# Take a look at this news article.



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

Snowboarder ordered to pay family of injured child $30,000



> A snowboarder who seriously injured a child after running into him on Grouse Mountain has been ordered to pay $30,000 in damages.
> 
> According to a Supreme Court of B.C. ruling the victim, Patrick Gregorowicz, was four at the time of the crash and was snowplowing a few metres behind his dad Peter when struck by snowboarder James Lee.
> 
> ...


What the fuck? dont agree with this ruling AT ALL. $30,000 wat the hell? This dad.. wat a greedy douchebag sueing a 18 year old for 30k

and dont u expect these things to happen on a ski hill? especially with a 4 year old kid?


----------



## Reede (Feb 16, 2009)

Hard to stomach isn't it. Especially since the father was ruled to be partially at fault.

Yea the snowboarder was at fault, but not $30 000 worth of at fault. Could pay medical bills at most maybe, but broken bones are kind of a fact of snow sports. I certainly wouldnt sue an 18 year old kid for something that was clearly an accident, you don't bear that kind of ill will towards someone. It ends up consuming you. 

My guess with anyone who brings that kind of lawsuit is the kind of guy who peaked in highschool and does nothing but blame everyone around him for his own mediocre existence.

It would take wrongdoing with malicious intent for me to ever want to sue someone.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

what the fucking fuck

what bills? this is canada

and The Cut is an _extremely_ mellow green run


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

I thought Canada had free health care? What's the 30k going towards? It said the 4yo fully recovered, so obviously it isn't going to affect his future moblity. People need to stop being so greedy! I would never ruin some 18yo's life for something like this. Poor kid probably won't be able to go to college now!


----------



## BliND KiNK (Feb 22, 2010)

Just goes to show you.. some people are just nasty.. If the guy stopped took off his snowboard... tried to help make sure the kid was alright and everything.. I just can't imagine someone suing a person like that? The only way I could see it possible, is if the guy was burning through the green and even then.. collisions are going to happen on green runs, blue runs.. it's a fact of life.. I had someone put their skis between my bindings just the other day, luckily somehow neither of us were seriously injured.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

I'd argue the negligence falls on the father for failing to stay behind his child and better protecting him


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

I don't get it. Not taking the snowboarder vs. skier side, but what evidence is there that the snowboarder was reckless. The father should have had his son in FRONT of him, not trailing behind. And, if anything, it seems as though they are the ones who acted irresponsibly.

Whatever happened to accidents? Now everyone has to sue? Didn't the dad have insurance? I don't get it.


----------



## gjsnowboarder (Sep 1, 2009)

It sounds like to me that it came down to you was more erroneous, Who was the downhill rider, who was in control, who was merging, who was disobeying a sign/rope. To bad there wasn't more details here. Bet the judge was a skier that disliked boarders though.

P.S. To those who are saying why wasn't the dad in back? Some people are very visual and the kid might actually ride better by following his dad's path and example. Of course to bad that dad didn't choose to make a good example of following the fences directing traffic.


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

Flick Montana said:


> I don't get it. Not taking the snowboarder vs. skier side, but what evidence is there that the snowboarder was reckless. The father should have had his son in FRONT of him, not trailing behind. And, if anything, it seems as though they are the ones who acted irresponsibly.
> 
> Whatever happened to accidents? Now everyone has to sue? Didn't the dad have insurance? I don't get it.


I couldn't agree more here. Everything is "sue to get your way" and it's only getting worse. This is clearly an accident, the guy did the right thing and blocked off the area after the accident too. The story says it happened on a green run too, which obviously is going to have beginners that aren't fully comfortable on avoiding objects, wrecking, etc. Had 2 skilled riders collided on a black then yes there would be negligence, but this was just an unfortunate accident. Yes he was at fault, but like others said 30 grand is just over-doing it. I'm sure he felt bad enough seeing a small kid with a broken leg. I'd like to hear the complete rundown of the so called "damages" too, probably mental trauma or some quack-doctor bullshit, the kid is 4, he isn't going to really remember this in 10 years. Karma will catch up to the kids dad in time.

So here we have 2 things, a father with a grudge and a young guy with debt for years. If you can't handle injuries get the hell off the slopes. Accidents are going to happen when you're traveling downhill standing on frozen water.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

This shit is what's wrong with this world. Case in point the other day I was on 5 chair at Breck it takes you to the top of the park. I was on the chair and it had loaded the person behind me had skied out when someone up top tripped the emergency stop it sent our chair rolling back and hit this skier. She flipped her shit on me and my buddy cause the chair stopped. I was like how is this my fault, her first response was you can pay my doctor bills I'm suing.

If you read the description of what the boarder felt something hit his hip from behind, it sounds like he was the one that was actually clipped.


----------



## AdamBQ (Sep 15, 2009)

I don't understand. 
This isn't the states, I didn't think you could sue for damages here. What are the $30k damages? Maybe an ambulance ride and stuff, but nothing near $30k. 

I think this is gonna get appealed and it'll get turned over. I just don't get where the FISCAL damages are. . .


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> This shit is what's wrong with this world. Case in point the other day I was on 5 chair at Breck it takes you to the top of the park. I was on the chair and it had loaded the person behind me had skied out when someone up top tripped the emergency stop it sent our chair rolling back and hit this skier. She flipped her shit on me and my buddy cause the chair stopped. I was like how is this my fault, her first response was you can pay my doctor bills I'm suing.


I hope you laughed in that bitch's face and proceeded to tell her how fucking stupid she was.


----------



## Adam C (Mar 1, 2010)

linvillegorge said:


> I hope you laughed in that bitch's face and proceeded to tell her how fucking stupid she was.


I second that.:thumbsup:


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

Bad precedent...


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

linvillegorge said:


> I hope you laughed in that bitch's face and proceeded to tell her how fucking stupid she was.


I had a field day ripping her a new ass. Best response from her "I thought everyone in Colorado was nice" my response "bitch I'm from New York shut the fuck up!" 

But on the topic of this law suit 30 grand is huge for something so fucking minor. Hopefully the guy paying the 30 g's appeals it cause this is bunk and the fact the resort seems to be behind the judges decision is kind of frightening.


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I had a field day ripping her a new ass. Best response from her "I thought everyone in Colorado was nice" *my response "bitch I'm from New York shut the fuck up!"
> *
> But on the topic of this law suit 30 grand is huge for something so fucking minor. Hopefully the guy paying the 30 g's appeals it cause this is bunk and the fact the resort seems to be behind the judges decision is kind of frightening.


I seriously laughed out loud..

The resort is behind the dad and his kid because they have to cater to the whole family friendly-safety bs. There's a lot more people like the dad out there that would do the same. Had the dad not won against the 18 year old, I'm sure the resort would've been next on his lawyers hit-list. Think of it like Bush "condemning" attacks in Somalia, he didn't give a shit, but its a public showing.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

BurtonX8 said:


> I seriously laughed out loud..
> 
> The resort is behind the dad and his kid because they have to cater to the whole family friendly-safety bs. There's a lot more people like the dad out there that would do the same. *Had the dad not won against the 18 year old, I'm sure the resort would've been next on his lawyers hit-list.* Think of it like Bush "condemning" attacks in Somalia, he didn't give a shit, but its a public showing.


I think that's the biggest reason they support the ruling. Hell they may still be in his greedy sites. That fence he went around and signs he probably ignored were improperly placed or to small to be seen...


----------



## Jim (Jan 27, 2010)

Well the legal system is pretty screwed up in BC. It's a joke really.

If this guy can't get this thing over-ruled, should get 3000 boarders together to chip in 10 bucks each to help him out... Bet it wouldn't be that hard to organize with facebook and the interwebs.


----------



## BliND KiNK (Feb 22, 2010)

I uhm am at breckenridge too.. lol I rode off one of the lifts at peak 8 to the left is terrain and to the right is some blue I was going to play around on.. skated off.. was preoccupied a little bit.. and the chair bonked me on the head lol.. no helmet I was laying on the ground for a couple but it was all good haha.. I can't believe people would threaten to sue at their own ignorance. :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

The future of American ski/snowboard resorts is going to be filling out a 2 ft stack of waivers before you can hit the slopes, then being followed by your team of lawyers in case some kids cuts you off and you die in a tree well.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

What needs to happen is a precedent of "ski/snowboard at your own risk"...When I go play bball at the local play ground I'm not expected to get sued by the guy who takes a charge and blows out his MCL. It's just something inherent in the sport. Same should go for snowboarding.


----------



## burritosandsnow (Nov 22, 2008)

seriously I think itll come to them putting those automated speed clocks on signage ... itll flash red when youre going too fast ... fast is relative.. whats slow to me is insane to someone just starting whats fast to me is slow to big mtn jeremy jones .. really have to question a ruling where it finds both parties at fault but gives an award to one of those parties


----------



## bakesale (Nov 28, 2008)

It's kinda bullshit. But if you've ever snowboarded at Grouse you can understand how easily this happended. There are a lot of orange fences around the lift area for lineups, the lineups are 200 people deep and there is a massive clusterfuck of beginners sitting outside the orange fencing. Then you have all the snowboarders riding out from where the park ends (both the rookie park and the bigger park) and that's just a recipe for disaster. 

The worst part of this is the statement from the Grouse Mtn. cocksucker, blaming the rider when he should know full well what a horrible setup Grouse Mtn has for the Eagle chair and how over capacity it is. They try to put on the family friendly and safety face for the media but it's all a crock of shit. The real party at blame here should be Grouse Mtn. for creating a very dangerous environment. 

