Are some activities too dangerous for liability?

It is comforting to know that there is legal recourse in the case that someone else causes an injury to another person, even if the injury is the result of an accident. There are limits, however, as a Pennsylvania lawsuit demonstrated.

  • What was the origin of the lawsuit?

The plaintiff in the lawsuit had fractured his leg when he struck a rut while skiing on a commercial slope. Although the waiver for participation included an indemnity for the ski slope operator, the suit alleged the hazards were not appropriately highlighted in the disclaimer.

  • How did the court rule?

A judge in the slope’s home county dismissed the lawsuit. The decision stated that the act of skiing as a sport is inherently dangerous and the idea of a participant relinquishing a right to sue the operator of a ski slope is moot.

  • How may this ruling affect other personal injury lawsuits?

The idea that someone automatically accepts the risks of certain activities on land owned or operated by a person or organization that would be liable is a new approach to premises liability. Although the judge also dismissed concerns about the presentation of a waiver, the automatic acceptance of liability is important for anyone engaged in behavior that is considered to be inherently risky.

  • What should a person do if he or she may have been injured through someone else’s fault?

Even if there is a chance that no liability exists, it is often worth investigating the matter with an attorney. Legal representation to handle personal interests can help clarify the possibility of taking a person or organization to task over an injury.