Vail Resorts Faces 2 Lawsuits Over Snowboarding Employees Hitting Skiers - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 04:19 PM Thread Starter
Veteran Member
 
AcroPhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Denver
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Vail Resorts Faces 2 Lawsuits Over Snowboarding Employees Hitting Skiers

I saw this article in the Summit Daily News today about Vail getting sued two times over snowboarding employees crashing into and injuring skiers. The article: Vail Resorts faces 2nd lawsuit over ski accidents | SummitDaily.com, This whole thing is ridiculous. For once, I am siding with Vail Resorts on this one. The lawsuit alleges that Vail didn't train or insure the employees. WTF? Train for what???? The insurance thing makes no sense either.None of the other guests at the resort are required to have any insurance. No part of their jobs involves snowboarding and they were enjoying the resort as normal guests on their days off. How on earth is Vail liable for any of its employees that are not on the clock? This seems like some pretty frivolous litigation to me.
AcroPhile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 06:48 PM
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Doesn't owning a lift pass or ticket relinquish you of the ability to sue for such things. I am looking at the back of my 7 Springs ticket and it specifically says purchasing it releases your right to hold the mountain liable for (laundry list of risks) one of which is "negligence of Seven Springs employees or agents", indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse them for all losses from any claims associated with such risks.

I'd have to imagine most resorts use similar boilerplate that would include a clause similar to that.
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
post #3 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 06:53 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Most resorts have agreements in which you waive their liability even in the case of negligence. As of all User Agreements, whether it stands up in court depends on how good the lawyer and how bad the damage.
JamesX is offline  
post #4 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 08:06 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 5,979
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Sounds pretty frivolous to me too.
Argo is offline  
post #5 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 08:39 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Doesn't owning a lift pass or ticket relinquish you of the ability to sue for such things. I am looking at the back of my 7 Springs ticket and it specifically says purchasing it releases your right to hold the mountain liable for (laundry list of risks) one of which is "negligence of Seven Springs employees or agents", indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse them for all losses from any claims associated with such risks.

I'd have to imagine most resorts use similar boilerplate that would include a clause similar to that.
These agreements don't hold up in court if the resort is proven to be negligent. Meaning, if Vail paid off duty employees to go around taking out skiers, you could still sue the crap out of them regardless of what rights you waived by buying a lift ticket.

Obviously, that's not what happened (cool idea to drum up business on off peak days though) but that's similar to the case the lawyers will be making against Vail -- they were negligent for whatever reason.

Sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
smboarder is offline  
post #6 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 09:34 PM
Member
 
Khao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia.
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It won't get far at all. They did not act on behalf of the mountain nor are they vicariously liable when they're not working. Stupid case and sadly, it's the most common type. Uneducated people these days think you can sue for anything that hurts you haha.
Khao is offline  
post #7 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-12-2012, 10:26 PM
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by smboarder View Post
These agreements don't hold up in court if the resort is proven to be negligent. Meaning, if Vail paid off duty employees to go around taking out skiers, you could still sue the crap out of them regardless of what rights you waived by buying a lift ticket.

Obviously, that's not what happened (cool idea to drum up business on off peak days though) but that's similar to the case the lawyers will be making against Vail -- they were negligent for whatever reason.

Sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
But wouldn't the case you hypothesized be considered somethinng other than negligence since there is an element of intent? I thought negligence, by it's very definition in the parlance of lawyers, meant an absence of intent. Any ideas?
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
post #8 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-13-2012, 01:36 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is negligence then there is gross negligence. I think Smboarder is using Criminal negligence as example.

For example, if the lawyer manage to prove (or scare the resort enough to settle) that resort have a habit of encouraging the employees to push the safety limit (e.g. be reckless) to make the resort more appealing to thrill seekers then the lawyer can try to push for gross negligence.

The suite seems pretty frivolous, but if it gets to trial who knows what happens. Jury in the United States is often worse than Russian roulette.
JamesX is offline  
post #9 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-13-2012, 04:45 AM
Veteran Member
 
wrathfuldeity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bham
Posts: 5,255
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
So if it gets to a jury, then jury selection is the important factor...hopefully the resort can get a seasoned boarder empannelled.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wrathfuldeity is offline  
post #10 of 28 (permalink) Old 03-13-2012, 09:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
jdmccright is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome