Mixed emotions, but a lot of I told you so.
Posted: June 9, 2009 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
Helmets. Everyone is running around saying you have to wear a helmet. Worse, the people saying this are not helmet manufactures but people who open their mouths before engaging any research or their brain. Worse a celebrity just died re-inflaming the debate by people who just want to kill trees to advertise Viagra and bath soap!
In an article Widow sues over fatal skiing crash
The Rutland Herald reports Killington ski area is being sued over the sale of a helmet. The 44 year old decedent purchased a Giro Omen helmet equipped with a Bluetooth Audio System. He crashed into a tree at Killington Mountain in February of 2008 suffering a fatal head injury.
The allegations state at the time of impact the Bluetooth dislodged and resulted in the skull fracture.
- An adult man skiing into a tree, an expert skier and the Bluetooth audio caused the skull fracture? Speed * Mass striking a mostly immovable object equals a couple of ounces where the cause of death?
- Helmets won’t save you from dying if you hit a tree. Most helmets are effective at preventing injuries due to 12 mph impacts. Most people ski faster than 12 mph, so there is some benefit. However several studies have shown that skiing with a helmet increases the speed at which you ski by more than 12 mph because of feeling safer. Risk Homeostasis. See A new idea that makes sense in helmets: the Bern Hard Hat, and A helmet manufacture understands the issues.
- A lawsuit won’t solve any problems or answer any questions in this case.
As I have said before and will continue to say, it sucks when someone dies. It sucks for the surviving widow and family. It also sucks for the 20 something members of the ski patrol who have to physically deal with the issues. It sucks for the staff that has to answer questions and deal with the fatality. It sucks for everyone. Our condolences go to the family and the resort.
But a lawsuit won’t change anything. People are still going to talk on the cell phones or listen to music and ski…and drive. People are going to ski fast, probably faster if they wear a helmet. People are going to hit trees, fatally if the person is going fast enough or they are inclined to die if they hit a tree.
Wearing a helmet won’t stop you from dying if you hit a tree. Most skier deaths are caused by internal injuries anyway. It takes a lot less force to injury your organs or tear or ascending aorta than to cause a concussion in some cases. Wearing a helmet just makes less of a mess if you hit the tree with your head.
Lawsuit against health club and personal trainer over fatality
Posted: June 4, 2009 Filed under: Health Club Leave a comment
The New York Times in an article Health Club and Trainer Are Sued in a Death reported the death of a fashion designer was due to the nutritional supplements a trainer instructed her to take. The trainer is no longer employed by the health club where the fatality occurred and who is a co-defendant. Of course the supplement is ephedra which is the subject with all sorts of claims and allegations, some true and some; even by government agencies, is false. However it is not recommended to be taken by people with high blood pressure, which the deceased had.
The trainer accompanied the deceased to a store to assist her in buying the supplements. The supplement manufacture and retail store are also named as defendants. This fact is a critical one in proving part of any claim.
The suit describes the trainer as a “level two” personal trainer but alleges the trainer did not have the necessary training or knowledge to do a proper job. See Basics of the Article are Good – But it confuses certification, accreditation and most importantly standards.
Another lawsuit in a confused industry.
Well it’s happened: K2 will have its first true commercially guided climb this season
Posted: June 2, 2009 Filed under: Mountaineering Leave a comment
Fabrizio Zangrilli is working with Field Touring Alpine to lead a guided climb on K2 this late summer season. This is probably the first true commercial, guided climb on K2. By commercially guided I mean a guide is being paid to take clients up a mountain versus some people going for free or a trip leader making money on his group of climbers. By clients I mean people who may but probably do not have the total ability/skill/experience necessary or maybe desire to climb the mountain without a guide.
It was to be expected. Most people consider the 1984 guided climb of Dick Bass and Frank Wells as the first commercially guided trip on Everest. However commercial Everest expeditions took off after the 1996 mess. (I refuse to call a natural weather event a disaster.) Publicity good or bad does not deter either mountaineers or those with money and a desire to check a box. It has always been an unconfirmed rumor that after the 1996 Everest mess Mountain Madness added more phone lines, even though its owner and founder had died on the mountain.
This guided expedition occurs after a year where 11 people died on K2 which was reported worldwide for weeks. Publicity good or bad does not deter, just highlight.
See K2’s First Commercial Expedition
Basics of the Article are Good – But it confuses certification, accreditation and most importantly standards.
Posted: May 28, 2009 Filed under: Health Club | Tags: Certification, fitness, Institute for Credentialing Excellence, personaltrainer, Physical exercise Leave a commentThis article has a great example about why creating standards is a liability or noose for any industry. The article has the following quote:
Of course the term that caught my eye was “high accreditation standards”. Granted the combination of accreditation and standards can be
Image via Wikipedia
confusing but the simple fact is creating high standards creates lawsuits. Standards are not goals or operational levels but the lowest acceptable level of operation. If you have an accreditation (marketing) program in your industry, make sure you don’t confuse helping a member achieve a level of business to market itself to the public (accreditation) and the operational levels below which you have violated a duty to someone (a standard).
The article was written in response to attempts by several states to create statutory requirements for personal trainers. At present there are none. There are certification programs seemingly dozens of programs. However a certification is only as strong as the person teaching the course offering the certification. Here certification is also being used to market the level of competence of the person holding the certification rather than proof of education. This seems to be the general evolution in the minds of the public, promulgated by marketing programs to have the word certification mean more.
And I agree and doubt that any state government can do a good job of certifying anyone in the personal training market. The statute will be very watered down. (This from someone who lives in a state where anyone can be a licensed therapist, you need $15!)
The article also brings up the issue that certification can be provided by anyone. You can become a certified personal trainer by completing online courses. I would want my personal trainer to know a lot, and getting that education online is OK. But I would think that stretching, lifting and aerobics would require a little more effort to learn than what you can do with a keyboard and screen.
Again, it does not matter what the certification is, it only matters who issued the certification and what was taught and/or tested.
I’ve have always said that lawsuits start when marketing makes promises that operations cannot meet. Here again, marketing of programs has started a nightmare that will come back to haunt the industry if they do not get organized and stop.
See Certification Update: Self-Regulation at Risk, and Attacking Industry Standards,
Air Force going to have a Ski Area – Only Hill AFB could and should pull this one off!
Posted: May 26, 2009 Filed under: Ski Area Leave a commentThe majority if not every Air Force Base has an MWR program. Morale, Welfare & Recreation programs although the Air Force calls them Airman & Family Readiness Centers. The program serves a great function; it gives members of the military the opportunity to experience all sorts of recreation. Another major feature is helps returning servicemen the opportunity to burn off and learn how to control adrenalin. After spending a year or more in a battlefield I would suspect you become quite addicted to adrenalin. Outdoor recreation is one big component of the MWR program.
I’ve done a lot of work with several different military MWR programs and gotten to know a lot of the civilians who run them. One of my favorites is the crew at Hill Air Force Base north of Salt Lake City, Utah. A great group of people run the Outdoor Recreation Program who understand and take outdoor recreation in ever different direction, all good directions. Well now it seems they might have found another direction, and a good one.
The air force owns land near Park City, Utah which they intend to lease for a Ski Resort. See Air Force plans to lease land for ski resort. Congrats and good luck to the Hill AFB MWR program.
The Interview provides a lot of information on why the @#%(@ got lost.
Posted: May 21, 2009 Filed under: Search and Rescue (SAR), Ski Area Leave a comment
The Tahoe Daily interviewed a Snowboarder that was lost. The article Tahoe snowboarder recounts rescue from the Firebreak had one quote that cracked me up.
“Everyone who skis in the backcountry needs to have one that is fully charged and can get service.”
My cell phone works everywhere I go, doesn’t yours, oh, unless I leave the city.
Jon Heshka and the Right of the Individual to Die Doing What We Love
Posted: May 14, 2009 Filed under: Search and Rescue (SAR) Leave a comment
Thinking before Acting – Applies to Outdoor Recreationist and the Governments
Jon Heshka has written a very thought provoking op-ed piece for the Kamloops Daily News about the true cost of skiing out of bounds and how to deal with it. See High Cost of Chasing Powder.
Jon is one of the bright minds in the outdoor recreation community. He is on the faulty of Thompson Rivers University in the Adventure Studies Program. This program is the only program that can lead to UIAGM certification in climbing, backcountry skiing, ice climbing and other programs. Undoubtedly the best college program in the world if you want to become an outdoor recreation guide or business.
I am a fan of Jon’s, so much so he is the only person not a lawyer to have an article published in the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. See Assumption of Risk and Inherent Risk in Higher Outdoor Education.
Thanks Jon. It is a great article and I appreciate your thoughts and perspective.
Terrain Park Injury prompts Lawsuit against Idaho Resort
Posted: May 12, 2009 Filed under: Ski Area Leave a comment
Schweitzer Mt. Resort is being sued for the injuries suffered by young snowboarder who fractured a femur, hip, vertebrae and a head injury. The plaintiff maintains the jump subjected the boy to physical forces and danger above those inherent in the sport as reported from the Bonner County Daily Bee.
The defense is arguing the Idaho statute states the snowboarder expressly assume the risk of the injury and requires a rider to know the range of their abilities and ski within their limits.
The specific statute being referenced is:
Idaho Code § 6-1106 (2008)
§ 6-1106. Duties of skiers
It is recognized that skiing as a recreational sport is hazardous to skiers, regardless of all feasible safety measures which can be taken.
Each skier expressly assumes the risk of and legal responsibility for any injury to person or property which results from participation in the sport of skiing including any injury caused by the following, all whether above or below snow surface: variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots, rocks, trees, other forms of forest growth or debris, lift towers and components thereof; utility poles, and snowmaking and snowgrooming equipment which is plainly visible or plainly marked in accordance with the provisions of section 6-1103, Idaho Code. Therefore, each skier shall have the sole individual responsibility for knowing the range of his own ability to negotiate any slope or trail, and it shall be the duty of each skier to ski within the limits of the skier’s own ability, to maintain reasonable control of speed and course at all times while skiing, to heed all posted warnings, to ski only on a skiing area designated by the ski area operator and to refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of anyone. The responsibility for collisions by any skier while actually skiing, with any person, shall be solely that of the individual or individuals involved in such collision and not that of the ski area operator.
See Schweitzer Mt. Resort challenging negligence lawsuit.
Good article on Avoiding Avalanches…….don’t go where there are Avalanches
Posted: May 7, 2009 Filed under: Avalanche Leave a comment
I sometimes wonder if the numerous articles and products that are designed to increase your chances of surviving an avalanche are creating more avalanche situations. Sort of like a Risk Homeostasis issue. (For more on Risk Homeostasis see Target Risk.) By that I mean when avalanche beacons were very difficult to use and required hours of training people avoided the backcountry because they knew they did not have the skills needed. Avalanche beacons still require hours of training, however they are advertised as easy to use so consequently, are we sending more idiots out in the backcountry?
Don’t get me wrong, a beacon that is easier to use, more efficient in its search is needed. But idiots abound.
People who move to Colorado always ask what they need to know to enjoy Colorado. I have always told them to take an Avalanche course. This seems to catch them off guard, but since I have lived here I-70 has been buried twice in two sections less than 70 miles from Denver.
The writer of the article quotes an avalanche instructor at the end of a course saying “”Remember,” Mr. Matous said, “you’re not any more safe than you were last week.”” The same instructor also says that you would not be on the slope if you thought there would be an avalanche.
Where am I going? The article basically says if you want to survive an avalanche, don’t go where there are avalanches. Surviving an avalanche has nothing to do with what you know, what you have, how you are trained unless you put that all together and DON’T GO WHERE THERE ARE AVALANCHES!
See How to Survive an Avalanche.
Great article in my opinion.
Township is probably broke so let’s charge the people who make the 911 phone call
Posted: May 5, 2009 Filed under: Ski Area Leave a comment
People who got hurt are not responsible in this township, let alone the person who legally owes the money.
Brandywine Ski Resort is located in Ohio near Cleveland. Ohio is a state with 88 counties (from grade school in Ohio). Each county is divided further into townships. A township controls the township roads, and in a lot of cases the fire department/ambulance service. A couple of years ago the Sagamore Hills Township passed a law saying if a “business” calls for help more than six times they have to pay $836 for each call.
