Originally Posted by gonzostrike
1) it's not even a skiing case
2) Sea-Doos and other personal watercraft involve issues of the operator's competence with powered machinery
3) California hardly is the barometer for the Nation's tort law... although it can reasonably be considered the more left-leaning bookend of our Nation's jurisprudence.
For those reasons, I don't need to read the case. If you want to know what it does to you as a skier in California, I suggest asking a CA Bar member.
Primary assumption of the risk also applies to skiing, per other case law, discussed in the case.. The case isn't announcing any new theory, but is toeing the line set by the Cal Supreme Court several years ago. Primary assumption of the risk is not a California concept, but established in common law.
The court also gives a lenghty discussion as to why AOR applies to "thrill" type sports.
So, Gonz, had you bothered to read the case, and assuming you haven't fried your brain cells from breathing in all those welding fumes (just kidding), you would have understood how it applies to skiing,
The bottom line is that in most circumstances, under California law, a participant in a sport, including skiing, cannot sue another participant or facility provider for injuries caused by a hazard inherent to the sport.
This would include, IMHO, someone who runs into you on the slope, unless they were skiing or boarding in a reckless manner. Violation of the "Skiers Responsibility Code" or similar local stautes, such as have been passed in Placer County (home to Squaw, Alpine, Sugar Bowl and others) would not, in and of itself, establish recklessness, though it could be a factor.
Thought it might be of interest.