SkiNurse
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
The family should thank their lucky stars that his injuries were relatively minor. Rope injuries can be beyond nasty.
-
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
The family should thank their lucky stars that his injuries were relatively minor. Rope injuries can be beyond nasty.
Skiing and driving a vehicle are similar. You need to know the rules, respect other people and know your limitations. Children need to be told what their limitations are, as normally they do not have any fear or understand or care what the result of their actions will be. As a mother, I feel it is the responsibility of the parents.
Well, but that's THE point, the whole point!
I'm not a lawyer, but I was once called as a witness in a personal injury case. It was quite an eye-opener on how responsibility is assumed and how it's assigned in each individual case.
If you spill your tea, you shouldn't need skin draft! You'll have a first or (maybe) a second degree burn. It takes a liquid of certain degree to get a third degree burn. I bet most of us here had at one time or another spill hot tea or coffee on ourselves. Anyone remember how bad it was? Did anyone needs a skin draft?
"severity of the injury" was indeed the whole point of THAT law suit. The newspaper is the last place you'll expect to get that kind of detail included.
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'm with Pinto, in that I'm not passing judgement on the case due to lack of information.
I'm with Skigirl27, because most of what she said, playing devils advocate, could be the best view of the ski resort intent with markings.
I see this from the view point of a recreational enthusiast, a volunteer(responsible for young children)for the ski program at a small school, and a Risk Management officer at a local motorcycle track.
The recreational enthusiast knows that there are hazards to be looked out for while doing what I do.
The school volunteer knows that a 9 year old is not going to be as attentative as he should, because he has the attention span of a 9 year old.
The Risk Management officer in me knows that it is extremely difficult to continue to promote extreme sports, as more lawsuits pop up, and more responsibility is piled on promoters to protect the participants from their passions.
I found this snip from the article interesting:
How much does the strength of the rope weigh, (while color of the rope does not seem to be brought up)
pinto
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Just to clarify, I believe there is basically no chance that a white rope was used -- it was a hyperbolical statement meant to point out a reason that a ski area would indeed be liable for something like that. (Can you imagine using white rope at a ski area?? What a nightmare.)
But there are things that the area might have done that were negligent. Or, the family might be money-grubbing sloths. I just couldn't tell from the info we were given, and I don't want to make snap judgments on the basis of ... nothing.
Great site and great replies. My boys are 6 and 7. They either ski with the instructer or us {the parents},with guidelines. I think the post has been beneficial to all. I imagine when my boys are 9 and 10yrs they will be pushing all the limits, so I will be able to use this information to teach our boys to respect and enjoy the mountain. I understand also - that there are always 2 sides to a story
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I understood your stand on this, and agree with you.
Another point, unrelated to any previous comments:
No matter what the facts are, if this was a jury trial, the manner in which the jurors were approved or rejected, can make a huge impact on the outcome.
I witnessed a court case a few years ago where the defendant should have won, hands down, but the jury was sympathetic to the plaintiff, and unsympathetic to the business owner. Like it or not, this can and does happen.
I am not saying that this is the case here, but it could be the case.
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Gosh I hate saying this but I'm going to anyway:
When I take the school kids on the 4 ski days each year, I am finding that more of the kids are difficult to "deal with".
( I hope I don't have to elaborate)
I have considered quitting my volunteer efforts, due to the fact that I fear the liability.
The parents sign permission slips. They sign a release for the ski resort, (with a complete statement as it is written on the lift tickets) and they sign a waiver for the school stating that they understand the risk of skiing and transportation to and from the resort.
Still, what happens when little johnny ignores big bad SnowHot, and hits a tree or worse yet, another skier?
When I take the school kids on the 4 ski days each year, I am finding that more of the kids are difficult to "deal with".
( I hope I don't have to elaborate)
I have considered quitting my volunteer efforts, due to the fact that I fear the liability.
The parents sign permission slips. They sign a release for the ski resort, (with a complete statement as it is written on the lift tickets) and they sign a waiver for the school stating that they understand the risk of skiing and transportation to and from the resort.
Still, what happens when little johnny ignores big bad SnowHot, and hits a tree or worse yet, another skier?
Newspaper being newspaper. That bits of "information" being totally baffling in the context. Though now you've pointed it out, a possible explanation:
Had the rope had a much lower strength, it would have broke when being hit by a skiing child. Hence reducing injury, or the severity of the injury...
So, maybe the plantiff's lawyer was arguing they should have used a breakable rope instead. I do recall most trail closure ropes look a bit flimsy. But perhaps that's so for a specific purpose? And this particular case they used a stronger rope instead of the "standard"?
Of your industry area insiders, anyone knows what's the "standard" slope closure rope is like? Can you break it easily?
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I doubt that the "industry" has a standard rope test strength. I believe that most use what is affordable, therefore its cheap, possibly more breakable.
Imagine the miles and miles of rope used by ski resorts each year.
Maybe,(guessing) this resort invested big $$ in good rope.
Imagine the miles and miles of rope used by ski resorts each year.
Maybe,(guessing) this resort invested big $$ in good rope.
Never give up
Hey SnowHot. Why don't you think about coming to New Zealand to teach? You don't get the law suits etc here. You seem to have a passion for skiing and so far your advice has been beneficial to the majority. Get the chin back up! Here at Coronet - it's a 50/50. Sometimes you get a good instuctor that is willing to have a conversation about your childs progress in the 1 hour 50min lesson {yeah right}. Others just don't give one.
My husband is an advanced skier - so it entertaining. He very quiet - so he always gets a rev up from me. No point putting the kids in lessons unless they are going to learn something.
I guess in your situation you will have parents who want baby sitters and parents who want their kids to learn to ski. More than likely !
There are a load of people like us that need you!!!!!!
You always learn from people who care whether you want to or not.
y
Hey SnowHot. Why don't you think about coming to New Zealand to teach? You don't get the law suits etc here. You seem to have a passion for skiing and so far your advice has been beneficial to the majority. Get the chin back up! Here at Coronet - it's a 50/50. Sometimes you get a good instuctor that is willing to have a conversation about your childs progress in the 1 hour 50min lesson {yeah right}. Others just don't give one.
My husband is an advanced skier - so it entertaining. He very quiet - so he always gets a rev up from me. No point putting the kids in lessons unless they are going to learn something.
I guess in your situation you will have parents who want baby sitters and parents who want their kids to learn to ski. More than likely !
There are a load of people like us that need you!!!!!!
You always learn from people who care whether you want to or not.
y
SkiNurse
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I don't care about the strength of the rope or whether it is break away. What will break under my weight, will not break under a normal 9yo weight or a man that weighs 3 times me.
What this comes down to is individual responsibility. And if the person involved in the accident is too young to take responsiblity for their actions, than it is the parent or adult involved responsiblity. Unless it is absolute negligence on the part of the resort (ie not doing the required safety maintenance on equipment or an individual employee that is negligent in their job and someone gets hurt (stoned liftees)) than I think that if you partake in a activity that has a reasonable amount of high risk, than that is exactly it YOUR HIGH RISK.
FYI...there are insurance companies that will not pay for your hospital bills if you are injured in a high risk sport: skiing, mountain biking, etc. At our local hospitals in Denver we run into that more often than you would care to know. Just like the people that get into car accident under the influence of alcohol...ionsurance companies won't pay for their hospital stay.
Remember, it is your risk. And, I risk I'm willing to take!
What this comes down to is individual responsibility. And if the person involved in the accident is too young to take responsiblity for their actions, than it is the parent or adult involved responsiblity. Unless it is absolute negligence on the part of the resort (ie not doing the required safety maintenance on equipment or an individual employee that is negligent in their job and someone gets hurt (stoned liftees)) than I think that if you partake in a activity that has a reasonable amount of high risk, than that is exactly it YOUR HIGH RISK.
FYI...there are insurance companies that will not pay for your hospital bills if you are injured in a high risk sport: skiing, mountain biking, etc. At our local hospitals in Denver we run into that more often than you would care to know. Just like the people that get into car accident under the influence of alcohol...ionsurance companies won't pay for their hospital stay.
Remember, it is your risk. And, I risk I'm willing to take!
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Jac, thank you for the encouragement. I will likely continue with the volunteer program, and I will see many kids smile.
I must say, it was different a few years ago, with a lot less anxiety involved.
SkiNurse, FWIW, I agree. I think the biggest problem is that far too many people have forgotten about accountability.
I must say, it was different a few years ago, with a lot less anxiety involved.
SkiNurse, FWIW, I agree. I think the biggest problem is that far too many people have forgotten about accountability.
skigrl27
Ski Diva Extraordinaire<br>Legal & Environmental A
Ummm...if the rope broke and he went through the closure, that could have resulted in death. Out here, we use that rope to close off cliffs, mine shafts, rocks, fissures...you name it. I certainly hope if I crash into a closure rope it DOES NOT break.
FWIW - the Ski Industry Letter had the exact same verbiage. The end is best - saying something along the lines of..."these are very rare injuries and nothing is going to change in their practices."
I would have prefer the rope are not right next to the cliff that I could die from if I run through it accidentally.
If it's that close and that dangerous, it'd better be a netting, not a rope!
Imagine this:
What if the child was small and shorter than the height of the rope?
Or, if you put to rope so low to catch the shortest child, it would only come to the thigh level of a 6'2 skier and he's going to tip right over the rope! 
That's not mentioning that even if the rope doesn't break, a single rope simply can't catch a falling skier. He or she can still fall right into whatever the rope is trying to cordan off. Ever try to hang on to a peice of rope while dangling in mid-air? The stuff of Holywood!
If it's that close and that dangerous, it'd better be a netting, not a rope!
Imagine this:
What if the child was small and shorter than the height of the rope?
Or, if you put to rope so low to catch the shortest child, it would only come to the thigh level of a 6'2 skier and he's going to tip right over the rope! That's not mentioning that even if the rope doesn't break, a single rope simply can't catch a falling skier. He or she can still fall right into whatever the rope is trying to cordan off. Ever try to hang on to a peice of rope while dangling in mid-air? The stuff of Holywood!
Quiver Queen
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Hmmm... I wonder what the "test strength" of a tree is? Perhaps it is negligent to have those at the ski resort??
Yeah, how about them trees? They're dangerous!
I'd like to read the whole decision. A rope is supposed to hold things--did the court expect the rope to break on impact? I don't want to be skiing anywhere they use dental floss!
Being in the medical field, I may have a skewed view of lawsuits and how frequently & frivolously they're filed, but the resort's statement is telling....."Stratton spokeswoman Myra Foster says using rope to close trails is common practice and it's the only such accident she's aware of.... She says the practice has not been changed." Given no change in their practice and the low award for "extensive" facial injuries to a child, it's quite likely the resort's practices are quite reasonable and not grossly negligent. Unfortunately, the court's decision sets a dangerous precedent.
