# Windham Mountain sued over skier's death



## Nick (Oct 2, 2013)

Via First Tracks

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...kier-death-prompts-lawsuit/?utm_source=feedly

Lawsuit claims negligence on trail maintenance. Click the link for more info.


----------



## WoodCore (Oct 2, 2013)

Really?????


----------



## dmc (Oct 2, 2013)

there's a special place in hell for people that sue ski areas...


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 2, 2013)

There's not enough information to say that he has a case or that he does not.


----------



## Nick (Oct 2, 2013)

What kind of trail conditions would make the operator negligent? I mean what would it take to really be considered negligent. Because I've skied across things I didn't see coming but always just assumed it came with the territory (like small streams running under the snow or snow whales)


----------



## dmc (Oct 2, 2013)

I WAS friends with a guy that sued Hunter...
He was coming down Ike - hit a whale to catch air(early season) - fell and slide into a snow gun and broke some bones...
Now the week before we were in Jackson jumping into Corbetts..  guy was no slouch of a skier...  he just made a mistake..

He's no longer my friend...  And was banned from Hunter...   I saw him last year and notified security...  
F that BS....


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 2, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> There's not enough information to say that he has a case or that he does not.



I agree with this. There may or may not be grounds to sue. I do not like the blanket statement that "there's a special place in hell for people that sue ski areas". If there is faulty maintenance on a lift and an issue occurs and people are hurt or if they place faulty features in a terrain park (rusted falling apart features etc.)


----------



## tnt (Oct 2, 2013)

Nick said:


> What kind of trail conditions would make the operator negligent? I mean what would it take to really be considered negligent. Because I've skied across things I didn't see coming but always just assumed it came with the territory (like small streams running under the snow or snow whales)



I would think it would have to be something like leaving a snow gun hose laying across a green trail, obscured by snowfall, or say parking a snow cat around a blind corner on a steep trail, or something just obviously idiotic.

Maybe if a tree falls in a wind storm across a high traffic trail and they don't close it....

I would think any advanced trail, particularly with danger signage, where obstacles are to be expected couldn't lead to a suit, but groomed trails where you expect high traffic and on which low to mid level skiers can reasonably expect to have an obstacle-free trail to ski you might have an issue if you don't police it.

Honestly, the people I think that should get sued now and then are the reckless skiers.  

I was standing in the middle of an intermediate trail about ten years ago, just standing there.  Here a scream, look uphill.  A kid going dead straight, right at me, nailed me chest to chest, his arms wide open, kind of bear hugging me.  Knocked me clean out of my skis - skis literally didn't move! - and we tumbled down about 30 feet.

Crazy.

But I suppose that is part of the risk too, right?


----------



## tnt (Oct 2, 2013)

dmc said:


> I WAS friends with a guy that sued Hunter...
> He was coming down Ike - hit a whale to catch air(early season) - fell and slide into a snow gun and broke some bones...
> Now the week before we were in Jackson jumping into Corbetts..  guy was no slouch of a skier...  he just made a mistake..
> 
> ...



That's just crazy - I mean, the guy was looking for air...  I don't understand that mentality at all.


----------



## dmc (Oct 2, 2013)

tnt said:


> That's just crazy - I mean, the guy was looking for air...  I don't understand that mentality at all.



It's all about making $$$....  F that...


----------



## dlague (Oct 2, 2013)

Well I do not like the fact that the guys wife points out that he was a good skier - like good skiers never make mistakes!  I ski with plenty of good skiers who take more chances than most skiers.  They generally have the skills to pull it off but get hurt once in a while and could have died!  

Does that warrant suing a ski area? No!  People like to blame their poor judgement on others if something goes wrong!  Saying someone is a good skier does not mean shit!

We certainly do not know the details in this case from the tiny article but I bet we would all be surprised if we knew all the lawsuits resorts face each year - much of it stupid stuff!


----------



## wintersyndrome (Oct 2, 2013)

I stopped reading at Staten Island.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 2, 2013)

Suing a ski area because your husband died their?  If I died on the slopes I'd be perfectly happy.


----------



## dmc (Oct 2, 2013)

ss20 said:


> Suing a ski area because your husband died their?  If I died on the slopes I'd be perfectly happy.



A friend of mine dropped dead on Eisenhower at Hunter...  
heart attack...  Dude was in great shape....  but yeah...  why not die skiing...


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 2, 2013)

Not a good situation.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Oct 2, 2013)

I do not agree with the blanket statement of "there is a special place in hell....." either for suing a ski area. That basically means you are saying the skier is always 100% at fault. In Colorado, ski areas lobbied successfully to have the "Colorado Ski and Safety Act" created in the late 70's to protect them lawsuits. You can read the whole thing here if you're bored, but in a nutshell it says that skiing is an inherently dangerous sport, and that no matter in what manner you get hurt or killed while skiing, the ski area isn't liable. 

This article here shows how a kid was killed in an inbound avalanche last year at Vail because while the upper gate was closed, the lower gate was NOT. Does that make the ski area liable? 

Vail Resorts has an indemnification clause in there season pass agreement that says if you sue them and lose, you have to recoup their legal fees. A woman at Vail was hurt a couple years ago when she was skiing over a bridge and there was a piece of metal skiing out that gouged deep into her leg. When she sued Vail, they charged $102,000 against her for legal fees. Vail tried to do the same to the mother who lost her son. Talk about rubbing salt into the wound, especially considering that Vail was at least SOMEWHAT liable for having the lower gate open. If there is a special place in hell, it is for Vail Resorts.


