http://www.snewsnet.com/ If it happens in the outdoor and fitness markets, SNEWS® is there so you can listen in. Always insightful, sometimes humorous, absolutely invaluable. No one covers the outdoor and fitness markets better than we do, period. In print since 1983, on the web since 2000, and now in audio for your listening pleasure. Interviews, special reports, event coverage, and more. en Copyright SNEWS® LLC, all rights reserved Tue, 13 May 2008 07:30:02 -0600 60 http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11825.html Fronckowiak-Kelm is a very short New York appellate case that succinctly describes how retailers are part of the liability chain in product liability cases. In Fronckowiak-Kelm the plaintiff was injured when the quick release on her bicycle failed, causing her to be thrown her over the handlebars of her bike. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11825.html Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11605.html Indiana product liability law is controlled by statute which severely limits the defenses available to a defendant in a product liability case. Here the retailer and manufacturer were sued for injuries when a ski binding failed to release. The plaintiff had signed a “sales slip” which contained release language when she picked up the skis; however the sales slip containing the release was only effective against one of the three claims of the plaintiff. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11605.html Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11606.html Plaintiff-appellant Eldonna Moore (Moore) broke her leg in a snow skiing accident. She subsequently brought this suit against defendant-appellees Salomon North America, Inc. (Salomon) and Sitzmark Corporation (Sitzmark), the manufacturer and seller, respectively, of the ski bindings she was using when she broke her leg. The trial court granted summary judgment to Salomon and Sitzmark, and Moore now appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11606.html Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11466.html Everyone wants to be prepared, which is the motto the Boy Scouts have been promoting for almost 100 years. Every person who takes a first aid case wants to be a savior, to bring a person home alive, to rescue the dying and give the near-dead a second chance at life. Even more, no one wants to feel “if they had only”, they might have saved someone. To meet those personal needs, some first aid instructional programs have started training beyond what is defined as first aid. First aid providers are marketing themselves by saying they teach more than anyone else in the field. That includes teaching the use of prescription drugs and invasive procedures. Many Wilderness First Responder (WFR) programs teach that carrying prescription drugs into the woods is ok or even required to meet the standards of the industry. However industry standards, no matter how well-meaning, cannot violate the law. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11466.html Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11329.html Anaya v Town Sports International, Inc., et al., 2007 NY Slip Op 7875; 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10819 In this case a manufacturer (Petzl) sold climbing harnesses to a New York-based climbing gym. A gym employee attached a beginner climber to the harness using a gear loop rather than the normal tie in points. The beginning climber fell and was injured. Even though Petzl had the requisite warning label on its harness, and even though it is common knowledge among anyone with any experience as a climber that tying into a gear loop is not safe (as the climbing gym employee did), the company became party to the lawsuit once an appellate court decided that the warning labels on the harness, which have been used in several other industries, were not adequate to keep the harness manufacture out of court. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11329.html Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11340.html The climber was injured while descending a rock climbing wall because the operator's employee tied the safety line to a non-weight bearing gear loop on the harness the climber was wearing rather than to the anchor point. As the climber descended, the gear loop tore away from the harness, causing the climber to fall. The climber asserted causes of action for, inter alia, negligence and strict products liability. On appeal, the court modified the trial court's order as to the design defect and failure to warn claims. Because it was admitted that novice climbers had been known to attach safety lines to gear loops and other parts of the harness, the reasonableness of the manufacturer's decision to include a gear loop on a harness used for indoor rock climbing based on its questionable utility and the serious risk posed was a question for the jury. While a small label on the harness contained a skull and crossbones symbol and directed the user to refer to the manual, the sufficiency of the warning was questionable as no warning on the harness itself specifically advised against tying a safety line to the gear loop. The employee's conduct was not unforeseeable as a matter of law. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11340.html Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11328.html Carrel vs. National Cord & Braid Corporation Even though this case includes the Boy Scouts, a summer camp, a challenge or COPE course and Project Adventure and is a product liability case, the case boils down to a simple defense: Was the user a knowledgeable or sophisticated user of the product? As a knowledgeable user, not a sophisticated user, the injured party cannot win a product liability case against the manufacturer. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11328.html Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11120.html The camper's eye was injured when a knot securing cord to a zipline apparatus at defendant youth organization's camp came untied. The manufacturer had sold the cord to defendant adventure education supplier, which resold it to the organization. The supplier was aware of a risk that knots tied in such cord would come undone. The appellate court affirmed the trial court judgment and adopted the sophisticated user defense to failure to warn claims in negligence and breach of warranty actions. The evidence warranted the trial court's jury instruction that the manufacturer's duty to warn might be lessened if the user's experience, expertise, and knowledge far exceeded its own. The camper waived his objection that he should have been considered the user by failing to raise it at trial. The trial court used proper safeguards against undue prejudice in admitting evidence that the manufacturer was a small business and excluding evidence that it was insured. Evidence that it had received no complaints about similar accidents was properly admitted as relevant to its failure to conduct tests, and evidence on industry knowledge was properly excluded because it would not have changed the result. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11120.html Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11121.html Presently pending and ready for resolution in this product liability case is the motion of Defendant TSA Stores, Inc. to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. 1 (Paper 7). Because the court will rely on materials outside the pleadings, the motion will be treated as one for summary judgment. The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and decision deferred in part. Plaintiff will be permitted to file a surreply on one issue. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11121.html Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11119.html Christina Porter died from injuries she suffered while participating in an introductory ski class at Dartmouth College. Her parents have sued Dartmouth for negligence and wrongful death. Dartmouth has moved to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the New Hampshire Skiers, Ski Area, and Passenger Tramway Safety Act ("Ski Statute"), N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 225-A. Because I conclude that plaintiffs' claims are not precluded by the Ski Statute, I deny Dartmouth's motion to dismiss. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11119.html Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11094.html Presently pending and ready for resolution in this product liability case is the motion of Defendant TSA Stores, Inc. to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. 1 (Paper 7). Because the court will rely on materials outside the pleadings, the motion will be treated as one for summary judgment. The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and decision deferred in part. Plaintiff will be permitted to file a surreply on one issue. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11094.html Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11096.html The child participated in an after-school riding program at the stable. She was injured when a horse became frightened in a corral. That horse caused a lead rope to tighten around her hand, which resulted in serious injury. The court determined that § 12-553, which governed the usage of exculpatory clauses in the equine industry, did not provide blanket immunity for a stable, regardless of how, when, and where a customer was injured by a horse. Under § 12-553, a stable was permitted to limit its liability for injuries that occurred to a rider after she had taken control of an equine through the use of exculpatory clauses provided that certain conditions had been met. However, the language of § 12-553 failed to define the term "taken control" and also failed to state whether a signed release had to specifically recite its acknowledgements. Moreover, if § 12-553 applied to non-riding situations, then its requirements that a stable properly install suitable tack and assign equines based upon a rider's skill and experience would be rendered meaningless. Therefore, the court concluded that § 12-553 failed to limit the liability of the stable or its operators. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11096.html Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11259.html Rayeski v. Gunstock Area/Gunstock Area Commission, 146 N.H. 495; 776 A.2d 1265; 2001 N.H. LEXIS 103 Rayeski v. Gunstock Area/Gunstock Area Commission is a short and simple case that examines the New Hampshire statutes dealing with skiing and ski areas and concludes the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty after he was injured skiing into unpadded light pole. The plaintiff was skiing late in the afternoon around 4:30 PM when he struck an unpadded light pole on the slope. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the ski area which was granted by the trial court. A motion to dismiss is a motion filed before an answer is filed by the defendants because the plaintiff has failed to make a legally recognizable claim in the plaintiff’s complaint. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11259.html Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11258.html Schoeps v. Whitewater Adventures LLC and Mark Gholson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1387 This case was quickly dismissed by the court because the defendants were able to raise and prove the defense of Res Judicata. Res Judicata (Latin for a matter already judged) is a legal term meaning this is the second time the legal arguments and facts are being plead by the same plaintiffs and defendants. Because we have gone through this argument once, the law says you cannot be forced to go through it again. Once a case is settled or tried and the appeals have ended or been decided the case is over forever. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11258.html Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11135.html Aron Sobel had four days to see Turkey before coming home to graduate from medical school. The 25-year-old from Potomac, Md., had a guidebook listing sights to see and things to do but no advice on the dangers of traveling by bus. On May 3, 1995, a speeding Turkish bus crashed in a ravine, killing Sobel and 22 others. Since then his mother, Rochelle Sobel, has forged a network of bereaved relatives who lobby the State Department to warn American travelers about international risks of the road. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11135.html Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11104.html This case points out two important issues of importance to the outdoor recreation and ski industry in the U.S. The first is to always get a release signed. The second is statutes that limit liability always have holes that a good plaintiff’s lawyer can exploit. For that reason, always get a release signed. In this case the parents of a college student who died in a ski accident in a for credit class on a ski hill owned by the college were successful in beating a motion for summary judgment against the college, even though New Hampshire has a skier safety act. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/11104.html Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10587.html Alexander v. The Sports Authority, Inc., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43317 This case explains how a retailer was able to successfully remove itself from a product liability case without damaging the case or the defenses of the manufacturer of the product. In this case The Sports Authority and Schwinn were accused of negligence and product liability in a bicycle accident case. The allegations were a little stretched for those of you in the cycling industry; however you can see how these same allegations could be used effectively in the future if not properly prevented. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10587.html Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:00:00 MST http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10585.html How many signatures should you have on a release in an ideal scenario? The perfect answer is “all of them” but “not too many.” Allow us to explain. “All of them” means all members of the family and “not too many” means no one else but the family members. However the reality of life is 99 percent of the time one signature of the person undertaking the activity is going to be all you get. But that 1 percent of the time it may be important to get a non-participating spouses signature as well to avoid legal headaches down the road. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10585.html Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10586.html Arizona now allows a parent to sign a release on behalf of a child for equine activities under the Arizona Equine Liability Act ARS § 12-553(A)(2). A release will not apply to protect against willful, wanton or intentional acts or for gross negligence. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10586.html Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 MDT http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10584.html Earlier this year the Alaska legislature enacted Alaska Stat. § 09.65.292 (2007). This statute allows a parent to sign a release on behalf of their minor child for participation in sports or recreational activities. Alaska now joins Ohio, Colorado and California in allowing a parent to sign a release for their minor child. http://www.snewsnet.com/cgi-bin/snews/10584.html Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:00:00 MDT