Lawsuit: 14 million dollars awarded

[kipstar]

The Summit at Snoqualmie is NOT a "ma and Pa" place... It is owned by Booth Creek (Northstar, Sierra at Tahoe, etc...). It is, as most areas are "self insured"... so this award comes out of the pockets of the owners...

JMO

I am not questioning your info, but really??? This is a huge liability waiting to happen for ski resorts; you are telling me they don't carry insurance for this sort of stuff and just have a wad of cash to handle it???

holy moly.

A large corporate with 3D insurance - death disability dishonour - seems kind of odd.... maybe the premiums are rediculous?!

[carvedog]

As a "side note".. we USED to have a wonderful mountain bike course in the summer.. but guess what?? the INSURANCE was too prohibitive to keep it open, so GUESS WHAT--IT CLOSED!!!

This is the kind of closures and restrictions that start happening when you have places that receive a two or three fold increase in their insurance premium as a result of this kind of settlement.

any feature that sends you 32 feet in the air onto a flat landing is ****ing dangerous (and if that's the case, the mountain was stupid for building it).

When I used to race motocross there was a track in CA that we as amateurs would launch 100 to 110 feet down the hill and an arc up to thirty feet high, the pros were hitting 150 feet and landing in a lot worse spot than we did. Rutted, whooped up etc. Sounds dangerous right? I did crash there once getting all crossed up in the schmegma landing zone. My bad. Not the track.

I've never been a particularly big fan of laws that attempt to protect people from themselves but in some cases they make sense. I do think they make sense with regards to very dangerous activities, particularly those involving children who rarely consider the consequences of their actions, or adults who never consider the bearing their actions may have on the safety of others around them.

Not sure why we should be protecting someone who does not consider the consequences or who does not consider how their actions can affect others.

I mean in a way aren't we setting this person up to have a greater negative impact on us (society) down the road by fostering the "protect me, I didn't know that would hurt" syndrome as they get involved in riskier behaviors.

To me decision making and personal responsibility is like a muscle. If you never have to use it because everyone else is doing the muscle work for you, you will have very weak, underveloped muscles in that area. This is where natural selection comes in. The ones who don't have the muscle tend to be the ones in the herd that get culled by their poor decision making.

Without that culling process, then those under developed decision makers get to reproduce and then the whole herd becomes weaker in the process. Once the resources of the herd become so wrapped up in supporting and carrying the "protect me" members then the whole herd is susceptible to that pack of hyenas over on the edge of the veld and we all lose.

The first time I went skydiving I had to sigh a zillio release papers that basically said "you could die" and "you will not sue" every way possible in the english language, but I sign no such documents to go skiing. I bet more people die every year skiing than skydiving.

(officially they are called Acknowledge of Risk forms as there is no release from negligence - at least around here)

queeqeg - very coherent post BTW. I remain your an unconvinced brother of the trench.

[Phil]

First of all, my condolences to Kenny S. The injury just sucks. I landed on my head off of a very big jump once (some might remember my avatar) and I feel very fortunate to be healthy today. I know that we all take our chances every time we go out.

I get the feeling that the people that are saying that the resort is responsible are not avid park riders. Please correct me if I am wrong. It just seems that you guys aren't really familiar with how a park works. For example:

A terrain park is like an amusement park. The features of a terrain park are like the rides in an amusement park.

This is what Kenny S. said as well. That is a terrible analogy and people who are adept at riding the park would be within their rights to be offended at such naivety. Any idiot with no skills whatsoever can go into an amusement park and ride relatively safely on the rides therein. A terrain park is totally different. Where amusement parks are full of rides where the participant is passive, terrain parks are full of features that are all about the participants doing the work and demonstrating the skill to use the feature (or lack thereof). So who can use the terrain park? Any idiot - the same as the amusement park, only it is assumed that they have the skill to use it. Truly, the park is more like street skating (which it is meant to emulate in many cases). In street skating, you find a feature and figure out how to conquer it. Remember, that is where rails come from. I have overshot jumps on a skateboard, bike, and inline skates, but I would never have blamed it on the builder of the jump - it was my miscalculation. This is all posted on the smartstyle sign when you enter the park.

