Considering this case and the heli ski and fly fishing articles below, it raises some questions.
What level of risk is appropriate in a guided setting? Should novice clients be allowed the same exposure as enthusiasts and trained participants? Ski instructors get this, as they take their beginners to the green runs. Paddling instructors teach basic skills in sheltered bays or on easy rivers. Guided participation trips though, like canyoneering, heli skiing, or rafting allow people access to terrain they clearly do not have the skills and experience for (hence they hire a guide). Is it that easy? What are the limits to assumed risk and informed consent when the client has zero experience with the environment? The courts often side with the freedom of choice argument (but not always), for adults at least. But realistically, at the extreme end of things at least, assumption of risk and informed consent, while legally binding, often turn out to be pretty hollow when things go wrong.