Bachelor responsible for defective jump that paralyzed snowboarder, OR S. Ct.

[spook]

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...incart_m-rpt-1

ASTORIA — The Oregon Supreme Court has been asked to invalidate Mt. Bachelor's liability waiver by a snowboarder paralyzed from the waist down on one of the ski resort's expert jumps.
The snowboarder's attorneys argue that the resort bears a responsibility for the jump's design, which they argue was flawed, and say the resort's waiver is "unconscionable." Attorneys for Mt. Bachelor in Bend replied that the snowboarder must take into account the inherently risky behavior of expert jumps.
The arguments Wednesday at Astoria High School's auditorium centered on the difference between the assumed risk that skiers and snowboarders take on dangerous jumps and the responsibility of a snow park operator to make sure its jumps and moguls are safe.
Myles Bagley was 18 when he was injured at the Mt. Bachelor in 2006 on a jump. Bagley sought $21.5 million in Deschutes County Circuit Court in 2008. A judge threw out the lawsuit, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Bagley's case could have broad ramifications for release agreements that must be signed in order to take part in an activity. The Legislature has made specific rules for amusement parks, which include ski lifts, but the issue of broader recreational activity has not yet been defined.
One of Bagley's attorneys, Kathryn Clarke, argued that the waiver is contrary to public policy, saying that it protects Mt. Bachelor from activities that people have a right to engage in.
"It's a risky sport, and Myles Bagley knew that," Clarke said. "That's what he thought he was agreeing to, assuming the risks of the sport. But that's not what happened.
"This was a man-made jump, and it was designed, and it was designed defectively."
Andrew C. Balyeat, an attorney for Mount Bachelor, argued that skiing and snowboarding are activities in which the participants assume risk. To propose waivers for any activity would be excessive, he said, but in some cases, risk is assumed.
"If you buy a ticket to a movie theater, do you have an expectation that a projector is going to fall on your head? No," Balyeat said. "Like it or not, for those of us who love to ski and love to snowboard, it's risky, it's dangerous, it's icy."
The justices' questions focused on finding precedent in Oregon law for Bagley's claims. Clarke argued that consumer law is the main factor in the case — Bagley was sold a good, she argued, that injured him.
Chief Justice Thomas Balmer asked Balyeat why Bagley's situation was different from American snowboarder Shaun White's decision to withdraw from the Olympic slopestyle contest in Krasnaya Polyana, Russia, over safety concerns.
"He chose not to participate because the course was unsafe," Balmer said. "Why should the owner of a course not be liable for an unsafely designed course?"
Balyeat replied that the jump is similarly, inherently risky.
"Nowhere does it say," Balyeat said, "that a mogul or a tabletop jump isn't part of the risk."
-- The Associated Press

[spook]

i have no idea what happened, but it seems like if there was clear negligence in the design of the jump that made it inherently unsafe rather than just "risky" the boarder wouldn't have assumed the risk of that. but i'm not a lying whore for mone -- i mean, i'm not a lawyer.

[::: :::]

unless the jump fell on him while he was sitting next to it, this case isn't going to end the way the complainant hopes

[digitaldeath]

i broke my heel on a jump

big fucking deal

my rep just grew

[Ted Striker]

this case isn't going to end the way the complainant hopes

If it goes to a jury, I'm guessing sympathy money only.

[GoldMember]

If it goes to a jury, I'm guessing sympathy money only.

Maybe only sympathy money but the bigger issue here is that would imply guilt on the part of the ski area. That's going to have far-reaching effects if it happens. There are plenty of terrain park jumps that could seriously hurt someone that enterprising attorneys would claim were defective and would have a precedent-setting case to rely on for their claims. Even if the award was $1 in this case, it could spell some significant changes at ski areas relative to man-made features. That could be expanded to include mogul runs since it's the skiers that make the moguls. This would be bad if the court found on behalf of the plaintiff, regardless the amount of award.

[Buster Highmen]

"The Oregon Supreme Court has been asked to invalidate Mt. Bachelor's liability waiver " is a far cry from "Bachelor responsible for defective jump that paralyzed snowboarder, OR S. Ct. ".

[stuckathuntermtn]

One has to guess that a bunch of other people went off the same jump and DIDN'T hurt themselves. If that's so, then the jump design is not at fault. 1 case of someone catching an edge or whatever because the inrun or ramp or some part was a little chewed up as it got used throughout the day doesn't make Bachelor at fault. Especially since there's probably a park crew that goes out during the day and touches stuff up.
It's not a defective toy when 1 kid jams it in his eye.
Sometimes there are just freak accidents that change your life for the worse, and you want to blame someone because it has to be someone's fault, but it's really not. It's no one's. It might even be your own damn fault for putting yourself in that situation.

[raisingarizona13]

Moguls? With that it's clear this lawyer doesn't know shit!

[::: :::]

wouldn't the complainant have to prove he was pro level before the expert terrain can be declared faulty?

[stuckathuntermtn]

wouldn't the complainant have to prove he was pro level before the expert terrain can be declared faulty?

I think the complaintant has to prove (with over-stylialzied go pro footage from his helmet and pole mounted cameras, various other angles, scenes of him driving to the mountain, and crappy techno) that he was, in fact, eXtreme and went huDge on the reg and that this injury ruined his chance at that sweet spansorship deal he almost had nailed down.

[stuckathuntermtn]

"zit flat?!"

[Ted Striker]

the bigger issue here is that would imply guilt on the part of the ski area.

The last time the local hill was in court over a similar event, the jury split the blame, hence the plaintiff (who most locals believe was completely in the wrong - ignoring a barricade set by the ski area) got a fairly small percentage of the damages they were seeking. The management promised to add some additional protection/barriers/signage and all was good.

If the plaintiff had walked into court that day, she would've received nothing, but a wheelchair is a powerful visual.

[bigdude2468]

"The Oregon Supreme Court has been asked to invalidate Mt. Bachelor's liability waiver " is a far cry from "Bachelor responsible for defective jump that paralyzed snowboarder, OR S. Ct. ".

If the liability waver is invalidated then this is a huge deal. A ski resort could be found liable for any grooming inconsistencies, ice that develops where you unload from a chair and the biggest one of all, a tree in the middle of a run, they are certainly a safety issue once you run into it.

[leroy jenkins]

I have so many mixed feelings on this. This is one heck of a slippery slope. However, I have seen many park jumps that were poorly made poorly shaped and seemed designed so as to injure people. Even small ones often have a very narrow window of speed between clearing the landing or not clearing the table.

[spook]

"The Oregon Supreme Court has been asked to invalidate Mt. Bachelor's liability waiver " is a far cry from "Bachelor responsible for defective jump that paralyzed snowboarder, OR S. Ct. ".

that's their headline

[Buster Highmen]

that's their headline

hysteria parrot

[spook]

hysteria parrot

no, i let others speak for themselves. but hysteria parrot would be a good name for a really strong drink or a band. or your domineering boyfriend when he's telling you what a fuckup you are and you start bawling and crawling across the floor as he gets ready to go fuck the girl across the hall. "just slit your wrists already you fucking hysteria parrot!"

[PNWbrit]

his is one heck of a slippery slope.

It's a slippery slope of slippery slope litigation?

... and we're all friends here. You can say hell.

or your domineering boyfriend when he's telling you what a fuckup you are and you start bawling and crawling across the floor as he gets ready to go fuck the girl across the hall. "just slit your wrists already you fucking hysteria parrot!"

Vibes.

[spook]

It's a slippery slope of slippery slope litigation?

... and we're all friends here. You can say hell.



Vibes.

FINALLY. thank you.

[stuckathuntermtn]

They should just start putting up "Slippery when wet" signs everywhere. Then when someone tries to sue for hurting themselves skiing, the ski areas can just point to the sign.
Slippery slope, indeed.
The whole point of adrenaline sports is that they're dangerous. Hence the adrenaline. Maybe one day, liability insurance will be so expensive, ski areas only open on Presidents Day Weekend and groom and clearcut and flatten everything. Don't forget lots of signs and padding. Mandatory racing armor. Yeah, man, it feels so good to be out there, just me and mountains! *splat* waaaaaaaah, it's somebody else's fault!

[josef]

Fucking snowboarders...

[hutash]

If the cat operator was drunk when building the jump, then yes, but jump by definition is dangerous. So are moguls, those little fuckers are really dangerous, they kick my butt every time.

[abraham]

hysteria parrot

Is that like a concrete seagull?

[TomCrac]

It's the jumps fault??? ... How fucking retarded.