Lawsuit: 14 million dollars awarded

[bumpyride]

Disclaimer. LeeW did not make this quote, and my response is in no way directed to him.

this was posted in teton gravity forum:

sweetheart

Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007

Posts: 2

Quote:

I know the guy personally, so maybe I can add some perspective. He wasn't a beginner and had been skiing since the age of 4, as the stories are reporting. He was also an accomplished wakeboarder, but they seem to be neglecting to mention that at all. Probably because it would speak to his level of athletic skill. Fact is, he had skiied more than enough to know to check out a jump like that before going off of it, and he more than likely knew damn well that it was beyond his abilities. But he didn't. Partially because at that age kids think they're invincible, 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. I feel for his loss, but at some point one has to accept responsibility for one's actions. Nowhere does he ever mention personal accountability. Fairly certain that concept is beyond him.

I wonder if he'd broken his neck wakeboarding - would he have sued the lake? Or perhaps the driver of the boat?

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.

[bobdea]

so if a park is built correctly no one gets hurt???

people get hurt on groomed trails with NO features dude

a flat landing is not negligent, just a ****ty landing that you should of checked before goin' balls out on

I suppose when it's icey that's negligence too because they should of sent the cats out again.

[bumpyride]

so if a park is built correctly no one gets hurt???

people get hurt on groomed trails with NO features dude

a flat landing is not negligent, just a ****ty landing that you should of checked before goin' balls out on

I suppose when it's icey that's negligence too because they should of sent the cats out again.

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?

[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.

[bumpyride]

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.

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?

[Gleb]

Cases like that and laws like described by bumpy ride make me want to gouge my eyes out.

So what are you expected to do with a trampoline? Pack it away everyday?

My prediction is that in the end, the guy will get nothing close to 14 mil, if anything, and rightfuly so. I feel bad for him, but he definitely is in the runing for a darwin award.

What next, a hardbooter suing a mountain for getting hurt on fresh cord? GMAFB....

Sorry if it came out harsh, but this really boils my blood.

[Galen]

The ironic thing of this is, the ski area knew people had been getting hurt on this jump, but if they corrected the landing or removed it all together, it could be construed as an admission of negligence, and could have been used against them in court by the people who had injured themselves *prior* to this guy. How F'ed up is that ?!? Bottom line though, when they became aware it was constructed wrong/poorly, it should have been corrected, IMO.

[bobdea]

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?

My point was that conditions are not always perfect

Icey was foolish?

Consider that bulletproof groom is also man made, a jump with a bad landing is no less man made than glazed cord.

You know that I've been in this industry for a decade now, kids don't think I missed no point, I just don't think that resorts should be responsible for stupid people.

It would be like someone dropping Corbet's at jackson hole( http://www.jacksonhole.com/mtn.gallery.asp?Dir=/Corbets%20Couloir&Image=corbets_boarder.jpg&Page= ) and wondering why they got hurt, man made or not there is a inherent risk that if you're too dense to figure out you should not be on the hill

Sorry for using a term that implies gender or other things, not my intent, just term I use.

[LeeW]

bobdea, im curious on what part of ski industry youve been part of during the decade?

me -- snowmaker, terrain park maintenance, snowboard instructor, disabled assistant instructor, housekeeping, dishwasher, cook, water sampler, retail, cashier, ski lift constructor, lift electrical and lift operator as well as athlete competetior.

[bobdea]

pretty much the same background as you minus cashier,disabled assistant instructor,housekeeping, dishwasher, cook, water sampler and add lift maintenence to it.

I used to end up doing all sorts of other stuff because I was living on hill as well so I've seen the inside of the industry.

It get ugly after awhile, in particular to someone who worked for ASC for ages and am now watching the company disolve..........

ughhhhhh

[kipstar]

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.

So a 23 year old is also a minor incapable of sound personal judgement? has the doctrine been held up in the case of an adult? If so, man, the enforcement of law in your country totally assumes people are morons.

Besides which in this case, i don't think there is any mention of attractive nuisance anyway. Instead it comes down to negligence of faulty product combined with whether the disclaimers and contracting out of responsibility when you buy the lift ticket will stand up in court.

Incidentally, MOST of the time I've ridden in USA the place is far more dangerous than riding in NZ simply because of the attitude of the riders bombing around completely ignoring the people around them. The terrain itself is fairly safe (except for Squaw which seems to be fairly easy to end up off trail in some reasonably hairy stuff where people could get hurt, plus any resorts once you get into trees) and signed. Maybe by suing a ski resort for that concussion a few years back, I would get resorts to be more careful for future???

I would like to believe that people can take personal responsibility for themselves; I think Bobdea's summation is fairly accurate; you take your chances when you engage in a risky sport. Some element of negligence occured on the ski resort, but this encouragement to the tune of $14m for more safe jumps is like swatting a fly with a bomb. The collateral damage to the USA ski industry is going to hit all of us with higher ticket prices.

