Summary of Four Cases
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In the first case, a skier was skiing on an intermediate slope when a ski instructor collided with her, allegedly due to negligence (Scheffey, 2004). Her federal suit certified two questions to the state court: 1) Does a skier assume the risk of an employee-caused collision, which would foreclose a negligence action against the ski area? 2) Does Connecticut extend the doctrine of Jaworski v. Kieran to skiing? In that case, the state supreme court ruled that to sue in tort, the injuries from a collision in an amateur soccer game had to be caused by intentional or reckless conduct. In this case, the majority compared skiing to golf, running or cycling where contact is unusual, as opposed to football, basketball or hockey where it is expected. It ruled that ôa skier does not assume the risk of a collision with another skier when such collision is caused by the negligence of a ski area operator, its agents or employees.ö In the second case, PennsylvaniaÆs highest court ruled against a girl who was skiing towards a ski lift when another skier collided with her, saying she assumed the risk when she purchased her lift ticket (Litchman, 2000). The court ruled that the skier chose to purchase the ticket, knowing that one of the inherent risks was a collision with another skier, and that, ôAs a matter of law under the SkierÆs Responsibility Act, and the assumption of risk doctrine, which it preserves, appellant is entitled to summary judgment.ö The appelle
. . .
is caused by negligent operation of the ski area by the ski operator, his agents or employees.
In this case, the majority felt the negligence of the ski instructor in running into the skier was the responsibility of the ski area operators (Scheffey, 2004). The dissent claimed that operator error was part of the risk of skiing and that any ski instructor could lose control, no matter how well trained they were, and the ski operator should not be held responsible if a collision occurred.
Case 2: In the second case, The Layette Court of Common Pleas initially granted summary judgement to the ski operator in a case where a skier was injured while making her way to the ski lift (Litchman, 2000). This judgment was overturned by the Superior Court who ruled that the release the skier signed only pertained to injury from the ski equipment and not from other skiers. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the summary judgment, noting that a) while the appellee claimed she was not actually skiing while making her way to the lift, the court felt she was still actively engaged in the sport of skiing, and that making oneÆs way tot he lift was part of the sport; and b) the possibility of a collision at the bottom of slope is one of the com
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Responsibility Act, Norcott Jr, Protection Act, Supreme Court, Jaworski Kieran, Superior CourtÆs, Common Pleas, Superior Court, , Retrieved September, supreme court, court ruled, summary judgment, ski operator, ski instructor, september 8 2005, skierÆs responsibility, dunbar 2004, scheffey 2004, 8 2005, responsibility act, skierÆs responsibility act, retrieved september 8, courts found favor, wyoming recreational safety,
Approximate Word count = 2060
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Summary of Four Cases
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
