New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aspen ski death lawsuit - Page 4

post #91 of 103
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Clearly Red is at fault.  What's scary is that not only do you not get that, you are teaching your children the same thing.
"Dude! You were in my line!"nonono2.gif

For a quick edit, what I am teaching my kids is exactly what Skier31 says below: fault is a spectrum. Red v. Gray is so good to look at this in the context of a safety law that accounts for this situation, because either side has a claim and either side has a defense, if this happened in CO. My lesson to my kids is that you have to look back uphill when you are making a significant change as well as being acutely aware of the potential for the same happening alongside you perhaps just outside of your peripheral vision. Treating yourself as if you are skiing in a lane when there is traffic is safer than not, no matter what any piece of paper says.

They have had the skier ahead stuff drilled into them in ski school.
Edited by NayBreak - 6/8/15 at 7:28am
post #92 of 103
Thread Starter 

I've always been at Red at fault - while Grey might have widened his line he was doing wide turns which got wider rather than say switching from a fall line schuss to a lateral carve.  In fact I've always been mystified that Red never saw him at all and makes not the slightest reaction.  Of course Grey's failure to keep watch is what contributes to getting him creamed. Without a video in a lawsuit it's hard to see it being clear cut , Red "he swiped straight into me from the side", Grey "He was blasting down the slope like a maniac". 


Re the POV video, there just isn't enough context to see where the snowboarder comes from.  I'd guess he overtakes you and cuts in front - still his fault as he hasn't completed the whole of the move by the time you (hypothetically) hit him.  But if he's overtaken you when you're going to the left of the safety banner say and you hit him then it seems to become more your fault. 


The way I think of changing "course" might need a significant change of vector (of course this is the wrong term as any turn is a significant change of immediate vector).  An example might be schussing the cat track in heavy traffic then suddenly swerving one side to the other.


I'm totally on board with what you're trying to debate here. Clowns will be clowns and will hit innocent people ,or to a lesser extent but relevant to those of us being responsible, set off or merge straight into someone's path.  Rightness under code or SSA doesn't stop you being in ER, and certainly doesn't ensure that there will be enough evidence that you recover damages etc.  Neither does it necessarily protect you from being on the losing end of a lawsuit once emotional things like "loving mother of 3 children", "knocked down" "beginners can't be expected to be in control" are thrown in.

post #93 of 103

Fault is a spectrum and I think that is what the Colorado statute is trying to address.    If I am skiing down the hill making predictable turns and stay within a cat track width and uphill skier hits me from behind, it could be 100% uphill skier's fault.  Where 2 people are skiing downhill at the same rate and collide, they could each be 50% at fault.  It is not black or white or red or grey for that matter.

post #94 of 103
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

Sure enough, next run down I get to be red with a snowboarder acting as gray. At about 30 seconds you see me glance right, and then the snowboarder cuts me off. I saw him and pulled up - otherwise he would have overtaken my downhill position with speed and changed course right into my path, which I had already altered to give right of way to a skier acting unpredictably, making me suddenly the uphill skier. That would be my fault under the skier responsibility code, but sure doesn't look like it from the windshield view, does it?

Interesting, I see NayBreak's (NB) video with NB being grey and the snowboarder as red.  By that, I mean that the snowboarder is overtaking NB and the snowboarder did not pass safely. 


I'd say the snowboarder was at fault. He may have been ahead at the last split second, but overall he was behind.  The snowboarder should have either waited to pass or passed farther away from NB.


The snowboarder might have blamed NB and said, "you skied into my line, it's your fault."  He would have been wrong, just like Red.


The POV also shows why it's so hard to put the pressure on Grey/NB.  Grey/NB sees Red/snowboarder only if he glances at the right time and has only a split second to react, judge his speed, judge his course, etc.  While Red/snowboarder easily saw Grey/NB before he passed.

post #95 of 103

I would generally say that the skier ahead of you has the "right of way" and in this instant the defendant saw the deceased otherwise would not have called out. That would indicated she had a general idea of her speed and direction. It could be argued that she had this knowledge and was not capable of navigating around and therefore was not in control as required by the statute.

   Of course without access to depositions and all discovery material it is hard to be 100% sure. Another issue is how much money you can extract from an individual since they do not have excess insurance coverage like a corporation?           

post #96 of 103
Here's another take on red vs. gray (w/ a little blue):

Who's at fault?
post #97 of 103
As a third party, my initial impression was blue was at fault, because red was there and visible to me at the start of the cut. Then I decided blue couldn't see red, because he was low, so it was red's fault because it's a terrain park and you're not supposed to be cutting across them. Then I decided it WAS blue because the beginning of the movie is not the beginning of blue's run. He should have easily seen red when he was farther up the slopes and standing upright. And if he couldn't see the landing he should have had a spotter. So, blue's fault.
post #98 of 103
Yahbut, red cut in under the jump and stopped. wink.gif

It's a hard one. I'm prepared to blame blue because he has baggier clothing. biggrin.gif
post #99 of 103

Jumping without a spotter, better be sure you can redirect at the lip if there's someone in the landing zone.  :nono: 

Red at fault too.  Don't they post rules at the gates to these trauma parks?

If not a park, then blue is at fault, but red is pretty dumb.

Edited by Ghost - 6/13/15 at 9:41am
post #100 of 103

Both were doing something wrong. 


Stopping(?) where they obstruct landing area - out of sight.  Could Red be recovering from a bad landing/fall?


Jumping without being sure of landing area.


BUT since it looks like a Powder Day, there are no friends here anyway.

post #101 of 103

Red is at fault... You have to be ready for anything when overtaking a fellow rider.  

but grey was also careless... If you cut from one side of the trail to the entire other, take a quick glance.  Seriously folks, it's not worth the pain or potential injury to just cut across knowing you have the right of way....   On a practical note,  unless they both had head phones on, I just don't see how neither noticed the other...    

post #102 of 103
Thread Starter 

Re the terrain park example  - unless the park is unroped (such that it is possible to access without being aware it is a park) red clearly is at fault for being in the single worst place they could be (assuming they haven't themselves jumped the feature, fallen and recovered). Blue also at fault for not using a spotter but hard to say that using e.g. the Colorado Code with the addition of locally posted terrain park notices they could end up being held to be more than 50% responsible.


Parks like race courses have to operate on modified rules otherwise they can't operate at all.  

post #103 of 103

Frightening article!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion