IMPORTANT NEWS - Jury gives $14 million to skier paralyzed at Snoqualmie
- Thread starter SkierX
- Start date
ESB
Active member
I think the problem with lawsuits and liability in the U.S. stems just as much from our high medical costs as from "justice" or just plain greed. Someone up above had a valid point, that if the guy hadn't sued, he'd be fucked, his mom would probably be working 60 hours a week for the rest of her life just to keep him alive.
montanaskier
Member
yeah, i knew what you meant though. like i think i know where you stand on this issue. maybe playing devil's advocate a little...
Ahmets_Brother
Active member
lawsuits like that are gonna kill terrain parks in western ny and the midwest. Our resorts are too small to assume these responsibilities and the only thing our mountains have are parks. Every day i ski at my home mountain, the jumps are improperly built. But i still adapt to it and hit it. Its something you need to do as a skier. conditions and jumps wont always favor you, you have to work with it. being a dumbass and not checking jump angle, size, speed, conditions is poor judgment.
Static
Active member
posting a sign telling people to clear the landings, and not do inverts doesn't mean shit, if the resort builds a shitty jump, then it's neglegence.
Also, who the fuck cares, some big ass insurance company is going to cover the bill. Insurance companys rape every single one of their customers; personal or commercial. Most of the small ski areas that are longer around today closed because of insurance companys.
Also, who the fuck cares, some big ass insurance company is going to cover the bill. Insurance companys rape every single one of their customers; personal or commercial. Most of the small ski areas that are longer around today closed because of insurance companys.
snocompton
Active member
Snoqualmie is my home moutain and let me say this.
First off Snoqualmie has a great park. Esially the best in washington and its up there in the top 3 in the PNW next to Hood and Whistler. The jumps we have are all tables and most of them range from the 20 to 40ft range. Some of them have steeper lips then others but its not hard to hit these jumps correctly. Overshooting one of our jumps to the point where it paralyzed you would be a hard thing to do. Are jumps are no more different then any other jumps and just like any other jump you have to be going way to fast to overshoot a jump.
And its complete bullshit that this is getting put on the cat driver. I will guarentee that 90% of the parks out there have all of the jumps shaped/re-shaped with a cat every god damn day. During the day our park crew goes around and rakes and re-shapes them when they need it.
This is entirely this guys fault and all this does is put a bad name on Snoqualmie. Now everyone in the state of Washington who reads the paper is going to think Snoqualmie is a terrible moutain and is too dangerous to ski at. And this did make the front page of the seattle times which reaches everyone in washington.
Its unfortunate accidents like this that just hurt the sport of skiing and our local moutains. Its a shame that someones own mistake can be turned around and end up like this.
First off Snoqualmie has a great park. Esially the best in washington and its up there in the top 3 in the PNW next to Hood and Whistler. The jumps we have are all tables and most of them range from the 20 to 40ft range. Some of them have steeper lips then others but its not hard to hit these jumps correctly. Overshooting one of our jumps to the point where it paralyzed you would be a hard thing to do. Are jumps are no more different then any other jumps and just like any other jump you have to be going way to fast to overshoot a jump.
And its complete bullshit that this is getting put on the cat driver. I will guarentee that 90% of the parks out there have all of the jumps shaped/re-shaped with a cat every god damn day. During the day our park crew goes around and rakes and re-shapes them when they need it.
This is entirely this guys fault and all this does is put a bad name on Snoqualmie. Now everyone in the state of Washington who reads the paper is going to think Snoqualmie is a terrible moutain and is too dangerous to ski at. And this did make the front page of the seattle times which reaches everyone in washington.
Its unfortunate accidents like this that just hurt the sport of skiing and our local moutains. Its a shame that someones own mistake can be turned around and end up like this.
Deranged
Member
These sort of frivolous lawsuits are damaging to our
country. They already plague the medical professions...and they help no
one except the greedy people getting free money. It sucks that this kid
is a veggie now but he should not have been rewarded any money from the resort.
No matter how bad the jump may have been. As for the costs of his medical
expenses, well maybe they wouldn’t be so expensive it weren’t for these types
of lawsuits.
country. They already plague the medical professions...and they help no
one except the greedy people getting free money. It sucks that this kid
is a veggie now but he should not have been rewarded any money from the resort.
No matter how bad the jump may have been. As for the costs of his medical
expenses, well maybe they wouldn’t be so expensive it weren’t for these types
of lawsuits.
1080bio
Active member
That’s redic that a lot of this case was based of the word of some aeronautics and physics professors from some college. Just because they know how to do some equations doesn’t mean the jump was unsafe, they probably don’t know the first thing about hitting a jump. To many of you are agreeing that the jump was bad. I bet it wasn’t that bad at all sure it may have been firm out but it happens. From the sound of it this mountain has a decent idea of how to build features. The guy had no right to sue it was his fault he hurt himself he made a conscious decision to hit that jump and clearly the jump was way out of his league. And as for the whole jump not being engineered the only jumps i know of that are engineered are aerial sites. Sure mountains have there parks engineered but not down to the exact specifications of the jumps. Like some one pointed out mountains change the features every day and the park crews and cat drivers eye everything up. No one is out there with surveying equipment taking the exact dimensions of jumps. Basically this guy is a bitch who can’t accept the fact that he fucked himself up and it was his fault.
