Resort immunity threatened by lawsuit

[ThomasH]

"The case involving a teen who was paralyzed after a fall from a chairlift challenges the use of liability waivers"

Report from The Colorado Sun's Jason Blevins:

Ski resorts’ long history of immunity threatened by Colorado Supreme Court case

The Colorado Supreme Court will soon rule on a challenge to the ski resort industry's use of liability waivers to protect against lawsuits

coloradosun.com

 

[Noodler]

As a parent, you represent the best interests of your kids through all kinds of situations in life. Kids cannot be expected to sign waivers, and waivers are a fact of life if we want all kinds of services and activities to continue without costing an arm and a leg.

 

[Tom K.]

Somebody told me once, long, long ago, that you really can't "sign away" your right to litigate in the USA. Calling @coskigirl for a reality check.

Regardless, I certainly feel for the kid and parents, regardless of how the law turns out.

 

[jmeb]

It's very odd to me, based on what I've read about this incident -- that this is being portrayed as a challenge to the Ski Safety Act by the lawyers & CO Sun. Anyone who has patrolled, worked as lift ops, or an instructor in CO has it beaten into them that lift-related incidents are not covered by the Ski Safety Act. Lifts are governed by the Tramway board, which means when there is an incident, the level of reporting / fact collection is much higher than an skiing incident.

Directly from the Act:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

It's very odd to me, based on what I've read about this incident -- that this is being portrayed as a challenge to the Ski Safety Act by the lawyers & CO Sun. Anyone who has patrolled, worked as lift ops, or an instructor in CO has it beaten into them that lift-related incidents are not covered by the Ski Safety Act. Lifts are governed by the Tramway board, which means when there is an incident, the level of reporting / fact collection is much higher than an skiing incident.

Directly from the Act:

Agree. I am surprised that the district court determined that the waiver applied to this incident.

 

[jmeb]

Agree. I am surprised that the district court determined that the waiver applied to this incident.

IANAL,

But I think the Ski Safety Act and the waiver are two entirely different things. You don't have to agree to the Ski Safety Act -- it is the law of the land (in CO). The waiver is typically part of your lift ticket purchase -- either season pass or implied agreement upon purchase of the ticket -- that is directly between the user and the ski area. They are two different mechanisms to limit liability on ski areas; I just fail to see what one of them has to do with the other.

This seems quite different than the questions around negligence/gross negligence re:avalanche mitigation, trail closure signage, etc that were raised in the tragic Vail case. Avalanches as an inherent danger were a grey area of the ski safety act. Lifts are explicitly not a part of that act.

 

[coskigirl]

Somebody told me once, long, long ago, that you really can't "sign away" your right to litigate in the USA. Calling @coskigirl for a reality check.

Regardless, I certainly feel for the kid and parents, regardless of how the law turns out.

It depends. (Sorry, lawyer joke, it's always our answer.) There are situations where a waiver would protect an entity from liability. That doesn't mean someone won't try to litigate and it doesn't mean an entity won't settle just to save themselves the headache and $ of litigation.

Agree. I am surprised that the district court determined that the waiver applied to this incident.

Me too, based both on the idea of gross negligence (if the lift attendant was absent or not doing their job as they are supposed to (we've all seen situations where the crowd at the lift has to get their attention to stop the lift) and the fact that there is an alleged failure to comply with the Tramway regulations. I'd love to read the original complaint.

IANAL,

But I think the Ski Safety Act and the waiver are two entirely different things. You don't have to agree to the Ski Safety Act -- it is the law of the land (in CO). The waiver is typically part of your lift ticket purchase (either season pass or implied agreement upon purchase of the ticket.) They are two different mechanisms to limit liability on ski areas; I just fail to see what one of them has to do with the other.

I would think that this has to do with how the waiver is written. If it's written that the skier must comply with the Ski Safety Act and the operator is arguing that they didn't comply with the Act then there is possibly both.

 

[Karen_skier2.0]

I've read a lot on this case, but I haven't seen a lot of details on the actual accident but learned something new on Reddit. A lift operator must be able to stop the lift within 6 seconds. Instead of a distance from the control switch, the operator must be within 6 seconds of slowing down or stopping the lift. AFAIK no one has stated how long it took for the 16-year-old to get 30 feet in the air. It's a tragic accident, but unless someone had video of the whole incident, it seems like a pretty hard case to win.

 

[MissySki]

I've read a lot on this case, but I haven't seen a lot of details on the actual accident but learned something new on Reddit. A lift operator must be able to stop the lift within 6 seconds. Instead of a distance from the control switch, the operator must be within 6 seconds of slowing down or stopping the lift. AFAIK no one has stated how long it took for the 16-year-old to get 30 feet in the air. It's a tragic accident, but unless someone had video of the whole incident, it seems like a pretty hard case to win.

They should be able to calculate how long it would take to get from the loading area to the point of wherever the person fell off though.. you shouldn’t need video of that.

 

[pchewn]

They should be able to calculate how long it would take to get from the loading area to the point of wherever the person fell off though.. you shouldn’t need video of that.

These 6 seconds for the operator to react to a problem, are started when? From the loading point or from the area where the skier is 1st observed to be at risk of falling?

There is a ski lift (Cascade at Mt Hood Skibowl) that is more than 30 feet above the snow as soon as you exit the loading platform. I had to haul my grandson back onto the chair when he mis-loaded one time. Very scary. This lift takes some skill to load properly (fixed grip, center pole, moves quickly).

No amount of operator action or inaction on that lift is going to help you.

 

[MissySki]

These 6 seconds for the operator to react to a problem, are started when? From the loading point or from the area where the skier is 1st observed to be at risk of falling?

There is a ski lift (Cascade at Mt Hood Skibowl) that is more than 30 feet above the snow as soon as you exit the loading platform. I had to haul my grandson back onto the chair when he mis-loaded one time. Very scary. This lift takes some skill to load properly (fixed grip, center pole, moves quickly).

No amount of operator action or inaction on that lift is going to help you.

I don't know enough about the incident or specific lift.. the article says the parents suit claims negligence because the liftie didn't stop the lift when the daughter was unable to load properly. That implied to me that something happened right from the get go that they feel should have been spotted. Is that accurate? I have no idea, but there must also be witnesses of the incident from the line and/or chairs around them I'd think?

I was once caught up on a lift by clothing when trying to unload, ended up hanging under the chair going around the bull wheel as everyone was screaming for the liftie to stop the chair. It happened so fast and was probably less than 6 seconds overall.. but boy did it feel like an eternity at the time. I was also able to reach out and hit the emergency stop bar when I went around (still have the rope burn scar on my wrist to show for it because that's what I could reach to grab), and it still felt like it took forever to stop. The liftie also ran out and got me untangled once the lift did stop and ahead of patrol getting there. Luckily the lift was fully stopped before I got down to a higher area because that would have been terrifying. I was VERY appreciative and the liftie was even apologetic that the lift took so long to stop but it literally just took that long for it to fully happen .. fixed grips don't stop on a dime, and the incident was completely my fault anyway, so I was really embarrassed as well for causing such a scene. So definitely not judging any actions that I know nothing about.

I HAVE recently seen some lifties sitting in the top shacks who are supposed to be watching people unload staring down at their phones. One such one was because the people getting off of the lift in front of me had fallen, and I looked to the shack assuming the liftie was going to stop the lift and she had no idea there were people on the ground. Luckily, I was able to get around the fallen skiers and was the only one on my chair, but that made me really uneasy that the liftie wasn't watching in general. Saw someone else on a different lift with their nose in their phone instead of watching the next day as well. I was surprised because that's a darn big responsibility when you are ensuring skier safety with lift operations, it's so easy for someone to get extremely hurt or worse from lift incidents.

 

[Lauren]

I tried to find an article or something that might have had a witness to the incident, or more detail on what happened. But nothing really came up other than the court case that seemed to claim that the operator saw what was going on and willfully chose not to stop the lift (?) .... which seems like an odd claim. I've also seen a couple articles that mention that there was no operator at the controls, which is certainly an issue in my eyes.

I was a lift operator for a handful of years in the early 2000s...I will say even if you are right next to the controls, there are things you can miss regardless of how attentive you are. Once the person is loaded (and appears to be safely seated), your attention immediately turns to the next group coming down the ramp to load. Things can happen in that split second right after you turn your attention to the next group. A ski gets caught in the snow, you drop a pole, or you appeared to be safely seated but in reality, you were a bit off-kilter. The lift is loud when you're right under the bullwheel, there's very little chance you're hearing someone yelling from a chair that just left the terminal.

I don't want this to come off as victim blaming but more a public service announcement: If you (or your kid) are not properly seated in a chair as it starts to leave the terminal, and you're not 100% sure you can get yourself back onto the chair ... DO NOT hold on. Just let yourself, or your kid fall when the chair is close to the ground. This is probably against every natural instinct...especially when it's your kid. But it's likely going to be a better outcome.

 

[scott43]

I was going to say, people may think six seconds is a long time but really, with all the distractions and things going on it's probably pretty typical. When I did highway design the standard reaction time to an incident was two seconds and people thought this was crazy. You know, I can hit the brakes in a tenth of a second! Yeah if you're just watching for that. But on average, fiddling with the radio and all the other tech in a car these days, day dreaming, eating, whatever, two seconds is really maybe not enough.

 

[Smear]

I was a lift operator for a handful of years in the early 2000s...I will say even if you are right next to the controls, there are things you can miss regardless of how attentive you are. Once the person is loaded (and appears to be safely seated), your attention immediately turns to the next group coming down the ramp to load. Things can happen in that split second right after you turn your attention to the next group. A ski gets caught in the snow, you drop a pole, or you appeared to be safely seated but in reality, you were a bit off-kilter. The lift is loud when you're right under the bullwheel, there's very little chance you're hearing someone yelling from a chair that just left the terminal.

Thanks for being a voice of reason. Shit happens. Seems hard for some people and some systems to accept that sometimes shit happens...

 

[dbostedo]

Shit happens. Seems hard for some people and some systems to accept that sometimes shit happens...

True, but it seems like we're short on details to know if that's the case in this lawsuit. There are lots of possibilities for employee/resort behavior that aren't just "shit happens"... I wonder how much detail, if any, will eventually come out?

 

[snwbrdr]

Details are sparse in the article.

Annie Miller was 16 when she fell from the Paradise Express chairlift, at Crested Butte Mountain Resort in March 2022. The 30-foot fall left her paralyzed. The family of the Oklahoma teen sued the ski area and its owner Vail Resorts in December 2022, arguing the lift operators were negligent because they did not stop the chairlift when Miller was unable to load the chair properly.

Is it implied that she was holding on for dear life or couldn't get onto the seat and got snagged by the chair from loading area to the 2nd pole?

 

[markojp]

As a parent, you represent the best interests of your kids through all kinds of situations in life. Kids cannot be expected to sign waivers, and waivers are a fact of life if we want all kinds of services and activities to continue without costing an arm and a leg.

Parents/legal guardians sign waivers. Minors can't, at least in WA.

 

[scott43]

Just have to wait for the evidence to come out. The waiver won't help if there is criminal negligence involved.

 

[coskigirl]

These 6 seconds for the operator to react to a problem, are started when? From the loading point or from the area where the skier is 1st observed to be at risk of falling?

I think it means that wherever the operator is positioned, they must be able to reach a stop button within 6 seconds. Meaning, they should be stopping the lift if they need to go do something that would take them outside that range.

 

[James]

I was going to say, people may think six seconds is a long time but really, with all the distractions and things going on it's probably pretty typical. When I did highway design the standard reaction time to an incident was two seconds and people thought this was crazy. You know, I can hit the brakes in a tenth of a second! Yeah if you're just watching for that. But on average, fiddling with the radio and all the other tech in a car these days, day dreaming, eating, whatever, two seconds is really maybe not enough.

There’s also the startle effect when something unusual happens. That can eat up 2-3 seconds easily. Usually talked about with pilots.