Comments on: Liability roundup https://www.overlawyered.com/2019/03/liability-roundup-52/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Fri, 08 Mar 2019 22:56:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: CarLitGuy https://www.overlawyered.com/2019/03/liability-roundup-52/comment-page-1/#comment-353337 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 22:56:17 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=72998#comment-353337 In reply to SPO.

I can appreciate why they found that way, against the other skier.

How long, do you think, before the ski lodge is held liable for the gross negligence of its patrons in injuring other patrons – likely on some theory the slopes are inadequately marked, poorly designed, or that they should have taken some other, obvious in retrospect for purposes of litigation, affirmative action to prevent the claimed injuries from occurring?

Worries of a slippery slope (pun intended) do not seem unfounded in this instance

]]> By: SPO https://www.overlawyered.com/2019/03/liability-roundup-52/comment-page-1/#comment-353336 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 21:15:38 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=72998#comment-353336 In reply to Torts 101.

100% agree.

]]> By: Torts 101 https://www.overlawyered.com/2019/03/liability-roundup-52/comment-page-1/#comment-353331 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 16:28:28 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=72998#comment-353331 The Minnesota ski race seems reasonable and easy. The risks you impliedly assume while skiing are of a certain kind that are related to your actions and/or the resort and/or nature — falling, sliding, hitting trees, maybe even avalanche or frostbite. But should that prevent you from suing another participant who is recklessly flying down the slopes and crashes into you while not even looking? No, it shouldn’t. The risk of a co-equal participant being a tortious idiot, should not be one you are presumed to assume.

]]>