Lawsuit Rewarded

[from_the_NEK]

Apparently happened at Stratton in 2004. Does this mean I can go poach a closed trail, closeline myself with the closer rope and end up being able to pay off my college loans?

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=8684467 :roll:

 

[Sparky]

Life in America...If you get hurt somebody owes you money.

 

[abc]

Apparently happened at Stratton in 2004. Does this mean I can go poach a closed trail, closeline myself with the closer rope and end up being able to pay off my college loans?

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=8684467 :roll:

You need to be short enough to "bite" the rope, though...

 

[tree_skier]

Now can stratton sue the parents for failing to teach the poor child that the rope means closed and that they should ski into fixed objects???

 

[dmc]

People that sue ski areas suck...

 

[bvibert]

We don't know that the child was attempting to enter a closed trail. Maybe he simply didn't see the rope, or lost control, or was pushed towards it or something. It's hard to draw an accurate conclusion with the information provided.

Whatever the cause; the results are unfortunate for everyone involved (assuming the boys injuries were as severe as they were made out to be).

 

[drjeff]

Okay, so he's a 9 year old boy who probably broke a few teeth and sustained a cut across his face. First off, where was his helmet if he wasn't wearing one???

Secondly, having dealt with many a 9 year old boy with broken front teeth, the majority of them think it's "cool"

Third, it was a CLOSED trail. WTF??? Even if he was skiing along the side of the rope not trying to enter the closed trail, aren't we all supposed to ski in control???

Obviously there's about 1000 details that we don't know, but it sure sounds to me like this descision really stinks!

 

[cbcbd]

Retarded...
the legal system works too well

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Since none of us know the whole story, surely not from that dinky article, making judgements about the case belongs in sillytown. As most cases I am sure it will be appealed and maybe overturned so then Stratton can sue the parents.

Sort of like when Powdr announced awhile back that they were considering countersuing the two couples who sued them for ending the lifetime passes, technically ending them in two years, who lost not once but twice in court.

I hope trailboss passes his Vermont Bar exam so maybe we can start getting in on the fun. :wink:

 

[tcharron]

Apparently happened at Stratton in 2004. Does this mean I can go poach a closed trail, closeline myself with the closer rope and end up being able to pay off my college loans?

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=8684467 :roll:

I don't know anything about the case, but I didn't get the impression he hit the rope at the BOTTOM of a trail after poaching it from the top. Sounds to me like he ran into a rope at the top of a closed trail.

 

[deadheadskier]

At least the judgement wasn't crazy severe. There's a resident in Stowe, forget his name, but used to come into the restaurant I worked at all the time. He got an accident I believe at Aspen in his early twenties during a ski rash. He crashed into one of the finish poles and was paralyzed from the accident. Horrible situation, but he was awarded enough money to have a mansion in Stowe with several horses, live in nurse and caretaker for the grounds. To me THAT's excessive. Do I feel bad for the guy? Absolutely. Do I think he deserves a mansion and horses and a grounds keeper for this amazing property? No. I forget what the amount was, but it was several million dollars.

It was a fairly landmark case that resulted in a lot of changes in ski area liability laws.

 

[JohnGD33]

People that sue ski areas suck...

People that sue for dumb stuff suck. I ski closed trails all the time but if i get hurt it is my fault not the ski area's. It is like the person who sued McDonalds for coffee that was too hot???? WHERE ARE WE GOING?:-(

 

[David Metsky]

It is like the person who sued McDonalds for coffee that was too hot????

The facts of the case show that McDonalds was solidly in the wrong and the lawsuit was correctly decided.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.reedmorganpc.com/wsj_coffee.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

The headlines rarely capture the full details of a case.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

The facts of the case show that McDonalds was solidly in the wrong and the lawsuit was correctly decided.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.reedmorganpc.com/wsj_coffee.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

The headlines rarely capture the full details of a case.

While the headlines rarely do capture the full details of most situations, the links you provided don't exactly bear that out in this case. In the interest of full disclosure, I only read the Wiki entry, but the evidence seems to point to a jury run amok more than a just outcome. Serving coffee that hot is apparently industry standard, if that entry is correct, so I don't see how McD was operating in a negligent manner. And the third link you provided was from the plaintiff's attorney, so should be disregarded entirely.

 

[David Metsky]

Serving coffee that hot is apparently industry standard, if that entry is correct, so I don't see how McD was operating in a negligent manner. And the third link you provided was from the plaintiff's attorney, so should be disregarded entirely.

Re-read the links. The coffee was served 20+ degrees hotter then was served by other stores and close to 40 degrees hotter then served in homes, it had caused severe burns (3rd degree, full skin thickness) before, they had been warned about it, and chose to ignore the risk. They were negligent in this case.

McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.

The third link is a WSJ article, hosted on an attorney's site. The facts in the article are not in question.

The point is that lawsuits are quick to bring the ire of casual readers. But things are rarely so simple when you look at the details.

 

[SIKSKIER]

The only inference I got out of that article was using 2440 lb test rope was the negligence.I'm guessing they thought weaker rope that would break easier should have been used.???

 

[bvibert]

The only inference I got out of that article was using 2440 lb test rope was the negligence.I'm guessing they thought weaker rope that would break easier should have been used.???

That would seem to be their argument... I can just imagine how well using break away ropes to close trails will work... :roll:

 

[bigbog]

..yes,...

........It is like the person who sued McDonalds for coffee that was too hot????.......

Yeah, NOW we're talkin' about serious issues!........

...The only inference I got out of that article was using 2440 lb test rope was the negligence.I'm guessing they thought weaker rope that would break easier should have been used.???

The mental intention means nothing in that eh'?, truly Unbelievable!

 

[kbroderick]

That would seem to be their argument... I can just imagine how well using break away ropes to close trails will work... :roll:

Actually, using lower-test bungees to attach the ropes to fixed points can make it both easier for patrol to close the trail and less likely to cut someone in half (you still don't want to hit 'em...I'd expect at least serious bruising even with the rubber bungees and plastic hooks I've seen, which are definitely lower than 2,440-lb test). If you have a bungee and hook on the end of the rope, you can either loop it around a tree and hook it to itself or install a permanent eye loop in the tree or signpost to attach to, instead of spending five minutes trying to tie a #@$% polypropylene rope in -20 degree weather.

Oh, and I'm not making a comment on the case--without seeing more info, I'd be disinclined to take a position (there just wasn't enough in the news stories).

 

[tcharron]

That would seem to be their argument... I can just imagine how well using break away ropes to close trails will work... :roll:

Doesn't have to be break away. Besides, I've seen trails closed with plastic tape before. Lets not kid ourselves that a rope is going to really 'secure' a trail anyway.

Not commenting on the lawsuit itself, I really don't know the orientation of the trail, time of day, etc..

But it'd be common sense to not want to clothesline your customers at high speed. Hell, personally, I'd think they'd want to use some kind of bungie to slow the buggers down if they DO thwack it.