Meadows Lawsuit

[alembical]

Just wanted to make sure other Mt. Hood Meadows skiers were aware of this. A family took their 12 year old daughter skiing 2 years ago in Accordion Bowl. A falling rock broke her leg and they are suing for $400,000. The articles do not state much more. I don't know if she had bc gear with her, was wearing a helmet, or anything like that, but think it is an interesting suit. Even if they don't win, Heather Canyon might likely be closed more than it even is now.. if that is even possible. Too bad though as the appeal of this area is that it is more bc-like and even has warnings and gates you must enter through.

According their suit, Meadows should be liable for "Failing to close the Clark Canyon ski run when Mount Hood Meadows should have known the risk." I am surprised, but the plaintiff's address and phone number are public.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/101580433.html

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/08/...-hood-meadows/

[snapt]

Is there any doctrine in Oregon addressing primary assumption of risk in regards to recreation?

[spook]

IT'S NOT HEATHERS CANYON. IT'S JUST HEATHER CANYON.

that said, i have a lot of problems with the way meadows does business, but this is a ridiculous suit. in my lay opinion, of course.

[alembical]

yeah, and I think this case would lose if it made it to trial, but the odds are good it will not make it that far and settle, giving this family more money, encouraging more of these suits and less individual responsibility, all at a cost to the rest of us who wish this area was open more. In addition to the waiver when buying the ski pass, there are signs, warnings and gates you need to cross before entering this area.

The father who is bringing the suit lives in a house I could only dream of affording and judging by his good job at CH2MHill (according to linkedin), makes considerably more money than I do, but yet, the thought of this suit obviously must not disgust him the same way it does me.

Should have been a teaching experience for their child on personal responsibility, risk/reward, or something similar rather than a passing on of the idea that someone owes us something.... at least in my opinion.

I am definitely planning on calling them though on days I make it up to Meadows and see that Heather Canyon is closed when it easily could be and should be open.

[rideit]

Remember when this place was all about a good e-lynching?

Those days were fun...

[Hugh Conway]

Are they related to the Nilan who's CEO of Typhoon?

[LightRanger]

Is there any doctrine in Oregon addressing primary assumption of risk in regards to recreation?

Shouldn't matter. Meadows still very likely wouldn't be found liable as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.

But... it'll settle.

Fucking douchebag ambulance chasers and the jerkoffs who hire them... (what it sounds like from the minimal info given) $350K for pain and suffering from a tibia break? Fuck off.

edit: RideIt, that good enough?

[alembical]

yikes... in unrelated news, Kirk Hanna owner of Ski Bowl was sentenced to 30 days in jail for Hit and Run and Driving Under Influence of Intoxicants for hitting a bike rider in May.

http://www.kptv.com/news/24783448/detail.html

not sure it is really worthy of its own thread, but at the same time, real shitty situation.

[Yeti]

From the Oregon Revised Statutes:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/030.html
SKIING ACTIVITIES



30.970 Definitions for ORS 30.970 to 30.990. As used in ORS 30.970 to 30.990:

(1) “Inherent risks of skiing” includes, but is not limited to, those dangers or conditions which are an integral part of the sport, such as changing weather conditions, variations or steepness in terrain, snow or ice conditions, surface or subsurface conditions, bare spots, creeks and gullies, forest growth, rocks, stumps, lift towers and other structures and their components, collisions with other skiers and a skier’s failure to ski within the skier’s own ability.

(2) “Injury” means any personal injury or property damage or loss.

(3) “Skier” means any person who is in a ski area for the purpose of engaging in the sport of skiing or who rides as a passenger on any ski lift device.

(4) “Ski area” means any area designated and maintained by a ski area operator for skiing.

(5) “Ski area operator” means those persons, and their agents, officers, employees or representatives, who operate a ski area. [1979 c.665 §1]



30.975 Skiers assume certain risks. In accordance with ORS 31.600 and notwithstanding ORS 31.620 (2), an individual who engages in the sport of skiing, alpine or nordic, accepts and assumes the inherent risks of skiing insofar as they are reasonably obvious, expected or necessary. [1979 c.665 §2]



30.980 Notice to ski area operator of injury to skier; injuries resulting in death; statute of limitations; informing skiers of notice requirements. (1) A ski area operator shall be notified of any injury to a skier by registered or certified mail within 180 days after the injury or within 180 days after the skier discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, such injury.

