2006-09-19 08:31:42 · 11 answers · asked by pinnystyle 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The signs serve as warning notice that there are risks.
There is a doctrine in tort law called "knowing assumption of risk", which can be raised as a defense where the person injured (plaintiff) was aware of a risk, and decided to proceed anyway.
There are also activities that are considered "inherently dangerous", such that anyone who engages in them would be aware of the risk. That functions similar to assumption doctrine.
Even with these doctrines, it generally only protects the ski lodge from simple negligence claims. The resort can still usually be liable for insufficient warnings, ultra-hazardous conditions, and intentional actions that cause injury.
2006-09-19 09:07:24 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, generally speaking, signs that are designed to avoid liability are not an effective way to curb liability by themselves. They would have to put the same sign all over the place to make sure everyone sees it. Also, generally, if you ski, you are assuming the risk of injury and the ski resort is not liable if you hurt yourself. And, generally, ski resorts already include a disclaimer on the back of the lift pass that explains the risk of injury and that you are skiing at your own risk.
2006-09-19 08:39:36 · answer #2 · answered by www.lvtrafficticketguy.com 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ski resort can still be sued and lose depending on the type of accident and the circumstances surrounding it. Most people don't realize that just because there is a sign such as "slippery when wet" or any sign reflecting some sort of personal danger, doesn't make the business any less responsible for an accident.
2006-09-19 08:39:11 · answer #3 · answered by Cathy K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Under the laws of most every state in the U.S., you can't post away your liability, especially as a ski resort - you still have a legal duty to provide a safe premises.
That said, depending on the facts of the situation, the sign could serve to strongly reduce liability. Depending on the law of the state, this reduction could result in a reduced (or no) recovery for an injured skier.
2006-09-19 11:17:35 · answer #4 · answered by Lieberman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good judgment shows that a helmet will help cut back a head harm, many ski deaths are from different reasons. Hydrostatic ask your self, hypothermia, broken neck, inversion and trapped in a tree properly, strangulation from a neck scarf are the numerous reasons of dying that a helmet won't help evade. a undesirable landing from a bounce the place the result's extra like a abdomen flop could bring about a ruptured aorta and no helmet could do any sturdy if so. The very uncommon commodity uncomplicated sense is the wonderful thank you to evade intense harm.
2016-10-17 07:01:13 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the most part yes. Unless you can prove that the reason you were injured was due to negligence in some part by the ski resort.
2006-09-19 08:33:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, but when you purchase that lift ticket its a ski at your own risk agreement that the owner is not liable for any accidents.
2006-09-19 08:39:04 · answer #7 · answered by thunder2sys 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because there is no guarantee everyone will see the sign. They would pretty much have to put a warning in your hand as you are entering.
2006-09-19 09:12:07 · answer #8 · answered by Me in Canada eh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! At own risk means that you will be to blame if something happens.
2006-09-19 08:39:24 · answer #9 · answered by kaszika 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you could sue anybody for anything , but would have a tough time with that sign there
2006-09-19 08:37:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