Boggy B wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:08 pm
I don't think ski areas fall under the CRUS since the visitors are paying, though I'm not sure how it works with uphill policies (waiver?). But, yeah.
Earlier in this thread it was stated the major alteration proposed to the CRUS was to eliminate the word "willfully" (as in, "the academy knew about the washout and
simply elected not to post a sign or fix it"), the implication being that, striking that word, Nelson's lawyers would have had to prove the AFA acted maliciously. In that case the CRUS has much bigger problems. Honestly it sounds like the AFA was actually, not maliciously, negligent. A $7m decision is shocking, but a dude bombing 30mph down a presumably maintained bike path can reasonably expect not to fall in a truck-sized hole, i.e. a hazard not inherent in that specific activity. It's reaching to think that could be applied to win a settlement related to hiking 14ers if you post a sign about whatever incredibly obvious man-made hazards one might encounter at the blazing speed of 2mph.
And yet, their attorneys (plural) continue to advise them to shut down because they are at risk. I don't think these landowners are acting unreasonably for taking the advice of legal counsel.
During the Committee Hearing, three different attorneys, including a law professor who teaches courses on liabilit premise law, and a recreational law attorney who worked in the ski industry for 35 years. They all agreed that there was still some significant risk in the statute, especially after the Nelson case demonstrated that it can indeed be overcome - and that if these landowners were their client, they'd recommend shutting down access without hesitation - too much uncertainty.
The Senate Committee simply chose to ignore them - likely because they weren't bankrolling their campaigns like the Trial Lawyers Association.
In the case of the CRUS, the actual legal protection is meaningless if a single high-profile case causes so much concern that thousands of acres of land are closed to the public. In that case, the law must be changed to assure owners they are totally immune - as that is the entire point of the law.
If people aren't willing to accept the risks that come with biking on other people's land - they should not go biking. That may seem harsh - but I have lots of friends who won't climb or bike with me - because they don't want to take on that risk. To each their own.
**Oh and there is no exemption in the CRUS for negligence - if you're on someone else's land, they owe you no duty of care - which means they can't be negligent in providing that care. The only exception where landowners are not protected is if they charge fees, run a business on that land, or willfully or maliciously fail to warn or guard against dangerous conditions. It seems illogical to state in the law that the owners don't owe a duty of care to visitors they allow to visit - but also say they owe people a warning for each and every known danger on the property. Doesn't that seem a bit out of line?
Lastly, the hazard on the Air Force Academy, the wash-out, was created by an act of god - it wasn't man-made. So presumably, a landslide or washout that takes out a section of the democrat trail, or a collapsing mine tunnel, would still be a dangerous condition. If the owner goes out hiking and notices the washout - or someone calls him to tell him about it - how quickly does he have to go out there and post a sign? What if someone falls the next day, and he's still working on ordering a sign or recruiting help to carry it up and install it? Trails aren't easy fixes.
People ride mountain bikes down 14ers, and it's getting more popular. People parasail off Mount Democrat all the time. People drive jeeps and off road vehicles up Mount Bross - and there's lots of good ice climbing in the area. Point being - there are lots of dangerous activities. If someone whipped down a trail right after an owner discovered a washout caused by a storm - but before he had a chance to coordinate installing a sign - he could easily be sued.
You get the point. This case created significant uncertainty - when no lawsuit had ever succeeded against landowners, they felt 100% safe and there really weren't major concerns. But now - they know they are not 100% safe. But they have no idea where the limit is - because many of these details are open legal questions that only a judge or jury can decide. Why would they put up signs and cross their fingers - especially now that John cannot find liability insurance for his land - when they can just put up a 'stay out' sign and call it a day? That is by far the easiest and simplest option - and yet he works nonstop to try to find an alternative.
I was lucky enough to get the peaks in years past, but this stinks for the many people who would still like to climb these peaks. Thanks to those who have put letter templates up to contact the legislators - I'll be sure to join in on that.
thank you for this post!!! Sounds like an awesome person and an ally!!!! He’s working for our interests. 
