bumpyride

Steven Pass Must have been 3 feet of light. 1st to ride up on lift. Went off the backside and screamed down to the steep section. Checked out my line for trees, and never saw sky again. Never felt the bottom again. 10 to 15 foot drops on every turn and never had any sensation aside from floating. Guy I was boarding with goggles fogged up and he went to get another pair. I asked him to pick me up a can of pop becuase I wasn't going to stop. He caught up to me an hour or so later and gave me a can of 7 up. I couldn't get the can to my mouth because of the ice on my mustache. I had to tilt my head back and pour it in. Ahhhh! Carbonation down my throat and up my nose. Didn't matter. Did this all day till closing. I always pack a lunch and water.

Check the wire services!

AP Wiresrvice, 24, June 2007 Dateline: Tokoyo, Japan Whistle Helmets? At the summer meeting of the Japanese Ski Resorts, Mangagement is discussing the mandatory use of Helmets by both Skiers and Snowboarders. Included will be a built in Whistle that will activate once a Skier or Snowboarder exceeds 35 KPH or about 22 MPH. This is in reaction to the increase in injuries dur- ing the 2006-2007 season. Kyo Takahara, the spokesman for the Ski Industry, was quoted as saying, "There has been a takeover of some ski slopes by an undesirable element that has no concern for others, and we are taking steps to prevent injuries to innocent people." Mr. Takahara explained that the helmets were to protect against a rash of head injuries, and the whistle will alert downhill skiers to impending danger. After Mr. Takahara was through speaking there was a very vocal group that re- presents the Snowboard Industry that had to be removed. The Snowboard group later told the press that Japanese youth would not stand for it, and they would call for a boycott on any resort that implemented the helmet regulations. They said that they would implement low cost trips to Western Canada to combat the rule, and that they were already in negotiations with several hotels in Whistler, BC Canada, for a buyout to service strictly a Japanese clientele. The Snowboard group (SBOJ) said that there was a leak from the Ski Resort man- agement about 2 months ago, and SBOJ said they started laying plans to combat the regulation even before it was publicly announced. Financing for the plan was already in place. This will be an interesting story to watch in the days to come. The Japanese youth have become a power player in the Recreational Marketplace. The "Brown- heads" (youth that have peroxided their hair turning it brown), are much sim- ilar to the counter culture youth that have raised so much havoc in England and the United States. We have seen the impact that they have had in their respective countries, and can't help but wonder how this will play out. S. Jeffries AP Tokoyo

It is rumored that shortly after serving time in the "Joint", that Paris Hilton will have toughened up enough to go into training for the Boardercross circuit. Hilton will probably first have to finish her new autobiography entiled, "Doing Hard Time at the Joint-Hilton Downtown". We can only hope that the rigors of training coupled with just having to survive with just 1 tube of cheap lipstick will straighten out the multi-talented heiress. Someone said that when asked if she was to join Apollo Anton Ohno on the Boardercross circuit, she giggled and made a reference to the SOUL SAUSAGE. I'll be sure to keep you all updated.

Actually a person could advance his chances with lead balls. Not only extra weight, but no fear might come into play.

