Skier Code question

[nay]

I think maybe we had this discussion on Epic... but when I read "duty to maintain control of his speed and course" the key word is control, i.e. you have to be in control, NOT that you have to maintain a particular course (which would get into the whole "skiing lanes" stuff). There shouldn't be anything that disallows a sudden 90 degree turn, per the skiers code, if it's intentional and part of being in control of your line/speed/course. And therefore I'd be surprised if any part of the Colorado Ski Safety Act was intended to have you keep to any particular line/course, as long as you were in control.

TLDR - "maintain control of course" is not the same as "maintain current course"

That’s right, it doesn’t say maintain current course and that is clearly not the intent.

The law says:

Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects.

You have three duties here:

1) maintain control of speed so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects;

2) maintain control of course so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects;

3) maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects.

It doesn’t mean you can’t change course whenever you want. It does mean you have to control your course so as to avoid other skiers. If you are the downhill skier and suddenly swerve without looking and collide with another skier who was uphill of you, then you have failed 2) and 3).

The other skier has failed 2) and 3) and possibly 1), but she can argue that her failure was caused by your negligence. She may win on the argument that your negligence contributed to hers.

These arguments are what court cases are for, but what you are saying above basically means that control of course is a duty to not fall down, and that’s not what the word course means.

Either way, relying on the Skier Code is pointless unless it is law in your state. Arguing that making sudden course changes without looking has no statutory duty, well, why mention it in the law if it wasn’t intended to mean anything?

 

[dbostedo]

It doesn’t mean you can’t change course whenever you want. It does mean you have to control your course so as to avoid other skiers. If you are the downhill skier and suddenly swerve without looking and collide with another skier who was uphill of you, then you have failed 2) and 3).

The other skier has failed 2), but she can argue that her failure was caused by your negligence. You have a lesser argument and she may win on your greater negligence and the argument that your negligence contributed to hers.

These arguments are what court cases are for, but what you are saying above basically means that control of course is a duty to not fall down, and that’s not what the word course means.

Interesting interpretation. Based on the way you interpreted who's at fault in your scenario, I'd say that you think it DOES mean that you can't change course whenever you want (for my definition of "course" meaning the chosen line you're skiing; maybe that's not the right definition?)

Has a case actually happened where the uphill skier claimed the downhill skier was at fault due to intentional movements of the downhill skier? I would think that would be counter to the regular skier's code, which all the resorts still post and presumably adhere to.

 

[SBrown]

If there are three, why didn't they say "maintain the duties"? (This is a real not rhetorical question, btw.)

 

[nay]

Interesting interpretation. Based on the way you interpreted who's at fault in your scenario, I'd say that you think it DOES mean that you can't change course whenever you want (for my definition of "course" meaning the chosen line you're skiing; maybe that's not the right definition?)

Has a case actually happened where the uphill skier claimed the downhill skier was at fault due to intentional movements of the downhill skier? I would think that would be counter to the regular skier's code, which all the resorts still post and presumably adhere to.

Both are negligent by the law, because both failed their statutory duties. There is no reasonableness standard in negligence per se. A court of course would have to agree with this, I’m just following my read.

So now you have to look at comparative fault laws that vary by state. Colorado uses a contributory standard:

In Colorado, contributory negligence by the claimant (the person filing the claim) diminishes the amount of damages that can be collected. For example, a motorist who was speeding at the time he was struck and injured by a drunk driver may have his damages reduced in proportion to his share of the fault. But if the court determines the claimant's negligence to be greater than that of the defendant's, the plaintiff may not recover any damages.

In the case of a downhill skier suddenly swerving without looking, being involved in a collision, and then filing a claim against the other skier, if the court found that the downhill skier was more negligent in comparative fault, then the plaintiff might be barred from collecting any damages and conversely the uphill skier could have a counter claim.