A lot of cities and counties have a law like this, sort of. The laws are in place because alarms go off all the time and the police show up for no reason other than a big truck drove by in the middle of the night setting off the alarm. Some business will have bills for thousands of dollars because their alarms are going off all year long. However, I have never heard of billing for medical calls.
Brandywine as a ski resort has a lot of people who get hurt. It is a ski resort. Hurt people need transported to the hospital (or at least off the ski area property…). Consequently Brandywine can put them in the back of a truck and take them to the hospital, but that creates liability, greater liability because you are now on the road. You can call a cab for them. Of course the injured person would have to pay the cab driver at the end of the ride and skier wallets are always locked in a locker at the lodge.
But that is the issue, the injured skier is the one responsible for the cost of the ride to the hospital.
The trustees though seem to have forgotten this and on top of that taken the who owes the money idea and twisted it into a pretzel. “Trustees defended the resolution, saying companies like Brandywine should be responsible for handling many of the injuries caused by the inherent dangers of skiing and other activities they offer.” If the dangers are inherent why is Brandywine liable. If the dangers are inherent, then the liability lies solely with the injured party.
“”We’re not going to subsidize a private business for profit,” said Trustee Richard Barrett.” The Trustee is not real sharp. The township is not subsidizing the ski area they are subsidizing the injured skier. That is the person who owes the money for the ride.
Maddening. Next time you are in this township would you pick up the phone to call 911, you might get billed!
And you guys think that attorneys in elected office are a bad thing. At least attorneys would know who is liable.
Lawsuit against Colorado Ski Resort Continues
Posted: April 30, 2009 Filed under: Ski Area Leave a comment
I talked about a suit against Ski Sunlight in an earlier post Another Ski Area lawsuit. The Glenwood Springs Post Independent is reporting in Attorney asks for more time in Sunlight Mountain Resort lawsuit that the case continues. The attorney representing the plaintiff is asking for a second 90 day extension on filing expert witness reports.
Expert witness reports are the written findings of the experts hired by the plaintiffs to give opinions as to what was done wrong by the defendant. The defendant will also hire experts to counter those opinions.
Probably, possibly, the plaintiff is having a hard time finding an expert that is willing to say the ski resort did anything wrong.
Death we have commented on allegedly has a $14 million verdict
Posted: April 29, 2009 Filed under: Summer Camp 1 Comment
We reported in Lawsuit for Summer Camp Drowning that a family was suing a camp over the death of their young son. It has been reported by one source that a jury has returned a verdict against the camp for $14 million dollars. See Family gets $14 million in drowning. An announcement has not been made in the case because a gag order is in effect and the punitive damages face of the case is ongoing.
In some jurisdictions punitive damages are done post initial verdict. Punitive damages are damages awarded to punish the defendant or to warn other defendants not to engage in the same type of activities. Punitive damages are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and are usually not covered by insurance.
It is being reported that some defendants acted with “malice, oppression and fraud…” which gives rise to the punitive damages. It is also an indication that something other than a simple drowning was involved in this case.
Maybe a little premature on a post: RAGBRAI
Posted: April 21, 2009 Filed under: Cycling Leave a comment
In a past post Good News for RAGBRAI cyclists we reviewed articles stating that the legal issues for this bicycle tour had been resolved. However I found a recent article that states several Iowa Counties are still attempting to make bike tours illegal. See Efforts to make bike rides illegal continue in Iowa. (I guess you should not make old Iowa county commissioners mad. Besides those new fangled inventions should not be allowed on our county roads they interfere with our tractors!)
Don’t get me wrong. I think that RABGRAI should have had cyclists sign a better release that protected the counties, the state, other riders and anyone else who might be affected by the ride. At the same time, the county that was sued folded fairly easily and settled the suit without fighting it.
The associations of counties are trying to get a law passed that says rides must have $1 million in insurance and a mess of other regulations. What I love is this statement “Funeral processions, motorcycle poker runs, and tractorcade were not addressed in the ordinance.” Tractorcade’s are a problem!
See Efforts to make bike rides illegal continue in Iowa.
Alyeska ski resort now billing for rescue
Posted: April 2, 2009 Filed under: Search and Rescue (SAR), Ski Area Leave a comment
A 19 year old skier who skied into an off limits area was billed $845 for his rescue. The skier had ducked a rope, was skiing and hit a tree fracturing his leg. Thirteen ski patroller’s were used to rescue the skier.
The skier was also banned from Alyeska for one year.
Sometimes idiots should pay.
See Matt Davis: Alyeska Ski Resort billed Davis for rescue (video) and Alaska ski resort bills injured skier for rescue.
Search and Rescue and charging for it
Posted: March 31, 2009 Filed under: Search and Rescue (SAR) Leave a commentEvery year skiers, hikers, and hunters become lost while running around in the backcountry. Some are experts who temporarily find themselves in area they did not expect. Others are tourists who have no idea of the dangers of their actions and venture out to become victims. It is this last group who generates dollars and press time as helicopters circle the last known sighting and satellite trucks keep the couch sitters informed in the warm homes. In the winter the problems and entertainment value are magnified.
At the same time the agency responsible for the search and rescue, (SAR) after either a particular costly SAR or a particularly stupid one, informs the public that they are going to charge for SAR costs.
In Vermont, SAR is directed by the State Police. The State Police has announced they “may” start charging for SAR costs in the future. They will charge for skiers that are lost after skiing out of bounds. Vermont law specifically allows for agencies and others to charge for SAR costs when a person skis off the designated trails at a ski area. 12 V.S.A. § 1038(c) states:
§ 1038. Skiing off designated ski trails; collision; duty to report; recovery for rescue expenses
(c) Civil action to recover.—A person who uses the facilities of a ski area to access terrain outside the open and designated ski trails, shall be liable in a civil action brought by any person, including a ski area, rescue organization, municipality or the state, to recover expenses incurred to provide rescue, medical or other services to such person for circumstances or injuries which resulted from such use. The entity seeking to recover may also recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs. No ski area, its owners, agents or employees, individual or entity, municipal or otherwise, shall be held liable for any acts or omissions taken in the course of such rescue operations unless such act or omission constitutes gross negligence.
Not only can the state charge, but also the ski area, a rescue organization, or a municipality to recover all of the expenses in addition to reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Most states the sheriff is in charge of SAR and the sheriff is the only entity that can charge, if at all. The penalty for not paying for those rescue costs can add up in Vermont also. It appears that some ski areas do charge for any SAR they may undertake. As stated in the article that brought this news to our attention, one resort collects a credit card number from the rescued people. However testimony when the bill before the Vermont Legislature last year showed only a 20 to 30% recover rate.
At the same time, there is a hesitancy and fear to collect from the rescued because it may prevent people who truly need to be rescued from calling for help. The idea is either the person will not call and die, or not call and get into more trouble requiring a more difficult rescue. No one seems to have real evidence of this fact and it is probably impossible to determine, but for most states this is enough of a possibility to not charge for SAR or at least continue the discussion.
The real cost is not money. In Alison Osius’s book Second Ascent she writes about a rescuer dieing in an attempt to rescue the subject of her book Hugh Herr. Nothing more tragic can occur in the lives of the rescuer and the rescued. Yet each time volunteers and employees put on the winter clothes and a radio, everyone understands that can happen.
The real reason behind the threat to collect for expenses is to prevent people from doing stupid things. However stupid for one group of people is great adventure the next. Nor has a fine or threat of monetary penalty or cost every stopped anyone from doing anything let alone anything stupid. (If you don’t buy this, next time you are on the freeway see if you are being passed as you exceed the speed limit.)
In just one week five people were missing, one dead in an out of bounds avalanche in Cottonwood Canyon, Utah. Utah is famous for the out of bounds skiing and to some extent encourages it. Our industry supports magazines that are based on the theory that “earning your turns” by hiking up hill and skiing ungroomed snow is the best way to ski. And it is. However any time you venture out of the controlled (ski patrol avalanche team scoured resort) you increase your chances of becoming lost or dieing.
The problem is, tourons (combination of tourist and moron) skiing out of bounds. If an expert skis abound they are prepared: avalanche transceiver, shovel, Black Diamond™ Avalung II and training, it is a fun time for the expert who was caught in a freak act of nature. If a tourist does it, they are idiots going where they should not go without the proper training, equipment or knowledge putting locals at risk.
However how many of us are willing to stand up and say I am a tourist or even a touron? Two magazines say out of bounds skiing is ok. Sitting in a bar you hear the locals talk about it. For the tourist who can run a mile in ten minutes where they live (altitude 685 feet) and known as an expert skier, why not? (Or as we call a friend, the “King of Wisp.”)
Then someone has to make a decision. Was the rescue a disaster such that we need to charge for it? What criteria are used to identify a reckless endeavor? What variables influence the decision: locals versus tourists, trained versus untrained, the cost versus the risk or the attitude of the rescued when they are finally found?
That decision process alone then provides a possible defense to collecting for the SAR costs. Court time and legal costs mount as the fine line for collecting for the rescue is argued and debated.
And will the collection of costs for rescuing lost reckless people decrease the number of rescues made each year? Doubtful. No study conclusively proves that any measure no matter how costly or draconian changes human behavior. For proof, look at your own driving record or the local prison.
View:
The Vermont statute 12 V.S.A. § 1038(c) also has a little hook in it protecting the rescuers from a lawsuit unless they are grossly negligent. That little threat alone would be enough to keep a lot of SAR help sitting at home watching TV. If I am willing to walk around during a frigid snowy night looking for a lost skier, no matter what I do, short of strangling the person when I find them, I should not be sued.
It is not going to get better. Until everyone at a resort or in some states, state wide wears a GPS locator the risk and cost of SAR will exists. In fact it will probably get worse. As the ability to communicate with rescue organizations increases, the chances people take will also increase. Grand Canyon river companies no longer tell passengers they carry satellite phones. They saw an increase in the “stupid human tricks” and resulting accidents when customers knew that rescue was a phone call away.
One View
Should you be charge for SAR, Yes, on a case by case basis. I have come out of the woods a day late, once because I did not want to come back to the “real world” and once because equipment issues slowed me down. I did not want or need rescued. However if I am lost in the jungles of Brazil or Peru, someplace I have not received a lot of experience doing in Colorado, it might be a different story. Plan your trip and the person who is going to notify rescuers accordingly.
The season is just beginning for summer SAR. I hope no rescuer is injured or dies in an attempt to save another. I hope all lost people are rescued and returned to their loved ones. I hope the tourons read these articles and reflect just for a second before placing someone else at risk. It’s ok if you want to push the limits, just don’t take anyone with you. I hope that each time a SAR team goes out the have the best and all of the equipment they need, and I hope it comes out of the pockets of the last person they rescued.
Reference
http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=22067
It’s always sad when someone dies, but sometimes the facts can be…..interesting
Posted: March 26, 2009 Filed under: Swimming | Tags: Lifeguard, Naturism, Nudism, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Recreation, Resort Leave a commentThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette is reporting a lawsuit between the widow and the owner of the pool where the man drowned. The widow argues that the pool should have provided a lifeguard as required under state law. The pool owner argues that a 1984 agreement requires the organization that rented the pool to provide their own life guard.
The interesting part is the organization that rented the pool is a nudist group. The victim was a retired 72 year old man. Can you imagine the issues of getting a teenager or twenty-something to work as a lifeguard, let alone telling a teenage lifeguard’s parents. “Mr. Smith I need Johnny to work a private group next Saturday night. Yes, Yes, the nudist group. Click!”
See Man dies during private nudist party
Another fitness club sued for failing to use AED on hand
Posted: March 24, 2009 Filed under: Health Club 2 Comments
A New Jersey health club is being sued for gross negligence because they had an AED (automatic external defibrillator) on hand and they failed to use it. The health club member died and the family is suing.
The victim went into cardiac arrest while playing racquetball. 911 was called and a staff member brought an AED to the victim. The staff started CPR but failed to use the AED. 7 minutes later the local police arrived who used the AED without success. New Jersey requires that all health clubs have AED’s.
For additional articles about this issue see: Case Brief: Pennsylvania tennis club not required to provide AED
Avalanche Beacons and other electronic items
Posted: March 19, 2009 Filed under: Avalanche, Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
The website Pistehors.com is reporting that a study has been conducted after a fatality as to whether avalanche beacons are affected by cell phones. See Avalanche beacons and household appliances.
The study showed that first generation digital beacons could be affected by electromagnetic interference.
An article on the Outside Blog titled The Wonk: Avalanche Transceiver Advisory states that Ortovox has issued a press release that states beacons with mechanical switches are safer than one with magnetic switches.
The National Ski Patrol issued a warning about the PIEPS DSP beacon on its website in an article National Ski Patrol Warns of Beacon and Radio Use. Supposedly Motorola radios which are used almost exclusively at ski resorts can switch the beacon to search when it should be in transmit mode.
When you get the National Ski Patrol, a respected European blog and a manufacture posting various items about avalanche beacons it might seem to be a good day to stay indoors. But that sucks. Ortovox is an extremely well respected beacon manufacture; however the beacon wars of late could have their own show on late night cable television. That is not to discount the facts, just a statement that it is hard to discern facts from reality from manufactures of late.
Read the articles and do your research. Leave your cell phone at home, maybe your MP3 player also or anything else that might interfere with your beacon. Or at least leave them turned off when you are in avalanche country.
If you are a manager of a commercial operation, ski area, find out quickly what the real story is and keep your people safe. Call your radio manufacture and your beacon manufactures and get their opinion. More importantly do your own tests and find out yourself.
Australian Climbing Accident investigated by police for criminal charges
Posted: March 17, 2009 Filed under: Climbing Leave a comment
An accident in Australia which resulted in a fatality is being investigated by the police for possible criminal charges. Facts about the case are abundant, but so far unofficial.
The issue is the bolts used to bolt a route where incorrect bolts for the rock being climbed. Expansion bolts were used when glue in bolts should have been used. The climber died when he fell and the bolts failed.
The issue that brings this to the police is the climbers who bolted the climb were told not to use expansion bolts. The guidebooks for the area states that expansion bolts should not be used. The climbers used expansion bolts and a climber died because of it. Remember, we are discussing Australian law, not US law.
For more information about this fatality see: Simon Carter’s News-Blog.
To see the original description of the route in Croatian see: Adventure Sport.
The headline says: Man suing over alleged spin class attack
Posted: March 12, 2009 Filed under: Health Club Leave a comment
Upi.com is reporting that a New York man is suing after being attacked during a spin class at a health club. He is suing the health club, not his attacker. The plaintiff was allegedly grunting and making questionable comments when he was attacked. The attacker was acquitted of criminal charges. So the plaintiff is suing the health club for not taking action before the attack.
I can hear it now. “OK let’s ramp it up, let’s get those legs moving! Anyone feel like attacking anyone let me know. Fast people faster!”
See Man suing over alleged spin class attack
Very interesting study: Canoeing & Kayaking represent 15% of all boating fatalities
Posted: March 10, 2009 Filed under: Paddlesports Leave a comment
The US Coast Guard each year reports boating fatalities. The information is collected from state boating administrators and is required by federal law. For the year 2007 canoeing and kayaking represent 15% of all boating fatalities. That translates to 200 (or 2001 depending upon what chart you are looking at) canoeing kayaking deaths in 2007 compared to 153 in 2006. There is no breakdown between sea kayaking and whitewater kayaking. However 16 of the deaths are whitewater activities.
They report 31 of the fatalities are due to alcohol abuse/use and 25 fatalities due to operator in experience.
See Accident Statistics.
Utah Legislation pushing bill to limit access to Utah waterways
Posted: February 24, 2009 Filed under: Rivers and Waterways, Utah 1 CommentLast year the Utah Supreme Court gave access to the Utah waterways in a decision Conatser v. Johnson. Although the water had been owned by the citizens of Utah, you could not access the water. After the decision, boaters and fisherman could walk, swim and float the rivers.
