Good thing CT is not a ski destination. This precedent would kill whatever ski resort business might be. I sure hope UT, CO and the other ski states don\’t get any ideas.
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.
Well said Ski Dude. I am a very experienced rider, and know that you should always expect the unexpected, especially if your are on an unfamiliar horse. I feel for these businessowners on this matter. This decision could put a business such as this under the ground. This decision is for the birds!
Wait a minute – have any of you sent your kids off for activities? Without a waiver, no participation – and you think your ten year old should \”assume the risk\”?
These types of pre-loss waivers or attempted immunity from consequences of negligence are in many cases nothing but an excuse for poor management practices. They also frequent overreach and seek to exclude even the operator\’s own negligence.
The old saying is \”pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered\”. I never have liked these waivers, especially when dealing with minors, and frankly, I don\’t have a problem with this decision.
LJK & Sam are actually correct in their comments: \”societal expectation\” is what is controlling here. Who signed the waiver? The parent or the minor? What about assumption of risk? I guess they could have \”trained\” her on the plastic horse with the wheels over in the corner, but she probably would have been insulted & sued them for that!
Ski Dude is absolutely right. This decision will kill several segments of the recreational industry. Horses are unpredictable, even for experienced people. Not to mention the message that SOMEONE ELSE is responsible for whatever bad happened.
I have been on the other side of exactly this type of suit – I had a horse kick another rider after telling the rider to leave one horse length between each. To no avail – Horses are live animals-they are unpredictable-I\’ve seen the gentlest old broodmare go running and bucking off because of a bee sting-Horses are flight animals – they run away frm any perceived danger – on the subject of weather this person was an experienced rider, well….I have been in the horse business for over 30 years and I STILL take an occasional lesson, watch a video from a new trainer etc – its like insurance, you NEVER know anything – if I was renting a horse I would probably sign the waiver and put beginner or intermediate – heck – I want one of their GOOD horses – not the one that takes off every time the wind blows – Waiver, Schmaiver-the person should have been honest about their experience. When a horse takes off like that there\’s not much the instructor could have done – I tell my students hold on and try and keep the horses head up – that\’s all you can do-
I agree, I was actually bucked off the same horse that killed Christopher Reeve. Im sure I could have had a law suit based on the fact that they knew the horses history. Instead, I got back up, smacked the horse in the mouth as hard as I could and jumped back on.
You must have gone to the same school on disciplining horses that I did. That method works quite well! People tend to forget that horses are constantly testing the rider and trying to assert dominance. An experienced rider accepts this fact and has to expect trouble. When trouble doesn\’t happen, you got lucky.
These cases exhibit the sharp delineation between the real world and the hypothetical world in which our judges operate. In the real world people can get hurt doing risky activities because the injured person either accepted the risk or negligently failed to assess before embarkation. In the court\’s world, people only get injured if someone else failed to protect them from themselves and in this case, even that is not enough. The very reason for requesting a waiver is because the owner cannot gurantee what a horse will do or what a skier will do, it is simply beyond the owner\’s ability to control. Owner\’s cannot rationally be held repsonsible for inherent risk. In Colorado our legislature recognized this when it passed a law that no skier may assert a claim arising from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing (Section 33-44-112, CRS). In fairness, I think the court remanded this case back to determine if there was any negligence on the part of the owner, but I\’ll be they settle.
Holding individuals [signing a waiver of liability] responsible for their own actions and decision goes directly against the Constitution of Conn. Now isn’t that interesting? Just can’t seem to get away from those legal midgets [Judges] who “Can not, Walk, Talk or Chew Gum, at the same Time.”
The judgement did not say that the stable was liable for the plaintiff\’s injuries. All it said was that the stable could not wipe its hands of liability in advance. It will be up to a jury to decide how much, if any, of the plaintiff\’s injuries are the result of the stable\’s alleged negligence.
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.
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.
When anyone participates in any form of activity they must be aware of the inherent risks of that sport. That’s why it is one of the acknowledged duties of a coach, “the duty to warn”. However, a public business that promotes these type of activities cannot expect to absolve themselves of their own negligence simply by having some one sign a waiver. As a skier I expect certain and assume certain inherent risks. But if I am injured due to the negligence of the ski area then they must expect to be sued.
did the rider lie about abilities? hmmm..
if judges and lawyers keep it up…
then good bye all types of fun.
if you risk it then suck it up.
i\’m so tired people who blame everyone else for their own faults…
very sad..
You post speaks volumes about yourself. You would \”send your kid off\” without any supervision with complete anticipation of it returning unharmed, without any investigation of the risk associated with the event. So you send your kid to summer camp and it gets a mosquito bite….I guess you are the first one looking for someone to sue. It\’s jerks like you that ruin it for everyone else, isn\’t it.
