accident event that took place on march twenty eighth two thousand and sixteen when mrs patterson and her son luke and her husband to welker went on a ski trip to powder monarch down in southern colorado they were unloading from a ski ski lift chair lift and when they did they lost balance they fell the according to mrs patterson the young man that was the operator attendant was not watching he was several feet away twenty feet away or so from the from the chairlift they go down he reacts he has different stories with long and short of it is he doesn't stop the chair in time he doesn't go to the chair stop start slow buttons doesn't stop in time this gear behind this is patterson comes down hits her in the back of the left leg saffron's nerves she's a young woman forty five years old dollars worth i came up in colorado three times as is a lady the neighbor my son's neighbor's wife and son come out to went down potter monarch took all these depositions experts the whole head agreed to release her claims for personal injury based on the jones factors i just want to say this is a very very i understand there's a big recreation injury husband they don't remember going to pick up a ticket the ticket has this six hundred fifty words on three by five inch piece of paper on the back of that lift ticket i've been coming out here says only two with my family my daughter can we say that the judge said that it was it was reasonable because she it was fairly entered into it could not have been fairly entered into it could not have that as you know within it it was on the ticket pending district court did not find that it was hidden did it it was on the ticket oh no no no i'm not suggesting that the court found that it was in the courts i'm quite to the contrary that it was dictates that a trial take place in this case putting on glasses i'm sorry but it putting on glasses and using a magnifying glass are two different things so i guess that's an editor's time well that's not the point i mean stone spoke about magnifying glass yes well whether that was in a year right you would need a magnifying glass read it he couldn't she couldn't read aberdare position which was eighteen point months after the accident she was the going up on the ski lift that was all quite clear whether she chose to disregard it and pull it off and not read it was her choice but it was her choice anderson readable and the warning was clear i found that of course a release was signed before the action the court said that and the court also said that the two most important parts of the final two  inquiries under the jones factor test that you know one and two are not appropriate but three and four were in reputational cases three and four are in there in the mountain bike race what happened there is interesting the gentle the young boy or the young man rents the bike or actually he pays for a lift ticket he gets by compliant he goes to the top not happen so she was not going to walk away let's assume for the moment that she could read it that she did read it she understood it she still didn't get any consideration for it and as you know the no and what in minson relied upon the signature minton turn on that there were two things at least the court pointed to one the temporal gap in the fact that they were part of the same transaction i know that that's different because you know it was within minutes i think this time analysis time last two minutes months of you know whatever i think that's nonsense to be honest with you well you can think it's nonsense all you want but m n relied upon well gapped kind of said that but they said he went to head and signed it and then went ahead and did it so signing a release is different very very different from having a piece of paper on the back of a lift ticket that's just a different factual thing as a matter of practical reality in my my respectful opinion it may be a different factual thing it is  different factual thing but that doesn't mean that those different facts have a legal significance that's the point we're trying to get at is whether really matters whether you're not i mean if she had then she had the green men and no separate consideration was necessary and that's the point by virtue of the today in her role that there was no separate consideration necessary and wasn't that enough because it's not a single transaction if she  these points have been seriously briefed i would say that the p l a does was does not preempt it was waived it wasn't raised on time we've breached the very thoroughly we clearly stated a cause of action under the under the safety act beyond any question i really do wish i had more time to discuss all of those things in detail with you and some of the arguments that i've had in courts of  around in st louis particularly i'm granted some extra time when there's a lot of question you know back and forth sort of thing but i would request that if that's if that's appropriate if not i will sit down and retain and reserve my last twenty contract if the contract is contained on a ticket and the ticket is to live or die after pima i don't think this case is any different than in this scenario where the guest of the ski area in the rodriguez case which is that on published case and then thirdly we have the minson decision which your honour's of already referred to in that case and i don't think there's a legally meaningful distinction between activists in this case in the myths and case the jurors as soon as i should i should say that as the district court found here this is to asian in this situation we have even more integrated transaction that's because we were dealing with a preprinted ticket the ticket was written instrument so in our case as the district court found we have an integrated transaction and i don't think that today is different being here he has she said might not i don't i don't want to release liability she could have obviously want to weigh in but she would not have gotten her her money back right right and i think according to the case law that doesn't invalidate the expulsion tory provision the plaintiff is arguing she wasn't free to walk away because she would have lost the money but when the cases talk about being free to walk away we're talking about the liberty to walk away the evil walk away and you're able to walk away because recreation is not an unnecessary good light housing or employment or utilities or sanitation so previous contract but that that was the case and brigance and rodriguez as well to the tickets were purchased the tickets indicated right on the ticket that they were nonrefundable and the plaintiff didn't rodriguez to get from the ticket in this case and you're free to walk away discussion has he found any i understand the imprints that you derive from the cases that focused on sort of necessities and when they were talking about whether you were free to walk away have you found any cases that specifically addressed the argument that i hear appellant making which is essentially that you know i paid fifty seven dollars and therefore i couldn't it was  the the leading case on that is from the us supreme court i think it's carnival cruise cruise lines first issued in that case the the the passenger on a cruise line she received the at the ticket was not on her find the ball and the ticket had a form selection clause and the supreme court majority in that case so even though you already paid for the ticket the ticket was  but i think that's most of what we have in this case and again if we look at the case law the focus is whether or not there is a unequal bargaining power and there's according to the colorado case files of this court that exists only in cases where there you're bargaining for something of practical necessity and so the courts have routinely found that it in cases of recreation and fairness doesn't excess council what bothers me on this freedom walk way is that there's a metaphor refundable provision right except the focus is on whether she needed that service and she was at liberty perhaps at the risk of losing the money to and i think what matters here is that she went ahead and use the ticket so she agreed to the terms of the ticket by her use of the ticket she never had an objection to the exculpatory provision in the ticket and she went ahead and used the a ticket demonstrating her scent i think it's significant on that point has she read or we allowed her husband to sign  half of her children so she didn't have any reservation about waiving her rights to sue as a condition to the monarch so that issue never came gigi was never placed in that situation where she had it the choice between foregoing her fifty seven dollars because she was unwilling to give up her right to sue that just didn't happen in the facts of this case as minson court address the fact that the transaction took place at the mountain so that's a different situation we have nine hundred miles between st louis and monarch driving time so i don't know this is the first i've heard about a refund claim but many of that the you're right you're out of that was a metaphor she would have been out or money if she didn't even if she did walk away so it wasn't free thank you very much for your time