American Avalanche Association: AVPRO course location and dates

The American Avalanche Association is pleased to announce this year’s AVPRO course location and dates.

Slide2.JPG
Join UsAVPRO 2014
Greetings A3 Members,The American Avalanche Association is pleased to announce this year’s AVPRO course location and dates. For the first time AVPRO is coming to Lake Tahoe, CA/NV February 25-March 4, 2014. Drawing on Lake Tahoe’s deep ski industry history, abundant yearly snowfall, and steep rugged terrain, students will spend time learning from some of the industry’s most experienced avalanche professionals. Details can be found at www.americanavalancheassociation.org/edu_courses.php.Who should attend AVPRO? AVPRO is intended for all disciplines of avalanche professionals with a solid background in avalanche fundamentals, companion rescue, and basic snow assessment. The course will continue to build on this foundation of snow science with an emphasis on high level of companion and organized avalanche rescue, accurate and advanced snow stability assessment, and avalanche control programs and procedures. Other common questions and answers can be found at http://americanavalancheassociation.org/pdf/AVPro_FAQs.pdf or by contacting our new AVPRO coordinator, Dallas Glass.Join us this season for what will be an exciting time of learning and networking as avalanche professionals.

dallas

Dallas Glass
AVPRO Coordinator- Education Committee
American Avalanche Association
dallasglass
205-994-4778


Montana Ski Statues

TITLE 23  PARKS, RECREATION, SPORTS, AND GAMBLING

CHAPTER 2  RECREATION

PART 7  PASSENGER ROPEWAYS — SKI AREAS

Mont. Code Anno., § 23-2-701 (2012)

23-2-701  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-702  Definitions.

As used in this part, the following definitions apply:

(1)  “Freestyle terrain” means terrain parks and terrain features, including but not limited to jumps, rails, fun boxes, half-pipes, quarter-pipes, and freestyle bump terrain, and any other constructed features.

(2)  “Inherent dangers and risks of skiing” means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including:

(a)  changing weather conditions;

(b)  snow conditions as they exist or as they may change, including ice, hardpack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn snow, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow;

(c)  avalanches, except on open, designated ski trails;

(d)  collisions with natural surface or subsurface conditions, such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, trees, and other natural objects;

(e)  collisions with lift towers, signs, posts, fences, enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other artificial structures and their components;

(f)  variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or the result of slope design, snowmaking, or snow grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, ski jumps, catwalks, and other terrain modifications;

(g)  collisions with clearly visible or plainly marked equipment, including but not limited to lift equipment, snowmaking equipment, snow grooming equipment, trail maintenance equipment, and snowmobiles, whether or not the equipment is moving;

(h)  collisions with other skiers;

(i)  the failure of a skier to ski within that skier’s ability;

(j)  skiing in a closed area or skiing outside the ski area boundary as designated on the ski area trail map; and

(k)  restricted visibility caused by snow, wind, fog, sun, or darkness.

(3)  “Passenger” means any person who is being transported or conveyed by a passenger ropeway.

(4)  “Passenger ropeway” means a device used to transport passengers by means of an aerial tramway or lift, surface lift, surface conveyor, or surface tow.

(5)  “Ski area operator” or “operator” means a person, firm, or corporation and its agents and employees having operational and administrative responsibility for ski slopes and trails and improvements.

(6)  “Ski slopes and trails” means those areas designated by the ski area operator to be used by skiers for skiing.

(7)  “Skier” means a person who is using any ski area facility for the purpose of skiing, including but not limited to ski slopes and trails.

(8)  “Skiing” means any activity, including an organized event, that involves sliding or jumping on snow or ice while using skis, a snowboard, or any other sliding device.

23-2-703  Ropeways not common carriers or public utilities.

Passenger ropeways may not be construed to be common carriers or public utilities for the purposes of regulation within the meaning of the laws of the state of Montana.

23-2-704  Unlawful to endanger life or cause damage.

(1)  It is unlawful for a passenger riding or using a passenger ropeway to endanger the life and safety of other persons or cause damage to passenger ropeway equipment.

(2)  A person who purposely or knowingly violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

23-2-705  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-706  through 23-2-710 reserved.

23-2-711  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-712  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-713  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-714  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-715  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-716  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-717  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-718  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-719  and 23-2-720 reserved.

23-2-721  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-722  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-723  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-724  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-725  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-726  through 23-2-730 reserved.

23-2-731  Purpose.

The legislature finds that skiing is a major recreational sport and a major industry in the state and recognizes that among the attractions of the sport are the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the economic viability of the ski industry by discouraging claims based on damages resulting from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, defining the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, and establishing the duties of skiers and ski area operators.

23-2-732  Repealed.

Sec. 4, Ch. 346, L. 1997.

23-2-733  Duties of operator regarding ski areas.

(1)  Consistent with the duty of reasonable care owed by a ski area operator to a skier, a ski area operator shall:

(a)  mark all trail grooming vehicles by furnishing the vehicles with flashing or rotating lights that must be in operation whenever the vehicles are working or are in movement in the ski area;

(b)  mark with a visible sign or other warning implement the location of any hydrant or similar equipment used in snowmaking operations and located on ski slopes and trails;

(c)  maintain one or more trail boards at prominent locations at each ski area displaying a map of that area’s network of ski slopes and trails, the boundaries of the ski area, and the relative degree of difficulty of the ski slopes and trails at that area;

(d)  post a notice requiring the use of ski-retention devices;

(e)  designate at the start of each day, by trail board or otherwise, which ski slopes and trails are open or closed and amend those designations as openings and closures occur during the day;

(f)  post in a conspicuous location the current skier responsibility code that is published by the national ski areas association;

(g)  post a copy of 23-2-736 in a conspicuous location; and

(h)  mark designated freestyle terrain with a symbol recognized by the national ski areas association.

(2)  Nothing in this part may be construed to impose any duty owed by a ski area operator to a trespasser or an unauthorized user of a ski area.

23-2-734  Duties of operator with respect to passenger ropeways.

A ski area operator shall construct, operate, maintain, and repair any passenger ropeway. An operator has the duty of taking responsible actions to properly construct, operate, maintain, and repair a passenger ropeway in accordance with current standards.

23-2-735  Duties of passenger.

A passenger may not:

(1)  board or disembark from a passenger ropeway except at an area designated for those purposes;

(2)  throw or expel any object from a passenger ropeway;

(3)  interfere with the running or operation of a passenger ropeway;

(4)  use a passenger ropeway unless the passenger has the ability to use it safely without any instruction on its use by the operator or requests and receives instruction before boarding;

(5)  embark on a passenger ropeway without the authority of the operator.

23-2-736  Duties of skier.

(1)  A skier has the duty to ski at all times in a manner that avoids injury to the skier and others and to be aware of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.

(2)  A skier:

(a)  shall know the range of the skier’s ability and safely ski within the limits of that ability and the skier’s equipment so as to negotiate any section of terrain or ski slope and trail safely and without injury or damage. A skier shall know that the skier’s ability may vary because of ski slope and trail changes caused by weather, grooming changes, or skier use.

(b)  shall maintain control of speed and course so as to prevent injury to the skier or others;

(c)  shall abide by the requirements of the skier responsibility code that is published by the national ski areas association and that is posted as provided in 23-2-733;

(d)  shall obey all posted or other warnings and instructions of the ski area operator; and

(e)  shall read the ski area trail map and must be aware of its contents.

(3)  A person may not:

(a)  place an object in the ski area or on the uphill track of a passenger ropeway that may cause a passenger or skier to fall;

(b)  cross the track of a passenger ropeway except at a designated and approved point; or

(c)  if involved in a skiing accident, depart from the scene of the accident without:

(i)  leaving personal identification; or

(ii)  notifying the proper authorities and obtaining assistance when the person knows that a person involved in the accident is in need of medical or other assistance.

(4)  A skier shall accept all legal responsibility for injury or damage of any kind to the extent that the injury or damage results from inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Nothing in this part may be construed to limit a skier’s right to hold another skier legally accountable for damages caused by the other skier.

23-2-737  Repealed.

Sec. 5, Ch. 429, L. 1989.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

 

 

#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, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, EMS, Emergency Medical Systems, Montana, MT Montana ski Statute, Ski Safety Act, Skiing, Snowboarding

WordPress Tags: Montana,Statues,TITLE,PARKS,RECREATION,SPORTS,CHAPTER,PART,PASSENGER,ROPEWAYS,AREAS,Mont,Code,Anno,Definitions,Freestyle,terrain,Inherent,dangers,corn,crust,slush,machine,avalanches,collisions,growth,cliffs,trees,enclosures,components,variations,roads,catwalks,modifications,equipment,maintenance,failure,area,boundary,person,device,passengers,operator,corporation,agents,employees,improvements,Skier,purpose,event,carriers,utilities,purposes,regulation,laws,Unlawful,life,misdemeanor,legislature,industry,attractions,duties,operators,Consistent,vehicles,location,locations,boundaries,degree,retention,designations,openings,closures,association,symbol,trespasser,user,accordance,instruction,manner,injury,requirements,warnings,instructions,accident,identification,assistance,extent,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,Outside,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,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,Samaritan,Emergency,Medical,Systems,Statute,whether,skiers,ropeway


Colorado Inaugurates 2013-14 Ski Season

Resort Opening Dates Available.

Arapahoe Basin First Ski Resort in the Nation to Open for the Season

Colorado’s 2013/14 ski season is underway today as Arapahoe Basin opened its chair lift to crowds of animated skiers and snowboarders. At 8:30a.m., with an 18-inch base and lifts running, Arapahoe Basin became the first resort in North America to open for the 2013/14 ski season. Arapahoe Basin’s opening, along with recently announced pass deals and new improvements at Colorado resorts, has skiers and riders eager for the season ahead.

Several resorts in Colorado have taken advantage of cold nighttime temperatures and ideal humidity conditions over the past several weeks. Arapahoe Basin and Loveland Ski Area began making snow on the evening of Friday, September 27, and have made snow or received natural snow most days since then. New snowmaking equipment upgrades, ideal snowmaking conditions, and recent natural snowfall have added to Arapahoe Basin’s base accumulation resulting in the resort’s current packed powder conditions. Today skiers and riders accessed the Black Mountain Express lift and enjoyed skiing on intermediate run High Noon.

For Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA), today’s exciting opening brings optimism for the season ahead. “Seeing skiers and snowboarders taking their first turns of the season is one of the highlights of the year,” said Colorado Ski Country USA President and CEO, Melanie Mills. “Since the first high country snowstorms several weeks ago, we’ve seen the enthusiasm in skiers and snowboarders building towards this day. Thanks to helpful weather patterns and the hard work of Snowmakers and groomers, all of Colorado’s resorts will open with top notch products our guests will enjoy.”

The recent autumn snow storms and early winter season conditions brought a robust crowd to Arapahoe Basin today, signifying skiers and riders are more than ready to enjoy Colorado’s signature winter sports. “Resorts continue to focus on the guest experience, with everything from safety to service,” continued Mills. “Whether the emphasis is on families, learning or value, visitors can expect the same qualities from resorts this year that keep them coming back to Colorado season after season.”

Amid all of the Opening Day celebrations, Colorado’s Governor, John Hickenlooper, congratulated Arapahoe Basin on being first to open saying, “It’s still fall but the 2013/14 ski and snowboard season is open for business in Colorado.” He continued, “Tourism and recreation are some of our most visible and important industries in Colorado, not to mention key economic drivers, and with today’s grand opening we are looking forward to a fun-filled and snowy year on the slopes.”

The race to host Opening Day is one of the highlights of the ski season, a title often held by Colorado’s Arapahoe Basin or Loveland. Both resorts are perched atop the Continental Divide giving them higher elevations, earlier frosts and colder temperatures. This also allows them to stay open long into the spring giving Colorado one of the longest ski seasons in the country.

Below is a current list of scheduled opening dates for CSCUSA member resorts*.

Resort Opening (and closing) Dates

Arapahoe Basin:                          October 13, 2013 – Early June 2014

Aspen Highlands:                         December 14, 2013 – April 13, 2014

Aspen Mountain:                         November 28, 2013 – April 20, 2014

Buttermilk:                                 December 14, 2013 – April 6, 2014

Copper Mountain:                        November 1, 2013 – April 13, 2014

Crested Butte:                            November 27, 2013 – April 6, 2014

Eldora:                                      November 22, 2013 – April 13, 2014

Howelsen Hill:                             November 30, 2013 – March 16, 2014

Loveland:                                   Mid October 2013 – Early May 2014

Monarch Mountain:                      Mid November 2013 – April 13, 2014

Powderhorn:                               December 12, 2013 – March 30, 2014

Purgatory:                                  November 29, 2013 – March 30, 2014

Silverton:                                   December 21, 2013 – April 13, 2014

Ski Cooper:                                December 14, 2013 – April 6, 2014

Ski Granby Ranch:                       December 11, 2013 – April 6, 2014

Snowmass:                                 November 28, 2013 – April 20, 2014

Steamboat:                                November 27, 2013 – April 13, 2014

Sunlight:                                    December 6, 2013 – March 30, 2014

Telluride:                                   November 28, 2013 – April 6, 2014

Winter Park:                               November 13, 2013 – April 20, 2014

Wolf Creek:                                November 8, 2013 – April 6, 2014

*Dates are subject to change.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

 

 

#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, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, EMS, Emergency Medical Systems, Skiing, Snowboarding, Colorado,A-Basin, Arapahoe Basin, Ski Area,

WordPress Tags: Colorado,Inaugurates,Season,Resort,Dates,Available,Arapahoe,Basin,Nation,Open,North,America,improvements,resorts,riders,Several,advantage,temperatures,Loveland,Area,September,equipment,snowfall,accumulation,Black,Mountain,High,Noon,Country,CSCUSA,optimism,President,Melanie,Mills,snowstorms,enthusiasm,Thanks,Snowmakers,products,guests,autumn,winter,signature,guest,Whether,emphasis,families,visitors,Amid,celebrations,Governor,John,Hickenlooper,Tourism,recreation,industries,drivers,Both,Continental,Divide,elevations,frosts,member,October,June,Aspen,Highlands,December,April,November,Buttermilk,Copper,Butte,Eldora,Howelsen,Hill,March,Monarch,Powderhorn,Purgatory,Silverton,Cooper,Granby,Ranch,Snowmass,Steamboat,Telluride,Park,Wolf,Creek,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,Outside,Attorney,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,Samaritan,Emergency,Medical,Systems,skiers,snowboarders,weeks


Oregon Ski Area Statutes

Oregon Ski Area Statutes

TITLE 3.  REMEDIES AND SPECIAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 30.  ACTIONS AND SUITS IN PARTICULAR CASES

SKIING ACTIVITIES

(2005) 30.970. Definitions for ORS 30.970 to 30.990.

As used in ORS 30.970 to 30.990:

(1)“Inherent risks of skiing” includes, but is not limited to, those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of the sport, such as changing weather conditions, variations or steepness in terrain, snow or ice conditions, surface or subsurface conditions, bare spots, creeks and gullies, forest growth, rocks, stumps, lift towers and other structures and their components, collisions with other skiers and a skier’s failure to ski within the skier’s own ability.

(2)“Injury” means any personal injury or property damage or loss.

(3)“Skier” means any person who is in a ski area for the purpose of engaging in the sport of skiing or who rides as a passenger on any ski lift device.

(4)“Ski area” means any area designated and maintained by a ski area operator for skiing.

(5)“Ski area operator” means those persons, and their agents, officers, employees or representatives, who operate a ski area.

30.975. Skiers assume certain risks.

In accordance with ORS 31.600 and notwithstanding ORS 31.620 (2), an individual who engages in the sport of skiing, alpine or nordic, accepts and assumes the inherent risks of skiing insofar as they are reasonably obvious, expected or necessary.

30.980. Notice to ski area operator of injury to skier; injuries resulting in death; statute of limitations; informing skiers of notice requirements.

(1)A ski area operator shall be notified of any injury to a skier by registered or certified mail within 180 days after the injury or within 180 days after the skier discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, such injury.

(2)When an injury results in a skier’s death, the required notice of the injury may be presented to the ski area operator by or on behalf of the personal representative of the deceased, or any person who may, under ORS 30.020, maintain an action for the wrongful death of the skier, within 180 days after the date of the death which resulted from the injury. However, if the skier whose injury resulted in death presented a notice to the ski area operator that would have been sufficient under this section had the skier lived, notice of the death to the ski area operator is not necessary.

(3)An action against a ski area operator to recover damages for injuries to a skier shall be commenced within two years of the date of the injuries. However, ORS 12.160 and 12.190 apply to such actions.

(4)Failure to give notice as required by this section bars a claim for injuries or wrongful death unless:

(a)  The ski area operator had knowledge of the injury or death within the 180-day period after its occurrence;

(b)The skier or skier’s beneficiaries had good cause for failure to give notice as required by this section; or

(c)  The ski area operator failed to comply with subsection (5) of this section.

(5)Ski area operators shall give to skiers, in a manner reasonably calculated to inform, notice of the requirements for notifying a ski area operator of injury and the effect of a failure to provide such notice under this section.

30.985. Duties of skiers; effect of failure to comply.

(1)         Skiers shall have duties which include but are not limited to the following:

(a)  Skiers who ski in any area not designated for skiing within the permit area assume the inherent risks thereof.

(b)Skiers shall be the sole judges of the limits of their skills and their ability to meet and overcome the inherent risks of skiing and shall maintain reasonable control of speed and course.

(c)  Skiers shall abide by the directions and instructions of the ski area operator.

(d)Skiers shall familiarize themselves with posted information on location and degree of difficulty of trails and slopes to the extent reasonably possible before skiing on any slope or trail.

(e)  Skiers shall not cross the uphill track of any surface lift except at points clearly designated by the ski area operator.

(f)  Skiers shall not overtake any other skier except in such a manner as to avoid contact and shall grant the right of way to the overtaken skier.

(g)  Skiers shall yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill.

(h)Skiers must wear retention straps or other devices to prevent runaway skis.

(i)   Skiers shall not board rope tows, wire rope tows, j-bars, t-bars, ski lifts or other similar devices unless they have sufficient ability to use the devices, and skiers shall follow any written or verbal instructions that are given regarding the devices.

(j)   Skiers, when involved in a skiing accident, shall not depart from the ski area without leaving their names and addresses if reasonably possible.

(k)A skier who is injured should, if reasonably possible, give notice of the injury to the ski area operator before leaving the ski area.

(L) Skiers shall not embark or disembark from a ski lift except at designated areas or by the authority of the ski area operator.

(2)         Violation of any of the duties of skiers set forth in subsection (1) of this section entitles the ski area operator to withdraw the violator’s privilege of skiing.

30.990. Operators required to give skiers notice of duties.

Ski area operators shall give notice to skiers of their duties under ORS 30.985 in a manner reasonably calculated to inform skiers of those duties.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

 

 

#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, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, EMS, Emergency Medical Systems, Oregon,, OR, Oregon Ski Statutes, Oregon Ski Safety Act, Skiing, Snowboarding, Ski Statute

WordPress Tags: Oregon,Area,Statutes,TITLE,REMEDIES,SPECIAL,ACTIONS,PROCEEDINGS,CHAPTER,SUITS,PARTICULAR,CASES,ACTIVITIES,Definitions,Inherent,dangers,variations,terrain,creeks,gullies,growth,components,collisions,failure,Injury,Skier,person,purpose,device,operator,agents,officers,employees,Skiers,accordance,Notice,injuries,death,statute,limitations,requirements,action,knowledge,occurrence,beneficiaries,subsection,operators,manner,Duties,skills,instructions,information,location,degree,extent,retention,accident,areas,Violation,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,Outside,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,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,Samaritan,Emergency,Medical,Systems


Ohio Ski Area Statutes

TITLE 41.  LABOR AND INDUSTRY

CHAPTER 4169.  SKI TRAMWAY BOARD

ORC Ann. 4169.10  (2007)

§ 4169.01. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

(A)“Skier” means any person who is using the facilities of a ski area, including, but not limited to, the ski slopes and ski trails, for the purpose of skiing, which includes, without limitation, sliding or jumping on snow or ice on skis, a snowboard, sled, tube, snowbike, toboggan, or any other device.

(B)“Passenger” means any person who is being transported or conveyed by a passenger tramway.

(C)“Ski slopes” or “ski trails” means those sites that are reserved or maintained and are open for use, as designated by a ski area operator.

(D)“Ski area” means all the ski slopes, ski trails, and passenger tramways that are administered or operated as a single enterprise within this state.

(E)“Ski area operator” means a person or organization that is responsible for the operation of a ski area, including an agency of this state or of a political subdivision thereof.

(F)“Passenger tramway” means a device used to transport passengers uphill, whether on skis or other devices or without skis or other devices, or in cars on tracks or suspended in the air, by the use of steel cables, chains, or belts or by ropes, and that is usually supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans. “Passenger tramway” includes all of the following:

(1)Aerial passenger tramway, a device used to transport passengers in several open or enclosed cars attached to and suspended from a moving wire rope or attached to a moving wire rope and supported on a standing wire rope, or similar devices;

(2)Skimobile, a device in which a passenger car running on steel or wooden tracks is attached to and pulled by a steel cable, or similar devices;

(3)Chair lift, a device on which passengers are carried on chairs suspended in the air and attached to a moving cable, chain, or link belt supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans, or similar devices. Chair lifts need not include foot-rests or passenger restraint devices.

(4)J bar, T bar, or platter pull, devices that pull skiers riding on skis or other devices by means of an attachment to a main overhead cable supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans, or similar devices;

(5)Rope tow, a device with one span and no intermediate towers that pulls skiers riding on skis or other devices as they grasp a rope manually, or similar devices;

(6)Wire rope tow, a device with one span and no intermediate towers by which skiers are pulled on skis or other devices while manually grasping a bar attached to a wire hauling cable.

(7)Conveyor, a flexible moving element, including a belt, that transports passengers on one path and returns underneath the uphill portion.

The operation of a passenger tramway shall not constitute the operation of a common carrier.

(G)“Competitor” means a skier actually engaged in competition, a special event, or training or practicing for competition or a special event in any portion of the area made available by the ski area operator.

(H)“Freestyler” means a skier utilizing freestyle terrain marked with signage approved by the national ski areas association.

(I)  “Freestyle terrain” means, but is not limited to, terrain parks and terrain park features, such as jumps, rails, fun boxes, other constructed or natural features, half-pipes, quarter-pipes, and freestyle-bump terrain.

(J)  “Tubing park” means a ski slope designated and maintained for the exclusive use of skiers utilizing tubes to slide to the bottom of the course and serviced by a dedicated passenger tramway.

§ 4169.02. Ski tramway board established

(A)For the purposes of regulating the construction, maintenance, mechanical operation, and inspection of passenger tramways that are associated with ski areas and of registering operators of passenger tramways in this state, there is hereby established in the division of industrial compliance in the department of commerce a ski tramway board to be appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate. The board shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be a public member who is an experienced skier and familiar with ski areas in this state, one of whom shall be a ski area operator actively engaged in the business of recreational skiing in this state, and one of whom shall be a professional engineer who is knowledgeable in the design or operation of passenger tramways.

Of the initial appointments, one member shall be appointed for a term of one year, one for a term of two years, and one for a term of three years. The member appointed to the term beginning on July 1, 1996, shall be appointed to a term ending on June 30, 1997; the member appointed to a term beginning on July 1, 1997, shall be appointed to a term ending on June 30, 1999; and the member appointed to a term beginning on July 1, 1998, shall be appointed to a term ending on June 30, 2001. Thereafter, each of the members shall be appointed for a term of six years. Each member shall hold office from the date of appointment until the end of the term for which the member was appointed. In the event of a vacancy, the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint a successor who shall hold office for the remainder of the term for which the successor’s predecessor was appointed. A member shall continue in office subsequent to the expiration date of the member’s term until the member’s successor takes office or until a period of sixty days has elapsed, whichever occurs first. The board shall elect a chairperson from its members.

The governor may remove any member of the board at any time for misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance in office after giving the member a copy of the charges against the member and an opportunity to be heard publicly in person or by counsel in the member’s defense. Any such act of removal by the governor is final. A statement of the findings of the governor, the reason for the governor’s action, and the answer, if any, of the member shall be filed by the governor with the secretary of state and shall be open to public inspection.

Members of the board shall be paid two hundred fifty dollars for each meeting that the member attends, except that no member shall be paid or receive more than seven hundred fifty dollars for attending meetings during any calendar year. Each member shall be reimbursed for the member’s actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official board duties. The chairperson shall be paid two hundred fifty dollars annually in addition to any compensation the chairperson receives under this division for attending meetings and any other compensation the chairperson receives for serving on the board.

The division shall provide the board with such offices and such clerical, professional, and other assistance as may be reasonably necessary for the board to carry on its work. The division shall maintain accurate copies of the board’s rules as promulgated in accordance with division (B) of this section and shall keep all of the board’s records, including business records, and inspection reports as well as its own records and reports. The cost of administering the board and conducting inspections shall be included in the budget of the division based on revenues generated by the registration fees established under section 4169.03 of the Revised Code.

(B)In accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, the board shall adopt and may amend or rescind rules relating to public safety in the construction, maintenance, mechanical operation, and inspection of passenger tramways. The rules shall be in accordance with established standards in the business of ski area operation, if any, and shall not discriminate in their application to ski area operators.

No person shall violate the rules of the board.

(C)The authority of the board shall not extend to any matter relative to the operation of a ski area other than the construction, maintenance, mechanical operation, and inspection of passenger tramways.

(D)A majority of the board constitutes a quorum and may perform and exercise all the duties and powers devolving upon the board.

§ 4169.03. Registration of passenger tramway operators

(A)Before a passenger tramway operator may operate any passenger tramway in the state, the operator shall apply to the ski tramway board, on forms prepared by it, for registration by the board. The application shall contain an inventory of the passenger tramways that the applicant intends to operate and other information as the board may reasonably require and shall be accompanied by the following annual fees:

(1)Each aerial passenger tramway, five hundred dollars;

(2)Each skimobile, two hundred dollars;

(3)Each chair lift, two hundred dollars;

(4)Each J bar, T bar, or platter pull, one hundred dollars;

(5)Each rope tow, fifty dollars;

(6)Each wire rope tow, seventy-five dollars;

(7)Each conveyor, one hundred dollars.

When an operator operates an aerial passenger tramway, a skimobile, or a chair lift during both a winter and summer season, the annual fee shall be one and one-half the above amount for the respective passenger tramway.

(B)Upon payment of the appropriate annual fees in accordance with division (A) of this section, the board shall issue a registration certificate to the operator. Each certificate shall remain in force until the thirtieth day of September next ensuing. The board shall renew an operator’s certificate in accordance with the standard renewal procedure in Chapter 4745. of the Revised Code upon payment of the appropriate annual fees.

(C)Money received from the registration fees and from the fines collected pursuant to section 4169.99 of the Revised Code shall be paid into the state treasury to the credit of the industrial compliance operating fund created in section 121.084 [121.08.4] of the Revised Code.

(D)No person shall operate a passenger tramway in this state unless the person has been registered by the board.

§ 4169.04. Inspections; report of violation

(A)The division of industrial compliance in the department of commerce shall make such inspection of the construction, maintenance, and mechanical operation of passenger tramways as the ski tramway board may reasonably require. The division may contract with other qualified engineers to make such inspection or may accept the inspection report by any qualified inspector of an insurance company authorized to insure passenger tramways in this state.

(B)If, as the result of an inspection, an employee of the division or other agent with whom the division has contracted finds that a violation of the board’s rules exists or a condition in passenger tramway construction, maintenance, or mechanical operation exists that endangers public safety, the employee or agent shall make an immediate report to the board for appropriate investigation and order.

§ 4169.05. Written complaint alleging violation

Any person may make a written complaint to the ski tramway board setting forth an alleged violation of the board’s rules by a registered passenger tramway operator or a condition in passenger tramway construction, maintenance, or mechanical operation that allegedly endangers public safety. The board shall forward a copy of the complaint to the operator named in it and may accompany it with an order that requires the operator to answer the complaint in writing within a specified period of time. The board may investigate the complaint if it determines that there are reasonable grounds for such an investigation.

§ 4169.06. Emergency order; investigation and order; suspension of certificate

(A)When facts are presented to any member of the ski tramway board that indicate that immediate danger exists in the continued operation of a passenger tramway, any member of the board, after such verification of the facts as is practical under the circumstances and consistent with immediate public safety, may by an emergency written order require the operator of the tramway to cease using the tramway immediately for the transportation of passengers. Any person may serve notice on the operator or the operator’s agent who is in immediate control of the tramway by delivering a true and attested copy of the order, and the operator or the operator’s agent shall furnish proof of receipt of such notice by signing an affidavit on the back of the copy of the order. The emergency order shall be effective for a period not to exceed forty-eight hours from the time of notification.

(B)Immediately after the issuance of an emergency order pursuant to this section, the board shall investigate the facts of the case. If the board finds that a violation of any of its rules exists or that a condition in passenger tramway construction, maintenance, or mechanical operation exists that endangers public safety, it shall issue a written order setting forth its findings and the corrective action to be taken and fixing a reasonable time for compliance.

(C)After an investigation pursuant to division (B) of this section, if the board determines that danger to public safety exists in the continued operation of a passenger tramway, it shall so state in the order, describe in detail the basis for its findings, and in the order may require the operator not to operate the tramway until the operator has taken the corrective action ordered pursuant to this section. If the operator continues to use the tramway following receipt of such order, the board may request the court of common pleas having jurisdiction in the county where the tramway is located to issue an injunction forbidding operation of the tramway.

(D)An operator of a passenger tramway may request a hearing by the board on any order issued pursuant to this chapter and may appeal the results of such a hearing in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code. An operator may appeal an order suspending the operation of the operator’s tramway without first requesting a hearing.

(E)If an operator fails to comply with an order of the board issued pursuant to this chapter within the specified time, the board may suspend the registration certificate of the operator for such time as it considers necessary to gain compliance with its order.

No operator shall operate a passenger tramway while the operator’s registration certificate is under suspension by the board.

§ 4169.07. Responsibilities of ski area operator and tramway passengers

(A)A ski area operator shall be responsible for any construction that the operator actually performs or has actually performed and for the maintenance and operation of any passenger tramway in the operator’s ski area.

(B)A passenger shall be responsible for: not embarking upon or disembarking from a passenger tramway except at an area that is designated for such purpose; not throwing or expelling any object from a passenger tramway; not performing any action that interferes with the running or operation of a passenger tramway; learning how to use a passenger tramway safely before the time that the passenger desires to embark upon it; not using such a tramway unless the passenger has the ability to use it safely without any on-the-spot instruction from the ski area operator; not engaging willfully or negligently in any type of conduct that contributes to or causes injury to another person; and not embarking upon a passenger tramway without the authority of the ski area operator.

§ 4169.08. Risks assumed by skier; responsibilities of operator and skier

(A)(1) The general assembly recognizes that skiing as a recreational sport is hazardous to skiers regardless of all feasible safety measures that can be taken. It further recognizes that a skier expressly assumes the risk of and legal responsibility for injury, death, or loss to person or property that results from the inherent risks of skiing, which include, but are not limited to, injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by changing weather conditions; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; bare spots, rocks, trees, stumps, and other forms of forest growth or debris; lift towers or other forms of towers and their components, either above or below the snow surface; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as the result of snowmaking, slope design, freestyle terrain, jumps, catwalks, or other terrain modifications; any other objects and structures, including, but not limited to, passenger tramways and related structures and equipment, competition equipment, utility poles, fences, posts, ski equipment, slalom poles, ropes, out-of-bounds barriers and their supports, signs, ski racks, walls, buildings, and sheds; and plainly marked or otherwise visible snowmaking and snow-grooming equipment, snowmobiles, snow cats, and over-snow vehicles.

(2)Provided that the ski area operator complies with division (B)(4) of this section, no liability shall attach to a ski area operator for injury, death, or loss to person or property suffered by any competitor or freestyler using a freestyle terrain, which injury, death, or loss to person or property is caused by course, venue, or area conditions that visual inspection should have revealed or by collision with a spectator, competition official, ski area personnel, or another competitor or freestyler.

(3)Provided the ski area operator complies with division (B)(5) of this section, no liability shall attach to a ski area operator for injury, death, or loss to person or property suffered by any skier using a tubing park, which injury, death, or loss to person or property is caused by course design or maintenance or conditions that visual inspection should have revealed or by collision with another skier.

(B)The legal responsibilities of a ski area operator to a skier with respect to any injury, death, or loss to person or property resulting in any way from an inherent risk of the sport shall not be those of the common law duty of premises owners to business invitees. A ski area operator shall have, however, the following responsibilities:

(1)To mark all trail maintenance vehicles and to furnish such vehicles with flashing or rotating lights that shall be in operation whenever the vehicles are working or are moving in the ski area;

(2)To mark with a visible sign or other warning implement the location of any hydrant or similar equipment that is used in snowmaking operations and located anywhere in the ski area;

(3)To mark, at the base of a slope or hill where skiers embark on a passenger tramway serving the slope or hill or at the top of a trail or slope, such slopes, trails, and hills with signs indicating their relative degree of difficulty. The signs must be the type that have been approved by the national ski areas association and are in current use by the industry;

(4)Prior to the use of any portion of a freestyle terrain area made available by the ski area operator, to allow each freestyler or competitor a reasonable opportunity to visually inspect the course, venue, or area of the freestyle terrain;

(5)To allow skiers using a tubing park visible access to the course.

(C)A skier shall have the following responsibilities:

(1)To know the range of the skier’s ability to negotiate any slope or trail or to use any passenger tramway that is associated with a slope or trail, to ski within the limits of the skier’s ability, to ski only on designated slopes and trails, to maintain control of speed and course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted warnings, and to not cross the track of a passenger tramway except at a designated area;

(2)To refrain from acting in a manner that may cause or contribute to the injury of another person, to refrain from causing collision with any person or object while skiing, and to not place any object in a ski area that may cause another skier or a passenger to fall;

(3)When involved in a skiing accident in which another person is involved who needs medical or other assistance, to obtain assistance for the person, to notify the proper authorities, and to not depart from the scene of the accident without leaving personal identification;

(4)If the skier is a competitor, freestyler, or user of freestyle terrain, to assume the risk of all course, venue, or area conditions, including, but not limited to, weather and snow conditions; obstacles; course or feature location, construction, or layout; freestyle terrain configuration and conditions; and other courses, layouts, or configurations of the area to be used;

(5)If the skier is utilizing a tubing park, to assume the risk of collision with others on the course.

§ 4169.09. Liability of operator, tramway passenger, freestyler, competitor, or skier

A ski area operator, a tramway passenger, freestyler, competitor, or skier is liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by the operator’s, passenger’s, freestyler’s, competitor’s, or skier’s failure to fulfill any of the responsibilities required by this chapter. A ski area operator, a tramway passenger, freestyler, competitor, or skier is not liable for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by another’s failure to fulfill any of the responsibilities required of another by this chapter. A ski area operator, a tramway passenger, freestyler, competitor, or skier is not entitled to recover for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by the operator’s, passenger’s, freestyler’s, competitor’s, or skier’s failure to fulfill any of the responsibilities required by this chapter.

§ 4169.10. Operator’s liability to violators of theft statute

A ski area operator is not liable for any losses or damages suffered by a person who was in violation of section 2913.02 of the Revised Code at the time that the losses or damages occurred.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

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

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

 

 

#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, Good Samaritan, Samaritan, First Aid, EMS, Emergency Medical Systems, Ohio, OH, Ohio Ski Statutes, Ohio Ski Area Statutes, Skiing, Snowboarding, Ski Area,

WordPress Tags: Ohio,Area,Statutes,TITLE,LABOR,INDUSTRY,CHAPTER,TRAMWAY,BOARD,Definitions,Skier,person,facilities,purpose,limitation,tube,device,Passenger,operator,enterprise,agency,subdivision,passengers,cars,trestles,Aerial,Skimobile,Chair,foot,platter,attachment,Rope,Wire,Conveyor,path,carrier,Competitor,competition,event,Freestyler,terrain,areas,association,Freestyle,parks,park,tubes,purposes,construction,maintenance,inspection,operators,compliance,department,commerce,governor,advice,senate,member,June,Thereafter,office,appointment,vacancy,successor,remainder,predecessor,expiration,chairperson,removal,statement,findings,action,secretary,Members,dollars,meetings,calendar,performance,duties,addition,compensation,offices,assistance,accordance,cost,inspections,revenues,registration,Code,quorum,inventory,applicant,information,winter,Upon,payment,certificate,September,renewal,procedure,Money,treasury,violation,inspector,insurance,employee,agent,investigation,Written,complaint,Emergency,suspension,danger,verification,transportation,receipt,affidavit,hours,notification,basis,pleas,jurisdiction,injunction,Responsibilities,instruction,injury,Risks,death,corn,crust,slush,machine,trees,growth,debris,components,variations,catwalks,modifications,equipment,barriers,buildings,cats,vehicles,venue,collision,spectator,personnel,premises,owners,location,hill,hills,degree,Prior,warnings,manner,accident,identification,user,obstacles,layout,configuration,layouts,configurations,failure,theft,statute,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Authorrank,author,Outside,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,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,Samaritan,Medical,Systems,skis,tramways,whether,skiers,three,whom,five,pursuant


Wyoming Ski Area Statute

WYOMING STATUTES ANNOTATED

Title 6  Crimes and Offenses

Chapter 9  Miscellaneous Offenses

Article 2.  Other

GO TO CODE OF WYOMING ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-201  (2012)

§ 6-9-201.  Trespass on closed or unsafe areas within ski areas; penalty; exceptions.

  (a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) if he:

   (i) Skis on a slope or trail that has been posted as “closed”;

   (ii) Knowingly enters upon public or private lands from an adjoining ski area when the lands have been closed by the owner and posted as closed by the owner or by the ski area operator; or

   (iii) Intentionally enters state or federal land leased and in use as a ski area, knowing:

      (A) The lessee of the premises has designated the land as an unsafe area; or

      (B) The land has been posted with warning signs, prohibiting entry, which are reasonably likely to come to the attention of the public.

 (b) This section does not apply to peace officers, national park or forest service officers, or persons authorized by the lessee of the premises.

HISTORY: (Laws 1982, ch. 75, § 3; 1989, ch. 202, § 1.)

NOTES: Law reviews.

For article, “Recreational Injuries and Inherent Risks: Wyoming’s Recreation Safety Act: An Update,” see XXXIII Land & Water L. Rev. 249 (1998).

Am. Jur. 2d, ALR and C.J.S. references.

Liability for injury or death from ski lift, ski tow or similar device, 95 ALR3d 203.

Ski resort’s liability for skier’s injuries resulting from condition of ski run or slope, 55 ALR4th 632.

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Tit. 6 Note

   Tit. 6, Ch. 9 Note

Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-301  (2012)

§ 6-9-301.  Skier safety; skiing while impaired; unsafe skiing; collisions; penalties.

  (a) No person shall move uphill on any passenger tramway or use any ski slope or trail while such person’s ability to do so is impaired by the consumption of alcohol or by the use of any illicit controlled substance or other drug as defined by W.S. 35-7-1002.

(b) No person shall ski in reckless disregard of his safety or the safety of others.

(c) No skier involved in a collision with another person in which an injury results shall leave the vicinity of the collision before giving his name and current address to an employee of the ski area operator or a member of the ski patrol except for the purpose of securing aid for a person injured in the collision, in which event the person leaving the scene of the collision shall give his name and current address as required by this subsection within twenty-four (24) hours after securing aid.

(d) Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty (20) days, a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00), or both.

HISTORY: (Laws 1989, ch. 202, § 2.)

NOTES: Law reviews.

For article, “Recreational Injuries and Inherent Risks: Wyoming’s Recreation Safety Act: An Update,” see XXXIII Land & Water L. Rev. 249 (1998).

Am. Jur. 2d, ALR and C.J.S. references.

Products liability: skiing equipment, 76 ALR4th 256.

Skier’s liability for injuries to or death of another person, 75 ALR5th 583.

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Tit. 6 Note

   Tit. 6, Ch. 9 Note

WordPress Tags: STATUTES,Title,Crimes,Offenses,Chapter,Miscellaneous,Article,CODE,ARCHIVE,DIRECTORY,Stat,Trespass,areas,exceptions,person,misdemeanor,dollars,Skis,area,owner,operator,lessee,premises,attention,peace,officers,park,HISTORY,Laws,NOTES,Recreational,Injuries,Inherent,Risks,Recreation,Update,XXXIII,Land,Water,references,injury,death,device,resort,HIERARCHY,Note,Skier,collisions,penalties,consumption,alcohol,substance,drug,collision,employee,member,purpose,event,subsection,hours,imprisonment,Products,equipment


West Virginia Ski Safety Statute

West Virginia Code Annotated

Chapter 20.  Natural Resources.

Article 3A.  Skiing Responsibility Act.

GO TO WEST VIRGINIA STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

W. Va. Code Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note  (2012)

Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

NOTES: 

Constitutionality.

This act, which immunizes ski area operators from tort liability for the inherent risks in the sport of skiing which are essentially impossible for the operators to eliminate, does not violate equal protection principles of W. Va. Const., art. III, § 10 or of U.S. Const., amend. 14. The act similarly does not constitute special legislation in violation of W. Va. Const., art. VI, § 39. Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

This act does not violate the certain remedy provision of W. Va. Const., art. III, § 17. Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

Purpose.

The purpose of this act was to eliminate or curtail the exposure of ski area operators to liability for the inherent risks of skiing. Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

Common-law cause of action.

This act does not provide an alternative remedy for the repealed common-law cause of action for damages resulting from the inherent risks of skiing which the operator cannot eliminate. Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

§ 20-3A-1.  Legislative purpose.

  The Legislature finds that the sport of skiing is practiced by a large number of citizens of West Virginia and also attracts to West Virginia a large number of nonresidents, significantly contributing to the economy of West Virginia. Since it is recognized that there are inherent risks in the sport of skiing which should be understood by each skier and which are essentially impossible to eliminate by the ski area operator, it is the purpose of this article to define those areas of responsibility and affirmative acts for which ski area operators shall be liable for loss, damage or injury and those risks which the skier expressly assumes for which there can be no recovery.

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163.

NOTES: W. Va. Law Review.

Fahey, “Landlord Liability in West Virginia for Criminal Acts on the Premises,” 98 W. Va. L. Rev. 659 (1996).

Constitutionality.

The West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act, which immunizes ski area operators from tort liability for the inherent risks of skiing that are essentially impossible for the operators to eliminate, does not violate equal protection principles of W. Va. Const., art. III, § 10, nor does it constitute special legislation in violation of art. VI, § 39. Pinson v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 196 W. Va. 436, 473 S.E.2d 151, 1996 W. Va. LEXIS 64 (1996).

Purpose.

The purpose of the West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act is to eliminate or curtail the exposure of ski area operators to liability for the inherent risks of skiing. Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 58, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4233 (N.D.W. Va. 1994).

Quoted in

Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

   Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

§ 20-3A-2.  Definitions.

  Unless the context of usage clearly requires otherwise:

   (a) “Aerial passenger tramway” means any device operated by a ski area operator used to transport passengers, by single or double reversible tramway; chair lift or gondola lift; T-bar lift, J-bar lift, platter lift, conveyor lift or similar device; or a fiber rope tow.

   (b) “Competitor” means a skier actually engaged in competition, a special event, or training or practicing for competition or a special event on any portion of the area made available by the ski area operator.

   (c) “Freestyle terrain” includes, but is not limited to, terrain parks and terrain park features such as jumps, rails, fun boxes, and all other constructed and natural features, half-pipes, quarter pipes, and freestyle-bump terrain.

   (d) “Passenger” means any person who is lawfully using an aerial passenger tramway, or is waiting to embark or has recently disembarked from an aerial passenger tramway and is in its immediate vicinity.

   (e) “Ski area” means any property owned or leased and under the control of the ski area operator or operators within West Virginia.

   (f) “Ski area operator” means any person, partnership, corporation or other commercial entity and their agents, officers, employees or representatives, or the State of West Virginia, or any political subdivision thereof, who has operational responsibility for any ski area or aerial passenger tramway.

   (g) “Skiing area” means all ski slopes and trails not including any aerial passenger tramway.

   (h) “Skier” means any person present at a skiing area under the control of a ski area operator for the purpose of engaging in the sport of skiing in locations designated as the ski slopes and trails, but does not include a passenger using an aerial passenger tramway.

   (i) “Skiing” means sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice on skis, a toboggan, a sled, a tube, a snowbike, a snowboard, or any other device by utilizing any of the facilities of the ski area.

   (j) “Ski slopes and trails” means all ski slopes or trails and adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features, and those areas designated by the ski area operator to be used by skiers for the purpose of participating in the sport of skiing in areas designated for that type of skiing activity. Ski slopes and trails shall be designated on trail maps, if provided, and by signs indicating to the skiing public the designated skiing activity for skiing areas.

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163; 2006, c. 204.

NOTES: Effect of amendment of 2006.

Acts 2006, c. 204, effective June 8, 2006, inserted “conveyor lift” in (a); added (b) and (c); redesignated former (b) through (f) as (d) through (h); inserted “ski” in (g); substituted “in locations designated as” for “by utilizing” in (h); added (i); redesignated former (g) as (j); and in (j), inserted “all ski slopes or trails and adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features, and” in the first sentence, added “in areas designated for that type of skiing activity” at the end of the first sentence, and added the last sentence; and made a minor stylistic change.

Quoted in

Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

§ 20-3A-3.  Duties of ski area operators with respect to ski areas.

  Every ski area operator shall:

   (1) Mark all trail maintenance vehicles and furnish such vehicles with flashing or rotating lights which shall be in operation whenever the vehicles are working or are in movement in the skiing area.

   (2) Mark with a visible sign or other warning implement the location of any hydrant or similar equipment used in snowmaking operations and located on ski slopes and trails.

   (3) Mark conspicuously the top or entrance to each ski slope, trail or area to designate open or closed and relative degree of difficulty using the appropriate symbols approved by the national ski areas association as of the effective date of this article and as may thereafter be modified by the association.

   (4) Maintain one or more trail boards at prominent locations at each ski area displaying that area’s network of ski trails and slopes with each trail and slope rated thereon in accordance with the aforementioned symbols’ code and containing a key to the code in accordance with designations in subdivision (3) herein.

   (5) Designate by trail board or otherwise which trails or slopes are open or closed.

   (6) Place, or cause to be placed, whenever snow grooming or snowmaking operations are being undertaken upon any trail or slope while such trail or slope is open to the public, a conspicuous notice to that effect at or near the top of the trail or slope.

   (7) Post notice at prominent locations of the requirements of this article concerning the use of ski retention devices. This obligation shall be the sole requirement imposed upon the ski area operator regarding the requirement for or use of ski retention devices.

   (8) Maintain the ski areas in a reasonably safe condition, except that such operator shall not be responsible for any injury, loss or damage caused by the following: Variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots, rocks, trees, other forms of forest growth or debris; collisions with pole lines, lift towers or any component thereof; or, collisions with snowmaking equipment which is marked by a visible sign or other warning implement in compliance with subdivision two of this section.

   (9) When no certified ambulance service is available in the vicinity, have on duty at or near the skiing area, during all times that skiing areas are open for skiing, at least one trained and currently certified emergency medical technician.

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163.

NOTES: Cross references.

Liability of ski area operators, § 20-3A-6.

Editor’s notes.

Concerning the reference in (3) to “the effective date of this article,” Acts 1984, c. 163, which enacted this article, provided that the act take effect June 8, 1984.

Construction.

Where variations in the terrain or ice conditions in the form of ungroomed snow caused injury to plaintiff, defendant ski area operator was not liable. Pinson v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 196 W. Va. 436, 473 S.E.2d 151, 1996 W. Va. LEXIS 64 (1996).

The West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act, §§ 20-3A-1 et seq., does not require the posting of warnings concerning the presence of ungroomed snow or require that ski trails be closed because of ungroomed snow. Pinson v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 196 W. Va. 436, 473 S.E.2d 151, 1996 W. Va. LEXIS 64 (1996).

Purpose of act.

The purpose of the West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act is to eliminate or curtail the exposure of ski area operators to liability for the inherent risks of skiing. Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 58, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4233 (N.D.W. Va. 1994).

Applicability.

Question of whether the general maintenance clause in subsection (8) is applicable to snow-making activity and, if so, whether the defendant negligently engaged in snow-making activity and whether the alleged dangerous condition could have been eliminated if the defendant had reasonably maintained the snow-making equipment presented questions of fact which compelled that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied. Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 58, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4233 (N.D.W. Va. 1994).

Jury instructions.

Jury instructions which cited this section were not weighted impermissibly in favor of the defendant. The degree that the instructions reflected any lack of balance was due to the content of state law, not to the misstatement of relevant legal principles by the court, and the statutory reference was not extraneous. Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7647 (4th Cir. 1995).

Quoted in

Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

   Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

§ 20-3A-4.  Responsibilities of passengers.

  No passenger shall:

   (1) Board or embark upon or disembark from an aerial passenger tramway except at an area designated for such purpose;

   (2) Drop, throw or expel any object from an aerial passenger tramway;

   (3) Perform any act which interferes with the running or operation of an aerial passenger tramway;

   (4) Enter the boarding area of or use any aerial passenger tramway without requesting and receiving instruction on its use from the ski area operator, unless the passenger has the ability to use it safely without instruction;

   (5) Engage in any harmful conduct, or willfully or negligently engage in any type of conduct which contributes to or causes injury to any person; or

   (6) Embark on an aerial passenger tramway without the authority, express or implied, of the ski area operator.

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163.

NOTES: Cross references.

Liability of passengers, § 20-3A-7.

Quoted in

Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

   Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

§ 20-3A-5.  Duties of skiers.

  (a) It is recognized that skiing as a recreational sport is hazardous to skiers, regardless of all feasible safety measures which can be taken. Each skier expressly assumes the risk of and legal responsibility for any injury, loss or damage to person or property which results from participation in the sport of skiing including, but not limited to, any injury, loss or damage caused by the following: Variations in terrain including freestyle terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots, rocks, trees, other forms of forest growth or debris; collisions with pole lines, lift towers or any component thereof; or, collisions with snowmaking equipment which is marked by a visible sign or other warning implement in compliance with section three [§ 20-3A-3] of this article. Each skier shall have the sole individual responsibility for knowing the range of his or her own ability to negotiate any ski slope or trail, and it shall be the duty of each skier to ski within the limits of the skier’s own ability, to maintain reasonable control of speed and course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted warnings, to ski only on a skiing area designated by the ski area operator and to refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of anyone. If while actually skiing, any skier collides with any object or person, except an obviously intoxicated person of whom the ski area operator is aware, the responsibility for such collision shall be solely that of the skier or skiers involved and not that of the ski area operator.

(b) No person shall place any object in the skiing area or on the uphill track or any aerial passenger tramway which may cause a passenger or skier to fall.

(c) No skier shall cross the track of any T-bar lift, J-bar lift, platter lift, conveyor lift or similar device, or a fiber rope tow except at a designated location, nor shall any skier place any object in such an uphill track.

(d) No person involved in a skiing accident shall depart the ski area without leaving personal identification, including name and address, with an employee of the ski area operator or without notifying the proper authorities or without obtaining assistance when that person knows or reasonably should know that any other person involved in the accident is in need of medical or other assistance.

(e) A ski or snowboard used by a skier while skiing or snowboarding shall be equipped with a strap or other device capable of stopping the ski or snowboard should the ski or snowboard detach from the skier. No skier shall fail to wear retention straps or other devices to help prevent runaway skis or snowboards. This requirement shall not apply to cross country skis.

(f) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his or her speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him or her.

(g) No skier shall ski on a ski slope or trail that has been posted as “Closed.”

(h) No skier shall use any ski slope while such person’s ability to do so is impaired by the consumption of alcohol or by the use of any controlled substance or other drug or while such person is under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance or other drug.

(i) Each skier has the duty to heed all posted information and other warnings.

(j) Before beginning to ski from a stationary position or before entering a ski slope or trail from the side, the skier shall have the duty to avoid moving skiers already on the ski slope or trail.

