Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    spook Guest

    broad liability waivers unconscionable: boarder can sue bachelor


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    33
    Well that's nice. Now legally binding waivers can't even save you from a lawsuit...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Yawn. Maybe the first time the Oregon SC has held that, but it's been the law in CO since at least the early 80s and CA since at least 1996, based on a quick Google search. The sky, it will not fall. That's assuming the issue is as simple as the article makes it out to be. I have not read the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    1,921
    Even pre-nups don't matter anymore. The whole "rules are meant to be broken" thangy. All you lawyers take a lap.
    Did the last unsatisfied fat soccer mom you took to your mom's basement call you a fascist? -irul&ublo
    Don't Taze me bro.

  6. #6
    spook Guest
    lawyer laps are fast with the coke and all

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Issaquah
    Posts
    2,058
    People sue waivers or not,contracts or not. It doesn't mean they will win it. That kid probably hit that jump hundreds of times. If he wins a settlement then I will be pissed.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    4,168
    “I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    321
    thats ridiculous. so is the example used in the article.."forgot to put a seat down, dragged, broke her arm...." the "language is small, of course no body reads it..." well if you cant sit on a lift maybe you should read it.

    absolutely ridiculous

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    33,546
    Quote Originally Posted by LJC View Post
    Well that's nice. Now legally binding waivers can't even save you from a lawsuit...
    Yeah.

    Legally binding waivers have to actually be legally binding to be legally binding though.

    It's a bit complex.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    inevitable result of OR's massive yuppification

    soon you'll see someone rip an ACL hacking it up and the ski hill will get blamed and tagged for a settlement/verdict

    PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKES!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Spokane/Schweitzer
    Posts
    6,741
    "The ruling will make ski resorts and other public venues safer, Ginsberg said."

    Sure, they'll be safer because they won't have terrain parks or other man-made 'hazards'. Company legal counsel will advise their clients (ski areas) against having such activities available and insurers won't cover them in the event an accident like this happens. It seems no one has personal responsibility for these accidents, it's always someone else's fault. As for the OR SC, we're looking at a 'progressive' court and its sense of ruling. Really a load of crap.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post
    "The ruling will make ski resorts and other public venues safer, Ginsberg said."

    Sure, they'll be safer because they won't have terrain parks or other man-made 'hazards'. Company legal counsel will advise their clients (ski areas) against having such activities available and insurers won't cover them in the event an accident like this happens. It seems no one has personal responsibility for these accidents, it's always someone else's fault. As for the OR SC, we're looking at a 'progressive' court and its sense of ruling. Really a load of crap.
    I'm ambivalent on the merits of the suit itself. But, as noted above, this has been the law in CA and CO for a long time. Maybe other states as well for all I know. During the time that blanket waivers have been considered unconscionable, a number of ski areas in those two states have expanded their terrain parks dramatically--both in variety of features, and size of the features. Mammoth, Northstar, Boreal, Snow Summit, and others are all known for having big park features. Pro-sized superpipes, 50-60+ foot tables, etc. Same with several resorts in CO (Breckenridge comes to mind). So what's the issue? I have no idea how that particular legal provision has affected premiums, but even smaller resorts manage to develop some park features, so...? I have a really hard time believing it's going to be any different in Oregon. Premiums go up a bit (probably?). Resorts hire better/more qualified park designers. Life goes on.

    Am I incorrect on this? I'm open to evidence to the contrary, if it's out there.

