# Vail Requires helmets for employees who ride/ski on duty.



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Don't know how I feel about this one. I can sort of understand it for people who teach in ski school. Especially when kids are required to where a helmet. On the flip side, ski area employees are notoriously under paid. So now you have to buy a helmet when you are already living on Mac 'N Cheese and Ramen? 

9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Vail requires helmets for staff who ski on duty



> BROOMFIELD (AP) - Vail Resorts says its employees will be required to wear helmets while skiing or snowboarding on the job starting with the 2009-2010 season.
> Vail also will require helmets for all children age 12 and under who take group lessons through its schools, and helmets will be part of the resort's children's rental packages unless parents or guardians sign a waiver.


Click the link for the rest...


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Kinda sucks they don't have the money, but I'm sure they can scrape buy if it is a priority. Don't they get some kind of discount? Can't all ski/snowboarded related stuff be a tax write-off? I wonder how many employees are aware all this stuff can be written off.

IMO everyone should be required. What are the legit reasons for not? I can't think of one. With that said I need to make it a habit of wearing my helmet.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Don't know how I feel about this one. I can sort of understand it for people who teach in ski school. Especially when kids are required to where a helmet. On the flip side, ski area employees are notoriously under paid. So now you have to buy a helmet when you are already living on Mac 'N Cheese and Ramen?
> 
> 9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Vail requires helmets for staff who ski on duty
> 
> ...


as i mentioned in one of the 'helmet threads', i think it is only a matter of time before all resorts require patrons to wear one.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

I have a friend who works at Vail as a lifty. He said a lot of the local shops are throwing RIDICULOUS deals at them for last years helmets. Like over 50% off. He got a Giro Omen for $90. I paid almost $200 for mine. I think the shops are definitely aiming for some loyalty on this one, but it's awesome that they recognize that helmets are pretty expensive for them.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I don't see resorts requiring patrons to wear a helmet for a long time. People will just take their dollars elsewhere. Even the requirement for kids in ski school to wear one can be circumvented by the parent signing a waiver. If helmet use gets above 90% of the general skier/rider using them, then you might start to see resorts making their use required. Any less than that, and it's a lot of money for a resort to lose by taking that gamble.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

$90 is still a lot of food, beer, and play money for a bottom feeder employee.


----------



## Technine Icon (Jan 15, 2009)

That sucks, but it is kinda good because they're setting an example and in my opinion helmets are great, they've saved me dozens of times.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Even the requirement for kids in ski school to wear one can be circumvented by the parent signing a waiver.



everyone knows that waivers don't hold up in court-you can never sign your rights away.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Rocketbass88 said:


> I have a friend who works at Vail as a lifty. He said a lot of the local shops are throwing RIDICULOUS deals at them for last years helmets. Like over 50% off. He got a Giro Omen for $90. I paid almost $200 for mine. I think the shops are definitely aiming for some loyalty on this one, but it's awesome that they recognize that helmets are pretty expensive for them.



more like shops are sweating with all the overstock that they are carrying into the summer.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

The resorts can't swing the cash and get them helmets? 

For insurance reasons, I can understand wanting your employees to wear helmets, but I don't think it is right to require them to buy gear that may not fit into their budgets. I assume the resort doesn't give them a couple weeks to sit around watching Brociety for a $30 helmet...


----------



## kraig4422 (Apr 9, 2009)

I have snowboarded for 18 years and have never worn a helmet. That said as I get older I am thinking about purchasing one for next season.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> everyone knows that waivers don't hold up in court-you can never sign your rights away.


Unlike Utah (Or California, or Washington, or Wyoming etc...), Colorado protects their resorts quite well under the law here. Even without the waiver, the plaintiff would have to prove gross neglect by the resort to get any sort of judgment in their favor. About the only lawsuits against resorts that pass muster here are were the resort left something hazardous on a run or a death/injury caused by a resort employee on duty. If a buzzsaw was left running in the middle of a run and someone hit it, you probably have a lawsuit. Collide with someone, hit a tree, wreck yourself in the park by overshooting a jump, you're sol. Most lawyers won't even file a suit against a resort in this state, unless the negligence is easy to prove. Civil lawsuits against other patrons of a resort abound here. Lawsuits against the resort operator, not so much. 

I think the waiver is just there for the parent to acknowledge that the resort has a policy of all kids in their classes to wear helmets. The parent can say they don't want them too, and sign one saying they understand the policy. It is by no means signing away their rights. If little Johnny hits a tree, dies, and wasn't wearing a helmet they have proof that the parents didn't think they needed one. Waivers work quite well in that instance. Look at Burton, and a couple of snowboard shops. Their asses were saved by waivers. If the instructor grabbed a hatchet and hacked off Johnny's legs, they would stand to make a lot of money off of a lawsuit.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Flick Montana said:


> The resorts can't swing the cash and get them helmets?
> 
> For insurance reasons, I can understand wanting your employees to wear helmets, but I don't think it is right to require them to buy gear that may not fit into their budgets. I assume the resort doesn't give them a couple weeks to sit around watching Brociety for a $30 helmet...


Maybe Vail Resorts will pony up for the helmets. My post about making the employee purchase one was purely conjecture on my part. Nothing in the article makes it sound one way or the other. It would be cool if they did get the helmets for them.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Flick Montana said:


> The resorts can't swing the cash and get them helmets?


not only would the resort save a lot of money but from a legal standpoint (my guess), vail may carry the burden/responsibility if they bought and required a certain helmet to be worn by employees. if an employee received a head injury (while wearing required brand helmet), they may turn around and sue vail assoc. claiming that the helmet was not structurally sound, etc. just a thought...


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

On the other hand, if they spring for the helmets themselves, they can assure uniformity, which I hear is important to Nazis. They can also have the piece of mind that their employees are buying $10 Schwinn junior helmets at Target.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Vail resorts are greedy douche bags they won't pony up. They'll tell every new hire that they get their 20% off the sale price at Mountain Sports Outlet in Silverthorne and push them that way. For insurance reasons it's a great idea. Look at the testers of the terrain park, most are my friends and they don't wear a helmet. Sorry but if it's 6 a.m. the sun hasn't come up and you're jumping a 100 footer of doom I'd wear a helmet.


----------



## jmacphee9 (Nov 11, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> $90 is still a lot of food, beer, and play money for a bottom feeder employee.


4 dirty thirtys and a fifth of burnetts...thats quite a lot to give up:laugh:i had to do it when i went on a trip to canada so i could go in the park and this was a completely unexpected cost that was hard for me to pay for at the time. helmets are not cheap for us youngsters, and spending that much on something you dont want sucks even harder. although now im glad i got it..


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Vail resorts are greedy douche bags they won't pony up. They'll tell every new hire that they get their 20% off the sale price at Mountain Sports Outlet in Silverthorne and push them that way.


I'm sure the "greedy douche bags" is probably correct but the rest is wrong.



> Vail Resorts to require helmets for all on-mountain staff when skiing, riding next season
> By realvail.com
> 
> April 13, 2009 — Vail Resorts today announced that, beginning with the 2009-2010 winter season, the Company will require all employees to wear helmets when skiing or riding on the job at each of its five mountain resorts: Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Keystone and Heavenly.
> ...


It's cool that they allow them to wear their own if they desire, instead of the uniform one. 

For myself one of the main reasons for not wearing a helmet was finding one with the correct fit. I used 2 different brands before finding "SWEET" :thumbsup::thumbsup: that fit me perfectly. I've probably worn a helmet more this season than all the others combined.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> everyone knows that waivers don't hold up in court-you can never sign your rights away.


What actual legal text are you basing this claim on? Aside from the one located in your rectum? :cheeky4:

While you can't sign away your right to sue under negligence, a good number of lawsuits are based on "well no one ever told me coffee is hot. Where's the warning". A waiver is a signed document saying that you were told the coffee is hot and that you should probably handle it with care.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Mooz said:


> What actual legal text are you basing this claim on? Aside from the one located in your rectum? :cheeky4:
> 
> While you can't sign away your right to sue under negligence, a good number of lawsuits are based on "well no one ever told me coffee is hot. Where's the warning". A waiver is a signed document saying that you were told the coffee is hot and that you should probably handle it with care.



i am basing my answer off personal experience-when i was growing up all the vert ramps were getting torn down because parents and/or insurance companies were suing the people with the ramps in their backyards to recover for 'damages'. 

to try and curb these suites, a lot of skaters' parents would require a visiting skater to sign-off on a waiver (before skating the a ramp in the backyard, for example), thus removing the onus of the property owner(s). 

of course, visiting skaters would sign these... then-like yourself-the visiting rollerblader would try to drop in on vert and and get face fucked. later the visiting skater's parents would sue, the ramp owners would present waiver in court, the judge says that it does not hold up, visiting skater is awarded damages, ramp gets torn down.

i am sure this is all based of off state-by-state laws, or intrastate laws (or whatever they are called). 

ps-emoticons are really fucking lame.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> You just wait and sooner than you can imagine it will become required of everyone. Most likely some silly organization dedicated to some victim of a skiing accident, all wearing some silly symbolic ribbon, will lobby the state government to enact a bill named in honor of "the fallen".


