Granted I feel sorry for the person who is hurt; however, there will be a time when we won’t have anything available to us for recreation or otherwise because of the actions of others who don’t take responsibility for themselves. Everyone is so quick to sue and lay blame with everyone else but him or herself. I wonder when it will end too.
Pardon the jibe here, but we are heading down a slippery slope. Think about what a combination of lawsuits and malfeasance premiums have brought about in the medical profession and it shouldn’t stretch the imagination too much to envision when a village might require a release and indemnification to use a picnic table at the park.
this plt atty has another case pending on a snowboarder that jumped 90 ft and landed on his helmet and died — he is making the arguement that terrain parks and snowboarding are not included in the NH ski law — stay tuned
One can arguably see the point the attorney is making – in theory. However, there must be some degree of judgment that enters into the equation – some personal accountability as stated in an earlier comment. Say I take my car which is designed for city and highway driving (it implied that on the mileage declaration) and I put that car on a gravel road and drive like a winged rodent out of the infernal regions and wipe out. Does that give me the right to take the custodian of the road or the owner of the tree I hit into court? The end here is idiots’ rights and we will all pay for the indiscretion of a few and the greed of those that litigate for them!
A day 2 follow-up comment to Hank & Winston. You are correct-the judicial system interprets the laws that the Legislative & Executive branches create.
That is why the plaintiff’s bar has vested interested in running for public office. Once in power in the legislative and executive branches, they are free to create laws that are friendly to their interests. Then these laws are strictly interpreted by their brethren in the judicial branch. It happens in all levels of local, state, and federal office. They then use the dollars won in these suits to keep electing their own. It’s a great lesson in how our political system has been corrupted.
The madness will stop once you learn to spell…And as for Kerry and the “boy” I hope they do get voted in. It might be nice to have someone at the helm other than the crazy guy with no platform other than WMD which they never found.
Those of us sitting outside the US often shake our heads in despair at what the US is doing to the excellent legal system it inherited form the British. In the present case, it seems to me that the Supreme Court is missing the point. It is a long established principle of common law that people who knowingly and voluntarily participate in dangerous activities have to take upon themselves (within reason)the consequences of so doing. A boxer cannot successfully recover from his opponent for a broken nose. He would, however, be able to recover for an injury caused by the ropes giving way, causing him to fall out of the ring and crack his skull, since he may reasonably expect the equipment to be safe. The purpose of RSA 225-A:24 is not, in essence to create new law, but rather to arrest the deplorable erosion of existing law. To try and ring fence the application of this statute as has been done in this case by the Supreme Court merely emphasises how far that erosion has in fact gone. A more enlighten approach would have been to rule that snow tubing is eiusdem generis with “the sport of skiing” and thus to apply the principle clearly intended by the legislature.
Those criticizing the Sweeney decision really ought to take the time to review the facts of the case. Plaintiff and 10 co-workers go to ski area for a snow tubing company outing. Mountain sells them tickets. Sends them out to slope alone. No lift attendant, no spacer at the top, no employee in the landing area. Two side by side tracks. Plaintiff goes down hill as designed. Co-worker goes down in adjacent lane a few seconds later. Plaintiff lands in the “common” landing area, slides up the berm intended to stop riders, slides back down where she is hit, head to head, by the co-worker coming down the other track. Severe head injury.
She did everything the tubing park was designed for her to do. Gross negligence of area by having NO attendants. Gross negligence of area by designing silly “common” landing area rather than keeping riders separated (as they do down the whole mountain).
Those in the ski industry have one thing in mind – making money. That is why these terrain parks featuring extreme winter sports are catastrophic. Jam in as many attractions as possible, take the money of young inexperienced immature kids for the most part, put a waiver or release in their face as they are running out the door, let them kill themselves, and then rely on the ski industry lobby’s success in passing “immunity” statutes which, in and of themselves, do nothing more than absolve entities from their own negligence and recklessness.
That’s the point, and those are the facts.
In my opinion, your industry can’t pay enough in judgments, verdicts and settlements.
When a tubing facility invites participants to snow tube at its facility and builds it in such a negligent manner that the specifications of the facility itself create serious accidents and then the facility attempts to hides behind liability waivers… please consider who is really shirking their responsibility.
People go to these facilities thinking that they are designed safely. You cannot steer or control the speed of a tube once you start down a run. The facilities should have a responsibility to design the run so that a reasonable person, being reasonably prudent, would not face a life-time of disability or worse because of the facility’s desire to make more money at the expense of safety and then turn around and attempt to hide behind skier laws and liability waivers.
Skier laws were created to hold skiers accountable for how they control themselves on the slopes. Skiers CAN control themselves on the slopes and generally should be held accountable for their decisions regarding speed and direction. However, tubers have NO control over their speed OR direction once the tube is in motion. They are at the mercy of the facility design.
The design of the facility in the NH case was apparently very faulty in that it did not providing spacing between run-off areas to prevent tubers from rebounding backwards and crashing into another tuber going in the opposite direction.
If a county designed a road that suddenly pitted drivers in the opposite direction against each other competing for a single lane, who is negligent? The first time users of that road who suddenly faces unexpected peril or the county that was negligent in the design of the road?
If you nearly died in front of your children, spent almost two weeks in the hospital, and suffered a life-long injury because (on the first ride down, btw) the tubing facility was grossly negligent in the design and operation of its facility, perhaps you would feel differently about who is being irresponsible.
I will never tube again. I am hoping to someday ski again, because I can control my direction and speed and know my own abilities regarding what ski runs to take. However, I now know that is far different from tubing, where you are at the mercy of the facility’s design and are lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the tubing facility is a responsible business that was designed with safety and common sense in mind… until you hit a man-made wall at the bottom at 30+ miles per hour, because the facility chose to stay open when the runs were too slick for the amount of run-off area available. They took a risk, unbeknownst to the users… until someone got hurt.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Granted I feel sorry for the person who is hurt; however, there will be a time when we won’t have anything available to us for recreation or otherwise because of the actions of others who don’t take responsibility for themselves. Everyone is so quick to sue and lay blame with everyone else but him or herself. I wonder when it will end too.
Pardon the jibe here, but we are heading down a slippery slope. Think about what a combination of lawsuits and malfeasance premiums have brought about in the medical profession and it shouldn’t stretch the imagination too much to envision when a village might require a release and indemnification to use a picnic table at the park.
this plt atty has another case pending on a snowboarder that jumped 90 ft and landed on his helmet and died — he is making the arguement that terrain parks and snowboarding are not included in the NH ski law — stay tuned
One can arguably see the point the attorney is making – in theory. However, there must be some degree of judgment that enters into the equation – some personal accountability as stated in an earlier comment. Say I take my car which is designed for city and highway driving (it implied that on the mileage declaration) and I put that car on a gravel road and drive like a winged rodent out of the infernal regions and wipe out. Does that give me the right to take the custodian of the road or the owner of the tree I hit into court? The end here is idiots’ rights and we will all pay for the indiscretion of a few and the greed of those that litigate for them!
“… idiots’ rights…. ” I couldn’t have said it better! Problem is a huge Idiot market…
A day 2 follow-up comment to Hank & Winston. You are correct-the judicial system interprets the laws that the Legislative & Executive branches create.
That is why the plaintiff’s bar has vested interested in running for public office. Once in power in the legislative and executive branches, they are free to create laws that are friendly to their interests. Then these laws are strictly interpreted by their brethren in the judicial branch. It happens in all levels of local, state, and federal office. They then use the dollars won in these suits to keep electing their own. It’s a great lesson in how our political system has been corrupted.
to: Art Vandelay
The madness will stop once you learn to spell…And as for Kerry and the “boy” I hope they do get voted in. It might be nice to have someone at the helm other than the crazy guy with no platform other than WMD which they never found.
Let the Liberals reign!!
Those of us sitting outside the US often shake our heads in despair at what the US is doing to the excellent legal system it inherited form the British. In the present case, it seems to me that the Supreme Court is missing the point. It is a long established principle of common law that people who knowingly and voluntarily participate in dangerous activities have to take upon themselves (within reason)the consequences of so doing. A boxer cannot successfully recover from his opponent for a broken nose. He would, however, be able to recover for an injury caused by the ropes giving way, causing him to fall out of the ring and crack his skull, since he may reasonably expect the equipment to be safe. The purpose of RSA 225-A:24 is not, in essence to create new law, but rather to arrest the deplorable erosion of existing law. To try and ring fence the application of this statute as has been done in this case by the Supreme Court merely emphasises how far that erosion has in fact gone. A more enlighten approach would have been to rule that snow tubing is eiusdem generis with “the sport of skiing” and thus to apply the principle clearly intended by the legislature.
Those criticizing the Sweeney decision really ought to take the time to review the facts of the case. Plaintiff and 10 co-workers go to ski area for a snow tubing company outing. Mountain sells them tickets. Sends them out to slope alone. No lift attendant, no spacer at the top, no employee in the landing area. Two side by side tracks. Plaintiff goes down hill as designed. Co-worker goes down in adjacent lane a few seconds later. Plaintiff lands in the “common” landing area, slides up the berm intended to stop riders, slides back down where she is hit, head to head, by the co-worker coming down the other track. Severe head injury.
She did everything the tubing park was designed for her to do. Gross negligence of area by having NO attendants. Gross negligence of area by designing silly “common” landing area rather than keeping riders separated (as they do down the whole mountain).
Those in the ski industry have one thing in mind – making money. That is why these terrain parks featuring extreme winter sports are catastrophic. Jam in as many attractions as possible, take the money of young inexperienced immature kids for the most part, put a waiver or release in their face as they are running out the door, let them kill themselves, and then rely on the ski industry lobby’s success in passing “immunity” statutes which, in and of themselves, do nothing more than absolve entities from their own negligence and recklessness.
That’s the point, and those are the facts.
In my opinion, your industry can’t pay enough in judgments, verdicts and settlements.
When a tubing facility invites participants to snow tube at its facility and builds it in such a negligent manner that the specifications of the facility itself create serious accidents and then the facility attempts to hides behind liability waivers… please consider who is really shirking their responsibility.
People go to these facilities thinking that they are designed safely. You cannot steer or control the speed of a tube once you start down a run. The facilities should have a responsibility to design the run so that a reasonable person, being reasonably prudent, would not face a life-time of disability or worse because of the facility’s desire to make more money at the expense of safety and then turn around and attempt to hide behind skier laws and liability waivers.
Skier laws were created to hold skiers accountable for how they control themselves on the slopes. Skiers CAN control themselves on the slopes and generally should be held accountable for their decisions regarding speed and direction. However, tubers have NO control over their speed OR direction once the tube is in motion. They are at the mercy of the facility design.
The design of the facility in the NH case was apparently very faulty in that it did not providing spacing between run-off areas to prevent tubers from rebounding backwards and crashing into another tuber going in the opposite direction.
If a county designed a road that suddenly pitted drivers in the opposite direction against each other competing for a single lane, who is negligent? The first time users of that road who suddenly faces unexpected peril or the county that was negligent in the design of the road?
If you nearly died in front of your children, spent almost two weeks in the hospital, and suffered a life-long injury because (on the first ride down, btw) the tubing facility was grossly negligent in the design and operation of its facility, perhaps you would feel differently about who is being irresponsible.
I will never tube again. I am hoping to someday ski again, because I can control my direction and speed and know my own abilities regarding what ski runs to take. However, I now know that is far different from tubing, where you are at the mercy of the facility’s design and are lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the tubing facility is a responsible business that was designed with safety and common sense in mind… until you hit a man-made wall at the bottom at 30+ miles per hour, because the facility chose to stay open when the runs were too slick for the amount of run-off area available. They took a risk, unbeknownst to the users… until someone got hurt.