Bam! You hit a fellow carver breaking their board. Do you replace the board?

[*Ace*]

I wonder if the people that voted 'no' would change their vote if they were the victims and not the ones at fault.

[b0ardski]

well guess I'll give up my life long passion,

as someone who can't afford the 10yr old used boards I ride, there's no possible way I could replace anybodies anything. As for automotive comparisons, we should introduce a bill to require liability insurance for anyone to be allowed on the slopes.

Now I know how to make enough to buy someone a replacement board, please send me your check of $500 for 1 yr of snowboard liability insurance and I'll send your policy info package by mail within14 business days, till then I promise not to run over you or your board.

p.s. I didn't vote because I'd want to replace their board even though I have no means. I'm sure no-one will ever ride with/near me again.

Edited March 8, 2012 by b0ardski

[leeho730]

well, the current score is: 44 saints verses 7 sinners

but before we start handing out St. Christopher medals, let's have a little test for the "saints":

suppose.... the result of the accidental contact was not a banged up board, but your friend's knee.

(a plausible scenario would be that upon contact you hit your friend's front leg (the framing carpenter) and his knee hyper-extended destroying his ACL. it was a low impact contact but the ACL is gone now and reconstructive surgery is needed.

would the same deep pocket generosity apply ? I mean, would you be willing to reimburse him for his lost wages? figure at least 8 months lost. would you be willing to pay for the costs his medical plan did not cover ? figure at least $12k. let's say, in rough terms you are knowingly responsible for at least $52,000 of direct, measurable damages. Would you still have deep pockets? Or would the generosity quickly dry up and you become one of the sinners ?

now I understand that is not the scenario Finn established for this thread, but as soon as this great thread has run its course I will submit one with that "slight variation". of course only the saints can participate. and then we will tally up the numbers to see what we come up with.

in the meantime be careful out there. don't get it in your heads that your responsibility is arbitrarily capped at $800. it could lead to a reckless attitude.

Good point! We all strive (or pretend?) to be Honest Abe but when the reality comes rushing majority of human beings, myself included, is going to act like self-centered SOB... Neither saint nor sinners but if given opportunities more likely to act like sinners.

I guess if such accident happens and I don't have the liability insurance then I will try to down-value the board that I broke and undermine the severity of injuries that I caused.... But medical bills are very, very hard to argue against. I'll pay only small amounts for very old boards but God knows how much I would end up paying for a broken Madd 158 original.... Considering some rich baby boomers have been buying old Ford Falcon GTHO for over 300 grand...

And about accident... I honestly don't know if threats of lawsuit is a successful in preventing accidents and capping the liability will increase the incidence. I mean, in New Zealand, there is a universal liability insurance (they must have figured out that lawyers are worse than injuries, which I tend to agree) but there doesn't seem to be an increased incidence of accidents involving collision between two or more skiers and when I ski there I don't get the impression that skiers are careless.

[Jack M]

What kind of insurance are you talking about that pays out when you wreck someone else's knee on the slopes?

Liability. I suppose if I didn't have it, honestly I would not volunteer to bankrupt myself for the other guy. That would have to be on him to decide if he wants to try to bankrupt me in court.

Because I don't even have insurance that covers my knees on the slopes.

[SunSurfer]

I mean, in New Zealand, there is a universal liability insurance (they must have figured out that lawyers are worse than injuries, which I tend to agree) but there doesn't seem to be an increased incidence of accidents involving collision between two or more skiers and when I ski there I don't get the impression that skiers are careless.

Yeah, we figured out that a lawsuit changes a whole lot of things. Getting rid of them gets the lawyers out of the way. It allows the focus after injury to be on recovery/rehab and return to work & life, rather than maximising your injury in a court 6-12 months later if you're lucky, to gain the maximum payout. And the vast majority of skiers and boarders would rater be out on the slopes enjoying their sport than sitting at home recovering from injury. Self preservation still plays a major part in keeping our slopes relatively safe. The system even covers visitors who have an accident while they're in New Zealand for the care that they receive in NZ.

Our ACC system ain't perfect, there will always be people who try to game the system. But it means in the injury scenario above that healthcare costs are unlikely to bankrupt either person in NZ. And the overall effect has been to make NZ a society where litigation for damages is a relatively rare phenomenon.

leeho730, welcome to Aotearoa. Hope you have a great winter at Mt Hutt. It's got to be better than the summer we've just (not) had!

SunSurfer

[BlueB]

It can get very tricky...

Here is a story from Finn sailing dingy racing:

I ended up in a collision in some freaky conditions, it was my fault. My friend's boat got punctured amidship, above water line, just under the shear, about 1sqft crack. When we were safe and ashore, I offered any assistance that might be needed. It is important to mention that I worked as a boat builder for several years and the guy knew it.

Next day, still in strong winds, my mast snapped at the deck level, cracking the deck in the process too - probably result of an impact induced micro fracture from the previous day...

Now it gets interesting:

My "friend" totalled the boat with his insurance, then proceeded to buy a better and newer one. Insurance never bothered taking the totalled hull from him, so he sold it for peanuts to another friend of ours, who fixed it and the boat still sails, 15 years later. After all was said and done, he was still out of the pocket for about 10% of the value of the new boat. He claimed that money from me. He never offered me an opportunity to fix his boat (which I was perfectly capable of doing), he never gave me the chance to buy the wracked boat from him - if he had done it, I'd gladly have offered to pay the price inflated by the ammount he needed. Just brought me to the finished act... I stressed those facts, gave him my insurance details and refused further nagotiation...

So yes, I would offer assistance to a fellow rider, but outcome would depend on how reasonable he'd go about it.

BTW, here in Canada, I BELIEVE that my home owner insurance would cover the 3rd party liabillity, I stand corrected. If I'm in US, the travel insurance should cover it too.

[Steve Prokopiw]

I wonder if the people that voted 'no' would change their vote if they were the victims and not the ones at fault.

As with any issue,it is more complicated than the black and white simplicity that most see things as.I've observed many people in all facets of life impose totally different rules and values on themselves as they do on others.For example,I have had considerable damage done to more than one board by friends over the years.I have never collected a dime for any of it,or for the wear and tear and lift line damage to boards I have lent.Damage from lift lines or rocks caused by a less anal approach to contact avoidance by the borrower than I practice with my own boards (or those I demo) is one of several reasons I don't lend out my favorite boards,but have some less expensive but usable boards in good working condition to help people get into the sport.I have a break it /buy it stance on lending those boards,but I know that reality dictates that ,from some people,I will have a hard time collecting.(whether from the awkwardness of trying to do so,or the knowledge that they won't buy a used board to get into the sport if they have to spend their money on a damaged/broken board) .

When I demo boards at SES for example,I see the risk of board damage I may have to pay for as an investment in my ongoing search for knowledge of how other boards ride.That said,my fluctuating financial status may at any time have a bearing on how much unadulterated joy I find in riding boards I don't own;or for that matter,riding with people whose bodies I have no hope of paying to fix in the event of a mutual but disputed accident.(The uphill skier issue is still subjective in carving, and far from black and white.)

Here's the kicker, I opted not to vote, not because my stance is on both sides of the fence,but because of another possible scenario; if an out of control or obnoxious adult or teen hits and hurts one of my boys or my wife,I will use whatever resources I can muster to pursue retribution.And that could mean taking the law into my own hands.

[queequeg]

What kind of insurance are you talking about that pays out when you wreck someone else's knee on the slopes?

Because I don't even have insurance that covers my knees on the slopes.

T

Liability insurance. Everyone should have it, it is something you never want to have to use but you'll be happy to have it if you ever need to.

You ride without health insurance??? You're braver than I am. I stopped riding for awhile when I did not have insurance. I've had procedures performed since I started back up that would have put me in the poorhouse for sure.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Keep in mind. The ski area release protects them not you. Hitting someone on a ski area slope is more like a traffic accident and it is certainly within the victims rights to sue you.

I think it would be in the up hill riders best interest to make every effort to make the down hill rider "whole" as soon as possilbe. A quick call to your insurance agent and attorney would be well advised.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

It can get very tricky...

Here is a story from Finn sailing dingy racing:

I ended up in a collision in some freaky conditions, it was my fault. My friend's boat got punctured amidship, above water line, just under the shear, about 1sqft crack. When we were safe and ashore, I offered any assistance that might be needed. It is important to mention that I worked as a boat builder for several years and the guy knew it.

Next day, still in strong winds, my mast snapped at the deck level, cracking the deck in the process too - probably result of an impact induced micro fracture from the previous day...

Now it gets interesting:

My "friend" totalled the boat with his insurance, then proceeded to buy a better and newer one. Insurance never bothered taking the totalled hull from him, so he sold it for peanuts to another friend of ours, who fixed it and the boat still sails, 15 years later. After all was said and done, he was still out of the pocket for about 10% of the value of the new boat. He claimed that money from me. He never offered me an opportunity to fix his boat (which I was perfectly capable of doing), he never gave me the chance to buy the wracked boat from him - if he had done it, I'd gladly have offered to pay the price inflated by the ammount he needed. Just brought me to the finished act... I stressed those facts, gave him my insurance details and refused further nagotiation...

So yes, I would offer assistance to a fellow rider, but outcome would depend on how reasonable he'd go about it.

BTW, here in Canada, I BELIEVE that my home owner insurance would cover the 3rd party liabillity, I stand corrected. If I'm in US, the travel insurance should cover it too.

Understood.

Me, I too would be reluctant to have someone that was involved in an accident with me repair my car, boat, etc.

It can compound the complexity of the situation big time.

It was your fault? Allow him to choose his remedy.

[BlueB]

It was your fault? Allow him to choose his remedy.

Sure. However, friends tend to discuss the things and seek for resolutions that are easy for all... Friends, or just about anyone actually, are not really supposed to try use the situation for personal gain, at the cost of screwing the other party.

[Guest]

I'm a little late in seeing this thread, as most of the action has already occurred...but from a legal standpoint, I thought I'd throw my .02 in (and sorry, fin, I did read your post refining the question to What's morally correct):

(This is Pennsylvania law, and this is NOT legal advice) If someone negligently breaks your property, they are liable. This is (almost...ignore no-fault rules) the exact same thing as a car accident. If your car is parked and someone negligently smashes into it, they are liable to pay you for the damage they caused.

With skiing there is a wrinkle to the story, because you can debate whether or not you "assumed the risk" of having your property broken while skiing, much the same way you "assume the risk" of (at least in PA) getting hit by another skier. The latest buzz in PA is defining exactly what risks are "inherent" in the sport of skiing. Is having your equipment broken by someone smashing into you an "inherent risk" of the sport? This is going to depend on what the other person is doing. If they are just skiing/snowboarding along and lose control, I think PA courts would say sorry, you can't recover for your broken board.

I've been thinking about this all winter, though, because I'm afraid what we do as carvers could be seen as posing a risk not inherent in skiing/snowboarding, ie - going really fast, making "unpredictable turns" (i know...i know....) and taking up the whole slope. We get in accidents mostly because we are coming in from the side. it is much less clear cut than if we were just down hill from a skier who hit us.

tl;dr - Bottom line, I think we are at risk for liability because what we do isn't really "expected" ....I wouldn't be surprised if a court found a carver liable for breaking someone's gear EVEN IF that injured party "assumed the risks inherent in snowboarding," because having a carver hit you isn't an "inherent risk" of snowboarding. Hope that was sort of clear

be careful out there!!

[b0ardski]

""Bottom line, I think we are at risk for liability because what we do isn't really "expected" ....I wouldn't be surprised if a court found a carver liable for breaking someone's gear EVEN IF that injured party "assumed the risks inherent in snowboarding," because having a carver hit you isn't an "inherent risk" of snowboarding.""

So if I'm on skis and carving big run wide GSs in a rythmic, predictable manner(which dozens of racers were doing this week at schwietzer) I'm not an "inherent risk"??

Even if I'm making unpredictable turns on skis I am an "inherent risk"

Edited March 8, 2012 by b0ardski

[Guest]

""Bottom line, I think we are at risk for liability because what we do isn't really "expected" ....I wouldn't be surprised if a court found a carver liable for breaking someone's gear EVEN IF that injured party "assumed the risks inherent in snowboarding," because having a carver hit you isn't an "inherent risk" of snowboarding.""

So if I'm on skis and carving big run wide GSs in a rythmic, predictable manner(which dozens of racers were doing this week at schwietzer) I'm not an "inherent risk"??

I think you ARE an inherent risk doing this. It sucks and I agree with you...it seems ridiculous to think skiers are somehow less dangerous than us. Nevertheless I wouldn't put it past a court to find against a carver, though....people are afraid of what they don't understand. That and I'm just thinking worst case scenario. There are PLENTY of good arguments on either side...hence, juries. You'd want someone from bomber on the jury!

[BlueB]

So if I'm on skis and carving big run wide GSs in a rythmic, predictable manner(which dozens of racers were doing this week at schwietzer) I'm not an "inherent risk"?? Even if I'm making unpredictable turns on skis I am an "inherent risk"

This is a good observation! Just yesterday, I carved some deep, big turns on skis, just as I would on a snowboard. A riding buddy of mine, who saw me on the board a million times, almost ran into me (had to crash-brake) and later declared that I am "a huge danger when carving those things (skis)" as he had no clue where and how deep I'd go - simply wasn't used to seeing a skier draging the hips on the snow...

[softbootsurfer]

I think you ARE an inherent risk doing this. It sucks and I agree with you...it seems ridiculous to think skiers are somehow less dangerous than us. Nevertheless I wouldn't put it past a court to find against a carver, though....people are afraid of what they don't understand. That and I'm just thinking worst case scenario. There are PLENTY of good arguments on either side...hence, juries. You'd want someone from bomber on the jury!

this is an Opinion Right?

I ask because there is no way to know what the path is of someone that is downhill from you... no matter what they are on or class they are in... to suggest that there is a certain percent of users who may be adding risk because of the way their path is shaped down the hill is not a part of the skiers code... nor should it be. There are many hazards on a typical ski areas slopes, some moving downhill, some stationary as well as some going uphill such as snowmobiles and or snocats... Justice is sometimes Stupid, thats why Fin asked this as an Ethical question, and as such when you run into someone downhill from you and wreck their equipment...You NEED to say Sorry! My Mistake

and then you need to Fix or replace what you destroyed !

This of course would never apply to those few who are Victims no matter the circumstances as others are always to Blame...

[dochalliday321]

An interesting debate to be sure. I am a FIRM believer that if your uphill your responsible for hitting someone below you, no matter what. Here in Vermont we get a lot of people who ride like they drive, if you've ever been to southern NY or northern NJ you know what I'm talking about. I have had people hit me from behind and get thier clocks cleaned from the impact, (I weigh 260 without gear), they recover and apologize. I would feel terrible if I did that to someone else, that would mean I was out of control, worse yet I would be setting a bad example for my boys who ride with me half the time. I have to say that if you can afford to be on the mountain, and you can afford to be careless, you should be able to afford replacing someone's board if you wreck it. If the day ever comes where it happens to me you can bet I'll pony up the money.

[scrutton]

What do folks think about very high priced equipment? An analogy is a vintage Ferrari. You probably wouldn't see a driver out with one of these without some form of comprehensive insurance. Well maybe you would, but it would be a calculated risk. What I am trying to say, is, is there a point at which the owner of the item does assume some risk in that he's out in a uncontrolled environment, and he could get his equipment destroyed. At some point if something is so rare or expensive, it might seem prudent to look after it a little more than the average piece of equipment. And that limit will fall into a variety of places for different people. It might just mean bringing it out for super special occasions, and putting it safely away to minimize the chance of it being damaged.

[b0ardski]

An interesting debate to be sure. I am a FIRM believer that if your uphill your responsible for hitting someone below you, no matter what. I totally agree

I have to say that if you can afford to be on the mountain, and you can afford to be careless, you should be able to afford replacing someone's board if you wreck it. I cannot afford to be on the mountain, but I'm not careless

In 28 yrs of skibumming (ie skiing as much as possible for free) I've never hit anyone(knock on head), although I've been taken out by others a couple times and had many close calls. If possible of course I'd replace a board that I broke (used board for a used board) so as far as a moral question it's a given, in real life practicality, a very grey area judged on a case by case basis.

[Steve Prokopiw]

The uphill skier/rider issue is very blurred. Consider how quickly a carver changes direction and the velocity at which they travel.I want to reiterate that the uphill rider could very well be the least at fault,hence keeping one's head on a swivel.Seems those who think it should always be the uphill skier/rider at fault have not thought about what is required for that to always be the case.None of the carving events I have attended had that kind of control over everything the participants did.It seems the only way to control the risks of injury and damage is to regulate who goes when.Otherwise there is a considerable amount of luck involved as well as a need to go either very slow with other carvers in the vicinity for fear you could be the uphill rider in a split-second collision;or be first to the bottom like Frank, of Virus ;-)

People watching me ride my favorite run from the lift often yell for me to 'go' when I am waiting for skiers or riders to pass.What they don't realize is that I am waiting for enough distance between us that I will be able to link several turns together before overtaking those downhill from me.Also, the vast majority of skiers still do not experience the benefits of their skis' technical features to the point that most are still not turning any better than before skis got shape and are basically sidelipping while eating up vertical footage faster than I am. Add to that the fact that it is a given that the vast majority of soft booters are not making carves that take up the entire width of some runs or ,even better,straightlining and and sideslipping on the way to the next terrain feature,and it starts to become,in part at least, my responsibility to stay the hell away from them.There are,afterall,many more of them than us.The uphill skier idealology is just that;a concept that is not without considerable grey area.

[Jack M]

In any collision between two people underway on the same trail, the uphill rider/skier is always at fault, period. People do not have eyes in the back of their head. Carvers change direction quickly and do unexpected things, sure. So do children. You going to tell us that if you plow into a child because they turned suddenly and you were too lazy to do anything about it that it's the kid's fault?

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Sure. However, friends tend to discuss the things and seek for resolutions that are easy for all... Friends, or just about anyone actually, are not really supposed to try use the situation for personal gain, at the cost of screwing the other party.

I agree, it would be ideal if you two had sorted it out. Ideal , but not necessary and not required. Perhaps he was not really in the mood after having his boat center punched? Weather or not he comes out ahead in the end is really none of your business is it? Why would you care? You were at fault, make it right and let it go. Are you still friends? Doesn't sound like it.

I would first appologize, then seek a way to make things right. Definitely not a time to place demands on the victim.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

In any collision between two people underway on the same trail, the uphill rider/skier is always at fault, period. People do not have eyes in the back of their head. Carvers change direction quickly and do unexpected things, sure. So do children. You going to tell us that if you plow into a child because they turned suddenly and you were too lazy to do anything about it that it's the kid's fault?

I agree. Same as in a car. You can make allot of excusses, none of them hold up in the courts. You hit them from behind. You are guilty.

PS> Damn Jack, I really like that photo. I was going to suggest making it your avatar. Relaxed, powered up and super nice example of "Stacked". Not to mention "Styling". Best photo of you I have seen. Kudos to you and the photograper dude!!

[Steve Prokopiw]

Actually there are several scenarios that would have a chance in traffic court.Sudden lane changes without signalling or sudden stops on a freeway for example.Roads have lanes,intersections with specific signage; slopes generally have suggestions as to appropriate ability level or 'slow' signs but no strict rules on lane changing.How about turning right from a middle turning lane through the righthand lane into a driveway without the proper lane change before turning into the driveway? I made this mistake once and was hit from behind by the driver who was in my blind spot.It was deemed my fault.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Sudden stop on a freeway?? You hit them from the rear? = Your fault. You must be able to avoid the car in front of you. You hit them , it means you did not allow proper follow distance. Pretty clear cut.

I think we have moved away from the subject of a broken board? I would rather not contradict you Steve. I don't want you to be upset again.