FREESTYLE TERRAIN MAY INCLUDE HALF-PIPES, AS WELL AS TERRAIN PARKS AND TERRAIN FEATURES. THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT AND OFFER ADVENTURE, CHALLENGE AND FUN. HOWEVER, FREESTYLE TERRAIN USE, LIKE ALL SKIING AND RIDING, EXPOSES YOU TO THE RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY. PRIOR TO USING FREESTYLE TERRAIN, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH ALL INSTRUCTIONS AND WARNINGS AND TO FOLLOW "YOUR RESPONSIBILITY CODE".

1. Freestyle Terrain contains man-made and natural terrain variations.
   
2. Freestyle Terrain changes constantly due to weather and use.
   
3. Inspect Freestyle Terrain before using and throughout the day.
   
4. In jumping and using this terrain, you assume the risk of serious injury.
   
5. Be courteous and respect others.
   
6. One user on a Terrain feature at a time.
   
7. Never jump blindly - use a spotter when necessary. Look Before You Leap!
   
8. It is your responsibility to control your body on the ground and in the air.
   
9. Always clear the landing area quickly.
   
10. Always ride or ski in control and within your ability.
    

You decide - how many of these points did he violate?

Terrain parks are not just amusement parks. EVERY feature has a target speed range. It is very hard for a resort to control your speed for you. Beginner and intermediate parks might have some sort of speed check system, but advanced parks should not. BTW, no speed check system will be 100% effective. Some people just have the need to "see what would happen if I hit that thing balls out".

A target speed range should put you safely on and off of the feature. Too slow or too fast and you risk injury. As anyone who rides the park knows, coming up short injures many people as well. There are also a lot of injuries from people going too fast on rails with pitch changes or large drops. I know of a kid who did a large flat/down rail with FAR too much speed. He basically rode off of the flat and continued straight out a long way landing on the flat. It was a huge drop and he ended up pushing the head of his femur through his pelvis. This was not the resort's fault - he was going too fast for the feature. Anyone who rides the park knows that. Anyone who rides the park also has ridden jumps with landers that we feel are too short. Most reasonable people would either not use the jump, or correct their speed. Let's be honest - is there really any jump that we could not clear if we wanted - given the right conditions? There may be a few, but they are the exception, not the rule.

About the situation at hand, here are my thoughts as a freestyle coach:

"Salvini flew approximately 110 feet through the air and outjumped the landing. He reverse-rotated, landing on his neck and causing his injuries."

I don't know how big the jump was, but I am guessing that it was nowhere near 110 feet. Who goes that fast? This was not a slight miscalculation, this was gross negligence for himself. Also -

HE LANDED ON HIS HEAD!!!!

If you land on your head, this injury could happen under just about any circumstances. How was landing on his head the fault of the resort?

"In addition, 14 other skiers and snowboarders had sustained minor injuries by outjumping the landing on that feature earlier that season, and another suffered a broken back. However, those figures are out of more than 200,000 estimated takeoffs on the feature, including two by Salvini the previous week. "

14/200,000? So there were around 200,000 jumps that were "successful"? It sounds like a lot of people were doing it right. Kenny had already hit it twice. 110 feet is really far when you already know the speed with which you should hit the jump.

Industry experts at the trial testified that the building of the jump was consistent with best practices in the industry.

'nuff said - seriously - 'nuff said.

Again, I would like to know from those of you who say that the resort is at fault - what is your experience in the park?

[Guest flyski]

Greetings..

There is some "misconception" on self insurance... Here is what this is..

Full or exclusive self-insurance is rare, as a combination of self-insurance and commercial insurance usually provides the best cover for the self-insured. Usually the predictable losses of the risk are retained and self-insured, forming a first or "working" layer of cover, and a stop-loss or stop-gap policy is purchased from the commercial insurance market....

The Summit has a TRAINED park crew... The features are "buffed" each night, inspected each morning and NOT opened till they crew rides them. They have the ONLY superpipe on the West Coast (cut into the hill)....

Someday this country will WAKE UP and start assuming PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY... but I am not holding my breath..

JMO

[Steve Prokopiw]

Since laywers quite literally run the country,personal responsibility will never rule and that is why some adaptability to safety on the part of the resorts seems inevitable.

As for my part on behalf of the safety of my kids;my intent is to teach them to respect the different and difficult aspects of extreme sports without instilling the fear that comes with overprotectiveness.Kids will do what other kids do and will still try things when they're scared, but if they lack the confidence and skill necessary to properly execute the task at hand they stand a better chance of getting badly hurt.

