Jay Peak Lawsuit - Page 6

AlpineZone

Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 312
  1. #51
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,267
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinF View Post
    Except the lawyers...
    I knew someone would say that.

    Live, Ski, or Die!


  2. #52
    On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
    For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
    Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
    A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by LONGBOARDR View Post
    On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
    For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
    Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
    A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.
    Thank goodness.

  4. #54
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,267
    Quote Originally Posted by LONGBOARDR View Post
    On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
    For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
    Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
    A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.
    Very true.

    (Now why are they not being sued? )
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  5. #55
    some thoughts
    1) looks like the plaintiff's case is based on JP's negligence
    2) skier's code is irrevent here since it's designed to protect the resorts from being sued from its customers with either self injury or skier to skier injury. the basic premise of skier's code is that the resorts cannot excercise any discretionary control on skiers' (or its customers') behalf
    3) some facts:
    a) JP sold its ski school service to the plaintiff
    b) JP has sole discretionary control over its service sold
    c) JP has failed to provide safety to its customer, who was under their care

    if i were the plaintiff's attorney, i would have:
    1- put legal hold on the ski school employment records
    2- during discovery process ask for instructor screening, training, onboarding & offboarding as well as general ski school standard operating processes documentation, governance, monitoring to show organizational control to ensure safety of the students (remember we are talking about safety of preschool kids) including operating risk management process
    3- JP prove to me what they have done to ensure safety of kids (can they have courdoned off one section of the mountain or a few trails just for the purpose of ski school just like they do for races since part of the trail has a merging section or have an extra instructor ensuring clear traffic)

    IMHO, JP has everything to lose and nothing to gain in this case. Best case scenario would be to settle this fast.
    They are making all kinds of investments to attract the family oriented customers. Poor handling of cases like this could cause tremendous damage.
    Here is why:
    1) There are dozen other resorts happy to get the same target customer base (family oriented) in NE
    2) All other resorts can say they have better ski schools including processes, better instructor screening and training, etc.
    3) Losing a case like this is a double whammy (financially and brand impact not to mention goodwill)

    in this country, if you want to make money in a business that involves kids safety, you better make sure you have done a good job.

    just some of my thoughts after reading comments from y'all
    gladerider

  6. #56
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,468
    The reality is that group lessons for young beginners are mostly taught by teenagers with minimal training and supervision. This has been my experience in Quebec and in Jay Peak. The better qualified/experienced instructors get the better kids. The instructors with less experience (usually young) get the beginners. These instructors are usually enthusiastic, do their very best, and that is what you should expect.

    At 200$ for a typical 8-week program, if parents expect their 5 year old beginner to be supervised by a level 4 skier with the maturity and experience of a forty year old, they are delusional. You send them out to have fun and the instructors usually do a good job at that.

    Nobody is safe from idiots bombing downhill out of control. I'm sure we all had close calls before. Shit happens. Suing everyone won't make things better, especially suing the instructor who were trying their best for very little money (I'm obviously not talking about the idiot who hit the little girl). You just cannot expect a 16 year old in charge of 6 kids to fully control everyone going down a slope.

    Every time someone sues a ski resort for no good reason is a sad day.

  7. #57
    While the at fault ex employee was using an employee pass to access the lifts, he was not performing any work related duties. He was not 'on the clock'. How is this any different than any other collision injury on the mountain? The more I think about this, the more I think this falls within well established precedent.

  8. #58
    Abubob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, NH
    Posts
    3,002
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run. I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run. The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.
    If many areas block off terrain parks and race courses shouldn't areas where rank beginners especially children are learning be blocked off as well?
    "Happiness equals reality minus expectations." Tommy Magliozzi

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by kingdom-tele View Post
    If by idiot you mean the 5 year old, then yes.

    That is an f'd up statement - no, idiot is the the moron on the snowboard! Who would ever think to call the 5 year old an idiot!

    Someone who worked there (the snowboarding idiot) should be fully aware of the dangers in that area! People cross over to Perry Merrill all the time and as you mention - its not like Lower River Quai is narrow. However, being that it was in April it is possible that there was only one way through due to snow melt.

    Plus do we have to be in such a hurry to get a run over with - people need to take a chill pill on run outs!

    BTW I never see people make way at that location for people coming off RQ. Coming off the lift it is pretty slow going there since it is so flat that may be the most giving way that I have ever seen there!

    Technically - at any give trail merge, given time accidents will happen - resorts should ban trail merges. Ya, thats it ban trail merges!
    2012-2013 (39)
    2013-2014 (36)
    2014-2015 (51)
    2015-2016 (47)

    2016-2017 target - 50

    If you take what the mountain gives you, you will always have fun!

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by HowieT2 View Post
    I believe the vermont ski area statute specifically immunizes the resort for skier on skier collisions. That obviously doesnt apply if the skier at fault is an employee of the resort.
    Am I the only one cynical enough to question whether the skier in this case had actually been "terminated" before the incident. I mean, as previously mentioned, if the guy really was fired prior thereto, wouldn't they have cancelled his pass on the rfid system. and it happened in April, so it was the end of the season when many resort employees are let go.

    The negligent hiring cause of action is included often so that the employees personnel file becomes discoverable. Usually doesnt amount to a hill of beans, but if there are records indicating the resort had notice of reckless/dangerous behavior, its whole different ballgame.
    So with that logic if a police officer drives illegally in the town he works in and causes injury to others then the Police Department is at fault too?

    He was skiing on his own time. Worst yet, he knew the area and should have had more sense!
    2012-2013 (39)
    2013-2014 (36)
    2014-2015 (51)
    2015-2016 (47)

    2016-2017 target - 50

    If you take what the mountain gives you, you will always have fun!

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 1:52 PM.