Thread: Winter Park sued over inbounds avalanche

Originally Posted by Finstah

Maybe so. I guess I just don't see how a reasonable person can expect a group of good intentioned people (a ski patrol) to "modify" a mountain to the point that all potential dangers are eliminated.

I don't disagree with you, that was a more general comment about potential merits of lawsuits against resorts.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ing-crash-case

score one for the personal responsibility crowd! See, the legal system sometimes works the way it should... maybe will be the same result in the WP case?

Finstah - I don't think anyone is expecting them to modify anything. I think they're expecting patrol to close potential hazards.

Not saying that I necessarily see liability, but there's a bit more to it than patrol's good intentions.

Originally Posted by toast2266

Finstah - I don't think anyone is expecting them to modify anything. I think they're expecting patrol to close potential hazards.

Not saying that I necessarily see liability, but there's a bit more to it than patrol's good intentions.

For sure.

A couple season's ago a 26 year old woman was killed in an inbounds avalanche at Snowbird in an area that had been bombed and ski cut by one of the most knowledgeable and experienced snow safety teams in the world. My point is that there is only so much you can expect of snow safety crews. They take pride in their work and try to make the best decisions they can. If that's not good enough for someone, then maybe skiing isn't for them.

I don't know the specifics of the WP accident.

Toast - the whole mountain, be it Keystone or Chamonix, is a "potential hazard."

Originally Posted by Bunion

http://avalanche.state.co.us/acc/acc...=433&accfm=inv

Thanks for posting that. Wow, look at the size of those hoar crystals.

The report, pics and topo map depict an obvious terrain trap. Guy was buried under 2 to 3 feet of snow and the avy was small and confined. Unless he was killed by trauma, skiing with a bud, proper gear and proper equipment might have saved him and they'd be drinking beers and saying "whew."

Originally Posted by bigdude2468

I assume Colorado has a statute covering the inherent risks of skiing. . . .

You assume correctly. The question is “what are inherent risks?” CO statute defines it as follows:

"Inherent dangers and risks of skiing" means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities. The term "inherent dangers and risks of skiing" does not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth in section 33-44-104 (2). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

CRS 33-44-103 (emphasis supplied).

One must consider that definition in view of the other statutory scheme, which, among other things, places a duty on the ski area operator to mark various kinds of terrains per CRS 33-44-107. This terrain trap area looks like it might fit the description of “extreme terrain” (see CRS 33-44-103(3.1)), and, if so, the double diamond with the E and X is indicated. (I’ve never seen such a sign.)

Check out CRS 33-44-109, which places a duty on the skier to ski within his ability, etc. Per my quick research, violation of the 33-44-109 duties by the skier is contributory/comparative negligence per se. (Maybe a CO attorney can offer explanation of CO comparative/contrib neg law.)

Originally Posted by smitchell333

I'm guessing they'll settle it out of court.

Most cases settle, of course. But sometimes the insurance carrier wants to take a case like this – where the skier seems to have assumed an obvious risk while skiing alone – one to court and all the way to a reported appellate decision.

Anybody know what signs were in place on this guy’s route towards this terrain trap? If it were the double diamond with the E and X, this plaintiffs might not get past summary judgment.

Originally Posted by Finstah

Toast - the whole mountain, be it Keystone or Chamonix, is a "potential hazard."

meh. you know what I mean. There's a difference between trees, ice, and rocks as "potential hazards" vs. high avy danger inbounds at a resort that closes terrain when the avy danger is unsafe.

Again, not saying that I see anything that patrol did wrong here. From the CAIC report, it sounds like this was a very isolated (unfortunate) incident that was potentially not predictable. That said, at American resorts that actively close terrain when Avy danger is significant, an assumption is created that open terrain will have minimal avalanche danger. I still fully agree that the danger can never be entirely erased, and the resort should not bear liability if they took reasonable efforts to ensure that the terrain was safe to open.

Originally Posted by toast2266

... the resort should not bear liability if they took reasonable efforts to ensure that the terrain was safe to open.

this is the question that the court exists to answer, and the question that could lead to a safer skiing environment for everyone, or maybe it was just bad luck that day. If you don't ask, you'll never know.

That's why we should have mountains that aren't modified.
Resorts pander to people seeking an 'easy and fun' experience, obliterating fear of danger and death.

When you step out of the chopper in Valdez, there is no groomed run out.
Save a couple small heli ops, it's prolly the only place in the US where people might experience a sense of possible death while skiing.

Resorts have played a big part in reducing peoples' instinctual sixth senses.
Sure, some people have no sense to begin with, but catering to that is a recipe for disaster.

I think it is an interesting question whether an in-bounds avalanche can be considered an inherent risk of skiing that the skier in question knowingly waived (you can only waive a known risk):

"Inherent dangers and risks of skiing" means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man-made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities. The term "inherent dangers and risks of skiing" does not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth in section 33-44-104 (2). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

I'm also curious why the CAIC didn't post their full report of Vail's in-bounds avi fatality from this past season.

Theyd laugh at you if you tried this in Europe. Anything outside of the groomer is "off-piste", and at your own risk.... America is a strange place....

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Thanks for posting that. Wow, look at the size of those hoar crystals.

The report, pics and topo map depict an obvious terrain trap. Guy was buried under 2 to 3 feet of snow and the avy was small and confined. Unless he was killed by trauma, skiing with a bud, proper gear and proper equipment might have saved him and they'd be drinking beers and saying "whew."

You assume correctly. The question is “what are inherent risks?” CO statute defines it as follows: CRS 33-44-103 (emphasis supplied).

One must consider that definition in view of the other statutory scheme, which, among other things, places a duty on the ski area operator to mark various kinds of terrains per CRS 33-44-107. This terrain trap area looks like it might fit the description of “extreme terrain” (see CRS 33-44-103(3.1)), and, if so, the double diamond with the E and X is indicated. (I’ve never seen such a sign.)

Check out CRS 33-44-109, which places a duty on the skier to ski within his ability, etc. Per my quick research, violation of the 33-44-109 duties by the skier is contributory/comparative negligence per se. (Maybe a CO attorney can offer explanation of CO comparative/contrib neg law.)


Most cases settle, of course. But sometimes the insurance carrier wants to take a case like this – where the skier seems to have assumed an obvious risk while skiing alone – one to court and all the way to a reported appellate decision.

Anybody know what signs were in place on this guy’s route towards this terrain trap? If it were the double diamond with the E and X, this plaintiffs might not get past summary judgment.

There is no EX sign at the entrance, it isn't even a named run.

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

I think it is an interesting question whether an in-bounds avalanche can be considered an inherent risk of skiing that the skier in question knowingly waived (you can only waive a known risk)

I can't speak for Colorado as I am not versed in their inherent risk statute. In Montana avalanches in open terrain are NOT considered an inherent risk. This varies by State.

Originally Posted by coreshot-tourettes

There is no EX sign at the entrance, it isn't even a named run.

Were this to happen here in Montana, the question would be, what is OPEN Terrain? Is the areas between cut trails considered OPEN? In my opinion, if that terrain is not named on a trail map then a ski area could potentially have a strong case that this wasn't considered to be OPEN. The next question would be, does the ski area have a duty to rope such terrain or not.

Again, this case (if it goes to court) could prove very interesting for Colorado Skiers.

http://www.winterparkresort.com/moun...ountry-safety/

WINTER HIGH COUNTRY SAFETY

Here are a few hints and some useful information to assist you in organizing your vacation to Winter Park, Colorado.


Planning Your Vacation
Get in shape to ski-do not ski to get in shape. Skiing is an exciting, vigorous winter sport. Always make an honest assessment of your physical and skiing abilities. The weather can change radically and rapidly, so plan to bring or buy goggles, sunglasses, sun protection, a helmet or hat and clothing that make it possible for you to dress in layers.


What to Wear
Helmet Usage: Winter Park Resort recommends wearing helmets for skiing and riding. Skiers and snowboarders are encouraged to educate themselves on the benefits and limitations of helmet usage. The primary safety consideration, and obligation under Your Responsibility Code, is to ski and ride in a controlled and responsible manner.

No helmet can protect the wearer against all head injuries or prevent injury to the wearer's face, neck or spinal cord or body parts other than your head. Be aware that multiple head injuries, even if you wear a helmet, can cause life threatening injuries. Whether you use a helmet or not, always ski/ride responsibly and within your ability, and share with other skiers the responsibility for a great skiing experience.

Layers of clothing are best. They can be added and removed in order to better regulate your body temperature.

Base Layers: long underwear, preferably, polyester or wool/poly blend; a turtleneck or long sleeve shirt, then sweater, fleece, or sweatshirt.

Socks: thin wool or poly socks for skiing or snowboarding, thick ones are too bulky, and don't keep your feet as warm.

Outer Layers: coat and pants or bibs should be warm, water resistant and comfortable; gloves or mittens, mittens are warmer if you tend to get cold hands; helmet or hat that covers your ears and stays on your head during physical activity (80% of heat is lost though your head); glasses or goggles; sunscreen and lip balm are important to use at high altitude.


High Altitude Tips
The base of the mountain lies 9,000 feet above sea level. The air is thinner and less oxygen is available. People coming from lower elevations may experience altitude sickness. This usually occurs within the first 48 hours. You may experience headaches, nausea, insomnia, and loss of appetite. The best remedy is to take it easy your first day here: increase fluid intake, decrease salt, alcohol and caffeine intake, and select high-carbohydrate, low-fat foods. Be aware that high elevation can also accentuate existing health problems. If you have a respiratory or vascular illness, consult your physician before your trip. Seek medical assistance if problems persist or get worse.


Colorado Legislature
The Colorado Legislature established as a matter of law that certain dangers and risks are inherent in the sport of skiing and snowboarding. Under Colorado law, a skier assumes the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing and snowboarding and may not recover from any ski area operator for any injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing including: changing weather conditions, existing and changing snow conditions, bare spots, rocks, stumps, trees, collisions with natural objects, man-made objects or other skiers, variations in terrain, and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.

Colorado Law includes cliffs, jumps, extreme or freestyle terrain as inherent dangers and risks of skiing.

Skiing and riding can be enjoyed in many ways. At ski areas you may see people using alpine, snowboard, telemark, cross-country or other specialized ski equipment, such as that used by disabled or other skiers. Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce.


Your Responsibility Code

Always stay in control, be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
You must not stop where you obstruct a trail or are not visible from above.
Whenever starting downhill or merging onto a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.
Skiing is a positive environmental experience. Please help us care for the environment.
Colorado State Law prohibits riding the lifts or skiing while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
If you are involved in a collision resulting in an injury, Colorado State Law requires that you give your name to a ski area employee before you leave the vicinity. Witnesses are encouraged to contact a ski area employee.
Do not enter closed lands adjoining a ski area.
Do not disembark from a chairlift except at a designated area.
Violations of the Colorado Ski Safety Act may result in fines up to $1000 and/or imprisonment.


On the Slopes

If you have not skied before, we recommend that you take a lesson. Trained instructors can teach you more quickly and safely than learning on your own or from a friend. The Winter Park Ski and Ride School is a good way to improve or refresh your skills as well as to become familiar with the mountain.
Always read the loading and lift information boards. If uncertain how to load or unload a certain chairlift, ask the attendant for instructions or help.
Arrange a meeting place and time in case someone becomes separated from skiing companions. Notify someone in your group if you decide to leave the resort.
Be "predictable" when skiing. Do not suddenly swerve away from the direction you have been traveling.
The sun's intensity at this elevation is far greater than at sea level. There is 50% more UV Rays at 10,000' than at sea level. Always wear eye and skin protection, even on cloudy days. On cold windy days protect against frostbite.
If you drop a glove, etc., from a lift into a closed area or onto a run too difficult for your ability, note the number of the nearest lift tower and report it to the top lift attendant. The ski patrol will try to retrieve it and leave it at the bottom of the lift.
"Go with the flow". If you are passing most skiers on the trail, you are probably skiing too fast. Observe the areas posted as "Slow" and slow down no matter what your ability level. Fast or reckless skiing and riding can result in injury to you or others and perhaps the loss of your lift ticket.
Check message boards at the bottom and top of the lifts for any messages from the ski patrol. For example: injured skier in your party or temporary lift closures.
Sledding of any type is not allowed at Winter Park Resort.
Snowcats, snowmobiles, snowmaking and other equipment may be encountered at any time. Stay clear.
It is your responsibility to learn which trails are open. Do not enter closed trails by going through the trees.
Any activity other than downhill skiing or snowboarding may be prohibited or restricted within the ski area. It is your responsibility to contact Winter Park senior management for details.
Fencing, poles, padding and other markings are intended to alert you to certain hazards, not to protect you from injury.
Smoking is prohibited while in lift lines, while riding lifts in buildings or while on ski-able resort terrain.
Winter Park discourages the use of music players and cell phone earpieces while loading and unloading lifts or while skiing and snowboarding.
Be alert for wildlife and do not approach or feed.
Caution – deep snow or tree wells can expose you to the risk of snow immersion, injuries or fatalities. Educate yourself on how to reduce the risks and always ski or ride with a partner. For further information visit treewelldeepsnowsafety.com.
Backcountry warning: The ski resort assumes no responsibility for skiers or riders going beyond the ski area boundary. Areas beyond the boundary are not patrolled or maintained. Avalanches, unmarked obstacles and other natural hazards exist. Rescue in the backcountry, if available, will be costly and may take time.
Share the slopes. Enjoy a lifetime of skiing!

