Scary Head-On Collision

[Wolf]

I watched a scary crash this weekend. A boarder was making what looked like a last hard turn toward the lift at the base of the hill, but decided to hang on and see how far through a 360 he could get. This is a fairly narrow area - "that last big turn" can take up much of the width of hill there. Just as he is heading directly back up the hill, he collides with a skier headed down hill. I expect the skier was aiming to run behind the boarder, expecting him to link up his next turn the other way or continue toward the lift. Unfortunately, the skier was injured. There was some difference of opinion on who was at fault. The "downhill person has the right of way" rule came up. My own opinion was that the boarder should have made sure the hill was absolutely clear before doing something as unexpected as heading back up the hill the wrong way.

I looked up the skier responsibility code, and interestingly, it doesn't say the downhill skier has the right of way. It says "People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them." Taken literally, I suppose in a head-on crash situation, that means both parties are "ahead", so perhaps both have some responsibility. But to me, the person doing the unexpected action gets the bulk, if not all, of the responsibility here.

Let's hope the injured person is OK....

[John E]

I'd agree. If you're going to do something completely unexpected, you better make sure the coast is clear.

I had a near-mis myself on Saturday. I was riding down a run and a little girl came onto my run where 2 runs merged. Her father was right behind her. She appeared out of nowhere and I slammed on the brakes & went down on my butt. I missed her by about 3 feet. Really scared me. Like almost having a car accident and thinking about what might have happened. Probably the closest I've come to a collision in over 40 years of skiing & boarding. If she had been an adult the responsiblity might be in question. However in this instance, there is little doubt that I would have been at fault.

[leeho730]

I guess it depends on the states you're skiing. For example, in the Volinn vs. Dutton case (http://www.skilaw.com/cases_volinn.html), the court clearly stated that "[t]he Colorado Ski Safety & Liability Act (C.R.S. 33-44-109 Duties of skiers-penalties) requires a skier to maintain control of his speed so as to be able to avoid other skiers" and "the uphill skier has the primary duty to avoid colliding into any skier below". Michigan state has also found that uphill skiers might be held liable if found being negligent (http://www.skilaw.com/cases_rusnak.html), despite the fact that Michigan state law usually does not permit cases related to collision between skiers.

I'm not so sure about the other states, however I guess it's generally safe (both physically and financially) not to collide with the downhill skier at any given time.

In regards to the case mentioned in the OP, it may be unfortunately still primarily uphill skier's responsibility to avoid the downhill skier. One would be wise not to assume or predict how downhill skiers would behave, unpredictable stuffs do happen. Of course people may still argue but it would be best to avoid having to argue such thing at the court....

What I find really fascinating and at the same time horrified when reading some of the court cases is that "mistakes" end up costing so much money (up to several millions in some cases) but all it takes is just a few seconds of misjudgement.... Bloody hell.

[lowrider]

My observations from the (peanut gallery) chairlift is that i see more snowboarders looking over their shoulders for hazards than skiers. Being the victim of a skier that had just ridden over the tail of my Coiler i was tempted to walk up to her son sitting on the snow uphill from me and ask. Was that your mother that just ran over my board and not so much as an excuse me! At which point i would stomp on his skis, say sorry ! and ride away. I don't want to live in a world like that but it seems to be comming closer.

[sic t 2]

I watched a scary crash this weekend. A boarder was making what looked like a last hard turn toward the lift at the base of the hill, but decided to hang on and see how far through a 360 he could get. This is a fairly narrow area - "that last big turn" can take up much of the width of hill there. Just as he is heading directly back up the hill, he collides with a skier headed down hill. I expect the skier was aiming to run behind the boarder, expecting him to link up his next turn the other way or continue toward the lift. Unfortunately, the skier was injured. There was some difference of opinion on who was at fault. The "downhill person has the right of way" rule came up. My own opinion was that the boarder should have made sure the hill was absolutely clear before doing something as unexpected as heading back up the hill the wrong way.

