Originally Posted by Paul Jones
The brunt of this law will probably fall on the shoulders of the snowboarders.
I suspect the brunt of this law will fall on those who a) break it, b) get caught, and c) are prosecuted (the resort presses charges). I am sure that there is a particular demographic that is more likely satisfy (a) and probably even somewhat more likely to satisfy (b), but the notion that a major ski area will automatically resort to (c) simply because of (a) and (b) is unlikely. My guess is most resorts will continue to take your pass and kick you off the hill just like (if) they do today.
That the resort can put more WARNING!!! on their signs to deter activity that they don't want and have not wanted before this law is probably the biggest outcome. Whether or not this will deter anybody is an open question, but really, do you see your favorite resort risking gaining a reputation for legally pressing charges rather than just kicking you off the hill? They get to spend more money to probably get less skier days?
I wonder if this law doesn't actually lessen a resort's liability for (not) saving you from yourself if you break what is now the law. Americans in particular love to assume that laws are written specifically to reduce your freedom rather than limiting a powerful interest's liability when that powerful interest intersects with your dollar - this law simply makes you more liable for your actions than before and the resort more capable of enforcing your liability.
The state does not care if you kill yourself. If it did, Twinkies would be banned. The state does care when a multi-billion dollar industry can be subjected to liability for a dangerous tourism business that is essential to its economy, or when it is subjected to increased costs (managing out of bounds areas) that cannot reasonably be charged back to the offending user. You can either reduce the cost by reducing the activity by increasing the penalty/consequence, or you charge everybody extra on their lift tickets. Seems to me the resorts would rather increase the penalty to the offenders rather than increasing usage fees for everybody.
Edited by NayBreak - 11/7/11 at 8:01am