or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Judge rules that Vail Resorts can be sued for avalanche death
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge rules that Vail Resorts can be sued for avalanche death - Page 4

post #91 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 

 

Experienced skiers would agree, but to a non skiing Judge and jury it might not be so clear cut. And while Vail knows they shouldn't need a sign telling skiers to not hike uphill under the closed area, the judge and jury might not agree.

Even experienced skiers don't know all the facts in this case ... the similar case in Winter Park was dismissed, this one wasn't. I think we will find out more things.

post #92 of 296

There should be a ski at your own risk sign, and that should be all.  Same with lakes and beaches.  The legal madness is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

post #93 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by like2ski123 View Post
 

There should be a ski at your own risk sign, and that should be all.  Same with lakes and beaches.  The legal madness is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

There is one.  It's on your lift ticket.  It's also in the Colorado Skier Safety Act which exempts ski areas from liability in all but a few cases.  Hence, the judge's decision not to dismiss means that he found that there is a triable issue relating to whether Vail is liable for one of the exceptions.  

 

Mike

post #94 of 296

There's a lot of politics behind the scenes, eg attempts to change laws like Monning's bill (Cal) that originally said the resorts must publish stats on injuries and deaths on their website so the public know that snow isn't all that fluffy white stuff you see in cartoons. You may laugh but when you interview newbies about injuries for court cases, you'd be surprised at their naivete.

post #95 of 296

Just my 2 cents from looking tt the pictures.  If there was an open gate that allowed acess to the area....and not blocked or roped off it would be "open" and fair game to me.   Seems that is historically the case.

 

Not that following anyone's tracks means anything.  One bad decision doesn't make a second one good.

 

I'm all about taking responsibility for my own actions but looks like a weird set up Vail has on that particular piece of terrain.  I am a skier, ex-patrole,  lots of avi training, control work, yada yada, behind me.  I wouldn't want to defend the situation that has been presented here so far.

 

But obviously I wasn'tthere and have not seen the terrain or the gate system in person.  Just commenting from what I have read and seen here.

 

Have to wonder how the USFS came to their conclusion as well.  Love to read those details

 

But from my desk it looks like both parties have some liability to assume here.  Between a teenager and the Pro Patrol-Big ski Corp I would expect the Corp to  have very little margin of error.  After all they are paid to "protect you" in bounds for the obvious hazards.   The kid?  Might have been a rocket engineers for all I know.  I'd want to know just how far he and his buddies climbed into that "closed but also obviously unmarked area".    If they hiked 30 or 400 vert uphill.into what was clearly closed terrian and entered a open gate to poach a closed area...guilty IMO.  If the entered a open gate and simply traversed into terrain below a dangerious area that had been closed but the closure did not keep the "normal" skier traffic out  or from being exposed to the danger....I'd say it falls on Vail's shoulders..

 

Law of the "common man"?  If Vail has been allowing this kind of trespassing from that lower gate and it is now common place (skiing for the "common man") my guess is they will get spanked and rightfully so.   If the kids were doing something out of the ordinary and intending to poach what they knew was a closed and dangerious slope it should sit squarly on the skier's shoulders.

 

Could easily be some where inbetween.  But I would want to know the surviving kid's mind set.  May the parents already do and it is why they are sueing.

 

I'd bet the first responders' incident reports from the victims tell you much of the story.   By the look of the pictures my take would be Vail is on some shaking ground on this one.

post #96 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by like2ski123 View Post
 

There should be a ski at your own risk sign, and that should be all.  Same with lakes and beaches.  The legal madness is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

There was an article--maybe on pistehors?--about how many more drownings there are in France compared to avy deaths. Obviously the denominator is different. 

post #97 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post
 

Just my 2 cents from looking tt the pictures.  If there was an open gate that allowed acess to the area....and not blocked or roped off it would be "open" and fair game to me.   Seems that is historically the case.

 

Not that following anyone's tracks means anything.  One bad decision doesn't make a second one good.

 

I'm all about taking responsibility for my own actions but looks like a weird set up Vail has on that particular piece of terrain.  I am a skier, ex-patrole,  lots of avi training, control work, yada yada, behind me.  I wouldn't want to defend the situation that has been presented here so far.

