UK - Insurance at Indoor Slopes Ardkor - Mar 10, 2010 - 09:01 PM Post subject: Insurance at Indoor Slopes
If you are hit by someone at an indoor ski slope and they injure you and damage your gear, are you covered by any form of insurance (public liability by slope owner etc.) or would you need to go through small claims court to recover damages from the person at fault?
mini. - Mar 11, 2010 - 12:10 AM Post subject: RE: Insurance at Indoor Slopes
or you could accept that snowsports are inherintly dangerous and just move on with life.
not all blame has to lead to a claim.
philboarder - Mar 11, 2010 - 02:42 AM Post subject:
Youve got to be kidding do you really recon these places would run with the possbility of getting sue'd.
Dont do snowsports if this is what you worried about
Branny - Mar 11, 2010 - 05:41 AM Post subject:
i agree with the guys above on the don't start claiming BS
however all the indoor and outdoor slopes have to be legally covered from an insurance point of view, most places get you to sign an indemnity when you ride so you have probably already put yourself on a poor starting point
you would have to prove that the slope where at fault, and where not showing duty of care with regards to condition and safety of the facilities and/or allowing people who are not sufficiently skilled to use the slope.
if neither of these fit the bill or can be proven then a personnel claim against the person who hit you may be a way.... but it'd have to be again very cut and dry that they where being malicious or reckless...
the last thing UK slopes need is the no win no fee mentality where every time someone take a stack they try and sue someone.... especially as that skier who i made cry when i scorpion'd her last week would take me to the cleaners hahaha!!!!
Tiberius - Mar 11, 2010 - 07:15 AM Post subject:
Well, the op isn't asking whether we agree with the make a claim culture, he's asking a simple question of insurance. Yes, slopes need insurance.
On the wider question, the slopes plainly state that in order to use them, you have to be able to control your speed etc. We all know they don't really police this and quite often people are on the slope who are quite frankly a danger to themselves and others. Sorry but I don't agree with the above, if I injure myself, that my problem, but if I get injured by some idiot the slopes have let on, even though he wasn't of an acceptable standard then why should my family suffer because I can't earn?
Once I was on the slope and a family came on. the youngest boy clearley had never skiied before and the father was trying to teach him. Any time you passed this lad he fell dramatically to the floor and spread his hands out wide, and the father glared at you as if it was your fault. Quite frankly it was outright dangerous. I mentioned to the liftie and he gave some excuse about they couldn't throw them off becuase they had booked 4 hours or some non-sensical excuse. I left, it really was impossible to use the slope.
Sym0n - Mar 11, 2010 - 07:46 AM Post subject:
I'd guess that there will be a sign somewhere along the lines of them accepting no responsibility for injuries sustained whilst on the slope caused by recklessness or incompetence.
I agree with the above though, the claim culture in this country sucks ass. Fair enough if you're legitimately injured through no fault of your own, but if people start claiming in the fridges it will be for all amount of silly sh1t reasons; like them falling over and bruising their arse or water damage to clothes. yellowlala - Mar 11, 2010 - 08:21 AM Post subject:
Branny wrote:
especially as that skier who i made cry when i scorpion'd her last week would take me to the cleaners hahaha!!!!
but we all concurred that the tears = bonus points.
If you have Winter Sports cover you could well be able to make a claim for your gear. I asked this of my bank, explained that if I went to a dome and it got damaged/stolen they said I could put the claim in to them.
Everyone else is correct tha you shouldn't be expecting to claim against the dome...if that culture started we could wave goodbye to park nights for sure.
R1ch - Mar 11, 2010 - 11:46 AM Post subject:
I think compensation culture aside... there is fair grounds to discuss the likely hood that somebody could do something very reckless (which would be there fault, rather than the slopes) to cause injury to somebody else.
Having any kind of insurance policy that covers you for public liability would certainly help if it was you being the reckless one.
Ardkor - Mar 11, 2010 - 12:06 PM Post subject:
OK the reason I'm asking, is that someone who should know better, was going down the slope far too fast, lost control and barrelled into someone else.
The poor snowboarder was obviously very new and was just strapping into their board (in plain view I might add)
This skier, was not able to stop in what i would term as a reasonable time, and after hitting the hitting the snowboarder and damaging their gear they had to leave the slope (therby also losing their paid for time through no fault of their own)
I was just asking whether this would be covered by the slope, the skier or tough luck on the snow boarder.
I think I might try and find an insurance policy myself to cover me if I get hit, if I hit someone, and also cover accidental damage to my gear. ( although i think accidental cover may not be viable)
Thanks for your responses.
ChasKi - Mar 11, 2010 - 12:26 PM Post subject:
Ahhh, well you didn't say there was a skiier involved.
Did you get any photos? We can hunt them down, cover them in honey and then release the bees on them.
Ardkor - Mar 11, 2010 - 12:29 PM Post subject:
Best response yet.
although the lift attendant did say to the snowboarder that they should have hit the skier with their snowboard, which made me laugh.
yellowlala - Mar 11, 2010 - 12:30 PM Post subject:
Ardkor wrote:
although the lift attendant did say to the snowboarder that they should have hit the skier with their snowboard, which made me laugh.
He had his priorities right.
cantridepete - Mar 11, 2010 - 01:09 PM Post subject:
if the skier could control his speed and stop etc then unfortunatly its just bad luck i would say....
the slope cant be held responsible for someone just being a dick R1ch - Mar 11, 2010 - 03:08 PM Post subject:
cantridepete wrote:
if the skier could control his speed and stop etc then unfortunatly its just bad luck i would say....
the slope cant be held responsible for someone just being a dick
I'm obviously no legal Eagle, but I'd imagine that if somebody was continually reckless, unable to control their speed and stop and the slope did nothing to warn or remove them (which is part of the warning they make you sign) then they could be exposing themselves. As they have created a warning and not enforced somebody's dangerous behavior and have a duty to the safety of their customers.
That said, I have seen Chavs kicked out of MK before who turned up in jeans and clearly just rented some boards and didn't know what they were doing.
philboarder - Mar 11, 2010 - 03:49 PM Post subject:
sucks for your mate but doubt theres much that can be done. Im guessing there arent any policys for indoor domes yet.
Ardkor - Mar 11, 2010 - 04:00 PM Post subject:
It wasn't anybody I know, just a random boarder, I felt so gutted for them.
It just got me thinking about insurance and wanted some opinions and thoughts, and a good warning to always keep your eyes open.
richn - Mar 11, 2010 - 05:40 PM Post subject:
Does the scuk year long insurance cover snow domes injury? I thought it did, but might have read it wrong
DereksDontRun - Mar 11, 2010 - 05:53 PM Post subject:
tbh, I'd say they possibly had a case against the skier, and possibly even the slope...
The skier hit and caused injury - they were coming down the slope behind the snowboarder so didn't have right-of-way and were at fault. Big signs in CFe changing room at the slope-entrance explaining the rules and that those down-slope have priority. I could well imagine a sue-you lawyer could soon argue this was assault, especially as the skier had signed a form claiming to be experienced and able to stop, therefore if they hit someone it could be argued it might have been intended... The only other option is that they fraudulently signed the competency-form which equally could make them liable.
CFe (or whichever slope, just guessing CFe due to your location) make you sign to say you're competent before you start. By even having this requirement they've highlighted this as an issue and that inexperienced ppl are a danger to themselves and other users. Being a known issue they should be carefully monitoring the slope and removing (or testing) anyone they suspect may have fraudulently claimed to be skilled. Could imagine a lawyer would argue that anyone on the slope who is unable to stop and isn't removed by the slope shows the slope itself is failing with its surveillance and potentially risking all other customers.
If you're really fussed I could ask the gf as she's a trainee-solicitor and works for a company that defends businesses against such sue-you claims.
ChasKi - Mar 11, 2010 - 06:32 PM Post subject:
It's interesting to know.
If someone hit me and it didn't permanently disfigure me in some horrific fashion, or mean I couldn't work I'd probably just leave it. But blame culture or not, if I couldn't work I'd be wanting compensation from someone.
As for the gear issue, I'd have frog marched the skier to TSA if it was open, to settle a repair bill/replacement or outside for a few words if there was anything seriously wrong. If it was just a scrape or two I'd ask for a beer or two or put snow down his pants!
Dam0 - Mar 11, 2010 - 07:21 PM Post subject:
when I learnt in a day at Tam we were clearly told that if we attempted to use the slope but couldn't turn, stop or control our speed we'd be told to clear off or book into a lesson.
They have someone watching the slope from mid way up the travelator, how much notice they take of what's going on I don't know, but I have witnessed people getting throw off for speeding down the slope faster than was really acceptable indoors.
fra3er - Mar 11, 2010 - 07:54 PM Post subject:
Yeah it is sucky if you get hit or get your stuff damaged. However, having studied law at uni I have to say that there is no way you would be able to actively win a case for assault and to sue the dome for "neglect" "recklessness" or "intent" would be hard to do unless of course you were injured due to the tow snapping or something.
You could take the person to court claiming it was an assault, but to prove that they fulfilled the mens rea of assault is hard, yes the actus reus is there, as you were crashed into but to say they did it with intention of damaging you or was negligent or recklessness is harder to prove. Ok you may have been visible and the person in question may have been more than competent to control their speed. But courts work on fact not motive. You also have to realise that snowboarding is an inherently dangerous sport. (of course this is scottish law)
However, signing a form to say that you are of standard is a different matter, thats fraud and therefore you could sue them personally for that, but not for assault. More than often though it would cost you soo much more to sue them than to say look you were a bit of a dick there wanna be decent about it and pay for ma stuff to get fixed. If you cant go to work and loose money then "sue sue sue" lol.
