I agree the sports should be treated differently since they are different sports with different risks (with only one requiring rider skill) but if you read the Loyachuck judgement (paragraph 32-39), you see that waivers being a complete bar to further action principle has been used for a lot of sports that are closer in nature to mountain biking (skiing and rafting for ex).
As it stands waivers bar nearly any recovery when doing a risky activity. Even when the operator is being spectacularly negligent, as was the case with the zipline operation, where the rider was sent down on a guides instructions.
I realize that most people might think that it should be illegal for waivers to go this far, and perhaps it should be, but as it stands right now, it's not, and Whistler certainly won't be getting you to sign any waivers to make it easier to sue them any time soon.
July 2, 2017, 3:56 p.m. - JMaxle
I agree the sports should be treated differently since they are different sports with different risks (with only one requiring rider skill) but if you read the Loyachuck judgement (paragraph 32-39), you see that waivers being a complete bar to further action principle has been used for a lot of sports that are closer in nature to mountain biking (skiing and rafting for ex). As it stands waivers bar nearly any recovery when doing a risky activity. Even when the operator is being spectacularly negligent, as was the case with the zipline operation, where the rider was sent down on a guides instructions. I realize that most people might think that it should be illegal for waivers to go this far, and perhaps it should be, but as it stands right now, it's not, and Whistler certainly won't be getting you to sign any waivers to make it easier to sue them any time soon.