Bayer V. Crested Butte Mt. Resort

Please help me find a conclusion and reflection for this case, the whole case is available on Google.

Reporter 960 P 2d 70 : 1998 Colo.LEXIS 301 - 1998 Colo. J.CAR. 2416 Procedural Posture ERIC BAYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRESTED BUTTE MOUNTAIN RESORT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. A question of law was certified to the court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circult as to what standard of care governed the duty owed by ski lift operators to users of the lifts in winter, and whether Subsequent History: (**] As Modified June 22, the Passenger Tramway Safety Act, 8 Colo. Rev. Stal & 1998 25-5-701 et seq. (1997), and the Ski Safety Liability Act, 9 Colo Rox. Stat 8:33-44-102 et seq. (1997), affected such standard of care. Prior History: Certification of Questions of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Pursuant to C.A.R. 21.1. Disposition: CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED. Core Terms Overview Plaintiffskler fell from a ski lift after losing consciousness. The skier filed a negligence suit against defendant ski resort in federal court, which found that a standard of ordinary care applied and dismissed the case. The federal appellate court certified questions to the court regarding the degree of care due from a ski life operator. The court held that at common law, a ski lift operator had to exercise the highest degree of care because skiers gave up their freedom of movement and surrendered themselves to the care of the ski lift operator, there was nothing skiers could do to prevent accidents, and the ski lift operator had exclusive control of the ift. Neither the Passenger Tramway Safety Act nor the Ski Safety Liability Act modified the degree of care owed. Though violation of either statute constituted negligence per se, neither statute barred preexisting common law negligence actions in which the ski lift operators owed the highest duty of care skilift, Tramway, common carrier, passenger, lin, regulation, ski, highest degree of caro, ski area, Ski Safety Act, standard of care, provisions, preempt, high standards, safety board, common law, factors, skiers, inherently dangerous, practical operation, legislative intent, slopes, commensurate, Inspection, amusement, riding, primary responsibility, ordinary care, licensing questions 5. Conclusion (10 points): Does the team agree with the court, and why? Highlight the importance of this case and how it relates to other cases or situations in life. Explain How does this case impact society as a whole? Please note: - This section must contain the team's ORIGINAL thoughts about the case. Your work is NOT simply a summary of what has already been stated by the court (doing this will produce a grade of "0" for this section). - The thoughts your team submits for the Conclusion must NOT be from other authors or the internet. If your team uses other authors' thoughts in the Conclusion this will be considered plagiarism and your team will receive a grade of "0" for the entire assignment even if you include citations for these thoughts. Your job here is to think for yourselves! 6. Reflection (7 points) Explain briefly how this particular case can impact your careers in tourism or hospitality Highlight the two most important things your team learned from this case