this article Family of injured boy, GCC make amends. The article looks at the issues the family faced and how they and the school could work through the issues to resolve some if not all the emotional ones after the financial ones ended.

Many times we are told by insurance companies and others that the money solves the problem. The money solves the problem because that is why people sue. Yet no one, no study and no look at the realities of litigation supports those statements. Here, the family was still dealing with the issues long after the money issues had been resolved. Closure occurred 10 years after the accident and four years after the lawsuit was settled.

If you look at some of the issues the family was angry about and dealing with, several of them, I’m sure were prompted by defense counsel for the school. The failure on the part of the college to contact and provide support to Adams’s family and the failure to apologize earlier were obviously driven by the school’s attorneys believing they were doing the best thing for the school.

How can a more powerful example exist of the miscommunication that exists between injured people and the future defendants exist?

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Back into the You’ve Got to be Kidding Category

So a boy was killed by a bear in a US Forest Service campground in Utah. The state knew the bear was a problem and did not post a sign (according to the plaintiff’s lawyer) at the entrance of the campground warning of the bear. The family claims there should have been a sign.

The Utah Supreme Court said the state is not immune from these types of lawsuits. (The Utah State Governmental Immunity laws did not protect from this type of claim).

Maybe the signs should go up when you drive into Utah or leave Salt Lake City?

It is very sad for a family to lose their son. A bear attack is probably a horrible way to die. This lawsuit is even uglier.

For prior comments on this lawsuit see Final Update on Lawsuit over fatality caused by attack of bear in Utah State Campground and Lawsuit update: Utah Bear Attack. (This will teach me to use the term “final update”!
To see the latest press release on this issue see State Supreme Court: Family of boy killed by bear can sue.

This will probably end up as a case review when I see the actual decision.

Crap!

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com 

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Merry Christmas

Major legal issues in outdoor recreation and adventure

This Presentation was given at the 2010 Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education Conference at Keystone Colorado November 2010.

That Holiday feeling…….my Tums might work on it…..

I wrote this several Christmases’ ago and just found this and thought you might enjoy it. Remember this was before TSA had a mandate to grope everyone. 

Well, it’s the holiday season again. I know because I am stuffed in an airplane going to worse weather than I live in, in Colorado…Florida. I was reminded of the fact by people pushing me out of the way trying to board an airplane, 40 minutes late, like it was going to leave without them.

However, these flights give me time to reflect. I marvel at a persona ability to convert Wal-Mart bags into carry-on luggage. At the idea that an image of a Cowboy is not altered when they have to spend fifteen minutes in security trying to take off and put on their cowboy boots. Humiliating to walk through in your barefoot, worse to have the entire terminal watch you try and find your feet.

I love the way airline personnel believe that everyone at this time of the year has never flown before and will believe anything they tell me. Worse is it took until the fourth person for me to figure out that I was being had.

My favorite thing to do is to get on the airplane early and then watch worldwide wresting. Match one is the customers trying to shove their 85 pound carry-ons in the overhead compartment. Round two are the flight attendants trying to wrestle those same bags into the overhead compartments. Round three is the wrestle between the flight attendants and the passengers as the flight attendants tries to identify the Wal-Mart packers and tell them their bags are going to be checked. The final round is the flight attendant pulling the bag down the aisle towards the door with a passenger holding the other end screaming, they can’t live without their bag. I guess the rest of their heart monitor is in the plastic bag and if is too far away they may pass out. (Take all the bags!!!)

The final indignity is the race to exit the plane.

But I got to know my knees again. It’s not that I don’t know my knees, but that I don’t spend that much time each day with my face within inches of them as they are jammed into the “seat.” “Seat” being a slightly over used term in this case for the torture chamber United now calls seating on some of their flights.

I did save some headaches this year, and a lot of money. I feel guilt not supporting my local merchants. However, high speed wireless, free access and a beer at a bar are much better shopping. Maybe if the local retailer hands me a beer and a chair I’ll shop there again.

I connected through Chicago where I had plenty of time to play one of my favorite Chicago games, where are the outlet’s hiding? Chicago was obviously built prior to electricity being invented because outlets are an endangered species. As such you end up seeing all sorts of outlandish attempts to recharge all sorts of things.

In this last incarnation of the game, I saw a battery pack under at a ticket counter, a MP3 wearer wedged between a column and a wall in an abbreviated yoga position, and dozens of computer cables snaking around corners and across the lobby. I was eating across from the yoga MP3 wearer and when that person left it took everything not to run over and plug in, even though it would have meant interrupting my meal every 10 minutes to explain the luggage was not Unattended.

I finally found an empty ticket booth with a plug. The screen in front of me kept counting down the time until the flight departed. I counted down the time until the kiosk would fill and I would be evicted. I gave myself 70 minutes before departure… Come on baby charge. Should I have answered the phone that kept ringing at the terminal?

You know. Scrooge was not that far off………. :)

I’m heading off to family for the holidays. The posts will keep coming but I may be a little slow on responding to comments.

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

Outdoor Recreation Caucus created in the US Senate.

A Caucus is a sub-group of Senators (or representatives in the house) who are interested in a specific issue the caucus is created to monitor. 

U.S. Senator Mark Udall (CO) and Senator James Risch (ID) created the Senate Outdoor Recreation Caucus. The purpose is to provide an interest or to some extent, a clearing house to bring important to the issues the caucus has been created around.

In this case, the two senators want to show support and continued interest in the federal and possibly state issues of outdoor recreation.

Please thank Senator Mark Udall and Senator James Risch for their efforts.

See Senate Establishes Outdoor Recreation Caucus.

  
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com
© 2010 James H. Moss

UnhideWhenUsed=”false” QFormat=”true” Name=”Subtle Emphasis”/>

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Vote, every day for Matt Moniz for Adventurer of the Year 2010

I have a friend who has the opportunity to win a big deal from National Geographic magazine.  He is Matt Moniz and he is in the running for the National Geographic Adventurers of the Year 2010. Matt Moniz climbed to the highest point in all 50 United States in just 43 days. Matt was 12 at the time.

Yes his dad is part of the issue, but my conversations, and a lot of time listening, with Matt have always centered around Matt wanting to do this rather than Matt following his dad up a mountain.  If it was Matt following, I would not be telling you about Matt. I don’t support father’s egos. I do support great kids and Matt is a great kid!

In the process Matt has been supporting and raising money for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH). Matt has a friend who has it.

Each day from now to January 15, 2011 Vote for Matt. Thanks.

 
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

National Park Service (NPS) Share the Experience Photo Contest

The winning entry will be the cover photograph for the 2012 America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 

To enter the photo contest go to Share the Experience. There are tons of other prizes for the winner and the next 15 winners.

 
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

Update: Payouts in Outdoor Recreation

The information here has been collected from various sources. The accuracy is not guaranteed.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Mankoski v Mieras, 1999 Mich. App. LEXIS 514, March 12, 1999

Mankoski v Mieras, 1999 Mich. App. LEXIS 514, March 12, 1999

Brian Gerald Mankoski, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Shane Mieras, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 204659

Court of Appeals of Michigan

1999 Mich. App. LEXIS 514, March 12, 1999, Decided

Notice: [*1]  In accordance with the Michigan court of appeals rules, unpublished opinions are not precedentially binding under the rules of stare decisis.
Prior History: Kent Circuit Court. LC No. 95-004412 NO.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Judges: Before: Murphy, P.J., and MacKenzie and Talbot, JJ.
Opinion: per curiam.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court order granting defendant ‘s motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).

Plaintiff and defendant went to a facility to participate in indoor rock climbing. Both parties were experienced at the sport. Prior to engaging in climbing, plaintiff signed a document in which he acknowledged the risks inherent in the sport, expressly assumed those risks, and released the facility from liability. Defendant acted as plaintiff’s belayer. A belayer is a spotter who watches the climber, controls the tension on the safety rope, and operates a braking device designed to prevent the climber from falling to the ground. When plaintiff fell from the wall, defendant attempted to operate the braking device.

Because the safety rope had excessive slack, defendant could not prevent plaintiff from falling to [*2] the ground.

Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendant was negligent in exercising his duties as a belayer. Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(c)(10), arguing that he breached no duty to plaintiff, that plaintiff assumed the risks of injury, that the injury sustained was within the scope of plaintiff’s consent to the risks inherent in the sport, and that plaintiff released all participants from liability. The trial court granted defendant’s motion based on Higgins v Pfeiffer, 215 Mich App 423; 546 NW2d 645 (1996).

This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).

We affirm. In Higgins, supra, the plaintiff was injured by a baseball thrown by a teammate. We affirmed the grant of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition, finding that a participant in a sporting event is assumed to be aware of the inherent risks of injury in the sport, and to have consented to those risks. The plaintiff’s injury was within the scope of the plaintiff’s consent. Higgins, supra, at 425-427. [*3] Here, plaintiff expressly acknowledged and consented to the risks inherent in indoor rock climbing, including the risk that his belayer would act in a negligent manner. Plaintiff’s injuries were within the scope of his consent. Higgins, supra, controls the instant case and supports the granting of defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk may be asserted as a defense if the plaintiff has expressly contracted to assume the risk. Felgner v Anderson, 375 Mich 23, 55-56; 133 NW2d 136 (1965).

