So tubing has no inherent risk by the rider b/c there is no skill involved with tubing? The event involves getting on a plastic or rubber tube and hurling yourself down a large hill. Does sledding require skill? Is sledding any less dangerous? What if the sled is a luge?
Personally, I find it a silly reason to void out tubing b/c no skill is involved.
I agree; the salient point is not whether tubing requires skill but that people take on the responsibility for their activities, regardless of inherent risk. There must be some money to be made in suing for injuries incurred from tubing and you can bet that some lobbyist helped with the language of this bill.
On the face of it the bill seems to make sense. It is when you read the bill that the issues arise. I have thoroughly read the proposed bill, the Sweeney case and the current law. This bill is clearly designed to prevent almost all lawsuits against ski areas. The problem with the article doesn’t give you the proposed language of the bill. Applying the proposed language may dramatically change your opinion as to the assumption of risk and the inherent risk of the sport the bill is covering.
If I am boxing and get injured from a punch, that is an inherent risk that a participant can reasonably anticipate. If am boxing and get injured by falling through the floor of the ring, that is not an inherent risk one can anticipate.
The present law was passed in the 70’s. It exempts the ski areas from responsibility for the conditions, the weather and natural features. The law specifically said they were responsible for the passemger trams and ski jumps. At the time time of the law these were manmade hazards found at ski areas. They had some resposbilility and liability relative to the design, operation, supervision and maintenance of the passenger trams and ski jumps.
Snow tubing involves going on a inflatable tube or sled down specially constructed runs at the ski area. They have usually have several parrallel runs on the slope. One would hope that they designed it to keep the tuber in their run and thereby preventing collisions with other tubers. One would also expect their employees would wait for it to clear for before sending the next tuber down. I have read the decision and watched the NH Supreme Court decide the Alaina Sweeney case and apparanetly that did not occur.
There are significant differences between sledding in a backyard and tubing in tubing terrain at a ski area. At a ski area you are paying to do this. They also excercise control over the number of people using the area and have employees running the area.
The proposed language is so broad as to cover a variety of people not typically associated with “skiing”. They want spectators to be covered as well. They want anyone participating in any “winter sport” covered. A hockey rink sould fall under the proposed definition of ski area. If you are at a “ski area” watching someone skate, do you assume the risk of collision with manmade objects like grooming equipment? The proposed inherent risks assumed as a matter of law by winter sport participants at a ski area include “encounters with domestic animals” also.
The bill reduces the few ski area responsibilities they have in the present law. The bill would require snow tubers to control their speed and course on the ground and in the air. How is that possible? Yet the area would have no responsibility for design or maintenance of the terrain.
The bill also grants immunity to liability to employees and agents of the ski areas. What if an employee driving a snowmobile collides with a person watching people skate? According to the proposed language, the snowmobile operator is immune to liability. The spectator’s insurance will not be able to recover from the ski area either. The ski patroller will be immune for their treatment of the injured party also.
As for terrain parks, they consist of many man-made features. They have jumps in them that are more dangerous than ski jumps that the ski areas are already responsible for. Why exempt one type of jump and not the other? There is a ski area advertising a “rail” which is mounted on a limo they are going to put in their terrain park. What if the rail isn’t attached solidly to the roof of the car? Does the average recreational snowboarder know what to look for to see if it is safe? Keep in mind snowboarding tends to attract teenage boys, the same high risk takers that get into so many car crashes.
It is important to note the bill was proposed by the ski industry lobbyist. I feel it is against the public policy interest that the legislature layed out in NH RSA 225-A:1 to pass the bill as written. Even more importantly, why should one industry enjoy such sweeping immunity from for the use of objects they have built and charge people considerable amounts of money to use? I can’t think of any industry, recreational or otherwise, which enjoys the kind of protection this bill will offer.
So tubing has no inherent risk by the rider b/c there is no skill involved with tubing? The event involves getting on a plastic or rubber tube and hurling yourself down a large hill. Does sledding require skill? Is sledding any less dangerous? What if the sled is a luge?
Personally, I find it a silly reason to void out tubing b/c no skill is involved.
I agree; the salient point is not whether tubing requires skill but that people take on the responsibility for their activities, regardless of inherent risk. There must be some money to be made in suing for injuries incurred from tubing and you can bet that some lobbyist helped with the language of this bill.
On the face of it the bill seems to make sense. It is when you read the bill that the issues arise. I have thoroughly read the proposed bill, the Sweeney case and the current law. This bill is clearly designed to prevent almost all lawsuits against ski areas. The problem with the article doesn’t give you the proposed language of the bill. Applying the proposed language may dramatically change your opinion as to the assumption of risk and the inherent risk of the sport the bill is covering.
If I am boxing and get injured from a punch, that is an inherent risk that a participant can reasonably anticipate. If am boxing and get injured by falling through the floor of the ring, that is not an inherent risk one can anticipate.
The present law was passed in the 70’s. It exempts the ski areas from responsibility for the conditions, the weather and natural features. The law specifically said they were responsible for the passemger trams and ski jumps. At the time time of the law these were manmade hazards found at ski areas. They had some resposbilility and liability relative to the design, operation, supervision and maintenance of the passenger trams and ski jumps.
Snow tubing involves going on a inflatable tube or sled down specially constructed runs at the ski area. They have usually have several parrallel runs on the slope. One would hope that they designed it to keep the tuber in their run and thereby preventing collisions with other tubers. One would also expect their employees would wait for it to clear for before sending the next tuber down. I have read the decision and watched the NH Supreme Court decide the Alaina Sweeney case and apparanetly that did not occur.
There are significant differences between sledding in a backyard and tubing in tubing terrain at a ski area. At a ski area you are paying to do this. They also excercise control over the number of people using the area and have employees running the area.
The proposed language is so broad as to cover a variety of people not typically associated with “skiing”. They want spectators to be covered as well. They want anyone participating in any “winter sport” covered. A hockey rink sould fall under the proposed definition of ski area. If you are at a “ski area” watching someone skate, do you assume the risk of collision with manmade objects like grooming equipment? The proposed inherent risks assumed as a matter of law by winter sport participants at a ski area include “encounters with domestic animals” also.
The bill reduces the few ski area responsibilities they have in the present law. The bill would require snow tubers to control their speed and course on the ground and in the air. How is that possible? Yet the area would have no responsibility for design or maintenance of the terrain.
The bill also grants immunity to liability to employees and agents of the ski areas. What if an employee driving a snowmobile collides with a person watching people skate? According to the proposed language, the snowmobile operator is immune to liability. The spectator’s insurance will not be able to recover from the ski area either. The ski patroller will be immune for their treatment of the injured party also.
As for terrain parks, they consist of many man-made features. They have jumps in them that are more dangerous than ski jumps that the ski areas are already responsible for. Why exempt one type of jump and not the other? There is a ski area advertising a “rail” which is mounted on a limo they are going to put in their terrain park. What if the rail isn’t attached solidly to the roof of the car? Does the average recreational snowboarder know what to look for to see if it is safe? Keep in mind snowboarding tends to attract teenage boys, the same high risk takers that get into so many car crashes.
It is important to note the bill was proposed by the ski industry lobbyist. I feel it is against the public policy interest that the legislature layed out in NH RSA 225-A:1 to pass the bill as written. Even more importantly, why should one industry enjoy such sweeping immunity from for the use of objects they have built and charge people considerable amounts of money to use? I can’t think of any industry, recreational or otherwise, which enjoys the kind of protection this bill will offer.