EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › The beginning of the end... Liability lawsuits against ski areas.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The beginning of the end... Liability lawsuits against ski areas. - Page 3

post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
The issue wasn't whether the feature was safely designed, it was whether it was safely designed for the speed of the skier and snow conditions. Had he taken that jump much slower, he would not have been launched 37 feet in the air, overshot the landing and come down on rock hard ice.

The ski area put its eggs in the "skier assumes liability" basket, and did a crappy job defending in the lawsuit.
Harry You are somewhat right that "some" areas put its eggs in the "skier assumes liability" basket, and did a crappy job defending in the lawsuit.

Where it gets hazy is "whether it was safely designed for the speed of the skier and snow conditions. Had he taken that jump much slower, he would not have been launched 37 feet in the air, overshot the landing and come down on rock hard ice"

Terrain parks are not static and neither are conditions.

What is safe one day may not be safe on another, due to changing speed of the snow surface and the ever changing softness/hardness of the landing.

Terrain parks need to be managed and the features need to be opend and closed as those conditions change. Hence the reasons for a well trained and motivated terrain park staff.
post #62 of 71
There is a long history of ski jumping.

You do not build a jump with a horizontal section where the skiers will land if they hit the jump at full speed. That's just plain stupid, and the resort should know better. The skier can be excused for expecting the landing area would be long enough and perhaps having the balls to try the jump without the experience to know that his speed would carry him farther than the idiot who built the thing expected and brake on the way in before aligning again and jumping.
post #63 of 71

Back to RCR

On Thursday I was musing on RCR's decision while I was riding the Bear Chair over the "Rail Park" at Fernie. It looked to me like only about half the kids were in the park compared with previous years (and the current map has excised the park on Falling Star run so they didn't go there). One of the effects of RCR's decision was that a number of boarders got refunds on their season's pass at Louise and moved to Sunshine. In the early season there certainly seemed to be a higher proportion of them, and some of the folks I chatted to on the lift gave that as a reason. Interestingly enough, COP (Calgary Olympic Park) has expanded their terrain park so their new quad has become so cluttered with boarders and twin tips that I've quite given up on the idea of urban night skiing.

All this makes me wonder what the effect was on RCR's bottom line.
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
The issue wasn't whether the feature was safely designed, it was whether it was safely designed for the speed of the skier and snow conditions. Had he taken that jump much slower, he would not have been launched 37 feet in the air, overshot the landing and come down on rock hard ice.

The ski area put its eggs in the "skier assumes liability" basket, and did a crappy job defending in the lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
There is a long history of ski jumping.

You do not build a jump with a horizontal section where the skiers will land if they hit the jump at full speed. That's just plain stupid, and the resort should know better. The skier can be excused for expecting the landing area would be long enough and perhaps having the balls to try the jump without the experience to know that his speed would carry him farther than the idiot who built the thing expected and brake on the way in before aligning again and jumping.
without any insight on the specifics of the case, I tend to agree with Ghost. The landing should accomodate a gret variety of speeds in a "public" park. And the inrun should be short enough that one can't reach 50mph...
post #65 of 71
You're both thinking about ski jumps, as compared to terrain parks. There is no "inrun"...you can take any jump you want at virtually any speed, as the jumps are accessible from any point above them. Just about every terrain park I've seen could be hit too fast by someone intent on doing it. Most people have too much sense to hit a big jump at high speed without having figured out whether they can survive it first.

As far as designing the run out...again we're not talking about ski jumps. Most of them are built in mellow terrain and have multiple features. Having them built like traditional ski jumps would require them to be placed on much steeper terrain, and drastically limit the features that can be built....pretty soon they wouldn't be terrain parks, they would be ski jumps. Ski jumping is a pretty dead aspect of the sport, compared to terrain parks that allow much more creativity, and allow a wider range of skill levels.

Would you guys see Chad's bulldozed because it is poorly designed?
post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
Would you guys see Chad's bulldozed because it is poorly designed?
Never happen. Public land. Built by random bros, not a corporation.
post #67 of 71
This is stupid. The resorts should not be held responsible for making their terrain features "safe." It is 100% the responsibility of the skier to determine the safety of the features. Any terrain feature, whether manmade or natural, can be made safe/unsafe depending on how the skier approaches it. It should not be the responsibility of the resort to determine how a skier chooses to ski a particular feature.

This is a perfect example of how messed up our legal system is. We have lost any sense of personal responsibility.
post #68 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
Has anyone heard that they are taking all the jumps out of Lake Louise because some jackass out West sued a resort for I believe $14 milion because they fell off a kicker and got AFU?
For your reading pleasure...
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showt...ghlight=sueing
post #69 of 71
Comment of the thread:


"The physics is simple and engineers and computers are cheap. Cheaper than $14M, anyway.

Letting employees build ad hoc jumps is dumb beyond words."
post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnythan View Post
Letting employees build ad hoc jumps is dumb beyond words."
And unethical.
post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
You're both thinking about ski jumps, as compared to terrain parks. There is no "inrun"...you can take any jump you want at virtually any speed, as the jumps are accessible from any point above them. Just about every terrain park I've seen could be hit too fast by someone intent on doing it. Most people have too much sense to hit a big jump at high speed without having figured out whether they can survive it first.

As far as designing the run out...again we're not talking about ski jumps. Most of them are built in mellow terrain and have multiple features. Having them built like traditional ski jumps would require them to be placed on much steeper terrain, and drastically limit the features that can be built....pretty soon they wouldn't be terrain parks, they would be ski jumps. Ski jumping is a pretty dead aspect of the sport, compared to terrain parks that allow much more creativity, and allow a wider range of skill levels.

Would you guys see Chad's bulldozed because it is poorly designed?
No, I'm not thinking about ski jumps.
Most terrain park features have an inrun. Not mandatory nor necessarily marked, but it's usualy clear enough from where and how you're supposed to launch your self.

Now, yes, if you want to hit a kicker too fast, you can.
And, yes, I don't know nothing about this particular kicker.

But I stand by my comment that in a terrain park (ie a man-made environment.) it's natural to expect a certain degree of safety. It's a totally different issue than "off piste" skiing, where you're on your own, totally reponsible of your choices and their consequences.
Flat landing after a cliff (or chad's gap) ? Your fault. Flat landing in the park ? Open to debate.
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 › The beginning of the end... Liability lawsuits against ski areas.