I thought that this would tip it. Speculation is that Chris Prior is in design phase with Ohno on his board. The word is that they have developed a high density polymer afixed to the tip of the board, that dampens not only vibrations but heavier impacts and has an added bonus of being shaped like an airfoil when on the snow and releases after the tip leaves the snow surface. The idea behind it the release point is so that when airborne the tip of the board doesn't dive. They have done this by striating the polymer into hair-like fibers that react to pressure and return to a "memory" shape when the pressure is relieved. This will look much like "Yeti Fur" and be very prominent on the tip. I believe they're calling it the "Soul Patch". Then I figured this would do it. Don't tell anyone you heard it from me but this may be progressed much further than first thought. Was that Ohno is Whistler earlier this year with a full face shield helmet with a Kamikazi insignia? And was this mystery rider also seen coming out of Prior with the helmet on as a disguise? The really interesting part comes from an unnamed source deep within the industry. Apollo Ohno is not only developing the "SOUL BLADE", but also a split board that he will be using to SKATE up Mt Ranier and BOARD back down. The split board will be called "SOUL OF THE MOUNTAIN". With his dedicated training and ability, if anyone can do it, he can. Details of the boards are sketchy, but one fact can be counted on. The edges will be Iridium Platinum. Iridium is the hardest natural element and is not affected by water (no rust). It's very difficult to machine and that's the reason that his short track skates cost $18,000. I can't wait to see the trickle down technology that will better our sport. 3 Days Ago 03:11 PM The I figured that this would do it, after all who would belive "SOUL SAUSAGE" In a related story Apollo Anton Ohno may have a new clothing line to coincide with his new snowboard line. He may be using the experience derived from Short Track and developing a new line of "Sausage" suits. The suits could be a combination of Teflon, Kevlar and Spandex. It's speculated that the name of the suit will be in keeping with the "SOUL BLADE". It may be called the "SOUL SAUSAGE". Rumor has it that Jake Burton, upon hearing this, was contemplating getting back into Alpine Boards. Burton's new board may be called the "SLICE AND DICE", and will neatly cut the "Soul Sausage" into cocktail weinies. The same rumor had Jake further commenting on the "SOUL SAUSAGE", and saying "Dude! It will never work. Too many snowboarders are overweight slackers and small packages will be far too prominent" When asked to clairfy his opinions on the AAO (Apollo Anton Ohno) line, Burton referred back to his catalogs for the argot that would be recognizable by his legions of followers, and made this very Johnny Cochranesque retort: "Apollo's schizzle, Is sure to fizzle Dude!" I would have to offer my own opinion on the "SOUL SAUSAGE" line, and say that Mothers of Snowboarding Betty's should jump on the "SOUL SAUSAGE". It would be a natural propylactic for their daughters. After all who could spend the time pouring themselves out of and into a Teflon, Kevlar Spandex suit in the snow. 3 Days Ago 04:49 PM This was fun on my part. Hope you enjoyed.

In a related story Apollo Anton Ohno may have a new clothing line to coincide with his new snowboard line. He may be using the experience derived from Short Track and developing a new line of "Sausage" suits. The suits could be a combination of Teflon, Kevlar and Spandex. It's speculated that the name of the suit will be in keeping with the "SOUL BLADE". It may be called the "SOUL SAUSAGE". Rumor has it that Jake Burton, upon hearing this, was contemplating getting back into Alpine Boards. Burton's new board may be called the "SLICE AND DICE", and will neatly cut the "Soul Sausage" into cocktail weinies. The same rumor had Jake further commenting on the "SOUL SAUSAGE", and saying "Dude! It will never work. Too many snowboarders are overweight slackers and small packages will be far too prominent" When asked to clairfy his opinions on the AAO (Apollo Anton Ohno) line, Burton referred back to his catalogs for the argot that would be recognizable by his legions of followers, and made this very Johnny Cochranesque retort: "Apollo's schizzle, Is sure to fizzle Dude!" I would have to offer my own opinion on the "SOUL SAUSAGE" line, and say that Mothers of Snowboarding Betty's should jump on the "SOUL SAUSAGE". It would be a natural propylactic for their daughters. After all who could spend the time pouring themselves out of and into a Teflon, Kevlar Spandex suit in the snow.

Don't tell anyone you heard it from me but this may be progressed much further than first thought. Was that Ohno is Whistler earlier this year with a full face shield helmet with a Kamikazi insignia? And was this mystery rider also seen coming out of Prior with the helmet on as a disguise? The really interesting part comes from an unnamed source deep within the industry. Apollo Ohno is not only developing the "SOUL BLADE", but also a split board that he will be using to SKATE up Mt Ranier and BOARD back down. The split board will be called "SOUL OF THE MOUNTAIN". With his dedicated training and ability, if anyone can do it, he can. Details of the boards are sketchy, but one fact can be counted on. The edges will be Iridium Platinum. Iridium is the hardest natural element and is not affected by water (no rust). It's very difficult to machine and that's the reason that his short track skates cost $18,000. I can't wait to see the trickle down technology that will better our sport.

Speculation is that Chris Prior is in design phase with Ohno on his board. The word is that they have developed a high density polymer afixed to the tip of the board, that dampens not only vibrations but heavier impacts and has an added bonus of being shaped like an airfoil when on the snow and releases after the tip leaves the snow surface. The idea behind it the release point is so that when airborne the tip of the board doesn't dive. They have done this by striating the polymer into hair-like fibers that react to pressure and return to a "memory" shape when the pressure is relieved. This will look much like "Yeti Fur" and be very prominent on the tip. I believe they're calling it the "Soul Patch".

Apollo Anton Ohno has made some clarifications to his statements concerning his Boadercross endeavor. He has said that because of his small stature and exceptional foot speed (as evidenced by the sparkling Mirrorball Dancing with the Stars Trophy) and lower body transitional rate coupled with his skills garnered through Short Track racing and especially collision avoidance, he expects to finish in the medals very early in his racing carreer. He is also designing his own Boardercross Alpine Board and will call it "THE SOUL BLADE". When asked to showcase his speedy footwork he simply said, "Wanna see it again?"

Apollo Anton Ohno has decided to take up Boardercross on an Alpine Board. In an interview just after the Dancing With The Stars Finale where he beat the flashier but less technically proficient Joey Fatone for the title, the Short Track speed skater said it's just a natural progression of Short Track. He said that the dynamics of holding an edge and accelerating out of a turn make him a natural for Boardercross, and the only tool that makes any sense is a alpine board. He didn't mention any prefered equipment or brands but was adamant that an Alpine board was much like a Short Track Skate and was very confident that he could cross train and be successful. Just think of the additional exposure that will give alpine.

More flex throughout the Board/Binding/Boot interface. Last thread was relegated to discussing the issue of boots in the walk mode when it should have been all three. Anytime you have the tibula/fibula that serves as the fulcrum point, it's that point that is going to see the most pressure placed on it. Anything that you can do to introduce flex into the system will decrease the pressure at that point and absorb some of the force applied at the fulcrum. Archimedes Quote Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. Tib/fib don't stand a chance when you have a long lever (6' guy, 6' board) in a crash exerting all that force against one fixed point. Yes, crashing, stupidity and bad luck are causes of most injuries, but what's the harm in ameliorating the affects of those. Can you say "seatbelt.

Were your boots in the walk mode or ride mode?

I can see that point. When I'm standing and flexing forward while in the walk mode on 1 foot, the boot is stopping way before I've maxed out the forward lean my ankles are capable of. I realize, of course, there's much more force generated while riding, but the tension that is generated in the boot is not insignificant, while riding in the walk mode. It is not flexing freely. I would almost consider it like a shock absorber. The question then becomes whether or not the leg would have broke in the ride mode given that the force generated on the walk mode was enough to break the tabs. I would like to know what force would be needed to break the tabs. Remember 10 years of riding an no tab failure, coupled with the fact that there isn't a day that I'm not hitting the bumps hard when I'm out West.

Let's make a count on how many injuries have occurred in the ski mode compared to the walk mode. Try to make an actual accounting, and not just an anecdotal accounting. I know of the one this year with the horrific ankle injury inside the boot that occurred in the walk mode. I can't imagine that if it had been in the ski mode there wouldn't have been a break/albeit maybe one a little less catastrophic. I also know of the this Bullwings Anyway, long story short, I broke my tibia and fibula. I was riding the tail of my board and really surfing it when I think i hit something under the snow that I couldn't see. My board immediately stopped moving, which was bad. I snapped the two said bones in three different places above my boot cuff, one of which included a spiral fracture. So let's make the count of the injuries so we can fairly assess this. I understand what some are saying about the BTS, and have no doubt that it works in their prescribed situation, and that might be a better idea. I know that I rode a pair of Burton Reactors (I think) with springs in them, and ended up pulling top nut on the springs. I know that I've been in hardboots 10 years (40 days each season) in the walk mode and certainly have never hurt myself. I also wonder if the tabs that are holding the bracket in back should happen to break, would that save the leg or the knee. When the physical force needed to break a leg is applied at a certain point and a break occurs, would the risk lessen if there were additional give in the boot and binding allowed more flex and less stress on the leg at a given point. I swear that I would have snapped my leg a time or two if I had been in the ski mode. There seems to be a differing opinion on the merits/disadvantages of riding in the walk mode, but the guys that have been riding in the walk mode that have entered the thread seem to like it and have not suffered any injury. Count my son as one more that rides in the walk mode, and that makes it a pretty even split of opinions. Now to the main point of the thread. Is equipment that is too rigid contributing to the chance of injury? Are some running just too stiff? This isn't just relegated to ski/walk but also bindings that are too stiff and boards that are too stiff. Hopefully this will be a discussion that addresses something other than just boots. Seems to me that the ski industry has addressed this problem with floating bindings that allow the skis to flex more naturally and hence a little "softer under the foot". Doesn't this decrease the chance that the ski will crack under the binding, and also absorb vibration of the ski? Isn't that what some of the snowboard manufacturers are doing with the new plate systems? Would some of this problem be taken care of with snowboard plate bindings that just flex more naturally?

