New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Nathan Hall? - Page 4

post #91 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by vail snopro:

Imagine if I, at 6'2", 215 #, normally free skiing at 40+ mph, were to hit a 100# person out on the hill. That person would certainly sustain greater injuries than likely I would. You can make the case that the average adult is likely to weigh 4-8 times that of a child. What chance does that child have to protect him/her self?
-------------------------

FASTMAN:

Your living on the edge snopro! Falls at 40 mph are generally violent and uncontrollable, and fall zones are very large. If you normally free ski at 40+ mph then you must at times pass close enough to other skiers to have them in your fall zone. Not to many empty slopes in Colo. From the things I've been reading in this thread God help you if while cruising around at the speeds you do you ever blow a shoe or take a freak fall and hit someone , Colorado might change your name from vail snopro to jail brohoe. :

I love Colorado, I have ever since I was 12 years old and attended a month long summer race camp and fell in love with the mountains there. I've returned many times since, lived there on 2 occasions and even coached in Summit County a few years ago. But with the legal atmosphere that seems to exists there now I can't see subjecting myself to the legal risk anymore. When I move back to the mountains I fear it will not be Colorado.
post #92 of 115
Fastman-
Of course I don't ski like that when in congested areas! That would be just as reckless as snowboarding under the influence.
And we have plenty of space here to let it rip. Just have to use common sense. (and by the way- 40 really isn't so fast, but it does get exciting if something goes wrong...)

And what legal risk are you referring to? If you don't screw up and hit somebody, what's the risk? As I said- use common sense, and everything 's cool.

:

[ March 28, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: vail snopro ]
post #93 of 115
Vail sno-pro and kima:

You want to know where the legal line is drawn???

Its at the point that the action becomes intentional. That is not allowed. That is criminal. Negligence is not criminal, nor a legal cause of tort action in a sporting context.

As for recklessness, that is something most people have no clue what it is. They think it is "going too fast". NO. that is not it. Recklessness is actually a form of intent, it requires not only a) that there is a very high likelihood of injury or loss of property (not merely an increased probability), and b) the actor knew, before taking the action, that such injury or loss of property was likely. An example would be, in a sporting context, aiming golf balls at a driving range, over the fence and onto interstate 80 during rush hour. That would really suck. That's criminal. But "going fast", or not stopping at a top of every knoll an hour after the lift lines closed (i.e., nathan hall's "crime") is not recklessness nor intentional. That is part of skiing.

Subjective opinions like "it depends how crowded it is", or "he doesn't really know how to ski" are totally irrelevant and not matters of law.

Another word for negligent is "accidental". There are certain, specific exceptions which pertain to influence of drugs and alcohol, for which civil (not criminal) causes of action may apply. Even here, this is not criminal, as there is no law against skiing under the influence. maybe there should be, as well as laws against sale or possession at a ski resort. But there isn't such a law. You might not like the fact that people ski drunk (I personally don't, and have never consumed a beer before or during skiing), but they do, and its legal.

And the automobile analogy is totally irrelevent. It doesn't apply. Laws against negligence and drinking in automobiles apply to automobiles, not skis. The duty in sport is to avoid intentional and reckless conduct (as per legal definition), not negligence. It is not only allowed, it is expected.
post #94 of 115
vailsnopro,

From reading your posts I know you have some background in racing so you will know that 40+ mph is average WC GS speed, and I'm sure you have seen falls in GS in which the racer is lauched so far upon crashing that coaches and gatekeepers have to scramble for their lives. I've had to make some pretty slick moves myself to avoid racers who got catapulted out of the course when I had thought I was well out of the fall zone. (Whiteface mountain at coaches corner on Thruway, girl went under my leap and right into the big wooden wall, ugly!)

The point is the slope doesn't have to be that congested to have someone, at some point, for a brief moment be in our fall zone. Draw a 100 foot parallel line to the outside of our arc line and I think we would all be surprised how fequently people are in our danger zone. At 40 mph 100 ft is covered in 1.7 seconds. There is the risk I refer to.