----------



## dlague (Oct 2, 2013)

Personally our country is lawsuit happy!  I love the class action law suits that get the claimants $4.50 each and the legal firm scored huge to the tune of $100 million.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 2, 2013)

dlague said:


> Personally our country is lawsuit happy!  I love the class action law suits that get the claimants $4.50 each and the legal firm scored huge to the tune of $100 million.



Lawyers have to add their value..... that's why I think most are like parasites in this society.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 2, 2013)

skiNEwhere said:


> In Colorado, ski areas lobbied successfully to have the "Colorado Ski and Safety Act" created in the late 70's to protect them lawsuits.



Many states have skier safety acts, not just Colorado, but just to clarify: those laws don't protect ski areas from lawsuits. _Anyone_ can sue _anyone_ for _anything_. What the skier safety acts provide is a viable defense to a resort for risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Whether or not the act protects the ski area in a particular case is for a trier of fact to decide, either the judge (in the case of a summary judgment motion) or a jury if the case goes to verdict. Even if the resort wins, indemnification clauses not withstanding, the resort (or more accurately, its insurer) faces legal expenses to defend a case.

This kind of stuff is actually what I do for a living when I'm not editing FTO.



skiNEwhere said:


> Vail Resorts has an indemnification clause in there season pass  agreement that says if you sue them and lose, you have to recoup their  legal fees.



And good luck collecting those fees. You can't get blood from a stone, and in most cases the defendant will agree to waive collecting fees/costs in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing not to appeal.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 2, 2013)

jack97 said:


> Lawyers have to add their value..... that's why I think most are like parasites in this society.



Thanks.  Appreciate the endorsement.  Of course, god forbid something should happen to you or a loved one, and you'll be running to consult said parasites. Who else does the widow turn to when she suddenly loses her husband and is left destitute.  I'm sure she's more concerned with putting food on her table and keeping a roof over her head, than whether someone who doesn't even know her, thinks she shouldn't protect her rights.  And there is no amount of money that can make up for the loss of a spouse or a father.  I'm pretty sure the widow isn't jumping for joy at her good fortune.

what needs to be understood is there is something called a statute of limitations, which in New York is 2 years for wrongful death causes of action.  But you can't start an action until a representative is appointed by the surrogates as part of the estate proceedings.  the lawyer has to file the lawsuit before the statute runs or be forever barred.  And you can't do any real investigation until the representative is appointed. even if there is some doubt whether the claim will ultimately be successful, the suit has to be filed.

that being said, the law is highly favorable to the ski resort.  The skier assumes the risk of any hazard inherent in the sport, and the resort is immune from liability.  From the little we know, this case has little chance of success.  If you take the time to read the statute which is very similar to those in most states, you'll see that the law is pretty generous to the resorts.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 2, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> Thanks.  Appreciate the endorsement.  Of course, god forbid something should happen to you or a loved one, and you'll be running to consult said parasites. Who else does the widow turn to when she suddenly loses her husband and is left destitute.  I'm sure she's more concerned with putting food on her table and keeping a roof over her head, than whether someone who doesn't even know her, thinks she shouldn't protect her rights.  And there is no amount of money that can make up for the loss of a spouse or a father.  I'm pretty sure the widow isn't jumping for joy at her good fortune.
> 
> what needs to be understood is there is something called a statute of limitations, which in New York is 2 years for wrongful death causes of action.  But you can't start an action until a representative is appointed by the surrogates as part of the estate proceedings.  the lawyer has to file the lawsuit before the statute runs or be forever barred.  And you can't do any real investigation until the representative is appointed. even if there is some doubt whether the claim will ultimately be successful, the suit has to be filed.
> 
> that being said, the law is highly favorable to the ski resort.  The skier assumes the risk of any hazard inherent in the sport, and the resort is immune from liability.  From the little we know, this case has little chance of success.  If you take the time to read the statute which is very similar to those in most states, you'll see that the law is pretty generous to the resorts.




hmmm...wonder what your profession is?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Oct 2, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> Many states have skier safety acts, not just Colorado, but just to clarify: those laws don't protect ski areas from lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. What the skier safety acts provide is a viable defense to a resort for risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Whether or not the act protects the ski area in a particular case is for a trier of fact to decide, either the judge (in the case of a summary judgment motion) or a jury if the case goes to verdict. Even if the resort wins, indemnification clauses not withstanding, the resort (or more accurately, its insurer) faces legal expenses to defend a case.



If you want to get technical, it does not prevent ski areas from lawsuits, but it does give them a defense against these lawsuits by saying the plaintiff accepted that skiing is inherently a dangerous sport. The Colorado Ski Act contains the following excerpt "'Inherent dangers and risks of skiing' means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including *but not limited to*", which works greatly in the ski area's benefit since there is essentially no lateral limit to what falls out the inherit dangers and risks. So yes, you can sue, but this wording making it's much more difficult to prove that their injury was caused outside of the "inherent dangers" of the sport, and actually win their lawsuit.




First Tracks said:


> And good luck collecting those fees. You can't get blood from a stone, and in most cases the defendant will agree to waive collecting fees/costs in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing not to appeal.



My point exactly, a classic intimidation tactic. Even if the plaintiff has a case where the defendant might have fell outside of the extremely broad definition of "inherit risks" (like Vail not removing or fixing a broken piece of metal jutting out from a bridge on a marked trail) , the mountain threatens them to pay for legal fees if they lose their case, and in this case, that plaintiff chose not to appeal, but in the end she was still stuck with the medical bill to remove the metal from her leg. It's lose-lose either way, even though the resort MAY have been somewhat liable.

Whether you crash into a tree, or fall into a previously covered toxic fumarole*, the ski area can fall back to the act to cover themselves, even if there was negligence

Being from Utah, had you heard about this ruling?

It stated that ski operators are not at liberty to "use pre-injury releases to significantly pare back or even eliminate their need to purchase the very liability insurance the Act was designed to make affordable."

Sounds exactly like what some ski area's have been doing...





*Yes I'm alluding to the incident at Mammoth, and yes, I'm aware that it was the ski patrol affected, not the actual skiers, I'm just making a hypothetical point though


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 2, 2013)

skiNEwhere said:


> If you want to get technical, it does not prevent ski areas from lawsuits, but it does give them a defense against these lawsuits by saying the plaintiff accepted that skiing is inherently a dangerous sport.



That's not a mere technicality, it's an important and relevant fact to this discussion. The bottom line is that resorts are left paying to defend lawsuits, whether frivolous or not. The act does absolutely nothing to eliminate that, as I've described above.



skiNEwhere said:


> The Colorado Ski Act contains the following excerpt "'Inherent dangers and risks of skiing' means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including *but not limited to*", which works greatly in the ski area's benefit since there is essentially no lateral limit to what falls out the inherit dangers and risks.



That statement is patently false. Losing control and colliding with a stationary object that in any reasonable expectation would be part of a ski resort -- i.e., a tree, a lift tower, another skier, etc. -- is an inherent risk to the sport and the act thus provides a defense (but again, _does not prevent lawsuits_). Being injured in such a way that the resort could be held to be negligent even if the sport of skiing was not involved -- i.e., being injured when a lift malfunctions due to negligent maintenance -- would not likely result in valid defense for the resort under the act. So yes, there _is_ a limit.



skiNEwhere said:


> Even if the plaintiff has a case where the defendant might have fell outside of the extremely broad definition of "inherit risks" (like Vail not removing or fixing a broken piece of metal jutting out from a bridge on a marked trail) , the mountain threatens them to pay for legal fees if they lose their case, and in this case, that plaintiff chose not to appeal, but in the end she was still stuck with the medical bill to remove the metal from her leg. It's lose-lose either way, even though the resort MAY have been somewhat liable.



Is that a real case, or something that you're making up? If it's the former I'd like to review the FindLaw reference, please.



skiNEwhere said:


> Whether you crash into a tree, or fall into a previously covered toxic fumarole, the ski area can fall back to the act to cover themselves, even if there was negligence



Again, a patently false statement. How is the resort negligent when a guest loses control and crashes into a tree? The only fumarole example I can recall is the incident at Mammoth Mountain, when a fumarole (a natural geologic feature, not something created by the resort, and _something that did not previously exist_) opened and a patroller came upon it and died of toxic poisoning. It was subsequently roped off and no guests that I'm aware of were involved in any incidents involving said fumarole, so your fumarole example is purely hypothetical and therefore offers no insight to this discussion.

Why do I feel like I'm eating red herring for dinner tonight?



skiNEwhere said:


> Being from Utah, had you heard about this ruling?



Yes, I have. In _Rothstein v. Snowbird_ the Supreme Court Justices made my point enunciated above rather nicely, actually, when they wrote in their decision:



> The Act is most clearly not, as Snowbird contends, intended to protect  ski area operators by limiting their liability exposure generally.   It  is rather a statute that is intended to clarify those inherent risks of  skiing to which liability will not attach so that ski resort operators  may obtain insurance coverage to protect them from those risks that are  not inherent to skiing.



And, in fact, contrary to your assertion the Court found that Snowbird's liability release was counter to public policy and therefore not enforceable:



> ...we hold that the release and indemnify agreements Mr. Rothstein signed  per Snowbird's request are contrary to the public policy of this state  and are, therefore, unenforceable.



The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's granting of Snowbird's motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for trial. I'm therefore somewhat perplexed at why you chose to cite _Rothstein v. Snowbird_ to prove your point, as it rather proves the opposite. In _Rothstein v. Snowbird_, Mr. Rothstein was allowed to take his negligence action against Snowbird to a jury of his peers.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Oct 2, 2013)

Well this is turning into a completely different thread on ski law, not my intent at all. I'll finish up here.



First Tracks said:


> That's not a mere technicality, it's an important and relevant fact to this discussion. The bottom line is that resorts are left paying to defend lawsuits, whether frivolous or not. The act does absolutely nothing to eliminate that, as I've described above.



It does not eliminate it, but if a potential plaintiff feels they have a case and consults a ski lawyer, they will bring this act up, which MAY deter them from suing in the first place. That's what I mean when I said it protects them from lawsuits.




First Tracks said:


> Losing control and colliding with a stationary object that in any reasonable expectation would be part of a ski resort -- i.e., a tree, a lift tower, another skier, etc. -- is an inherent risk to the sport and the act thus provides a defense (but again, does not prevent lawsuits). Being injured in such a way that the resort could be held to be negligent even if the sport of skiing was not involved -- i.e., being injured when a lift malfunctions due to negligent maintenance -- would not likely result in valid defense for the resort under the act. So yes, there is a limit.



