Jay Peak Lawsuit

Domeskier said:

....if you had to re-read the thread...

Click to expand...

Joke's on you, lawyer, I didn't read it the first time!

I'd imagine having to read this thread would be considered torture in many parts of the world.

Smellytele said:

Against my better judgment. I always ignore the voices in my head.
Anyway. While it does not really matter if it is a novice on not. The out-of-control advanced skier could have hit anyone skiing slow in this area (which most people do ski slow in this area). So having a novice in this area is not the issue at hand but having someone skiing out of control here is the issue.

Click to expand...

That is a question for the trier of fact. Unless there is a statute that provides that as a matter of law a ski area cannot be liable for injuries resulting from collisions between skiers, it is irrelevant to my underlying argument. The trier of fact would take into account what you and everyone else in this thread has to say about the circumstances of the collision. The plaintiff will argue that the collision would not have happened if the lesson were being conducted in a more appropriate environment where advance skiers cannot achieve excessive speed or where advances skiers are not likely to ski. The defense will counter that the environment was appropriate and that this was just an unfortunate accident caused entirely by the recklessness of the out-of-control party. I am not arguing how this case should be resolved. I jumped into this thread because the JP fanboys and the JP publicity machine appear to be impugning the motives of the child's family and arguing that they don't have a case. I pointed out why the case against JP should not be dismissed as a matter of law and the types of considerations that the plaintiff could appeal to in making their case. The fact that the out-of-control boarder would have hit anyone skiing on that slope at that time (itself, a dubious assumption) does not entail that it was the right place for a novice lesson. Suppose instead that the novice were injured by an out-of-control skier on an advanced trail during a lesson. Would you think the fact that anyone would have been struck by the out-of-control skier on that slope at that time means that the resort could not be liable for the inuries sustained by the novices, who was clearly being taught under inappropriate circumstances? If you say no, then the causal question is not dispositive. If you say yes, well, at least you are being consistent. ::Cue snide comment from woodchuck::

mattchuck2 said:

Joke's on you, lawyer, I didn't read it the first time!

Click to expand...

And yet you have no problem characterizing my position as crazy. Awesome.

Domeskier said:

And yet you have no problem characterizing my position as crazy. Awesome.

Click to expand...

When did I say that?

(P.S. You're getting trolled. Right now. By me. You keep responding as if you will be able to talk your way out of this situation, but the only real way to save face is just to quit and accept the fact that you're never going to win people over to your side. This is something you should have done a long, long time ago, but you keep smashing your head into a wall. Keep doing it if you want, but do so with the knowledge that you are clearly insane).

mattchuck2 said:

When did I say that?

(P.S. You're getting trolled. Right now. By me. You keep responding as if you will be able to talk your way out of this situation, but the only real way to save face is just to quit and accept the fact that you're never going to win people over to your side. This is something you should have done a long, long time ago, but you keep smashing your head into a wall. Keep doing it if you want, but do so with the knowledge that you are clearly insane).

Click to expand...

Correct, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, if I recall correctly.

mattchuck2 said:

You keep responding as if you will be able to talk your way out of this situation, but the only real way to save face is just to quit and accept the fact that you're never going to win people over to your side.

Click to expand...

Do tell. Precisely what situation do you think I am trying to talk my way out of? Are you seriously suggesting that I have changed my views in anyway to make them more palatable to some internet mouthbreather who has deemed himself the arbiter of the soundness of arguments he cannot even be bothered to read, and who no doubt has an inbox overflowing with emails from anonymous supporters agreeing with his every word. You are adorable. The very notion that a thread on tort law could get you so riled up is facinating. Maybe you should ask your doctors about increasing your dose of Thorazine.

Domeskier said:

Do tell. Precisely what situation do you think I am trying to talk my way out of? Are you seriously suggesting that I have changed my views in anyway to make them more palatable...

Click to expand...

You seem like a smart guy. It's amazing that you haven't picked up on this yet. Let me lay it out for you:

You will never win. There is nothing to win. You are arguing with yourself. You are talking to yourself. There is nothing here for you. You keep clicking back to this post expecting someone to validate your arguments, but you will not get that. There is no answer to your questions. YOU ARE BEING TROLLED. However well reasoned your arguments are, whatever words you use, whatever you try to justify, it doesn't matter. You will not get what you so desperately want. There is no gold at the end of this rainbow. There is only the hell of clicking onto this thread and being told off, yet again, by someone who doesn't even care what you say, doesn't care what you do, and is immune to your dumb attacks. Keep it going for as long as you want, you alone can make the decision to stop.

Why have laws protecting ski areas against liability claims for collisions if it will go to court anyways? Why have participants sign waivers before they take lessons if they are unwilling to accept the risks of the sport? Collisions happen. People die from slow speed falls on beginner slopes during lessons. (see Natasha Richardson) Last I checked, Liam Neeson hasn't sued Tremblant for teaching his wife to ski on the wrong trail.

By allowing this trial to go to court, you are opening up Pandora's box for a multitude of court cases down the road. No thanks.

In my eyes, because of the laws protecting ski areas and the fact that the lesson participant signed a waiver acknowledging the risk of injury, this case shouldn't even go to trial. In most situations where mountains know they've made a mistake (chairlift accidents primarily), they man up and settle out of court. I don't see the need for Jay to do either. It was a freak accident. Those happen.

With that, I'm bowing out of the argument. I know you'll argue your POV and disregard the opinions of others until no one is left to argue with you Domeskier. You're entitled to your opinions, however nanny-state and ignorant of the circumstances at Jay they are and that's fine. I'm just glad your opinion is in the clear minority here on these forums and across our sport. We don't need sue happy individuals participating. Folks like you are better off staying home.

good day sir

It probably won't go to trial. It will get settled at mediation though.

No offense, but the guy who took the case is not F. Lee Bailey. The fact that no big firm in VT or New England for that matter took it says a lot.

deadheadskier said:

Why have laws protecting ski areas against liability claims for collisions if it will go to court anyways? Why have participants sign waivers before they take lessons if they are unwilling to accept the risks of the sport? Collisions happen. People die from slow speed falls on beginner slopes during lessons.

Click to expand...

If the law bars the claim, the court will toss it. I have seen no evidence that Vermont has a blanket law protecting ski areas from all liability for skier collisions. They have a statute the codifies the common law as it stood before some court in the late 70s decided that Vermont's recognition of the doctrine of contributory negligence implicitly overturned the common law principle that the skier accepts the inherent risks of the sport. Vermont courts have held the waivers you mention to be void as against public poilicy.

There are at least three arguments going on here that people have been addressing at cross-purposes: (i) whether JP was in fact negligent under the circumstances of this unfortunate collision; (ii) what the applicable law is; and (iii) what the applicable law should be. I have mostly been concerned with (ii). You appear to be addressing (iii). The Vermont legislature at any time could pass a law absolving ski resorts from any liability to skiers who are injured on their premises by other skiers. They have not done this, for what seems to me to be sound reason. Resorts should be held accountable for breaches of their duties to their customers, where those breaches result in injury. I suspect most of the people who are disagreeing with me on (ii) are actually focused on (i), while a few (including maybe you) are focused on (iii) (and belive that the answer to (iii) entails that there is no reason to debate (i)).

Contrary to what certain "participants" in this thread might be suggesting, I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else to accept my position. I think there is value to be had in simply achieving clarity and accuracy in the statement of competing views and in eliminating confusion. Often, but not always, there ends up being more agreement between opposing positions that the advocates think. If we are enumerating the problems with contemporary society, we can also add lack of civility in public (and internet) discourse, where positions are reduced to soundbites and jokes count as arguments, right alongside litigiousness and lack of personal responsibility.

Domeskier said:

If the law bars the claim, the court will toss it. I have seen no evidence that Vermont has a blanket law protecting ski areas from all liability for skier collisions. They have a statute the codifies the common law as it stood before some court in the late 70s decided that Vermont's recognition of the doctrine of contributory negligence implicitly overturned the common law principle that the skier accepts the inherent risks of the sport. Vermont courts have held the waivers you mention to be void as against public poilicy.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

thetrailboss said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd., 670 A.2d 795 (Vt. 1995); see also Spencer v. Killington, Ltd., 702 A.2d 35 (Vt. 1997).

PM me the bill. I understand you only opine on legal matters for money.

Domeskier said:

The plaintiff will argue that the collision would not have happened if the lesson were being conducted in a more appropriate environment where advance skiers cannot achieve excessive speed or where advances skiers are not likely to ski.

Click to expand...

The problem is that excessive speed is possible on most beginner slope. Excessive should not be defined by absolute values, but by relative speed. On hard pack conditions, I can nearly hit 40mph on interstate, and that's not even starting from Lower Quai where 60mph should be easy to reach. Heck I've hit nearly 40mph on a sled on raccoon run (GPS measured in case you wonder). While not particularly fast from a ski racer point of view, most would agree that it is an unreasonable speed on a run with beginners.

So my point is that outside of carpet areas, it would be nearly impossible to find runs where skiers absolutely cannot achieve excessive speed (forget advanced skiers, the out of control intermediate is the problem most of the time). Like it or not, as soon as you leave the magic carpet, you have rely on the good judgment of other skiers. There is no way around this.

As to the second part, advanced skiers are not likely to ski interstate. As I said earlier, what you say makes perfect sense, you just picked a terrible case to start this argument. If by your standards it is dangerous to take beginners on interstate, then ski resorts might as well forget about teaching beginners. This is the point you seem to fail to recognize over and over.

fbrissette said:

If by your standards it is dangerous to take beginners on interstate, then ski resorts might as well forget about teaching beginners. This is the point you seem to fail to recognize over and over.

Click to expand...

Again, and for the final time, this a question of fact, not a matter of law. I described the argument that plaintiff would make. I did not say it was conclusive.

Domeskier said:

If we are enumerating the problems with contemporary society, we can also add lack of civility in public (and internet) discourse, where positions are reduced to soundbites and jokes count as arguments, right alongside litigiousness and lack of personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

Once again, I'd like to say how much of a fun guy you seem to be. If I was to pick a group of people, living or dead to have dinner with, it'd be Hunter S. Thompson, Mark Twain, and you, Domeskier. You just seem like a guy who knows how to have a good time, just has a positive attitude about life, and makes everyone around you happy.

mattchuck2 said:

Once again, I'd like to say how much of a fun guy you seem to be. If I was to pick a group of people, living or dead to have dinner with, it'd be Hunter S. Thompson, Mark Twain, and you, Domeskier. You just seem like a guy who knows how to have a good time, just has a positive attitude about life, and makes everyone around you happy.

Click to expand...

Gonzo the greatest American author ever.

Definitely a true original. Right man for his time. Also owned a compound outside of Aspen, did tons of drugs, drank, and shot guns. My kind of guy.

Also, he wrote this when he was 18 (amazing talent):

Young people of America, awake from your slumber of indolence and hark-en the call of the future! Do you realise you are rapidly becoming a doomed generation? Do you realise that the fate of the world and of generations to come rests on your shoulders? Do you realise that at any time you may be called on to protect your country and the freedom of the world from the creeping scourge of communism? How can you possibly laugh in the face of the disasters which face us all from all sides? Oh ignorant youth, the world is not a joyous place. The time has come for you to dispense with the frivolous pleasures of childhood and get down to honest toil until you are sixty-five. Then and only then can you relax and collect your social security and live happily until the time of your death. Also your insolent attitude disturbs me greatly. You have the nerve to say that you have never known what it is like to live in a secure and peaceful world; you say that the present generation has balled things up to the extent that we now face a war so terrible that the very thought of it makes hardened veterans shudder; you say it is our fault that World War ll was fought in vein; you say that it is impossible to lay plans for the future until you are sure you have a future. I say Nonsense! None of these things matter. If you expect a future you must carve it out in the face of these things. You also say that you must wait until after you have served your time with the service to settle down. Ridiculous! It is a man’s duty to pull up stakes and serve his country at any time, then settle down again.
I say there is no excuse for a feeling of insecurity on your part;there is no excuse for juvenile delinquency; there is no excuse for your attitude except that you are rotten and lazy! I was never like that! I worked hard; I saved; I didn’t run around and stay out late at night; I carved out my own future through hard work and virtuous living, and look at me now: a respectful and successful man.
I warn you, if you don’t start now it will be too late, and the blame for the end of the world will be laid at your feet. Heed my warning, oh depraved and profligate youth; I say awake, awake, awake!
Fearfully and disgustedly yours, John J. Righteous-Hypocrite.

Greg said:

[Originally posted by Gravity]:

Hey - its been so slow here. I'll check if anybody is listening: First let me point out that I snowboard *and* ski, though now that I'm out east I don't snowboard much because I liked it very much in the powder but not so much on the firm stuff. Both sports are awesome. But with kids wanting to talk about whats more "radical" than what. Here is a fun exercise: Look up what the speed record is on skis & snowboard. Compare and discuss ) Look up what the distance jumping record is on both. Look up what the height landed jumping record is on both. Look up what the record for # of tricks in the air on one jump. I know the answers, but the search is part of the fun!

Click to expand...

I knew about the compound, if I ever go to Aspen I will stop their. Fear and loathing I been told is the best LSD trip put into a movie. Also enjoying reading his books.

Not that I want to revive this thread but, as the result of this lawsuit (I presume) the use of the Interstate trail has been completely modified. It is essentially a huge snow park and the entrance is totally roped off with a chicane access.

It essentially means that beginners will likely head right after disembarking and hit Harmony lane. The former 360 park does not exist anymore on Harmony lane.

Not convinced it makes for a much safer learning environment since Exhibition empties on harmony lane, albeit lower down than Lower River Quai. I still think Interstate was the best run of the two for beginners.

Anyhow, not even sure if the reworking of the runs has anything to do with the lawsuit, but that would be a strange coincidence.

fbrissette said:

The problem is that excessive speed is possible on most beginner slope. Excessive should not be defined by absolute values, but by relative speed. On hard pack conditions, I can nearly hit 40mph on interstate, and that's not even starting from Lower Quai where 60mph should be easy to reach. Heck I've hit nearly 40mph on a sled on raccoon run (GPS measured in case you wonder). While not particularly fast from a ski racer point of view, most would agree that it is an unreasonable speed on a run with beginners.

So my point is that outside of carpet areas, it would be nearly impossible to find runs where skiers absolutely cannot achieve excessive speed (forget advanced skiers, the out of control intermediate is the problem most of the time). Like it or not, as soon as you leave the magic carpet, you have rely on the good judgment of other skiers. There is no way around this.

As to the second part, advanced skiers are not likely to ski interstate. As I said earlier, what you say makes perfect sense, you just picked a terrible case to start this argument. If by your standards it is dangerous to take beginners on interstate, then ski resorts might as well forget about teaching beginners. This is the point you seem to fail to recognize over and over.

Click to expand...

Going 60mph is never safe on an open public trail even if it's an "experts only double black diamond". Even the best skier could run into someone. Plus you've no netting to stop you from going into the tree's. There's no reaction time if someone happens to be in front of you around a turn. 60mph is average super g racing speed(yes I know they can go faster in sections). If you want to ski that fast go join a race league and you can ski as fast as you want. You can take all the risks you want as long you don't put OTHERS at risk.