Jay Peak Lawsuit - Page 9

AlpineZone

Page 9 of 32 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 312
  1. #81
    bigbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bangor and the state's woodlands
    Posts
    4,864
    Friggin' management....

    Last edited by bigbog; Oct 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM.
    SteveD

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by drjeff View Post
    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.

  3. #83
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Rex View Post
    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.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Rex View Post
    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!
    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!

  5. #85
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,263
    Quote Originally Posted by tnt View Post
    Totally off topic, but i really want to try Burke some day. Never been.
    You need to go before it changes anymore......
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post
    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!
    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!

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Rex View Post
    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.

  8. #88
    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.
    Live Free or Die
    137 days 08-09
    16 days 09-10

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by AdironRider View Post
    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.
    Love Jay Peak? Hate Jay Peak? You might enjoy this:
    The Real Jay Peak Snow Report

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Bird Rider View Post
    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.
    Live Free or Die
    137 days 08-09
    16 days 09-10

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 10:43 AM.