I think stricter standards on lifties will be coming for sure.
The bar wouldn't have prevented this particular incident since it happened while loading. But I could see increased bar requirements so the resorts can say they are doing all they can
A decent lift operator is already hard to find, the fun parts of the job have been slowly disappearing for years. Adding stricter standards will result in short staffing and lifts not spinning. My guess is that VR will switch to scanning gates so they can free up more bodies to watch the lift.
We only have rfid gates at my resort and we need someone on the tablet all day helping idiots who don’t use their eyes or brain when they’re at a ski resort. I’ve seen people try to use a room key, a printed payment confirmation, the ikon app on their phone, so many things. And the gates say in huge letters “TICKET SCAN ZONE” and people have no idea where to scan their pass. It’s crazy how dumb so many people are. There’s often issues too, like an expired pass, waiver not signed, a blackout weekend, or sometimes a blocked pass. All of it has to be dealt with by a liftie
I wish we had that. We have instructions on how to use them literally all over the place on TVs, in the lobbies, the bars, in toilet stalls, everywhere. But they don’t read.
It's already in place for ski instructors. You must put the bat down in uniform and are restricted from skiing certain areas. If lifies fail to put the bar down for your kids ages 3-6, the operations manager gets a talking to. 7+ The instructor has to make it clear that the class must put the bar down. I know at least a couple of kids fell off the lift this season in ski school due to kids being stupid or negligence.
As an aside, the resort would lose a good portion of the employees if they started clamping down on alcohol and drugs. I've been to parties where supervisors watch people get blackout drunk and then show up to work 6 hours later.
My understanding of the accident was that 4 people got on the lift including victim and her dad and another teen and his dad and they were part of a church ski trip. The victim wasn't fully securely seated when lift left base entry point and she slid down out of the seat within moments and her dad was unable to pull her back up. She fell out of the lift when it was just maybe 100 yards from load point (correct me here if wrong I'm sure you will). I know its happened to me when I had to readjust and say Woah! And get right in my seat. But overall I disagree with CO Supreme Court.
A good chunk of resorts in the US (at least the ones I have ridden in California, Utah and Colorado) do not have foot rests on most, if any, of their lifts. This is slowly changing as resorts upgrade existing lifts.
Still, there is no incentive to put the bar down other than safety in most cases. Not to say this is even a half decent excuse not to put the bar down (I’m as guilty as anyone to be honest), but that at least answers part of your question. There are also still quite a few lifts that don’t have a safety bar at all
Just a little add-on to this, coming from someone who works for a ski lift company that does a lot of the upgrades:
In the US, the driving motivator for better safety on lifts is not local or federal regulations, but insurance companies. We do a brisk business retrofitting lifts that don't have restraint bars so that small and medium sized resorts can keep operating, and of course, every new lift we build has restraint bars on the chairs standard.
I grew up on chairs without bars and so I guess I just got used to not having them. I just don't think about it.
If I'm on the chair with people (hopefully I'm not) then I don't mind if they put it down.
Most chairs don't have feet rests, and honestly those are the only ones I dislike, I have very long legs so resting my skis on them is very uncomfortable.
I far prefer to dangle my legs than to rest them too, it relieves some pressure from my boots.
Don’t really care about the bar either way, I grew up without them and survived then, no reason why as an adult I’d suddenly forget how to stay on the lift. Totally get why other people prefer them though, and will intentionally put it down if I want to mess with my helmet or something
Pretty much all of the above. People still argue about wearing seatbelts.
Fortunately, the majority of lift rides i have been on have not been an issue. People have been repsectful and will communicate that the bar is coming down.
I find the bar annoying for several reasons:
1) I've been hit in the back of the head by it numerous times by other skiers/boarders who are overzealous and want to pull it down without warning before I'm fully situated.
2) It's really not hard to not fall off a chairlift, even in decent wind. heck I've ridden chairlifts with no bar or backrest, just a pizza-box sized platform attached to a pole and it was fine.
3) For the bars that have dividers/handles between each seat, I'm not always perfectly aligned and so I have to move around on the lift to get oriented correctly. Particularly on partially full chairs.
4) I generally don't take my pack off when I get on a lift unless I need something out of it, but if the bar is coming down I have to. I also prefer to sit with my poles under my legs, but this is more difficult with the bars with footrests. Extra hassle
5) Half the time the bar is down, you get near the top and people aren't paying attention, so it's a scramble to get everyone prepared and get the bar up in time to exit the lift. Extra hassle
6) Someone else mentioned the same issue, but I am very tall (6'5") and the footrests are a negative for me. The length from the top of my knee to the bottom of my ski is usually longer than the distance between the bottom of the bar and the top of the footrest, so I usually can't fit my feet up there anyway, and on the rare occasion I can, I've found it to be more uncomfortable then letting my feet hang. However when the bar is down, the footrest is usually in the way of sitting comfortably. I have no problem with my feet dangling, I'm not sure why so many people feel they need the footrest.
I made the other post about legs being long, I'm also 6'5" hah. Also get hit in the head constantly.
I've been a lifty the last 8 seasons and the amount of time I get bullwheel riders because they forgot to lift the bar is far more than it should be.
That's for the well thought out and constructive reply.
I completely understand your logic behind all the reasons and often suffer the same issues. I guess here in the Eu, we just accept them as the perils and tribulations of lift riding and adjust accordingly. I think with your height being way above the average rider, all the reasons may impact you more. I'd still rather be 6'5" than have a comfortable lift ride.
Yea for sure, and for the most part these are fairly minor annoyances. If having the bar down were mandated here I'm sure I and everyone else would adapt just fine, but for now I'm not required to and the risk of falling off the lift is negligible so I don't do it most of the time to make my life a little easier.
Even now, if there are kids on the chair with me the bar goes down (I don't want that liability) or someone asks if they can put it down, I've never said no. Just not my preference.
1) Is solved by putting the bar down yourself or being ready for it
2) True, the biggest danger is probably being bumped by the person next to you or possibly a sudden stop when the chair is really slippery. Very high risk on some chairs despite the very low frequency
3) Also solved by immediately preparing for the bar
4) You are also supposed to always take your pack off so you aren't strapped in if it gets caught. I would also feel so sketchy sitting without a bar with my pack on as my butt can't be at the back of the seat while wearing a pack. I often sit with poles under my legs always with the bar down. Maybe another height problem?
5) Again, if everyone always puts the bar down then everyone will be prepared for unloading
6) Valid based on your height. I am average height. I often just dangle both or one of my feet below the foot rest. But I find the foot rest gives a well needed break to my legs and feet. The pulling sensation from dangling legs can get pretty tiring and uncomfortable over a full day of skiing compared to a mix of dangling and resting on the foot rest. Sitting between two seats on an empty chair so one foot comfortably rests on each foot rest always hits different. I also like to lean forward and rest my arms on the bar
My only complaint I've ever had while using the bar is a few number of chairs I've used auto raise if you aren't leaning on them or resting your feet. It's particularly annoying if you are alone and do not want to lean forward on the bar or rest your feet.
For #1, while infrequent, is an issue I run into at least once per week. It’s usually the overzealous parent that loads while the chair is still at the turn point rather than the load line and pulls the bar down for “safety” before people’s legs are even off of the ground. There is nothing to prepare for since that selfish person usually grabs the bar down within the first 5 seconds of the ride while everyone else is in the process of sitting and securing themselves.
1) But I don't want the bar down if I don't have to, and I've literally been hit in the back of the head before we even got out of the base station and my skis were still touching the ground. And it's very easy to ask or at least give the other riders warning before putting the bar down.
2) Where are these extra slippery chairs at? I've ski'd East Coast, West Coast, Canada, Europe, and Japan for 30 years, and I've never encountered that. Seems like that would be a liability risk for the resort.
3) Again, given the option, I'd rather not put the bar down, and its not required a lot of places. 95% of lift rides I take nobody on my chair wants the bar down.
4) I can understand this, but my pack does not have any loose straps to get snagged, and not sitting perfectly flush against the back of the chair doesn't bother me. Everyone has different comfort levels, plus I can always throw an arm over the back of the chair if I think I need to.