Good thing CT is not a ski destination. This precedent would kill whatever ski resort business might be. I sure hope UT, CO and the other ski states don\’t get any ideas.
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.
Well said Ski Dude. I am a very experienced rider, and know that you should always expect the unexpected, especially if your are on an unfamiliar horse. I feel for these businessowners on this matter. This decision could put a business such as this under the ground. This decision is for the birds!
Wait a minute – have any of you sent your kids off for activities? Without a waiver, no participation – and you think your ten year old should \”assume the risk\”?
These types of pre-loss waivers or attempted immunity from consequences of negligence are in many cases nothing but an excuse for poor management practices. They also frequent overreach and seek to exclude even the operator\’s own negligence.
The old saying is \”pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered\”. I never have liked these waivers, especially when dealing with minors, and frankly, I don\’t have a problem with this decision.
LJK & Sam are actually correct in their comments: \”societal expectation\” is what is controlling here. Who signed the waiver? The parent or the minor? What about assumption of risk? I guess they could have \”trained\” her on the plastic horse with the wheels over in the corner, but she probably would have been insulted & sued them for that!
Ski Dude is absolutely right. This decision will kill several segments of the recreational industry. Horses are unpredictable, even for experienced people. Not to mention the message that SOMEONE ELSE is responsible for whatever bad happened.
I have been on the other side of exactly this type of suit – I had a horse kick another rider after telling the rider to leave one horse length between each. To no avail – Horses are live animals-they are unpredictable-I\’ve seen the gentlest old broodmare go running and bucking off because of a bee sting-Horses are flight animals – they run away frm any perceived danger – on the subject of weather this person was an experienced rider, well….I have been in the horse business for over 30 years and I STILL take an occasional lesson, watch a video from a new trainer etc – its like insurance, you NEVER know anything – if I was renting a horse I would probably sign the waiver and put beginner or intermediate – heck – I want one of their GOOD horses – not the one that takes off every time the wind blows – Waiver, Schmaiver-the person should have been honest about their experience. When a horse takes off like that there\’s not much the instructor could have done – I tell my students hold on and try and keep the horses head up – that\’s all you can do-
I agree, I was actually bucked off the same horse that killed Christopher Reeve. Im sure I could have had a law suit based on the fact that they knew the horses history. Instead, I got back up, smacked the horse in the mouth as hard as I could and jumped back on.
You must have gone to the same school on disciplining horses that I did. That method works quite well! People tend to forget that horses are constantly testing the rider and trying to assert dominance. An experienced rider accepts this fact and has to expect trouble. When trouble doesn\’t happen, you got lucky.
Maybe Bradley\’s tactic would work on people; politicians, attorneys & the like.
These cases exhibit the sharp delineation between the real world and the hypothetical world in which our judges operate. In the real world people can get hurt doing risky activities because the injured person either accepted the risk or negligently failed to assess before embarkation. In the court\’s world, people only get injured if someone else failed to protect them from themselves and in this case, even that is not enough. The very reason for requesting a waiver is because the owner cannot gurantee what a horse will do or what a skier will do, it is simply beyond the owner\’s ability to control. Owner\’s cannot rationally be held repsonsible for inherent risk. In Colorado our legislature recognized this when it passed a law that no skier may assert a claim arising from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing (Section 33-44-112, CRS). In fairness, I think the court remanded this case back to determine if there was any negligence on the part of the owner, but I\’ll be they settle.
Holding individuals [signing a waiver of liability] responsible for their own actions and decision goes directly against the Constitution of Conn. Now isn’t that interesting? Just can’t seem to get away from those legal midgets [Judges] who “Can not, Walk, Talk or Chew Gum, at the same Time.”
The judgement did not say that the stable was liable for the plaintiff\’s injuries. All it said was that the stable could not wipe its hands of liability in advance. It will be up to a jury to decide how much, if any, of the plaintiff\’s injuries are the result of the stable\’s alleged negligence.
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.
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.
When anyone participates in any form of activity they must be aware of the inherent risks of that sport. That’s why it is one of the acknowledged duties of a coach, “the duty to warn”. However, a public business that promotes these type of activities cannot expect to absolve themselves of their own negligence simply by having some one sign a waiver. As a skier I expect certain and assume certain inherent risks. But if I am injured due to the negligence of the ski area then they must expect to be sued.
did the rider lie about abilities? hmmm..
if judges and lawyers keep it up…
then good bye all types of fun.
if you risk it then suck it up.
i\’m so tired people who blame everyone else for their own faults…
very sad..
You post speaks volumes about yourself. You would \”send your kid off\” without any supervision with complete anticipation of it returning unharmed, without any investigation of the risk associated with the event. So you send your kid to summer camp and it gets a mosquito bite….I guess you are the first one looking for someone to sue. It\’s jerks like you that ruin it for everyone else, isn\’t it.