• 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

kingdom-tele

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
618
Points
0
Location
Newport Center, VT
Question, since i'm by no means a Jay regular. Would that terrain that you referenced typically be open and available on a Wednesday in Mid April? The date that the accident occurred was listed as April 17th, which was a Wednesday this year. Not stereotypically a busy time of the ski season for any resort

I was there that day, the mountain was still skiing close to 100%. Only skied the village chair with my niece so I couldn't tell you if it was available or not as I was solo. The snow was there, but mid april the lifts go down as they drop mid week employees. It very well could be the metro was all that was left. Busy or not, it still seems like some red flags should have been flown. It was an awful accident. I second the JPR ski patrol, they do a great job.
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
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 is still reckless in my view. You are supposed to adjust your speed as a function of conditions. He arrived in a congested zone with heavy traffic (unloading zone of the metro quad). You have to slow down BEFORE you get there. If you are competent enough to go at 50mph (I doubt it was that fast) in control, you are competent enough to expect hard packed conditions at a trail merge/unloading zone and slow down accordingly.

If you hit someone at high speed because you lost control, you were going too fast. It is that simple. If you drive your car 60mph in a snowstorm and lose control on an icy area, it is your fault. It's not the ice patch fault.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
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.

There was another law suit that involved someone who is a good skier but lost control and did not make it. The resort was being sued due to trail conditions - not sure what ever came of that , but it is an example of what you are talking about. Probably a good reason to check speed. I think many of us are all guilty of excessive speed at one time or another and never think about catching/losing an edge or the occasional snow sharks!
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
He is still reckless in my view. You are supposed to adjust your speed as a function of conditions. He arrived in a congested zone with heavy traffic (unloading zone of the metro quad). You have to slow down BEFORE you get there. If you are competent enough to go at 50mph (I doubt it was that fast) in control, you are competent enough to expect hard packed conditions at a trail merge/unloading zone and slow down accordingly.

If you hit someone at high speed because you lost control, you were going too fast. It is that simple. If you drive your car 60mph in a snowstorm and lose control on an icy area, it is your fault. It's not the ice patch fault.

Nice analogy!
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,626
Points
63
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.

I would say negligent but not reckless. reckless means he was acting in a way a reasonable person would know is likely to result in injury. I dont think the conduct rises to that level from what we know from the newspaper.
 

AdironRider

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,485
Points
63
Off the cuff this lawsuit screams hyperbole really. 50mph, on a snowboard, on a green run, means the kid should probably be in the World Cup, as that's serious speed on a green while snowboarding. I highly suspect that number is bullshit. I also think the girl would be dead if he was going that fast.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
161
Points
16
Location
The Hinterlands
Off the cuff this lawsuit screams hyperbole really. 50mph, on a snowboard, on a green run, means the kid should probably be in the World Cup, as that's serious speed on a green while snowboarding. I highly suspect that number is bullshit. I also think the girl would be dead if he was going that fast.

You should go back and read the previous pages in more detail, then have a look at the JPR trail map. Snowboarder was coming down a blue run that merges into a green and also happens to be located at the exit of a beginner chair. I agree that 50 mph seems exaggerated but I can assure you that it takes little effort to achieve mach looney on Lower Quai, requiring either a massive speed dump to avoid getting a strike in the bowling alley at the top of the Metro Chair or at least some evasive action before arcing it out on the Interstate.

If snowboarder was riding regular, his blind side would be on rider's left, exactly where the ski class would be coming from.
 

AdironRider

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,485
Points
63
You should go back and read the previous pages in more detail, then have a look at the JPR trail map. Snowboarder was coming down a blue run that merges into a green and also happens to be located at the exit of a beginner chair. I agree that 50 mph seems exaggerated but I can assure you that it takes little effort to achieve mach looney on Lower Quai, requiring either a massive speed dump to avoid getting a strike in the bowling alley at the top of the Metro Chair or at least some evasive action before arcing it out on the Interstate.

If snowboarder was riding regular, his blind side would be on rider's left, exactly where the ski class would be coming from.

Remember skis can gain not only more speed, but accelerate faster than a snowboard. 50mph is hauling ass on a snowboard, not to say its impossible, but highly unlikely in this scenario. 50mph is tough to hit in a place like Jackson on a board, let alone East Coast terrain. Furthermore, posturing like that really hurts credibility IMO. And blind side really doesn't apply to shit right in front of you, more often someone catching you at speed on his blind side, but I suspect a 6 year old wasn't gaining on him either.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
161
Points
16
Location
The Hinterlands
^^^ 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.
 

deadheadskier

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

AdironRider

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,485
Points
63
^^^ 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.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
161
Points
16
Location
The Hinterlands
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.
 

gladerider

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,124
Points
38
Location
NJ
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.
 

deadheadskier

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

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,337
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
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:

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
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
 

x10003q

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
913
Points
43
Location
Bergen County, NJ
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.
 

gladerider

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,124
Points
38
Location
NJ
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.....
 
Top