I’m sorry for this person’s loss, but this really falls under “assumption of risk” liability. Kind of like skateboarding, you know the second you get on the board there is a inherit risk of injury.
Depends on where the skateboarding injury takes place. If the person is skateboarding on the street, you’re right….no one to sue. If they pay to get into a skateboarding park and are injured badly or killed, a lawsuit will follow. I’m not saying it’s right, but this is a ski resort with usually high prices for the use of a maintained property for the purpose of skiing. You knew this would be coming. If he was able to get onto a closed course, it could easily be argued it wasn’t closed strongly enough.
You can’t put a giant fence around a closed course though. Sometimes personal responsibility has to take precedence. Even though that is rarely seen these days.
One can sit from afar and judge the validity of this woman’s action all day long as relates to basic legal concepts. But until the facts of the case are known and applied to Colorado’s statutes that pertain to the responsibility of it’ski resorts, common law defenses such as “assumption of risk” must remain on deck. Assumption of Risk is a strong common law defense in some venues and weak one in others.Is there anybody on this board that can even tell me if boy even had his skis on?
I’m sorry for this person’s loss, but this really falls under “assumption of risk” liability. Kind of like skateboarding, you know the second you get on the board there is a inherit risk of injury.
Depends on where the skateboarding injury takes place. If the person is skateboarding on the street, you’re right….no one to sue. If they pay to get into a skateboarding park and are injured badly or killed, a lawsuit will follow. I’m not saying it’s right, but this is a ski resort with usually high prices for the use of a maintained property for the purpose of skiing. You knew this would be coming. If he was able to get onto a closed course, it could easily be argued it wasn’t closed strongly enough.
You can’t put a giant fence around a closed course though. Sometimes personal responsibility has to take precedence. Even though that is rarely seen these days.
There is an assumption of risk. We didn’t see Sonny Bono’s mother bringing a suit.
They lose these suits all the time in NH beacuse of “assumption of risk”. You ski at your own risk.
One can sit from afar and judge the validity of this woman’s action all day long as relates to basic legal concepts. But until the facts of the case are known and applied to Colorado’s statutes that pertain to the responsibility of it’ski resorts, common law defenses such as “assumption of risk” must remain on deck. Assumption of Risk is a strong common law defense in some venues and weak one in others.Is there anybody on this board that can even tell me if boy even had his skis on?
Read again… “against the city.” Don’t know statutes, but likely immune absent gross negligence. That would also require a heavier burden of proof.