A fairer settlement would be perhaps medical; he opted out of future emotional distress (incredibly sad as it is) when he went off the jump, knowing that even a perfect jump with some personal error can wind up in a major injury.

Plenty of other countries far safer figure this stuff out without needing to go to the courts....

[bumpyride]

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)

[kipstar]

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)

THank god you don't snowboard in NZ or even worse, drive out here, you would probably die :-)

Down there and up here, we figure out how to look out for ourselves reasonably early; as spidey says, with great power comes great responsibility. Ability to go high off a jump at least iMHO for an adult requires some semblance of looking out for oneself. In the case of Thai driving, the incredibly high death toll reflects stupidity of motorcyclists mostly, who are quite willing to ignore any semblance of common sense for the most part; the option of suing the state for ill thought out roads is not there however.

That said, because there are signs on everything else, it encourages people in USA to assume everything is ok unless there is a sign to state otherwise. Which is not the case many other places in the world. Curiously, my guess is the number of signs might not correlate too well with reduction in injuries.

[carvedog]

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.

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.

That's why accidents are the leading cause of death of young males in the US

What else would kill young people this makes no sense to me.??????

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

Yes, Yes, Yes.

If there was a sign that said "This jump's landing is flat and there have been injuries", I'd probably pass.

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.

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

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.

That sign was never there, literally or figuratively (the jump was still there)

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.

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.

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.

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.

[provocyclist]

Some one needs to go finish this guy off with either kind of hammer:

or

14mil is absurd. Like has been said before, it seems the majority of 'mericans want nothing to do with personal responsibility.

[bumpyride]

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?

[jnshapiro]

I've read this entire thread twice now.

We all should accept responisbility for our actions.

Yup, I agree with you here.

We should also accept our responsibility to protect members of our society to the best of our ability.

How do you figure this? It isn't my responsibility to protect the person who lives down the street, or across the street, or next door to me. Where do you draw the line? I think this is really where we are in disagreement. You are assigning to me a responsibility that I've neither agreed to take on nor am required or obligated to take on.

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.

I believe our legal system establishes this at ages 16, 18, and 21 for different actions. Once you hit 21, you're classified as an adult. If you can't accept responsibility for your actions by that point, tough. Learn to deal with it. You're no longer someone else's problem.

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.

Now that depends on the if's and why's and where's, etc. At a ski/snowboard resort, you accept responsibility for your actions by peeling the back off the lift ticket and afixing it to an article of your clothing and then using it. The ski resort has some basic obligations that go along with it, including making sure that the lifts work and are safe. They also take on an obligation as soon as they hire ski patrol. However, you use that facility at your own risk.

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)

There aren't always signs, nor should we rely on them. It is our responsibility to make sure that we don't get in over our heads (so to speak). You have to be in touch with your ability and make sure to take the needed precautions to ensure your own safety. That includes checking out the landing area before using it. It's no one elses responsibility. Regardless of whether the feature is man made or natural.

[LeeW]

This is where I really disagree about "why it should be fixed." We all dont know exactly how these particular kickers at snoqualmie looked like, tho I myself do know how the kicker should be designed -- we have guinea pigs that who are very experienced riders/skiers and know how it should be. they give feedbacks to the cat operators (as well as snowmakers to make massive amount of snow). its all done by "eyeballing."

To make a "perfect" kickers is really an art itself. not something those *#(! ENGINEERS can do. Too many variables in the terrain park that changes on DAILY basis. Not permanent. As for those who got hurt previously, we all dont know exactly what the kickers is like in the first place. Hypothetically, if it was ideal but only for seasoned pros, perhaps the injured parties (including kenny) got a bit too cocky and thought they could do it with no cost to their body being beaten up. If it wasn't well done, then... the injured parties HAD THE CHANCE NOT TO RIDE IN THE PARK IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I will not condone this by taking responsibility for others, but only myself.

[Guest needanswer]

Damn, seems like I'm the only one who can appreciate bumpyride's point.

Why do we all see things as black and white? why does it have to be complete fault vs no fault. Neither side did everything they can to avoid the accident. In this case, seems like both party is at fault, so there should be pay-out proportional to fault.

Everybody's so in love with the status quo and afraid of change.

It sickens me when people defend companies because they are afraid that they have to pay more if they don't. How about being less selfish and ask for progress?

how hard is it to make changes to make things better?

1) don't build a jump where it may end in a flat area. The whole mountain is full of "slope" and they build a jump above a flat area?

2) rope off area before the jump so people won't bomb it and miss the transition. usually that's where all the park kids sit and wait for their turn to drop in and it's a sane distance from the jump.

Neither 1 nor 2 cost a dime (may be some rope), but if people don't sue, then there won't be imporvement.