 

But obviously I wasn'tthere and have not seen the terrain or the gate system in person.  Just commenting from what I have read and seen here.

 

Have to wonder how the USFS came to their conclusion as well.  Love to read those details

 

But from my desk it looks like both parties have some liability to assume here.  Between a teenager and the Pro Patrol-Big ski Corp I would expect the Corp to  have very little margin of error.  After all they are paid to "protect you" in bounds for the obvious hazards.   The kid?  Might have been a rocket engineers for all I know.  I'd want to know just how far he and his buddies climbed into that "closed but also obviously unmarked area".    If they hiked 30 or 400 vert uphill.into what was clearly closed terrian and entered a open gate to poach a closed area...guilty IMO.  If the entered a open gate and simply traversed into terrain below a dangerious area that had been closed but the closure did not keep the "normal" skier traffic out  or from being exposed to the danger....I'd say it falls on Vail's shoulders..

 

Law of the "common man"?  If Vail has been allowing this kind of trespassing from that lower gate and it is now common place (skiing for the "common man") my guess is they will get spanked and rightfully so.   If the kids were doing something out of the ordinary and intending to poach what they knew was a closed and dangerious slope it should sit squarly on the skier's shoulders.

 

Could easily be some where inbetween.  But I would want to know the surviving kid's mind set.  May the parents already do and it is why they are sueing.

 

I'd bet the first responders' incident reports from the victims tell you much of the story.   By the look of the pictures my take would be Vail is on some shaking ground on this one.

 

Well it is not denied by either side that the kids climbed 120 feet UPHILL. and the gate in question was also a horizontal distance away. Now what do you mean by common place and Vail being liable? Pretty much everyone will drive 5 miles an hour over the speed limit but that doesn't remove blame in the case of an accident or invalidate a ticket but it is common practice. Do a lot of people enter an open gate and than traverse into closed terrain yeah but that doesn't make it Vail's fault. 

 

Now the new information about Vail not conducting proper avalanche or at least what they claimed to have done my swing it in the victims favor. 

 

I mean just from personal experience a friend and I found a gate that was left open but we knew the terrain was still closed. It was the first time the terrain was "open" after it had snowed so we decided if we got caught we could talk our way out of it. Well we started skiing the terrain and they started blasting uphill of us. The blasting was far above us and it was unlikely anything was going to happen as there was also a run out area between us and the blasting but if a major slide had happened we were in the gully it would have funneled into.

 

We learned a lesson that day but it still would have been our faults.  

post #98 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by habacomike View Post
 

There is one.  It's on your lift ticket.  It's also in the Colorado Skier Safety Act which exempts ski areas from liability in all but a few cases.  Hence, the judge's decision not to dismiss means that he found that there is a triable issue relating to whether Vail is liable for one of the exceptions.  

 

Mike

 

Then I think the law should be changed to remove some exceptions.  You can't expect resorts to be perfect, and I can't understand, why the law would hold them accountable for an avalanche.  If a resort was not operating safely, even inside the law, I suspect they'd be working to fix those problems regardless of the law.  To me it looks like the law is the largest problem.  You can't go swimming past this 15 foot rope, we need a lifeguard every 15 feet, and the list goes on.
post #99 of 296
I'm with DanoT. If they traversed into the avalanche zone, that's different. We have signage all over here about closed areas that you'd have to ski past. Granted, they could say Hellroaring Basin is closed and still some touron ducks a rope or skis in from an odd direction because the designation of the area means nothing to them. But these kids weren't visitors, were they? To me, if there's not another sign at the open gate or poles to stop you, then traversing is fine. And it sounds like the problem wasn't so much the upward path, but the traverse across and below the danger area. The kids were 13. Big picture thinking and consequences are not their strengths.
post #100 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by like2ski123 View Post
 

 

Part of what you are paying for is an understanding that the resort is managing the snow conditions. Obviously some conditions are uncontrollable but an avalanche that occurs in spite of control efforts is completely different than one that happens due to lack of control measures. The family is arguing that Vail failed to meet the responsibilities given to it by the consumer. 

post #101 of 296

I don't care what they did or didn't do in a closed area; it was closed.

post #102 of 296

There's a lot of speculation in this thread.  To speculate further, I think tball's on-site past observations are the most revealing by a long shot.  Was is their fault?  Absolutely.  Should there be a sign there that says "No Uphill Hiking"?  It sure sounds that way.  Is the resort at fault in this case?  No way.

post #103 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Even experienced skiers don't know all the facts in this case ... the similar case in Winter Park was dismissed, this one wasn't. I think we will find out more things.

