Inbound avalanches just another inherent risk of skiing

[skiNEwhere]

Just saw this article

Personally I disagree. If this becomes the precedent for all future cases that may come up, then what's to stop a ski resort operator to save costs by, lets say, trimming the avy explosive budget?

 

[Savemeasammy]

When skiing inbounds, a reasonable skier/boarder should be allowed to assume that terrain designated as open should be relatively safe to ski/ ride. Trails, runs, etc, that are too icy, have too little snow to be navigable, or otherwise have other unsafe conditions, routinely closed by resorts. Avalanches certainly should be included. It should be a reasonable assumption that open terrain should be safe from avalanche danger. Backcountry and closed inbounds terrain should be explored at one's own risk.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Cannonball]

I do agree with this finding. In the US we have embraced the perception that "If they let me do it, it must be safe". I don't like that world. I want to be allowed to do things that aren't safe and take my own responsibility for it.

About 20 years ago my wife and I saw a sign in a National Park. It said "Be aware there are no railings in the backcountry." That absurd sign has become a mantra for us when doing something risky. When we head out we say "there are no railings in the backcountry", meaning we are on our own here, let's be smart.

 

[fbrissette]

Just saw this article

Personally I disagree. If this becomes the precedent for all future cases that may come up, then what's to stop a ski resort operator to save costs by, lets say, trimming the avy explosive budget?

I'm with you on this. While any adult should be able to adequately weigh the risk of taking a jump, hitting the park or ski a glade, avalanche risk is a whole story. Inbound, 99+ % of skiers are clueless about avalanche, do not have beacons nor the ability to tackle s&r if an avalanche happens. I'm all abut personal responsibility, but the evaluation of avalanche danger inbound cannot be left to your everyday skier.

 

[jaysunn]

You are correct @fbrissette, the average or holiday skier should not have to worry about any avy risks, especially in resorts where these can be naturally triggered or human triggered, I vote for human triggered by the frickin howletzer, Your average mom and pop will have no education on S&R or beacons. Death or major injury will occur if these slopes/bowls are not properly maintained.

JUST my thoughts.

EDIT: Making you click close which actually makes it click on the ad is messed up, the site owner gets paid, and you click with the hope of closing the adwall, in reality it counts as an ad click for the site, shame on them...

Jaysunn

 

[Domeskier]

Seems like a pretty bad decision, for all the reasons mentioned. The statutory language does not compel this result and the majority's attempt to shift the blame to the legislature looks disingenuous. I wonder if they would have arrived at the same result if the plaintiff had been killed by an inbound avalanche caused by some other skier. Or if it had been caused by the ski patrol. Or if the avalanche took out a lift tower and injured riders on the chairs.

 

[VTKilarney]

In the US we have embraced the perception that "If they let me do it, it must be safe"

I haven't heard anyone suggest that skiing "must be safe in all circumstances." The argument is that ski areas should take reasonable precautions to prevent avoidable injuries. The key word is reasonable. Nobody is demanding that ski areas prevent all injuries.

Closing off marked trails that are in danger of avalanches is a pretty easy and reasonable precaution against serious bodily injury or death. The ski area is in a much better position to assess this risk than the consumer.

The flaw in your argument is an assumption that the consumer has perfect and complete information. Placing risk completely on the risk taker (rather than the product provider) only works if the risk taker has the ability to fully and accurately assess the degree of risk.

Also, there is a mistaken assumption that liability always amounts to a “cost” on society. This ignores a fundamental fact about the economics of liability: when a person is injured, that injury imposes a cost to society. Our laws should encourage a ski area to spend a little bit of money (assess avalanche danger and put up a rope) to avoid a much more expensive injuries to their customers. That is a net-sum gain and is economically efficient - which is a good thing.

People lose sight of the forest through the trees because they focus on a rare absurdities that stem from a sound principle. (e.g.: spilling hot coffee) I have no problem with eliminating these absurdities. But an absurdity in and of itself does not indicate that the entire concept is flawed.

I want to be allowed to do things that aren't safe and take my own responsibility for it.

Who is stopping you?

 

[MadMadWorld]

How much terrain will become "permanently closed" areas because of this? My guess is resorts will close off a lot of inbound terrain because they don't want to deal with risk of lawsuit. There is definitely a cause and effect here.

 

[Cannonball]

How much terrain will become "permanently closed" areas because of this? My guess is resorts will close off a lot of inbound terrain because they don't want to deal with risk of lawsuit. There is definitely a cause and effect here.

Well, this finding was in favor of the resort. So it likely won't have the impact you mention. But I share your concern. If the finding had gone the other way, ski areas might do exactly what you are saying. Either because it's easier or because their insurance companies insist on it.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Well, this finding was in favor of the resort. So it likely won't have the impact you mention. But I share your concern. If the finding had gone the other way, ski areas might do exactly what you are saying. Either because it's easier or because their insurance companies insist on it.

Woops! Boy did I misread the headline.

 

[VTKilarney]

Even if it went the other way the impact would have been negligible. A small amount of terrain would have been closed during periods of high avalanche risk.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Even if it went the other way the impact would have been negligible. A small amount of terrain would have been closed during periods of high avalanche risk.

I could think of a lot actually.

 

[VTKilarney]

Since this is a northeast forum, what terrain in the northeast did you have in mind and how often were you thinking?

 

[AdironRider]

I think this is an East vs West thing. I think any gaper would be in the right to not think about avis at your average day at Killington, but even gapers know avalanches exist, and they almost always assume they happen in the Rockies. Its not a stretch to say at Jackson, that it would be an assumed risk. Unfortunately this was already proven a few years back during a slide death in Toilet Bowl.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Since this is a northeast forum, what terrain in the northeast did you have in mind and how often were you thinking?

It wouldn't effect the Northeast at all but plenty of us travel out west and many of the big contributors do live out there.

 

[VTKilarney]

So if it won't affect one of the biggest ski markets, which trails out west would be closed and how often?

CO has had a total of four inbounds avalanches in its modern era ski history, so I'm genuinely curious to see how my statement was incorrect.

 

[skiNEwhere]

The thing is too when people think avalanche they think extreme terrain. Not always the case. Breck's peak 6 is blue bowls and while they are not close to the magic number of 38 degrees, I don't think all casual skiers should need to dig a snow pit and check the avy report before they get on the kensho chair. Another example of common recreation bowl skiing is vail's back bowls.

I think a better perception for skiers to have and ski areas to fulfill is "If they let me do it, it SHOULD be safe" meaning the ski area has at least taken some reasonable precautions. While we can't (and shouldn't) except ski patrol to wrap every tree in bubble wrap, I think avy control is quite reasonable.

 

[AdironRider]

You know enough about avis to know about trigger points right? In 2500 or more acres you think they can confirm all of them?

 

[skiNEwhere]

In 2500 or more acres you think they can confirm all of them?

Absolutely not. I have seen no avalanche warning on the mountain at vail or breckenridge though. I've never been to whiteface but seeing as you need avy gear for the slides I would think the skiers would be more aware and I'm guessing there is a sign at the base of the hike up spot as well?

I know places like Sunshine village not only have the avalanche warnings on the trail map, but extensive warnings that avalanche forecasting is an inexact science. In fact, to even get through the gate for delirium dive and other "freeride" areas you need a beacon to open the gate. I think all of that is quite reasonable

I will say that A-Basin does a pretty good job of giving appropriate warnings with the east wall