I looked up the skier responsibility code, and interestingly, it doesn't say the downhill skier has the right of way. It says "People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them." Taken literally, I suppose in a head-on crash situation, that means both parties are "ahead", so perhaps both have some responsibility. But to me, the person doing the unexpected action gets the bulk, if not all, of the responsibility here.

Let's hope the injured person is OK....

Fortunately we have just concluded a highly popular thread that answers any doubts as to fault in this scenario:

http://www.bomberonline.com/VBulletin/showthread.php?37027-Bam!-You-hit-a-fellow-carver-breaking-their-board-Do-you-replace-the-board

You'll note that many accompanied their vote with an empassioned defense (ie; "fundamentalist" defense) of the validity of the skier responsibility code. Particularly when it involves two participants, under way, and on the same slope. In that scenario it is thought that the uphill skier has "no defense", period: he/she is at fault. Not only are they at fault, it is concluded that if they are a "decent person" they should reimburse the downhill skier for any material damages to their equipment. Two would even made thinly veiled threats to violence if the uphill person had struck a member of their famly. So not only would the hill skier be responsible for material damages, they may also require the immediate assistance of ski patrol to defend themselves.

Cutting these individuals a break, I think that many do not understand the forces of an aggressive carve on a "modestly skilled / modestly informed" alpine partipant behind them. Cutting others no break at all, I think they quote key phrases from the skiers responsiblity code to justify, in their own minds, that they pose no risk to others participating in the alpine environment just above them.

Mainly out of selfishness, I bear responsibility fo those below me and above me. I look uphill and carefully calculate the amount of time I have left to throw high G carves. When it comes to the 360 it goes far beyond all that: I simply look uphill just prior to i and make absolute certain that I am 100% alone. And, of course, should the carve explode, I calculate where (or towards whom) my stored energy will carry me. I hate getting hurt. Trust me, looking at your own bones is not something you ever want to experience.

Specifically, though, to the disturbing accident you witnessed: I liken it to traveling down a divided highway and striking someone coming the other way, the wrong way, on your road. In that case the argument that "you must retain a safe stopping distance" is mud in court. Likewise this accident is the same. No doubt, if evidence coud be provided (like from your sworn testimony in court) the case would be one for the uphill partcipant. Yes, its not law, but what reasonable person, on this planet anyway, believes that a ski slope is not a "one way" road ?

[BlueB]

...what reasonable person, on this planet anyway, believes that a ski slope is not a "one way" road ?

They are not... People ride left, right, across, CLIMBE the slope, fall, thumble, snowmobiles go UP, etc, etc. So, not the "roads", at the best "disorganised playgrounds with a prevailing direction of travel".

However, in the areas (like ours) where the Code reads "person AHEAD of you", insted of older deffinition "person downhill from you", both skiers would be at fault in a head-to-head collision.

In this particlar case, the uphill skier would also have agains him the fact that he came to the lift line area at high speed, while those always have the SLOW sign.

[leeho730]

I believe the term "skier ahead of you" is used instead to encompass the situation where both skiers are almost at the identical altitude, for example the case of Nancy Morgan v. Steve Haynes (http://www.skilaw.com/cases_morgan.html). Ms Morgan was waiting at the bridge for the lift while Mr Haynes, losing the control, collided with Ms Morgan who was ahead of her. The verdict was in favour of the plaintiff Ms Morgan, and Ms Morgan was awarded $225,000.

However, on the slope where there is a tangible gradient and it is clear to establish who was the upkill skier at the time, the term "ahead" is equal to the term "downhill". And such term does not just apply to the moment of collision but how it occured. For example, in the case of TAMARA SALE v. MARK DIXON (http://www.skilaw.com/cases_sale.html), the fact that Mr Dixon was at full-stop and uphill of Ms Sale and her teammates (who were skiing when Mr Dixon stopped at the uphill of them) prior to the accident happened was taken into account. The case was settled for $500,000.

