Another injured skier/snowboarder law suit

[Smellytele]

http://news.yahoo.com/paralyzed-skier-asks-resort-held-responsible-200632615.html

 

[Domeskier]

I am waiting for a lawsuit alleging defective grooming.

 

[hammer]

Not enough specifics on the jump design...

Might get some :flame: for this, but I actually do take issue with general purpose releases...we have to sign them all the time for school field trips. Sure we could decline but that would mean no field trips, no school sports, etc. Does that mean that we have no recourse if a kid gets lost/injured/worse due to the negligent actions of a staff member?

That all said, if the jump was designed properly for an expert skill level and was marked as such, and the plaintiff got hurt anyway, then I sure hope this appeal goes absolutely nowhere.

 

[Savemeasammy]

I'm curious what was so "unsafe" about this particular jump. Was there actually something wrong with it? Even if so, the kid probably should have checked it out before jumping it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dlague]

That is the problem with many who use a park! They go into it not knowing what the landings are like, what the snow conditions are like, etc. We require our kids to make a run through the park and look at the size of the kickers and look at the landings. Have my kids gotten hurt - sure! We have had 2 concussions, and 2 broken clavicles. That happens in many parks. But this situation is awful for the family but just as much so for the resort. How many people that day successfully made it over that jump? Were they just lucky?

 

[abc]

Even if so, the kid probably should have checked it out before jumping it...

The reference to Shawn White wrt his withdrawal from an event on the Olympic is specially interesting.

It's an "expert" jump. So it can be argued that the jumper should bear more responsibility (one may even argue the jumper alone bear ALL responsibility) to decide if it's safe (on that day's particular condition, FOR HIM) to jump or not.

 

[VTKilarney]

My two cents:

The ski area should only be on the hook if there was something unsafe about the jump that they should have known was unsafe and the unsafe element of the jump was not reasonably apparent to a skier sizing up the jump.

People should be responsible for the risks they choose to take. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that a ski area should not design something with a hidden safety risk that people have no reason to believe would be present.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I am waiting for a lawsuit alleging defective grooming.

As ridiculous as it sounds, I almost guarantee that's been done.

America is the king of ridiculous lawsuits, and that's not going to change until plaintiffs are forced to have some skin in the game (and that's not going to change).

 

[dlague]

As ridiculous as it sounds, I almost guarantee that's been done.

America is the king of ridiculous lawsuits, and that's not going to change until plaintiffs are forced to have some skin in the game (and that's not going to change).

I agree - force plaintiffs to pay back legal fees if their suit fails!

 

[steamboat1]

This is why MRG doesn't allow boarders.

 

[dlague]

My two cents:

The ski area should only be on the hook if there was something unsafe about the jump that they should have known was unsafe and the unsafe element of the jump was not reasonably apparent to a skier sizing up the jump.

People should be responsible for the risks they choose to take. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that a ski area should not design something with a hidden safety risk that people have no reason to believe would be present.

I think that a design can be a matter of opinion! I contend that the large features now appearing in some parks are dangerous. Now for those who are good enough to stomp large features - their opinion maybe different. However, ski areas are being pushed to extremes these days to create a product that will provide advanced skiers and riders an even better experience then they get any where else.

Up until the mid 80's, skiing, for the most part, was restricted to trails only - whether groomed or ungroomed. Catching air took place on natural features for the most part and lets not forget the hot dog movement. While early forms of "extreme skiing" starting becoming more prevalent, ski areas struggled with ways to compete with this form of skiing started opening up steeper terrain. The 90's introduced the terrain parks along with the emergence of snowboarding being widely accepted. These new terrain parks - where they were originally designed for snowboarding, ultimately caused the rebirth of skiing in the form of Free-skiing. The skiing industry was losing ground to snowboarding and the concept of the twin tips emerged. As a result, the newschoolers and snowboarders have pushed the ski areas to build bigger and better features as younger skiers take to the air making earlier tricks look simple. Also around the mid 90's three was the blow up of glade skiing. As more ski areas in the West provided this staple of skiing, the east caught on in the late 90's and seemed to take off with the concept of "if it is inbounds you can ski it"! It seems as though the whole backcountry industry has been taking off with skinning becoming more common for both skiers and snowboarders alike! The technology, has kept up and in some cases pushed new concepts in skiing and snowboarding to the point where people are trying things that they might not have considered years ago!

Where am I going with this? We as a population have been taking greater risks (some more than others) and have pushed the resorts into offering what the advanced or extreme skier/snowboarder wants which makes sense because what the beginner / intermediate has wanted has always been there in our life time anyways. So while limits are being pushed, the experts will love it, the advanced skiers will try to achieve it, the intermediates will think they are good enough and will try it and beginners - well they are beginners and some will make bad choices by default. While these extremes, whether it is hucking of cliffs in the glades, catching big air in a park or pushing limits of our gear, may result in fun or adventure for some, others will fail and they will get hurt, severely injured, or even die. In the end, the consumers got what they asked for! The resorts, while trying to meet the market demands get faced with law suits by those who have failed to conquer and do not accept their failures. If you are going to try something, be prepared for the consequences - the resort did not make you do it! Each story is different and each case has its own merits, but I personally get tired of people trying to place blame of the resorts!

 

[drjeff]

Jump safety often has far more to do with the speed the user hits it at (a direct factor of the user having pre-scouted the jump and landing) more often than it is the actual pushing and shaping of the snow in the approach, the actual jump, and the landing.

If you've got an "expert" jump that requires say a 30mph take off speed to clear the gap and land in the appropriate section of the landing, but they hit it at say 20mph or 45mph then that's a user issue not a design issue.

If the user tries a known jump, but in say a "slow" snow situation (powder or really wet snow) and doesn't recognize the snow conditions issue, that's again a user issue!

If you've got a jump where the appropriate take off speed sends one short or too deep, that's a design issue

 

[deadheadskier]

If you've got a jump where the appropriate take off speed sends one short or too deep, that's a design issue

How do you determine that? It's going to be a range based upon the size of the person taking the jump.

Do you then have to advertise at each jump how fast the user must be going to successfully complete the jump?


Sucks this boarder has had catastrophic injuries. Unfortunately it happens.