MadMadWorld
Active member
-
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
- Thread starter Huck_It_Baby
- Start date
Wow that is a very closed-minded statement for someone who has not spent anytime in the Northeast Kingdom. Yes, we're all naive heathens. Somehow I managed to get out :roll: No reason for you to ever visit the Northeast Kingdom, especially with your attitude and reliance on ill-gotten stereotypes. Steve can probably attest to the good values of hard work, care for others, and frank honesty that us Kingdom residents possess. Consider my assessment to be in that frank category.
Sorry, just have to say it. And your attempt at making legal arguments is amusing to say the least. You know enough to be dangerous...dangerous to yourself that is.
mattchuck2
New member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,341
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Clifton Park, NY
- Website
- skiequalsmc2.blogspot.com
You seem like a really fun guy. Surprised you don't have more friends in this forum.
I'm sure that's all true. But I wonder if there is any record of how they treat a Stranger in the Kingdom?
seriously?
Tongue in cheek, dude. I'm glad to know that JP's green card program is not a sore-spot for Steve because of objections from the locals.
Not really. It expanded the resorts immunity from liability.
Yes, I'm sure you could tell me why, as a matter of law, JP could not be found to have breached its duty of care to this child, but your professional responsibilities to whatever insurance defense shop you work for prohibits it.
You capitalized that phrase, so I take it that you are making a veiled reference to the Irasburg Affair in the 1960's. That was 50 years ago, man. Time changes. And the book/movie by that name is a fictionalization of that event in which the author took some artistic liberty. If that's your only reference as to the people of the NEK then you are really misled.
Last edited:
Really? From the small amount of research I did, it appears that Sec. 1037 (reproduced below) was intended to override Sunday v. Stratton, which interpreted Sec. 1036 (permitting recovery for individuals found to have been contributaorily negligent) to override the common law doctrine that skiers assume the inherent risks of their sport.
§ 1037. Acceptance of inherent risks
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1036 of this title, a person who takes part in any sport accepts as a matter of law the dangers that inhere therein insofar as they are obvious and necessary. (Added 1977, No. 119 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. Feb. 7, 1978.)
See my reply to DHS.
No, I'm just smart enough not to pontificate on the law unless I am paid or employed to do so in order to prevent folks from you getting free information and/or misusing it.
What the hell does the Irasburg Affair have to do with this matter or Jay Peak at any rate? Complete red herring.
I was not aware that we are living in some totalitarian society where the content of the law is proprietary information that is only available to members of a bar association or those who are willing and able to pay for it. Are you sure you're from the Northeast Kingdom and not the kindgom of North Korea?
Context, my friend. My inappropriate comment was in response to Steve who was implying that my motives for engaging in this debate was some unspoken objection to JP's green card program.
:blink: Wow, that is really far-fetched. The only commonality are the two being somewhat spatially related. But, again, we're talking about 45 years and things change, even in the NEK.
You're grasping at straws man. Stop digging yourself deeper than you already are.
The law is available; my legal opinion is different. Even someone with some understanding of practicing law, which you seem to have, would understand that.
I'm grasping at nothing. Would you like me to provide a link to the post where Steve@JPR asserted that my comments in this thread were motivated by opposition to the green card program? My inappropriate comment on the people of the NEK was in the context of trying to figure out why Steve@JPR would possibly think I had some animosity to JP based on its green card program. Either read the entire thread or keep your comments to yourself.
I'm questioning you as to why you make that reference. I've read the entire thread and your Xenophobic comment really jumped out. The concern of NEKer's has NOTHING to do with racism and it's really hamhanded of you to throw that stick of dynamite into this thread. The concerns mainly have to do with economic sustainability and specifically what kind of jobs are being created.
I see. I made that reference (to insular and xenophobic NEKers) as a dig at Steve. It was inappropriate and I would retract it if I could. I'm glad to know that opposition to the green card program is not racist or xenophobic. The initial reference to the green card program was a tongue in cheek response to someone posting a Picard slapping his head meme.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
