8 Year old boy sued in Colorado for ski collision

Most state Skier Safety Acts and several court decisions have stated that skier v. skier collisions are an inherent risk of skiing. Colorado is one of the exceptions to that rule. The Colorado Skier Safety Act specifically allows people involved in a collision to sue each other. Colorado Revised Statute § 33-44-109. Duties of skiers – penalties.

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law or statute to the contrary, the risk of a skier/skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another.

This seems to have been taken to a new level in a case over a collision January 2007 at Beaver Creek‘s Arrowhead Ski Resort. The Vail Daily is reporting in Boy, 8, sued in Beaver Creek ski collision that an eight year old boy allegedly skied into a 60 year old man causing him injuries.

The 8 year old boy claims he only tapped the elderly gentleman with his ski boots. The 60 year old claims he tore a tendon in his shoulder and suffered considerably medical expenses. The suit is in Federal District Court in Denver meaning the damages allegedly suffered are at a minimum in excess of $75,000. The boy’s father is being sued because you cannot sue a child in Colorado; you sue the parents of the child for the child’s actions.

The issue has escalated with the plaintiff requesting a gag order be imposed on the parties. The plaintiff was receiving so many nasty phone calls and hate communications he hoped it would keep the defendant from commenting and stirring people up over the suit. The plaintiff, no matter whom, good or bad, should not be receiving this type of communications. We are of course a civilized society. As long as civilized societies allow you to sue kids. (See Gag order denied in Beaver Creek collision lawsuit)

Nor are we discounting the injuries the plaintiff received.

Skier carving a turn off piste

Image via Wikipedia


The bigger problem is Colorado allows lawsuits by people for things that most states call an accident. You assume the risk of all the things that can go wrong when skiing. The Colorado Ski Act in the same section that allows people involved in a collision to sue each other prohibits the parties in a collision from suing the resort for the collision.

If the actions of a collision are so severe then the reckless party can be charged with a criminal act that should be enough of a deterrent. If you are skiing so recklessly that your actions are criminal, if you hit someone you will be charged with a criminal act. (See SkiSafety.com)

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Serious Disconnect: Why people sue.

One of the common themes you see running through these posts is the “disconnect” between the plaintiff and defendants in a lawsuit. This disconnect is between what the plaintiff is asking for and what the defendant believes the plaintiff wants. The defendant always believes the plaintiff wants money. The only thing a court can provide is money, no matter what the plaintiff may want. When you read the plaintiff’s statements however plaintiffs rarely are asking for money. Plaintiff’s want answers, want a response, and want to know why.

Defendants are prevented by insurance companies and attorneys from dealing with possible plaintiffs because insurance companies and attorneys know their client will make the lawsuit worse. (For proof read the back of your automobile insurance card.) This is where the disconnect starts. The plaintiff has a question and the defendant is not allowed to answer the question.

An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education titled Family Uses Web Site to Publicize Their Son’s Injury at Camp Run by Community College is a perfect example of these issues.

The facts of the original case have been broadcast in the media and on the web but need to be reviewed here. Twelve year old Adam E. Dzialo had gone to a summer camp run by Greenfield Community College. During a whitewater activity Adam’s foot was caught and he was submerged for several minutes suffering permanent brain damage. Adam is now minimal functional, paralyzed and unable to hear.

The college had just undergone an Association of Experiential Education accreditation review where the review report alleged stated the whitewater program needed more instructors.

Accrediting Program Increases Liability Exposure

This accreditation report created the issue in everyone’s mind that has continued to plague the college. If the “group” you paid to come in and review you said to add more instructors, why did you not add more instructors? This also highlights the risk of asking a group to come in and review you. If you are not going to heed the review, don’t ask for the review. Someone else may look at the review.

Plaintiff’s filed suit

Adam Dzialos parents filed suit against the college. However the college was protected by government immunity and that lawsuit was dismissed. The parents then sued for violation of Adam’s civil rights in Federal District Court. This is a way to get around the governmental immunity defense in most states, but the damages are much more limited in this type of lawsuit.

The Dzialos have now set up a website to publicize their son’s progress and their issues with the college.

Plaintiff’s comments about the suit

Of greater interest though are comments the Dzialos have made about the website and the college. The following statements have been reported to the media.

“They [Dzialos] wanted to know why only one of the camp’s two counselors was on hand for a white-water river rescue exercise that day.”

“They wanted to know why they were not notified first by college officials but nearly two hours later by the hospital where their son was taken for treatment.”

“….the Dzialos say they have gotten little response from officials at the Massachusetts college.”

“….and to help educate the community about camp safety.”

“But they say what they really want is an apology from the institution.”

“”Instead of dealing with all these issues of honesty, they would rather protect their mortar and bricks,” says Adam’s father, Philip A. Dzialo.”

“”I’m hoping that there is enough community response that the college will say, Because these are our consumers, we should sit down with these people and hear what they have to say,” he says.”

The only statement indicating the Dzialos want any money out of the college is this last one and it is not a quote.

“So they decided to set up a Web site to provide information about their son’s rehabilitation progress and to pressure the college to assume some responsibility for his injuries.”

At the same time, this statement could also mean they want the college to acknowledge they are wrong, which does not necessarily mean they want money. The medical bills have forced the Dzialos to file bankruptcy.

Although by this point, money is probably necessary to ease the issues facing the family. But the amount of money might be significantly reduced if the college agrees to meet and accept responsibility for what occurred. There is a fear that apologizing will prove liability, but that is not the case. No lawsuits have ever shown an apology to be more than an apology. Several states protect apologies from being used as a statement of liability and if made during settlement negotiations the apology cannot be used in court.