I haven’t been able to find definitive case law on this specific question, probably because skier to skier collisions are mostly controlled by insurance. I have a $1M umbrella policy on top of my other insurance, not specifically because of skiing, but because negligence is such a risky concept as relates to your actions and property.

Here is Montana’s law, which is obviously based on Colorado’s, but much less prescriptive. It was last revised in 2013.

https://recreation-law.com/2013/10/19/montana-ski-statues/

Here’s what Montana has to say:

b) shall maintain control of speed and course so as to prevent injury to the skier or others;

This statute says nothing at all about uphill or downhill skiers. They are treated equally in the language. But Montana also uses the term “course” and somebody skiing in Montana as to control that course so as to prevent injury to others.

As for ski area operators “adhering” to the skier code, they don’t: it’s not law. But, the law may require them to post it in which case they do.

Montana says: post in a conspicuous location the current skier responsibility code that is published by the national ski areas association

 

[LiquidFeet]

You have three duties here:
1) maintain control of speed so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects;
2) maintain control of course so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects;
3) maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects.
It doesn’t mean you can’t change course whenever you want. It does mean you have to control your course so as to avoid other skiers. If you are the downhill skier and suddenly swerve without looking and collide with another skier who was uphill of you, then you have failed 2) and 3).

In the case of a downhill skier suddenly swerving without looking, being involved in a collision, and then filing a claim against the other skier, if the court found that the downhill skier was more negligent in comparative fault, then the plaintiff might be barred from collecting any damages and conversely the uphill skier could have a counter claim.....

To a non-skier, all of this sounds perfectly reasonable. It simply means everyone needs to stay alert and be responsible for not doing stupid dangerous stuff. But to a skier, who realizes no one has rear-view mirrors, who knows there are no lanes, who has experienced people of different skill levels traveling on the same terrain, and who knows edges catch unpredictably all the time while skiing ........ it doesn't.

How did CO, a state full of world-class ski resorts, allow this law to be written this way?

 

[nay]

If there are three, why didn't they say "maintain the duties"? (This is a real not rhetorical question, btw.)

Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him.

Both singular and plural work, but we might infer differently on how much they were intended to go together.

Each person has a duty to walk and talk and chew gum.

Each person has the duties to walk and talk and chew gum.

The singular use suggests more together. Much like driving: you can fail speed, course, and lookout, but there is more weight when they are failed together, which we understand as “recklessness”. Speed can achieve this on its own of couse, but you can be reckless without it.

Recklessness isn’t a needed standard here since the negligence is per se, but it could inform damages.

 

[dbostedo]

In the case of a downhill skier suddenly swerving without looking, being involved in a collision, and then filing a claim against the other skier, if the court found that the downhill skier was more negligent in comparative fault,

That's the gist of my question really... does the CO law actually say (or get interpreted) that you can be negligent (in whatever percent or measure) as the downhill skier, simply by turning or braking? And has that been an actual ruling in any case you know of? I hope not.

 

[nay]

To a non-skier, all of this sounds perfectly reasonable. It simply means everyone needs to stay alert and be responsible for not doing stupid dangerous stuff. But to a skier, who realizes no one has rear-view mirrors, who knows there are no lanes, who has experienced people of different skill levels traveling on the same terrain, and who knows edges catch unpredictably all the time while skiing ........ it doesn't.

How did CO, a state full of world-class ski resorts, allow this law to be written this way?

In Colorado, the the legislative intent is declared in the law:

33-44-102. Legislative declaration.

The general assembly hereby finds and declares that it is in the interest of the state of Colorado to establish reasonable safety standards for the operation of ski areas and for the skiers using them. Realizing the dangers that inhere in the sport of skiing, regardless of any and all reasonable safety measures which can be employed, the purpose of this article is to supplement the passenger tramway safety provisions of part 7 of article 5 of title 25, C.R.S.; to further define the legal responsibilities of ski area operators and their agents and employees; to define the responsibilities of skiers using such ski areas; and to define the rights and liabilities existing between the skier and the ski area operator and between skiers.

I don’t think the language as related to “between skiers” is particularly controversial.

The idea of a lane is a trigger word for many skiers, but in terms of safety, we all understand that sudden changes in course by other people moving in a flow of traffic, especially without looking, is extremely dangerous and you can’t reasonably exclusively burden the people following. We are taught when driving to not exclusively rely on our rear view mirrors due to blind spots and to quickly look. It’s such a pervasive issue of the “downhill car” that cars now have blind spot warning sensors. But skiers can’t look quickly before making major course changes?

I think Colorado does a great job of ascribing a duty to everybody, but placing a higher burden on the uphill skier. Montana doesn’t even bother to distinguish that the uphill skier has a greater burden to overcome. Traffic safety laws do the same thing. If somebody cuts you off and slams on their brakes, you may not be able to avoid them and it may be their fault.

I had a woman turn in front of me in November when her light turned yellow as did mine right as I was hitting the intersection. I hit her broadside, only being able to turn enough to avoid a dead on impact and hit her just in front of the front passenger door.

Nobody was hurt. I took a video of the lights cycling where we have same green, yellow, and red. It’s impossible for her to have right of way and impossible for me to stop or avoid her. Her insurance paid for my damage. She simply told them, as related to me: “I turned on yellow.”

Skiers don’t like this idea, but the law recognizes the concept of contributory negligence and it certainly recognizes traffic behavior. If you don’t write the law, the courts will in the absence of clear legislative intent.

 

[SShore]

@SShore do not click!

I was in college when Bulushi was big and I look a lot like him so my nicknames were all associated with him in Animal House.

 

[nay]

That's the gist of my question really... does the CO law actually say (or get interpreted) that you can be negligent (in whatever percent or measure) as the downhill skier, simply by turning or braking? And has that been an actual ruling in any case you know of? I hope not.

Simply turning or braking wouldn’t reasonably violate a duty of care to maintain control of speed or course to avoid skier collision. A sudden 90 degree turn in heavy traffic 50 meters across a slope at 50 mph probably would. And I hope so, because that guy might kill your kid.

Skier to skier cases are civil actions so there’s not likely much easily accessible information, especially since most people have some form of liability insurance. There is business here: Chalet Law has billboards up on I-70 showing stick figure collision yard sales and poses the question “Now what?”.

I’ve tried to find anything, but either my google-fu is not strong or there aren’t high profile cases challenging the law itself.

I suspect the latter. I think it’s important to realize that negligence per se is really onerous - it’s nearly a strict liability standard. If you don’t account for some level of comparative fault (contributory negligence) then you could get unfair results in certain instances.

There’s nothing ‘wrong’ about the skier code, and it’s a great thing to teach just like defensive driving. But it is hopelessly inadequate to deal with legal nuance and avoiding occasionally absurd results. If you whip across a trail at 3 times the reasonable speed in heavy traffic perpendicular to the flow of traffic and do so without looking or making any attempt to avoid other skiers, then hell yes it’s your fault.

It’s completely unreasonable for other skiers to be expecting or anticipating that level of reckless behavior, and the law accounts for it. Where else in the law would we expect dangerous and reckless behavior to be the statutory negligence of the unsuspecting people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Inversely, if you think you are going to buzz other skiers at Mach 1 and then rely on a defense that that person changed course, good luck.

The (red and) grey areas? That’s what incident reports, witnesses, and the courts are for.

 

[dbostedo]

^^^
Good thoughts - I certainly wasn't thinking of "heavy traffic". I was thinking of just two people around, one clearly downhill from the other. In a case like that, the downhill skier can do just about anything and I couldn't see it as reckless or negligent. On a wide slope with a lot of traffic, I can think of cases where that wouldn't be true.

I suppose if you really observe the skier code completely, there can't be truly crowded slopes, because people would be skiing too close together to safely pass each other or avoid things the downhill skier may do. Instead, you'd have to stop and wait for an opening, or ski down basically one or two skiers at a time (or appropriately spread out across a wide slope).

I know around here, when slopes do start to get crowded, I do just that - wait until I can be the only person on a section of the run, or the only one passing another on a section. And when that can't be done, I generally go home because the fun is (mostly) gone.

 

[François Pugh]

A skier has a duty to avoid all skiers ahead of him, not just a duty to avoid skiers ahead of him who ski in a single lane, not just skiers who's movements are easy to predict. If you cannot avoid a skier making a hard left in front of you, slow the F down!

 

[nay]

It could still be true with two skiers. The person changing course and moving across the slope has better perspective than the person looking downhill. If you are 20 yards to the right of me and five yards ahead of me, I can only be actively monitoring you if I am constantly looking past my peripheral vision.

Let’s say I am looking, left and right. I look back left. You decide to whip across the slope. We hit say 40 yards later. This is how much time I had to react.

My current turn is to the right so I am not currently in a position to arc away from you as I look back and see you now headed right at me. Is that reasonable when you could see me the entire time as you changed course simply by looking the slightest bit uphill? What reasonable duty did I fail?

That 35 mph was too fast when you were going the same speed to avoid you making a sudden change and cutting me off without looking? This is the entire reason that the word “course” is in the statute. You have to look first and it has to be clear. Otherwise you maintain course to avoid collision.

It’s right there in black and white.

 

[nay]

A skier has a duty to avoid all skiers ahead of him, not just a duty to avoid skiers ahead of him who ski in a single lane, not just skiers who's movements are easy to predict. If you cannot avoid a skier making a hard left in front of you, slow the F down!

The first sentence is correct.

 

[silverback]

I can't imagine making 20 turns along the right 1/3 of a run then deciding to move over to the left without a quick peek to see if someone is right beside me in my blind spot on the left first. Most don't so it isn't an asshole move to say "on your left" as you commit to the pass, quite the opposite in my mind.

 

[François Pugh]

I draw your attention to the (relatively recent) change in the code from downhill skier to skier ahead. if you make a hard left and then run someone down while skiing across the hill you are at fault. If some ahead of you makes a hard left and you run him down as he is skiing across your path you are at fault. He has no duty to stay out of your intended Line, even if that would avoid you colliding with him.
"Dude you were in my line" does not work as a defense.

 

[KingGrump]

"Dude you were in my line" does not work as a defense.

Only if you are from Texas.

My son had to up gun to his GS race ski just to keep up with Bubba.

 

[fatbob]

Personally I like the Colorado and Montana law as they make the skier's code mean something. Those to cling of to the papal infallibility of ahead/ downhill skier are clearly not correct in all circumstances e.g. where other bits of the code come into play like look before you set off or join a trail.

 

[luliski]

Personally I like the Colorado and Montana law as they make the skier's code mean something. Those to cling of to the papal infallibility of ahead/ downhill skier are clearly not correct in all circumstances e.g. where other bits of the code come into play like look before you set off or join a trail.

That is another part of what I was taught. If you stop, or are joining/ merging a trail, look before you start again or merge. I've noticed lots of people not doing this. On familiar runs, I don't usually stop at the top of each pitch. I'll ski past people who are stopped, and sometimes they start to go again right in front of me without looking. Is it that more people are self-taught these days and never learn the code (which actually is just common sense)?

 

[fatbob]

I'll ski past people who are stopped, and sometimes they start to go again right in front of me without looking. Is it that more people are self-taught these days and never learn the code (which actually is just common sense)?

Happens ALL the time. In Europe at least those in ski classes are often most guilty of it but large family groups are also primo culprits.

IMV an instructor should be bawling out a student each time they set off without looking until it becomes second nature. Doesn't seem to happen much. Worst are the instructors ( usually in Europe) who lead a whole line of ducklings out directly across the flow of traffic without allowing for the length of their "train". This just to my mind seems to imprint "not something I have to be responsible for" behaviour.