Survey of Ski Law in the United StatesPrepared for the CLE International Ski Liability Conference Vail, Colorado October 31 & November 1, 1996SKI LAW BY STATEALASKA - Inherent dangers are those natural and inescapable risks.ARIZONA - No ski safety act.CALIFORNIA - Mixed - inherent danger, common law negligence.COLORADO - Mixed: inherent danger and statutory duty.Definition of inherent danger may be a question of fact for the jury.CONNECTICUT - Mixed: Statutory duties and negligence.IDAHO - Inherent dangerILLINOIS - No Ski Safety Act.INDIANA - No Ski Safety Act.MAINE - Inherent danger, limited to dangers which cannot be eliminated regardless of feasible safety measures.MASSACHUSETTS: Negligence/inherent danger, short notice and statute of limitations.MICHIGAN: Inherent danger and statutory dutyMINNESOTA - No Ski Safety Act.MONTANA - Mixed: inherent danger and statutory duty.NEVADA - Negligence.NEW HAMPSHIRE - Inherent Danger.NEW JERSEY - Inherent dangers are dangers which are "essentially impractical or impossible for the ski area operator to eliminate." N.J.S.A. 5:13-1(b).NEW MEXICO - Negligence.NEW YORK - NegligenceNORTH CAROLINA - Negligence.NORTH DAKOTA - Inherent Danger.OHIO - Inherent danger.OREGON - Modified inherent danger.PENNSYLVANIA - Inherent Danger, Assumption of Risk.RHODE ISLAND - Inherent Danger, Primary Duty.TENNESSEE - Inherent Danger.UTAH - Mixed inherent danger & duties of skiers.VERMONT - Inherent danger.WASHINGTON - Negligence, primary duty is on the person skiing downhill.WEST VIRGINIA: Mixed negligence and inherent danger.WISCONSIN - Inherent dangers reduce recovery as if contributory negligence.WYOMING - Inherent dangers are those which are inherent, obvious, or necessary to its participation.This is a question that ordinarily must be resolved by the jury.In a motocross recently, I decided to ride outside the boundaries of the marked course where there was no supervision. I ran over tree stumps and heavy brush, causing me to flip and suffer leg and back injuries. Does riding beyond the marked boundaries of the course affect liability and damages?What are the traffic statistics on motorcycle accidents?I was in a motorcycle accident with a car that pulled out into my path. In taking evasive action, I fell, suffering only minor injuries, but my bike was badly damaged. Is there something an attorney can do for me that I cannot just do on my own with the insurance adjustor?The trail in my neighborhood is marked “No Trespassing”, but it is often used by off-road bikes. I did not see the barrier the landowner put up to stop bikers from entering and laid the bike down, breaking several ribs, left arm, and bruising. Can I sue the owner for damages? What is the owner’s duty to people who cross his property?I live in a state that has mandatory helmet laws. I was not wearing a helmet when blindsided by a motorist at a blind intersection. What is the impact on liability and damages for my failure to wear a helmet?My 15-year son died from injuries suffered while riding his all-terrain vehicle on a motocross track. He was wearing a helmet when he flipped over the handlebars and hit a tree. Who could be held liable for the death of my child?I was in a motocross race for Suzuki and took a spill because of a rut in the course, resulting in a concussion and broken arm. Who has liability?Survey of Ski Law in the United States Copyright, 1996 by James H. Chalat, Prepared for the CLE International Ski Liability ConferenceVail, ColoradoOctober 31 & November 1, 1996The principal legal issues pertaining to ski safety, is the scope, effect and/or constitutionality of the so-called "inherent danger" statutes which have proliferated throughout the country. Colorado, Vermont, California, Utah, and other states have construed the inherent danger statutes, to require a jury to determine the nature and extent of the duty. Other states, notably Idaho, simply hold that as a matter of law any injury, not caused by a breach of a specific duty imposed on the ski area by the state's ski act, is a risk inherent in the sport. Several states, such asNew York, impose either by statute or common law, a reasonable standard of care. Second, there is a brewing dispute about the duty of care owed by skiers, to each other, particularly, whether the negligence or recklessness of one skier is a risk assumed by another skier, in the context of a skier/skier collision. The trend here is to hold that skiers do not assume the risk of another skier's negligence; skiing is not a contact sport. This standard has been adopted by statute in Colorado and Alaska. However, some states, such as California, allow juries to determine whether this is a risk assumed. A minority of jurisdictions hold that skier/skiercollisions are a risk assumed by skiers. Third, state laws vary as to the level of care owed by the ski area operator, to passengers of ski lifts. Is it ordinary care, or the highest duty of care? State laws vary to such a degree, and, court decisions are often so muddled that identical accidents can occur, and the legal ramifications will be entirely differently from one state to another. This outline surveys the statutes, case law, and commentary regarding skiing, in the United States. It updates our last review of the subject which was published in our Winter 1993-1994 issue of Ski Safety NewsTo go directly to a particular State, select from the following: SKI LAW BY STATEAlaska Illinois Montana North Carolina Tennesee WyomingArizona Indiana Nevada North Dakota UtahCalifornia Maine New Hampshire Ohio VermontColorado Massachusetts New Jersey Oregon WashingtonConnetictcut Michigan New Mexico Pennsylvania West VirginiaIdaho Minnesota New York Rhode Island WisconsinALASKA - Inherent dangers are those natural and inescapable risks.Statute: Alaska Statutes Sections 05.45.010 et seq. A person engaged in the sport of skiing may not recover from a ski area operator for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of skiing. Inherent risks are defined to include weather, steepness, snow, surface or subsurface conditions, collisions with other skiers or with manmade objects. Ski area operators are obliged to post signswarning of their limited liability and of the inherent risks. The risk of a skier/skier injury is not a risk assumed in an action by one skier against another. AS 05.45.100(a). AS 18.60.822 requires ski areas to operate under a snow safety and operation plan approved by either the commissioner of
View Full Document
Unlocking...