Utah Supreme Court flip flop on releases for ski areas could have broader consequence

(Nov 17, 2008) -- In less than seven weeks apart the Utah Supreme Court upheld the use of releases by ski areas and then subsequently ruled that ski areas could not use releases. Worse, the decision voiding the use of releases is very confusing and may affect other recreational activities besides skiing. Read Full Story...

A release checklist is a good beginning, but it is only a beginning

(Nov 10, 2008) -- Everyone loves checklists, especially when looking at risk management issues. A checklist is a way to ensure you are covering the basics on a regular basis to minimize risk. However, even with a checklist, you can never say “I’ve checked all of the boxes, therefore I’m liability free.” Read Full Story...

Ropes Course Builder Held Liable for Design of Course

(Sep 29, 2008) -- This is a New York case concerning injuries received by the plaintiff while standing in a line to ride the zip line at a ropes course. While standing in line the bungee cord being used as a brake wire attached to the zip line snapped or came undone and hit the plaintiff in the right eye, blinding him. The zip line had been designed and inspected by the defendant Project Adventure, Inc. Read Full Story...

Texas decision outlines important points that may void a release under Texas law

(Sep 22, 2008) -- Akin v. Bally Total Fitness Corporation, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1218 In this case the son of the deceased sued the defendant health club for his father’s death in the club. This Texas Appellate Courts opinion reviews Texas law on releases, the fair notice required by statute for releases, gross negligence and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The DTPA has been held in several different Texas cases to be a defense to a release as well as a way to receive triple damages if the plaintiff proves violation of the DTPA. Read Full Story...

Release stops suit against Vermont resort & rental shop

(Sep 8, 2008) -- Szczotka v. Snowridge, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 247; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17197 Many ski resorts understand the value and income from renting ski equipment at their resort. In this case the resort rented ski equipment to the plaintiff who was injured when the equipment did not release and she suffered a knee injury. During the rental process the plaintiff had signed the standard ski equipment release which allowed the defendant ski resort to win this motion for summary judgment. Read Full Story...

Court decides participant cannot assume the risk of a team building exercise

(Aug 4, 2008) -- Calouri v. County of Suffolk, 2007 NY Slip Op 6455; 43 A.D.3d 456; 841 N.Y.S.2d 598; 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255 This case is classified as a backpacking case by the courts; however the case is actually based on a team building exercise injury at a community college. Read Full Story...

Venue and Jurisdiction Questions Answered in Snowboard Product Liability Case

(Jul 28, 2008) -- The entire subject of venue (where a case will be heard) and jurisdiction (what law will be applied to the case) is confusing. We have looked at those issues from a state to state argument -- Jurisdiction can affect the potential outcome of a case -- and a state vs. international corporation argument -- Foreign Corporation held to stand trial in Colorado for ski clothing that did not have insufficient coefficient of friction. In this case the issues of venue and jurisdiction are examined in a snowboard product liability case between courts in different counties in California. Read Full Story...

Case Brief: New York upholds release for negligence claim with purchase of paraglider

(Jun 30, 2008) -- Chieco v. Paramarketing, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 462; 643 N.Y.S.2d 668; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6617 A New York court has upheld a release signed when the plaintiff purchased a paraglider. The $4000 purchase also entitled the plaintiff to lessons at the defendant’s facilities. The court granted the defendant’s motions for summary judgment on three different counts, release, Assumption of the risk based on the written documents, and assumption of the risk because paragliding is a relatively dangerous sport. Read Full Story...

College successfully defends student high altitude fatality

(Jun 9, 2008) -- This case is a mixture of legal issues regarding the relationship between a student and the university. The court does not dwell on whether the deceased was a student, a volunteer, or a guided guest. The court seems to determine the relationship was between a guide and a client. The deceased student in this case volunteered to be part of a study in Nepal. He became ill and came back to the U.S. where he eventually died. His parents sued the college for his death. Read Full Story...

Foreign corporation must stand trial in Colorado for ski clothing product liability claim

(May 30, 2008) -- Alliance Clothing Ltd. is a longarm jurisdiction case. The legal question raised ponders whether the courts of Colorado have the right to subject the defendant, Alliance, a Hong Kong company, to the jurisdiction of the Colorado courts for a product liability case. Read Full Story...

Court confirms retailer is part of the product liability chain in a lawsuit

(May 12, 2008) -- Fronckowiak-Kelm is a very short New York appellate case that succinctly describes how retailers are part of the liability chain in product liability cases. In Fronckowiak-Kelm the plaintiff was injured when the quick release on her bicycle failed, causing her to be thrown her over the handlebars of her bike. Read Full Story...

Indiana ski binding case instructive on product liability law

(Apr 14, 2008) -- Indiana product liability law is controlled by statute which severely limits the defenses available to a defendant in a product liability case. Here the retailer and manufacturer were sued for injuries when a ski binding failed to release. The plaintiff had signed a “sales slip” which contained release language when she picked up the skis; however the sales slip containing the release was only effective against one of the three claims of the plaintiff. Read Full Story...