Look, I ski the same way you do, if I couldn't I wouldn't bother with the sport anymore, and I can't remember the last time I fell while free skiing. But I also know s**t happens and if per chance the freakish were to occure I don't like the idea that the result could be my being taken away in cuffs to a future of jail time and/or mega legal bills. There are other great mountains outside of Colorado where legal insanity is not running quite so rampant. In the mean time I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #95 of 115
Steve_s and fastman-

For two obviously educated individuals, I've never heard such paranoia about the criminal justice system. The legal system needs more work on tort reform than the criminal side of this equation. Civil charges get filed much more regularly than criminal charges. How many cases have there been where criminal charges have been filed over skier/boarder collisions? Very few!

The British skier, in the Breckenridge incident, was released when the investigation showed that there was no "recklessness" in the way he was skiing. It was an "accident". No fault. No charges. But the family is going after him in civil court.

Nathan Hall was a completely different scenario-. His indifference to the crowded run (lower Riva, right at a bottle neck, busy time of the day), the man made snow (much more slick), and his excessive speed put him into a situation where he could not control himself. It seems that this meets your criteria of recklessness. You can't argue he did not know the conditions (both snow and crowds), for he traveled that route from work every day. Therefore, he made a conscious decision to ski at the speed he was going. I don't even think it enters into the case that he had beer and pot (both illegal for him) in his backpack. I am not going to quote the toxicology reports, for I can't remember them. The victim's family didn't file civil charges against Hall, because they couldn't afford to.

And now this under age snowboarder. Allegedly under the influence, he rides into a base area frequented by beginner classes, adults and children. He doesn't manage to stay clear of the class of children, and hits several of them. With but one significant injury, he got really lucky. Doesn't this also qualify under your criteria of "recklessness"?

According to either the Skier Safety Act of Colorado, 1979, or Colorado Senate Bill 80, 1990, the act of skiing under the influence of either alcohol or narcotics is, in fact, illegal. So it seems (and I'm not a lawyer) that this contributing factor opens the flood gates of irresponsible behaviour, leading to recklessness. So I believe the car analogy is valid.

I'm sorry if you feel Colorado has become a NAZI state, with regard to protecting one of it's most popular past times. In fact, it is an industry leader in reforming the legalities of lawsuits that ran amuck during the 70's and 80's , causing the cost of skiing to skyrocket. You will do as you feel is right, it's your right. But don't let your paranoia get in the way of others having a good time.

:
post #96 of 115
It's not paranoia vailsnopro, just basic common sense. The chances of becoming involved in a legal incident on the ski slopes are very small, but then so are the chances of our homes burning down, yet most of us carry insurance to protect ourselves from that risk don't we.

The potential financial liabilities resulting from prosecution for a skiing accident (not to mention the unique risk of prison) can far surpass the value of a home so why voluntarily subject ourselves to the extra risk by vacationing or moving to a state that is demonstrating such a zealous rush to prosecute.

There are many great ski resorts outside of Colorado in which to enjoy the sport so it is certainly not irrational to consider them in light of the present litigious behavior within Colorado. One might even question the rationality of not making such considerations.

Colorado must understand when it chooses to pursue such a legal philosophy that there may be negative repercussions that result from their actions. Driving customers to less legally aggressive venues is one of those repercussions.

Perhaps when the evil government that has seized control of Colorado and is perpetrating such legal atrocities on it's people has been removed from power we freedom loving refugees can return to the mountains we so used to love.
post #97 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by FastMan:
...The point is the slope doesn't have to be that congested to have someone, at some point, for a brief moment be in our fall zone. Draw a 100 foot parallel line to the outside of our arc line and I think we would all be surprised how fequently people are in our danger zone. At 40 mph 100 ft is covered in 1.7 seconds. There is the risk I refer to. ...
Your logic in this paragraph is flawed because it is incomplete.

Yes, on an uncrowded trail, people will sometimes be in the fall zone of a fast skier, but the important points are that: (a) by assumption, there aren't many of these people, and (b) each will only be exposed to danger for a brief moment (as you correctly point out). The net result is that if a fast skier on an uncrowded slope falls at some random, uncontrollable point in time, the probability of him hitting someone is still small.

OTOH, for the same fast skier in a crowded area, the probability of hitting someone if he falls can approach unity. This is what is behind the common person's qualitative sense of whether or not someone else is subjecting them or their loved ones to unnecessary risk, ie, reckless behavior.

Of course, hot-shot, immature skiers will usually say that their probability of falling is negligible. More mature skiers know that this simply isn't true. Personally, I know that if I go slower in crowded zones, the length of my slide zone decreases, the number of people I sweep by per second decreases, our relative velocity decreases, and the probability of me falling in the first place decreases. The net result of these three factors is that I just vastly decreased the chances of me hurting anyone else. I'll take this trade-off any day over the slight increase in my own thrills/enjoyment if I don't slow down.

Tom / PM

PS - The example someone gave of spectators often being hit at race courses is a perfect example of the probability approaching unity for fast skiers on crowded slopes / sidelines. VSP's whole point is that he *wouldn't* be doing 40+ mph in an area where there were that many people on the side of a slope and not behind netting.
post #98 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
Quote:
Originally posted by FastMan:
[qb]...The point is the slope doesn't have to be that congested to have someone, at some point, for a brief moment be in our fall zone. Draw a 100 foot parallel line to the outside of our arc line and I think we would all be surprised how fequently people are in our danger zone. At 40 mph 100 ft is covered in 1.7 seconds. There is the risk I refer to. ...
PhysicsMan says:
Your logic in this paragraph is flawed because it is incomplete.

FastMan reply:
Well then Tom, let me complete the position for you because there is certainly no flaw in my thought process.

Yes, you are correct, the risk of hitting someone when taking a high speed fall on an uncrowded slope is minimal. That is precisely the risk. Sure, everyone knows to slow down on crowded slopes, that's responcible skiing 101. The real risk for the responcible expert skier is the freak fall while skiing fast on the uncrowded slope in which his trajectory carries him into one of those few other skiers on the slope.

From what I have seen recently of the legal mentality in Colorado, get a rope and ask questions latter, it's not the state I'd want to be skiing in if such an accident were to occure. There seems to be a speed "means lack of control" regardless of circumstances mentality there that presents a tangible legal risk to a skiers such as myself who like to ski fast even if we are doing so within a reasonalbe and prudent manner.
post #99 of 115
>...The real risk for the responcible expert skier is the freak
>fall while skiing fast on the uncrowded slope in which his
>trajectory carries him into one of those few other skiers on
>the slope. ...

Has there ever been a criminal prosecution in a case like this? I thought that both in the Hall case, and in the recent case of the kids' class, they both involved a fair number of people in the area of the collision? I thought the criminal case against the Brit was dropped because of the lack of evidence that he was skiing recklessly.

Personally, I would hope that if a guy going fast on a nearly empty slope falls and hits someone while sliding out of control, either no charges would be filed, or a jury of "reasonable people" would never convict him. This is truly an accident, IMHO.

If the same guy on the same uncrowded slope plows into someone because he was going too fast to see (and react to) what was ahead of him, then I think most people (Colorado or not) would say that he was skiing irresponsibly.

If the same guy doesn't slow down when skiing through an area with a lot of skiers around, and seriously injures someone, I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

Tom / PM

PS - I like to ski fast, too, BTW.

PPS - I worry *much* less about my 10 y.o. daughter's safety on steep blacks or double blacks than I do on greens and blues, even when the occasional person whizes by her. (Normally she is doing the whizzing-by [img]smile.gif[/img] ).
post #100 of 115
Fastman-
Time for a reality check.
The last time I checked, the Skier Safety Code was enforced(and upheld) by every state which has ski areas. So if you make the same mistake any where else, you don't think some one is going to come after you? Oh, it may not be the sheriff, but you can count on a civil suit.
And your finances will take a much greater beating in a civil case, than in any criminal case.

And since you seem to be assured that this IS going to happen to you, PLEASE go to another area. I don't want you to hit me!

Enjoy the rest of your season!

:
post #101 of 115
Oh contraire, vail sno pro man:

Civil suits are not allowed pursuant to the skier responsibility code. That was tested in California and upheld by the supreme court. (Cheong v. antablin 1997). The skier responsibility code therein (eldorado, alpine, placer counties), was deemed to no form the basis for a lawsuit under the theory of negligence per se. In this case, Antablin actually submitted a written statement at the time of the accident (and at deposition) at alpine meadows that he was going to fast, tried to slow down, and in doing so lost control, thereby causing said collision with Cheong, shattering his femur. As a matter of law, the supreme court here held that collisions were an inherent risk of skiing, and one assumes these risks and cannot sue. Cheong collected nothing. The skier responsibility code is just that, a code of responsibility that all skiers should follow. Both were expert skiers.

Nobody gets a dime in any of these cases, except the defense lawyers, of course.
post #102 of 115
bwaaaah hah hah, I'm laughing at everyone's willingness to engage in this discussion again, for 5 pages no less!

the more pertinent questions for EVERYONE are these:

1) now that a year has passed with its attendant potential for remorseful reflection, how is the ORIGINAL Nathan Hall responding to the relatively non-punishment nature of his "sentence"?

2) have we learned anything about the way the ORIGINAL Nathan Hall was treated?

3) given the answers to (1) and (2), does anyone want to change his/her opinion about what SHOULD HAVE BEEN the punishment for the ORIGINAL Nathan Hall?

thank you for actually taking this topic seriously and not using it for onanistic palabric vomitus.
post #103 of 115
Quote:
Civil suits are not allowed pursuant to the skier responsibility code.
Wrong again, smart guy. The "skier responsibility code" has no legal effect. You can't even get to the question of whether you can bring a suit "pursuant to the code" because it's a behavioral, respect-others SUGGESTION. It is not a law. It is not a statute. It is not a regulation. Your "conclusion" regarding its lawsuit value is a red herring.

Quote:
Nobody gets a dime in any of these cases, except the defense lawyers, of course.
oh great, another "let's blame it on the lawyers" person. thank you for opening your mouth (figuratively) to show that foolish thought. while you're pondering that "blame the lawyers" idea the next time around, why don't you think about this:

1. Do "defense lawyers" make people sue each other? If you think the answer is "yes," please explain.

2. Do you want to dismantle our legal system?

3. Do you think EVERY lawsuit is frivolous? If so, please explain how the involvement of "defense lawyers" created the frivolity.

People who blame "lawyers" as a general category of people responsible for an overbroad category of social ills should start to reevaluate their mental processes. A thorough reevaluation will reveal the huge logical and proof-based gaps in these ridiculous "blame the lawyers" theories, and IF DONE OBJECTIVELY will reveal that if ANY type of lawyer is responsible for increased social ills, it is the greedy PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER who is willing to create a mythical obligation where none exists - and all for the CONTINGENCY FEE that he/she gets, and this CONTINGENCY FEE does what its name suggest, and so the PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER is fully responsible for the DEGREE of exaggeration inherent in a bogus lawsuit.

How about them apples, Harvard boy?
post #104 of 115
[quote]Originally posted by gonzostrike:
[.

if ANY type of lawyer is responsible for increased social ills, it is the greedy PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER who is willing to create a mythical obligation where none exists - and all for the CONTINGENCY FEE that he/she gets, and this CONTINGENCY FEE does what its name suggest, and so the PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER is fully responsible for the DEGREE of exaggeration inherent in a bogus lawsuit.
--------------------------------

FASTMAN REPLY:
Your not going to get much disagreement on that opinion from the gallery Gonzo, perhaps the only contention would arise from that very segment of Plaintiff's Lawyers that do engage in such social parasitic behavior. Well said. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #105 of 115
snopro,

My god man, snap out of it!! You are in grave danger, especially SKIING THE WAY YOU DO, get out of there, save yourself while you can!! It's just a job for goodness sake, and you certainly don't make enough at it to justify putting your freedom at stake in order to keep it. Grab your skis, get in your car and head for the closest border of that damn "hang em high" state as fast as you can!! I'm truely worried about you there.

