BC snowboarder to pay 30k for hitting a young skier

[snowboardworm]

just found this on the CBC website

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/04/13/bc-snowboarder-collision-court-award.html

[bjvircks]

This is a recent judgment for collision that occurred 8 years ago! Justice is not swift.

I just read some of the reader comments regarding this story. I also paid attention to the "agree/disagree" count at each comment. I am amazed that comments which endorse personal responsibility are more disagreed and the posts which seem to indicate the offending person was treated unfairly are MORE AGREED. What is wrong with these people??? I'm betting that the $30K was not just about medical bills, but had a punative component to it.

Did anyone catch the comment that came from the guilty kid? He said the 5 yo hit HIM!!!

[Neil Gendzwill]

Fun fact: In Canada you can get sued for straight losses (medical costs, loss of income, etc) but you can't really get punitive damages per se. There's a limited amount that can be awarded for "pain and suffering", so I guess that could be considered punitive. The maximum is $100,000, adjusted for inflation from some date in the 70s when that limit was set so I guess it's a few hundred K by now, but nowhere near what is awarded in the US.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This is Canada. There probably weren't any medical bills. Well, perhaps physio costs maybe, if it wasn't covered by the dad's insurance.

Seems like a weird decision to me. Surprised at the outlandishness of the damages, but perhaps there's more to the story than we know...?

greg

[Petrol]

This is Canada. There probably weren't any medical bills. Well, perhaps physio costs maybe, if it wasn't covered by the dad's insurance.

Seems like a weird decision to me. Surprised at the outlandishness of the damages, but perhaps there's more to the story than we know...?

greg

from the story, the father lead the son off of the begineer run, onto a steeper run WITHOUT FIRST LOOKING UPHILL, thus the court found the father 25% at fault

[bjvircks]

.... WITHOUT FIRST LOOKING UPHILL....

Petrol unless you read more in another article somewhere, what you stated above is not really completely true. Nothing of this sort was mentioned in the subject article. Yes, the dad did lead the child down a slope which was 'steeper' but nothing was said regarding looking uphill.

Regarding the seriousness of the injuries and the amount of the judgement. Was anything at all said regarding the country of residence of the injured boy? Could he be American? Could his dad have poor (or no) insurance?

The kids leg was broken in 5 places. This is serious stuff! The growth plates in his bones could be severely compromised and his injured leg may never match the other. The $30k award may not be enough!

[Buell]

I searched "snowboarder 30,000" and got these links.

Here are two news articles:

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Snowboarder+with+penalty+crash+that+broke+child/2876666/story.html

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Snowboarder+ordered+family+injured+child/2903098/story.html

The opinions at newschoolers are particularly frightening.

[philw]

Well it's impossible to deduce anything from press reports; everything I've ever known anything about which has been reported on by the media has been almost completely wrong when broadcast.

I'm sure the court reviewed rather more of the facts than we have access to: I've no reason to assume they didn't do justice.

In summary someone was sued for damages for crashing into a kid at a ski resort. I'd say that's a good thing, and I hope you can't insure against it because I want people to be scared of crashing into me.

The NS kiddies sound more funny than frightening. They'll grow up into fat old skiers soon enough.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This is the court's reasoning

Makes no sense to me. The kid certainly had injuries, but he was five years old, and now he's fine and there doesn't seem to be any expectation of permanent damage. What "damages" could he have had? The judge quotes the case McGrath in which damages were awarded, but he doesn't mention that the woman there was a semi-retired school administrator who had to subsequently quit tennis and skiing because her injury caused her pain during those activities.

I think the most interesting point was brought up by a buddy of mine: that isn't there some measure of consent when you agree to "play" a sport? For instance if you play hockey with some buddies and one of them shoots a slapshot way too high and it hits you in the face, you can't sue them. If you play soccer and someone makes a reckless slide tackle and you hurt your ankle, you probably can't sue them either. At least in Canada, the threshold is generally quite high: say if someone does something totally outside the boundaries of the sport (such as deliberately head-butting you in a soccer game, or swinging a hockey stick like a baseball bat maybe?).

In this case both parties were "beginners" so to speak. A beginner is, by definition, probably halfway close to out-of-control most of the time. You could argue that such a person who decides to ride down a black diamond might be negligent, but the boarder was on a green run. Unless he was just going way too fast (and from the judgment it doesn't sound like he was good enough to be going fast), I have a hard time calling him "negligent" just because he "wasn't very good."