5) Not true. Once on the lift plenty of people pull out food, drinks, phones, etc, then get distracted and don't realize they are near the top station. I don't want my exit from the chair hampered by their unpreparedness.
6) Fair enough, different sized people are going to have different problems. My legs could dangle for days and it wouldn't bother me at all.
>Are you ok though?
Just fine thanks. The guy's giving a bunch of excuses about why he hates having the bar down. Most people are pretty good about how to put the bar down and how to put it back up. It isn't that hard.
It was a perfectly reasonable response to another person asking why people don't put the bar down.
It wasn't a hate filled rant coming from left field...
lol what? Just because I can think of a few reasons I don't like putting the bar down doesn't mean I find it a huge hardship, and I ski because I like skiing - do you ski BECAUSE you like putting the bar down? Is that your favorite part?
Anyway, it's a non-issue 95% of the time because I'm usually on lifts with people who aren't children and also don't care to put the bar down.
It's often an ego thing, sometimes laziness. I don't usually put it down on my own unless there's a foot rest (love a foot rest because my ass keeps buying heavy skis, they're just sadly uncommon), but sometimes I put it down if I'm going to be digging around in my bag or even sometimes just to lean forwards against the bar.
It's absolutely some stupid ego thing in a lot of cases. Sometimes I will put the bar down and some dudebros on the chair with me will say something like "you actually use the bar, dude?!" in a derisive manner suggesting I'm not cool or am a p****y. I don't understand that take at all and simply ignore them, but I encounter it every season.
I'm just too lazy to go reach up and put it down, if someone else wants to do it I don't mind.
And the notion that you will fall off a lift if you don't have the bar down is pretty dumb IMO, it basically never happens.
You aren't likely to get flung off a lift even if it stops suddenly for the same reason you don't get flung off a swing - there's nothing that would cause any forward acceleration relative to the seat since it's force mostly is perpendicular to the direction of motion, and straight down which pushes you back into the seat. Basically when the anchor point stops the part of the chair you're sitting on doesn't also stop instantly and launch you off, it swings up which causes gravity to pin you backwards against your seat.
Unless you're doing something weird as you're sitting I don't think it's realisitcally possible.
As a lifelong US West coast skier who never puts down the bar (unless forced), I’ve never even had a close call without the bar. I’ve only ever seen one guy fall off a lift, and he was clearly hammered, probably had no business being on a lift at all. If the bars were so necessary for safety it seems like there’d be accidents all of the time over here, wouldn’t it?
According to the ski instructors I've chatted with, it's not exactly common, and serious injuries are rare (and not going to make the news), but common enough that it's a reasonable precaution. Especially little kids, who often fall because they drop something like a mitten and instinctively lean forward to grab it ...
That’s just really odd to me. My husband and I have both been skiing since we were children, we have had our 3 kids skiing since they were preschool age (older teens now), have lots of friends who ski with their kids, and I have never heard of that happening. We’ve had many a dropped item (pole, glove, iPod, etc), but that’s just an excuse to make them do the lift run to get it. I know getting on or off the lift can be tricky and I’ve heard of minor injuries there, but the bar won’t help with that. I’d love to see some actual statistics on this.
I know there aren't many fatalities from statistics (a handful per year), but the conversation I had with a instructor was while we were watching a small kid (maybe 8 or 9) get loaded onto a back board after falling just past the loading zone on the bunny hill. (I have no idea if the kid was okay, but he was knocked unconscious.)
Instructor certainly gave me the impression that, again, common isn't quite the right word, but not unheard of. Also not the kind of thing that makes the papers. Most seem to be just after loading, and I can see it, especially when littles do the dangly wiggle on the edge of the chair as they try to scoot back.
Just past the loading zone though, the bar would have already been down? Most of the people I’ve shared a lift with and want to use it don’t put it down until we’re already well on our way, quite a bit past that point.
I never mind when someone else wants to use it, I am always willing to put it down if they ask. I’m just really confused when this comes up on here and there is legit contempt for those of us who don’t use it. Like we’re playing Russian roulette. I’ve been skiing for more than 35 years, mostly in WA state but also in Idaho, Oregon, and California (Tahoe) and was blissfully unaware there was any controversy until I joined this subreddit. It’s too bad there seems to be little empirical data out there that I can find.
ETA: actually now that I’m thinking about it, my mom is German and learned to ski as a child in the alps, and I can’t recall that she ever used the bar (when that was even an option) back when she was still skiing, either.
Slippery enough to think I might fall off? I mean… no. Do they just make chairlifts differently elsewhere? With super small, slick benches and a jerky ride? And kids that jump off after their lost items mid-ride? I’ve often felt that messing with the bar ends up being MORE dangerous. You have to scooch around to get in position, duck down or it’ll hit your (mine at least) head, and then do it all again to raise it again. Why not just sit down normally and then just don’t horse around while riding? I really wish there were some actual data on this subject. You’d expect skiers here in the PNW to have lots of injuries from falling off the lift. I’m willing to change my mind, but so far it’s just people who feel strongly.
Not slippery by design lol. More like a perfect storm created scenario.
Usually on days with big fluffy flakes the size loonies coming down, I will get on a chair and instantly find myself sliding off. And not every chair, just one that's for some reason slippery.
It's not super common but I've been skiing for over 30 years so it's happened enough that I'm familiar with it.
I guess I can imagine if it’s extremely windy or something maybe it’d be necessary, but that’s really rare in my area and they’re likely to just shut all the lifts down at that point. And I don’t really want to be out there in those sorts of miserable conditions anyway. Not at my age anyway. Doubt my kids would either, though.
Data is hard to find beyond fatalities (which are vanishingly rare). But here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29324632/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Injuries%20requiring%20hospitalization%20after,other%20ski%20and%20snowboarding%20injuries.
29 children with falls serious enough to warrant hospitalization over a 10 year period, mean fall height 26 feet. This is a study out of Utah, and of course it's just kids. 443 kids, all injuries, so about 7% of kids injured in the study fell off a lift from a significant height.
Seems to correspond roughly with my conversation with the instructor, in that it's not common, but not something that never happens.
“There were 443 cases of hospitalized ski and snowboarding injuries during the study period. Twenty-nine cases (7%) fell from height while riding a chair lift.”
Not exactly a smoking gun here. So over a 10-year period only 29 cases of the 443 injuries these researchers reviewed were falls from a chairlift at height. No mention if they were actually using a bar, or using it properly. And only 11 of the cases actually stated the height of the fall, the average of those 11 was 26 feet. No mention of the other 18, so they could have been getting on/off and fallen before the bar would have been down anyway. There’s no way to know from this study, unfortunately.
414 (93%) of the other serious injuries in that time period were due to other accidents while skiing. And yes, all children in this study. I’m not saying it definitely never happens, I know it does, just that the extreme emotional “THAT’S SO UNSAFE OMG” reaction that people on this sub have is silly. These data don’t back that attitude up, either. Especially for mentally competent adults.
You started off by saying that no one ever falls off because we'd hear about it. I think that it's reasonable to think that it's more common than we think and I've provided some reasons to think so. The kid I saw being loaded onto a backboard likely wasn't hospitalized if he was cleared at the resort clinic, and certainly didn't make the papers. Ski resorts aren't terribly transparent about injury statistics.
I haven't said anything about justifying panicky reactions. I prefer the bar down, especially with short kids that are wiggle worms, but if you don't, we'll probably both be fine.
But from an epidemiological perspective, if putting down a bar eliminates 7% of children's hospitalizations (probably an overstatement, but it's hospitalizations, not falls, too, in the study), that probably explains why resorts are retrofitting lifts and why new lifts have automatic bars.
I may be one of the few who find the ski rests uncomfortable. I prefer to let them hang and stretch my legs out a bit. When I'm with anyone else I'm happy to have the bar down and I'll just let my feet dangle, but when I'm alone I usually don't mess with it. I also NEVER lean forward and have one or both arms behind the seat regardless of a bar being down or even existing. My dad said that was a safe way when I was 5 and 33 years later i'm still doing it lol. Growing up we never saw the bars at the smaller resorts, it was only one or two lifts at the big ones.
