Vail Resorts Faces 2 Lawsuits Over Snowboarding Employees Hitting Skiers - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum

jdang307 · 03-13-2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zealandblack

Yeah, same in us law. I realized my earlier post might have made it look like i was saying that the provision was iron clad. It's definitely not. There was a Utah case a few years back where a guy skiied off trail because it wasn't marked and then his a wall or a ditch or something that the resort built and the supreme court said a release couldn't protect the resort from a suit.
What I meant was in cases where the injury was a result of the inherent risks of skiing, of which accidental collisions have been held to be, then releases have been held sufficient to inform skiers of their assumption of these risks.
More than likely this is the last we'll hear about this case. But who knows. That's just my opinion and I'm certainly no expert on personal injury law. Maybe this lawyer knows something that everyone else doesn't (unlikely, but perhaps).

Im a PI lawyer, but not in Colorado. Taking a quick look there is a statute the Colorado Ski Safety Act that protects the resorts quite a bit. From a quick reading it appears that season pass holders give up more rights than regular lift ticketers.

http://www.dora.state.co.us/tramway/SkiSafetyAct.pdf

Taking a real quick read, it appears that the statute allows you to sue another skier, if that skier was negligent/reckless and injures you. It does not allow you to sue the resort, due to any injuries caused by inherent risks and dangers of being on the mountain in the first place. Meaning, if private party A, hits private party B, private party B can sue A, but not the resort.

The wrinkle here is that private party A, is in fact the resort. If it's employee or agent causes an injury, they can be held liable because now you would argue they didn't fulfill their duty of care. They can't control what a ski/snowboard gaper does. They can control how well trained their employees are.

Now, it's up to the court to decide whether the statute applies here.

That's my 5 minute assessment there. Not saying the case is valid, or has merit, but I think that's the angle those plaintiffs lawyers are taking.

Another thing is that contracts of adhesion, what you see as disclaimers on tickets and stuff, aren't viewed positively usually.

Here's another contract of adhesion. This ain't legal advice and if you rely on any of it you're an idiot. End Disclaimer.

Whoracle · 03-14-2012, 10:59 AM

From what i understand, the employees were not only off the clock, but it was their day off. Saying the resort is responsible for these persons actions while they are on their own time, is the same as saying it was right for them to treat Snowolf how they did over something he said on an internet message board. As far as the resort not controlling how "trained" the employees are, if they hire a someone to fetch you boots, do they need to make sure they are expert level riders? That seems a bit rediculous to me.

Argo · 03-14-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdang307

Im a PI lawyer, but not in Colorado. Taking a quick look there is a statute the Colorado Ski Safety Act that protects the resorts quite a bit. From a quick reading it appears that season pass holders give up more rights than regular lift ticketers.

http://www.dora.state.co.us/tramway/SkiSafetyAct.pdf

Taking a real quick read, it appears that the statute allows you to sue another skier, if that skier was negligent/reckless and injures you. It does not allow you to sue the resort, due to any injuries caused by inherent risks and dangers of being on the mountain in the first place. Meaning, if private party A, hits private party B, private party B can sue A, but not the resort.

The wrinkle here is that private party A, is in fact the resort. If it's employee or agent causes an injury, they can be held liable because now you would argue they didn't fulfill their duty of care. They can't control what a ski/snowboard gaper does. They can control how well trained their employees are.

Now, it's up to the court to decide whether the statute applies here.

That's my 5 minute assessment there. Not saying the case is valid, or has merit, but I think that's the angle those plaintiffs lawyers are taking.

Another thing is that contracts of adhesion, what you see as disclaimers on tickets and stuff, aren't viewed positively usually.

Here's another contract of adhesion. This ain't legal advice and if you rely on any of it you're an idiot. End Disclaimer.

The events happened in california, does CO law still apply because the parent company is based in CO? It seems like the law in the state it happened would apply.....

jdang307 · 03-14-2012, 11:56 AM

Oh, hmm, I for some reason I thought it was in CO. The olympic slope is on the CA side? Heavenly is funny because the resort is split between two states. I'm sure the lawyer could actually choose a state, there is sufficient connection to either state. CA is of course more favorable to lawsuits, but it's filed in federal court so it'll be a fed court applying perhaps CA law.

The article is weird. Ramos is wearing an employee pass, is on her off day, but Vail is saying she isn't an employee.

Quote:

In an e-mail to Sullivan first reported Thursday by the (Gardnerville) Record-Courier, Vail Resorts Management Co. litigation counsel Marc A. Bonora said Ramos was not an employee of Vail or Heavenly.

“And she does not have an on-mountain position that would require her to be out riding a snowboard,” Bonora said. “Most significantly, the collision occurred on her day off. She was skiing on her own as a guest at Heavenly, just as your clients were.”

If she's not a Vail employee, than it was her day off of what, exactly?

Argo · 03-14-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdang307

Oh, hmm, I for some reason I thought it was in CO. The olympic slope is on the CA side? Heavenly is funny because the resort is split between two states. I'm sure the lawyer could actually choose a state, there is sufficient connection to either state. CA is of course more favorable to lawsuits, but it's filed in federal court so it'll be a fed court applying perhaps CA law.

The article is weird. Ramos is wearing an employee pass, is on her off day, but Vail is saying she isn't an employee.

If she's not a Vail employee, than it was her day off of what, exactly?

Could be an employee family member, they get a similar pass. Or a volunteer

CheeseForSteeze · 03-14-2012, 12:13 PM

Might be a mountain ambassador of some sort. Ski/ride as an "ambassador" to the mountain, talking to folks about available amenities and (in some cases) become a de-facto shill for real estate agents. I would have to believe that would be considered an "agent" of the resort.

BigmountainVMD · 03-14-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmccright

Anybody get the feeling that both those people that got injured were gapers. Seriously though I can see both sides of this but there is an inherent danger you take when you get on the slopes. Its just like biking on a heavy traffic area.

Totally. I bet they stopped at the entrance of the run, right in the middle of the trail, just below a lip, chatting away....

AcroPhile · 03-14-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmccright

Anybody get the feeling that both those people that got injured were gapers. Seriously though I can see both sides of this but there is an inherent danger you take when you get on the slopes. Its just like biking on a heavy traffic area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD

Totally. I bet they stopped at the entrance of the run, right in the middle of the trail, just below a lip, chatting away....

Honestly, that was my first impression too after reading the article. I try not to jump to conclusions but sometime you have to wonder. One of the women was a semi-local so maybe she didn't carelessly stop at the entrance at the top of the run but the other one was from Florida...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-14-2012, 10:59 AM	#22 (permalink)
Whoracle Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 126	From what i understand, the employees were not only off the clock, but it was their day off. Saying the resort is responsible for these persons actions while they are on their own time, is the same as saying it was right for them to treat Snowolf how they did over something he said on an internet message board. As far as the resort not controlling how "trained" the employees are, if they hire a someone to fetch you boots, do they need to make sure they are expert level riders? That seems a bit rediculous to me.

03-14-2012, 12:13 PM	#26 (permalink)
CheeseForSteeze -LIFETIME MEMBER- Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,723	Might be a mountain ambassador of some sort. Ski/ride as an "ambassador" to the mountain, talking to folks about available amenities and (in some cases) become a de-facto shill for real estate agents. I would have to believe that would be considered an "agent" of the resort.