[bumpyride]

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"

[Phil]

The info that I posted was from SAM magazine.

[Guest needanswer]

I get the feeling that the people that are saying that the resort is responsible are not avid park riders. Please correct me if I am wrong. It just seems that you guys aren't really familiar with how a park works. For example:

Originally Posted by needanswer

A terrain park is like an amusement park. The features of a terrain park are like the rides in an amusement park.

This is what Kenny S. said as well. That is a terrible analogy ...

Where amusement parks are full of rides where the participant is passive, terrain parks are full of features that are all about the participants doing the work and demonstrating the skill to use the feature (or lack thereof).

Thanks for highlighting the fact rides are passive but park features are active.

However, the physical similarities or differences were not the intent of my analogy. I'll quote my previous post.

On analogies, No, a jump is not like a ferris wheel, but the concept that 1) terrain park features should be maintained and supervised like rides in an amusement park and 2) resorts with terrain parks have the same business models and responsibilities as amusement park -- is the best analogy I've read thus far.<!-- / message -->

Phil, I think you misread my post/analogy. I'm not comparing physically the feature or ride, which is not as meaningful -- i.e. compare/contrast kicker w/ roller coaster, rail with haunted house, etc. The point is that both terrain parks and amusement parks are businesses where the management creates something (a ride/feature) and patrons pay to enter the park with expectation to using the ride/feature. I made bold the legally important parts.

In my analogy, I highlighted the service, maintainence, and supervision taken by amusement parks. and in my 1st post, I mention that there are 2 choices if a resort want to have a terrain park and not get blamed for these lawsuits.

1) make people sign away their rights to litigate (excluding negligence)

OR

2) service, maintain, supervise at least like an amusement park if not better because terrain parks are even more dangerous than amusement parks. Also, the service, maintainence,and supervision need to be standardized across all terrain parks.

Fact is that most resorts are not doing (2) enough and I don't think things are standardized yet.

Phil, my two previous posts were commenting on the business side - i.e. what's the right thing for the resort to do to prevent this from happening again? It's not my goal to say whether the snowboarder was at fault. He's not on trial, the resort is. If the resort didn't do (2) well enough, it would be blamed for negligence, which is likely what happened. Once they established the resort had negligence, then the resort needs to pay. How much would depend if the snowboarder was at fault too. Since he is, the payout was less than otherwise. Notice how the question of the responsibility of the snowboarder only came in factoring the payout at the end, but the question of negligence is at the forefront!

Some lawyers and engineers will have to come up with (2), once the resorts start doing things by the books (when there are books), then it won't matter who lands on his head.

I think it's pretty easy to implement speed control. rope off uphill of the jump. Have an start area. Have enough landing area for where the start area begins. However, I don't know how to make rails safe so I never do them, and I think lawyers and engineers will have trouble with that one.

[LeeW]

number 2 (in terms of standardizing) in previous post is not practical. it doesnt work that way. if it was concrete, then MAYBE. But snow? come on, get real.

EDIT: lawyers and engineers, generally speaking, dont know ****. they dont spend their time on the hill all day long like us, ski area employees or pass holders. and we have, in the past, tried to standardized it, but it backfired on us. too much of legal issues with the "standardizing" the terrain park. I cant comment too much more on the "standardizing" because I dont want to be call to court for this. Also, it is like most policies are quite diverse in terms of the park maintenance on all ski resorts. from my experience, we, the park crew, have several guinea pigs who can go try out the features and then give us the feedback and then we make the shot, after consulting with risk management department, on whether to open up the feature or not. Seriously, Washington state really need to revise their skier safety act and include "terrain park" as well as extreme areas in the act.

God this is sickening me.

[LeeW]

The info that I posted was from SAM magazine.

Hello Phil. Good to see you jump on board, tho Ive seen you "observing" this post several times. Could you tell me which issue that was?

EDIT: apparently, it hasnt come out on printed version ?

[LeeW]

This says ALOT!

In a statement, Ski Lifts Inc. said, "The Summit at Snoqualmie’s number one priority has always been, and continues to be, the safety of our guests and employees. The Summit has twice been awarded the National Award of Excellence for Skier Safety by the National Ski Areas Association in recognition of its industry-leading safety programs.

