# Jay Peak Lawsuit



## Huck_It_Baby (Oct 15, 2013)

Anyone else see or hear about this?

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20131014/NEWS07/310140030/Lawsuit-Jay-Peak-snowboard-instructor-struck-injured-5-year-old-on-Vermont-slopes-in-April


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

That's terrible - I hope she recovers fully.  Lacerated liver?  Yikes.


----------



## KevinF (Oct 15, 2013)

Weird that Jay Peak had apparently terminated the employee in question but had yet to revoke his employee lift pass, as they were going to "exchange" it for his final paycheck?  Knowing what ski area employees are paid, I'm thinking a lift pass is worth more than the paycheck.


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

Brings to mind a thread from a week or so ago about lawsuits and crashes, and where to stop on the trail....


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 15, 2013)

I guess they will be taking fired employees passes when they are fired not a week later. Also I don't think the actual instructor teaching the class is liable but who am I to say what will be found in a court of law.


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> I guess they will be taking fired employees passes when they are fired not a week later. Also I don't think the actual instructor teaching the class is liable but who am I to say what will be found in a court of law.



Yeah, my thoughts as well.  

What a crappy thing.  As a former instructor - and really, as anyone with any sense - he would certainly know lessons and beginners would be found on that trail.  Awful to be bombing and unable to stop in time in an area like that.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 15, 2013)

KevinF said:


> Weird that Jay Peak had apparently terminated the employee in question but had yet to revoke his employee lift pass, as they were going to "exchange" it for his final paycheck? Knowing what ski area employees are paid, I'm thinking a lift pass is worth more than the paycheck.



A pass doesn't have much value left in April, which is when the incident occurred.    
EDIT: I read the BFP article which has more detail than the WCAX story. So the guy had been fired and hadn't turned in his pass and Jay was holding his final paycheck as a way to force him to turn it in. Couldn't Jay’s administration have just told the RFID system that the pass was no longer valid?

That being beside the point, I feel this is totally on the guy that rode into the class. Bombing down Interstate is stupid since there are so many beginners on it. I know personally, I try to keep speed up going down that trail but I’m willing to sacrifice some speed by standing upright and not dropping into a tucked position (a low aerodynamic position would be the only way to maintain anything close to 50mph on this trail). Standing upright which allows me to see over the gentle rolls in the terrain. Trying to place blame on the instructor seems asinine but they are probably taking the shotgun approach to the lawsuit and trying to see what sticks.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 15, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> I guess they will be taking fired employees passes when they are fired not a week later. Also I don't think the actual instructor teaching the class is liable but who am I to say what will be found in a court of law.



They shouldn't have to even take the pass.  They can deactivate the pass so it doesn't scan.  

Sent from my XT907 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

I don't really see the relevance of the ski pass UNLESS the guy was fired for reckless skiing.

If some one won a free pass from Jay, and crashed, that doesn't make Jay responsible, does it?  If the guy was still employed and skiing on his day off, would that make Jay responsible?

This goes back to that last thread for me - the person who should be sued - ASSUMING he was just bombing, unable to stop in time to avoid other skiers - is the person who slammed into the little girl.


----------



## Nick (Oct 15, 2013)

That sounds terrible. Unfortunately it's a situation of a bad apple employee I guess. 

Sounds like they are also suing the ski school instructor and the employee who collided with the girl (Vincent). 

I wonder what he had been fired for.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 15, 2013)

tnt said:


> This goes back to that last thread for me - the person who should be sued - ASSUMING he was just bombing, unable to stop in time to avoid other skiers - is the person who slammed into the little girl.


The problem with just suing him is that he probably has very little money and probably no insurance. They won't be able to get much out of him. The resort is their primary target here for $ compensation.


----------



## KevinF (Oct 15, 2013)

tnt said:


> This goes back to that last thread for me - the person who should be sued - ASSUMING he was just bombing, unable to stop in time to avoid other skiers - is the person who slammed into the little girl.



Suing broke people might get you a moral victory, but it won't get you $$$.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

So here's my take based on the BFP article and the facts that they allege. 

If the ONLY basis for suing JPR was because of the fact that their former instructor, who was NOT in the scope of employment that day, was using a company-issue pass, then I'd say sorry, no dice.  This was a tragic accident, no doubt, and if this was my daughter, I'd be ripped too.  

As to the fact that she was in a ski class: based on what is listed here, I can't see that the class instructor is at fault.  Even if she looked uphill there is a good chance that she would not have foreseen this bozo coming down at Mach 2.  

As to the laid-off instructor: obvious idiot and definitely liable.  

For JPR:  I agree that they should have deactivated the pass if indeed he was fired.  But unless they got numerous complaints about his riding, made many warnings to him, and all but got a restraining/no trespass order against the guy, how can they be to blame?  How was it foreseeable that he would have careened into someone like this?  Do we want to force ski areas to run "background checks" on every skier and rider who buys a ticket?

This sounds very much like the Mountain Creek case earlier this year, where the family of an injured/deceased skier sued the other skier/rider AND Mountain Creek arguing that Mountain Creek was liable under NJ law for a similar theory that ski areas are somewhat liable for the conduct of skiers and riders.  The courts disagreed.  While ski areas do get special treatment under VT law for liability, it is for immunity from suits based on the "inherent risks of skiing".  There is nothing that makes the ski areas liable for the independent actions of those skiing/riding there.  

So I agree that JPR was only brought in as a lame way to get money.  It will only increase lift tickets for the rest of us.  Based on the fact that no large reputable firm took this case, I think it's safe to say that folks looking at this case saw the claim against JPR as a Hail Mary at best.


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The problem with just suing him is that he probably has very little money and probably no insurance. They won't be able to get much out of him. The resort is their primary target here for $ compensation.



Yeah, well, that's true...


----------



## skiberg (Oct 15, 2013)

This is a tough case. The child's parents knew skiing was inherently dangerous and proving liability against Ski areas can be very tough. However, a five year I ld will be a sympathetic witness. So for that reason alone the case has value. The case really hinges on whether the snowboarder was out of control. If he was HE probably has some liability. The attorney who filed it framed it as negligence by the instructor and the mountain for taking the kids down a certain trail. They need this to rope in Jay Peak.  That's a much tougher case. The case against the snowboarder is probably useless as he probably has no money.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

skiberg said:


> This is a tough case. The child's parents knew skiing was inherently dangerous and proving liability against Ski areas can be very tough. However, a five year I ld will be a sympathetic witness. So for that reason alone the case has value. The case really hinges on whether the snowboarder was out of control. If he was HE probably has some liability. The attorney who filed it framed it as negligence by the instructor and the mountain for taking the kids down a certain trail. They need this to rope in Jay Peak. That's a much tougher case. The case against the snowboarder is probably useless as he probably has no money.



I don't agree with this. If the boarder was reckless, then he is to blame 100%, pure and simple. As to choice of trail, the Interstate is one of the main beginner runs at JPR and I don't think there is anything inherently dangerous about it. Even if there was some problem with the trail the primary cause of the accident was the boarder's conduct. 

I again think that the family got a bit goose egg from the boarder and are looking elsewhere for compensation.  True that this is a sad story, but it's nobody's fault that the defendant who ran her over was not Bill Gates.  Based on what little we know I just don't see how JPR is liable.


----------



## dlague (Oct 15, 2013)

This is a clear case of suing everyone and their brother to try and make it stick to the the corporation!  It happens with traffic accidents, personal injury suits etc.  Name as many poeple or companies as defendents to possibly collect as much money as possible.

This is a very good example of an an ignorant snowboarder and there are skiers alike!  They want to show everyone one on the trail how good they really are and haul ass with no idea of their lack of control.  Likewise, there are newbies that are totally out of control that learn new skills, think they got it and will then proceed to difficult trails and become road blocks!   When there are young children on the slopes -they are defenseless and are not predictable irregardless of the difficulty of the trail.

Speaking of the trail, I find it pretty hard believing some one hit 50 unless they were at the very top of Interstate where River Quai connects.  Even then there is great visibility there and that is also a trail intersection and a lift unloading zone where most sane people would use caution in any case.  The only other intersection is with Queens Highway which has no possibility to see speeds of 50.

In any case this lies totally on the reckless individual - all other parties could not have predicted the havoc this guy would result in.  Whether he was snowboarding on a company pass or not.  At that time he was not representing Jay Peak whether fired or not!

This being said, I love those people who sue in situations like this - both skiing and snowboarding are inherently dangerous sports since  every element is not in your control.  There are risks like catching an edge at the wrong time, other out of control or even in control ticket holders that could lead to collisions, visibility (snowing, low light situations), one's own ability versus terrain difficulty, equipment, etc.  that can all lead to injury or death.  This is not a predictable sport - most are not.  Parents who bring their children need to realize this! Adults sking together need to realize this, teenagers need to realize this.  Shit will happen - we have had our share!  Suing the resort or the instructor is ridiculous in this case!

Should the resorts start requiring customers to sign the Code of Responsibilities and a Release Waiver?


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

The "50 mph" allegation from the Complaint is ridiculous.  It kind of reminds me of a comment a while back where someone claimed that they hit 80 mph while skiing.  Pure hyperbole. :lol:


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 15, 2013)

dlague said:


> This is a clear case of suing everyone and their brother to try and make it stick to the the corporation! It happens with traffic accidents, personal injury suits etc. Name as many poeple or companies as defendents to possibly collect as much money as possible.
> 
> This is a very good example of an an ignorant snowboarder and there are skiers alike! They want to show everyone one on the trail how good they really are and haul ass with no idea of their lack of control. Likewise, there are newbies that are totally out of control that learn new skills, think they got it and will then proceed to difficult trails and become road blocks! When there are young children on the slopes -they are defenseless and are not predictable irregardless of the difficulty of the trail.
> 
> ...



so you put your 5 year old in a program, under the supervision of a resort employee and your kid and his/her life is completely altered you would have no second thoughts about the resort's part in this?


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 15, 2013)

No

Sent from my XT907 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Nick (Oct 15, 2013)

on Facebook someone commented on Jay Peak's page basically implying they should just pay for the damages anyway since they more or less have the funds. The case is more nuanced than that but unfortunately there is always perception to deal with, especially since this case involves a very young child which makes people often throw logic / reason out the window and just want the situation rectified by those with the biggest pockets. No matter which way you cut it its surely a PR difficulty for a mountain.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 15, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> No
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using AlpineZone mobile app



how about people hurt on the job?

personal responsibilty only?


----------



## skiberg (Oct 15, 2013)

What if the instructor failed to look back uphill. What if the instructor saw the snowboarder and still brought 5 yr olds into the path of a high speed boarder. Doesn't an instructor have an obligation to act in a safe manner? What if she could have been safer? What if she failed to follow standard safety protocol for the PSIA? What if some of these things turn out to be truths? The family will recover something in this case. A jury probablywon't tell a five year old little girl she gets nothing. They are way more likely to give a huge award to the family so what will happen is the insurance company will make a substantial offer but not full value and the family will take it because of the problems with the case.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 15, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> how about people hurt on the job?
> 
> personal responsibilty only?



what does a work place injury have to do with this?


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> how about people hurt on the job?
> 
> personal responsibilty only?



We have this thing called workers compensation....


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

skiberg said:


> What if the instructor failed to look back uphill. What if the instructor saw the snowboarder and still brought 5 yr olds into the path of a high speed boarder. Doesn't an instructor have an obligation to act in a safe manner? What if she could have been safer? What if she failed to follow standard safety protocol for the PSIA? What if some of these things turn out to be truths? The family will recover something in this case. A jury probablywon't tell a five year old little girl she gets nothing. They are way more likely to give a huge award to the family so what will happen is the insurance company will make a substantial offer but not full value and the family will take it because of the problems with the case.



Not necessarily.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 15, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> what does a work place injury have to do with this?



not much.

If the instructor was drilled though I would imagine they would take medical compensation, it is an inherently dangerous job. A five year old under supervision of an adult partaking in a resort based activity gets drilled and people act like the parents are spoiled.  A shame one gets access to compensation while the other is the recipient of third party disgust.

Doesn't matter, hopefully the parents and child go on to lead a beautiful, healthy together.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 15, 2013)

> The lawsuit claims Jay Peak was negligent in how it hired and trained Vincent and Leveillee.



Really? While they're at it why not sue for making the snow so slippery? Or sue the snowboard manufacturer for making the boards with steel edges? They're sandbagging and they know it - adding as many charges as they can think just to make things seem worse than they are. 

Those kids should be made to be personal servants to that little girl for the rest of her life if she doesn't make a full and complete recovery.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> not much.
> 
> If the instructor was drilled though I would imagine they would take medical compensation, it is an inherently dangerous job. A five year old under supervision of an adult partaking in a resort based activity gets drilled and people act like the parents are spoiled. A shame one gets access to compensation while the other is the recipient of third party disgust.
> 
> Doesn't matter, hopefully the parents and child go on to lead a beautiful, healthy together.



There's no real comparison. 

Again, for your hypo, the employee would probably get workers compensation benefits from her employer.  She sure as hell won't get rich. She could not sue her employer though but she might be able to sue the dingo who hit her.

And people are angry because they see the parents going after whoever they can to seek compensation, regardless of fault. It is unfortunate that this is a case where the real person at fault is penniless. That's what [mandatory] healthcare coverage in Massachusetts is for. Additionally, they could get a judgment against the guy and collect over the next how many years from him. 

Again the fact that the guy had no money does not justify suing someone else if there was no fault. Personally with these facts, I'm having a hard time seeing any fault for JPR.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 15, 2013)

Nick said:


> on Facebook someone commented on Jay Peak's page basically implying they should just pay for the damages anyway since they more or less have the funds. The case is more nuanced than that but unfortunately there is always perception to deal with, especially since this case involves a very young child which makes people often throw logic / reason out the window and just want the situation rectified by those with the biggest pockets. No matter which way you cut it its surely a PR difficulty for a mountain.



After reading that thread on FB, which might I add is full of a bunch of ski industry folks from resorts all over the country, the person you referenced Nick who has making the comments that Jay Peak should just fork over the cash, kind of struck me as "Highwaystar-esque" (or at least the HS of a few years ago, since it has seemed to me that HS to his credit has matured a bit the last few years)

I'm guessing that there isn't an instructor, especially teaching a group of single digit aged kids on a high traffic trail, who would knowingly stop their group in a blind area, even if another child in the group had say fallen and needed assistance getting back up.

The skier's/boarder's responsibility code pretty much sums it up where the it's the person who is doing the passing job to stay out of the way of the downhill skier/rider and that person should always be in control and able to stop under the conditions at hand


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 15, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> not much.
> 
> If the instructor was drilled though I would imagine they would take medical compensation, it is an inherently dangerous job. A five year old under supervision of an adult partaking in a resort based activity gets drilled and people act like the parents are spoiled.  A shame one gets access to compensation while the other is the recipient of third party disgust.
> 
> Doesn't matter, hopefully the parents and child go on to lead a beautiful, healthy together.



The only thing we can agree on here is your last statement.  Vibes to the young skier and family.

The girl was probably compensated for her injuries by her parents health insurance provider.  The only difference between her compensation and that received by the hypothetical situation of an injured instructor is that the instructor probably would get compensated for lost wages......maybe.  I've had ski instructor friends get hurt while working (though not to the extent of the young girl).  They were compensated for their injuries and then offered desk positions at the mountain. 

I'll interject my own personal injury experience in skiing.  I ski raced for 1 month during my senior year of high school.  We were training GS gates on a lower mountain trail.  On the upper mountain trail getting to that course, we were instructed by our coaches to "open" train Super G; to envision a Super G course and ski at a rate of speed we would in an actual Super G race.  IIRC the only Super G race of the season our team competed in was during the New Englands.  Well another racer on the team collided with me resulting in a wreck.  I received a concussion, a dislocated shoulder, a hairline fracture to my C7 vertebra and nerve damage.  There was an ambulance trip to the hospital involved, a CT-scan and extensive physical therapy.  I didn't ski again that winter. 

I was under the guidance of the ski race coaches.  Should my parents have tried to sue the coaches or school for negligence?  Should they have gone after the kid who collided with me?  

Skiing is a dangerous sport.  Unfortunately, horrific accidents can and do happen.  It's the inherent risk we take in participating as individuals or as parents in allowing our children to participate.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 15, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> There's no real comparison.
> 
> Again, for your hypo, the employee would probably get workers compensation benefits from her employer. She sure as hell won't get rich. She could not sue her employer though but she might be able to sue the dingo who hit her.
> 
> ...





drjeff said:


> After reading that thread on FB, which might I add is full of a bunch of ski industry folks from resorts all over the country, the person you referenced Nick who has making the comments that Jay Peak should just fork over the cash, kind of struck me as "Highwaystar-esque" (or at least the HS of a few years ago, since it has seemed to me that HS to his credit has matured a bit the last few years)
> 
> I'm guessing that there isn't an instructor, especially *teaching a group of single digit aged kids on a high traffic trail*, who would knowingly stop their group in a blind area, even if another child in the group had say fallen and needed assistance getting back up.
> 
> The skier's/boarder's responsibility code pretty much sums it up where the it's the person who is doing the passing job to stay out of the way of the downhill skier/rider and that person should always be in control and able to stop under the conditions at hand



no arguement from me. But, the two issues above might be something they need to think about. People do come blazing down that section, it may not be 50, it very well could be, that little girl isn't the first one who has been impacted in that mixing zone, just so happens she was small enough to get really hurt by a full grown person.

edit for DHS: she was 5. seems the scenario should have a special context, IMO only.


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> The only thing we can agree on here is your last statement.  Vibes to the young skier and family.
> 
> The girl was probably compensated for her injuries by her parents health insurance provider.  The only difference between her compensation and that received by the hypothetical situation of an injured instructor is that the instructor probably would get compensated for lost wages......maybe.  I've had ski instructor friends get hurt while working (though not to the extent of the young girl).  They were compensated for their injuries and then offered desk positions at the mountain.
> 
> ...



Not saying it's right or wrong, but I bet there could be a case here against a coach telling the team to crank it up to race speeds on an opened trail with general traffic.

Generally, it's not in my nature to sue, and I would expect my kids - and myself - to ski in control regardless of what the coach said, but just saying, in this suit-happy world, I'd be surprised if those instructions are still given.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> no arguement from me. But, the two issues above might be something they need to think about. People do come blazing down that section, it may not be 50, it very well could be, that little girl isn't the first one who has been impacted in that mixing zone, just so happens she was small enough to get really hurt by a full grown person.
> 
> edit for DHS: she was 5. seems the scenario should have a special context, IMO only.



IIRC Jay has many signs advising folks to slow down there and they indicate on the map that it is a "slow" ski/ride area.  Short of closing down the headwall, I really don't know what else they could do.


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

Bottom line - people should ski in control.  If you can't stop for, or avoid, a bunch of 5 year olds getting a lesson on a green trail, you are not in control.  This isn't the kid's fault, and I bet it wasn't the active instructors fault.  I fail to see how it is Jay's fault - though if the jack ass was fired for reckless skiing and they didn't yank his pass the MAYBE. 

It's the kid who was bombing down the mountain's fault.  The parents and their lawyers are shotgunning the suit, but form what I can see here, the only person to blame is the kid bombing down the trail.

IMO.  YMMV. 

Jeez, we should talk more about skiing and less about crashing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

tnt said:


> Bottom line - people should ski in control. If you can't stop for, or avoid, a bunch of 5 year olds getting a lesson on a green trail, you are not in control. This isn't the kid's fault, and I bet it wasn't the active instructors fault. I fail to see how it is Jay's fault - though if the jack ass was fired for reckless skiing and they didn't yank his pass the MAYBE.
> 
> It's the kid who was bombing down the mountain's fault. The parents and their lawyers are shotgunning the suit, but form what I can see here, the only person to blame is the kid bombing down the trail.
> 
> ...



Exactly


----------



## dlague (Oct 15, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> so you put your 5 year old in a program, under the supervision of a resort employee and your kid and his/her life is completely altered you would have no second thoughts about the resort's part in this?



Are you implying that the instructor had control over the idiot?  Seriously?


----------



## dlague (Oct 15, 2013)

tnt said:


> Bottom line - people should ski in control.  If you can't stop for, or avoid, a bunch of 5 year olds getting a lesson on a green trail, you are not in control.  This isn't the kid's fault, and I bet it wasn't the active instructors fault.  I fail to see how it is Jay's fault - though if the jack ass was fired for reckless skiing and they didn't yank his pass the MAYBE.
> 
> It's the kid who was bombing down the mountain's fault.  The parents and their lawyers are shotgunning the suit, but form what I can see here, the only person to blame is the kid bombing down the trail.
> 
> ...





thetrailboss said:


> Exactly



I agree as well!  Others don't - everyone is entitled to their own opinion which does not make anyone wrong!  More than likely it will get settled quietly!


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 15, 2013)

dlague said:


> Are you implying that the instructor had control over the idiot? Seriously?



If by idiot you mean the 5 year old, then yes.  

Anyone who has ever come off of Riv Q has let em run through that section, the metro dumps through there, it is wide enough to accomodate the skiers and the variety of users, but it is still a mixing bowl, one that maybe isn't the best option for a learning skier of 5. It is one of the few places the flat run out doesn't create a balance between those learning and those just trying to get the run out over with. All the signage is great TB, maybe they just need to not rely on the signs and take a step toward protecting beginners, especially a 5 year old a little differently.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 15, 2013)

That is one of the reasons tha case has value. It's a good case. Not a great one, but it has significant value. It's going to take a lot if work but, ultimately the case will probably resolve favorably for the family. The mountain has a good defense but there is just to much risk in trying this case for the mountain and ins. Co.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 15, 2013)

I believe the vermont ski area statute specifically immunizes the resort for skier on skier collisions.  That obviously doesnt apply if the skier at fault is an employee of the resort.  
Am I the only one cynical enough to question whether the skier in this case had actually been "terminated" before the incident.  I mean, as previously mentioned, if the guy really was fired prior thereto, wouldn't they have cancelled his pass on the rfid system.  and it happened in April, so it was the end of the season when many resort employees are let go.  

The negligent hiring cause of action is included often so that the employees personnel file becomes discoverable.  Usually doesnt amount to a hill of beans, but if there are records indicating the resort had notice of reckless/dangerous behavior, its whole different ballgame.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 15, 2013)

So Kingdom and Skiberg, what do you think is fair compensation for the girl and her family?

While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run.  I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run.  The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 15, 2013)

skiberg said:


> That is one of the reasons tha case has value. It's a good case. Not a great one, but it has significant value. It's going to take a lot if work but, ultimately the case will probably resolve favorably for the family. The mountain has a good defense but there is just to much risk in trying this case for the mountain and ins. Co.



In light of last years case involving Ski Sundown where the it was awarded in Sundown's favor when a skier crashed in the terrain and ended up paralyzed (I believe from the waist down) I'm not so sure.  In that case, it was determined that the liability statement on the back of the lift ticket (and in this case if I recall correctly) on the warning sign at the top of the terrain park was clear enough in that it released the mountain of liability and that the user by purchasing the lift ticket inherently understood and accepted the risk reasonable risk that is a part of negotiating one's way down a maintained trail.  I'm sure that the majority of on hill injury cases have a wealth of case law to fall back on, and that as I seem to recall, more often than not these cases end up finding the ski area not at fault

In this case, it seems like the condition of the trail really isn't in question (okay the plaintiff's attorney cite's a blindspot as a contributory factor, but i'm quite sure that JPR will have plenty of video evidence to contradict that if this case gets before a judge), but what is at issue is the speed, and lack of "control" (stopping ability) of the boarder.  Again, I'm guessing that at least in JPR's defense, they'll have an expert showing that the 50mph speed cited isn't very realistic 

Frankly I'm a bit surprised that the plaintiff's attorney didn't cite the operator of the snowcat who worked that trail the night before in this shotgun approach lawsuit :smash: And a small part of me, as a parent, can get why the parents are proceeding with this


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> So Kingdom and Skiberg, what do you think is fair compensation for the girl and her family?
> 
> While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run.  I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run.  The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.




I agree.

Where exactly should lessons be given to young kids if not on a wide green slope serviced by one of the lower mountain lift?  I don't think it matters one tiny bit wether or not it's a 'mixing bowl'.  All the more reason to ski in control.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 15, 2013)

I think there is an interesting question posed.....should instructors or other ski professionals be held to a higher standard than the average skier?


----------



## drjeff (Oct 15, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> I think there is an interesting question posed.....should instructors or other ski professionals be held to a higher standard than the average skier?



How does that even apply in this case, unless you're talking about the instructor teaching the class that the injured kid was in?

Just about every resort out there won't allow their employees to wear their "work issued" jackets when they're skiing/riding "off the clock" for potential liability reasons....


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 15, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> So Kingdom and Skiberg, what do you think is fair compensation for the girl and her family?
> 
> While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run. I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run. The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.




I never have faulted the ski area.  i am sure they are within all the legal grounds, many of which you guys have stated.  Unfortunately, what is fair for that little girl is a little late and no amount of money is going to make that any easier.  I am merely stating I  think there are some considerations resorts could look at, maybe those beyond what is "legal" and "appropriate".

The learning center will likely eradicate a lot of this, but the situation on this part of the interstate isn't a new one, only the severity of the young girl's injuries and the vocalness of the parents.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 15, 2013)

drjeff said:


> How does that even apply in this case, unless you're talking about the instructor teaching the class that the injured kid was in?
> 
> Just about every resort out there won't allow their employees to wear their "work issued" jackets when they're skiing/riding "off the clock" for potential liability reasons....



Well most definitely applies to the instructor in the lesson. That is scary stuff in my mind. Thankfully, nothing like this ever happened to me when I was an instructor but I had close calls. 

As a second point, I dont think the lawyer would have gone after Jay Peak if this moron had been say a liftie instead of a snowboard instructor.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

skiberg said:


> That is one of the reasons tha case has value. It's a good case. Not a great one, but it has significant value. It's going to take a lot if work but, ultimately the case will probably resolve favorably for the family. The mountain has a good defense but there is just to much risk in trying this case for the mountain and ins. Co.



From someone that does this work everyday, I don't think it's a good case at all. There's no clear liability on the part of the resort. The family probably signed a standard release for the lesson.  Absent gross negligence ("OK Jimmy, let it rip!  Right into the group here!") they don't have a case against the instructor.  Nor the resort.  

Sure there are some things that are alleged, but nothing clear cut here and, if anything, more going against the plaintiffs in their case against JPR. 

What I, and others, keep coming back to is that *the guy who is liable and culpable apparently does not have any dough*.  You can't blame anyone for that.  Shit happens.  

The family's damages are (potentially) significant. That would push the settlement value up. But at this point I just don't see it. It will likely settle, but generally speaking nobody gets rich off of lawsuits.


----------



## KevinF (Oct 15, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> The family's damages are (potentially) significant. That would push the settlement value up. But at this point I just don't see it. It will likely settle, but *generally speaking nobody gets rich off of lawsuits*.



Except the lawyers...


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

KevinF said:


> Except the lawyers...



I knew someone would say that.


----------



## LONGBOARDR (Oct 15, 2013)

On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.


----------



## tnt (Oct 15, 2013)

LONGBOARDR said:


> On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
> For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
> Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
> A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.



Thank goodness.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 15, 2013)

LONGBOARDR said:


> On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
> For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
> Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
> A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.



Very true.  

(Now why are they not being sued?  :roll: :dunce: )


----------



## gladerider (Oct 15, 2013)

some thoughts
1) looks like the plaintiff's case is based on JP's negligence
2) skier's code is irrevent here since it's designed to protect the resorts from being sued from its customers with either self injury or skier to skier injury. the basic premise of skier's code is that the resorts cannot excercise any discretionary control on skiers' (or its customers') behalf
3) some facts:
   a) JP sold its ski school service to the plaintiff
   b) JP has sole discretionary control over its service sold
   c) JP has failed to provide safety to its customer, who was under their care

if i were the plaintiff's attorney, i would have:
1- put legal hold on the ski school employment records
2- during discovery process ask for instructor screening, training, onboarding & offboarding as well as general ski school standard operating processes documentation, governance, monitoring to show organizational control to ensure safety of the students (remember we are talking about safety of preschool kids) including operating risk management process
3- JP prove to me what they have done to ensure safety of kids (can they have courdoned off one section of the mountain or a few trails just for the purpose of ski school just like they do for races since part of the trail has a merging section or have an extra instructor ensuring clear traffic)

IMHO, JP has everything to lose and nothing to gain in this case. Best case scenario would be to settle this fast.
They are making all kinds of investments to attract the family oriented customers. Poor handling of cases like this could cause tremendous damage.
Here is why:
1) There are dozen other resorts happy to get the same target customer base (family oriented) in NE
2) All other resorts can say they have better ski schools including processes, better instructor screening and training, etc.
3) Losing a case like this is a double whammy (financially and brand impact not to mention goodwill)

in this country, if you want to make money in a business that involves kids safety, you better make sure you have done a good job. 

just some of my thoughts after reading comments from y'all


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 16, 2013)

The reality is that group lessons for young beginners are mostly taught by teenagers with minimal training and supervision.  This has been my experience in Quebec and in Jay Peak.   The better qualified/experienced instructors get the better kids.  The instructors with less experience (usually young) get the beginners.  These instructors are usually enthusiastic, do their very best, and that is what you should expect.   

At 200$ for a typical 8-week program, if parents expect their 5 year old beginner to be supervised by a level 4 skier with the maturity and experience of a forty year old, they are delusional.  You send them out to have fun and the instructors usually do a good job at that.

Nobody is safe from idiots bombing downhill out of control.  I'm sure we all had close calls before.  Shit happens.  Suing everyone won't make things better, especially suing the instructor who were trying their best for very little money (I'm obviously not talking about the idiot who hit the little girl).  You just cannot expect a 16 year old in charge of 6 kids to fully control everyone going down a slope.

Every time someone sues a ski resort for no good reason is a sad day.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 16, 2013)

While the at fault ex employee was using an employee pass to access the lifts, he was not performing any work related duties.  He was not 'on the clock'.  How is this any different than any other collision injury on the mountain?  The more I think about this, the more I think this falls within well established precedent.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 16, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run.  I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run.  The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.



If many areas block off terrain parks and race courses shouldn't areas where rank beginners especially children are learning be blocked off as well?


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> If by idiot you mean the 5 year old, then yes.




That is an f'd up statement - no, idiot is the the moron on the snowboard!  Who would ever think to call the 5 year old an idiot!

Someone who worked there (the snowboarding idiot) should be fully aware of the dangers  in that area!  People cross over to Perry Merrill all the time and as you mention - its not like Lower River Quai is narrow.  However, being that it was in April it is possible that there was only one way through due to snow melt.

Plus do we have to be in such a hurry to get a run over with - people need to take a chill pill on run outs!

BTW I never see people make way at that location for people coming off RQ.  Coming off the lift it is pretty slow going there since it is so flat that may be the most giving way that I have ever seen there!

Technically - at any give trail merge, given time accidents will happen - resorts should ban trail merges.  Ya, thats it ban trail merges!


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> I believe the vermont ski area statute specifically immunizes the resort for skier on skier collisions.  That obviously doesnt apply if the skier at fault is an employee of the resort.
> Am I the only one cynical enough to question whether the skier in this case had actually been "terminated" before the incident.  I mean, as previously mentioned, if the guy really was fired prior thereto, wouldn't they have cancelled his pass on the rfid system.  and it happened in April, so it was the end of the season when many resort employees are let go.
> 
> The negligent hiring cause of action is included often so that the employees personnel file becomes discoverable.  Usually doesnt amount to a hill of beans, but if there are records indicating the resort had notice of reckless/dangerous behavior, its whole different ballgame.



So with that logic if a police officer drives illegally in the town he works in and causes injury to others then the Police Department is at fault too?

He was skiing on his own time.  Worst yet, he knew the area and should have had more sense!


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> The reality is that group lessons for young beginners are mostly taught by teenagers with minimal training and supervision.  This has been my experience in Quebec and in Jay Peak.   The better qualified/experienced instructors get the better kids.  The instructors with less experience (usually young) get the beginners.  These instructors are usually enthusiastic, do their very best, and that is what you should expect.
> 
> At 200$ for a typical 8-week program, if parents expect their 5 year old beginner to be supervised by a level 4 skier with the maturity and experience of a forty year old, they are delusional.  You send them out to have fun and the instructors usually do a good job at that.
> 
> ...



+1  BTW to your point - my son is a ski instructor and he is 17 and he gets the youngest beginners!


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 16, 2013)

dlague said:


> That is an f'd up statement - no, idiot is the the moron on the snowboard! Who would ever think to call the 5 year old an idiot!
> 
> Someone who worked there (the snowboarding idiot) should be fully aware of the dangers in that area! People cross over to Perry Merrill all the time and as you mention - its not like Lower River Quai is narrow. However, being that it was in April it is possible that there was only one way through due to snow melt.
> 
> ...



you asked if the instructor had control of an idiot.  the repsonse was to highlight who the instructor was responsible for. I think it is pretty simple to see who is at fault between the two people involved in the collision, but a five year old is not a ski racer, or an employee, or otherwise aware of the implicit dangers of skiing, the instructor assumes those responsibilities I think, the instructor is an employee of the resort, the resort seems to have some partof the issue to me.

like everyone else who is human, the adult at fault had probably made that run at that speed many times without incident, doesn't make it right, but it certainly is a development of complacency we are all susceptible to.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> you asked if the instructor had control of an idiot.  the repsonse was to highlight who the instructor was responsible for. I think it is pretty simple to see who is at fault between the two people involved in the collision, but a five year old is not a ski racer, or an employee, or otherwise aware of the implicit dangers of skiing, the instructor assumes those responsibilities I think, the instructor is an employee of the resort, the resort seems to have some partof the issue to me.
> 
> like everyone else who is human, the adult at fault had probably made that run at that speed many times without incident, doesn't make it right, but it certainly is a development of complacency we are all susceptible to.



Well just like anything a parent or guardian can sign the lesson waiver and assume the risks for the child.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 16, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Well just like anything a parent or guardian can sign the lesson waiver and assume the risks for the child.




I get that, which is why I there is probably no legal foundation, nor should be from what I am reading.  Recognizing what is legal and what is just basic common sense above and beyond the law is more my perspective I guess, it is plain to see with regard to the out of control snowboarder, maybe not so plain with procedures the ski school utilizes.


----------



## C-Rex (Oct 16, 2013)

It's always terrible when a child gets hurt.  But accidents do happen, sometimes even despite our best intentions.  It's possible that the boarder was in control even though he was going fast (although 50 mph sounds pretty exaggerated) and the collision was a result of several variables lining up in just the right (or in this case, wrong) way.  Maybe he hit an icy section of trail when he tried to stop or turn.  Or maybe the instructor was doing that thing where the kids follow single file and weave back and forth across the trail, and he had nowhere else to go.  There's a million different ways to look at it and a lot we will never know.  

Please, don't think I'm just taking the boarders side.  I'm not.  Chances are he was being reckless and will be held accountable. What bothers me is society's view that someone is always responsible and has to pay, when in fact, sometimes even when we take precautions accidents still happen.  I hope the little girl recovers fully and that this incident doesn't keep her from being raised Jay.


----------



## KevinF (Oct 16, 2013)

Abubob said:


> If many areas block off terrain parks and race courses shouldn't areas where rank beginners especially children are learning be blocked off as well?



I am not familiar with the layout of Jay Peak, but a big problem at many resorts is that the "beginner trails" are simply the run-out of other trails, or cris-crosses other trails.  How do you block that off?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 16, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> It's always terrible when a child gets hurt.  But accidents do happen, sometimes even despite our best intentions.  It's possible that the boarder was in control even though he was going fast (although 50 mph sounds pretty exaggerated) and the collision was a result of several variables lining up in just the right (or in this case, wrong) way.  Maybe he hit an icy section of trail when he tried to stop or turn.  Or maybe the instructor was doing that thing where the kids follow single file and weave back and forth across the trail, and he had nowhere else to go.  There's a million different ways to look at it and a lot we will never know.
> 
> Please, don't think I'm just taking the boarders side.  I'm not.  Chances are he was being reckless and will be held accountable. What bothers me is society's view that someone is always responsible and has to pay, when in fact, sometimes even when we take precautions accidents still happen.  I hope the little girl recovers fully and that this incident doesn't keep her from being raised Jay.



Well I don't know how it can be looked at any other way than the fact that the guy lost control. If you are skiing and you aren't able to stop yourself from hitting another person, that is losing control. Whatever the instructor was having the children do is really irrelevant. Downhill skier always as has the right of way. He should have known not to fly over an area like that without knowing who or what was below it.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 16, 2013)

KevinF said:


> I am not familiar with the layout of Jay Peak, but a big problem at many resorts is that the "beginner trails" are simply the run-out of other trails, or cris-crosses other trails.  How do you block that off?



There is always a way to block out a run, Rabbit run for example, but you already have blocked areas accessed with carpet lifts (Jay has two such areas).  Once a student graduates from there, they're supposed to master the snowplow turn and should be perfectly able to ski open-access beginner trails.

A 5 year old beginner on a beginner slope is highly predictable.  They move at slow speed.  You will not hit one (especially on interstate) unless you deliberately fly by, really close and really fast.  There is no insurance against idiots and this is a clear case of uttermost idiocy.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 16, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Well I don't know how it can be looked at any other way than the fact that the guy lost control. If you are skiing and you aren't able to stop yourself from hitting another person, that is losing control. Whatever the instructor was having the children do is really irrelevant. Downhill skier always as has the right of way. He should have known not to fly over an area like that without knowing who or what was below it.



Well said.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> you asked if the instructor had control of an idiot.  the repsonse was to highlight who the instructor was responsible for. I think it is pretty simple to see who is at fault between the two people involved in the collision, but a five year old is not a ski racer, or an employee, or otherwise aware of the implicit dangers of skiing, the instructor assumes those responsibilities I think, the instructor is an employee of the resort, the resort seems to have some partof the issue to me.
> 
> like everyone else who is human, the adult at fault had probably made that run at that speed many times without incident, doesn't make it right, but it certainly is a development of complacency we are all susceptible to.



If this child had been skiing on the same trail with her parents and say another sibling or two, and the same collision happened, would you still think the resort is liable based on who was leading that child?  If not, then assigning blame to the instructor who was teaching the class really seems to be moot.  Heck, do we even know if this was actually a private lesson with one on one instructor to kis ratio or a group lesson with a few kids to one instructor? Chances are with a 5yr old that a "group" lesson wouldn't have more than 2 kids in it so that an instructor can help not be more than 1 arms length away from the child while riding a lift


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 16, 2013)

drjeff said:


> If this child had been skiing on the same trail with her parents and say another sibling or two, and the same collision happened, would you still think the resort is liable based on who was leading that child? If not, then assigning blame to the instructor who was teaching the class really seems to be moot. Heck, do we even know if this was actually a private lesson with one on one instructor to kis ratio or a group lesson with a few kids to one instructor? Chances are with a 5yr old that a "group" lesson wouldn't have more than 2 kids in it so that an instructor can help not be more than 1 arms length away from the child while riding a lift



No.  I also have stated J isn't responsible for the actions of others.

I would question a parent who is willing ski with their learning child in a high traffic zone filled with a variety of skier levels.  I would question a resort that establishes a learning area in the same zone with minimal delineation or separation of those skiers.


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

drjeff said:


> If this child had been skiing on the same trail with her parents and say another sibling or two, and the same collision happened, would you still think the resort is liable based on who was leading that child?  If not, then assigning blame to the instructor who was teaching the class really seems to be moot.  Heck, do we even know if this was actually a private lesson with one on one instructor to kis ratio or a group lesson with a few kids to one instructor? Chances are with a 5yr old that a "group" lesson wouldn't have more than 2 kids in it so that an instructor can help not be more than 1 arms length away from the child while riding a lift



Groups often are much larger than 2 beginners even at that age.  I have been to resorts like Sugarbush, Okemo, Sunday River and was asked while in the lift line if I wouldn't mind adding a passenger becuase they wanted a 4-6 year old riding with an adult.  How many of you have had that experience?


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> No.  I also have stated J isn't responsible for the actions of others.
> 
> I would question a parent who is willing ski with their learning child in a high traffic zone filled with a variety of skier levels.  I would question a resort that establishes a learning area in the same zone with minimal delineation or separation of those skiers.



Name the resort and you will find group lesson snakes zig zaging down a trail and not only in a beginner area.  Interstate is actually a great learning area.  Plenty of traffic to help with lift hitchhiking since the instructor can not be with every kid - I am sure most of us have been there done that.  Also, the Metro chair is easy to get on and off.

Plenty of resorts use the run outs as beginner terrain for lessons - Jay Peak is not the first.  If there were lawsuits every year for accidents in that area then I can see it but that is not the case.


----------



## tnt (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> No.  I also have stated J isn't responsible for the actions of others.
> 
> I would question a parent who is willing ski with their learning child in a high traffic zone filled with a variety of skier levels.  I would question a resort that establishes a learning area in the same zone with minimal delineation or separation of those skiers.



I'm wondering just where you would take a kid skiing if not to the lower mountain lift to ski down a wide green trail?


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 16, 2013)

tnt said:


> I'm wondering just where you would take a kid skiing if not to the lower mountain lift to ski down a wide green trail?




the same place I took my niece when she was learning, taking a right off the metro puts you under the freezer or further left along where N glade pops out and the entrance to the beginner glade there. We olnly ever went left off the metro to cut across and make the big zig zag, play in the moonwalker woods or head down to the village chair for a few runs. 

edit: that was before the park was so large under the freezer, so it is not the best option now 

for my own kid we don't go to jay to ski yet, burke has a better set up, owls head too


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 16, 2013)

dlague said:


> So with that logic if a police officer drives illegally in the town he works in and causes injury to others then the Police Department is at fault too?
> 
> He was skiing on his own time.  Worst yet, he knew the area and should have had more sense!



I dont know where you got that from, all I was saying, is that it is mighty convenient for jp that the employee was fired days before the accident, but was still using his employee pass.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 16, 2013)

dlague said:


> Groups often are much larger than 2 beginners even at that age.  I have been to resorts like Sugarbush, Okemo, Sunday River and was asked while in the lift line if I wouldn't mind adding a passenger becuase they wanted a 4-6 year old riding with an adult.  How many of you have had that experience?



Point of reference, the date the accident occurred is listed in the article as April 17th, which was a Wednesday.  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the ski school at Jay wasn't getting slammed with tons of young beginners that day 

I'll further go out on that limb and guess that the trails at Jay weren't wall to wall people on that Wednesday in mid April


----------



## drjeff (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> the same place I took my niece when she was learning, taking a right off the metro puts you under the freezer or further left along where N glade pops out and the entrance to the beginner glade there. We olnly ever went left off the metro to cut across and make the big zig zag, play in the moonwalker woods or head down to the village chair for a few runs.
> 
> edit: that was before the park was so large under the freezer, so it is not the best option now
> 
> ...



Question, since i'm by no means a Jay regular.  Would that terrain that you referenced typically be open and available on a Wednesday in Mid April?  The date that the accident occurred was listed as April 17th, which was a Wednesday this year. Not stereotypically a busy time of the ski season for any resort


----------



## tnt (Oct 16, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> the same place I took my niece when she was learning, taking a right off the metro puts you under the freezer or further left along where N glade pops out and the entrance to the beginner glade there. We olnly ever went left off the metro to cut across and make the big zig zag, play in the moonwalker woods or head down to the village chair for a few runs.
> 
> edit: that was before the park was so large under the freezer, so it is not the best option now
> 
> for my own kid we don't go to jay to ski yet, burke has a better set up, owls head too




Totally off topic, but i really want to try Burke some day.  Never been.


