10 Recent Topics:

Best Lot to Lift Experience?  by xwhaler, Sep 30, 2014 - 5:47 PM GMT - 3 Replies

Ciscokid's Name this Ski Area 9/24/14  by mapnut, Sep 30, 2014 - 4:12 PM GMT - 23 Replies

Northern Adirondacks Fall Foliage 9-27-14  by harvey44, Sep 30, 2014 - 3:26 PM GMT - 6 Replies

Winter is just around the corner  by mtsnow123, Sep 30, 2014 - 2:04 PM GMT - 4 Replies

Firsttracks on line mag.  by remski, Sep 30, 2014 - 1:25 PM GMT - 4 Replies

Ski Area Improvements for the 2014-5 Season  by nelsbeer, Sep 30, 2014 - 2:48 AM GMT - 155 Replies

Freedom Pass New England  by 4aprice, Sep 30, 2014 - 2:00 AM GMT - 1 Replies

Powderhouse Hill 9/28/2014  by newenglandskier13, Sep 29, 2014 - 10:29 PM GMT - 0 Replies

Countdown to Opening Day 2014  by newenglandskier13, Sep 29, 2014 - 9:51 PM GMT - 25 Replies

Red Hill Outing Club-NH now has a web site!  by arik, Sep 29, 2014 - 8:38 PM GMT - 3 Replies
 
 

 
  109 guests
6 members

Welcome Anonymous



Members logged in:

lift guy
4aprice
mtsnow123
joshua segal
tedede
xwhaler
 
 
NELSAP.org | SkiMaps.com
 
 
Member Login
USER:   PASS:   Remember me  
Create new account | Lost password?
 
 
Home

Forums : NELSAP Discussion : NELSAP Discussion
Moderated by: Chris, nelsap, Betsy, the_hop

Anonymous posts are not allowed in this forum

NH HB619 Ski Law Update

Page: 1 
Author Post
Spence
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 21, 2001

Posts: 257

Location:



Posted: May 26, 2005 - 7:56 PM GMT
Edited: May 26, 2005 - 7:58 PM GMT

Looks like the ski law changes might have passed the senete today next stop will be the govonor's office. the main upates is to formaly extend libility protection to cover snowboarding and tubing. Also added to the object such as stumps man made equipment now includes jumps terian parks verbiage.
it also establishes a commite that will make recomdations in novmeber of any other activites that should be added to the list. (like snow blades, sleds, snow toys and so on)

__________
Founder of the Arrowhead Recreation Club
treebeard
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Jan 08, 2005

Posts: 589

Location:



Posted: May 27, 2005 - 1:19 AM GMT

Does this mean people will have to start being accountable for thier own actions? Gosh, how unAmerican.



__________
Embrace that which you fear
WoodCore
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Jan 13, 2002

Posts: 3167

Location:
CT



Posted: May 27, 2005 - 2:22 AM GMT

Amen!

"Live Free or Die!"

__________
"Freedom often leads, but responsibility always follows close behind."
Spence
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 21, 2001

Posts: 257

Location:



Posted: May 27, 2005 - 6:57 PM GMT
Edited: May 27, 2005 - 7:01 PM GMT

yeah and takes the wind out of the sails of the amblance chasers. There was one yahoo that was considering suing some one over terian park jumps. The Current state law defined the wood ski jumps just as jumps, (now corrected to nordic ski jumps) when refering to jumps the owner or operator of the jumps are responsoble maintianing the jumps or can be liable so you can guess where they were going to go with this. Also non profits like us can breath a little easer. Being that the area is in Claremont the name of the game is how much can we make them bad there butts and this could have been another exusess to have us carry more liablity insureance. this is on top of the padded walls chairs and pants with two pillows tied to our but type deal lol so it was good to see

__________
Founder of the Arrowhead Recreation Club
katbennett
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Nov 14, 2001

Posts: 680

Location:
Madison, NH



Posted: May 27, 2005 - 11:51 PM GMT

Spence, your entry made me chuckle. We hadn't broken out the pillows yet but it is nice to know it won't be necessary.

This new law does not protect a ski area against NEGILIGENT operation. If a resort runs over a guest with a snowcat, they can still sue. It just states that it doesn't matter if they are on skis, snowboard or a tube, they are taking their own responsibility for their actions.
WoodCore
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Jan 13, 2002

Posts: 3167

Location:
CT



Posted: May 30, 2005 - 2:31 AM GMT

Connecticut just passed a simliar bill into law, PA (public act) 05-78, "An Act Concerning the Liability of Ski Area Operators for Injuries".

An Act Concerning the Liability of Ski Area Operators for Injuries


__________
"Freedom often leads, but responsibility always follows close behind."
Bill29
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Dec 19, 2002

Posts: 2498

Location:


Posted: May 31, 2005 - 1:26 PM GMT

katbennett says; "This new law does not protect a ski area against NEGILIGENT operation. If a resort runs over a guest with a snowcat, they can still sue."

And there's the rub. As I recall, the insurance problems started a long time ago with Sunday vs Stratton. I believe that Mr. Sunday was skiing on a snowcat path and skied over a branch laying on the trail. He fell, was injured and his crippling injuries were permanent. I believe that Stratton argued that he was not skiing on a trail, though the snowcat path was not closed, and that he could have avoided the branch. The jury didn't buy it and found for Mr. Sunday for about a million bucks.

That's my (sometimes faulty) memory. Someone who knows what he or she is talking about can straighten me out on the particulars. My point is that often a jury decides what is negligent. I guess the new laws offer some protection to ski areas and, if they make it more clear that skiing (and boarding) is an assumed risk, that wiill help.
Spence
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 21, 2001

Posts: 257

Location:



Posted: May 31, 2005 - 9:36 PM GMT

hmmm it is an intresting story. There is an area in ski law that is still inplace that is what is called gross neglengents. and comes in a verity of flavors. Before a case againts a ski relateted incindent moves fowared there are two questions that a judge needs to evealuate the first is does the skier protection law apply in this case and or was the ski are grosly neglagent. even quirky situations such as how you close a trail with rope. sounds simple but to put a twist on it lets say in some places they use a plain yellow poly rope and others they use the rope with a close disk on it just that diffrence can cause a leagle head ach for a ski area one of the things insurance companes basic recomdations is to have unversal marking policies like in this case either useing just the yeallow polly rope or use the closed disk on all your trail closing areas. now for this case is intresting it almost sounds like a case of the person going into an unmakred rectricted area and if other sections of the area have similer restricted areas that are marked then this could be a problem. also Boundy primerter markings can be a problem as well if you do it you want to do it in the same manor and could be a good iead like if you see an orange trail blazer and out of bounds signes every so offent that it is the areas boundy marker and should be noted as such in the trail guide to make sure a ski area fully protects it self. The reasoning is that a responsible skier person not fimailer with the are will be using the map for refferance and is assumed will see that information

__________
Founder of the Arrowhead Recreation Club

Page: 1 

Tuesday September 30, 2014
Home : Privacy Policy : Terms of Use

Header image: Crotched Mountain (NH)

All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owner.
© Copyright 2001-2006 by SnowJournal.com -- All Rights Reserved.

Network Services by Intercarve Networks
Powered by SnowFlake Content Management System - Version 1.0-beta5.2 (private)