[NateW]

The features are "buffed" each night, inspected each morning and NOT opened till they crew rides them.

As someone who rides that park ~15 times a year, I have trouble with those claims. I'm not taking sides in the Salvini case, but the first part of your claim is not believable and the second part worries me because it might be true.

[Guest flyski]

Nate,

Let me "rephrase" that... WHEN the parks need it , they are "buffed... And yes the "park crew" is supposed to "ride the park" before it opens... The Ski Patrol "looks at it", but we REALLY do not have the final say on this.

Risk Management has been VERY involved in ALL aspects of the terrain parks, and ANYONE who thinks an award like this will NOT affect parks is DREAMING...I have some land for sale as well--it is only under water 1/2 the day... : )

Be prepared for park closures, seperate tickets,or more forms to fill out...

Has ANYONE really read the BACK of your lift ticket???

I am sorry people get hurt, but having skiied for 45+ years, raced for dozens more, and broken my leg 3 times, strains, sprains and "owwies" and yet TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for my actions... oh well...

JMO

[D-Sub]

broken hand, shattered forearm, torn ligaments in knee, torn rotator cuff

all snowboarding

never once thought to sue anyone

gosh..maybe I should've

[k_t]

Let's see..... been there twice..... reverse rotation..... land on head..... I say kenny s not so smart of/or good learner (or maybe not so good at impressing girls). That is us men however, always trying to get one up or go bigger than the other guy.

Carve Dog, new name for "hits"..... "monkey bars". What do you think?

[carvedog]

Let's see..... been there twice..... reverse rotation..... land on head..... I say kenny s not so smart of/or good learner (or maybe not so good at impressing girls). That is us men however, always trying to get one up or go bigger than the other guy.

Carve Dog, new name for "hits"..... "monkey bars". What do you think?

Hey Ken,

Good to hear from you. Hope the leg (?) is healing up. Or was it the shoulder this time. As far as the monkey bar thing, not sure it works for me. I like to go to the park with my girls and they play on the monkey bars so I don't want to ruin that association with thoughts of single brain celled park rats with my girls.

Annnddd I like bars. Especially since they passed all the no smoking inside laws around here. Funny part is now that I think I could hang in there more I have no time and less money. Ahhh so it goes.

[NMU Alpine Boarder]

I'll be honest.... It's cases like this that really make me wonder if I could have made a pretty penny by suing Spirit MTN. in Duluth, MN when I broke my leg.... Sure, it was my fault I got crossed up in that set of rollers on the SBX course.... But they never told me that I could possibly be cut off by another rider and hit a roller off balence because I took an evasive manuver to avoid the rider

I would have had a hell of a case.....

[cail]

i'm with bumpyride on this... i don't think anyone would disagree that physics does play a role in jumping, so the least the resort could do was evaluate the hazard of it's jumps, and COME ON... you have how many inuries on your jumps and still dont make some dramatic changes that are obviously needed? like bob said, natural selection...for resorts, so i agree with the suit. sure the kid knows there are dangers, but should we have everybody calculate landing angle and impact before every jump?

let's be realistic. these kids dont know physics, and the resorts know the kids arent going to assess dangers that are beyond their understanding. therefore they have a responsibility to making these jumps to a certain degree of safety. they know this, and when they dont act accordingly then they pay the price. real simple.

[Phil]

COME ON... you have how many inuries on your jumps .

Somewhere around 14 out of 200,000

and still dont make some dramatic changes that are obviously needed?.

14/200,000 does not warrant changes in my mind

like bob said, natural selection...for resorts, so i agree with the suit. sure the kid knows there are dangers, but should we have everybody calculate landing angle and impact before every jump?

This guy had already jumped this hit twice. There was not much calculation needed. He flew 110 feet on the injury run. That is not a miscalculation - that is someone going big. People who have been riding the park have either tried, or seen someone else try to go big. I have been stupid enough to try it myself. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. This was an example of someone trying to go big for whatever reason he had. That was not the resort's fault.

let's be realistic. these kids dont know physics, and the resorts know the kids arent going to assess dangers that are beyond their understanding. therefore they have a responsibility to making these jumps to a certain degree of safety. they know this, and when they dont act accordingly then they pay the price. real simple.

"Industry experts at the trial testified that the building of the jump was consistent with best practices in the industry."

Let me repeat:

Again, I would like to know from those of you who say that the resort is at fault - what is your experience in the park?

Saying that it is all about physics takes us away from the park. How many jumps have you hit? A seasoned park vet can look at a jump and tell if the takeoff and landing are right. Now because of liability, we have to measure, but when measured, it almost always confirms what a good builder already knows - one way or the other.

Again, I rest my case at the fact that he jumped it twice before and still sailed 110 feet on the third try.

I can't believe that this discussion is still going, but since it is, I'll gladly add my $0.02

[carvedog]

let's be realistic. these kids dont know physics, and the resorts know the kids arent going to assess dangers that are beyond their understanding.

If those kids aren't willing to do some basic assessments, then they should go to Disneyland for a more sanitized experience.

sure the kid knows there are dangers, but should we have everybody calculate landing angle and impact before every jump?

Yes

therefore they have a responsibility to making these jumps to a certain degree of safety. they know this, and when they dont act accordingly then they pay the price. real simple.

It seems like for the other 199,186 people that hit there was a degree of safety. For a guy who hit with enough speed to catch 35 vertical feet and 110 of horizontal air, how can make that safe??? Or safe enough that no one gets hurt.

I guarantee you that you guys who are saying "the resort should have blah, blah" will have personal repercussions based on this type of thinking in your lifetime that will make you wonder what you were thinking.

It comes down to personal responsibility. Versus: I am in a ski area they need to take care of me. I'm on fire put me out.

So step up. At least philsophically and take care of yourself. Stop expecting others to do the job you should be doing.

[cail]

alright, maybe i didnt read enough into it. if he was just being a jack@ss and going big, then yeah he's responsible.

i do think that 14 still warrants some kind of change, even if it's more supervision or kicking people like this out. they're obviously dangerous (as in reckless), even for others.

if all the injuries were simply due to stupidity then i'd say the jumps don't appear to be the problem.

and carvedog, when i was talking about assessment of the jumps, i was talking about basic physics... if you take the average kid that's just hitting normal speed, not tryin to go big, that the impact isn't going to be such that the kids are going to get severly injured. if they're building jumps that are going to give 40 ft vertical with a flat landing at a normal speed without even trying, then that's a problem.

[LeeW]

im keeping my mouth shut this time, since i've argued my POV one time too many til my face turned blue.

[carvedog]

alright, maybe i didnt read enough into it. if he was just being a jack@ss and going big, then yeah he's responsible.

Sounds like he was to me. Watched too many videos of guys launching into powder or something.

i do think that 14 still warrants some kind of change, even if it's more supervision or kicking people like this out. they're obviously dangerous (as in reckless), even for others.

By that criterion, every half pipe in the country should be shut down or changed.

if all the injuries were simply due to stupidity then i'd say the jumps don't appear to be the problem.

They were all in the terrain park, to me that is just stupid on a couple of different levels. As in rafting: there are those who have flipped and those who will ( if you keep doing it)

To a certain extent this applies to general riding. If you add air into it, I think your chances of getting hurt are five times greater at least.

and carvedog, when i was talking about assessment of the jumps, i was talking about basic physics... if you take the average kid that's just hitting normal speed, not tryin to go big, that the impact isn't going to be such that the kids are going to get severly injured. if they're building jumps that are going to give 40 ft vertical with a flat landing at a normal speed without even trying, then that's a problem.

cail I don't want you to think I was going after you. I wasn't. If someone can't tell that the speed they are travelling towards the hit is sufficient to launch 40 feet high and out 110 feet they have no business hitting the jump. And for crying out loud it was the third time that he hit the jump and then he claimgs negligence.

I am sick

of people not taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. In general, in snowboarding, driving. Everywhere.

It has never even occurred to me to sue someone for my own stupidity. And I should have died several times growing up, due to access to way too many high performance cars and too much gas and too much time to use both. I rolled a buddys hot rod Datsun on a gravel road going 70. He should have warned me of the dangers and told me to slow down. I should sue. Maybe the road department for not telling me that gravel will pull you around more. ??????

Not buying it.

Maybe we need to agree to disagree, as I get way too worked up over this carp.

[D-Sub]

easy big fella. You are 100% right and anyone arguing with you is trippin.

personal responsibility. Don't want to get hurt? sit on your couch.