It is that time of year, release stops lawsuit against ski club

Posted: November 19, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Illinois, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: AdventureTravel, Attorney at law, Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, Indianhead Mountain, Jim Moss, RecreationLaw, Release, Ski Racing, skiing | Leave a comment

Masciola, v. Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, 257 Ill. App. 3d 313; 628 N.E.2d 1067; 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 2011; 195 Ill. Dec. 603

Illinois’s decision holds that the release in question covered the issue complained of by the plaintiff who caused his injuries.

The plaintiff in this case was a member of the Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, a ski club. The plaintiff entered a race put on by the defendant ski council at Indianhead Mountain, Michigan. To enter the race the plaintiff had to sign a release.

While racing the plaintiff hit a compression area in the race course which caused him to be thrown into telephone poles that marked the finish line. The plaintiff’s injuries were never specified in the decision.

The plaintiff alleged the unsafe conditions of the race course were not contemplated by the release, and the parties were acting under a mutual mistake of fact.

Summary of the case

A mutual mistake of fact is usually a way to void a contract. Remember a contract, which a release is, requires a meeting of the minds. Normally, with a release, you write the release so the meeting of the minds is agreed to when the guest signs the agreement.

If the parties do not agree on the specific issues of a contract, the reasons for a contract, then a contract is void. An example would be party A wants to sell his beat up second car. Party A tells party B that his car is for sale. Party B has never seen the second car and assumes party A is selling his good car; the only one party B, thinks party A, owns.

The contract between party A and party B would be void because of mistake of fact. Party A and Party B never had a meeting of the minds on what was being bought/sold so there was no contract.

Under Illinois’s law, like in most states, releases are disfavored, but upheld if there is no fraud, willful and wanton conduct [on the part of the defendant] or legislation prohibiting releases. If those requirements are met the court next looks at the position of the parties to make sure there is no disparity in the bargaining power between the parties. Here because skiing and ski racing is recreational and the plaintiff did not have to race, there was no disparity.

The next requirement is different.

…the question of whether or not an exculpatory clause will be enforced depends upon whether or not defendant’s conduct and the risk of injury inherent in said conduct was of a type intended by the parties to fall within the scope of the clause.

The risk which caused the injury must not be set out specifically in the release; the release must just show that the risk was contemplated by the parties to the release. The court found the release covered the problems the plaintiff claimed injured him.

So Now What?

Simply put make sure your release has a broad description of the risk intended to be covered by the release. First start with the life-changing events, death, quadriplegia, and work your way done to those things that although not of high severity do occur with high frequency.

If you do keep accident reports (see Why accident reports can come back to haunt you.) go through the reports to identify the risks that should be in your release. Always include the loss of property. Dropped phones while riding a ski lift and lost sunglasses whitewater rafting are probably the number one issue that irritates guests. Cover those issues, other minor issues and major problems in your release.

Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us

Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.

To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, Indianhead Mountain, Ski Club, Ski Council,

WordPress Tags: lawsuit,Masciola,Chicago,Metropolitan,Council,LEXIS,Illinois,decision,plaintiff,injuries,member,defendant,Indianhead,Mountain,Michigan,compression,area,fact,Summary,Remember,guest,agreement,example,sale,Under,fraud,legislation,requirements,Here,requirement,clause,injury,scope,description,life,events,death,frequency,accident,sunglasses,whitewater,guests,Cover,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Club,whether

Masciola, v. Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, 257 Ill. App. 3d 313; 628 N.E.2d 1067; 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 2011; 195 Ill. Dec. 603

Posted: November 19, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Illinois, Legal Case, Racing, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, Indianhead Mountain, Ski Club, Ski Council, Ski Racing, skiing | Leave a comment

Masciola, v. Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, 257 Ill. App. 3d 313; 628 N.E.2d 1067; 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 2011; 195 Ill. Dec. 603

An analysis of this case can be found at It is that time of year, release stops lawsuit against ski club

David R. Masciola, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-91-3909

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION

257 Ill. App. 3d 313; 628 N.E.2d 1067; 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 2011; 195 Ill. Dec. 603

December 29, 1993, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Released for Publication March 9, 1994. As Corrected August 2, 1994.

PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY. HONORABLE PADDY H. McNAMARA, JUDGE PRESIDING.

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

COUNSEL: John Thomas Moran, Jr., of Chicago, for appellant.

Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, of Chicago (Edward H. Nielsen, Robert Marc Chemers, and Ann S. Johnson, of counsel), for appellee.

JUDGES: RIZZI, TULLY, CERDA

OPINION BY: RIZZI

OPINION

[*314] [**1068] JUSTICE RIZZI delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, David R. Masciola, filed a complaint against defendant, the Chicago Metropolitan Ski Council (Ski Council) and others. Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him while he was participating in a ski race sponsored by defendant. Counts I and II of the complaint alleged negligence and willful and wanton conduct, respectively. The trial court dismissed [**1069] count II of the complaint and granted summary judgment to defendant on count I. Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s award of summary judgment. We affirm.

Plaintiff alleges that trial court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous (1) with respect to both counts of the complaint, on the basis of its finding that an exculpatory clause was enforceable and barred to the complaint, because the unsafe conditions of the racecourse [***2] exceeded the scope of the contemplated risks encompassed by the exculpatory clause which demonstrates that the parties were acting under a mutual mistake of material fact as to the safety of the racecourse; and (2) with respect to count II of the complaint because exculpatory clauses are void and against public policy when applied to willful and wanton conduct.

On December 21, 1985, plaintiff participated in a ski race sponsored by defendant at the ski resort of Indianhead Mountain in Wakefield, Gogebic County, Michigan. As a sponsor of the race, defendant required each participant to sign a “waiver of liability” prior to participating in the race. Plaintiff signed the waiver. The waiver form provided as follows:

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that ski racing is a dangerous sport which can lead to serious injury, or even death. The undersigned hereby understands and agrees to personally assume any and all of the liability and risks of alpine racing.

Further, the undersigned hereby agrees to hold harmless the CHICAGO METROPOLITAN SKI COUNCIL, its officers and the Senior Alpine Racing Committee from any responsibility or liability for any and all personal injuries or death which [***3] may occur during the 1985-86 CMSC Racing Series.

On March 16, 1988, plaintiff filed a 10-count complaint against Ski Council and other defendants who are no longer a part of this action, for damages for personal injuries sustained while participating in the ski race sponsored by defendant. Plaintiff alleged that his injuries are the result of a fall from a compression area in the ski racecourse which caused him to be thrown into the poles marking the finish line. Counts I and II of the complaint alleged negligence and willful and wanton conduct respectively, on the part of defendant.

[*315] Defendant filed a motion to dismiss count II of plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that he failed to comply with section 2-604.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). Ill Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-604.1. On May 19, 1988, the court entered an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss count II without prejudice. Count II was dismissed on the ground that willful and wanton misconduct constitutes negligence for purposes of claiming punitive damages and a hearing was necessary under section 2-604.1 and absent a hearing, dismissal was required.

Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment [***4] with respect to count I. Plaintiff in his complaint alleged that defendant owed him a duty of reasonable care in supervising, inspecting, setting up and maintaining the racecourse and its attendant markers, gates and poles. In its motion, defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that the release form signed by plaintiff barred plaintiff’s action. The motion was granted pursuant to an order entered on April 25, 1991. Plaintiff now appeals the grant of summary judgment.

First, plaintiff contends that trial court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous (1) with respect to both counts of the complaint against defendant on the basis of its finding that an exculpatory clause was enforceable and therefore barred to the complaint, because the unsafe conditions of the racecourse exceeded the scope of the contemplated risks encompassed by the exculpatory clause which demonstrates that the parties were acting under a mutual mistake of material fact as to the implicit material term of their agreement, which was that the racecourse was presumptively safe; and (2) that the judgment was erroneous with respect to count II of the complaint alleging willful and wanton misconduct on the part [***5] of defendant because exculpatory clauses are void and against public policy when applied to willful and wanton conduct.

In addition to arguing that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment [**1070] as to count I of the complaint, plaintiff now argues for the first time that the grant of summary judgment as to count II of his complaint was improper in that it alleged willful and wanton misconduct. The record shows that pursuant to an order entered on May 19, 1988, count II of plaintiff’s complaint alleging willful and wanton misconduct was dismissed for failure to comply with section 2-604.1 of the Code.

[HN1] Section 2-604.1 of the Code provides that no complaint based upon bodily injury shall contain a prayer for punitive damages. The section further provides that a plaintiff may move for a pretrial hearing thereby seeking leave to amend the complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages within 30 days after the close of discovery. Ill Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-604.1.

[*316] In the present case, the order dismissing count II of plaintiff’s complaint was without prejudice, therefore, plaintiff could have sought leave to amend the complaint to include the prayer for punitive [***6] damages. Plaintiff, however, failed to do so. At no point during the trial court proceeding did plaintiff argue that a grant of summary judgment would be improper in light of the complaint alleging willful and wanton misconduct.

Furthermore, in support of his allegation that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous with respect to count II, plaintiff now asks us to review the deposition testimony of himself and Ardwell Kidwell as well as the International Ski Competition Rules. Each of these deposition transcripts are attached to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order, but neither of the transcripts was before the trial court when it initially ruled on the summary judgment. At the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of summary judgment, the trial court refused to consider these items on the basis that they were not properly before the court.

[HN2] The scope of an appellate court’s review of a grant of summary judgment is limited to the matters considered by the trial court in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Certified Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Wight & Co., Inc. (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 391, 397, 515 N.E.2d 1047, 1051. [***7] Upon review of a summary judgment ruling, an appellate court may only refer to the record as it existed at the time the trial court ruled, outline the arguments made at that time and explain why the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Rayner Covering Systems, Inc. v. Danvers Farmers Elevator Co. (1992), 226 Ill. App. 3d 507, 509-10, 589 N.E.2d 1034, 1036.

In the present case, the allegations in count II were not before the trial court at the time of its ruling upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment because count II had been dismissed and thus they may not be considered by this court.

We will, however, address plaintiff’s allegation that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous with respect to count I of the complaint. Plaintiff argues that the exculpatory clause was not enforceable because the existence of compression bumps at the end of a racecourse and the use of telephone poles as a finish line marker are not within the scope of possible dangers accompanying an alpine ski race. Plaintiff further contends that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because the parties were acting under a mutual [***8] mistake of material fact as to whether the racecourse was “safe” because the definition of “safe” arguably did not include compression bumps on the course and telephone poles as finish line markers.

[*317] [HN3] Although exculpatory agreements are not favored and will be strictly construed against the benefitting party ( Scott & Fetzer Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 378, 395, 493 N.E.2d 1022, 1029), parties may allocate the risk of negligence as they see fit and exculpatory clauses are not violative of public policy as a matter of law. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. Krasny Supply Co., Inc. (1991), 227 Ill. App. 3d 414, 419, 592 N.E.2d 8, 11.

Under certain circumstances, exculpatory clauses may bar a plaintiff’s negligence claim. Harris v. Walker (1988), 119 Ill. 2d 542, 548, 519 [**1071] N.E.2d 917, 919. [HN4] Exculpatory clauses will be upheld in the absence of fraud; willful and wanton conduct; legislation to the contrary; where the exculpatory clause is not contrary to the settled public policy of this State; where there is no substantial disparity in the [***9] bargaining position of the parties; and where there is nothing in the social relationship of the parties which militates against upholding the agreement. Harris, 119 Ill. 2d at 548, 519 N.E.2d at 919; Reuben H. Donnelley Corp., 227 Ill. App. 3d at 419, 592 N.E.2d at 11; Garrison v. Combined Fitness Centre, Ltd. (1990), 201 Ill. App. 3d 581, 584, 559 N.E.2d 187, 189-90.

Absent any of the above factors, [HN5] the question of whether or not an exculpatory clause will be enforced depends upon whether or not defendant’s conduct and the risk of injury inherent in said conduct was of a type intended by the parties to fall within the scope of the clause. See Larsen v. Vic Tanny, International (1984), 130 Ill. App. 3d 574, 577, 474 N.E.2d 729, 731; see also Simpson v. Byron Dragway, Inc. (1991), 210 Ill. App. 3d 639, 647, 569 N.E.2d 579, 584. The precise occurrence which results in injury need not have been contemplated by the parties at the time the agreement was entered [***10] into. Garrison, 201 Ill. App. 3d at 585, 559 N.E.2d at 190.