Keep in mind, at least to my understanding, that the Grand a County judge found avalanches to be within the inherent risks of skiing and the judge in the Vail case did not (avalanches are not expressly stated in the Colorado Ski Safety Act - from the very first post on this thread).

That bit alone doesn't say anything about the case, only that the plaintiff isn't denied the ability to even bring suit. Crummy's article doesn't mention where this case is at this point, does anybody know?

Also, in case you haven't checked your pass agreement, you can't seek a foreign jurisdiction anymore - at least not on the Super Pass. You want to file it is in the county of the incident. It seems no small factor that the Vail case was decided by a Broomfield judge (that's suburban Denver for you non-locals) as opposed to an Eagle County judge, while the WP case was brought in Grand County where WP is located.

Avalanches are so obviously in the inherent risk of skiing to not be specifically listed in the code, but all you have to do is take a strict read and say "It is not my role to determine the intent of the legislature" and the case goes forward. IMO, the attorney in this case knew the judge he wanted to get this ruling. Now you take a shot at the liability cap since you got the door open.

$250K is a low cap - there isn't much money there for a plaintiff in a protracted legal battle. This is about way more than those two gates...
post #104 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post
 

I'd want to know just how far he and his buddies climbed into that "closed but also obviously unmarked area".    If they hiked 30 or 400 vert uphill.into what was clearly closed terrian and entered a open gate to poach a closed area...guilty IMO.  If the entered a open gate and simply traversed into terrain below a dangerious area that had been closed but the closure did not keep the "normal" skier traffic out  or from being exposed to the danger....I'd say it falls on Vail's shoulders..

 

 

They definitely sidestepped up (hiked, but never took off their skis).  I haven't read anywhere exactly how far up they hiked.  It's maybe 100 yards between the gates, but it's not that steep since it's the same grade as the blue run right next to the traverse that give you access to the gates.  IIRC, there are a few trees and rocks you have to work around at points, but it's not a difficult or steep sidestep.  

 

@lonewolf210 where did you hear 120ft?  If that's vertical feet then they were probably all the way to the upper gate.  If it was distance they didn't really go that far.

 

I recall hiking all the way to the upper gate once.  It's a vivid memory because I recall thinking it would be really hard to make my case of innocence standing on the other side of a closed gate.  I don't recall ever being concerned about avalanches, just about trying to find a nice line.

 

This really make me sad.  A terrible irony is the father who died that same day in Topher's trees at Mary Jane hiked up much further than those kids at Vail.  Topher's was an open run and you can't get in there any other way.  You have to sidestep uphill.  The only difference is that's the only way into Topher's, and he didn't ski past a closed gate.  For a very long while it wasn't entirely clear skiing back there was actually legitimate, and Topher's still isn't marked on the map.

 

On the legal issues: a) are avalanches an inherent risk of skiing, and b) do ski areas have to mark uphill access as closed.... I have no idea where it will fall out, but I hope ski areas are taking note and being more diligent about marking closures.   I also hope and suspect the Colorado Legislature will fix the law and make avalanches an inherent risk of skiing if the courts rule otherwise.


Edited by tball - 10/12/13 at 10:11pm
post #105 of 296

For those interested in the snow conditions that horrible day, this video was taken by a snowboarder in Topher's Trees at Mary Jane where the other inbounds slide occurred.  It shows how the incredibly unstable the snowpack was:

 

 

For those making comments about darwinism, I suggest you read the comments on that video from the mother of a 3.5 year old and 9 week old who's father was killed: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=nxT-abuTovQ

post #106 of 296

OK now for more hypothetical.  This makes no sense to me..

 

"Now what do you mean by common place and Vail being liable? .... Do a lot of people enter an open gate and than traverse into closed terrain yeah, BUT"

 

Common place?   If you have a run that is "closed" but it is not signed or gated, then in my limited experience...it aint closed by definition because all runs in the US are typically roped and/-or gated when closed.

