No, it is absolutely not the point. Those who see it as such are dangerous. Apologies to all for the hijack, but there was a discussion on a similar topic in this thread…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5591119#post5591119
…in which I attempt to explain why such activities should not be as risky as commonly percieved.
IMHO
Out of bounds skiing despite clear warnings and a back-country gate? I would be very surprised if any liability was found against the ski area.
Since the mid to late 90s, it has been getting more difficult to take a bite out of a ski area. For the most part, major ski areas have learned to keep a tight leash on their operations to avoid negligence, and the courts have pretty much established what is resort responsibility and what is skier responsibility. Perhaps a case could be made based on enticement, and in the 80s perhaps it would have succeeded, but these days I doubt it.
There is inherent risk in skiing (just as with everything in life). As long as the ski area ensures that the risks are known, and not minimized, and does what it can to prevent easily mitigated risks, then I doubt if it could be found negligent.
(IAASkiingL)
Rethink which policy? The one of placing large warnings?
Having sat in a truck and watched impatient motorists slalom through the crossarms of a railroad crossing, been bitched at for taking so long to rescue people trapped in their vehicle after driving past barricades into flooded roadways, and searching mildly frozen lakes for the bodies of skaters who ignored postings, I’ve concluded that a certain portion of the population is dumber than a pile of rocks. Sorry to sound harsh, but it’s the plain truth.
You’re right, it is the resorts fault.
The whole thing could have been prevented if the resort barred people from skiing at it.
And indeed more relevantly if they had forbidden people from skiing nearby it. In fact, they should have done the right thing and closed down altogether because the whole fact of even existing was a wanton encouragement to people to ski dangerously.
This would make a good Great Debates topic, actually: not specifically the current example, but the idea of liability in general for that kind of outdoor activity.
As a resident of Washington State living 75 miles from Mount Rainier, I hear often of climbers who die through overexposure, misadventure, ill-preparedness, or simply from the whims of nature on the mountain. Yes, it is a National Park, but precisely how much liability does the park system bear on protecting adventurers from themselves? When the National Guard helicopters are sent out for a dangerous mountainside rescue, who should pay the exorbitant costs? (It seems the climbers think this is completely covered by the $10.00 they paid to get into the park grounds.)
Interesting. I may have to start a thread on this during the coming summer when the first fatalities are inevitably announced.