Legal Issues in First Aid #3: The prescription drug conundrum

(Mar 31, 2008) -- Everyone wants to be prepared, which is the motto the Boy Scouts have been promoting for almost 100 years. Every person who takes a first aid case wants to be a savior, to bring a person home alive, to rescue the dying and give the near-dead a second chance at life. Even more, no one wants to feel “if they had only”, they might have saved someone. To meet those personal needs, some first aid instructional programs have started training beyond what is defined as first aid. First aid providers are marketing themselves by saying they teach more than anyone else in the field. That includes teaching the use of prescription drugs and invasive procedures. Many Wilderness First Responder (WFR) programs teach that carrying prescription drugs into the woods is ok or even required to meet the standards of the industry. However industry standards, no matter how well-meaning, cannot violate the law. Read Full Story...

Warning labels found to be inadequate in climbing harness that was improperly clipped in

(Mar 17, 2008) -- Anaya v Town Sports International, Inc., et al., 2007 NY Slip Op 7875; 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10819 In this case a manufacturer (Petzl) sold climbing harnesses to a New York-based climbing gym. A gym employee attached a beginner climber to the harness using a gear loop rather than the normal tie in points. The beginning climber fell and was injured. Even though Petzl had the requisite warning label on its harness, and even though it is common knowledge among anyone with any experience as a climber that tying into a gear loop is not safe (as the climbing gym employee did), the company became party to the lawsuit once an appellate court decided that the warning labels on the harness, which have been used in several other industries, were not adequate to keep the harness manufacture out of court. Read Full Story...

Will those confidentiality statements at the bottom of emails hold weight in a court of law?

(Mar 17, 2008) -- We’ve all seen it at one time or another on the emails that come across our computer. A glaring warning statement that reads: “This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient, are confidential, and may be privileged.” Weighty words, but will they stand up in a court of law when push comes to shove? To understand the court’s final verdict about email confidentiality statements, we first need to understand what confidential and privileged communications are and the differences between the two. Read Full Story...

Challenge course product liability case from injury at Boy Scout camp instructive

(Mar 14, 2008) -- Carrel vs. National Cord & Braid Corporation Even though this case includes the Boy Scouts, a summer camp, a challenge or COPE course and Project Adventure and is a product liability case, the case boils down to a simple defense: Was the user a knowledgeable or sophisticated user of the product? As a knowledgeable user, not a sophisticated user, the injured party cannot win a product liability case against the manufacturer. Read Full Story...

Motion to Dismiss throws out claim against ski area for skier hitting a light pole

(Feb 12, 2008) -- Rayeski v. Gunstock Area/Gunstock Area Commission, 146 N.H. 495; 776 A.2d 1265; 2001 N.H. LEXIS 103 Rayeski v. Gunstock Area/Gunstock Area Commission is a short and simple case that examines the New Hampshire statutes dealing with skiing and ski areas and concludes the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty after he was injured skiing into unpadded light pole. The plaintiff was skiing late in the afternoon around 4:30 PM when he struck an unpadded light pole on the slope. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the ski area which was granted by the trial court. A motion to dismiss is a motion filed before an answer is filed by the defendants because the plaintiff has failed to make a legally recognizable claim in the plaintiff’s complaint. Read Full Story...

You can only go to court once with the same defendants and facts

(Feb 6, 2008) -- Schoeps v. Whitewater Adventures LLC and Mark Gholson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1387 This case was quickly dismissed by the court because the defendants were able to raise and prove the defense of Res Judicata. Res Judicata (Latin for a matter already judged) is a legal term meaning this is the second time the legal arguments and facts are being plead by the same plaintiffs and defendants. Because we have gone through this argument once, the law says you cannot be forced to go through it again. Once a case is settled or tried and the appeals have ended or been decided the case is over forever. Read Full Story...

All kinds of dangers lurk worldwide for American travelers

(Jan 21, 2008) -- Aron Sobel had four days to see Turkey before coming home to graduate from medical school. The 25-year-old from Potomac, Md., had a guidebook listing sights to see and things to do but no advice on the dangers of traveling by bus. On May 3, 1995, a speeding Turkish bus crashed in a ravine, killing Sobel and 22 others. Since then his mother, Rochelle Sobel, has forged a network of bereaved relatives who lobby the State Department to warn American travelers about international risks of the road. Read Full Story...

College loses suit by parents of deceased student from snow skiing class

(Jan 11, 2008) -- This case points out two important issues of importance to the outdoor recreation and ski industry in the U.S. The first is to always get a release signed. The second is statutes that limit liability always have holes that a good plaintiff’s lawyer can exploit. For that reason, always get a release signed. In this case the parents of a college student who died in a ski accident in a for credit class on a ski hill owned by the college were successful in beating a motion for summary judgment against the college, even though New Hampshire has a skier safety act. Read Full Story...