Richardson's Richeous, Bono's Boners?



> I am willing to bet this has something to do with Workman's Compensation in the state of Colorado. Some bean counter made the determination that the resort would get a break on their insurance premiums by requiring helmet use. This is how it starts.


I'm sure it does. Blame the insurance and law industries. Funny how they go hand in hand. VR is trying to increase the bottom line and stay in business. 



> I resent deeply some do gooder poking their nose into my personal freedoms and choices; even if their intentions are good. I am getting sick and tired of busy body people in this country who have nothing better to worry about, legislating or otherwise trying to regulate all risk out of life. This is a slippery slope issue and it will just keep getting worse and worse.


Slippery in the other direction too. Should we got rid of the FDA, EPA, and NHTSA for poking their noses into our safety? Just playing devil's advocate. 

There has to be a line somewhere. For me it's kids. We have to protect those too young to protect themselves. As an adult do what ever you like as long as you are only putting yourself in danger.

Helmets (motorcycle, bike, snowsports) for adults should be by choice, for children under 12 they should be required by law. Kids can't really assess risk, while adults can.

I'd make the same argument for seat belts and car seats.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Point C, you gave up a certain amount of "personal freedom" when you bought your lift ticket, season pass, agreed to be an employee. Though most resorts operate on public land, they are not public domain for us to set the rules on how we want them to operate. Well at least in the conventional sense. The only way you can change their attitude is to vote with your dollars. Fact is, they'll be able to do this sort of thing because Americans are too fat and lazy to seek out alternatives to using resorts, for that which I am thankful for. 

If you don't like this, the best thing you can do is to not spend any money at Vail (Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breckenridge, Heavenly) resorts and let it be known why.

I also still don't see patrons being forced to wear helmets.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> Scenario B:
> 
> I, as an adult with the capital to pay my own medical insurance, make the decision to ride without a helmet and I crack my melon open hitting a tree. This act, while seen as pretty dumb by most people only affects me and does not endanger the safety of anyone else nor does my medical care cost the taxpayer. In this case, the state or the resort has no right to countermand my own personal freedom of choice even if it seems dumb to the majority of people.


Playing DA again. If you are uninsured I should be able to force you to wear a helmet, because after hitting the tree, I (as a tax payer) will have to pay for treatment and long term care of your brain damaged carcass?


----------



## MunkySpunk (Jan 7, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> This is just that first step that I have been talking about for years. We live in a society where someone else always wants to protect you from every risk in life. I have said in the past that there are real "Helmet Nazis" out there who are not happy just promoting helmet use, they want to force helmet use on everyone. These people are as bad as the anti gun crowd who because they don`t like guns, want to take them away from everyone else. These types of people need to get a life and worry about their own shit and stay out of other people`s personal business.


OK, I'll finally bite since you made me laugh, Wolf.

So, government is taking over our schools, our corporations, our healthcare, our personal liberties (so sayeth the right). Scary. And while President Bush was the one who started the bailout, nationalized insurance companies, added $17 trillion drug entitlement program had a governement mandated public school initiative literally titled "No Child Left Behind", wiretapped citizens without warrants, created secret internment camps in international waters beyond the reach of our justice system, allowed his Vice President to live in a nether world that exists between executive and legislative branch, where his house did not exist on Google Earth, only now with the advent of helmet laws has tyrrany come to our shores (Due thanks to Daily Show). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If an employee doesn't want to wear a helmet, then quit. If you don't like a resort's helmet rules, bitch all you want and then go somewhere else. They have to look out for themselves, that's what being a business is all about. Frivolous lawsuits are a big problem in this country and have put a number of innocent legitimate businesses under. Even if there's obviously no ground for said lawsuit, defense attorny's are pretty damn expensive.

Are you a socialist or not? You brag about it, but then you want to pick and choose where you want the government taking an active hand. Have your cake or eat it, but not both. If you want nationalized healthare, you better be ready to accept the government doing what it can to limit healthcare expense, and this includes helmet laws. Sounds to me like you want a socialist government, unless they infringe on Snowolf's rights to tote around a 9mm penis or win a Darwin award. If you're going to climb on a soapbox and foam at the mouth with righteous indignation, at least make sure your views are consistent. :laugh:


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> Point C, you gave up a certain amount of "personal freedom" when you bought your lift ticket, season pass, agreed to be an employee. Though most resorts operate on public land, they are not public domain for us to set the rules on how we want them to operate. Well at least in the conventional sense. The only way you can change their attitude is to vote with your dollars. Fact is, they'll be able to do this sort of thing because Americans are too fat and lazy to seek out alternatives to using resorts, for that which I am thankful for.
> 
> If you don't like this, the best thing you can do is to not spend any money at Vail (Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breckenridge, Heavenly) resorts and let it be known why.
> 
> I also still don't see patrons being forced to wear helmets.


Ski areas will not directly mandate the use of helmets for patrons. If helmets are required it will happen through law passed by state government, similar to bike and motorcycle helmet laws. 

Your voting dollars won't have an effect unless you avoid entire states. I could see the ski area lobby putting pressure on the state to pass helmet law, so they don't look like individual bad guys.

Broad strokes on the fat lazy Americans comment. AT gear and splitboards are selling at an all time high. If they're actually used in the BC, who knows for sure.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Well I disagree that your Dollars wouldn't have an effect on the states. If the Colorado ski industry saw a dramatic drop in skier visits because people weren't coming here since they didn't want to use helmets. It would change. The ski industry here is the number two cash cow for the state of Colorado right behind hunting and fishing. The state coffers rely quite a bit on the tourist dollar for this, so if people went elsewhere and they knew why, you bet it would change.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> Well I disagree that your Dollars wouldn't have an effect on the states. If the Colorado ski industry saw a dramatic drop in skier visits because people weren't coming here since they didn't want to use helmets. It would change. The ski industry here is the number two cash cow for the state of Colorado right behind hunting and fishing. The state coffers rely quite a bit on the tourist dollar for this, so if people went elsewhere and they knew why, you bet it would change.


Right. This is what I said, "Your voting dollars won't have an effect unless you avoid entire states."

Or put another way, If you avoid entire states it will have an effect.

If Utah and Colorado passed helmet laws would people be willing to travel outside of these top two ski states, or would they give up and buy a helmet?


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> i am basing my answer off personal experience-when i was growing up all the vert ramps were getting torn down because parents and/or insurance companies were suing the people with the ramps in their backyards to recover for 'damages'.
> 
> to try and curb these suites, a lot of skaters' parents would require a visiting skater to sign-off on a waiver (before skating the a ramp in the backyard, for example), thus removing the onus of the property owner(s).
> 
> ...


Clearly you weren't actually in the courtroom because this explaination of "personal experiance" is the kind I would expect someone with down syndrome to use when describing "what the bad priest did". Kids can't sign waivers which would be why a judge tossed those out. It needs to be signed by the parent. This however does not absolve the property owner of all injury claims. 

He still has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe ramp. If it's flawed, he's negligent. There are three components to a negligence suit. Duty, breach of duty, and damages. Duty would have been to provide a sound ramp with reasonable expectations of quality and safety (I say reasonable because it is by definition a dangerous activity). Breach of duty could be a flaw in design, too high, too steep, being open during bad weather etc etc etc. Damages would be the face fuckage.

And if the owner only had a minor's signature on a waiver as his defense, he's a moron.



and yes emotes do blow but it was the best way to convey that I wasn't being serious in my post.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Just want to point out to you boys that Vail Resorts is not Colorado. They are 4 locations in Colorado that give you other options to go to. Vail Resorts has already seen a decline in skier visits this year, Keystone being the worst (anyone want to guess why there?). They're lying about the number of visits they're down because no one wants to admit they're screwed in the pooch. This will be another reason families will flock there and individuals will go elsewhere. 

As mentioned when the visits drop below a certain percentage they will rethink this. The big thing to look at is who is a steward to the public? These are people that are setting an example and they should be giving helmets a positive image, park crews, instructors, ski patrol, and my personal favorite mountain babysitters. I don't think it's fair to make a minimum wage liftee out here for a season be forced to wear a helmet when he's going from one lift to another that dudes out there in the elements and shouldn't be hindered by the lack of warmth in some helmets. 