    Edit to add: The plaintiffs in these kinds of suits still have to prove negligence on behalf of the resort. The only thing this changes is the Oregon SC is saying the waiver itself is no longer a blanket liability shield--e.g. a trump card against all suits. I sort of get why people are up in arms in this context because of the particular facts of the suit. But what about if the resort left a cable strung across a narrow trail that was hidden from view until you're right on top of it. Somebody gets clotheslined and their windpipe crushed. Still an objective hazard? Did you still assume the risk of a gross negligence situation like that? Because that's what you're arguing here. As far as I can tell, the SC did not opine on the merits of the claim. Just that narrow legal issue. He still has to prove the merits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rossland BC
    Posts
    1,879
    Interesting link. It seems that unless the parameters of inherent risk are explicitly defined in legislation, or participants explicitly acknowledge their extent of risk they are assuming, then the legal argument can be made that the actual risk exceeded that which is inherent, and was therefore partially negligent. Also a good reminder that juries don't have the same perspective on personal responsibility as the skiing community.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    The plaintiffs in these kinds of suits still have to prove negligence on behalf of the resort. The only thing this changes is the Oregon SC is saying the waiver itself is no longer a blanket liability shield--e.g. a trump card against all suits. I sort of get why people are up in arms in this context because of the particular facts of the suit. But what about if the resort left a cable strung across a narrow trail that was hidden from view until you're right on top of it. Somebody gets clotheslined and their windpipe crushed. Still an objective hazard? Did you still assume the risk of a gross negligence situation like that? Because that's what you're arguing here. As far as I can tell, the SC did not opine on the merits of the claim. Just that narrow legal issue. He still has to prove the merits.
    Court has ability to reject claim on its face. By not rejecting it paves the way to upturning existing practice and put liability on the shoulders of anyone but the dipshit who gets hurt being a dipshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by kootenayskier View Post
    Also a good reminder that juries don't have the same perspective on personal responsibility as the skiing community.
    ...and thus, not really a "jury of peers" and not really people who understand inherent risk. You'd have to go into analogies to try to explain inherent risk, and each such analogy is susceptible to the judge's discretion. If judge isn't a skier or someone who has engaged in inherently risky activities, the judge's leeway will be tightly drawn.

    voir dire isn't going to land you a box of skiers

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    I'm ambivalent on the merits of the suit itself. But, as noted above, this has been the law in CA and CO for a long time. Maybe other states as well for all I know. During the time that blanket waivers have been considered unconscionable, a number of ski areas in those two states have expanded their terrain parks dramatically--both in variety of features, and size of the features. Mammoth, Northstar, Boreal, Snow Summit, and others are all known for having big park features. Pro-sized superpipes, 50-60+ foot tables, etc. Same with several resorts in CO (Breckenridge comes to mind). So what's the issue? I have no idea how that particular legal provision has affected premiums, but even smaller resorts manage to develop some park features, so...? I have a really hard time believing it's going to be any different in Oregon. Premiums go up a bit (probably?). Resorts hire better/more qualified park designers. Life goes on.

    Am I incorrect on this? I'm open to evidence to the contrary, if it's out there.

    Edit to add: The plaintiffs in these kinds of suits still have to prove negligence on behalf of the resort. The only thing this changes is the Oregon SC is saying the waiver itself is no longer a blanket liability shield--e.g. a trump card against all suits. I sort of get why people are up in arms in this context because of the particular facts of the suit. But what about if the resort left a cable strung across a narrow trail that was hidden from view until you're right on top of it. Somebody gets clotheslined and their windpipe crushed. Still an objective hazard? Did you still assume the risk of a gross negligence situation like that? Because that's what you're arguing here. As far as I can tell, the SC did not opine on the merits of the claim. Just that narrow legal issue. He still has to prove the merits.
    Thanks for the education...that's a bunch context and stuff I wasn't really considering when I first read the OP link.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,987
    Quote Originally Posted by kootenayskier View Post
    Interesting link. It seems that unless the parameters of inherent risk are explicitly defined in legislation, or participants explicitly acknowledge their extent of risk they are assuming, then the legal argument can be made that the actual risk exceeded that which is inherent, and was therefore partially negligent. Also a good reminder that juries don't have the same perspective on personal responsibility as the skiing community.
    Not gonna internet lawyer geek but in Canada there's a super strong presumption of voluntary assumption of risk. Basically it means these lawsuits get thrown out almost immediately and that insurance cost is like 20% of US costs.

    Good news for ski ops, lodges, guides etc

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Eagle River Alaska
    Posts
    10,964
    Quote Originally Posted by LJC View Post
    Well that's nice. Now legally binding waivers can't even save you from a lawsuit...
    Legally binding waivers have never saved anyone from a lawsuit for negligence, ever.