Also, people that looks at this case and not ask how this could be avoided but worry about their ticket prices should be ashamed. We live in a society; for every sane guy who checks out a jump , there're a couple idiots that don't. All these people pay the same ticket prices, so the resort has to be aware of both groups. Ultimately, if you want ticket prices to be low, you want more people on the slopes, not less -- due to injuries or the elimination of fun terrain features.

Don't defend the status quo when there's a problem. Think progress.

[bobdea]

Lee is right on the money, said it much better than I could of.

[carvedog]

Neither side did everything they can to avoid the accident. In this case, seems like both party is at fault, so there should be pay-out proportional to fault.

My point exactly. If both parties are responsible then why are they supposed to pay 14 mil.

Everybody's so in love with the status quo and afraid of change.

Not in love with status quo. Much in love with snowboarding.

It sickens me when people defend companies because they are afraid that they have to pay more if they don't. How about being less selfish and ask for progress?

Not defending a company here, don't you get it. I am defending the need for people to be responsible for themself.

Also, people that looks at this case and not ask how this could be avoided but worry about their ticket prices should be ashamed.

Not worried about ticket prices, but about the mom and pop ski areas, yes they do exist and we go to one. You know what they don't even charge for kids under six so my daughter goes for free, but they have to have liability insurance to operate. Do you have any idea how much this costs per year. Estimates I have heard range from 10K for a small area to 500K for some of the bigger ones and on up. If you don't think is going to put some small areas out of reach of insurance if their premium doubles or triples you are dreaming.

We live in a society; for every sane guy who checks out a jump , there're a couple idiots that don't. All these people pay the same ticket prices, so the resort has to be aware of both groups.

I have spent my life trying to avoid the second group you mentioned and have no need or desire to protect them in any way. These are the same *******s who have given my sport a bad name in so many different ways I could really care less if they all went head first into a cliff.

Think progress.

I would much rather think personal responsibility.

In the interest of fairness I should mention that I can barely tolerate park monkeys and their attitude to begin with. If it sounds crass I don't care, but a couple less monkeys on the mountain is hardly going to ruin my day. As a group they are the most irresponsible bunch of asswipes on the hill on any given day. If they took all the terrain parks off of all of the mountains it wouldn't hurt my feelings either, except then the little bastards are going to be hitting every blind jump they can find and killing other skiers and snowboarders instead of just ruining their own life.

I should probably shut up before I get banned.

[Guest needanswer]

carvedog,

I see where you're coming from now and can appreciate your defense of mom and pop ski areas.

Where I disagree - is your approach to defend the ski resorts that cater to the park kids you hate, in order to save the mom and pop ski areas.

Liability insurance should be proportional to dangers involved. For resorts that don't have parks , their liability goes down. If they MAKE parks, and MAKE MONEY off of these careless people, then they MAKE their liablity go up. See how the law enforces responsibility, if you make something happen, you're responsible -- whether you're the kid that made the decision to jump or the resort that make money off of making jumps.

Unless

1) you take efforts to make it safe, which I argue for.

2) make these people sign waivers, many extreme sports do.

On the 14 mil thing, perhaps it's already proportional to the fault bear by both parties. i.e. medical cost for the injured in the future may be 20mil total; 14 is somewhere in the middle. Alternatively, the ski resort did not settle, if they shared their part of the responsibility, then the number would be between zero and 14 mil.

[bumpyride]

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)

[Steve Prokopiw]

I'm with Bumpyride and needanswer .They seem to be living in the real world.This is now a world in which understanding that the extreme marketing that goes into extreme sports in order to get to the target group so that resorts can profit from their patronage involves accountability on both sides.A world in which adaptation not only to market demands,but to sustainability are key ingredients to profitability and in turn,PLACES FOR US TO CARVE. Some here also seem to have no recollection of what it was like to be a teenager (or twentysomething with the mindset of a teen)and to what they may have responded when being marketed to themselves.I was a jackass in my teens and well into my twenties, but even during my worst bouts of self loathing I can't believe I deserved to die for it.Anyone here think tobacco marketing to teens was a good idea? If resorts are going to head toward a certain demographic they should then be at least partially responsible for making what is already a fun and thus, dangerous activity less apt to mame or kill.Few resorts would head in such a risky direction if they did not need or want the revenue.

I worked at a resort that regularly closed access to the biggest features to be used just for certain training and competitions.Maybe that's in the future for other resorts.Heck, if someone then busts the closure and gets hurt,I guess I'd have to be on the natural selection side since personal responsibility does have to start somewhere.Otherwise,much of the current trend in feature design and operation is just like putting potentially poisonous candy in front of babies.

In a perfect world we would have no need for forcing resorts or any other business into accountability and therefore no use for litigation lawyers.This is about as realistic a notion as much of what I've read here.

[bobdea]

I am twenty something and have been hurt pretty bad