Ski area liability goes to the Supreme Court

OK, it's the Utah Supreme Court, but it's still noteworhty:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5313114

I'll withhold comment until tomorrow.

Other than to say: Fuzzy Bunny Trail. ROFLMAO.

//Walt

Walt wrote in news:12u9t1jbjc3q156
@corp.supernews.com:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5313114

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I've heard
that "releases are void" line before, or variants of it, but as a
cautionary note from recreational outfitters to others in the business to
not count on a signed release to make them bulletproof. I've never heard
it said that they have no value.

On Feb 27, 8:17 pm, Walt wrote:
OK, it's the Utah Supreme Court, but it's still noteworhty:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5313114

I'll withhold comment until tomorrow.

Other than to say: Fuzzy Bunny Trail. ROFLMAO.

No, it was the Fluffy Bunny cat-track - not the Fuzzy Bunny Trail.
Had this happened on the Fuzzy Bunny Trail, he most likely would have
died. There are sharp nasty teeth on the Fuzzy Bunny Trail - not so
on the Fluffy Bunny cat-track.
--
Marty

Looked on my Snowbird trail map (2005) and I didn't see this run/trail. Can
someone tell me where it is?


"Walt" wrote in message
...
OK, it's the Utah Supreme Court, but it's still noteworhty:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5313114

I'll withhold comment until tomorrow.

Other than to say: Fuzzy Bunny Trail. ROFLMAO.

//Walt

Jeff wrote:
Looked on my Snowbird trail map (2005) and I didn't see this run/trail. Can
someone tell me where it is?


I don't know. The incident happened in 2003, so maybe they renamed it
or re-engineered the terrain so that it's not there anymore? And it's
the Fluffy Bunny Trail, not the Fuzzy Bunny Trail.

All I know is what I read in the article, which is a pretty ****-poor
one - it doesn't even say why the plaintiff lost the first round of
litigation let alone what's the basis for appeal.

//Walt

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:51:15 -0500, Walt
wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Looked on my Snowbird trail map (2005) and I didn't see this run/trail. Can
someone tell me where it is?


I don't know. The incident happened in 2003, so maybe they renamed it
or re-engineered the terrain so that it's not there anymore? And it's
the Fluffy Bunny Trail, not the Fuzzy Bunny Trail.

All I know is what I read in the article, which is a pretty ****-poor
one - it doesn't even say why the plaintiff lost the first round of
litigation let alone what's the basis for appeal.


****-poor is about right; what does "skied off a cat track marked
with a rope-line used as a warning to skiers" mean? Did he duck a
rope or what?

bw

bdubya wrote in
news
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:51:15 -0500, Walt
wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Looked on my Snowbird trail map (2005) and I didn't see this
run/trail. Can someone tell me where it is?


I don't know. The incident happened in 2003, so maybe they renamed it
or re-engineered the terrain so that it's not there anymore? And
it's the Fluffy Bunny Trail, not the Fuzzy Bunny Trail.

All I know is what I read in the article, which is a pretty ****-poor
one - it doesn't even say why the plaintiff lost the first round of
litigation let alone what's the basis for appeal.


****-poor is about right; what does "skied off a cat track marked
with a rope-line used as a warning to skiers" mean? Did he duck a
rope or what?

That was my interpretation. How else do you mark something "with a
rope-line"?

God help us all, though, if the courts get the idea that every trail
boundary has to be marked with a rope for there to be any assumed risk
if you go off-trail.

Walt wrote:

OK, it's the Utah Supreme Court, but it's still noteworhty:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5313114

I'll withhold comment until tomorrow.

Other than to say: Fuzzy Bunny Trail. ROFLMAO.

Oh shut up! And go and change your armor! :-)



//Walt

--
Before Heading to the Hills Head to The Wisconsin Skier:
http://www.wi-ski.com/