The legislature is considering a bill HB 187 that would take away that access on all but 14 Utah Rivers. In fact it would further restrict access to Utah Rivers. For additional information on the bill see the Utah Water Guardians. If you live in Utah you can sign an online petition opposing the bill. If you don’t live in Utah write a letter to the Utah Governor expressing your concern.
You can also call the Governor at : 801 538 1000 .
Outdoor recreation is going to disappear on Utah waterways if we don’t act.
Very interesting allegations in NY Complaint
Posted: February 24, 2009 Filed under: Health Club Leave a comment
The NY Post is reporting a lawsuit over the death of the spouse in a health club. The article points out that the state requires AED’s (automatic external defibrillators) to be installed in the health club. The complaint alleges that no one used the AED. See Gym Let Wife Die: Husband. (Their article title not mine.)
The statute, NY CLS Gen Bus § 627-a (2008) Automated external defibrillator requirements states:
1. Every health club as defined under paragraph b of subdivision one of section three thousand-d of the public health law whose membership is five hundred persons or more shall have on the premises at least one automated external defibrillator and shall have in attendance, at all times during business hours, at least one individual performing employment or individual acting as an authorized volunteer who holds a valid certification of completion of a course in the study of the operation of AEDs and a valid certification of the completion of a course in the training of cardiopulmonary resuscitation provided by a nationally recognized organization or association.
What is also in the article is the allegation that the gym club kept other people from assisting the stricken patron. No reason is given for those actions by the club employees in the article. The article is a report of a complaint or maybe a press release so it is quite unclear as to what really happened.
However that is an interesting allegation. Generally there is no duty to assist someone in an emergency unless you put the person in the emergency or you have a statutory duty to do so. Most times people who have a statutory duty to assist are health care workers, but even that is very limited, usually only when the person is in their care all ready. That duty seems to be required, but is not specifically identified in the NY statute.
People with a legal duty are guides with clients, instructors with students, etc.
Here though, even if the health club employees did not help, what is the liability for keeping others from helping? I’ve only known of one other case similar to this one. In that case from New Jersey co-workers were prevented from helping a dying co-worker; (if memory serves me correctly from a long time ago.)
The statute quoted above states that an employee who has been trained in the use of the AED is an “authorized volunteer” under the statute. Probably this provides additional protection from lawsuits for the individual who uses the AED through federal and state volunteer immunity act.
Italy make avalanche safety gear mandatory
Posted: February 21, 2009 Filed under: Avalanche Leave a commentItaly has decided to make avalanche safety gear (avalanche beacon, shovel and probe) mandatory for all winter sports enthusiasts heading out of marked and secured ski runs. The law will also apply to off piste skiers.
The law covers to the Piemont region in the north of Italy and supersedes the national law (L. 24 December 2003, n.363) which obliged ski tourers to use avalanche beacons if there was a clear risk of avalanche (this probably means risk 3 or above). Fines are up to 250 euros.
British skiers should take careful note of this law as they may find that their insurance is invalid if they ski off piste or tour in the Piemont without the appropriate gear required by Italian law.
Reported at PisteHors.come, Italy make avalanche safety gear mandatory
Extremely interesting and indicative of what we really know about avalanches…nothing! But having the gear and knowing how to use it are two separate things.
Utahans quick to take advantage and sue ski resorts for injuries.
Posted: February 17, 2009 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
The Park City Utah Park Record is reporting in Late skier’s family files a lawsuit that the family of a deceased ski racer has filed a suit against the resort and race organizer where he died. The deceased was practicing for a race when he crashed. He was not found for 8 hours after the crash and died.
Normally, a racer would sign a release before a race and any practice. Racers usually assume the risk of the course and the activity. However the report states the lawsuit is about the failure to design the course and find the victim after the crash, items that might not be assumed, but would be protected by a release.
The fatality occurred a little more than a month after the Utah Supreme Court changed the law with the lawsuit started a year after the fatality and 13 months after the law change.
See Utah Supreme Court Reverses long position on releases in a very short period of time for a discussion of the Supreme Court Decision that allows this suit. For an in depth discussion of the Utah Supreme Court decision see Utah Supreme Court flip flop on releases for ski areas could have broader consequence (Subscription).
Recreation Law 