Heavenly (Vail) being sued for off duty employee hitting a skier
Posted: July 3, 2012 Filed under: Skier v. Skier | Tags: Brazil, Employment, Heavenly Mountain Resort, Heavenly Ski Area, Skier, Snowboarder, Vail, Vail Resorts 1 CommentLawsuit claims heavenly is liable for not teaching the employee how to board?
What appears to be a beginner skier was hit by a snowboarder at Heavenly Ski Resort. Heavenly is owned by Vail Resorts. The article refers to
both resorts interchangeably. The snowboarder was an off duty Heavenly employee. The employee was working as a temporary seasonal employee and from Brazil.
The lawsuit claims that Heavenly is liable because:
…Heavenly solicits foreign employees, offers free season ski passes for use when they’re off duty, discounted merchandise, food and beverage, and low-cost housing that the company is responsible for their presence on the slopes.
Sullivan argues that the resort doesn’t provide adequate training to the employees on skiing and boarding skills and the need to follow the resort’s responsibility code.
I think that is a stretch. I think that claim has been stretched to Brazil and back. If Vail is liable for not teaching an employee how to ski, McDonald’s is in big trouble for not teaching its employees how to i.
See Gardnerville couple suing ski resort in accident or Second skier sues Vail Resorts claiming a Heavenly employee injured him while snowboarding out of control.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #skiing, #boarding, #snowboarding, Heavenly, Vail, Skier v. Skier collision
WordPress Tags: Vail,employee,Lawsuit,beginner,Resort,Resorts,article,Brazil,employees,food,beverage,cost,presence,Sullivan,skills,McDonald,Gardnerville,accident,Second,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Skier,collision,snowboarder
The word “Safe” comes back to haunt outfitter and travel agent
Posted: July 2, 2008 Filed under: Whitewater Rafting | Tags: Grand Teton, Grand Teton National Park, Jackson Hole, National Park Service, Snake River, Vail Resorts Leave a commentJackson Hole News is reporting that a lawsuit has been filed over a rafting accident that occurred in 2006. Robert and Patricia Rizas are suing Vail
Image via Wikipedia
Resorts, Grand Teton Lodge Company and Tauck Inc. for loss of income, earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering and physical disability and loss of enjoyment of life and hoping for punitive damages
The accident that gave rise to the litigation occurred at Deadmans Bar on the Snake River in Grand Teton National Park. Three people died in the suit, two of whom were the brother and sister in law of the plaintiffs. However none of the claims being alleged assert a claim for the loss of life of their relatives.
Few states allow a sibling to recover for the loss of life of another sibling. Those states that do allow a sibling to recover for the loss of another sibling only allow recovery of minimal damages. In order to recover damages, the person who survives must have a direct and past or future monetary relationship with the deceased. By that I mean parents and children can sue for the loss of the other as well as the spouse for the loss of a spouse. Very rarely do courts allow or provide monetary damages for the loss of a sibling.
The defendants in this case are a little hard to sort out. <
Grand Teton Lodge is a lodge located in Grand Teton National Park. The lodge as part of the activities it offers guests is river trips on the Snake River. Grand Teton Lodge is owned by Vail Resorts Management Company, Inc. is a company selling tours, which in this case included nights at the lodge and the river trip. The river trips are described on the Grand Teton Lodge website as
The general allegations are the lodge and Vail conspired with the tour company to mislead and defraud the plaintiffs into taking a river trip which was described as safe.
The plaintiff’s state the Tauck brochure described the river trip as a “serene float through magnificent mountain scenery” which is very similar to how the Grand Teton Lodge website describes the
They are also claiming the brochures, the lodge and the raft guide described the river trip as safe. The river was running at run off levels at the time of the trip.
The complaint states the shuttle driver said the river trip was safe. The complaint also states the shuttle ride was more dangerous than the river trip.
The complaint states the companies were negligent in failing to warn of the dangers of the river during peak run off. The defendants were also negligent for not properly training the passengers, failing to provide a competent guide and equipment suitable for the conditions.
They plaintiffs are also claiming fraud because the defendants hid the dangers of the river. Had the plaintiffs known of the dangers of the river they would not have gone on the river trip. The complaint allegedly states the defendants place corporate profit above the personal safety
There are several interesting legal issues floating around in this case. The first is an attempt to have any release or acknowledgment of risk form thrown out of the case. The accident occurred inside the Grand Teton National Park so supposedly the river outfitter would be operating under a Permit or Concession contract with the
National Park Service
As a permittee the only document that can be used to reduce liability is the NPS Here claim that there was fraud involved will void any contract between the parties. The second is the use of the word safe. When people hear the word safe it is not a word that brings up a comparison of how safe, but to most people means absolutely risk free. So when any person, website or brochure states an activity is safe, that activity is risk free. Families take safe trips, they do not take dangerous ones. Fathers and mothers do not take their kids on risky activities.
Yet safe is a relative term. The most dangerous place in the US is the home bathroom. It is more dangerous, in most cases, to drive to the river than to raft the river. Although who knows based on the description of the shuttle ride in this case.
However here, the defendants are going to have an uphill battle if the statements are proved that the river trip is safe. People were injured, people died and people did not have a good time, therefore the river trip was not safe.
Safe is not a word that you should use in any communication with a possible client. Life is not safe.
Recreation Law 