PDA

View Full Version : Paralyzed skier gets $14 million because of shitty table top at Snoqualmie



altasnob
04-07-2007, 08:27 AM
After a five-week trial, a King County jury on Friday awarded $14 million to a 27-year-old skier who was paralyzed after dropping 37 feet from a ski jump at the Summit at Snoqualmie.

Kenny Salvini, of Lake Tapps, was 23 years old when he went off the jump at the Central Terrain Park at Snoqualmie Central and landed on compact snow and ice in February 2004, said his attorney, Jack Connelly.

During the trial at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, "information came out ... that the man who built [the jump] eyeballed it with a Sno-Cat" rather than engineering a design, Connelly said.

Engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis, testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area, Connelly said, adding that ski jumps are supposed to be sloped so that energy from a vertical jump is transferred into a skier's forward motion on landing.

"Going off this jump was the equivalent of jumping off a three-story building," Connelly said. "If you're going to be throwing kids 37 feet in the air, these jumps need to be engineered, designed and constructed properly."

Officials from the Summit at Snoqualmie on Friday afternoon wouldn't answer questions about the incident but released a statement. It said risk is inherent in snow sports, but, "that said, any time there is an incident, our genuine thoughts and prayers are with our guests and their families."

The statement said Summit officials "are disappointed but respectful of the [trial] process."

According to Connelly, other people were injured on the same jump in the weeks before Salvini's accident, including a snowboarder who broke his back. A week after Salvini was injured, 19-year-old Peter Melrose of Bellevue died going off a different jump at the same terrain park, he said.

"There were 10 accidents with eight people taken off the slope in a toboggan" in the weeks before Salvini was hurt, landing on what Connelly said was a flat surface. In all, he said, evidence of 15 earlier accidents was admitted into evidence but "nothing was done" by ski operators to fix or close the faulty jumps.

The full jury award was for about $31 million, Connelly said, explaining that the amount was decreased to $14 million after calculating "the comparative fault" of his client and "the inherent risk of the sport."
advertising

Before he was injured, Salvini, now a quadriplegic, was captain of the wrestling team at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, where he graduated in engineering technology, Connelly said. His mother is now his full-time caregiver.

Over the course of his life, Salvini's medical needs are estimated to cost between $23 million and $26 million, Connelly said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003655847_skijumpaward07m.html

Rontele
04-07-2007, 08:30 AM
If the plaintiff's medical needs are estimated to cost between $23 and $26 million, Mr. Connelly should divest the 33% contingency he probably got on this case. ;)

altasnob
04-07-2007, 08:30 AM
As sad as it is that the kid got paralyzed, decisions like these will essentially make it impossible for small areas to build terrain parks. Unless you have the resources to use engineers and computer aided drafting to design jumps, you're going to be paying out your ass when someone bails.

I can't wait until someone sues a resort because the cliff they decked on had a flat landing.

nutcase
04-07-2007, 08:33 AM
does snoqualmie even have 14 million to throw away like that? Thats alot of money.

AntiSoCalSkier
04-07-2007, 08:46 AM
Is this the beginning of the end for terrain parks? Watching the parks explode over the last 5 years, I've been wondering how long the giant jumps will last. Ski area are building features that are so large that they really are only for true experts. A few more lawsuits like this and a lot of resorts will probably stop building the big stuff. Even though I don't hit the big jumps, it would be really sad to lose them to litigation. The terrain park is one of the few places that are challenging on many mountains (think east and midwest), and if you lose that, a lot of the younger generation will lose interest in skiing, especially since the resorts have been mowing down all of the bump runs.

Didn't they have similar problems with skate parks in the 80's?

I'm really not sure how this incident is the resorts fault. Anyone experienced enough to go off a big hit should also be experienced enough to decide if it's safe enough to hit. I know there are jumps (and even whole parks) that I avoid because the jumps are poorly designed. Flying 30 feet through the air is never going to be a safe activity. If you're even thinking about going off one of those jumps, you need to spend some time investigating it. Watch other people hit it. Roll over the lip. Check the in-run for speed. Check the landing for snow quality. Etc. Just because something is open to the public, doesn't mean that it is safe for you to do.

That said, my condolences to the plaintiff.

Snow Dog
04-07-2007, 08:47 AM
As sad as it is that the kid got paralyzed, decisions like these will essentially make it impossible for small areas to build terrain parks. Unless you have the resources to use engineers and computer aided drafting to design jumps, you're going to be paying out your ass when someone bails.
The physics is simple and engineers and computers are cheap. Cheaper than $14M, anyway.

Letting employees build ad hoc jumps is dumb beyond words.

Bandit Man
04-07-2007, 08:55 AM
Let me first say that being paralyzed is really a tragedy.

For the whole park-scene, ski resort vs. personal responsibility argument, there is a common sense component here. I used to always "scope" hits (in my younger days, of course :)) before hitting them full bore. That would give me a real good idea of what was going to happen and how much speed I'd need to hit the transition just right. This more reasonable approach was not inate however, but was rather adopted out of experience. I used to hit anything at full speed with my "I'm in my early twenties and invincible" attitude. I learned the hard way when I rolled into a large table top hit in SoCal and over shot the transition and landed in the flats. Double ejection from my bindings followed, as did a major dislocation of my shoulder. Eventually, I had to have it surgically repaired. It was totally my fault. The hit was large, but I hit it too fast. I used to see it all the time skiing in SoCal and Mammy where the hits are plentiful and there are lots of invincible riders. People need to be responsible for their own actions. That's what I think.

It will be interesting what this will do for park skiing in WA first and other small US resorts who will not be willing to assume the risk of a multi-million dollar settlement.

jasonsalvo
04-07-2007, 09:13 AM
The physics is simple and engineers and computers are cheap. Cheaper than $14M, anyway.

Letting employees build ad hoc jumps is dumb beyond words.

Snow Dog, I must disagree with you there. In this case, the plaintiff argued that the kid injured himself because the landing was too short (a mere 77 feet long) compared to the deck (25 feet), the ramp was too steep, and there was no designated starting area. Now, I have jumped many a tabletop in my day, and I have even built a few, and there is nothing about what happened to that kid that a jump designed on a computer could have changed.

A computer can't design a jump that stops people from making bad choices or being bad skiers. It was an icy night, he went way too fast for the jump and overshot the landing, and he was in the backseat when he hit the takeoff, causing him to get inverted. None of those things could have been corrected by an engineer, or an engineered jump.

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 09:20 AM
This is very bad news for the sport of skiing. Personal responsibility is out the window in this country.

As a younger skier in Western New York, the only thing that keeps me stoked on skiing locally is terrain parks.Otherwise, our flat, groomed 600 feet of vertical would be far too boring to ski 40+ times a year. It's the only thing that keeps me challenged around here.

As a park user you have to realize there are huge risks involved. Much higher than skiing down the regular runs at the area. As a park user, I am always asking other riders what type of speed is needed to hit the jump and make the landing. I won't hit anything until I am sure of the speed needed, and always check landings. I will skip jumps with inadequite landings that are too short, too mellow, overly icy, or take-offs that I don't like.

I fail to see how the liability falls on the resort. He wasn't forced to hit the jump. If he thought it wasn't safe, he shouldn't have hit it. He failed in his responsibilites in following the Terrain Park code.

Sucks he got paralyzed, but it's a risk we all take when we put skis on, and I don't feel that the liabaility falls on the resort.

truth
04-07-2007, 09:25 AM
I need to ski more park.

leroy jenkins
04-07-2007, 09:26 AM
Although I definitly agree that ussually skiers that sue resorts should be shot, I'm kinda happy about this. I'm not much of a parkrat, but I can say that lots of places have no fuckin clue how to build a table. Lots of places jumps throw you too far up, without having a long enough landing. A table should have twice the distance as it does height.

And smaller resorts don't need engineers, they just need skiers/boarders that aren't clueless to build thier shit for em.

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 09:29 AM
Although I definitly agree that ussually skiers that sue resorts should be shot, I'm kinda happy about this. I'm not much of a parkrat, but I can say that lots of places have no fuckin clue how to build a table. Lots of places jumps throw you too far up, without having a long enough landing. A table should have twice the distance as it does height.

And smaller resorts don't need engineers, they just need skiers/boarders that aren't clueless to build thier shit for em.

Then that guy shouldn't have hit that jump if he felt it wasn't safe. He failed to abide by the Terrain Park code of conduct.

Personal Responsibility.

jasonsalvo
04-07-2007, 09:32 AM
I personally used the jump this kid injured himself about a week aftwards. My opinion is that the jump was not too short (3:1 ratio of table to landing) and the takeoff was fine. It was that week that I tought myself unnatural spins on that very jump, so I speak from experience when I say that there was nothing wrong with the takeoff. It was a normally shaped, medium sized tabletop of average proportions, nothing more.

velox
04-07-2007, 09:47 AM
Hey, I broke my hip this year by hitting an unmarked rock under a foot of fresh powder. That should be worth at least a million. :smile:

I feel sorry for the guy I really do it sucks. But when we ski we take on an amount of risk. When you fly up high into the air we take on even more risk.

lph
04-07-2007, 10:35 AM
I feel bad for the kid, and I am OK with the ski area getting sued.

If you are gonna build a terrain park, a man made set of jumps, then you damn well better do it right. People get hurt in terrain parks, badly hurt, even on those that are designed by experts. To build a terrain park by 'eyeballing it' is irresponsible and stupid.

Would this kid had gotten hurt going off a well designed jump? maybe so. Would the people in California near the PG&E 'ponds' have gotten sick if the levels of the that chemical were really within the correct range? Maybe so.

In both cases, the ski area/company was just plain stupid. Do things right or not all.

In this case, I just can't jump on the 'ski areas shouldn't be sued' and 'take personal responsibility' bandwagon.

The ski area fucked up, they made the cheap and easy choice, they lose.

BSS
04-07-2007, 10:39 AM
I feel bad for the kid, and I am OK with the ski area getting sued.

If you are gonna build a terrain park, a man made set of jumps, then you damn well better do it right. People get hurt in terrain parks, badly hurt, even on those that are designed by experts. To build a terrain park by 'eyeballing it' is irresponsible and stupid.

Would this kid had gotten hurt going off a well designed jump? maybe so. Would the people in California near the PG&E 'ponds' have gotten sick if the levels of the that chemical were really within the correct range? Maybe so.

In both cases, the ski area/company was just plain stupid. Do things right or not all.

In this case, I just can't jump on the 'ski areas shouldn't be sued' and 'take personal responsibility' bandwagon.

The ski area fucked up, they made the cheap and easy choice, they lose.


Agreed. Just because it says "skier accepts all responsibility" on the back of the lift ticket doesn't mean it's a green light for ski operators to be sloppy and then blame the customer.

They're just smart enough not to write THEIR responsibilities on the ticket with it.

boredboiseboy
04-07-2007, 10:40 AM
I feel bad for the kid, and I am OK with the ski area getting sued.

If you are gonna build a terrain park, a man made set of jumps, then you damn well better do it right. People get hurt in terrain parks, badly hurt, even on those that are designed by experts. To build a terrain park by 'eyeballing it' is irresponsible and stupid.

Would this kid had gotten hurt going off a well designed jump? maybe so. Would the people in California near the PG&E 'ponds' have gotten sick if the levels of the that chemical were really within the correct range? Maybe so.

In both cases, the ski area/company was just plain stupid. Do things right or not all.

In this case, I just can't jump on the 'ski areas shouldn't be sued' and 'take personal responsibility' bandwagon.

The ski area fucked up, they made the cheap and easy choice, they lose.
You put it perfectly. Its kinda reminds me of the local resort here. They had a box-tabletop that people kept getting hurt on. People at the resort thought there was something wrong with the feature, so I belive they removed it. If they would have left it there knowing there was something wrong, and I got hurt on it, I would have sued em too, since that would be intentional negligence. IMO building a jump improperly is definatly intentional negligence.

Rontele
04-07-2007, 10:43 AM
does snoqualmie even have 14 million to throw away like that? Thats alot of money.

I am willing to bet that they are not paying a single dime. That is why they have insurance.

danimal's dead
04-07-2007, 10:43 AM
I hope Snoq. had some really good liability insurance.

If all the parks close where will all the park rat punks go?
Not the bc I hope.
Or will they all quit skiing altogether?
If all the kids stop skiing and riding because all the parks are closed what will happen to all the little resorts that depend on park rat revenue, will they all close?

Stay tuned, there will be more litigation to come.

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 10:53 AM
So, answer me this question...

Say you buy a car. It is incredibly high powered. You proceed to drive down the road at 100+mph. You Lose control and get into an accident and paralyze yourself.

Are you going to sue the car manufacturer for making a 400hp car that can go above the speedlimit?


Where is the line drawn between someone making a personal error, and it being the Manufacturers fault? Many other people hit this jump without any sort of problems. Does that mean that anytime someone falls and gets hurt, regardless of it being the features fault or the users fault, that feature should be removed?

WICS
04-07-2007, 10:57 AM
My view: personal responsibility, agreed.

First, we who want to climb, ski, bike, etc. have to try to pursue some level of (A) life, (B) disability, and (C) medical coverage (maybe not the perfect products available yet -- opportunity people??). I am sure those who ski BC, in AK, etc. have thought about precisely that-- WWMD to prepare for situations when there isn't going to be any toboggan.

Second, I do feel real bad for the guy. I don't have perfect insurance coverage either, so who knows, I (and maybe others of us here) might have sued, too. I can't say because the accident didn't happen to me, and I don't know what his other circumstances/needs in life are (maybe he won the state lottery last year -- am making that up). Sounds like from jasonsalvo's post that the jump was legit -- the guy just hit it in an unfortunate way. In that situation, maybe I'd sac up a posteriori and say, "mah bahd" :cool: (or not).

A guess: the larger resorts are going to keep their parks (which I stay away from) a while because seems like a lot of riders view quality of parks as a differentiator for a resort. So that's a real revenue impact, at least right now it seems. Wasn't that jump accident in 2004, and today we seem to have more parks than ever.

Different for smaller resorts: one business argument goes that they should just groom everything. Not speaking from experience running a resort, just a lot of jong spew here.

Agree with LPH: get sued if you jong up a jump. Cue that movie opening scene where kid sacs up and jumps bicycle over small jump (am I thinking Anomoly?-- shit, killed too many brain cells).

Size.
Word.
Can't 1080 nada nada nada.

Unnatural? Whatevah!

Jong out!

(My total posts count just went up by 5%, all you other jong MF yatches!!!!!!)

BSS
04-07-2007, 11:02 AM
Where is the line drawn between someone making a personal error, and it being the Manufacturers fault? Many other people hit this jump without any sort of problems. Does that mean that anytime someone falls and gets hurt, regardless of it being the features fault or the users fault, that feature should be removed?

Read the original post again. The line is drawn somewhere between $14 and $31 million. To use your analogy:

Many other people drove Ford Explorers without incident also. A few weren't so lucky. There are still lots of them on the road, though. Get it? The court found the resort negligent, not the skier.

The days of handing over $65 to a resort and them saying "Welp, okay, You're on your own!" are over. There are responsibilities associated with charging for a service. Ensuring safe terrain is one of them - Just like they'll tell you their ski patrol does. Terrain parks are calculated, engineered obstacles, not just random piles of snow.

danimal's dead
04-07-2007, 11:09 AM
We're talking about some piles of snow here right, not a car or a tank.

Snoq. piled up some snow for people to play on and because they didn't use engineers to build the jump they are liable for a dumbass who probably didn't check out the jump before he hit it and then landed flat.

This is bad news if you like to ski.

For instance, it's sue happy asshats like this guy who have precipitated the restrictive Colorado laws regarding bc access to USFS lands in Colorado along ski resort boundaries.

I think if people want to ski a park they should have to sign a waiver when they buy their ticket or their pass stating that the resort is not liable for any injuries they may incur.

Or we're going to start losing resorts.:confused:

Snow Dog
04-07-2007, 11:11 AM
Snow Dog, I must disagree with you there. In this case, the plaintiff argued that the kid injured himself because the landing was too short (a mere 77 feet long) compared to the deck (25 feet), the ramp was too steep, and there was no designated starting area. Now, I have jumped many a tabletop in my day, and I have even built a few, and there is nothing about what happened to that kid that a jump designed on a computer could have changed.
You've been on the jump and I haven't but the article suggests that the feature building was ad hoc -- maybe the cat operator knows his (or her) stuff and maybe he doesn't. So Snoqualmie management was ready fail in court.