Probably the most relevant case would be GRAY v. HOULTON in 1983 where defendant claimed that the plaintiff made a sudden movement into the defendant's path when the defendant jumped over the knoll and collided with the plaintiff. The initial verdict was in favour of the defendants but it was later overturned at the Supreme Court and the initial verdict was branded 'injustice'.

http://www.skilaw.com/skilawUSA.pdf

http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=19831114671P2d443_11110.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=14170004819093099066&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=jJlgT-OzL8brmAWxovmRCA&ved=0CB8QgAMoADAA

Several precedents almost clearly shows that uphill skiers are held liable for the damage, and one case shows that just because the downhill skier make a sudden movement does not mean the uphill skier will not be held liable.

Based on the predecents, the case in the OP can be summarized that 1) the uphill skier was clearly uphill of the downhill snowboarder who tried to execute 360 degree manuveur at the time of the accident as well as during the whole situation 2) it is the primarily duty of the uphill skier to avoid downhill skier 3) it is largely irrelevant whether the downhill skier made a sudden movement 4) both parties obviously seemed to ignore slow sign so that point becomes rather moot, both may have acted unsafely but just because downhill skier may act in unsafe way doesn't give uphill skier any right to hit and injure downhill skier. The skier above should have slowed down at the slow sign and maintained safe distance from the downhill snowboarders.

What I'm trying to say is that...

Just don't collide with the downhill skier at any circumstances, please. Be prepared to pay lots of money if the downhill skier gets seriously injured, or expect a long legal fight, which you'll probably end up losing. Overtaking downhill skier is just not worth it is unless it can be done absolutely safely at rather slow or manageable speed (which is debatable and your ability will be taken into account during the court session; a racer got charged as well so being super good doesn't make you immune to liability but if you're super good you will not cause accident anyway). For me I'd rather spend that kind of money to buy Porsche, Ferrari or a new ski pad.

But should the case in the OP gets into the court and if the verdict is in favour of the defendant (uphill skier), then this could be a landmark case. Let's stay tuned.

NOTE: Canadian law might be differ. But in general, it is safe to assume that under no circumstance should uphill skier hit downhill skier.

[Corey]

Very interesting, thanks for the research and summary leeho730! That does match the skiers responsibility code - which is somewhat comforting. I'll continue to check uphill for idiots (I'd rather be able to continue walking than having $200k in the bank) whenever possible, but it won't consume me.

[philw]

The linked thread is moot, I quote from the introductory post:

"In this poll we assume the uphill rider was, well, uphill and made the mistake."

But here are our rules: www.fis-ski.com/uk/insidefis/fisgeneralrules/10fisrules.html

With number 5 being:

Entering, starting and moving upwards

A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving upwards on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others.

Game over?

[BobD]

The linked thread is moot, I quote from the introductory post:

"In this poll we assume the uphill rider was, well, uphill and made the mistake."

But here are our rules: www.fis-ski.com/uk/insidefis/fisgeneralrules/10fisrules.html

With number 5 being:

Entering, starting and moving upwards

A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving upwards on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others.

Game over?

As usual the US goes it's own way with the skier's responsibility code. The going uphill part is not seen here.

[leeho730]

The linked thread is moot, I quote from the introductory post:

"In this poll we assume the uphill rider was, well, uphill and made the mistake."

But here are our rules: www.fis-ski.com/uk/insidefis/fisgeneralrules/10fisrules.html

With number 5 being:

Entering, starting and moving upwards

A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving upwards on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others.

Game over?

Selective quotation, I'm afraid. Moreover I believe such rule is better suited to skiers' behaviour upon entering trails where trails merge. Of course in this scenario there certainly is a grey area so it depends on the cases, and I absolutely agree with you in that there will be times when downhill skiers may be held liable for damage, since they may have to yield to skier uphill of them who are already on the trail. But for the collision on the open slope where visibility is generally not impaired, I'm afraid the usual uphill-skiers-yield-to-downhill-skiers rule are much more relevant than the rule no. 5. Moreover, the same page also shows the other rules:

3. Choice of route

A skier or snowboarder coming from behind must choose his route in such a way that he does not endanger skiers or snowboarders ahead.

4. Overtaking

A skier or snowboarder may overtake another skier or snowboarder above or below and to the right or to the left provided that he leaves enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement.

Moreover,

6. Stopping on the piste

Unless absolutely necessary, a skier or snowboarder must avoid stopping on the piste in narrow places or where visibility is restricted. After a fall in such a place, a skier or snowboarder must move clear of the piste as soon as possible.

Guess what.... If the uphill skier hit the downhill skier who has stopped for any reason.... Well, still it's the uphill skier's fault as long as visibility is not restricted. Even if visibility is restricted, it is still primarily uphill skiers's responsibility to ensure that they properly observe the slope before skiing or jumping. Having said that, it is highly advisable that a skier should stop where she can be seen, this will ensure that there will be no liability on her side should uphill skier hit her.

Cases:

http://www.skilaw.com/cases_coxon.html

http://www.skilaw.com/cases_guzy.html

http://www.skilaw.com/cases_lackner.html

http://www.skilaw.com/cases_omohundro.html

Most serious court cases almost universally have given verdicts in favour of plaintiffs who were at the time downhill of the defendants, as far as I know.

But of course such things may change, a landmark case may occur in which the verdict is given in favour of the uphill skiers which will change the whole game. Until then it is generally safe to assume that downhill skiers have the right of the way, at least in the states. Of course I'm not telling people what to do (I wouldn't dare) but I'm simply stating the fact based on several dozens of serious cases involving skier-to-skier collisions in the states...

Edited March 14, 2012 by leeho730

[philw]

Selective quotation, I'm afraid.

If you click the link you can read all the rules, which is why I put it there.

The original argument was based on a single out of context "rule". I like this one better. They don't seem to have weights assigned, and don't you think it's perfectly sensible to look uphill if you're going to go there?

In English law you'd want to be careful where you put the punctuation in that sentence, but the intent seems to be clear and reasonable to me.

I guess I'd just say that if you're going to suicidally race uphill without looking secure in the knowledge that when downhill riders kill you, your family will benefit, well I'd not be so sure about that.

[leeho730]

Very interesting, thanks for the research and summary leeho730! That does match the skiers responsibility code - which is somewhat comforting. I'll continue to check uphill for idiots (I'd rather be able to continue walking than having $200k in the bank) whenever possible, but it won't consume me.

Please be careful, please make sure you have eye witnesses or better, a ski patrol to back you up just in case, and to improve your chance of winning, please make sure that you do J-turn or 360 in the spot where you're clearly visible to uphill skiers. That means not only the configuration of the slope but the weather which may affect visibility as well. But I agree your approach in checking uphill to avoid potential idiots.... I also would rather ski than sit at home with several hundreds of thousands of dollars and permanent impairement.

If you click the link you can read all the rules, which is why I put it there.

The original argument was based on a single out of context "rule". I like this one better. They don't seem to have weights assigned, and don't you think it's perfectly sensible to look uphill if you're going to go there?

In English law you'd want to be careful where you put the punctuation in that sentence, but the intent seems to be clear and reasonable to me.

I guess I'd just say that if you're going to suicidally race uphill without looking secure in the knowledge that when downhill riders kill you, your family will benefit, well I'd not be so sure about that.

I guess the reason I focused the concept "downhill" or "ahead" often in the debate is because it is the term that gets confused about in regards to skier's code.

Nah, I'll probably be fine, never seriously injured anyone, hit others a few times, but no injury whatsoever because I always break. I prefer to keep a safe distance and break as hard as I can rather than try to overtake another when I get really close to someone. Even when skiing in a country where I cannot be held liable. It's common sense, really. and I agree with checking up the uphill, especially when I start from a full stop, don't want to give some idiots opportunity to injure me. It's best to avoid and prevent injuries rather than going to the court.

Edited March 15, 2012 by leeho730

[philw]

I guess most people here are on the same page with this when it comes down to it.