Reader comments
Liability waivers at winter resorts have legal teeth
18 comments | Read story
Bob G | 3:33 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
All sports and their inheriant risks should be the sole responsibility of those
participating in sports activities, as the law says. In todays world of the
types of sporting events many of the ametuers should not be participating in
them. Sport activities do require a lot of training and skills that can only be
learned with professional help. Todays people are not very well suited to many
of the winter sport activities and risks inheriant with these sports because
they don't know what the risks are. They lack the common sense and any
skill at sports to be able to understand the risks. Skilled and trained people
in these sports also learn how to handle a fall without injury as well as how to
participate. Even with that training the risks are very high as equipment also
fails causing many serious injuries. All winter sports are dangerous but the
public is driven by advertising and displaying of professionals with many years
of training. Training is conducted year round for these professionals and their
bodies are conditioned to meet the chalenges of the sport. For this reason,
resorts should be held more accountable for enticing and luring untrained and
unskilled participants.
Sign the waiver, don't complain | 5:55 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
Sounds like the courts are making the right calls--while expecting high safety
standards from ski resorts, they also realize that accidents happen and resorts
cannot be responsible for every little accident.
Anonymous | 8:03 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
There are (obviously) legitimate reasons for lawsuits, but our society has been
turned into one massive padded cell thanks to all these lawsuits.
Anyone with a brain understands that in any activity there are inherent risks, but let's not let our society be run by those without brains and by their greedy, unscrupulous hired guns.
Anyone with a brain understands that in any activity there are inherent risks, but let's not let our society be run by those without brains and by their greedy, unscrupulous hired guns.
Comments continue below
BH | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
It is great to hear that the Utah courts have worked to find a reasonable
balance of liability in sporting activities.
Unfortuneately in this day and age that we live in too many people have been raised to believe that someone other than themselves should be responsible and liable, for their personal safety. Of course that someone else does not end up being some big corporation, but instead John and Jane Q Public absorbs the bill.
More good common sense legislation such as this needs to protect the public from litigation happy parasites.
Unfortuneately in this day and age that we live in too many people have been raised to believe that someone other than themselves should be responsible and liable, for their personal safety. Of course that someone else does not end up being some big corporation, but instead John and Jane Q Public absorbs the bill.
More good common sense legislation such as this needs to protect the public from litigation happy parasites.
Matt | 10:04 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
Hard to hear about some of the suffering these people have gone through, but
that is part of the deal when participating in such activities. Having gone on
the bobsled run, I fully agree that I was well-prepped into what I was getting
into. You sign waivers, watch safety videos, etc. Hard not to go through with it
and claim you didn't know.
MT | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
This weekend a man was killed in an avalanche while skiing in-bounds at a Park
City ski area. A young boy was desperately injured and is still unconscious.
The resort is clearly at fault. Do you think they will step up and take responsibility or do you think they will say this is an unfortunate accident?
Our litigious society is the result of dishonorable persons/businesses causing injury and hiding, lying, or otherwise avoiding liability in the incident.
An in-bounds avalanche says the resort didn't take nominal steps to safeguard their customers. So, lets watch and see if the owners are stand up guys or if they will hide under their lawyers desks.
The resort is clearly at fault. Do you think they will step up and take responsibility or do you think they will say this is an unfortunate accident?
Our litigious society is the result of dishonorable persons/businesses causing injury and hiding, lying, or otherwise avoiding liability in the incident.
An in-bounds avalanche says the resort didn't take nominal steps to safeguard their customers. So, lets watch and see if the owners are stand up guys or if they will hide under their lawyers desks.
to MT | 10:37 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
To say that the resort was responsible for the avalanche is absurd. I have
worked in the past at another ski resort. Yes they take all steps possible to
prevent avalanches, but they are still possible. If a ski resort drops shells
onto the slops and nothing happens, there isn't much else that they can do.
If you go to any ski resort, you will find that they do all they can do to
prevent the avalanche. Once they do all they can do, they put procedures in
place to keep an eye on the resort so if one happens they are on site as soon as
possible. Could the Canyons have done something more? I dont know. But to
think that they didn't do all they could is just dumb. I dont think they
are that stupid.
Dibelichii | 11:49 a.m. Dec. 26, 2007
There seems to be a general trend towards expecting others to be accountable for
our own errors in judgement. What you're dealing with is Nature in all her
glory. The tendency towards extreme sking, thrill seeking, pushing everything to
the edge of the envelope, all for a thrill is lunacy. I feel terrible for this
young man, but the moment he decided to strap on skis / board and enter a
competition, his safety was in his own hands. Years ago I cracked my head open
at the top of PowderHorn at Solitude, had several stitches, but it wasn't
because the resort put that powder in my path; I just wasn't prepared then
to deal with it properly. Now, all this said, the "business" of skiing
has taken over, as it has other industries. Please let's not be naive &
think there's any other motive in the corporate suite other than the bottom
line. To this young man and his family, all my hopes and prayers; to the rest of
us, there are consequences to just going out in the world everyday, let alone
participating in winter sports. Be wise. Ski in control.
Anonymous | 12:00 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
You ask what more could they have done?
They could have closed for a few hours.
There was lots of new snow on old snow in the valley, can't imagine what the mountains got- there is a liability from the "pro's" that work/run the resort- close it when the runs get too much snow too fast! Maybe if they were sued they would think of the dangers instead of the bottom $$ line.
They could have closed for a few hours.
There was lots of new snow on old snow in the valley, can't imagine what the mountains got- there is a liability from the "pro's" that work/run the resort- close it when the runs get too much snow too fast! Maybe if they were sued they would think of the dangers instead of the bottom $$ line.
BEK | 12:38 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
The avalanche at The Canyons occurred in terrain only accessible from a lift
with a large "EXPERT ONLY" sign. Skiiers in line were warned that the
avalanche danger was extreme. At 36 I have spent the last 31 years on skis and
have been on the lift in question a number of times. All avalanche control
measures anyone would consider reasonable for a resort to undertake can easily
be changed by the dynamics of skiiers passing over the terrain and pushing up
the bumps. If you are going to ski expert only terrain then you better be
prepared to get buried. The fun knee and waist deep powder can easily slide when
you put the momentum of a skier into the equation, even where explosives
didn't trigger a slide, and bury/kill as easily as bathtub water. It may be
light and fluffly initially, but when it slides it heats and partial melts,
becoming dense and hard on top of you like the slush curbside. Then it
doesn't take much to put a ton of snow on your chest and suffocate. 1 or 2
feet of that snow kills as easily 6 when you are buried in it.
YF | 1:07 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
It's scary that someone with 31 years of experience on skis actually thinks
a resort would warn people in line that there was an extreme danger of an
avalanche while they load chairs.
This basically would make the Canyons liable.
This basically would make the Canyons liable.
Bill | 1:09 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
If you don't want to risk being buried by an avalanche, don't go
skiing when the news and everyone is telling you "avalanche danger is
high."
To go skiing anyway, expecting others to be responsible for your foolhardiness, is irresponsible.
When ski resorts are found to be liable, usually the jury is so broken-hearted over the terrible suffering the skier has brought on himself, they want to shift some of the burden of medical care to the ski resort, just because they have more money or insurance. It's not always a case of actual fault or negligence on the part of the resort.
To go skiing anyway, expecting others to be responsible for your foolhardiness, is irresponsible.
When ski resorts are found to be liable, usually the jury is so broken-hearted over the terrible suffering the skier has brought on himself, they want to shift some of the burden of medical care to the ski resort, just because they have more money or insurance. It's not always a case of actual fault or negligence on the part of the resort.
VEGAS ED | 2:28 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
That's why I don't ski anymore. Too expensive because of the lawyers.
I remember in the late 70's paying $5 on Wednesdays at Brighton.
Independent American | 5:51 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
I've spent days skiing in the back country. I have skied untracked power.
I've slept on thirty feet of snow. My recreation didn't require clear
cutting slopes, condo development, lodges or fancy events that encourage
scandalous behavior or Mitt to save me. I never left a plume of smoke behind.
BH | 6:41 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
If we follow the logic of responsibility that MT suggests, city and state
governments should deny motorists access to all highways and streets any time
there will be more snow or ice than the road crews can clear. Why, after all,
they know there is an inherent danger, and they still allow us to drive on the
roads.
Once again the attitude that someone other than ourselves should be responsible for all danger and risk, releasing each of us from any responsibility for measuring risk and potential consequence.
Not a single person with a reasonable inteligence level should not know that the moment they step fcot on the ski slopes they are risking life and limb. Nay, the very moment they enter the canyon. Nay, the very moment they got out of bed in the morning. That's life.
Once again the attitude that someone other than ourselves should be responsible for all danger and risk, releasing each of us from any responsibility for measuring risk and potential consequence.
Not a single person with a reasonable inteligence level should not know that the moment they step fcot on the ski slopes they are risking life and limb. Nay, the very moment they enter the canyon. Nay, the very moment they got out of bed in the morning. That's life.
Ski resorts are for skiers | 7:49 p.m. Dec. 26, 2007
If only we could sue all of the reckless snowboarders... they cause far more
accidents and injuries than any negligence of the resorts.
gapers are gapers | 12:42 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007
whether on a board or skis, and you sound like a gaper
TakeResponsibility | 2:58 p.m. Dec. 31, 2007
The PCMR decision was good, the Snowbird one horrendous. You can tell from
reading the Snowbird decision, that the majority knew the result they wanted and
strained, yanked and twisted the law to make it fit. What a joke.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Start mammograms at 50, not 40 3:28 p.m.
- Pitta named semifinalist for award 3:11 p.m.
- Time Warner to spin off AOL 3:08 p.m.
- GMAC CEO steps down 3:07 p.m.
- Man arrested in '03 kidnapping 3:07 p.m.
- Tenn. loses 2 players to crime 2:48 p.m.
- Michigan didn't keep players logs 2:47 p.m.
- Barzee to plead guilty 2:47 p.m.
- Censors block call to free the Web 2:46 p.m.
- Vonage to settle investigation 2:43 p.m.
- MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight
- Relieved Cougs prep for Falcons
- Wounded Utes limp home
- Jazz rookies had to grow up quickly
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Big games keep UHSAA coffers full
- TCU stays 4th in AP; Y. 19th, U. 23rd
- RSL surprised by Chicago's Fire
- Win in New Mexico good for Y?
- Jazz notes: Young bigs ride bench
- TCU creams U.
233 - BYU happy to escape with victory232
- Editorial: Mormons and gay rights220
- Will state consider gay rights law?157
- RSL heads to MLS title game133
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?131
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- TCU stays 4th in AP; Y. 19th, U. 23rd114
- Celtics crush Jazz104
- MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight100
The Gateway, 400 W. 200 South, will kick off the holiday shopping season...
How do you handle kids and contests? Our oldest daughter, 7, is of the...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Glad to see you back, Deron! Hope everything is doing well. Let's see you...
As far as has been reported,he was not a missionary, he was a United States...
Cannon wrote: "The First Amendment was designed to protect religion from...
...and every other natural sleeping aid.
The Founders, in today's political terms, were without doubt Conservatives,...
Ballet is way more physically demanding than any professional sport, but that...
liberal CONFUSION !!! | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009 "Holy cow people, I have...
If Utah State is to ever become truely competative with schools in the MWC...
You have silly oppions, and no facts. What do you base your comments on? ...
I taught a BYU for a short time. I was accused of teaching false doctrine. I...
Advertisements