bigbog
Active member
Friggin' management....
Last edited:
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!
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
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.
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.
Totally off topic, but i really want to try Burke some day. Never been.
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.
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.
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.
^^^ 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.
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.
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.
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
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.