The father is basically a cockface for suing the snowboarder as collisions around this area happen frequently and it sounds like the kid was not where he should have been. Shit happens, broken bones heal. Get over it.


----------



## yusoweird (Apr 6, 2009)

It's call having connections with corrupted lawyers and judges. people think they can do anything and invincible just because of that. it is just wrong. I have my share of getting fucked over by corruption. I hope they all rot in hell.


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

burritosandsnow said:


> seriously I think itll come to them putting those automated speed clocks on signage ... itll flash red when youre going too fast ... fast is relative.. whats slow to me is insane to someone just starting whats fast to me is slow to big mtn jeremy jones .. really have to question a ruling where it finds both parties at fault but gives an award to one of those parties


Yep, its the difference between a beginners being in control at speed and an advanced rider, 2 totally different things. Plus if they put radar or speed sensors on the hill it's just going to make people go faster to see what kind of speed they can really get.


----------



## yusoweird (Apr 6, 2009)

Jim said:


> Well the legal system is pretty screwed up in BC. It's a joke really.
> 
> If this guy can't get this thing over-ruled, should get 3000 boarders together to chip in 10 bucks each to help him out... Bet it wouldn't be that hard to organize with facebook and the interwebs.


At the same time, that father should receive 3000 mails saying "get the fuck off the mountains"


----------



## Catman (Mar 16, 2008)

I have a 5 year old and he has been snowboarding since he was 3 1/2. The first thing I tought him was to be aware Of his surroundings at ALL TIMES! The way I see it if he cuts in front of somebody it's his fault.

That guy is a PRICK that did NOT teach his son what he needed to know before letting him fall behind while riding.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Catman said:


> I have a 5 year old and he has been snowboarding since he was 3 1/2. The first thing I tought him was to be aware Of his surroundings at ALL TIMES! The way I see it if he cuts in front of somebody it's his fault.
> 
> That guy is a PRICK that did NOT teach his son what he needed to know before letting him fall behind while riding.


That's the problem so many douche bag parents that won't take responsibility for their or their kids actions. I see it during high traffic times here in Summit County where these parents feel they're entitled to go anywhere and do anything they want because they spent so much money. I had a full on shit fit yelling at a guy for taking his 5 year old in the park the other day the guy had him cheese wedging into the lips of jumps skiing behind the cheese wedges so you couldn't see the kid and standing in the middle of landings. When I pointed out the issue at hand his response was to take his kid from the semi-pro park at Breck into the full blown Dew Tour course where shits even bigger and proceed to do the same thing.


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

Jim said:


> Well the legal system is pretty screwed up in BC. It's a joke really.
> 
> If this guy can't get this thing over-ruled, should get 3000 boarders together to chip in 10 bucks each to help him out... Bet it wouldn't be that hard to organize with facebook and the interwebs.


This is a good idea if anyone knows the guy.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2010)

I'm not going to comment on the lawsuit or the ruling, the unfortunate 4 year old, the pissed off father, or the now poorer boarder, but I do want to comment on the fault of the collision.

Regardless of boarder or skier, the person downhill has the right of way. He is in a vulnerable position because his back is to the uphill skier/boarder. It is the overtaking skier/boarder's responsibility to avoid a collision. That's the way it is and always has been. In any collision like this, it is always the overtaking skier/boarder's fault.

*www.terrainparksafety.org*

1. Always stay in control.
*2. People ahead of you have the right of way.*
3. Stop in a safe place for you and others.
4. Whenever starting downhill or merging, look uphill and yield.
5. Use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
6. Observe signs and warnings, and keep off closed trails.
7. Know how to use the lifts safely.


----------



## burritosandsnow (Nov 22, 2008)

greatnate said:


> I'm not going to comment on the lawsuit or the ruling, the unfortunate 4 year old, the pissed off father, or the now poorer boarder, but I do want to comment on the fault of the collision.
> 
> Regardless of boarder or skier, the person downhill has the right of way. He is in a vulnerable position because his back is to the uphill skier/boarder. It is the overtaking skier/boarder's responsibility to avoid a collision. That's the way it is and always has been. In any collision like this, it is always the overtaking skier/boarder's fault.
> 
> ...


the problem with this code is 2 and 4 contradict each other ... if you are downhill and always have the right of way as in number 2 why do you have to stop and merge as directed in number 4. down hill is not always open and shut. few years back I was riding a cat track at Brighton when a guy that was on the extreme left of the trail about 5 feet ahead of me (but roughly 20 feet to the left) made a right angle turn cutting me off. In an effort to avoid the collision with him I ran into his wife. Knowing what was happening I hit her and bear hugged her, and as we went through the air I turned and placed myself downhill allowing her full weight to land on me as I hit the ground. The guy was totally pissed and started screaming how he had the right of way because he was in front of me but his wife who saw the entire thing happen called him out for making such an abrupt turn 5 feet in front of me. For me I just apply the rules of driving.. I dont ride on the left of a trail if I know Im going to make a right hand turn down another trail just like I wouldnt travel in the left lane of a road to make a right hand turn. If I need to slow down I pull to the side etc .. I know saying rules of the road isnt airtight since most children dont know them but as an adult if you think of it in that way youll rarely make a stupid mistake.


----------



## Cavman (Mar 1, 2010)

burritosandsnow

Don't get them confused, they are nothing alike.
2. People ahead of you have the right of way.
4. Whenever starting downhill or merging, look uphill and yield.

The key word heres is STARTING or MERGING. You can't just stand up on the side of the run and without looking up hill pull out on to the run at slow speed in front of other skiers and boarders. If your run is ending and merging into another run you have to give way.

Does this sound familiar??? It should do if you have a driver's licence and drive a car or ride a motorbike. As a driver you have a responsibility not to run into the car in front of you by paying attention and not driving too close. But when merging into a line of traffic or pulling into traffic from the side of the road you have to giveway to traffic already moving on that road and approaching you from behind.

Now depending on how this parent describes his and his son's actions they may be described as Merging and come under code rule 4., but if they were just meandering across the run as they went downhill, then the boarder approaching from behind has the responsibility under rule 2. to avoid them.


----------



## Snowfox (Dec 26, 2009)

They might sound confusing, but when you're on the trails they make perfect sense. Like the guy above touched on, if you're merging onto the highway the people on the highway have the right away (now, in that case they'll hopefully be nice and let you on, but you're responsible to make sure collisions don't happen). 

If the main downhill path gets intersected by a trail that's almost perpendicular to it, the people on the perpendicular trail are responsible to watch out. Usually whatever trail is the one going straight downhill is usually the main one (from my experience).


----------



## burritosandsnow (Nov 22, 2008)

yes I know how they work but that doesnt mean they dont contradict each other .. number two is an absolute ... people downhill have the right of way , yet number 4 then goes to say if you are merging (even if you are down hill ) you need to yield to those above you. As I ssaid in my post using driving examples is fine for adults but cant work for someone whose 10. The rules just need to be more clearly written. Younger kids and even early teens view things as pretty absolute. Telling them in one sentence that being downhill gives them automatic right of way is just a recipe for disaster. Case in point this particular accident involved both a young child and a teen.


----------



## Cavman (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the phrase "Whenever *STARTING *or *MERGING*..." is pretty clear. 

But in the end I think we will have to agree to disagree... 

When I drive I drive defensively and treat every other road user as an idiot and never expect them to do the correct thing. I anticipate the driver on the side street will either enter in front of me without giving way. Will change lanes on me with no indicator signal and will probably stop at the green light and then turn into a driveway without any notice.

The Mr Magoo driver....never had an accident but sure caused a few. I drive anticipating them and when they do exactly that I am not caught by surprise.

I suppose I board defensively too and assume everyone else is out of control, blind or drunk or straight out suicidal. I have posted a heap of helmet cam videos where you can quite clearly see me looking about maintianing my spatial awareness and ensuring I know exactly where every other boarder/skier is as best I can. It is all I can do to ensure I am safe and enjoy the snow like everyone else.

A lot to be said for being a midweek boarder outside the holiday periods too, less traffic on the slopes.


----------



## AlexS (Feb 12, 2010)

I think it's pretty horrible making the guy pay after trying to help. I mean it's not like it was the guys decision. On the other hand, you've got to be aware of your surroundings, so i guess it can be argued both ways


----------



## Scorgie (Feb 4, 2010)

bakesale said:


> It's kinda bullshit. But if you've ever snowboarded at Grouse you can understand how easily this happended. There are a lot of orange fences around the lift area for lineups, the lineups are 200 people deep and there is a massive clusterfuck of beginners sitting outside the orange fencing. Then you have all the snowboarders riding out from where the park ends (both the rookie park and the bigger park) and that's just a recipe for disaster.
> 
> The worst part of this is the statement from the Grouse Mtn. cocksucker, blaming the rider when he should know full well what a horrible setup Grouse Mtn has for the Eagle chair and how over capacity it is. They try to put on the family friendly and safety face for the media but it's all a crock of shit. The real party at blame here should be Grouse Mtn. for creating a very dangerous environment.
> 
> The father is basically a cockface for suing the snowboarder as collisions around this area happen frequently and it sounds like the kid was not where he should have been. Shit happens, broken bones heal. Get over it.


Everything you said here is 100% true


----------