 

Even Chamonix, the death capital of the world, has signs and ropes on in bound runs to warn skiers of  pending danger..

 

 

"people enter an open gate and than traverse into closed terrain"

 

If someone knowingly enters closed terrain then obviously the liability is on them.

 

But if a skier enters terrain that is well known to the resort as dangerious and it is not clearly marked I would put at least particial and may be all the blame on the resort.

 

As I said never skied Vail.  I don't know the terrain of how that particular piece of terrain is controled.   But seems to be just a couple of simple questions to me.  Did the kids knowingly enter closed terrain?  If   (and that is a big if it seems) so case closed.  Vail wins.  On the other hand if the kids skied through an open gate...(seems certain now they did)  and did not intentionally ski into closed terrain (but were allowed to by an open gate) then I think Vail has some serious liability exposure.

 

Like a lot of things. in this case you have to know the victims intentions/thinking.  If the kids thought it was an open and "safe" terrain.  It is on Vail.

 

If their intention was to simply use the lower gate to access and then poach closed terrain the liability is on the skiers.

 

Avalanches are a know danger in skiing.  Ski areas are expected to mitagate that risk in bounds.  Were the industry standards met in this case?   USFS seemed to think so.   I can shoot my neighbor by accident.  And not go to jail.  (maybe)  But even if I do go to jail because of an accident...and I still could.  Doesn't mean my neighbor can't sue  me to recover the damages of having been shot.

post #107 of 296

In lift-serviced alpine skiing runs are closed by being roped off at the top of the run.   They knew or ought to have known it was closed.  Case closed.

Coroner's in inquest perhaps, might introduce run closed signs at the bottom of alpine runs for the clueless.

post #108 of 296

Ghost, this is one run, Prima Cornice.  It has two entrances .  One is open and one is closed.   How do you know which part of the run is open and which part is closed if there is no rope or sign?

post #109 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

 

If someone knowingly enters closed terrain then obviously the liability is on them.

 

But if a skier enters terrain that is well known to the resort as dangerious and it is not clearly marked I would put at least particial and may be all the blame on the resort.

 

As I said never skied Vail.  I don't know the terrain of how that particular piece of terrain is controled.   But seems to be just a couple of simple questions to me.  Did the kids knowingly enter closed terrain?  If   (and that is a big if it seems) so case closed.  Vail wins.  On the other hand if the kids skied through an open gate...(seems certain now they did)  and did not intentionally ski into closed terrain (but were allowed to by an open gate) then I think Vail has some serious liability exposure.

 

Like a lot of things. in this case you have to know the victims intentions/thinking.  If the kids thought it was an open and "safe" terrain.  It is on Vail.

 

If their intention was to simply use the lower gate to access and then poach closed terrain the liability is on the skiers.

 

 

I don't think it's black and white.  I'd speculate both the kids and the ski area knew this was a grey area.  We'll find out for sure when the surviving kids and patrol testify if it goes to trial.

 

In my view it depends how far up the hill the kids hiked.  If it was just a couple lines, then it wasn't clear they were on closed terrain.  If they were all the way up under the closed gate, then it's obviously closed.  In between is grey.

 

When I spent a lot of time at vail in the 90's I think the ski area knew this was in the grey area and looked the other way.  This area allowed skiers who wanted to work for some fresh snow to get it.   If you wanted to risk destroying your skis or busting your leg on a hidden obstacle, so be it.  It's not typical avalanche terrain, so it wasn't likely you would get killed.

 

The difference on the day the kid at Vail and the father at WP died is it was 20, 50, or 100? year flood avalanche conditions, a freakishly unstable snowpack that would slide in places and ways it usually doesn't.  Thank goodness there were not more casualties on that day since there are a lot of ski areas between Vail and Winter Park that had the same conditions.


Edited by tball - 10/13/13 at 7:25am
post #110 of 296

It is closed below a closed gate until it is below an open open gate, quite simple really. 

post #111 of 296

Separate but related to this: 

Did anyone here see a difference in how VR handled out of bounds skiing and/or skiing in closed areas at their various resorts last year? 