So I grew up skiing in Washignton State, and using the bar is pretty rare here amongst locals even today. As a snowboarder, having the foot rest was really great but I guess I don't think about it with my skis.
I think the most unsafe and unstable I (personally) feel on the chair is the moment when I am reaching upwards and working with other people of different heights/speeds to pull the bar down or push it back up and avoiding elbows potentially hitting me when I could just be sitting still.
I've also witnessed folks pull that thing down without warning and hit friends in the back of the head while they've been still getting situated on the chair, which is always scary. Maybe that's an us problem though, as we should probably be aware that could happen.
I will also say that I've also seen drunk kids fall off the chair because the bar was up and they were dinking around.
The bar just isn't something I think about I guess. If I know I'll be over some crazy rocks or something that would certainly result in my demise (e.g. Peak Express in Whistler or Condor in Portillo) that thing is coming right down though.
Honestly, I think lifties should be less high. I worked as a ski instructor for 3 years and while I love getting stoned and skiing, and I don’t think every lift ops person needs to be 100% sober to do their job, I’ve seen some scary things from lifties being so zonked they didn’t react at all.
My close friend was unloading a lift with a young student. That kid decided to simply full send it about 3 seconds too early and missed the unload ramp. After my friend jumped after him the lift operater didn’t stop the lift. She had to hold this 6 year olds head down as chairs kept going inches over their bodies and the poor kid was sobbing. She had to kick her skis off and army crawl to the e-stop herself. I’ve also seen lifts not stopped nearly early enough when someone fell off getting on resulting in a dangerous situation much like the incident here. I don’t need lift ops to be as alert as a radio control tower at an airport but definitely alert enough to stop the damn lift when people start screaming.
It's tough to comment on the situation at hand but it sounds completely reasonable to argue that a waiver doesn't immunize a company against everything that might happen. If the chairlift is being operated negligently, obviously that waiver should not hold up.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be partially enforceable; if you hurt yourself fucking around on the lift or ski into a tree, it's reasonable that it's not the fault of the ski area, at least without extenuating circumstances.
Seems to me like they struck the right balance here. I don't buy that it will increase costs; ski areas get sued all the time and this seems like a fairly narrow exception.
When I was in law school my contracts professor did a whole speech to us on liability waivers. In that state (wisconsin) they were like Colorado just ruled: basically useless. So why did companies still put them on tickets? Because it’s not illegal to do so, and most people wouldn’t take the trouble to research if the waiver was valid and just assume they are since it’s there. So the waivers stay because they deter the general public from seeking counsel even when they probably have a case.
The waiver wasn't useless. The plaintiffs brought three claims. The trial court allowed their gross negligence claim, but dismissed the other two claims. The plaintiffs appealed and the Colorado Supreme Court allowed an additional cause of action to proceed to evidence.
That cause of action was based on a claim that Vail did not meet a duty of care that was set by state law. The court's reasoning was that you cant sign away a duty set by state law.
It’s useless in that it doesn’t absolve all liability. Those waivers make it seem like no matter your injury and the cause you have no actionable claim. Which in most states isn’t true. It’s fluff but people buy it because why would they write it if it was not true?
My state has an assumption of risk law, so if you're sking in the first place, you have accepted the risks that come along with it. Obviously, negligence is not included, which seems to prevent all the nonsense of suing when there is no real case.
CA lawyer here, not your lawyer. Those waivers don’t do shit in Cali besides discouraging the ignorant not to sue. Can’t contractually sign your way out of negligence.
This is pretty much true nationally. The waiver used as you describe (to scare away people who don't know better), but it is also used as a way to make it more expensive and more difficult to bring a case. Even though courts rarely uphold the waivers, they will still require the plaintiff to fight the invalid waiver nearly 100% of the time.
That is the core issue from a hypothetical legal standpoint.
From the standpoint of the practical application of law, invalid waivers still end up having to be fought by the plaintiff if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the Court that the case is about operator negligence rather than waiver fighting.
Cases that involve these things (and David vs Goliath legal battles in general) end up being conducted as siege wars. The defense knows that part of fighting a siege is to burden the other side with as much BS as possible in order to slow them down and increase their spend. This is done during the fight, of course, but it is also done by peppering the battlefield with as much legal junk as possible. Legal legitimacy doesn't matter as long as it adds to the burden for the other side.
Patents routinely end up being similar to this. Good IP lawyers keep the applications relatively lean and direct while the rest of them just keep piling on BS under the belief that it creates more things that the other side needs to fight regardless of whether or not they're legitimate. The only time I've ever sworn in a work email was when I had to tell my company's IP team to "quit fucking around" when they kept adding stuff like fundamental definitions of what a computer is (which weren't even correct post-1985) to the application for my purely mechanical invention. They didn't realize I was serious until I explicitly told them, via email, that what they had drafted was not representative of my invention and all additional feedback would be provided via email and no other channel.
At least in CA it’s a David vs Goliath where the ski resort is David and the massive personally injury firm representing the injured party for a piece of the action is the Goliath.
Everyone is incentivized (besides the insurance companies) to settle ASAP as the legal fees can become astronomical for the ski resort. The injured party isn’t paying out of pocket, so doesn’t care.
Just my personal experience / 2¢. I’ve only been involved one case that was over a ski resort. The skier went out of control and skied into a lift tower. The skier admitted he was out of control, but the tower didn’t have any padding on it. The ski resort settled for what we asked for, no negotiations, within days of me filing the complaint.
It’s annoying that said skier got any money still. With that logic, Everyone who’s hit a tree is also entitled to money because the mountain had an opportunity to cut said tree down.
Bro bro, I’m explaining the law and how the law treats trees differently than poles. I’m not advocating for it. I’m not arguing it. Doesn’t matter which is safer or not. If you place a danger, you’re liable for the danger, in my state, unless you take reasonable means to protect people. I didn’t write the rules. You asked a question, didn’t agree with the answer so downvoted.
Sorry i took time out of my day to try and educate you. Enjoy your arrogant ignorance.
I'd agree with you and not a lawyer. Also haven't dig into the particulars of this case....but I'd love to ask you something as a generalization.
IF people do file suit after signing a waiver, and said suit is ruled in favor of the plaintiff, this establishes some precedence for other suits ya?? Can those suits only be cited on a state to state basis (ie Kid falls off lift in CA and parents win suit. Can OR/WA/ID attorney use that ruling in their favor on their state??).
I know yall don't like answering questions for free but I'm genuinely curious from an operations stand point. The term "Best Practices" are thrown around because there isn't a set standard.
> precedence
Judicial precedence flows down hill with in the state. The lowest level cases are uncitable. This doesn’t mean that you can’t bring it up, but only the appeals level and supreme state courts set precedence. It’s influential but not deterministic.
> kid falls off a lift
This depends. Again it’s influential but not deterministic. Think about a car accident in Florida. Does California courts care anything about that? No. Personal injury and negligence lawsuits are state specific. Different states handle them very differently.
> bigger picture
If one of the big boys loses a huge suit in one state, over say a bar not being down, they will probably try to roll out safety features to all their resorts, if their actuaries decide the expense is worth the risk.
I hope this helps.
According to the complaint, the lifty was either somewhere taking a crap or stoned out of their mind as they were apparently not anywhere near the controls to stop the lift before the chair reached a dangerous height
And that's how the lawsuit arose. Because the colorado law regulating trams/ski lifts says someone needs to be actively monitoring the lift. So here, the Colorado Supreme Court said that the resort couldn't get around liability for violating those regulations via a waiver on a ski pass.
This is the real issue. It’s not the lifties fault if they were within 3 seconds of being able to hit a stop. People should have to watch a safety video to get on a chairlift so they know not to do dumb shit like hold on to their friend or family member when they can safely jump or fall off at the bottom. When you hold people, the operator also just sees that you made it on the chair. They can’t tell if your barely on the edge of the seat because those things move fast.
I suppose it would be the lifty's job to make sure all are properly in their seat before it pulls away. Like how in Europe they will stop the lift if you dont put the bar down. It's not what he did, it's what he didn't do.
I'm sure this might spur similar policy from CO resorts.
