Interesting opinion here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/C047061.PDF
Everyone gets off but the snowboarder.
There is justice in the world.
Interesting opinion here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/C047061.PDF
Everyone gets off but the snowboarder.
There is justice in the world.
Quote:
While racing down an advanced run is part of the thrill of snowboarding, intentionally speeding into a flat area at the base of an advanced run where people have stopped to rest, when one is unfamiliar with the area, without looking where one is going is not an integral and unavoidable part of the sport. North’s conduct is analogous to a freeway driver who exits the freeway without slowing down or looking for other cars that are also exiting. As a result, he crashes into one that has stopped and is waiting to turn onto a connecting street.
sounds ok to me.
Yep, the depth of the recklessness seemed to far outweigh any assumption of the risk.
Of course, the "facts" all come from the plaintiff, since she lost on summary judgment. But if the facts are indeed as she states, she seems to have a case.
Note also that the Skier's Responsibility Code is discussed at pp. 14-15 and used to establish the boarder's knowledge of his duty of care.
You working stiffs should try and get CLE credit for your board time.
Now that's a great idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
Looking at beaver's NSFW posts could qualify as First Amendment study!
And apparently truth assaulted a priest while speeding, which could qualify for... uh... something, I'm sure.
I thought priests were the ones who did the assaulting?
Yeah, but now that truth is over 16... they took the priest's word for it.