Maybe it's time to start thinking about the kinds of leg injuries a lot of guys are suffering and the reasons for it. There's going to be a difference in opinions on this, but maybe we can each gleen a solution out of what's said for a particular riding style and size of the rider. Me, I'm 5'9" 150 lbs. I prefer a livelier board and bindings with a bit of flex. I ride in Duluth Minnesota on Hardpack, and in Seattle on Cascade Powder(?) In Duluth, I'm riding primarily an F2 168 GS Board, Raichle 123's in the walk mode, and riding some Burton Step-in plates (Carrier). Was riding stiffer plates and also the Burton Race step-ins, and I decided that everything but carriers were way too chattery on the hardpack. Stiffer bindings bounced me around way more that I was comfortable with. Flexier bindings solved most of this. When riding in the ride mode, and was starting to bury the nose, it just plain hurt my shins, and threatened to throw me over the handlebars. When I went to the walk mode, I lost a bit of control, but could recover waaaaay easier. I also like to take the drops at a bit of speed to get a little air, and found that anything stiff was just too unforgiving. Absorb!! In Seattle, I normally ride Burton Ultra-primes, Coils or a O'Sin 4807 on Powder days, Raichle 123's in the walk mode and late this year went to F2 Intec Challenge Comps for bindings. Almost always off piste, and in the steeps and bumps. Pretty much the same experiences with flex vs. stiff, but even much more exaggerated. With everything geared towards rigid, nothing ever seemed to be a natural motion, and always seemed forced. When I hit something unexpected, it would really throw me. My observations for my riding style (or lack thereof), was that anytime something very rigid was introduced, I would lose edge contact on the rebound from chatter or inconsistantcies, and it tended to throw me. I solved that with more flexible bindings and softer boots. My guess for my riding style is that it is much safer for my legs if the boot/binding system flexes more to relieve the strain right at the cuff of the boot. It seems to me that when I started to go over the falls when the boot had nowhere to flex, it hurt and I could see that a break could very easily occur at the point where the top of the boot hit my shin. It would also seem to me that if my boot and binding was allowed to flex more, the forward lean angle would increase and possibly increase the amount that I could go until enough pressure was generated to make the break. I would think that if a guy went over the nose, and his boot and bindings allowed him more flex that the nose could fold and the board would be more likely to skip out if the angle of the board to the boot was closer to zero (front of the boot closer to parallel to the board). I in fact folded the nose on the last run of last year, and my boots and bindings allowed me to absorb the impact without so much as a bruise. Remember the story about the Oak and the Willow. Late this season I switched over to the F2 Intec Challenge Comp. Can't say enough nice things about this binding. Front Bails are 6mm and they fit the Raichle toe perfectly. I am able to adjust the stiffness of the bindings with how tight I dog down binding. They have a metal disc, and the machine screws hold tightly. They do not have much of a bling factor, but perform flawlessly. My son is of the same opinion, and he's 5' 8" and 168 and rides hard. I know that somebody broke their ankle inside their boot this year, and it was pretty ugly. I believe they were blaming it on the walk mode. I can't speak for him, but there's times when I'm sure I could have broke a bone with a stiffer setup, or out of the walk mode. What do you guys think?

I post, Therefore I am.