Plaintiff expressly assumed the risks of indoor rock climbing, including that he would incur injury due to the negligence of his belayer.

Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Michael J. Talbot

Benefit Concert and Auction for Brody Miller, the Utah Park Ranger shot 2 weeks ago.

Many of you have probably heard of the tragic shooting of a Utah State Park Ranger in Moab two weeks ago today.  He is Brody Young, a former employee Western River Expeditions. Brody is alive and fighting in a Grand Junction, Colorado hospital.  The prognosis is guarded but optimistic.

Some of Brody’s friends have organized a benefit concert and auction for him and his young family on Friday, December 10th. 
The band “Highwater,” will be performing and there is an amazing array of auction items. 
The number of donations to the auction has nearly doubled since the flyer was made.  The flyer also tells you how to donate if you can’t make it to the concert.  We’re going to keep it fun and upbeat, just like the Young family.  


Please share this with others.  We need to fill 1100 seats and there are a lot of items in the auction.

Technorati Tags: Benefit,Concert,Auction,Brody,Miller,Utah,Park,Ranger,Many,State,Moab,Young,employee,friend,Grand,Junction,Colorado,hospital,prognosis,Some,December,band,Highwater,items,donations,weeks
Windows Live Tags: Benefit,Concert,Auction,Brody,Miller,Utah,Park,Ranger,Many,State,Moab,Young,employee,friend,Grand,Junction,Colorado,hospital,prognosis,Some,December,band,Highwater,items,donations,weeks
WordPress Tags: Benefit,Concert,Auction,Brody,Miller,Utah,Park,Ranger,Many,State,Moab,Young,employee,friend,Grand,Junction,Colorado,hospital,prognosis,Some,December,band,Highwater,items,donations,weeks
Blogger Labels: Benefit,Concert,Auction,Brody,Miller,Utah,Park,Ranger,Many,State,Moab,Young,employee,friend,Grand,Junction,Colorado,hospital,prognosis,Some,December,band,Highwater,items,donations,weeks

American Alpine Club Grant Awards Deadline 1/1/11

Free money to go have fun! But check out the AAC library to make sure you are not trying something that has already been done. 

The following awards have a deadline of 1/1/11.

Lyman Spitzer Cutting Edge Award
McNeill-Nott Award
Mountain Fellowship Grant
Copp-Dash Inspire Award
Lara-Karena Bitenieks Kellogg Memorial Conservation Grant
Mountain Fellowship Grant
Research Grants
Scott Fischer Memorial Conservation Grant
The American Alpine Club Nikwax Alpine Bellwether Grant

Zack Martin Breaking Barriers Grant

All of the grants can be found at the AAC Grants page. For general information on AAC Grants see Fund Your Trip! AAC Grant Deadlines Fast Approaching.

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

The Foundation for Knowledge in Development, v. Interactive Design Consultants, LLC, 2010 Colo. LEXIS 505

In re: Plaintiff: The Foundation for Knowledge in Development, d/b/a Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation, a Colorado 501(c)(3) Public Charity, v. Defendants: Interactive Design Consultants, LLC, a Rhode Island corporation, and Rick DiNobile.

Case No. 10SA58

SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
June 28, 2010, Decided

NOTICE:
THIS OPINION IS NOT THE FINAL VERSION AND SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON FINAL PUBLICATION
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21. Arapahoe County District Court, Case No. 09CV2525. Honorable Marilyn Leonard Antrim, Judge.
DISPOSITION: ORDER AFFIRMED.

COUNSEL: Holland & Hart LLP, Gregory A. Eurich, Joseph Neguse, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys [*2] for Plaintiff.
Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison & Powers, P.C., Jamey W. Jamison, Coulter M. Bump, Englewood, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendants.
JUDGES: JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
OPINION BY: RICE
OPINION

EN BANC
JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
In this original proceeding taken pursuant to C.A.R. 21, we review an order from the Arapahoe County District Court denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We find that the trial court properly determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the Defendants based on their contacts with Colorado regarding the subject matter of the dispute. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

I. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff, The Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation (“SPDF”), is a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Colorado. SPDF conducts research, education, and advocacy on behalf of children with an inability to regulate sensation in a normal manner. In 2008, SPDF was considering developing web-based learning programs to provide information and interactive features to those interested in learning more about the disorder.