But yeah, getting into the habit that americans have is the wrong way to go. We dont need anymore of this "no win no fee" "i tripped at work due to no signs being up and now i cant afford a decent haircut" style adverts.
If you have holiday insurance with a snowsports policy attached it will cover this. It also covers days when u go to the slopes and it is shut due to visibility etc, well the post offices is anyway.
Ardkor - Mar 11, 2010 - 08:30 PM Post subject:
Some excellent posts on here, and good food for thought. nice to hear what you guys think.
DereksDontRun - Mar 11, 2010 - 09:22 PM Post subject:
After a chat with the GF this is what she kinda said:
it's a known dangerous sport so chances are you can't do anything if it's a bump or ding as it's a risk associated with the sport.
but if it's a bad (ie permanent) injury or severe damage then technically you could probably sue the guilty party. But would need a few witnesses either claiming they hit you intentionally (unlikely) or they were obviously out of control, shouldn't be there and thus signed the competency-form fraudulently. Either way, chances are they won't be insured and thus won't have any cash to fund your claim - so basically, whether you win or not, not going to get anything for your trouble.
This is apparently why ppl tend to go for the company instead of the individual 'cos the company will have insurance and thus there's the cash if you win. But, in this case, to win against a slope she reckons it's pretty unlikely. Their evidence is a signed form by him claiming he can ski and is fit for the slope and they need to show previous evidence of monitoring the slope and challenging ppl who are seemed to be unfit - don't need to show any proof this guy can ski, just that they do monitor the slope.
The only way she can think the slope could be held responsible (without video evidence of the skier repeatedly flying down the slope out of control and/or staff not paying attention) is if they were understaffed and you can prove they didn't have enough staff on the slope monitoring the competency of the customers - should be x many per y customers dependant on safety standards. Then they would only need to show their procedures for testing/checking a questionable customer's competency and some evidence it's enforced regularly - then they would simply suggest that this person was competent while monitored and this was a simple lapse of judgement and accident on this run.
So, as said earlier, it's a pisser if it happens to you, but chances are little can be done.
btw - would snow-sport travel insurance really cover you? thought there were naff get-out clauses relating to having to be on holiday and/or outside the UK.
dunx - Mar 11, 2010 - 09:51 PM Post subject:
The SCUK insurance policy covers you at indoor slopes as long as the trip involves an overnight stay.
Villers - Mar 11, 2010 - 10:45 PM Post subject:
I hate the blame culture but in some cases people need to be held responsible for their actions. If the slopes do their job of throwing reckless idiots out then they have no liability, if there is a repeated blind eye approach it is dangerous and unfair on everyone. Even in my limited 3 times at the indoor slopes ive seen this kind of idiot, and on a recent trip to bulgaria i met a girl who had been knocked clesn out by a boarder who didnt stop. It wouldnt be on to punch these people if they hit you on the slopes as you would be in trouble straight away but they can deliberately endanger us all, the op has a very good point to make.
Anyway, to the OP, is that a six or a thou in your photo? Thats the real question!
Ardkor - Mar 12, 2010 - 08:56 AM Post subject:
636 (i know extra 36 bhp is cheating)!
but i like it, only problem is the british weather.
(I'm a time served all weather rider, and now only ride for fun. Riding in the cold and wet is not fun!)
Villers - Mar 12, 2010 - 10:23 AM Post subject:
My last bike was the same, a 636 c6f. Fantastic bit of kit and it could scare the bigger bikes for pace! Had to go though because it was breaking my back. Im only fair weather these days anyway!
dunx - Mar 12, 2010 - 10:40 AM Post subject:
I'm only a fair weather snowboarder. All hail the domes Rob_Quads - Mar 12, 2010 - 12:32 PM Post subject:
I would say if they damage your equiptment then you have cause for them to fix it.
I agree its a dangerous sport but driving is also inheritantly dangerous and if someone hit your car you would not hesitate to claim so why not when your on a board.
adverse - Mar 13, 2010 - 12:16 AM Post subject:
I don't think so, your only hope is to be able to prove negligence on the part of the slope under their duty of care. Which would be damn near impossible unless you were confident you could prove some of the cases mentioned above (evidence it was beyond a 'reasonable' accident etc.).
Cars are completely different, by law you need insurance that specifically covers accidents to third-parties and public liability.
skibum - Mar 13, 2010 - 06:07 PM Post subject:
I speak for Braehead only here and I'll keep it short as there as not much to say. Problems on slope are actively dealt with. It's in nobodys interest to have unsafe people on the slope. People are given a chance when they are spotted (advised to try from half way) if they say they have not been on skis/board for a while etc, it would be rather harsh to have them leave after one run unless they are blatantly not even able to balance upright on a pair of skis or board.
but we all concurred that the tears = bonus points.