The Disconnect

The college knows, because their attorney and insurance company have told them so, that the Dzialos want money. The Dzialos attorney wants money that is how he or she makes a living. But the Dzialos have never made a statement that they want money! They want answers

This is a serious disconnect. And it pervades our society. One side is convinced it knows what the other side wants, no matter how many times they are told differently. No matter what, the only thing one side can get is money and the only thing the other side is allowed to give is money. Yet neither wants to deal in that medium

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, #Dzialos, #lawsuit, #litigation, #accreditation,

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Windows Live Tags: Serious,Disconnect,themes,plaintiff,defendants,lawsuit,defendant,money,statements,plaintiffs,response,insurance,attorneys,client,automobile,card,article,Chronicle,Higher,Education,Uses,Site,Publicize,Injury,Camp,College,example,media,Twelve,Adam,Dzialo,Greenfield,whitewater,foot,brain,Association,Experiential,accreditation,instructors,Program,Increases,Exposure,Dzialos,parents,government,violation,Federal,District,Court,counselors,river,officials,hours,hospital,treatment,Massachusetts,apology,institution,Instead,mortar,bricks,Philip,consumers,statement,information,rehabilitation,injuries,bankruptcy,Although,lawsuits,Several,apologies,settlement,negotiations,attorney,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,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,litigation,website

WordPress Tags: Serious,Disconnect,themes,plaintiff,defendants,lawsuit,defendant,money,statements,plaintiffs,response,insurance,attorneys,client,automobile,card,article,Chronicle,Higher,Education,Uses,Site,Publicize,Injury,Camp,College,example,media,Twelve,Adam,Dzialo,Greenfield,whitewater,foot,brain,Association,Experiential,accreditation,instructors,Program,Increases,Exposure,Dzialos,parents,government,violation,Federal,District,Court,counselors,river,officials,hours,hospital,treatment,Massachusetts,apology,institution,Instead,mortar,bricks,Philip,consumers,statement,information,rehabilitation,injuries,bankruptcy,Although,lawsuits,Several,apologies,settlement,negotiations,attorney,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,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,litigation,website

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another lawsuit asking for change, but only going to receive money.

The Free Republic is reporting in a story Lawsuit in sledding Tragedy that a family from City of Gatineau, Canada is suing the City of Gatineau over the death of their son in a sledding accident. The family is suing because the sledding hill was unsafe.

The Free Republic is reporting that the family is suing in the hopes that the hill will be closed or changed so that no one else has to live through what have. The father stated “”We’re not doing it for the money, we’re doing it for our son,….”

This is another situation such as discussed in the article It’s Not Money. The plaintiff’s are suing want to make a change, however the only thing the courts can provide is cash.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Assumption of the Risk

Assumption of the risk is defined as someone knowing and understanding the risks of the activity that injured them.

Every state has slightly different definitions of assumption of risk. In general, prior to the guest becoming injured, the guest must comprehend the risks of the activity. The comprehension must include not only the knowledge of the danger, but most states require the plaintiff know extent of the possible injury.

If this knowledge is confirmed in writing then assumption of the risk is called express assumption of the risk. If the knowledge is not written down, then assumption of the risk it is called implied assumption of the risk. In many states implied assumption of the risk has been merged with contributory negligence and goes to the percentage of fault of the plaintiff.

Assumption of the Risk in most states is no longer available as a pure defense to a claim. The legal defense of assumption of the risk has been merged into contributory negligence. With contributory negligence, the jury decides how much each person in the lawsuit was a fault. If the Plaintiff was 50% or more at fault (51% in some states) then the Plaintiff cannot recover from the Defendant. Assumption of the risk is one of the factors that contribute to a plaintiff being at fault in an accident.

However that is changing in many states as courts are tired of dealing with claims in sports and recreation where the injured party should not recover for their actions.

Assumption of the risk is a valuable a defense. It can be used to show a jury that the plaintiff was solely responsible for his or her injuries. Assumption of the risk is also the only defense available when a minor sues in many states.

However, the legal issues aside, 28 years of reviewing claims and lawsuits have shown that assumption of the risk great value besides use as a defense. Plaintiffs, who understand the risks, do not get injured. More importantly, outfitters and guides who take the time to get to know their guests, answer their questions and fully inform their guest of the risks are not sued.

There are several sub issues of these ideas that need to be explored. From the guests perspective the more the guest knows they least likely that they will be injured. A guest who really understands what is going to happen is better prepared. The guest understands the activity is not an amusement park, that there are millions of things that are out of anyone’s control. Those guests will enjoy the experience, be less afraid and will deal with any issues with better results.

Guest’s who understand the risks also are more likely to ask questions before leaping. Is that snake poisonous, is that ice solid, can I boulder over here? Answering these questions might prevent guest injuries. An outfitter who goes forward informing and educating a guest is usually also one who encourages questions. Most people if they feel comfortable will ask questions, especially, if the conversation between guest and guide is encouraged rather than strained.

Outfitters and Guides who make it part of the program to educate their guests understand that educated guests are the best guests. Not only do educated guests remain healthy, they have more fun. Nothing is worse then giving up your warm clothing to a shivering guest when they should have brought their own, but did not know to do so. That may seem like a far fetched statement, but in the whitewater rafting industry, every guide carries extra clothing because guests are rarely fully informed.

Another important issue that arises when guests are educated is they develop a closer relationship with the guides and the outfitter. As such, there is usually little anger or emotion accompanying an injury. Anger or some other emotion is the basis for the majority of lawsuits and if you can eliminate this emotion you can reduce your chances of being sued. Educated injured guests usually understand how they were injured, or understand that accidents happen that do not have someone to blame for the injury.

Finally, educated guests appreciate the risk. They understand what the outfitter and guide are doing to make the activity fun and a success as well as to keep the guests safe. They understand the energy it takes to keep a group organized and together. Educated guests are the ones you like to work for.