In the present case, plaintiff’s injury is a type that was intended to fall in the scope of the exculpatory clause thereby entitling defendant to summary judgment. The exculpatory provision provides as follows:

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that ski racing is a dangerous sport which can lead to serious injury, or even death. The undersigned hereby understands and agrees to personally assume any and all of the liability and risks of alpine racing.

Further, the undersigned hereby agrees to hold harmless [defendants] * * * from any responsibility or liability for any and all personal injuries or death which may occur during the 1985-86 CMSC Racing Series. (Emphasis added.)

While the parties may not have contemplated that plaintiff would be injured by skiing over a compression area in the ski racecourse, they [*318] could and did contemplate a broad range of accidents which occur during skiing, including problems with the surface of the ski racecourse.

The present case is analogous to Schlessman v. Henson (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 82, 86, 413 N.E.2d 1252, 1254, [***11] wherein this court held that a problem with an automobile race track surface was the type of risk which the exculpatory agreement was intended to cover. Although the parties may not have contemplated that a section of the race track would collapse during the race, they did contemplate a “broad range of accidents which occur in auto racing.” See also Garrison v. Combined Fitness Centre (1990), 201 Ill. App. 3d 581, 585, 559 N.E.2d 187, 190 (exculpatory clause contained in health club membership agreement relieved club from liability for injury caused by allegedly defective equipment, where clause stated that each member bore the “sole risk” of injury that might result from use of weights, equipment or other apparatus provided); Neumann v. Gloria Marshall Figure Salon (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 824, 827, 500 N.E.2d 1011, 1014 (exculpatory clause which expressly covered all risks of injury “while using any equipment” at the salon was enforceable because an injury to plaintiff resulting from the use of the machines was encompassed in the release).

Cases in which this court has found an exculpatory [***12] clause to be insufficient to release a defendant from liability for personal injuries to plaintiff are distinguishable from the present case. One line of cases wherein an exculpatory clause has been found ineffective have involved injuries or fatalities which clearly do not ordinarily accompany the activity which is the subject of the release. See Simpson v. Byron Dragway, Inc. (1991), 210 Ill. App. 3d 639, 649-50, 569 N.E.2d 579, 585-86 (a question of fact existed as to whether or not striking a deer while operating a race car on a drag strip was the type of risk which ordinarily accompanies the sport of racing); Larsen v. Vic Tanny, International (1984), 130 Ill. App. 3d 574, 578, 474 [**1072] N.E.2d 729, 732 (exposure to noxious fumes which injured plaintiff’s respiratory system was not a foreseeable risk related to the use of a health club). In the present case, however, the injuries to plaintiff resulting from a fall from a compression area in the ski course is a risk inherent in ski racing and as such falls within the scope of the exculpatory clause.

Another line of cases has held that the language of [***13] an exculpatory clause did not shield a defendant from liability that the language of the exculpatory clause was ambiguous with respect to which activities were covered. See Macek v. Schooner’s, Inc. (1991), 224 Ill. App. 3d 103, 106, 586 N.E.2d 442, 444-45 (genuine [*319] issue of material fact precluded summary judgment for sponsors of arm wrestling contest in personal injury action brought against it by a participant who was injured in the contest, existed as to whether the intent of the clause was to release the promoter of liability when injury resulted from the participant’s physical condition, or when injury resulted from the promoter’s negligence); Calarco v. YMCA of Greater Metropolitan Chicago (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 1037, 1043, 501 N.E.2d 268, 272 (statement that “participation in any of the activities of the YMCA” was ambiguous in that it could be read to mean that the exculpatory clause only pertained to participating in activities at the YMCA but not to liability from the use of equipment at the YMCA). The language of the exculpatory clause at issue in the present case is [***14] explicit and unambiguous and is thus sufficient as a matter of law to relieve defendant from liability.

Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant was proper as there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the exculpatory agreement encompassed plaintiff’s injuries.

For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

TULLY, P.J. and CERDA, J., concur.

WordPress Tags: Masciola,Chicago,Metropolitan,Council,LEXIS,David,Plaintiff,Appellant,Illinois,corporation,Defendant,Appellee,APPELLATE,COURT,DISTRICT,THIRD,DIVISION,December,SUBSEQUENT,HISTORY,Publication,March,August,PRIOR,APPEAL,FROM,CIRCUIT,COOK,HONORABLE,PADDY,McNAMARA,JUDGE,DISPOSITION,COUNSEL,John,Thomas,Moran,Pretzel,Stouffer,Edward,Nielsen,Robert,Marc,Chemers,Johnson,JUDGES,RIZZI,CERDA,OPINION,JUSTICE,complaint,injuries,Counts,negligence,judgment,basis,clause,racecourse,scope,fact,clauses,policy,resort,Indianhead,Mountain,Wakefield,Gogebic,Michigan,participant,waiver,injury,death,Further,officers,Senior,Alpine,Committee,CMSC,Series,defendants,action,compression,area,Code,Civil,Procedure,Stat,Count,misconduct,purposes,dismissal,markers,gates,April,agreement,addition,failure,Section,prayer,discovery,allegation,testimony,Ardwell,Kidwell,International,Competition,Rules,transcripts,reconsideration,items,Mechanical,Contractors,Upon,arguments,Rayner,Systems,Danvers,Farmers,Elevator,allegations,existence,marker,dangers,definition,Although,agreements,Scott,Fetzer,Montgomery,Ward,Reuben,Donnelley,Corp,Krasny,Under,Harris,Walker,Exculpatory,absence,fraud,legislation,State,relationship,Garrison,Centre,Absent,factors,Larsen,Tanny,Simpson,Byron,Dragway,occurrence,provision,Emphasis,accidents,Schlessman,Henson,automobile,auto,health,membership,equipment,member,weights,apparatus,Neumann,Gloria,Marshall,Figure,Salon,Cases,exposure,system,Another,Macek,Schooner,promoter,Calarco,YMCA,Greater,statement,participation,enforceable,hereby,pursuant,whether

Colorado Resorts Offering a Flurry of Early Season Ski Deals

Posted: November 13, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Ski Area | Tags: Arapahoe Basin, Aspen Mountain, Colorado, Copper Mountain, Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Deals, Durango Mountain Resort, Ski, Ski Areas, Ski Cooper, Ski Country USA, skiing, Snowboard | Leave a comment

Colorado Resorts Offering a Flurry of Early Season Ski Deals

Skiers can save with special offers on multi-day lift tickets, lessons, rentals, lodging, and a snow guarantee

DENVER, Colo. – November 9, 2012 – As the 2012/13 ski season gets underway in Colorado, Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA) resorts are rolling out early season deals and incentives that underscore Colorado as a very attainable and affordable winter ski destination.

With the variety of discounted products recently released, savvy skiers will find that doing a little research can pay big dividends. “Guests have learned that by taking advantage of early season deals and booking their ski vacation early, they will yield the biggest savings and end up with a ski trip that fits their budget and needs,” explained Melanie Mills, president and CEO, Colorado Ski Country USA. “Resorts are able to leverage their partners in lodging, ski school and equipment rentals and put together some very creative and attractive packages.”

A sampling of resort early season deals is below and more can be found on www.ColoradoSki.com/deals.

Passes & Lift Tickets

East Wall at Arapahoe Basin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Arapahoe Basin

Arapahoe Basin offers The Legend’s 4 Pass which is valid for four days of skiing or riding at Arapahoe Basin. The cost is $158 and the pass is non-transferable (this is a hard-card product that requires a photo) and available for purchase until December 14, 2012. Valid all season with no blackout dates, guests can purchase The Legend’s 4 online at Arapahoebasin.com or via phone by calling 888-ARAPAHOE.

Colorado Gems Card

The Colorado Gems Card is a discount card for use at the eight Colorado Gem resorts (Arapahoe Basin, Eldora, Loveland, Monarch, Powderhorn, Ski cooper, Ski Granby Ranch, and Sunlight). It offers deals and discounts that appeal to skiers and riders of all ages and abilities. In addition to the resorts’ upgraded season-long deals, there is a new component to this year’s Gems Card: Flash Deals. Flash Deals are special promotions and ways to save that are unique to each Gem resort and will be announced last minute throughout the season. CSCUSA will announce Flash Deals in the Gems newsletter, on social media, and on the Gems website www.ColoradoSki.com/gems. Only Colorado Gems Card holders will be able to take advantage of Flash Deals.

Powderhorn

The Powderhorn P-Card is neither a season pass nor a lift ticket, but still offers flexibility and savings. The P-Card is a $69 product that allows the purchaser one free day of skiing or snowboarding and additional days at 20 percent off a regular single day adult lift ticket for the rest of the season. Complementary to the P-Card is the Deca Card. The Deca Card can be used for gifts, families, groups, and friends. The Deca Card is $170 and allows the holder to purchase 10 half-price lift tickets, one at a time, all in one day, or any combination in between. It is transferable with no blackout dates. Details and more information can be found at www.Powderhorn.com.

Ski Cooper

New this season is Ski Cooper’s XP 4 Day Pass for $99. Providing direct-to-lift access (pass will be scanned at the lift), no blackout dates or restrictions, and the flexibility to not be used on consecutive days, this deal breaks down to skiing or riding for less than $25 a day. The XP 4 Pass is non-transferable. The $99 purchase price is good until opening day (November 22 as conditions permit) and then the pass can be purchased for $119 while supplies last. For details and more information please visit www.SkiCooper.com.

Steamboat

Guests are invited to spend the early season in Ski Town USA with the Boat Launch pass that offers three days of skiing and riding from November 22 – December 14. The pass is $129, but with snow in the forecast, Steamboat is offering discounted passes for the next week. For details and more information please visit www.steamboat.com/boatlaunch.

Sunlight

Sunlight offers a free lift ticket to Powderhorn passholders until December 20, 2012. Skiers and riders need to show their Powderhorn season pass at the Sunlight ticket window to receive a lift ticket for the day. This offer is valid for all ages and available from opening day at Sunlight (scheduled for Dec. 7) until December 20, 2012. For details and more information please visit www.Sunlightmtn.com.

Lift & Lodging Packages

Aerial view of Ski Cooper. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Aspen/Snowmass

This year the Limelight Hotel in Aspen, where dogs are welcome, offers deals such as its Ski Free package* where guests can receive up to two lift tickets per day with a three night minimum stay, based on availability, and some blackout dates apply. Details and more information can be found at www.limelighthotel.com.

*Lift tickets do not have a dollar value and are non-refundable. Lift tickets are good at all four Aspen/Snowmass ski areas, including Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk and Snowmass.

Copper Mountain

Copper Mountain’s Powder to the Pillow deal gives guests overnight stays in their back pocket to use at any point in time. Guests can pre-purchase three to six nights of lodging and reserve the rooms throughout the season. Visit www.CopperColorado.com for more information.

Crested Butte

A destination known for their past ski free promotions, Crested Butte Mountain Resort offers free skiing for everyone on Opening Day of the 2012-2013 winter season. On November 21, 2012, everyone skis for free, no strings attached. If guests want to stay longer and still receive free skiing, they can book the Ski Free with Lodging package with Crested Butte Vacations at www.skicb.com or call 800-600-2803. Stay one night and receive a free day of skiing for each person on the reservation. This package is available November 21 – December 19, 2012.

Purgatory
Skiers and riders can escape to the scenic Colorado Rocky Mountains for $95 per person/per night with Purgatory’s Rocky Mountain Getaway. The package includes two days of lift tickets and two nights lodging at Durango Mountain Resort. For more information and to book, guests can call 800-525-0892 and mention the “Rocky Mountain Getaway.” Details and more information can be found at www.DurangoMountainResort.com.

*Price is per person, per night, based on double occupancy, minimum two-night stay. Packages may be further customized. Not valid 12/24/2012 – 1/4/2013. Other restrictions may apply.

Steamboat

Steamboat believes that the early bird gets the worm through early rewards package. Travelers can save 20 percent on lifts and lodging for four nights and three days, as low as $394 per adult. A minimum four nights’ lodging and three day lift ticket is required for all guests. Additional savings can be found with Steamboat’s Airfare Sale, with flights as low as $150 into Steamboat’s Hayden Airport. United, Delta and American Airlines have deals from locations including Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Orlando and more. Travelers need to book by November 30, 2012 for the best savings. For details and more information please visit http://www.steamboat.com/plan-your-trip/deals-and-packages/early-rewards.aspx.

Winter Park

Guest can book five flexible nights of lodging for $169 per night at The Vintage Hotel and they will receive a free Winter Park Season Pass. The season pass allows unrestricted access to Winter Park’s cruisers and Mary Jane’s famous mogul runs all season long. Lodging must book buy December 12, 2012.

New this year, Winter Park is offering a Snow Guarantee. With the guarantee, previously booked vacations can be rescheduled for later in the season if snow conditions are not up to guest’s standards. Trips must be booked for arrival/departure between November 14 – December, 20 2012. Notification of rescheduling must be made 48 hours prior to arrival (by 4 p.m., two days prior to arrival) and will be on a space available basis. Rescheduled trip must be used by April 21, 2013. The cost of the early season vacation will be applied to the later dates and any difference in cost will be paid by the guest and no refund will be offered.

This season Winter Park is offering 25 percent off nightly lodging at the resort. The discount applies to Winter Park Resort properties including Zephyr Mountain Lodge, Fraser Crossing, Founders Point, and Vintage Hotel. Offer is not valid December 26 – 31, 2012 and March 10 – 14, 2013 and must be booked by December 12, 2012. Details and more information can be found at www.WinterParkResort.com.

Lift/Lessons

Aspen/Snowmass

Aspen/Snowmass invites guest who are new to the sports of skiing and snowboarding to take advantage of a lift and lesson package and get on the slopes in the early season. Right now, guests can buy 2, get 3 on lift tickets, equipment rentals, and group lessons (all kids group lessons ages 5 – 17 and adult group lessons level 4 and up). Packages must be booked by November 19, 2012 and are valid November 22 – December 20, 2012. To book this package and get more information please visit www.stayaspensnowmass.com.

Loveland

Loveland has a deal for those who have never tried skiing or riding before but always wanted to. With Loveland’s 3-Class Pass, guests can learn a new sport and receive an Unrestricted Loveland Season Pass to enjoy and practice turns all season long. Guests can simply sign up for three ski or snowboard full lesson packages, which include lesson, all day lift ticket and equipment rental. Once they complete the third lesson, they will receive a season pass. Additional charges apply for novice and low intermediate adults. Prices and more information can be found at http://www.skiloveland.com/skischool/3_class_pass.aspx

Ski Granby Ranch

Ski Granby Ranch (formerly SolVista Basin) offers the Get On the Snow (GOTS) program for never-ever-before skiers or riders. With Ski Granby Ranch’s GOTS Program, guests can learn a new sport and receive a season pass to practice everything they learned. The program includes two full days of lessons and equipment rentals. Once the second lesson has been completed, guests will receive a season pass. For more information, please visit http://www.granbyranch.com/colorado-skiing-snowboarding-ski-resorts-ski-and-ride-school.html.

Wolf Creek

The Beginner Package at Wolf Creek Ski Area offers never-ever skiers and snowboarders a combination lift and group lesson ticket to keep it easy on the first day. The $56 price includes four hours in a group ski lesson and access to the beginner Nova double chairlift. For $66 the same deal can be used for snowboarders. This package is offered to adult skiers/boarders, as well as children ages nine and up. For details and more information please visit www.WolfCreekSki.com

Anniversary Deals

Copper Mountain

Copper Mountain welcomes its 40th season in the skiing business December 7 – 9 with throwback deals. All weekend long, Copper is offering anniversary themed specials; $40 lift tickets, $.72 beer at Endo’s, $40 equipment rental for two and $40 Ski & Ride School and Woodward at Copper packages and much more. Retro snow suits are requested but not required; visit www.CopperColorado.com for more details.

: powderhorn

: copper mountain

: crestebutte nathan bilow 01

: loveland dustin schaefer

GEMS card now available at Credit Union of Colorado

Posted: October 30, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Youth Camps, Zip Line | Tags: Arapahoe Basin, Credit Union, Gem’s Card, Ski Cooper, Ski Resort, skiing | Leave a comment

Colorado Ski Country USA Gems Cards Now Available at Credit Union of Colorado

New Flash Deals Headline 2012/13 Season Gems Card

East Wall at Arapahoe Basin

DENVER, Colo, – Oct. 26, 2012 -Skiers and snowboarders can now benefit from saving on winter ski deals by purchasing a Colorado Gems Card for $10 at any of the Credit Union of Colorado’s 15 statewide locations. The cards are issued by Colorado Ski Country USA, and provide a variety of discounts – including new, time-sensitive Flash Deals – at eight of Colorado’s ski areas.

Credit Union of Colorado is a CSCUSA corporate partner, as well as a Gems program partner, and the primary retail outlet for the cards while supplies last. The Credit Union’s branch locations can be found at www.CUofCO.org.

Credit Union of Colorado also is an official partner for CSCUSA’s 5th and 6th Grade Passport Program, which provides free skiing and snowboarding for 5th graders and inexpensive access for 6th graders. For details on the Passport programs please visit www.ColoradoSki.com/Passport.

The Gems ski areas are Arapahoe Basin, Eldora, Loveland, Monarch, Powderhorn, Ski Cooper, Ski Granby Ranch and Sunlight Mountain. Gems Card offerings vary at each ski area. For details or to purchase a card online please visit www.ColoradoSki.com/Gems.

Opening Day for Ski Resorts in the West have been announced

Posted: October 9, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: ArapahoeBasin, Aspen Highlands, Aspen Mountain, Colorado, Copper Mountain, Loveland, Opening Day, Resort, ski area, skiing, Snow, snowboarding | Leave a comment

Take your gear into the shop and get it tuned up, Snow is coming (might be man-made but it is still coming!)

Opening day is always subject to weather and snow. Several resorts such as Arapahoe Basin, Loveland, Copper Mountain and Wolf Creek will open earlier if they get good snowfall. Log on to your local resorts website and sign up for announcements on when the actual opening day may be.