Seriously, your right though, a civil suit poses the greatest financial risk. We protect ourselves from such catastophic financial risk in other aspects of our lives with things such as auto insuracnce and home owners insurance, yet for some reason when we participate in a sport where there is an ever present risk of our causing serious injury to another person we mindlessly just shrug it off and leave ourselves financially exposed.

With the current atmosphere that exists in which the idea that skiing carries inherent risk is quickly being replaced by a mentality of thinking that for every accident that happens someone MUST be held legally accountable that risk of civil action can only be becoming more encouraged and ligitamized. Maybe back when I was a just a poor kid with little more to my name than my skis and the few bucks left over from last weeks paycheck that wouldn't have concerned me too much, but now that my financial position has changed the idea of putting in jeopardy all I have worked for is not an appealing thought.

And a frivolous lawsuit can also impose a significant drain on a persons recourses because of the legal fees required to defend ourselves from a bogus suit. Don't anyone lull yourself into a false sence of safety from such a case. Perhaps it's time we need to think about protecting ourselves with some sort of liability coverage if we are to subject ourselves to such financial risk. Any thoughts?
post #106 of 115
It's scary to think there are so many peopel out there who still think it's OK to hit others, so long as it's an "accident".

I hope they throw the book at that drunken snowboarder...jeez, if I'd been the instructor teaching those kids...it's sickening to even think about. 7 year olds, they're just past baby stage, some of them! My blood is boiling!

If Colorado want to get tough on this kind of reckless endangering of others' health and lives, then I'm all for it. I want it to be safe for those 7 year olds, and their grandparents, to enjoy this sport.

The slopes are NOT the sole preserve of the young and aggressive.
post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by ant:

I want it to be safe for those 7 year olds, and their grandparents, to enjoy this sport.

The slopes are NOT the sole preserve of the young and aggressive.[/QB]
--------------------------------

FASTMAN REPLY:

Ant, I think you should be up front with everyone and tell them of your position as the head of the National Ski Areas Association's pre school and nursing home new skier recruitment program.
post #108 of 115
Quote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Nobody gets a dime in any of these cases, except the defense lawyers, of course.
oh great, another "let's blame it on the lawyers" person. thank you for opening your mouth (figuratively) to show that foolish thought.</font>[/quote]Don't mind me, but the obvious point re the California Assumption of Risk case was that the plaintiff's attorney only stood to get paid if the case was won. It wasn't. The California Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
post #109 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by ShiftyRider:
Don't mind me, but the obvious point re the California Assumption of Risk case was that the plaintiff's attorney only stood to get paid if the case was won. It wasn't. The California Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
huh?

come again?

you misread my post, and you misunderstand the effect of working on a CONTINGENCY FEE.

it goes without saying that a plaintiff's personal injury attorney doesn't get paid if he loses - well, at least to the extent that his CONTINGENCY FEE is his pay. he still gets costs, etc., billed to and paid by the client.

what again was your point?
post #110 of 115
My point was that I believe you misread the "defense lawyer" sentence. I read it as a statement of fact, not an opinion on the value of legal representation.