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163; 2006, c. 204.

NOTES: Effect of amendment of 2006.

Acts 2006, c. 204, effective June 8, 2006, redesignated the former first two paragraphs as (a), redesignated the former third paragraph as (b) through (e), and added (f) through (j); in (a), inserted “including freestyle terrain” in the second sentence and inserted “ski” preceding “slope” in the third sentence; in (c), substituted “No skier shall cross ” for “or which crosses the track,” inserted “conveyor lift,” and added “nor shall any skier place any object in such an uphill track”; inserted “with an employee of the ski area operator” in (d); added the first and last sentences in (e); and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross references.

Liability of skiers, § 20-3A-8.

A.L.R. references.

Skier’s liability for injuries to or death of another person, 75 A.L.R.5th 583.

Construction.

Where variations in the terrain or ice conditions in the form of ungroomed snow, caused injury to plaintiff defendant ski area operator was not liable. Pinson v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 196 W. Va. 436, 473 S.E.2d 151, 1996 W. Va. LEXIS 64 (1996).

This article does not require the posting of warnings concerning the presence of ungroomed snow or require that ski trails be closed because of ungroomed snow. Pinson v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 196 W. Va. 436, 473 S.E.2d 151, 1996 W. Va. LEXIS 64 (1996).

Purpose of act.

The purpose of the West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act is to eliminate or curtail the exposure of ski area operators to liability for the inherent risks of skiing. Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 58, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4233 (N.D.W. Va. 1994).

Skiing is hazardous.

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the 12-year-old skier’s parents on the injured party’s claim that they were liable for injuries she sustained when the 12-year-old ran into her on the beginner’s slopes at a West Virginia ski resort; not only did the injured party not present a sufficient forecast of evidence to overcome the rebuttable presumption that the 12-year-old skier was incapable of negligence, but her claims that he could have done several things to avoid the collision was at odds with West Virginia law that recognized skiing was a recreational sport that was hazardous to skiers regardless of all feasible safety measures which could be taken. Frank v. Funkhouser, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 515, 169 N.C. App. 108, 609 S.E.2d 788 (Mar 15, 2005).

Quoted in

Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991).

§ 20-3A-6.  Liability of ski area operators.

  Any ski area operator shall be liable for injury, loss or damage cause by failure to follow the duties set forth in section three [§ 20-3A-3] of this article where the violation of duty is causally related to the injury, loss or damage suffered. A ski area operator shall not be liable for any injury, loss or damage caused by the negligence of any person who is not an agent or employee of such operator, nor shall a ski area operator be liable for any injury, loss or damage cause by any object dropped, thrown or expelled by a passenger from an aerial passenger tramway. Every ski area operator shall carry public liability insurance in limits of no less than one hundred thousand dollars per person, three hundred thousand dollars per occurrence and ten thousand dollars for property damage.

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163.

NOTES: 

Quoted in

Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 185 W. Va. 684, 408 S.E.2d 634, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 126 (1991); Pinson v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., 196 W. Va. 436, 473 S.E.2d 151, 1996 W. Va. LEXIS 64 (1996).

Cited in

Whitlow v. Board of Educ., 190 W. Va. 223, 438 S.E.2d 15, 1993 W. Va. LEXIS 169 (1993).

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

   Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

§ 20-3A-8.  Liability of skiers.

  Any skier shall be liable for injury, loss or damage resulting from violations of the duties set forth in section five [§ 20-3A-5].

HISTORY: 1984, c. 163.

NOTES: A.L.R. references.

Skier’s liability for injuries to or death of another person, 75 A.L.R.5th 583.

Purpose of act.

The purpose of the West Virginia Skiing Responsibility Act is to eliminate or curtail the exposure of ski area operators to liability for the inherent risks of skiing. Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 58, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4233 (N.D.W. Va. 1994).

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

   Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

§ 20-3A-9.  Competition.

  (a) The ski area operator shall, prior to use of any portion of the area made available by the ski area operator, allow each competitor the opportunity to conduct a reasonable visual inspection of the ski slopes and trails or freestyle terrain used in the competition.

(b) The competitor shall be held to assume the risk of all ski slopes and trails or freestyle terrain conditions including, but not limited to, weather and snow conditions; obstacles, course or feature location, construction or layout, freestyle terrain configuration and conditions; and other courses, layouts, or configurations of the area to be used. No liability shall attach to a ski area operator for injury or death to any competitor caused by course, venue, or area conditions that a visual inspection should have revealed or by collisions with other competitors.

HISTORY: 2006, c. 204.

NOTES: Effective dates.

Acts 2006, c. 204, provided that the act take effect June 8, 2006.

   HIERARCHY NOTES:

   Ch. 20 Note

   Ch. 20, Art. 3A Note

 


FIS Rules for skiing come with commentary to help interpret the rules

Piste means ski slope.

Have you ever heard of FISFederation Internationale de Ski or International Ski Federation? You probably have if you have watched any international, Olympic or World cup ski competition. FIS is the association that controls those events.

FIS is also an international ski body that does more than races. In most countries of Europe and others, FIS is the ski association.

FIS has created a set of rules for skiing similar, and in my opinion, better than the US your responsibility code.

The Ten FIS Rules can be found here.

FIS developed Ten Rules for Skiing:

1.                Respect for others A skier or snowboarder must behave in such a way that he does not endanger or prejudice others.

2.                Control of speed and skiing or snowboarding A skier or snowboarder must move in control. He must adapt his speed and manner of skiing or snowboarding to his personal ability and to the prevailing conditions of terrain, snow and weather as well as to the density of traffic.

3.                Choice of route A skier or snowboarder coming from behind must choose his route in such a way that he does not endanger skiers or snowboarders ahead.

4.                Overtaking a skier or snowboarder may overtake another skier or snowboarder above or below and to the right or to the left provided that he leaves enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement.

5.                Entering, starting and moving upwards a skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving upwards on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others.

6.                Stopping on the piste unless absolutely necessary, a skier or snowboarder must avoid stopping on the piste in narrow places or where visibility is restricted. After a fall in such a place, a skier or snowboarder must move clear of the piste as soon as possible.

7.                Climbing and descending on foot a skier or snowboarder either climbing or descending on foot must keep to the side of the piste.

8.                Respect for signs and markings

A skier or snowboarder must respect all signs and markings.

9.                Assistance

At accidents, every skier or snowboarder is duty bound to assist.

10.              Identification Every skier or snowboarder and witness, whether a responsible party or not, must exchange names and addresses following an accident.

Why do I like the FIS Ten Rules. For two major reasons, it proves that Your Responsibility Code is not THE world wide rules and because the rules make more sense.

People are constantly trying to put value on specific parts of Your Responsibility Code. Trying to prove that one part is more important than another. The FIS rules eliminate that priority argument because it is written in a better way, less on burden, more on working to improve skiing. The Ten FIS Rules are also broader, not just short sentences to be memorized.

The Rules also come with commentary to help further explain what they are supposed to impart.

General Comments on the FIS Rules

(Wording 2002)

Skiing and Snowboarding like all sports entail risks.

The FIS Rules must be considered an ideal pattern of conduct for a responsible and careful skier or snowboarder and their purpose is to avoid accidents on the piste.

The FIS Rules apply to all skiers and snowboarders. The skier or snowboarder is obliged to be familiar with and to respect them.

If he fails to do so, his behavior could expose him to civil and criminal liability in the event of an accident.

Rule 1 Skiers and snowboarders are responsible not only for their own behavior but also for their defective equipment. This also applies to those using newly developed equipment.

Rule 2 Collisions usually happen because skiers or snowboarders are moving too fast, out of control or have failed to see others. A skier or snowboarder must be able to stop, turn and move within the ambit of his own vision.

In crowded areas or in places where visibility is reduced, skiers and snowboarders must move slowly especially at the edge of a steep slope, at the bottom of a piste and within areas surrounding ski lifts.

Rule 3 Skiing and snowboarding are free activity sports, where everyone may move where and as they please, provided that they abide by these rules and adapt their skiing and snowboarding to their personal ability and to the prevailing conditions on the mountain.

The skier or snowboarder in front has priority. The skier or snowboarder moving behind another in the same direction must keep sufficient distance between himself and the other skier or snowboarder so as to leave the preceding skier or snowboarder enough space to make all his movements freely.

Rule 4 A skier or snowboarder who overtakes another is wholly responsible for completing that maneuver in such a way to cause no difficulty to the skier or snowboarder being overtaken. This responsibility rests with him until the overtaking maneuver has been completed. This rule applies even when overtaking a stationary skier or snowboarder.

Rule 5 Experience proves that joining a piste or starting again after stopping are the sources of accidents. It is absolutely essential that a skier or snowboarder finding himself in this situation enters the piste safely and without causing an obstruction or danger to himself or others.

When he has started skiing or snowboarding properly again – even slowly – he has the benefit of rule 3 as against faster skiers and snowboarders coming from above or behind.

The development of carving skis and snowboards allows their users to carve and turn upwards on the slopes. Hence they move opposite to the general downhill traffic. They must, therefore, make sure in time that they can do so without endangering themselves and others.

Rule 6 Except on wide pistes stops must be made at the side of the piste. One must not stop in narrow places or where it is difficult to be seen from above.

Rule 7 Moving against the general direction poses unexpected obstacles for the skiers and snowboarders.

Footprints damage the piste and can cause danger to skiers and snowboarders.

Rule 8 The degree of difficulty of a piste is indicated in black, red, blue or green. A skier or snowboarder is free to choose whichever piste he wants.

The pistes are also marked with other signs showing direction or giving warnings of danger or closure. A sign closing a piste, like one denoting danger, must be strictly observed. Skiers and snowboarders should be aware that warning signs are posted in their own interests.

Rule 9 It is a cardinal principle for all sportsmen that they should render assistance following an accident independent of any legal obligation to do so. Immediate First Aid should be given, the appropriate authorities alerted and the place of the accident marked to warn other skiers and snowboarders.

FIS hopes that a hit and run offence in skiing and snowboarding will incur a criminal conviction similar to hit and run offence on the road and that equivalent penalties will be imposed by all countries where such legislation is not already in force.

Rule 10 Witnesses are of great importance in establishing a full and proper report of an accident and therefore everybody must consider that it is the duty as a responsible person to provide information as a witness.

Reports of the rescue service and of the police as well as photographs are of considerable assistance in determining civil and criminal liability.

Take a look, you might find a lot of things you like as a skier, boarder or manager of a ski area.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

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

#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, FIS, Federation Internationale de Ski, International Ski Federation, Rules, Skiing, Snowboarding, Ski Area,

 

WordPress Tags: Rules,commentary,Piste,Federation,Internationale,International,Olympic,World,competition,association,events,Europe,opinion,Respect,Control,manner,terrain,Choice,foot,markings,Assistance,accidents,Identification,accident,Code,People,argument,General,Comments,purpose,behavior,event,Rule,Skiers,equipment,Collisions,ambit,vision,areas,mountain,direction,Experience,situation,obstruction,danger,development,users,Except,obstacles,Footprints,degree,warnings,closure,principle,obligation,Immediate,conviction,road,penalties,legislation,Witnesses,importance,person,information,Reports,Take,boarder,manager,area,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,Google,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,James,Moss,Outside,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,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,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,skier,snowboarder,snowboarders,himself,pistes


New Ski Graphics Contest and Time to Get Stoked for Winter Video

spacer.gif
G3 Logo

Share Your Thoughts. Win Skis.

September 2013

Spacer
G3 Newsletter
Spacer

Story Image Bust out some popcorn.

Pre Winter Stoke Video

If this is what this gear can do in a weekend, we can’t wait to see what winter has in store. Take a peek at the new gear!

Watch >

SpacerSpacer

Story Image Update Your Profile. Share Your Thoughts. Enter to Win.

G3 Customer Survey

As part of our commitment to enhancing your safety and enjoyment in the backcountry, we’d like to learn more about you.

Please take 1 minute to update your email subscription profile, and 5 minutes to complete our survey. You’ll be entered for a chance to win G3’s new ZenOxide C3 105 skis.

Enter Now >

SpacerSpacer

Story Image It’s Back with a new twist.

SheGraphiks Contest

G3’s fabled SkiGraphiks contest is back, with a twist. Partnering with Backcountry Babes, the SheGraphiks Contest features the biggest and most playful womens ski G3 has ever made; the Empress 115.

Get Creative >

Spacer

spacer.gif
spacer.gif
Spacer
spacer.gif

o.gif


Colorado’s Passport Programs Introduce Colorado Kids to Skiing and Snowboarding

Colorado Ski Country USA’s Passport Programs Introduce Colorado Kids to Skiing and Snowboarding

First Class Program and Lift Access to Twenty Resorts an Unmatched Value for Families

aspensnowmass jeremyswanson

Aspen Snowmass Jeremy Swanson

monarch

Monarch

scott markewitz64 2

Photo credits: (L-R) Aspen/Snowmass, Jeremy Swanson; Scott Markewitz; Monarch Mountain

Denver, Colo. – September 2, 2013 – Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA) announced today the Association’s popular 5th and 6th Grade Passport Programs are available for the 2013/14 ski season. The Passport Programs introduce fifth and sixth grade kids to skiing and snowboarding by giving fifth graders free access, and sixth graders discounted access, to twenty of Colorado’s finest ski resorts.

As the industry’s most influential program, the CSCUSA 5th Grade Passport allows fifth graders three days of free skiing at each of the twenty CSCUSA participating member resorts. The 6th Grade Passport allows sixth graders four days of skiing at the same twenty resorts for $99, which amounts to 80 days on the slopes for less than $1.25 each day.

Additionally, CSCUSA will offer First Class Lessons to complement the 5th Grade Passport Program. First Class provides fifth graders who are new to skiing and snowboarding the opportunity to learn the sport from some of the best instructors in the industry. Registered 5th Grade Passport holders who have never skied nor snowboarded, and are therefore considered “never-evers”, are eligible to receive a free ski or snowboard lesson and rental equipment during the month of January, which is also Learn to Ski and Snowboard Month. Fifth graders who qualify for First Class have the option of seventeen different resorts to have their introductory experience on snow. Advance reservations are required for First Class Lessons.

“Colorado Ski Country’s Passport Programs have introduced an entire generation of youngsters to skiing and snowboarding,” said Melanie Mills, president and CEO of Colorado Ski Country USA. “By giving 5th and 6th graders the opportunity to ski and ride, we’re helping kids to become lifelong skiers and snowboarders. The First Class Lesson program ensures that novice young skiers and snowboarders will enjoy their introductory on-snow experience and grow to become ambassadors of the state’s signature sports.”

To register kids for the Passport Programs, parents can visit www.ColoradoSki.com/Passport. Details on the First Class Program can also be found at ColoradoSki.com/Passport. The CSCUSA Passport Programs enjoy the support of presenting sponsor, Chipotle, and of program partners Christy Sports and Credit Union of Colorado.

Participating resorts in the 2013-14 Passport programs include: Arapahoe Basin, Aspen Highlands, Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk, Copper Mountain, Crested Butte, Purgatory at Durango Mountain Resort, Eldora, Howelsen Hill, Loveland, Monarch, Powderhorn, Ski Cooper, Ski Granby Ranch, Snowmass, Steamboat, Sunlight, Telluride, Winter Park and Wolf Creek.

For more details please visit www.ColoradoSki.com/Passport or call 303-866-9707.

image001


Study shows that head injuries are on the rise on the slopes even though more people are wearing helmets

Risk Homeostasis?

A study presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians(ACEP) showed that even with the increased use of helmets on ski slopes head injuries had

PARK CITY, UT - FEBRUARY 01: Alexandre Bilode...

increased. Overall injuries on the slopes have remained constant during the same period of time.

The study was based on a review of reports to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission‘s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) Overall helmet use increased from 36.7% to 57.99% during the study period.

The study looked at 68,761 head injuries during the 2004 through 2010 ski seasons. Males represented 68.8% of the injuries, snowboarders 57.9%, and riders between the ages of 11-017 representing 47.7%.

The one difference in the study was children under 10 years old, which showed a decrease in hade injuries dropping from 11.7% to 4.6%.

One brought out by the study was helmets are only good for impacts of 12-15 miles per hour. Most people ski and board faster than that. The true value of a helmet, 12-15 mph of impact protection should be put out there so more people understand what a helmet will and will not do. People are sold helmets with the idea that they will prevent head injuries. They only will prevent injuries in that narrow range of 0-15 mph; over that speed, you probably are going to have an injury.

There were two different ideas put forth as two why head injuries increased. The one idea with the least space about it was Risk Homeostasis or Target Risk. The other was:

My assumptions are that those increases parallel the increase in terrain park use and the level of difficulty and risk in these sports over the last decade,” Christensen said, “and also that we’re simply seeing more people reporting head injuries because there’s been more education and awareness around them.

However, Risk Homeostasiswill also support the greater use of terrain parks and the increased level of difficult and increased risk undertaken by skiers and riders.

English: Freestyle skiing jump

English: Freestyle skiing jump (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do Something

If you sell helmets tell people the truth. Helmets will reduce some head injuries. Helmets probably will not save your life because if you hit something hard enough to cause brain damage that a helmet will protect you from; you are going to receive other injuries that may kill you.

If you wear a helmet understand what your helmet will and will not do to protect your head.

See Head injuries on rise despite helmets

For additional articles on Risk Homeostasis see:

Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions

The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health

Target Risk: Dealing with the danger of death, disease and damage in everyday decisions

For additional articles on Helmets see:

A helmet manufacture understands the issues(Uvex, Mouthguards)          http://rec-law.us/xpxX6n

A new idea that makes sense in helmets: the Bern Hard Hat                         http://rec-law.us/yPerOd

Does being safe make us stupid? Studies say yes.                                          http://rec-law.us/Ao5BBD

Great article on why helmet laws are stupid                                                       http://rec-law.us/zeOaNH

Great editorial questioning why we need laws to “protect” us from ourselves.         http://rec-law.us/Ayswbo

Helmet death ignited by misconception and famous personalities                http://rec-law.us/wfa0ho

Helmets do not increase risk of a neck injury when skiing                              http://rec-law.us/wPOUiM

Helmets: why cycling, skiing, skateboarding helmets don’t work                   http://rec-law.us/RVsgkV

More information over the debate about ski helmets: Ski Helmets ineffective crashes were the wear is going faster than 12 miles per

PARK CITY, UT - FEBRUARY 01: Ryan St Onge of ...

hour                                                                     http://rec-law.us/z4CLkE

National Sporting Goods Association reports that Helmet use at US Ski Areas increased during the 2009-10 ski season                                                                                                 http://rec-law.us/zZTzqa

OSHA Officially recommending helmets for ski area employees                   http://rec-law.us/xo5yio

Other Voice on the Helmet Debate                                                                       http://rec-law.us/AzaU9Q

Recent UK poll shows that 10% of cyclists would quite biking if there was a compulsory helmet law.            http://rec-law.us/t1ByWk

Skiing/Boarding Helmets and what is the correct message                             http://rec-law.us/AzeCpS

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

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

#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, Helmets, Skiing, Snowboarding, Head Injuries, American College of Emergency Physicians, (ACEP), Risk Homeostasis, Target Risk,

WordPress Tags: Study,injuries,helmets,Risk,Homeostasis,American,College,Emergency,Physicians,ACEP,Overall,Consumer,Product,Commission,National,Electronic,Injury,Surveillance,System,NEISS,helmet,Males,riders,difference,impacts,hour,Most,impact,protection,People,Target,assumptions,terrain,park,decade,Christensen,education,parks,truth,life,brain,Head,theory,accidents,propositions,deductions,discussion,dissension,reactions,Implications,Health,danger,death,disease,decisions,Uvex,Mouthguards,Bern,Hard,Does,Studies,Great,article,laws,Ayswbo,misconception,personalities,neck,RVsgkV,information,Goods,Association,Areas,OSHA,area,employees,Voice,Debate,Recent,message,AzeCpS,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,skiers

Enhanced by Zemanta

2012-2013 In bound ski/board fatalities

This list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.

Several Corrections have been made to items reported earlier.

If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know.  This is up to date as of December 10, 2012. Thanks.

2012 – 2013 Ski Season Deaths

# Date St Area Where How Cause Ski/ Board Age Sex Helmet Ref Ref Ref
1 11/29 ID Sun Valley ski resort Bald Mountain Chairlift Fell off (Medical?) 56 M http://rec-law.us/Vi4ims http://rec-law.us/TyVnKu
2 12/1 CO Keystone Resort River Run Gondola Maze Standing in Maze (Medical) Skier 66 M http://rec-law.us/SCZHXJ http://rec-law.us/YkDioj http://rec-law.us/UjBMfK
3 12/2 MI Boyne Highlands Resort Camelot, (Beginner) fell within the slope boundaries and did not collide with any type of obstacle. Board 17 F http://rec-law.us/11JFVOo

Our condolences to the families of the deceased. Our good thoughts to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: 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

#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, Sun Valley ski resort, Keystone Resort, Boyne Highlands Resort,

WordPress Tags: information,news,references,Several,Corrections,items,December,Thanks,Season,Deaths,Date,State,Resort,Where,Cause,Board,Name,Hometown,Helmet,Reference,Valley,Bald,Mountain,Chairlift,Fell,Medical,Dana,Mower,Seattle,TyVnKu,River,Gondloa,Maze,Skier,Brian,Burton,Castle,Rock,SCZHXJ,YkDioj,UjBMfK,Boyne,Highlands,Camelot,Beginner,boundaries,obstacle,Kasandra,Knapp,Alanson,condolences,families,areas,tragedies,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer

Enhanced by Zemanta

Decision explains the liability in New Hampshire of a land owner allowing kids to sled on their land

Reed v. National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 2010 DNH 18; 706 F. Supp. 2d 180; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9236

Decision was a rare case were lawsuit was not brought until after the injured minorHistory of the Boy Scouts of America reached age 18

In this decision, the plaintiff was an 11-year-old Boy Scout a camping trip. During the camp out the trip went sledding on a hill at a local Boy Scout Council camp. The

camp was not owned by a council that was not the chartering council of the scout troop. While sledding, the boys built a jump. Around lunch time the adult leaders left to go prepare lunch leaving the scouts unattended.

The court noted that this was in violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting, a set of procedures developed by the BSA to keep kids safer. (Safer, kids get hurt, it is part of growing up.)

The plaintiff sued the council that owned the camp, Boston Minuteman Council, the landowner and the National Council, BSA. The National Council grants charters to local groups, councils in a specific geographic area to offer the Scouting program to youth in their area. The local council, in this case Daniel Webster Council issued a charter to the group of parents who ran the troop the plaintiff was part of.

The court took note of the fact that neither volunteers scoutmasters nor the local council Daniel Webster Council.

The plaintiff was only 11 and the youngest scout on the camp out. He had watched other scouts go over the jump and fall. He had gone over the jump once when the scoutmaster was present and fell on his back but did not suffer any injuries. After the adult, volunteers left the area the plaintiff went over the jump again breaking his leg.

Summary of the case

The case has two major parts in the decision. The first is the decision over the land owner’s liability. The second is a motion in limine over the future or potential earnings and medical bills of the plaintiff. For the purpose of this article, the second part of the discussion will be ignored because it is not relevant.

The first point of interest in this decision is one sentence. The plaintiff did not sue until after he had turned age 18. Under the law a minor, someone under the age of 18 can sue by and through their parents in most states, any time after their injury, or they can wait until they turn age 18 and sue then. The parental lawsuit has a statute of limitation, in NH two years, because it is an adult suit on behalf of the minor child. The minor child when he reaches the age of majority, 18, then also has two years to sue after turning age 18.

The defendant land owner filed this motion for summary judgment based on the New Hampshire Recreational Use statute and fact the risk was an open and obvious danger.

The New Hampshire recreational use statute protects land owners from lawsuits brought by people who are using the land for free. The exception to the rule is if the injury to the plaintiff was caused intentionally by the land owner.

508:14  Landowner Liability Limited.

I. An owner, occupant, or lessee of land, including the state or any political subdivision, who without charge permits any person to use land for recreational purposes or as a spectator of recreational activity, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage.

II. Any individual, corporation, or other nonprofit legal entity, or any individual who performs services for a nonprofit entity, that constructs, maintains, or improves trails for public recreational use shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

III. An owner of land who permits another person to gather the produce of the land under pick-your-own or cut-your-own arrangements, provided said person is not an employee of the landowner and notwithstanding that the person picking or cutting the produce may make remuneration for the produce to the landowner, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage to any person in the absence of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by such owner.

The plaintiff argued the defendant land owner should be held liable because only scouts were allowed on the land; therefore, the land was not open to the public, part of the statute. Court held that the statute had latitude or a land owner would lose all control over his or her land. The court held that the landowner could not be held liable because it was protected by the New Hampshire recreational sue statute.

The second defense brought by the landowner was the “open and obvious” defense.

“a defendant generally has no duty to warn and instruct a plaintiff of obvious dangers about which the plaintiff’s knowledge and appreciation equal the defendant’s.”

The “open and obvious” defense is similar to an assumption of risk defense. If you can see or understand the dangerous situation on the land, then the landowner has no duty to warn you of the dangers.

The open and obvious defense requires that the dangerous condition be recognizable by the reasonable person. In the case of a minor the reasonable person test is changed to a reasonable person of the same age, intelligence and experience. A jump created by the other youth would have been obvious to the plaintiff even at age 11. Jumps are made to throw people into the air. Many courts have found that sledding and snowboarding over jumps is something a person of the plaintiff’s age, intelligence and experience should recognize so the court found that the defendant did not owe a duty to warn of the dangers of sledding or snowboarding over a jump.

So Now What?

This is an interesting and odd case. Not suing the local council or the scoutmasters is confusing. Waiting until the plaintiff turned 18 is even more confusing.

However, you can gain a few things from this case.

1.      If you are a volunteer unit leader understand the rules by which the parent organization expects you to operate and do not violate those rules.

2.    If you are a landowner who knows that people use your land for free without charging them for it, do two things.

a.     Make sure your state recreational use statute is broad enough to protect you from litigation.

b.    Make sure your liability policy provides you with coverage for allowing people to use your land.

Please, do NOT stop people from using your land, Please!

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

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

#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, landowner, land owner, BSA, Boy Scouts of America, Council, Daniel Webster Council, Boston Minuteman Council, National Council, Scoutmaster, Recreational Use, Recreational Use Statute,
WordPress Tags: Decision,Hampshire,owner,National,Council,Scouts,America,Supp,Dist,LEXIS,lawsuit,plaintiff,Scout,hill,boys,Around,leaders,violation,Guide,Safe,procedures,Safer,Boston,Minuteman,landowner,councils,area,youth,Daniel,Webster,parents,fact,injuries,Summary,earnings,purpose,article,discussion,Under,injury,statute,limitation,defendant,judgment,Recreational,danger,owners,lawsuits,exception,occupant,lessee,subdivision,person,purposes,spectator,absence,corporation,negligence,misconduct,employee,remuneration,Court,latitude,dangers,knowledge,assumption,situation,intelligence,Jumps,Many,unit,leader,Make,litigation,policy,coverage,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,Areas,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,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Scoutmaster,scoutmasters

Opening Day for Ski Resorts in the West have been announced

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

English: c. hassig, personal photo

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

East Wall at Arapahoe Basin

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

Source is INCORRECT as this is A-Basin, not Lo...

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

All the lifts at aspen are chairlifts. This on...

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

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

#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Opening Day, Ski, Ski Area,

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

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

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.

(c) Heed all posted signs and warnings.

(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 Moss 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

Cover of 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

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 aMount Crested Butte located at 38.884° -106.94...rea. 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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Skier/Boarder Fatalities 2011-2012 Ski Season 3/15/12

This list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.

If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know.  This is up to date as of March 15, 2012. Thanks.

#

Date

Resort

Age

Skier Ability

Ski/ Tele /Boarder

Helmet

Reference

1

11/18/2011

Vail

62

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/rBcn7A

2

11/18/2011

Breckenridge

19

Expert

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/rBcn7A

3

11/27/2011

Mountain High ski resor

23

Beginner

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/uGuW17

4

12/18/2011

Sugar Bowl ski resort

7

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/viAqCR

6

1/11/2012

Ski Apache

29

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/zdfQ4k

7

1/12/2012

Sugarloaf ski resort

41

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/yNHkuc

8

1/14/2012

Silverton Mountain Ski Area

25

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/zcw6MB

9

1/17/2012

Heavenly Mountain Resort

34

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/yRAXXc

10

1/18/2012

Aspen Highlands

30

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/wv7vDs

11

1/18/2012

Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort

15

Boarder

No

http://rec-law.us/AAnq46

12

1/19/2012

Park City

29

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/w0k4Pe

13

1/20/2012

Copper Mountain

51

Yes

http://rec-law.us/wD06TR

14

1/20/2012

Whiteface Mountain

25

Yes

http://rec-law.us/wDkcfl

15

1/21/2012

Vail (skied into closed area)

13

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/xdhVcp

16

1/22/2012

Winter Park

28

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/A0bbt

17

1/24/2012

Steamboat Ski Area

32

Boarder

http://rec-law.us/wF9UFc

18

1/24/2012

Taos Ski Valley

60

Skier

http://rec-law.us/wUl1Vz

19

1/25/2012

Keystone Ski Area

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/AihrSt

20

1/27/2012

Mt. Hood Skibowl

17

Boarder

http://rec-law.us/zzD3KB

22

1/30/2012

Seven Springs Mountain Resort

36

Skier

http://rec-law.us/yOwgDg

27

1/31/2012

Solitude Ski Resort

74

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/w68s4A

23

2/1/2012

Squaw Valley

51

Skier

http://rec-law.us/xqDrGE

26

2/4/2012

Sugarbush Resort

41

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/zTDKPK

33

2/4/2012

Ski Windham Mountain Resor

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/ySA8W4

24

2/5/2012

Keystone Ski Area

58

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/wH6QJA

30

2/6/2012

Mount Snow

33

http://rec-law.us/ABqYPQ

28

2/8/2012

Vail

37

Yes

http://rec-law.us/zF4Ck2

29

2/9/2012

Keystone Ski Area

72

Yes

http://rec-law.us/A9YwUD

31

2/11/2012

Jay Peak Resort

29

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/x3rzek

32

2/11/2012

Terry Peak Ski Area

24

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/A0BvQq

34

2/18/2012

Sun Valley

 http://rec-law.us/GB3TCy

35

2/19/2012

Copper Mountain

15

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/xHsBHH

36

2/26/2012

Keystone Ski Area

24

Yes

http://rec-law.us/y4CANi

37

2/23/2012

Northstar California

52

Yes

http://rec-law.us/zgqcTZ

38

3/1/2012

Burke Mountain Ski Resort

70

Yes

http://rec-law.us/xOjOY7

39

3/8/2012

Copper Mountain

18

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/xotYaO

40

3/9/2012

Keystone Ski Area

23

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/xJ2THl

41

3/10/2012

Terry Peak Ski Area

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/ADkQWq

42

3/10/2012

Loveland Ski Area

71

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/Ajhcko

43

3/14/2012

Crested Butte Mountain Resort

36

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/w3lbdr

44

3/16/2012

Northstar California

51

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/FQM5hK

45

3/18/2012

China Peak Ski Resort

30

Boarder

http://rec-law.us/FQ2kwq

46

3/18/2012

Sierra-at-Tahoe

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/FVYq4q

47

3/19/2012

Sugar Bowl Ski Resort

20

Boarder

http://rec-law.us/GAucKe

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

blog@rec-law.us

Skier carving a turn off piste

Skier carving a turn off piste (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #Vail, #Breckenridge, #Mountain High Ski Resort, #Ski Ward, #Sugarloaf, #Silverton, Ski Apache, #Sugarloaft, #Heavenly, #Aspen, Mt Hood, Park City, #Copper, #Whiteface, Winter Park, #Steamboat, #Taos, #Keystone, #Canyons, Seven Springs, #Solitude, Ski Windham, Mount Snow, Jay Peak Terry Peak,

WordPress Tags: Skier,Boarder,Fatalities,Season,information,news,February,Thanks,Date,Resort,Tele,Helmet,Reference,Vail,Breckenridge,Expert,Mountain,High,Beginner,Sugar,Bowl,Ward,Apache,Sugarloaf,Silverton,Area,Aspen,Highlands,Meadows,Park,Copper,Whiteface,Winter,Steamboat,Taos,Valley,AihrSt,Skibowl,Canyons,Seven,Springs,Solitude,Squaw,Sugarbush,Windham,Resor,Mount,ABqYPQ,Peak,Terry,Northstar,California,Burke,ADkQWq,Loveland,Ajhcko,Butte,China,Sierra,Tahoe,GAucKe,Leave,Twitter,Linkedin,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,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,accidents,Sugarloaft

Enhanced by Zemanta

Costs, when you win a lawsuit you normally can recover your costs

Gregorie v. Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20275

Costs do not include attorney fees

This case is a lawsuit by the parents of a 24-year-old girl who died snowboarding. The father, in response to her death founded the California Ski & Snowboard Association (CSSO as set forth by the court and California Ski and Snowboard Safety Organization based on their website). An association allegedly started to make ski areas safer. However, the young girl died out of bounds.

The girl and her friend were hiking out of bounds. On the way, they passed two signs warning people of the dangers. While on the High Beaver Tavers she slipped, slid out of bounds and died.

The girl signed a release before skiing at Alpine Meadows in California. On top of that she was described as an experienced snowboarder.

California Ski & Snowboard Association (CSSO) is an organization that I have written about as a wolf in sheep’s clothing (or maybe it should be skin or wool). Originally, the organization came across as wanting to work with ski areas to make them safer. See Grieving Father starts organization to make skiing safer and California Ski and Snowboard Safety Organization turns out to be a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.

Recently, the organization has changed its mission to:

Mission

To promote and support safety improvements in California skiing, snowboarding and recreational snow sports and serve as an independent, factual public resource regarding the safety of California ski resorts.

Vision

A recreational skiing and snowboarding environment in which federal and state governments, health and safety organizations and the ski resort industry are proactively and collaboratively working to establish and maintain the safest possible snow sport environment and experience.

Summary of the case

The plaintiffs sued for Premise’s liability, misrepresentation of the risk, negligence, breach of the season pass agreement, two claims of rescission and declaratory relief.

Rescission is a contract claim that attempts to void the contract and place the parties back in the position they were in prior to the signing of the contract. To win a claim for rescission the party wanting out of the agreement must claim material misstatement of the issues creating the contract, or something akin to fraud or misrepresentation.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the release (express assumption of the risk) and primary assumption of the risk. The trial court granted the defendants motion and dismissed the claims of the plaintiff.

As is normal, the defendant then filed a bill of costs. This is a motion to recover their costs they expended in defending the lawsuit. Costs are normally granted to the winning party in a suit.

Costs are the actual money spent for things necessary to defend the suit. In federal court, costs are set out by statute.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2)  [*5] Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

A better way to look at costs is; those things the party wrote a check to, necessary to litigate.

Costs do not include attorney fees. To recover attorney fees, there must be a violation of a state statute that awarded costs, a contract that awards costs or liquidated damages or an action (claim) by one side or the other that is frivolous, groundless and wholly without any legal merit. “Rule 54(d)(1) provides that costs, “other than attorney’s fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”

Costs are up to the discretion of the court. Normally, the court will allow most costs if the costs were specifically part of the trial or litigation. I look at it this way. If the judge saw the results of what you paid for, then that might be costs.

On the other hand, if money was spent on something that only might or did lead to what the judge might see, then probably not allowed as costs.). “If the depositions are for investigatory or for discovery purposes only, rather than for presentation of the case, courts have found that they are not taxable.

The decision looks at several of the items the trial court allowed as costs. The original order allowing costs was $72,515.36. The court found that only $51,042.76 of the amount should have been allowed.

So Now What?

There are several interesting issues that are just good to know if you run a ski area or any recreation business. The deposition of the father took three days. Part of that deposition concerned the organization he started, California Ski & Snowboard Association (CSSO); however, no matter why, think about losing three days out of the office for deposition and probably another six days preparing for the deposition. Nine days total for something that if you work hard in the beginning, might have been prevented.

The expert witness of the plaintiff testified for two days. That would be an expensive two days. You and/or your insurance company would be paying probably two lawyers to attend the deposition and paying your expert witness to be questioned. Even if you are not having your expert deposed, just an employee, you are paying the employee to be there. Simply put, depositions on one side or the other can easily cost $1000 per hour.

Winning or losing a lawsuit, is an expensive proposition. Usually, the costs awarded by the court are less than 50% of the actual costs spent. Add to that the time incurred to defend a lawsuit, and it is ridiculous.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

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

#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, California Ski & Snowboard Association, CSSO, Alpine Meadows, fatality, snowboarding, costs,

WordPress Tags: Costs,lawsuit,Gregorie,Alpine,Meadows,Corporation,Dist,LEXIS,attorney,parents,girl,response,death,California,Snowboard,Association,CSSO,Organization,areas,friend,dangers,High,Beaver,Tavers,sheep,wool,Father,Wolf,mission,improvements,resource,resorts,Vision,environment,governments,health,resort,industry,Summary,plaintiffs,Premise,misrepresentation,negligence,agreement,relief,Rescission,fraud,defendants,judgment,assumption,plaintiff,defendant,money,statute,Federal,Rule,Civil,Procedure,Fees,clerk,transcripts,disbursements,Docket,Compensation,experts,interpreters,salaries,interpretation,violation,action,discretion,litigation,discovery,purposes,presentation,decision,items,area,recreation,Part,office,Nine,insurance,lawyers,employee,cost,hour,proposition,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,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,three

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gregorie v. Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20275

Gregorie v. Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20275

Daniel Gregorie, in his individual capacity and as Successor In Interest to Jessica Gregorie, deceased, and Margaret Gregorie, in her individual capacity and as Successor In Interest to Jessica Gregorie, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation, a California Corporation and Powder Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

NO. CIV. S-08-259 LKK/DAD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20275

February 9, 2011, Decided

February 10, 2011, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: Gregorie v. Alpine Meadows Ski Corp., 405 Fed. Appx. 187, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26328 (9th Cir. Cal., Dec. 7, 2010)

COUNSEL: [*1] For Daniel Gregorie, in his individual capacity and as Successor in Interest to Jessica Gregorie, deceased, Margaret Gregorie, in her individual capacity and as Successor in Interest to Jessica Gregorie, deceased, Plaintiffs: Alisha M. Louie, Melvin D. Honowitz, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Constance J. Yu, Sideman and Bancroft, LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation, a California corporation, POWDR Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants: Jill Haley Penwarden, John E. Fagan, Michael L. Reitzell, Duane Morris LLP, Truckee, CA.

JUDGES: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SENIOR JUDGE.

OPINION BY: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

OPINION

ORDER

Before the court is defendant’s bill of costs. For the reason described below, the court awards some and denies some costs sought by defendant.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

Plaintiffs brought an action in wrongful death as the parents and successors in interest of decedent, Jessica Gregorie. Gregorie, a twenty-four year old woman and experienced snowboarder, died while snowboarding at defendant Alpine Meadows Ski Corporation’s (“Alpine Meadows”) ski resort on February 5, 2006. Gregorie had signed a waiver in conjunction with a season pass she purchased from [*2] Alpine Meadows, which provided her agreement to assume all risks of skiing beyond the area boundary, and releasing defendants from liability.

On the date of her death, decedent went snowboarding with her friend Joe Gaffney. Gregorie passed two signs posted at the base of the lift, warning of potential danger. While hiking the “High Beaver Traverse” to reach the “Beaver Bowl” area, Gregorie slipped due to the icy snow conditions. Gregorie was unable to stop, and slid past a large tree with a sign stating “Ski Area Boundary.” A helicopter transported Gregorie to Washoe Medical Center in Reno where she died later that day.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs Daniel and Margaret Gregorie commenced this action on February 1, 2008 against Alpine Meadows and Powdr Corporation. In their first and fourth causes of action, plaintiffs alleged premises liability. Their second cause of action alleged misrepresentation of risk of harm. Their third cause of action alleged negligence. Their fifth cause of action alleged breach of the season pass contract entered between Jessica Gregorie and Alpine Meadows. The sixth and eighth causes of action sought recision of that contract on the basis of fraud in the [*3] inducement. The seventh cause of action sought declaratory relief regarding Gregorie’s and defendant’s respective rights and duties under the contract. In addition to declaratory relief, plaintiff’s sought damages, punitive damages, and costs.

On May 29, 2009 defendants moved for summary judgement or adjudication on the basis that the plaintiffs were barred by the doctrines of primary and express assumption of risk and on the basis that Powdr Corporation is not a proper defendant. On August 6, 2009 this court entered an order granting summary judgment as to all causes of action in favor of defendants.

Defendants then submitted a Bill of Costs totaling $72,515.36 on August 7, 2009. Bill of Costs Submitted, Doc. No. 134 (August 14, 2009). Plaintiffs filed objections to the defendants’ Bill of Costs pursuant to Local Rule 54-292(c) and request a hearing.1 Objections, Doc. No. 136 (Aug. 24, 2009). In response to the objections, defendants withdraw their request for taxation of fees for the Clerk in the amount of $350.00, duplicate fees for invoice costs in the amount of $1,974.98, and fees for service of process to Randall Heiken. Response to Objection, Doc. No. 143, (Sept. 15, 2009). Costs [*4] for service of process to Jack Palladino and the California Ski & Snowboard Association, for the deposition transcript of Jack Palladino, the continued deposition transcript of Stanley Gale (Vol. 2), and the continued deposition transcript of Daniel Gregorie (Vol. 3) remain in dispute. Additionally, costs for the videographic recording of those depositions for which the stenographic transcript will also be taxed remain disputed. These include the depositions of Jack Palladino, Stanley Gale, Daniel Gregorie, Billy Martin, Joe Gaffney, Brian Martinezmoles, and Mike Leake.

1 The court finds that a hearing is not necessary in this matter.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Taxation of Costs Generally

[HN1] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Eastern District Local Rule 292(f) govern the taxation of costs, other than attorney’s fees, awarded to the prevailing party in a civil matter. The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 54(d)(1) to require that district courts consider only those costs enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42, 107 S. Ct. 2494, 96 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1987). Section 1920 provides that

[HN2] [a] judge or clerk of the court may tax the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) [*5] Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.

28 U.S.C. § 1920.

[HN3] Rule 54(d)(1) provides that costs, “other than attorney’s fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). This provision establishes a presumption that costs will be awarded to the prevailing party, but allows the court discretion to decide otherwise. Association of Mexican American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-92 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts may also interpret the meaning of the items listed in § 1920. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990); [*6] BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc., 405 F.3d 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2005). But see In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d 449, 459, 461 (4th Cir. 2000) (asserting plenary review of the District Court’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)).

[HN4] Courts may deny an award of full costs when they state a sound basis for doing so. Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1038-39 (11th Cir. 2000). The losing party bears the burden of showing that an award is inequitable under the circumstances. Paoli 221 F.3d at 462-63. Among many factors, a prevailing party’s bad conduct is relevant to the determination of whether or not to tax if such conduct is responsible for excessive costs. Id. at 463.

Here, plaintiffs objects to several items on defendants’ bill of costs. They are addressed in turn.

B. Deposition Transcripts

[HN5] In deciding whether a copy of a deposition is taxable as a cost, the court must determine whether it was “necessarily obtained for use in the case” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. “The court has great latitude in determining whether an award of deposition costs is warranted.” Allen v. United States Steel Corporation, 665 F.2d 689, 697 (5th Cir. 1982); See [*7] also 10 Wright, Miller, & Kane Federal Practice and Procedure § 2676 (3d ed. & Supp. 2010). If the depositions are for investigatory or for discovery purposes only, rather than for presentation of the case, courts have found that they are not taxable. Wright, Miller, Kane supra, § 2676. Where a motion for summary judgment is granted, “whether [the cost of a deposition] can be taxed is generally determined by deciding whether the deposition reasonably seemed necessary at the time it was taken.” Wright, Miller, Kane supra, § 2676.

i. Deposition of Jack Palladino

Jack Palladino is the family attorney of plaintiff Daniel Gregorie and private investigator to the law firm Siderman & Bancroft, LLP, plaintiffs’ counsel in this action. Objections, Doc. No. 136, at 3 (Aug. 24, 2009). Plaintiffs object to taxation of the costs incurred in the deposition of Palladino, especially for two days. They claim that the deposition was not necessary because of plaintiffs good faith effort to provide investigative reports of Palladino and because much of the testimony is protected by attorney-client privilege. Further, they contend that defendants deposed Palladino as a “fishing expedition and [for] harassment [*8] purposes only.” Id. at 3. The court now determines that under the circumstances, at least in part, the deposition of Palladino was conceivably taken for use in the case.

Although the parties initially disputed whether to conduct this deposition, the defendants withdrew their motion to compel the deposition. This suggests that the parties agreed to the conditions of the deposition which did occur. Motion to Compel, Doc. #64 (May 19, 2009); Withdrawal of Motion to Compel, Doc. #66 (May 21, 2009). In the parties’ Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Disagreement, defendants state that they “believe Mr. Palladino has crucial evidence as to statements made by eyewitnesses very shortly after the accident occurred” and that he has “likely interviewed additional witnesses and conduct [sic.] further inquiry into the facts and circumstances” surrounding the accident. Joint Statement, Doc. No. 65 at 5 (May 19, 2009). This suggests that at least in part the deposition was taken for investigative purposes. It is also true that the Magistrate Judge overruled several of the plaintiffs’ privilege-based objections. Exhibit G to Penwarden Declaration, Doc. No. 151 (Sept. 15, 2009). It is difficult for [*9] the court to parse the circumstances and make a certain judgement as to what percentage of the deposition was reasonably believed to be necessary for trial and what percentage was for other purposes. It appears clear, however, that at least one motivation was to piggyback on Palladino’s investigation. The court determines that one half the cost of the deposition of the stenographically recording of this deposition is taxable.

ii. Continued Deposition of Daniel Gregorie (Vol. 3)

Daniel Gregorie is the plaintiff in this action. Plaintiffs concede that defendants were justified in deposing Daniel Gregorie, but contend that questioning directed to Gregorie in his capacity as founder of the California Ski & Snowboard Association (CSSO), during the second and third days of the deposition, was not warranted. Objections, Doc. No. 136, at 4 (Aug. 24, 2009). However, the Magistrate Judge appears to have ordered Gregorie to answer questions directed to his CSSO activities. Minutes, Doc. #57 (April 3, 2009). The Magistrate Judge apparently found that this line questioning was likely to lead to admissible evidence. While the length appears excessive, the Magistrate Judge’s judgment appears sufficient [*10] to dispose of the issue, and the costs of this deposition will be taxed.

iii. Continued Deposition of Stan Gale (Vol. 2)

Stan Gale was designated by plaintiffs as an expert in ski safety. In their objection, plaintiffs maintain that there was no reasonable basis to depose Stan Gale for the full second day of deposition, during which he was questioned in his capacity as a percipient witness. Objections, Doc. No. 136, at 3, 4 (Aug. 24, 2009).

However, the plaintiffs agreed to the questioning of Mr. Gale in his capacity as a percipient witness at the time of the deposition. Objections, Doc. 136, at 4 (Aug. 24, 2009). The defendants were reasonable in believing that testimony obtained from a percipient witness would produce admissible evidence or information useful in presentation of the case. Therefore, the deposition was reasonably necessary at the time it was taken, and stenographic transcription of the full second day of Mr. Gale’s testimony is taxable.

C. Taxing the costs of both stenography and videography for the same deposition.

[HN6] The Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue of taxation for both stenographic and videographic costs of the same deposition. Several Circuits have expressly [*11] approved of the practice.2 Little v. Mistubishi Motors North America, Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008); BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc., 405 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir. 2005); Tilton v. Capital/ABC, Inc., 115 F.3d 1471, 1478 (10th Cir. 1997); Morrison v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 97 F.3d 460, 465 (11th Cir. 1996). The Tenth and Fourth Circuits have gone further by stating that ordinarily a “stenographic transcript of a videotaped deposition will be necessarily obtained for the case” because the deposing party will be required to provide the transcript in a variety of circumstances. Tilton, 115 F.3d at 1478-79 (internal quotations omitted); Little, 514 F.3d at 702.3

2 Defendants cite an unreported case from the Northern District of California allowing taxation of both stenographic and videographic recording of a deposition. MEMC Electronic Materials, No. C-01-4925 SBA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29359, 2004 WL 5361246, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2004). It is worth noting that MEMC Electronic Materials, the losing party had requested that the depositions be videotaped. 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29359, [WL] at *5.

3 This rationale presumes as valid taxation of the videographic recording in the first place, focusing on the question of stenography [*12] as an additional cost.

In 2008, after the above circuit cases were decided, Congress amended a relevant portion of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Subsection (2) of the statute, which once allowed taxation of “fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case.” [HN7] The statute now allows taxation of simply “fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (emphasis added). See also EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., No. 07-CV-95-LRR, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11125, 2010 WL 520564, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 9, 2010). In Boot, the district court held that the amended language justified taxation of “either stenographic transcription or videotaped depositions-not both.” CRST Van Expedited, Inc., [WL] at *5. The court agrees with the reasoning on Boot, and declines to tax the videotaped depositions.4

4 The court notes that there may be some unusual circumstance where both a transcription and a video deposition may be taxed because both are necessary. This case does not present such an exceptional circumstance.

F. Service of Process

[HN8] Fees for service of process are properly taxed under section 1920. Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). [*13] The district court regularly taxes costs for service of process. Avila v. Willits Environment, No. C 99-03941 SI, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130416, 2009 WL 4254367, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2009); Campbell v National Passenger R.R. Corp., 718 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1106-07 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The question is whether these subpoenas were necessary for use in the case.

i. Jack Palladino

According to plaintiffs, the cost of service of process to Jack Palladino should not be taxed because Palladino was voluntarily available for a deposition. Objections, Doc. No. 136, at 5 (Aug. 24, 2009). However, Palladino’s voluntary availability was subject to conditions, limitations, and claims of privilege. Defendant’s point out that the Magistrate Judge ruled that some of these limitations were “baseless.” Exhibit G to Penwarden Declaration, Doc. #151 at 19 (Sept. 15, 2009). The Magistrate Judge’s order requiring the plaintiff to answer questions, which he would not answer voluntarily, is sufficient to support this court’s finding that the cost of service of process was necessary for the defendants’ use in the case. Accordingly this cost will be taxed.

ii. CSSO

Plaintiffs object to the costs for service of process to the California Ski & Snowboard [*14] Association (CSSO), an organization founded by plaintiff, Dr. Daniel Gregorie. Defendants note that Dr. Gregorie refused to answer questions during his deposition about the CSSO, and that counsel invited the defendants to subpoena the CSSO to obtain responses. Bill of Costs Submitted, Doc. No. 143, at 10 (Sept. 15, 2009). Because plaintiffs do not show why service of process pursuant to their own suggestion was unreasonable, this cost will be taxed.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiffs SHALL BE TAXED in the amount of $51,042.76.

(2) Plaintiffs SHALL NOT BE TAXED for the costs of videotaping any depositions, for half the cost of the transcript of Palladino’s deposition, and for the costs withdrawn by defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2011.

/s/ Lawrence K Karlton

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Enhanced by Zemanta

Skier/Boarder Fatalities 2011-2012 Ski Season 2/15/12

This list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.

If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know.  This is up to date as of February 15, 2012. Thanks.

