# Are resorts responsible for neglegent injuries?



## Casual (Feb 9, 2011)

I would feel a lot safer in the parks if they were regulated and inspected to meet standards. I don't think each hill needs to hire an engineer, but rather engineers design approved standards that the hills build to. Consistancy between parks would be nice and that would acheive that to some extent. What I don't agree with is these ridiculousd law suits, I don't know the story but maybe this guy had no business hitting this jump and it would not have mattered how it was built, he was going to get hurt. The problem with regulating it is a lot of parks would have a hard time building the features and in the end the riders in a lot of areas would suffer the effect of more limited parks and higher lift ticket prices.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

I feel like if he had properly inspected the jump before hitting it, LIKE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, then it never would of happened.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

^^^ Couldn't agree with Casual's post more. (You too VD lol)

I'd love to see more hills get properly designed jumps, at the same time I think the onus is on the rider to scout anything before jumping it.

What about the in-bounds cliffs that people jump off? None of them are "engineered". Some of them have rock fields in the landing zones!

I'm not sure how to get more resorts building carefully constructed jumps. Seems it's up to the park guys to build what they feel like, Lake Louise just seems to get it really right. Watched my buddy to that big step up the other day and I cringed at how fast he hit it. Landed right on top of the damn jump and rode away. :blink: I think you could safely hit that jump anywhere from 30-90 km/h and not get seriously hurt.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

I used to ride Snoqualmie and the only attraction at the mountain was the park. I find it hard to believe whoever made it did not know what they were doing.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

The problem with snow is it's always changing. Jump in the morning is different mid day and definitely different in the afternoon. There's a reason that resorts have mountain safety coordinators or directors that inspect everything.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

after 5 weeks and a full jury trial, i have to trust that,* in this case*, the mountain and that park worker were truly negligent somehow


----------



## tj_ras (Feb 13, 2011)

I think even if a set standard was made for jumps and features its still the person building it that really has the final "say". it could still end up with sketchy features, safer maybe but without a profesional to be there to take the time to make it or ok it it most likely will never be "to the standard". 

I believe it all comes down solely to rider error, just becuase it was man made doesnt mean its safe. As said it should always be up to the rider to check out what they are hitting and declare it "safe" for themselves. However in this day and age, everything and anything will turn into a lawsuit if theres a way becuase nobody likes to take responsibility for there actions(disclaimer: im aware some situations are different then others).


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

No, this is so annoying. For years our resort made hits that you couldn't overshoot. So you bombed it and barely made it. They did this because incompetent retards who wanted to be cool riding in the park when they had no business being there would get hurt on them. This scared them to the point of making things with idiots in mind first and riders in control, experience, and passion to progress second. They have been gravitating away lately and it's been nice. Just is now a huge gap from beginner features to advanced shit. Still sweetest set up around though.


----------



## Jollybored (Nov 7, 2011)

I thought that when you purchased a ticket/pass that there was a liability waiver? :dunno:

In any case these law suits are getting out of hand - putting yourself into that situation and blaming someone else for it.



> 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."


Next thing you know, all the mountains start removing all "features" in fear of liability....


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

Jollybored said:


> I thought that when you purchased a ticket/pass that there was a liability waiver? :dunno:


waived...unless there was negligence

frivolous lawsuits abound, doesn't mean they are all frivolous

i mean fuk, the dude is paralyzed for life, life from 27? fukkn harsh. insurance is a racket anyway, i like to see em take a legit hit now and then


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

CassMT said:


> after 5 weeks and a full jury trial, i have to trust that,* in this case*, the mountain and that park worker were truly negligent somehow


I wonder if the lawmakers and jury were familiar with "always scope your landing." Also, how the fuck do you get paralyzed if you weren't already attempting an inverted trick? I've seen people drop big cliffs into a barely covered rock field (oops), and while they were definitely injured, they were nowhere near paralyzed. Now if they had landed on their head... then totally. Urban riders drop buildings onto a 5 foot landing zone... I still blame the rider. 

On another note, if the jury was made of snowboarders, do you think the same result would have happened?


----------



## Snow4me (Jan 22, 2013)

This is sort of old news around here, the jury gave that award back in 2007 and partially based their award on the fact that the resort didn't close or edit the feature after prior folks were injured to the point they had to be taken away on a sled.

At that resort now, you have to get a "park pass" to ride the park...which includes signing an EXTRA waiver. Although, my season pass for that place pretty much says I can kill myself and they are not responsible and it also has the basic park rules on the back...but I'm sure they are extra careful now...


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

wild guess, but im sure the defense asked if he had scoped, sometime in 5 weeks!...if not, they deserved to lose


----------



## Psi-Man (Aug 31, 2009)

Yup, hopefully this does not set a precedent or you are gonna see a lot of terrain parks disappearing (or at least toned down) from the mountains.


----------



## unsunken (Dec 15, 2009)

There are certain expectations when riding in resorts. For example, avalanche control. If an in-bounds avalanche occurs in an area open to skiers and easily accessible via lift (eg. no hiking required), I think most people would agree that the resort could be held responsible.

And if you had a clearly marked tabletop with the landing so far out that it was impossible to hit the landing, even if you bombed it from the top of the park, that is clearly a poorly designed feature. Is it negligence on the part of the resort? I'd think so. Unlike natural cliffs and jumps, the expectations for manmade ones are higher. They're designed to be hit. A skilled skier should be able to navigate through terrain park features without getting injured.

To me it's a grey area. Yes, the accident could be avoided if the skier used better judgment. But whether the resort was negligent, I don't know enough about the situation to pass judgment.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

in case ppl's tl/dr kicked in:

""..... 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.""

i would call that negligent


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

Agreed. All those other injuries... I didn't realize this was all back in 2007. That is when I was riding there! It also explains why they were so crazy about the park pass... I would always sneak in from the trees.


----------



## bamfb2 (Mar 16, 2011)

CassMT said:


> in case ppl's tl/dr kicked in:
> 
> ""..... 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.
> 
> ...


The people running that resort are retarded (and I'm not even talking about the park guys - although they sound less than talented at what they do). Seriously, do they have no concept of liability? At a certain point you think it would have dawned on them to do something. Amazing.


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

Maybe stuff like this is why Wolf Creek doesn't have a park?

And maybe it's also why lift tickets are $56 a day there... :eusa_clap:


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

KansasNoob said:


> Maybe stuff like this is why Wolf Creek doesn't have a park?
> 
> And maybe it's also why lift tickets are $56 a day there... :eusa_clap:


probably not, unless they are the same owners and insurance company, and the price jumped since this morning

prices have gone up everywhere for myriad reasons, insurance may be part of it, electricity and fuel prices, etc... but imo there is a lot of strait up greed on the part of owners and investors

56 is cheap these days, its 74 here, fuuuck...i feel for ppl that come and never even see the top of the mtn


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

I'd like to see what that jump looked like. 37 feet I'm assuming was completely to the flats. I do have an issue with a comment the guy made after the verdict:



> "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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



Sure the jump may have been constructed poorly, but put some thought into it before hitting them. It's not "roller coaster safe", there's risk on any jump.
I'm not saying the resort isn't at fault for leaving the jump open when multiple people were getting seriously injured, if it was that bad it should have been reshaped, but take SOME accountability when putting yourself in a possibly dangerous situation.


----------



## bamfb2 (Mar 16, 2011)

CassMT said:


> 56 is cheap these days, its 74 here, fuuuck...i feel for ppl that come and never even see the top of the mtn



Yah, but at least you are in MT. A day at Killington will set you back $88 on a weekend. And it's been driving up other nearby mountain's prices. Arse rape.


----------



## bamfb2 (Mar 16, 2011)

Deviant said:


> Sure the jump may have been constructed poorly, but put some thought into it before hitting them. It's not "roller coaster safe", there's risk on any jump.
> I'm not saying the resort isn't at fault for leaving the jump open when multiple people were getting seriously injured, if it was that bad it should have been reshaped, but take SOME accountability when putting yourself in a possibly dangerous situation.



You're not wrong. But if I'm this guy? I'm doing and saying the same thing. If you gotta be paralyzed for life, at least go for some money to keep you comfortable. None of us would trade positions with that dude.


----------



## unsunken (Dec 15, 2009)

Deviant said:


> but take SOME accountability when putting yourself in a possibly dangerous situation.



Just as an FYI, the judge apparently did since the original award was $31mil and he brought it down to $14mil.


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

I think the main reason for no park is mainly to keep the tix as low as they are. Also most people go to WC for powder. And there are plenty of natural features to hit that I'm not even close to good enough to hit. WC is kind of a no BS ski area. Food is good and cheap, people are friendly and get what you come for. Which is probably why it's the only place other than Ski Santa Fe (lame) that I've been.

Been owned by the same family for a long time, I just hope the lift they're replacing doesn't jack up the prices too much. :blink:


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

unsunken said:


> Just as an FYI, the judge apparently did since the original award was $31mil and he brought it down to $14mil.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

unsunken said:


> Just as an FYI, the judge apparently did since the original award was $31mil and he brought it down to $14mil.


Right, and that was a good decision on the judges part, I just have issues with the individual not taking any responsibility for their actions. More of a vent in my case.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Jollybored said:


> Next thing you know, all the mountains start removing all "features" in fear of liability....


Up here no RCR owned resorts have any real jumps (Fernie, Kicking Horse, Kimberley, and Nakiska). They've got rail parks and BX courses. They started putting in a couple bonk hit type jumps this year, but they're nothing like what a proper park should be.


----------



## SimonB (Oct 13, 2010)

poutanen said:


> Up here no RCR owned resorts have any real jumps (Fernie, Kicking Horse, Kimberley, and Nakiska). They've got rail parks and BX courses. They started putting in a couple bonk hit type jumps this year, but they're nothing like what a proper park should be.


Same thing here with Stoneham and Mont Ste-Anne (RCR owned). And you need a park pass for the "big" park. They have the baddest rails setup possible but no jumps.

Funny thing is Stoneham hosted the FIS World Cup in January with a slopestyle course, made of 60+ feet jumps. They destroyed them less than an hour after the finals.


----------



## NWBoarder (Jan 10, 2010)

This law suit is the exact reason that Snoqulamie now requires you to take a park safety eduaction course and pay a $5 fee in order to ride their main park. You can play in the kiddie park all you want without it, but the main park is off limits until you do this. Of cousre, you can always ollie the rope and ride it all you want, but there can be consequences for that as well. Also, this law suit is the biggest reason why Snoqulamie doesn't build massive jumps for anything other than a comp. And if they're for a comp, you can't ride them unless you are a part of said comp. The biggest non-competition jump they have is maybe a 35 footer.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

It depends on your state's tort laws. They are strong I some places like New York and non existant in some places like Colorado. 

The basic standard is absorbing "inherent risk." Falls, crashes, avalanches. ..all inherent risks of the sport and the resort is immune. Hitting a cat groomer parked in the middle of the trail...not an inherent risk. Increasing courts are ruling that you dont absorb another participants inherent risk so resorts can be liable for collisions. 

"Comparative negligence" exists in many states and basically lets the judge or jury reduce your award by the percentage of fault that is yours (you hit a cat groomer, but you were out of bounds so fault is 50% yours.) There are states that give a comparative risk exemption by basically saying if its any percentage your fault your award is reduced 100%....effectively meaning you can win a case and win zero monetary reward. 

Blanket waivers have been and will continue to be attacked by courts as contrary to public policy. They prolly wont be as blanket in the future as they have been in the past. 

The case in discussion here was on media rotation heavily. It was one of the rare cases to decide a poorly and unprofessionally designed park is a risk not inherent to the sport. It breaks from the mainstream decisions on terrain parks. 

A lot o people buy the slippery slope argument but I dont. Insurance/reinsurace is probably one the cheeepist bill a resort pays. Pfffft. Snowmaking and lodge expansions probably eat the bulk of the lift ticket price.


----------



## duh (Sep 7, 2011)

Nothing good can come from this. Terrain park jumps shouldn't all be "perfectly engineered." That's part of the idea, interpret the feature and find your own way to exploit it. Transitions aren't in perfect places in natural terrain, you have to figure out the right way to hit something.

The resort never forced him to hit the jump. He more than likely had to ride past a sign that said he was entering a terrain park area. He had plenty of time to take the oppurtunity to inspect the jump before hitting it. He decided himself what speed and trajectory he would take, the resort had nothing to do with those choices. After taking this into consideration I find him to be entirely at fault. I am sorry he has to live with the consequences of his choices but all this court judgement did was push his burden onto others. 

Frivolous lawsuits suck.


----------



## IdahoFreshies (Jul 9, 2011)

duh said:


> Nothing good can come from this. Terrain park jumps shouldn't all be "perfectly engineered." That's part of the idea, interpret the feature and find your own way to exploit it. Transitions aren't in perfect places in natural terrain, you have to figure out the right way to hit something.
> 
> The resort never forced him to hit the jump. He more than likely had to ride past a sign that said he was entering a terrain park area. He had plenty of time to take the oppurtunity to inspect the jump before hitting it. He decided himself what speed and trajectory he would take, the resort had nothing to do with those choices. After taking this into consideration I find him to be entirely at fault. I am sorry he has to live with the consequences of his choices but all this court judgement did was push his burden onto others.
> 
> Frivolous lawsuits suck.


IMO it's just not that easy. If you were riding the lift to some expert terrain and it broke and you fell and got hurt wouldn't you want compensation? There are certain aspects to the hill you just hope are built right by people who know what they are doing. 

Now I know that is a bit of a stretch, ESPECIALLY in the terrain park where rider responsibility is 99% of the deal, but on a jump that is big enough to paralyze you from landing 37 feet a rider expects it to at least be moderately safe, because when jumps are built right they are pretty safe. It shouldn't buck you up into the air and throw you off, and you shouldn't be able to clear the landing and land flat simply by starting too high, all that comes into proper jump building.


----------



## scrotumphillips (Oct 27, 2012)

unsunken said:


> And if you had a clearly marked tabletop with the landing so far out that it was impossible to hit the landing, even if you bombed it from the top of the park, that is clearly a poorly designed feature. Is it negligence on the part of the resort? I'd think so.


I'd also think it would be harder to get hurt on a jump if you can't clear it by 20 feet. It does suck when jumps are nearly unclearable, but I guess there is less liability.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

The Plantiff's lawyer really went out of his way to win. I have to bet that the UC-Davis uses olympic ski jump standards to make the case for the jury










Because the jury doesn't know the difference between a terrain park and an olympic ski jump... that's probably how they won.

Imagine if one of the jury members had an engineering or physics background.... and if he/she wanted... can really provide questions to the "experts"?


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> Imagine if one of the jury members had an engineering or physics background.... and if he/she wanted... can really provide questions to the "experts"?


I was curious about this. Maybe that would preclude them from being in the jury? If you were a skier or snowboarder would you not be allowed on the jury? I think that would affect the outcome for sure.


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> The Plantiff's lawyer really went out of his way to win. I have to bet that the UC-Davis uses olympic ski jump standards to make the case for the jury
> 
> Because the jury doesn't know the difference between a terrain park and an olympic ski jump... that's probably how they won.
> 
> Imagine if one of the jury members had an engineering or physics background.... and if he/she wanted... can really provide questions to the "experts"?





BigmountainVMD said:


> I was curious about this. Maybe that would preclude them from being in the jury? If you were a skier or snowboarder would you not be allowed on the jury? I think that would affect the outcome for sure.


Jury would never be allowed to ask questions. If they found out you had an engineering background and strong familiarity with designing of snowboarding terrain parks you would likely not even be allowed on the jury during interviews. The lawyers would consider you to be a threat to their case as you may try to undermine them during jury deliberations.

As for this case, I hardly call it frivilous (something I noticed someone else say). Yes there is a definite risk we all voluntarily take while participating in this sport BUT there is also an expectation that area of the resort are properly constructed and/or maintained.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

You guys want to talk stupid law suits check this one out. Snowboarder Sues Mammoth Mountain at Boardistan How the fuck do you run into the back of a snowcat? The damn thing is beeping when its in motion.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

engineers or not, i would not underestimate the jury....im sure the physics and all were explained and charted no end, they don't need to be skiers, boarders or anything...a chimp could understand that the mountain was negligent when they failed to fix or close the jump after so many fucked themselves up in the weeks leading up to the accident

and really...14 mil is not that much, this is not the end of parks, riding, or the world


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> You guys want to talk stupid law suits check this one out. Snowboarder Sues Mammoth Mountain at Boardistan How the fuck do you run into the back of a snowcat? The damn thing is beeping when its in motion.


I can understand being upset at the resort running it if the lady was an inexperienced skier. Maybe she couldn't get out of the way, or maybe she was going too damn fast. But suing the cat manufacturer? WTF. 

Has anyone else seen the vid of the snowcat coming up a jump where the guy didn't know it was there and jumped over it? Wonder why they were running it at that time? Or maybe he went into a closed area.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

That video is so stupid the park was closed. The kid poached the jump and bam there's the cat. Also her skill level does not matter the damn thing is beeping, flashing lights, grinding, making a diesel motor noise, is red, she is at fault for stupidity.


----------



## CheeseForSteeze (May 11, 2011)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ympl4yXQ7CM

If you are talking about that vid, it looks fake. The cat skips a few frames. That is a telltale these were spliced from two separate clips.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> That video is so stupid the park was closed. The kid poached the jump and bam there's the cat. Also her skill level does not mattei the damn thing is beeping, flashing lights, grinding, making a diesel motor noise, is red, she is at fault for stupidity.


There's actually a lot of case law on cat groomers. Many courts in many states have consistently ruled that cat groomers on hills where the public are skiing is NOT considered to be an inherent risk of the sport. (There are a couple states where ALL collisions with manmade objects are inherent and therefore the claim is barred - I think Colorado and Michigan maybe?) Unless the staff visibly roped off the trail they were grooming or verbally told her not to use that trail...her claim will not be barred. And even if they did rope off the trail, her claim can go forward if California is a comparative negligence state. 

And she may have a claim against the manufacturer if she can show they had knowledge thee groomers were being used without reasonable duty of care by the mountains they were sold to (eg they knew places like mammoth would be running them on populated hills) and didn't include any safety guard mechanisms to keep leg from being chewed off. Thats a completely valid claim if the state allows it to proceed (but seems a harder prima facie case to make.)

People think people file these lawsuits to get rich. But the cost of being paralyzed from the neck down or having a leg amputated is quite high. Your medical insurance carrier (particularly if its state like Medicaid or Federal like Medicare) may require you to file the claim against the mountain so their insurance carrier can reimburse the cost. Add in lost wages, home modifications and other continuing care costs over a lifetime and its a damn big bill. The paralyzed guy probably cant be left alone with an aide or home care worker for any period of time for his entire life. The mountain's insurance carrier should pay that claim, not the guy's insurance company if its the mountain that allowed a risk not inherent to the sport to persist on its site. 

Tort is part of the business. Insurance and reinsurance was invented for a reason. No one is going to lose their terrain parks unless they are consistently shown, like cigarettes or something, to be a public health hazard. And if your lift ticket cost goes up...look to the new summit lodge and high speed lifts. Not the insurance premium.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Ugh lawyers always thinking they know everything. The fact of the matter is the damn thing beeps, flashes, is painted red, is HUGE, has a loud diesel engine, and looks like it could kill you. Would you go walk onto a construction site? Same concept. 

I will once again state she is a moron and should take responsibility for her actions. So she got her leg cut off, so the guy is paralyzed, it is a risk you take. Every day there are risks in life that have outcomes that we might not like. 

Sun begins to shine for snowboard accident victim | Mammoth Times

Seriously they start off with her touting how she now gets front row parking? Seriously you're stoked on that. What the hell is wrong with people. I'm permanently disabled from a ski resort injury that is as much the resorts fault as mine. Did I bitch and moan about it and sue them, fuck no I sacked up and moved on with my life. I also had a strong enough case to win. You take onus for what you did. I got too gnarly for my own good and got wrecked on a feature I knew was built wrong. 

This country is completely full of pussies that want to blame everyone else rather than step up to their own faults. If you don't believe that insurance premiums drive up ticket sales you are oblivious. I have friends that run resorts and next to snow making that is their second highest cost.


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Ugh lawyers always thinking they know everything. The fact of the matter is the damn thing beeps, flashes, is painted red, is HUGE, has a loud diesel engine, and looks like it could kill you. Would you go walk onto a construction site? Same concept.
> 
> I will once again state she is a moron and should take responsibility for her actions. So she got her leg cut off, so the guy is paralyzed, it is a risk you take. Every day there are risks in life that have outcomes that we might not like.
> 
> ...


You are arguing your opinion against legal accountability. While you are correct in saying common sense was lacked on her part it doesn't negate the fact that she may have a case to file suit. Its not that much different than a situation where it snows in your neighborhood one day and then freezes to ice overnight. I come walking in front of your home, slip, fall and break a bone. Common sense says that I should have taken more precaution. Ice is obviously going to be slippery BUT legally I can still sue you for not making that walking area on your property safe for people to walk.

I dont think EastCoastChris is trying to convince anyone that she SHOULD sue. I think ECC is just laying out how she COULD sue.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

I'm OTE=Soul06;875105]You are arguing your opinion against legal accountability. While you are correct in saying common sense was lacked on her part it doesn't negate the fact that she may have a case to file suit. Its not that much different than a situation where it snows in your neighborhood one day and then freezes to ice overnight. I come walking in front of your home, slip, fall and break a bone. Common sense says that I should have taken more precaution. Ice is obviously going to be slippery BUT legally I can still sue you for not making that walking area on your property safe for people to walk.

I dont think EastCoastChris is trying to convince anyone that she SHOULD sue. I think ECC is just laying out how she COULD sue.[/QUOTE]

Yes! This...I didnt mean it to sound like opinion. I'm not familiar with that particular case beyond a couple short articles so its really impossible for me to say who was right or wrong or deserved what. Just pointing out theres a shit ton of case law on snow cats. Its kinda strange because I saw my brother this weekend who is an attorney for the Veterans Administration (he used to be wih TriCARE for all you servicemen here - you should know the NE region benefits guys are serious boarders.) Not sure what his case is but he's been doing ski area liability case research for weeks. He was telling about this long line of snow cat cases and how hill staff has be on crack to even turn the engine over while skiiers were on the hill because they always lose these cases in states where they aren't barred. Lol. 

I'm just pointing out too that sometimes an individual doesnt want to sue but they may get stuck reimbusing their insurance company and ends up having to...like to keep a roof and food and stuff. 

Is that true about insurance premiums? I can totally get snowmaking...though its less costly on the east coast where water rights are different. And its been a while since I looked at a ski resort 10k. But I would be floored if insurance was their number 2 operating expense. More than staff, and other cost of goods sold? And taxes? And the non capitalized portion of expenses? That is kinda hard for me to believe considering the extent of most states inherent risk doctrine.


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

The link BA posted also states the woman who collided with the snowcat was "racing" and she rides "very fast". Its completely retarded that someone can haul ass down a run, collide into something and think that the ski resort should pay out. The problem is where does it end. What's next, A lawsuit due to an impact on a snow gun or lift pole?



> She doesn’t do a lot of trails,” said her husband, “maybe four or five.
> 
> “For the runs that she does do, she goes very fast, but she doesn’t do any crazy stuff. I think in that race with her brother, she was probably pushing herself pretty hard.”


She should thank her lucky stars the ski patrolers were able to get her leg free and stop the bleeding, saving her life due to her own neglect. Many other people colliding with objects at resorts haven't been so lucky.

You could protect against all foreseen dangers on a mountain and I guarantee a stupid person would make a mistake and a lawyer would find a reason to sue.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

My guys say that's their number 2 because the investments and improvements are dispersed out over a couple years to pay for themselves and even labor is relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things. I think they're also taking into account their lawyers and safety managers as well.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Ugh lawyers always thinking they know everything. The fact of the matter is the damn thing beeps, flashes, is painted red, is HUGE, has a loud diesel engine, and looks like it could kill you. Would you go walk onto a construction site? Same concept.
> 
> I will once again state she is a moron and should take responsibility for her actions. So she got her leg cut off, so the guy is paralyzed, it is a risk you take. Every day there are risks in life that have outcomes that we might not like.
> 
> ...


The parking comment was supposed to be a joke. The woman exited surgery 24 hours prior to the parking comment and posted said comment on an Internet site created to give updates on her condition to her family and friends. She was obviously intending bto show she was in good spirts despite the fact that she couldnt yet speak. This joking nature of it is obvious. 

Terrain park features are different than other man made objects such as snow cats. Lift poles are covered by inherent risk usually but in some states they are required to be padded. Signs are inherent risk. But all these things in most states can still go forward when the mountain doesn't exercise reasonably duty of care. If they leave a dropped sign under a roller - they breach duty of care. If they ride a cat up a trail skiiers are still on, they breach duty of care. As long as some staffer previews the terrain park before it opens and they dont put a giant kicker with the landing 3 ft from the t-bar line maze the terrain park is highly immune. They are typically considered an inherent risk if the sport unless there are egregious circumstances such as in the case previously discussed. As long as the mountain shows reasonable duty of care in building and maintenance of a terrian park...most states bar suits arising out of use of them. Thats what makes the judgement for paralyzed guy so incredible. Its one of the few judgements against a mountain in any state for a terrain park injury. 

I'm not saying your case wasnt strong enough...I dont know the facts. But terrain park injuries are not winnable cases typically. But if I hit a cat that the mountain's compliance office damn well knows shouldnt be on the hill when lifts are open...yeah I'm suing em. Because you gotta be a dumbass to drive a cat up a trail you know people are skiing on. The ski resort doesnt pay out...their insurance company does.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

if the injured were not allowed to sue if they want, fake, fraudulent, frivolous or legit, then we would truly be screwed...this is , im sure, the mountain owners's wet dream, no liability...we read about these cases where someones has collected big $, but there may be hundreds tossed out by judges, or nixed by juries that we will not see....we have to trust the system to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the alternative is truly fukt


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

CassMT said:


> engineers or not, i would not underestimate the jury....im sure the physics and all were explained and charted no end, they don't need to be skiers, boarders or anything...a chimp could understand that the mountain was negligent when they failed to fix or close the jump after so many fucked themselves up in the weeks leading up to the accident
> 
> and really...14 mil is not that much, this is not the end of parks, riding, or the world


Or maybe not hitting a jump that so many had fucked themselves up on.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

Hmmmm....just glanced through the Vail 10k. They are self insured and dont even report the number as a liability on the balance sheet as they consider it immaterial by GAAP rules to their consolidated financials.
(Note 13)
Quick google search : 
Insuring Ski Resorts: There's No Business Like Snow Business

A bit dated, but without major changes in statue the percentages should be the same.

"According to Chalat, ski resort claims are really very minimal. “A typical ski resort claim according to the Annual Economic Survey of Colorado Ski Resorts…demonstrates that the cost of insurance…is less than 10 cents per dollar of income, and that includes all of their insurance,” he said."

So all insurance for non self insured operaters in the industry is about 10% of revenue. That includes workers comp, business income for bad winters etc. The liability portion of that is probably the smallest. On the high end $.02 on the dolllar of every lift ticket probably goes to lawuits.


----------



## Clayton Bigsby (Oct 23, 2012)

Was it the guys first time hitting the kicker or had he hit it several times, each time going bigger ?

I feel it's B.S. and all the riders fault, he made the choice. It will be a matter of time when resorts wont have terrain parks. I've always wondered "how back in the day" (mid '80's) we would get threatened with loosing our passes by ski patrol, for building kickers and now they (the resorts) build 10-15 foot kickers with a 30 foot flat spot before the landing transition.

I've always hated man made hits, I prefer the natural windlips (Shuksan Arm, BAKER)

BAKER also got sued by a women that was sitting under the roof, next to the "Do Not Sit Under the Roof" sign, when the snow released from the roof and broke either her neck or back ?


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

BoardWalk said:


> Or maybe not hitting a jump that so many had fucked themselves up on.


you are assuming he knew...when i stop in the park there is no one announcing past accidents, or a sign saying Watch Out, flat landing! so-and-so died here last week!


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

Lol...when I started riding there were no pipes. No terrain parks. Now every mountain has 3or 4 or even 5 of them. I wouldnt lose sleep over not enough terrain parks.


----------



## cerebroside (Nov 6, 2012)

CassMT said:


> if the injured were not allowed to sue if they want, fake, fraudulent, frivolous or legit, then we would truly be screwed...this is , im sure, the mountain owners's wet dream, no liability...we read about these cases where someones has collected big $, but there may be hundreds tossed out by judges, or nixed by juries that we will not see....we have to trust the system to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the alternative is truly fukt


One alternative is a system like New Zealand's ACC and some sort of government enforcement of standards/negligence etc. (I'm not a lawyer). Pretty sure the current government is gutting it however.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Its all "fun and games" and "I want to do what I fuckin want"....til some douche bag hurts themselves....doesn't want to take responsibility for fucking themselves up and wants to sue....let the douche bag lie there...I know some quads would rather have the white cross and some bowls smoked. 

Note to self...put in my advanced medical directive and will...there will be no suing the resort....however there will be a suit if someone calls the fucking ambulance on my behalf.


----------



## bamfb2 (Mar 16, 2011)

BoardWalk said:


> Or maybe not hitting a jump that so many had fucked themselves up on.


See, this is where I take some issue with the resort. This accident information is not published, obviously, so someone coming for a weekend would have no idea that this is a poorly manufactured feature. 

I still say the resort deserves to be sued for the simple fact that they had so many previous serious injuries, and not one of them recognized that "oh shit, we might have a future lawsuit on our hands here". It's just smart business (and legal sense) to fix or shut something down, when you have reoccurring accidents. They were asking for a lawsuit and they got it.


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

It's not black and white, and the headlines never tell the story. To me this suit sounds legit, though $14M seems high. Most resort activity is at your own risk, but there are minimum reasonable standards. Any jumps should be made in such a way that a competent rider could use it safely. Man-made jumps are different than natural features because it's implied that they're meant to be used. So this was basically a death trap.

If the jump wasn't made completely wrong and he hurt himself, he wouldn't have a case. Other people dying on it prior to him is the nail in the coffin to determine that any reasonable person ought to have known that this feature was severely defective and that continued to be ignored.

What if it was literally pointed off a cliff? Would you say his fault for not spotting the landing, or negligent? Yeah he should spot the landing, but if it's at the point that no one should hit it, ever, and it's inviting and in a "park", the resort should bear responsibility.

Most other lawsuits are dumb but this one seems to have some merit.



wrathfuldeity said:


> Note to self...put in my advanced medical directive and will...there will be no suing the resort....however there will be a suit if someone calls the fucking ambulance on my behalf.


They basically have to call the ambulance, otherwise they can be sued for not calling it :laugh:

If you think about it, it's a *far* bigger risk to not call ambulances when they aren't sure.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

jtg said:


> Most other lawsuits are dumb but this one seems to have some merit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can always say yes or no to getting on the ambulance. But if you are so fucked up, you can't say no that is the problem....thus you get loaded on the the ambulance. Once they load you up on the ambulance...you are fucked...because there is an assumption made...they have to keep you alive or at least doner material and your verbal statements about no treatment get ignored. But notice in my will...."do not sue the resort"....thus my last wishes..."do not sue the resort"...thus said resort is in the clear for not calling the ambulance. 

Thus another note to self: Tatoo on my chest and forehead....
dnr, do not call the ambulance and my attorney's name, address and phone


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

EastCoastChris said:


> But if I hit a cat that the mountain's compliance office damn well knows shouldnt be on the hill when lifts are open...yeah I'm suing em. Because you gotta be a dumbass to drive a cat up a trail you know people are skiing on. The ski resort doesnt pay out...their insurance company does.


Will you take the CAT ride to the back bowl for free, or for $5?

Do you want the lifts open from 0-dark thiry until dusk, and lift tickets to be cheap? It costs money to buy and maintain CATS. If it's a 3000 acre resort, and it takes 16 hours to groom and re-cut the half pipe etc, don't be surprised that there's grooming stuff out and about. It's not like there's a row of CATS playing RED ROVER up the only open blue run on the mountain...

If a CAT runs through a lift line and spits out body parts like a wood chipper, then it's on the resort. If the CAT is meandering it's way up a run, big as shit and painted red and running loud and proud and you smack into it, well, no different than hitting a tree because your out of control, or just plain like to ride close to shit and made a mistake. Not the resort's fault.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

Lol...are you kidding? I have NEVER seen a CAT on an OPEN blue groomer coming up the trail at 3 In the afternoon while the lifts were still running. Never. In like 12 years of 40+ day seasons. Because that is clinically insane. If I ever saw that I would ask for my money back and NEVER go to that mountain again. Like I want to come off a roller into the jaws of a groomer. Snowboarding is fun but it aint so fun that I'd be willing to put up with that kinda crap. 

Its like breaking your spine instead of freezing to death when you jump off a lift you got stranded on. You cant say....well hey you chose to get on the last chair at the very end of the day...you gotta live with it. Its pretty common sense to not drive a groomer up an open trail in the middle of operating hours with no notice or warning to skiiers. Its pretty common sense to check the whole chair before you shut it down and leave for the day. "Reasonable duty of care" is not that hard for a jury to interpret. I run into a cat on an open trail during the day and sustain injuries...yeah...I am suing.


----------



## Jollybored (Nov 7, 2011)

cerebroside said:


> One alternative is a system like New Zealand's ACC and some sort of government enforcement of standards/negligence etc. (I'm not a lawyer). Pretty sure the current government is gutting it however.


ACC is great. Huge drain on the system though heh - We used to get physiotherapy for free, now we have a usual $10 per session. Although I doubt people would give up their right to sue when it seems to be imbedded into them. Lawsuits are not a common thing here.

My question with the jump is how they would have determined it to be dangerous or built negligently. Just because X amount of people got hurt, could have mean X amount of people should not have been there in the first place. If I huck myself off a 30ft jump, you can be sure as hell that I will hurt myself but it would be fair to say that the onus of responsibility is mine.


----------



## cerebroside (Nov 6, 2012)

Jollybored said:


> ACC is great. Huge drain on the system though heh - We used to get physiotherapy for free, now we have a usual $10 per session.


I'd say that you end up paying in less obvious ways without it. My 3rd party only car insurance in NZ was ridiculously cheap, ACC was probably a factor in that.


----------



## EastCoastChris (Feb 24, 2013)

Jollybored said:


> ACC is great. Huge drain on the system though heh - We used to get physiotherapy for free, now we have a usual $10 per session. Although I doubt people would give up their right to sue when it seems to be imbedded into them. Lawsuits are not a common thing here.
> 
> My question with the jump is how they would have determined it to be dangerous or built negligently. Just because X amount of people got hurt, could have mean X amount of people should not have been there in the first place. If I huck myself off a 30ft jump, you can be sure as hell that I will hurt myself but it would be fair to say that the onus of responsibility is mine.


Its a bit different in every US state...but first a state court judge reviews the case and determines based on the laws and other cases decided by the courts if the person suing has a valid case. The person or resort being sued can appeal and ask an appeals judge to overturn the first judges' ruling. If the appeals judge doesnt overturn it, it goes to a trial judge. A trial is scheduled, each side requests evidence from eachother and then the question of "was the jump dangerous or built negligently" is decided by a jury. The jury also decides the remedy if they find in favor of person suing. 

But theres also a lot motions filed in the meantime...evidence, witnesses...sometimes countersuits for breach of contract (your lift ticket says you wont sue but by suing you breached an implied contract.) Most of it gets tossed but its all a time suck and expensive and doesnt do anything to pay the injured pesons medical bills...so 80% of the time they end up settling out of court. Thats why this case is kind of amazing...it actually went to a jury. 

The law is very firmly on the side of the ski area when it comes to terrain parks. But the paralyzed snowboarder was able to show over a dozen people seriously injured and 9 days layer someone was killed in the same spot. So the jury took what little leeway they had in the law and went with it in favor of the paralyzed guy. The ski resort can appeal and try to get a new appelate judge to reduce or throw out the award. But that can take years. In the meantime the paralyzed guy may have to file another suit to enforce the judgement if the ski area refuses to pay.

People have this perception that frivolous lawsuits abound in America and people make bank off dumb things. Nothing could be further from the truth though.


----------



## duh (Sep 7, 2011)

People suck. Grow a pair and take responsibility for your own decisions. No one made that guy hit a jump too fast, he did that all by himself. No one made that lady get drunk and snowboard into a Snowcat that was exiting a run. Shit happens. People make bad decisions. Too bad we live in a victim state where people use lawyers more than their own common sense.

The unfortunate part is something those of you who are relatively new to our lifestyle never dealt with in the past. Insurance companies cracking down on ski areas and closing down our fun. Ski patrol tearing down every little jump we built in the eighties and ninetees was entirely because of insurance companies. No inverted aerials on ski resort grounds pre 1998 was entirely due to insurance companies. Insurance was also the reason quite a few ski areas used to keep snowboarders off the hills for years. 

Mountain bikers in So-Cal learned this lesson the hard way when a large judgement led to the end of downhilling at Big Bear. Now downhillers in So-Cal have to travel here or to Northstar to get lift accessed terrain features.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

duh said:


> People suck. Grow a pair and take responsibility for your own decisions. No one made that guy hit a jump too fast, he did that all by himself. No one made that lady get drunk and snowboard into a Snowcat that was exiting a run. Shit happens. People make bad decisions. Too bad we live in a victim state where people use lawyers more than their own common sense.
> 
> The unfortunate part is something those of you who are relatively new to our lifestyle never dealt with in the past. Insurance companies cracking down on ski areas and closing down our fun. Ski patrol tearing down every little jump we built in the eighties and ninetees was entirely because of insurance companies. No inverted aerials on ski resort grounds pre 1998 was entirely due to insurance companies. Insurance was also the reason quite a few ski areas used to keep snowboarders off the hills for years.
> 
> Mountain bikers in So-Cal learned this lesson the hard way when a large judgement led to the end of downhilling at Big Bear. Now downhillers in So-Cal have to travel here or to Northstar to get lift accessed terrain features.


ONe of my friends slammed into a pole at the local terrain park, when he had to avoid another person (whom wasn't paying attention)... a couple of screws and plates later... he never sued. He accepted the risk and responsibility skiing at the terrain park.

Unfortunately, that is our culture. It's always someone else's fault when something goes wrong.

That sucks about the downhill MTB at Big Bear.... one of the reasons why I don't do downhill (I do cross country) is the fear of seriously hurting myself...


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

duh said:


> People suck. Grow a pair and take responsibility for your own decisions. No one made that guy hit a jump too fast, he did that all by himself. No one made that lady get drunk and snowboard into a Snowcat that was exiting a run. Shit happens. People make bad decisions. Too bad we live in a victim state where people use lawyers more than their own common sense.
> 
> The unfortunate part is something those of you who are relatively new to our lifestyle never dealt with in the past. Insurance companies cracking down on ski areas and closing down our fun. Ski patrol tearing down every little jump we built in the eighties and ninetees was entirely because of insurance companies. No inverted aerials on ski resort grounds pre 1998 was entirely due to insurance companies. Insurance was also the reason quite a few ski areas used to keep snowboarders off the hills for years.
> 
> Mountain bikers in So-Cal learned this lesson the hard way when a large judgement led to the end of downhilling at Big Bear. Now downhillers in So-Cal have to travel here or to Northstar to get lift accessed terrain features.



While I agree with you that people do need to employ far more common sense and awareness I don't agree with you in th implication that its just that cut and dry. Yes people do need to be far more aware and make better decisions but still accidents happen. In the case of that jump, should he have scoped it out first? Yes. But that doesn't excuse responsibility of the resort to properly construct it. Especially if there are guidlelines already pre-established.
Then lets look at the after effects. Yes it is a potentially dangerous sport/activity but lets say you, duh, got injured. Your injuires require serious hospitalization and surgery past what you can afford and your insurance will cover. Your options are to sue the resort for improper construction or not sue and have to swallow medical costs which exceed far more than you could ever pay off. Which are you going to do?


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

^^that

the dude was surely asked if he scoped the jump during the trial, still outweighed by the idiocy of the park crew/mountain management

he is looking at $23 mil in costs over his lifetime! jezuuus...gotta try to get something or he and his family are fuct for life


----------



## duh (Sep 7, 2011)

Soul06 said:


> While I agree with you that people do need to employ far more common sense and awareness I don't agree with you in th implication that its just that cut and dry. Yes people do need to be far more aware and make better decisions but still accidents happen. In the case of that jump, should he have scoped it out first? Yes. But that doesn't excuse responsibility of the resort to properly construct it. Especially if there are guidlelines already pre-established.
> Then lets look at the after effects. Yes it is a potentially dangerous sport/activity but lets say you, duh, got injured. Your injuires require serious hospitalization and surgery past what you can afford and your insurance will cover. Your options are to sue the resort for improper construction or not sue and have to swallow medical costs which exceed far more than you could ever pay off. Which are you going to do?


1. Pre-established guidelines? Seriously? What governing body wrote these up? Who with a PHD in Physics was on the panel of said governing body? Oh yeah, none of this exists in reality. 

Even if some idiot did try to make some uniform standard for jump construction do you think those plans would be followed? Is the cat driver going to get out of his snowcat at 3 in the morning to use a laser transit and inclinometer to ensure his dimensions are right? No, he is going to eyeball it, just like every jump you have ever hit. Is the raker out there checking the arc of the transitions while he's fine tuning every lip? No, they eyeball that too.

2. I have had a 2 season ending injuries that cost me A LOT of money out of my own pocket. The thing is I decided to take the actions that led to my injuries, so I paid for my mistakes, like a man. See how that works, I made a decision and then I paid the consequences. Personal responsibility.

I know there are people out there who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and think someone else should take the fall. No one else made these people act, they did that all on their own. They are selfish, nothing more. This is why we live in a nanny state.


----------



## onefutui2e (Jan 25, 2011)

people who are decrying lawsuits do realize that tort law and accountability is pretty much the ONLY thing out there that allows you to reasonably assume that you can do anything safely nowadays, right?

or would you rather us go back to the days of the meat-packing industry, pre-Teddy?


----------



## mixie (Mar 29, 2011)

EastCoastChris said:


> Lol...are you kidding? I have NEVER seen a CAT on an OPEN blue groomer coming up the trail at 3 In the afternoon while the lifts were still running. Never. In like 12 years of 40+ day seasons. Because that is clinically insane. If I ever saw that I would ask for my money back and NEVER go to that mountain again. Like I want to come off a roller into the jaws of a groomer. Snowboarding is fun but it aint so fun that I'd be willing to put up with that kinda crap.




don't ride at mammoth....They are around _all _the time. Shit gets tracked out fast enough they re-groom popular runs during the day. 

I also thought (very briefly) about riding along side and cutting in front of one...it was grooming FRESH POWDER...I was really fucking pissed that it was cutting corduroy out of knee deep pow....however that thought lasted all of .0001 of a second and I just sucked it up and found pow elsewhere....If I'd been chewed up by the cat, um...it would have pretty much been my fault. Guilty of powder greed. 

And that was at 9am in the morning on a bluebird pow day. Yup, Groomer churning up the pow. and THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I could have hit a cat without knowing. I mean...just no..

However I will say the snowmobiles at mammoth get a bit reckless...I was hauling downa blue cat track and one was coming up it really fast...Straight up the middle of a cat track FAST. I heard it in time but it was kind of a blind turn....

Ive also been cut off my snowmobiles, but *most* of the time that' is in an area with 'slow' signs...so....you know... Still...ride at mammoth watch out for the 'snowmobiles....Snow cats?? Not so much. 

also, as an aside who the fuck thought of brining PhDs in physics into this? Do any of you even KNOW any? If you did you'd change your mind...two of my very close friends (one's an ex) have phd's in physics...theyre fucking nut jobs and so are all their colleagues....smart sure. But crazy as all get out.


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

duh said:


> 1. Pre-established guidelines? Seriously? What governing body wrote these up? Who with a PHD in Physics was on the panel of said governing body? Oh yeah, none of this exists in reality.
> 
> Even if some idiot did try to make some uniform standard for jump construction do you think those plans would be followed? Is the cat driver going to get out of his snowcat at 3 in the morning to use a laser transit and inclinometer to ensure his dimensions are right? No, he is going to eyeball it, just like every jump you have ever hit. Is the raker out there checking the arc of the transitions while he's fine tuning every lip? No, they eyeball that too.
> 
> ...


Its very easy for you to sit here on the internet talking about "I'd take responsibility" and "I've spent money out of pocket..." when its money that you COULD cover. Let it be an injury you CAN'T cover and then we will see if you are big about"personal responsibility".

If I get injured out there riding due to any fault of the resort I am suing. Not even hesitating. Example: Some safety patrol comes speeding through on a snowmobile, clips me and I break ANYTHING.....I'm suing. I'm not going home spending my own money in hospital bills. I'm not walking away talking about "Well I did decide to ride that trail". NAH!!!


----------



## duh (Sep 7, 2011)

Soul06 said:


> Its very easy for you to sit here on the internet talking about "I'd take responsibility" and "I've spent money out of pocket..." when its money that you COULD cover. Let it be an injury you CAN'T cover and then we will see if you are big about"personal responsibility".
> 
> If I get injured out there riding due to any fault of the resort I am suing. Not even hesitating. Example: Some safety patrol comes speeding through on a snowmobile, clips me and I break ANYTHING.....I'm suing. I'm not going home spending my own money in hospital bills. I'm not walking away talking about "Well I did decide to ride that trail". NAH!!!


So if YOU go off a jump in the park that's beyond YOUR ability and break YOUR back, are you also going to sue? That's neat if you are, just please don't snowboard anymore.


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

duh said:


> So if YOU go off a jump in the park that's beyond YOUR ability and break YOUR back, are you also going to sue? That's neat if you are, just please don't snowboard anymore.


If I go off a jump thats beyond my ability and hurt myself then no I wouldn't sue. Just like if I went down a steep beyond my ability and got hurt I wouldn't sue. But if I go off a jump that IS within my ability and hurt myself because the landing area was not constructed in a way that I (or pretty much anyone else) could properly land and I get hurt......I'm calling the lawyer.


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

Soul06 said:


> If I go off a jump thats beyond my ability and hurt myself then no I wouldn't sue. Just like if I went down a steep beyond my ability and got hurt I wouldn't sue. But if I go off a jump that IS within my ability and hurt myself because the landing area was not constructed in a way that I (or pretty much anyone else) could properly land and I get hurt......I'm calling the lawyer.


So after you checked out the jump and the landing and still decided to hit it but got hurt in the process, you would sue?


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

BoardWalk said:


> So after you checked out the jump and the landing and still decided to hit it but got hurt in the process, you would sue?


Dependent on the situation. If it is a jump that should have been closed due other getting seriously hurt recently and I find out about that.....YUP! If everyone else is hitting it fine and I just go about it wrong.....Probably not. If the only way my insurance company says they will fully cover the cost of my bills requires me to and I have a case to (noticed someone else say that. Don't know how accurate it is) then I possibly might.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

you guys aren't going to convince Soul06 otherwise, so it's not worth prodding further.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

the real question is, if you found yourself with these injuries,_ even if you were partially responsible_, and saw yourself looking at $23 million in future bills, do you have a responsibilty to your family to _at least try_ to get something from the money-grubbing insurance company of the mountain?

imo, yes


----------



## Soul06 (Dec 18, 2010)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> you guys aren't going to convince Soul06 otherwise, so it's not worth prodding further.


^^This


And I wasn't even saying that he SHOULD sue. I'm saying that in certain situatutions I can understand why someone consider it. And how legally a person, again, in some situations could win.


----------