If I was the King of Snoqualmie there would be a handbook of features that could be built (because they meet whatever guidelines are used to build features and are fun). In the morning the park manager would review the features and
sign off on them. Yes it's CYA but it's also a safety check. Then you could go to court and say "we built a #14 table top and in the past we've had X serious injuries with #14 table tops."

AntiSoCalSkier
04-07-2007, 11:20 AM
I find it interesting that people are treating Snoqualmie as a "little resort". They may be small, but they are owned by Booth Creek. Booth Creek owns a lot of smaller day areas (as well as Sierra-At-Tahoe and Northstar). This is not some little company being sued, it's a giant corporation.

(Not that this makes the suit better or worse. I just wanted to clarify who the owners were.)

The Dad
04-07-2007, 11:22 AM
What lph said.

Only one additional note: Another guy broke his back on the same jump the prior week. As a legal matter, that potentially constitutes actual notice for the hill that the jump was unsafe. If they didn't investigate after that, they were foolish. It's the one-free-dog-bite rule.


I am willing to bet that they are not paying a single dime. That is why they have insurance.

And their rates will now go up commensurately, at least unless they can show the insurance company that they have a plan in place to prevent recurrence.

I wonder, though -- maybe I should think about moving up to Washington and working as a plaintiff's ski lawyer. Just thinking.

stihletto
04-07-2007, 11:25 AM
"If you're going to be throwing kids 37 feet in the air, these jumps need to be engineered, designed and constructed properly."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003655847_skijumpaward07m.html

When were they throwing skiers off these jumps? Did they use a catapult?
As far as i know, he wasn't thrown off that jump, he skied to the takeoff and chose to hit the jump himself. It sucks that he was paralyzed and i really feel for him. I can't imagine not wanting to sue if i were in that position, but ultimately, he made the choice to hit that jump.
Just like an inbounds cliff, just because it's open it doesn't mean it should be dropped. As skiers we shouldn't expect the ski area to babysit us. You are responsible for what you do to yourself and should evaluate every feature, even manmade ones inbounds and it should be your responsibilty to deal with the consequences.
Still I really feel for that guy and i'm stoked for him at least getting some money out of the deal.

fluffballs
04-07-2007, 11:27 AM
This why patrollers have had to kick down public built kickers for years, if someone hits it and hurts themself, they've got a case on a improperly built terrain feature. My condolences go out to anybody who has a life-altering injury enjoying the sport they love. But you have to be responsible for yourself, people get hurt everyday, on perfectly built jumps, while the majority of people come out with no injury at all. I've overshot plenty of times, on jumps I've hit several times. The one really good injury I suffered came from hitting a large table without first skiing by, or watching someone else hit it. I was irresponsible.

danimal's dead
04-07-2007, 11:28 AM
And their rates will now go up commensurately, at least unless they can show the insurance company that they have a plan in place to prevent recurrence.

That is exactly what will happen eventually, the insurance premiums for resorts with terrain parks will skyrocket and many resorts will stop building parks. How much lack or parks will hurt individual resorts will vary greatly, I don't know how much revenue comes from park rats. But it seams like a lot of families take that big destination resort ski trip because they have punk kids that wanna go to someplace like Breck to hit the "sick" park, YO.

Excellent thread for a Saturday, eh.

The Dad
04-07-2007, 11:30 AM
Then they'll have to make economically rational decisions, now won't they?

TyeStick
04-07-2007, 11:31 AM
We're talking about some piles of snow here right, not a car or a tank.

Snoq. piled up some snow for people to play on and because they didn't use engineers to build the jump they are liable for a dumbass who probably didn't check out the jump before he hit it and then landed flat.

This is bad news if you like to ski.

For instance, it's sue happy asshats like this guy who have precipitated the restrictive Colorado laws regarding bc access to USFS lands in Colorado along ski resort boundaries.

I think if people want to ski a park they should have to sign a waiver when they buy their ticket or their pass stating that the resort is not liable for any injuries they may incur.

Or we're going to start losing resorts.:confused:
Stevens pass is most likely instituting a park pass system next year, 5 bucks and a safety seminar with a waiver gets you a card. Then no more gapers-tourons or clueless people will be suing the resorts because of their own actions.

BSS
04-07-2007, 11:31 AM
When were they throwing skiers off these jumps? Did they use a catapult?
As far as i know, he wasn't thrown off that jump, he skied to the takeoff and chose to hit the jump himself. It sucks that he was paralyzed and i really feel for him. I can't imagine not wanting to sue if i were in that position, but ultimately, he made the choice to hit that jump.
Just like an inbounds cliff, just because it's open it doesn't mean it should be dropped. As skiers we shouldn't expect the ski area to babysit us. You are responsible for what you do to yourself and should evaluate every feature, even manmade ones inbounds and it should be your responsibilty to deal with the consequences.
Still I really feel for that guy and i'm stoked for him at least getting some money out of the deal.

You guys aren't reading the original post very thoroughly. The case brought before the court had nothing to do with whether he was skiing beyond his ability or not. Regardless, in fairness to the operator - this was still taken into consideration when the judgment was handed.


The full jury award was for about $31 million, Connelly said, explaining that the amount was decreased to $14 million after calculating "the comparative fault" of his client and "the inherent risk of the sport."


The case was about negligence on the part of the resort. Case closed:


According to Connelly, other people were injured on the same jump in the weeks before Salvini's accident, including a snowboarder who broke his back. A week after Salvini was injured, 19-year-old Peter Melrose of Bellevue died going off a different jump at the same terrain park, he said.

There were 10 accidents with eight people taken off the slope in a toboggan" in the weeks before Salvini was hurt, landing on what Connelly said was a flat surface. In all, he said, evidence of 15 earlier accidents was admitted into evidence but "nothing was done" by ski operators to fix or close the faulty jumps.

hemas
04-07-2007, 11:40 AM
The case was about negligence on the part of the resort. Case closed:

Sadly the case of 8 peeps in tobokan still does not mean that the table-top was flawed, it only means that there were 9 peeps jumping on something they didn't have the necessary skills.

Actually, I'm rather surpriced this sort of thing hasn't happened before...

Oh, BTW and experience park builder can actually eye-ball a table-top while building it with a Pisten-Bully (snowcat).

As I have never even skied in the US, far less the area in question... I can't say that the table-top was flawed, and 25 table to 77 landing doesn't sound too bad, it's actually pretty standard sized table-top where I live.. And yes, the landing is more often than not glare ice... Guess that's why quite a few finns do so well in big air comps (snowboard or ski)... Falling here hurts like hell (if you don't break something), so it's a school of hard knocks.

I do feel sorry for the lad, but if someone would try to sue a resort here for that, I'd laugh him to the ground.

Now had they build a rail (or similar) just after the LZ, well that would have been a complitely different story.

stihletto
04-07-2007, 11:48 AM
The case was about negligence on the part of the resort. Case closed:
'According to Connelly, other people were injured on the same jump in the weeks before Salvini's accident, including a snowboarder who broke his back. A week after Salvini was injured, 19-year-old Peter Melrose of Bellevue died going off a different jump at the same terrain park, he said.

There were 10 accidents with eight people taken off the slope in a toboggan" in the weeks before Salvini was hurt, landing on what Connelly said was a flat surface. In all, he said, evidence of 15 earlier accidents was admitted into evidence but "nothing was done" by ski operators to fix or close the faulty jumps.'


"Faulty jumps." It doesn't say faulty jump. The same slope? or the same jump? 10 incidents in a matter of weeks (how many weeks?) isn't out of the ordinary even for a single jump, let alone the whole park. People get hurt in the park all the time. Should resorts be held accountable for negligence just for keepling their parks running? I know a guy who broke his back after frontflipping off a cat track. I guess the resort should close that sucker down before someone else gets hurt and sues them for negligence.

Maybe some good will come of this though. Maybe parks will be built safer now. I hope this doesn't prompt more closures of natural terrain now.

splat
04-07-2007, 11:51 AM
We're talking about some piles of snow here right, not a car or a tank.

Snoq. piled up some snow for people to play on and because they didn't use engineers to build the jump they are liable for a dumbass who probably didn't check out the jump before he hit it and then landed flat.

This is bad news if you like to ski.

For instance, it's sue happy asshats like this guy who have precipitated the restrictive Colorado laws regarding bc access to USFS lands in Colorado along ski resort boundaries.

I think if people want to ski a park they should have to sign a waiver when they buy their ticket or their pass stating that the resort is not liable for any injuries they may incur.

Or we're going to start losing resorts.:confused:

So would your rationale be - resorts should pay for insurance, but never file a claim?
Kinda like the people who lost their homes to Katrina?

As my attorney once said "Insurance companies don't own skyscrapers because they pay claims." Shit like this is why insurance is purchased. The fact that insurance companies are raping the insured for the sake of corporate profits is why they'll just raise the rates for resorts when cases like this are won. Before laying 100% of the blame on the people who get injured, I would look long and hard at the insurance companies' agendas.

midget
04-07-2007, 12:13 PM
Can someone post the address of this fucking joey captain of the wrestling team that sues a resort for being a dumbfuck. Let me guess the dumbfuck pointed it at like 60mph to a 20 foot table and sued because he is paralyzed for being a fucktard.

midget
04-07-2007, 12:16 PM
You guys aren't reading the original post very thoroughly. The case brought before the court had nothing to do with whether he was skiing beyond his ability or not. Regardless, in fairness to the operator - this was still taken into consideration when the judgment was handed.

The case was about negligence on the part of the resort. Case closed:

Shit better shut down the public parks too. I heard 10 people got taken out in an ambulance playing football this year. They should sue the city for building improper playing fields.

iceman
04-07-2007, 12:16 PM
Can someone post the address of this fucking joey captain of the wrestling team that sues a resort for being a dumbfuck. Let me guess the dumbfuck pointed it at like 60mph to a 20 foot table and sued because he is paralyzed for being a fucktard.

what, are you gonna go over and beat up the paralyzed guy?

L7
04-07-2007, 12:17 PM
Terrain parks have gotten bigger and bigger and sucked more and more resources from many hills. (Cat time, snowmaking, manhours, and patrol attending traumas). The bigger parks are made for a very small percentage of skiers and the costs associated are paid by all the skiers on the hill both in lift tickets and in inadequate snowmaking on crowded slopes while massive mounds are built up. The ones using the parks are not the ones spending many more dollars at other venues on the hill (food, beer, rentals, ski gear and lessons). So basically a lot of paying public has subsidized one small groups very expensive habit. I go to a mountain to use the whole thing as at terrain park.

This lawsuit was inevitable and I'm sure will cause insurance companies to look harder at premiums and guidelines for hills with terrain parks. I'm sure it will eliminate many, shrink others and with any luck balance out the cost burden.

It's always killed me for a long time that people had to pay for cheesy little nastar type race courses and in many cases sign a waiver but it's a free for all in the terrain park. Even for those younger than the age of consent and without helmets. It never made sense and it was bound to go wrong. Too bad someone had to be paralyzed to drive it home.

AKA
04-07-2007, 12:17 PM
So would your rationale be - resorts should pay for insurance, but never file a claim?
Kinda like the people who lost their homes to Katrina?

As my attorney once said "Insurance companies don't own skyscrapers because they pay claims." Shit like this is why insurance is purchased. The fact that insurance companies are raping the insured for the sake of corporate profits is why they'll just raise the rates for resorts when cases like this are won. Before laying 100% of the blame on the people who get injured, I would look long and hard at the insurance companies' agendas.

thanks for that. the most soul-less motherfuckers on earth are insurance executives, not to mention the adjusters.

jasonsalvo
04-07-2007, 12:22 PM
The quote by plaintiff's attorney is very misleading. The jump wasn't just an "eyeballed" pile of snow. It was a professionally built and maintained tabletop jump, no different, better than, or worse than the tabletops I've jumped at Stevens Pass, Whistler, Baker, etc.

The plaintiff's case was that the jump was negligently designed, constructed, and/or maintained. In my opinion, the evidence that was presented in the case did not meet that burden. Plaintiff's hired professional expert witnesses, none of whom had ever been in a terrain park, to design a "safe" jump. The jumps they designed were absolute crap because their theory was that to be safe, skiers shouldn't be able to get higher than 6 feet off the ground. So these "ideal" jumps have super long landings and flat takeoffs - as if the idea behind a jump is to see how far you can go, not to do tricks.

Unfortunately, there was only one skier on the jury, and they had no way to distinguish the horseshit the plaintiff's experts said from the truth. This has nothing to do with Snoqualmie building a bad jump. It had everything to do with a jury making a decision based on pure emotion and little to no reason.

boredboiseboy
04-07-2007, 12:24 PM
When were they throwing skiers off these jumps? Did they use a catapult?
As far as i know, he wasn't thrown off that jump, he skied to the takeoff and chose to hit the jump himself. It sucks that he was paralyzed and i really feel for him. I can't imagine not wanting to sue if i were in that position, but ultimately, he made the choice to hit that jump.
Just like an inbounds cliff, just because it's open it doesn't mean it should be dropped. As skiers we shouldn't expect the ski area to babysit us. You are responsible for what you do to yourself and should evaluate every feature, even manmade ones inbounds and it should be your responsibilty to deal with the consequences.
Still I really feel for that guy and i'm stoked for him at least getting some money out of the deal.

See, if the jump wasn't made properly, he woudln't(or at least shoudlnt) have been awarded any money, since it would have been his fault. However, ski resorts have an obligation to maintain manmade features, including chair lifts, facilities, terrain parks ect. If they are intentionally negligent in their duties to maintain those facilities, they are open to lawsuits and damages. However, someone who was injured dropping an inbounds cliff woudln't be able to sucessfully sue, since the ski resort has no duty to insure the safety of it, and cant be held negligent.

boredboiseboy
04-07-2007, 12:26 PM
In my opinion, the evidence that was presented in the case did not meet that burden.
Its the legal systems(in this case a jury) opinion that matters, not yours:tongue:

FollowMe
04-07-2007, 12:41 PM
I am willing to bet that they are not paying a single dime. That is why they have insurance.

I'm not so sure. Wouldn't be surprised if they have a $500,000 or $1,000,000 retention (think deductible) on their policy, or more. If the resort is owned by a mega corp. they may have a multi-million dollar retention. It may double as a result of the loss.

Of course, still better than paying the full loss, which by the way I bet gets drilled down substantially before its paid.

Key point as someone else mentioned too was that they failed to take any sort of corrective action after numerous people were injured on same hit prior. Take note Risk Managers.

x lurker
04-07-2007, 12:44 PM
Splat is right. I want to hear all those personal responsibility sentiments coming from the rest of you when it is you in that wheel chair. BTW - the jury did assign some personal responsibility. It found the guy's damages were $30M but that $16M of those were his own fault.

The Dad
04-07-2007, 12:51 PM
Midget: Please, don't hold back -- tell us what you really think.

Razorslug
04-07-2007, 01:02 PM
Forget the skier, why don't we go after the jurors. I can't blame the guy for trying to get some cash, his whole world just got fucked. But who are the damn jurors that awarded this? But if you already feel entitled becuase you buy a $65 lift ticket, I"m sure you will be expecting a refund if you get to sore after paying a $100 a day. And don't think this will only have an effect on parks. "Yes, I saw the signs saying it was outof bounds, but they didn't say they would fine me, take away my lift pass, or fuck me in the ass, So the resort was negilgent to approiately warn me"

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 01:19 PM
Key point as someone else mentioned too was that they failed to take any sort of corrective action after numerous people were injured on same hit prior. Take note Risk Managers.

8 injurys (they don't say the extent of the injurys) in a busy terrain park, over the course of a few weeks is VERY small.

Hell, my SMALL hill in Western New York sees a few injuries a weekend in the terrain park.

Doesn't mean that the features were improperly setup.

thephatkid
04-07-2007, 01:26 PM
i think that some of the responsibility lies with the resort. after numerous injuries on the same hit, should have checked it out or changed it someway, but i also think that it is more the riders responsibility to ride within their abilities. i am against sue happy people, but in some instances it is necessary, not saying this is one of them but the way our system is set up sometimes you have to sue. i know if it were me and i honestly felt that the resort was at fault i would sue, but i would have to be 100% sure that i was injured not from my own stupidity which happens quite a lot.

KansasBoarder
04-07-2007, 01:37 PM
I could care less about the legal side of things - I'm too dumb and hungover to argue the finer points of the law.

However, this case is just another reminder of the complete lack of accountibility that now permeates our society. (FURTHER EXAMPLE: The cliched instance of people suing restaurants for serving hot coffee that *GASP* burns!!!)

The fact of the matter is that this now paralyzed individual took a risk in hitting a terrain feature and lost. Was the jump improperly built or dangerous?? Possibly - but that doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Let's assume the jump was "poor", built "ad hoc". Then the skiier should have recognized the feature's danger and *GASP* not hit the jump. If he didn't have the knowledge to recognize a poorly built jump then he shouldn't have been in the park anyway, and I think it goes without saying that if he didn't have the skill to be launched "37 feet" in the air - WTF???- then he shouldn't have been going so fast/hitting the jump/in the park/etc. There is no relativism in this case!

Skiing and snowboarding is an inherently dangerous sport. Any one of us who choose to ride in the mountains could suffer injury(ies) at any moment, on any type of terrain - shit happens. (see my father, an expert skiier who blew out his knee slipping on ice at the base of WP). Due to this INHERENT risk, anyone who partakes in our sport should understand and accept that they could be hurt or even die at any point, on ANY type of terrain - especially in the park *DUH*.

IT SHOULD NOT BE THE SKI RESORTS' RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT EVERY SINGLE SKIIER AND BOARDER MAKES PERFECT DECISIONS ON THE MOUNTAIN!!!

If an inbounds bowl shows avalanche potential, then don't ski it!
If a glade is too tight to pass safely, then don't ride it!
And if a terrain park feature looks dangerous, then don't hit it!

Fuck this pisses me off!! Everyone lost in this situation! One word - accountability.

The AD
04-07-2007, 01:38 PM
My opinion is that terrain park features are a whole different ballgame than natural terrain features. Since the resort built these features they need to be designed properly. Not to say you couldn't fuck yourself up even on a properly designed feature. Was this particular feature flawed? I don't know, but the jury was convinced it was.

Actually it is pretty amazing terrain parks are still common in the U.S. Hell, when's the last time you saw a hotel pool with a diving board? It seems like some of the big features in a terrain park could hurt you a heck of a lot easier than a damn diving board.


However, this case is just another reminder of the complete lack of accountibility that now permeates our society. (FURTHER EXAMPLE: The cliched instance of people suing restaurants for serving hot coffee that *GASP* burns!!!)

Interesting you cite this, because the McDonalds case is always used as an example of frivolous personal injury lawsuits when the facts are actually more interesting than most people realize. This wasn't the first time this had happened. McDonalds was brewing their coffee at an unsafe temperature and they knew it. They just wanted to have the hottest coffee safety be damned. Take a look here: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

Yes, we need to have personal accountability, but corporations also need to have accountability. You shouldn't sell an unsafe product and if you offer a service--such as a terrain park--care needs to be taken that it is safe.

bubba-k
04-07-2007, 01:40 PM
I busted my back in a very similar situation, and even though the jump was a little fucked, it was my failure to to assess the situation properly that got me injured. In the end another dude did the same thing as me later in the day, and the table was ripped out. I think you certainly have to place some responsibility on the resort for maintenance but the skier always has the power assess the situation and give a go or no-go decision.

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 01:41 PM
I could care less about the legal side of things - I'm too dumb and hungover to argue the finer points of the law.

However, this case is just another reminder of the complete lack of accountibility that now permeates our society. (FURTHER EXAMPLE: The cliched instance of people suing restaurants for serving hot coffee that *GASP* burns!!!)

The fact of the matter is that this now paralyzed individual took a risk in hitting a terrain feature and lost. Was the jump improperly built or dangerous?? Possibly - but that doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Let's assume the jump was "poor", built "ad hoc". Then the skiier should have recognized the feature's danger and *GASP* not hit the jump. If he didn't have the knowledge to recognize a poorly built jump then he shouldn't have been in the park anyway, and I think it goes without saying that if he didn't have the skill to be launched "37 feet" in the air - WTF???- then he shouldn't have been going so fast/hitting the jump/in the park/etc. There is no relativism in this case!

Skiing and snowboarding is an inherently dangerous sport. Any one of us who choose to ride in the mountains could suffer injury(ies) at any moment, on any type of terrain - shit happens. (see my father, an expert skiier who blew out his knee slipping on ice at the base of WP). Due to this INHERENT risk, anyone who partakes in our sport should understand and accept that they could be hurt or even die at any point, on ANY type of terrain - especially in the park *DUH*.

IT SHOULD NOT BE THE SKI RESORTS' RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT EVERY SINGLE SKIIER AND BOARDER MAKES PERFECT DECISIONS ON THE MOUNTAIN!!!

If an inbounds bowl shows avalanche potential, then don't ski it!
If a glade is too tight to pass safely, then don't ride it!
And if a terrain park feature looks dangerous, then don't hit it!

Fuck this pisses me off!! Everyone lost in this situation! One word - accountability.

www.truth.com

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 01:44 PM
Since the resort built these features they need to be designed properly. Not to say you couldn't fuck yourself up even on a properly designed feature. Was this particular feature flawed? I don't know, but the jury was convinced it was.

The jurors were likely not skiers, and more than likely have NEVER seen terrain park features before, in their lives. I'm sure that the Prosecution made the jumps out to be some ultra-treachorous feature that NOONE in the entire world should be allowed on.

They likely preyed on the uninformed masses emotions to get a verdict.

Jer
04-07-2007, 01:50 PM
Very sad. I know the law is the law and all and most people will take whatever they can get, but any of you who honestly believe the resort was at all at fault and the injured skier had any "right" to compensation should give up skiing.

The AD
04-07-2007, 01:52 PM
They likely preyed on the uninformed masses emotions to get a verdict.

I'm sure the defense had an equal opportunity to call in expert witnesses saying how the feature was safe. I don't know the real facts here, and maybe the feature was safe, but all I'm saying is resorts do have a responsibility to ensure their terrain parks are built correctly.

danimal's dead
04-07-2007, 01:52 PM
Hey, Jer and I actually agree on something, I'm going to go crack a beer to celebrate this historic occasion.

Jer
04-07-2007, 01:55 PM
Hey, Jer and I actually agree on something, I'm going to go crack a beer to celebrate this historic occasion.

Once people get to know me they realise I'm only a super douchebag asshole, not a super-duper King Kong douchebag asshole fuckface. I don't make good first impressions.

ak_powder_monkey
04-07-2007, 01:59 PM
People who sue ski areas should be shot

SkiED
04-07-2007, 02:19 PM
the kids a fucking bitch plan and simple, as stated and am sure was the case the jump was just a normal medium sized average terrain park jump. He was a fucking beater who was skiing above his ability and ignoring the skier code, its his own fault he got paralyzed and im sorry but I cant feel the least bit sorry for him. Dont ski above your ability dumbass, its a dangeraous sport and you can get in trouble fast. Survival of the fittest(although not really cause this dumbass benifited 14 million from it but at least he is out of the gene pool i guess)

jepilot
04-07-2007, 02:21 PM
There are resorts with 100ft cliffs in-bounds. Even if I'm hucking a 20ft cliff, I'm checking the runout first. If the snow/pitch isn't right, I'm not flying there. I've always said it's better to ski another day than have to regret a bad decision for the rest of your life. While I wish my full-time job was skiing, I'm a political science student and as many people have already said, the concept of personal accountability has completely disappeared from society. People smoke their whole lives, then sue because they have cancer. People drive their cars fast and crash, then sue because the airbag didn't save them from losing a limb. Then this. Fuck that shit. Aside from reading the universal rules of skiing, people need to just take some responsibility for their actions. I live in PA, and I don't hit jumps in most of the local parks because A)The snow here sucks and B)the landing is near flat, so I know if I jump, I'm going to hurt. It's awful that this kid got paralyzed, and he's about my age, but this doesn't hit home because he had a choice and knew the possible consequences. If the resorts should do anything, it's keep gapers on the greens!:FIREdevil

hutash
04-07-2007, 02:40 PM
I once fell on a groomer, because there was a little ripple where two cat tracks met. I don't think there was an engineering report about the effects of two cat tracks meeting. I got a bruise, do you think I should sue?

A couple of points here;

1) This did not cost the resort a dime; aside from the deductible, it costs them a fortune with every premium payment.

2) This should have been an engineered jump; what the fuck do engineers know about skiing. The jump changes minute to minute as snow conditions, temps, wind speed and direction changes, just to name a few influences. I would trust a good cat operator's jump more than an engineer's. Besides, this guy was an engineering student, and a lot of good it did him.

3) Everybody loses here, resort, insurance company, and the paralyzed guy; agreed, but there are a few attorneys that profited nicely.

WICS
04-07-2007, 02:51 PM
People who sue ski areas should be shot

Hear that.

Let's go: the entire court, legal, regulatory, insurance system should be shot. Wait... did I just think that out loud? I take it back, I take it all back.

Jasonsalvo -- did you hit that airness 37 feet UP, too?

Sounds like if he got that HIGH UP, then he didn't size up the jump right. But if muffed it with 37 feet of LENGTH, then whole case and plaintiff counsel took advantage of the system. Maybe he was 8-10 feet up? Backseat prior to takeoff -- er, huh?

If that accident befell to me, my Monday-morning-QB'ing here probably would prolly turn into lawsuit, too. Still feel hella sorry for the skier.

Jasonsalvo-- how much did it snow (or conditions change) in the weeks with 10 accidents, as that would give us a better feel for what changes the mountain was making? Maybe the mountain made the election to PROACTIVELY MAINTAIN THE JUMP "AS IS" BECAUSE A PRIORI IT WAS ALREADY PERFECT.

I say the answer is a polychromatic one: if you can, do put some personal insurance into your "quiver", and if you cannot, don't default to suing. On the other side (as valid), resorts have to come up with a formula that works -- engineers, processes, standards, safety, riders (the other meaning), and separate fees.

Anyone have a problem with what TyeStick showed here (it seems to be good middle-ground):

Stevens pass is most likely instituting a park pass system next year, 5 bucks and a safety seminar with a waiver gets you a card. Then no more gapers-tourons or clueless people will be suing the resorts because of their own actions.
I love the idea of fencing off the parks (all due respect) literally, legally, and financially, so that more resources go away from parks and to the rest of the mountain where I like to be. :tongue: Even make it a separate business insurance deal for easter's sake.

Bring on the: "STFU JONG, you are non-commital, weak sauce!!" :fuckyou:

I am not even sure which of these question we are focusing on most:

1. Should people sue resorts? For accidents on natural features? For accidents in parks?

2. Should resorts operate under the belief that they have some responsibility to help keep skiers and boarders safe (whether in parks or not)? Should resorts buy any insurance at all?

3. When standing at the top of anything to be hucked, what thoughts are going through our heads?:

"Photo-slutting on the interweb soon, baby, WOO OOO..." AND/OR

"Fack, my '03 Got's would have been much better than these mank spat's for the land to turn finish", AND/OR

"I wish I had picked up that call from my insr broker on Thursday and topped up on my coverage", AND/OR

"If I Gosey myself here, how the hell will the help come, can I help myself, and who's gonna pay for it if it's real, real bad?" :confused:

Speaking of gosey, paging ....

Slaying the concrete sidewalks of manhattan in my pumas today,
-WICS

(My infantile post count is rockin' it today, yeah baby!!!!!)

Edit: Should skier sue if tears ACL? If loses a finger? If loses an eye? Where is the line for suing?

Edit: skiing backseat -- er, huh?

Edit: engineers alone with no judgment should not build parks. Need to have input of more (non-engineering) people, such as cat op's, trollers and riders. But an unspoken benefit of having engineers hang around as company staff is that it might give plaintiff some pause prior to suing.

booner
04-07-2007, 03:10 PM
That's shitty that he was injured so bad...but it's his fault, not the resort. If you aren't a very solid skiiiiier/boarder keep your ass away from hits until you are more than capable of holding your own in the air...then huck away. A skilled skiiiiier/rider knows how fast to go just by looking at the hit for a second. I've always had a very strong opinion as far as this goes...seeing dipshit after dipshit hucking in the park or cliffs and going way too fast, out of control and being in the backseat the whole time. It's amazing to me that people don't get injured badly more often than they do. This is the new trend unfortunately now that it is "cool" to be in the park...so every retard that thinks they have to be "cool" does their learning in the park rather than learning how to actually rip first. It's such a shame cause most of these kids/beginners will never develop any skills since they never see a fall line.

The AD
04-07-2007, 03:18 PM
2) This should have been an engineered jump; what the fuck do engineers know about skiing. The jump changes minute to minute as snow conditions, temps, wind speed and direction changes, just to name a few influences. I would trust a good cat operator's jump more than an engineer's. Besides, this guy was an engineering student, and a lot of good it did him.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here.

waxman
04-07-2007, 03:23 PM
what if he had been quadded wrestling? what then? because he knew the risks wrestling he would suck it up like a man but because he decided to launch himself the ski areas insurance pays out....super crapola

and veryone keeps calling him a kid he's 23.....

VodKat
04-07-2007, 04:04 PM
Interesting thread..

1. I agree with some of the posts here that you need to scope a jump out before you hit it. He might have skied within his limits but it's also possible HE made a mistake.
2. I've night skied at Central before and unless it's snowing, you're dealing with hard packed/ icy conditions.
3. I believe Summit in CA makes skier/ snowboarders pay an extra fee inorder for you to go into the park, where all the big jumps are. Not sure if they still do it though. It was a separate lift ticket.
3. If you use engineers and computers to establish the design of a jump, then how do you guarantee that the skier/ snowboarder hit the jump with those specific specifications. So are you saying they should post signs next to jumps with speed limits or ranges? All park rats should ride or ski with a speedometer? and if you don't approach a jump at the right speed, should the resorts design something that will allow you to abort the jump?

Everyone lose except for the lawyers and that SUX.

Just my dos pesos.

Cliff Huckable
04-07-2007, 04:26 PM
Is there anyone here who actually KNOWS whether or not this REALLY sets any kind of precedent that will affect similar future cases?

People saying "this is very bad for the future of terrain parks" and such, but are comments like that based on a thorough knowledge of how the legal system works, or are they just based on watching Law & Order and reading Hardy Boys books?

I'd like to know if it will really have an affect.

"That's him, Frank!"
"So he's responsible for Mystery of the Sloppy Jump!"
"No, that's the fellow who stole my Karmas and my weed from our auto, Frank. Don't you ever listen to me?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/fistsofoak/hardyboyscabin.jpg

YetiMan
04-07-2007, 04:41 PM
Once people get to know me they realise I'm only a super douchebag asshole, not a super-duper King Kong douchebag asshole fuckface. I don't make good first impressions.

that made me laugh

bossass
04-07-2007, 05:18 PM
If you think it's good the ski area is getting hosed, you are a hoser.

Every piece of terrain, or terrain feature, has a way it's intended to get skied. The tight, steep trees skiers left of top chair lift line at Alpental: if I come maching into those making huge GS turns and I tag a tree, should I be able to sue because Alpental didn't engineer a properly gladed ski run? F-that.

This guy hurt himself landing hard on "compact snow and ice". WTF do you think terrain parks are built of, fluffy bunnies? The article said the jump featured "a short landing area". What's the problem here? So, it had a landing area. In this case the dude is totally at fault (let me add in here I feel terrible for him being paralyzed). Maybe if they resort had built a large ramp that dropped you 40ft to flat, there would be some merit here, but I don't think that's what happened.

When you ski, no matter what you are doing, you are figuring the physics of whatever you are about to do. Say I always hit jumps at 60mph. No matter what. Well, then yes, any normally built table that's less than say, 90-100ft, is going to feature "a short landing area". I've seen jumps with short, steep landings that pop you in the air high. I CHECK THEM OUT FIRST and if I'm not confident I can hit the transition or come near it, I don't hit the jump. Have any of you ever wakeboarded? It's alot like hitting a table when you jump a wake. If you come up short, you land on top, flat part of the wake. It jolts you. When you go too big and land in the flats, it jolts you. But when you hit it just right and set it down on the wave of the wake, it's like hitting the landing of a table. This guy put it into the flats, something I could do with every jump--and every ramp to a rail or the starting hump at the beginning of the park, for that matter--at Mt. Hood Meadows if I wanted to. Would you guys be singing the same tune if they built a gap jump and this dude came up short and fell in the gap? Or what if someone drowned in one of those skimming ponds for the spring contests?


I'm not assigning any blame on the ski area until I see pics of this "terrible jump" and I dont' think you all should be so quick to either. I don't think Summit has retards building their jumps. They have been building parks for years and regularly get good reviews, because they put focus on the their parks and pour resouces into them, unlike say Alta.

Seriously, I can't believe this is even an argument here. You guys should know better. All terrain parks have bad jumps with flat landings or crooked takeoffs or whatever. You don't hit those ones. And you think shit's bad now??? Did anyone here ever hit a park 10 years ago. Maybe in the midwest? Talk about eyeballing and poorly built jumps.

Snow Dog
04-07-2007, 05:21 PM
Since this has similar theme to an accident in Whistler in 2000:

$2.9m award in snowboard accident (July 2003)

A B.C. Supreme Court jury awarded Richmond university student Travis Murao $2.9 million in damages yesterday in a personal-injury lawsuit.

Murao, now a quadriplegic, had sued his teachers, his school district and the Blackcomb Mountain ski resort for injuries he suffered on a snowboard jump during a high-school outing in January 2000.

The jury found Blackcomb 70 per cent responsible for the accident, Richmond School District 15 per cent liable and Murao himself 15 per cent to blame.

What the jury didn't know was that 10 days before the trial, Murao settled with Blackcomb for an undisclosed sum.

That makes it unclear how much the 20-year-old university student will actually get. His lawyer wouldn't disclose terms of the Blackcomb settlement.

Equally unclear is the depth of the chill the finding of responsibility against the school district will have on future school outings in B.C. The case was being closely watched by many districts.

Murao was 17 and a novice snowboarder when he attempted the 4.5-metre jump that his teachers had approved.

Instead of clearing it, he fell awkwardly on his head, broke his neck and severely damaged his spinal cord -- leaving him confined to a wheelchair for life.

"I'm disappointed," Murao said yesterday after letting the verdict sink in.

"They found the school somewhat responsible," he said. "But I'm a little disappointed in the percentage liability they found."

Murao was unhappy, he said, with the jury's finding that the school district was 15 per cent liable, meaning it will eventually have to pay Murao about $500,000.

And he was doubly unhappy at being equally blamed himself.

"[I hoped] once they looked at the whole picture, they would find things a bit different. I'm happy on one hand and sad on the [other], I guess."

His lawyer, Joe Murphy, said the teachers were found to be negligent for failing to warn their students that Terrain Park could be dangerous.

"There were special dangers for kids who were inexperienced snowboarders," said Murphy.

"The key to Travis's accident is [that] at the time of the accident, he was allowed to do everything he did.

"But Travis, as a 17-year-old, didn't understand how dangerous it was. The teacher in charge did, but did nothing in warning Travis."

Murphy had asked for $5 million in damages.

"The kids were allowed to do everything and anything, as long as they stayed in bounds and stayed with their friends," said Murphy. "And Travis, at the time of the accident, was following one of his friends over a large jump.

"He thought he could do the jump, but couldn't. At the last moment, when he realized he was over his head, he tried to slow down or stop. But it was too late."

The school district's lawyer, Carla Forth, said she felt Blackcomb was chiefly responsible.

During the trial, she argued that the school district was only five per cent to blame and that total damages should be $1.7 million.

"We will accept the verdict of the jury in this," said Forth, noting that she herself had requested a jury trial. "We are pleased that the individually named teachers were not found liable."

Murao is now a second-year arts student at the University of B.C. and had at one time wanted to be a lawyer. Yesterday, he said he wasn't sure about anything -- and just wanted to sleep.

Meanwhile, the finding of responsibility on the part of the school district sets a legal precedent that could scare other districts away from sponsoring trips.

Forth said that a number of school districts in B.C. were following the six-week trial closely. Now that a district has been found negligent for injuries sustained by a student on a school outing, she said there are ramifications for schools.

"We will have to see whether school districts will continue ski-trip programs," she said. "These ski trips had run for 20 years at Hugh Boyd Secondary School and we never felt that they were run inappropriately."

Murao says he has no regrets about putting liability in school field trips to the test.

"I think it's just important that these trips are run safely," he said. "And any risks are minimized. I think that's an important thing that came out in the trial."

Added Murphy: "This case wasn't about changing field trips. It was about making them safe.

"No kid on a school trip should be put at an unnecessary risk."

Snowboard judgment a wakeup call to ski areas
WHISTLER -- Some B.C. ski resorts are tightening access to their facilities after Whistler-Blackcomb was found 70-per-cent responsible for a snowboarding accident which left a high-school student in a wheelchair.

"Certainly this will make us more closely investigate who we let on our apparatus," said vice-president of Big White and Silver Star, Michael Ballingall, referring to common terrain-park obstacles.

"In the past, if you wanted to go on a mailbox or a rail or a rainbow or a jump, we left it up to the individual.

"Now we would probably think of closing those areas off and possibly even [requiring] another pass for those areas."

On Saturday, a Supreme Court jury in Vancouver awarded 20-year-old Travis Murao $2.9 million in damages after he sued his teachers, Richmond school district and Whistler-Blackcomb for the injuries he suffered after falling off a 4.5-metre snowboard jump during a high-school outing in 2000.

The novice snowboarder settled out of court with the Whistler-Blackcomb, but the jury concluded the mountains bore the majority of the blame.

The case was a hot topic at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Ski Council yesterday in Toronto, said Ballingall, a member of the council.

He said it's likely some ski areas will introduce a more rigorous program to identify skill levels of groups skiing on the mountains in a bid to keep kids in areas appropriate for their ability.

Blackcomb now has a special pass and waiver system for users in the expert Highest Level Terrain Park. All skiers and snowboarders must also wear a helmet in this park.

The mountains also told schools that a person had to be a level-four snowboarder -- capable of making turns and stopping -- before trying the terrain park, and a level-six boarder before trying the jumps.

Doug Forseth, senior vice-president of operations for Whistler-Blackcomb, said he plans to meet with school districts to discuss how to prevent another incident. That might mean all school kids would have to take lessons before they head up the mountain by themselves, he said. Currently only elementary students must take lessons.

"The school program needs to be looked at now that we have seen this [Supreme Court] judgment," said Forseth.

davep
04-07-2007, 06:08 PM
Engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis, testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area

This is the part that scares me. WTF do engineers and an aeronautics professor know about tabletop jumps?

Are tabletops really 'engineered' with CAD programs and simulations? I had the impression they were always eyeballed by somebody who's built a lot of jumps.

L7
04-07-2007, 06:52 PM
My understanding and memory of that Whistler injury is that the kid had hardly snowboarded at all. What's more his school buddies had goaded him into taking the jump despite his inexperience. So what I don't get is why he never named any of the gang goading him into it in the suit other than the obvious lack of money. That one didn't really change much although it shut down school ski trips out of Vancouver for a year or more. Lots of small hills felt that.

I agree that terrain parks should be attached to some higher orientation/education/profieciency test. Also terrain park users should bear the extra cost of building maintaining and clearing the carnage.

Waxman, Do you think that terrain park had a referee, safety equipment, coaches and intensive training before they partcipated? Not to mention safety equipment like helmets and mats. That's the difference with someone accepting the risks of wrestling vs terrain park. Terrain parks are free for alls where jumps are designed to get inverts and users may well not know enough to even recognize the risks.

If a guy accepted the risk of wrestling and an opponent perform an illegal move that paralysed him and the coach taught him the move, ref had seen him try it and didn't respond... do you think there would be lawsuits then? Injured playing football due to faulty equipment or poor supervision... bet there'd be lawsuits then too.

Do I think the hill should have been sued? I don't think the hill should have been stupid enough to allow an inevitable, unsupervised injury with the inevitable lawsuit to happen in the first place. Terrain Parks as they operate now are carnage waiting to happen and where there's carnage there's sure to be lawsuits.

BigAirSkier1580
04-07-2007, 06:53 PM
"But Travis, as a 17-year-old, didn't understand how dangerous it was. The teacher in charge did, but did nothing in warning Travis."

A 17 year old can't look at something and realize it is dangerous by looking at it?

Good riddance I say.

WICS
04-07-2007, 07:05 PM
"Our TERRAIN PARK is like nothing you have skied before! It is huge. You could become lost. You could make a mistake and suffer personal injury or death. Give this special TERRAIN PARK the respect it demands!"

Thanks, Snow Dog. For me, your articles revealed a huge additional question: should advanced terrain parks be strictly off limits FOR BEGINNERS? (And if so, how should a resort accomplish that -- a separate pass, or a sufficiently explicit Big Warning Sign for Beginners and lots of netting/fencing?)

Experts know what to do (duh); maybe beginners have not been taught what to do (that's why they're beginners).


"Murao was 17 and a NOVICE snowboarder when he attempted the 4.5-metre jump..."
Since NONE of us on this board consider ourselves beginners/novices, is it fair to say that it might be hard for us to relate to this key issue?

It may be case that beginners just don't know how dangerous certain aspects of skiing can be:

1. Beginners haven't been adequately warned (learning the easy way),

2. They probably haven't been injured from skiing even mildly before (learning the hard way),

3. They haven't watched copious amounts of ski porn like us, and

4. They MIGHT be people that mostly read (all due respect), played in the band (much respect), took drama/debate club (mad respect), and are unfit and unathletic (with poor propioceptive skills, whatever et al).

All in all, I lean more into the Personal Responsibility camp. But I also am starting to think about and maybe (BIG F'ING MAYBE) sympathize with beginners who haven't been clued into the sport's dangers AS WE ALL HAVE BEEN THROUGH MANY YEARS OF FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE.



If you think it's good the ski area is getting hosed, you are a hoser.
True dat.



When you ski, no matter what you are doing, you are figuring the physics of whatever you are about to do.
Bossass- I am thinking about this one. Not disagreeing, but maybe there's additional angle, which is the beginner's POV. Maybe a total beginner's premise is that the mountain has full responsibility to look out for his/her safety (shyte attitude, I know), and that any failure is a breach by the mountain of that codified/uncodified covenant. Maybe that's one of the many (but not the only) reasons why resorts purchase insurance.

Kya
04-07-2007, 07:26 PM
Damn, the next time I'm on recess duty I guess I got to walk around the playground and make sure every kid knows all the dangers and risks of every piece of playground equipment.

"Bobby, did you know you can fall off that swing?"

"Jenny, did you know you can fall from the monkey bars?"

"Dude did you know you can ride that twisty slide switch....all the way to the road?"

That's like totally fucked up!

Jer
04-07-2007, 08:20 PM
All in all, I lean more into the Personal Responsibility camp. But I also am starting to think about and maybe (BIG F'ING MAYBE) sympathize with beginners who haven't been clued into the sport's dangers AS WE ALL HAVE BEEN THROUGH MANY YEARS OF FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE.


Yeah - HUGE F'ING MAYBE. I was a beginner once - the only "clueing in" to the sport's dangers I ever recieved was a short lesson on how to snow plow. Yet here I am decades later still able to walk. Then again, not all beginners are brain-dead morons.

The instances cited in this thread are basically Darwin Awards candidates. Unfortunately this type of behavior, instead of being rightly ridiculed, is being accepted by an increasingly pussified American society. Instead of taking thier lumps and figuring out things for themselves, morons are instead being coddled and having thier little hand held through every second of thier retarded exsistence. And if they do happen to get a boo-boo, they have every right to sue somebody else for injuries sustained as a direct result of thier own stupidity. The result of this pussification is that idiots are relying less and less on thier own brains and more and more on others protecting them from the dangers of the world (and themselves, for that matter). I have absolutely zero sympathy for any of these guys.

mdp
04-07-2007, 09:01 PM
People shooting ski areas should be sued.

Lone Star
04-07-2007, 09:34 PM
from talking with some of the cat drivers who build the park at one of the resorts in colorado, I got no indication that there was any sort of engineering design. instead, the cat driver gets the leeway to work it the way he feels fit. but he also gets to be the guinea pig.

Ghost
04-07-2007, 09:44 PM
I once fell on a groomer, because there was a little ripple where two cat tracks met. I don't think there was an engineering report about the effects of two cat tracks meeting. I got a bruise, do you think I should sue?

A couple of points here;

1) This did not cost the resort a dime; aside from the deductible, it costs them a fortune with every premium payment.

2) This should have been an engineered jump; what the fuck do engineers know about skiing. The jump changes minute to minute as snow conditions, temps, wind speed and direction changes, just to name a few influences. I would trust a good cat operator's jump more than an engineer's. Besides, this guy was an engineering student, and a lot of good it did him.

3) Everybody loses here, resort, insurance company, and the paralyzed guy; agreed, but there are a few attorneys that profited nicely.
I've been reading through this thread and haven't gotten to the end yet, but this is too much.

It doesn't take an engineer, anyone with high school physics can figure it out.
If you built a jump where a skier could get up enough speed to clear the landing area, you fucked up!

PS. If you can't tell how far your going to end up, you shouldn't be jumping it either.

The AD
04-07-2007, 09:55 PM
Are tabletops really 'engineered' with CAD programs and simulations? I had the impression they were always eyeballed by somebody who's built a lot of jumps.

I'm not sure what they use, but I know there's at least one company that designs parks professionally: http://www.planetsnowtools.com/

fluffballs
04-07-2007, 10:35 PM
To put the '8 injuries in the previous weeks' argument into perspective, it is routine to for us to run 50-60 calls on a Saturday. 15-20 of those will have occured in our terrain parks. I work at a flat resort in tahoe....

iceman
04-07-2007, 11:35 PM
Whatever, that dude needs cash just to live, most of it came out of the insurance company (don't lecture me, I understand the issues), it's as decent a resolution to a difficult problem as you're gonna get.

Hurts everybody in the long run, but this guy didn't set out to hurt himself and now he needs help.

Should the guy be denied all benefits because he made a bad move?

Do you want that rule applied to you?

splat
04-07-2007, 11:39 PM
I'm not sure what they use, but I know there's at least one company that designs parks professionally: http://www.planetsnowtools.com/

I bet they're thinking about upping the limits on their policy right about now...

sea2ski
04-08-2007, 12:08 AM
Whatever, that dude needs cash just to live, most of it came out of the insurance company (don't lecture me, I understand the issues), it's as decent a resolution to a difficult problem as you're gonna get.

Hurts everybody in the long run, but this guy didn't set out to hurt himself and now he needs help.

Should the guy be denied all benefits because he made a bad move?

Do you want that rule applied to you?

Yeah, some people around here need to go visit a family friend who ended up getting paralyzed from the neck down in a skiing accident. He's currently a ward of the state because he didn't sue.

boredboiseboy
04-08-2007, 01:18 AM
So, heres a qeustion for you all: If a park makes say, a 20 foot kicker, properly engineered, but during the day the people who are supposed to keep the jumps maintained are fucking off, and the ramp becomes dipped so deep it launches you too far up and people start getting injured..should they be held liable?

KansasBoarder
04-08-2007, 02:10 AM
Interesting you cite this, because the McDonalds case is always used as an example of frivolous personal injury lawsuits when the facts are actually more interesting than most people realize. This wasn't the first time this had happened. McDonalds was brewing their coffee at an unsafe temperature and they knew it. They just wanted to have the hottest coffee safety be damned. Take a look here: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

Hahaha, how'd I know that throwin' that McDonald's reference in there would come back to get me - I should have stayed true to my promise to be too hungover and too stupid to talk law.

HOWEVER (preparing my foot for seconds), the fact that McDonald's coffee "burned more than 700 people from 1982-1992" combined with the fact that Mcdonald's daily coffee revenue is "1.3 million" proves to me NOT that Mcdonald's coffee is extraordinarly dangerous, but that of the 2 million or so people who drink Mcdonald's coffee everyday, over the course of 4015 days, or 9,030,000,000 total cups of coffee served, only .00000775% of the consumers suffered burns.

PRETTY DAMN GOOD IF YOU ASKED ME!

As for the topic at hand, I hardly think that opening an (assumed worst case scenario) "ad hoc" 25 foot jump to the public even resembles the shady nature of serving 170-180 degree coffee.

I guess it all comes down to this - if you're drinking coffee, do so at your own risk, and if you're skiing, don't hit jumps - play in the leftovers on the side of the park or catch some soul turns in the BC.

bbirtle
04-08-2007, 06:22 AM
Reading the original news report I was thinking "this is another example of something very wrong with America." Do people not realize how restricted our freedom is in American because of these stupid lawsuits? "Land of the free" huh? Well because of crap like this it's quickly becoming the land where you can't build a swimming pool in your backyard without also building a 10ft high fence and taking out liability insurance, the land where you have little freedom to ski where you want, for the resort's fear you could sue them for hurting yourself, soon the land without terrain parks, and worst of all, the LAND OF COLD COFFEE. :mad:

A guy here already posted, FIRST HAND, that he rode the same jump and found it to be safe. Even if it was "defective", this isn't like a car where just the act of driving injures you. Jumps like this, especially the huge sizes involved in this case, are all very serious and without exercising a lot of caution you WILL injure yourself. Even WITH a lot of caution, there's a good chance you'll injure yourself. In all cases, it's not the resort's fault it's yours. If you want to do something safe, go ski a green run and STFU.

cj001f
04-08-2007, 06:34 AM
so WTF are you people paying for at a ski area?

$78 a day for the resort to accept absolutely no responsibility?

They fuck up the terrain park - your fault. They don't sign hazards in the middle of a trail - your fault. They can't be bothered to do proper avy control - your fault.

I'm more than willing to accept resonsibilty for my own actions. Paying $78 a day to ride a lift and ski groom trails and parks etc. that they advertise, but they accept no resp. for?

FUCK THAT!



Yeah, some people around here need to go visit a family friend who ended up getting paralyzed from the neck down in a skiing accident. He's currently a ward of the state because he didn't sue.

It's basic economic reality. They can't afford their medical care - neither could 99% of the spewers on this thread if they were seriously injured.

powder11
04-08-2007, 06:53 AM
anyone faced with life as a quadrapalegic is going to sue for medical expenses. everyone here would do the same, so STFU.

AltaPowderDaze
04-08-2007, 07:32 AM
my opinion is the resort has a responsibility to its guests to mark or remove hazards on the groomers as well as those that are man made near the groomers. freestyle terrain is mostly experts only. resorts typically put their beginner park separate from their big park. jumps are identified by their creator as to the ability level. it's your responsibility to ride within your ability level. in addition to teh skiers responsibility code we have this in my state:
Utah Law provides that as a “skier” you assume the risk and accept the responsibility for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of skiing, which include, but are not limited to:

1. Changing weather conditions
2. Variations or steepness in terrain
3. Snow or ice conditions
4. Surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, impact with lift towers and other structures and their components
5. Collisions with other skiers, users or persons
6. A skier’s failure to ski within his own ability

all that said, i'm a proponent of education for park riders. day tickets should sign park specific waivers that include park etiquette. season pass holders should have some sort of short class that includes etiquette to qualify them for the park. it'd could be a simple endorsement on the pass but it would cut out a lot of the simple park collisions and people hitting big air blind to the condition.

if this type of court precedent continues we are all going to be backcountry skiiers.

cj001f
04-08-2007, 08:15 AM
everyone here would do the same, so STFU.

naw, some aren't that bright

Kya
04-08-2007, 08:16 AM
Yeah, but not being able to pay for these extreme medical costs is part of the consequences and part of the individual taking responsibility for his actions. That should be part of the decision making process. Obviously, he didn't think of that first.

It just bothers me that he didn't have to hit the kicker. It wasn't a mandatory air. He wanted to hit the kicker. He got hurt. It was his choice to ski that day, his choice to hit the kicker, his choice to hit the kicker just right, too slow, or too fast. Nobody forced him to do anything. Now he blames his decision on the resort, and the dude who built the kicker rather then admitting he FUCKED UP BIG TIME. I guess that is the real issue here. People can't admit when they screw up.

I see it every day, every year in my classroom where kids have no concept of taking responsibility for what they do. Then the parents step in and find blame in everyone but their own child.

hemas
04-08-2007, 08:40 AM
all that said, i'm a proponent of education for park riders. day tickets should sign park specific waivers that include park etiquette. season pass holders should have some sort of short class that includes etiquette to qualify them for the park. it'd could be a simple endorsement on the pass but it would cut out a lot of the simple park collisions and people hitting big air blind to the condition.

if this type of court precedent continues we are all going to be backcountry skiiers.

I agree, and then also give 'trollers the right to take your pass away, if you're fuggin' around in the park (ie. a 7 year old kid, skiing in the park... and not doing tricks, just skiing there. Though, in this case you should really take the pass from his/her parents.).

Like said, ~25 feet of flat to 77 feet of LZ is not dangerous, it's rather common size for a small / middle sized table top. It would have been "bad" if they would have built rails or such starting just after the LZ, so if you fall... you'll ragdoll into the rail.

hemas
04-08-2007, 08:48 AM
Yeah, but not being able to pay for these extreme medical costs is part of the consequences and part of the individual taking responsibility for his actions. That should be part of the decision making process. Obviously, he didn't think of that first.

It just bothers me that he didn't have to hit the kicker. It wasn't a mandatory air. He wanted to hit the kicker. He got hurt. It was his choice to ski that day, his choice to hit the kicker, his choice to hit the kicker just right, too slow, or too fast. Nobody forced him to do anything. Now he blames his decision on the resort, and the dude who built the kicker rather then admitting he FUCKED UP BIG TIME. I guess that is the real issue here. People can't admit when they screw up.

I see it every day, every year in my classroom where kids have no concept of taking responsibility for what they do. Then the parents step in and find blame in everyone but their own child.

Bingo...

And BTW. even I can afford to have 3 different insurancies for travel and sports (and I'm pretty poor student), plus the ones I have for my house & car.

All I can say, that I couldn't have had my knee repaired by one of the best ortho's in the country, unless I had my insurance. The bill just from the op was over 5000 € (new ACL plus meniscus repair).

And guess what, I broke my knee in a small resort... jumped off a small drop-down left in the groomer by a snowcat. Landed in the backseat, and a few bigger chunks of ice deflected my leg, and hey presto... My knee is mangled. It didn't even accure to me for a single second to sue or bitch to the resort peeps... I just picked my ski and skied one-legged down to my car and drove for the ER to show my leg.

Basicly the same thing as with this dude, though his damage was much more severe. Still, he made the decission to jump, as I did.

BSS
04-08-2007, 09:39 AM
so WTF are you people paying for at a ski area?

$78 a day for the resort to accept absolutely no responsibility?



Uh.... NO! That $78 doesn't buy "responsibility." That $78 buys you the privilege of being able to also buy $5 cups of coffee, $15 hamburgers, and shitty overpriced $100 Dakine gloves in the "pro shop." You get the luxury of being herded through the lift lines like cattle while the lift breaks down every ninth chair, and the right to be treated like dog shit by the minimum wage earning liftie whose day you've managed to so rudely interrupt by coming "Skiiing." Did I mention you are also purchasing the experience of slogging your kids through a shitty, muddy, unpaved, no-drainage parking lot (likely engineered by the same burnout that built the terrain park) 3/4 of a mile from the $78 ticket booth? If you wish to also purchase the responsibility part, you've gotta pony up the extra $50 for the cat skiiing. ;)

3eyedsmiley
04-08-2007, 11:06 AM
A guy here already posted, FIRST HAND, that he rode the same jump and found it to be safe. Even if it was "defective", this isn't like a car where just the act of driving injures you. Jumps like this, especially the huge sizes involved in this case, are all very serious and without exercising a lot of caution you WILL injure yourself. Even WITH a lot of caution, there's a good chance you'll injure yourself.
the guy did it a week after the accident, just to point that out. they could have altered it from how it was when the guy got injured. yeah i agree with you that jumps that huge are very serious, and should be taken that way. i think blackcomb is taking the right way where they pay for passes into the really high level parks to keep the gapers away, but id oubt that snoqualmie would implement that given its success with giving out bc passes...

anyone who thinks that it isnt dangerous needs to look at simon dumont's overshoot of the huge tabletop again. one of the best skiers alive taking a straight air off of a tabletop, next thing you know he is splatting into the flats at full speed.

cj001f
04-08-2007, 11:52 AM
Yeah, but not being able to pay for these extreme medical costs is part of the consequences and part of the individual taking responsibility for his actions. That should be part of the decision making process. Obviously, he didn't think of that first.

how much d&d insurance do you carry on that soapbox? you sure theyll pay out? you sure your family will be able to take care of you for the 40+ years after you become a vegetable? Or is "responsibilty" becoming a ward of the state because you dont have the resources or persons to care for you - like most of the country.


Uh.... NO! That $78 doesn't buy "responsibility." That $78 buys you the privilege of being able to also buy $5 cups of coffee, $15 hamburgers, and shitty overpriced $100 Dakine gloves in the "pro shop." You get the luxury of being herded through the lift lines like cattle while the lift breaks down every ninth chair, and the right to be treated like dog shit by the minimum wage earning liftie whose day you've managed to so rudely interrupt by coming "Skiiing." Did I mention you are also purchasing the experience of slogging your kids through a shitty, muddy, unpaved, no-drainage parking lot (likely engineered by the same burnout that built the terrain park) 3/4 of a mile from the $78 ticket booth? If you wish to also purchase the responsibility part, you've gotta pony up the extra $50 for the cat skiiing. ;)

bwah!

I think you forgot the "are you interested in purchasing a timeshare at the Mountain Club?" ;)

Jer
04-08-2007, 12:12 PM
Whatever, that dude needs cash just to live, most of it came out of the insurance company (don't lecture me, I understand the issues), it's as decent a resolution to a difficult problem as you're gonna get.


I agree that this is as decent a resolution as you're going to get, but it's still a horrible resolution. Sooner or later, we're all going to end up wrapped in bubble-wrap and required by law to stay on our couches because something bad might happen otherwise.


so WTF are you people paying for at a ski area?

$78 a day for the resort to accept absolutely no responsibility?

They fuck up the terrain park - your fault. They don't sign hazards in the middle of a trail - your fault. They can't be bothered to do proper avy control - your fault.

I'm more than willing to accept resonsibilty for my own actions. Paying $78 a day to ride a lift and ski groom trails and parks etc. that they advertise, but they accept no resp. for?

FUCK THAT!



So you accept responsibility for your actions, yet you expect someone to hold your hand because you paid $78? While I pay no where near $78 to ride lifts, I do pay. Does this entitle me to turn off my brain? I pay to ride the lifts instead of skinning, not so that I can have some kind of fake, safe amusement park experience. Weak...

StaggerLee
04-08-2007, 12:15 PM
A sad testimony to the current state of affairs in our society...where's the accountability on the rider's part??? Regardless of how dangerous the conditions were/were not, its on the rider to make sure he/she understands the risks associated with the maneuver. As a pilot, you are responsible to "gather all available information" prior to embarking upon a flight. It is always your responsibity to avoid terrain and traffic. If we all used this approach in our skiing and boarding shit like this wouldn't result in these types of rewards...I say crucify the attorney for taking this case.

cj001f
04-08-2007, 12:23 PM
not so that I can have some kind of fake, safe amusement park experience. Weak...

thats what they give you in America, thats what they aim to provide in America, thats what people want in America (despite the protests on this board - until someone gets nabbed :rolleyes: ), thats what they charge you for in America.

Its not what I want, but Im not going to be able to change what America wants or can handle.

birdman829
04-08-2007, 12:41 PM
Some resorts already have some sort of certification before people go into certain parks don't they? Its inevitable that all resorts will have this sometime in the not so distant future. Assuming that the temperatures are still cold enough to have ski resorts in the near future :fm:

focus
04-08-2007, 12:44 PM
The resort was stupid. Somebody broke their back on that same jump the week before. I don't care whose fault the broken back was, the resort needed to modify the jump, get it OK'd by some kind of expert that courts would recognize, or scrap it -- and document everything. They can't afford to ignore such a serious injury for this very reason. They need to prove that they're being responsible, and making a good faith effort to maintain a certain level of safety for their customers. It looks like they couldn't. As others have said, it isn't the fact that some guy hurt himself in the terrain park. That isn't what it comes down to. If the resort had their shit straight they (or their insurance company) probably wouldn't be shelling out $14M.

As to the coffee thing, I don't remember who was talking about it...it isn't about the percentage of people who burned themselves, it's that mcdonalds was in violation, had been informed of the violation, had been directed to decrease the temperature of the coffee, and didn't.

coldrain85
04-08-2007, 01:21 PM
It sucks that the dude was badly injured.

Park rats, or anyone who likes to huck big jumps/cliffs, need to have some level of personal responsibility. The term "personal responsibility" doesn't seem to have much meaning in this country. That's why skiing out of bounds will get you arrested in the US. That's why hucking big cliffs on ski resort property in the US will get you arrested as well. Bottom line, it's too easy to sue in this country. One of many reasons why I would leave for a job in Switzerland, if I could find one.

Starting at a lower speed and testing the landing first = smart.

Going balls out on some strange jump that you have never hit before = stupid.

Keeping an ill designed jump open that has wiped out several other park rats in the days prior to this accident = lawsuit worthy, at least in the US.

I don't think I'm out of line by saying that the average park rat is not a very proficient skier/snowboarder to begin with. They also tend to be younger, and therefore take more risks. I'm glad that the parks are there to absorb the jibbers and keep them off the ski slopes. In light of lawsuits like this though, I don't see much of a future for the terrain parks. Smaller jumps, and no parks altogether at some resorts who can't afford a lawsuit. I think 50' tabletops will be a thing of the past before too long. It's probably for the best.

hutash
04-08-2007, 01:47 PM
Last year at Mammoth the park rats hit the same jump thousands of times. Most landed it fine, a few screwed up but over all it appears to be a very safe jump. Whether it was designed by an engineer, or eye-balled by a cat driver, I don't know, but it appeared to be a "safe jump". One kid hits it too hot over shoots the LZ, and lands it flat, smacks his head (no Helmet) and died. Who is responsible? Should his family sue? If he didn't die, but was paralyzed, would a law suit be okay? Since even a well designed, "engineered", jump, rail, box, or groomer can still be skied in an unsafe manner, is it the resorts "responsibility" to provide for him if fucks up?

Similar situation, different out come, who is responsible? And don't just say it doesn't matter, because the insurance company is paying for it anyways. I have to carry tons of insurances in various forms, and I am sick as fuck of having to pay high premiums, to both support insurance execs., and fuck ups who don't carry insurance, and expect me or the state to support them.

hemas
04-08-2007, 02:05 PM
Last year at Mammoth the park rats hit the same jump thousands of times. Most landed it fine, a few screwed up but over all it appears to be a very safe jump. Whether it was designed by an engineer, or eye-balled by a cat driver, I don't know, but it appeared to be a "safe jump". One kid hits it too hot over shoots the LZ, and lands it flat, smacks his head (no Helmet) and died. Who is responsible? Should his family sue? If he didn't die, but was paralyzed, would a law suit be okay? Since even a well designed, "engineered", jump, rail, box, or groomer can still be skied in an unsafe manner, is it the resorts "responsibility" to provide for him if fucks up?

Similar situation, different out come, who is responsible? And don't just say it doesn't matter, because the insurance company is paying for it anyways. I have to carry tons of insurances in various forms, and I am sick as fuck of having to pay high premiums, to both support insurance execs., and fuck ups who don't carry insurance, and expect me or the state to support them.

As sad that it is... Pilot error, as it also seems to be on the W/BC and this Snoqualmie-case. Sadly, all 3 are rather fine examples of Darwinism at work.

hutash
04-08-2007, 02:28 PM
As sad that it is... Pilot error, as it also seems to be on the W/BC and this Snoqualmie-case. Sadly, all 3 are rather fine examples of Darwinism at work.

Spoken like a true Euro. I wish more Americans would see things this way, so we wouldn't have so many idiots as CJ as pointed out. Americans want their amusement park experience, with all the thrills and chills, but with out any worry that they might get hurt.

hutash
04-08-2007, 02:35 PM
As sad that it is... Pilot error, as it also seems to be on the W/BC and this Snoqualmie-case. Sadly, all 3 are rather fine examples of Darwinism at work.

Spoken like a true Euro. I wish more Americans would see things this way, so we wouldn't have so many idiots as CJ as pointed out. Americans want their amusement park experience, with all the thrills and chills, but with out any worry that they might get hurt. If we do get hurt, there is always a lawsuit waiting to put things right.

As for the whole McDonalds thing, "hot" coffee is hot. Sure there was a law against having it that hot, but those laws were written to protect idiots who don't understand the meaning of "hot". If people weren't so stupid we wouldn't need such inane laws. When I brew tea (I'm not a big coffee drinker,) I use boiling water. Since I live at sea level that means 212F. I don't stick it in my lap and drive, nor do I chug it down until it cools. Why is that such are hard concept for Americans to grasp. We expect everyone else to protect us against ourselves.

telebobski
04-08-2007, 03:29 PM
While I feel for the 23 yo "kid" who got paralyzed, I agree with the majority here who see terrain park accidents as proof that Darwin is right. From what I've seen, the parkrats are quite willing to risk life and limb in their quest - that is when not posing/spewing in their unique "Malibu's Most Wanted" style.

Whoever suggested fencing off terrain parks may be on to something. Just make the gate one-way with a time lock that doesn't open till the end of the day (except to carry off the dead and wounded). That will improve safety and "experience" for the entire resort!

Jer
04-08-2007, 04:07 PM
thats what they give you in America, thats what they aim to provide in America, thats what people want in America (despite the protests on this board - until someone gets nabbed :rolleyes: ), thats what they charge you for in America.

Its not what I want, but Im not going to be able to change what America wants or can handle.

I'm dumb. Sorry I didn't have my sarcasm meter on while reading your first post.:redface:

BSS
04-08-2007, 05:01 PM
thats what they give you in America, thats what they aim to provide in America, thats what people want in America (despite the protests on this board - until someone gets nabbed :rolleyes: ), thats what they charge you for in America.

Its not what I want, but Im not going to be able to change what America wants or can handle.

Sounds like I'm not the only one who has read Mountains Without Handrails.

boredboiseboy
04-08-2007, 05:31 PM
As sad that it is... Pilot error, as it also seems to be on the W/BC and this Snoqualmie-case. Sadly, all 3 are rather fine examples of Darwinism at work.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you hit that jump the day the guy got hurt?
Heck, since its all about personal responsability, resorts should jsut stop maintaining everything. After all, who needs to make sure chairlifts or terrain parks are maintained properly, cuz anyone who rides them should know that they could kill em, so whatever happens is their fault!

Seriously, unless you were there the day the guy got hurt, you dont really know what happened. You can be a keyboard commando all you want and postulate, but you still dont really know what happened.

Kya
04-08-2007, 05:51 PM
how much d&d insurance do you carry on that soapbox? you sure theyll pay out? you sure your family will be able to take care of you for the 40+ years after you become a vegetable? Or is "responsibilty" becoming a ward of the state because you dont have the resources or persons to care for you - like most of the country.



I'll just sue you and the rest of the TGR board for not stopping me from hitting the kicker.

Seriously though. We have seen firsthand on this board how generous people, complete strangers, can be. If something awful would happen to me, I would attempt to take the donation, fundraiser, route over trying to sue people for my decision and my mistake.

focus
04-08-2007, 05:58 PM
Damn, the next time I'm on recess duty I guess I got to walk around the playground and make sure every kid knows all the dangers and risks of every piece of playground equipment.

"Bobby, did you know you can fall off that swing?"

"Jenny, did you know you can fall from the monkey bars?"

"Dude did you know you can ride that twisty slide switch....all the way to the road?"

That's like totally fucked up!


If Bobby liked to jump off the swing, and there were big sharp rocks in his trajectory, and last week a kid jumped off the swing and broke himself on those rocks -- and you and the school did nothing to modify the swing or to prevent Bobby from jumping off the swing.... and Bobby broke himself on those rocks? That's closer to the scenario presented in the OP than what you're describing.

If Bobby were my kid I'd be pissed.

Kya
04-08-2007, 06:05 PM
Our playground is all gravel, lots of rocks, rocks everywhere. And even my five year old knows that if she jumps off the swing and tries to get big air, she could get seriously hurt. So what your saying is total bullshit dude.

focus
04-08-2007, 06:39 PM
OK, really poor analogy. My playgrounds all had grass and woodchips. Gravel... jesus dude. Modify it to say that jumping off the swingset is encouraged, even that the entire point of the swingset is for jumping off of it -- at your own risk, of course.

The point is that the very existence of the swingset/tabletop is some form of endorsement by the school/resort of its relative safety for intended use. If the swingset/tabletop is proven to be unsafe for its intended use, the school/resort may be held liable if it's determined they should have known better. If the swingset/tabletop is proven to be unsafe for its intended use, the school/resort does nothing, and soon afterwords there's ANOTHER serious incident..... That's when a school/resort is going to look really bad in a courtroom, and they really have no excuse for not covering their ass.

I guarantee you that the broken back on the same jump a week earlier had the lawyer's mouth watering when he took the case.

BigAirSkier1580
04-08-2007, 06:50 PM
If Bobby were my kid I'd be pissed.

Yeah, I'd be pissed at Bobby for jumping off the damn swing.




As for some of you crustys who may not like terrain parks personally....

They are helping to save and rejuvenate skiing with youth.

Get off your high horses and accept some diversity.

Kya
04-08-2007, 06:50 PM
I know what your saying, but we have kids reck on that playground all the time. The kids watch their friends beater onto the gravel and get all bloody. The kids know what can happen when they are not careful or do risky activities. Even these kids understand the consequences of say, jumping off a swing, and these kids are only 5-11 years old.

Chemical Ali' The Wax Master
04-08-2007, 07:34 PM
this is what spawned the responsibility code in the first place. I predict a rush of suits, the closing of areas, wavers to use parks where they remain.

Chemical Ali' The Wax Master
04-08-2007, 07:35 PM
waivers (sp)

Jer
04-08-2007, 07:54 PM
focus - you're obviously a champion of the Pro-Pussification ideal. Please, for the sake of those of us who can make our own decisions and take responsibility for those decisions, give up skiing. In fact, give up everything.

Trying to legislate for stupidity doesn't work. You just end up with a whole bunch of stupid laws and a whole bunch of stupid people. Who want's either?

focus
04-08-2007, 08:34 PM
The real discussion isn't "legislating for stupidity." It's about assigning liability, defining corporate responsibility, etc. It's about taking some measure of responsibility for your product -- whether that's a drug, a toy rocket launcher, or a tabletop at a ski resort. It isn't a black and white issue. I don't know all the facts of this case, and neither do you, but it's ignorant to jump on the "people who sue ski areas should be shot" bandwagon and not consider the other side of the coin. It's retarded to not recognize the legal environment we live in and play by those rules, not if you expect to remain a viable business.

Pitcher45
04-08-2007, 09:20 PM
Unforunatly, at bear mountain today I saw a serious injury on a step up jump. I had ate shit on the jump earlier because the ramp had been scraped almost vertical by peopele who didn't get enough speed, and the landing was steep the other way too. So I was going by it when I saw a skiier hauling ass towards it. He went off the jump in he back seat, overshot the short landing, and landed onhis neck. I can only guess he broke his neck because he wasn't moving and they took him down with a respirator on. It was pretty scary to watch. I'm not anywhere near an expert at jump building, so I do not know if there was a problem with the jump construction.

AltaPowderDaze
04-08-2007, 09:40 PM
\I can only guess he broke his neck because he wasn't moving and they took him down with a respirator on. It was pretty scary to watch. I'm not anywhere near an expert at jump building, so I do not know if there was a problem with the jump construction.

he was likely on a backboard w/ a c-collar and O2. if he got knocked out he wouldn't be moving and once patrol got there they'd do the moving for him. a lot of precautionary things happen after people have an accident with a nasty mech of injury. hopefully that's all it was.

as for that step up; it's nice when the park crew is out checking and asking about the jumps so they know what to fix.

KGTrips
04-08-2007, 10:01 PM
If you build it they will come and they will jump whether or not they know their ass from a hole in the ground. Ski areas know it. It wouldn't have mattered if the jumps were designed by NASA engineers. Injuries are a certainty in terrain parks and lawsuits will follow. Insurance for it is a cost of doing business. If it is not cost effective the parks will ultimately disappear.

Personal accountability doesn't mean shit if you're sitting in a wheelchair. It's a rare person who wouldn't sue in that situation to try to pay for future care etc. (I doubt the guy is going to go out and buy a yacht and sail around the world now). He must know he screwed up the jump but honestly what would most people in his situation do.

9 out of 10 juries are going to do anything they can to help someone who has been seriously injured. Most people know insurance is involved and there's not a lot of people out there worried about the insurers ( even though we all end up paying through higher premiums etc.).

I doubt this is over. There is a court of appeal.

TyeStick
04-08-2007, 10:12 PM
Some resorts already have some sort of certification before people go into certain parks don't they? Its inevitable that all resorts will have this sometime in the not so distant future. Assuming that the temperatures are still cold enough to have ski resorts in the near future :fm:

Some resorts do, its called a park pass. 1/2 hour+ 5 bucks for a pass thats good all year long, mainly to keep the uninformed and clueless out of the places where they could get hurt. If people in this country had common sense these wouldn't be necessary.

WICS
04-08-2007, 10:58 PM
As for some of you crustys who may not like terrain parks personally....

They are helping to save and rejuvenate skiing with youth.

Get off your high horses and accept some diversity.
AWESOMENESS SERVED RIGHT THERE. :) :) :)

Personally I don't ski in terrain parks. But they do add value.

BigAirSkier is on to something huge: the growth of the sport overall, as a cultural phenomenon and as a business.

I think we all for the most part share a certain likemindedness about this sport (generally speaking). But would all of us be as stoked/inspired today if skis still were straight, narrow, and 210cm? Maybe. Maybe not. If the rise of snowboarding and jibbing didn't show us a different way to approach skiing itself? Maybe. Maybe not.

1. Americans like it done for them, including safety -- check.

2: "Insurance for it is a cost of doing business." Rising insurance premiums affect all skiers at the resort. Organize the slopes in a way that keeps the bad decision makers out of gnar terrain parks. Try separate passes, waivers/riders, and tons of netting/fencing like they do for Nastar -- check check

3. Beginners buy A SHIT PILE LOT of tickets too and help keep the lights on -- check check check.

4. If you have adequate insurance or donations from this board, PROBABLY (but not certainly) do NOT sue -- check check check check.

5. More than 90% of us don't have adequate resources to handle an awful event (lost eye, paralyzation, death), so IF your friends, your family, your lawyer and everyone else think your case has some legal (not moral) merits AND IF YOU REALLY WERE IN THAT SITUATION (thankfully most of us aren't), then PERHAPS consider a suit -- not a clearcut check (work with me people).

6. Resorts with the right management and financial resources (whether large or small) can build parks that are more or less gnar-ific -- up to each resort. Just do shit right (maybe that includes having engineers or not -- don't really care about engineers that much (mad respect)) -- more checks.

What other issues should be covered? We should appreciate the anologies to McDonald's drinking, muscle car driving, and playground playing. They are not directly analogous, but appropriately add color to our discourse, which encompasses society at large, in addition to the pow-shredding skiing community here -- check mate.

Big glass of tea drunk, three posts made for tonight and ready for bed. Good night all. EC jong out.

EDIT: Resorts seem to be making more coin these days (despite the lower snow levels) with ancillary revenues such as real estate sales, condo fees, and retailing (Mr. Otten be damned;) ). I am generalizing greatly here.

Powdurr
04-08-2007, 11:11 PM
I fail to see how the liability falls on the resort. He wasn't forced to hit the jump. If he thought it wasn't safe, he shouldn't have hit it. He failed in his responsibilites in following the Terrain Park code.

Sucks he got paralyzed, but it's a risk we all take when we put skis on, and I don't feel that the liabaility falls on the resort.


Pretty sure the only reason this was a lawsuit and he got money is becuase of the evidence that the resort

a. knew it was a fucked up jump

b. had multiple injuries happen on the jump

and.

c. did not do anything about it

Dickeymotto
04-08-2007, 11:19 PM
How the hell did this paralyze him? 37 feet? I overshoot and flat jumps that are easily 60+ feet quite often. It hurts like hell, but I'm still skiing as much as ever.

cultvo
04-08-2007, 11:25 PM
I always hate to see the lawsuit thing go on or grave injuries occur. Honestly though, as the park scene has grown it has become obvious to me that some crews build safer/better parks than others, and this has no relation to the "size" of the hits IMO. Some "small" parks/features really lend themselves to "easy to overshoot" scenarios.

It is a hard thing for me to say, but I do believe areas have quite bit of responsibility in presenting "good" features i.e. ones that ride pretty naturally for the terrain they are on, are difficult to overshoot and sequenced with regard to likely rider skill-levels.

Meadows really seems to have it down these days

Parks in general are so much better now than in '94. Snoq's Summit Central park especially. I really didn't like their parks in '94 though. I know with time and practice I would have been fine in there, but they just didn't flow. I can't say whether I rode the jump in question so my opinion really isn't related to the specifics of the case/decision. I just remember the character of that park as a place to stay away from. These days they have the best park around these parts.

I'd hate to see parks go away now, they are a ton of fun even though they will always remain injury-farms, well-built or not.

(edited to acknowledge the hilarity of my decade long memory lapse. I would like to blame it on the "9" being next to the "0" but I actually typed that in, then again... maybe no one will notice. Boy those parks sure have gotten better since then....)

cultvo
04-08-2007, 11:29 PM
How the hell did this paralyze him? 37 feet? I overshoot and flat jumps that are easily 60+ feet quite often. It hurts like hell, but I'm still skiing as much as ever.


I think that is 37 vertical feet from the apex of his trajectory to his point of impact as opposed to the length

WICS
04-08-2007, 11:34 PM
I think rumors of Salvino's skill level could have been greatly exaggerated. I say that because everything in that conspiratorial, sensationalist MEDIA article sounded exaggerated. He could very well have not been a Novice, but rather a true first-time Beginner.

Side note: many of us could be guilty of wanting to ski with better skiers and ski more gnar terrain. I think I'm going to spend some more time teaching my kid sister, help others ski better and give a little more back.

No more interweb. Must sleep.

nealric
04-08-2007, 11:38 PM
As for the whole McDonalds thing, "hot" coffee is hot. Sure there was a law against having it that hot, but those laws were written to protect idiots who don't understand the meaning of "hot". If people weren't so stupid we wouldn't need such inane laws. When I brew tea (I'm not a big coffee drinker,) I use boiling water. Since I live at sea level that means 212F. I don't stick it in my lap and drive, nor do I chug it down until it cools. Why is that such are hard concept for Americans to grasp. We expect everyone else to protect us against ourselves.
Reply With Quote

The reason she got money, was not that she personally deserved an incredible sum per-se, but because a huge corporation like McDs does not give a flying shit enough to change their practices unless the damages are in the millions.

On that particular case, internal memos were discovered where they discussed how they could use an increased coffee temperature to get away with shittier coffee and actually discussed the potential costs of injury/litigation as opposed to the cost of using a reasonable grade coffee.

I don't think it is unreasonable to proceed under the assumption when ordering restaurant coffee that it will not be over 200 degrees- especially when served at a drive-through.

Dickeymotto
04-09-2007, 01:38 AM
Ok gotcha, that is pretty big then.

Singel
04-09-2007, 02:56 AM
I haven't read all 6 pages so sorry if this has been covered, but depending on how paralyzed this dude is he may/may not be the one who decided to sue. Sounds like his life is pretty well ruined, but hopefully this money at least means it doesn't completely destroy his family around him trying to support him. I'm sure we can almost all agree that his mother doesn't have any fault here, but that also doesn't necessarily mean the resort should have to prevent her hardship.

And before assessing blame to the jurors, I'd think the resort/insurance company should have gotten a better legal team defending them. If the jurors decided based on many of the reasons stated which we all believe to be ignorant of the real ski world, the defence should have done a better job of arguing reality...

The AD
04-09-2007, 09:34 AM
KOMO TV has a video up on their site now with an interview of Santini: http://www.komotv.com/

Toadman
04-09-2007, 10:02 AM
How the hell did this paralyze him? 37 feet? I overshoot and flat jumps that are easily 60+ feet quite often. It hurts like hell, but I'm still skiing as much as ever.

Well he did it, and that's all that counts. The fact that Snoqualmie didn't repair the jump after several others were injured is not good. I feel bad for the guy but it's not like he was a kid, he was 23 at the time. There has to be some personal responsibility for ones actions. $14 million is a lot of dough, regardless if it's Vail Resorts or Podunk Ski Co. You think Snoqualmie will be able to renew its insurance next season? Premiums go up, services go down. Ticket prices go up.

hemas
04-09-2007, 11:17 AM
How do you know? Were you there? Did you hit that jump the day the guy got hurt?
Heck, since its all about personal responsability, resorts should jsut stop maintaining everything. After all, who needs to make sure chairlifts or terrain parks are maintained properly, cuz anyone who rides them should know that they could kill em, so whatever happens is their fault!

Seriously, unless you were there the day the guy got hurt, you dont really know what happened. You can be a keyboard commando all you want and postulate, but you still dont really know what happened.

Personal responsibility goes further than just hitting a kicker... Like I said, I fucked my knee (new ACL and repaired meniscus) in somewhat similar situation about 1 month ago (OK, a bit more). But since, I TOOK PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MY ACTIONS, I had already thought that skiing might be dangerous and I might not have enough €€€ to fix myself if I (or someone else) fucked up. Guess what, that is the reason I have 3 insurancies that I can use if I need 'em (all slightly different). And guess what, the insurance does cover my ACL-reconstruction, and did.

I truly do feel for the guy, as I'm not that much older than he is. But let's face it, they guy hit a kicker that obviously he had no business in hitting.

And like some troller already mentioned... 10 tobokan rides with in a week from the park (or even the same hit) isn't actually that much... Heck, you can often get as many victims during a freaking day. And guess what, that kicker might have been shaped but one of the top guys in the world, but sadly the amount of Gapers watching the X-games and then thinking they can do the same is far too great. As said, it's Darwinism at its saddest.

The AD
04-09-2007, 11:27 AM
Why does everyone assume this guy was a total gaper? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Tanner Hall broke both ankles with a botched jump of Chad's Gap. Does that make him an idiot who had no business there, too?

Sorry, hemas, but your knee blowout doesn't really compare to a guy who is now a quadriplegic due to his crash.

BigAirSkier1580
04-09-2007, 11:57 AM
Any "perfectly designed" jump with all the "correct angles" and computer models and CAD drawings will still be just as dangerous if the proper speed for the jump is exceeded.



Every jump has a speed range you need to hit it at to set it down in the landing. Too slow, you deck out or knuckle it. Too fast, you overshoot.

Are the lawyers and the "victim" expecting all jumps to be made so it is impossible to not overshoot or undershoot a landing area?

Which would be absurd as even the safest jump ever built for a competition venue was still able to be cleared by a skier at the Jon Ollson Invitational.

Does this mean I should file a claim for damages caused when I overshot a landing doing a 540 and injured my shoulder?

To answer my own question, no. I shouldn't. Because I CHOSE to hit the jump, and I CHOSE to go faster than I should've, which is what caused me to overshoot the landing and bail.

So guess who pays for my mistake? MY insurance.

hemas
04-09-2007, 12:18 PM
Why does everyone assume this guy was a total gaper? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Tanner Hall broke both ankles with a botched jump of Chad's Gap. Does that make him an idiot who had no business there, too?

Sorry, hemas, but your knee blowout doesn't really compare to a guy who is now a quadriplegic due to his crash.

Well I doubt Tanner tried to sue Chad's Gap... Although I'd presume that would be a bit of a far fetch, considering Chap's Gap as just a terrain feature...

And, yes like I said my case in his were different, yet the principle stays the same. If you are competent enough to hit the kicker, you also know that it if you beater it is also your fault.

The guy might have not been a gaper, but considering the end result... Well gosh, he was out of his league.

Danno
04-09-2007, 12:23 PM
The full jury award was for about $31 million, Connelly said, explaining that the amount was decreased to $14 million after calculating "the comparative fault" of his client and "the inherent risk of the sport."

The lawyers in this thread are doing a real disservice to the rest of you. ;) The award of 31 million reduced to 14 million says one glaring thing to this former student of tort law (I haven't studied WA law, and don't do PI law, so perhaps there's some weird twist I am not aware of): In most/many states, the plaintiff would have gotten zero.

Y'all want personal responsibility? Here's some personal responsibility for you. The jury found the plaintiff more than 50% responsible for the accident. The award was reduced by more than 50%! In most states, if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible, they get nothing. They did, however, find the resort responsible to some degree, and the plaintiff in WA did get something.

As for the rest, bitching about how they shouldn't need engineers, how the number of accidents doesn't sound like that much, how landing on ice is normal, blah blah blah. None of us was in that trial, we didn't hear the evidence presented, so this armchairing based on incomplete evidence is a waste of time. Furthermore, even if y'all are 100% right about all that stuff, it says nothing about this suit other than the resort's lawyers did a piss poor job. If all that stuff is true, if the jump was designed correctly, if the landing was normal, if the number and severity of accidents was normal, etc, then it was the lawyers jobs to present that to the jury.

Obviously, the jury found the resort negligent (that means they fucked up!). So, either the resort did something wrong or the lawyers did something wrong. And those of us armchairing don't really have much to say about either.

Danno
04-09-2007, 12:25 PM
And before assessing blame to the jurors, I'd think the resort/insurance company should have gotten a better legal team defending them. If the jurors decided based on many of the reasons stated which we all believe to be ignorant of the real ski world, the defence should have done a better job of arguing reality...

exactly!

splat
04-09-2007, 12:36 PM
The reason she got money, was not that she personally deserved an incredible sum per-se, but because a huge corporation like McDs does not give a flying shit enough to change their practices unless the damages are in the millions.

On that particular case, internal memos were discovered where they discussed how they could use an increased coffee temperature to get away with shittier coffee and actually discussed the potential costs of injury/litigation as opposed to the cost of using a reasonable grade coffee.

I don't think it is unreasonable to proceed under the assumption when ordering restaurant coffee that it will not be over 200 degrees- especially when served at a drive-through.


My lawyer said the McD suit was based on the fact that they brewed the coffee that hot so they could squeeze three or more extra cups out of a pot; hence, for the sake of corporate profits and at the risk of the consumer.

ArmadaBC
04-09-2007, 12:49 PM
I hate the litigation route but understand that the dude has to do it.

That being said I think it puts resorts in a real tough situation. Parks have been good for resorts and for the real small EC one's have helped to make a dying bussiness profitable. They do come with huge risks though and at least as far as I have seen, no amount of fencing or park passes really removes the simple fact that throwing yourself in the air no matter how experianced you are will one day break your ass. I started skiing park in 98 and can't think of a single person I ride with that hasn't busted themselves at some point. Skiing is dangerous and when you add in airs and rails in only gets more dangerous. People need to think about what the fuck it is that they are doing before they drop. First ride through of the park needs always needs to be done with your feet on the ground checking shit out. Everyone does the oh i hit that yesterday and they didn't change it but sometimes they do and then your ass gets handed to you. The line between being paralyzed and having a great day is thin and you have to use your fucking head. How hard is that to grasp?

iceman
04-09-2007, 12:49 PM
My lawyer said the McD suit was based on the fact that they brewed the coffee that hot so they could squeeze three or more extra cups out of a pot; hence, for the sake of corporate profits and at the risk of the consumer.

I always heard it was so hot so that it wouldn't cool off before you had to leave, so you wouldn't ask for a refill. Who knows, it boils down to the same thing - corporate greed.

Danno
04-09-2007, 12:52 PM
My lawyer said the McD suit was based on the fact that they brewed the coffee that hot so they could squeeze three or more extra cups out of a pot; hence, for the sake of corporate profits and at the risk of the consumer.
The McD's case was another one of bad lawyering. Stella Liebeck offered to settle for her medical expenses (and her injuries were rather severe, not just "ooh, I got burned") of ~$20k, and McD's refused. McD's also did not do a good job of explaining coffee temps. Here's some decent info on the case: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

Jer
04-09-2007, 12:56 PM
Just breathing the air in a McDonald's can give you a heart attack. I heard a glass of water there contains 16g of transfat. Getting a little burn from some coffee should be the least of your worries at McDonald's.

danimal's dead
04-09-2007, 01:23 PM
He says he's been skiing since he "was 4 years old."

If that's true, anyone who has skied that long should know how to hit a jump and should know that you need to check out a jump before you hit it.

I think too many of you are letting your emotions get the best of you. $hit happens, and $hit like this can't be fixed by money.

Danno
04-09-2007, 01:29 PM
He says he's been skiing since he "was 4 years old."

If that's true, anyone who has skied that long should know how to hit a jump and should know that you need to check out a jump before you hit it.

I think too many of you are letting your emotions get the best of you. $hit happens, and $hit like this can't be fixed by money.

As I pointed out, the guy was found responsible, over 50% responsible. But the jury also found that resort did not design a proper jump.

As for the shit happens and can't be fixed by money, something needs to be fixed here. We have a quad who is going to have medical expenses that are astronomical. Do we just kill him? If not, who pays? The state? Well, then, it means you and I (or more accurately, people in WA state mostly) pay.

There are 3 choices here, in all likelihood (ie, I'm assuming that he/his family don't have the insurance coverage for something this monumental):
1) we kill him, he's just going to drain society
2) the state should pay for his medical services/needs
3) If the resort negligently designed/operated a jump, they should pay for that negligence.

Pick one.

hemas
04-09-2007, 01:34 PM
As I pointed out, the guy was found responsible, over 50% responsible. But the jury also found that resort did not design a proper jump.

As for the shit happens and can't be fixed by money, something needs to be fixed here. We have a quad who is going to have medical expenses that are astronomical. Do we just kill him? If not, who pays? The state? Well, then, it means you and I (or more accurately, people in WA state mostly) pay.

There are 3 choices here, in all likelihood (ie, I'm assuming that he/his family don't have the insurance coverage for something this monumental):
1) we kill him, he's just going to drain society
2) the state should pay for his medical services/needs
3) If the resort negligently designed/operated a jump, they should pay for that negligence.

Pick one.

As hars as it sounds, the correct option should be 4) HIS INSURANCE (not the resorts or anybody elses).

x lurker
04-09-2007, 01:36 PM
$hit like this can't be fixed by money.

:nonono2:

The dude's projected future medical costs over his lifetime are between $23 million and $26 million. That shit can be fixed with money. This guy got an award of about half his future medical costs.
Doesn't look like the jury went crazy to me.

Danno
04-09-2007, 01:42 PM
As hars as it sounds, the correct option should be 4) HIS INSURANCE (not the resorts or anybody elses).

fine (even though I already stated that the assumption was he didn't have it or have enough). But fine, his insurance should cover it. But what if it doesn't? What happens if he doesn't have insurance? what happens if he does have insurance but it is capped at $500k? What happens if insurance to cover things like this costs $1000/month?

You still have to decide this question, you can't dodge it by choosing option 4, because you will still without question end up having to answer with options 1-3.

hemas
04-09-2007, 01:52 PM
fine (even though I already stated that the assumption was he didn't have it or have enough). But fine, his insurance should cover it. But what if it doesn't? What happens if he doesn't have insurance? what happens if he does have insurance but it is capped at $500k? What happens if insurance to cover things like this costs $1000/month?

You still have to decide this question, you can't dodge it by choosing option 4, because you will still without question end up having to answer with options 1-3.


If he doesn't have insurance, well that was his 1st mistake.

And after he has capped the insurance (most likely) or in case he doesn't have one (like I presume is the case), well too bad but thats his and his folks problem. Most likely, the goverment would in the end pony up.

And yep, that would be about how things would work where I'm living, sure this ain't perfect (fuk Value Added Tax and all). But it still works. True, he'd be most likely hospitalized and would prolly die within 10 years from an infection.

But guess what, the world is actually a pretty cruel place.

BigAirSkier1580
04-09-2007, 01:55 PM
1) we kill him, he's just going to drain society
2) the state should pay for his medical services/needs
3) If the resort negligently designed/operated a jump, they should pay for that negligence.

Pick one.


If you're not going to accept your own responsibility in your injury, then I am all good with number 1. If I was such a little bitch, I'd rather die than be humiliated with everyone knowing I am horribly irresponsible.

You don't see Lars Veen or Marc-Andre Bellevue sueing people over their injuries from their accidents.

A Random Skier
04-09-2007, 02:01 PM
Parks can always be dangerous, even when resorts take extreme precations, such as requiring park passes. My local hill, Mountain Creek (aka The Creek, it's not much of a mountain) requires that every person must pay an extra $5 and pass a written test to use their parks. The written test, however, is a joke, filled with pointless true/false questions that a new guy who has never skied in a park before could easily answer (i.e. It's a good idea to hit a jump at the same time as another guy). The only thing this park pass accomplishes is limiting the use of parks by cheap-os, who are too stingy to pay $5. I found that there were still loads of ass hats doing stupid things in the parks. For example, while skiing one night, my friend wanted to film me clearing this stair set they had recently set up. Although I rarely ski park, I scoped it out and made the executive decision that I could safely clear it, as it was not too long and had a nice drop-in/kicker. As I dropped in to hit it, some jong dropped in behind me and actually went for it. :eek: I cleared it easily, but this kid landed half way down the stairs and wiped hard. The first aid squad had to come up and get him. Point is it's hard for resorts to eliminate injuries in parks because there will always be some cocky guy who just won't listen or take the necessary safety precations.

Danno
04-09-2007, 02:10 PM
The only thing this park pass accomplishes is limiting the use of parks by cheap-os, who are too stingy to pay $5.

Actually, it also helps insure that park users (or their parents) have read and signed a park-specific waiver of liability. That is the primary reason for it, not to truly test the users.

danimal's dead
04-09-2007, 02:20 PM
My point is, money won't let this guy walk again, it won't bring back the use of his arms and legs.

Ski resorts are an endangered species. I plan on riding 40 years from now. Resorts will close due to lack of snow, baby boomers getting too old to ski, real estate markets crashing, environmental restrictions, our society getting increasingly fat lazy and sedentary etc...

The last thing we need is resorts closing because they can't afford their insurance premiums.

As a skier and a snowboarder that is all I care about. Is that cold, maybe. But if you love skiing as much as I do you better be concerned.

And I'd suggest buying a snowmobile because soon that may be the only engine powered ski lift you will get.

Lonnie
04-09-2007, 02:36 PM
worth seeing again...

http://media.newschoolers.com/uploads/member/videos/1170020690Sequence1.mov

not passing any kind of judgement here. File this under $#!+ happens...

x lurker
04-09-2007, 02:46 PM
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.

Lonnie
04-09-2007, 02:50 PM
x-lurker,

Thanks for that. Very helpful...

BenWA
04-09-2007, 04:32 PM
"People shooting ski areas should be sued."

focus
04-09-2007, 04:36 PM
You don't see Lars Veen or Marc-Andre Bellevue sueing people over their injuries from their accidents.

You don't understand the issue. The resort was not maintaining a certain level of safety in their terrain park. They did not act in good faith. You can't, as a resort, just throw together a tabletop/kicker, wipe your hands off, and call it a day -- anymore than Chevy can manufacture cars with brakes that only work sometimes, or boeing can manufacture planes whose wings sometimes fall off. They get a hell of a lot of slack, largely because of the personal responsibility thing, but that slack can't be unlimited.

I suspect (in my very unexpert opinion) we'll see insurance companies tightening up guidelines for terrain parks, maybe some minor rate increases, and that's it. At least in the near term. Snoqualmie fucked up, and this is why some guy got $14M to defray his HUGE medical bills.

bbirtle
04-09-2007, 11:51 PM
...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. ...

I doubt this is gonna change anyone's mind, but at least you have a little more by way of background.
....

Well actually, that's a lot of accidents. Isn't it? For one jump? Can anyone else put that number in perspective compared to other parks? I remember in our park in Zermatt there was maybe one accident every couple of days across all 10 or so of the big air jumps, and kids were throwing serious tricks nonstop all day.

Whether that means the resort becomes responsible for people hurting or killing themselves, I still am not sure. It's not like there was a buried rock in the landing or knives sticking up on the approach - anybody scoping out the feature could have decided the correct speed or whether they wanted to avoid it because it was too dangerous.

At the park in Las Lenes, there WERE rocks sticking up on some of the landings. A couple of us nearly hurt ourselves going off a very small kicker as we cruised into the park for the first time and we had to borrow a shovel to try and fill in the landings on one of the rails. The resort is exercising bad judgement, I think, to open the park in this case. But on the other hand we were stupid to hit a jump before checking out the landing and if somebody said "they should be sued!" I would have disagreed, even in that much more extreme case.

bbirtle
04-09-2007, 11:53 PM
If you're not going to accept your own responsibility in your injury, then I am all good with number 1. If I was such a little bitch, I'd rather die than be humiliated with everyone knowing I am horribly irresponsible....

