I just heard a rumor that all the jumps in the country were closed!

well that was at my home mountain as well, and i also saw it happen, no jumps? hmmm right now we have a 65 to a 70 double line and a 40 50 60 triple line,. goooonies
 
i think a handbook with jumps designed by people who do the math that has like every type of jump imagineable in it would cut down on this poorly designed lawsuit shit. It may restrict originality but it would make it possible for everyone to ride . . . and if its that original, it might be worth the time to get the physics down for liability reasons. . . also including types of formulas that would make for easier calculating for jumps would be a good idea to put into said handbook.
 
hmm. there's another idea to kill terrain parks. because 2 hours into the day when the jump loses a degree or two you would have to shut it down because it's "unsafe". the way resorts have been designing their parks is fine and there is nothing wrong with it because the people in charge of building the parks (for 99/9% of the time) know how to build their jumps the way they want them and the way thats safe. It's when people that shouldn't be hitting the jump hit it and try to sue that people jump on the bandwagon of "oh shit nothing is safe anymore."
 
dude like i said its more of a liability thing, they wouldnt have to close down the park.. thier would be safer and more smoothe jumps also... the mountain would have a defense for these asshole lawyers.
 
idk a degree or two wouldn't make much of a difference. But some sort of reference book where you could compute speeds, what good angle take offs are for table length... that sort of thing would be really useful and would help cut down liability because park creators could at least say they weren't 'eyeballing' a jump... especially a jump that killed 1 person, paralyzed another, and hurt several others

i'm not saying its not the dudes fault and that he should assume the risk but when you guys ski - are you assuming the risk that you can be paralyzed forever and have will have millions of dollars of medical expenses if you fall wrong? thats a bit tough.
 
Ok...did any one of you actually read the legal decision? It was judged by a jury (we do have that right in our country you know) that the resort allowed a feature which was KNOWN to be dangerous to remain open.

Now you may argue that it was soley his fault - BUT we rely on the mountains to protect us in many ways -

And this kid WAS judged to be at fault (his settelment was reduced 50%) -

The sad fucking truth is that I would bet my mortage that most of you would have sued the resort - especially since the vast majority of this website is rich living at home kids - whose parents would not be happy if lil Johnny came home in a wheelchair

 
i fell bad for him, but seruisly he didnt even look at the jump, it wasnt the mountains falt ethier
 
such bullshit. i doubt one case will end jumps. next someone will get hurt on a box and what, then will rails be banned too? Sure, it sucks to be paralyzed, but it was his own fault, so he should not be granted any money.
 
i believe that to get into the park there should be narrow glade run or something that the gapers wouldnt be able to go through, even then some people who are extremely experianced can over or underspin and the same result, just look at andre-bellivue, hope hes doing better by the way
 
judged by a jury who has no ski experience. led by a lawyer that wants money for his client. What i'm saying by the book, by going by a book, is if it is a degree or two off from the book the liability will be just the same as throwing up a take off and no landing. if you take the creaticity away from the people that build the parks, the people that are experienced, then you open the realms of liablitly. snow is an always changing feature, hence the sign at the top of the park. if it changes a few degrees from "the book" then it opens you to litigation. a jump isn't flawed if a dumbass mother fucker hits the jump when he doesn't have the skill level to hit that jump. that's why this ruling is so important. A person that shouldn't hit a 50 foot jump, no matter how safe the jump, will hurt himself. This is EXACTLY the case right now. a person that shouldn't have hit the jump (which was safe, listen to the people that hit it that didn't fuck themselves up, that had the experience to hit the jump.) hit the jump and overshot the jump but is saying he wasn't responsible for overshooting the jump, that his personal responsibility walked the fuck out when he stepped on the mountain. that is total bullshit, the lawyer knows that people will rule for him the way he pushed and pushed that the "mountain built an unsafe feature". the way he pushed, all jumps are unsafe features because dumbasses like this guy could overshoot the jump. i guess all jumps over 5 feet need 300 foot landings so this never happens. we also need to dress people in nerf turf so they don't furt themselves, because they are too stupid to realize they are doing something that may result in injury if their skill level isn't up to the level of the feature. boo hoo. he made a decision. we shouldn't be paying for his fuck up.
 
I don't think my parents would do that for a few reasons

1.alot of my familys income comes from my hill because of our houses on the hill.

2. they actually have a consience. for example my mom was a really good water skiier and she went up to hit a ramp and they didnt have the hose running and the tar was sticky from the heat and her skis stuck and she broke her leg. My grandparents could of sued the ski school that owned the jump but they didnt because it was a great place for kids to learn how to get better at the sport they loved and sueing would just hurt the sport.

 
most of you probably weren't around but this shit hit the resorts in the late 80s/90s in the U.S with Wall Street legal culture -- ie sue the ass off everything. then in Canada places like Whistler / Blackcomb just kept opening up terrain and everyone came up North and then the US resorts had to realise they had to deal with their fucked up country somehow, and so the lawsuits died down. W/B gets sued constantly like most major resorts and it's just part of their operating budget. the Park lawsuit is perhaps a little more dicey as it's in-bounds whereas previous lawsuits concerned "extreme skiers" skiing chutes that were often technically closed, etc. or even out of bounds. anyway, i would expect that we might see the same kind of over-reaction, this might even kick in for a year or so, requiring more waivers for every park (ie park passes) but the overall economic upside of the parks and what they have done for every resort now that global warming is shutting down average snowfalls (except for out west), well, this economics will win out over lame-ass lawsuits, yep... anyway the problem isn't the kid, it's the US legal system and the "protect me! protect me!" attitude of most of its lame-ass, fat-ass "citizens" ..
 
Everyone... look back at the 70's. "hotdoging" was big, jumps and 'aerials' were the thing to do. Not as big by todays standards, but one ruling (Sunday vs. Stratton) basically forced ski areas to stop all activity like that. I have a inside at a ski area, and yes, this ruling could have a huge effect on the park of the future. If awarded, insurance companies will either jack their rates and install 'guidelines' as to how big, or just not insure you at all. And its not like there are multiple carriers that will insure you. There are only 3 major ones. So IT will come down to what they say. I can imagine that you will have to sign a waiver before buying a ticket or before gaining access to any park. But no matter what happens, you can wreck youreself on a 70 ft table just the same as on a 10 ft table or rail for that matter. 'Look before you leap' may save our parks. Insurance companies have already contacted our resort about this matter. This is serious...
 
that is very sad, but for god sake, take responibilty for your actions, do people who get paralized in a drinking accident sue the alchool company?, NO. you go into the parks knowing the hazard ,there are signs warning you about the risks.
 
adults should be responcible for their own actions, thats how the world has always worked, law suits are for then unfit for servival
 
they should have a ski at your own risk sign or something like that or the smartstyle rules then they couldnt really sue you park passes may seem to help too
 
so whats the deal, has anyone heard anything more about this. sugarloaf took their jumps down and i heard they were going down everywhere. im suprised more people arent talking about this
 
lots of people are talking about this and once june kicks in and people start meandering back into the office at resorts then you'll start hearing what the insurance companies want for next year. and for the other post above this, It's an insurance guideline already to have a big sign at the entrance to the park, the smart style and such signs. and people are still sueing and winning. signs won't stop people. people kicking dumbasses out of the park will start stopping people. but park passes may ultimatly be required on every sized park at a resort. and not free park passes either.
 
honestly.....why would you sue a ski hill for 14 mil....they just make the jumps for your enjoyment....its your choice to hit em
 
that guy is such a puss.

when you hit a jump, you assume all responsibility that comes with it. landing or falling

 
yea sugarloaf and sunday river both flattened their jumps...the rumor is that every resort using the same insurance company is required to eliminate jumps for the remainder of the season. Does anyone have any idea which other resorts work under the same company and who else is doing the same thing?
 
wasthis guys parents related because he is a retarded piece of shit... from an interview

"They charge you $50 to get on the mountain, and that's like going to a theme park and you expect the roller coasters to be safe and stuff like that, you know," Salvini said.

 
What a terrible analogy. Mountains are not theme parks, they are mountains, resorts simply provide an effective means for reaching the summit. We should get a little euro-steeze in North American; less ropes, less signs, less rules and more personal responsibility. Fuck, this is supposed to be the "Land of the Free" not "Land of the Free to sue your ass".
 
Any terrain park feature that people have previously been injured on, can be considered "known to be dangerous", especially as far as ambulance chasing lawyers are concerned. That basically covers every jump in the country.

According to the SKIERS that were actually there and regularly used it, the jump was fine, the skier in question simply hit it with way too much speed.

Every terrain park jump has history of previous injuries, people get hurt in parks constantly. And every single jump in every terrain park in the world has the potential for someone to hit it wrong, crash, and become paralyzed, regardless of how well or poorly built the jump may be.

That is why the skier needs to assume TOTAL responsibility for their CHOICE to hit ANY type of feature.

And while you may rely on the mountain to "protect you", responsible people need to rely on their own judgement, choices, and decisions.
 
This lawsuit might be more retarted then the woman years ago who spilled McDonalds coffee on her and sued McDonalds for Millions for their coffee being "too hot" i have absolutley no sympathy for the guy.

Its not that unbeleivable guys, its like Adrennaline said, this ruling will cause already rising insurance premiums to rise even more, and there will be copy cats that sue when they get injured. Now while not every park will close, i can see things happening that close some parks and make features smaller and less creative.

and now for my deep thought...

He may be paralalyzed for life, but he's 1 person. But if this ruling in any way effects the progression of terrain park features, we might as well all be paralyzed, and we're a lot more then 1 fucking person.
 
i find this rediculous, saying most of you have never skied snoqualmie to comment on the jump itself, it wasn't that bad, it was like a 30ft table with a kinda short landing (for reference, the second and third jumps on brecks right line in freeway have shorter landings than that did). the kid who got paralyzed was skiing over his ability, and on top of that, straightlined from the lift into the jump, carrying redilously too much speed. as for the other kid who died, he landed on his head, snapping his neck. it wasn't a great jump, but i've defintely seen worse, with shorter landings.
 
I would take my legs over money any day, as well. But this shouldn't be about money. One kid here said that the costs for the rest of his life would be 14 million. That's clearly not true. Think of how many people have partial paralysis. If it cost that much for them all, we would have serious problems.
 
That's the nut of the problem right there, the best and most total exhortation of utter ignorance and stupidity I've ever heard. A mountain isn't a theme park. It's a MOUNTAIN. Things will KILL YOU. This statement express the essence of the West... the big, fat, lumbering West that is so ignorant to the dangers of the world.. it's the same stupidity and idiocy that governs the United States, unfortunately, the same stupid attitude.
 
sugarloafs jumps came down the other day because of this bullshit and they pulled the rails last night, i want to kill this motherfucker
 
reading some of his blog and some of the comments just reminded how hilarious stupid myspace is.

as for the situation, it sucks for everyone. If it really is costing him 27 mil or somethin for the rest of his life... cant really blame him for tryin to get money from a ski resort, and after all this ski resort is the same money hungry corporation that charges you $14 million for a burger and some fries so I can't be that mad at him.
 
a letter I wrote to the dude:

==

Hi there. First, I am very sorry that you have been seriously injured in a sport which has its serious risks. My peace be with you.

However, I find the idea of a lawsuit irresponsible. I am 29 years old, a newskool skiier myself who has been skiing all my life. And it comes down to this : look before you leap. You should and must be responsible for your own actions. A mountain is NOT a theme park. It is vicious, brutal nature and now, because as humans we engage in risk-taking sports, we have upped the ante with the park. It was and is your responsibility to know your limits and act accordingly, especially at the age of 27. You have paid dearly for this accident, and that I understand, but your lawsuit has the potential to shut down the entire sport. Sugarloaf has already taken their jumps DOWN. The insurance companies smell blood. The only winners out of this will be the men in suits from the insurance corps and the lawyers. The sport will die if this culture of "I hurt myself! I will SUE!" continues. America is a free country which means freedom to fuck yourself up, not freedom to fuck everyone else up because you fucked up.

In short, your lawsuit has done nothing to "protect" people. It is only an attempt to shift responsibility from your shoulder's to someone else's and by extension, it has possibly destroyed the sport for the rest of us.

This wouldn't be the first time either. Aerials and hotdogging were destroyed in the 70s by similar lawsuits. Extreme skiing in the 80s was curtailed for more lawsuits. And now newskool skiing in the 00s. Why? Because of a lack of personal responsibility.

I wish you all the best. But in no uncertain terms do I agree with the legal basis of your vindicative actions which only spur a culture of ignorance and irresponsibility in North America.

best, tobias

Whistler
 
wow that is probably a tough letter for him to read but its absolutely true. well written my friend.

i highly doubt hes going to change his mind about this whole lawsuit deal though......i just hope insurance companies dont rape our mountains too bad...
 
i was at meadows of saturday and their big park was torn down and the medium park was closed. so we builkt our own.
 
+ true, if i was writing for the press i would. but you know, one of the greatest writers of the 20th c was Hunter S. Thompson, and he was well known for his crafty and efficient use of the word 'fuck'. sometimes i think it's called for.
 
I love all you tough guys who would never ever sue and would take 100% responsibility for your actions -

In the real world I would bet that ALL of you would do the same if you were in this guys shoes - It is easy to talk a big game siting infront of a computer your parents bought for you, relaxing in the lap of luxury at the expensive private academy or college

The reality is this -

If you were severly injured, your life changed forever, burdened by a six-figure hospital bill, family forced to care for you until you die -- You would do the SAME EXACT thing

But go ahead and live in your utopian realm of teenage ideals - for once you should try to imagine life from his point of view

 
or you could stop being trivial and look at it from a legal standpoint and not the standpoint that your a bitch bitching about everyone on here. It is NOT a resort standard to check your responsibility at the ticket window. It is NOT the resorts fault that he OVERSHOT a 30 foot jump, taking it over a hundred feet. It is NOT the resorts fault that he is being a baby and not taking responsibility for his actions. Every jump is dangerous because people are dangerous. if he started at the top of the park to hit this jump, why is it the resorts fault at all to pay him a dime? He has the responsibility to make sure he can hit the jump. The jump wasn't defective, he is defective. His ability level in no way matches the park he was in. Just because 10 people got hurt on it before him and someone broke their neck doesn't mean a jump is defective. it means they don't have the skill. I watch the skill-less hit features they shouldn't be hitting all year. and the people that get hurt 99% of the time (not scientific percentile) on features in large parks are the kids that roll over the lip of the jump and don't even hit the jump full on, but land on the top of the table. or kids in the small park that overshoot jumps because they don't have the ability level yet. 10 people that shouldn't have hit the jump hit the jump and wrecked themselves. boo hoo. someone landed on their neck off the jump because they don't hold the skill level. while i say boo hoo I feel for everyone that gets hurt. I like seeing people ride away at the end of the day with a smile on their face. BUT that doesn't mean I don't tell people after watching dad or mom bring their snowplowing son or daughter into the intermediate park and hit the features with no speed, and drop off the end of a feature only to yell "why the hell was that there" and get mad when they drop off the end of a moto jump. A ski resort isn't a daycare. It isn't a daycare for people that check their brains at the bottom of the lift. You are responsible for this inherintly dangerous activity. Like the mom said, to pay 50 bucks and not be safe. If she wants to pay 50 bucks to be safe they can pay for their lift ticket and sit on the deck of the lodge and watch everyone. but then someone might spill their coffee on them on the deck and oops, I guess the resort should have been responsible for that too. You need to back the fuck out saying no one takes responsibility for their actions. I watched kids get seriously hurt this year because they overshot jumps, or came up short on jumps and I want to do everything I can for them. But they stood up for their actions and some of them will spend all summer not being able to do what they want to do, but they will stand up next winter and do it again because thats called heart. This kid is a shameless person that can't deal with the fact that he made a mistake in a terrain park and his mommy and daddy have to hire blood sucking lawyers to try to get them money. ONCE YOU STEP ONTO A RESORT YOU ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO. What if he had landed on a kid by overshooting this jump and killed him. Would he turn around and sue the resort for not moving the kid out of his way? most likely but that's just how fucked up he is thinking he is entitled to any money for his decision to hit a feature he didn't have the skill to hit. How do you overshoot a 30 foot jump and take it over a hundred feet without people seeing you're a skill-less piece of shit? We all feel for him and his injury but like everyone is saying. stand up for your decision. it isn't the resorts responsibility to babysit him and tell him he shouldn't hit this feature or that feature, wipe your ass now billy, ok go to lunch, ok strap on your skis again and lets go overshoot this jump. dumbass.
 
