Al Thomas wrote a letter to the editor of the Summit Daily. The Summit Daily is the local newspaper for Summit County where Copper Mountain, Keystone, Breckenridge and Arapahoe Basin are located. Skiing/boarding is big in that county. Al wrote about the issues and injuries he received when he was hit by a snowboarder while skiing at Copper Mountain. He appears to be as mad at Copper Mountain as the Snowboarder.
Mr. Thomas had stopped at a slow sign to wait on a friend when he was hit by a snowboarder. He says 10 people witnessed the accident. This paragraph is the confusing part of the letter.
A requested ski incident report was furnished to me by Copper Mountain. I met with Charles Payne “Risk and Safety.” I asked if the other party had been cited. Mr. Payne explained that unless a Copper employee was an actual eye witness to an event, it was Copper's policy not to issue any citations. In my case the other party admitted to skiing in excess of 10 mph in a slow-ski zone and to having at least one alcoholic beverage before the incident. I wonder if this person was impaired.
First of all, Copper Mountain cannot issue a citation, ticket to anyone. Only law enforcement, in this case the Summit County Sheriff can do that. However, Copper Mountain can turn the information over to law enforcement for them to make the decision if the events rise to the level of a criminal act. If ten people watched the accident, that is a lot of witness statements. Additionally, the snowboarder admitted skiing too fast.
The statement “unless a Copper employee was an actual eye witness to an event”, if true is confusing. It is not Copper’s responsibility, and I seriously doubt Copper is only going to do something if an employee witnesses an event.
The Colorado Skier Safety Act specifically allows lawsuits between people who have collided on the slopes. (Contrary to California which says collisions are a risk of skiing.)
C.R.S. 33-44-109(1) Each skier solely has the responsibility for knowing the range of his own ability to negotiate any ski slope or trail and to ski within the limits of such ability. Each skier expressly accepts and assumes the risk of and all legal responsibility for any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing; except that a skier is not precluded under this article from suing another skier for any injury to person or property resulting from such other skier's acts or omissions. Notwithstanding any provision of law or statute to the contrary, the risk of a skier/skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another.
The statute specifically protects the ski area and places any liability on other people on the slope.
A ski area may revoke a skier’s skiing (and boarding) privileges in a careless and reckless manner.
C.R.S. 33-44-108(5) The ski area operator, upon finding a person skiing in a careless and reckless manner, may revoke that person's skiing privileges. This subsection (5) shall not be construed to create an affirmative duty on the part of the ski area operator to protect skiers from their own or from another skier's carelessness or recklessness.
In this case Copper Mountain could have removed the boarder who caused the collision from the slopes and taken any ski pass, daily or seasonal from him or her. That is the extent of what a Ski Area in Colorado may do. That usually can be done by any employee, definitely by the ski patrol and management and easy to do with the severity of the injuries and ten witnesses.
Whether or not criminal charges should have been pressed against the snowboarder is totally out of the control of the ski area. Copper Mountain’s ability to do anything ends with the confiscation of the ski pass.
See Al Thomas: Ski area need better safety enforcement.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Technorati Tags: Letter,editor,boarder,collision,Copper,Mountain,area,Thomas,Summit,newspaper,Breckenridge,Arapahoe,Basin,injuries,Snowboarder,friend,accident,paragraph,incident,Charles,Payne,Risk,employee,event,policy,citations,beverage,person,citation,ticket,enforcement,Sheriff,information,decision,events,statements,statement,Colorado,Skier,lawsuits,Contrary,California,collisions,injury,dangers,article,omissions,provision,statute,action,manner,operator,subsection,extent,management,Whether,confiscation,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence
Windows Live Tags: Letter,editor,boarder,collision,Copper,Mountain,area,Thomas,Summit,newspaper,Breckenridge,Arapahoe,Basin,injuries,Snowboarder,friend,accident,paragraph,incident,Charles,Payne,Risk,employee,event,policy,citations,beverage,person,citation,ticket,enforcement,Sheriff,information,decision,events,statements,statement,Colorado,Skier,lawsuits,Contrary,California,collisions,injury,dangers,article,omissions,provision,statute,action,manner,operator,subsection,extent,management,Whether,confiscation,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence
WordPress Tags: Letter,editor,boarder,collision,Copper,Mountain,area,Thomas,Summit,newspaper,Breckenridge,Arapahoe,Basin,injuries,Snowboarder,friend,accident,paragraph,incident,Charles,Payne,Risk,employee,event,policy,citations,beverage,person,citation,ticket,enforcement,Sheriff,information,decision,events,statements,statement,Colorado,Skier,lawsuits,Contrary,California,collisions,injury,dangers,article,omissions,provision,statute,action,manner,operator,subsection,extent,management,Whether,confiscation,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence
No comments:
Post a Comment