Now rest assured Vail Resorts will go with whomever gives them the best deal this will probably be Red or Boeri. Two entirely different helmets one of which only has limited fits. There in lies the problem you have a limited fit. This also poses the question of do they use them for one year then toss them or are they going to reuse them as if they were a rental helmet? Anyone with half a brain knows that a helmet is only good for one impact really then it's time for another one, but are they now going to have a helmet inspector?


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Wow, you guys make a big deal out of this. I think the resort should be allowed to make the employees wear whatever they want. If you don't like it, you don't work there. Every job I've had required a dress code. Since they did not involve physical risk I never had to wear helmets, but I would if I worked at a resort. Am I cattle? :dunno:


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Mooz said:


> Clearly you weren't actually in the courtroom because this explaination of "personal experiance" is the kind I would expect someone with down syndrome to use when describing "what the bad priest did". Kids can't sign waivers which would be why a judge tossed those out. It needs to be signed by the parent. This however does not absolve the property owner of all injury claims.
> 
> He still has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe ramp. If it's flawed, he's negligent. There are three components to a negligence suit. Duty, breach of duty, and damages. Duty would have been to provide a sound ramp with reasonable expectations of quality and safety (I say reasonable because it is by definition a dangerous activity). Breach of duty could be a flaw in design, too high, too steep, being open during bad weather etc etc etc. Damages would be the face fuckage.
> 
> ...


easy on the self-empowerment insults-that shit doesn't work on me. 

and since you like to think of yourself as the big man, you should know that the correct spellings are as follows; _explanation_ and _experience_. and do not forget to hyphenate the word _fuck-age_.

don't get all pissed off and write a five page response, i am just fucking around with you. i could give two shits about waivers and legalities regarding waivers.

off to shred.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> $90 is still a lot of food, beer, and play money for a bottom feeder employee.


Well, he decided to go for a more expensive helmet. Some of his friends are buying helmets for $30 or so. A bunch of them also bought skateboard helmets for retardedly cheap on ebay... so where there's a will, there's a way. None of them see it as too much of an inconvenience. In fact, most of them have been planning on buying a helmet, but they just never really got around to it.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> easy on the self-empowerment insults-that shit doesn't work on me.
> 
> and since you like to think of yourself as the big man, you should know that the correct spellings are as follows; _explanation_ and _experience_. and do not forget to hyphenate the word _fuck-age_.
> 
> ...


Shit you think that was long, get Snowolf riled up sometime. And that wasn't an insult earlier either. I was just looking for an excuse to use down syndrome and child molesting priest in the same sentence. It pisses off the catholics.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

Snowolf said:


> Another can of worms here....Say an instructor (for example) is wearing a resort issued helmet and still recieves a head trauma. Now there is the real possibility for a lawsuit based on faulty equipment. I think this is going to fuck them far worse than they expect in th long term.


Good luck with that one. They would have to prove that the injury was a direct result of the faulty helmet and not because the rider was attempting some silly ass trick that they had little to no chance of pulling off. I don't know many lawyers who would take that to trial. I know a few worms that would try to squeeze a settlement out of it though. Now, if the resort KNEW the helmet was no good, you may have something.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

I'm slowly coming to the realization that 90% of decisions made in this country are based purely on the fear of a lawsuit...


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Mooz said:


> Good luck with that one. They would have to prove that the injury was a direct result of the faulty helmet and not because the rider was attempting some silly ass trick that they had little to no chance of pulling off. I don't know many lawyers who would take that to trial. I know a few worms that would try to squeeze a settlement out of it though. Now, if the resort KNEW the helmet was no good, you may have something.


I know more than a few people that would take them to court. You could go so far as to actually base it on the claim that they were forced by circumstances to wear a helmet that didn't fit their head properly and were injured. Let alone they could very well just be riding along and poof by some form of karmic ass kicking fall on their head.


----------



## MunkySpunk (Jan 7, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> If you re read my post, that is exactly what I said I would do, I would quit working there. If Mt. Hood Meadows for example did this, I would turn in my uniform and employee pass that day and would do as Killclimbz suggest and vote with my pocket book by boycotting them.


That's great. Where did I ever suggest you said they should change the rules?


> That does not hold water. No where in the history of ski resorts has a resort ever been sued for not requiring helmets.


Well of course not. That would entail someone hring a lawyer and handing a resort a lawsuit that says: We want $X because you don't require helmets. That's like suing McDonald's for not having a whopper. In the end, that statement says nothing about frivolous lawsuits lodged against ski resorts for injuries while on the slopes. That's a number I'd actually like to see. I found one by using the googles on the interwebs: Injured Skier Allowed to Sue Ski Resort - Law Firm Arthur West & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law Attorneys Glenshaw, Pennsylvania While I'll grant you that the above trial had nothing to do with helmets, it shows that the fine print on the back of a lift ticket doesn't do shit to stop lawsuits.


> Almost every state in the union has laws on the books that clearly state the skier/rider accepts all responsibility. I can pull up the exact RCW from Oregon and Washington if you want more details.The only law suits ever even allowed to go to trial are cases where the resort was negligent in maintaining their equipment, not the natural environment or public behavior. Sorry, but this is all about getting breaks on their workers comp insurance.


RE: Dry Cleaners late with judge's pants in D.C.. The defense attorney fees and bad PR put the cleaners out of business. Frivolous or not, it went to trial. It may get thrown out in the first 3 seconds by the judge, but it goes to trial. I can sue you for pain and suffering if you fart around me, and if we both pressed hard enough, it would go to trial. I'd lose, but it'd go to trial.


> Yes I am. You are putting the cart before the horse. When we have national health care, THEN we can have this debate NOT before.


Sounds like you'd expect to get a business loan before you told the bank your business plan. There's going to be a LOT of debate BEFORE any nationalized healthcare, including helmet laws. You going to put forth a case and then answer the tough questions with "Uhh yeah, you see we were planning on talking about that AFTER you approved this massive multi-hundred-billion-dollar change to our healthcare system and simultaneous tax increase."?


> By the way, I carry a separate rider policy through AFLAC for recreational trip insurance that covers me for injuries and search and rescue costs if I ever need it.


Golf clap.


> My views are very consistent; you are just are not listening.... I clearly defined my criteria for those "lines in the sand" Besides, I support Socialism which is an ECONOMIC system and Representative Constitutional Democracy which is a governmental system.


And I repeat, if you want socialized healthcare, be prepared for the system to slap down some laws to keep costs down, and be prepared for that kind of shit to get ironed out BEFORE anything that massive gets green-lit. Splitting hairs and going off on a tangent about ideologies doesn't change the practical considerations that helmet laws are just one of a gazillion points that will have to be settled on BEFORE the healthcare system is nationalized.

Don't get me wrong Wolfie, I'm a fan of Democratic Socialism too. It's a good happy medium between the inadequacies of pure communism and the idiocies of pure capitalism.


> By the way, my exercise of my rights and responsibilities to carry a firearm has nothing to do with my penis, it is solely about having the means to self defense from animal predation and human violence when in remote areas without any human backup. For me, a firearm is a tool; nothing more....but nice slam anyway....:cheeky4:


Yes.. slam, that's what I was thinking when I typed it, "I'll show everyone what a big man I am by insulting a total stranger's dick over the internet." 

Say Wolfie, you know, you sound like a guy who likes to minimize the risk of danger to himself while boarding. Just between you, me, and the world, there's an additional way to reduce your risk of danger when snowboarding too...... :laugh:


Flick Montana said:


> I'm slowly coming to the realization that 90% of decisions made in this country are based purely on the fear of a lawsuit...


You're right, because: Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

MunkySpunk said:


> I found one by using the googles on the interwebs: Injured Skier Allowed to Sue Ski Resort - Law Firm Arthur West & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law Attorneys Glenshaw, Pennsylvania While I'll grant you that the above trial had nothing to do with helmets, it shows that the fine print on the back of a lift ticket doesn't do shit to stop lawsuits.


You should have read that one before using it as an example.



> In this case, the injured skier avoided the liability limits of the Act by focusing on the snowboarder's alcohol consumption. The skier claimed that the snowboarder was part of a high school group whose drinking in the parking lot and on the slopes was obvious and should have been controlled or prevented by the resort. Moreover, the injured skier maintained that the resort was generally aware of alcohol abuse by high school groups at the resort.


He's attempting to prove that the resort was negligent in allowing drunks to ride. This isn't an example of the fine print failing or state laws failing. Again, there's a big difference between negligence and people being able to sue for damn near anything. Had the snowboarder that hit this guy been a stone cold super christian, he'd have no case against the resort.

Still, he's going to have one hell of a time showing that the resort knew they were drunk and failed to take steps to protect others from the drunks.


----------



## MunkySpunk (Jan 7, 2009)

Mooz said:


> You should have read that one before using it as an example.


Uhh yeah, I did read it, tough guy. The skier sued the resort. Gross negligence was the excuse, but the lawsuit proceeded despite the fine print that says 'Skiers assume ALL risk....' on the back of the ticket. That's all I maintained in my post.

EDIT: Not to mention, you've got the lawyer waving this around on the webz like a giant red flag essentially saying "Stub your toe at a resort? They could have rounded off that corner. File bullshit lawsuits here."


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

Mooz said:


> He still has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe ramp. If it's flawed, he's negligent. There are three components to a negligence suit. Duty, breach of duty, and damages. Duty would have been to provide a sound ramp with reasonable expectations of quality and safety (I say reasonable because it is by definition a dangerous activity). Breach of duty could be a flaw in design, too high, too steep, being open during bad weather etc etc etc. Damages would be the face fuckage.


Would the same hold true for a ski area's terrain park? Most don't require signing a wavier before entry. How do resorts protect themselves?

Snoqualmie pass in Washington settled for tons of $$$$$ in a case like this a few years ago. What did they do wrong?


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Mooz said:


> Shit you think that was long, get Snowolf riled up sometime. And that wasn't an insult earlier either. I was just looking for an excuse to use down syndrome and child molesting priest in the same sentence. It pisses off the catholics.


i should fucking sue snowbird for making me sweat like michael jackson in a spanish orphanage while riding there today-rain, snow, clouds, snow, sleet. took one run and peaced out. fuck that place, not sure why i bought a late seasons there... mother fuckers plow down every jump in sight.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

Grizz said:


> Would the same hold true for a ski area's terrain park? Most don't require signing a wavier before entry. How do resorts protect themselves?


By having a park crew. They create the jumps to be as reasonably safe as possible. A lot of resorts also have park crew in the park as babysitters. There are also numerous signs saying "Hey this shit will fuck you sideways with your mother's douche so only enter if you really think it's a good idea".

In this respect, the resort is making a concentrated effort to provide an environment that is as safe as possible given the nature of the sport. They have trained individuals (they could be the worst on the planet but if the resort has a record of them attenting training, they are covered) building features and maintaining the features. They also have the same people patrolling the park watching for unsafe riders and unsafe conditions.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Mooz said:


> By having a park crew. They create the jumps to be as reasonably safe as possible. A lot of resorts also have park crew in the park as babysitters. There are also numerous signs saying "Hey this shit will fuck you sideways with your mother's douche so only enter if you really think it's a good idea".
> 
> In this respect, the resort is making a concentrated effort to provide an environment that is as safe as possible given the nature of the sport. They have trained individuals (they could be the worst on the planet but if the resort has a record of them attenting training, they are covered) building features and maintaining the features. They also have the same people patrolling the park watching for unsafe riders and unsafe conditions.


this is why snowbird no longer has a 'man' park:

Terrain-park safety becomes top priority after key lawsuit - The Denver Post


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Vail Resorts has "Park Testers" these are the guys hucking their meat off 100 foot jumps at 6 in the morning in a blinding snow storm before the general public is up there fucking shit up. If it's not safe it doesn't get opened.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

Grizz said:


> Would the same hold true for a ski area's terrain park? Most don't require signing a wavier before entry. How do resorts protect themselves?
> 
> Snoqualmie pass in Washington settled for tons of $$$$$ in a case like this a few years ago. What did they do wrong?


Boo damn you for editing while I was typing. If you can link an article, I'll read more into in. My first guess is they settled to avoid going to court. It's at the point where people are settling slam dunk wins vs going to court and fighting. Be it to avoid legal fees or just to avoid the hassle. It's sad and something that should really be changed. I say for every bullshit suit a lawyer files, he should have to attend 500 hours of ethics courses at his expense.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Vail Resorts has "Park Testers" these are the guys hucking their meat off 100 foot jumps at 6 in the morning in a blinding snow storm before the general public is up there fucking shit up. If it's not safe it doesn't get opened.


well, when i was there on the park crew, we tested the jumps before opening them to the public, as well as maintained them, but i can assure you, we were never up at six a.m. hucking shit.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> i should fucking sue snowbird for making me sweat like michael jackson in a spanish orphanage while riding there today-rain, snow, clouds, snow, sleet. took one run and peaced out. fuck that place, not sure why i bought a late seasons there... mother fuckers plow down every jump in sight.


QFT! Though be happy you have snow. Our shit closed the first week or march. I have to go shake a hobo if I want to see any white dust.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Mooz said:


> QFT! Though be happy you have snow. Our shit closed the first week or march. I have to go shake a hobo if I want to see any white dust.


what's _qft_-quit fucking talking? should i be _lol_-ing? pffff.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> what's _qft_-quit fucking talking? should i be _lol_-ing? pffff.


Quoted for truth. Blame TJ for that shit. He got it started on this site.


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

Mooz said:


> I say for every bullshit suit a lawyer files, he should have to attend 500 hours of ethics courses at his expense.


Now that's Tort reform I would vote for!

Here is an article on the Snoqualmie suit and it ties back into Colorado.
Terrain-park safety becomes top priority after key lawsuit - The Denver Post


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Mooz said:


> Quoted for truth. Blame TJ for that shit. He got it started on this site.


ahh, ok.

so, are you on the east coast (guessing so if your season ended or midwest)?


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Grizz said:


> Now that's Tort reform I would vote for!
> 
> Here is an article on the Snoqualmie suit and it ties back into Colorado.
> Terrain-park safety becomes top priority after key lawsuit - The Denver Post



uhh, your a day late and a dollar short on the denver post link (post #48).


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

COtoUT said:


> uhh, your a day late and a dollar short on the denver post link (post #48).


Mooz was asking for it so I threw it up again. I was writing when you put up #48 and I missed it.


----------



## Mooz (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> ahh, ok.
> 
> so, are you on the east coast (guessing so if your season ended or midwest)?


east coast mid atlantic. Our snow stinks out loud. We got a whopping 3 inches of natural all season. Ened up riding on all man made crap the entire season. 

I'll take what I can get though.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> well, when i was there on the park crew, we tested the jumps before opening them to the public, as well as maintained them, but i can assure you, we were never up at six a.m. hucking shit.


 My buddy's up at Breck by 6 strapping in and checking Parklane jumps 4 days a week.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Grizz said:


> Mooz was asking for it so I threw it up again. I was writing when you put up #48 and I missed it.


no worries, i was just messing.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> My buddy's up at Breck by 6 strapping in and checking Parklane jumps 4 days a week.


fucking overachievers.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> fucking overachievers.


 HAHA I like to tell him he's an underachiever he should be hucking Freeway at 5:30 in the morning on a powder day.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> HAHA I like to tell him he's an underachiever he should be hucking Freeway at 5:30 in the morning on a powder day.


i will say, having ridden breck for four seasons, it is one of my least favorite mountains. however, their park crews and what they create are a 1 in my book. i'm just not into parks anymore... i like natural terrain more so, and i find breck just does not have these types of features.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

COtoUT said:


> i will say, having ridden breck for four seasons, it is one of my least favorite mountains. however, their park crews and what they create are a 1 in my book. i'm just not into parks anymore... i like natural terrain more so, and i find breck just does not have these types of features.


I think I want to go back to Washington and just drop cliffs all day and ride some of the scariest gnarliest terrain on earth. Closest I've had to that was a day on Vail Pass and a couple insane powder days at the Basin where I could actually launch stuff and not die.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> Have you thought about giving Alyeska a try for a season or two? Washington is great, but nothing here compares to the Chugach Range...:thumbsup:


ak, baker, wy back country and ut are the g-spot for me. alyeska is fun as shit, especially in the spring, spinning for days of their cat tracks, riding right onto the bar's deck for a road soda, stunning views... man, i need to go back.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

If I do WA I'm going to Baker and just saying fuck it. Right now the goal is a year in Japan.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> If I do WA I'm going to Baker and just saying fuck it. Right now the goal is a year in Japan.


if you know you are going to japan for sure, hit me up. i can put you in-touch with a kiwi buddy of mine who hangs with the car danchi crew.

YouTube - スノーボード：　DVD『車団地 CAR DANCHI 3 A Powder Celebration』　トレーラー

i'm going over for 2 weeks next season, really stoked.


----------



## COtoUT (Apr 1, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> Yeah, Baker is where it`s at....:thumbsup:


*WHEN* it snows...


----------



## Grizz (Nov 10, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> Have you thought about giving Alyeska a try for a season or two? Washington is great, but nothing here compares to the Chugach Range...:thumbsup:


or the Alaska Range or Wrangell/St Elias....

IMO the North Cascades are pretty sweet.


----------

