Words: 1257
They were the result f negligence on the part of IBIS who failed to mark boundaries that separates the slopes and caused Craig to crossover onto another slope, walking directly into Ale’s path and colliding into him, causing severe bodily harm. Key Facts of the Case Alex was injured on the slopes at Bethlehem Ice Solutions (IBIS) when he collided into Craig who walked into his path while he was skiing. The defense may argue contributory negligence but it is a fact that Alex exercised reasonable duty and care while skiing but could not avoid Craig.
Defense may also argue assumption of the sis, however, Alex is aware that skiing is a dangerous sport that can inflict bodily harm but he exercised the proper caution while skiing and should not have to be subjected to obstacles and dangerous situations due to the negligence of IBIS. The legal principle Causation – cause in fact – comes into play here because Alex would not have been injured but for the negligent actions of IBIS.
Craig was able to cross over onto the slope where Alex was skiing because of negligence on the part of IBIS who failed to correct their poorly designed slopes with Lear boundaries in order to prevent skiers being able to cross over. Also, under Subdivision 7 and also subdivision 8 and 14 of New York Code Article 18, IBIS is responsible for developing and maintaining a written policy for situations involving the reckless conduct of skiers, which includes procedures for approaching and warning skiers of reckless conduct.
Because of their lack of adherence to this code, there were no IBIS personnel on the slope to stop Craig from acting recklessly and crossing over into Ale’s path. Craig decided to walk across the slope due to the difficulty he encountered while king on a slope that was originally earmarked as a less difficult slope to ski on. He was instructed to use this slope by IBIS employees, Dan and Baby. They sent him down a slope that was more difficult than what he was capable of because they were not properly informed by their employer about the changing conditions of the slope due to the recent snowstorm.
Dan and Baby did not implement risk reduction. Properly trained ski staff should be aware of changes in ski conditions due to the By strict its guests and workers. It is also liable for the actions of its employees, Dan and Baby cause the employees’ actions were for the benefit of the employer. IBIS is guilty of breach of duty of care because it failed in its duty to maintain its slopes and did not provide visible information boards stating which slopes were open or closed and the degree of difficulty of each slope.
As ski operators, IBIS has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for its guests and workers and is obligated to operate under New York Code Article 18: Safety in Skiing Code. Section 18-103. Section 5 of the code states that an information board or boards should be splayed showing at minimum the location of tramways, slopes or trails, the status of each trail – open or closed, the relative degree of difficulty of each slope or trail, and the general surface condition of each slope or trail.
Damages As a result of IBIS’ negligence, Alex Johnson suffered extensive injuries including physical impairment and has had to undergo excruciating rehabilitation. Because of past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, medical care and loss of earning capacity that Alex has and will endure, we ask for damages in the amount of $1 Closing Argument Skiers come to IBIS for recreational enjoyment and as long as they exercise the required amount of caution and exercise due care, they expect to remain out of harm’s way.
They abide by the rules and regulations of the ski resort and are under the care of IBIS while using their facilities. It is the responsibility of ski facilities to operate under safe conditions and provide all guests with guidelines about the use of their slopes. IBIS failed to demonstrate duty of care at its facilities and is guilty of negligence that has led to the injuries sustained by Alex Johnson.
Subject: Business Law in the Commercial Environment Students: Paulette Gemots and Sales Marshall Date: 2013-10-19 Imagine your excitement at hearing your favorite ski slope is staying open for an extra weekend, giving you some more time to hone your skills as a professional skier. You set aside a few days to drive up to the slopes and ski until your heart’s content. But during one of your ski sessions, as you’re speeding down a hill, a person suddenly walks into your path and there’s Just no time to avoid them.
The impact is sudden and the injuries many. On that fateful day a fellow skier, Craig, decided to ignore the instructions of two employees of Bethlehem Ice Solutions (IBIS), Dan and Baby, to ski down a slope (Willie’s Wonder) that was best suited for his ski level. He negligently decided to leave the suggested area and enter into the path of another slope without taking the precaution to see if any skiers were approaching. Craig admitted to his breach of duty of care and settled a suit with the plaintiff Alex employees.
Both employees acted professionally and chose the best slope based on his skill level. Key Facts of the Case Alex Johnson was injured as a result of Crag’s negligence, which he admitted to and settled. Ale’s injuries were not caused by Bethlehem Ice Solutions. There is a clear case for contributory negligence, because both skiers were at fault, Alex for the assumption of risk and Craig for breach of duty of care because he failed to take precautions on the ski slopes.
IBIS should not be held responsible for Crag’s inability to handle the slope and his decision to take it upon himself to walk onto another slope that required more experience. A reasonable person would have concluded hat the best way to exit a slope was to follow the path of that slope to avoid the risk of injury to themselves and other skiers. IBIS did not breach duty of care because according to “N. Y. GOB.
LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers” 10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both. Contributory negligence occurs when a plaintiffs conduct falls below a certain tankard necessary for the plaintiffs protection, and this conduct cooperates with the defendant’s negligence in causing harm to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has the duty to protect himself from possible harm. With the doctrine of assumption of risk as a valid argument Alex was fully aware of the inherent risks of skiing. So damages should not be awarded from IBIS or its’ employee’s. Bethlehem Ice Solutions had posted at every point of sale and distribution of lift tickets a “Warning to Skiers” containing text and graphics informing each skier of the inherent risks of skiing in accordance with regulations of the labor law.