    Ever.

    This is nothing new.

    In my outdoor leadership class we went through a giant list of accidents that the companies were successfully sued for, everyone had a liability waiver.

    This is why you buy liability insurance, its also why you start and LLC, and why if there's an accident you do your very best to help the victims in any way you can.

    In this case I'm guessing Mt. Bachelor tried to hide behind a liability waiver instead of helping the victim in any way they could. That pisses people off, that forces them to sue.
    Its not that I suck at spelling, its that I just don't care

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    it's news to see it happen in US courts

    don't confuse liability waiver for ski lift ticket with liability waiver for commercial goods sold.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rossland BC
    Posts
    1,879
    I don't think voluntary assumption of risk is clearly defined in Canadian legislation, except in things like the (untested) provincial occupiers liability acts, so why is it that Canadian courts seem to have no problem distinguishing actual operator negligence (leaving a cable across a ski run from the night before) from a participant's misadventure (overshooting a jump), while US courts can't? I'm no lawyer, but from my armchair it seems the US is obsessed with their constitution, and with arcane legal arguments whether or not any activity can be justified within it, rather than applying common sense in the interest of the common good. Travelling and talking with people I met through the desert states this fall, I was fascinated how many justified all sorts of destructive activities (target shooting across a mountain bike trail) on the basis of "core values" and the constitution, while dismissing more nuanced argument as mere moral relativism.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    Last year, when things were particularly low tide, Squawlpine marked manmade hazards--like old exposed lift tower piers and pipes, but made no attempt to mark natural hazards like rocks (which would have been impossible anyway). Interesting approach.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by kootenayskier View Post
    I'm no lawyer, but from my armchair it seems the US is obsessed with their constitution, and with arcane legal arguments whether or not any activity can be justified within it, rather than applying common sense in the interest of the common good.
    not even close, your comment sounds like you've been reading "progressive" opinion shit which blames everything on "constitutional libertarians"

    has nothing at all to do with constitution/libertarians

    has everything to do with "progressive" perspectives which demand that life be risk-free, safe, pre-packaged consumable lifestyle -- as opposed to life in an existence where most things are beyond an individual's control

    you don't have to be a US licensed lawyer to see/understand this. you only have to be detached from ideologies and identities formed around ideologies.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,987
    Quote Originally Posted by kootenayskier View Post
    I don't think voluntary assumption of risk is clearly defined in Canadian legislation, except in things like the (untested) provincial occupiers liability acts, so why is it that Canadian courts seem to have no problem distinguishing actual operator negligence (leaving a cable across a ski run from the night before) from a participant's misadventure (overshooting a jump), while US courts can't?
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    not even close, your comment sounds like you've been reading "progressive" opinion shit which blames everything on "constitutional libertarians"
    has everything to do with "progressive" perspectives which demand that life be risk-free, safe, pre-packaged consumable lifestyle -- as opposed to life in an existence where most things are beyond an individual's control
    creaky has it right in a roundabout way

    "voluntary assumption of risk" is not through legislation. It's kinda an expression of the way Canadians think about risk and then hashed out in court cases - sometimes called common law.

    Canadians in general view wilderness and sporting activities and risk in those settings as "life in an existence where most things are beyond an individual's control". At the risk of speaking for Americans that doesn't seem to be the case in the US

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    you understand life south of the border... some Canadians might actually see the US perspective invading their lands!

    k-skier might be onto one thing in a narrow sense: the "libertarian" view's rise in prominence in the US has a lot to do with the "progressive" view's dominance and the problems "libertarians" have with laws, rules, regs trying to negate risk by pretending it can be legislated, sued, etc., away. after that little point, libertarian views tend to fall apart because their solution is this: if you have more money, or are able to make more money, that will solve everything. that's childish.
    Last edited by creaky fossil; 12-22-2014 at 11:59 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,987
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    you understand life south of the border... some Canadians might actually see the US perspective invading their lands!
    Sometimes I think I do then every time that happens; some crazy thing happens that makes me go WTF? They're aliens - from another space time dimension.

    Not to say that doesn't happen in Canuckistan too

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •