Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)

[Domeskier]

I say the kid took off before Patrol pulled up for whatever reason.

Probably because he didn't want idiot dad to assault him again.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

Whether or not the snowboarder could have avoided the collision has no bearing on idiot dad's negligence.

Absolutely. No need of that, check make sure everyone is all right, argue later.

 

[thetrailboss]

Whether or not the snowboarder could have avoided the collision has no bearing on idiot dad's negligence.

Are you saying that you think Dad sent the kid out without looking? From my viewing, I can't see enough to decide whether that was the case.

 

[MadMadWorld]

A few points:

That was a terrible place to stop. You should probably not stop on a section of trail like that unless absolutely necessary. And if you do, stop on the side.

If you do have to stop, the child should always be below you.

The accident was the snowboarders fault. You can't blame the father/child who were stationary. And the girl didn't make any crazy movements.

The snowboarder might have been responsible but the father was a complete ass hat. The accident was a mistake. It was something that could happen to anyone.

 

[mriceyman]

Yea and you definitely cant hit a kid with a ski


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Domeskier]

Are you saying that you think Dad sent the kid out without looking? From my viewing, I can't see enough to decide whether that was the case.

From the moment he becomes visible on camera standing in the middle of the trail with his son standing in front of him, he does not appear to look up hill once.

Edit: Watched it again. I agree the video is not entirely clear on this point. However, if he did look uphill, I'm not sure how he could have missed the snowboarder heading toward them and how he could have failed to react when his kid started to move.

 

[Nick]

Yea and you definitely cant hit a kid with a ski


Sent from my iPhone

Unless you have been really, really misbehaving :lol:

 

[thetrailboss]

A few points:

That was a terrible place to stop. You should probably not stop on a section of trail like that unless absolutely necessary. And if you do, stop on the side.

Agreed. And as I said, when you're with a little kid I can imagine that a kid is going to stop in bad places. It is what it is.

If you do have to stop, the child should always be below you.

From what I saw, the kid was below the Dad. And I still don't see enough to convince me that he was encouraging the kid to go ahead. It looks like they're just standing there.

The accident was the snowboarders fault. You can't blame the father/child who were stationary. And the girl didn't make any crazy movements.

Agreed.

The snowboarder might have been responsible but the father was a complete ass hat. The accident was a mistake. It was something that could happen to anyone.

I agree to some extent, but just being a Dad I know that if someone hurt my kid watch out. I would hope I would not hit someone but when your kid has been plowed over you have a right to be very upset....just instinctively. It's really easy for us to be Monday Morning Quarterbacks from our offices and living rooms while watching this in replay over and over again. But in the moment is there any Dad here who will tell me that they would not be ripped? I think not. Doesn't justify punching the guy.

 

[Nick]

I'm a new dad. I would be instantly thinking did my kid break a leg? Worse? I would definitely freak out. Again, I HOPE I wouldn't hit the kid.

 

[mister moose]

Many of you appear to have the facts wrong.

The kid on skis in the teal jacket is visible ahead of the boarder well before the collision. Like 30 seconds before. Relative position changes, but at 4:05 teal is clearly below and ahead of boarder.
4:09 Teal ahead and off to left of Boarder.
4:13 Teal ahead on left of Boarder.
4:14 Dad becomes visible ahead on right. Boarder clearly has heelside and back to teal.
4:15 Teal ahead, converging. Boarder passes several people, including patrol with a sled.
4:16 Imminent collision with Teal, Dad clearly visible ahead on right, child visible on right of Dad, moving right to left.
4:17 Fending off Teal, child is now to left of Dad.
4:17.5 Teal is now behind and shadow is visible close on left still. Collision imminent with Dad/child. Shadow shows boarder is on heels with board across the hill but going straight ahead, and not braking hard over the last 2 seconds.
4:18 collision with child.
4:22 Boarder still moving, trying to stop while on ground. Child is up hill with ski released.
4:24 Dad arrives with child's ski in left hand.
4:28 Dad moves ski to right hand, strikes Boarder on head with left.
4:40 Boarder now stays quiet, leaves scene of accident.


I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision. He is shielding child, who is in motion. The child was not stopped. Boarder does not stop, not even slow down appreciably before, during or after encounter with Teal. There is no warning issued to Teal, ie "On your right!"

The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child. This is a good defense???

Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating. (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski) It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?

I know it was congested, I know Boarder's speed wasn't excessively high, but he failed to travel at a speed slow enough to avoid a collision, twice. Boarder failed to warn downhill Teal of proximity. Dad and child is visible 4 seconds before impact. (Remember POV camera makes things appear further than they are) Boarder's fault for collision. Dad guilty of assault.

Yes, this was clearly an accident, and yes, accidents happen. But until I see a sign that says "minimum speed 15mph" you can't fault the child/Dad.

 

[HD333]

How is "The Code" working out for all 3 of these folks?

Sucks the little guy got run over, also sucks that the Dad punched/hit the boarder, nice example for your kid.

Who is at fault? That will end up like the who's hotter Julia or Lindsay debate (Julia obviously for the record).

I don't get how the Dad let that kid go without looking uphill? My kids are 10 and when we stop I still look uphill for them. For that fact I say the dad is more at fault because he could have prevented the little guy from going.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

I agree with Moose, in that the boy was already moving, which is why in the short time you can see Dad, he doesn't appear to look uphill, Dads skis are pointing right, as if Junior had just completed his turn, and was traversing back across to Dad, when the camera picks him up, he has just reached Dad. If they were stopped, and Dad was just starting Junior out, if would be more probable that his skis would be pointing in the direction that Junior was about to travel.

 

[Domeskier]

I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision. He is shielding child, who is in motion. The child was not stopped.

Child is in motion at 4:16. Child was not in motion when idiot dad first appears on camera at 4:14. A reasonable parent on that slope, in those conditions, with that kind of traffic would have looked up hill before letting his kid proceed.

 

[thetrailboss]

Many of you appear to have the facts wrong.

The kid on skis in the teal jacket is visible ahead of the boarder well before the collision. Like 30 seconds before. Relative position changes, but at 4:05 teal is clearly below and ahead of boarder.
4:09 Teal ahead and off to left of Boarder.
4:13 Teal ahead on left of Boarder.
4:14 Dad becomes visible ahead on right. Boarder clearly has heelside and back to teal.
4:15 Teal ahead, converging. Boarder passes several people, including patrol with a sled.
4:16 Imminent collision with Teal, Dad clearly visible ahead on right, child visible on right of Dad, moving right to left.
4:17 Fending off Teal, child is now to left of Dad.
4:17.5 Teal is now behind and shadow is visible close on left still. Collision imminent with Dad/child. Shadow shows boarder is on heels with board across the hill but going straight ahead, and not braking hard over the last 2 seconds.
4:18 collision with child.
4:22 Boarder still moving, trying to stop while on ground. Child is up hill with ski released.
4:24 Dad arrives with child's ski in left hand.
4:28 Dad moves ski to right hand, strikes Boarder on head with left.
4:40 Boarder now stays quiet, leaves scene of accident.


I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision. He is shielding child, who is in motion. The child was not stopped. Boarder does not stop, not even slow down appreciably before, during or after encounter with Teal. There is no warning issued to Teal, ie "On your right!"

The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child. This is a good defense???

Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating. (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski) It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?

I know it was congested, I know Boarder's speed wasn't excessively high, but he failed to travel at a speed slow enough to avoid a collision, twice. Boarder failed to warn downhill Teal of proximity. Dad and child is visible 4 seconds before impact. (Remember POV camera makes things appear further than they are) Boarder's fault for collision. Dad guilty of assault.

Yes, this was clearly an accident, and yes, accidents happen. But until I see a sign that says "minimum speed 15mph" you can't fault the child/Dad.

Gotta agree.

 

[Nick]

Some more info:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27909656&ni...s-caught-on-camera&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2

You know I read that and I really feel like the kid is milking it a little bit ...

statements like

Poulsen said he still wants to find out who the man is and make sure he doesn't do this to anyone else."It surprised me that the man didn't talk, didn't ask his son if he was OK before he came to get in my face. I wish he would have done that," Poulsen said.
He said he's not sure if he wants to press charges if he's able to identify the man who hit him.

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=27909656#uGTe2YcbIOBH38VA.99

 

[from_the_NEK]

The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child. This is a good defense???

Here's food for thought, if not for the hand check of the skier in teal by the snowboarding kid, does the teal skier hit the little kid instead?

 

[C-Rex]

Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating. (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski) It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's not a car accident, and I wouldn't expect him to stick around when the Dad is going off on him and being physically violent. He wasn't trying to avoid responsibility as he stopped and asked if the kid was ok. The boarder seemed more concerned with the kid's condition after the crash than the dad. As others have said, hitting the boarder was just stupid. He's lucky the kid didn't have a bunch of nutjob friends with him. He could have gotten his head caved in by some psycho right in front of his son. He could still end up facing assault charges. There is just no excuse for that behavior, and that is coming from someone with a pretty short fuse himself.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Here is the skier's code:

After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code. He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking. He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph. He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.

The "father" is can be observed from 4:15 until the collision as NOT properly observing points 3 and 4 of the code, nor is his child. They are stopped in the middle of a trail, and the pair are not visable from above the rollover. Even worse, the father is blocking the view of the child. They do not turn around and look up hill before the father allows the child to move perpendicular to the fall line and into the path of the snowboarder.

I'm not a lawyer, but common sense says that this is 90%+ the fault of the father.

How would I handle this situation if I was one of these people? As the father, I would avoid taking my small child out on a high traffic trail in early season conditions, period. I see people stopped in dangerous spots at Killington, and I go as far as stopping to talk to people and ask them to move to a safer stopping location. As the snowboarder, I would be a bit more careful at rollovers and choke points, while making sure my board was well tuned and I could edge with it effectively.

If I was skiing this trail, I would probably come to a full stop off the side of the trail, at the top of the rollover and look at traffic, similar to how I would deal with the lower bittersweet rollover at Killington.

Damian?

 

[Dickc]

Ugly situation. Snowboarder ultimately at fault as he allowed himself to be squeezed out. He Should have slowed and gone to the left of the girl instead. Would have avoided collision completely. As for the Dad. He should be criminally charged. I am a parent of four, and grandparent of two. You have to control yourself at all times. Self control has been in decline in the country for a few decades. Not good.

By the way, had boarder gone to to left of girl, it looks like she might have hit Dad or the child instead. Bad spot on trail that should have another warning sign.

Lastly, I feel that the code is written with the most important rules first. Makes rule 3 & 4 less relevant if Dad was stopped.

 

[Highway Star]

Agreed. Was going to say the same thing.

with all due respect, I dont know what video you're watching. the little kid is inarguably downhill from the boarder and is barely moving, if he's moving at all.
just because the boarder didnt hit anyone in front of him in the minutes before the incident, doesnt in any way absolve him of responsibility for plowing into a little kid in his way.

Both of you clearly did not watch the video from the beginning. The group starts down the hill around the 3:00 mark and successfully avoids multiple people at a very reasonable speed. The snowboarder slows up at 3:55 for two kids, one of which later cuts into him at 4:15. I didn't day this before, but the kid who cuts in from the left was not following point 4 and should have looked over their shoulder before merging into the trail.