Posted On: October 26, 2006, 1:03 pm CDT

Posted By: LJKSkiDude

Even in 1st year law school, the "assumption of risk" doctrine is taught to govern all activities with these inherent risks. Under the logic of this decision, any skier would have the "right" to negotiate away the assumption of risk statement that is usually printed right on the lift ticket. Count on fewer ski resorts in the future if such is the case.

Furthermore, I own horses and know that every time I walk into a stall with them, I have to be on my guard, no matter how experienced I am, or how well trained the horse is. Given that the horse isn't a piece of equipment that can be controlled under all circumstances, it is ludicrous for a judge to think that the defendants had a duty or even the ability to protect the plaintiff any further than they did. Horseback riding is inherently dangerous. I have watched helplessly as my own daughter (who is a very experienced rider) was dragged around the pasture by a "good horse". Fortunately, she escaped major injury. What was the lesson? Who knows? We never figured out why the horse bolted. The only real lesson is the hard lesson of life - that stuff happens. It happens more often when you are involved in an activity that involves risk. My sympathies for the plaintiff, by she shouldn't expect anything from the defendant, unless the defendant actually caused the accident. I didn't see that. Judges need to pull their heads out and stop pandering for the sake of sympathy or political expediency (not wanting to make an unpopular decision, despite the law). Attorneys bent on unjust self-enrichment are working their way to a miserable destiny.