What to Do if You are in an Accident or See an Injury
Red parkas with white crosses identify Winter Park Resort's Ski Patrol. They can be contacted by using a mountain emergency phone (red box with white cross) or through a lift operator.

In case of injury:

Do not remove the injured person's skis.
Cross your own skis uphill from the incident and send someone to report the location, type of injury and description of the injured skier.
If you are reporting an injury on the mountain via a cellular phone, call the Ski Patrol at 970.726.1480.

Your Last Run of the Day
End the day on a positive note. Stop skiing with the first signs of fatigue. Use caution walking in buildings, on walkways and in parking lots. Melting and freezing, as well as water accumulation, can cause surfaces to become slippery.

They don't say anything about inbounds avalanches. The only place avalanche is mentioned is in the section about leaving the resort and entering the backcountry. They do say deep snow and trees expose you to the risk of snow immersion, and link to the treewell safety page. That is the closest they come to warning about inbounds avalanches.

We all know the risk is there, but that is because most of us have some avalanche training... I am pretty sure before I decided I wanted to ski in the backcountry, took avy 1 and started that learning process I wouldn't have thought about inbounds avalanche risk. They do a pretty good job of covering all the other risks involved with skiing, so why not mention avalanche risk?

I'll be watching this litigation play out.

Do they need to mention the potential of small terrain trap slides? Look at the topo map. Of course this area is prone to terrain trap slides. The report rated this slide R2 but the pics and description look like R1 and the report starts with the comment "This was a small avalanche." I doubt I'd use the term "avalanche." It was a small terrain trap slide. Lots of tree skiing is rife with terrain traps.

IMV, a small terrain trap slide like this is akin to someone falling in a tree well. You can't mark every tree well and you can't mark every terrain trap -- and you shouldn't ski alone near tree wells or in places with terrain traps. Nobody had to teach me that.

Looking at the pics, topo map and description in that report - 40 to 60 degrees above and 45 degrees at the trigger (I think I'm correctly interpreting that) -- it seems that this spot could have released even in low or moderate avy conditions. I'm sorry for his family and friends, but skiing alone below a 40 to 60 degree loaded slope?

Anyway, insurance defense counsel has plenty to argue on contrib/comparative negligence. WTF was that guy doing there alone?

Originally Posted by toast2266

meh. you know what I mean. There's a difference between trees, ice, and rocks as "potential hazards" vs. high avy danger inbounds at a resort that closes terrain when the avy danger is unsafe.

you are arguing the resort needs to hold your hand for every potential problem emo-boy?

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

you are arguing the resort needs to hold your hand for every potential problem emo-boy?

How many people that you can gather go to a "resort" and think death is a possibility except for cocktails, cocaine, altitude, local conflicts, or STD's?

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

you are arguing the resort needs to hold your hand for every potential problem emo-boy?

No, you insufferable douche. I'm arguing exactly what I said in the part of my quote that you deleted.

P.S. - you still haven't brought me any twinkies you fat sack of shit.

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

How many people that you can gather go to a "resort" and think death is a possibility except for cocktails, cocaine, altitude, local conflicts, or STD's?

Most people expect Disneyland and don't expect death from anything. Which is stupid and unrealistic, but I'm not a lawyer and refuse to parse between terrain slides, trees, rocks, hangnails, and the brain eating syphilis toast has

Originally Posted by toast2266

No, you insufferable douche. I'm arguing exactly what I said in the part of my quote that you deleted.

P.S. - you still haven't brought me any twinkies you fat sack of shit.

Some food would help you Emo boy, especially with the brain function.

Now go get your CanAm scooter and join the Fry Daddys

IMHO this lawsuit sucks, hopefully it's thrown out by a judge. Not sure, but I thought avalanches were part of the natural hazards you accept responsibility for when you agree to purchase a lift pass. For the rest of us, I'm guessing this just means good terrain is less likely to open while the powder is fresh. I wouldn't want my family to sue the resort if I die in an inbounds avalanche, imho it's part of the general hazard involved with riding snow. prom dresses

Originally Posted by Big Steve

IMV, a small terrain trap slide like this is akin to someone falling in a tree well. You can't mark every tree well and you can't mark every terrain trap -- and you shouldn't ski alone near tree wells or in places with terrain traps. Nobody had to teach me that.

Well, it just so happens that the area "Topher's trees" is in fact named for a treewell victim. Topher died no more than a couple hundred yards from the site of this avalanche in the 95-96 season. He was also skiing alone. His friends and family did not sue the resort, as far as I know. I fully agree with you that the 2 accidents are very similar.

It would be a real shame if this area gets roped off and gated in the future, though I expect it will be. Hands down it's some of the best skiing within 2 hours of Denver- lots of pillow lines and cliff bands.

I was in an inbounds slide in an area that had been bombed. It still slid to the ground. I wasn't killed or injured but litigation never entered my mind either. It's skiing, it's snow, shit happens and I understand that every single time I go skiing, inbounds or not...something could happen.

Originally Posted by montanaskier

I was in an inbounds slide in an area that had been bombed. It still slid to the ground. I wasn't killed or injured but litigation never entered my mind either. It's skiing, it's snow, shit happens and I understand that every single time I go skiing, inbounds or not...something could happen.

You handled that incident nicely, and I remember it well.

If everyone wanted to be like Toast and PNWBrit, patrol would never open anything..........kinda how A-Basin doesn't open JACK SHIT after it snows ever since their in-bounds avi death on Pali.

People act like it's a fucking shocker that skiing is dangerous. Just shut down anything over 20 degrees you pussified douchebags.

Originally Posted by Blurred

You handled that incident nicely, and I remember it well.

If everyone wanted to be like Toast and PNWBrit, patrol would never open anything..........kinda how A-Basin doesn't open JACK SHIT after it snows ever since their in-bounds avi death on Pali.

People act like it's a fucking shocker that skiing is dangerous. Just shut down anything over 20 degrees you pussified douchebags.

meh. I've been caught in a small inbounds slide as well. The thought of suing certainly never entered my mind, and I would expect the same of anyone else here; we all know what we're getting into. All I'm saying is that there are conceivable situations where the resort would be liable. From everything I can see, this is not that situation. Believe it or not, there is a gray area in between the full blown nanny state and a complete free for all where the resort can do no wrong.

Originally Posted by splat

When you step out of the chopper in Valdez, there is no groomed run out.
Save a couple small heli ops, it's prolly the only place in the US where people might experience a sense of possible death while skiing.

A valuable service for those less capable of going out independently and experiencing a sense of possible death while skiing.

Originally Posted by jfost

this is the question that the court exists to answer, and the question that could lead to a safer skiing environment for everyone, or maybe it was just bad luck that day. If you don't ask, you'll never know.

Originally Posted by coreshot-tourettes

There is no EX sign at the entrance, it isn't even a named run.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

IMV, a small terrain trap slide like this is akin to someone falling in a tree well. You can't mark every tree well and you can't mark every terrain trap -- and you shouldn't ski alone near tree wells or in places with terrain traps. Nobody had to teach me that.

Looking at the pics, topo map and description in that report - 40 to 60 degrees above and 45 degrees at the trigger (I think I'm correctly interpreting that) -- it seems that this spot could have released even in low or moderate avy conditions. I'm sorry for his family and friends, but skiing alone below a 40 to 60 degree loaded slope?

Anyway, insurance defense counsel has plenty to argue on contrib/comparative negligence. WTF was that guy doing there alone?

Originally Posted by goldenboy

Well, it just so happens that the area "Topher's trees" is in fact named for a treewell victim. Topher died no more than a couple hundred yards from the site of this avalanche in the 95-96 season. He was also skiing alone. His friends and family did not sue the resort, as far as I know. I fully agree with you that the 2 accidents are very similar.
It would be a real shame if this area gets roped off and gated in the future, though I expect it will be. Hands down it's some of the best skiing within 2 hours of Denver- lots of pillow lines and cliff bands.

Highlighted for truth. I was thinking about the fact that another Christopher was lost near the same area. I do and will continue to ski alone in there. There are just some days where I can't find anyone to do a lap or laps. BUT, route finding and terrain selection is always on my mind when I am in there. Even though "you are not alone" is always in mind. I hope it doesn't end up closing lots of good skiing.