or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Patrol Shack › Who's responsible?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who's responsible? - Page 3

post #61 of 72
Originally Posted by Coach13
Evaluate whether the situation is safe for the rescuers.
Bingo! And prevent further injury to the patient.

IF there is an ability to cordone off something that would put your rescurer at (higher) risk, why not?

And as has been mentioned over and over, almost all the in boundary closures are due to bad skiing conditions---whatever they may be.

You have NO control outside the area border, but you do inside.

There are many patrollers out there who are very competent inside their area that may not be competant out of bounds. I would be one! I'm not trained at that and have no desire to get trained. I'll leave the OB stuff to the SAR guys.

They will follow the same set of rules--safety first.
post #62 of 72
Originally Posted by jgiddyup
I don't see any distinction here! If the FARKING piece of real estate is CLOSED It's CLOSED!!! What part of personal responsibility is hard to understand? Fox has it right and this country (in general) has raised the biggest bunch of PUUUSSIES I've ever seen. EVERYTHING is someone else's fault. This may sound harsh, but lawyers may well be th un-doing of this country!!!
j---calm down,

you are gone, caput, no longer in charge, if you are still alive, you are a rutabaga now.

Your handlers are in charge. Are you POSITIVE they will have the exact same take on personal responsibility you do? How can you be sure?

That, to me, is the question at hand. Many many of the folks arguing here state they don't expect any help if they duck the rope. Can they say with any certainty, the folks they leave behind will have the same sentiment?
post #63 of 72

Icing on the cake...

"At the gate where we exited, it only mentioned that we were leaving the ski area boundaries. There was no warning or information about consequences such as rescue, etc. "

It's pretty clear, even to a non-skier, that "leaving ski area boundary" means that the services provided by the ski area are no longer provided. It's no different from leaving the resort the normal way (eg, in your car). It's common sense.

No doubt, the ski area has published what going out-of-bounds means on the ski area map. Or, where the ticket was bought.

Also, it would be hard a skier with even limited experience to be very convincing if he tried to explain that he did not know what "out of bounds" meant.

As long as the boundary is clear, due diligence is satisfied. If the resort mounts a rescue, it's a courtesy (not an obligation).
post #64 of 72
and here we see the source of bunion's fears.: bunion doesn't want to have to ski OB. he might get lost or hurt. big tough ski patroller scared in the woods!

Gonzo, quit trolling for a response, it ain't gonna happen. If I remember correctly, you are a liar....oops I ment Lawyer.... nevermind, same difference.

And a horse's ass.

Stay in Missoula, keep ranting and get some therapy.

post #65 of 72
you spoil sport! you stick-in-the-mud! you old codger, fuddy duddy, wheezing geezer!

okay, I give up. I can only sustain such mock-disgust for so long.

as to the therapy: yeah, we're getting it right now up high. and more on the way. thanks for the reminder.
post #66 of 72
Thread Starter 
If ski areas allow access to backcountry legally through one of their gates should they not be responsible if you get injured there?

Since they allowed you access to the backcountry through purchase of their pass, if you are injured in the backcountry, aren't they responsible for your rescue?

I sure as hell couldn't have gotten up there without use of their lift system. So, instead of hiking another hundred feet up to the gate, I decide to duck under the rope and end up in the spot I would have had I entered through the gate, is it so diferent?

I'm beginning to think Gonzo and some of the others are right. Is it skiing out of bounds to duck a ski area boundary rope when the same resort allows access through a gate?
post #67 of 72
Lars, it might be more productive to determine what are the reasons for which the ski area should have ANY responsibility for a skier's injury?

some of the posts in here are looking like they've forgotten that skiing is dangerous and is avoided by many for that very reason. with such an obvious foundation to considering who's responsible,

I don't see the premise upon which you'd say the ski area is liable for an OB skier who got OB through a gate on the area's property.

are you saying that the gate itself should be seen as conveying the following unspoken message:


Even though you are
and going
where there is
we want you to feel comfy and cozy out here in the woods.
Fear not, intrepid gaper and Betty Sixpack.
No matter what your skill level, experience and ability to survive outdoors in the winter,
SOYLENT GREEN SKI RESORT has got you covered.
And your lily white arse too.

post #68 of 72
Thread Starter 
Ah Gonzo, you do make it entertaining.

I think by allowing skiers and boarders to knowingly enter the backcountry through it's gates, the resort knows there is an inherent risk to those people, and by allowing them to use their lift system to access this area, it may be held responsible for any harm that may come to those people.

So, why rope the boundary off almost completely surrounding the resort and allow access only through gates? Why rope anything?
post #69 of 72
we're getting somewhere!

obviously the ropes are to contain the skiers who aren't well-suited to skiing NON-maintained ski runs, and to delineate the ski area's real estate dedicated to the ski area proper.

what it looks like to me is this: Patrollers don't have time or resources to know each skier's ability, so it's easier to just tell EVERYONE to avoid OB and closed areas.

one of the great benes of skiing where I do is that the area isn't so overcrowded and the Patrollers aren't so overworked that they don't know the regular skiers.

jeez, 2 seasons ago one of the patrollers took me on his sled up to ski closed terrain!

some of you folks might see that as irresponsible. I think that shows just how far gone is the "enforcement" aspect of Patrolling.

I don't think you or any Patroller should be asked to play cop.

I"m not blaming you, and as much as I poked and prodded at Bunion, I probably wouldn't blame him either.


I think that people are looking for too much of a controlled environment. And I think that puts the patrollers in a very strange position, one that is perilously close to "law enforcement".
post #70 of 72
Originally Posted by Lars
So, why rope the boundary off almost completely surrounding the resort and allow access only through gates? Why rope anything?
I believe that, at least in the US, the boundary rules are set forth by the relationship and lease with the USFS. They specify the boundaries of the area management's responsibility as per their lease agreement. Thanks to our litigious requirements to address the requirements of the various Darwin Award competitors, we must make sure that we let them know that they are hitting a boundary.

That said, there are times when it's really not clear where the boundary of an area is (says the guy who managed to spend a fair amount of time slogging around a drainage at the ESA last year).
post #71 of 72

So at what point (distance) is it not the ski area's responsibility? What if I duck a boundary rope or go through a gate at A-Basin, and skin, hike or teleport my way to within 300 yards of Vail? Is A-Basin still responsible for my rescue? Say they find you dead near Vail with an A-Basin lift ticket from 3 days ago. Do we assume you got there from A-Basin and let your family sue A-Basin for not tracking you down, even though they didn't know you were missing, or could we guess that you went home that night and hiked near Vail yesterday and got yourself dead?

Also, you say you "sure as hell" couldn't have gotten out of bounds near A-Basin without the help of the lift. I beg to differ. I'm sure you could have hiked up along the ski area boundary.

I think that ski area boundaries should just be marked with signs that say "ski area boundary. If you leave the ski area, you're on your own. Don't expect us to track you down and find your dead corpse."
post #72 of 72
Thread Starter 
First of all, it would take an awesomly experienced backcountry skier to ski from ABasin to Vail and one would suspect the three day old ABasin lift ticket was just that and suspect that the skier had hiked in to the Vail area for some turns. Right?

I think, and I'm sure there might be some Lawyers and Judges out there that might believe that the Ski area that sells a lift ticket to a skier and allows that person to use it's lift system to further access backcountry areas through it's gates might be held accountable if that person becomes injured, lost or killed or causes the injury or death of someone else.

Buying a lift ticket or signing a waiver or posting a danger/warning sign at the backcountry gate probably won't stand up in todays courts. At the least, an out of court settlement will happen. Why wouldn't it?

It's a totally different scenario than parking your car next to the road and hiking up the pass for turns. Now, you knowingly without the assistance of a resort or anyone else but yourself have put yourself into the dangers of the backcountry. Am I wrong?

Ok, fourteen year old Johnny is at ABasin with his family for a fun day of skiing. They decide to brreak for lunch but Johnny decides he's up for some adventure and tells his folks he'll meet them in an hour. It's no big deal to them since they think Johnny is such a good skier. Johnny thinks he's a good skier too and decides to follow some older guys he just road the lift with over the back of the summit and over toward Keystone for some deep powder runs. He follows them out gate and is doing awesome in the open powder firlds till it starts to filter into the steep tight trees where he quickly starts to lag back. Before you know it, he's all alone and doesn't know where he's going. He follows some tracks but quickly finds he's lost. Next think you know, he plows into a tree where he breaks a binding and and tears his acl. Not so far fetched is it? The guys he followed are irreponsible and don't wait around to see if the kid shows up so they hike out to the road and back to the parking lot where they head out to beat the traffic for a long ride down the interstate.

Think the kid will survive? Who's fault is it? The kid for sure but he's a minor and can't be held accountable for his actions. The parents? Ya, probably. But Johnny was a good skier and they've let him ski alone many times before. The guys he went out the gate with? They didn't know he was only 14. The way the kid talked on the lift he'd been backcountry before. They definitly should have called patrol and told someone the kid didn't show up and where to look but they were smoked up and were in a hurry. Besides, the guy was a good skier, he could make it down.

Oh ya, I forgot to mention that Johnnies Father is a Philadelphia Lawyer. Is ABasin going to pay? Are they liable?

So, what makes the difference if you duck the rope cause all you have to do is ski out the gate.

What about it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Patrol Shack
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Patrol Shack › Who's responsible?