"Likely" being the key work. Due to the ambiguous wording of the act, ski areas have a lot of leverage and use that ambiguity in there favor. A lift malfunctioning due to negligence is likely the ski area's fault, but due to the wording of the act, they can pressure the victims not to sue.

My main point was in my first post in this thread, to paraphrase, a 13 year old kid was killed by an inbounds avalanche at Vail because while the upper gate was closed, the lower gate was NOT. Is this a resonable expectation? I don't want an answer to that.....I'm not trying to win individual cases, I'm trying to prove that Vail uses the act and the indemification clause to intimidate the mother not to sue, when Vail MAY have been liable.



First Tracks said:


> Is that a real case, or something that you're making up? If it's the former I'd like to review the FindLaw reference, please.



Yes



First Tracks said:


> Again, a patently false statement. How is the resort negligent when a guest loses control and crashes into a tree? The only fumarole example I can recall is the incident at Mammoth Mountain, when a fumarole that did not exist opened and a patroller came upon it and died of toxic poisoning. It was subsequently roped off and no guests that I'm aware of were involved in any incidents involving said fumarole.



You're missing my comparison between a scenario which the act is intended to cover and "protect" the ski area from liability (skier loses control and crashes into a tree) vs a POTENTIAL scenario where liability is vague, but the ski area can use the act to defend itself and the indemnification clause to intimidate the plaintiff. 

FYI, I edited that post 5-10 minutes after I posted it with an "*" stating that I'm aware no skiers were killed in that incident, but ski patrollers instead. 



My point.....

Ski area's use this act and indemnification clauses to protect themselves, in clear cut cases of inherent risks such as hitting a tree, but also in cases where they COULD be found liable, but use this to intimidate plaintiffs.

I didn't intend on getting into a full fledged legal debate on a ski forum. If you wish to continue I'm fine with taking it on debate.org

If you're bored, you can rip through the other thread


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 2, 2013)

skiNEwhere said:


> Well this is turning into a completely different thread on ski law, not my intent at all.



Well, you _are_ the one who brought it up before I chimed in, after all.



skiNEwhere said:


> First Tracks said:
> 
> 
> > Being injured in such a way that the resort  could be held to be negligent even if the sport of skiing was not  involved -- i.e., being injured when a lift malfunctions due to  negligent maintenance -- would not likely result in valid defense for  the resort under the act.
> ...



The reason that I used the word "likely" is because as anyone is aware, any jury verdict is ultimately a crapshoot. Any attorney who tells you otherwise isn't worth talking to. My use of the word "likely" had nothing to do with any perceived "ambiguity" in Colorado's Skier Safety Act.



skiNEwhere said:


> I'm trying to prove that Vail uses the act and the indemification clause to intimidate the mother not to sue, when Vail MAY have been liable.



You call it intimidation, I call it employing a valid legal defense. Any reasonable entity, be that an individual or corporation, is going to employ any viable defense available when confronted -- that's normal. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, do you grab your gun to defend your family, or do you ignore your gun in the drawer because you believe that violence is wrong?



skiNEwhere said:


> First Tracks said:
> 
> 
> > Is that a real case, or something that you're  making up? If it's the former I'd like to review the FindLaw reference,  please.
> ...



You earlier wrote, "(like Vail not removing or fixing a broken piece of metal jutting out from a bridge on a marked trail)". Nowhere in the decision on _Parsons v. Vail_ (and yes, I just read it word for word) does it indicate that the bracket in question was a) "broken," or b) "jutting out from the bridge." That appears to be your embellishment -- it may be true or it may not be, but it's not addressed in the cite provided. All it says on point is that, "Plaintiff further alleges she suffered a deep gash to the inside right (sic) of her left knee from an impact with a protruding metal bracket on the skier's left wall of the bridge while her skis remained on and parallel to the wall." In fact, the decision goes on to say, "Defendant challenges the mechanics of the accident and thus, the issue of whether the injury was caused by the bracket remains disputed." Frankly, I find it hard to fathom how you could injure the _inside_ of your knee when the bracket, if broken and protruding, would have to come into contact with the _outside_ of your knee if you collided with it as you were skiing past.



skiNEwhere said:


> You're missing my comparison between a scenario which the act is intended to cover and "protect" the ski area from liability (skier loses control and crashes into a tree) vs a POTENTIAL scenario where liability is vague, but the ski area can use the act to defend itself and the indemnification clause to intimidate the plaintiff.



No, I'm not missing your comparison at all. It was in fact you that earlier used the example of striking a tree to show how unjust the ski industry is:



			
				skiNEwhere said:
			
		

> Whether you crash into a tree, or fall into a previously covered toxic  fumarole, the ski area can fall back to the act to cover themselves,  even if there was negligence



Now you indicate that a skier losing control and crashing into a tree is "a scenario which the act is intended to cover and 'protect' the ski area from liability." Hmm...I'm confused. 



skiNEwhere said:


> I didn't intend on getting into a full fledged legal debate on a ski forum



Nor did I, but I wasn't going to let your unsupported generalizations:



skiNEwhere said:


> In Colorado, ski areas lobbied successfully to have the "Colorado Ski  and Safety Act" created in the late 70's to protect them lawsuits. You  can read the whole thing here  if you're bored, but in a nutshell it says that skiing is an inherently  dangerous sport, and that no matter in what manner you get hurt or  killed while skiing, the ski area isn't liable.