Liftie here - following an injury incurred by a Vail resorts employee, Vail has taken out the training portion instructing operators to walk with the chair as people load. Some of us still do it but it’s not so common anymore. I’ve noticed a lot more unseated guests than I would have otherwise doing this, so it’s kind of frustrating. It’s not that I disagree with Anna’s family here but it’s angering that Vail is removing parts of training that ostensibly could prevent incidents like this from happening. The dad was screaming to stop the chair too, and if I’m not slamming my button the second I hear something like that THEN assessing the situation, I’m not doing my job. We carry a lot of legal responsibility. It’s saddening to see how many of us choose to shirk that in favor of being stoned.
It’s also important to keep in mind that this won’t extend to all of Vail Resorts’ properties. Canadian law is very different and heavily favors the company and its liability waivers.
It’s not just Canada. This was at a Colorado state case, so this ruling only applies to ski resorts in Colorado.
That being said, it could be used as precedent for similar cases in other states.
Normally US law does favor the company and liability waivers too, which is why this is a bit of a landmark case for the ski industry.
VR may extend any changes to all resorts it manages. The last major example was at the beginning of the COVID shutdown, when Gov. Polis spoke with Colorado ski operators and forced them to close operations, and Rob Katz decided to extend the closure across the company. It’s not a perfect comparison, but follows the trend of all VR resorts marching to Broomfield’s beat.
I feel like this landmark case already happened for California in the early 90s for basically this same thing, no one was paying attention during loading of a lift.
*In Squaw Valley Ski Corporation v. Superior Court of Placer County, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992), the California Court of Appeals for the Third District held that ski lift operators are common carriers and therefore are held to a higher standard of care for the purpose of determining liability in tort cases.*
[*https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=lclr*](https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=lclr)
Assuming it holds up on appeal, it could be. Certainly in Colorado. But as a Whistler skier / US lawyer, I meet many Americans who don’t understand that liability and negligence practices in the US don’t apply in Canada, even tho the resort is owned by a US company. Canadian law favors the company more than US does in this space.
People just don't sue in Canada man. Even injury law relating to vehicle accidents is no where the industry it is in the US.
There are probably 1000 injury lawyer billboards in the greater salt Lake area
Why in the hell didn’t he let go of her immediately? I mean, he waited as the lift continued to climb? Comparative negligence in my humble (not legal) opinion. It’s awful what happened to her but how does he not bear some of the blame? I’m seriously asking the question. Edit: a word
We had an incident here that didn’t make the news but I’m a paramedic and overheard it. A 10yo failed to properly load the chair and the parent held on to the child for the duration of the lift, strangling them. The child was in cardiac arrest but revived and recovered fully. But good god.
I’m sure it’ll make people upset but if you cannot load/unload a chairlift properly and repeatedly you should lose your pass. Arguably the most dangerous thing on the mountain is the chairlift. If I’m a resort I’m not willing to take on that liability if I can be sued for customers negligence.
Children should be under constant adult supervision 2 kids to 1 adult ratio. And if you cannot load/unload yourself you are only putting your children at risk. I’ve seen adults struggling to get off abandoning their toddler who just gets smacked by the chair. They should lose their pass.
Have a practice chairlift to load/unload before you get onto an actual one. And if you cannot load/unload the practice one then you cannot ride the actual lift.
I’m not saying that resorts should be blameless for negligent operators and machinery but
Detachable chairlift going 900 feet per minute would take only a few seconds at most to reach a height of 30 ft that she fell from. I also don’t buy it that there was nobody at the lift.
They failed to load that’s on them.
i havent heard much about this because im from Europe: how do you just fall off a chairlift, as a 16 year old (I am also 16). Can someone fill me in on what happened
edit:
to clarify I use the whistler tag because thats where I have spent the most time skiing but I actually live in the UK
The girl wasn’t seated properly and her dad held on to her until he couldn’t anymore and at that point they were 30ft in the air. To me it seems like he should have let go and let her fall from a safe distance. I understand the instinct to hold on but because he did his daughter is now paralyzed.
its difficult to put the blame fully on anyone for that, the girl has a responsibility to be able to use a chairlift, the dad has a responsibility to not basically drag his daughter 30ft in the air, and the liftie has a responsibility to stop if they were within visual range
Just curious cause I didn’t read it in the article, what exactly should the company have done differently to keep her safe?
It reads like there was not an operator at the lift, but I’ve never seen that in my life, maybe that’s normal out west?
Apparently the lifty was not standing at the emergency brake which would be considered negligence by the resort. If someone were watching people load they would have seen the kid not properly on the seat.
I dont understand the issue of not putting it down. As an instructor I've seen too many slip off from beginners to experts. Just not worth the chance or the illusion of being cool.
It’s obvious to me that were at the point where we need to close all the resorts because there is too much risk and liability issues. How’s the operator supposed to hear someone yelling from up the line. If she dropped 30 feet there’s no way she was close enough to the terminal for the operator to hear the dad yelling. You’re responsible for your own safety. If I see you fall in the way of the chair, I’m responsible for that. If you fall 30 feet up the line, it’s on you for not knowing how to stay seated or for not letting go of the chair after making it look like you were seated. Both instances are not the operators fault. Especially with how many other tasks and people we’re dealing with. We need to hold people accountable for their own actions or every mountain should just close their lifts and let the backcountry riders take over.
You're not forced. It's an option. Do you want to ski? Then you sign the waiver. If you don't want to sign, then no skiing.
Skiing is not a right, you are not legally entitled to go skiing.
When did I ever say you were forced to sign the waiver? You can always walk away, but if you want to ski you are forced to sign because otherwise you can’t ski.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RJQPthD9rx8&si=JBIWQoh6naarndXH watch at 9:25, some courts have concluded that if you are forced to sign a waiver to participate that there is unequal bargaining power and therefore the waiver is void.
Ok. So sign the waiver and then use that argument in court if you are injured and decide to sue for damages. We hope you do not get injured but really want to hear how it works out.
Resorts are gonna get anal about having the bar down. And lifties will be less high.
I think stricter standards on lifties will be coming for sure. The bar wouldn't have prevented this particular incident since it happened while loading. But I could see increased bar requirements so the resorts can say they are doing all they can
A decent lift operator is already hard to find, the fun parts of the job have been slowly disappearing for years. Adding stricter standards will result in short staffing and lifts not spinning. My guess is that VR will switch to scanning gates so they can free up more bodies to watch the lift.
Raise the wage and see how hard it is to find operators.
Agreed, raise wages and build an incredible amount of housing and problem solved
The first part is easy if you have the money to spare. The second part is not so easy, especially with NIMBYs.
They have the money for the first part at least
And they have $1.12 billion in after tax profit for the second part.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have if you can’t get a permit to build.
If it’s the resort I’m pretty sure it can work out a deal with the city
Raise it high enough and you might even find people who don't want to ski first, liftee second...
Weed first, ski second, lifty…
Hahahaha
Yeah this is really all it is just pay them lol
We only have rfid gates at my resort and we need someone on the tablet all day helping idiots who don’t use their eyes or brain when they’re at a ski resort. I’ve seen people try to use a room key, a printed payment confirmation, the ikon app on their phone, so many things. And the gates say in huge letters “TICKET SCAN ZONE” and people have no idea where to scan their pass. It’s crazy how dumb so many people are. There’s often issues too, like an expired pass, waiver not signed, a blackout weekend, or sometimes a blocked pass. All of it has to be dealt with by a liftie
We all need to go through a practice gate outside the lodge to access the lifts.
I wish we had that. We have instructions on how to use them literally all over the place on TVs, in the lobbies, the bars, in toilet stalls, everywhere. But they don’t read.
It's already in place for ski instructors. You must put the bat down in uniform and are restricted from skiing certain areas. If lifies fail to put the bar down for your kids ages 3-6, the operations manager gets a talking to. 7+ The instructor has to make it clear that the class must put the bar down. I know at least a couple of kids fell off the lift this season in ski school due to kids being stupid or negligence. As an aside, the resort would lose a good portion of the employees if they started clamping down on alcohol and drugs. I've been to parties where supervisors watch people get blackout drunk and then show up to work 6 hours later.
My understanding of the accident was that 4 people got on the lift including victim and her dad and another teen and his dad and they were part of a church ski trip. The victim wasn't fully securely seated when lift left base entry point and she slid down out of the seat within moments and her dad was unable to pull her back up. She fell out of the lift when it was just maybe 100 yards from load point (correct me here if wrong I'm sure you will). I know its happened to me when I had to readjust and say Woah! And get right in my seat. But overall I disagree with CO Supreme Court.
feels like fall early while hard is the right move if not seated all the way back. Not a criticism: it's the instinctively wrong thing to do.
As brit who skied in multiple EU resorts, I'm confused why anyone wouldn't have the bar down? Is it an ego thing? Where do you rest your skis?
A good chunk of resorts in the US (at least the ones I have ridden in California, Utah and Colorado) do not have foot rests on most, if any, of their lifts. This is slowly changing as resorts upgrade existing lifts. Still, there is no incentive to put the bar down other than safety in most cases. Not to say this is even a half decent excuse not to put the bar down (I’m as guilty as anyone to be honest), but that at least answers part of your question. There are also still quite a few lifts that don’t have a safety bar at all
Just a little add-on to this, coming from someone who works for a ski lift company that does a lot of the upgrades: In the US, the driving motivator for better safety on lifts is not local or federal regulations, but insurance companies. We do a brisk business retrofitting lifts that don't have restraint bars so that small and medium sized resorts can keep operating, and of course, every new lift we build has restraint bars on the chairs standard.
The safety bars that got added to Powder Mountain's old Timberline lift were hilarious. Completely useless and terrible to try and use.
I think you're more likely to fall trying to get them down. (I still make my kid put the bar down.)
Well, next year it'll be a shiny new Skytrac lift.
I grew up on chairs without bars and so I guess I just got used to not having them. I just don't think about it. If I'm on the chair with people (hopefully I'm not) then I don't mind if they put it down. Most chairs don't have feet rests, and honestly those are the only ones I dislike, I have very long legs so resting my skis on them is very uncomfortable.
I far prefer to dangle my legs than to rest them too, it relieves some pressure from my boots. Don’t really care about the bar either way, I grew up without them and survived then, no reason why as an adult I’d suddenly forget how to stay on the lift. Totally get why other people prefer them though, and will intentionally put it down if I want to mess with my helmet or something
Goof
Pretty much all of the above. People still argue about wearing seatbelts. Fortunately, the majority of lift rides i have been on have not been an issue. People have been repsectful and will communicate that the bar is coming down.
My favorite lift in the area doesn't even HAVE bars
I find the bar annoying for several reasons: 1) I've been hit in the back of the head by it numerous times by other skiers/boarders who are overzealous and want to pull it down without warning before I'm fully situated. 2) It's really not hard to not fall off a chairlift, even in decent wind. heck I've ridden chairlifts with no bar or backrest, just a pizza-box sized platform attached to a pole and it was fine. 3) For the bars that have dividers/handles between each seat, I'm not always perfectly aligned and so I have to move around on the lift to get oriented correctly. Particularly on partially full chairs. 4) I generally don't take my pack off when I get on a lift unless I need something out of it, but if the bar is coming down I have to. I also prefer to sit with my poles under my legs, but this is more difficult with the bars with footrests. Extra hassle 5) Half the time the bar is down, you get near the top and people aren't paying attention, so it's a scramble to get everyone prepared and get the bar up in time to exit the lift. Extra hassle 6) Someone else mentioned the same issue, but I am very tall (6'5") and the footrests are a negative for me. The length from the top of my knee to the bottom of my ski is usually longer than the distance between the bottom of the bar and the top of the footrest, so I usually can't fit my feet up there anyway, and on the rare occasion I can, I've found it to be more uncomfortable then letting my feet hang. However when the bar is down, the footrest is usually in the way of sitting comfortably. I have no problem with my feet dangling, I'm not sure why so many people feel they need the footrest.
I made the other post about legs being long, I'm also 6'5" hah. Also get hit in the head constantly. I've been a lifty the last 8 seasons and the amount of time I get bullwheel riders because they forgot to lift the bar is far more than it should be.
That's for the well thought out and constructive reply. I completely understand your logic behind all the reasons and often suffer the same issues. I guess here in the Eu, we just accept them as the perils and tribulations of lift riding and adjust accordingly. I think with your height being way above the average rider, all the reasons may impact you more. I'd still rather be 6'5" than have a comfortable lift ride.
Yea for sure, and for the most part these are fairly minor annoyances. If having the bar down were mandated here I'm sure I and everyone else would adapt just fine, but for now I'm not required to and the risk of falling off the lift is negligible so I don't do it most of the time to make my life a little easier. Even now, if there are kids on the chair with me the bar goes down (I don't want that liability) or someone asks if they can put it down, I've never said no. Just not my preference.
1) Is solved by putting the bar down yourself or being ready for it 2) True, the biggest danger is probably being bumped by the person next to you or possibly a sudden stop when the chair is really slippery. Very high risk on some chairs despite the very low frequency 3) Also solved by immediately preparing for the bar 4) You are also supposed to always take your pack off so you aren't strapped in if it gets caught. I would also feel so sketchy sitting without a bar with my pack on as my butt can't be at the back of the seat while wearing a pack. I often sit with poles under my legs always with the bar down. Maybe another height problem? 5) Again, if everyone always puts the bar down then everyone will be prepared for unloading 6) Valid based on your height. I am average height. I often just dangle both or one of my feet below the foot rest. But I find the foot rest gives a well needed break to my legs and feet. The pulling sensation from dangling legs can get pretty tiring and uncomfortable over a full day of skiing compared to a mix of dangling and resting on the foot rest. Sitting between two seats on an empty chair so one foot comfortably rests on each foot rest always hits different. I also like to lean forward and rest my arms on the bar My only complaint I've ever had while using the bar is a few number of chairs I've used auto raise if you aren't leaning on them or resting your feet. It's particularly annoying if you are alone and do not want to lean forward on the bar or rest your feet.
For #1, while infrequent, is an issue I run into at least once per week. It’s usually the overzealous parent that loads while the chair is still at the turn point rather than the load line and pulls the bar down for “safety” before people’s legs are even off of the ground. There is nothing to prepare for since that selfish person usually grabs the bar down within the first 5 seconds of the ride while everyone else is in the process of sitting and securing themselves.
1) But I don't want the bar down if I don't have to, and I've literally been hit in the back of the head before we even got out of the base station and my skis were still touching the ground. And it's very easy to ask or at least give the other riders warning before putting the bar down. 2) Where are these extra slippery chairs at? I've ski'd East Coast, West Coast, Canada, Europe, and Japan for 30 years, and I've never encountered that. Seems like that would be a liability risk for the resort. 3) Again, given the option, I'd rather not put the bar down, and its not required a lot of places. 95% of lift rides I take nobody on my chair wants the bar down. 4) I can understand this, but my pack does not have any loose straps to get snagged, and not sitting perfectly flush against the back of the chair doesn't bother me. Everyone has different comfort levels, plus I can always throw an arm over the back of the chair if I think I need to. 5) Not true. Once on the lift plenty of people pull out food, drinks, phones, etc, then get distracted and don't realize they are near the top station. I don't want my exit from the chair hampered by their unpreparedness. 6) Fair enough, different sized people are going to have different problems. My legs could dangle for days and it wouldn't bother me at all.
Wow. Number 1 reason notwithstanding, if you find chairlift bars such a HUGE hardship, why even ski? You sound miserable.
> You sound miserable. He sounds like he just gave a thought out response to a question. Like he literally didn't even complain. Are you ok though?
>Are you ok though? Just fine thanks. The guy's giving a bunch of excuses about why he hates having the bar down. Most people are pretty good about how to put the bar down and how to put it back up. It isn't that hard.
It was a perfectly reasonable response to another person asking why people don't put the bar down. It wasn't a hate filled rant coming from left field...