#

Date

Resort

Age

Skier Ability

Ski/ Tele /Boarder

Helmet

Reference

1

11/18/2011

Vail

62

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/rBcn7A

2

11/18/2011

Breckenridge

19

Expert

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/rBcn7A

3

11/27/2011

Mountain High ski resor

23

Beginner

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/uGuW17

4

12/18/2011

Sugar Bowl ski resort

7

Expert

Skier

 

http://rec-law.us/viAqCR

5

1/4/2012

Ski Ward

19

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/y3sOtx

6

1/11/2012

Ski Apache

29

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/zdfQ4k

7

1/12/2012

Sugarloaf ski resort

41

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/yNHkuc

8

1/14/2012

Silverton Mountain Ski Area

25

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/zcw6MB

9

1/17/2012

Heavenly Mountain Resort

34

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/yRAXXc

10

1/18/2012

Aspen Highlands

30

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/wv7vDs

11

1/18/2012

Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort

15

Boarder

No

http://rec-law.us/AAnq46

12

1/19/2012

Park City

29

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/w0k4Pe

13

1/20/2012

Copper Mountain

51

Yes

http://rec-law.us/wD06TR

14

1/20/2012

Whiteface Mountain

25

Yes

http://rec-law.us/wDkcfl

15

1/21/2012

Vail

13

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/xdhVcp

16

1/22/2012

Winter Park

28

Expert

Skier

http://rec-law.us/A0bbt

17

1/24/2012

Steamboat Ski Area

32

Boarder

http://rec-law.us/wF9UFc

18

1/24/2012

Taos Ski Valley

60

Skier

http://rec-law.us/wUl1Vz

19

1/25/2012

Keystone Ski Area

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/AihrSt

20

1/27/2012

Mt. Hood Skibowl

17

Boarder

http://rec-law.us/zzD3KB

21

1/29/2012

Canyons Ski Resort

19

http://rec-law.us/wcPB7k

22

1/30/2012

Seven Springs Mountain Resort

36

Skier

http://rec-law.us/yOwgDg

27

1/31/2012

Solitude Ski Resort

74

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/w68s4A

23

2/1/2012

Squaw Valley

51

Skier

http://rec-law.us/xqDrGE

26

2/4/2012

Sugarbush Resort

41

Skier

Yes

http://rec-law.us/zTDKPK

33

2/4/2012

Ski Windham Mountain Resor

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/ySA8W4

24

2/5/2012

Keystone Ski Area

58

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/wH6QJA

25

2/5/2012

Ski Windham Mountain Resort

54

Skier

http://rec-law.us/zcTZpF

30

2/6/2012

Mount Snow

33

http://rec-law.us/ABqYPQ

28

2/8/2012

Vail

37

Yes

http://rec-law.us/zF4Ck2

29

2/9/2012

Keystone Ski Area

72

Yes

http://rec-law.us/A9YwUD

31

2/11/2012

Jay Peak Resort

29

Boarder

Yes

http://rec-law.us/x3rzek

32

2/11/2012

Terry Peak Ski Area

24

Skier

No

http://rec-law.us/A0BvQq

 

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #Vail, #Breckenridge, #Mountain High Ski Resort, #Ski Ward, #Sugarloaf, #Silverton, Ski Apache, #Sugarloaft, #Heavenly, #Aspen, Mt Hood, Park City, #Copper, #Whiteface, Winter Park, #Steamboat, #Taos, #Keystone, #Canyons, Seven Springs, #Solitude, Ski Windham, Mount Snow, Jay Peak Terry Peak,

WordPress Tags: Skier,Boarder,Fatalities,Season,information,news,February,Thanks,Date,Resort,Tele,Helmet,Reference,Vail,Breckenridge,Expert,Mountain,High,Beginner,Sugar,Bowl,Ward,Apache,Sugarloaf,Silverton,Area,Aspen,Highlands,Meadows,Park,Copper,Whiteface,Winter,Steamboat,Taos,Valley,AihrSt,Skibowl,Canyons,Seven,Springs,Solitude,Squaw,Sugarbush,Windham,Resor,Mount,ABqYPQ,Peak,Terry,Leave,Twitter,Linkedin,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,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,accidents,Sugarloaft

Enhanced by Zemanta

How And Why Americans Engage With Winter Sports Brands: Research Reveals Social Networking Plays A Major Role In Activity

Nearly Half of Winter Sports Participants Recommend

English: Canadian winter sports, snowshoeing a...

Image via Wikipedia

Products or Brands to Peers

Slightly over one in five American adults (21 percent) revealed that they ever participate in any winter sport, according to new research released from IMRE Sports, and conducted on their behalf by Harris Interactive. Among those who ever participate in winter sports, 47 percent make recommendations to their peers about their favorite winter sports products or brands.

The research also indicated that among those who ever participate in winter sports, 74 percent use social media sites. Interestingly enough, of that 74 percent, 84 percent utilize the platform to follow brands.

Harris Interactive conducted this survey online among 2,292 adult Americans ages 18 and older between December 19 and 21, 2011. The research was spearheaded by the Maryland-based sports marketing agency, IMRE Sports.

Coupons and Giveaways atop the type of information Americans prefer from brands via social media channels

The type of information Americans prefer to receive from brands through social media sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) reveals a variety of trends that brands can leverage via promotions and advertising. The research revealed that even more opportunity lies among those Americans who have ever participated in winter sports.

Among those who use social media sites and who ever participate in winter sports, coupons (49 percent) and giveaways (41 percent) are the most popular types of information users would prefer to receive from the brands they follow or connect with via social media sites.

The research revealed the following statistics among adult Americans who used social media sites, as well as those who used social media sites and ever participated in winter sports:

Types of Information / Use social media sites / Use social media sites and participate in winter sports

Coupons, sales or discounts / 45% / 49%
Giveaways (e.g., contests, sweepstakes, drawings) / 39% / 41%
New or existing product information / 25% / 29%
Event announcements or coverage / 16% / 17%
Customer service feedback / 15% / 16%
Company news (e.g., business updates) / 12% / 15%
A brand’s charitable or environmental efforts / 11% / 11%
Insights about the industry or brand category / 9% / 11%
Behind the scenes information about the brand (e.g., filming of commercials, product/technology info) / 8% / 9%
Other / 2% / 2%

One-on-one conversations and social networking are the most prominent ways in which winter sports participants recommend their favorite winter sports products/brands to their peers

Of the 21 percent of adult Americans who ever participate in winter sports, the research study revealed that 47 percent recommend any of their favorite winter sport products/brands to their peers. Specifically:

· 33 percent use one-on-one conversation (e.g., in person, phone, email, online chat)

· 11 percent use social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Google+)

· 7 percent add their opinion to a review site

· 5 percent blog their recommendations

· 5 percent post a recommendation to an online forum

· 5 percent use video or photo sharing websites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr) to share their recommendation

· 2 percent use some other method to make a recommendation to their peers

Teams and athletes lead winter sports related groups that Americans follow via social media channels

The types of winter sports related groups adult Americans specifically follow using social media channels (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) reveal a range of important trends that brands can leverage via advertising.

The study revealed that 62 percent of adult Americans use social media sites. Among that 62 percent, the research showcased which winter sports-related groups Americans follow or connect with via social channels:

· Teams and athletes led the category (each at 7 percent)

· 5 percent follow news media outlets

· 4 percent follow winter sports events (e.g., Winter X Games, Winter Olympics)

· 4 percent follow apparel manufacturers

· 4 percent follow clubs or associations

· 2 percent follow resorts or venues and gear manufacturers

· 1 percent follow some other winter sports related group

The research showed that women (68 percent) are using social media sites significantly more than men (56 percent). However, among those using social media sites, men (25 percent) are significantly more likely than women (13 percent) to use social media sites to follow or connect with winter sport-related groups.

Skiing and hiking top all winter sports

One-fifth (21 percent) of adult Americans over age 18 ever participate in winter sports. Among them, the study showed the following breakdown of winter sport participation:

· Skiing (e.g., alpine, cross country) and hiking topped all winter sports with 8 percent of adult Americans ever participating in these sports

· 3 percent participate in the following winter sports: snowboarding, snowmobiling and ice fishing

· 2 percent of adult Americans participate in ice hockey

· Other answers included: snowshoeing (2 percent), mountain climbing (2 percent), curling (1 percent) and some other winter sport (3 percent)

· Men (28 percent) are significantly more likely to ever participate in any winter sport compared to women (14 percent)

The research also revealed that significantly more Midwesterners (29 percent) ever participate in winter sports compared to those in the West (22 percent), Northeast (19 percent), or South (15 percent). In addition, significantly more 18-34 (28 percent) and 35-44 year olds (29 percent) ever participate in winter sports compared to their older counterparts (18 percent for 45-54 year olds; 12 percent for those 55+).

“The winter sports fan is extremely loyal to their apparel and equipment brands, and they are willing to share their insights with fellow consumers,” said IMRE Sports Vice President of Social Marketing, Crystalyn Stuart. “The way Americans utilize resources to recommend brands to their peers illustrates how brands can focus their spending, particularly as social media options continue to rise in popularity. This research illustrates that the winter sports fan is a very targeted, but potentially lucrative, demographic.”

For more insight on the implications of this research, visit www.IMRESportsIQ.com.

Survey Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the United States by Harris Interactive on behalf of IMRE Sports from December 19 to 21, 2011 among 2,292 adults ages 18 and older. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated. For complete survey methodology, including weighting variables, please contact Kelly Nowlan at 410-821-8220 or kellyn.

About IMRE Sports
IMRE is an agency of marketing experts serving brands and clients invested in the sports industry. IMRE Sports connects brands to fans and helps corporations leverage their sponsorship investments to generate more brand exposure and fan engagement. IMRE’s clients include Target, Stanley Black & Decker and John Deere. Services include public relations, social marketing, advertising, emerging media and research. For more information, visit www.imresports.com.

About Harris Interactive
Harris Interactive is one of the world’s leading custom market research firms, leveraging research, technology, and business acumen to transform relevant insight into actionable foresight. Known widely for the Harris Poll and for pioneering innovative research methodologies, Harris offers expertise in a wide range of industries including healthcare, technology, public affairs, energy, telecommunications, financial services, insurance, media, retail, restaurant, and consumer package goods. Serving clients in over 215 countries and territories through our North American and European offices and a network of independent market research firms, Harris specializes in delivering research solutions that help us – and our clients – stay ahead of what’s next. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.

o.gif

Enhanced by Zemanta

Skier/Boarder Fatalities 2011-2012 Ski Season

This list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.

If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. Thanks.

# Date Resort Run Run Difficulty Age Skier Ability Ski/ Tele /Boarder Cause of Death Helmet Reference
1 11/18 Vail Gitalong Road Beginner 62 Skier Yes http://rec-law.us/rBcn7A
2 11/18 Brecken-ridge Northstar Intermediate 19 Expert Boarder suffered massive internal injuries Yes http://rec-law.us/rBcn7A
3 11/27 Mountain High ski resort Chisolm trail Beginner 23 Beginner Boarder internal injuries Yes http://rec-law.us/uGuW17

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding,

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

Windows Live Tags: Skier,Boarder,Fatalities,Season,information,news,Thanks,Date,Resort,Tele,Cause,Death,Helmet,Reference,Vail,Gitalong,Road,Beginner,Brecken,Northstar,Intermediate,Expert,injuries,Mountain,High,Chisolm,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps

WordPress Tags: Skier,Boarder,Fatalities,Season,information,news,Thanks,Date,Resort,Tele,Cause,Death,Helmet,Reference,Vail,Gitalong,Road,Beginner,Brecken,Northstar,Intermediate,Expert,injuries,Mountain,High,Chisolm,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whitman et al., v. Zeidman, 16 A.D.3d 197; 791 N.Y.S.2d 54; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505

Whitman et al., v. Zeidman, 16 A.D.3d 197; 791 N.Y.S.2d 54; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505
Harrison Whitman et al., Appellants, v. Michael Zeidman, an Infant, by Sarit Zeidman, His Parent and Legal Guardian, et al., Respondents.
5616
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
16 A.D.3d 197; 791 N.Y.S.2d 54; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505
March 15, 2005, Decided
March 15, 2005, Entered
CORE TERMS: lessons, snowboarding, risk of injury, summary judgment, failed to raise, issue of fact, reasonable care, risk-enhancing, supervising, instructing, interrupted, sponsored, arranging, downhill, reckless, canceled, skiing, novices, causal, skier, bunny, slope, sport, trip

COUNSEL: Law Offices of Renee Simon Lesser, P.C., New York (W. Matthew Sakkas of counsel), for appellants.
Acito, Klein & Candiloros, New York (Francesca A. Sabbatino of counsel), for Zeidman respondents.
Carol R. Finocchio, New York (Mary Ellen O’Brien of counsel), for National Council of Young Israel, respondent.
JUDGES: Concur–Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny, JJ.
OPINION
[*197] [**55] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered January 9, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Harrison Whitman was injured in a collision with defendant Michael Zeidman while snowboarding. By “engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” ( [***2] Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484, 685 NE2d 202, 662 NYS.2d 421 [1997]). The risk of injury caused by another skier is inherent in downhill skiing (General Obligations Law § 18-101). Defendant submitted proof that he did not engage in instances of reckless, intentional or other risk-enhancing conduct not inherent in snowboarding that might have caused the accident, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Kaufman v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 240 AD2d 371, 657 NYS2d 773 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 805, 668 NYS2d 560, 691 NE2d 632 [1998]).
Although defendant National Council of Young Israel sponsored the trip, it exercised reasonable care in supervising the participants by arranging for lessons to be provided, and once the lessons were canceled, instructing those who were novices to stay on the “bunny” slope (see generally Fintzi v New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 NY2d 669, 765 NE2d 288, 739 NYS2d 85 [2001]). Furthermore, the actions of the participants interrupted the causal link between National Council’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injury (see [***3] Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617, 490 NE2d 527, 499 NYS2d 660 [1986]). Concur–Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.


Ski Area Fatalities -2010-11 Ski Season to date: 4/18/11

This list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment.

Yellow Highlighted Fatality was an employee at work

If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. Thanks.

# Date Resort State Age Skier Ability Ski/ Tele /Boarder Cause of Death Helmet
1 11/22 Wolf Creek Ski Area CO 41 Expert Skier No
2 12/2 Snowmass CO 22 Skier Yes
3 12/12 Cannon Mountain NH 18 Skier No
4 12/18 Wolf Creek Ski Area CO 35 Expert Boarder hyperextended his neck backward, rupturing an artery
5 12/19 Cannon Mountain ski resort NH 31 Boarder
6 12/21 Beaver Creek Ski Area CO 59 Skier blunt force trauma Yes
7 12/24 Hogadon Ski Area WY 5 Skier massive chest injuries Yes
8 12/24 Hogadon Ski Area WY 22 Boarder massive chest injuries No
9 12/26 Aspen Mountain CO 77 Expert Skier suffering a broken
10 12/27 Mountain High ski resort CA 24 Beginner Boarder No
11 12/28 Discovery Ski Area MT 21 Expert Skier blunt force trauma injuries Yes
12 12/29 China Peak Ski Area CA 29 Boarder asphyxiation
13 12/29 Whitefish Mountain Resort MT 16 Skier Taken off life support 1/2/11
14 1/2 Keystone Ski Resort CO 38 Boarder blunt force trauma Yes
15 1/9 Whitefish Mountain Resort MT 29 Boarder Yes
16 1/9 Snowbowl AZ 22 Boarder
17 1/11 Heavenly Mountain Resort 57 blunt force trauma to the left side of her chest
18 1/12 Jackson Hole Mountain Resort WY 18 Skier Instantly upon hitting tree
19 1/15 Sugarloaf ME 16 Skier Yes
20 1/16 Windham Mountain NY 18 Beginner Skier Extensive Head Injuries No
21 1/19 Mt. Rose Resort NV 15 Boarder Head injuries No
22 1/22 Granlibakken Resort CA 22 Boarder blunt force trauma
23 1/26 Keystone Resort CO 22 severe blunt force trauma No
24 1/27 Anthony Lakes Ski Area OR 24 collided with a tree and suffered head and neck injuries
25 1/28 Crystal Mountain WA 67 severed his spinal cord
26 1/30 Mount Hood Meadows Ski Resort OR 41 Skier No
27 2/4 Hunt Hollow NY 54 Yes
28 2/4 Hunt Hollow Ski Club NY 54 Skier Yes
29 2/6 Eldora Mountain Resort CO 35 Expert Boarder
30 2/9 Sun Valley Resort ID 49 Skier trauma to his head and chest No
31 2/11 Windham Mountain Ski Resort NY 69 Novice Skier extensive head injuries No
32 2/11 Cooper Mountain Ski Area CO 21 fractured skull, a fractured right knee, a broken leg, a broken wrist, many facial fractures and lacerations to his liver and kidney
33 2/12 Snowshoe Mountain Resort WV 22
34 2/16 Sun Valley Resort ID
35 2/17 The Yellowstone Club MT 45
36 2/18 Spirit Mountain WI 12 Skier
37 2/20 Mount Shasta CA 23
38 2/23 Arapahoe Basin CO 32 Skier blunt force trauma to the chest No
39 2/27 Northstar-at-Tahoe CA 30 Boarder impact of hitting a tree or suffocation from landing headfirst in the snow bank No
40 2/28 California’s Kirkwood Ski area CA 25 Skier internal bleeding
41 3/11 Snowmass Mtn CO 73 Skier multiple systems trauma
42 3/14 Beaver Creek Ski Area CO 18 Expert Skier died from head trauma Yes
43 3/16 Welch Village Ski Area MN 65 Skier
44 3/16 Alyeska Resort AK 53 Skier
45 3/17 Howelsen Hill Ski Area CO 19 Skier
46 3/4 Blue Mountain Ski Resort PA 73 Skier head injury Yes
47 3/22 Eldora Mountain Resort CO 21 Skier No
48 3/26 West Mountain Ski Resort NY 17 Skier head injuries and went into cardiac arrest No
49 3/25 Winter Park Resort CO 39 Skier Hit a tree Yes
50 4/8 Winter Park Resort CO 11 Skier Collision with 2 other skiers Yes

First Update: Ski Area Fatalities -2010-11 Ski Season

Second Update: Ski Area Fatalities -2010-11 Ski Season to date: 1/5/1

Third Update: Ski Area Fatalities -11 Ski Season to date: 1/14/11

Fourth Update: Ski Area Fatalities 2010 -11 Ski Season to date: 3/2/11

Fifth Update: Ski Area Fatalities -2010-11 Ski Season to date: 3/26/11

What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #skiing, #ski area, #snowboarding, #fatality, #skier, #helmet,

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

Windows Live Tags: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,employee,Thanks,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Death,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Cannon,Mountain,neck,artery,Beaver,trauma,Hogadon,chest,injuries,Aspen,High,Beginner,Discovery,China,Peak,asphyxiation,Whitefish,Taken,life,Snowbowl,Jackson,Hole,tree,Sugarloaf,Windham,Extensive,Head,Rose,Granlibakken,Anthony,Lakes,Crystal,cord,Mount,Meadows,Hunt,Club,Eldora,Valley,Novice,Cooper,skull,knee,facial,lacerations,kidney,Snowshoe,Spirit,Shasta,Arapahoe,Basin,Northstar,Tahoe,impact,suffocation,California,Kirkwood,systems,Welch,Village,Alyeska,Howelsen,Hill,Blue,injury,West,Winter,Park,Collision,Update,Second,Third,Fourth,Fifth,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence

WordPress Tags: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,employee,Thanks,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Death,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Cannon,Mountain,neck,artery,Beaver,trauma,Hogadon,chest,injuries,Aspen,High,Beginner,Discovery,China,Peak,asphyxiation,Whitefish,Taken,life,Snowbowl,Jackson,Hole,tree,Sugarloaf,Windham,Extensive,Head,Rose,Granlibakken,Anthony,Lakes,Crystal,cord,Mount,Meadows,Hunt,Club,Eldora,Valley,Novice,Cooper,skull,knee,facial,lacerations,kidney,Snowshoe,Spirit,Shasta,Arapahoe,Basin,Northstar,Tahoe,impact,suffocation,California,Kirkwood,systems,Welch,Village,Alyeska,Howelsen,Hill,Blue,injury,West,Winter,Park,Collision,Update,Second,Third,Fourth,Fifth,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence

Blogger Labels: Area,Fatalities,Season,information,news,employee,Thanks,Date,Resort,State,Skier,Tele,Boarder,Cause,Death,Helmet,Wolf,Creek,Expert,Snowmass,Cannon,Mountain,neck,artery,Beaver,trauma,Hogadon,chest,injuries,Aspen,High,Beginner,Discovery,China,Peak,asphyxiation,Whitefish,Taken,life,Snowbowl,Jackson,Hole,tree,Sugarloaf,Windham,Extensive,Head,Rose,Granlibakken,Anthony,Lakes,Crystal,cord,Mount,Meadows,Hunt,Club,Eldora,Valley,Novice,Cooper,skull,knee,facial,lacerations,kidney,Snowshoe,Spirit,Shasta,Arapahoe,Basin,Northstar,Tahoe,impact,suffocation,California,Kirkwood,systems,Welch,Village,Alyeska,Howelsen,Hill,Blue,injury,West,Winter,Park,Collision,Update,Second,Third,Fourth,Fifth,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,negligence


Upky v. Marshall Mountain, Llc, 2008 MT 90; 342 Mont. 273; 180 P.3d 651; 2008 Mont. LEXIS 94

Upky v. Marshall Mountain, Llc, 2008 MT 90; 342 Mont. 273; 180 P.3d 651; 2008 Mont. LEXIS 94

CHAD UPKY, Plaintiff, v. MARSHALL MOUNTAIN, LLC, Defendant, and MARSHALL MOUNTAIN, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF MISSOULA, INC. and BOARD OF MISSOULA, LLC, Third-Party Defendants and Appellees.
DA 06-0109
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA
2008 MT 90; 342 Mont. 273; 180 P.3d 651; 2008 Mont. LEXIS 94
May 16, 2007, Submitted on Briefs
March 18, 2008, Decided
April 3, 2008, Released for Publication
PRIOR HISTORY:
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV 02-112. Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge.
Upky v. Marshall Mt., 2004 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 3716 (2004)
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff accident victim brought a negligence suit against defendant ski area owner, which in turn filed a complaint against third-party defendant ski jump builder for contribution or indemnification. After a jury trial on the third-party complaint, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, County of Missoula (Montana), entered judgment in favor of the builder. The owner appealed.
OVERVIEW: After the ski area owner and the accident victim came to a settlement, the ski jump builder was allowed to amend its answer to the owner’s complaint, pursuant to M.R. Civ.P. 15(a), to include a claim that the victim’s negligence, in combination with that of the owner, caused his injuries. The supreme court held that the trial court did not err when it permitted the builder to amend its answer, and that even if there was error, it was harmless because: (1) the jury, in determining that the builder was not negligent, did not reach the question whether the victim was negligent; and (2) thus there was no prejudice to the owner. The supreme court also held that the record demonstrated that substantial credible evidence supported the jury’s verdict that the builder was not negligent; because the evidence was conflicting; the supreme court deferred to the jury’s determination as to which evidence was more credible.
OUTCOME: The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
CORE TERMS: jump, amend, bamboo, poles, jury verdict, comparative negligence, skiers, ski, credible evidence, constructed, prejudiced, snowboard, morning, jury’s decision, conflicting evidence, unfinished, harmless, ski area, snowboarders, patrol, verdict form, responsive pleading, reasonable mind, inspected, non-party, apportion, predicate, credible, manager, marked
COUNSEL: For Appellant: Gig A. Tollefsen, Berg, Lilly & Tollefsen, P.C., Bozeman, Montana.
For Appellees: Maxon R. Davis, Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe, Great Falls, Montana.
JUDGES: JOHN WARNER. We Concur: JIM RICE, JAMES C. NELSON, PATRICIA COTTER, BRIAN MORRIS.
OPINION BY: John Warner
OPINION
[***652] [**274] Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court. [*P1] Third-party plaintiff Marshall Mountain, LLC (Marshall Mountain) appeals from a judgment entered in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, in favor of third-party defendants Board of Missoula, Inc. and Board of Missoula, LLC (Board of Missoula), dismissing its third party complaint after a jury verdict in Board of Missoula’s favor.
[*P2] We restate and address the issues on appeal as follows:
[*P3] 1. Did the District Court err when it granted Board of Missoula’s motion to amend its answer to allege comparative negligence by Chad Upky?
[*P4] 2. Was the jury’s verdict that Board of Missoula was not negligent supported by substantial credible evidence?
BACKGROUND
[*P5] On February 12, 1999, eighteen year old Chad Upky was rendered a paraplegic in a skiing accident at Marshall Mountain ski area. The injuries occurred when Upky skied over a ski jump ramp constructed at Marshall Mountain for use in an upcoming snowboard competition. Upky became inverted when he skied over the jump and was injured when he landed.
[**275] [*P6] Board of Missoula was a local snowboard shop that in the years before Upky’s accident had worked with Marshall Mountain to construct jumps for use in snowboard competitions at the ski area. In prior years, the jumps had been constructed up to two weeks before the competition and had remained open for use by skiers at Marshall Mountain. In 1999, Marshall Mountain’s [***653] owner, Bruce Doering, and Board of Missoula’s co-owner, Wright Hollingsworth, agreed to construct a jump for use in that year’s competition. The ski jump on which Upky was injured was constructed two days before the accident. Doering later claimed, on behalf of Marshall Mountain, that he understood the jump would be open for use before the February 1999 competition. To the contrary, Hollingsworth asserted that he and Doering had agreed the jump would be closed prior to the 1999 competition.
[*P7] On Wednesday, February 10, 1999, before the snowboard competition scheduled for the next Saturday, Hollingsworth went to Marshall Mountain after the ski area closed for the evening and built the jump with the help of Marshall Mountain’s snowcat operator, Tyson Miller. Miller and Hollingsworth worked on the jump from about 10:00 p.m. Wednesday night until 2:00 a.m. the next morning. Hollingsworth later said that he wanted to hand finish the jump in the daylight using shovels. It was his opinion that the jump should not be opened for use until it was finished. He said that before he left early Thursday morning he laid bamboo poles across the jump to indicate that it was closed. Hollingsworth said that he believed the ski patrol would see the bamboo poles when they inspected the area in the morning and would keep the jump closed. Later, members of the ski patrol and other employees of Marshall Mountain disagreed about whether there were bamboo poles across the jump on Thursday morning.
[*P8] No matter whether Hollingsworth had marked the jump as closed with bamboo poles, the jump was open for use by skiers and snowboarders that Thursday and again on Friday. Doering and the ski patrol examined the jump, and it was left open for skiers and snowboarders. Doering stated that he had ultimate authority on whether or not to allow Marshall Mountain patrons to use the jump. Several employees of Marshall Mountain used the jump with no problem.
[*P9] On Friday, the day of Upky’s accident, the jump was open throughout the day. Late in the day, a Marshall Mountain employee suggested to Doering that they close the jump due to changing snow [**276] and lighting conditions. However, Doering decided to keep the jump open. Chris Laws, Board of Missoula’s retail manager, was at Marshall Mountain on Friday. He noticed the jump was open, even though he understood it was supposed to be closed.
[*P10] On Friday evening, Upky and some friends approached the jump. Upky claimed that he tried to slow himself going into the jump by snowplowing with his skis and went over the jump at a controlled speed. Other witnesses to the accident, including Doering and Laws, stated the Upky “bombed” the jump by going into it extremely fast. Upky suffered severe injuries as a result of his fall, including a broken neck that resulted in his paraplegia.
[*P11] In 2002, Upky brought suit against Marshall Mountain, alleging that its negligence was the cause of his injuries. Upky made no claim against Board of Missoula. In its answer, Marshall Mountain denied any negligence and asserted affirmative defenses, including Upky’s comparative negligence. Marshall Mountain filed a third-party complaint against Board of Missoula seeking contribution or indemnification, asserting that Board of Missoula was responsible for any negligence in the construction of the jump. In its answer, Board of Missoula denied it had been negligent and went on to claim that the jump was unfinished when Upky used it and that it had cordoned off the jump to prevent its use prior to the competition, but Marshall Mountain negligently allowed the use of the jump on the day of Upky’s accident. Subsequently, Board of Missoula, in response to a request for admission, admitted that it had left the jump in an unfinished condition and that it was dangerous. However, it qualified the admission to state that the actions of Marshall Mountain in removing the bamboo poles marking the jump closed and allowing its patrons to use the jump were careless and caused Upky’s injuries.
[*P12] Following discovery, Board of Missoula moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not negligent as a matter of law. The District Court denied the motion for summary judgment in November 2003.
[***654] [*P13] In December 2003, Marshall Mountain and Upky settled Upky’s claim. In March 2004, the District Court noted that because of the settlement only Marshall Mountain’s claims against Board of Missoula remained to be litigated; Upky’s claims against Marshall Mountain were later dismissed.
[*P14] In July 2004, Board of Missoula moved to amend its answer, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 15(a), to include a claim that Upky’s negligence, in combination with that of Marshall Mountain, caused his [**277] injuries, and to have the jury determine the extent of his negligence as a non-party under § 27-1-703, MCA. Board of Missoula’s amended answer reasserted the claim in the original answer that Board of Missoula was not negligent and Marshall Mountain was negligent for allowing skiers to use the unfinished jump. The amended answer only added the assertion that both Upky and Marshall Mountain caused or contributed to the damages alleged by Upky. Board of Missoula did not attempt to withdraw its admission that the jump was dangerous. Marshall Mountain opposed the motion, arguing that it came too late and the amendment adding a claim of comparative negligence by Upky would be unfairly prejudicial. The District Court granted the motion to amend.
[*P15] A jury trial on the third-party complaint began December 5, 2005. At trial, numerous witnesses provided conflicting evidence on the events surrounding Upky’s injuries. The witnesses’ testimony varied widely on whether Doering and Hollingsworth had agreed to close the jump prior to the competition, whether Hollingsworth placed bamboo poles on the jump, and how dangerous, if at all, the jump was for skiers and snowboarders. There was also conflicting evidence regarding the exact circumstances of Upky’s fall, specifically how far away he was when he began approaching the jump and how fast he went over the jump.
[*P16] The special verdict form submitted to the jury first instructed it to determine if Board of Missoula was negligent. Only if the jury found that Board of Missoula was negligent was it to decide if Upky and Marshall Mountain were also negligent and fix the percentages of negligence. The jury returned its verdict finding that Board of Missoula was not negligent. Thus, it did not apportion fault. The District Court entered a final judgment in favor of Board of Missoula. Marshall Mountain appeals.
DISCUSSION
[*P17] Issue 1: Did the District Court err when it granted Board of Missoula’s motion to amend its answer to allege comparative negligence by Chad Upky?
[*P18] The Montana Rules of Civil Procedure provide for amendments to pleadings:
[HN1] A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party [**278] may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.
M. R. Civ. P. 15(a). [HN2] While amendments are not permitted in every circumstance, we have emphasized that, as Rule 15(a) states, leave to amend should be “freely given” by district courts. Loomis v. Luraski, 2001 MT 223, P 41, 306 Mont. 478, P 41, 36 P.3d 862, P 41. District courts should permit a party to amend the pleadings when, inter alia, allowing an amendment would not cause undue prejudice to the opposing party. Prentice Lumber Co. v. Hukill, 161 Mont. 8, 17, 504 P.2d 277, 282 (1972) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)).
[*P19] Marshall Mountain claims it was prejudiced by the amendment to the pleadings which allowed the jury to consider Upky’s negligence. However, the jury heard all of the evidence concerning the actions of Board of Missoula presented by Marshall Mountain, which included the admission that the jump was dangerous, and nevertheless determined that Board of Missoula was not negligent. Thus, it did not reach the question [***655] of whether Upky was negligent. As the jury did not consider any negligence on the part of Upky in reaching its verdict, there was no prejudice to Marshall Mountain. [HN3] When a special verdict requires a jury to answer a question only if it first determines that a predicate question is answered in the affirmative, and the jury answers the predicate question in the negative, we have consistently held that the party objecting to the submission of the second, unanswered question is not prejudiced. Under such circumstances we consider any error harmless, and decline to interfere with the jury’s decision. See e.g. Payne v. Knutson, 2004 MT 271, PP 17-18, 323 Mont. 165, PP 17-18, 99 P.3d 200, PP 17-18 (concluding there was no prejudice to the plaintiff where the jury was not instructed to apportion negligence among the defendants because the jury found the plaintiff was more than 50% negligent and thus could not recover); Peschke v. Carroll College, 280 Mont. 331, 343, 929 P.2d 874, 881 (1996) (concluding that although a district court erred in admitting a videotape, it went to the issue of causation, which the jury did not reach, and the error was thus harmless); Drilcon, Inc. v. Roil Energy Corp., 230 Mont. 166, 173, 749 P.2d 1058, 1062 (1988) (declining to address appellant’s argument that the special verdict form erroneously included non-parties because the jury apportioned negligence only among the parties to the action and appellant was not prejudiced).
[**279] [*P20] We affirm the District Court’s order allowing Board of Missoula to amend the pleadings to allege Upky’s comparative negligence because Marshall Mountain was not prejudiced by it and any error was harmless.
[*P21] Issue 2: Was the jury’s verdict that Board of Missoula was not negligent supported by substantial credible evidence?
[*P22] [HN4] This Court does not review a jury verdict to determine if it was correct. We review a jury’s decision only to determine if substantial credible evidence in the record supports the verdict. Campbell v. Canty, 1998 MT 278, P 17, 291 Mont. 398, P 17, 969 P.2d 268, P 17; Wise v. Ford Motor Co., 284 Mont. 336, 343, 943 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1997). Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” and may be less than a preponderance of the evidence but must be more than a “mere scintilla.” Campbell, P 18.
[*P23] [HN5] It is the role of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence, and this Court will defer to the jury’s role. Seeley v. Kreitzberg Rentals, LLC, 2007 MT 97, P 21, 337 Mont. 91, P 21, 157 P.3d 676, P 21, overruled on other grounds, Giambra v. Kelsey, 2007 MT 158, P 27, 338 Mont. 19, P 27, 162 P.3d 134, P 27. [HN6] We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Where conflicting evidence exists, we will not overturn a jury’s decision to believe one party over another. Samson v. State, 2003 MT 133, P 11, 316 Mont. 90, P 11, 69 P.3d 1154, P 11.
[*P24] The record before us demonstrates that substantial credible evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Board of Missoula was not negligent. Hollingsworth testified that he and Doering agreed the jump would be closed prior to the competition. Hollingsworth also testified that he had marked the jump closed with bamboo poles the night it was constructed, and other testimony supported this assertion. There was also evidence that only Marshall Mountain had the ultimate decision-making authority to open or close the jump. Marshall Mountain’s manager, Doering, testified he inspected the jump and thought it was safe. This evidence, which does not include the testimony describing Upky’s actions, provided the jury with an adequate basis to support its decision that Board of Missoula was not negligent. Campbell, P 18.
[*P25] There is also evidence which would tend to show Board of Missoula was negligent. However, because the evidence is conflicting we defer to the jury’s determination as to which evidence is more credible. Seeley, P 21. We conclude that the record contains sufficient [**280] evidence for reasonable minds to conclude that Board of Missoula was not negligent.
[***656] CONCLUSION
[*P26] The District Court did not err when it permitted Board of Missoula to amend its answer, and the jury verdict is supported by substantial credible evidence.
[*P27] Affirmed.
/S/ JOHN WARNER
We Concur:
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS