-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?
- Thread starter ski diva
- Start date
dloveski
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
it is nuts. If the rope HAD NOT been there, the kid's parents would have sued because the little dahling hurt himself hitting a rock or trunk or other hazards that mountains inherently are known for. The resort can't win. And the rest of us pay more. Everyone, except the lawyer and the 'victim' suffer.
But this is not as nuts as the lawyer who threatened to sue Brighton over the NOISE caused by shooting avalanches down (last season). Yup---it upset his son. Now, if they DIDN'T shoot the slides, they'd also be liable, so you see---it's a game for some, it seems.
But this is not as nuts as the lawyer who threatened to sue Brighton over the NOISE caused by shooting avalanches down (last season). Yup---it upset his son. Now, if they DIDN'T shoot the slides, they'd also be liable, so you see---it's a game for some, it seems.
SkiNurse
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'm surprised the family got anything...
At Keystone, there is a bridge that goes over a creek so riders can get to & from the gondola. It is a wooden bridge.
I wish I could remember the story completely (and I couldn't find it on google) but this gal fell & hurt her leg on the bridge. It was during winter..and I don't recall if she had skis on or just her ski boots.
Anyway, she sued Vail Associates and LOST because when you buy a daily or season pass, that is part of the waiver.
At Keystone, there is a bridge that goes over a creek so riders can get to & from the gondola. It is a wooden bridge.
I wish I could remember the story completely (and I couldn't find it on google) but this gal fell & hurt her leg on the bridge. It was during winter..and I don't recall if she had skis on or just her ski boots.
Anyway, she sued Vail Associates and LOST because when you buy a daily or season pass, that is part of the waiver.
You've got to be kidding. They won? Like dloveski's says, its a no win situation for the resort. No rope and what could happen. The rope was there for a reason. He ran into it. I can only think - what would have happened if it had been a lift support? How would the lawyer get around that one!?
Robyn
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Somehow I have this image of a rope that you can hardly see and ski right into it before you had a chance to stop.
Now, this reminds me sometime I notice there's a little flag hanging on the rope. So people can see it better and have a chance to stop before hitting it. More often, there's a sign hanging in the middle of the rope that has the trail closure sing on it...
Did they have a flag or sign on the rope? If it were just a thin rope, it's quite conceivable to NOT see it before it's too late.
The article didn't say either way.
Now, this reminds me sometime I notice there's a little flag hanging on the rope. So people can see it better and have a chance to stop before hitting it. More often, there's a sign hanging in the middle of the rope that has the trail closure sing on it...
Did they have a flag or sign on the rope? If it were just a thin rope, it's quite conceivable to NOT see it before it's too late.
The article didn't say either way.
skigrl27
Ski Diva Extraordinaire<br>Legal & Environmental A
I doubt the rope was white. It was probably orange and black and probably held up w/ orange & black bamboo poles and probably had a bright yellow "closure" sign on it - with some sort of big red X.
That's crazy. This is the type of stuff I deal with every day. If it happened in CO - we would have told the family to pound sand.
That's crazy. This is the type of stuff I deal with every day. If it happened in CO - we would have told the family to pound sand.
skigrl27
Ski Diva Extraordinaire<br>Legal & Environmental A
When's the last time you saw a closure marked w/ a white rope? Or with anything BUT a brightly colored rope and signage?
The kid was obviously skiing out of control if he hit the rope in the first place and he and the family should be thanking their lucky stars the rope was there at all.
I still think this is ridiculous, though.
Marigee
Angel Diva
Newspapers are notorious for not giving all the details surrounding lawsuits. White I generally agree that society today is much too litigious, and this situation could be one where most of us would say the child was being careless, parents should've known better etc. (e.g. McDonald's and Hot Coffee from the drive-thru) we don't really have all the facts here.
In an action for negligence all sorts of issues come into play - such as color of the rope, whether the resort regularly blocked the trail, whether they used a different marking that day, if the rope was in a different place, etc.
In my job at my local resort I set bamboo when I work the morning shift. We are very careful about where we place markers. If we mark the side of a trail for a possible hazard once then we have to mark it all season in the same location. Heaven forbid a "guest" get injured in that spot one day when we hadn't put the bamboo up. Score one for the plaintiff because the defendant resort didn't conform to habit when marking the trails. Guests are used to the marking, so negligence would be argued on the part of the resort for failing to mark it on the day of the injury.
So - even though this is probably what most would consider "nuts" and that the child and parents bear some responsiblity, the article doesn't give us enough information to come to a informed understanding of the situation.
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Well, yeah, usually. But there wasn't enough information in the article to know that ... I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as anyone, believe me. But I'm not basing a judgment (pro or con) on the little info that was there.
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
So obviously this means that someone with access needs to look up the case and let us know! :D Because now we're all curious! (Well, I am.)
We know that things should be done a certain way (warning signs, bamboo, ropes, whatever), but that doesn't mean they will be. I have a friend whose father was on a city bike trail, and he pedaled up to the top of a hill and as he came over the crest, he rode into a 12-ft hole and broke his neck. The city was digging for some reason, but whoever was working forgot to put up cones and signs and all the other standard stuff. It wasn't normal, but they were still liable.
skigrl27
Ski Diva Extraordinaire<br>Legal & Environmental A
I feel I'm playing Devil's advocate here - but the fact that he hit a rope at the jaw/face level - means the closure was marked. Could it be that he just didn't see it? Sure. Could it be he was skiing out of control and couldn't stop? Could be. Could it be the marking was hard to see? Possibly. It could have been white-out conditions for all we know - doesn't mean you can ski into s*#t and sue people for it.
Could it be this family needs to realize that skiing is dangerous and that's why we wear all sorts of protective gear - and even still there's a chance of getting hurt? Absolutely.
geargrrl
Angel Diva
Definately not enough info. I think the press does that deliberately to incite people.
Remember the McDonalds coffee lawsuit? I am acquainted with one of the lawyers on that case. The press really liked to leave out how the lady who got the hot coffee in her lap and sued, NEEDED SKIN GRAFTS from the burns. That info changes everything, and yet that part of the story was routinely left out of the publicity.
Remember the McDonalds coffee lawsuit? I am acquainted with one of the lawyers on that case. The press really liked to leave out how the lady who got the hot coffee in her lap and sued, NEEDED SKIN GRAFTS from the burns. That info changes everything, and yet that part of the story was routinely left out of the publicity.
skigrl27
Ski Diva Extraordinaire<br>Legal & Environmental A
Ummm...yeah but if I spilled my tea at my house on my lap I'd need skin grafts too. Unless an employee poured the coffee on her lap - then that case is bogus IMO too. The nature or severity of the injury really has little or nothing to do with who is at fault.