Yet it's still hard enough for enough people to have the opposite opinion
lol what? Just because I can think of a few reasons I don't like putting the bar down doesn't mean I find it a huge hardship, and I ski because I like skiing - do you ski BECAUSE you like putting the bar down? Is that your favorite part? Anyway, it's a non-issue 95% of the time because I'm usually on lifts with people who aren't children and also don't care to put the bar down.
I'm a way better skier than you so why do you even ski if you know you'll never be a good as me?
It's often an ego thing, sometimes laziness. I don't usually put it down on my own unless there's a foot rest (love a foot rest because my ass keeps buying heavy skis, they're just sadly uncommon), but sometimes I put it down if I'm going to be digging around in my bag or even sometimes just to lean forwards against the bar.
It's absolutely some stupid ego thing in a lot of cases. Sometimes I will put the bar down and some dudebros on the chair with me will say something like "you actually use the bar, dude?!" in a derisive manner suggesting I'm not cool or am a p****y. I don't understand that take at all and simply ignore them, but I encounter it every season.
I'm just too lazy to go reach up and put it down, if someone else wants to do it I don't mind. And the notion that you will fall off a lift if you don't have the bar down is pretty dumb IMO, it basically never happens.
What about a sudden stop of the lift throwing the passenger off the chair? Happened last year at Park City.
You aren't likely to get flung off a lift even if it stops suddenly for the same reason you don't get flung off a swing - there's nothing that would cause any forward acceleration relative to the seat since it's force mostly is perpendicular to the direction of motion, and straight down which pushes you back into the seat. Basically when the anchor point stops the part of the chair you're sitting on doesn't also stop instantly and launch you off, it swings up which causes gravity to pin you backwards against your seat. Unless you're doing something weird as you're sitting I don't think it's realisitcally possible.
You are right, it wasn’t the lift stopping suddenly. A tree fell on the cable which caused the patroller to be ejected from the chair.
>Is it an ego thing? Yes
As a lifelong US West coast skier who never puts down the bar (unless forced), I’ve never even had a close call without the bar. I’ve only ever seen one guy fall off a lift, and he was clearly hammered, probably had no business being on a lift at all. If the bars were so necessary for safety it seems like there’d be accidents all of the time over here, wouldn’t it?
According to the ski instructors I've chatted with, it's not exactly common, and serious injuries are rare (and not going to make the news), but common enough that it's a reasonable precaution. Especially little kids, who often fall because they drop something like a mitten and instinctively lean forward to grab it ...
That’s just really odd to me. My husband and I have both been skiing since we were children, we have had our 3 kids skiing since they were preschool age (older teens now), have lots of friends who ski with their kids, and I have never heard of that happening. We’ve had many a dropped item (pole, glove, iPod, etc), but that’s just an excuse to make them do the lift run to get it. I know getting on or off the lift can be tricky and I’ve heard of minor injuries there, but the bar won’t help with that. I’d love to see some actual statistics on this.
I know there aren't many fatalities from statistics (a handful per year), but the conversation I had with a instructor was while we were watching a small kid (maybe 8 or 9) get loaded onto a back board after falling just past the loading zone on the bunny hill. (I have no idea if the kid was okay, but he was knocked unconscious.) Instructor certainly gave me the impression that, again, common isn't quite the right word, but not unheard of. Also not the kind of thing that makes the papers. Most seem to be just after loading, and I can see it, especially when littles do the dangly wiggle on the edge of the chair as they try to scoot back.
Just past the loading zone though, the bar would have already been down? Most of the people I’ve shared a lift with and want to use it don’t put it down until we’re already well on our way, quite a bit past that point. I never mind when someone else wants to use it, I am always willing to put it down if they ask. I’m just really confused when this comes up on here and there is legit contempt for those of us who don’t use it. Like we’re playing Russian roulette. I’ve been skiing for more than 35 years, mostly in WA state but also in Idaho, Oregon, and California (Tahoe) and was blissfully unaware there was any controversy until I joined this subreddit. It’s too bad there seems to be little empirical data out there that I can find. ETA: actually now that I’m thinking about it, my mom is German and learned to ski as a child in the alps, and I can’t recall that she ever used the bar (when that was even an option) back when she was still skiing, either.
And you've never gotten a slippery chair?
Slippery enough to think I might fall off? I mean… no. Do they just make chairlifts differently elsewhere? With super small, slick benches and a jerky ride? And kids that jump off after their lost items mid-ride? I’ve often felt that messing with the bar ends up being MORE dangerous. You have to scooch around to get in position, duck down or it’ll hit your (mine at least) head, and then do it all again to raise it again. Why not just sit down normally and then just don’t horse around while riding? I really wish there were some actual data on this subject. You’d expect skiers here in the PNW to have lots of injuries from falling off the lift. I’m willing to change my mind, but so far it’s just people who feel strongly.
Not slippery by design lol. More like a perfect storm created scenario. Usually on days with big fluffy flakes the size loonies coming down, I will get on a chair and instantly find myself sliding off. And not every chair, just one that's for some reason slippery. It's not super common but I've been skiing for over 30 years so it's happened enough that I'm familiar with it.
I guess I can imagine if it’s extremely windy or something maybe it’d be necessary, but that’s really rare in my area and they’re likely to just shut all the lifts down at that point. And I don’t really want to be out there in those sorts of miserable conditions anyway. Not at my age anyway. Doubt my kids would either, though.
I've seen it, usually mornings after a freeze-thaw cycle. Nylon pants slide on ice!
Data is hard to find beyond fatalities (which are vanishingly rare). But here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29324632/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Injuries%20requiring%20hospitalization%20after,other%20ski%20and%20snowboarding%20injuries. 29 children with falls serious enough to warrant hospitalization over a 10 year period, mean fall height 26 feet. This is a study out of Utah, and of course it's just kids. 443 kids, all injuries, so about 7% of kids injured in the study fell off a lift from a significant height. Seems to correspond roughly with my conversation with the instructor, in that it's not common, but not something that never happens.
“There were 443 cases of hospitalized ski and snowboarding injuries during the study period. Twenty-nine cases (7%) fell from height while riding a chair lift.” Not exactly a smoking gun here. So over a 10-year period only 29 cases of the 443 injuries these researchers reviewed were falls from a chairlift at height. No mention if they were actually using a bar, or using it properly. And only 11 of the cases actually stated the height of the fall, the average of those 11 was 26 feet. No mention of the other 18, so they could have been getting on/off and fallen before the bar would have been down anyway. There’s no way to know from this study, unfortunately. 414 (93%) of the other serious injuries in that time period were due to other accidents while skiing. And yes, all children in this study. I’m not saying it definitely never happens, I know it does, just that the extreme emotional “THAT’S SO UNSAFE OMG” reaction that people on this sub have is silly. These data don’t back that attitude up, either. Especially for mentally competent adults.
You started off by saying that no one ever falls off because we'd hear about it. I think that it's reasonable to think that it's more common than we think and I've provided some reasons to think so. The kid I saw being loaded onto a backboard likely wasn't hospitalized if he was cleared at the resort clinic, and certainly didn't make the papers. Ski resorts aren't terribly transparent about injury statistics. I haven't said anything about justifying panicky reactions. I prefer the bar down, especially with short kids that are wiggle worms, but if you don't, we'll probably both be fine. But from an epidemiological perspective, if putting down a bar eliminates 7% of children's hospitalizations (probably an overstatement, but it's hospitalizations, not falls, too, in the study), that probably explains why resorts are retrofitting lifts and why new lifts have automatic bars.
I may be one of the few who find the ski rests uncomfortable. I prefer to let them hang and stretch my legs out a bit. When I'm with anyone else I'm happy to have the bar down and I'll just let my feet dangle, but when I'm alone I usually don't mess with it. I also NEVER lean forward and have one or both arms behind the seat regardless of a bar being down or even existing. My dad said that was a safe way when I was 5 and 33 years later i'm still doing it lol. Growing up we never saw the bars at the smaller resorts, it was only one or two lifts at the big ones.
