Lawsuit Rewarded

[bvibert]

If it were my ski area I'd put up electrified steel cable to close the trails...

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

We don't know that the child was attempting to enter a closed trail. Maybe he simply didn't see the rope, or lost control, or was pushed towards it or something. It's hard to draw an accurate conclusion with the information provided.

Whatever the cause; the results are unfortunate for everyone involved (assuming the boys injuries were as severe as they were made out to be).

+1

Don't know anything about the case beyond the flimsy "journalism" of the article, but it's entirely foreseeable that someone might not see a rope closing a trail, or might be out of control and not be able to stop in time before hitting a too-strong rope. Ski areas don't need to rope off ski trails with ropes that injure people if they ski into them. I think that is the message the judgment was meant to convey.

If that is really what happened, I think you could argue that the reward is way too low, because the ski area rep says they're not planning on changing their practice. Just wait until someone gets their head severed or is paralyzed.....The award will be astronomical (and probably rightly so).

 

[drjeff]

+1

Don't know anything about the case beyond the flimsy "journalism" of the article, but it's entirely foreseeable that someone might not see a rope closing a trail, or might be out of control and not be able to stop in time before hitting a too-strong rope. Ski areas don't need to rope off ski trails with ropes that injure people if they ski into them. I think that is the message the judgment was meant to convey.

If that is really what happened, I think you could argue that the reward is way too low, because the ski area rep says they're not planning on changing their practice. Just wait until someone gets their head severed or is paralyzed.....The award will be astronomical (and probably rightly so).

The "rules of the hill"

http://www.nsp.org/1/nsp/Safety_Information/YourResponsibilityCode.asp

"Your Responsibility Code

Skiing and snowboarding can be enjoyed in many ways. At areas you may see people using alpine skis, snowboards, telemark skis, cross country skis, and other specialized equipment, such as that used by the disabled. Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce. Observe the code listed below and share with other skiers and riders the responsibility for a great skiing experience.

Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.
Know the code. It's your responsibility."

Enough said

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

The "rules of the hill"

http://www.nsp.org/1/nsp/Safety_Information/YourResponsibilityCode.asp

"Your Responsibility Code

Skiing and snowboarding can be enjoyed in many ways. At areas you may see people using alpine skis, snowboards, telemark skis, cross country skis, and other specialized equipment, such as that used by the disabled. Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce. Observe the code listed below and share with other skiers and riders the responsibility for a great skiing experience.

Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.
Know the code. It's your responsibility."

Enough said

It seems that the decision is saying that the National Ski Patrol's "responsibility code" does not absolve ski areas of their own negligence.

 

[tcharron]

The "rules of the hill"

http://www.nsp.org/1/nsp/Safety_Information/YourResponsibilityCode.asp

"Your Responsibility Code

Skiing and snowboarding can be enjoyed in many ways. At areas you may see people using alpine skis, snowboards, telemark skis, cross country skis, and other specialized equipment, such as that used by the disabled. Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce. Observe the code listed below and share with other skiers and riders the responsibility for a great skiing experience.

Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.
Know the code. It's your responsibility."

Enough said

So based on that sort of logic, I 100% support the removal of ALL guardrails on all major highays. They're an added cost, and besides. It's the DRIVERS responsibility to stay on the road.

OMG, and bridges over rivers will be made SO much easier. Who needs rails, right?

 

[drjeff]

It seems that the decision is saying that the National Ski Patrol's "responsibility code" does not absolve ski areas of their own negligence.

There are also times when I feel that the "parent's responsibility code" should supercede things too. When a 9 year old is involved like this, chances are that he was either skiing too fast for the conditions and/or skiing a trail above his ability level. Both of which are items that should have been addressed by a parent/authority figure.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

There are also times when I feel that the "parent's responsibility code" should supercede things too. When a 9 year old is involved like this, chances are that he was either skiing too fast for the conditions and/or skiing a trail above his ability level. Both of which are items that should have been addressed by a parent/authority figure.

It's precisely because the industry needs to attract young kids to bring on the "next generation" of skiers that they need to take steps to keep the mountain sufficiently safe for, among others, 9-year olds. Unless you're advocating parents ski with leashes on their kids or constantly yell at their kids to watch out/not have fun (which surely is a way to turn kids off from skiing, or anything else).

 

[drjeff]

So based on that sort of logic, I 100% support the removal of ALL guardrails on all major highays. They're an added cost, and besides. It's the DRIVERS responsibility to stay on the road.

OMG, and bridges over rivers will be made SO much easier. Who needs rails, right?

Nope, I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying to use your road example, is that there's a set of rules that we're supposed to follow on the road, and a set of rules that we're supposed to follow on the hill. Both have their similarities with respect to not going too fast for conditions, following posted signs. If you're going to fast on the road for conditions and an accident happens, you know what, you get a ticket for it, if you don't follow posted road signs and an accident happens, you get a ticket. Plus, you don't see too many guardrail and/or jersey barrier manufacturers getting sued for making too strong a product now do you??

 

[drjeff]

It's precisely because the industry needs to attract young kids to bring on the "next generation" of skiers that they need to take steps to keep the mountain sufficiently safe for, among others, 9-year olds. Unless you're advocating parents ski with leashes on their kids or constantly yell at their kids to watch out/not have fun (which surely is a way to turn kids off from skiing, or anything else).

All I'm saying is that parents if they're on the hill with their kid(s) need to take an active role in atleast teaching the basics of the skier's responsibility code. If the parent isn't a skier and their child is taking lessons, I know that on hill safety/ etiquite is a component that most instructors incorporate into their lessons. I'm most definately not advocating yelling at your kids or leashing them, heck i don't with mne. But what needs to happen is the "rules of the hill" need to be taught and regularly reminded to the youth, and slowly via the popularity of parks and at many areas good park ranger programs, these rules are being taught in an important yet fun way.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Plus, you don't see too many guardrail and/or jersey barrier manufacturers getting sued for making too strong a product now do you??

Actually, yes, you do see such suits. Some gaurdrail designs at one time had brutally flat end terminals with no give in them that sliced through or crushed cars that happened to hit them. Despite growing numbers of severe injuries and fatalities, the design unreasonably persisted and energy-aborbing gaurdrails were not installed or retrofitted.

Under the "you shouldn't have gotten near the closed trail sign" theory, someone hitting the guardrail and dying "got what they deserved" because the guardrail kept them from going off the highway and they shouldn't have been out of control anyway.

I don't think this is the correct result. The end terminal was simply not fit for its intended use and manufacturers and the state agencies that continued to use them (presumably because they were cheaper, or because they just weren't good at their jobs) should incur liability. Similarly, in the case of the 9-year old boy (again, not knowing anything about it besides the article), I tend to think he was justly compensated, because it seems like the rope closing the trail was not fit for its intended use.

 

[tcharron]

Nope, I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying to use your road example, is that there's a set of rules that we're supposed to follow on the road, and a set of rules that we're supposed to follow on the hill. Both have their similarities with respect to not going too fast for conditions, following posted signs. If you're going to fast on the road for conditions and an accident happens, you know what, you get a ticket for it, if you don't follow posted road signs and an accident happens, you get a ticket. Plus, you don't see too many guardrail and/or jersey barrier manufacturers getting sued for making too strong a product now do you??

No, but federal mandates have been in place regarding their use and placement. Generally speaking, in locations where a head on collision with a barrier is possible and in many cases likely, barrels of water to absorb the impact before the barrier are in place. And they didn't sue to wire manufacturers, they sued the people who put the wire there in the first place. Personally, I'd PREFER some big plastic guards across closed trails, but that's not really practical.

Now what if instead of using a jersey barrier, some local town decided to put high strength aircraft cable across a commonly used exit off an interstate, with a little 'road closed' sign?

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

All I'm saying is that parents if they're on the hill with their kid(s) need to take an active role in atleast teaching the basics of the skier's responsibility code. If the parent isn't a skier and their child is taking lessons, I know that on hill safety/ etiquite is a component that most instructors incorporate into their lessons. I'm most definately not advocating yelling at your kids or leashing them, heck i don't with mne. But what needs to happen is the "rules of the hill" need to be taught and regularly reminded to the youth, and slowly via the popularity of parks and at many areas good park ranger programs, these rules are being taught in an important yet fun way.

Yes, true, 100%. But, I don't think we know enough about what happened to blame the parents or even infer that they had any role in the accident.

All I'm saying is that sometimes, despite the well-intentioned notion of personal responsibility and accountability, a company can fail to live up to a reasonable standard of safety and no amount of parental teaching or self-control can prevent inevitable/foreseeable accidents.

 

[tcharron]

Yes, true, 100%. But, I don't think we know enough about what happened to blame the parents or even infer that they had any role in the accident.

All I'm saying is that sometimes, despite the well-intentioned notion of personal responsibility and accountability, a company can fail to live up to a reasonable standard of safety and no amount of parental teaching or self-control can prevent inevitable/foreseeable accidents.

I'd go further and say that sometimes companies well intentioned practices and procedures can sometimes overlook something that could very well lead to a potentially dangerous situation. Really hard to say here, since the data online regarding this particular lawsuit is short on details. I'd personally say it's one thing to do it across a trail right off the top of the lift, where you're NOT going to be transitioning from one trail to another, and quite another to put it across the bottom of a green trail where it forks to a blue and another green. Personally, I'm making a MASSIVE assumption that this was a case of the later.