Posted On: October 31, 2006, 11:16 am CST

Posted By: LJKSkiDude

Fred: "Think about what the waiver was saying. "If you use our services, we are not responsible for your safety in any way." Upholding that type of waiver/release creates a morale hazard for the defendant."

Reality:
Now, I didn't see the quote above anywhere in the article. Did anyone else? A bit of artistic license with the possible waiver language - I get it.
However, the governing principle is still assumption of risk, during an inherently dangerous activity. The "slippery slope" referred to earlier (in case you missed that point too) wasn't really about skiing (yes, wasn't that a remarkably clever double entendre?), but instead - the legal precedent this type of decision sets for those involved in the recreation industry of almost any type. If you were "listening" carefully while reading the article, you could almost hear the bell tolling for the future of these businesses. This is just another way the American cultural landscape is changing. Think about how many things you tell your kids now that, "we used to do this or that activity" - but people don't do that anymore. Why? Often it's because the activity is now no longer possible, because some idiot got greedy, got a lawyer and managed to drop-kick an entire industry. I'm sure that without trying too hard, we can all think of activities that have disappeared from our American repetoire. Forget the fact that the plaintiffs in these types of cases knowingly elected to participate in the activity. Forget the fact that warnings are almost always given. Gonna hit that jackpot, 'cause someone's gotta pay. Not because it should be done, but because it can. Ironically, judges are supposed to use a bit of wisdom and think forward just a tad more than a few weeks into the future; the purpose being, to determine whether the law of unintended consequences will leave merely a nasty pile on the carpet, or whether it will burn the house down.