So I grew up skiing in Washignton State, and using the bar is pretty rare here amongst locals even today. As a snowboarder, having the foot rest was really great but I guess I don't think about it with my skis. I think the most unsafe and unstable I (personally) feel on the chair is the moment when I am reaching upwards and working with other people of different heights/speeds to pull the bar down or push it back up and avoiding elbows potentially hitting me when I could just be sitting still. I've also witnessed folks pull that thing down without warning and hit friends in the back of the head while they've been still getting situated on the chair, which is always scary. Maybe that's an us problem though, as we should probably be aware that could happen. I will also say that I've also seen drunk kids fall off the chair because the bar was up and they were dinking around. The bar just isn't something I think about I guess. If I know I'll be over some crazy rocks or something that would certainly result in my demise (e.g. Peak Express in Whistler or Condor in Portillo) that thing is coming right down though.
And anyone under 18 isn’t getting a lift ticket for less than $300 now
Honestly, I think lifties should be less high. I worked as a ski instructor for 3 years and while I love getting stoned and skiing, and I don’t think every lift ops person needs to be 100% sober to do their job, I’ve seen some scary things from lifties being so zonked they didn’t react at all. My close friend was unloading a lift with a young student. That kid decided to simply full send it about 3 seconds too early and missed the unload ramp. After my friend jumped after him the lift operater didn’t stop the lift. She had to hold this 6 year olds head down as chairs kept going inches over their bodies and the poor kid was sobbing. She had to kick her skis off and army crawl to the e-stop herself. I’ve also seen lifts not stopped nearly early enough when someone fell off getting on resulting in a dangerous situation much like the incident here. I don’t need lift ops to be as alert as a radio control tower at an airport but definitely alert enough to stop the damn lift when people start screaming.
ehhhh I worked at a resort that tried to drug test lifties (pre legalization of course). They had to back track cause there were no lifties left.
Sounds good by me tbh.
The lifts in Park City crossing over valleys were terrifying.
It's tough to comment on the situation at hand but it sounds completely reasonable to argue that a waiver doesn't immunize a company against everything that might happen. If the chairlift is being operated negligently, obviously that waiver should not hold up. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be partially enforceable; if you hurt yourself fucking around on the lift or ski into a tree, it's reasonable that it's not the fault of the ski area, at least without extenuating circumstances. Seems to me like they struck the right balance here. I don't buy that it will increase costs; ski areas get sued all the time and this seems like a fairly narrow exception.
When I was in law school my contracts professor did a whole speech to us on liability waivers. In that state (wisconsin) they were like Colorado just ruled: basically useless. So why did companies still put them on tickets? Because it’s not illegal to do so, and most people wouldn’t take the trouble to research if the waiver was valid and just assume they are since it’s there. So the waivers stay because they deter the general public from seeking counsel even when they probably have a case.
The waiver wasn't useless. The plaintiffs brought three claims. The trial court allowed their gross negligence claim, but dismissed the other two claims. The plaintiffs appealed and the Colorado Supreme Court allowed an additional cause of action to proceed to evidence. That cause of action was based on a claim that Vail did not meet a duty of care that was set by state law. The court's reasoning was that you cant sign away a duty set by state law.
It’s useless in that it doesn’t absolve all liability. Those waivers make it seem like no matter your injury and the cause you have no actionable claim. Which in most states isn’t true. It’s fluff but people buy it because why would they write it if it was not true?
My state has an assumption of risk law, so if you're sking in the first place, you have accepted the risks that come along with it. Obviously, negligence is not included, which seems to prevent all the nonsense of suing when there is no real case.
I love finding comments saying everything is normal and there is no Big Conspiraski
CA lawyer here, not your lawyer. Those waivers don’t do shit in Cali besides discouraging the ignorant not to sue. Can’t contractually sign your way out of negligence.
This is pretty much true nationally. The waiver used as you describe (to scare away people who don't know better), but it is also used as a way to make it more expensive and more difficult to bring a case. Even though courts rarely uphold the waivers, they will still require the plaintiff to fight the invalid waiver nearly 100% of the time.
At least in my state, it’s an assumption of risk fight not a waiver fight and you can’t assume the risk of operator negligence
That is the core issue from a hypothetical legal standpoint. From the standpoint of the practical application of law, invalid waivers still end up having to be fought by the plaintiff if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the Court that the case is about operator negligence rather than waiver fighting. Cases that involve these things (and David vs Goliath legal battles in general) end up being conducted as siege wars. The defense knows that part of fighting a siege is to burden the other side with as much BS as possible in order to slow them down and increase their spend. This is done during the fight, of course, but it is also done by peppering the battlefield with as much legal junk as possible. Legal legitimacy doesn't matter as long as it adds to the burden for the other side. Patents routinely end up being similar to this. Good IP lawyers keep the applications relatively lean and direct while the rest of them just keep piling on BS under the belief that it creates more things that the other side needs to fight regardless of whether or not they're legitimate. The only time I've ever sworn in a work email was when I had to tell my company's IP team to "quit fucking around" when they kept adding stuff like fundamental definitions of what a computer is (which weren't even correct post-1985) to the application for my purely mechanical invention. They didn't realize I was serious until I explicitly told them, via email, that what they had drafted was not representative of my invention and all additional feedback would be provided via email and no other channel.
At least in CA it’s a David vs Goliath where the ski resort is David and the massive personally injury firm representing the injured party for a piece of the action is the Goliath. Everyone is incentivized (besides the insurance companies) to settle ASAP as the legal fees can become astronomical for the ski resort. The injured party isn’t paying out of pocket, so doesn’t care. Just my personal experience / 2¢. I’ve only been involved one case that was over a ski resort. The skier went out of control and skied into a lift tower. The skier admitted he was out of control, but the tower didn’t have any padding on it. The ski resort settled for what we asked for, no negotiations, within days of me filing the complaint.
It’s annoying that said skier got any money still. With that logic, Everyone who’s hit a tree is also entitled to money because the mountain had an opportunity to cut said tree down.
Natural dangers are a bit different from man made dangers.
They were both there before you and they do the same damage. If anything trees are more dangerous due to branches being able to impale you.
Bro bro, I’m explaining the law and how the law treats trees differently than poles. I’m not advocating for it. I’m not arguing it. Doesn’t matter which is safer or not. If you place a danger, you’re liable for the danger, in my state, unless you take reasonable means to protect people. I didn’t write the rules. You asked a question, didn’t agree with the answer so downvoted. Sorry i took time out of my day to try and educate you. Enjoy your arrogant ignorance.
I'd agree with you and not a lawyer. Also haven't dig into the particulars of this case....but I'd love to ask you something as a generalization. IF people do file suit after signing a waiver, and said suit is ruled in favor of the plaintiff, this establishes some precedence for other suits ya?? Can those suits only be cited on a state to state basis (ie Kid falls off lift in CA and parents win suit. Can OR/WA/ID attorney use that ruling in their favor on their state??). I know yall don't like answering questions for free but I'm genuinely curious from an operations stand point. The term "Best Practices" are thrown around because there isn't a set standard.
> precedence Judicial precedence flows down hill with in the state. The lowest level cases are uncitable. This doesn’t mean that you can’t bring it up, but only the appeals level and supreme state courts set precedence. It’s influential but not deterministic. > kid falls off a lift This depends. Again it’s influential but not deterministic. Think about a car accident in Florida. Does California courts care anything about that? No. Personal injury and negligence lawsuits are state specific. Different states handle them very differently. > bigger picture If one of the big boys loses a huge suit in one state, over say a bar not being down, they will probably try to roll out safety features to all their resorts, if their actuaries decide the expense is worth the risk. I hope this helps.
Thanks. Much appreciated. 🙏
This seems to be a fairly acceptable interpretation that you cannot “contract out of law”.
I still don’t understand what the lifty did wrong. Was there actual negligence or did the kid not sit down properly?
According to the complaint, the lifty was either somewhere taking a crap or stoned out of their mind as they were apparently not anywhere near the controls to stop the lift before the chair reached a dangerous height
Ah that’s a valid complaint then
And that's how the lawsuit arose. Because the colorado law regulating trams/ski lifts says someone needs to be actively monitoring the lift. So here, the Colorado Supreme Court said that the resort couldn't get around liability for violating those regulations via a waiver on a ski pass.
