Jay Peak Lawsuit

Domeskier said:

Which is why I have stated my argument in normative terms. I did not claim that relocating your learners' area to the G lift would necessarily be required to satsify the heightened duty of care that I think applies to ski areas when they assume the responsibility of teaching someone to ski. Perhaps that would require your developing a whole new learners' area. Or maybe you've done everything right and don't need to change a thing. Based on your trail map, it looks like there are better places to teach people to ski than on a runout that services three high capacity lifts. However, as you mention, that is a matter for the courts to decide. I can only assume that your attorneys will have a better argument than that your critics are somehow "under-informed."

Click to expand...

If I understand where the accident happened, I wouldn't really call that a 'run-out'. Its a gentle slope.

Oh - I see - you're calling it a run out, or thinking of it that way, because a lot of higher mountain trails can head toward it. Yeah, I've only skied Jay for 4 days, but really, if I understand the spot, that wasn't really where we ended up from up top all that frequently.

tnt said:

If I understand where the accident happened, I wouldn't really call that a 'run-out'. Its a gentle slope.

Oh - I see - you're calling it a run out, or thinking of it that way, because a lot of higher mountain trails can head toward it. Yeah, I've only skied Jay for 4 days, but really, if I understand the spot, that wasn't really where we ended up from up top all that frequently.

Click to expand...

That and the media reports that the snowboarder was observed by witnesses to be traveling at upwards of 50mph at the time of the incident. I don't think novices should be learning to ski where people can achieve those kinds of speeds. Tha being said, it is a factual matter whether Jay Peak has satisfied whatever duties it owed to the child it was teaching to ski and, as JPSteve would no doubt quickly point out, I do not have enough information to make that determination.

Domeskier said:

That and the media reports that the snowboarder was observed by witnesses to be traveling at upwards of 50mph at the time of the incident. I don't think novices should be learning to ski where people can achieve those kinds of speeds. Tha being said, it is a factual matter whether Jay Peak has satisfied whatever duties it owed to the child it was teaching to ski and, as JPSteve would no doubt quickly point out, I do not have enough information to make that determination.

Click to expand...

I'm sure all those people had their eyes calibrated before heading out that morning as well. Or maybe they all had radar guns. I'm not saying he wasn't going too fast but the idea that he was anywhere near that kind of speed is pretty suspect.

C-Rex said:

I'm sure all those people had their eyes calibrated before heading out that morning as well. Or maybe they all had radar guns. I'm not saying he wasn't going too fast but the idea that he was anywhere near that kind of speed is pretty suspect.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the parties need to hire the Tuna to find out just what kind of speeds are possible on that trail (insert animated icon of skiing bluefin here).

C-Rex said:

I'm sure all those people had their eyes calibrated before heading out that morning as well. Or maybe they all had radar guns. I'm not saying he wasn't going too fast but the idea that he was anywhere near that kind of speed is pretty suspect.

Click to expand...

Agreed, 50MPH is pretty fast.
Those speeds are possible to have within 130 yards of the top of the Metro Quad. Reaching 50mph on Lower River Quai is doable, but EXTREMELY stupid, especially for someone like the snowboarder who knows that the area at the bottom is the unloading zone for a lift (complete with big orange SLOW signs). Once entering Interstate via Lower River Quai, maintaining 50mph is nearly impossible due to the large decrease in slope angle. Hence the 130 yards cutoff where initial speed entering the zone should have drop well below 50mph.
I'm guessing this incident may have occurred near one of the waterbars that cross Interstate. A few of those could potentially have enough roll to them to hide a small child IF the snowboarder was ducking down in an aerodynamic position.

from_the_NEK said:

Agreed, 50MPH is pretty fast.
Those speeds are possible to have within 130 yards of the top of the Metro Quad. Reaching 50mph on Lower River Quai is doable, but EXTREMELY stupid, especially for someone like the snowboarder who knows that the area at the bottom is the unloading zone for a lift (complete with big orange SLOW signs). Once entering Interstate via Lower River Quai, maintaining 50mph is nearly impossible due to the large decrease in slope angle. Hence the 130 yards cutoff where initial speed entering the zone should have drop well below 50mph.
I'm guessing this incident may have occurred near one of the waterbars that cross Interstate. A few of those could potentially have enough roll to them to hide a small child IF the snowboarder was ducking down in an aerodynamic position.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent analysis. I will add that advanced skiers are very unlikely to end up on that run. There are many more interesting options than Lower river quai which is the only way you'll end up on Interstate if you're coming up from above the metro quad. Interstate is a very wide trail. Very easy to avoid beginners. If you cannot bring beginners on that trail you might as well stay home.

Domeskier said:

What bothers me is ski areas think they ought to be immune from liability in all cases where skiers collide with and injure one another.

Click to expand...

This is a joke right?

While driving, if I get hit by another vehicle driven by a state worker that is off duty - the state should be responsible!
If someone gets hurt at a skate park because of another skateboarder - towns fault!

If you do not agree with this then how can you make the statements you are making!

fbrissette said:

Interstate is a very wide trail. Very easy to avoid beginners. If you cannot bring beginners on that trail you might as well stay home.

Click to expand...

Interstate is 40 yards wide for most of the upper third. Then it widens to over 70 in places on the lower sections. It averages about 17% slope.

from_the_NEK said:

Interstate is 40 yards wide for most of the upper third. Then it widens to over 70 in places on the lower sections. It averages about 17% slope.

Click to expand...

Not that I want to argue with the Master of google earth, but I measure almost 50 yards at it's narrowest point. Anyway, it is in fact the widest trail at Jay Peak by a large margin. If you can't avoid a slow beginner on this trail, you would be a public danger on all the other runs.

fbrissette said:

Not that I want to argue with the Master of google earth, but I measure almost 50 yards at it's narrowest point.

Click to expand...

I didn't include the strip on skiers left where the snow guns are. That is usually not groomed.

from_the_NEK said:

I didn't include the strip on skiers left where the snow guns are. That is usually not groomed.

Click to expand...

That's the only fun part of Interstate

dlague said:

This is a joke right?

While driving, if I get hit by another vehicle driven by a state worker that is off duty - the state should be responsible!
If someone gets hurt at a skate park because of another skateboarder - towns fault!

If you do not agree with this then how can you make the statements you are making!

Click to expand...

I can make the statement you quoted because it entails only that ski areas might be responsible for some injuries resulting from collisions between skiers, e.g., where the ski area incurs a heightened duty of care by determining to teach someone to ski. There is nothing absurd about it. The common law is littered with special duties owed by property owners and people who, whether voluntarily or for compensation, adopt special relationships to other people. Ski areas, their lobbyists and their PR people have done a good job overriding some of those duties with the aid of self-serving lawmakers, but the examples you cite are not arguments for carte blanche immunity from liability for ski areas.

Domeskier said:

I can make the statement you quoted because it entails only that ski areas might be responsible for some injuries resulting from collisions between skiers, e.g., where the ski area incurs a heightened duty of care by determining to teach someone to ski. There is nothing absurd about it. The common law is littered with special duties owed by property owners and people who, whether voluntarily or for compensation, adopt special relationships to other people. Ski areas, their lobbyists and their PR people have done a good job overriding some of those duties with the aid of self-serving lawmakers, but the examples you cite are not arguments for carte blanche immunity from liability for ski areas.

Click to expand...

Wow that is pretty revealing. It sounds like you might have had a bad experience. And I don't agree with your impression as to what the law is or is not.

thetrailboss said:

Wow that is pretty revealing. It sounds like you might have had a bad experience. And I don't agree with your impression as to what the law is or is not.

Click to expand...

No bad experience, thankfully. But I can empathize with a family who entrusted their five year old child to the care of a ski area whose services include teaching that child to ski and having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices. I do not know whether the ski area violated any duties of care it may have had to the child or whether a court is likely to agree with me that teaching a child to ski involves a greater duty of care than simply providing access to its slopes. However, from a moral point of view, I think it's outrageous that the ski area would use its publicity machine to characterize this as an issue of whether the out of control boarder was an employee at the time or not. Having re-read earlier posts in this thread, it seems that it is not uncommon for advanced skiers to ski the slope where the incident occurred at excessive rates of speed. Presumably the ski area is aware of this, since they felt the need to put up signs designating the slope as a slow skiing zone. The issue I am raising is whether that is sufficient to discharge whatever duties it may have to the people it is teaching to ski. I do not blame ski areas for seeking statutory protections from lawmakers in states that rely heavily on revenue from winter sports. It is in their economic interest (as well as in the interest of most of us who fortunately will never experience the types of injuries this child sufferred and will only reap the benefits of lower ticket prices). What I object to is the attitude exhibited by many ski areas representatives and many people in this thread that this type of legislative immunity simply codifies our moral intuitions about the responsibilities of ski area operators, rather than economic considerations about the risks we are willing to impose on people, including five year old children, in order to have a cheaper day on the slopes.

Simply stated - if a snowboarder or skier enters an area where other recreationalist are and they use common sense and they think for one second that they could injure someone else then in this case this discussion would not be happening! Yes they maybe upset at Jay Peak but that is merely a demographic of where this took place! My wide got taken out by a beginner on an intermediate trail and severely broke her shoulder (humerus and humerus head) at Burke should Burke be at fault - no! That could have very well have taken out a child! Bad things happen at ski areas and that is risk that no one wants to experience but Cart Blanche blaming ski areas is stupid! There are cases where they should be held liable and I do not deny that! Being judge and jury with out really knowing specifics is wrong!

Domeskier said:

No bad experience, thankfully. But I can empathize with a family who entrusted their five year old child to the care of a ski area whose services include teaching that child to ski and having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices..

Click to expand...

So, basically you think 90% of New England ski areas are "doing it wrong" and putting their ski school kids in danger? Almost all major New England ski resorts have beginner terrain in run out zones and conduct lessons with novices on those slopes. If you want, I'd be happy to list examples.

There's no way to come up with a metric that can be defended in court as to what constitutes a safe learning environment that "could not foreseeably result in sever injury or death." That is the inherent risk of the sport; it's what users and their dependents sign up for. How can you define that when conditions change so rapidly, whether it be snow surface, skier traffic, weather and the ability of the new learning skier?"

What if the current/former mountain employee had hit just an ordinary novice skier on that trail? What would Jay's liability be in that situation?

Domeskier said:

having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death

Click to expand...

Every time you go skiing, you place yourself in a position which may result in severe injury or death. If you cannot accept that for yourself or your kid, you should stay home. As a parent it is YOUR job to evaluate the risk. Yahoos zooming down with little consideration for others are not that common but they exist at every resort.

Domeskier said:

when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices.

Click to expand...

That's where you are incorrect. How can you tell which area is safer on a trail map ??? Tell me which run you think is safer and I'll be happy to comment on your choice.

fbrissette said:

That's where you are incorrect. How can you tell which area is safer on a trail map ?? Tell me which run you think is safer and I'll be happy to comment on your choice.

Click to expand...

What about the Village Chair? Note, however, that the fact that there is no safer place on the mountain to teach novices does not entail that they are satisfying their obligations under the law.

deadheadskier said:

There's no way to come up with a metric that can be defended in court as to what constitutes a safe learning environment that "could not foreseeably result in sever injury or death

Click to expand...

They could minimize the risk by not needlessly teaching novices in areas frequented by more advanced skiers. The fact that skiing is inherently dangerous does not mean that ski areas do not have a duty to minimize some of those risks.

dlague said:

but Cart Blanche blaming ski areas is stupid!

Click to expand...

Who is suggesting that?