Originally Posted by freeski919
If your options are to get into a collision with another skier, or go into the trees, you've already done something seriously wrong prior to that moment. That is the problem here. People are talking about what happened moments, instants before the collision happened. The responsibility of Red was far before that, not to put himself in a position to get into the collision.
The concept I am getting at is Reductio ad absurdum.
I ski up right behind you while you are making short turns up against the trees. I pull up so your tips are in line with my bindings just as the tree line cuts into the trail. You have lost the ability to turn effectively, I am the downhill skier, it is your responsibility to avoid a collision with me but I just eliminated your ability to stop and I have to turn away from the trees so that you can. You hit me and it is your fault.
Codes of conduct, absent incorporation into contract or law, are aspirational standards, and they function well in that regard for things like memberships. But if you fail the standard of reduction to the absurd, then you fail a proper legal standard. If we are discussing membership fault (getting your pass pulled) vs. legal liability fault (negligence), then modifying the SCOC to the behavior you want is fine. You could even include a dress code banning red. If it is legal, you have to be a lot more careful.
These concepts are being mixed up. There is no 'fault' in a code of conduct. There are violations of a code of conduct. Codes of conduct set general principles to be followed...they are 'class of behavior' standards that provide for revocation of privileges when violated.
Red violated the SCOC, but gray could well be seen as being legally at fault for any injuries ( at least in CO ). Segbrown's informal polling indicates this well enough. The terms uphill and downhill may not create enough meaning to address 'adjacent' space. People may not like the idea of right of way, but again, at least in CO, the law obviously intends to address the concept of collisions where the downhill skier has fault.
This thread is not about CO, but CO statute points out that modifying the SCOC has no bearing beyond membership privilege here, as well as that the law in this state disagrees in plain English with the majority opinion on this thread.
Again, from the Colorado Ski Safety Act, Duties of Skiers section:
(2) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him.
I would like an explanation as to how gray fulfilled his duties under CO law. Keep in mind failure to meet a duty assigned to you under the Colorado Ski Safety Act is negligence. What do you think the duty to control "course" means? If you can take any course at any time or place independent of your surroundings, then there is no standard to fail and no duty of care. But the law gives CO skiers a duty to maintain control of course in the context of avoiding collisions, so they intended something more than the downhill skier can do anything at any time in regards to course, yes? What was that intent if not something more than "ahead"?Edited by NayBreak - 11/23/13 at 11:05pm