Seems like a strange, strange result to me.

greg

[bjvircks]

The NS kiddies sound more funny than frightening. They'll grow up into fat old skiers soon enough.

Nope... they are frightening.

I hope they develop a reasonable amount of maturity very quickly. I do not want to be anywhere near those buggers when I'm riding.

[Neil Gendzwill]

In this case both parties were "beginners" so to speak.

According to the judgment, the defendant was 18 years old, had been snowboarding for 4 years and had been to Grouse many times. I think in most people's eyes he could not be considered a beginner.

The award was for general damages, in other words as compensation for the pain and suffering already incurred. Had it been for lost wages etc there would have been calculations based on future earnings etc. My lawyer friend dreams of getting a case where a busload of supermodels studying to be doctors gets hit by a Coca-Cola truck...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, I guess the beginner label is debatable. He didn't sound any good, anyway!

I'm still not a fan of this. It sounds like anyone who happens to go "out of control" while skiing could be liable. That sounds reasonable if you're driving a car, but skiing has as an essential component an "out of control" factor - no one, not even experienced skiers/boarders on this forum, is always "in control." We can hit a rut, hit a little bump, lose our balance, or any number of little things... and for a period of time, be "out of control." It is inherently a tough sport.

Does that make you negligent if you hit someone during that time? I don't know. I don't know if it should. If there's evidence that you're not meeting the standard of care - say you're going excessively fast, or you're skiing in some sort of dangerous manner - then I'm more okay with it. But the judge's conclusion seemed to be "since the accident happened, you must have been going too fast or not paying attention." Hmmmmmm.

How about: "**** happened, because when you're sliding down the side of a mountain sometimes you bang into things? And if you decide to join other people in sliding down that mountain, you probably should not be able to sue someone unless they're doing something that they really shouldn't be doing?"

I mean, think about what this judgment means. From the sounds of it, the guy was a goofy rider and he hit the kid while making a heelside turn (going right). How many of us have had scary "blindspot" moments while making heelside turns? What about if we're coming over the top of a drop-off and someone's skiing along just underneath, such as here?

Interesting stuff. 30 grand? Yikes.

greg

[BobD]

There is some measure of consent when you drive on the roads. It doesn't reduce the liability of a another vehicle that hits you. There are two components to your liability on the road, civil, and criminal.

Driving carefully and legally, if you hit a patch of ice, and then hit another vehicle, you have done nothing wrong, but you are still going to pay financially through insurance. If you were speeding, and driving recklessly, you would expect something beyond an insurance claim. As is evident from Fins run in with the safety patrol, defining reckless at a ski resort is very subjective. On the road, it is a little easier to assign blame, and recklessness.

I think we all see close calls on the snow, where it is possible to say that a person was being anything from a little careless, to darn right reckless. At some point, a person must assume responsibility for their actions. Defining where that point is, will be hard.

[Buell]

I'm still not a fan of this. It sounds like anyone who happens to go "out of control" while skiing could be liable. That sounds reasonable if you're driving a car, but skiing has as an essential component an "out of control" factor - no one, not even experienced skiers/boarders on this forum, is always "in control." We can hit a rut, hit a little bump, lose our balance, or any number of little things... and for a period of time, be "out of control." It is inherently a tough sport.

Does that make you negligent if you hit someone during that time? I don't know. I don't know if it should. If there's evidence that you're not meeting the standard of care - say you're going excessively fast, or you're skiing in some sort of dangerous manner - then I'm more okay with it. But the judge's conclusion seemed to be "since the accident happened, you must have been going too fast or not paying attention." Hmmmmmm.

How about: "**** happened, because when you're sliding down the side of a mountain sometimes you bang into things? And if you decide to join other people in sliding down that mountain, you probably should not be able to sue someone unless they're doing something that they really shouldn't be doing?"

I mean, think about what this judgment means. From the sounds of it, the guy was a goofy rider and he hit the kid while making a heelside turn (going right). How many of us have had scary "blindspot" moments while making heelside turns? What about if we're coming over the top of a drop-off and someone's skiing along just underneath, such as here?

Interesting stuff. 30 grand? Yikes.

greg

This case is a bit difficult to use as an example because there are no witnesses. Just a young boy that was not quite 5 years old and an 18 year old that is possibly lying (but not necessarily). The circumstances are far from clear.

Of course you are negligent if you hit someone. It does not matter if it is accidental. Most collisions are accidental, just like when driving. There are cases where both individuals might be at fault, but that is the exception.

I do not agree with the often heard argument that riding in a ski resort is different than other aspects of life (yes, you sign away your right to get compensation from the ski area, but that does not apply to the negligence of another rider in that ski area). There are rules and they are often not followed. There should be consequences if injury results from someone not following the rules. It might be just a pulled pass but it could also be financial or legal rulings against the person who is responsible.

Fault is fault, and it is not my burden to accept someone injuring me out of negligence and them getting off without punishment for their actions. The same applies to me injuring someone else. Stand up and take responsibility for your actions.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Of course you are negligent if you hit someone. It does not matter if it is accidental. Most collisions are accidental, just like when driving. There are cases where both individuals might be at fault, but that is the exception.

Nonsense.

Whether you are "negligent" is a multi-factor test. It is perfectly possible to hit someone, and be found not negligent. It happens all the time.

Fault is fault, and it is not my burden to accept someone injuring me out of negligence and them getting off without punishment for their actions. The same applies to me injuring someone else. Stand up and take responsibility for your actions.

We agree to slide down the side of a hill with other people, all of whom may or may not be in control at any given time. Why shouldn't we then "stand up" and take some responsibility for agreeing to put ourselves in that situation?

;)

I mean, it's a "special situation." Of what sort, I don't know. But this judgment seems to indicate that you can be sued on a ski hill for being "out of control" at any given moment - although at the same time, the very nature of the sport means that you're quite likely to be at least somewhat "out of control" at any given moment.

That seems problematic to me.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

There is some measure of consent when you drive on the roads. It doesn't reduce the liability of a another vehicle that hits you.

There's no issue of "consent" when driving.

There is a defence of "consent" when it comes to sports. (And some other situations, such as medical ones.)

[BobD]

There's no issue of "consent" when driving.

There is a defence of "consent" when it comes to sports. (And some other situations, such as medical ones.)

Sorry, I was speaking metaphorically.

[Corey]

skiing has as an essential component an "out of control" factor - no one, not even experienced skiers/boarders on this forum, is always "in control." We can hit a rut, hit a little bump, lose our balance, or any number of little things... and for a period of time, be "out of control." It is inherently a tough sport.

I'm a big proponent of doing any sport right at the edge of what you know how to control, crossing over and back from that edge. That's a fantastic way to learn. But if you're doing this I feel it's your responsibility to ensure that if you lose control, you won't take out someone else at the same time. I wouldn't practice my heelside Extreme carves 10' from a cliff as if something were to go wrong I may slide off the cliff and hurt myself. Why should I feel that I have the right to practice the same thing 10' from a child? The only difference is that I'm endangering someone else instead of myself.

Push the limits all you want when there's some room to slide out, but don't do the same near cliffs/trees/other people or it's your fault if you or someone else gets hurt. We hear all the time about carvers getting hit from behind, it's the uphill skier's mistake of not noticing the previous 2 or 3 turns you made and that you're likely going to do the same again. They pushed their limits (of comprehension/understanding) in an area too close to you and you get hurt.

There's definitely more to this story if two people collided on a green run and a kid's leg broke in 5 places. Either the little kid has some medical issues with weak bones or the older kid was going faster than he stated.

[Dan]

As an American, the comments on the CBC site are fascinating. The shock over the size of the settlement ($30k Canadian) makes me want to move to Canada. Here, that lawsuit would have been larger by an order of magnitude or two.

It's pretty hard to figure out what really went down here. The article notes that after the collision, the teenager stood his snowboard in the snow uphill of the site to warn other riders away. That's pretty good slope-sense and not what I would expect from someone who ran down a child from behind because they weren't paying attention.

Having said that, if he really did run down a child from behind due to inattention, throw the book at him!

[Buell]

Nonsense.

Whether you are "negligent" is a multi-factor test. It is perfectly possible to hit someone, and be found not negligent. It happens all the time.

Maybe we can change "negligent" to "somebody screwed up" to avoid legal definitions.

Then I can say, of course I screwed up if I hit someone. If someone hits me, of course they screwed up. With rare exceptions.

We agree to slide down the side of a hill with other people, all of whom may or may not be in control at any given time. Why shouldn't we then "stand up" and take some responsibility for agreeing to put ourselves in that situation?

;)

No. Being in a resort does not give someone the right to injure someone else without consequence. The right of way rules are very clear. It is just like most other aspects of life.

I mean, it's a "special situation." Of what sort, I don't know. But this judgment seems to indicate that you can be sued on a ski hill for being "out of control" at any given moment - although at the same time, the very nature of the sport means that you're quite likely to be at least somewhat "out of control" at any given moment.

That seems problematic to me.

greg

You cannot be sued "for being 'out of control' at any given moment." Only if you are the cause of an injury to another rider.

If you injure someone, you could be required to pay some damages. Seems fine to me.

the very nature of the sport means that you're quite likely to be at least somewhat "out of control" at any given moment.

This statement does not define my riding. Unfortunately, I know it does define some people's riding. I would hope that most riders on BOL strive to minimize the "out of control" moments. Corey_dyck said it well a couple of posts back.

[jonbass]

I find it interesting to read the different articles of this incident. The way each one is written give a different feel as to who is more responsible and the reader comments definitely reflect that.

I find it hard to really get an understanding of fault in this. Without all the information or being a witness it is really tough. I hope the boy is alright and hasn't developed a fear of the hill.

[Softcarver]

This statement does not define my riding. Unfortunately, I know it does define some people's riding. I would hope that most riders on BOL strive to minimize the "out of control" moments. Corey_dyck said it well a couple of posts back.

Of course most of us strive to maintain control at all times. I however also strive to improve my skills and that means pushing the boundaries of my ability. There is no way to improve without testing and pushing these limits. Pushing those limits means occasionally crossing them. A patch of ice or an unexpected obstacle can throw even the most seasoned riders into a state of temporary loss of control. Stories like this just make me nervous about moments like that.

I am not talking just about this case. It's hard to tell from the articles how the fault should fall. In some ways it sounds like the defendant hit the boy although it is possible that the boy rode into the blind side of the rider since he claims to have not seen the boy. Either way it doesn't look good that the defendant claims to have not seen anyone. I think stories like this are going to open a new age of riding. Perhaps riding insurance and mountain police are down the road for us all.

My personal thoughts on suing on the hill are as follows:

As has been mentioned we all accept the fact that riding is a dangerous sport and must accept the consequences of engaging in this sport. However if someone is found grossly negligent than a criminal and/or civil case is warranted. I would never sue someone on the hill unless I felt that the accident was caused by an extremely reckless act on their part. And even then I would have to be seriously injured (in other words permanently) and they would have to have a very bad attitude about it. Of course no-one actually knows how they will react until they are in that situation so this is merely speculation on my part.

[skatha]

My lawyer friend dreams of getting a case where a busload of supermodels studying to be doctors gets hit by a Coca-Cola truck...

That's funny...most ER docs have nightmares of a busfull of little old ladies (the original "LOL", BTW) hitting a glass truck

Judgment or no, the kid can just default. You can't get money from someone who has no assets and most places have "homestead" laws

[Allee]

True. I can't speak for the US, but I'm pretty sure that in Canada, you can't declare bankruptcy on a court ordered fine, so it won't be discharged that way. Plus, kid has a job, he'll get garnished.

[Alaskan Rover]

I think it boils down to an issue of presumed culpability. I think due to lack of witnesses, such culpability on the part of the snowboarder would be hard to ethically prove. I DO agree with the decision to assign SOME culpability to the injured's father, as he was responsible to ensure that his child was in a safe area for his speed and size. I do not know if the boarder was in "Slow-Zone" or not, nor if he was riding 'out of control'. Without knowing those, it would be hard for me to comment on the boarder's culpability in this issue. Given the lack of witnesses, however, and the lack of any long-term injury to the skier, I think $30,000 is a bit high of a fine to levy.

With that said, though, I think all skiers and riders at a resort must maintain some modicum of personal responsibility for their speed and/or actions. Heed the "Slow-skiing Zone" signs, especially if there are lots of kids about. I tend to ride very fast, but I take the "Skier's Code of Responsibility" seriously and DO ride both within my ability and in control. I must admit, that I haven't always heeded those "Slow Zone" signs, and I shudder to think what the results would be if I hit a 5-year old kid at speed in a "slow-Zone". If I was a ski-patroller or a judge in such a case, I would have to levy full culpability upon me and me alone...for high-speed skiing through a slow-zone can easily be seen as negligent, and just as deadly as driving a car too fast in a street crowded with pedestrians. (Note: I am not implying in any way, that the boarder in the article was high-speed skiing in a slow-zone.)

I think about that alot now, and I DO tend to slow down when I enter those "Slow-Zones"...maybe not as much as some ski-patrollers would like, but enough, I think, to ensure I would be able to manuever away and avert a fatal collision. Sure, skiing/riding is a dangerous sport, and those partaking do give away some rights of safety, but any time there are small kids around on the trail, I give them WIDE margin, just as I would if driving a car in a neighborhood.