(2) When an injury results in a skier’s death, the required notice of the injury may be presented to the ski area operator by or on behalf of the personal representative of the deceased, or any person who may, under ORS 30.020, maintain an action for the wrongful death of the skier, within 180 days after the date of the death which resulted from the injury. However, if the skier whose injury resulted in death presented a notice to the ski area operator that would have been sufficient under this section had the skier lived, notice of the death to the ski area operator is not necessary.

(3) An action against a ski area operator to recover damages for injuries to a skier shall be commenced within two years of the date of the injuries. However, ORS 12.160 and 12.190 apply to such actions.

(4) Failure to give notice as required by this section bars a claim for injuries or wrongful death unless:

(a) The ski area operator had knowledge of the injury or death within the 180-day period after its occurrence;

(b) The skier or skier’s beneficiaries had good cause for failure to give notice as required by this section; or

(c) The ski area operator failed to comply with subsection (5) of this section.

(5) Ski area operators shall give to skiers, in a manner reasonably calculated to inform, notice of the requirements for notifying a ski area operator of injury and the effect of a failure to provide such notice under this section. [1979 c.665 §3]



30.985 Duties of skiers; effect of failure to comply. (1) Skiers shall have duties which include but are not limited to the following:

(a) Skiers who ski in any area not designated for skiing within the permit area assume the inherent risks thereof.

(b) Skiers shall be the sole judges of the limits of their skills and their ability to meet and overcome the inherent risks of skiing and shall maintain reasonable control of speed and course.

(c) Skiers shall abide by the directions and instructions of the ski area operator.

(d) Skiers shall familiarize themselves with posted information on location and degree of difficulty of trails and slopes to the extent reasonably possible before skiing on any slope or trail.

(e) Skiers shall not cross the uphill track of any surface lift except at points clearly designated by the ski area operator.

(f) Skiers shall not overtake any other skier except in such a manner as to avoid contact and shall grant the right of way to the overtaken skier.

(g) Skiers shall yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill.

(h) Skiers must wear retention straps or other devices to prevent runaway skis.

(i) Skiers shall not board rope tows, wire rope tows, j-bars, t-bars, ski lifts or other similar devices unless they have sufficient ability to use the devices, and skiers shall follow any written or verbal instructions that are given regarding the devices.

(j) Skiers, when involved in a skiing accident, shall not depart from the ski area without leaving their names and addresses if reasonably possible.

(k) A skier who is injured should, if reasonably possible, give notice of the injury to the ski area operator before leaving the ski area.

(L) Skiers shall not embark or disembark from a ski lift except at designated areas or by the authority of the ski area operator.

(2) Violation of any of the duties of skiers set forth in subsection (1) of this section entitles the ski area operator to withdraw the violator’s privilege of skiing. [1979 c.665 §4]



30.990 Operators required to give skiers notice of duties. Ski area operators shall give notice to skiers of their duties under ORS 30.985 in a manner reasonably calculated to inform skiers of those duties. [1979 c.665 §5]

[Edgnar]

It goes to the Meadow's liability insurance company. Whether or not it settles depends on how contentious they are and if their lawyers think they can fight it and win based on the strength of law stating that skiers accept the risk. I noticed that rock fall is not specifically included in the list of hazards. I suspect it settles for a lot less than $400k.

[sidewall]

Why the 1.5 year wait to file? I sure as hell hope they don't settle, this is bullshit.

[powder11]

The American justice system needs to award court costs/damages to those who defend themselves from bullshit lawsuits and win. Shit like this would go away overnight.

[Edgnar]

On the other hand, sometimes people who should win do not. The justice system does occasionally fail us.

[TNThor]

Any word on whether or not they took Meadows to court / results?