Not taking any more sides here, but there is some disinformation somewhere on this site. This article was in Nate's first link. Thought I'd check it out a little more and this is what I found. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1221880&postcount=160 x lurker Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: WA Posts: 24 Some additional facts I have been able to find out from the guy's attorney (full disclosure - I am a trial attorney in WA): The tabletop jump the guy went off was placed in front of a flat area where the slope was only 5 degrees. There were 44 reported injury accidents on the jump before this accident in the 60 day period the jump was open. 22 involved accidents in which the skier or snowboarder landed past the landing area in the flat. Defendants fought hard to keep all of these prior accidents out of evidence based on lack of substantial similarity. Plaintiff's attorney got 15 of them into evidence for the limited purpose of notice. One incident involved a sponsored snowboarder who broke 2 vertebrae in his back when he landed past the short landing area 6 days before plaintiff’s accident. At the aid station he told them that the jump was not built properly and needed a larger landing area. In the 17 days before plaintiff’s accident there were 10 reported injuries and 8 skiers taken off the jump on toboggan’s – including one two and one-half hours before plaintiff’s accident. The terrain park manager testified that they never considered closing the jump and evaluating the landing. The evidence revealed that Ski Lifts Inc. was not looking at any of the accident reports but was simply filing them away. (They are actually prepared only for defending against lawsuits.) AIG was the insurer. It insures all of the ski areas across the country and had not lost a terrain park case before this. Apparently, there have been 7 so far. There was one plaintiffs’ verdict in San Francisco in 2003 for $7.2 million for a young woman who was a paraplegic. The case was appealed, reversed and venue was changed so that it had to be tried in Tahoe. On retrial, there was a defense verdict. At mediation, AIG took the position that this was “not a 7 figure case.” After a jury was selected, AIG they increased their offer to $1M. Plaintiff's offered to settle for around $5M. After the first week of trial, plaintiff increased this offer to $6.5M. After plaintiff's damages experts testified, AIG increased its offer to $1.5M. Plaintiff declined the offer and the case went to verdict. AIG was represented by a very able and competent lawyer from a big firm here in town and she specializes in ski cases. I doubt this is gonna change anyone's mind, but at least you have a little more by way of background. My take is that AIG could've settled this for $5M, maybe less if they'd have tried. They are big boys with a lot of experience assessing risk and they simply decided to take a calculated risk that they'd win at trial. Obviously, they lost that bet. One successful verdict out of 8 cases tried to a verdict doesn't sound like all the ski areas are gonna close down anytime soon. What do you suppose AIG takes in in premiums from all of the ski areas each year and then compare that to one payout in how many years. Now, let the slings and arrows fly. Back to me. Evidently the courts, (no matter how badly some want to lay blame entirely on the guy) see it as a shared responsibility. That's what we all have to live with. "Adapt or Die"

This has been a really great thread. We've seen that even amongst a group with common likes and a common sport can have very different interpretations of various situations. We have the added bonus of no one flying off the handle and a lot of back and forth conversations. Cheers for us. I'm guessing that several here knows some people at different resorts that are in management. I would like to suggest that we drop them a link to this thread and let them see the diversity in opinions we have. After looking at what everyone has had to say, I can say one thing for sure. "I'd hate to even try to guess who is going to be on that jury if I was a Ski Resort and getting sued".