 

It seems that we were seeing a lot less tolerance for skiing in closed areas and areas that were questionably closed at Northstar. 

 

This is not an attempt  to hijack the topic at hand. 

post #112 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

It is closed below a closed gate until it is below an open open gate, quite simple really. 

 

Arguably, not according to Colorado law:

 

CRS 33-44-107(4)     If a particular trail or slope or portion of a trail or slope is closed to the public by a ski area operator, such operator shall place a sign notifying the public of that fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved. Alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences.

 

http://nspc203.com/leg/ColoradoSkiSafetyAct.htm#_Toc170572453

 

Note: "identified entrance" isn't a defined term and probably should be.  If it's not already hashed out in case law it's about to be if the parties don't settle.

 

post #113 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

 

I don't think it's black and white.  I'd speculate both the kids and the ski area knew this was a grey area.  We'll find out for sure when the surviving kids and patrol testify if it goes to trial.

 

In my view it depends how far up the hill the kids hiked.  If it was just a couple lines, then it wasn't clear they were on closed terrain.  If they were all the way up under the closed gate, then it's obviously closed.  In between is grey.

 

When I spent a lot of time at vail in the 90's I think the ski area knew this was in the grey area and looked the other way.  This area allowed skiers who wanted to work for some fresh snow to get it.   If you wanted to risk destroying your skis or busting your leg on a hidden obstacle, so be it.  It's not typical avalanche terrain, so it wasn't likely you would get killed.

 

The difference on the day the kid at Vail and the father at WP died is it was 20, 50, or 100? year flood avalanche conditions, a freakishly unstable snowpack that would slide in places and ways it usually doesn't.  Thank goodness there were not more casualties on that day since there are a lot of ski areas between Vail and Winter Park that had the same conditions.

 

 

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20130314/NEWS/130319923

 

..."Last year, in a tragic accident on Vail Mountain, Taft Conlin lost his life in an avalanche on the Prima Cornice trail," the ski company's statement said. "Taft and some friends had entered the lower Prima Cornice gate, which was open, and hiked back into terrain below the upper Prima Cornice gate, which was closed. Prior to the accident, our ski patrol had not anticipated that skiers or riders would hike into the closed terrain from the lower gate. As a result, we continue to believe that our ski patrol had taken all appropriate actions regarding mitigation, closures and openings in this area."...

 

That italicized part is total bs, and it can probably be demonstrated. 

 

Sometimes stuff is roped off at the top not due to avalanche danger, but because it's a rock band or cliff or some other place that can get people in over their heads. (Especially here, where it comes off of a highly traveled green run.) Coming in at a lower spot and traversing over underneath the dangerous terrain is common practice. I'm not sure that is what happened here, but it's feasible that the danger had changed from its usual "don't fall off the rocks" to "don't even touch this snow" but of course someone accustomed to the former (and adept at not falling off rocks) wouldn't even think that.

 

I am not saying Vail did anything wrong that day -- as was said, it was a ridiculously rare event, thank goodness, and they couldn't mitigate everything. The run was technically closed. People were ducking ropes all over the state, and there were inbounds avalanches everywhere. (You only heard about two of them, though.) But I'm not sure about Vail's response....

post #114 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 

Separate but related to this: 

Did anyone here see a difference in how VR handled out of bounds skiing and/or skiing in closed areas at their various resorts last year? 

 

It seems that we were seeing a lot less tolerance for skiing in closed areas and areas that were questionably closed at Northstar. 

 

This is not an attempt  to hijack the topic at hand. 

I barely skied at any Vail Resorts last season, so I don't know. I do know that Winter Park added avalanches to its list of inherent risks on its pass waiver, and that according the article  I  just posted, Vail started opening and closing both the upper and lower gates of Prima Cornice together.  


Edited by segbrown - 10/13/13 at 8:40am
post #115 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

It is closed below a closed gate until it is below an open open gate, quite simple really. 

 

Arguably, not according to Colorado law:

 

CRS 33-44-107(4)     If a particular trail or slope or portion of a trail or slope is closed to the public by a ski area operator, such operator shall place a sign notifying the public of that fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved. Alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences.

 

http://nspc203.com/leg/ColoradoSkiSafetyAct.htm#_Toc170572453

 

Note: "identified entrance" isn't a defined term and probably should be.  If it's not already hashed out in case law it's about to be if the parties don't settle.

 

 

 

They don't define "if" either.  The identified entrance of the closed portion of the trail or slope is the entrance at the top of the lift serviced alpine slope that was closed , and the entrance at the top of the section that was open did not need such a sign, because it was open.  Are you the atourney for the plaintif?

post #116 of 296
Ghost, what may be a clear cut situation to you is not under Colorado law. I think the judge was correct in allowing this case to go forward. If this case is not settled, I'm sure all arguments will be presented to the jury and the many of the arguments may end up being decided by the Colorado Appellate courts.
post #117 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post
 

OK now for more hypothetical.  This makes no sense to me..

 

"Now what do you mean by common place and Vail being liable? .... Do a lot of people enter an open gate and than traverse into closed terrain yeah, BUT"

 

Common place?   If you have a run that is "closed" but it is not signed or gated, then in my limited experience...it aint closed by definition because all runs in the US are typically roped and/-or gated when closed.

 

 

Your making it way more black and white than it is. They do not rope entire runs they rope/post signs at the top of runs. People will traverse in through the trees all the time. In fact I think copper started  posting signs stating that traversing in was still grounds to lose your pass because people were doing it so much. 

post #118 of 296

"I don't think it's black and white. I'd speculate both the kids and the ski area knew this was a grey area."

 

There in lies the rub.

Kids aren't required to manage the grey area.  They, like us, are only required to abid by the law and the ski area's best efforts.

 

 

The ski area is required to eliminate the gray area with a sign/rope/fence when it comes to closing a trail/slope by state law:

 

CRS 33-44-107(4) If a particular trail or slope or portion of a trail or slope is closed to the public by a ski area operator, such operator shall place a sign notifying the public of that fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved. Alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences.

 

It is a suit to determine who is liable for the young man's death.  That is seldome black and white.  In this case the liability might well be shared between the victim and the ski area.

 

"Copper started posting signs stating that traversing in was still grounds to lose your pass because people were doing it so much."

 

My point..initially was if skiing into a known danger zone has become a common practice on Prima Cornice and there was no enforcement by the Ski Area then they will likely have a liability problem here.  Copper understood what is required of them by law and acted accordingly IMO.

 

"the ski area knew this was in the grey area and looked the other way"

Colarado CRS doesn't give the Ski Area the option of "looking the other way".    Run is either closed or it is not closed.  If known dangerious terrain can be easily accessed by an open gate, was common practice by the Vail skier population, and was ignored by the Vail Corp, I would expect Vail to have the burden of liability for any resulting injury.

 

The open gate well within the ski area boundry  implies the terrain they were entering was a safe area to ski.

 

As I said previous.  If the kids knew and intentionally skied/hiked/climbed into closed terrain it is on them.  If they were unaware of being on closed terrain then it is on Vail.

 

More I look at it more I have to wonder if the liability isn't Vail's.     13 year old kids aren't required to make the decisions that Vail Corp is.  Rightfully so.

 

13 year old boys are not known for their wisdom and stellar judgement.  Leaving grey area decisions that could easily be lethal up to them is seldom going to turn out well.   One has to wonder what the parents part of the liability is as well.   Something anyone with kids  might ponder.

post #119 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

 

They don't define "if" either.  The identified entrance of the closed portion of the trail or slope is the entrance at the top of the lift serviced alpine slope that was closed , and the entrance at the top of the section that was open did not need such a sign, because it was open.  Are you the atourney for the plaintif?

 

Ha, nope I'm not an attorney, thankfully.   I'm just highly interested because two people died in inbounds avalanches on the same day on two different runs I've skied a ton.

 

If it's so obvious, then which part of this simplified hypothetical example ski run is open and which part is closed?

 

post #120 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

If it's so obvious, then which part of this simplified hypothetical example ski run is open and which part is closed?

 

 

Thanks Tball.  Not having skied there that is exactly the situation I precieved in my little rat brain.  And pretty much clarifies the situation for me.  I am sorry for the kid and his parents but looks to me like Vail holds some liability on this one.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Judge rules that Vail Resorts can be sued for avalanche death