Excuse me?!?!

Did Marc Andre sue the heli outfit or film crew that took him to a "dangerous location" where he took a risk, made a mistake, and became paralyzed? NO. Does that make him a "tough guy", or simply someone who takes responsibility for the consequences of what he knew was a risky endeavor.

Did Josh Dueck try to sue anyone when he overshot the jump in Vernon and paralyzed himself? NO.

Guess what, they live in this "real world" of which you speak.

They, and many others like them, realized that nobody other than themselves deserves to be "blamed" for their situation. For the record, they have already began charging hard in sit-skis, with Josh winning 3 events at the nationals already.

And furthermore, you sanctimonious idiot, there are many people in this thread who are neither teenagers, living with their parents, or on a trust fund. In fact this is probably one of the few threads that has some intelligent discourse from knowledgeable people, including some who work in the terrain park industry.

 
for the record, this happens all the time, with some jumps being poorly designed, even at the best parks (jump 2 in countryboy at breck is a prime example, really easy to overshoot). my friend broke his back overshooting that jump last year, but didn't sue, the only thing that he held breck responsible for was loosing his ski after they tobaganed him down, so they replaced them. and he was at the skill level to hit those jumps, as he was doing 5s and 7s on them. luckily he's fine now and has been skiing this year.
 
Wayne I respect ya' but I don't think aging produces the same answer. We're about the same age. (I know.) One can be older and still reactionary and unable to take responsibility for one's life. That is the essence of the US of A at the present moment if you ask me, on a national-political level. Kyoto, anyone? Etc. Most of the West lives in a dreamworld. I mean here we are talking about skiing, and think of the planet. Just to put things into perspective.

Both of my parents were injured in the 90s, both times clipped by other skiiers. Neither time did they sue the mountain or anyone else. It's part of the dangers of the sport.

Now I think we're talking a case by case basis if we're being reasonable. When the chairs fell of Redline on Whistler about 10 years ago, people sued, and rightfully so. And let's say if you're sliding a rail and there is a big chunk taken out of it creating a knife edge, then these are clear cases were the resort was negligent, and didn't properly maintain their gear.

But the fact is is that this guy could have decided to straightline a run and fly out of control and run into a tree. Or fallen in a double-black chute and tumbled right off a cliff on to rocks. Should he be suing the resort for not telling him to slow down? For not testing his ski ability before hopping into a double black? For not stopping him with a magical hand? You might even say yes -- and that is why Whistler / Blackcomb is covered in people in yellow suits telling you to slow down at the end of the day, and why now the Weekend Chutes have been closed on Whistler since the mid 90s. And chances are we will now see "Park Police" doing exactly that for NS terrain, more closely monitoring the jumps, which means things will get a lot more costly for everybody. But the reason things are getting more costly is because this guy was being a jackass and instead of dealing with the hard lump of his own risk and decision, he's attempted to blame someone else entirely, in fact, the entire sport, for what he did, and he alone. We're not talking negligence on behalf of the mountain here. And I think it's fairly evident in this case.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top