Read this again: Nobody gets a dime in any of these cases, except the defense lawyers, of course. You called that a foolish thought. So who gets a dime, then, bsides the defense lawyers?
post #111 of 115
FASTMAN REPLY:

Ant, I think you should be up front with everyone and tell them of your position as the head of the National Ski Areas Association's pre school and nursing home new skier recruitment program.

well someone has to be so I guess Ant will work, I'm also amazed at the # of people here that think it's either okay or no big deal if you collide with someone, what I did find out though while skiing in utah is that utah has far fewer collisions than the resorts I usally ski in colorado.
bteddy
post #112 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by bteddy:

what I did find out though while skiing in utah is that utah has far fewer collisions than the resorts I usally ski in colorado.
bteddy[/QB]
-----------------------------

FASTMAN REPLY:

That's because the good skiers have moved the hell out of Colorado!! It's just people like ant and his grandparents left there, with snopro trying his futile damnedest to help them.
post #113 of 115
 I know this is 6 years old, but I have a philosphical question...  This took place on the bunny hill with beginners, should not the law take into account that they are beginners?  It should not be surprising that their are people that lose control, not because they are being irresponsible but because they are just learning!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kima View Post

Skier faces charges in deadly collision at Breckenridge created: March 03, 2003 - 7:39 AM
updated: March 03, 2003 - 7:40 AM
Written By: Web Producer Susan Wells
BRECKENRIDGE – A British man remains in the Summit County Jail Monday and is facing charges after a deadly collision on a beginner run at Breckenridge.

Richard Henrichs, 56, of Naperville, Ill., died at Swedish Hospital of massive internal injuries Sunday night.

The accident happened Sunday around 1:30 p.m.

Henrichs was skiing on Peak 9 when according to witness reports, Robert Wills, 31 of England, collided with him. Henrichs then skied into a tree. Wills faces charges of first-degree assault and reckless endangerment. He is being held in lieu of $15,100 bond. The Summit County Sheriff’s Department is trying to reach the British Embassy concerning the case.

An investigation is underway to determine what happened and if Wills was skiing out of control.

Hendricks, who was not wearing a helmet, suffered several injuries, including a hip fracture and a head injury, the sheriff's office said.

Hendricks' death is the 13th ski-slope death this season.

In a separate incident, a man died at Keystone over the weekend, but it appears his death was from a medical condition that caused his heart to stop.

The ski patrol responded when they heard the man was having chest pains. They performed CPR and called for Flight for Life, but it was too late.

The man was 36 years old and his name has not been released.
post #114 of 115
Is antablin still in effect?  Sure accidents are inherent in skiing, but accidents are inherent in almost anything.  Accidents are inherent in driving, even just walking for christ's sake.  You can be walking down the sidewalk, trip, crack your skull open and die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevescho View Post

Oh contraire, vail sno pro man:

Civil suits are not allowed pursuant to the skier responsibility code. That was tested in California and upheld by the supreme court. (Cheong v. antablin 1997). The skier responsibility code therein (eldorado, alpine, placer counties), was deemed to no form the basis for a lawsuit under the theory of negligence per se. In this case, Antablin actually submitted a written statement at the time of the accident (and at deposition) at alpine meadows that he was going to fast, tried to slow down, and in doing so lost control, thereby causing said collision with Cheong, shattering his femur. As a matter of law, the supreme court here held that collisions were an inherent risk of skiing, and one assumes these risks and cannot sue. Cheong collected nothing. The skier responsibility code is just that, a code of responsibility that all skiers should follow. Both were expert skiers.

Nobody gets a dime in any of these cases, except the defense lawyers, of course.
post #115 of 115
Common sense should tell you that you can catch a edge and fall at ANY POINT.  Look at the olympics, a Olympic LEVEL skier fell flat on her face just going out of the start gate.  So common sense should tell you to never be close enough to someone such that if you fall you will hit them, either avoid them OR SLOW DOWN! so if you fall you wont slide into them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post

Fastman-
Of course I don't ski like that when in congested areas! That would be just as reckless as snowboarding under the influence.
And we have plenty of space here to let it rip. Just have to use common sense. (and by the way- 40 really isn't so fast, but it does get exciting if something goes wrong...)

And what legal risk are you referring to? If you don't screw up and hit somebody, what's the risk? As I said- use common sense, and everything 's cool.

:

[ March 28, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: vail snopro ]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion