Berkshire East cleared of all charges

I just heard on the news that a local ski mountain, Berkshire East, has been cleared of all charges in the death of a teenager a few years ago. Apparently the young lady crashed into either a hydrant or a tree. The reports are not clear on that. Reports also do not indicate whether the skier was "out of control".

Regardless, I am glad to hear that the courts agreed that the ski area was not at fault or liable for the death. Her parents contend that Berkshire East was negligent because it took Ski Patrol too long to respond and that the hydrant was not covered.

Don't get me wrong...the young lady's death certainly is a tragedy and I do not have the "you play, you pay" attitude that some people have about skiing. I must agree with the courts, however.

I am a skier and have been on the slopes for a total of 20+ years. Lots of areas do cover hydrants, lift towers, and other obstructions. I do also believe that most ski areas do their best to mark obstacles that may cause injury. In the event that they cannot, or for whatever reason you hit something and become injured, I do not believe they should be held liable.

Why? To start, when you purchase a ticket you are agreeing to be legally bound by the disclaimer on the back of the ticket. Said disclaimer states that you cannot hold the ski area liable for injury or death. Secondly, if you do not realize that skiing is a high risk sport with very high risk of injury, then you should not be on the slopes. What about strapping two planks with four razor-sharp steel edges to your feet and plummeting down a mountain strikes you as safe?

Tell me this...if you were driving down the road and hit a traffic island or traffic light, would you sue the city because there was something in the way? I doubt it. Driving is also inherently dangerous. There are rules, just like in skiing. (Ski in Control, although I'm not saying she was out of control) There is also inherent risk in the unknown variable of the other drivers. You never know...just like skiing. As a matter of fact, if you did hit something with your car you most likely will be cited for causing damage to whatever you hit. Why? Because it wasn't in your way...it was your job to go around it.

Now in the event that someone else was skiing out of control and directly caused you to be injured you should certainly be able to sue them. And people have; People have won those court cases more often than not as well.

So should a ski area be liable for injury at all? Sure, there are certain things that fall into those categories. Chair lift failed and you get hurt? Yes, they should be liable. The ski area's insurance and state law dictates that machinery must be inspected for safety every so often. Someone driving a snow-cat or snowmobile out of control? I can see at least a 50/50 at fault there.

How is this different than not padding a lift pole or hydrant? Easy. You are not the operator of the chair or snowcat. When you are skiing, you should be allowing yourself an emergency way out, at all times, to avoid objects that are not moving. When you are using someone's else's equipment that is regulated by law, that is different. There should not be laws stating that the ski area is liable for damages caused by stationary objects either. Why? Because again, the objects are stationary and it should be the skier's responsibility to avoid them.

That's just my 2 cents...let's hope laws continue to protect ski areas so they don't have to close down due to insane insurance rates...