or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Mt Bachelor Accused of Being Responsible for Defective Jump
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mt Bachelor Accused of Being Responsible for Defective Jump - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

 

...

 

 

What's next, public downhills with netting and radar guns open to everyone?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Right... Nothing like a little hyperbole to noise things up, eh? smile.gif But you could have a future on cable TV... And i hear meet the press might be hiring. smile.gif

 

It is done in Europe, sort of. It isn't a DH with turns. It is just a straight run with a speed trap. 60mph is attainable on 165cm 110mm skis. 

post #32 of 44
Big difference between a DH and a controllable speed run with a radar gun. smile.gif
post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 

However, there are wide open public concrete skate parks with features that are probably just as risky as the open terrain parks on the slopes so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

 

Skateboarding is unusually safe compared to other sports with on 20 injuries per 100,000 participants compared to 223 injuries per 100,000 for basketball. It ranks safer than baseball and soccer as well. One of the main reasons is the advent of skate parks, which account for less than 5% of all skateboarding injuries. Despite the risky behavior they seem to promote it, skate parks are a  controlled environment and inherently safer than the streets.

 

Given that people generally don't ski/snowboard in the streets, it would be interesting to know if terrain parks are statistically more dangerous than the rest of the resort. I believe that the most common cause of death on the slopes are high speed tree impacts from loosing control on  groomers?

post #34 of 44

There is a line over which resorts are clearly responsible for negligence - thinking of the guy injured in a gondola when a groomer blade hit it, and it's clearly conceivable that a jump might have been misshaped such that it was almost impossible to navigate safely or insufficiently monitored should the take off or landing have degraded.  

 

However it strikes me that in the face of lifechanging events and costs, some families have an urge or need to "make someone pay" or "ensure it doesn't happen again" almost as a means of dealing with their grief.  Of course some of it might be plays by insurers to defray their costs in which case no blame on the parents.

 

People are clearly always going to get hurt in trauma parks and in the case of inverted or unnaturally large tricks there is a heightened risk of spinal injuries or worse.  Reality check should be whether you are prepared to live with the consequences or educate your underage kids as to sensible decision making.  

post #35 of 44
Every time I've ever had a medical bill go to my insurance company that was something that COULD HAVE been an injury, I've heard from some company called Ingenix (something like that), trying to get me to point the finger at someone. If I ignore the letter, I get another and finally they'll call me. I've learned to just answer the thing that it's no one's fault but my own right from the outset.
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Miles View Post
 

I remember reading or hearing, but never verified, that Sun Valley did have something like this back in the 60's.

 

More recently Snowmass had a roped-off public speed course on Upper Slot (starting about halfway down, not from the top). Max speeds were in the low 70's; I went 67.5. It was only once a week with supervison, speed build-up and a fee. I don't know if they still do it, haven't heard or read anything.

 

 

 

Snowmass packed it in after Charley Tarver crashed at around 100mph, on his Mountain Bike.

post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Big difference between a DH and a controllable speed run with a radar gun. smile.gif

No argument there. But an opportunity to simply point it in a 'controlled' setting is a big opportunity for liability. I went 98 kph on 165s. Imagine what might happen with a less experienced 'racer'. Crashes at 60+ mph can hurt, even without any turns to negotiate.
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelv View Post

Honestly... the expert jumps that resorts build (I'm thinking of, say, Breck & Keystone here) are SO. BIG. I kind of can't believe that they let the public on those things given how lawsuit happy people can be.

Colorado is easy. From the Ski Safety Act:

(3.3) "Freestyle terrain" includes, but is not limited to, terrain parks and terrain park features such as jumps, rails, fun boxes, and all other constructed and natural features, half-pipes, quarter-pipes, and freestyle-bump terrain.

(3.5) "Inherent dangers and risks of skiing" means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine- made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man- made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities. The term "inherent dangers and risks of skiing" does not include the negligence of a ski area operator as set forth in section 33-44-104 (2). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

See the bold above, specifically "slope design".

I don't see why terrain parks would be singled out except to preserve the experience of advanced participants. Any schmo can also ski extreme terrain, too:

(3.1) "Extreme terrain" means any place within the ski area boundary that contains cliffs with a minimum twenty-foot rise over a fifteen-foot run, and slopes with a minimum fifty-degree average pitch over a one-hundred-foot run.
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

 

 

Of course seasonal evac insurance is quite cheap, and health care is, ah, well, ......  better not go there. Bound to get ugly, but let's just say, I also like the European approach.

Whole different genie and bottle and entirely different approach to tort law as well as insurance and medicine.  Let's just say I suspect many US customers wouldn't be happy with paying a slug of "captive insurance" on top of their exhorbitant day pass to cover patrol first aid and assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post


No argument there. But an opportunity to simply point it in a 'controlled' setting is a big opportunity for liability. I went 98 kph on 165s. Imagine what might happen with a less experienced 'racer'. Crashes at 60+ mph can hurt, even without any turns to negotiate.

No idea what the situation is everywhere but the one place I've seen a speed trap at Lech "The BMW ride of your life experience" or somesuch the slope angle was so tame and the length of the run in from the gate so short it is hard to envisage anyone getting up to risky speeds.

post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Every time I've ever had a medical bill go to my insurance company that was something that COULD HAVE been an injury, I've heard from some company called Ingenix (something like that), trying to get me to point the finger at someone. If I ignore the letter, I get another and finally they'll call me. I've learned to just answer the thing that it's no one's fault but my own right from the outset.

 

I heard from them just a few days after I blew my ACL. They were looking to point the blame on someone.

post #41 of 44

Same. Usually it's my insurance company calling with those questions. Even if I've been hurt on someone else's property, equipment, etc., I always say it was my property/equipment/stupidity.

post #42 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post

Whole different genie and bottle and entirely different approach to tort law as well as insurance and medicine.  Let's just say I suspect many US customers wouldn't be happy with paying a slug of "captive insurance" on top of their exhorbitant day pass to cover patrol first aid and assistance.
No idea what the situation is everywhere but the one place I've seen a speed trap at Lech "The BMW ride of your life experience" or somesuch the slope angle was so tame and the length of the run in from the gate so short it is hard to envisage anyone getting up to risky speeds.

I ran the one in Davos. My skis were not well tuned, being powder skis. I expect I could easily hit 70 mph with tuned recreational skis. While the track was pretty mild, having fallen at 60 mph (and higher) and witnessed crashes at that speed, I can say without a doubt that there is significant risk at 60.
post #43 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSloan View Post
 

Same. Usually it's my insurance company calling with those questions. Even if I've been hurt on someone else's property, equipment, etc., I always say it was my property/equipment/stupidity.

I've always done the same thing. 

You know, you hear about the cases where friend A sued person B, then later you find out that friend A didn't initiate the law suit, but the insurance company did so they could recoup some of their losses. 

 

But clearly that is not the case with this case.  I'm sure the kid hopes to gain something and perhaps change liability laws for the region. 

post #44 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

and perhaps change liability laws for the region. 

Hopefully that won't happen. We don't want ski resorts liable for design issues. That slope is so slippery that it includes avalanches wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Skiing News
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Mt Bachelor Accused of Being Responsible for Defective Jump