• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Jay Peak Lawsuit

Domeskier

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,274
Points
63
Location
New York
Sounds like distribution of wealth to me! Can't get the money from the guy who caused it so go after the business that might have deep pockets! Name of the game these days and it sucks!!

Nope - just fair and equitable allocation of risk. If the ski area is negligent, it should pay up, whether it is insured or not. If the ski area satisfied all of its duties of care to the skier and the skier is still injured, the resort should not pay. Skiers assume most but not all of the risks associated with skiing when they purchase a ticket. But they certainly should not be asked to bear the risk that a resort will discharge the duties it owes to them in a negligent manner. I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Yes, exaclty. My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a high traffic runout

The thing is that it is NOT a high traffic runout. Even if ski resorts built separate hills for beginners, you could never avoid the idiot beginner going to fast and out of control from clipping a young kid.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.

I think a class action lawsuit against all ski areas that have beginner terrain on run outs should take place to create change in the industry because in your opinion it is a negligent or reckless action. This will help to prevent injuries in the future!

BTW do you know how many times this has happened in that particular spot since Jay Peak has been open? There have been millions of skiers who have graced that run since Jay Peak has been around. Percentage wise it is not often! Look, the parents have the right to go after Jay Peak as they should - any good lawyer would suggest that. But I think Jay Peak will be proven as not being negligent or reckless!
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.

Indeed we probably all agree with this, but the problem is that you immediately seemed to assume that Jay Peak was negligent and that you put the bar for the safe teaching of beginners much higher than it is at pretty much all resorts.
 

from_the_NEK

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
4,575
Points
36
Location
Lyndonville, VT
Website
fineartamerica.com
Nope - just fair and equitable allocation of risk. If the ski area is negligent, it should pay up, whether it is insured or not. If the ski area satisfied all of its duties of care to the skier and the skier is still injured, the resort should not pay. Skiers assume most but not all of the risks associated with skiing when they purchase a ticket. But they certainly should not be asked to bear the risk that a resort will discharge the duties it owes to them in a negligent manner. I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.

Short of the instructor actually pushing the kid in front of the out of control boarder (an example already used by someone else in this thread), I'm having a hard time understanding how conducting a ski lesson on a wide beginner trail could be considered negligent or reckless. This is why you seem to be alone in whatever argument you are trying to make.
Sure, something like ignoring a mechanical problem with a lift leading to a failure OR an instructor taking a beginner group on a steep Expert rated trail leading to a kid crashing into a tree would be negligent since safety issues were ignored. In this case at Jay the only ignorance that seems to have been demonstrated was by the out of control boarder.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Short of the instructor actually pushing the kid in front of the out of control boarder (an example already used by someone else in this thread), I'm having a hard time understanding how conducting a ski lesson on a wide beginner trail could be considered negligent or reckless. This is why you seem to be alone in whatever argument you are trying to make.
Sure, something like ignoring a mechanical problem with a lift leading to a failure OR an instructor taking a beginner group on a steep Expert rated trail leading to a kid crashing into a tree would be negligent since safety issues were ignored. In this case at Jay the only ignorance that seems to have been demonstrated was by the out of control boarder.

That was fired and hind sight being 20/20 should of had his season pass deactivated! Who would have predicted this situation!
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
The thing is that it is NOT a high traffic runout.

Even if it was a high traffic runout, it wouldn't be on WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17th.

I bet Steve could look it up, but I'd be shocked if there were a thousand skiers at the mountain that day.
 

Domeskier

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,274
Points
63
Location
New York
Indeed we probably all agree with this, but the problem is that you immediately seemed to assume that Jay Peak was negligent and that you put the bar for the safe teaching of beginners much higher than it is at pretty much all resorts.

I am not assuming anything about Jay Peak's conduct. My point is simply that a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket. I have suggested that a court could reasonably find that a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier if, under the facts and circumstances, it can be shown that the lesson was conducted in an environment that increased the risk of such injury. I have stated ad nauseum that it is a matter for the courts to determine whether under the facts and circumstances Jay Peak breached its duty of care to the child. Based on the available facts, I believe that there is a prima facie case to be made that such a breach occurred. Apparently many of you here think the only duty a ski area has to people it is teaching to ski is to not shove them into the path of a reckless skier. I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski is to refrain from committing criminal acts on them. I doubt that even the most strident champion of tort-reform would make that claim. Of course, I have a feeling that some of you may prove me wrong.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Domeskier

You keep bringing up the ski school students novice ability.

What if it were an adult intermediate level lesson and an adult got creamed from behind by an out of control snowboarder or skier on that trail?

Still the mountain's fault?
 

Domeskier

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,274
Points
63
Location
New York
Domeskier

You keep bringing up the ski school students novice ability.

What if it were an adult intermediate level lesson and an adult got creamed from behind by an out of control snowboarder or skier on that trail?

Still the mountain's fault?

Depends on the facts and circumstances. I imagine it would be difficult to effectively teach intermediate level skiers on isolated trails that are not used by all levels of skiers and on which it is not possible for out of control skiers to achieve high levels of speed. I am focusing on novice skiers because (a) it was a novice skier who was injured here; (b) novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing; and (c) there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision. I see no problem distinguishing the level of the duties owed by resorts to ski school students based on their age or experience.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Yes, exaclty. My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a high traffic runout is because I disagree with your development strategies. Way to uphold the integrity of the PR industry, Steve. Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the disingenuous and incompetent.

Lower River Quai is not a high traffic run out! In fact, Interstate is not either! You have never skied there so you are talking in general terms which is like ....... We ski there often and I do not see many going down Lower River Quai!

I decided to get some pictures of that run on different days and look how busy it is - not! I will post these tonight! I invite you to find pictures that show that set of trails ever to be busy!
 
Last edited:

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Depends on the facts and circumstances. I imagine it would be difficult to effectively teach intermediate level skiers on isolated trails that are not used by all levels of skiers and on which it is not possible for out of control skiers to achieve high levels of speed. I am focusing on novice skiers because (a) it was a novice skier who was injured here; (b) novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing; and (c) there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision. I see no problem distinguishing the level of the duties owed by resorts to ski school students based on their age or experience.

Kids period do not assess risk very well! This does not mean that run was a bad place because it is not! I take it that you have not skied much because kids are being taught in all kinds of terrain. You are trying very hard to make this fit a specific criteria and dismiss everything else or the fact kids on trails with advanced skiers is prevalent in the industry including with an instructor!
 

Domeskier

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,274
Points
63
Location
New York
Wait
Domeskier has never skied Jay?

If it's not under a dome, I don't want to ski it! But in all seriousness, I think this debate has run its course. You guys want to argue the facts of the case, I am interested in the principles applicable to it. I am certain I will be unable to convince you that the principle I am discussing fits the facts here. I am also pretty sure that you will be unable to persuade me that this principle is defective or overly burdensome or otherwise unreasonable. I suspect it's not worth anyone's time to continue this, though I'm happy to let anyone who feels aggrieved by any of my comments or the tone of any of my posts to have the last word.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Yup you're correct Dome skier. The only thing you've persuaded me of is an opinion that you are a sue happy individual and as steamboat1 said...part of the problem.
 

mister moose

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
1,086
Points
48
I am not assuming anything about Jay Peak's conduct. My point is simply that a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket. I have suggested that a court could reasonably find that a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier if, under the facts and circumstances, it can be shown that the lesson was conducted in an environment that increased the risk of such injury. I have stated ad nauseum that it is a matter for the courts to determine whether under the facts and circumstances Jay Peak breached its duty of care to the child. Based on the available facts, I believe that there is a prima facie case to be made that such a breach occurred. Apparently many of you here think the only duty a ski area has to people it is teaching to ski is to not shove them into the path of a reckless skier. I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski is to refrain from committing criminal acts on them. I doubt that even the most strident champion of tort-reform would make that claim. Of course, I have a feeling that some of you may prove me wrong.

Where to start....
a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier
This happens anywhere more advanced skiers are mixed with lesser abilty skiers, ie everywhere. There is no group, no novice teaching area where everyone is at the same skill level, or skis at the same speed.

a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket.
Why? Why is the standard of care higher? I don't get the same protection from the court if I am not accompanied by a resort staff member? Don't I, as a novice skier, get the same protection from the court when on any green trail? You are placing into the resort's hands the burden of predicting the future, ie who is coming down the trail. A beginner lesson, taking place on a beginner trail, meets any burden of standard of care. I think you need to show cause that the resort either knowingly sold a ticket(pass) to a known high speed out of control manslaughter prone missle boarder/skier, or that some new standard exists of resort crowding beyond which no more tickets can be sold, or that lessons must occur on their own trail, one class at a time, and that trail must have no access from any other trail.

Perhaps a better route is to explain why a resort has a higher standard of care with respect to unforeseen hazards when in a lesson. What risks inherent in the sport that is assumed by all skiers is a student in a lesson exempt from?
Varying speeds of skiers, and skiers losing control are not controllable by the resort on any trail.

I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski...
is to give quality instruction? That is what is being contracted for. The job title is Instructor, not Bodyguard, or Defender Against All Distracted/Out of Control 3rd Parties.


Depends on the facts and circumstances. I imagine it would be difficult to effectively teach intermediate level skiers on isolated trails that are not used by all levels of skiers and on which it is not possible for out of control skiers to achieve high levels of speed. I am focusing on novice skiers because (a) it was a novice skier who was injured here; (b) novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing; and (c) there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision. I see no problem distinguishing the level of the duties owed by resorts to ski school students based on their age or experience.

You invalidate your own argument. It is this paragraph that makes me question if you ski at all. Have you ever been on a novice trail??? Kids ski at all speeds all the time, including the most sedate isolated from traffic bunny slope. Happens all the time. There is no trail that meets your criteria.

novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing
The assumption of risk takes place upon the purchase of the lesson, not the choice of which green trail. People fall down. People run into eachother. Been going on for years. On every trail. Read the back of the lift ticket.

there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision.
Please tell me the minimum speed required for severe injury.

You seem to be saying that since there is something more that could have been done, then the resort is liable. Well there is always something more that could be done. You can always take higher and higher standards of care, until the highest standard of care is reached. Which would be no risk, no lesson, no skiing. At Killington, Snowshed is one of the best teaching slopes there is. Wide, uniform pitch, set off by itself, it is a completely green trail pod. However a skier can easily reach speeds from which injury, severe injury may result. Widely varying speeds are commonplace.

It is this "Something more that could have been done" that pervades far too many court rooms and legislative halls. It is spoiledspeak for "Not my fault", and the shotgun pattern usually includes someone with assets. Show me where this resort acted in a manner inconsistent with current practice in the industry.

I am not saying that the resort should be free from claims of negligence. I am not saying personal injury lawyers don't perform a needed function for pursuing those negligence claims. But in this case, with the facts as we know them so far, if I was a juror and you were the plaintiff's lawyer, I would want to slap you with defendant's (the resort) costs. Try your case on the other party in the accident, the rear ender, if facts dictate there is a case there.
 
Last edited:

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
Where to start....
a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier
This happens anywhere more advanced skiers are mixed with lesser abilty skiers, ie everywhere. There is no group, no novice teaching area where everyone is at the same skill level, or skis at the same speed.

a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket.
Why? Why is the standard of care higher? I don't get the same protection from the court if I am not accompanied by a resort staff member? Don't I, as a novice skier, get the same protection from the court when on any green trail? You are placing into the resort's hands the burden of predicting the future, ie who is coming down the trail. A beginner lesson, taking place on a beginner trail, meets any burden of standard of care. I think you need to show cause that the resort either knowingly sold a ticket(pass) to a known high speed out of control manslaughter prone missle boarder/skier, or that some new standard exists of resort crowding beyond which no more tickets can be sold, or that lessons must occur on their own trail, one class at a time, and that trail must have no access from any other trail.

Perhaps a better route is to explain why a resort has a higher standard of care with respect to unforeseen hazards when in a lesson. What risks inherent in the sport that is assumed by all skiers is a student in a lesson exempt from?
Varying speeds of skiers, and skiers losing control are not controllable by the resort on any trail.

I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski...
is to give quality instruction? That is what is being contracted for. The job title is Instructor, not Bodyguard, or Defender Against All Distracted/Out of Control 3rd Parties.




You invalidate your own argument. It is this paragraph that makes me question if you ski at all. Have you ever been on a novice trail??? Kids ski at all speeds all the time, including the most sedate isolated from traffic bunny slope. Happens all the time. There is no trail that meets your criteria.

novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing
The assumption of risk takes place upon the purchase of the lesson, not the choice of which green trail. People fall down. People run into eachother. Been going on for years. On every trail. Read the back of the lift ticket.

there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision.
Please tell me the minimum speed required for severe injury.

You seem to be saying that since there is something more that could have been done, then the resort is liable. Well there is always something more that could be done. You can always take higher and higher standards of care, until the highest standard of care is reached. Which would be no risk, no lesson, no skiing. At Killington, Snowshed is one of the best teaching slopes there is. Wide, uniform pitch, set off by itself, it is a completely green trail pod. However a skier can easily reach speeds from which injury, severe injury may result. Widely varying speeds are commonplace.

It is this "Something more that could have been done" that pervades far too many court rooms and legislative halls. It is spoiledspeak for "Not my fault", and the shotgun pattern usually includes someone with assets. Show me where this resort acted in a manner inconsistent with current practice in the industry.

I am not saying that the resort should be free from claims of negligence. I am not saying personal injury lawyers don't perform a needed function for pursuing those negligence claims. But in this case, with the facts as we know them so far, if I was a juror and you were the plaintiff's lawyer, I would want to slap you with defendant's (the resort) costs. Try your case on the other party in the accident, the rear ender, if facts dictate there is a case there.

Well said!
 

Steve@jpr

Industry Rep
Industry Rep
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
200
Points
0
Location
Vermont
Then how in the world did it worm its way into your argument? And you're right, I'm no pr guy-my general lack of genuine competency has hurled me back into marketing. If any of my posts could be construed, in your view, as an ad hominem attack, I want to punch the clock where you do. Pretty please.

For the record, I am all for encouraging businesses of all stripes and size to be accountable.

Yes, exaclty. My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a high traffic runout is because I disagree with your development strategies. Way to uphold the integrity of the PR industry, Steve. Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the disingenuous and incompetent.

For the record, I am all for encouraging immigration as a tool for economic development.
 
Top