Jay Peak Lawsuit - Page 10

AlpineZone

Page 10 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 312
  1. #91
    ^^^ Who is posturing? I was simply putting out a few facts for you, since it appeared that you didn't absorb any information from the preceding eight pages. The speed was discussed at length, the location was discussed ad nauseum and we really have no idea how this all happened, when it comes right down to it. And the kid was five, not six. You didn't even absorb my post, where I agreed with you on the speed point. The blind side may or may not be an issue but I think it is worth pondering.

    Love Jay Peak? Hate Jay Peak? You might enjoy this:
    The Real Jay Peak Snow Report

  2. #92
    What it boils down to to me is that I can't assign any responsibility to the person instructing/caring for the young victim nor the mountain's policies on having instruction held on Interstate.

    I don't mean to diminish the awful experience of this young girl and her family, but how often does such an accident during a ski school lesson with youngsters even happen in our sport at such a horrific level? A handful of times across the country during a season of 50+ million skier visits? I wouldn't be surprised if such a horrible accident has never occurred during Jay's ski school prior to this one event. Think of the tens of thousands of young skiers who have probably been taught on Interstate for years and years. A freak accident happens and now the mountain is either somehow criminally liable or at the very least needs to change it's policy on where youngsters are taught how to ski when it was a pedestrian not on the clock who caused the accident?

    Even if Jay should be considered criminally liable or you believe they need to change their policies; at what age/ability level can you make a case that the mountain is not liable conducting a ski lesson on Interstate and that it's okay to offer ski instruction on that trail? Age is out because there are 5 year olds that can ski Kitz Woods at Jay. Ability is out because a young beginner could get decked on any green trail on the mountain that's open to the public. It's all completely subjective. The only argument I could see for criminal liability or need for policy change is if Jay has a long documented history of similar accidents occurring in their ski school and a demonstrated refusal to improve safety.

    I understand the concept of a ski instructor trying to bring along youngsters in a safe environment, but such a freak accident could happen practically anywhere on a ski mountain; and it hardly ever does. If it did happen often, far fewer of us would be participating in the sport or allowing or children to.

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Bird Rider View Post
    ^^^ Who is posturing? I was simply putting out a few facts for you, since it appeared that you didn't absorb any information from the preceding eight pages. The speed was discussed at length, the location was discussed ad nauseum and we really have no idea how this all happened, when it comes right down to it. And the kid was five, not six. You didn't even absorb my post, where I agreed with you on the speed point. The blind side may or may not be an issue but I think it is worth pondering.
    Settle down Francis, I wasnt implying you were posturing, the lawsuit is.
    Live Free or Die
    137 days 08-09
    16 days 09-10

  4. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by AdironRider View Post
    Settle down Francis, I wasnt implying you were posturing, the lawsuit is.
    Well, that's a relief.

    Meanwhile, kudos to DHS for bringing the thread back on track. It really is a messed up situation for all involved, with the emotions evoked by injured children making it all the more complicated.
    Love Jay Peak? Hate Jay Peak? You might enjoy this:
    The Real Jay Peak Snow Report

  5. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    What it boils down to to me is that I can't assign any responsibility to the person instructing/caring for the young victim nor the mountain's policies on having instruction held on Interstate.

    I don't mean to diminish the awful experience of this young girl and her family, but how often does such an accident during a ski school lesson with youngsters even happen in our sport at such a horrific level? A handful of times across the country during a season of 50+ million skier visits? I wouldn't be surprised if such a horrible accident has never occurred during Jay's ski school prior to this one event. Think of the tens of thousands of young skiers who have probably been taught on Interstate for years and years. A freak accident happens and now the mountain is either somehow criminally liable or at the very least needs to change it's policy on where youngsters are taught how to ski when it was a pedestrian not on the clock who caused the accident?

    Even if Jay should be considered criminally liable or you believe they need to change their policies; at what age/ability level can you make a case that the mountain is not liable conducting a ski lesson on Interstate and that it's okay to offer ski instruction on that trail? Age is out because there are 5 year olds that can ski Kitz Woods at Jay. Ability is out because a young beginner could get decked on any green trail on the mountain that's open to the public. It's all completely subjective. The only argument I could see for criminal liability or need for policy change is if Jay has a long documented history of similar accidents occurring in their ski school and a demonstrated refusal to improve safety.

    I understand the concept of a ski instructor trying to bring along youngsters in a safe environment, but such a freak accident could happen practically anywhere on a ski mountain; and it hardly ever does. If it did happen often, far fewer of us would be participating in the sport or allowing or children to.
    i doubt the case is for criminal negligence. there was no action on JP's part. i believe a case like this is for strict liability, which means that you sold something and the customer was injured. it's simple as that.
    gladerider

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by gladerider View Post
    i doubt the case is for criminal negligence. there was no action on JP's part. i believe a case like this is for strict liability, which means that you sold something and the customer was injured. it's simple as that.
    What was sold required signing a waiver educating the consumer of the risks of the product and the consumer agreeing the mountain/business shall not be held criminally accountable for those risks. These are risks we ALL assume everyday we click in and ride a lift. It's as simple as that.

  7. #97
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,269
    Quote Originally Posted by gladerider View Post
    i doubt the case is for criminal negligence. there was no action on JP's part. i believe a case like this is for strict liability, which means that you sold something and the customer was injured. it's simple as that.
    Whoa, whoa. Hold on there Vladimir Putin...this isn't Russia. Criminal charges against corporations are very, very rare and only in extreme cases....like Deepwater Horizon. Yesterday most of us were skeptical about a civil case against JPR.

    And this is in no way a case of strict liability. This is not based on products liability or ultrahazardous activity.
    Last edited by thetrailboss; Oct 16, 2013 at 9:01 PM.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  8. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Rex View Post
    Ok, I didn't articulate my thoughts well before. What I'm saying is that things can change rapidly due to many variables, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the skier/rider was acting negligently or irresponsibly.

    For example: Say the conditions up the trail were nice and soft. He could have been in control, even at a high rate of speed and able to stop if need be, but as he came around a corner or over a rise, the surface conditions changed. Let's say it was a shady, wind-blown or scraped off area where the surface suddenly became icy. The grip level drops suddenly just as the kid comes into view and the accident happens before he can adjust to a proper speed. Is he still reckless? No. He's a victim of circumstances. When something like this happens, people often assume that the person was being stupid or careless when that may not have been the case. It may have just been an unfortunate way for rapidly evolving circumstances to play out.

    Again, I'm not saying this particular guy wasn't acting recklessly. He probably was, but it is possible for things like this to happen when it's not really anyone's fault. It could just be an honest accident, but people generally jump to the conclusion that somone is to blame.

    I'm a big advocate for personal responsibility, so when blame is warranted I believe it should be accepted by the guilty party, but we should not jump to blaming someone when we don't know all the facts, and we should remember that true accidents do happen.
    Well I think that brings me to my previous point.....is this guy being treated differently because he was an instructor? Is the expectation higher for patroller, race coaches, and instructors. Would the individual have been sued if it was just a regular joe? I really don't know if they would have gone after him.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app

  9. #99
    x10003q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bergen County, NJ
    Posts
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMadWorld View Post
    Well I think that brings me to my previous point.....is this guy being treated differently because he was an instructor? Is the expectation higher for patroller, race coaches, and instructors. Would the individual have been sued if it was just a regular joe? I really don't know if they would have gone after him.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app
    Yes they would have gone after him even if he was just a day ticket customer.

  10. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    What was sold required signing a waiver educating the consumer of the risks of the product and the consumer agreeing the mountain/business shall not be held criminally accountable for those risks. These are risks we ALL assume everyday we click in and ride a lift. It's as simple as that.
    i am not disagreeing with you. the tricky part here is that this is very different from you and i buying into the skier's code and signing a waiver. it's not about how much fault/blame you can place on a reckless snowboarder either. and definitely not about that poor instructor. this is a case about a 5 year old, who was under JP's care. if you want sample cases? just look at the daycare industry. you think those parents sign a waiver?
    as a for profit organization selling a product (in this case a service of ski instruction), it is your responsibility to make sure your product is safe. i am not trying to say that the parents should have sued. what i am saying is that this is how often it works in this country in our legal system.

    now as a parent of 3 kids do i think JP could have done better? i think so. i cannot remember which resort, but i have seen in one occasion where more than 2 instructors (in the front, and the back of the group) were protecting a group of small children going down the mountain making sure the traffic behind the kids are alerted to stay far away from their kids.

    the net net of it is, the resorts will tighten up the instructors, raise the prices and create more process nightmares, well that sux doesn't it. blame the rogue snowboarder....it only takes just one punk.....
    gladerider

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:34 AM.