This is going to happen in every fatality, be prepared
Posted: September 1, 2009 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
Liam Neeson calls instructor who was with wife Natasha Richardson during fatal fall
Several news sources are reporting that the surviving spouse of Natasha Richardson Liam Neeson called and talked to the ski instructor who was with his wife when she fell.
“He was very dignified and never sought to blame anyone — he just wanted to understand what happened for his own peace of mind.”
People want closure. People want to know what happened. People want to know why their loved one is no longer with them. The people who were with them, who rescued them, who assisted are going to be contacted so people can learn what happened.
Blame comes later, usually after you follow your attorney or insurance company’s advice and refuse to talk to the family. What would you do if you wanted to know what happened to a deceased loved one and the people who knew refused to talk to you? Would you get mad, would you work harder at finding out, would you get help to learn what happened?
Help in these cases usually comes in the form of an attorney.
For more articles about this see It’s Not Money, Another case where anger starts and continues a lawsuit., I write sometimes about emotions: anger, frustration or grief, Grieving Father starts organization to make skiing safer and Serious Disconnect: Why people sue. For articles about this issue in the Outdoor Recreation Law Review see Non-participating spouses signatures on releases are essential and Case Brief: Case against summer camp offers great insight into Massachusetts release law.
Strange SAR results in a lawsuit: RCMP helicopter pilot misses SOS in the snow.
Posted: August 27, 2009 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
But the lost couple brought the problems and resulting deaths on themselves.
A Montreal Canada man is suing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) over a failed search and rescue (SAR) in Canada. In this case the man’s wife died and he suffered injuries after they got lost and the RCMP failed to search for them even after finding an SOS stamped in the snow. The couple was lost for nine days, the wife eventually dying.
The plaintiff is suing the search and rescue organization and the RCMP as well as the resort. Searches were called off because of conflicting information. Although the SOS was seen by pilots flying in the area, no one had reported anyone missing and no ski rental gear was reported missing.
The plaintiff and his wife had ducked ropes and skied out of bounds at the Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in British Columbia. You duck a rope you’re on your own.
See Montreal-Area Man Sues Ski Resort, Police and Search and Rescue Group Over Delayed Rescue Effort
and Man files suit over botched rescue of his wife from mountains.
Legal Shield or Level Playing Field: North Carolina Ski Resorts working to get a Skier Safety Act Passed.
Posted: August 25, 2009 Filed under: Ski Area, Whitewater Rafting Leave a comment
North Carolina Whitewater Rafting Industry attempting to do the same.
An article in the Asheville North Carolina Citizen-Times is reporting that North Carolina Ski areas are attempting to get a law passed that would update the law about ski industry lawsuits in the state. Some label the law as a legal shield for ski areas while others call the law a leveling of the playing field.
The law would create responsibility on the part of the skier to watch for terrain issues such as rocks or bare spots. Area operators would have to inspect runs twice a day and post run conditions. Lift tickets would have a notice to skiers of the risk of skiing.
The whitewater rafting industry is attempting do get a similar law passed.
Both bills are fairly week in all honesty. The plaintiff’s bar association appears to be quite powerful and is stopping any major modifications.
See Ski resorts, whitewater rafting industry seek legal shield. For Outdoor Recreation Law Review articles about this see It Takes More Than a Ticket Purchase to Enforce a Contract and Release.
Nevada family settles lawsuit over death of son swept off Nevada chair lift by Avalanche
Posted: July 23, 2009 Filed under: Avalanche, Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
A Las Vegas Nevada family settled their lawsuit against the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort. Other defendants named in the suit were Lee Canyon Ski Lifts, Lee Canyon Ski Corp. (the corporate entities that owns the resort) and several employees of the resort. No information has been released on the amount paid or other issues in the settlement.
The victim was 13 years old and sitting on a ski lift at the resort when he was swept away by the avalanche. It took 6 hours to recover his body. The US Forest Service investigated the death and found several safety violations on the part of the resort. The resort has hired avalanche experts, located a weather station at the top of the mountain and purchased a 40 mm canon for control work.
For more information about the settlement see Las Vegas family, resort settle avalanche death suit
Waivers/Releases work in Colorado: Skier collision with snowmobile dismissed
Posted: June 30, 2009 Filed under: Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a comment
Aspen Skiing Co. was sued in Federal District Court by a guest who collided with a snowmobile in 2006. The guest had signed a release when he purchased a season pass for Aspen Skiing Co. The Denver Federal District Court dismissed the suit, (probably on a motion for summary judgment.)
The plaintiff’s attorney has stated he intends to appeal the decision.
The issues were, according to the plaintiff whether the snowmobile was traveling in a proper way and equipped and operated as required by the Colorado Skier Safety Act (CSSA). A witness reported that the “snowmobile did not have a flashing, siren-like light to warn skiers of its approach.” However the CSSA does not require a flashing light. The act only requires a lighted headlight, a red tail lamp, a brake system and a fluorescent flag.
Nor is there anything in the statute about how a snowmobile will be operated.
However many ski areas, to make their snowmobiles more visible, have mounted flashing lights all over the snowmobiles. Many are also equipped with sirens that are used to notify skiers of their location. Does this change the standard of care? Maybe, but it does not change the statute. Unless and until the statute is changed, the standard of care is probably, hopefully the statute.
For other blogs about the CSSA see Another Ski Area lawsuit and 8 Year old boy sued in Colorado for ski collision
For more information about the Colorado Skier Safety Act at the Outdoor Recreation Law Review see:
Case Brief: 1986 lawsuit against Winter Park raised question – where does the ski area officially begin and end?
Colorado Skier Safety Act
For the original article see: Signed waiver protects SkiCo from collision suit
Ortovox CheckandRide
Posted: June 17, 2009 Filed under: Avalanche Leave a comment
I have an Ortovox
CheckandRide. I’ve spent hours looking at it trying to “figure it out.” Like a lot of life, why it is a valuable piece of winter backcountry equipment and how it works was a lot easier to understand when I quit working to understand it and just started to use it.
The CheckandRide is a cylinder. The cylinder has different sections that twist or rotate. By following the components starting at the first one you spin the risk factors for an avalanche for the day and terrain you are getting ready to hike or ride. At the end by scanning the entire cylinder you have a good idea of the risk, for that day, sort of.
When I would work my way through the cylinder I kept waiting for it to say, go or don’t go or give me a reading on a scale, 1 is low risk 5 means you are going to die. It doesn’t do that. Day after day I worked the CheckandRide and did not get an answer.
But the CheckandRide works beautifully! It works in two ways. First to make the Ortovox
CheckandRide work it makes you check all of the factors to determine if you are going into Avalanche terrain. It needs information and you have to find the information for that day and that trip. It is a checklist that makes you check every factor. How often have you gone to terrain that you have hiked and ridden in the past, looked it over and made a mental decision based on past experience and what things “look like” today? The CheckandRide makes you look at all of the factors every time you go out, not just making a guess based on the last trip, a sunny day and desire.
The second way is the CheckandRide does give you a final evaluation. By using the CheckandRide, when you are done you know whether you should go or not go. It makes you think about every factor and makes you understand what you are doing so you know what you need to know. You can’t gauge an avalanche based on a scale. You need to factor in several other things. What is your risk scale? How much risk are you willing to take on? What about your friends you are riding with that day? Or maybe you are riding alone that day? All of that has to be factored into your day and the CheckandRide makes you do that.
I attached the Ortovox
CheckandRide to my ski pack with a small carabiner in a way that makes it swing and rattle when I grab the pack. Right away I’m reminded to work through every factor. It continues to rattle and thunk on things until I take it off and work through the eleven risk until I know where I am going and what I am getting into. The Ortovox
CheckandRide will safe your life because you have to understand the risk factors of your trip. The CheckandRide makes you find them before you go out the door.
Thanks Ortovox.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Well in New Zealand…….you go to JAIL!
Posted: January 7, 2009 Filed under: Criminal Liability, Ski Area 1 Comment
Another example of the differences between the US Legal system and those of other countries is the response if someone who is injured or killed while recreating. Unless there is very clear criminal liability, and I have never seen that in the US, US recreation providers do not have to worry about jail time. In a few cases I have seen minor fines for infractions that rarely had anything to do with the injury or fatality.
However that is not the case, in Europe or the rest of the world, were the government takes a bigger role in the operation of business and any injury. In this case this article speaks to a young woman who died river boarding while on a vacation. See Travel company charged after Worcestershire woman’s holiday death.
The company that organized the activity is facing criminal charges for the death of one of their guests. The company is facing three criminal charges with a maximum fine for each charge of $250,000 NZ. The charges were brought after an investigation by the government. Another rare issue in the US, unless someone complains or the activity is done under a Federal or State Land Managers permit.
Of note is a statement made by the father of the deceased, after visiting the place where his daughter died. He “described the experience of visiting the place where she died as “harrowing.””
If you do not understand the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, and there are solid examples of this in the comments, they are very different. See Vail found not liable for negligent hiring or actions of a ski instructor, Same facts difference between civil and criminal cases, same reason for using the courts, Another Litigation versus Criminal example or Litigation v. Jail Time. For an example of not understanding the difference see the comments after Youth and Adult Molesters.
Telluride enforcing its rules
Posted: December 16, 2008 Filed under: Ski Area Leave a comment
We may find out again if Telluride is going to go exercise its right to banish people who violate their rules (contractual requirements) and state laws. See A snow-lover’s nightmare: banishment. Banishment not only means not allowed to ski the rest of the season, but banned from skiing, in the case in the article for the next two years.
Most ski resorts in the West are on land owned by the Federal Government, the U.S. Forest Service. The resorts operate under a Special Use Permit. The USFS owns the land and basically leases it to the ski area. The lease, called a Special Use Permit, allows the ski area to operate on the land. A simple comparison would be the same as a landlord tenant arrangement when renting an apartment. The tenant, in this case the ski area has the right to control who enters their apartment, land, when and how.
Telluride revoked 47 passes last year. Telluride pays ticket checkers a $50 bonus for catching people trying to sneak onto lifts without paying for a ticket. Most resorts reward their ticket checkers for catching cheats.
The subject in the story was banned for two years for attempting to access a lift without buying a ticket.
California Ski and Snowboard Safety Organization turns out to be a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Posted: November 25, 2008 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding 1 CommentThe California Assembly Judicial committee is looking into ski safety issues as a result of the actions of Dr. Dan Gregorie and the California Ski and Snowboard Safety Organization (CSSSO). See my comments about the CSSSO at “Grieving Father starts organization to make skiing safer.”
What is interesting is the “change in attitude” of Dr. Gregorie. In prior interviews including the ones I based my earlier article on Dr. Gregorie and his organization were focusing on keeping skiers safe. Now however there seems to be a revenge motive involved. Dr. Gregorie is quoted as saying. “It’s time something is done to hold ski resorts more accountable and make uniform signage, adequate barriers and proper traffic and speed management part of everyday safety practices.” He has morphed from signage to lawsuits. Along with t a desire to hold ski resorts more accountable, which appears to translate into easier to sue, Dr. Gregorie is attempting to remove personal responsibility from skiers and boarders and place it on the ski areas. “proper traffic and speed management.”
The tenure of the entire direction of the CSSSO has changed as evidenced by these statements in the article:
My original article quotes the purpose of the organization from its website which says nothing about changing the legal issues involved in the California Ski Industry. Yet this now seems to be the intended purpose of the organization.
Another article quotes Dr. Gregorie as saying “It’s time something is done to hold ski resorts more accountable and make uniform signage, adequate barriers and proper traffic and speed management part of everyday safety practices.” See Advocates Urge California Legislature to Make Ski Resorts Safer Assembly Judiciary Committee Hears Harrowing Accounts of Preventable Deaths and Injuries on California Ski Slopes. This article is supposedly written by CSSSO.
Another person interviewed for the article stated the trees and rocks needed padding.
In researching this article I discovered some very interesting comments about it. The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa California in writing about the CSSSO stated in an article “The steady number of serious injuries is prompting programs at ski resorts to increase awareness of risks in the backcountry” that fatalities were caused by “head meets tree.” Although this has been widely reported, there is no research that supports this allegation. If a skier or boarder hits a tree fast enough to cause a head injury, the cause of death is usually a torn aorta. The major blood vessel leaving the heart has very little protection and tears. Yet people and reporters continually report fatal collisions with trees as being caused by head injuries. The comment could be a comment about avalanche deaths, it is hard to understand. I posted a comment asking for support for their statement. However the comments are moderated. A week later my comment was posted but I never got a response..
I understand the issues and anger of losing a loved one. I understand and write about dealing with those issues. I understand the Ski Resorts do not do a good job of dealing with the surviving loved ones and with communicating to the public. However those are not the issues here.
The issue here is there is a non-profit organization that has presented itself to the public and probably the IRS as wanting to promote safety which in actuality wants to promote litigation. If you gave money to CSSSO based on their website, can you get a refund now that the true purpose of the organization has come out?
Another Man Made Snow Avalanche
Posted: November 25, 2008 Filed under: Avalanche Leave a commentIt is being reported at TGR that Wish had a man made snow avalanche. To see the info go to: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141084
Photos of the avalanche are near the bottom of the page.
I reported on this at Great North Slope last year in
Avalanche: Man-Made Snow to the Ground
Interesting! man made snow avalanching is a fairly new phenomenon.