Another thread that has raised an awareness of consequences and how we should all think about it. In many of our minds there is a gray area, and in others it appears to be black and white. Think about all three sides. It's really good for our sport. ADAPT OR DIE. Like it or hate it the following, in some form or another, is a part of Tort Law. Everyone has to abide by it, or face the possibility of losing a law suit. This includes Ski Resorts. If they don't adapt they will likely go out of business. If Ski Resorts read the definition of Negligence and take prudent steps to avoid falling within the defintion they will likely prevail. If they don't they will most certainly lose these cases. I would encourage them to do whatever they can to abide by this legal tenent. NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community. Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred. Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage. In cases involving allegedly defective, unreasonably dangerous products, the manufacturer may be liable even though it exercised all reasonable care in the design, manufacture and sale of the product in question. On the other hand, any failure of a manufacturer of a product to adopt the most modern, or even a better safeguard, does not necessarily make the manufacturer legally liable to a person injured by that product. The manufacturer is not a guarantor that nobody will get hurt in using its product, and a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous merely because it is possible to be injured while using it. There is no duty upon the manufacturer to produce a product that is 'accident-proof.' What the manufacturer is required to do is to make a product which is free from defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions. As you read this, parts of it are a bit ambiguous. Try paying a lawyer to settle it in court at $300 + dollars an hour, not even including when the lawyers are chatting amongst themselves about their handicaps on your dime. Much better to dutifully read and abscribe to this tenent, than to risk being taken to court, whether you're right or wrong. I hate the thought of ski resorts being sued and dread the fact that they may go out of business or increase the cost to the extent that only a few can afford to participate. So whether you agree, disagree, or are in the gray zone, the resorts must adapt. Thanks to all for the discussion, and I'll be hitting the bumps and boarding the OB and accepting my responsibility this weekend at Alpental (Part of the Summit at Snowqualamie, my favorite local resort)

Agree to disagree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Many young members of our society don't have the necessary tools to adequately function until they reach the age of-oh let's say 26 or 27. Many are incapable of realizing the consequence of their actions. Carvedog While this may be sad, I don't think this should be the reason to penalize the rest of the ski industry for the actions of one. Me: Agree, I don't think the whole ski industry should be sued, and they aren't. Disagree, only the ski area that kept a known defect operating was sued. Quote: That's why accidents are the leading cause of death of young males in the US Carvedog What else would kill young people this makes no sense to me.?????? Me: It was just a statement of fact. There's lots of ways young people can die. Disease, murder, contaminated food, defective brakes, flammable clothing, gas tanks that explode when you're rear ended, although flammable clothing and gas tanks aren't exactly taking the same amount of lives because someone sued the manufacturers. Quote: So as I read some of the posts it almost appears as though people are saying F**k em, it's their own fault for being a reckless kid Carvedog Yes, Yes, Yes. Me: Agree, it's their own fault when they're reckless, disagree when they are subjected to known faulty man made jumps which could have been corrected, and agree if they get hurt going off the jump that is correctly built. and lastly agree that Yes, yes, yes comes across as pretty cold when something could have been done to see it not happen. Quote: If there was a sign that said "This jump's landing is flat and there have been injuries", I'd probably pass. Carvedog Maybe the sign should also say "if you jump short, you will case this tabletop, if you go long you will jump past the transition, and if you catch your edge speed checking before you go off you will land on your head and then we could have someone with a safety waiver for you to sign at every jump before you go off so that you know when you go in the air bad things can happen. Me, Agree that your example of the sign is ridiculous for resorts to put up. I think that the sign at the entrance to terrain parks is sufficient, disagree that it gives ski areas license to put up jumps that are going to cause damage exacerbated by faulty design. Quote: When I'm in bounds and here comes a cliff there is a sign. When there's a hole or rock or tree, there's usually a pole or a flag. When I go out of bounds there's a sign that warns me of the dangers Carvedog Your ski area must have a lot more patrollers than ours, as there are no signs at all about OB here (and it gets hammered) and only the very worst stuff on the runs gets marked. Makes for good biz for the ski shops and orthopedics. Me, agree we do have a lot more patrollers here, agree we may have more signs that warn the OB has hazards, agree it's only the worst spots that get marked on runs, I'm not sure how tree slipped into this. agree that it makes good biz for ski shops and docs, but would also add that it's not good for business for the ski area, that could lose not only the affected skier, but the family and some friends as well. Quote: That sign was never there, literally or figuratively (the jump was still there) Carvedog I am not sure whether by brain stem even functions for the most part, but I know that if I go in the air there is a reasonable chance of getting hurt unless I stick the landing. That is why I choose not to jump. Me, agree I'm not sure if your brainstem functions either (sorry you just left yourself wide open) disagree I'm sure you brainstem functions. agree, I choose not to jump for the most part, and if I do I check it out first. Bumpyride - maybe we need to agree to disagree. The course of action taken by this young man was not forced on him. He chose to hit the jump, go big and got hurt. This is unfortunate, but trying to make the ski area responsible for this is just wrong to me. Me. Agree, I really feel if the guy decides to hit a jump and hurts himself he is responsible, disagree if the jump is built with a design flaw that has been hurting people, and knowingly fails to correct a problem. Why wouldn't they fix it? I can't figure that out. Just fix it and eliminate the problem. Carvedog there was a young woman on the ski team here who went off a cat road transition area at speed during a race and broke her back becoming a paraplegic in the process. After a long, drawn out court case that her parents instigated, both she and course setter, mountain etc were deemed to be equally responsible with no damages being awarded. I don't see how this is different. And when insurance rates start to rise everyone on this forum will lose. Everyone. And that is the crux of why this is wrong. Me, agree you may find it strange that I agree with you here. Difference is that if the course setter had seen that this was going to result in injuries then he is more at fault. If they had 10 racers go off this cat road transition previous to her breaking her back and still went ahead then they are more responsible. disagree, if this teaches the resort to be more careful in terrain park construction, there will be less injuries, and those injuries that do happen will become rider error, and then the resorts won't have the liability that this one did by not correcting the error. Look at this is another way. The reason why ski resorts are proliferating is because of snowboarders. The resorts are expanding and opening new areas and lifts with the new cash flow. If the resorts respond to this lawsuit by closing the terrain parks then we have a new crisis. The park monkeys will probably not come and income will be down. If the resorts insulate themselves by having guidelines for building jumps they will have a viable defense in court. If they don't, they're going to be susceptible to lawsuits. So this all leads back to why didn't the resort fix the jump? If they fixed the jump they in all likelyhood wouldn't have lost the suit. If they fixed the jump maybe the guy wouldn't have gotten hurt, maybe he would have, but at least they wouldn't been at fault for negligence. Maybe I just don't understand the concept of building something, finding out it is flawed and not fixing it. Responsibility lies with both parties in this case. I don't like to see it, but that's the facts. This is why I carry liability insurance in my profession, and make damn sure that I never have a reason to be sued successfully. Ski resorts build terrain parks for a couple of reasons. They want to increase revenues by giving kids what they want, and also to get them to channel their energy in a place where they don't injure others. They are making money and with that in mind they should build the terrain park the best they can, and not just close enough. How hard would it have been to change the jump. They have a snowcat and snow. How hard is to make the jump smaller or correctly? Carvedog If the ski co had left a snowcat in the landing zone - that may be negligence. Not shutting down a jump because some got hurt, imagine that, does not mean negligence. Me, agree snowcat yes, not shutting down a jump because someone got hurt doesn't mean you're negligent, negligent means not shutting down or correcting a jump after 10 people are hauled out on the sled with injuries because the landing has been miscalculated by the builder. Kipster, I wish you and yours well. I hope that you never suffer from an accident from the drivers in Thailand. I would hope that no one ever suffers from that, but that is obviously not the case. I would also hope that one day your government is in the position to correct this. I do have a question for you. What happens to a driver that kills another driver or a pedestrian. Is there any penalty? I now know that the state is not sued, but does the driver get off? Bottom line: A ski resort is a business. This is not a Mom and Pop area. It's a great area and the Company that owned it at the time was a very good company, so I find it hard to understand why they didn't fix it. Was this kid in the wrong. Yes Was the resort in the wrong for not fixing it. Yes Why take the chance of not fixing it?

Sometimes being subtle just doesn't catch people's attention. The attractive nuisance was in relation to LeeW's comment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by LeeW Actually, Washington hasn't revised their safety ski act statue for a long time, and they didnt put in "terrain park" when Colorado did their homeworks and revised the safety act statue in 2004 to include terrain park and extreme area. For what it is worth, that guy had the -OPTION- not to go in the terrain park. Bumpy quote referencing LeeW quote: Attractive nuisance doctrine Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is blah blah. We all should accept responisbility for our actions. We should also accept our responsibility to protect members of our society to the best of our ability. Many young members of our society don't have the necessary tools to adequately function until they reach the age of-oh let's say 26 or 27. Many are incapable of realizing the consequence of their actions. This has been born out in many studies showing that many young brains aren't fully developed until well after teens. That's why accidents are the leading cause of death of young males in the US. So as I read some of the posts it almost appears as though people are saying F**k em, it's their own fault for being a reckless kid, and to a degree it is. It isn't someone else's fault. I pesonally feel that degree of fault ends when someone knows something they have created is causing injury and issues no warning or does nothing about it. When I'm in bounds and here comes a cliff there is a sign. When there's a hole or rock or tree, there's usually a pole or a flag. When I go out of bounds there's a sign that warns me of the dangers. When I go into the park (rarely) there's a sign that says jumps are dangerous. I go with that knowledge. If there was a sign that said "This jump's landing is flat and there have been injuries", I'd probably pass. That sign was never there, literally or figuratively (the jump was still there)