*monsterskier*
Active member
dang.. $14 mil? ok.. that much money is too much..
The_Oakley_Kid
Active member
hey winndeburlo, FUCK YOU.
tride
Active member
Very well put.
Sure, it would be great if every jump was built safely, but, even if it was a terrible, poorly constructed, and completely unsafe jump, it is STILL the individual skiers responsibility to decide whether or not to hit it. Once he makes that choice, the fault is his, and his alone if he can't pull it off.
The only kind of legit reason to sue a ski resort would be if the resort paid their staff to hit the guy with a shovel as he came off the jump, maybe then it could actually be considered their "fault" that he was injured.
And regarding the argument about "well he has to come up with all this money, what else is he going to do?". What a terrible way to look at things. Basically you're saying that being a bad situation gives you an excuse to screw other people.
What would you suggest to someone who hikes into the backcountry, sees a cliff with a bad landing, jumps it anyways and does a similar injury. Should he figure out how to sue someone for that, or should he accept that he has to deal with the consequences of his actions?
Sure, it would be great if every jump was built safely, but, even if it was a terrible, poorly constructed, and completely unsafe jump, it is STILL the individual skiers responsibility to decide whether or not to hit it. Once he makes that choice, the fault is his, and his alone if he can't pull it off.
The only kind of legit reason to sue a ski resort would be if the resort paid their staff to hit the guy with a shovel as he came off the jump, maybe then it could actually be considered their "fault" that he was injured.
And regarding the argument about "well he has to come up with all this money, what else is he going to do?". What a terrible way to look at things. Basically you're saying that being a bad situation gives you an excuse to screw other people.
What would you suggest to someone who hikes into the backcountry, sees a cliff with a bad landing, jumps it anyways and does a similar injury. Should he figure out how to sue someone for that, or should he accept that he has to deal with the consequences of his actions?
EL_FINRE
Active member
the reason our sport is so great is because we have people all over that are aware of the risks involved and they push the limit further and further every year.
its to bad this guy felt the need to sue, i mean i feel bad that he is now paralyzed but he should know the risks involved when you commit yourself to a jump like that.
its to bad this guy felt the need to sue, i mean i feel bad that he is now paralyzed but he should know the risks involved when you commit yourself to a jump like that.
tride
Active member
What this verdict will lead to is a shitload of other people who will use this precedent as an excuse to sue resorts whenever they get hurt skiing in terrain parks.
Then it will lead to many hills doing away with terrain parks because the insurance costs will skyrocket.
So it is not, in any way, "a good thing".
Then it will lead to many hills doing away with terrain parks because the insurance costs will skyrocket.
So it is not, in any way, "a good thing".
=nick=
Active member
word.
i rode snoqualmie 40+ days this year, havent gotten hurt once, and i hit pretty much everything. the snoqualmie park is what makes it fun to ride there, without a park, that mountain is nothing. it really sucks for the guy and feel terrible but the jumps really arent that hard to hit correctly.
on another note, if we had a better social secuity system, like in europe, where in most countries medical care for its citizens is free, we wouldnt havr the same suing issues that make America so fucked up.
i rode snoqualmie 40+ days this year, havent gotten hurt once, and i hit pretty much everything. the snoqualmie park is what makes it fun to ride there, without a park, that mountain is nothing. it really sucks for the guy and feel terrible but the jumps really arent that hard to hit correctly.
on another note, if we had a better social secuity system, like in europe, where in most countries medical care for its citizens is free, we wouldnt havr the same suing issues that make America so fucked up.
t_rob
Active member
thats stupid. its called check out the jump and know your limits. and um they have signs like i don't know.. videos for big kid parks, signs saying your going to die if you don't know what your doing.... I think its stupid that they are giving somebody 14 million dollars for being an idiot.
i don't know if i've ever been in a park without out a sign like that. i deserve 14 million dollars over that guy.
i don't know if i've ever been in a park without out a sign like that. i deserve 14 million dollars over that guy.
asfffffffffdd
Active member
wow maybe a little over the top, but i do agree that if i was a quadraplegic i don't think i'd want to go on living
Jib_This
Active member
hate to point this out, but if you're building 50ft tables without proper angles, inruns, landings, grooming, and the rest of the work that goes into building a proper jump, YOU ARE BEING SUPER FUCKING NEGLIGENT. End of story.
Personal responsibility? After cruising through a park, checking landings, and maybe speed-checking a jump or two, that's about all you can do. You can't be expected to get out there with protractors, angle checkers, shovels, etc, before hitting each and every park jump.
