| Author |
Message |
Ardkor 
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 04:00 PM
|
|
First post: Mar 01, 2010
Total posts: 106
Location: Manchester
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Back Soon!
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
richn
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 05:40 PM
|
|
First post: Apr 03, 2008
Total posts: 244
Location: NZ
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DereksDontRun
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 05:53 PM
|
|
First post: Mar 09, 2009
Total posts: 1680
Location: The port of Stock
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
struggle with forums?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ChasKi
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 06:32 PM
|
|
First post: Mar 04, 2009
Total posts: 2320
Location: Plymouth/Stroud
Status: Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 07:21 PM
|
|
First post: Nov 13, 2009
Total posts: 53
Location: Lincoln, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 07:54 PM
|
|
First post: May 20, 2009
Total posts: 292
Location: Stewarton
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Remember the Tufty Club?
www.facebook.com/fra3er
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Ardkor
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 08:30 PM
|
|
First post: Mar 01, 2010
Total posts: 106
Location: Manchester
Status: Offline
|
|
| Some excellent posts on here, and good food for thought. nice to hear what you guys think. |
_________________
Back Soon!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
DereksDontRun
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 09:22 PM
|
|
First post: Mar 09, 2009
Total posts: 1680
Location: The port of Stock
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
struggle with forums?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
dunx
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 09:51 PM
|
|
First post: Oct 07, 2004
Total posts: 9071
Location: Herts, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| The SCUK insurance policy covers you at indoor slopes as long as the trip involves an overnight stay. |
_________________
SCUK Editor • Me on Facebook • Neverland
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Villers
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 11, 2010 - 10:45 PM
|
|
First post: Oct 17, 2009
Total posts: 131
Location: Whitehaven, Cumbria
Status: Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 12, 2010 - 08:56 AM
|
|
First post: Mar 01, 2010
Total posts: 106
Location: Manchester
Status: Offline
|
|
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!) |
_________________
Back Soon!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Villers
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 12, 2010 - 10:23 AM
|
|
First post: Oct 17, 2009
Total posts: 131
Location: Whitehaven, Cumbria
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 12, 2010 - 10:40 AM
|
|
First post: Oct 07, 2004
Total posts: 9071
Location: Herts, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob_Quads
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 12, 2010 - 12:32 PM
|
|
First post: Oct 11, 2004
Total posts: 265
Location: Southampton
Status: Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 13, 2010 - 12:16 AM
|
|
First post: Feb 24, 2010
Total posts: 324
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snowboard Club 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Maximize
RSS Feed