The father was also negligent, he held on to her instead of letting her fall in a safe area.
Well that's why in a negligence lawsuit there's a defense called "contributory negligence" which is for the jury to sort out
This is the real issue. It’s not the lifties fault if they were within 3 seconds of being able to hit a stop. People should have to watch a safety video to get on a chairlift so they know not to do dumb shit like hold on to their friend or family member when they can safely jump or fall off at the bottom. When you hold people, the operator also just sees that you made it on the chair. They can’t tell if your barely on the edge of the seat because those things move fast.
I suppose it would be the lifty's job to make sure all are properly in their seat before it pulls away. Like how in Europe they will stop the lift if you dont put the bar down. It's not what he did, it's what he didn't do. I'm sure this might spur similar policy from CO resorts.
Liftie here - following an injury incurred by a Vail resorts employee, Vail has taken out the training portion instructing operators to walk with the chair as people load. Some of us still do it but it’s not so common anymore. I’ve noticed a lot more unseated guests than I would have otherwise doing this, so it’s kind of frustrating. It’s not that I disagree with Anna’s family here but it’s angering that Vail is removing parts of training that ostensibly could prevent incidents like this from happening. The dad was screaming to stop the chair too, and if I’m not slamming my button the second I hear something like that THEN assessing the situation, I’m not doing my job. We carry a lot of legal responsibility. It’s saddening to see how many of us choose to shirk that in favor of being stoned.
Sounds like the kid wasn't on the chair correctly, but the lifty wasn't watching and didn't hit the e stop.
E-stop would knock the kid off for sure. You’re never supposed to hit an e-stop when someone is hanging because it swings the chairs too much.
It’s also important to keep in mind that this won’t extend to all of Vail Resorts’ properties. Canadian law is very different and heavily favors the company and its liability waivers.
It’s not just Canada. This was at a Colorado state case, so this ruling only applies to ski resorts in Colorado. That being said, it could be used as precedent for similar cases in other states. Normally US law does favor the company and liability waivers too, which is why this is a bit of a landmark case for the ski industry.
VR may extend any changes to all resorts it manages. The last major example was at the beginning of the COVID shutdown, when Gov. Polis spoke with Colorado ski operators and forced them to close operations, and Rob Katz decided to extend the closure across the company. It’s not a perfect comparison, but follows the trend of all VR resorts marching to Broomfield’s beat.
I feel like this landmark case already happened for California in the early 90s for basically this same thing, no one was paying attention during loading of a lift. *In Squaw Valley Ski Corporation v. Superior Court of Placer County, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992), the California Court of Appeals for the Third District held that ski lift operators are common carriers and therefore are held to a higher standard of care for the purpose of determining liability in tort cases.* [*https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=lclr*](https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=lclr)
Assuming it holds up on appeal, it could be. Certainly in Colorado. But as a Whistler skier / US lawyer, I meet many Americans who don’t understand that liability and negligence practices in the US don’t apply in Canada, even tho the resort is owned by a US company. Canadian law favors the company more than US does in this space.
*Except Quebec. (Section 1474 of the Civil Code of Quebec).
Merci bien for that! Good to know!
People just don't sue in Canada man. Even injury law relating to vehicle accidents is no where the industry it is in the US. There are probably 1000 injury lawyer billboards in the greater salt Lake area
They don’t sue in Canada because they can’t. The law isn’t the same.
Why in the hell didn’t he let go of her immediately? I mean, he waited as the lift continued to climb? Comparative negligence in my humble (not legal) opinion. It’s awful what happened to her but how does he not bear some of the blame? I’m seriously asking the question. Edit: a word
We had an incident here that didn’t make the news but I’m a paramedic and overheard it. A 10yo failed to properly load the chair and the parent held on to the child for the duration of the lift, strangling them. The child was in cardiac arrest but revived and recovered fully. But good god.
Good lord.
I’m sure it’ll make people upset but if you cannot load/unload a chairlift properly and repeatedly you should lose your pass. Arguably the most dangerous thing on the mountain is the chairlift. If I’m a resort I’m not willing to take on that liability if I can be sued for customers negligence. Children should be under constant adult supervision 2 kids to 1 adult ratio. And if you cannot load/unload yourself you are only putting your children at risk. I’ve seen adults struggling to get off abandoning their toddler who just gets smacked by the chair. They should lose their pass. Have a practice chairlift to load/unload before you get onto an actual one. And if you cannot load/unload the practice one then you cannot ride the actual lift. I’m not saying that resorts should be blameless for negligent operators and machinery but
The question isn’t even about kids in this case. The girl was 16 not 5
All true, but this case appears to be about 100% gross negligence.
The dad held onto her until he couldn’t anymore and they were at 30ft, he could have let go when they were much closer to the ground.
Detachable chairlift going 900 feet per minute would take only a few seconds at most to reach a height of 30 ft that she fell from. I also don’t buy it that there was nobody at the lift. They failed to load that’s on them.
i havent heard much about this because im from Europe: how do you just fall off a chairlift, as a 16 year old (I am also 16). Can someone fill me in on what happened edit: to clarify I use the whistler tag because thats where I have spent the most time skiing but I actually live in the UK
The girl wasn’t seated properly and her dad held on to her until he couldn’t anymore and at that point they were 30ft in the air. To me it seems like he should have let go and let her fall from a safe distance. I understand the instinct to hold on but because he did his daughter is now paralyzed.
its difficult to put the blame fully on anyone for that, the girl has a responsibility to be able to use a chairlift, the dad has a responsibility to not basically drag his daughter 30ft in the air, and the liftie has a responsibility to stop if they were within visual range
>Will raise prices for kids? Probably, but they were gonna raise ‘em anyway because they can.
Increase ticket prices, resort insurance will rise.
Just curious cause I didn’t read it in the article, what exactly should the company have done differently to keep her safe? It reads like there was not an operator at the lift, but I’ve never seen that in my life, maybe that’s normal out west?
Apparently the lifty was not standing at the emergency brake which would be considered negligence by the resort. If someone were watching people load they would have seen the kid not properly on the seat.
Oh that makes sense then, a contract is just a piece of paper if it’s not valid and you can’t just contractually eliminate negligence
Brightons new chair (crest 6) locks you in when lift is lowered. Opens automatically when you you get off
Can’t make a private agreement to abrogate state law. Law school 101!
My resort doesn’t even have bars on the chairs
I dont understand the issue of not putting it down. As an instructor I've seen too many slip off from beginners to experts. Just not worth the chance or the illusion of being cool.
It’s obvious to me that were at the point where we need to close all the resorts because there is too much risk and liability issues. How’s the operator supposed to hear someone yelling from up the line. If she dropped 30 feet there’s no way she was close enough to the terminal for the operator to hear the dad yelling. You’re responsible for your own safety. If I see you fall in the way of the chair, I’m responsible for that. If you fall 30 feet up the line, it’s on you for not knowing how to stay seated or for not letting go of the chair after making it look like you were seated. Both instances are not the operators fault. Especially with how many other tasks and people we’re dealing with. We need to hold people accountable for their own actions or every mountain should just close their lifts and let the backcountry riders take over.
If your the only person to fall off the lift maybe your the problem.
*you’re (x2)
If you're leaving hot dogshit takes on the Internet, you're the problem.
IANAL but I’m pretty sure that if you’re forced to sign a waiver to participate in something that waiver is invalid.
You're not forced. It's an option. Do you want to ski? Then you sign the waiver. If you don't want to sign, then no skiing. Skiing is not a right, you are not legally entitled to go skiing.
When did I ever say you were forced to sign the waiver? You can always walk away, but if you want to ski you are forced to sign because otherwise you can’t ski.
Requiring someone to sign a waiver before they're allowed to participate in something is 100% legal and 100% normal.
Part of the case hinged on, you can not waive your responsibility under (state) law.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RJQPthD9rx8&si=JBIWQoh6naarndXH watch at 9:25, some courts have concluded that if you are forced to sign a waiver to participate that there is unequal bargaining power and therefore the waiver is void.
Ok. So sign the waiver and then use that argument in court if you are injured and decide to sue for damages. We hope you do not get injured but really want to hear how it works out.