Oregon skiing waiver lawsuit

[dpreguy 14]

Not illegal acts, but in all cases of ordinary negligence, yes. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it ridiculous.
Errors in judgment, errors/ defects in packing, etc, are all acts of ordinary negligence and are waivered, and should be. Adults can choose to expose themselves to risk or they can walk away. If sports activities companies and events are not protected by waiver, and have to obtain insurance, who would write that policy? Casualty insurance companies that would assess (with actuaries) the risk and write the policies to cover anticipated losses and still make a profit. The premiums would reflect this increased exposure, and would be sky high. Of course I just made up the figures about $50 skydives and $200 pony rides, but these may actually be low. The end result is that these sport activities and sport activity companies would go out of business, as very few people would pay $500 or $1000 for a tandem jump, as the instructors, the company, the mfgs of equipment, aircraft companies, etc would all have to be covered. Think I am exaggerating? I doubt it. Ski areas would have to charge phenomenal prices for a lift ticket, 10 K run organizers the same, as would all of the companies on my short list. etc etc. Waivers are an agreement. The prospective customer can accept the risk or walk away. Reasonably priced sports activities are the gateway for adults to participate in fun and yes, risky stuff. That's the way it is everywhere but Oregon. For now. The nanny mentality of saying all waivers are unconscionable, is depriving those persons who are willing to make their own decisions on risk. Treats adults like they were children.

[jakee 1,254]

dpreguy

Not illegal acts, but in all cases of ordinary negligence, yes. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it ridiculous.

Ah, well there were other legally controlled factors in my post that you didn't pick up on, so I assumed you were waiving them.

Quote

If sports activities companies and events are not protected by waiver, and have to obtain insurance, who would write that policy? Casualty insurance companies that would assess (with actuaries) the risk and write the policies to cover anticipated losses and still make a profit. The premiums would reflect this increased exposure, and would be sky high. Of course I just made up the figures about $50 skydives and $200 pony rides, but these may actually be low. The end result is that these sport activities and sport activity companies would go out of business, as very few people would pay $500 or $1000 for a tandem jump, as the instructors, the company, the mfgs of equipment, aircraft companies, etc would all have to be covered. Think I am exaggerating? I doubt it.

In the UK you cannot waive your right to sue. Some companies still have them but legally it makes no difference. We still have DZs, and we still (in the few places snow exists) have skiing and we still have 10k runs.

Quote

Waivers are an agreement. The prospective customer can accept the risk or walk away.

Yes, the customer can accept the inherent risk. What they can't accept is the risk that the operator is intentionally and knowingly operating in an unsafe manner. I've never seen a waiver that states "BTW, we're a fly-by-night operation that doesn't conform to basic industry safety standards" for the customer to see, have you?

Quote

The nanny mentality of saying all waivers are unconscionable, is depriving those persons who are willing to make their own decisions on risk. Treats adults like they were children.

Once again, that's not what they've said. They've said that blanket waivers which remove any responsibility from the operator under any circumstances whatsoever are unconscionable.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dpreguy 14]

I guess it all depends on your point of view and philosophy regarding the legal system, the government's role (laws encouraging vs laws discouraging lawsuits) and the range of opinions regarding ideas of personal choice and personal responsibility. We probably never would agree on those issues. Libertarianism v socialism; trust in government v mistrust of government, and the vast differences of one's belief of what the "social contract" is and isn't. I respect your views; but on this issue, but don't share them.