One major problem of assumption of the risk is quickly once we become enamored with an activity; the risks fade as a danger and become mundane. Those risks that a new guest may see as terrifying, we lightly skip over every day. Watch your guest the next time you casually stroll the to an ice climb as they contemplate, with an engaged if not terrifying look on their mind, the crampons, ice axes and the mixed terrain slope. Those risks that we now ignore are real to your guests.

This acceptance of risk can create dire consequences for the guide and outfitter. Most times we fail to identify the mundane to your guests and consequently, leave our guests in a precarious position. Yet it is the mundane risks that generally lead to the small activity ending injuries. Slightly injured guests either leave or end their activity or continue placing everyone at a heightened risk.

Watch a guest carefully negotiate the cliff edge as you walk around it or standing on a slightly sloping ice covered rock. The greatest risk to everyone within earshot is possibly the flying ice axe as the guest, feet firmly planted tries to remain upright.

Most of the time, we work heard at informing the guests of the hidden risks. Avalanches, rock fall, and hypothermia are always covered in great detail. We miss those things we have come to accept as the day to day. Like driving to and from the activity, we talk about the risks of the activity in the van, ignoring the fact we are traveling at 65 miles per hour in the deadliest contraption invented by man.

Employee or contractor guides also accept risks as mundane that are still dangerous to them. This mundane acceptance becomes a worker’s compensation injury if awareness is not kept at the forefront of both guest and guide’s awareness.

Does this mean you need a continuous monologue of warnings coming from everyone’s mouth? No, it does mean that you need to have a well thought out education program. Inform the guest of what they need to know to evaluate the activity when they are exploring the idea of going. What the guests need to know when preparing for the activity. What the guests need to know when they are engaging in the activity. More importantly, paying attention to the guests looking for those expressions or voice intonations that indicate more information is needed.

For more articles on Assumption of the Risk see:

This California decision looks at assumption of the risk as it applies to non-competitive long distance bicycle rides and also determines that assumption of the risk also overcomes a violation of a statute (negligence per se).

Assumption of the Risk to be a bar to a claim the defendant must not owe a duty to the plaintiff that means the plaintiff must be involved in recreation or a sport.

In Ohio, Primary Assumption of the Risk is a complete bar to claims for injuries from hiking at night.

Most references in case law to assumption of the risk are to this California decision. The basis for understanding Assumption of the Risk is this decision based on an injured finger during a pickup football game.

New York Decision explains the doctrine of Primary Assumption of the Risk for cycling.

South Carolina Supreme Court writes a clear decision on Assumption of the Risk for sporting activities.

Keep your guests educated, healthy and happy and you will probably stay out of court.

Copyright 2011-2023 Recreation Law 720 334 8529, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

Staying Current

Legal Reasons Why You Should be at your Industry Conference

You also do not want to miss out on all the fun!

People attend conferences for numerous reasons. To see old friends, meet new friends or to save money. The money you can save by buying equipment at a conference will usually pay for the trip. However, many people miss a very and important reason for attending their industry conference. Attending could keep you from being sued. This is a hidden, but very important benefit of attending a conference that most people do not appreciate until they are sitting on the witness stand in a courtroom.

There are several defenses you can use in running your outdoor recreation business. Releases and Assumption of the Risk are the two biggest and the ones most frequently use. Both to some extent revolve around the question whether you met the “reasonable standard for the industry.” Reasonable is defined as what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. Standard is the level of safety or knowledge and practice of safety required Industry is the paddling business industry. The definition combines to create a safety requirement that is the absolute minimum that a reasonable person running an outdoor recreation business would do. Standards are not goals; however, falling below the standard will almost always guaranty a losing lawsuit or at least increasing the cost of winning one.

Standards are floating. It is not always the same for a state, region or the nation. The standard will also change based on the water level, the type of river you are on, the equipment you are using and in several cases the types of guests to whom you are marketing. A recreation business in a rural area with a slow mellow stream that market’s to local people may have a different standard then when on a stream with small rapids near a large city and marketing to the masses. As such, you need to meet other people who are applying the same standard in the industry that you are using. You may also need to converse with people who are applying higher standards. History shows that companies move up to meet the standards for better operations or operations with higher standards.

Standards are not made, written down or created in courtrooms. They are constantly changing and they can only be found in the eyes and actions of everyone else in the industry. In trials, expert witnesses are brought in to tell the jury what the standard of care in a particular situation should have been. These expert opinions are based on the knowledge of the accident and a broad knowledge of the industry. You need to maintain your knowledge level of the industry at the same level as the experts. You are required to know the standard of the industry and your standards when running any business.

“Why does attending a conference change the way I do business?” Because the only way you can find out about a change in the standards is by meeting and greeting other people in the industry. If you have not attended a conference in several years, you may not know that the majority of states now require Personal Flotation Devices‘ for children. Even though your state may not require them, the standard has changed. You may not be required by law to provide a PFD, however, the standard is that one will be required and as such you have dropped below what the reasonable person would do in your situation.

Without attending a conference and seeing what everyone else is doing, you will not stay current in the industry. As such, you are wearing a target on your back that says sue me. Only personal injury attorneys can see that target. But see it they will when someone is hurt at your business.


There are other reasons for attending the conference. Unless you have hired an attorney to stay current on the issues or a lobbyist, you may have missed a change in the law. Many laws are passed each year that do not make the news. Old laws may also change. A great example of that is how courts have interpreted laws in West Virginia and Colorado recently. Unless you attend a conference, you may not know how new or interpreted laws have changed over the past year. What was a defense to the horseback riding industry in Colorado is now a welcome mat for lawsuits.

New ways to promote safety show up at conferences. New ideas that one business develops in their program can be a great way to keep your guests safe. New equipment is debuted, with the plusses and minuses at conferences.

New ideas also change the legal environment. A new product by a manufacture showing at the Conference can quickly change the standard for an industry. A new design of boat, Personal Flotation Device or trailer may suddenly make your system a risky liability issue.

These changes will not only affect whether a guest can sue you for injuries but also whether your own employees can sue you. Lifting canoes to the top level of a trailer may cause worker’s compensation injuries. A new design that promotes employee health and welfare could save thousands in worker’s compensation benefits.

The final legal reason for attending a conference is the overall education you receive. Judges and juries look at witnesses and examine their credibility. People who are honest are the witnesses’ juries believe. Honesty is not just how you are on the stand when you are testifying, but how you ran your business. An honest and upstanding member of the business community is going to continually want to improve his business. Being a member of your professional organization and attending the yearly conferences shows a jury that you care enough about your business and your clients to spend the extra time and money to run your business the best way possible. If you are willing to show an interest in your clients by receiving the most up to date education, you must not be as bad as you are being portrayed by the opposing attorney.

Some insurance companies give discounts on premium for attending a conference. They know that the company that attends a conference is concerned about staying current with the industry and keeping their operation as top notch as possible. Companies that attend conferences and get the most possible from a conference are less likely to have accidents that cost insurance company’s money.

Go to this year’s Conference and increase your chances of not going to court!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Releases 101

Several years ago Justin R. Melat of the Colorado Springs law firm of Melat, Pressman, Ezell & Higbie, LLP sent a letter to Representative Mark Larson of the Colorado Legislation asking him if he would sponsor a bill eliminating the uses of releases in Colorado. Accompanying the letter was a copy of a page from Trial Talk, the Plaintiff’s bar newsletter. The Trial Talk letter was from Eric Leaper who decried the use of releases in outdoor recreation programs. Eric Leaper has testified several times on behalf of Plaintiffs in whitewater cases.

The injury that prompted the letter was a church group from Kansas who lost a leader while whitewater rafting in Colorado. The facts as set forth in the letter are as follows: As Church Group stepped off the bus to enter the boats they were handed a release. They were told Colorado law required that they sign a release. The boat captain had 2 weeks experience. The boat flipped and the Chaperone died.

I have not been able to verify the death or the incidence; however, the facts are not that different from similar incidents in the past.

The law firm emphasized the trips were pre-arranged and pre-paid as well as non-refundable. The letter then explored common law that did not allow the release of a future tort. The final paragraph of the letter is well written:

“Future releases are especially inappropriate and damaging to Colorado’s tourism, when there is no prior warning of the requirement. A simple statute declaring releases of “future” negligence that is negligence not yet committed to be void, as a matter of public policy would allow the law to operate smoothly and cases to be settled and releases given for negligence past, as it always has been.”

English: Whitewater Rafting at the USNWC

Image via Wikipedia

A quick review of where the outfitter acted in a way to increase his chances of being sued, based on the law firms letter is in order here.

  • The Outfitter did not communicate the release to the group before they arrived in Colorado.

    Releases must be given to clients with the opportunity to read, understand, sign and/or reject them. Handing out releases at the put-in is a great way to have a court void a release. It does not give the person the necessary opportunity to read and understand the release.

    Many times this is done so customers will not quit a trip. This attitude leads to litigation. A person who does not sign the release is a great person for any outdoor recreational activity. Those are people who read and understand your release and make a decision not to go on the trip. That person should be thanked, have there money cheerfully refunded and helped to their car. They are the ones who are going to sue you in the future if they are forced to undertake a trip because they could not get their money back.

    I would love to see an outfitter defend him or herself in court when sued for a refund. The little lady on the stand would state she did not understand what whitewater rafting was and when she saw the river and heard the safety talk, she was too afraid to go on the trip. Then the big mean outfitter did not give her money back. Every judge in Colorado would land on that outfitter with both feet and a money extracting judgment.

If you are not refunding clients money after they have read and understood your release form, you deserve to be sued and go out of business. You should always refund money if someone, after reading the release, looking at the rock or seeing the river, decides they do not want to take the trip.

  • By not sending the releases in advance, the releases are worthless pieces of paper against any action by an injured or deceased youth.

This was a youth trip. People under the age of 18 cannot contract away their legal rights. This entire action was an exercise in wasted paper by the outfitter because most of the people on the trip would have the release thrown out by the court immediately.

By only providing the release forms at the put in, the outfitter ignored the only real chance at using an effective release, having the parents sign the form. As such, the only person who could have the form used against them was the only person who died.

Here again, the fears of losing a client made the outfitter think in a way that might have lost him is business. There are many old proverbs that prove this thinking process is defective. You would think they would not need repeating in the 90’s.

  • Release forms should be provided to the customer as soon as possible.

As soon as you know about a person, coming to your business, you should provide them with a copy of your release. Besides saving time and money on the day the trip departs, this allows participants, parents and leaders to honestly evaluate the risk of the trip and made the decision as to whether they want to undertake the activity.

This also increases the chances that your release documents will effectively stop some of the possible litigation. If one parent signs, then there is one less person to sue you if a minor is hurt or injured.

Brochures and marketing information should tell future customers that they will be required to sign a release. A marketing program should also inform customers that they outfitter is not responsible for lost property or any injury they receive. Be honest and up front in your documents and you save a lot of hassles later.

The releases can be collected rather than signed at any point along the way. People knowledgeable about the release are answering questions about the release, rather than a guide who may misinterpret the legal document. (Remember statements by your guides can void your release.)

  • The outfitter lied to their customers with the statement that Colorado law required the release. (Duress)

The fear of having a customer refuse to sign a release made a liar out of the outfitter. If the Plaintiff’s attorney had realized this, he probably could have voided the release and sued the outfitter. The outfitter would be labeled a liar. There is no Colorado law requiring the use of a release.

