Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: in-bounds avalanches and Colorado law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT: in-bounds avalanches and Colorado law

    Hey, you skiing lawyers who live in Colorado, can you point me to the two district court decisions that reached conflicting outcomes concerning the applicability of the Colorado Skier Safety Act to in-bounds avalanches? I can find only bloggers discussing the cases, and not the actual cases, and I would like to use them as part of a series of case studies for an Outdoor Studies course at our local university in Juneau. Thanks.

  • #2
    IANAL. But, if you have the case names I can probably get you the opinions.

    Comment


    • #3
      IAAL, but state district court opinions aren't always easily obtainable. But maybe Greg can get that for you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the responses.

        What is IANAL or IAAL?

        Regardless, the first one is Ingalls v. Vail Corp. You can see the Answer here:

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/119393064/...nlin-complaint

        The other one is Fleury v. Intrawest Winter Park Operations Corp. For a fee, you can download the decision here:

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/126480446/...ination-of-L-1

        Feel free to move the rest of this discussion to a private message. Thanks again.

        Comment


        • #5
          I am not a lawyer. That's the common one. Mine should be a fairly obvious modification.

          Comment


          • #6
            Wow, that was confusing.

            dschane, what part of this discussion you find acceptable to be public please do. I followed those rulings casually last year as I found it pretty interesting. They certainly have big implications as far as how risk management is viewed by resort execs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Danno View Post
              I am not a lawyer. That's the common one. Mine should be a fairly obvious modification.
              Danno, yo no comprendo or speak Spanish for that matter. But I'm lost by your post.

              It looks like the second link I provided actually gets you the full opinion if you scroll down; you just have to pay to download it, but that's not needed for my purposes. Am I missing something or is the first opinion available on the Internet for free?

              MattJ, happy to keep this thread going in full view.

              Thanks again for the help.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dschane View Post
                Thanks for the responses.

                What is IANAL or IAAL?
                Originally posted by Danno View Post
                I am not a lawyer. That's the common one. Mine should be a fairly obvious modification.
                Originally posted by dschane View Post
                Danno, yo no comprendo or speak Spanish for that matter. But I'm lost by your post.
                IANAL= I am not a lawyer (fairly common)
                IAAL = I am a lawyer (my modification)

                Comment


                • #9
                  FWIW, neither district court ruling would have precedential effect.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    aha, with persistence, it's possible to get through my dense noggin. Thanks.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Quick note, according to this article from Vail's local rag, the judge in the Vail case ruled from the bench, so there is no opinion.

                      http://www.vaildaily.com/article/201...NEWS/121219913

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Interesting that this so called, "Colorado Skier Safety Act" isn't about protecting skiers in Colorado at all. It's really about providing protection for the ski resorts from litigation. It should be renamed the "Colorado Ski Resort Protection Act".

                        Reminds me of the States South of the Mason-Dixon line with "Right to Work " laws. These so called "Right to Work" States have adopted legislation which allows workers (benefiting from Union Membership) to opt out of paying Union Dues. So this legislation is really about management cutting off funds to Unions, for organizing drives, trying to block Union efforts to improve wages, and better benefits for workers. Another misnomer, in this case it should be called "Employer Right to Exploit Workers" legislation.

                        But the low-information sheeple think "Right to Work" protects their jobs...
                        Last edited by chamonix; 14 November 2013, 08:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I thought at first that IANAL was a sort of freudian slip from someone trying to write IAAL. Not enough coffee this morning...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dschane View Post
                            aha, with persistence, it's possible to get through my dense noggin. Thanks.
                            We're thinking about maybe getting one of these next time to do it:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by chamonix View Post
                              Interesting that this so called, "Colorado Skier Safety Act" isn't about protecting skiers in Colorado at all. It's really about providing protection for the ski resorts from litigation. It should be renamed the "Colorado Ski Resort Protection Act".
                              There are always different ways to view these things. One way is to view it as legislation preventing morons from suing ski resorts when they hit a tree.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X