----------



## C-Rex (Oct 16, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Well I don't know how it can be looked at any other way than the fact that the guy lost control. If you are skiing and you aren't able to stop yourself from hitting another person, that is losing control. Whatever the instructor was having the children do is really irrelevant. Downhill skier always as has the right of way. He should have known not to fly over an area like that without knowing who or what was below it.




Ok, I didn't articulate my thoughts well before.  What I'm saying is that things can change rapidly due to many variables, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the skier/rider was acting negligently or irresponsibly.

For example:  Say the conditions up the trail were nice and soft. He could have been in control, even at a high rate of speed and able to stop if need be, but as he came around a corner or over a rise, the surface conditions changed.  Let's say it was a shady, wind-blown or scraped off area where the surface suddenly became icy.  The grip level drops suddenly just as the kid comes into view and the accident happens before he can adjust to a proper speed.  Is he still reckless?  No. He's a victim of circumstances.  When something like this happens, people often assume that the person was being stupid or careless when that may not have been the case.  It may have just been an unfortunate way for rapidly evolving circumstances to play out.

Again, I'm not saying this particular guy wasn't acting recklessly.  He probably was, but it is possible for things like this to happen when it's not really anyone's fault.  It could just be an honest accident, but people generally jump to the conclusion that somone is to blame.

I'm a big advocate for personal responsibility, so when blame is warranted I believe it should be accepted by the guilty party, but we should not jump to blaming someone when we don't know all the facts, and we should remember that true accidents do happen.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 16, 2013)

Friggin' management....


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 16, 2013)

drjeff said:


> Question, since i'm by no means a Jay regular. Would that terrain that you referenced typically be open and available on a Wednesday in Mid April? The date that the accident occurred was listed as April 17th, which was a Wednesday this year. Not stereotypically a busy time of the ski season for any resort



I was there that day, the mountain was still skiing close to 100%.  Only skied the village chair with my niece so I couldn't tell you if it was available or not as I was solo.  The snow was there, but mid april the lifts go down as they drop mid week employees.  It very well could be the metro was all that was left.  Busy or not, it still seems like some red flags should have been flown.  It was an awful accident.  I second the JPR ski patrol, they do a great job.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 16, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> For example:  Say the conditions up the trail were nice and soft. He could have been in control, even at a high rate of speed and able to stop if need be, but as he came around a corner or over a rise, the surface conditions changed.  Let's say it was a shady, wind-blown or scraped off area where the surface suddenly became icy.  The grip level drops suddenly just as the kid comes into view and the accident happens before he can adjust to a proper speed.  Is he still reckless?  No.



He is still reckless in my view.  You are supposed to adjust your speed as a function of conditions.  He arrived in a congested zone with heavy traffic (unloading zone of the metro quad).  You have to slow down BEFORE you get there.  If you are competent enough to go at 50mph (I doubt it was that fast) in control, you are competent enough to expect hard packed conditions at a trail merge/unloading zone and slow down accordingly.  

If you hit someone at high speed because you lost control, you were going too fast.  It is that simple.   If you drive your car 60mph in a snowstorm and lose control on an icy area, it is your fault.  It's not the ice patch fault.


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> Ok, I didn't articulate my thoughts well before.  What I'm saying is that things can change rapidly due to many variables, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the skier/rider was acting negligently or irresponsibly.
> 
> For example:  Say the conditions up the trail were nice and soft. He could have been in control, even at a high rate of speed and able to stop if need be, but as he came around a corner or over a rise, the surface conditions changed.  Let's say it was a shady, wind-blown or scraped off area where the surface suddenly became icy.  The grip level drops suddenly just as the kid comes into view and the accident happens before he can adjust to a proper speed.  Is he still reckless?  No. He's a victim of circumstances.  When something like this happens, people often assume that the person was being stupid or careless when that may not have been the case.  It may have just been an unfortunate way for rapidly evolving circumstances to play out.
> 
> ...



There was another law suit that involved someone who is a good skier but lost control and did not make it.  The resort was being sued due to trail conditions - not sure what ever came of that , but it is an example of what you are talking about.  Probably a good reason to check speed.  I think many of us are all guilty of excessive speed at one time or another and never think about catching/losing an edge or the occasional snow sharks!


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 16, 2013)

tnt said:


> Totally off topic, but i really want to try Burke some day. Never been.



You need to go before it changes anymore......


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> He is still reckless in my view.  You are supposed to adjust your speed as a function of conditions.  He arrived in a congested zone with heavy traffic (unloading zone of the metro quad).  You have to slow down BEFORE you get there.  If you are competent enough to go at 50mph (I doubt it was that fast) in control, you are competent enough to expect hard packed conditions at a trail merge/unloading zone and slow down accordingly.
> 
> If you hit someone at high speed because you lost control, you were going too fast.  It is that simple.   If you drive your car 60mph in a snowstorm and lose control on an icy area, it is your fault.  It's not the ice patch fault.



Nice analogy!


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 16, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> Ok, I didn't articulate my thoughts well before.  What I'm saying is that things can change rapidly due to many variables, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the skier/rider was acting negligently or irresponsibly.
> 
> For example:  Say the conditions up the trail were nice and soft. He could have been in control, even at a high rate of speed and able to stop if need be, but as he came around a corner or over a rise, the surface conditions changed.  Let's say it was a shady, wind-blown or scraped off area where the surface suddenly became icy.  The grip level drops suddenly just as the kid comes into view and the accident happens before he can adjust to a proper speed.  Is he still reckless?  No. He's a victim of circumstances.  When something like this happens, people often assume that the person was being stupid or careless when that may not have been the case.  It may have just been an unfortunate way for rapidly evolving circumstances to play out.
> 
> ...



I would say negligent but not reckless.  reckless means he was acting in a way a reasonable person would know is likely to result in injury.  I dont think the conduct rises to that level from what we know from the newspaper.


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 16, 2013)

Off the cuff this lawsuit screams hyperbole really. 50mph, on a snowboard, on a green run, means the kid should probably be in the World Cup, as that's serious speed on a green while snowboarding. I highly suspect that number is bullshit. I also think the girl would be dead if he was going that fast.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Oct 16, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Off the cuff this lawsuit screams hyperbole really. 50mph, on a snowboard, on a green run, means the kid should probably be in the World Cup, as that's serious speed on a green while snowboarding. I highly suspect that number is bullshit. I also think the girl would be dead if he was going that fast.



You should go back and read the previous pages in more detail, then have a look at the JPR trail map. Snowboarder was coming down a blue run that merges into a green and also happens to be located at the exit of a beginner chair. I agree that 50 mph seems exaggerated but I can assure you that it takes little effort to achieve mach looney on Lower Quai, requiring either a massive speed dump to avoid getting a strike in the bowling alley at the top of the Metro Chair or at least some evasive action before arcing it out on the Interstate. 

If snowboarder was riding regular, his blind side would be on rider's left, exactly where the ski class would be coming from.


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 16, 2013)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> You should go back and read the previous pages in more detail, then have a look at the JPR trail map. Snowboarder was coming down a blue run that merges into a green and also happens to be located at the exit of a beginner chair. I agree that 50 mph seems exaggerated but I can assure you that it takes little effort to achieve mach looney on Lower Quai, requiring either a massive speed dump to avoid getting a strike in the bowling alley at the top of the Metro Chair or at least some evasive action before arcing it out on the Interstate.
> 
> If snowboarder was riding regular, his blind side would be on rider's left, exactly where the ski class would be coming from.



Remember skis can gain not only more speed, but accelerate faster than a snowboard. 50mph is hauling ass on a snowboard, not to say its impossible, but highly unlikely in this scenario. 50mph is tough to hit in a place like Jackson on a board, let alone East Coast terrain. Furthermore, posturing like that really hurts credibility IMO. And blind side really doesn't apply to shit right in front of you, more often someone catching you at speed on his blind side, but I suspect a 6 year old wasn't gaining on him either.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Oct 16, 2013)

^^^ Who is posturing? I was simply putting out a few facts for you, since it appeared that you didn't absorb any information from the preceding eight pages. The speed was discussed at length, the location was discussed ad nauseum and we really have no idea how this all happened, when it comes right down to it. And the kid was five, not six. You didn't even absorb my post, where I agreed with you on the speed point. The blind side may or may not be an issue but I think it is worth pondering.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 16, 2013)

What it boils down to to me is that I can't assign any responsibility to the person instructing/caring for the young victim nor the mountain's policies on having instruction held on Interstate.  

I don't mean to diminish the awful experience of this young girl and her family, but how often does such an accident during a ski school lesson with youngsters even happen in our sport at such a horrific level?  A handful of times across the country during a season of 50+ million skier visits?  I wouldn't be surprised if such a horrible accident has never occurred during Jay's ski school prior to this one event. Think of the tens of thousands of young skiers who have probably been taught on Interstate for years and years. A freak accident happens and now the mountain is either somehow criminally liable or at the very least needs to change it's policy on where youngsters are taught how to ski when it was a pedestrian not on the clock who caused the accident?  

Even if Jay should be considered criminally liable or you believe they need to change their policies; at what age/ability level can you make a case that the mountain is not liable conducting a ski lesson on Interstate and that it's okay to offer ski instruction on that trail?   Age is out because there are 5 year olds that can ski Kitz Woods at Jay.  Ability is out because a young beginner could get decked on any green trail on the mountain that's open to the public.  It's all completely subjective.  The only argument I could see for criminal liability or need for policy change is if Jay has a long documented history of similar accidents occurring in their ski school and a demonstrated refusal to improve safety. 

I understand the concept of a ski instructor trying to bring along youngsters in a safe environment, but such a freak accident could happen practically anywhere on a ski mountain; and it hardly ever does.  If it did happen often, far fewer of us would be participating in the sport or allowing or children to.


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 16, 2013)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> ^^^ Who is posturing? I was simply putting out a few facts for you, since it appeared that you didn't absorb any information from the preceding eight pages. The speed was discussed at length, the location was discussed ad nauseum and we really have no idea how this all happened, when it comes right down to it. And the kid was five, not six. You didn't even absorb my post, where I agreed with you on the speed point. The blind side may or may not be an issue but I think it is worth pondering.



Settle down Francis, I wasnt implying you were posturing, the lawsuit is.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Oct 16, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Settle down Francis, I wasnt implying you were posturing, the lawsuit is.



Well, that's a relief.

Meanwhile, kudos to DHS for bringing the thread back on track. It really is a messed up situation for all involved, with the emotions evoked by injured children making it all the more complicated.


----------



## gladerider (Oct 16, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> What it boils down to to me is that I can't assign any responsibility to the person instructing/caring for the young victim nor the mountain's policies on having instruction held on Interstate.
> 
> I don't mean to diminish the awful experience of this young girl and her family, but how often does such an accident during a ski school lesson with youngsters even happen in our sport at such a horrific level?  A handful of times across the country during a season of 50+ million skier visits?  I wouldn't be surprised if such a horrible accident has never occurred during Jay's ski school prior to this one event. Think of the tens of thousands of young skiers who have probably been taught on Interstate for years and years. A freak accident happens and now the mountain is either somehow criminally liable or at the very least needs to change it's policy on where youngsters are taught how to ski when it was a pedestrian not on the clock who caused the accident?
> 
> ...



i doubt the case is for criminal negligence. there was no action on JP's part. i believe a case like this is for strict liability, which means that you sold something and the customer was injured. it's simple as that.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 16, 2013)

gladerider said:


> i doubt the case is for criminal negligence. there was no action on JP's part. i believe a case like this is for strict liability, which means that you sold something and the customer was injured. it's simple as that.



What was sold required signing a waiver educating the consumer of the risks of the product and the consumer agreeing the mountain/business shall not be held criminally accountable for those risks. These are risks we ALL assume everyday we click in and ride a lift.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 16, 2013)

gladerider said:


> i doubt the case is for criminal negligence. there was no action on JP's part. i believe a case like this is for strict liability, which means that you sold something and the customer was injured. it's simple as that.



Whoa, whoa.  Hold on there Vladimir Putin...this isn't Russia.  Criminal charges against corporations are very, very rare and only in extreme cases....like Deepwater Horizon.  Yesterday most of us were skeptical about a civil case against JPR.  

And this is in no way a case of strict liability.  This is not based on products liability or ultrahazardous activity.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 16, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> Ok, I didn't articulate my thoughts well before.  What I'm saying is that things can change rapidly due to many variables, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the skier/rider was acting negligently or irresponsibly.
> 
> For example:  Say the conditions up the trail were nice and soft. He could have been in control, even at a high rate of speed and able to stop if need be, but as he came around a corner or over a rise, the surface conditions changed.  Let's say it was a shady, wind-blown or scraped off area where the surface suddenly became icy.  The grip level drops suddenly just as the kid comes into view and the accident happens before he can adjust to a proper speed.  Is he still reckless?  No. He's a victim of circumstances.  When something like this happens, people often assume that the person was being stupid or careless when that may not have been the case.  It may have just been an unfortunate way for rapidly evolving circumstances to play out.
> 
> ...



Well I think that brings me to my previous point.....is this guy being treated differently because he was an instructor? Is the expectation higher for patroller, race coaches, and instructors. Would the individual have been sued if it was just a regular joe? I really don't know if they would have gone after him.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## x10003q (Oct 16, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Well I think that brings me to my previous point.....is this guy being treated differently because he was an instructor? Is the expectation higher for patroller, race coaches, and instructors. Would the individual have been sued if it was just a regular joe? I really don't know if they would have gone after him.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



Yes they would have gone after him even if he was just a day ticket customer.


----------



## gladerider (Oct 16, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> What was sold required signing a waiver educating the consumer of the risks of the product and the consumer agreeing the mountain/business shall not be held criminally accountable for those risks. These are risks we ALL assume everyday we click in and ride a lift.  It's as simple as that.



i am not disagreeing with you. the tricky part here is that this is very different from you and i buying into the skier's code and signing a waiver. it's not about how much fault/blame you can place on a reckless snowboarder either. and definitely not about that poor instructor. this is a case about a 5 year old, who was under JP's care. if you want sample cases? just look at the daycare industry. you think those parents sign a waiver?
as a for profit organization selling a product (in this case a service of ski instruction), it is your responsibility to make sure your product is safe. i am not trying to say that the parents should have sued. what i am saying is that this is how often it works in this country in our legal system. 

now as a parent of 3 kids do i think JP could have done better? i think so. i cannot remember which resort, but i have seen in one occasion where more than 2 instructors (in the front, and the back of the group) were protecting a group of small children going down the mountain making sure the traffic behind the kids are alerted to stay far away from their kids. 

the net net of it is, the resorts will tighten up the instructors, raise the prices and create more process nightmares, well that sux doesn't it. blame the rogue snowboarder....it only takes just one punk.....


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 16, 2013)

gladerider said:


> i am not disagreeing with you. the tricky part here is that this is very different from you and i buying into the skier's code and signing a waiver. it's not about how much fault/blame you can place on a reckless snowboarder either. and definitely not about that poor instructor. this is a case about a 5 year old, who was under JP's care. if you want sample cases? just look at the daycare industry. you think those parents sign a waiver?
> as a for profit organization selling a product (in this case a service of ski instruction), it is your responsibility to make sure your product is safe. i am not trying to say that the parents should have sued. what i am saying is that this is how often it works in this country in our legal system.
> 
> now as a parent of 3 kids do i think JP could have done better? i think so. i cannot remember which resort, but i have seen in one occasion where more than 2 instructors (in the front, and the back of the group) were protecting a group of small children going down the mountain making sure the traffic behind the kids are alerted to stay far away from their kids.
> ...



This, again, is not about a product.  That comparison is not accurate.  This is about a service that was rendered and, as said, the parents signed a standard release before leaving their kid with the lesson.  I took a (free) lesson at JPR 10 years ago and even then I had to sign a release.  It's pretty standard and they are usually enforceable.  They most likely agreed to release JPR for ordinary negligence.  

And yes, I've signed a release for my little one before she went to daycare at Snowbird.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 16, 2013)

gladerider said:


> as a for profit organization selling a product (in this case a service of ski instruction), it is your responsibility to make sure your product is safe...



skiing isn't safe.  that's why there are waivers for participation at every turn.

the consumer assumes those risks by agreeing to participate.  parents assume those risks by signing their kids up for ski school.

it's the nature of the sport.  on rare occasions, horrible things happen.  I know it sounds cold, but if you don't want to subject yourself or your loved ones to those risks, you have a choice to not participate.  it's that simple.


----------



## gladerider (Oct 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Whoa, whoa.  Hold on there Vladimir Putin...this isn't Russia.  Criminal charges against corporations are very, very rare and only in extreme cases....like Deepwater Horizon.  Yesterday most of us were skeptical about a civil case against JPR.
> 
> And this is in no way a case of strict liability.  This is not based on products liability or ultrahazardous activity.



is that a fact or your assumption? also, i said i DOUBT it is a criminal case since like you said such case would be very rare.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 16, 2013)

gladerider said:


> is that a fact or your assumption? also, i said i DOUBT it is a criminal case since like you said such case would be very rare.



It's a fact.  Simple as that.  This is not a lawsuit about a defective product and there is not a basis for criminal liability here.  The claim against JPR is negligent hiring and training.  That's a tort.


----------



## gladerider (Oct 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> This, again, is not about a product.  That comparison is not accurate.  This is about a service that was rendered and, as said, the parents signed a standard release before leaving their kid with the lesson.  I took a (free) lesson at JPR 10 years ago and even then I had to sign a release.  It's pretty standard and they are usually enforceable.  They most likely agreed to release JPR for ordinary negligence.
> 
> And yes, I've signed a release for my little one before she went to daycare at Snowbird.



i used product/service interchangeably, but that's my bad. i think you are missing my point though. unless i am mistaken waivers protect the resorts normally from things that are out of their control. i bet this case is arguing that providing safe service is part of their control, which may be a tough case for an adult, but not so for a 5 year old, imo.

also, i brought up the daycare thing just to show you that even though parents sign waivers for the daycare services, they sue daycares all the time and guess what, their chances are often very good.


----------



## gladerider (Oct 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> It's a fact.  Simple as that.  This is not a lawsuit about a defective product and there is not a basis for criminal liability here.  The claim against JPR is negligent hiring and training.  That's a tort.



did not know that. poor instructor. i still think JPR would lose based on kid's age. not good for the instructors in the future.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 16, 2013)

gladerider said:


> did not know that. poor instructor. i still think JPR would lose based on kid's age. not good for the instructors in the future.



I feel bad for the instructor on duty and that was leading the group; the guy who ran into the group, as said, was an idiot.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 16, 2013)

Most likely the instructor was truly no longer employed.  Since it was late season he was most likely told that his services were no longer needed as there were not enough lessons anymore.  He still possessed his pass, because he had done nothing wrong to lose his job.

Pretty much every mtn lays off most of its teaching staff at the end of the year, but lets them keep skiing on the pass.  Since Jay has a RFID system I can guarantee you that the pass would have been terminated immediately had he been fired(I know it is at the mtn I am familiar with)


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 17, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Whoa, whoa. Hold on there Vladimir Putin...this isn't Russia. Criminal charges against corporations are very, very rare and only in extreme cases....like Deepwater Horizon. Yesterday most of us were skeptical about a civil case against JPR.
> 
> And this is in no way a case of strict liability. This is not based on products liability or ultrahazardous activity.



Magnitsky had it coming!


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 17, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Is the expectation higher for patroller, race coaches, and instructors. Would the individual have been sued if it was just a regular joe? I really don't know if they would have gone after him.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



I think expectations should be higher.  If I was the ski school manager, I would make clear to all instructors that if you are skiing for free with a Jay Peak jacket on, you are an ambassador.  You act nice, you talk to people, you help old ladies.  As to the lawsuit, I think they would probably have gone after him anyway, but it sure helps the case against Jay Peak that the guy was an instructor.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 17, 2013)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Most likely the instructor was truly no longer employed.  Since it was late season he was most likely told that his services were no longer needed as there were not enough lessons anymore.  He still possessed his pass, because he had done nothing wrong to lose his job.
> 
> Pretty much every mtn lays off most of its teaching staff at the end of the year, but lets them keep skiing on the pass.  Since Jay has a RFID system I can guarantee you that the pass would have been terminated immediately had he been fired(I know it is at the mtn I am familiar with)



I think you are spot on.  Saying he was fired seems a bit like posturing for the media.  If he truly had done something wrong, his pass would have been immediately canceled. Very easy to do with RFID.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 17, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I feel bad for the instructor on duty and that was leading the group; the guy who ran into the group, as said, was an idiot.



Oh Attorney TB, you're jumping to conclusions here that the child injured was in a group lesson  . I don't believe quickly looking back over the press releases that it says more than just the child was in a lesson at JPR.  

If this was the case where it was actually a private lesson, or one of the "group" lessons that turns into a private since it was being given mid week in mid April then would one view this overall scenario of who's at "fault" for the injured child being in that place at that time any differently? Since I think that we all can agree that in a "private" lesson situation the instructor tends to #1 be a "better" instructor and #2 have a much higher awareness of the location of their student and the terrain appropriateness for the student


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 17, 2013)

drjeff said:


> Oh Attorney TB, you're jumping to conclusions here that the child injured was in a group lesson  . I don't believe quickly looking back over the press releases that it says more than just the child was in a lesson at JPR.
> 
> If this was the case where it was actually a private lesson, or one of the "group" lessons that turns into a private since it was being given mid week in mid April then would one view this overall scenario of who's at "fault" for the injured child being in that place at that time any differently? Since I think that we all can agree that in a "private" lesson situation the instructor tends to #1 be a "better" instructor and #2 have a much higher awareness of the location of their student and the terrain appropriateness for the student



"According to recently filed papers at U.S. District Court in Burlington,  Juliana Kane was among six youngsters undergoing instruction on  Interstate, a beginner trail, on April 17 when Jay Peak instructor  William Vincent came down the hill at a high rate of speed."


----------



## drjeff (Oct 17, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> "According to recently filed papers at U.S. District Court in Burlington,  Juliana Kane was among six youngsters undergoing instruction on  Interstate, a beginner trail, on April 17 when Jay Peak instructor  William Vincent came down the hill at a high rate of speed."




Thank you for the clarification smellytele, I stand corrected


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 17, 2013)

drjeff said:


> Oh Attorney TB, you're jumping to conclusions here that the child injured was in a group lesson  . I don't believe quickly looking back over the press releases that it says more than just the child was in a lesson at JPR.
> 
> If this was the case where it was actually a private lesson, or one of the "group" lessons that turns into a private since it was being given mid week in mid April then would one view this overall scenario of who's at "fault" for the injured child being in that place at that time any differently? Since I think that we all can agree that in a "private" lesson situation the instructor tends to #1 be a "better" instructor and #2 have a much higher awareness of the location of their student and the terrain appropriateness for the student



Would it really matter anyways? Say the instructor stopped in a better spot and was uphill above the student like I was always taught. It still could have happened because the snowboarder was out of control and in my mind wreckless. I had 2 coworkers get bad injuries in the same season while they were teaching, and stopped in a safe place on the side of the trail. They were standing above their class and both got hit hard (one torn his rotator cuff and the other his ACL). I think it's ridiculous to be placing blame on the instructor in a case like this. It's easy to play monday morning quarterback but unless you have taught a lesson with young kids you probably don't understand why an instructor might have to stop in a bad spot or why they weren't above them at the time, etc.

On a side note, when I taught an intermediate lesson to kids I would bring them into the terrain park because the half pipe and rollers were perfect for some drills. I can only imagine how I would have crucified by some people on here if someone plowed into one of my kids and injured them.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## VT_Snowrider (Oct 17, 2013)

KevinF said:


> Weird that Jay Peak had apparently terminated the employee in question but had yet to revoke his employee lift pass, as they were going to "exchange" it for his final paycheck?  Knowing what ski area employees are paid, I'm thinking a lift pass is worth more than the paycheck.



Not meant to be an even exchange. More like "We're not paying you until you hand over your pass." Pass is definitely is worth more than the check, but w/most lifties just being seasonal workers and living paycheck to paycheck they thought he'd defintely want the cash and would come for his check. As a liftie here in VT I see this happen every season. People rarely surrender their passes when they're fired. As was stated already they could have de--activated his RIFD pass, but sometimes things like that aren't a priority while running a multi million dollar resort.


----------



## dlague (Oct 17, 2013)

VT_Snowrider said:


> Not meant to be an even exchange. More like "We're not paying you until you hand over your pass." Pass is definitely is worth more than the check, but w/most lifties just being seasonal workers and living paycheck to paycheck they thought he'd defintely want the cash and would come for his check. As a liftie here in VT I see this happen every season. People rarely surrender their passes when they're fired. As was stated already they could have de--activated his RIFD pass, but sometimes things like that aren't a priority while running a multi million dollar resort.



Plus they probably did not expect him to plow someone over either!  

Based on some of the points of view that I have read may be Jay Peak and the instructor need a better crystal ball so accidents do not happen and better predict the future!


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 17, 2013)

This talk of April 17th being dead seems odd to me. While obviously not Christmas week busy, I do know that the 17th fell during school vacation weeks for my hometown last year. Probably a bit more busy than your typical end of season midweek day, but I wasn't their either. 

Even still, a mtn of Jay's caliber is probably filling at least one or two beginner lessons every day of the season IME.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 17, 2013)

VT_Snowrider said:


> Not meant to be an even exchange. More like "We're not paying you until you hand over your pass." Pass is definitely is worth more than the check, but w/most lifties just being seasonal workers and living paycheck to paycheck they thought he'd defintely want the cash and would come for his check. As a liftie here in VT I see this happen every season. People rarely surrender their passes when they're fired. As was stated already they could have de--activated his RIFD pass, but sometimes things like that aren't a priority while running a multi million dollar resort.


My local mtn holds the paycheck till the instructor turns in their coats. 
If a employee calls in sick on a day the HR department will turn off their season pass for the day as well.


Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 10, 2013)

Bump.

The boarder claims he was working at the time of the accident; Jay says not.  

http://www.wcax.com/story/24180245/new-twist-in-ski-resort-lawsuit


----------



## dlague (Dec 10, 2013)

In light of other threads related to collisions - this one is a relevant story and adds another scenario!  An out of control "winter recreational person" runs into a kid!


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.
> 
> The boarder claims he was working at the time of the accident; Jay says not.
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/story/24180245/new-twist-in-ski-resort-lawsuit



funny, I thought there was something fishy about their claim that he had recently been fired but they hadnt bothered to revoke his rfid pass.


----------



## powderdaypatriot (Dec 10, 2013)

KevinF said:


> Weird that Jay Peak had apparently terminated the employee in question but had yet to revoke his employee lift pass, as they were going to "exchange" it for his final paycheck?  Knowing what ski area employees are paid, I'm thinking a lift pass is worth more than the paycheck.



The ski-resort should deactivated the pass...sad to see


----------



## mbedle (Dec 10, 2013)

http://www.7dvt.com/2013slippery-slopes-who-pays-when-skiers-get-hurt-vermont

Interesting take on the whole thing.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 10, 2013)

mbedle said:


> http://www.7dvt.com/2013slippery-slopes-who-pays-when-skiers-get-hurt-vermont
> 
> Interesting take on the whole thing.






> The suit filed on Juliana Kane’s behalf may have a better chance of succeeding if it is aimed at a private person rather than at the resort



The problem is that the private person is this case is unlikely to have much money.


----------



## mbedle (Dec 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> The problem is that the private person is this case is unlikely to have much money.



That my friend, is the problem in general with most lawsuits. 
.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 10, 2013)

I find it hard to believe that a resort like Jay Peak would not have a dedicted beginner/novice area segregated from the rest of mountain where people can learn to ski without the risk that some moron will be straightlining a runout to avoid skating back to a lift.  It is unconscionable that Jay Peak would permit its instructors to give lessons to beginners (especially children) under such circumstances.  I hope the child's family ends up owning the resort.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 10, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I find it hard to believe that a resort like Jay Peak would not have a dedicted beginner/novice area segregated from the rest of mountain where people can learn to ski without the risk that some moron will be straightlining a runout to avoid skating back to a lift.  It is unconscionable that Jay Peak would permit its instructors to give lessons to beginners (especially children) under such circumstances.  I hope the child's family ends up owning the resort.



It is my understanding that the girl was indeed hit in a low speed zone where they take all beginners once they graduate from the magic carpet.  The low speed zone is just below a steeper slope where it is possible to reach high speed.  There is an unloading zone (lower mountain quad) and only an idiot would try to go across at high speed.   

The guy was a moron, although Highway Star will probably argue that the little girl did not obey rules no 3 and 4 of the code of conduct.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 10, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I find it hard to believe that a resort like Jay Peak would not have a dedicted beginner/novice area segregated from the rest of mountain where people can learn to ski without the risk that some moron will be straightlining a runout to avoid skating back to a lift.  It is unconscionable that Jay Peak would permit its instructors to give lessons to beginners (especially children) under such circumstances.  I hope the child's family ends up owning the resort.



I disagree.  The "novice area" is one of the most dangerous places at the resort.  

You can run a mountain efficiently, but you cant efficiently control morons.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> You can run a mountain efficiently, but you cant efficiently control morons.



We certainly agree on that part.


----------



## Steve@jpr (Dec 11, 2013)

This is exactly correct and the notion of 'owning the resort' provides a nice corollary to the cost of lift tickets (in case there was a wonder).  I would suggest swallowing more than a teaspoon of data, Dome, before offering those sorts of hopeful forecasts.



BenedictGomez said:


> I disagree.  The "novice area" is one of the most dangerous places at the resort.
> 
> You can run a mountain efficiently, but you cant efficiently control morons.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

Steve@jpr said:


> I would suggest swallowing more than a teaspoon of data, Dome, before offering those sorts of hopeful forecasts.



If you could point me to any data showing that it is safer to teach people to ski on a green trail that is used by advanced skiers to access lifts rather than a separate beginners area that does not see any traffic from advanced skiers, I'd love to see it.  If you can show me that a sign designating a portion of a runout as a "slow skiing zone" is just as effective at reducing collisions between beginners _taking lessons from area employees_ and advanced skiers rushing to lifts, I'd love to see that as well.  If you think the only way to provide a safe skiing experience to your customers is by raising ticket prices, well, good luck to you.


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> If you could point me to any data showing that it is safer to teach people to ski on a green trail that is used by advanced skiers to access lifts rather than a separate beginners area that does not see any traffic from advanced skiers, I'd love to see it.  If you can show me that a sign designating a portion of a runout as a "slow skiing zone" is just as effective at reducing collisions between beginners _taking lessons from area employees_ and advanced skiers rushing to lifts, I'd love to see that as well.  If you think the only way to provide a safe skiing experience to your customers is by raising ticket prices, well, good luck to you.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 11, 2013)

With that reasoning, ski resorts should all stop giving lessons. It doesn't matter if no one new can learn how to ski. :roll:


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> With that reasoning, ski resorts should all stop giving lessons. It doesn't matter if no one new can learn how to ski. :roll:



Sure, if they don't want to assume the costs of provide a safe learning environment to novices.  If, on the other hand, they think it in their economic interest to provide lessons to novices to rejuvenate their customer base, then they ought to give some consideration to how to provide those services safely.  In Jay Peak's case, that might involve moving their learning area to the base of the G lift, rather than a heavily trafficked area at the base of three lifts and a terrain park.  What irritates me is the cavalier attitude of ski areas and their representatives that because skiing is an inherently dangerous activity, a ski area cannot be responsible for death or injury unless its a result of negligent infrastructure.  If I am a new skier paying a resort to teach me to ski (or trusting a resort to teach my child to ski), I want to be sure that they are taking whatever steps are necessary to provide a safe learning environment.


----------



## dlague (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> If you could point me to any data showing that it is safer to teach people to ski on a green trail that is used by advanced skiers to access lifts rather than a separate beginners area that does not see any traffic from advanced skiers, I'd love to see it.  If you can show me that a sign designating a portion of a runout as a "slow skiing zone" is just as effective at reducing collisions between beginners _taking lessons from area employees_ and advanced skiers rushing to lifts, I'd love to see that as well.  If you think the only way to provide a safe skiing experience to your customers is by raising ticket prices, well, good luck to you.





Domeskier said:


> I find it hard to believe that a resort like Jay Peak would not have a dedicted beginner/novice area segregated from the rest of mountain where people can learn to ski without the risk that some moron will be straightlining a runout to avoid skating back to a lift.  It is unconscionable that Jay Peak would permit its instructors to give lessons to beginners (especially children) under such circumstances.  I hope the child's family ends up owning the resort.



First, and foremost, Jay Peak is not the only resort to not have a specific lift served beginner only section.  Although there are efforts with the magic carpets on Tram and Stateside. They do have the magic carpet area on the Tram side that is isolated which is where the child started from!  Interstate is a green trail as are most run outs at every resort and beginners swarm these areas and... and low an behold intermediates advanced and expert skiers go through there too!  Very few resorts are set up differently!  At every resort, once a beginner is able to advance to next steps they often leave the beginner area.  Nothing stops anyone from going to any part of a mountain. So I guess if the moron that was hauling ass would have hit a more experienced child then it would be OK?  Or... if that child would have been with a parent rather than a ski instructor that would have been OK?  I do not think that is what you are saying.  Have you not seen instructors with children on various runs throughout resorts before?  We see it all the time!  I am sure you have!  Have you not seen a parent skiing with children on trails through out a resort?  I am sure you have!  The moron hauling ass is the one who bears the burden!  If he would have been in control then this thread would not exist!

Your wish tastes of hate for Jay Peak!  And the increase in lift ticket costs?  The reference from my perspective is if every lawsuit that named a resort would go against the resort while at the same time as the person who caused the incident we would end up paying higher lift ticket prices.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

dlague said:


> Your wish tastes of hate for Jay Peak!  And the increase in lift ticket costs?  The reference from my perspective is if every lawsuit that named a resort would go against the resort while at the same time as the person who caused the incident we would end up paying higher lift ticket prices.



Some of the issues you raise are addressed in my previous response, which I assume you missed while drafting yours.  I do not hate Jay Peak.  I have never been there, but have heard good things about it.  What bothers me is ski areas think they ought to be immune from liability in all cases where skiers collide with and injure one another.  I found it distasteful that Jay Peak's reaction was to distance itself from the snowboader, upon whom it wants to place all of the blame.  I think ski areas should be held to a hightened standard of care when they are providing lessons to novices, especially children.  I think it is reasonable for ski areas to provide a safe learning environment for novices where they don't have to worry about being hit by morons reaching near tuna speed on green trails. I think the girl's family has a good case against Jay Peak for failing to meet that heightened standard of care.  I hope they have a competent attorney who makes the case for them.  I hope Jay Peak takes greater care in the future to prevent such accidents.  I hope they do not try to demonize the girl's family by threatening to pass the costs of increased liability along to its customers in the form of higher lift ticket prices.


----------



## Steve@jpr (Dec 11, 2013)

My point was that the cost of a lift ticket already absorbs the high likelihood that, in cases of injury-be they at fault or no-all roads lead to the resort-given the perception of deep pockets.  As you mention, you've never been here so how in the world do you have a basis for commenting on the physical layout of the resort and how that may or may not have impacted the result?  Suffice to say I won't play this out here-it will happen in the courts but you may want to at least consider that being under-informed on a matter might warrant keeping a tighter lid on your so-called convictions.



Domeskier said:


> If you could point me to any data showing that it is safer to teach people to ski on a green trail that is used by advanced skiers to access lifts rather than a separate beginners area that does not see any traffic from advanced skiers, I'd love to see it.  If you can show me that a sign designating a portion of a runout as a "slow skiing zone" is just as effective at reducing collisions between beginners _taking lessons from area employees_ and advanced skiers rushing to lifts, I'd love to see that as well.  If you think the only way to provide a safe skiing experience to your customers is by raising ticket prices, well, good luck to you.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

Steve@jpr said:


> you may want to at least consider that being under-informed on a matter might warrant keeping a tighter lid on your so-called convictions.



Which is why I have stated my argument in normative terms.  I did not claim that relocating your learners' area to the G lift would necessarily be required to satsify the heightened duty of care that I think applies to ski areas when they assume the responsibility of teaching someone to ski.  Perhaps that would require your developing a whole new learners' area.  Or maybe you've done everything right and don't need to change a thing.  Based on your trail map, it looks like there are better places to teach people to ski than on a runout that services three high capacity lifts.  However, as you mention, that is a matter for the courts to decide.  I can only assume that your attorneys will have a better argument than that your critics are somehow "under-informed."


----------



## tnt (Dec 11, 2013)

I think it's crazy to think all resorts should have 'lessons only' areas other than the magic carpet areas that most already do.  Not only would this be pretty cost prohibitive, it also doesn't teach the student who graduates from the carpet, how to navigate the real lifts, and the mountain in general.  I think it's also really pie in the sky to talk about extra instructors with every group, etc….  and ultimately, another set of eyes can't stop an out of control or super fast skier or boarder from hitting some one.  

And also, even if there was a lessons only area, at some point the group is going to graduate.  At some level, it becomes appropriate for the lesson to move on tot he real mountain.  So that certainly doesn't solve everything.

I don't think there is anything wrong at all about giving lessons where this accident took place - from what we understand.  I think a kid who may or may not have been working of rate resort plowed into a kid getting a lesson on a green trail at the top of a short, primarily beginners trail.  

And that sucks.

But it's hard to see how it's anybody's fault but the out of control boarder IMO.

(I think blue mountain in PA has a 'lessons only' lift that serves about 200 vert.  But even that, I think anyone can ski it.  But you just wouldn't want to…. and yes, that does help keep ABSOLUTE beginners off the hill, but the magic carpets at Jay seem to do the same thing.)

Anyway, it's a real shame this happened.


----------



## tnt (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Which is why I have stated my argument in normative terms.  I did not claim that relocating your learners' area to the G lift would necessarily be required to satsify the heightened duty of care that I think applies to ski areas when they assume the responsibility of teaching someone to ski.  Perhaps that would require your developing a whole new learners' area.  Or maybe you've done everything right and don't need to change a thing.  Based on your trail map, it looks like there are better places to teach people to ski than on a runout that services three high capacity lifts.  However, as you mention, that is a matter for the courts to decide.  I can only assume that your attorneys will have a better argument than that your critics are somehow "under-informed."



If I understand where the accident happened, I wouldn't really call that a 'run-out'.  Its a gentle slope.

Oh - I see - you're calling it a run out, or thinking of it that way, because a lot of higher mountain trails can head toward it.  Yeah, I've only skied Jay for 4 days, but really, if I understand the spot, that wasn't really where we ended up from up top all that frequently.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

tnt said:


> If I understand where the accident happened, I wouldn't really call that a 'run-out'.  Its a gentle slope.
> 
> Oh - I see - you're calling it a run out, or thinking of it that way, because a lot of higher mountain trails can head toward it.  Yeah, I've only skied Jay for 4 days, but really, if I understand the spot, that wasn't really where we ended up from up top all that frequently.



That and the media reports that the snowboarder was observed by witnesses to be traveling at upwards of 50mph at the time of the incident.  I don't think novices should be learning to ski where people can achieve those kinds of speeds.  Tha being said, it is a factual matter whether Jay Peak has satisfied whatever duties it owed to the child it was teaching to ski and, as JPSteve would no doubt quickly point out, I do not have enough information to make that determination.


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> That and the media reports that the snowboarder was observed by witnesses to be traveling at upwards of 50mph at the time of the incident. I don't think novices should be learning to ski where people can achieve those kinds of speeds. Tha being said, it is a factual matter whether Jay Peak has satisfied whatever duties it owed to the child it was teaching to ski and, as JPSteve would no doubt quickly point out, I do not have enough information to make that determination.



I'm sure all those people had their eyes calibrated before heading out that morning as well. Or maybe they all had radar guns. I'm not saying he wasn't going too fast but the idea that he was anywhere near that kind of speed is pretty suspect.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> I'm sure all those people had their eyes calibrated before heading out that morning as well. Or maybe they all had radar guns. I'm not saying he wasn't going too fast but the idea that he was anywhere near that kind of speed is pretty suspect.



Yeah, I think the parties need to hire the Tuna to find out just what kind of speeds are possible on that trail (insert animated icon of skiing bluefin here).


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 11, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> I'm sure all those people had their eyes calibrated before heading out that morning as well. Or maybe they all had radar guns. I'm not saying he wasn't going too fast but the idea that he was anywhere near that kind of speed is pretty suspect.


Agreed, 50MPH is pretty fast.
Those speeds are possible to have within 130 yards of the top of the Metro Quad. Reaching 50mph on Lower River Quai is doable, but EXTREMELY stupid, especially for someone like the snowboarder who knows that the area at the bottom is the unloading zone for a lift (complete with big orange SLOW signs). Once entering Interstate via Lower River Quai, maintaining 50mph is nearly impossible due to the large decrease in slope angle. Hence the 130 yards cutoff where initial speed entering the zone should have drop well below 50mph.
I'm guessing this incident may have occurred near one of the waterbars that cross Interstate. A few of those could potentially have enough roll to them to hide a small child *IF *the snowboarder was ducking down in an aerodynamic position.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Agreed, 50MPH is pretty fast.
> Those speeds are possible to have within 130 yards of the top of the Metro Quad. Reaching 50mph on Lower River Quai is doable, but EXTREMELY stupid, especially for someone like the snowboarder who knows that the area at the bottom is the unloading zone for a lift (complete with big orange SLOW signs). Once entering Interstate via Lower River Quai, maintaining 50mph is nearly impossible due to the large decrease in slope angle. Hence the 130 yards cutoff where initial speed entering the zone should have drop well below 50mph.
> I'm guessing this incident may have occurred near one of the waterbars that cross Interstate. A few of those could potentially have enough roll to them to hide a small child *IF *the snowboarder was ducking down in an aerodynamic position.



This is an excellent analysis.  I will add that advanced skiers are very unlikely to end up on that run.  There are many more interesting options than Lower river quai which is the only way you'll end up on Interstate if you're coming up from above the metro quad. Interstate is a very wide trail.  Very easy to avoid beginners.    If you cannot bring beginners on that trail you might as well stay home.


----------



## dlague (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> What bothers me is ski areas think they ought to be immune from liability in all cases where skiers collide with and injure one another.



This is a joke right?  

While driving, if I get hit by another vehicle driven by a state worker that is off duty - the state should be responsible!  
If someone gets hurt at a skate park because of another skateboarder - towns fault!

If you do not agree with this then how can you make the statements you are making!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 11, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Interstate is a very wide trail. Very easy to avoid beginners. If you cannot bring beginners on that trail you might as well stay home.



Interstate is 40 yards wide for most of the upper third. Then it widens to over 70 in places on the lower sections. It averages about 17% slope.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Interstate is 40 yards wide for most of the upper third. Then it widens to over 70 in places on the lower sections. It averages about 17% slope.




Not that I want to argue with the Master of google earth, but I measure almost 50 yards at it's narrowest point.  Anyway, it is in fact the widest trail at Jay Peak by a large margin.  If you can't avoid a slow beginner on this trail, you would be a public danger on all the other runs.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 11, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Not that I want to argue with the Master of google earth, but I measure almost 50 yards at it's narrowest point.


I didn't include the strip on skiers left where the snow guns are. That is usually not groomed.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I didn't include the strip on skiers left where the snow guns are. That is usually not groomed.



 That's the only fun part of Interstate


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

dlague said:


> This is a joke right?
> 
> While driving, if I get hit by another vehicle driven by a state worker that is off duty - the state should be responsible!
> If someone gets hurt at a skate park because of another skateboarder - towns fault!
> ...



I can make the statement you quoted because it entails only that ski areas might be responsible for *some* injuries resulting from collisions between skiers, e.g., where the ski area incurs a heightened duty of care by determining to teach someone to ski.  There is nothing absurd about it.  The common law is littered with special duties owed by property owners and people who, whether voluntarily or for compensation, adopt special relationships to other people.  Ski areas, their lobbyists and their PR people have done a good job overriding some of those duties with the aid of self-serving lawmakers, but the examples you cite are not arguments for carte blanche immunity from liability for ski areas.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I can make the statement you quoted because it entails only that ski areas might be responsible for *some* injuries resulting from collisions between skiers, e.g., where the ski area incurs a heightened duty of care by determining to teach someone to ski. There is nothing absurd about it. The common law is littered with special duties owed by property owners and people who, whether voluntarily or for compensation, adopt special relationships to other people. Ski areas, their lobbyists and their PR people have done a good job overriding some of those duties with the aid of self-serving lawmakers, but the examples you cite are not arguments for carte blanche immunity from liability for ski areas.



Wow that is pretty revealing.  It sounds like you might have had a bad experience.  And I don't agree with your impression as to what the law is or is not.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Wow that is pretty revealing.  It sounds like you might have had a bad experience.  And I don't agree with your impression as to what the law is or is not.



No bad experience, thankfully.  But I can empathize with a family who entrusted their five year old child to the care of a ski area whose services include teaching that child to ski and having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices.  I do not know whether the ski area violated any duties of care it may have had to the child or whether a court is likely to agree with me that teaching a child to ski involves a greater duty of care than simply providing access to its slopes.  However, from a moral point of view, I think it's outrageous that the ski area would use its publicity machine to characterize this as an issue of whether the out of control boarder was an employee at the time or not.  Having re-read earlier posts in this thread, it seems that it is not uncommon for advanced skiers to ski the slope where the incident occurred at excessive rates of speed.  Presumably the ski area is aware of this, since they felt the need to put up signs designating the slope as a slow skiing zone.  The issue I am raising is whether that is sufficient to discharge whatever duties it may have to the people it is teaching to ski.  I do not blame ski areas for seeking statutory protections from lawmakers in states that rely heavily on revenue from winter sports.  It is in their economic interest (as well as in the interest of most of us who fortunately will never experience the types of injuries this child sufferred and will only reap the benefits of lower ticket prices).  What I object to is the attitude exhibited by many ski areas representatives and many people in this thread that this type of legislative immunity simply codifies our moral intuitions about the responsibilities of ski area operators, rather than economic considerations about the risks we are willing to impose on people, including five year old children, in order to have a cheaper day on the slopes.


----------



## dlague (Dec 11, 2013)

Simply stated - if a snowboarder or skier enters an area where other recreationalist are and they use common sense and they think for one second that they could injure someone else then in this case this discussion would not be happening!  Yes they maybe upset at Jay Peak but that is merely a demographic of where this took place!  My wide got taken out by a beginner on an intermediate trail and severely broke her shoulder (humerus and humerus head) at Burke should Burke be at fault - no!  That could have very well have taken out a child!  Bad things happen at ski areas and that is risk that no one wants to experience but Cart Blanche blaming ski areas is stupid!  There are cases where they should be held liable and I do not deny that!  Being judge and jury with out really knowing specifics is wrong!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> No bad experience, thankfully.  But I can empathize with a family who entrusted their five year old child to the care of a ski area whose services include teaching that child to ski and having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices..



So, basically you think 90% of New England ski areas are "doing it wrong" and putting their ski school kids in danger? Almost all major New England ski resorts have beginner terrain in run out zones and conduct lessons with novices on those slopes.  If you want, I'd be happy to list examples.  

There's no way to come up with a metric that can be defended in court as to what constitutes a safe learning environment that "could *not* foreseeably result in sever injury or death."  That is the inherent risk of the sport; it's what users and their dependents sign up for.  How can you define that when conditions change so rapidly, whether it be snow surface, skier traffic, weather and the ability of the new learning skier?"  

What if the current/former mountain employee had hit just an ordinary novice skier on that trail?  What would Jay's liability be in that situation?


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death



Every time you go skiing, you place yourself in a position which may result in severe injury or death.  If you cannot accept that for yourself or your kid, you should stay home.  As a parent it is YOUR job to evaluate the risk.  Yahoos zooming down with little consideration for others are not that common but they exist at every resort.   



Domeskier said:


> when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices.



That's where you are incorrect.   How can you tell which area is safer on a trail map ???  Tell me which run you think is safer and I'll be happy to comment on your choice.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> That's where you are incorrect.   How can you tell which area is safer on a trail map ??  Tell me which run you think is safer and I'll be happy to comment on your choice.



What about the Village Chair?  Note, however, that the fact that there is no safer place on the mountain to teach novices does not entail that they are satisfying their obligations under the law.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> There's no way to come up with a metric that can be defended in court as to what constitutes a safe learning environment that "could *not* foreseeably result in sever injury or death



They could minimize the risk by not needlessly teaching novices in areas frequented by more advanced skiers.  The fact that skiing is inherently dangerous does not mean that ski areas do not have a duty to minimize some of those risks.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 11, 2013)

dlague said:


> but Cart Blanche blaming ski areas is stupid!



Who is suggesting that?


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 11, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> They could minimize the risk by not needlessly teaching novices in areas frequented by more advanced skiers.  The fact that skiing is inherently dangerous does not mean that ski areas do not have a duty to minimize some of those risks.



You my friend are part of the problem.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> They could minimize the risk by not needlessly teaching novices in areas frequented by more advanced skiers.  The fact that skiing is inherently dangerous does not mean that ski areas do not have a duty to minimize some of those risks.



And I'm sure Jay and all other ski areas do.  How can you possibly establish a "standard" of ski school practice that would hold up in a court of law where the ski area is liable?  There's just far too many variables.  There's no way to define it.  Just look at the date this accident happened on.  April 17th, a WEDNESDAY, during one of the last weeks of the season.  The mountain was likely a ghost town compared to a vacation week and yet, a tragic accident happened.  Jay has probably taught tens of thousands of lessons on this same slope throughout the years without a bad accident like this happening.  It happens once, and now the mountain is somehow partially at fault?  You can't put the sport in such a safety bubble.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> What about the Village Chair?



Raccoon run, under the Village Chair has definitely less advanced skier traffic than the Interstate.  However, it is not a good choice for young kids in ski school for the following reasons:

- you now have to fully cross interstate exposing yourself more then simply going down the run
- to get there you have to use Perry Merril.  The second half is very flat, and small kids (<6) end up having to walk, being pulled or pushed, which is impractical if you have 7 kids under your watch. 
- the Village chair is an old double chair with a very heavy bar.  It sits high. Young kids will not be able to move the bar and may have a hard time getting on the chair so you need an adult with each kid.  The instructor will have to wait several minutes to get each kid with an adult.  The Metro quad only has an upper bar and sits lower.  Definitely designed for younger skiers.
- raccoon run is a concave slope with a very long flat runout and a steepish upper part for beginners.  Not ideal.  Interstate has a constant pitch and is much wider.
- To come back to tramside, you have to use Queen's highway which is the major connecting run.  Lots of Traffic.
- With a group of 8 beginners, I would wage you will easily lose 20-30 minutes just making it back and forth thus losing 25% of your 2-hour lesson time.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> How can you possibly establish a "standard" of ski school practice that would hold up in a court of law where the ski area is liable?  There's just far too many variables.  There's no way to define it.



These duties are not bright-line tests.  That's why we need courts in the first place.  The parties present their case to the trier of fact, who then determines whether under the facts and circumstances the defendant has satisfied its duties to the plaintiff.  I have repeatedly said that I do not know if Jay Peak has breached any duties of care it may have had to the child. I have simply said that I think it is relevant that the child was a student in a class offered by the resort at the time that the accident occurred and that this should be taken into account by the court in determining whether the resort breached a duty to the child.  Frankly, I find it amazing that  this is a controversial point.  Doctors have special responsibilities to their patients, lawyers to their clients, parents to their children and teachers to their students.  You have failed to make the case for why these special responsibilities should not apply when the teacher is an employee of a ski area.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Raccoon run, under the Village Chair has definitely less advanced skier traffic than the Interstate.  However, it is not a good choice for young kids in ski school for the following reasons:



Thanks.  Sounds like JP is not set up to teach novices safely!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Thanks. Sounds like JP is not set up to teach novices safely!


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


>



Picard reconsidering his plan to invest in JP for a green card?!?!


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 12, 2013)

fwiw-i am not aware of a case holding a ski resort liable for injuries caused by another skier because the victim was engaged in a lesson under the supervision of the resort.  That being said, a school for instance, in NY has a duty to supervise the children under their authority as a reasonably prudent parent would.  Applying that standard, I dont see how Jay would be liable.  Jays liability for the actions of the boarder as an employee is a different issue.

BTW-there was an article linked to above, that said that vermont ski areas pay about 20m/year for all kinds of insurance.  That doesnt seem like a lot to me.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> fwiw-i am not aware of a case holding a ski resort liable for injuries caused by another skier because the victim was engaged in a lesson under the supervision of the resort.  That being said, a school for instance, in NY has a duty to supervise the children under their authority as a reasonably prudent parent would.  Applying that standard, I dont see how Jay would be liable.



I wonder if there is any negative precedent.  I think as a matter of first impression, the theory might have some legs.  I do not think it's a homerun for the plaintiff.  However, I do think the fact that a novice skier was nearly killed by a speeding boarder during a lesson raises a question of fact as to whether the resort was reasonable in conducting the lesson on that slope under the circumstances.  Some of the other posters seem to think I am advocating a strict liability standard for injuries that occur during a lesson.  That would be silly, both economically and as a matter of basic fairness.  However, I do think that when someone is providing service to a person, especially for pay, they have an obligation to provide those services in a reasonably prudent manner.  Maybe Jay Peak did so.  I don't know.  But the fact that skiing is inherently dangerous does not mean that a skier accepts sole responsibility for all possible risks, as some posters seem to be suggesting.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> No bad experience, thankfully. But I can empathize with a family who entrusted their five year old child to the care of a ski area whose services include teaching that child to ski and having that ski area place the child in circumstances that could foreseeably result in severe injury or death when its trail map indicates that there may be safer areas to instruct novices. I do not know whether the ski area violated any duties of care it may have had to the child or whether a court is likely to agree with me that teaching a child to ski involves a greater duty of care than simply providing access to its slopes. However, from a moral point of view, I think it's outrageous that the ski area would use its publicity machine to characterize this as an issue of whether the out of control boarder was an employee at the time or not. Having re-read earlier posts in this thread, it seems that it is not uncommon for advanced skiers to ski the slope where the incident occurred at excessive rates of speed. Presumably the ski area is aware of this, since they felt the need to put up signs designating the slope as a slow skiing zone. The issue I am raising is whether that is sufficient to discharge whatever duties it may have to the people it is teaching to ski. I do not blame ski areas for seeking statutory protections from lawmakers in states that rely heavily on revenue from winter sports. It is in their economic interest (as well as in the interest of most of us who fortunately will never experience the types of injuries this child sufferred and will only reap the benefits of lower ticket prices). What I object to is the attitude exhibited by many ski areas representatives and many people in this thread that this type of legislative immunity simply codifies our moral intuitions about the responsibilities of ski area operators, rather than economic considerations about the risks we are willing to impose on people, including five year old children, in order to have a cheaper day on the slopes.



I can't say too much because I actually practice this kind of law in two major ski states, and I am not offering legal advice, but if a ski area had the liability that you claim then they would NEVER be able to get insurance.  EVER.  One MAJOR purpose, generally, for the statutory limitation on liability for ski areas is to make it possible for them to get liability insurance to operate.  They don't get a completely free ride though and they know that.  

That's really all I can generally say.  

I agree that it sucks for the family but shit happens and the person at fault was the snowboarder.  Unfortunately you can't pick who slams into you and may be liable to you. One theme I've seen in this thread has been, "gee, it sucks for the family because the boarder had no money, so Jay should pay because...."  Sorry, that's not a proper reason.  

It's a tough case.  The girl was seriously hurt, the family is rightfully upset, and Jay never wants to see this happen on their slopes.  There may be things that we don't know about that might slightly change the formula, but in the end it was a terrible accident with the boarder at fault.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Thanks.  Sounds like JP is not set up to teach novices safely!



If you feel that way about Jay, you must feel that way about the vast majority of all major New England ski areas.  I could give dozens of examples of similar terrain used by novices all over the place.

 Guess no one new should take up the sport.  All the ski areas are knowingly providing unsafe environments.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 12, 2013)

There is risk in everything you do. There is risk to bending over to pull up you underwear in the morning. 
You can take reasonable measures to reduce risk but you can never completely eliminate it. Suggesting that a ski area should be held negligent since it knows there is a .001% chance someone MAY get injured by an out of control rider is asinine. For the sake of the skiing and riding community I hope that resorts are never held to you incredible expectation. Our sport as we know it wouldn't exist. Only a very few resorts would be able to afford to pay the insurance to cover all potential outcomes. Then only the very richest people would be able to afford to ski at those few places. 
It drives me crazy that people can't accept the fact that there is risk involved in just being alive. If society keeps leaning toward Domes' line of reasoning, we are going to have a really hard time surviving.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I can't say too much because I actually practice this kind of law in two major ski states, and I am not offering legal advice, but if a ski area had the liability that you claim then they would NEVER be able to get insurance.  EVER.  One MAJOR purpose, generally, for the statutory limitation on liability for ski areas is to make it possible for them to get liability insurance to operate.  They don't get a completely free ride though and they know that.



Understood.  I don't think the kind of liability I am talking about would radically change the status quo.  You would know much better than I, but I suspect that the majority of on-slope collisions do not occur when the injured party is taking a lesson.  And I am not suggesting that the ski areas should be liable for all injuries that occur while a ski is taking a lesson.  But if a ski area negligently put someone at risk when they are teaching that person to ski/board, I think they should be liable and I think a statutory exemption is inappropriate.  I am not an underwriter, but I suspect the policies currently in place already exclude acts of negligence by the resort.  If that's right, the kind of liability I am talking about should have minimal impact on insurance rates.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> If you feel that way about Jay, you must feel that way about the vast majority of all major New England ski areas.  I could give dozens of examples of similar terrain used by novices all over the place.
> 
> Guess no one new should take up the sport.  All the ski areas are knowingly providing unsafe environments.



I find it unfortunate that the  has usurped the one of the traditional functions of the exclamation point!


----------



## Steve@jpr (Dec 12, 2013)

And, as it always does, the truth reveals...



Domeskier said:


> Picard reconsidering his plan to invest in JP for a green card?!?!


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> It drives me crazy that people can't accept the fact that there is risk involved in just being alive. If society keeps leaning toward Domes' line of reasoning, we are going to have a really hard time surviving.



It drives me crazy when a person's first response to any claim they disagree with is to jump headlong down a slippery slope.  I am not suggesting that ski areas have an obligation to remove all risks form the sport.  I am only suggesting that they remove unreasonable risks.  Sheesh.  If everyone took your view of risk mitigation, we'd still be diriving around in Corvairs.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

Steve@jpr said:


> And, as it always does, the truth reveals...



Yes, exaclty.  My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a high traffic runout is because I disagree with your development strategies.  Way to uphold the integrity of the PR industry, Steve.  Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the disingenuous and incompetent.

For the record, I am all for encouraging immigration as a tool for economic development.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> But if a ski area negligently put someone at risk when they are teaching that person to ski/board, I think they should be liable and I think a statutory exemption is inappropriate. I am not an underwriter, _*but I suspect the policies currently in place already exclude acts of negligence by the resort*_. _*If that's right, the kind of liability I am talking about should have minimal impact on insurance rates.*_



Ah, I get it.  Just stick it to the resort because it's not insurable.  Increasingly it sounds like your beef is with Jay Peak for whatever reason.  And now there's talk again about the instructor's role.  That is really fact-based and unless we were right there and saw that she pushed the kid out in front of the guy or did something really stupid then I still stand by the "it sucks, but the resort is not at fault" line.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Ah, I get it.  Just stick it to the resort because it's not insurable.



Let me guess - your practice involves defending resorts.  If the alternative is to impose the burden of the resort's negligence on the student it was teaching to ski, then, yes, stick it to the resort.


----------



## dlague (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Let me guess - your practice involves defending resorts.  If the alternative is to impose the burden of the resort's negligence on the student it was teaching to ski, then, yes, stick it to the resort.



Sounds like distribution of wealth to me! Can't get the money from the guy who caused it so go after the business that might have deep pockets! Name of the game these days and it sucks! 

Every person on the mountain is at risk all the time whether they are with an instructor or not!  Coming off Lower River Quai there is ample opportunity to see what is below you - the idiot should have slowed down!  But there is a catch - the idiot has no money!


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

dlague said:


> Sounds like distribution of wealth to me! Can't get the money from the guy who caused it so go after the business that might have deep pockets! Name of the game these days and it sucks!!



Nope - just fair and equitable allocation of risk.  If the ski area is negligent, it should pay up, whether it is insured or not.  If the ski area satisfied all of its duties of care to the skier and the skier is still injured, the resort should not pay.  Skiers assume most but not all of the risks associated with skiing when they purchase a ticket.  But they certainly should not be asked to bear the risk that a resort will discharge the duties it owes to them in a negligent manner.  I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Yes, exaclty.  My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a high traffic runout



The thing is that it is NOT a high traffic runout.  Even if ski resorts built separate hills for beginners, you could never avoid the idiot beginner going to fast and out of control from clipping a young kid.


----------



## dlague (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its *negligent or reckless actions* or inactions.



I think a class action lawsuit against all ski areas that have beginner terrain on run outs should take place to create change in the industry because in your opinion it is a negligent or reckless action.  This will help to prevent injuries in the future!

BTW do you know how many times this has happened in that particular spot since Jay Peak has been open?  There have been millions of skiers who have graced that run since Jay Peak has been around.  Percentage wise it is not often!  Look, the parents have the right to go after Jay Peak as they should - any good lawyer would suggest that.  But I think Jay Peak will be proven as not being negligent or reckless!


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.



Indeed we probably all agree with this, but the problem is that you immediately seemed to assume that Jay Peak was negligent and that you put the bar for the safe teaching of beginners much higher than it is at pretty much all resorts.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Nope - just fair and equitable allocation of risk. If the ski area is negligent, it should pay up, whether it is insured or not. If the ski area satisfied all of its duties of care to the skier and the skier is still injured, the resort should not pay. Skiers assume most but not all of the risks associated with skiing when they purchase a ticket. But they certainly should not be asked to bear the risk that a resort will discharge the duties it owes to them in a negligent manner. I don't think any one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Steve) would argue that a ski area should be immune to liability for its negligent or reckless actions or inactions.



Short of the instructor actually pushing the kid in front of the out of control boarder (an example already used by someone else in this thread), I'm having a hard time understanding how conducting a ski lesson on a wide beginner trail could be considered negligent or reckless. This is why you seem to be alone in whatever argument you are trying to make.
Sure, something like ignoring a mechanical problem with a lift leading to a failure OR an instructor taking a beginner group on a steep Expert rated trail leading to a kid crashing into a tree would be negligent since safety issues were ignored. In this case at Jay the only ignorance that seems to have been demonstrated was by the out of control boarder.


----------



## dlague (Dec 12, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Short of the instructor actually pushing the kid in front of the out of control boarder (an example already used by someone else in this thread), I'm having a hard time understanding how conducting a ski lesson on a wide beginner trail could be considered negligent or reckless. This is why you seem to be alone in whatever argument you are trying to make.
> Sure, something like ignoring a mechanical problem with a lift leading to a failure OR an instructor taking a beginner group on a steep Expert rated trail leading to a kid crashing into a tree would be negligent since safety issues were ignored. *In this case at Jay the only ignorance that seems to have been demonstrated was by the out of control boarder*.



That was fired and hind sight being 20/20 should of had his season pass deactivated!  Who would have predicted this situation!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 12, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> The thing is that it is NOT a high traffic runout.



Even if it was a high traffic runout, it wouldn't be on *WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17th.  
*
I bet Steve could look it up, but I'd be shocked if there were a thousand skiers at the mountain that day.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Indeed we probably all agree with this, but the problem is that you immediately seemed to assume that Jay Peak was negligent and that you put the bar for the safe teaching of beginners much higher than it is at pretty much all resorts.



I am not assuming anything about Jay Peak's conduct.  My point is simply that a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket.  I have suggested that a court could reasonably find that a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier if, under the facts and circumstances, it can be shown that the lesson was conducted in an environment that increased the risk of such injury.  I have stated ad nauseum that it is a matter for the courts to determine whether under the facts and circumstances Jay Peak breached its duty of care to the child.  Based on the available facts, I believe that there is a prima facie case to be made that such a breach occurred.  Apparently many of you here think the only duty a ski area has to people it is teaching to ski is to not shove them into the path of a reckless skier.  I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski is to refrain from committing criminal acts on them.  I doubt that even the most strident champion of tort-reform would make that claim.  Of course, I have a feeling that some of you may prove me wrong.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier

You keep bringing up the ski school students novice ability.

What if it were an adult intermediate level lesson and an adult got creamed from behind by an out of control snowboarder or skier on that trail?

Still the mountain's fault?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Domeskier
> 
> You keep bringing up the ski school students novice ability.
> 
> ...



Depends on the facts and circumstances.  I imagine it would be difficult to effectively teach intermediate level skiers on isolated trails that are not used by all levels of skiers and on which it is not possible for out of control skiers to achieve high levels of speed.  I am focusing on novice skiers because (a) it was a novice skier who was injured here; (b) novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing; and (c) there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision.  I see no problem distinguishing the level of the duties owed by resorts to ski school students based on their age or experience.


----------



## dlague (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Yes, exaclty.  My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a *high traffic runout *is because I disagree with your development strategies.  Way to uphold the integrity of the PR industry, Steve.  Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the disingenuous and incompetent.



Lower River Quai is *not a high traffic run out*!  In fact, Interstate is not either!  You have never skied there so you are talking in general terms which is like .......  We ski there often and I do not see many going down Lower River Quai!

I decided to get some pictures of that run on different days and look how busy it is - not!  I will post these tonight!  I invite you to find pictures that show that set of trails ever to be busy!


----------



## dlague (Dec 12, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Depends on the facts and circumstances.  I imagine it would be difficult to effectively teach intermediate level skiers on isolated trails that are not used by all levels of skiers and on which it is not possible for out of control skiers to achieve high levels of speed.  I am focusing on novice skiers because (a) it was a novice skier who was injured here; (b) novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing; and (c) there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision.  I see no problem distinguishing the level of the duties owed by resorts to ski school students based on their age or experience.



Kids period do not assess risk very well!  This does not mean that run was a bad place because it is not!  I take it that you have not skied much because kids are being taught in all kinds of terrain.  You are trying very hard to make this fit a specific criteria and dismiss everything else or the fact kids on trails with advanced skiers is prevalent in the industry including with an instructor!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 12, 2013)

Wait 
Domeskier has never skied Jay?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 12, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Wait
> Domeskier has never skied Jay?



If it's not under a dome, I don't want to ski it!  But in all seriousness, I think this debate has run its course.  You guys want to argue the facts of the case, I am interested in the principles applicable to it.  I am certain I will be unable to convince you that the principle I am discussing fits the facts here.  I am also pretty sure that you will be unable to persuade me that this principle is defective or overly burdensome or otherwise unreasonable.  I suspect it's not worth anyone's time to continue this, though I'm happy to let anyone who feels aggrieved by any of my comments or the tone of any of my posts to have the last word.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 12, 2013)

Yup you're correct Dome skier.  The only thing you've persuaded me of is an opinion that you are a sue happy individual and as steamboat1 said...part of the problem.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 12, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Yup you're correct Dome skier.  The only thing you've persuaded me of is an opinion that you are a sue happy individual and as steamboat1 said...part of the problem.



I get the impression he/she has detailed schematics of his local hospitals' emergency rooms.


----------



## mister moose (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I am not assuming anything about Jay Peak's conduct. My point is simply that a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket. I have suggested that a court could reasonably find that a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier if, under the facts and circumstances, it can be shown that the lesson was conducted in an environment that increased the risk of such injury. I have stated ad nauseum that it is a matter for the courts to determine whether under the facts and circumstances Jay Peak breached its duty of care to the child. Based on the available facts, I believe that there is a prima facie case to be made that such a breach occurred. Apparently many of you here think the only duty a ski area has to people it is teaching to ski is to not shove them into the path of a reckless skier. I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski is to refrain from committing criminal acts on them. I doubt that even the most strident champion of tort-reform would make that claim. Of course, I have a feeling that some of you may prove me wrong.



Where to start....
_a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier
_This happens anywhere more advanced skiers are mixed with lesser abilty skiers, ie everywhere. There is no group, no novice teaching area where everyone is at the same skill level, or skis at the same speed.

_a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket.
_Why? Why is the standard of care higher? I don't get the same protection from the court if I am not accompanied by a resort staff member? Don't I, as a novice skier, get the same protection from the court when on any green trail? You are placing into the resort's hands the burden of predicting the future, ie who is coming down the trail. _A beginner lesson, taking place on a beginner trail, meets any burden of standard of care._ I think you need to show cause that the resort either knowingly sold a ticket(pass) to a known high speed out of control manslaughter prone missle boarder/skier, or that some new standard exists of resort crowding beyond which no more tickets can be sold, or that lessons must occur on their own trail, one class at a time, and that trail must have no access from any other trail.

Perhaps a better route is to explain why a resort has a higher standard of care with respect to unforeseen hazards when in a lesson. What risks inherent in the sport that is assumed by all skiers is a student in a lesson exempt from?
Varying speeds of skiers, and skiers losing control are not controllable by the resort on any trail.

_I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski...
_is to give quality instruction? That is what is being contracted for. The job title is Instructor, not Bodyguard, or Defender Against All Distracted/Out of Control 3rd Parties.




Domeskier said:


> Depends on the facts and circumstances. I imagine it would be difficult to effectively teach intermediate level skiers on isolated trails that are not used by all levels of skiers and on which it is not possible for out of control skiers to achieve high levels of speed. I am focusing on novice skiers because (a) it was a novice skier who was injured here; (b) novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing; and (c) there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision. I see no problem distinguishing the level of the duties owed by resorts to ski school students based on their age or experience.



You invalidate your own argument. It is this paragraph that makes me question if you ski at all. Have you ever been on a novice trail??? Kids ski at all speeds all the time, including the most sedate isolated from traffic bunny slope. Happens all the time. There is no trail that meets your criteria.

_novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing
_The assumption of risk takes place upon the purchase of the lesson, not the choice of which green trail. People fall down. People run into eachother. Been going on for years. On every trail. Read the back of the lift ticket.

_there is no need to teach novice skiers on terrain where more advanced skiers can reach speeds that are likely to result in severe injury or death in the event of a collision._ 
Please tell me the minimum speed required for severe injury.

You seem to be saying that since there is something more that could have been done, then the resort is liable. Well there is always something more that could be done. You can always take higher and higher standards of care, until the highest standard of care is reached. Which would be no risk, no lesson, no skiing. At Killington, Snowshed is one of the best teaching slopes there is. Wide, uniform pitch, set off by itself, it is a completely green trail pod. However a skier can easily reach speeds from which injury, severe injury may result. Widely varying speeds are commonplace.

It is this "Something more that could have been done" that pervades far too many court rooms and legislative halls. It is spoiledspeak for "Not my fault", and the shotgun pattern usually includes someone with assets. Show me where this resort acted in a manner inconsistent with current practice in the industry.

I am not saying that the resort should be free from claims of negligence. I am not saying personal injury lawyers don't perform a needed function for pursuing those negligence claims. But in this case, with the facts as we know them so far, if I was a juror and you were the plaintiff's lawyer, I would want to slap you with defendant's (the resort) costs. Try your case on the other party in the accident, the rear ender, if facts dictate there is a case there.


----------



## dlague (Dec 13, 2013)

mister moose said:


> Where to start....
> _a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier
> _This happens anywhere more advanced skiers are mixed with lesser abilty skiers, ie everywhere. There is no group, no novice teaching area where everyone is at the same skill level, or skis at the same speed.
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 13, 2013)




----------



## Steve@jpr (Dec 13, 2013)

Then how in the world did it worm its way into your argument?  And you're right, I'm no pr guy-my general lack of genuine competency has hurled me back into marketing.  If any of my posts could be construed, in your view, as an ad hominem attack, I want to punch the clock where you do.  Pretty please.

For the record, I am all for encouraging businesses of all stripes and size to be accountable.



Domeskier said:


> Yes, exaclty.  My motive for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this accident could have been avoided if you didn't teach novices to ski on a high traffic runout is because I disagree with your development strategies.  Way to uphold the integrity of the PR industry, Steve.  Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the disingenuous and incompetent.
> 
> For the record, I am all for encouraging immigration as a tool for economic development.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

Steve@jpr said:


> Then how in the world did it worm its way into your argument?



I know I promised to bow out of my role as amateur PI attorney, but this was just too much to pass up.  Let's rehearse.  I make some claim about how your resort might be found to have breached a duty to some skier it was teaching.  Some poster responds with a tired old meme of Picard expressing what the poster obviously intended to be interpreted as exasperation at my claim.  I respond by interpreting it is acknowledgement on the part of Picard that my argument is incontrovertable and your resort will be liable for significant damages.  Since your resort is probably not the premier destination for foreign celebrities, the only other reason I could think of for why Picard might care is that the verdict would put in jeopardy something you could offer him that premier resorts could not.  How anyone could interpret this (feeble perhaps) attempt at a joke as an argument for the claim that your resort breached a duty to that child?  Is your economic development program such a sore spot for the JP PR and marketing departments that it impairs your sense of humor?  I realize your resort is located in one of the more insular and xenophobic parts of this country, but I would have thought that the majorty of your target demographic wouldn't care, particularly when many of them are Canadian.  Perhaps you should leave the resort propaganda to the PR department.


----------



## dlague (Dec 13, 2013)

Last night, I though more about this high traffic run out idea mentioned by Domeskier.  Not many advanced skiers will ski down Lower River Quai.  In fact, advanced skiers are more than likely to stay more to the skiers right and come out by Flyer due to areas such as Beaver Pond meadows, Andre's Paradise, Everglades,  Green Mountain Boys and Exhibition.  In fact, Upper Goat Run most often is used to cross over to Stateside and most ski right by Lower River Quai.  Lastly, Lower River Quai is not part of a main path from the summit or any other chair.. For all of these reasons, Lower River Quai is not a heavily traveled trail by advanced skiers.  Then again if someone has never skied there then they can only argue that with out merit.  If you ski there often then you know.  The following video shows that section of the trail and where it connects to Interstate.  Pay attention to the number of skiers (crickets)!

Starting at 1:47 - 5:00  Where the Shack is at 5:00 is the top of Lower River Quai





BTW look up any video regarding Jay Peak Tram and every single video shows little to no traffic.

Domeskier - you definitely have a beef with something about Jay Peak!


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

I had considered starting a new thread on this topic, by my interest in pursuing a second career as an amateur personal injury attorney is fast waning.  However, I thought it would be helpful/interesting to see if I could locate and caselaw on the issue of whether resorts have additional duties to patrons that they are teaching to ski.  Since the cases I found are outside of Vermont, they would not be accorded any deference in the present case.  Nor am I providing these cases in support of my claims.  In fact, I think the court in the Colorado case would be hostile to it.  I simply put them out there for interested parties who would like to see how courts have actually addressed these matters, rather than how amateurs (myself included) think they ought to address them.

The following case out of Washington involves a novice ski racer who collided with a tow rope shed after missing a gate and veering off a slalom course while in race school.  The court reverses the trail court's summary judgment in favor of the resort and the race school on the grounds that the plaintiff could potentially show that the resort and the ski school were negligent in laying out the course.  There is an interesting discussion in the opinion of what risks a person assumes when they are skiing and what risks they do not assume.  Those of you who think that the fact that skiing is inherently dangerous entails that resorts should be immune from all liability to skiers injured on their property (except in the case of equipment failures, etc) might do well to read this opinion. I did not find the disposition of this case on remand.  It may have been settled out of court.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3693514438502828297&q=%22ski+resort%22+%22ski+school%22+collision&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

Below is a link to a case out of Colorado.  In this case, the court upholds summary judgment in favor of the resort and ski school in a case where a skier was injured during a ski lesson.  The plaintiff had argued that the instructor was negligent in pushing the student to attempt a green run off the top of the mountain.  The opinion includes an interesting discussion of the law applicable to the coach/student relationship in inherently dangerous sports.  The court denies that mere negligence in the selection of a slope would be grounds for liability, but suggests that recklessness could be.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10821104885427464067&q=%22ski+resort%22+%22ski+school%22+easiest&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

Again, I am not providing these cases as support for anything I have said in this thread.  Anyone with a passing familiarity with America's adversarial legal system knows that most opinions include claims that can be used to support any position and, where they appear to be contrary, can be distinguished away.  Since the only peson in this thread who appears to have any actual experience suing or defending personal injury cases cannot participate for professional reasons, I'm not sure how much value there is in this exercise.  But it sure beats hearing us amateurs opine on what we think the law ought to be.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

dlague said:


> Domeskier - you definitely have a beef with something about Jay Peak!



Nope.  I don't particularly like the way this Steve character comports himself, and that may have inspired me to spin some of the facts here to the point of hyperbole, but I have no ill-will toward Jay Peak or any ski area (other than maybe Mountain Creek!).  I do think the attitude of some posters here that ski areas are philanthropic organizations that have an independent moral right to impose any risks they want on people who pay to use their services is naive.  I think the attitude expressed by some in this thread that anyone who sues a ski area for personal injuries is looking for an easy payday or has no sense of personal responsibility is presumptuous.  I think ski areas have a duty to provide a product that does not increase the inherent risks of the sport.  I think that someone who is injured by a risk that they did not assume has a moral right to reimbursement by the party at fault, whether or not they actually sue. I think that ski resorts have a moral (if not legal) duty to provide a safe learning environment to novice skiers.  I think that ski areas generally do a good job in this regard.  I think it is a question for the court whether JP provided a safe learning environment for this child.  I think the court could reasonably go either way on this question.  I think it would be unfortunate if the case does not survive the summary judgment phase because some legislators have decided as a matter of law that the risk of collisions at a ski area is always going to be allocated to the skiers involved and never to the resort.  I think laws like that undermine the motivation for ski resorts to make sure they provide a safe product and to eliminate unnecessary risks.  I think if I were charged with selecting a jury in this case, I would make sure there were no skiers on it!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Nope.  I don't particularly like the way this Steve character comports himself, and that may have inspired me to spin some of the facts here to the point of hyperbole, but I have no ill-will toward Jay Peak or any ski area (other than maybe Mountain Creek!).  I do think the attitude of some posters here that ski areas are philanthropic organizations that have an independent moral right to impose any risks they want on people who pay to use their services is naive.  I think the attitude expressed by some in this thread that anyone who sues a ski area for personal injuries is looking for an easy payday or has no sense of personal responsibility is presumptuous.  I think ski areas have a duty to provide a product that does not increase the inherent risks of the sport.  I think that someone who is injured by a risk that they did not assume has a moral right to reimbursement by the party at fault, whether or not they actually sue. I think that ski resorts have a moral (if not legal) duty to provide a safe learning environment to novice skiers.  I think that ski areas generally do a good job in this regard.  I think it is a question for the court whether JP provided a safe learning environment for this child.  I think the court could reasonably go either way on this question.  I think it would be unfortunate if the case does not survive the summary judgment phase because some legislators have decided as a matter of law that the risk of collisions at a ski area is always going to be allocated to the skiers involved and never to the resort.  I think laws like that undermine the motivation for ski resorts to make sure they provide a safe product and to eliminate unnecessary risks.  I think if I were charged with selecting a jury in this case, I would make sure there were no skiers on it!!



And Mr moose concisely and eloquently refuted your arguments. 

Others not so eloquently

 You are not going to persuade anyone because your arguments are garbage on so many levels that you sound like a dirty money grubbing attorney...... part of the problem.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 13, 2013)

:roll:


----------



## Steve@jpr (Dec 13, 2013)

This is really, really last word(s) being left, yes?  Spare me your grandstanding.



Domeskier said:


> I know I promised to bow out of my role as amateur PI attorney, but this was just too much to pass up.  Let's rehearse.  I make some claim about how your resort might be found to have breached a duty to some skier it was teaching.  Some poster responds with a tired old meme of Picard expressing what the poster obviously intended to be interpreted as exasperation at my claim.  I respond by interpreting it is acknowledgement on the part of Picard that my argument is incontrovertable and your resort will be liable for significant damages.  Since your resort is probably not the premier destination for foreign celebrities, the only other reason I could think of for why Picard might care is that the verdict would put in jeopardy something you could offer him that premier resorts could not.  How anyone could interpret this (feeble perhaps) attempt at a joke as an argument for the claim that your resort breached a duty to that child?  Is your economic development program such a sore spot for the JP PR and marketing departments that it impairs your sense of humor?  I realize your resort is located in one of the more insular and xenophobic parts of this country, but I would have thought that the majorty of your target demographic wouldn't care, particularly when many of them are Canadian.  Perhaps you should leave the resort propaganda to the PR department.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> And Mr moose concisely and eloquently refuted your arguments.
> 
> Others not so eloquently
> 
> You are not going to persuade anyone because your arguments are garbage on so many levels that you sound like a dirty money grubbing attorney...... part of the problem.



Mr. Moose just rehashed the same dumb arguments about skiing being inherently dangerous and concluding that resorts have no obligation to remove unnecessary risks.  If that were the case, there would be no reason for legislators to enact laws limiting the liability for ski areas for acts of negligence.  I guess I would rather sound like a money grubbing attorney than some resentful backwoods hick who is incapable of understanding the complexities of risk allocation in advanced industrial societies.


----------



## dlague (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Nope.  I don't particularly like the way this Steve character comports himself, and that may have inspired me to spin some of the facts here to the point of hyperbole, but I have no ill-will toward Jay Peak or any ski area (other than maybe Mountain Creek!).  I do think the attitude of some posters here that ski areas are philanthropic organizations that have an independent moral right to impose any risks they want on people who pay to use their services is naive.  I think the attitude expressed by some in this thread that anyone who sues a ski area for personal injuries is looking for an easy payday or has no sense of personal responsibility is presumptuous.  I think ski areas have a duty to provide a product that does not increase the inherent risks of the sport.  I think that someone who is injured by a risk that they did not assume has a moral right to reimbursement by the party at fault, whether or not they actually sue. I think that ski resorts have a moral (if not legal) duty to provide a safe learning environment to novice skiers.  I think that ski areas generally do a good job in this regard.  I think it is a question for the court whether JP provided a safe learning environment for this child.  I think the court could reasonably go either way on this question.  I think it would be unfortunate if the case does not survive the summary judgment phase because some legislators have decided as a matter of law that the risk of collisions at a ski area is always going to be allocated to the skiers involved and never to the resort.  I think laws like that undermine the motivation for ski resorts to make sure they provide a safe product and to eliminate unnecessary risks.  I think if I were charged with selecting a jury in this case, I would make sure there were no skiers on it!!



:blink:  This is like buying a car!  Painful!  Just search on Jay Peak Tram it goes right over those trails.  I am not sure how much safer anyone cold make it!  I am out!


----------



## dlague (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Mr. Moose just rehashed the same dumb arguments about skiing being inherently dangerous and concluding that resorts have no obligation to remove unnecessary risks.  If that were the case, there would be no reason for legislators to enact laws limiting the liability for ski areas for acts of negligence.  I guess I would rather sound like a money grubbing attorney than some resentful backwoods hick who is incapable of understanding the complexities of risk allocation in advanced industrial societies.



uke:


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

dlague said:


> :blink:  This is like buying a car!  Painful!  Just search on Jay Peak Tram it goes right over those trails.  I am not sure how much safer anyone cold make it!  I am out!



You have latched on to one relevant factor in the analysis that the court might consider.  Thanks for the contrary evidence you provided.  I'm beginning to think that a general public skiing forum is not the best place for someone interested in having a nuanced and complex debate involving the ability to focus on abstract concepts and arguments with more than one premise.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I guess I would rather sound like a money grubbing attorney than some resentful backwoods hick who is incapable of understanding the complexities of risk allocation in advanced industrial societies.



Ouch. That stings :roll:

Way to sound like a stereotypical entitled New York ass.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> You have latched on to one relevant factor in the analysis that the court might consider. Thanks for the contrary evidence you provided.


What is that evidence again? I guess I'm too much of a backwoods hick to interpret it .



> I'm beginning to think that a general public skiing forum is not the best place for someone interested in having a nuanced and complex debate involving the ability to focus on abstract concepts and arguments with more than one premise.



I'd say we've had a good debate but your side of it keeps losing no matter how smart you try to make it sound.


----------



## mister moose (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Mr. Moose just rehashed the same dumb arguments about skiing being inherently dangerous and concluding that resorts have no obligation to remove unnecessary risks. If that were the case, there would be no reason for legislators to enact laws limiting the liability for ski areas for acts of negligence. I guess I would rather sound like a money grubbing attorney than some resentful backwoods hick who is incapable of understanding the complexities of risk allocation in advanced industrial societies.



I see we've downgraded this discussion to include insults. You didn't answer a single question I raised. I never said resorts have no obligation to remove unnecessary risks. You haven't even established what risks present in this accident are unnecessary, created by the resort (such as in the case you cited where the resort constructed a dangerous race course) or specific to this location that is not present in other locations. All you've shown so far is an above average unfamiliarity with ski instruction, terrain selection, skier cross section on any trail, and how Jay Peak is laid out. And goooolly gee, Aunt Bee, can you please explain to this dumb backwoods hick just what 'nuanced' means:



Domeskier said:


> You have latched on to one relevant factor in the analysis that the court might consider. Thanks for the contrary evidence you provided. I'm beginning to think that a general public skiing forum is not the best place for someone interested in having a nuanced and complex debate involving the ability to focus on abstract concepts and arguments with more than one premise.



All you've done is ignore the points raised, throw words in my mouth, and add in insults. Stellar performance.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> What is that evidence again? I guess I'm too much of a backwoods hick to interpret it .



His evidence that Interstate is not a heavily trafficked runout.  Perhaps your first instinct in a debate is to dig in your heals and close your eyes to anything that does not support your position.  I'm more inclined to follow Emerson on this one.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

mister moose said:


> I see we've downgraded this discussion to include insults.



you can thank DHS for that.

I have stated my position very plainly ad nauseum.  If you are going to assume the responsibility of teaching someone to engage in an inherently dangerous activity, you should do so in a way that does not unnecessarily increase the risks of that activity.  It is a question for the courts to decide whether JP or any other resort has satisfied that duty.  All you have done is appeal to how resorts are in fact run.  That may be relevant to a degree.  But in the final analysis, the court will be addressing the normative question of how resorts ought to to be run, and all of your anecdotal evidence about how you've seen resorts operated will be mostly beside the point.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> You have latched on to one relevant factor in the analysis that the court might consider.  Thanks for the contrary evidence you provided.  I'm beginning to think that a general public skiing forum is not the best place for someone interested in having a nuanced and complex debate involving the ability to focus on abstract concepts and arguments with more than one premise.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

mister moose said:


> Where to start....
> _a resort breached its heightened duty of care when a novice skier is injured by a more advanced skier
> _This happens anywhere more advanced skiers are mixed with lesser abilty skiers, ie everywhere. There is no group, no novice teaching area where everyone is at the same skill level, or skis at the same speed.


.

This is a factual claim that is irrelevant to the question of whether advanced skiers ought to be skiing through areas were novices are receiving lessons.



mister moose said:


> _a court could reasonably conclude that a resort owes a higher duty of care to people it is teaching to ski than to people to whom it simply sells a lift ticket.
> _Why? Why is the standard of care higher?



Because they have assumed control over the skier.  I have no duty to render aid to you if I see you lying on the side of the trail bleeding to death.  If I do assume the responsibility of providing that aid to you, I assume the risk that I could cause you further harm and be liable for those injuries (unless there is a good samaritan statute that overrides my common law duties to you).  



mister moose said:


> _I think it is absurd to suggest that the only duty a ski area owes to the people it teaches to ski...
> _is to give quality instruction? That is what is being contracted for. The job title is Instructor, not Bodyguard, or Defender Against All Distracted/Out of Control 3rd Parties.



When you exercise control over some party, you typically incur a higher standard of care to them.



mister moose said:


> You invalidate your own argument. It is this paragraph that makes me question if you ski at all. Have you ever been on a novice trail??? Kids ski at all speeds all the time, including the most sedate isolated from traffic bunny slope. Happens all the time. There is no trail that meets your criteria.


.

Once again you are trying to draw a normative conclusion from descriptive premises.  A court might think that a ski area has a duty to close off any area where it conducts lessons for novices.



mister moose said:


> _novice skiers do not have the skills or experience to adequately know or respond to the risks of skiing
> _The assumption of risk takes place upon the purchase of the lesson, not the choice of which green trail. People fall down. People run into eachother. Been going on for years. On every trail. Read the back of the lift ticket.


.

Should these contracts of adhesion absolve a ski resort from its obligation to people it has voluntarily assumed control over?



mister moose said:


> _
> You seem to be saying that since there is something more that could have been done, then the resort is liable. Well there is always something more that could be done._


_

No, I'm saying that where a ski area imposes unnecessary risks on skiers it has assumed the responsibility for teaching, it should be liable if those unecessary risks result in harm to the student._


----------



## mister moose (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> you can thank DHS for that.
> 
> I have stated my position very plainly ad nauseum. If you are going to assume the responsibility of teaching someone to engage in an inherently dangerous activity, you should do so in a way that does not unnecessarily increase the risks of that activity. It is a question for the courts to decide whether JP or any other resort has satisfied that duty. All you have done is appeal to how resorts are in fact run. That may be relevant to a degree. But in the final analysis, the court will be addressing the normative question of how resorts ought to to be run, and all of your anecdotal evidence about how you've seen resorts operated will be mostly beside the point.



Of course it's for the courts to decide, should it get that far.  It is a long winding and evolving road to get to just what is 'reasonable care'.  But I can tell you this much, if I was the instructor and you came to me with expectations like you have outlined, I would decline the lesson.  I don't want to or need to assume the risks you are asking me to assume, and I am not capable of providing such an extraordinary degree of care for you and the rest of the students in the class at all times and places.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> But in the final analysis, the court will be addressing the normative question of how resorts ought to to be run, and all of your anecdotal evidence about how you've seen resorts operated will be mostly beside the point.



This is why laws have been made by states to somewhat "protect" resorts from sympathetic court/jury rulings that may award damages to a plaintiff based on little understanding of how resorts are able to operate. A judgment finding a resort even partially responsible for an incident they really have no control over would set a precedence and open the floodgates to endless suits. 
As stated it would be nearly impossible financially and/or physically for resorts to remove all risk. If everyone who hit a tree on the side of the trail was able to claim the resort was negligent to some certain extent by leaving that tree 6" further into trail than all of the other trees, resorts would be uninsurable and unable to financially sustain themselves in an industry that is often already struggling with slim profit margins. (Note: I just read the death at Killington thread and my example above was not intended in any way as a reference to that specific incident )

Then we would all have to hike for turns.... WAIT.... we can't do that because everyone would post their land as no trespassing fearing that they would get sued by someone getting hurt playing on their property (luckily Vermont actually has a law protecting landowners from these types of suits as well).
If you don't like the way Vermont has refused to cower to people trying to lay blame on everyone else when engaging in "risky" recreation, feel free to stay the hell out of my hick backcountry woods.


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 13, 2013)

Wow


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 13, 2013)

This "Domeskier" guy is coming across as a real a-hole....


----------



## Abubob (Dec 13, 2013)

Hey, what happened to the unsubscribe? Let me out!


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

mister moose said:


> Of course it's for the courts to decide, should it get that far.  It is a long winding and evolving road to get to just what is 'reasonable care'.  But I can tell you this much, if I was the instructor and you came to me with expectations like you have outlined, I would decline the lesson.  I don't want to or need to assume the risks you are asking me to assume, and I am not capable of providing such an extraordinary degree of care for you and the rest of the students in the class at all times and places.



I agree that a ski resort might decided to close its ski schools if a court were to find that it had some heightened duty of care to students.  I think that would be a bad thing.  Ski schools by and large perform the critical service of preparing novice skiers to use the facilities safely and responsibly.  That being said, I think there may be special circumstances in which a ski school has failed to excercise due care in protecting students from unncessary risks. It might be the case that the standard is one of recklessness rather than negligence.  I do not think JP's teaching novices on Interstate is reckless.  I do not think it is reckless to teach a novice on a beginnger slope in a posted slow skiing zone.  i think it would be reckless to lead a class of beginners through a terrain park.  I think it would be reckless to hold beginner lessons on a slope simultaneously being use as a racecourse.  I do not think the standard of care I am proposing would shift liability to resorts for the inherent dangers of skiing.  Beginners fall and run into things.  What they don't assume is the risk that the resort will teach them in unnecessarily unsafe circumstances, any more than a child at PS 131 assumes the risk that the ceiling will collapse or that Bobby will bring a gun to class.  I leave it to the courts and the resorts to determine what are the appropriate circumstances for teaching novices.  Unlike many of you, I think the fact that a novice was mowed down by an out-of-control boarder is evidence (necessarily defeasible) that the resort's duty to the child was breached.  That is all I have been and all I will argue in this thread.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> This "Domeskier" guy is coming across as a real a-hole....



Whereas some so-called "Moderators" have been the model of reserve and temperance.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 13, 2013)

Well done.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Well done.



Hardly.  I would ask for evidence, but then I would have to explain to you the different ways to breach a standard of care, including negligence and recklessness, and I see you are primarily interested in scoring points with the peanut gallery.  Not worth my time.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> .
> No, I'm saying that where a ski area imposes unnecessary risks on skiers it has assumed the responsibility for teaching, it should be liable if those unecessary risks result in harm to the student.



Should I conclude from this that ski instructors cannot by definition take kids into a glade because it automatically imposes unnecessary risks on skiers ?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Should I conclude from this that ski instructors cannot by definition take kids into a glade because it automatically imposes unnecessary risks on skiers ?



No, not by definition.  Although it would certainly be reckless (and not merely negligent) for a resort to take a novice skier into the woods on their first day on skis.  Hitting a tree is one of the inherent risks of the sport and when a skier has sufficient skills to take to the woods, a resort should not be liable for trying to teach them to do it safely.  This is not to say that an instructor should be taking relatively inexperienced skiers into tight and steep trees.  There could be cases where the decision by an instructor to lead a student into the trees would breach the standard of care applicable to the instructor/skier relationship.  

Here's a hypothetical for you: If you fell in a crevasse while skiing Chamonix, would you think it irrelevant to the resort's liability to you that you hired one of its guides to lead you down the mountain?


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Here's a hypothetical for you: If you fell in a crevasse while skiing Chamonix, would you think it irrelevant to the resort's liability to you that you hired one of its guides to lead you down the mountain?



I have skied in Chamonix (more than once) and I've also done a lot of backcountry skiing in glaciated and avalanche prone terrain.   When I hire a guide, I know very well what I'm getting into, what the risks (and rewards) are.   Were I to fall into a crevasse, I would be extremely unlikely to sue. 

When I put my son in ski school I knew very well that he would be taught by a teenager and that he would taking lifts with less supervision, but at some point, you have to live your life.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

Another interesting case, this time with facts much closer to the ones under consideration here.  It's a California case from 1960, and I have no idea if it remains good law or how it was resolved on remand.  I think the jury instruction reproduced below sums up fairly nicely legal principle I have been articulating. For those of you how think that the only legally relevant question with respect to JP's liability is whether the out of control customer was employed by the ski area at the time of the incident, I submit this link for your edification.  Make what you will of it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2425812637398516936&q=%22ski+school%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

An intermediate level skier was part of a group lesson on a slope simultaneously being used by more advanced skiers.  He is hit by one the advanced skiers, and suffers severe injuries.  The court overturned the verdict for the defendent ski area because the trial court failed to re-read the following instruction to the jury when requested:

"Defendants are guilty of negligence if they did not use the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent person in the operation, management and control of the ski school in which plaintiff James Davis was a student. You are instructed that defendants are not relieved of liability for negligence in the operation, management and control of said ski school by any intervening act of another which caused injury to plaintiff James Davis if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable by defendants. Where the intervening act is reasonably foreseeable the chain of causation is not broken and the original actors remain liable."

Again, this is not dispositive of the issue here.  And you may think the law on this point is wrong-headed.  But at least one court was willing to accept this as valid interpretation of a ski school's duties to its students.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 13, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Another interesting case, this time with facts much closer to the ones under consideration here.  It's a California case from 1960, and I have no idea if it remains good law or how it was resolved on remand.  I think the jury instruction reproduced below sums up fairly nicely legal principle I have been articulating. For those of you how think that the only legally relevant question with respect to JP's liability is whether the out of control customer was employed by the ski area at the time of the incident, I submit this link for your edification.  Make what you will of it.
> 
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2425812637398516936&q=%22ski+school%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33
> 
> ...



1960 really? No skiing hasn't changed at all since then....


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> I have skied in Chamonix (more than once) and I've also done a lot of backcountry skiing in glaciated and avalanche prone terrain.   When I hire a guide, I know very well what I'm getting into, what the risks (and rewards) are.   Were I to fall into a crevasse, I would be extremely unlikely to sue.



My question was not whether you would sue.  My question was whether you think it is legally relevant to the resort's liability that you had hired a guide whose job involved keeping you out of a crevasse.  Clearly you do not have to sue everyone who breaches a duty to you.  As people in this thread have stated, litigiousness in this society is out of hand.  I think the courts generally do a good job of tossing frivolous suits.  But for every greedy opportunist who thinks spilling a hot cup of coffee is their ticket to the good life, there are other people who have suffered very real and very serious injuries at the hands of someone who had a duty to prevent or mitigate the risk of those injuries and failed to do so.  Again, your guide could have done everything right, in which case your ending up in the crevasse is plain bad luck.  But that does not mean that the resort does not have a higher standard of care to live up to when someone hires a guide whose job it is to show them where to avoid hidden hazards.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 13, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> 1960 really? No skiing hasn't changed at all since then....



So skiing has become less dangerous since then?  More dangerous?  What are the legally relevant changes?  You do realize that most of our commonlaw duties date back hundreds of years?


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 16, 2013)

Sad that you've spent so much time typing posts for this thread. Sadder for whatever poor client you billed this time to.


----------



## tnt (Dec 16, 2013)

How can this still be going on?

Dome thinks they gave the lesson in a dangerous spot.  A lot of people disagree.

That's really all there is to this.

I think Dome's point is pretty clear and valid - if for example you sign your kid up for a lesson, and the teach takes the beginning group up the tram, and down the face chutes, and a few kids tumble and break their arms, and another kid is run over by a few skiers doing it right, who didn't expect to see a kid at the bottom, sure I would agree, the resort is liable.

If you take a beginning group out on Outer Limits at K, sure.. negligent.  Duck a rope with a kid and he get's hurt, negligent.  I mean, there are all kinds of scenarios….

But as it stands, given what I know of the location, seems to me to be a reasonable place to give a group lesson, and I can't think of what reasonable step the resort could have taken to prevent the accident.

I suspect the folks suing realize this and that is why they want to attach the snow boarder to Jay Peak, so as to claim the resort's negligence wasn't from the lesson but rather from the behavior of an employee.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 16, 2013)

tnt said:


> I think Dome's point is pretty clear and valid - if for example you sign your kid up for a lesson, and the teach takes the beginning group up the tram, and down the face chutes, and a few kids tumble and break their arms, and another kid is run over by a few skiers doing it right, who didn't expect to see a kid at the bottom, sure I would agree, the resort is liable.



Correct.  He simply picked the wrong example to make up his point.


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Another interesting case, this time with facts much closer to the ones under consideration here.  It's a California case from 1960, and I have no idea if it remains good law or how it was resolved on remand.  I think the jury instruction reproduced below sums up fairly nicely legal principle I have been articulating. For those of you how think that the only legally relevant question with respect to JP's liability is whether the out of control customer was employed by the ski area at the time of the incident, I submit this link for your edification.  Make what you will of it.
> 
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2425812637398516936&q="ski+school"&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33
> 
> ...



what's changed since then are the ski resort liability laws which specifically insulate the resort from liability for skier on skier collisions.  So that issue never gets to the jury because the resort isnt liable as a matter of law.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

HowieT2 - didn't the Vermont statute simply codify the common law as it stood prior to Sunday v. Stratton Corp in 1978?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> Sad that you've spent so much time typing posts for this thread. Sadder for whatever poor client you billed this time to.



Why don't you just challenge me to a ski-off already.  That's the corollary to Godwin's Law for ski forums, isn't it?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 16, 2013)




----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I realize your resort is located in one of the more insular and xenophobic parts of this country, but I would have thought that the majorty of your target demographic wouldn't care, particularly when many of them are Canadian. Perhaps you should leave the resort propaganda to the PR department.



Wow that is a very closed-minded statement for someone who has not spent anytime in the Northeast Kingdom. Yes, we're all naive heathens. Somehow I managed to get out :roll: No reason for you to ever visit the Northeast Kingdom, especially with your attitude and reliance on ill-gotten stereotypes.  Steve can probably attest to the good values of hard work, care for others, and frank honesty that us Kingdom residents possess.  Consider my assessment to be in that frank category. 

Sorry, just have to say it. And your attempt at making legal arguments is amusing to say the least. You know enough to be dangerous...dangerous to yourself that is.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> HowieT2 - didn't the Vermont statute simply codify the common law as it stood prior to Sunday v. Stratton Corp in 1978?



You seem like a really fun guy. Surprised you don't have more friends in this forum.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Steve can probably attest to the good values of hard work, care for others, and frank honesty that us Kingdom residents possess.  Consider my assessment to be in that frank category.



I'm sure that's all true.  But I wonder if there is any record of how they treat a Stranger in the Kingdom?


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 16, 2013)

seriously?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> seriously?



Tongue in cheek, dude.  I'm glad to know that JP's green card program is not a sore-spot for Steve because of objections from the locals.


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> HowieT2 - didn't the Vermont statute simply codify the common law as it stood prior to Sunday v. Stratton Corp in 1978?



Not really.  It expanded the resorts immunity from liability.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Sorry, just have to say it. And your attempt at making legal arguments is amusing to say the least. You know enough to be dangerous...dangerous to yourself that is.



Yes, I'm sure you could tell me why, as a matter of law, JP could not be found to have breached its duty of care to this child, but your professional responsibilities to whatever insurance defense shop you work for prohibits it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I'm sure that's all true. But I wonder if there is any record of how they treat a Stranger in the Kingdom?



You capitalized that phrase, so I take it that you are making a veiled reference to the Irasburg Affair in the 1960's. That was 50 years ago, man. Time changes. And the book/movie by that name is a fictionalization of that event in which the author took some artistic liberty. If that's your only reference as to the people of the NEK then you are really misled.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> Not really.  It expanded the resorts immunity from liability.



Really?  From the small amount of research I did, it appears that Sec. 1037 (reproduced below) was intended to override Sunday v. Stratton, which interpreted Sec. 1036 (permitting recovery for individuals found to have been contributaorily negligent) to override the common law doctrine that skiers assume the inherent risks of their sport.  

§ 1037. Acceptance of inherent risks

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1036 of this title, a person who takes part in any sport accepts as a matter of law the dangers that inhere therein insofar as they are obvious and necessary. (Added 1977, No. 119 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. Feb. 7, 1978.)


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> You capitalized that phrase, so I take it that you are making a veiled reference to the Irasburg Affair in the 1960's. That was 50 years ago, man. Time changes. And the book/movie by that name is a fictionalization of that event in which the author took some artistic liberty. If that's your only reference as to the people of the NEK then you are really misled.



See my reply to DHS.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Yes, I'm sure you could tell me why, as a matter of law, JP could not be found to have breached its duty of care to this child, but your professional responsibilities to whatever insurance defense shop you work for prohibits it.



No, I'm just smart enough not to pontificate on the law unless I am paid or employed to do so in order to prevent folks from you getting free information and/or misusing it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> See my reply to DHS.




What the hell does the *Irasburg Affair* have to do with this matter or Jay Peak at any rate? Complete red herring.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> No, I'm just smart enough not to pontificate on the law unless I am paid or employed to do so in order to prevent folks from you getting free information and/or misusing it.



I was not aware that we are living in some totalitarian society where the content of the law is proprietary information that is only available to members of a bar association or those who are willing and able to pay for it.  Are you sure you're from the Northeast Kingdom and not the kindgom of North Korea?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> What the hell does the *Irasburg Affair* have to do with this matter or Jay Peak at any rate? Complete red herring.



Context, my friend.  My inappropriate comment was in response to Steve who was implying that my motives for engaging in this debate was some unspoken objection to JP's green card program.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Context, my friend. My inappropriate comment was in response to Steve who was implying that my motives for engaging in this debate was some unspoken objection to JP's green card program.



:blink: Wow, that is really far-fetched. The only commonality are the two being somewhat spatially related. But, again, we're talking about 45 years and things change, even in the NEK.

You're grasping at straws man.  Stop digging yourself deeper than you already are.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I was not aware that we are living in some totalitarian society where the content of the law is proprietary information that is only available to members of a bar association or those who are willing and able to pay for it. Are you sure you're from the Northeast Kingdom and not the kindgom of North Korea?



The law is available; my legal opinion is different.  Even someone with some understanding of practicing law, which you seem to have, would understand that.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> :blink: Wow, that is really far-fetched. The only commonality are the two being somewhat spatially related. But, again, we're talking about 45 years and things change, even in the NEK.
> 
> You're grasping at straws man.  Stop digging yourself deeper than you already are.



I'm grasping at nothing.  Would you like me to provide a link to the post where Steve@JPR asserted that my comments in this thread were motivated by opposition to the green card program?  My inappropriate comment on the people of the NEK was in the context of trying to figure out why Steve@JPR would possibly think I had some animosity to JP based on its green card program.  Either read the entire thread or keep your comments to yourself.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> I'm grasping at nothing. Would you like me to provide a link to the post where Steve@JPR asserted that my comments in this thread were motivated by opposition to the green card program? My inappropriate comment on the people of the NEK was in the context of trying to figure out why Steve@JPR would possibly think I had some animosity to JP based on its green card program. Either read the entire thread or keep your comments to yourself.



I'm questioning you as to why *you* make that reference. I've read the entire thread and your Xenophobic comment really jumped out. The concern of NEKer's has NOTHING to do with racism and it's really hamhanded of you to throw that stick of dynamite into this thread.  The concerns mainly have to do with economic sustainability and specifically what kind of jobs are being created.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm questioning you as to why *you* make that reference. I've read the entire thread and your Xenophobic comment really jumped out. The concern of NEKer's has NOTHING to do with racism and it's really hamhanded of you to throw that stick of dynamite into this thread.  The concerns mainly have to do with economic sustainability and specifically what kind of jobs are being created.



I see.  I made that reference (to insular and xenophobic NEKers) as a dig at Steve.  It was inappropriate and I would retract it if I could.  I'm glad to know that opposition to the green card program is not racist or xenophobic.  The initial reference to the green card program was a tongue in cheek response to someone posting a Picard slapping his head meme.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> The law is available; my legal opinion is different.  Even someone with some understanding of practicing law, which you seem to have, would understand that.



I guess I shouldn't be expecting any thetrailboss law review articles soon, then.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 16, 2013)

For the peanut gallery...


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 16, 2013)

I'd imagine the peanut gallery exited this discussion a long time ago. The only thing left to do is watch in amazement as a seemingly crazy person tries to extricate himself with some semblance of self respect and decency, only to fail repeatedly as his reputation among other forum posters and the lurking community declines further and further.

It's a cautionary tale, really. We all realize that internet arguments are, at their core, stupid. But few have reached this level of tragic desperation. But I'm sure he'll beat on, boat against the current, etc.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> I'd imagine the peanut gallery exited this discussion a long time ago.



You are still here, despite not having made one single intelligent contribution to this whole discussion.  But just out of curiousity, what crazy position am I trying to extricate myself from?


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 16, 2013)

That you're the kind of guy that would help a burgular sue a homeowner because he injured himself breaking into their house.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> That you're the kind of guy that would help a burgular sue a homeowner because he injured himself breaking into their house.



Ah.  I had forgotten that this thread started with some trespasser suing JP for injuries sustained while skiing a closed trail.  Guess I am crazy.


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 16, 2013)

Admitting it is the first step.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Dec 16, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> They shouldn't have to even take the pass.  They can deactivate the pass so it doesn't scan.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using AlpineZone mobile app



thats pretty much the reality there, since the intro of the RIFD system they do have total control over those passes.  When the article mentioned classes on the interstate that did make me cringe. But ive seen classes all over the mountain over the years so i guess its not all that uncommon to go outside the magic carpet area. 

Unfortunately we are a lawsuit society.  Whos right, whos wrong, whose fault, how , why, where, when are nothing more than words in a tool box used for financial justification along with validation. Yet the out of court and undisclosed settlements which cannot be published and exploded onto the internet unlike the initial "crime" if you will, are clearly viable and as long as the final payments are complete then everyone who really shouldnt be involved is satisfied.

The Plaintiffs have their answers
The Defendants have their answers
and a little girl will hopefully and most likely grow up to be a positive and normal individual(with or without the lawsuits)....with a lifetime pass for her and her entire family...

May sound cruel people but unfortunately thats how it usually pans out....


----------



## Nick (Dec 16, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> For the peanut gallery...



I don't read this thread enough to have any idea about what is being discussed at least beyond the initial issue.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> The Plaintiffs have their answers
> The Defendants have their answers
> and a little girl will hopefully and most likely grow up to be a positive and normal individual(with or without the lawsuits)....with a lifetime pass for her and her entire family...
> 
> May sound cruel people but unfortunately thats how it usually pans out....



After the whole Killington fiasco, please don't say lifetime pass ever again!  :lol:


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 16, 2013)

Nick said:


> I don't read this thread enough to have any idea about what is being discussed at least beyond the initial issue.



Sadly enough, it's the initial issue that is still being discussed...


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier, you realize that crux of your argument is that they shouldn't be teaching where advanced skiers could possibly be. 

That pretty much excludes the instructor as well. Woops.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 16, 2013)

I think Domeskier is just trying to increase his post count so he has a better chance for the giveaways!


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 16, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> (something something something blah blah blah)


----------



## KD7000 (Dec 16, 2013)

I hear that way up in the NEK, they kill and eat non-citizens, Soylent Green style.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 16, 2013)

KD7000 said:


> I hear that way up in the NEK, they kill and eat non-citizens, Soylent Green style.



Only if they are certified organic.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Domeskier, you realize that crux of your argument is that they shouldn't be teaching where advanced skiers could possibly be.
> 
> That pretty much excludes the instructor as well. Woops.



No, the crux of my argument is that ski areas have a responsibility to teach novices in environments that do not increase the inherent risks of the sport.  I think the fact that a novice skier was severely injured by an out-of-control advanced skier is sufficient to withstand summary judgment in favor of the ski area.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> I think Domeskier is just trying to increase his post count so he has a better chance for the giveaways!



Actually, I just want that elusive fourth mountain!  What do I need, like 500 posts?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> _[...more pandering to imaginary fan base]_



I guess it was inconsiderate of me to ask. I suspect your lips would positively fall off if you had to re-read the thread to come up with an original and substantive comment.


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> No, the crux of my argument is that ski areas have a responsibility to teach novices in environments that do not increase the inherent risks of the sport.  I think the fact that a novice skier was severely injured by an out-of-control advanced skier is sufficient to withstand summary judgment in favor of the ski area.



Against my better judgment. I always ignore the voices in my head. 
Anyway. While it does not really matter if it is a novice on not. The out-of-control advanced skier could have hit anyone skiing slow in this area (which most people do ski slow in this area). So having a novice in this area is not the issue at hand but having someone skiing out of control here is the issue.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> ....if you had to re-read the thread...



Joke's on you, lawyer, I didn't read it the first time!

I'd imagine having to read this thread would be considered torture in many parts of the world.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

Smellytele said:


> Against my better judgment. I always ignore the voices in my head.
> Anyway. While it does not really matter if it is a novice on not. The out-of-control advanced skier could have hit anyone skiing slow in this area (which most people do ski slow in this area). So having a novice in this area is not the issue at hand but having someone skiing out of control here is the issue.



That is a question for the trier of fact.  Unless there is a statute that provides that as a matter of law a ski area cannot be liable for injuries resulting from collisions between skiers, it is irrelevant to my underlying argument.  The trier of fact would take into account what you and everyone else in this thread has to say about the circumstances of the collision.  The plaintiff will argue that the collision would not have happened if the lesson were being conducted in a more appropriate environment where advance skiers cannot achieve excessive speed or where advances skiers are not likely to ski.  The defense will counter that the environment was appropriate and that this was just an unfortunate accident caused entirely by the recklessness of the out-of-control party.  I am not arguing how this case should be resolved.  I jumped into this thread because the JP fanboys and the JP publicity machine appear to be impugning the motives of the child's family and arguing that they don't have a case.  I pointed out why the case against JP should not be dismissed as a matter of law and the types of considerations that the plaintiff could appeal to in making their case.  The fact that the out-of-control boarder would have hit anyone skiing on that slope at that time (itself, a dubious assumption) does not entail that it was the right place for a novice lesson.  Suppose instead that the novice were injured by an out-of-control skier on an advanced trail during a lesson.  Would you think the fact that anyone would have been struck by the out-of-control skier on that slope at that time means that the resort could not be liable for the inuries sustained by the novices, who was clearly being taught under inappropriate circumstances? If you say no, then the causal question is not dispositive. If you say yes, well, at least you are being consistent.  ::Cue snide comment from woodchuck::


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> Joke's on you, lawyer, I didn't read it the first time!



And yet you have no problem characterizing my position as crazy.  Awesome.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> And yet you have no problem characterizing my position as crazy.  Awesome.



When did I say that?

(P.S. You're getting trolled. Right now. By me. You keep responding as if you will be able to talk your way out of this situation, but the only real way to save face is just to quit and accept the fact that you're never going to win people over to your side. This is something you should have done a long, long time ago, but you keep smashing your head into a wall. Keep doing it if you want, but do so with the knowledge that you are clearly insane).


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 17, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> When did I say that?
> 
> (P.S. You're getting trolled. Right now. By me. You keep responding as if you will be able to talk your way out of this situation, but the only real way to save face is just to quit and accept the fact that you're never going to win people over to your side. This is something you should have done a long, long time ago, but you keep smashing your head into a wall. Keep doing it if you want, but do so with the knowledge that you are clearly insane).




Correct, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> You keep responding as if you will be able to talk your way out of this situation, but the only real way to save face is just to quit and accept the fact that you're never going to win people over to your side.



Do tell.  Precisely what situation do you think I am trying to talk my way out of?  Are you seriously suggesting that I have changed my views in anyway to make them more palatable to some internet mouthbreather who has deemed himself the arbiter of the soundness of arguments he cannot even be bothered to read, and who no doubt has an inbox overflowing with emails from anonymous supporters agreeing with his every word.  You are adorable.  The very notion that a thread on tort law could get you so riled up is facinating.  Maybe you should ask your doctors about increasing your dose of Thorazine.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Do tell.  Precisely what situation do you think I am trying to talk my way out of?  Are you seriously suggesting that I have changed my views in anyway to make them more palatable...



You seem like a smart guy. It's amazing that you haven't picked up on this yet. Let me lay it out for you:

You will never win. There is nothing to win. You are arguing with yourself. You are talking to yourself. There is nothing here for you. You keep clicking back to this post expecting someone to validate your arguments, but you will not get that. There is no answer to your questions. YOU ARE BEING TROLLED. However well reasoned your arguments are, whatever words you use, whatever you try to justify, it doesn't matter. You will not get what you so desperately want. There is no gold at the end of this rainbow. There is only the hell of clicking onto this thread and being told off, yet again, by someone who doesn't even care what you say, doesn't care what you do, and is immune to your dumb attacks. Keep it going for as long as you want, you alone can make the decision to stop.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2013)

Why have laws protecting ski areas against liability claims for collisions if it will go to court anyways?  Why have participants sign waivers before they take lessons if they are unwilling to accept the risks of the sport?  Collisions happen.  People die from slow speed falls on beginner slopes during lessons.  (see Natasha Richardson)  Last I checked, Liam Neeson hasn't sued Tremblant for teaching his wife to ski on the wrong trail.     

By allowing this trial to go to court, you are opening up Pandora's box for a multitude of court cases down the road.  No thanks.

In my eyes, because of the laws protecting ski areas and the fact that the lesson participant signed a waiver acknowledging the risk of injury, this case shouldn't even go to trial.  In most situations where mountains know they've made a mistake (chairlift accidents primarily), they man up and settle out of court.  I don't see the need for Jay to do either.  It was a freak accident.  Those happen.

With that, I'm bowing out of the argument.  I know you'll argue your POV and disregard the opinions of others until no one is left to argue with you Domeskier.  You're entitled to your opinions, however nanny-state and ignorant of the circumstances at Jay they are and that's fine.  I'm just glad your opinion is in the clear minority here on these forums and across our sport.  We don't need sue happy individuals participating.  Folks like you are better off staying home.

good day sir


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 17, 2013)

It probably won't go to trial.  It will get settled at mediation though.  

No offense, but the guy who took the case is not F. Lee Bailey.  The fact that no big firm in VT or New England for that matter took it says a lot.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Why have laws protecting ski areas against liability claims for collisions if it will go to court anyways?  Why have participants sign waivers before they take lessons if they are unwilling to accept the risks of the sport?  Collisions happen.  People die from slow speed falls on beginner slopes during lessons.



If the law bars the claim, the court will toss it.  I have seen no evidence that Vermont has a blanket law protecting ski areas from all liability for skier collisions.  They have a statute the codifies the common law as it stood before some court in the late 70s decided that Vermont's recognition of the doctrine of contributory negligence implicitly overturned the common law principle that the skier accepts the inherent risks of the sport.  Vermont courts have held the waivers you mention to be void as against public poilicy.  

There are at least three arguments going on here that people have been addressing at cross-purposes: (i) whether JP was in fact negligent under the circumstances of this unfortunate collision; (ii) what the applicable law is; and (iii) what the applicable law should be.  I have mostly been concerned with (ii).  You appear to be addressing (iii).  The Vermont legislature at any time could pass a law absolving ski resorts from any liability to skiers who are injured on their premises by other skiers.  They have not done this, for what seems to me to be sound reason.  Resorts should be held accountable for breaches of their duties to their customers, where those breaches result in injury.  I suspect most of the people who are disagreeing with me on (ii) are actually focused on (i), while a few (including maybe you) are focused on (iii) (and belive that the answer to (iii) entails that there is no reason to debate (i)).

Contrary to what certain "participants" in this thread might be suggesting, I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else to accept my position.  I think there is value to be had in simply achieving clarity and accuracy in the statement of competing views and in eliminating confusion.  Often, but not always, there ends up being more agreement between opposing positions that the advocates think.  If we are enumerating the problems with contemporary society, we can also add lack of civility in public (and internet) discourse, where positions are reduced to soundbites and jokes count as arguments, right alongside litigiousness and lack of personal responsibility.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> If the law bars the claim, the court will toss it. I have seen no evidence that Vermont has a blanket law protecting ski areas from all liability for skier collisions. They have a statute the codifies the common law as it stood before some court in the late 70s decided that Vermont's recognition of the doctrine of contributory negligence implicitly overturned the common law principle that the skier accepts the inherent risks of the sport. Vermont courts have held the waivers you mention to be void as against public poilicy.




Wrong.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Wrong.



Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd., 670 A.2d 795 (Vt. 1995); see also Spencer v. Killington, Ltd., 702 A.2d 35 (Vt. 1997).

PM me the bill.  I understand you only opine on legal matters for money.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> The plaintiff will argue that the collision would not have happened if the lesson were being conducted in a more appropriate environment where advance skiers cannot achieve excessive speed or where advances skiers are not likely to ski.



The problem is that excessive speed is possible on most beginner slope.   Excessive should not be defined by absolute values, but by relative speed.  On hard pack conditions, I can nearly hit 40mph on interstate, and that's not even starting from Lower Quai where 60mph should be easy to reach.  Heck I've hit nearly 40mph on a sled on raccoon run (GPS measured in case you wonder).  While not particularly fast from a ski racer point of view, most would agree that it is an unreasonable speed on a run with beginners. 

So my point is that outside of carpet areas, it would be nearly impossible to find runs where skiers absolutely cannot achieve excessive speed (forget advanced skiers, the out of control intermediate is the problem most of the time).   Like it or not, as soon as you leave the magic carpet, you have rely on the good judgment of other skiers.  There is no way around this.

As to the second part, advanced skiers are not likely to ski interstate.  As I said earlier, what you say makes perfect sense, you just picked a terrible case to start this argument.   If by your standards it is dangerous to take beginners on interstate, then ski resorts might as well forget about teaching beginners.  This is the point you seem to fail to recognize over and over.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 17, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> If by your standards it is dangerous to take beginners on interstate, then ski resorts might as well forget about teaching beginners.  This is the point you seem to fail to recognize over and over.



Again, and for the final time, this a question of fact, not a matter of law.  I described the argument that plaintiff would make.  I did not say it was conclusive.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> If we are enumerating the problems with contemporary society, we can also add lack of civility in public (and internet) discourse, where positions are reduced to soundbites and jokes count as arguments, right alongside litigiousness and lack of personal responsibility.



Once again, I'd like to say how much of a fun guy you seem to be. If I was to pick a group of people, living or dead to have dinner with, it'd be Hunter S. Thompson, Mark Twain, and you, Domeskier. You just seem like a guy who knows how to have a good time, just has a positive attitude about life, and makes everyone around you happy.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 17, 2013)

mattchuck2 said:


> Once again, I'd like to say how much of a fun guy you seem to be. If I was to pick a group of people, living or dead to have dinner with, it'd be Hunter S. Thompson, Mark Twain, and you, Domeskier. You just seem like a guy who knows how to have a good time, just has a positive attitude about life, and makes everyone around you happy.



Gonzo the greatest American author ever.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Definitely a true original. Right man for his time. Also owned a compound outside of Aspen, did tons of drugs, drank, and shot guns. My kind of guy.

Also, he wrote this when he was 18 (amazing talent):

_Young people of America, awake from your slumber of indolence and hark-en the call of the future! Do you realise you are rapidly becoming a doomed generation? Do you realise that the fate of the world and of generations to come rests on your shoulders?  Do you realise that at any time you may be called on to protect your country and the freedom of the world from the creeping scourge of communism? How can you possibly laugh in the face of the disasters which face us all from all sides? Oh ignorant youth, the world is not a joyous place. The time has come for you to dispense with the frivolous pleasures of childhood and get down to honest toil until you are sixty-five. Then and only then can you relax and collect your social security and live happily until the time of your death. Also your insolent attitude disturbs me greatly. You have the nerve to say that you have never known what it is like to live in a secure and peaceful world; you say that the present generation has balled things up to the extent that we now face a war so terrible that the very thought of it makes hardened veterans shudder; you say it is our fault that World War ll  was fought in vein; you say that it is impossible to lay plans for the future until you are sure you have a future. I say Nonsense! None of these things matter. If you expect a future you must carve it out in the face of these things. You also say that you must wait until after you have served your time with the service to settle down. Ridiculous! It is a man’s duty to pull up stakes and serve his country at any time, then settle down again._
_I say there is no excuse for a feeling of insecurity on your part;there is no excuse for juvenile delinquency; there is no excuse for your attitude except that you are rotten and lazy! I was never like that! I worked hard; I saved; I didn’t run around and stay out late at night; I carved out my own future through hard work and virtuous living, and look at me now: a respectful and successful man._
_I warn you, if you don’t start now it will be too late, and the blame for the end of the world will be laid at your feet. Heed my warning, oh depraved and profligate youth; I say awake, awake, awake! _
_Fearfully and disgustedly yours,       John J. Righteous-Hypocrite. _


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 17, 2013)

Greg said:


> [Originally posted by Gravity]:
> 
> Hey - its been so slow here. I'll check if anybody is listening: First let me point out that I snowboard *and* ski, though now that I'm out east I don't snowboard much because I liked it very much in the powder but not so much on the firm stuff. Both sports are awesome. But with kids wanting to talk about whats more "radical" than what. Here is a fun exercise: Look up what the speed record is on skis & snowboard. Compare and discuss ) Look up what the distance jumping record is on both. Look up what the height landed jumping record is on both. Look up what the record for # of tricks in the air on one jump. I know the answers, but the search is part of the fun!



I knew about the compound, if I ever go to Aspen I will stop their. Fear and loathing I been told is the best LSD trip put into a movie. Also enjoying reading his books.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 3, 2014)

Not that I want to revive this thread but, as the result of this lawsuit (I presume) the use of the Interstate trail has been completely modified.  It is essentially a huge snow park and the entrance is totally roped off with a chicane access.

It essentially means that beginners will likely head right after disembarking and hit Harmony lane.  The former 360 park does not exist anymore on Harmony lane. 

Not convinced it makes for a much safer learning environment since Exhibition empties on harmony lane, albeit lower down than Lower River Quai.  I still think Interstate was the best run of the two for beginners.

Anyhow, not even sure if the reworking of the runs has anything to do with the lawsuit, but that would be a strange coincidence.


----------



## Snowlover (Jan 3, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The problem is that excessive speed is possible on most beginner slope.   Excessive should not be defined by absolute values, but by relative speed.  On hard pack conditions, I can nearly hit 40mph on interstate, and that's not even starting from Lower Quai where 60mph should be easy to reach.  Heck I've hit nearly 40mph on a sled on raccoon run (GPS measured in case you wonder).  While not particularly fast from a ski racer point of view, most would agree that it is an unreasonable speed on a run with beginners.
> 
> So my point is that outside of carpet areas, it would be nearly impossible to find runs where skiers absolutely cannot achieve excessive speed (forget advanced skiers, the out of control intermediate is the problem most of the time).   Like it or not, as soon as you leave the magic carpet, you have rely on the good judgment of other skiers.  There is no way around this.
> 
> As to the second part, advanced skiers are not likely to ski interstate.  As I said earlier, what you say makes perfect sense, you just picked a terrible case to start this argument.   If by your standards it is dangerous to take beginners on interstate, then ski resorts might as well forget about teaching beginners.  This is the point you seem to fail to recognize over and over.


*Going 60mph is never safe on an open public trail even if it's an "experts only double black diamond".* Even the best skier could run into someone. Plus you've no netting to stop you from going into the tree's. There's no reaction time if someone happens to be in front of you around a turn. 60mph is average super g racing speed(yes I know they can go faster in sections). If you want to ski that fast go  join a race league and you can ski as fast as you want. You can take all the risks you want as long you don't put OTHERS at risk.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 3, 2014)

Snowlover said:


> *Going 60mph is never safe on an open public trail even if it's an "experts only double black diamond".*



It's okay as long as you're wearing a helmet.


----------



## canobie#1 (Jan 3, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's okay as long as you're wearing a helmet.



And nobody else is on the trail


----------



## Snowlover (Jan 3, 2014)

canobie#1 said:


> And nobody else is on the trail



If you have proper line of sight as well. Some trails have blindspots around turns over bends when you're going 60mph.
If nobody is in front of you. If you have proper line of sight and there no intersecting trails. A lot of mountains have cross trails. So there aren't a lot of trails that allow all those variables to allow you to do that on a public trail.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 3, 2014)

Snowlover said:


> *Going 60mph is never safe on an open public trail even if it's an "experts only double black diamond".* Even the best skier could run into someone. Plus you've no netting to stop you from going into the tree's. There's no reaction time if someone happens to be in front of you around a turn. 60mph is average super g racing speed(yes I know they can go faster in sections). If you want to ski that fast go  join a race league and you can ski as fast as you want. You can take all the risks you want as long you don't put OTHERS at risk.



You need to take up another hobby if this is your stance.


----------



## Snowlover (Jan 3, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> You need to take up another hobby if this is your stance.


It's not just my stance. You ever seen someone crash going 60mph in the super G?(and these are the best skier's in the world and they still crash) Their dead without the netting. And what if they run into someone on the trail? The general public is using these trails. Again, if you want to ski that fast become a ski racer and stop pretending. It's sort of like going 100mph in a car like paul walker. Get on a race track and don't put other people at risk. Going 60mph on ski's is more than just skiing fast. It's absolutely flying. Any inconsistencies in the terrain/mistakes will be magnified 10 fold.

Doing super g type speeds on a public non closed ski area is completely irresponsible. And most of the time the people doing something that stupid are intermediates who think they are a lot better than they are. They usually like to post on online forums to talk about how "core" they are and how they push limits. They usually end up in a hospital eventually.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 3, 2014)

What's the fastest people should ride a motorcycle?


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 3, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> What's the fastest people should ride a motorcycle?



As fast as possible.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 3, 2014)

Snowlover said:


> It's not just my stance. You ever seen someone crash going 60mph in the super G?(and these are the best skier's in the world and they still crash) Their dead without the netting. And what if they run into someone on the trail? The general public is using these trails. Again, if you want to ski that fast become a ski racer and stop pretending. It's sort of like going 100mph in a car like paul walker. Get on a race track and don't put other people at risk. Going 60mph on ski's is more than just skiing fast. It's absolutely flying. Any inconsistencies in the terrain/mistakes will be magnified 10 fold.
> 
> Doing super g type speeds on a public non closed ski area is completely irresponsible. And most of the time the people doing something that stupid are intermediates who think they are a lot better than they are. They usually like to post on online forums to talk about how "core" they are and how they push limits. They usually end up in a hospital eventually.



Again, take up another hobby, may I suggest bowling, but only candlepin with the bumpers.


----------



## Snowlover (Jan 3, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Again, take up another hobby, may I suggest bowling, but only candlepin with the bumpers.



Is this what you tell the 98% of people who go to any ski mountain? Because they all ski less than 60mph and a lot of them have kids. I don't think they'd appreciate being run into by someone doing that type of speed. And the biggest idiots tend to bomb blue trails. That's something I've also noticed.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 3, 2014)

I bomb *experts only double black diamonds.*


----------



## Snowlover (Jan 3, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I bomb *experts only double black diamonds.*



Well just make sure there's no one in front of you.(and you do it on a trail where you can see way ahead) And don't do it on blues.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 3, 2014)

I ski as fast as I can go and I try to time the blind rolls just right so that I can just jump over anyone below them. Black Green Blue, it doesn't matter. 
Of course tunaspeed is the only speed!


----------