Don’t lie to customers. Don’t inflate or deflate the risk of the activities. I enjoy brochures for the Arkansas River advertising river sections one full class above their historical rating. This is an easy way to prove that anything an outfitter may say on the stand is a lie. They lied to customers in their brochure, what is stopping them from lying o the stand.

Second, the heirs of the deceased person could have claimed the release was signed under duress. Duress is being forced to sign a document. Having not right to a refund and being forced to sign a release because the law requires it, when it in fact does not require it may be enough to support a defense of duress.

Fact Summary:

This story relates examples that should have gone the way of the bell-bottom pants and the disco. However, like the disco, which is returning as much as a joke as a fad, these operations still exist. This outfitter should be encouraged to attend state and national meetings to learn the latest in properly handling clients. The numerous mistakes made which the heirs and their attorneys missed took a big chunk out of the outfitters “luck” box. The next time the heirs may find a sharper attorney.

Conclusion

If Eric Leaper’s letter is in Trial Talk, this could be a major war for the outfitting industry. Trial Talk is a highly respective magazine that encourages and supports Plaintiff’s lawsuits. By subscribing you learn the latest and greatest new plaintiffs and ways to win lawsuits. Eric has been making money as an expert witness for the Plaintiffs over the past several years. His letter does a good job of weaving different ideas and legal theories into a plausible argument. Several interesting quotes from his letter are set forth here:

“We are concerned about the present lack of accountability of commercial rafting companies and other outdoor outfitters in Colorado.”

“But we often see outfitters sending inexperienced “first season” guides into hard whitewater rapids with inadequate equipment.”

“The use of these release forms is fraud. As you know, they are unlawful in other states.”

“At present, the outfitter business in Colorado is untrustworthy, to put it mildly.”

“There are organizations of experienced river runners and conservationists (such as our organization” and there are outfitter trade organizations. But there is no organization of outfitter customers. Trial Lawyers are their only advocates. Therefore, we would urge you to thoroughly demonstrate that these dangerous rafting practices violate national standards and that these all-encompassing release forms are fraudulent.”

If Mr. Leaper’s statements were true, then this set of facts would have allowed the Plaintiffs to sue successfully. Colorado state law specifically sets forth that outfitters must use safe equipment. If use of a release is fraudulent, then the release is void.

There are several lessons to be learned from these letters and the facts surrounding this case. Don’t make these mistakes.

More importantly, find out what you Colorado legislator is doing and whether he received one of these letters. Start now to prepare for another battle to eliminate releases in Colorado.

Originally published December 1999 in the Outdoor Recreation Law Newsletter

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Not Money

Most Plaintiffs in the outdoor recreation industry do not sue for money. However, the end result of all claims, litigation or disputes is money because the system can only provide money. Lawsuits don’t bring people back to life, lawsuits don’t answer questions, lawsuits only move money around. Dealing with a plaintiff with the idea that money is their goal, you will end up in court, or at least writing a check. What research that has been done, has shown that at least seventy percent of the time the customer suing you does not want money. This may vary for some types of Plaintiffs, but for your average “Joe,” (not an MD, JD, Corporation, Business, super high income or experienced plaintiff,) its not money that an angry customer wants.

Money is how we respond to people questions, people who hurt or people who are mad. A classic case of you offering apples and the customer is talking oranges. Specifically, trying solving a problem with a hammer when a kind word and a few minutes of listening might do.

Ten 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 them to talk to me

  • Acknowledgement: I want them to admit they were wrong

  • Revenge: closely aligned with the issue of justice

  • Closure: An element of many of the above, but a reality in the US today.

I was a small law practice for fifteen years and was open to any person who walked through the door. Never, in fifteen years did an individual walk through the door and ask me to sue someone for money. What the injured customer wanted fell into several categories, mostly (1) answers to their questions (2) revenge or (3) justice.

Little old ladies who had been taken by a contractor only wanted to make sure no one else was hurt by the contractor. A friend of mine who had been blown up in an explosion and totally disabled, wanted to wait until the last day to see if his old boss might call.

Attorneys and insurance companies have pounded into our heads that if we are involved in potential claim we are to shut up. If you read the back of our automobile insurance cards, it reiterates what we have been trained in the “litigation minded society” to remember. “Say nothing. Only talk to our insurance representatives or law enforcement authorities.” We live in America by this mantra.

Look at this article from the Columbus Dispatch about why a family was suing a camp.

Columbus Dispatch August 16, 2000.

Family sues summer camp over drowning Wednesday, August 16, 2000 Kate Schott, Dispatch Staff Reporter

Shawan Evans’ uncle said he hopes the lawsuit he filed against the South Side Settlement House will help answer how his 6-year-old nephew drowned in a pool at a summer camp.

The uncle said nothing about money. The lawsuit was not started obviously because of money but because of emotional issues.

The article goes on to state: “The Evanses and their attorney met last week with lawyers representing Triple S and posed 54 questions about the drowning, Mr. Evans said.
It was a waste of our time,” he said. ” We just kept hearing ‘[we] don’t know.
We just want to know what happened that day. We can’t seem to get any answers.

Fifty-four questions about what happened. How did my child die? Answering the questions might have diffused the lawsuit. However, the article goes on to say the defendants had a lawyer who was protecting them.

Protecting them…………….. Right into a lawsuit.

Answers

The lawyer for the family had this to say:

“The Evanses’ attorney, Lloyd Pierre-Louis, said the family is open to settling but still wants to know what happened. ” By instituting the action, we’re in a better position to obtain the answers we need,” he said.

The lawyer is all ready starting to cross the emotional and question issues with monetary answers. If we do not get answers, we will get money or money will force them to answer our questions. If we get money, that answers your questions.