Vail found not liable for negligent hiring or actions of a ski instructor
Posted: November 15, 2008 Filed under: Criminal Liability, Ski Area Leave a commentVail won a trial this past summer brought by the family of a client for negligent hiring. The basis of the claim was an employee of Vail, a ski instructor, took a 17 year old client back to his apartment and allegedly raped her. The ski instructor was found not guilty of rape in a criminal trial but was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The instructor has an extensive DUI and misdemeanor record. However nothing indicated in his background a propensity for anything other than drinking and recreational drug use. The instructor had an impeccable work record as ski instructor.
For understanding the difference between a criminal act and a civil act see Same facts difference between civil and criminal cases, same reason for using the courts or Another Litigation versus Criminal example
This case, based on the reports helps explain the differences between a criminal act, which is solely the responsibility of the individual and a civil liability which can hold anyone liable for their acts if they are negligent.
At the same time, if you were basing your lawsuit on who caused the injury, wouldn’t you sue the ski instructor? You could transfer that anger to the employer, Vail, or you could sue the company because they have more money. Either way, holding Vail liable for the actions of any employee off work seems a little stress. Granted the ski instructor met the 17 year old client while on the job, but…..
Notice: Ski Binding Indemnification Program 08-09 Ski Season
Posted: November 8, 2008 Filed under: Skiing / Snow Boarding Leave a commentYou may have received the 2008-09 Ski Bindings Indemnification List recently, either in printed or electronic format (or both). VIST provided a list of the bindings they said would be covered under their program. Several people have indicated to me that they are not certain that the insurance that VIST says it has will protect U.S. shops. I have asked VIST to clarify this issue, but I have not heard back from them. As soon as I get additional information, I will let you know. Tom
Thomas B. Doyle, President
National Ski & Snowboard Retailers Association
1601 Feehanville Drive, Suite 300
Mt Prospect IL 60056
847.391.9825 (phone) 847.391.9827 (fax)
e-mail: tdoyle@nssra.com www.nssra.com
Ski Resorts ban Burton Snowboards because of the Graphics
Posted: November 6, 2008 Filed under: Ski Area Leave a commentSeveral ski resorts have banned employees from using two different lines of Burton Snowboards while on the job. The Love line has a former Playboy model on it and the Primo line shows a cartoon character mutilating himself.
The resorts have the right to do this because they are a private organization/business and have the right to restrict service or what their employees wear. Similar to the requirement that an employer will require an employee to wear a specific uniform the employer has the right to tell an employee not to wear or in this case ride a specific board.
At present three eastern resorts and Vail Resorts 5 ski areas are banning the specific boards.
Several Ski and Snowboard shops are also not going to sell the controversial boards. Ski Shops Won’t Sell Controversial Snowboards
It is one way to get press for you company.
Same facts difference between civil and criminal cases, same reason for using the courts.
Posted: September 18, 2008 Filed under: Criminal Liability, Ski Area Leave a comment
Vail won a jury verdict in a civil suit for the alleged rape of a Vail customer by a Vail employee. See Vail Resorts wins ski instructor lawsuit. The Vail employee had been found not guilty in a criminal trial earlier, but had been convicted of Contributing to the Delinquency of a minor. See Former ski instructor gets 90 days in jail.
It is not necessary to get into the facts of the case to discuss the legal issues here. The ski instructor was charged with a criminal act. Vail was charged with a civil negligence claim.
The burden of proof, what the prosecutor has to prove, in a criminal trial is the ski instructor did the act Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The plaintiff in their civil suit against Vail must prove their case by a Preponderance of the Evidence. These are two of the hardest concepts to understand in the law.
In the US we base our system on the idea that personal freedom, not doing jail time, is the most important issue. Subsequently we have a very high burden to prove that someone should go to jail, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Any doubt at all and the alleged defendant are free, not guilty. This is very different from Europe. See Litigation v. Jail Time.
The burden to prove a civil suit is much lower, a Preponderance of the Evidence. A much lower level of proof needed to prove that someone has done a civil wrong.
There is a relationship between a criminal trial and a civil lawsuit based on the same facts. But the actual claims in both cases are very different.
In the criminal case the prosecutor must prove the alleged defendant did the act: had sexual relations with a person under the age of 18. In the civil case the argument was that Vail negligently hired the ski instructor. By not doing a background check Vail had allowed, negligently to hire someone they should not have hired.
Even though the cases stem from the same set of facts, the civil and criminal litigation are very different, very different issues to prove and very different results.
But the reasoning, the reason for both cases seems to be anger, revenge, and punishment.
See: Vail Resorts wins ski instructor lawsuit
Recreation Law 