Attractive nuisance doctrine Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner. If your mother left out a tray of Hot Steaming Chocolate Chip Cookies on the counter and an ice cold glass of milk specially selected for its cookie dipping qualities, could you be expected to not touch?

First of all, I'm not a dude. Second, nobody saying there shouldn't be a park, only that it should be built correctly. Third the icy statement is just foolish. Point is people get hurt all the time and don't have a leg to stand on. The red sled is on the slopes all the time and nobody gets sued. It's an entirely different situation when you build something that is faulty. You missed the point about kids not thinking. They don't think. They see a jump and just go for it. Why is it silly to build something that is going to guarantee an injury. Please read my statement and tell me where you disagree?

Disclaimer. LeeW did not make this quote, and my response is in no way directed to him. It really doesn't matter why he didn't check out the jump, or if he was an accomplished wakeboarder, or if he has an ego, or if he doesn't accept responsibility, or if he's a total dick. It does, however, matter that the jump was there and probably built incorrectly and he's paralyzed. If the jump was built correctly it may not have happened. I think that this is the crux of the problem. The Summit seems like it has at least a death or two each year, and we really don't know how many guys are severely injured. We don't hear much about any lawsuits that result from natural terrain injuries, or for that matter injuries in the terrain park. They cover liability for natural terrain hazards with signs all over, and I would guess that they cover liability in the terrain parks with warning signs also. Now if they had a sign that said "The landing of this jump was guessed to be correct, but chances are you're going to hurt yourself if you go big, and you're going to fall 35 feet and land hard and maybe paralyze yourself", then they might have a leg to stand on because they had a disclaimer The Summit is not being sued for being a ski area, or for that matter a lake. They're being sued for supplying a faulty product that has resulted in an injury and they knew injuries were happening. It's in their medical log. quote but also because the guy has an ego that just won't quit. You only have to read a little of his blogs to catch the "oh poor me, I'm such a great (and don't forget handsome) guy" vibe he's throwing off. Talk about mean spirited. Guy is paralyzed and someone says something like that. What's he got to look forward to? Saturday night with a hot chick. I can guarantee you the guy that said this is one of the biggest dickheads in the world. This whole quote just lends more credence to the fact it should have been built with more care. Kids think they're invincible and they have egos-so build the damn thing right, or we have a whole bunch more kids in a wheel chair for the rest of their lives. I can't imagine anyone here with kids would want the terrain parks built without a concern for safety especially when you drop 3 stories to a flat landing. SAFETY should be the primary concern, period. Some people are complaining about the lack of responsiblilty Doesn't matter. He's paralyzed that's what matters, and if you can prevent anyone else from doing it, prevention should be done, and it should be mandated that it is done. It's dangerous enough out there without something that pretty much guarantees an injury. Sure I duck the ropes and drop into steeps that guarantee that I'll get hurt if I have a misstep. If I got injured in these cases I'd never sue. If I got hurt in a terrain park and I landed on my head because I was inept, I'd never sue. Would this happen to me? Chance is that it wouldn't, but then my brain stem is fully attached and kept company by the knowledge that I get hurt. If I was on a chair lift and fell of because I was screwing around, that's my fault. If the chair fell off while I was sitting on it-that's not my fault, especially if they knew that it was unsafe. They knew it was causing injuries and they did nothing about it. I believe that is called negligence, and that's the basis for the suit. Plus they were only 50% liable. He was held 50% responsible by the court. PS. My stepson got a concussion coming off a jump, and then compounded it a week later with a destroyed acl and torn miniscus. We didn't even think about suing.