California

Alpine Meadows December 7, 2012

Heavenly November 16, 2012

Kirkwood November 21, 2012

Mammoth Mountain November 08, 2012

Northstar November 16, 2012

Squaw Valley November 21, 2012

Colorado

Arapahoe Basin Mid October 2012 – Early June, 2013

Aspen Highlands December 8, 2012 – April 21, 2013

Aspen Mountain November 22, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Beaver Creek November 21, 2012

Breckenridge November 9, 2012

Buttermilk December 15, 2012 – April 7, 2013

Copper Mountain November 2, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Crested Butte November 21, 2012 – April 7, 2013

Echo Mountain December 5, 2012 – April 7, 2013

Eldora November 16, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Howelsen Hill December 1, 2012 – March 17, 2013

Keystone November 2, 2012

Loveland Mid October 2012 – Early May, 2013

Monarch Mountain November 21, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Powderhorn December 13, 2012 – March 31, 2013

Purgatory at DMR November 23, 2012 – March 31, 2013

Silverton Mountain December 1, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Ski Cooper November 22 – November 25, 2012

Ski Granby Ranch December 12, 2012 – March 31, 2013

Snowmass November 22, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Steamboat November 21, 2012 – April 14, 2013

Sunlight December 7, 2012 – March 31, 2013

Telluride November 22, 2012 – April 7, 2013

Vail November 16, 2012

Winter Park November 14, 2012 – April 21, 2013

Wolf Creek November 2, 2012 – April 7, 2013

Utah

Alta November 16, 2012

Beaver Mountain TBA

Brian Head November 16, 2012

Brighton TBA

Canyons November 23, 2012

Deer Valley December 8, 2012

Eagle Point December 21, 2012

Park City November 17, 2012

Powder Mountain November 21, 2012

Snowbasin November 25, 2012

Snowbird November 17, 2012

Solitude November 15, 2012

Sundance December 7, 2012

Wolf Mountain November 23, 2012

Thanks to Get Outdoors for some of the dates on this list.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

blog@rec-law.us

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

WordPress Tags: Resorts,West,Take,gear,Several,Arapahoe,Basin,Loveland,Copper,Mountain,Wolf,Creek,snowfall,announcements,California,Alpine,Meadows,December,November,Kirkwood,Mammoth,Northstar,Squaw,Valley,Colorado,October,June,Aspen,Highlands,April,Beaver,Breckenridge,Buttermilk,Butte,Echo,Eldora,Howelsen,Hill,March,Monarch,Powderhorn,Purgatory,Silverton,Cooper,Granby,Ranch,Snowmass,Steamboat,Telluride,Vail,Winter,Park,Utah,Alta,Brian,Head,Brighton,Canyons,Deer,Eagle,Point,Powder,Snowbasin,Snowbird,Solitude,Sundance,Thanks,Outdoors,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Area

Michigan appellate court supports dismissal of a case based on Michigan Ski Area Safety Act

Posted: October 1, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Michigan, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Anderson, Boyne Mountain, Boyne USA, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, Michigan, Michigan Supreme Court, Ski, Ski Resort, skiing, snowboarding, Terrain park | Leave a comment

Anderson v Boyne USA, Inc., 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 1725

Decision is definitive about the issues identifying how the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act is to be interpreted.

This decision is recent and can still be appealed by the plaintiff. However, the decision is written well, short, and thorough. In the case, the plaintiff was paralyzed on a jump in the terrain park at Boyne Mountain Ski Area. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit based on the Michigan Ski Safety Act, (SASA), MCL 408.341 et seq.

The plaintiff had been skiing at Boyne the prior day and had boarded through the terrain park. The terrain park was marked and had warning signs posted near the entrance into the terrain park. The court stated, “The jump was not a hidden feature of the park, and plaintiff would have seen it had he heeded all posted signs and warnings, as required by the statute.”

Summary of the case

The court in the first paragraph stated the Michigan Ski Safety Act barred the plaintiff’s claims because the jump was “an inherent, obvious, and necessary danger of snowboarding.” The reasoning was based on the SASA MCL 408.342 which states:

(1) While in a ski area, each skier shall do all of the following:

(a) Maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.

(b) Stay clear of snow-grooming vehicles and equipment in the ski area.

(d) Ski only in ski areas which are marked as open for skiing on the trail board described in section 6a(e).

(2) Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snowmaking or snow-grooming equipment.

The court then interpreted a prior Michigan Supreme Court decision Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich 20; 664 NW2d 756 (2003) which stated: “in the hazards is that they all inhere in the sport of skiing and, as long as they are obvious and necessary to the sport, there is immunity from suit.”

The court looked at the jump in the terrain park as a “variation of terrain” which is listed as an inherent risk of skiing in the SASA. The jump was also something the plaintiff should expect to see if one entered the terrain park. A skier or snowboarder must accept the risks associated with the sport, whether going down the slope or “performing tricks in a terrain park.”

The court also looked at the terrain park not as some special part of the ski area but as part of the ski area. The following quote should be used in every motion over terrain park injuries in the future. It shows a true understanding of what a terrain park is.

While it is true, one can snowboard without jumps, a snowboarder enters a terrain park expecting to use jumps, rails, and boxes. Without those features, there would not be a terrain park. If a snowboarder did not want to use those features, he or she would not enter a terrain park. Instead, the snowboarder would simply propel down a ski hill. Therefore, a jump is a necessary feature of a terrain park.

The court looked at the jump the plaintiff was injured jumping and found it was obvious. The plaintiff also knew of the jump, seeing it the previous day.

The court also took on the plaintiff’s expert witness. The plaintiff, through its expert argued the jump was designed or constructed incorrectly. The court found this to be irrelevant. How it was constructed does not matter because it is a risk that the plaintiff assumed as set forth in the statute. The Michigan legislature removed this argument from the case when it passed the law.

So Now What?

Finally, a decision concerning a terrain park from a court that understands what a terrain park is, part of a ski area. However, as stated above, this decision could still be appealed, which may result in a different decision.

This case shows an evolution of the courts understanding of snowboarding and terrain parks. Decisions in the past either failed to comprehend what a terrain park was or held the resort liable because the terrain park was outside the protection of the statute and obviously dangerous. See Dunbar v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corporation, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 25807 where the court found the half pipe to be a high-risk feature when the plaintiff fell into it (not fell while in it, but fell from the berm into it.)

Here the court saw the park as just another part of the ski area. Like a roller or a bump made by grooming outside of the terrain park, whether or not the injury was caused in or out of the terrain, park does not matter. The jump is part of the resort as such covered by the definitions in the Michigan Ski Area Safety Act.

Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.

To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss

@2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Boyne Mountain Ski Area, Boyne, Michigan, SASA, Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, Ski Area Safety Act, Terrain Park, Jump,

What’s new at Colorado Ski Resorts for the 2012-13 Ski Season

Posted: September 11, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Ski Area, Uncategorized | Tags: Alpine skiing, Arapahoe Basin, Colorado, Copper Mountain, Crested Butte Mountain Resort, ski area, skiing, snowboarding, United States Ski Team | 1 Comment

Unrivaled Guest Experience at the Core of Colorado Ski Country USA Resort Enhancements

For the 2012-13 ski season, Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA) resorts are dedicated to solidifying Colorado as the top ski vacation destination, including exceeding guest expectations for services, amenities and resort facilities.

Colorado is synonymous with skiing because guests know they will find consistent powder snow framed by top-notch services. As part of their commitment, resorts are enhancing their profiles this season, adding new infrastructural components that will make visitors’ time on the slopes more efficient and rewarding. Improved snow making and maintenance at a number of resorts is calculated to enhance skiing and riding, while guest-facing developments such as new restaurants, increased terrain and additional built-in activities will supplement the overall guest experience.

These capabilities, along with numerous other additions and renovations throughout Colorado Ski Country, are intended to usher in a new era of guest service and help maintain Colorado’s position as the nation’s leading state for winter activities. Below is a complete round-up of the 2012-13 capital improvements.

New Infrastructural Improvements

Howelsen Hill, the oldest continuous resort in operation west of the Mississippi, is building a $1.75 million HS45 (Hill Size 45) ski jump that will be fully functional in summer and winter. Owned by the City of Steamboat Springs, Howelsen anticipates finishing this intensive project prior to this winter. When completed, the HS45 Ski Jump’s plastic surface will be sprayed with water, enabling skiers to slide on the surface and allowing youth level competitors to jump at Howelsen Hill in both the summer and winter. This will provide training for young athletes from around the nation to be competitive on a national and international basis.

Wolf Creek’s new Race Hutch will debut this season, located at the bottom of Charisma where the race-course finishes. Race equipment, fencing, gates, sound system and banners will be located in this small building. Also, new water-free composting restrooms will be installed at the base of the Alberta Lift replacing the current temporary port-a-potties.

Snowmass will add 230 acres of new terrain on Burnt Mountain this season, bringing total skiable acreage to 3,362 acres, making it the second largest ski area in Colorado. The terrain on Burnt Mountain features rolling, low-angle meadows, glades and spectacular views into the valleys between Snowmass and Buttermilk.

Loveland’s new on-mountain developments include complete renovations on The Ptarmigan Roost Cabin at the top of Chair 2 and The Rockhouse at the top of Chair 1. The interiors have been redone and the decks expanded to create more space for skiers and riders to take a break between runs and enjoy the views. The resort will also reconfigure Chair 2 to add an off-load station below the current re-load station, allowing the area to offer early and late season lessons for beginner skiers and snowboarders when Loveland Valley is closed.

In addition to its new on-mountain developments, Loveland will utilize its new snowcat to take guests up to The Ridge, a free ride designed to grant convenient access to its wider terrain.

Monarch received Forest Service acceptance of its new master plan last November. The Base Lodge expansion and remodel is the first project, a $2.3 million investment. An additional 16,000 square feet of space will enhance the facilities and services. The improvements include rejuvenation of the entire lodge, including creating indoor stairs to all levels, a handicap elevator, a fire suppression system and more seating throughout the Lodge.

Guests will notice the newly expanded Base Lodge upon arrival. On the right side of the building at the parking level there is now a direct-to-mountain walk-thru entrance.

As part of its commitment to improving the experience for beginners and introducing newbies to the sport, Arapahoe Basin is adding an $80,000 conveyor lift in the Pika Place Learning Arena. Already home to North America’s highest terrain park, the resort will prepare to open the 2012-13 season with the addition of a beginner-level terrain park, called Ace’s Kids Park, which will be adjacent to the new lift.

Winter Park Resort will add a new Tube Park for the upcoming season. This family-friendly amenity will give guests yet another exciting activity in the Village during the day and into the evening. Opening in December 2012, the new park will feature four lanes, conveyor lift access and a state-of-the-art warming structure with restrooms, hot chocolate service and flexible space available for groups.

Launched for the summer of 2012, Copper Mountain’s newest attraction – the Alpine Rush Zip Line – will continue to operate throughout the 2012-13 winter ski season. This family-friendly ride features a unique dueling-design which allows two guests to fly side-by-side as they soar 30 feet above Copper’s bustling West Lake ice skating rink. The flight travels 300 feet across the lake, reaching speeds of up to 30mph. Alpine Rush makes the perfect addition to Copper’s intimate, pedestrian-only Village, which also features restaurants, shopping and comfortable lodging, all within walking distance to the lifts.

Snowmaking Improvements

Colorado is known for having consistent snow conditions and the 2012-13 season will be no exception as a number of resorts invested in snowmaking equipment. Arapahoe Basin has purchased a new $250,000 snowcat, and Winter Park Resort will replace two of its snowcats, resulting in improved snow maintenance at both resorts. Steamboat Resort will add a new Bison groomer to its fleet, expanding and upgrading snowmaking capabilities, and will also add new 4-stroke energy efficient snowmobiles. Howelsen Hill will be introducing a new Super PoleCat snow gun to facilitate the hill’s snowmaking ability, complementing its new ski jump.

Last season, Copper Mountain partnered with the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association (USSA) to create the U.S. Ski Team Speed Center, an exclusive on-snow alpine ski racing venue designed to provide full length downhill training by early November each season. For the 2012-13 season Copper will fine-tune the automated snowmaking system for the Speed Center.

New snowmaking pipes are being installed at Crested Butte Mountain Resort, adding more acreage and more capacity to the East River area. Enhanced

snowmaking will allow the resort to open this area sooner, with better coverage in the early winter season. The resort has also leased a new Prinoth snow groomer, the Bison X,which will maintain one of the state’s best corduroy.

During the off-season, Telluride completed an operational and energy analysis on existing snowmaking equipment. After this study, the resort received a snowmaking grant through National Ski Areas Association’s (NSAA) Sustainable Slopes Program that includes five high-efficiency snowmaking guns. These new guns will be a significant addition to the 10 high-efficiency guns purchased last season, and complement the three new Piston Bully snowcat groomers that Telluride’s grooming department has added to its fleet to improve terrain grooming.

Wolf Creek not only purchased a new Piston Bully 400 Snowcat to improve terrain options, but has installed two more Gazex exploders, one in the Horseshoe Bowl and one on the Knife Ridge. The Gazex and Aviblasters are an integral part of Wolf Creek’s Avalanche Hazard Reduction Program.

Partnerships, Rental Fleets, Ski School Improvements and New Access

Copper Mountain, home of the unique Woodward at Copper, has acquired a 14’x14’ Super Tramp at the facility for the upcoming season. There are only three Super Tramps in the country. Woodward, dedicated to park and pipe progression, has also added a portable skate mini-ramp.

Silverton Mountain will begin hiking access, and heli drops for an upgrade fee, to new runs that require rappels in or out of couloirs and/or big snowy aprons. This will allow access to places like the Mad Dog, Close Out Couloirs off Storm Peak, and the Hidden Valley – a large, open powdery bowl with no accessibility except via a 100 ft. rappel. The new activity is $425 per person and promises the adventure of a lifetime.

Steamboat Resort has partnered with ski manufacturer Rossignol to create the Rossignol Experience Center. Rossignol’s line of Experience Skis were created to fit the needs of skiers ranging from novice to expert, making the progression easier, faster and more fun. Similarly, the upcoming season will see yet another step in the progression of Durango Mountain Resort as it has also partnered with ski manufacturer Rossignol to open a Rossignol Experience Center. The Durango Mountain Resort Ski School has been trained by Rossignol to incorporate the new Experience technology into their lesson programs, minimizing the learning curve and getting resort skiers out and enjoying the entire mountain quicker than ever. Crested Butte Mountain Resort will also introduce its new partnership with Rossignol this season, and the resort’s Rental and Demo Center will utilize Rossignol’s Experience Demo program to aid in the learning process.

Monarch is investing an additional $300,000 to improve the guest experience by expanding its rental and demo fleet of skis, snowboards and boots. Additionally, the Monarch ski school staff will don new highly visible green uniforms, and ski patrol will add new snowmobiles to assist guests and open terrain quickly and more efficiently.

Winter Park Resort has grown its rental fleet by adding new helmets, boots, skis and snowboards to ensure guests can enjoy the newest equipment available, while Wolf Creek has also invested heavily in its rental fleet to provide the same opportunity.

Helmets: why cycling, skiing, skateboarding helmets don’t work

Posted: August 15, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Cycling, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Bicycle helmet, Bike Helmet, biking, CPSC, Cycling, Cycling Helmet, helmet, Helmets, skiing, UIAA | 3 Comments

Thanks to Brad Waldron at Kali Protectives for giving me the visual to explain this.

A helmet needs to absorb energy to work. The more energy a helmet absorbs the more protection a helmet provides. If you look at the inside of your helmet

what is there to absorb energy?

A helmet does not work by being a hard surface to protect your head from head injuries. Hard surfaces protect your head from pointed objects. Think Knights of the Round Table and spears and arrows. If you are riding a bike or skiing and someone is shooting arrows at you, you need a hard helmet.

Hitting the ground is different. Your brain bounces around inside your skill causing damage; a concussion. You need something to absorb the impact and soften the blow or extend the time the impact (force) is being applied to your head, which softens the blow. Helmets as they are currently used, do not do that.

Think about the issue this way. If you drop a weight on an egg, say 11 pounds from 4 feet the egg is going to smash. If you put a book on top of the egg and drop the 11-pound weight the egg is still going to smash. The amount of energy transmitted to the egg maybe reduced by the book; however, the energy reduction is not enough to protect the egg.

A Bicycle or ski helmet is the same way. There is some energy absorption, but not enough to protect your brain.

If you want to know why I picked 11 pounds from 4 feet that is the test for helmets. Watch Video of cycling helmet testing. No one is testing the force on the head, if the helmet absorbs any of the force, or if the impact broke your neck.

On top of that, always remember the helmet is tested with the impact landing in the center top of the helmet. When you fall to make sure you drive your head into the ground hitting the helmet in the center on top of your head to receive the maximum protection.

See for yourself. This is the UIAA (European) Test for Helmets.

This test is for climbing and some European ski helmets. In the US, a bike helmet and ski helmets are not tested for lateral force, slippage or chin strap strength.

There are some organizations that test the helmets to greater extremes such as Consumer Reports, but all they are doing is testing the helmet. They are not looking at whether the helmet protects your head. See Consumer Reports Bike Helmet Testing.

We are not testing whether a helmet looks good after an impact. We are testing whether the helmet protects your head from an impact and the drop test does not test that sufficiently, if at all.

If you want to test this yourself, figure a way to stick an egg under a helmet and drop a weight on the helmet. The egg is still going to crack or break.

Yes, your head is not an egg. It is just easier to see the results with an egg. The helmet did not decrease the pressure enough to protect the egg. The injury still occurred. If you could take the time to measure the breaking strength of an egg and then start below that number and drop weights on the helmet you would see a difference eventually which would be the amount of protections the helmet provides. However, that number would be small and probably no different from what a plastic bowl would do.

If you really want to test this, go buy two eggs. Drop one from 15 feet and see what happens to the egg. Tape the other one in your helmet and drop it from the same height. The egg will crack (and make a real mess in your helmet).

Want more laughs about this? Watch this video where a cardboard helmet does a better job of protecting your head, by absorbing more force, than a bicycle helmet. See Kranium helmet Crash Test

Yes, your head is not an egg. Yes, a helmet will protect you from minor hits. Yes, a helmet is probably better than not using a helmet, unless the process stops you from riding a bike or skiing. The health benefits of activity out weight the risk of a head injury.

If that is the case, then why not wear a helmet when you drive, shower or work in the kitchen. All three have a far greater risk of head injuries then cycling.

However, we have not looked at whether using helmets deters activities. See TEDxCopenhagen – Mikael Colville-Andersen – Why We Shouldn’t Bike with a Helmet. I love the fact the in the video Mr. Colville-Andersen lets you know that the helmet tests were designed for pedestrians wearing helmets. Also he points out that helmet laws do not reduce head injuries. They reduce the total number of people riding bikes, which results in a reduction of head injuries.

Nor have we looked at the issue of the advertised protection versus the real protection afforded by a helmet.

Finally, we have not looked at whether wearing a helmet makes you react in a way to protect other parts of your body rather than your head. If you fall you natural protect your head. Your arms go out to keep your head form hitting the ground and then your cradle your head from being hit or hitting the ground. This accounts for tons of videos and statements when people hold up their battered helmet and say my helmet saved my life.

However, a helmet will not save your life. If you want to be cool and have a helmet that might protect your head watch this video: Hövding krocktest

But without bike and ski helmets where would we mount our video cameras?