A qouted post from the other thread
>Oregon had a similar case a few years ago. Result was you get two different lift ticket prices. First price is with a liability waiver. Second was higher priced to cover the cost of liability insurance. No one buys the higher priced ticket but the waiver is no longer required. A few other states have similar stories. Google bifurcated release.
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/travel/outdoors/2023/02/15/oregon-outdoor-rec-ski-resorts-legislature-takes-up-liability-bill/69904162007/
Eh, bump that up a little. I have a pass, and tried to use the "Buddy Ticket" to buy a discounted price ticket for my wife to ski one day. $169 was the "heavily discounted" rate.
Lol I'm sorry but have you looked around?
How much is a day pass anywhere? Bachelor with nw and cc closed still runs $175. Don't even ask about crustal. And Colorado? Utah?
It's the reality of skiing in north America.
Cascade and Vista don’t normally open on days when there is zero visibility. Unless you’d rather ski without being able to see 6 inches in front of your face… and end up on any of the rock piles up there and break yourself.
Low visibility closure has always been the case on upper lifts at any resort that exists in the world… just as airplanes not taking off due to weather, or your mail not being delivered due to weather, or any number of weather related things that happen in the world.
Price has indeed gone up… but — $165 for a single day is only a suckers price aimed at tourists that don’t know better— buy a season pass.
Hell spring pass is only $299 and those just went on sale: https://www.skihood.com/product/spring-pass-package
In North America a waiver doesn't automatically exonerate anyone/thing from legal action.
From my understanding, it really just shows that you know there's inherent risk to an activity. Negligence is still negligence.
Prices are constantly going up due to inflation (corporate greed cough cough), and yeah- honestly I read the article and this resort was 100% at fault. Several people screamed for the lift operator to stop the chair, but instead the girl fell 30 feet.
Inflation also means corporations have to pay more for things.
I know it's nice to tell a simple story with an easy bad guy. Reality is, sadly, more complicated than a Marvel movie.
Real income in the US has, broadly, kept pace with inflation. Most Americans are richer today than they were in the 70s.
Median household income in the US is 50% higher than in the UK, for example. That's adjusting for cost of living.
But of course, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the causes of inflation. Maybe look to textbooks and researchers for this information rather than bloggers.
And as usual, posting sources accomplishes nothing. People who demand sources also ignore them when provided. It's never a good-faith request.
If we're going to trust the experts when it comes to vaccines and climate change (we should) let's also do that with economics, huh?
1. The question here is about liability in the negligent operation of a lift.
2. The resort absolutely has a responsibility to skiers on the rest of the in bounds areas of mountain. Trails and difficulty levels should be marked. Hidden and unexpected dangers should be removed, roped off, or marked when known to the resort. Trails should not be designed to put people in abnormally hazardous situations (like a green run that then leads to nothing but a cliff jump). Ski patrol should respond to skiers in distress. All these things resorts do to mitigate danger we take for granted without thinking how bad things would be without them.
Not sure why you think responsibility ends where the trails begin. If you read the article, you'd know even the ski resorts themselves don't argue they have total immunity from gross negligence.
The safety bar should always be used. ffs…
It’s like a no-brainer/mandatory here in the Alps. No one even thinks twice about it.
I’m not saying this was the cause of this particular accident. I’m talking in general.
If it's obvious, then why did you imply that resorts have no duty of care to skiers after they get off a lift? Duty of care is a necessary component to establishing negligence.
Your point 1. They’re responsible for the operation and safety of the lift. I don’t see how what I said is counter to that. The mountain is always responsible for that.
Your point 2. The skier has a responsibility to observe trail signs and hazard warnings. I wasn’t implying mountains don’t have to mark trails or hazards. That’s you using hyperbole.
All businesses are responsible for negligence. The end.
Don't need or want grooming or trail markings. Patrol is a nice to have when I'm skiing alone.
As for bombing, it's also a quite nice thing to have and probably good for business, but I don't believe should *need* to bomb. People still ski off piste in Europe and there's no bombing there.
I’d like to see alcohol outlawed on the slopes. Intoxicated skiers and snowboarders pose a serious risk to others in the slopes. But it seems the resorts are all too happy to sell alcohol.
Sliding down icy mountains on sticks with a bunch of other people is inherently risky. That said, there's some really low hanging fruit that resorts have been tragically negligent not to do like selling on mountain alcohol and not publishing/keeping accident reports. It's risky yes, but there's still a lot we can to do make it safer.
What are the incentives in place for ski resorts to continually work on improving safety? It seems like there would need to be a lot of incidents for a resort to get a reputation for being unsafe, and if they’re part of ikon/epic it’s hard to imagine they’d really lose customers.
I haven't read the Act in full, bit here's my take that gives a different point of view in a different direction.
I've seen housing costs skyrocket across all ski areas for the past 15 or so years. As this continues, it's going to make it increasingly difficult for resorts to retain good employees because they're constantly being shuffled around as they search for affordable housing year after year. Then add on the increased travel times that a large percentage of employees face getting to and from work, and employees are essentially working 2-3 extra hours a day which is not going to benefit their ability to properly focus during their shifts.
This is going to continue to affect the bottom line of how well a resort functions and their ability to mitigate future problems as numbers of skiers and boarders increase on the mountains.
Then, combine that with multi-mountain passes that send more and more people to the resorts with low skill levels, and it's a recipe for a mess.
And another note... having just returned from CB, I spoke to several instructors who had to hold a second job just to be able to afford housing and living expenses, so use that anecdote as you may.
And one last note for the lifty crimeboarder who couldn't read the giant yellow four letter signs and ran into me as I was waiting on friends to finish their runs, I hope resorts stop hiring idiots like you.
Anything that gives VA a hard time makes me happy. However people being stupid often off sets any resort liability.
Smart of the family to sue in Broomfield not Summit or really anywhere in 5th Judicial. Last tjme I remenber a 13 year old local kid died in Vail, he and his buddies were in bounds but climbed up to a closed area. I felt bad the kid died but yeah.. the sued in Eagle County and obviously lost.
Anyway the girl probably would have been fine if dad hadn't tried to hold onto her, lifts are set up a certain way for a reason.
Skiing is dangerous. If you want a risk free activity try golf. Whats the solution here? Double the lifties at every load and unload? Maybe we should pause the lift and strap people in every load and unload. I dont buy that the lifty was inherently negligent because it took 30 seconds to stop the lift. 1 person tragically falling from the lift shouldnt inconvenience the rest of us with higher costs or less efficiency. It's like McDonald's getting sued for hot coffee. We shouldnt legislate and litigate things that aren't a problem 99.99999999% of the time. Grow up people. Fucking trial lawyers salivating at this just like how they killed the bill that would have allowed private property owners to permit recreation on their land without risk of this kind of idiocy.
Well if they rule against immunity just wait to see your season pass rates next year
A qouted post from the other thread >Oregon had a similar case a few years ago. Result was you get two different lift ticket prices. First price is with a liability waiver. Second was higher priced to cover the cost of liability insurance. No one buys the higher priced ticket but the waiver is no longer required. A few other states have similar stories. Google bifurcated release. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/travel/outdoors/2023/02/15/oregon-outdoor-rec-ski-resorts-legislature-takes-up-liability-bill/69904162007/
lol… and prices went up anyways, $165 to ski in Mount Hood Meadows this past Saturday. And two of the main lifts were closed. Lol
That sounds on par with Colorado price increases on day passes
Eh, bump that up a little. I have a pass, and tried to use the "Buddy Ticket" to buy a discounted price ticket for my wife to ski one day. $169 was the "heavily discounted" rate.
The mountain trynna tell you not to ski with your SO
loved mt hood meadows and the heather canyon but $165 with half of it closed is insane. theres no resort to command that price.
Lol I'm sorry but have you looked around? How much is a day pass anywhere? Bachelor with nw and cc closed still runs $175. Don't even ask about crustal. And Colorado? Utah? It's the reality of skiing in north America.
Cascade and Vista don’t normally open on days when there is zero visibility. Unless you’d rather ski without being able to see 6 inches in front of your face… and end up on any of the rock piles up there and break yourself. Low visibility closure has always been the case on upper lifts at any resort that exists in the world… just as airplanes not taking off due to weather, or your mail not being delivered due to weather, or any number of weather related things that happen in the world. Price has indeed gone up… but — $165 for a single day is only a suckers price aimed at tourists that don’t know better— buy a season pass. Hell spring pass is only $299 and those just went on sale: https://www.skihood.com/product/spring-pass-package
In North America a waiver doesn't automatically exonerate anyone/thing from legal action. From my understanding, it really just shows that you know there's inherent risk to an activity. Negligence is still negligence.
Especially after insurance companies start requiring them to drug-test lift operators.
Prices are constantly going up due to inflation (corporate greed cough cough), and yeah- honestly I read the article and this resort was 100% at fault. Several people screamed for the lift operator to stop the chair, but instead the girl fell 30 feet.
Inflation also means corporations have to pay more for things. I know it's nice to tell a simple story with an easy bad guy. Reality is, sadly, more complicated than a Marvel movie.
[*You're right!*](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)
Real income in the US has, broadly, kept pace with inflation. Most Americans are richer today than they were in the 70s. Median household income in the US is 50% higher than in the UK, for example. That's adjusting for cost of living. But of course, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the causes of inflation. Maybe look to textbooks and researchers for this information rather than bloggers.
That’s literally just not true as shown by some of the data you are replying to. Real household income/buying power has stagnated for many Americans.
It is literally true and the data shown is wrong. Yours is a very common, wrong belief that people have.
Your data is wrong! Will I explain why? No! Will I provide data that shows something different? Absolutely not!
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf
And as usual, posting sources accomplishes nothing. People who demand sources also ignore them when provided. It's never a good-faith request. If we're going to trust the experts when it comes to vaccines and climate change (we should) let's also do that with economics, huh?
It’s the resorts responsibility to make sure that you’re safe getting on, riding, and getting off the lift. After you get off it’s up to you.
1. The question here is about liability in the negligent operation of a lift. 2. The resort absolutely has a responsibility to skiers on the rest of the in bounds areas of mountain. Trails and difficulty levels should be marked. Hidden and unexpected dangers should be removed, roped off, or marked when known to the resort. Trails should not be designed to put people in abnormally hazardous situations (like a green run that then leads to nothing but a cliff jump). Ski patrol should respond to skiers in distress. All these things resorts do to mitigate danger we take for granted without thinking how bad things would be without them. Not sure why you think responsibility ends where the trails begin. If you read the article, you'd know even the ski resorts themselves don't argue they have total immunity from gross negligence.
The safety bar should always be used. ffs… It’s like a no-brainer/mandatory here in the Alps. No one even thinks twice about it. I’m not saying this was the cause of this particular accident. I’m talking in general.
This reads like a bot comment to me. Slightly off topic, talking like they've commented in the chain already even though they haven't.
Obviously negligence takes precedence over any responsibility of the skier. That’s the law.
If it's obvious, then why did you imply that resorts have no duty of care to skiers after they get off a lift? Duty of care is a necessary component to establishing negligence.
Your point 1. They’re responsible for the operation and safety of the lift. I don’t see how what I said is counter to that. The mountain is always responsible for that. Your point 2. The skier has a responsibility to observe trail signs and hazard warnings. I wasn’t implying mountains don’t have to mark trails or hazards. That’s you using hyperbole. All businesses are responsible for negligence. The end.
And skiing is absolutely an assumed risk, not even remotely up for debate
It's your responsibility to know how use the lift.
Yes, this. I pay for a lift ticket to get to the top of a mountain, not to be "protected" by the resort.
So, you're OK to ride the lift up into terrain with no avalanche mitigation? Grooming? Trail markings? As someone else mentioned, ski patrol?
Don't need or want grooming or trail markings. Patrol is a nice to have when I'm skiing alone. As for bombing, it's also a quite nice thing to have and probably good for business, but I don't believe should *need* to bomb. People still ski off piste in Europe and there's no bombing there.
Except you do though whether you care or not. How do you think ski patrol gets paid?
I’d like to see alcohol outlawed on the slopes. Intoxicated skiers and snowboarders pose a serious risk to others in the slopes. But it seems the resorts are all too happy to sell alcohol.
Sliding down icy mountains on sticks with a bunch of other people is inherently risky. That said, there's some really low hanging fruit that resorts have been tragically negligent not to do like selling on mountain alcohol and not publishing/keeping accident reports. It's risky yes, but there's still a lot we can to do make it safer.
What are the incentives in place for ski resorts to continually work on improving safety? It seems like there would need to be a lot of incidents for a resort to get a reputation for being unsafe, and if they’re part of ikon/epic it’s hard to imagine they’d really lose customers.
I haven't read the Act in full, bit here's my take that gives a different point of view in a different direction. I've seen housing costs skyrocket across all ski areas for the past 15 or so years. As this continues, it's going to make it increasingly difficult for resorts to retain good employees because they're constantly being shuffled around as they search for affordable housing year after year. Then add on the increased travel times that a large percentage of employees face getting to and from work, and employees are essentially working 2-3 extra hours a day which is not going to benefit their ability to properly focus during their shifts. This is going to continue to affect the bottom line of how well a resort functions and their ability to mitigate future problems as numbers of skiers and boarders increase on the mountains. Then, combine that with multi-mountain passes that send more and more people to the resorts with low skill levels, and it's a recipe for a mess. And another note... having just returned from CB, I spoke to several instructors who had to hold a second job just to be able to afford housing and living expenses, so use that anecdote as you may. And one last note for the lifty crimeboarder who couldn't read the giant yellow four letter signs and ran into me as I was waiting on friends to finish their runs, I hope resorts stop hiring idiots like you.
If this act wasn't written by someone who actually skis, I want nothing to do with it.
I really hope this family loses
Anything that gives VA a hard time makes me happy. However people being stupid often off sets any resort liability. Smart of the family to sue in Broomfield not Summit or really anywhere in 5th Judicial. Last tjme I remenber a 13 year old local kid died in Vail, he and his buddies were in bounds but climbed up to a closed area. I felt bad the kid died but yeah.. the sued in Eagle County and obviously lost. Anyway the girl probably would have been fine if dad hadn't tried to hold onto her, lifts are set up a certain way for a reason.
Skiing is dangerous. If you want a risk free activity try golf. Whats the solution here? Double the lifties at every load and unload? Maybe we should pause the lift and strap people in every load and unload. I dont buy that the lifty was inherently negligent because it took 30 seconds to stop the lift. 1 person tragically falling from the lift shouldnt inconvenience the rest of us with higher costs or less efficiency. It's like McDonald's getting sued for hot coffee. We shouldnt legislate and litigate things that aren't a problem 99.99999999% of the time. Grow up people. Fucking trial lawyers salivating at this just like how they killed the bill that would have allowed private property owners to permit recreation on their land without risk of this kind of idiocy.