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.
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.
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.