That's some nasty shit going on in your brain there, dude.

BigAirSkier1580
04-10-2007, 06:48 AM
No sympathy. He wasn't a victim. It was an injury that can happen when you ski, and he chose to go the speed he did and overshoot the landing.

doughboyshredder
04-10-2007, 07:29 AM
If Bobby liked to jump off the swing, and there were big sharp rocks in his trajectory, and last week a kid jumped off the swing and broke himself on those rocks -- and you and the school did nothing to modify the swing or to prevent Bobby from jumping off the swing.... and Bobby broke himself on those rocks? That's closer to the scenario presented in the OP than what you're describing.

If Bobby were my kid I'd be pissed.

I'd be pissed that Bobby was too fucking stupid to see the rocks.

I can't believe anybody on here can even remotely say that suing the resort is justified.

Next step is when some dumbass kid gets worked in the BC and sues because they gave him a BC pass just for saying he had been out there.

Responsibility for your actions. Plain and simple. You fuck yourself up it's your fault.

Za
04-10-2007, 10:07 AM
I've seen some pretty shitty jumps up there and a lot of people were getting hurt. Most of the problems I've seen are with flat landings. It wouldn't be that hard for there to be some published standards for how to construct park features, or for the resort to adopt some design standards based on some basic safety principles. Some basics about ratios of height to landing, runout lengths, steepness of landings - that kind of thing. Then if somebody gets hurt the resort can point to the "industry standards" and warnings that the skier was skiing at his own risk.

I've seen a number of liability issues at the Snoqualamie areas. The volunteer ski patrol at Alpental loosing tobaggons during practice, inattentive lift ops, inattentive/clueless instructers leading to kids falling from lifts. I'm a huge Alpental fan, but some of those volunteer ski patrollers have no business being ski patrol at Alpental - maybe the other Summit areas. Booth Creek needs a risk manager out there to evaluate and remediate their liability.

jfost
04-10-2007, 11:48 AM
Some additional facts I have been able to find out from the guy's attorney (full disclosure - I am a trial attorney in WA):
...

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.

...

good lookin out! AIG took a gamble for sure, but as you said, not really - as this is the first "loss" in court... I don't see why the resort shouldn't be liable given this bit of info. They designed an unsafe feature, and did nothing about it after it manifested itself as dangerous. End of story. Is the guy stupid for hitting it full-bore, maybe... but I know I've done the same before at various terrain parks. I've been lucky so far that the features were relatively well designed. I might think twice now, and do a better eval. before jumping. Seems to happen naturally now that I'm leaving my 20's behind!!!

skiski
04-10-2007, 12:11 PM
I haven't read all the posts on this thing, but from what I have read, it sounds like the jury got it right. Half the people think the injured skier should not be able to recover because he was at fault. Half the people think that, given the history of that jump, the ski area was at fault. In reality, both are a bit at fault and they now share the expense, almost 50-50. If the ski area has 22 people getting hurt overshooting the landing in a 6 month period, a bell should go off in their head. Of course, anyone who looks at a big jump and decides to go for it should know what they're getting into. He or she should appreciate there's a large amount of risk involved. However, if the jump is poorly built making the jump more risky than the jumper can appreciate by looking at it and comparing it to jumps he or she has done in the past, there is some fault on the part of the jump builder.

Shit, it's not like this poor kid is making out like a bandit for suing the ski company. He's got part of his ginormous medical bill covered, but he's still paralyzed. I wish him the best in the future.

Danno
04-10-2007, 12:28 PM
good lookin out! AIG took a gamble for sure, but as you said, not really - as this is the first "loss" in court... I don't see why the resort shouldn't be liable given this bit of info. They designed an unsafe feature, and did nothing about it after it manifested itself as dangerous. End of story. Is the guy stupid for hitting it full-bore, maybe... but I know I've done the same before at various terrain parks. I've been lucky so far that the features were relatively well designed. I might think twice now, and do a better eval. before jumping. Seems to happen naturally now that I'm leaving my 20's behind!!!

And, in fact, the jury found him more than 50% responsible for this accident.

komo
04-10-2007, 01:10 PM
Definitely a terrible injury. I can't imagine his life now. As others have said, those of you calling him out on this thread need to take a step back. Even if you value the hell out of personal responsiblity, your insurance (and your folks insurance) would definitely put a ton of pressure on you to sue. And it's hard to predict what you'd be willing to do given the magnitude of finances involved...

Still, the rollercoaster quote in this article makes him sound like an ass. (I don't think it's been posted, though there was an earlier link to a video on the same site.)

http://www.komotv.com/news/6918867.html

Skier paralyzed at Summit at Snoqualmie tells his story

Story Published: Apr 7, 2007 at 11:45 AM PDT

Story Updated: Apr 9, 2007 at 12:12 PM PDT
By KOMO Staff & News Services
Watch the story
BONNEY LAKE, Wash. - A skier has been awarded $14 million after being paralyzed in a fall from a ski jump at the Summit at Snoqualmie.

In February 2004, Kenny Salvini of Lake Tapps fell 37 feet from a jump at Central Terrain Park that was maintained by Ski Lifts, Inc.

"The landing was too short on the ski jump, and I ended up breaking my neck and my leg and ended up paralyzed," Salvini said.

A King County jury on Friday found that the operator failed to take safety into consideration and therefore was partially responsible for the crash.

"They charge you $50 to get on the mountain, and that's like going to a theme park and you expect the roller coasters to be safe and stuff like that, you know," Salvini said.

During the five-week trial at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis, testified the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area. Salvini said he was surprised to learn the ski jump had never been designed or tested by engineers.

"You go into a terrain park, you think that if they're going to build these big features, there's going to be some design behind it all," he said. "You come to find out it's just somebody gets a back hoe and builds up these mounds of snow, and so it's kind of shocking to find out."

Although 15 other skiers and snowboarders had been hurt on the jump earlier that season, the jump was left open.

The resort released a written statement that says "voluntary participation suggests that a skier or rider accepts the risk associated with the activity." Guy Lawrence, a spokesman for The Summit at Snoqualmie, said officials were "disappointed but respectful" of the jury verdict.

Salvini previously was captain of the wrestling team at Central Washington University in Ellensburg and had been a skier since he was 4-years-old.

He is now a quadriplegic with medical needs that over his lifetime will cost more than $23 million.

"Hopefully this will bring about a change where these ski resorts, when they build these terrain parks they parks they will build them with safety in mind, rather than being negligent about it," Salvini said.

Salvini has been sharing his experience with others through his personal blog. He has also been working on a book about his first two years of recovery.

For more information:

Kenny Salvini's Blog

Jer
04-10-2007, 02:49 PM
Even if you value the hell out of personal responsiblity, your insurance (and your folks insurance) would definitely put a ton of pressure on you to sue. And it's hard to predict what you'd be willing to do given the magnitude of finances involved...

That's the thing - most people here are smart enough not to get in a situation like this in the first place. Yeah - things may be different if I were in this guy's place, but you have to be pretty stupid and clueless to get in that place.

Personally, I think ski hills should be able to put 2' long pungii sticks in landing zones. If people are stupid enough to hit something like that, they deserve what they get.

jfost
04-10-2007, 04:38 PM
And, in fact, the jury found him more than 50% responsible for this accident.

yes, thanks Danno, this should not be forgotten in all the (very valid IMHO) back and forth... both parties to blame. This is a tough issue, because it is near and dear to us all...

BigAirSkier1580
04-10-2007, 04:57 PM
""They charge you $50 to get on the mountain, and that's like going to a theme park and you expect the roller coasters to be safe and stuff like that, you know," Salvini said."

My disdain for this guy grew even more once I read that quote...

Last time I checked the back of your amusement park ticket didn't say that it was dangerous and that you may possibly die.

3eyedsmiley
04-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Last time I checked the back of your amusement park ticket didn't say that it was dangerous and that you may possibly die.

actually it probably does, i would guess. after those roller coaster deaths, they would probably have put something in to stop lawsuits.

Spats
04-10-2007, 07:38 PM
If the ski area has 22 people getting hurt overshooting the landing in a 6 month period, a bell should go off in their head.

That depends on how many people get hurt on other jumps in the same terrain park, and in terrain parks in general. 22 people hurt in 6 months = less than one injury per week. This doesn't seem like much for a busy resort with thousands of people hitting the park every day.

How many people were getting hurt on other jumps in the same park? How many people get hurt in terrain parks, on average, at other resorts? Without this knowledge, that "22 people" statistic is worthless. (See: Bayes' law.)

jfost
04-10-2007, 09:11 PM
^^^

but if 22 ppl. overshot the same landing on the same jump.... plus those were the "unlucky" ones, many more must have landed flat with a bit of luck and rode away switch to the road. It seems clear that a known hazard was left open for business here...

L7
04-10-2007, 09:31 PM
That's the thing - most people here are smart enough not to get in a situation like this in the first place. Yeah - things may be different if I were in this guy's place, but you have to be pretty stupid and clueless to get in that place.


Fortunately most ski areas are smart enough to not get into a situation like this in the first place. This one was not smart enough to stay out of this mess.

If you look at your lift ticket you will see it includes things like you accept responsibility for manmade and natural obstacles. So if you get on a lift and the cable shears causing you to fall and become paralyzed you wouldn't sue? Even if you later found out they had ignored various warnings that the cable could not withstand the load? You knew there was a risk? You should have checked out the lift shouldn't you?

There is always that one area (or one skier) willing to act recklessly and put others at risk. The costs that are incurred by that one area or skier are exactly what keeps the others on their toes and acting responsibly. What about a ski hill that has a cat working just over a blind pitch without any warning on an otherwise groomed and wideopen run? Should that cat be there? Is it your fault only if you hit it?

There is responsibility on both sides. One pays the price of being irresponsible through paralysis, the other side gets off easy.

Razorslug
04-10-2007, 09:34 PM
Anyone else thinking....

#1 Money or no money, I don't want to end up paralyzed
#2 Yet another reason I love powder

jfost
04-10-2007, 10:01 PM
Razorslug - keeping it all in perspective :yourock:

best of luck on the long road ahead for the victim/participant...

x lurker
04-10-2007, 11:05 PM
The main thing that gets me is that they had many reports of a purportedly unsafe LZ - even one from a so-called pro boarder who broke his back - and they did nothing. Didn't even go out and look at the purported problem LZ. Just filed the reports in the drawer "for litigation purposes."

skiski
04-11-2007, 08:52 AM
That depends on how many people get hurt on other jumps in the same terrain park, and in terrain parks in general. 22 people hurt in 6 months = less than one injury per week. This doesn't seem like much for a busy resort with thousands of people hitting the park every day.

How many people were getting hurt on other jumps in the same park? How many people get hurt in terrain parks, on average, at other resorts? Without this knowledge, that "22 people" statistic is worthless. (See: Bayes' law.)

Actually, I reread the original post on this and it was 22 people were hurt overshooting the landing in a 60 day period. There were actually 40 something hurt overall in a 60 day period (the original post with this information is up there somewhere). Even under your assumption with the 6 month period, I'd be surprised if 1 person per week getting hurt overshooting the landing on one particular jump is common. If it is, that reinforces my general inclination to stay away from terrain parks. Those things scare me.

Danno
04-11-2007, 09:07 AM
The main thing that gets me is that they had many reports of a purportedly unsafe LZ - even one from a so-called pro boarder who broke his back - and they did nothing. Didn't even go out and look at the purported problem LZ. Just filed the reports in the drawer "for litigation purposes."

I'm fairly sure that's what got the jury too.

sweetheart
04-17-2007, 09:46 AM
Removed due to harrassment.

sweetheart
04-17-2007, 10:10 AM
Removed due to harrassment.

iceman
04-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Good points I guess, but what I'm wondering is how you have two first posts.

sweetheart
04-17-2007, 10:50 AM
Removed due to harrassment.

ryanvdonk
05-08-2007, 07:59 PM
all i have to say, is that guy was an idiot, there was a roller type thing where people waited at all the time to hit that jump, the landing was average sized, and it was only a 25ft table, and not much lip. the guy straighlined from the top of the park, right past the starting knoll, probably snaking some people waiting to hit it. as for the death, it was llike a 5 year old who landed on his neck in the middle of the table, not overshot. there were thousands of people who hit that very jump, many including myself crashing, and we are fine. and people die on the bunny slope too, this year someone ran into a tree and died off the 6-chair at the bottom of breck (peak 9), which is all green runs. and almost no jumps are engineered, because they change the jumps many times throughout the year, changing the lip and lengthening and shortening the tables. also, the speed of jumps changes with freezing and melting.

PLUMPwonton
05-09-2007, 11:20 PM
http://smalls149.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!AF77847B2A3107BC!9223.entry#comment

this guy cannot seem to man up to his own problem

fluffballs
05-10-2007, 12:06 AM
Actually, I reread the original post on this and it was 22 people were hurt overshooting the landing in a 60 day period. There were actually 40 something hurt overall in a 60 day period (the original post with this information is up there somewhere). Even under your assumption with the 6 month period, I'd be surprised if 1 person per week getting hurt overshooting the landing on one particular jump is common. If it is, that reinforces my general inclination to stay away from terrain parks. Those things scare me.

After working a season of Patrol at a big resort with a top ten park, I can say that 1 person per week on any given feature is not common. It is more like one person per feature per day. On a busy weekend we would run 60 some calls, on a 8-9 thousand skier count. I'd venture to say that 15-25 are in, or happened in the terrain park. Think about it, you're sliding across rails off the ground, you're soaring 25-60 feet through the air, 15 feet off the ground, going fast, flipping, spinning, trying new things. You're going to mess up, and it's going to hurt. Sure lots of people get hurt, some very badly, but the majority, who ski with caution, stay with in their limits, and think through their actions, enjoy it and endure no injuries.

I probably logged 40 days of park riding this winter (it didn't snow as much as I would have liked). I suffered one injury, a sprained wrist from over shooting a jump I had hit hundreds of times. I didn't ski by it on the first run and thought I could send it, ooops I'm going way too fast. Mistakes happen.

Whenever I had the park in my zone I would hit as many features as I could to make sure everything was in good shape. Our park crew does the same all day, and I'm sure Snowqualamie's does as well. Plus hitting features in a patrol jackets helps get us some respect with the bro brahs, just gotta stick it.

Our worst injury this season came from a kid who had just completed a national slope style course (huge features) riding back to the lift caught an edge and snapped his neck. It was a very sad day, it happened under the most innocent of circumstance. Anyone who has ridden a snowboard has caught a toe edge, and anybody who has hits jumps eventually overshoots. Most walk away with a smile, and a very few aren't as fortunate. Resorts are stepping up education of the dangers of snowsports, particularly at the terrain park entrances. I don't believe terrain parks should be closed, I think they should continue to grow, but so does the amount and affectiveness of education.

Free Range Lobster
05-10-2007, 06:06 AM
I personally used the jump this kid injured himself about a week aftwards.................It was a normally shaped, medium sized tabletop of average proportions, nothing more.

And I'll guarantee after they tried to cripple almost a dozen people in a week it was recut.
Also what were the weather conditions in the week following the accident? Did it snow? Was there a warm/thaw period? Did anything melt?

I'm not saying they "fixed it" after the fact, but you don't leave a jump for a week without atleast hitting the ramp and the landing with a groomer.

Free Range Lobster
05-10-2007, 06:09 AM
Last time I checked the back of your amusement park ticket didn't say that it was dangerous and that you may possibly die.

When was the last time you went to a large amusement park and looked at the back of the ticket? You'd be surprised what it says.

0BernhardFranz
05-10-2007, 06:35 AM
landing gotta be angled ... good you are telling me ....

Bart T
05-10-2007, 10:50 AM
that verdict is fucked up. sad for the now-paralyzed dude, but seriously bad news for terrain parks. i first heard about this from a patroller who got it first hand from the insurance co.'s risk advisor ... their take is that the jury got after them for not logging all the jump injuries properly or devising some sort of injury mitigation plan. as if there must be something wrong with a jump for you to get seriously fucked up on it.

say sayonara to terrain parks. :cussing:

Wibby
05-10-2007, 11:47 AM
http://www.snowboard-mag.com/node/22212

also, boothcreek does not own The Summit anymore. Recently sold to some development group.