...go unchallenged. If you're taking your ball and going home, I guess we're done.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Oct 3, 2013)

First Tracks said:


> No, I'm not missing your comparison at all. It was in fact you that earlier used the example of striking a tree to show how unjust the ski industry is



Yes, you are.

This is what I said 


			
				skiNEwhere said:
			
		

> You're missing my comparison between a scenario which the act is intended to cover and "protect" the ski area from liability (skier loses control and crashes into a tree) vs a POTENTIAL scenario where liability is vague, but the ski area can use the act to defend itself and the indemnification clause to intimidate the plaintiff.


 
I'll break down what I meant in parenthesis, again.

Whether you crash into a tree (obvious, clear cut example of ski area NOT being liable due to the inherent danger of the sport) or fall into a previously covered toxic fumarole [hypothetical example where liablility is unclear, the ski area can fall back to the act to cover themselves, even if there was negligence (alluding to the toxic fumarole example, depending on the circumstances)]

I don't know where you got the impression I thought this was injust. I used this to make a point that this is what the act IS intended for. 



First Tracks said:


> You earlier wrote, "(like Vail not removing or fixing a broken piece of metal jutting out from a bridge on a marked trail)". Nowhere in the decision on Parsons v. Vail (and yes, I just read it word for word) does it indicate that the bracket in question was a) broken, or b) jutting out from the bridge. That appears to be your embellishment -- it may be true or it may not be, but it's not addressed in the cite provided. All it says on point is that, "Plaintiff further alleges she suffered a deep gash to the inside right (sic) of her left knee from an impact with a protruding metal bracket on the skier's left wall of the bridge while her skis remained on and parallel to the wall."



Nowhere in there either does it say the size of the bracket....1 inch, 3 inches, 6 inches....If there is anythign inaccurate about what I said, it's that it's a bracket, not a metal rod, because I didn't realize I was on trial yet and needed to paint a perfectly clear picture. Both can cause the same amount of damage, and in this case, she DID get hurt, so you shouldn't be getting hellbent on it being broken or jutting out, it shouldn't have been there regardless, covered up or marked at a minimum though.




First Tracks said:


> Nor did I, but I wasn't going to let your unsupported generalizations go unchallenged.



As far as generalization, I figured everyone didn't feel like reading the ski act, so I summarized it, but I included the hyperlink to the source. Unsupported? <sarcasm>You're right I haven't provided a link to a single legitimate source.</sarcasm>

My point was that I felt like ski area's abused the act and the terms in the season pass agrements to have a "valid legal defense" (your terms) Do you have an argument, other than attempting to refute every point I make?

And as far as unsupported generalizations, I have yet to see you find a single source to support your position, whatever that might be.



First Tracks said:


> If you're taking your ball and going home, I guess we're done.



No, rather going to a different court (debate.org as stated in my last post)




It needs to be ski season already.......


----------



## Gsantollo (Oct 3, 2013)

I remember when this happened. It was a sad stretch Windham had 3 in two years I believe. Including one on wedgie that they have since renamed World Cup


----------



## Stache (Oct 3, 2013)

FWIW and back to the original incident. "Upper Warpath" is, or was, the "Most Difficult" Blue Square on the mountain. Equal in pitch to "Why Not" the "Easiest" Black Diamond. A short steep pitch that many Intermediates tested themselves on before going to a "real" Black Diamond trail. It was often skied off and icy but that still means a skier or snowboarder must stay within their ability, constantly looking ahead and being aware of situations. I can think of no on snow hazard that is not the skier's responsibility to avoid. This includes a jagged piece of metal sticking out in your path or even a snowcat parked around a "blind corner". That said, if there is an incident with a lift, then THAT IS the resorts responsibility, shy of some idiot not sitting still putting the bar down and then falling out of the chair.


----------



## Gsantollo (Oct 3, 2013)

Warpath isn't as steep as the two sections of why not that get real steep


----------



## jack97 (Oct 3, 2013)

Stache said:


> FWIW and back to the original incident. "Upper Warpath" is, or was, the "Most Difficult" Blue Square on the mountain. Equal in pitch to "Why Not" the "Easiest" Black Diamond. A short steep pitch that many Intermediates tested themselves on before going to a "real" Black Diamond trail. It was often skied off and icy but that still means a skier or snowboarder must stay within their ability, constantly looking ahead and being aware of situations. I can think of no on snow hazard that is not the skier's responsibility to avoid. This includes a jagged piece of metal sticking out in your path or even a snowcat parked around a "blind corner". That said, if there is an incident with a lift, then THAT IS the resorts responsibility, shy of some idiot not sitting still putting the bar down and then falling out of the chair.



http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2013/09/staten_island_forensic_experts.html


Here's the article and a hint of what the legal defense is claiming. IMO, what's going to come from this is either higher lift ticket cost or more warning signs on the slopes. Any time you see a sign saying "moguls" on a mogul field, you know what motivated this. 

BTW......yes,  skiing is a dangerous activity and it is tragic when a death occurs. From my pov, its the choice I made and would not burden others with my choice. 

BTW2..... I plan on going skydiving as soon an my daughter is set with college tuition. Again, its my choice and I am aware of the risks and will do what I can to mitigate these risk.


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

skiNEwhere said:


> I do not agree with the blanket statement of "there is a special place in hell....."



Too bad...  I stand by it...


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 3, 2013)

dmc said:


> Too bad...  I stand by it...



