...or the skier that is going too fast and wipes your kid out... or the skier that falls down in front of you and takes you out...
Tim
Tim
Wildcat Winter Rules - Background and Discussion
- Thread starter peakbagger
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
Or the meteorite which smites you down as you traverse the parking lot? What's a person to do?
The point of the question is... if one pays for a ticket, and follows the boundary rules, is one user treated equally with all other ticketed users?
Tim
Tim
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
Nope, don't agree. When the thread wobbled over to Saddleback, and what a fine hike that is, blah, blah, blah - it went off the rails. Now we're into ski area liability law, and it's clear that no one who has posted yet can speak with authority on that subject.
So, in that vein - if I'm in the process of purchasing an access pass, and get smitten by a heavy mineral mass (OK, maybe not from the firmament) but a boulder which hurtled down the mountain - but have not yet completed the purchase - will my heirs be able to sue Wildcats for improperly restraining unstable bits?
As long as you are treated the same as the skier at the adjoining ticket window I will be happy.
Tim
Tim
When Ski Patrol is on duty at Wildcat, they ARE the first responder anywhere on property, for ANY injury or medical need whether you have a ticket to ride/ski/hike/one-way-up/zip ride/disc golf or are hanging out in the base lodge or get clocked by a car in any of the parking lots. Doesn't even matter. WHEN Ski Patrol is on duty, it IS their responsibility.
(603) 466-3326 is Wildcat's phone #. If you are hiking or recreating at Wildcat during operating hours, put the number in your speed dial. ONLY ( please please please) ONLY outside of operating hours use 911.
Breeze
(603) 466-3326 is Wildcat's phone #. If you are hiking or recreating at Wildcat during operating hours, put the number in your speed dial. ONLY ( please please please) ONLY outside of operating hours use 911.
Breeze
Lawn Sale
New member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 899
- Reaction score
- 97
NH liability law is similar to that of Maine, which I researched in depth many years ago and am very familiar with.
There are two tenets of the law, those who allow people to recreate on their land for free and those who are charged.
When you allow people to use your land for free, the landowner is not liable for injuries on that land, so long as they did nothing malicious to cause said injury. Therefore those freely using the land cannot sue the landowner if they are injured.
When you charge a fee to use the land, now the landowner is liable for any injuries on that land, regardless of cause.
This is a pretty good summation.
And here is why I think they started charging all users money, to bring them under the same liability umbrella. Without this, should a recreational user (hiker) injure a skier, the skier may sue the landowner. But, should a skier injure a (free) hiker using the same land, the landowner may not be sued by the hiker due to the protections of the liability law. Placed under the same liability classification, the playing field is kept consistent.
"...the laws do
not extend liability protection to landowners
when a recreational user injures another
person to whom the owner owes a duty to
keep the premises safe or to warn of danger...
"Recreational use" is defined in the statute as
hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water
sports, winter sports, hiking, sightseeing,
removal of fuelwood, or use of off-highway
road vehicles (OHRVs) such as snowmobiles,
ATVs, motorized trail bikes, or motor
vehicles. The laws do not relieve the
recreational user from assuming the risk of
the sport and exercising due care for their
own safety while using the land."
(emphasis mine)
There are two tenets of the law, those who allow people to recreate on their land for free and those who are charged.
When you allow people to use your land for free, the landowner is not liable for injuries on that land, so long as they did nothing malicious to cause said injury. Therefore those freely using the land cannot sue the landowner if they are injured.
When you charge a fee to use the land, now the landowner is liable for any injuries on that land, regardless of cause.
This is a pretty good summation.
And here is why I think they started charging all users money, to bring them under the same liability umbrella. Without this, should a recreational user (hiker) injure a skier, the skier may sue the landowner. But, should a skier injure a (free) hiker using the same land, the landowner may not be sued by the hiker due to the protections of the liability law. Placed under the same liability classification, the playing field is kept consistent.
"...the laws do
not extend liability protection to landowners
when a recreational user injures another
person to whom the owner owes a duty to
keep the premises safe or to warn of danger...
"Recreational use" is defined in the statute as
hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water
sports, winter sports, hiking, sightseeing,
removal of fuelwood, or use of off-highway
road vehicles (OHRVs) such as snowmobiles,
ATVs, motorized trail bikes, or motor
vehicles. The laws do not relieve the
recreational user from assuming the risk of
the sport and exercising due care for their
own safety while using the land."
(emphasis mine)
They're charging because of the USFS. One could argue that the FS started doing the equivalent of a push poll a year or two ago to the alpine ski areas on FS land.
As a ski area operator, if you choose to not address an issue, one can exploit that in a future lawsuit, regardless of its validity.
Here's the relevant NH law: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XIX/225-A/225-A-24.htm
The issue for ski areas is that, while they will be found not liable in most civil cases, the cost of defending the lawsuit is often in excess of the cost of simply settling. As a result, quite a few of these cases end up in the injured party getting a payout. It's a huge weakness in our legal system.
Unfortunately, even with Wildcat's slopes being fee-based during operation and being closed to all access outside of operation (during ski season), people still went out there. As we know, someone sadly lost their life last winter up there while sledding down the ski trails at night. The fee and the prohibition did not stop people from going up there, or for death occurring.
While I think ski areas on public property should be protected against certain abuses (such as destruction of property or behavior putting other individuals and property at risk), I don't think it's right for the government to be telling us we can't be respectfully traveling on foot on the side of a trail. But, as is increasingly the case, government pushes to make so many things to be illegal that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
Last edited:
will my heirs be able to sue Wildcats for improperly restraining unstable bits?
The last thing we need is any recreational facility judging whether we're unstable or not!
The Wildcat Ridge trail has several quite difficult sections. On the south end there are lots of pinned steps and open slabs that are tricky going either up or down with snow and ice. One the north end there is a nasty slide section that at least two hikers have been seriously injured on in the past. The ski trails are an easy and obvious alternative route.
That, and that the original ski trail was cut in 1933 as a hike up, ski down trail. It's only in the past few years that the USFS changed its view and said hikers can be charged or prohibited from respectfully walking up the side of a ski trail.
The ski trail is the easiest/shortest of the out-and-back alternatives, and the easiest of the options for a traverse (carspot) of the Wildcats or the Carters + Wildcats.
Tim
Tim
Similar threads