An SPDF representative from Colorado contacted [*3] co-Defendant Rick DiNobile, who resided in Rhode Island and was the sole owner of co-Defendant Interactive Design Consultants (collectively “DiNobile”), to inquire about whether DiNobile would be interested in designing interactive e-learning modules for SPDF. ¹ The parties discussed the specifics of SPDF’s needs through a series of emails and telephone conversations between DiNobile in Rhode Island and SPDF in Colorado. Following these discussions, DiNobile drafted a contract to memorialize the parties’ discussions. The parties then negotiated several changes to the draft agreement. SPDF signed the final agreement in Colorado and faxed it to DiNobile, who signed it in Rhode Island and then faxed the fully executed agreement back to SPDF.

1 SPDF learned about DiNobile through Michelle Clarke, SPDF’s Education Program Manager. Clarke was familiar with DiNobile because he completed several projects for one of Clarke’s previous employers in Colorado.

DiNobile commenced work on the project in Rhode Island. DiNobile never traveled to Colorado in relation to his work with SPDF. From Colorado, SPDF exchanged hundreds of email and telephone communications with DiNobile. Representatives from SPDF [*4] spent significant time in Colorado developing the content for the e-learning program, while DiNobile performed substantial work under the agreement in Rhode Island.
Each party ultimately disputed the other’s compliance with the agreement. SPDF filed suit in Colorado, alleging breach of contract as well as negligent misrepresentation. DiNobile moved to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2), arguing that Colorado did not have personal jurisdiction because he conducted all his business outside Colorado. ² The trial court denied DiNobile’s motion. DiNobile appealed, and we granted review using the discretion afforded to this court under C.A.R. 21.

2 C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) states that “the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: . . . (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person.”

II. Analysis
The trial court did not hold a hearing on DiNobile’s 12(b)(2) motion, but rather relied on the documentary evidence presented by the parties including the pleadings, affidavits, and the contract at issue. In denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court issued a written order stating that “Plaintiff has established sufficient contacts for this case to proceed in Colorado.”

A. Procedure
A [*5] trial court may decide a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss based solely on documentary evidence or by holding a hearing. Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, 123 P.3d 1187, 1192 (Colo. 2005). In this case, neither party requested a hearing nor do they argue for one in this appeal. When the court bases its determination solely on documentary evidence, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Id.

“A prima facie showing exists where the plaintiff raises a reasonable inference that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” Goettman v. N. Fork Valley Rest., 176 P.3d 60, 66 (Colo. 2007). This is a light burden intended only to “screen out ‘cases in which personal jurisdiction is obviously lacking, and those in which the jurisdictional challenge is patently bogus.'” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1192 (quoting Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Can., 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1st Cir. 1995)). However, “the plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction by the close of trial by a preponderance of the evidence if the defendant raises the challenge again at that time.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1192 n.3.

When basing its determination solely on documentary [*6] evidence, the trial court may not resolve disputed issues of jurisdictional fact. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 66. “[T]he allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true to the extent they are not contradicted by the defendant’s competent evidence, and where the parties’ competent evidence presents conflicting facts, these discrepancies must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1192.

B. Requirements of Colorado’s Long-Arm Statute and Due Process
Because SPDF is seeking jurisdiction in Colorado over a nonresident defendant, it must satisfy both Colorado’s long-arm statute and the constitutional requirements of due process. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 66-67. Colorado’s long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the maximum extent allowed by the due process requirements of the Constitution. ³ Scheuer v. Dist. Court, 684 P.2d 249, 250 (Colo. 1984). Thus, if a plaintiff satisfies the constitutional requirements, the long-arm statute is also satisfied. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 67. With respect to tort claims, this court has “previously indicated that negligent conduct in a foreign state which causes injury in Colorado may be deemed an act committed within Colorado for purposes [*7] of the long-arm statute.” Scheuer, 684 P.2d at 251.

3 Colorado’s long-arm statute states, in pertinent part:

Engaging in any act enumerated in this section by any person, whether or not a resident of the state of Colorado, either in person or by an agent, submits such person . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state concerning any cause of action arising from: (a) The transaction of any business within this state; (b) The commission of a tortious act within this state . . . .

§ 13-1-124(1)(a)-(b), C.R.S. (2009).

To satisfy the requirements of due process, a defendant must have “certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945). “Due process requires that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state so that he may foresee being answerable in court there.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. The defendant must take some action by which he “purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state so that he will not be subject to personal jurisdiction solely as a result of random [*8] or fortuitous contacts or the unilateral activity of a third party.” Goettman, 176 P.3d at 67 (internal quotations omitted).

The minimum amount of contacts required for Colorado to exercise personal jurisdiction depends on whether the plaintiff has alleged general or specific jurisdiction. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 67. “A court has general jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant conducted continuous and systematic activities that are of a general business nature in the forum state.” Goettman, 176 P.3d at 67. A court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the “injuries triggering the litigation arise out of and are related to activities that are significant and purposefully directed by the defendant at the residents of the forum state.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194 (internal quotation omitted).

SPDF has not alleged that DiNobile should be subject to general jurisdiction in Colorado. Thus, we first review the documentary evidence de novo to determine whether specific jurisdiction is appropriate. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 68. If we find that the trial court may exercise specific jurisdiction, we must then determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident [*9] defendant is reasonable. Id.

1. Specific Jurisdiction for SPDF’s Contract Claim
A court may exercise specific jurisdiction where the alleged injury arises out of and is related to “activities that are significant and purposefully directed by the defendant at residents of the forum.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985). For a defendant to be subject to specific jurisdiction, the court must determine: “(1) whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state, and (2), whether the litigation arises out of the defendant’s forum-related contacts.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194 (internal quotations omitted).

Using this analytical framework, we must determine whether, based on the documentary evidence presented to the trial court, SPDF presented sufficient evidence supporting its breach of contract claim for the trial court to exercise specific jurisdiction over DiNobile. The evidence in this case includes SPDF’s complaint, an affidavit from Michelle Clarke (SPDF’s Education Program Manager), an affidavit from DiNobile, and a copy of the executed agreement. From this evidence we must determine whether DiNobile purposefully [*10] availed himself of the privilege of doing business in Colorado and whether SPDF’s claims arise out of DiNobile’s contacts. See Goettman, 176 P.3d at 69.

a. Whether DiNobile Purposefully Availed Himself of the Privilege of Conducting Business in Colorado
As to the first part of this analysis, “[t]he purposeful availment requirement precludes personal jurisdiction resulting from ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts.'” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Int’l, Ltd., 385 F.3d 1291, 1296 (10th Cir. 2004)). The actions taken by the defendant “are significant in determining whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. If the defendant deliberately created “continuing obligations” with the forum state, he has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there. Id. (citing Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., 40 P.3d 1267, 1271 (Colo. 2002)).

The [*11] evidence presented to the trial court demonstrates that the parties’ agreement required, and resulted in, significant contacts between DiNobile and SPDF. The complaint contains a statement of jurisdiction that reads:

[The Araphahoe County District Court] has jurisdiction over this matter and personal jurisdiction over [DiNobile] because [DiNobile] entered into a contract with SPDF in Arapahoe County, Colorado, in September of 2008 and [DiNobile] represented that [he] could perform the work required by the contract, a representation upon which SPDF reasonably relied. A substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Arapahoe County, Colorado.

Furthermore, the complaint states that Colorado “has a substantial interest in this matter as it involves wrongs committed against a Colorado public charity which therefore affects the People of the State of Colorado.”
Clarke’s affidavit highlights the amount of work the agreement required SPDF to perform and the actions taken by DiNobile in the course of conducting business with a Colorado nonprofit corporation. See Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. She states that she worked with DiNobile on two prior projects in Colorado [*12] for a previous employer. For these projects, DiNobile traveled to Colorado on numerous occasions. Pertaining to the contract at issue here, Clarke states that all negotiations on behalf of SPDF were conducted by email or telephone communications originating in Colorado. Clarke signed the agreement in Colorado on behalf of SPDF. Clarke states that SPDF’s executive director, Dr. Lucy Miller, invested hundreds of hours in the development of the E-Learning program content. All core content for the E-Learning program was developed by Dr. Miller and SPDF in the State of Colorado, including conversion of power point material into storyboards, editing and expanding on storyboard content, preparing graphics and video recording of Dr. Miller as well as her audio narration. In addition, all phases of testing of the E-Learning program were conducted by SPDF in Colorado as well as development of a website landing page and pre-launch registration and payment functionality, content and graphics for the E-Learning portal, and administration of E-Learning users. The program content is the proprietary material of SPDF.

Clarke never traveled outside the state of Colorado concerning the agreement. Clarke [*13] claims that all contacts by SPDF with DiNobile originated in Colorado. Clarke estimates that she “personally had hundreds of e-mail and telephone communications with Mr. DiNobile from Colorado.”

DiNobile’s affidavit highlights the activities that took place outside Colorado. He states that he did not solicit business from SPDF, rather an SPDF representative contacted him in Rhode Island. DiNobile drafted the agreement in Rhode Island and sent it to SPDF in Colorado. DiNobile signed the final agreement in Rhode Island. He states that he performed all of the services required by the agreement in Rhode Island. Neither DiNobile nor his representatives performed any work in Colorado. Finally, Dinobile claims that he has “never traveled to Colorado in furtherance of this Agreement or to transact any business with Plaintiff in Colorado.”

The agreement itself provides guidance as to whether DiNobile availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Colorado and whether DiNobile deliberately created continuing obligations with Colorado. See Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. At the outset, the agreement states that it “is entered into between [DiNobile] and [SPDF] for the design and development [*14] of four e-learning modules by [DiNobile] as more particularly described [herein].” Per the agreement, DiNobile would collect any e-commerce revenue and remit seventy percent to SPDF. DiNobile was to charge SPDF a monthly hosting/usage fee. Travel expenses incurred in performance of the agreement were to be invoiced separately, and DiNobile was to provide SPDF an estimate of any such expenses. DiNobile would host the e-learning modules within an online learning environment. Current users would be directed from SPDF’s web site to the learning portal, and prospective users would be directed to a website hosted by DiNobile to facilitate the financial transaction.

In the section of the agreement titled “Program Development,” the parties stated that “[t]he following outlines the various phases of program development and the deliverables output from each phase. SPDF will be an active partner within each of these phases and will assign a project resource to assist in project management, analysis and design, and final course delivery and implementation.” As part of the project, DiNobile was to produce detailed storyboards for elements of the program and then send the storyboards to SPDF for [*15] its approval. SPDF was required to “approve each storyboard individually before the next phase of development begins.” DiNobile’s programmers were then to use an approved design document along with the approved storyboards as their main program specifications.

The agreement further stated that SPDF had the ability to test the program extensively before it was completed and launched. The test feedback would be analyzed by SPDF and DiNobile, and approved changes would be submitted to DiNobile. After any corrections, SPDF would then approve the final version of the program. Finally, DiNobile was to deliver the final version via an externally hosted learning portal, which SPDF was again required to approve.

The agreement also identifies specific individuals and their duties under the agreement. For SPDF, Dr. Miller was to oversee the overall project and was responsible for “approval of key milestones and deliverables.” She was also to provide all subject matter expertise for the program content. Clarke was the key point of contact at SPDF for all project resources. She would provide specific support to project resources related to content, design, development, and implementation. Clarke [*16] was also to manage the pilot testing process. For Interactive Design Consultants, DiNobile was the key point of contact. He would provide the final program master to the client and assist in its implementation and deployment. He would also provide technical support during design, development, and deployment.

Based on this evidence we conclude that SPDF adequately established that Colorado has specific jurisdiction for its contract claim. We determine that the documentary evidence is adequate to show that DiNobile purposefully directed his business to SPDF, a resident of Colorado. Although controlling cases have suggested that a contractual relationship alone is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, see Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 478, here DiNobile had numerous additional contacts with Colorado. The agreement required that significant work be performed in Colorado by SPDF and outside Colorado by DiNobile. DiNobile communicated extensively with SPDF representatives in Colorado concerning their duties under the agreement. Per the agreement, DiNobile was required to send various parts of the project to SPDF in Colorado for its approval and was also required to remit a percentage [*17] of e-commerce payments to SPDF.

DiNobile pursued a business relationship with a corporation that was, at all relevant times, headquartered in Colorado. In these situations, the Supreme Court has “rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction.” Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 476 (also noting that “it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines”). The contacts here are not “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” in nature and sufficiently establish that DiNobile purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Colorado. See Goettman, 176 P.3d at 67.

b. Whether the Litigation Arises out of DiNobile’s Contacts
The second step of our specific jurisdiction inquiry asks whether the litigation arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Id. at 69. To meet this requirement, “the actions of the defendant giving rise to the litigation must have created a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum state.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194.
SPDF’s contract claim centers on the provisions of the agreement, which were [*18] negotiated by the parties between Rhode Island and Colorado, and DiNobile’s failure to adequately perform under that agreement. Thus, we conclude that SPDF’s breach of contract claim arises directly out of DiNobile’s contacts with Colorado. DiNobile’s actions under the agreement, as described above, created a substantial connection with Colorado and are sufficient to satisfy this part of the specific jurisdiction analysis.

2. Specific Jurisdiction for SPDF’s Tort Claim
In many cases “the commission of a tort, in itself, creates a sufficient nexus between a defendant and the forum state that satisfies the due process inquiry and establishes specific jurisdiction.” Goettman, 176 P.3d at 69. “In such cases, there is no need for further minimum contacts analysis because the defendant is so connected with the forum state that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended by the forum state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. (citing Classic Auto Sales, Inc. v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233, 237 (Colo. 1992)). “In other cases, even if an injury is sustained in the forum state, the defendant’s tortious acts may be so remote as to require a closer [*19] nexus between the defendant and the state.” D & D Fuller CATV Constr., Inc. v. Pace, 780 P.2d 520, 525 (Colo. 1989) (citing Scheuer, 684 P.2d at 249 (Colo. 1984), and Fleet Leasing, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 649 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1982)). In these cases, the court must analyze whether the defendant has the required minimum contacts with Colorado. D & D Fuller CATV Constr., Inc., 780 P.2d at 525.

Here, we find that, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, SPDF’s claim of negligent misrepresentation alleged a sufficient nexus between DiNobile and Colorado for the trial court to exercise specific jurisdiction. ⁴ The affidavits do not address the alleged pre-contract misrepresentations, so we look only at the allegations in SPDF’s complaint. SPDF claims that the misrepresentations occurred through telephone and email conversations exchanged between Rhode Island and Colorado. Although the extent of these communications is unclear, SPDF alleges that DiNobile was negligent in representing his skill and expertise throughout the parties’ communications.

4 We decline to review DiNobile’s claim that the economic loss rule precludes assertion of the tort claim. Here, we are only concerned with [*20] personal jurisdiction, and DiNobile’s allegation that the tort claim is precluded can be addressed by a separate motion to the trial court.

As stated above, in most cases the commission of a tortious act in Colorado is sufficient for a Colorado court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 69. But even if the tortious act alone is not sufficient in this case, DiNobile’s contacts with Colorado are adequate to satisfy due process. The alleged misrepresentations occurred in communications intentionally directed at a Colorado corporation. DiNobile recognized that he was negotiating with a corporation headquartered in Colorado and certainly understood that his communications with SPDF would be received in Colorado. Furthermore, SPDF suffered the alleged injury from DiNobile’s tortious conduct in Colorado. Thus, DiNobile had sufficient contacts in Colorado related to the tort claim for the trial court to exercise specific jurisdiction. ⁵

5 Because there are sufficient contacts to exercise jurisdiction for each claim, we need not address whether sufficient contacts for only one claim would suffice to exercise jurisdiction for both claims on the basis that [*21] the claims arise from the same course of action.

3. Reasonableness
If a court finds, as we have, that it may exercise specific jurisdiction, it must then “determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1195. This determination is essentially one of reasonableness. Id. Among the factors a court may consider in determining reasonableness are: (1) the burden on the defendant; (2) the forum state’s interest in resolving the controversy; and (3) the plaintiff’s interest in attaining effective and convenient relief. Id. (citing Keefe, 40 P.3d at 1271-72).

Starting with the first factor, defending an action in Colorado would place an undeniable burden on DiNobile. DiNobile does not reside in Colorado, and it is likely that the evidence of his work performed on the project will be outside the state. But much of the evidence is presumably electronic, thereby mitigating the burden of gathering and presenting this evidence in Colorado. Second, Colorado has a strong interest in resolving any controversy involving a nonprofit corporation headquartered and incorporated within the state. This is undoubtedly the case [*22] here: the dispute involves a contract entered into by a Colorado corporation that was the result of extensive communication with residents of Colorado. Finally, SPDF’s interest in litigating the case in Colorado is naturally strong. SPDF is headquartered in Colorado, and most of the actions performed by SPDF under the agreement took place in Colorado. Examining these factors together, we hold that it is reasonable for Colorado to exercise personal jurisdiction over DiNobile.

III. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s determination and hold that, based on the documentary evidence presented to the trial court, SPDF has made a prima facie showing that Colorado has personal jurisdiction over DiNobile for the contract and tort claims in this case. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Fitness/Athletic & Outdoor Apparel Top Holiday Gift Lists

A recent Leisure Trends MAAP survey showed Fitness/Athletic and Outdoor apparel topped the gift lifts of ifs survey members. 

Athletic/Fitness and Outdoor apparel top the list of items Active Americans plan to purchase this holiday season. According to a recent study by Leisure Trends Group with the Most Active Americans Panel™, 39% of Active Americans plan to purchase Athletic/Fitness apparel for someone on their shopping list this year, while 38% plan to purchase Outdoor apparel. Those who receive the gifts will not be the only beneficiaries of these shopping trips, however, as half (50%) of respondents indicate they plan to purchase these items for themselves.

The “Coolest” gifts to give or receive this holiday season are:

1. Cycling Equipment & Accessories (12%)
2. GPS (12%)
3. Vacation (10%)
4. Ski or Snowboard (8%)
5. Kayak/Canoe/Boat (6%)

To become a member of the MAAP survey team go here and complete a survey.  Tell them Rec Law sent you.

If you are in the industry you can sign up for their newsletter here.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Happy Thanksgiving

Fifteen Percent Discount on Gear Ties

You will get a 15% discount off of your order when you purchase from www.geartie.com, now through December 31st.

The code is HOLIDAY1 that you will need at time of checkout.

I use these and they are great. They are a rubber coded twist tie that come in five sizes. You can use them to tie anything up, down, together or apart. Use them to keep cables organized, hang items, or just keep handy in your car for what every you may need.

Technorati Tags: Percent,Discount,Gear,Ties,December,checkout,rubber,sizes,items
Windows Live Tags: Percent,Discount,Gear,Ties,December,checkout,rubber,sizes,items
WordPress Tags: Percent,Discount,Gear,Ties,December,checkout,rubber,sizes,items

Ten Commandments of Dealing with People in a Crisis

1. THOU SHALL NOT LIE.

2. THOU SHALL TRULY CARE FOR YOUR CUSTOMER.

3. THINK “WHAT IS RIGHT”

4. IDENTIFY ALL OF THE POSSIBLE VICTIMS AND DEAL WITH ALL VICTIMS

5. COMMUNICATE: ANY INFORMATION IS HELPFUL

6. MAKE NO PROMISES, EXCEPT THAT YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWERS.

7. PROVIDE FACTS, TRY NOT TO PROVIDE OPINIONS

8. UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS, NOT THE CAUSE

9. FOLLOW UP, NEVER FORGET THEM

10. START AND END YOUR APPROACH WITH YOUR CORPORATE MOTTO.

© JAMES H. MOSS 2002 – 2011

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2011 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

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,

Technorati Tags: WordPress Tags: Commandments,People,Crisis,THOU,SHALL,CARE,CUSTOMER,THINK,IDENTIFY,POSSIBLE,VICTIMS,DEAL,COMMUNICATE,INFORMATION,HELPFUL,MAKE,PROMISES,EXCEPT,FIND,ANSWERS,PROVIDE,FACTS,OPINIONS,UNDERSTAND,PROBLEMS,CAUSE,FORGET,START,APPROACH,CORPORATE,MOTTO,JAMES,MOSS,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,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

Reasons Why People Sue

               Why   This questions is never answered

               How   No one will Answer this question

               Where   Why won’t they tell me where the accident happened

               Answers   No one will answer my questions

               Justice   I want justice its been promised to me since first grade

               Community   I don’t want anyone else damaged by this company

               Retribution   I want to put them out of business

               Communication   I want someone important to talk to me

               Acknowledgement   I want them to admit they were wrong

               Revenge   they should not have treated me that way

               Closure   An element of many of the above, but important in the US today.

               Send a Message   to protect others or to get a reaction or a change

               To Change the World

               Moral Vindication   I as right!

               Moral Justification   I was not responsible for my child’s injuries

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2011 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

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,

WordPress Tags: Reasons,People,Answer,Where,accident,Answers,Justice,Retribution,Communication,Acknowledgement,Revenge,Closure,Send,Message,reaction,Change,World,Moral,Vindication,Justification,injuries,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,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

Crisis Response

A Crisis is defined by your guest, not by you.

Just because you do not define the situation as a crisis, does not mean it is not one.

Every crisis requires a response, no matter what your position in the crisis

Get Help: It will provide support for you and confidence for your guest

Goal 1 is to resolve the crisis. You may not solve it.

Goal 2 is to bring the person in crisis to a better emotional level

Goal 3 is to survive the crisis yourself

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2011 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

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,

WordPress Tags: Crisis,Response,guest,Just,situation,Help,confidence,Goal,person,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,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

10 Signs of Great Risk Management

Score 1 Point for Each Correct Answer

1.     You have a Risk Management Plan

2.     Employees know the Risk Management Plan

3.     Employees know their place in the Risk Management Plan

4.     Employees know the responsibilities of the person above and below them in the Risk Management Plan

5.     The Risk Management Plan has been updated in the past 12 months

6.     The Employees have been trained in the Risk Management Plan in the past 12 months

7.     A mock disaster has been held using the Risk Management Plan

8.     You have identified a team to deal with the human issues of a disaster

9.     Senior Managers have gone through the same training and drills as the employees

10.    You have not had to use the Risk Management Plan

0-1 Point: Lock the doors and go home now.

2-5 Points: Prepare for a lawsuit

5-7 Points   Good, but you can do better

7-9 Points   Not bad

10 Points    Excellent

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2011 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

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,

WordPress Tags: SIGNS,GREAT,RISK,MANAGEMENT,Point,Correct,Answer,Plan,Employees,person,disaster,team,Senior,Managers,Lock,doors,Points,Prepare,lawsuit,Excellent,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,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,months