I believe there is a special place in hell for any company that sells a service or product and then is negligent with the up keep of their service or product or place of business. I also believe that skiing is a dangerous activity and that sometimes (most of the time) the skier is at fault.


----------



## Nick (Oct 3, 2013)

jack97 said:


> http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2013/09/staten_island_forensic_experts.html
> BTW2..... I plan on going skydiving as soon an my daughter is set with college tuition. Again, its my choice and I am aware of the risks and will do what I can to mitigate these risk.



I want to go skydiving again. It's been 10 years. SO much fun.


----------



## Nick (Oct 3, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> I believe there is a special place in hell for any company that sells a service or product and then is negligent with the up keep of their service or product or place of business. I also believe that skiing is a dangerous activity and that sometimes (most of the time) the skier is at fault.



I think it's hard to make it a blanket statement but generally speaking I agree. However there is that gray area in all things where responsibility isn't clear.


----------



## nomad (Oct 3, 2013)

I've skied at Windham... it's about the _least_ dangerous resort I've been to. It is certainly a beginner ski area, and beginners need to understand their limits - especially once they start to 'improve'. I'm guessing this guy thought he was hot shit on that tiny hill and messed up as a result. People need to be responsible for themselves.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 3, 2013)

Nick said:


> I think it's hard to make it a blanket statement but generally speaking I agree. However there is that gray area in all things where responsibility isn't clear.



Hit a tree my fault. Chair lift falls to the ground ski area's fault. I fall on a mogul run - my fault. I hit a cable or chunk of metal under the snow and wipe out - ski areas fault.


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> Hit a tree my fault. Chair lift falls to the ground ski area's fault. I fall on a mogul run - my fault. I hit a cable or chunk of metal under the snow and wipe out - ski areas fault.



fair enough..   
But I still say that anyone that sues a ski area because they suck or made a mistake - deserves a special place in hell...


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 3, 2013)

dmc said:


> fair enough..
> But I still say that anyone that sues a ski area because they suck or made a mistake - deserves a special place in hell...



Agreed


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 3, 2013)

Yeah, there are only a few situations where I'd personally sue.  I've had a couple of close calls with mountain employees driving snowmobiles recklessly.  If a collision had occurred due to that recklessness, I'd want some compensation if I were injured. 

dmc, why was your buddy banned from Hunter?  I don't think banning someone due to a lawsuit is right.


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> dmc, why was your buddy banned from Hunter?  I don't think banning someone due to a lawsuit is right.



I think sometimes ski areas settle out of court and tell people to stay away as part of the "out of court" deal...

I don't press people to understand how Hunter handles this kind of thing...  

He's not even remotely my "buddy" anymore...  He's shunned by all of us...


----------



## tnt (Oct 3, 2013)

dmc said:


> I think sometimes ski areas settle out of court and tell people to stay away as part of the "out of court" deal...
> 
> I don't press people to understand how Hunter handles this kind of thing...
> 
> He's not even remotely my "buddy" anymore...  He's shunned by all of us...



I could see how the mountain wouldn't want some one bragging about a settlement on their property.

And really, if you believe that the company did you wrong, why would you want to patronize them....

That's a drag though.


----------



## C-Rex (Oct 3, 2013)

tnt said:


> Honestly, the people I think that should get sued now and then are the reckless skiers.
> 
> *I was standing in the middle of an intermediate trail about ten years ago, just standing there.* Here a scream, look uphill. A kid going dead straight, right at me, nailed me chest to chest, his arms wide open, kind of bear hugging me. Knocked me clean out of my skis - skis literally didn't move! - and we tumbled down about 30 feet.
> 
> ...



Not to derail but this bothered me. Not that it removes responsibility from the out of control skier, but you shouldn't have been standing in the middle of a trail. I mean, you wouldn't stand in the middle of the street and not expect to get hit by a car. Just because it is the responsibility of those uphill to yield to those downhill doesn't mean those downhill are free to create an unsafe situation.  Use your head.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Oct 3, 2013)




----------



## C-Rex (Oct 3, 2013)

skiNEwhere said:


>



Indeed.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 3, 2013)

As long as we are  better than sitting in the middle of a trail like a snowboarder :-D


----------



## dlague (Oct 3, 2013)

There are a number of dangerous scenarios that occur everyday due to skiers and snowboarders making bad choices.  Sitting in the middle of a trail does piss me off, but what gets me more are those who decide to go down advanced terrain and have no business there and either snow plow all over the place or side slip down on their edges (both skiers and snowboarders).  You shoot down a trail like this and if there is any traffic bad things can unfold!

Unfortunately many beginners who do that, do not know the code of responsibility - my guess!


----------



## Edd (Oct 3, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> Not to derail but this bothered me. Not that it removes responsibility from the out of control skier, but you shouldn't have been standing in the middle of a trail. I mean, you wouldn't stand in the middle of the street and not expect to get hit by a car. Just because it is the responsibility of those uphill to yield to those downhill doesn't mean those downhill are free to create an unsafe situation.  Use your head.



Old debate. As long as you're visible from a good distance uphill I think it's fine to stop.  Granted, you might get hit by an out of control skier but that's one of the many risks you assume.


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

Fact is - there's people of all abilities out there.. And some try tougher trails...  If I'm standing anywhere that i feel someone may hit me...  I just stand facing uphill...  
Take some responsibility for yourself and understand that gravity can get the best of people sometimes...  So don't make yourself a target...
It's really easy...  i've only been hit once...  And i had my back to uphill...


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 3, 2013)

Something about the phrase "wrongful death" just bothers me.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 3, 2013)

#3 Skier Responsibily Code:

"*You must not stop where you obstruct a trail,* or are not visible from above."

I my humble opinion stopping in the middle of a trail is obstructing a trail. It's just common courtesy.


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> #3 Skier Responsibily Code:
> 
> "*You must not stop where you obstruct a trail,* or are not visible from above."
> 
> I my humble opinion stopping in the middle of a trail is obstructing a trail. It's just common courtesy.



But #1 is "*Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.*"

I've always had issues with the grey area...


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 3, 2013)

dmc said:


> But #1 is "*Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.*"
> 
> I've always had issues with the grey area...



Being under control & obstructing a trail have nothing to do with eachother.


----------



## Edd (Oct 3, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> #3 Skier Responsibily Code:
> 
> "*You must not stop where you obstruct a trail,* or are not visible from above."
> 
> I my humble opinion stopping in the middle of a trail is obstructing a trail. It's just common courtesy.



If a can of beer is sitting in the middle of a hallway, is it obstructing it?  Or is it easily bypassed?  Most of my scenarios involve cans of beer.


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> Being under control & obstructing a trail have nothing to do with eachother.



I respectfully disagree..  i think it's blurry..

If you're blasting down a trail out of control and hit someone in the middle of the trail it's #1 for the person hitting and #3 for the person standing in the way.


----------



## C-Rex (Oct 3, 2013)

I just meant that a lot of people take rule #1 (Stay in control, etc.) to mean that they can stop wherever they want since others must always be in control and therefore have the ability to go around them.  It's just a self-centered, d-bag mentality.  Just because you're not at fault, doesn't mean you're not an asshole.  Have some common courtesy and get out of the way.


----------



## tnt (Oct 3, 2013)

FWIW, the incident I mentioned was on a trail about as wide as two football fields and about as steep as the top of my desk where I was standing - near the top of the trail.  I was with my family, letting my kids get ahead of me.  I didn't stop in the middle of Goat to take a selfy.

Getting plowed over is completely part of the risk of skiing, and thought must be given to where you stop, I agree.  But likewise, the up hill skier must be ready to stop or move and avoid obstacles and other skiers.  People do in fact stop, fall, or check speed, all over the trail - on the sides and in the middle.

Hard pressed to find fault IMO with someone stopping ANYWHERE on the trail in order to remain in control, or to avoid a skier further down hill.

Anyway...YMMV and pray for snow.


----------



## Edd (Oct 3, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> I just meant that a lot of people take rule #1 (Stay in control, etc.) to mean that they can stop wherever they want since others must always be in control and therefore have the ability to go around them.  It's just a self-centered, d-bag mentality.  Just because you're not at fault, doesn't mean you're not an asshole.  Have some common courtesy and get out of the way.



When you say get out of the way do you mean to the sides of the trail?

Now, a KEG of beer in the middle of my hypothetical hallway, that's just frat boys being rude. Very obstructive.


----------



## tnt (Oct 3, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> I just meant that a lot of people take rule #1 (Stay in control, etc.) to mean that they can stop wherever they want since others must always be in control and therefore have the ability to go around them.  It's just a self-centered, d-bag mentality.  Just because you're not at fault, doesn't mean you're not an asshole.  Have some common courtesy and get out of the way.



Well, I don't really mind if people stop on a trail.  I mean, sometimes you have to stop.  Sometimes you just want to.  Particularly with groups and families. 

And again, it depends an awful lot on the trail IMO.  Big ole wide groomed thing with plenty of room everywhere, it really doesn't matter as long as you are clearly visible IMO.

And hell, I'm pretty sure I can't ski outer limits top to bottom at this point in my life, so I'm gonna have to stop at some point....


----------



## tnt (Oct 3, 2013)

Edd said:


> When you say get out of the way do you mean to the sides of the trail?
> 
> Now, a KEG of beer in the middle of my hypothetical hallway, that's just frat boys being rude. Very obstructive.



No.  The only problem with a keg is, if tipped on it's side, it rolls.  Now THAT is a problem....


----------



## dmc (Oct 3, 2013)

I actually prefer people stop in the middle of the trail..  I find the best snow in bounds is usually on the sides...


----------



## jack97 (Oct 3, 2013)

I usually stop in the middle and always look uphill.  Most of the time, the middle is scraped off while the good stuff is at the sides and sometimes kickers are being formed. IMO, why clogged it up for others.


----------



## Edd (Oct 3, 2013)

jack97 said:


> I usually stop in the middle and always look uphill.  Most of the time, the middle is scraped off while the good stuff is at the sides and sometimes kickers are being formed. IMO, why clogged it up for others.





dmc said:


> I actually prefer people stop in the middle of the trail..  I find the best snow in bounds is usually on the sides...



This is pretty much what I think. If you're saying never stop on the trail because you're obstructing it, it sounds like you're saying never stop at all. That's not the reality on the hill.  I prefer to ski the sides as well.  You're more visible to uphill traffic stopping in the middle. If someone is stopped on the sides I just ski around him. 

[insert beer-related statement]


----------



## jack97 (Oct 3, 2013)

Here's excerpt from the newspaper article I cited......


witness report

According to Advance reports, witnesses told state police Falco was skiing the Upper Warpath trail, an intermediate slope, when he “left the trail” just above its intersection with the Wall Street trail.


plaintiff's argument

Recently, his wife, Karan Falco, sued Ski Windham Operating Corp., alleging her husband’s death resulted from the hazardous design and negligent maintenance of the ski trail.


