Replying to Legal Liability, Park Passes and a Legislative Solution

There have been a lot of discussion of legal liability and terrain parks following the questionable RCR "moral" decision late last week to eliminate park jumps.

Especially, people have been discussing ticket waivers and park passes and the role they play in liability for resorts.

*The following is a semi-legal analysis of the situation. I'm not a lawyer yet, so if anyone here is more knowledgeable on law, please feel free to add to, or correct, my points*

On Ticket Waivers:
This has been brought up by a couple of people, thinking that it declares the ski resort free of liability.

The simple legal reality is that one cannot contract out of liability. Certainly the use of these waivers is useful, but it does not, nor legally should, free the resort from any liability. Take for instance a crevase is unmarked and you ski into it and are badly injured. Obviously one may want to sue civilly for medical costs and lost earnings etc. The resort in this case could be held liable for negligence - in this case the ski ticket waiver of liability is by passed

The waivers exist simply as a legal precaution, but they are not an escape clause from legal action. Especially since the "contract" involved in purchasing a ticket is an iffy legal defense on the ski hills part.

On the topic of park passes:

Park passes are an unclear legal area, since from my knowledge they have not been tried in court. I think they definitely shelter the hill from liability, since they involve an explicit signed contract acknowledging the dangers. It may fail, and in such cases it may predominantly due to negligence on the part of the resort and its park maintenance and construction.

On the Legislative Alternative:
On

While park passes are safe, I think the real answer may be legislative.

Take Colorado's 1979 Ski Safety Act. Colorado's law defines
resort requirements for reasonable care and safety like signage but
essentially places the responsibility for safety on the skier, noting
the sport's "inherent dangers and risks."
   
A KEY ASPECT IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILING TO SKI WITHIN THEIR OWN ABILITIES. IN 2004 IT WAS UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE CONTEXT OF TERRAIN PARKS

The Colorado act also imposeslimitations on damages that can be collected from a ski-area operator. While those limitations can be lifted in the case of resort negligence,
several Colorado resorts increased their protection from lawsuits by
 requiring skiers to sign waivers promising never to sue, even in thecase of negligence.

Conclusion - legislation as an answer (though not fullproof):

It appears that legislation may be the proper answer; washington's legislation is not as comprehensive as an example. Collarado's law seems to be a great balance between protecting the rights of the resort and the rights of the individual.

Thus, to ensure that that your local park is shutdown due to a lawsuit, look into your states own laws and the idea of discussing the problem with your congressional representative.

For us Canadians, I am unfamilar with our own legislation; I'll try to look into it.