“Evans said the money was not the point of the suit. ” There is no way to put a price on his life,” he said. Rather, the family wants closure, to know how Shawan could have gone unnoticed by the adults at the pool. ”

Here is a multi-million dollar lawsuit that might be defused with honest answers to the family’s questions. Of course, there is a fine line to walk between honestly answering questions and setting yourself up for a lawsuit. In addition, that needs to be done before the injured party retains an attorney. If you have stalled the participant into hiring an attorney, your better make your defense wall a lot bigger and taller.

The family was asking questions about how their child died. None of those questions seemed to be targeted at gaining information to use in a lawsuit. However, the Camp’s answers, unintentionally, were structured to make sure the lawsuit happens. Not getting any answer to their questions forced them to the next highest step, court. To get money, No. To get the answers to their questions: How did my child die?

Put yourself in place of the parent. You receive a phone call telling you to go to the hospital your child has been injured. You arrive and are informed your child is dead. How? This question is searing through your mind. How did my child die? Can you think of any emotion or need that would overcome that desire to learn how your child died? Yet as attorneys, we feel we have the right to keep that information from someone to protect our clients.

Knowledge

Closure is not a new word in the American language. However, it is a word that is very important for most Americans. Injured people need to know what happened. Survivors want to know how they survived and others died. One hundred years ago, people were hurt and they died and that was life. In the past hundred years we have learned the answers to millions of questions we could not previously answer. That leads Americans to believe that question should have an answer. Everything should have closure. That is not always the case and it takes time to explain that to people. You cannot expect them to have the understanding of your industry and consequently the acceptance of the answer that you provide. You have experience and industry education to help you understand the forces and factors that create the incidents that cause injuries and death. You also understand the unknowns that affect the business. All of these give you insight and perspective that provides you with answers.

How then, based on your experience and knowledge can you expect a novice to your business how an injury or accident occurred. That takes time. Unless you are willing to put in the time, they will not be willing to understand.

Justice

In kindergarten we started to learn about our rights. Our rights have been explained to us each year until graduation as the basic foundation of the United States and one of the pillars of our success. Since that time, we have rights to everything. The right to know. The right to justice. No one lives with injustice any more. If you customer feels that they have been unjustly treated, that education that they received for twelve years rears it ugly head, however perverted that knowledge has become, we want the justice we are do.

Most people have no clude what their rights are, you see them on the news every night screaming their rights have been violated, now knowing that really has happened to them.

That desire for justice, combined with lack of knowledge on the guest part and lack of understanding on the business part leads to litigation. The desire to receive justice, the desire to extract retribution, the desire to protect others from injustice are issues, almost values that are important to our society. Unless you as the business owner understand these issues, you again will be looking at a checkbook at the way to solve your problem.

Emotional Justice is worse for everyone to handle. For years, we have approached lawsuits as being a money issue based on greed. Yet, the people who walk into an attorney’s office are normally the product of poor customer service. Many times there may or may not be a legally recognizable claim. That is the job of the attorney. The attorney will take that anger and turn it into a desire for money over time. The emotions that linger or the desire to hurt the business always heightens that desire.

And justice is not just an American issue based on law. John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice states that for humans, justice is a fundamental part of our makeup. If the value or even intrinsic issue of justice exists, we cannot ignore it when a guest has been injured.

Duty to our Client

Do attorneys do this consciously, No. Or at least I hope not. We honestly feel we are protecting your client. Based on our training and the horror stories of law school we are afraid that our clients will make a fatal mistake that not only starts the suit, but also guarantees a win for the plaintiff. However, that is not the case. If suits were monetary, then the attorney’s fears would be real. Because they are emotional or based on the US theory of rights or justice, these suits are started for reasons that simple curtseys, answers, and honesty can eliminate.

7 Mistakes Made by People who are called Defendant

  1. Hire and retain Uncaring Employees: Hire Well, Train Well, and Treat Well

  2. Failing Know Your Customers and why they are buying from you.

  3. Failing to Treat Your Customers the Way They Want to Be Treated:

  4. Examining the problem from Your Perspective: Your customer sees the problem differently than you. The customer may not even understand the problem.

  5. Placing a ridiculous value on principles and pride. Principles & Pride Goeth Before a Lawsuit

  6. Never know Why you are being sued: Sticking your head in the sand, or passing the problem to a lawyer does not resolve the problem.

  7. Forgetting What Your Mother Taught You: If you act like your mother taught you, you won’t be sued.

As the emotion drains with time, the attorney refuels the desire for the suit with another emotion – greed. Even if greed itself will not work, the attorney can show the financial impact the greed has on the business. If nothing else, a large monetary judgment can be turned into justice by equating the cost to the business as punishment or revenge

What happened to turn a customer from a client to a litigant?

At a ski resort there is one brief moment in time when a happy guest is converted to an injured guest. After realizing that they are injured, the majority of injured skiers do not start thinking about money. They wantg help. However, in the mind of the ski resort something did change. That person evolved from a happy guest to a potential litigant. The ski resort goes from bending over backward to get that guest into the resort and having fun, to fearful of the person. The resort will rush food and linens to your room and transport you from one place to another with a smile prior to your injury, yet the guest is now left standing outside the clinic with no way to get back to their room or car afterwards.

What did the guest do to change? What thought occurs, that works it way through the pain that says to the guest, you are now different. Or did that evolution only occur in the minds of the people running the resort?

Angry customers do not sue. Angry ex-clients do.

You can stop anger, revenge, or unhappy customers before they turn to a lawyer.

Solutions

Do not give them a reason to go find someone to beat you up.

Work with your clients to help them back to an even emotional level. This may not always be possible if they have lost a loved one; they have suffered life-changing injuries or their financial future. You can show them you should not be the target of their anger. You can help them direct their anger to other persons or at least deal with you on a reasonable basis. You will not always be able to do this in one meeting, it may take days or months, but persistence pays off.

When in doubt compare the cost of the angry customer, attorneys to defend, and your time to the benefit of turning an angry customer into a happy customer again.

Answer questions.

Worse case scenario, you go to court and admit you answered the client’s questions. Do not believe the attorney’s mantra that clients are dumb and going to give away the company by admitting liability. It will be difficult for to answer some questions with no liability because of the ingrained fear we have of talking to injured clients. Trust yourself.

Prepare your answers as you drive over to help. However, prepare answers, not evasion.

Evasion is so evident it does not work. It makes you look like you have something to hide. By evading answers you are sending the guest to someone who will find out the answer. Since kindergarten we have been taught our “rights.” Those rights in most people have evolved into everything possible. People believe they have the right to know. They have that right with governments they therefore feel it must extend to everything else.

At the same time, why not. If a member of your family were injured, you would want to know what happened.

Treat the people as you want or they believe they want to be treated.

How can we solve these issues? We can answer questions and treat people, as we want to be treated. It will scare the living daylights out of every one of us and send our attorneys screaming to their malpractice carriers, but we may avoid a costly battle over the word “why.”

During spring of 2000, a small ski resort had a number of snowstorms. During these storms, lift operators are faced with two decisions when small children load the lift. Clean the chair lift seat or assist young children into their chair. The obvious answer is to assist young people into the lift. The sport is skiing and it is done on snow.

On this particular day, the resort received approximately four inches of snow in a couple of hours. A mother and her 9-year-old son loaded a two-person chair. The lift operator assisted the boy into the chair and consequently did not clean the chair. The mother and son started brushing the snow off the chair seat. Shifting to do so, the son was moving around the chair. The mother told the son either to be careful or not to clean the snow but he continued to do so. The young boy slipped off the chair and fell approximately 15 feet.

The mother rode the chair to the top where a Ski Patroller met her, who took her down to the scene. Upon arrival, she snapped photographs of the scene and the chair. A ski patroller assisted the mother; other patrollers took son down to the clinic and in the process learned, she was an attorney.

I was notified of the lift accident and the fact the mother was an attorney. I met the ambulance at the Clinic and assisted the parties in getting into the clinic. Mother was quite terse and demanding. Normal emotions for a mother concerned about her son. However, if you couple that attitude with her vocation, it brings fear to a risk manager’s heart. No injuries could be found on the boy; however, he was not communicating and complained of pain so he was air lifted to Denver.

Mother was given a map, given telephone numbers to contact me and escorted to her car. She was contacted at the hospital that night to make sure she arrived. She and her son walked out of the hospital that night around midnight and the mother and son checked out the next day.

The son was sent a resort Teddy Bear and a personal card. The mother was also sent a card. Mother responded with a card and thanked the staff for their help.

The mother called fall of 2001 and stated she wanted to come back skiing but her son was afraid of the lifts. In order to assist in this, the resort volunteered to find the perfect instructor to assist the boy for two all days’ private lessons so that mother and son could enjoy skiing.

I met the family the night they arrived and talked to them for two hours about the resort and skiing. Mother is a tax attorney and concerned that son would no longer want to ski, but the son was a quite excited.

After two days of private lessons, the mother and son were skiing intermediate and some expert runs. They hired the ski instructor for a third day of private lessons. They family left after 5 days and are now excited about skiing. Since that first incident they have come back to the resort two more times. Each time they have hired the same private instructor for a day or more. This last time they visited the resort, the mother and son took me out to dinner.

Whether this was ever, a lawsuit is unknown. However, a disgruntled scared guest has been turned into a happy guest. By treating the guest as a guest and not a litigant, a customer with a possible propensity to recover damages was turned into a lifelong customer. In addition, by coming back to the resort, skiing, and riding lift, from which the boy fell; we substantially reduced the chance of a lawsuit. (People who come back to ski have a hard time suing. On the stand, they cannot answer the question, “If the resort is so dangerous, why did you go back and ski there?”)

Mom and Son are happy and will always come back to the resort.

Costs: two private all day lessons, one teddy bear, telephone calls, postage, etc. Less than $700.00.

Return: eleven nights lodging in a one or two-bedroom unit, Twenty-three days of lift tickets, and two all day private lesson, meals.

Possible damages: days in depositions, staff hours responding to discovery, may a win, maybe a loss. Either way, a customer we had spent money on to come to the resort was lost

Results: Happy guests and no lawsuit. I have three cards from the family on my shelf and a free meal.

In this case, I ignored our liability issues. I just concentrated on dealing with the guest, answering questions honestly or honestly saying, “I don’t know,” and getting back to the guest with answers when I learned them. Getting back to the customer and answering their questions establishes credibility.

Every time you say, “I don’t know,” write the question down and research to find the answer. If you can’t find an answer, explain why. Maybe there is no answer, but if you use that statement, there better not be an answer. Coming back and restating the question and answering the question will provide you with an immense amount of respect and trust. As Franklin Covey stated in his 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, talks about the Emotional Bank Account. He states you can only trust someone if they have developed an emotional bank account with the other person. “You make deposits in the emotional bank account through genuine courtesy, respect, and appreciate for that person and for the other point of view.”

When you make the commitment to establish an emotional bank account with another person:

You listen more, you listen in greater depth. You express yourself with greater courage. You aren’t reactive. You go deeper inside yourself for strength of character to be proactive. You keep hammering it out until the other person begins to realize that you genuinely want the resolution to be a real win for both of you. That very process is a tremendous deposit in the Emotional Bank Account.
And the stronger you are—the more genuine your character, the higher your level of proactivity, the more committed you really are to Win/Win—the more powerful your influence will be with that other person.

Dr. Covey stresses the idea that a Win/Win situation is achievable when this type of relationship is established. A Win/Win resolution to any issue can work for a monetary or emotional crisis. However his words fit perfectly with the idea that lawsuits start as emotion. Develop a relationship, work to a Win/Win relationship on the emotional basis and you may not need to identify the financial issues

Because Win/Win is a principle people can validate in their own lives, you will be able to bring most people to a realization that they will win more of what they want by going for what you both want.

You are probably starting with a negative balance in the guests Emotional Bank Account. You are the person representing the loss of money, income, the injury or even loss of life. Whether or not you had any or all of the responsibility for the crisis, you are the person who must open and Emotional Bank Account and start making deposits.

Work hard at making deposits in to the Emotional Bank Account. You cannot even open an account unless you are sincere, unless you care, unless you have real empathy and a desire to help. “With those guides you can listen and when the opportunity presents itself, start making deposits.

“By listening, you will here the opportunity to establish deposits.” Establish report. Listen for the opportunity to learn about the guest. Learn about what type of deposits they want. To learn how they deal with the different issues they present, by listening to them.

Habit 4 of Dr. Stephen Covey is Win/Win involves mutual learning, mutual influence, and mutual benefits. Relationships built on a Win/Win begin with character and move toward relationships out of which flow agreements.

Without trust, the best we can do is compromise, without trust, we lack the credibility for open, mutual learning and the communication and real creativity.

Compromise is a settlement and for most people settlement has a negative feeling, a negative connotation. Settlement is not the end of a problem, it is the result of what I was really owed, but I settled for something else. I was owed more, but I settled for less. You do not settle for anything in your life, why settle in this emotional issue. Settlement also means money. No emotion, only money. Once money is on the table, then money is the only currency that can be used to settle the issues. For money brings its own emotion, greed. And few, if any other emotions except love can overcome greed.

Who: You. It must be you or someone on your staff who can speak with authority for you and the business. Sending your attorney or risk manager will only raise suspicion that you have something to hide. You are real, you are credible, and you have the connection to the disaster that raises the concerns.

The guest has always dealt with customer service when there was a problem. Again what changed that moved the business response from customer service to risk management. The guest has a problem, deal with it, whether the room is too hot, they are short of towels, they are hungry or they are hurt.

What if the situation still goes bad? You have created several defenses to a lawsuit by being human, by showing kindness and being honest. The mother and son came back to the resort Mountain. The Mother and son rode the chairlift from which the boy had fallen. The defense: If it was so dangerous, why did you come back to the resort and ride the dangerous device. Why did you ride the same chair lift?

To rent equipment and sign up for the ski lesson, mother signed a rental agreement releasing her and son for future and past liability.

The thank-you cards I have from the mother make no allegations of negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the resort. A Plaintiff does not send the defendant thank you cards.

Even catastrophic accidents such as a customer death or accident can be handled to change a customer’s attitude about your company.

Even catastrophic accidents can be handled in a dignified manner providing comfort, support, and answers to your customers.

Your customer is at your business and their spouse dies. Have food delivered. Lots of food. Remember the casserole parade, (as I call it) of the sixties. Someone was hurt and within hours, casseroles were rolling down the sidewalk, some in the hands of mothers, others by kids. Families with problems did not have to cook.

Dealing with the problems, big and small can eliminate anger and many other emotions.

Helping a mourning family receive closure works. Unanswered question nag for years, maybe past the statute – maybe not.

This idea is not something that is person specific, anyone can use this technique. A friend of mine running a community outdoor recreation program had a minor injured on a mountain bike trip to Gunnison County. The program director called the father and told him about the incident and agreed to meet the father at the hospital about the time the ambulance was expected to arrive back to the Front Range.

At midnight, the agreed meeting time, my friend was walking into the hospital dreading what he was going to do. He knew beyond those doors was possibly an angry parent. He walked through the doors and met the father and they talked. The ambulance was two hours late, so both men had plenty of time to get to know one another. By the time the ambulance arrived they had become friends.

No litigation came from the child’s injuries. The program director and the father became such good friends they would meet for lunch.

In another situation, a rafting company in the Grand Canyon had an attorney receive a facial injury on a trip. She was helicoptered out of the grand to the hospital in Flagstaff. The river company managers met her in the hospital and spent time with her while she was there. When she checked out, she, along with an employee hiked down to the canyon and met up the trip and continued on. She later came back and took the entire trip again.

In both of these cases, they fear of dealing with an angry customer and the fear of litigation were put behind the business and the reality of dealing with an injured party was placed in the first priorty. In each case, the results were not successful in preventing litigation, but they had far reaching effects after the injuries had healed.

Money or Emotion

A mild mannered woman comes to the front desk of your business and asks for you by name. As you approach, she smiles and confirms your name. She then hands you several pieces of paper and says, “You’re served.”

Your rush to your attorney’s office with conflicting emotions fighting to surface. Rage that someone could sue you. Anger that you have to waste time over such a stupid issue. Concerned about the financial impact this is going to have on your business. Scared.

Your attorney reads the summons and complaint asks you a few questions and says, “Don’t worry, it is not personal. They only want money.”

Your attorney is wrong. It is personal. It is very personal for the plaintiff. For the consumer or customer listed as the plaintiff, the last issue your customer is thinking about is money. The customer is angry, is walking around with feelings of resentment. Your customer wants justice. He or she wants you and your business to hurt just as they hurt. They want to make sure that what you did to them never happens again.

It should be personnel for you. It is a sign of bad service, unjust treatment, or believing in lawyers and insurance companies too much. The easiest way to start a lawsuit is to protect your self from losing a lawsuit. That seems to be an impossible balancing act; however, it is quite possible and very easy. Worst-case scenario, you appear to be an honest, good-hearted person/corporation on the witness stand.

How you approach this problem, personal, or monetary is irrelevant now, but was critical at the time the problem first started.

References

Stephen R. Covey, 1989. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster
Patricia Ewick and Susan S. Silbey, 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Lawrence M. Friedman, 1977. Law and Society an Introduction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall
John Rawls, 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Enhanced by Zemanta