Skillman said Falco fell into an exposed ravine. “It’s an open area between two trails,” said the lawyer. “I think it would be a common thing for a skier to think it could be used as a cut-through.” The Windham Mountain Resort website shows the Upper Warpath trail runs downhill, while the Wall Street trail runs perpendicular to it.


Maybe the Windham regulars can enlighten me (or us), is the any confusion that there can be a cutoff before Warpath intersects with Wall Street or that this intersection includes the said cut off. That sounds like the crux of the complaint.


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 3, 2013)

October withdrawal thread.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 3, 2013)

Edd said:


> If a can of beer is sitting in the middle of a hallway, is it obstructing it?  Or is it easily bypassed?  Most of my scenarios involve cans of beer.



Empty or full? the answer to that question, will directly influence my ability to bypass the can.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JimG. (Oct 3, 2013)

Scotty said:


> October withdrawal thread.



More like a delayed onset summer thread.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 3, 2013)

Reality is always too simple. A basic rule of skiing is that you avoid things. It's why you learn to turn. And unless there are unmarked wooded areas in that "ravine", why would you even be tempted to go into a ravine to "cross-over". The guy went off the trail for whatever reason and hit a tree. It happened at Hunter to a long time regular who was a good skier. Lost an edge on a relatively flat section and went off the trail and hit a tree. Dead on impact. To me, it is disrespectful to the unfortunate victim to make this an issue of money. JMO.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 3, 2013)

dmc said:


> I actually prefer people stop in the middle of the trail..  I find the best snow in bounds is usually on the sides...


That's because borders scrape down the middle.


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 4, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> That's because borders scrape down the middle.



Before snowboarding you could always find better snow on the sides of a trail, it because people who are new at the sport tend not to like being by the sides.


----------



## dmc (Oct 4, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Before snowboarding you could always find better snow on the sides of a trail, it because people who are new at the sport tend not to like being by the sides.




Don't ever respond to that next time - ok?


----------



## buellski (Oct 4, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> #3 Skier Responsibily Code:
> 
> "*You must not stop where you obstruct a trail,* or are not visible from above."



You only highlighted half of that rule.  The other half says "..._*OR*_ are not visible from above."  Assuming your quote of the rule is correct and it is not "...*AND* are not visible from above.", then I would say the rule does not mean you can't stop in the middle of a trail.  It just means if you do stop in the middle, make sure you are visible from above.  Personally, I don't mind if people stop in the middle as long as I can see them.  Like many have said, I'm usually off on the side of the trail anyway.  So, in my case, people on the side of the trail are usually in my way.


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 4, 2013)

dmc said:


> Don't ever respond to that next time - ok?



I don't understand why people are prejudiced toward snowboarding probably keep out mountains alive making money and not closing up, there are people who ski who don't pay attention to.


----------



## dmc (Oct 4, 2013)

Scotty said:


> I don't understand why people are prejudiced toward snowboarding probably keep out mountains alive making money and not closing up, there are people who ski who don't pay attention to.



just ignore... It's ok...  Stoked to hit the hill with you in a couple months...


----------



## Nick (Oct 4, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> Hit a tree my fault. Chair lift falls to the ground ski area's fault. I fall on a mogul run - my fault. I hit a cable or chunk of metal under the snow and wipe out - ski areas fault.



Those are more obvious but the nuanced ones ... like what if I hit a lift pole and break my leg but it didn't have a pad? Or what if I am skiing the perimeter of the trail and I hit a snowmaking pipe? 

I'm sure there are better examples than that, I'm just stating that they aren't all as clear as an employee driving over you with a snowmobile.


----------



## Nick (Oct 4, 2013)

JimG. said:


> More like a delayed onset summer thread.



Sounds like a legitimate psychiatric illness :lol:


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 4, 2013)

dmc said:


> just ignore... It's ok...  Stoked to hit the hill with you in a couple months...



Me to can't wait to have fun on the hill with you to.


----------



## dmc (Oct 4, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Me to can't wait to have fun on the hill with you to.



I got goodies...


----------



## jack97 (Oct 4, 2013)

Nick said:


> Those are more obvious but the nuanced ones ... like what if I hit a lift pole and break my leg but it didn't have a pad? Or what if I am skiing the perimeter of the trail and I hit a snowmaking pipe?



Then you were skiing way to close to the pole or pipes for your own good. The former does not need any warning, its a damn lift pole and latter usually have markings or warning poles along the pipes. Skier/rider bears some responsibility for their action....imo


----------



## dmc (Oct 4, 2013)

Nick said:


> Those are more obvious but the nuanced ones ... like what if I hit a lift pole and break my leg but it didn't have a pad? Or what if I am skiing the perimeter of the trail and I hit a snowmaking pipe?



 "*Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects."*


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 4, 2013)

dmc said:


> I got goodies...



I live goodies for sure.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 4, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Me to can't wait to have fun on the hill with you to.





dmc said:


> I got goodies...





Scotty said:


> I live goodies for sure.


You two should get a room.


----------



## ScottySkis (Oct 4, 2013)

steamboat1 said:


> You two should get a room.



As long as Mary Jane is there.


----------



## dmc (Oct 5, 2013)

Scotty said:


> I live goodies for sure.



Awesome...  I mean lift tickets...  but..  haha..

Stoked..


----------