You're responsible for throwing your silly ass 30 ft into the air, absolutely. You eat shit, it's your fault. But if some clueless cat driver builds a kicker that belongs on an 80ft table, gives it a 10ft deck, and then a flat landing, and you overshoot and land in the flats, well, shit, they're at least partially liable.
Building a park makes a resort responsible for building it properly.
Personal responsibility? After cruising through a park, checking landings, and maybe speed-checking a jump or two, that's about all you can do. You can't be expected to get out there with protractors, angle checkers, shovels, etc, before hitting each and every park jump.
You're responsible for throwing your silly ass 30 ft into the air, absolutely. You eat shit, it's your fault. But if some clueless cat driver builds a kicker that belongs on an 80ft table, gives it a 10ft deck, and then a flat landing, and you overshoot and land in the flats, well, shit, they're at least partially liable.
Building a park makes a resort responsible for building it properly.
tride
Active member
BULL
SHIT
If, to use your example: "a clueless cat driver builds a kicker that belongs on an 80ft table, gives it a 10 ft deck, and then a flat landing" then it is YOUR fucking responsibility to decide whether or not you want to hit something that poorly shaped.
If I saw something like the above example in a park, then I would certainly think twice about hitting it. If I did decide to take a chance on hitting something sketchy, I wouldn't hold anyone but myself at fault if I crashed.
The jump that you described sounds dangerous. Well, everything in a park is dangerous, to differing extents, to different people. Hitting a channel gap is way more dangerous than if the same jump was filled in, but I'm not gonna sue if I come up short, and claim that the hill was partially liable because the jump was sketchy.
EVERY jump, in EVERY terrain park could be interpereted by the right lawyer as sketchy, dangerous, poorly built, or not properly designed, depending on what you compare it too.
If you want to ski in a park, then YOU have to make the decision about what is safe, it is not up to the resort to provide jumps meeting any sort of specifications.
SHIT
If, to use your example: "a clueless cat driver builds a kicker that belongs on an 80ft table, gives it a 10 ft deck, and then a flat landing" then it is YOUR fucking responsibility to decide whether or not you want to hit something that poorly shaped.
If I saw something like the above example in a park, then I would certainly think twice about hitting it. If I did decide to take a chance on hitting something sketchy, I wouldn't hold anyone but myself at fault if I crashed.
The jump that you described sounds dangerous. Well, everything in a park is dangerous, to differing extents, to different people. Hitting a channel gap is way more dangerous than if the same jump was filled in, but I'm not gonna sue if I come up short, and claim that the hill was partially liable because the jump was sketchy.
EVERY jump, in EVERY terrain park could be interpereted by the right lawyer as sketchy, dangerous, poorly built, or not properly designed, depending on what you compare it too.
If you want to ski in a park, then YOU have to make the decision about what is safe, it is not up to the resort to provide jumps meeting any sort of specifications.
shralpingthegnar
Member
that sux- I've spent a lot of time studying risk management at ski areas and this lawsuit WILL have an impact on everyone. What's funny is if he went too far off of a cat track he wouldn't have a case. It is difficult for any small ski area to build a park with little budget or experience. Snow park Technologies is one company who is introducing sets of guidelines for small areas to follow when constructing terrain parks. Which makes sense, because you wouldn't want someone who sucks at skiing and has possibily never built a jump becoming suddenly in charge of building features that are in the end clearly unsafe.
This is pretty serious stuff for people who build parks. You're right that bad park builders should be shot, and it is their fault when someone gets hurt.
However there is no way for a good park builder to prove themselves as such, and the same lawsuit could be levied against them if the person who used the feature was just an idiot with a good lawyer.
I measure every single feature I build, and ensure that takeoff angles meet landing angles and whatnot... but there aren't any rules for why I pick the angles that I pick, so the same argument of the jump not being engineered stands.
This is what happened in classic freestyle... these lawsuits just made it too expensive for a resort to build jumps at it.
There needs to be a certification for terrain park builders so that we can cover our asses. Anyone want to start it?
However there is no way for a good park builder to prove themselves as such, and the same lawsuit could be levied against them if the person who used the feature was just an idiot with a good lawyer.
I measure every single feature I build, and ensure that takeoff angles meet landing angles and whatnot... but there aren't any rules for why I pick the angles that I pick, so the same argument of the jump not being engineered stands.
This is what happened in classic freestyle... these lawsuits just made it too expensive for a resort to build jumps at it.
There needs to be a certification for terrain park builders so that we can cover our asses. Anyone want to start it?
dontH8innovate
Member
^I agree with everything you just said mr. b
I think theres something alot of you are missing, a ton of other people got hurt on this jump, the park crew must have know about these accidents and they did nothing. In most cases I'd be all up in arms talking about how this is the problem with america and all that, but I think this kid actually had at least a bit of a case.
A certification for terrain park builders is a great idea.
I think theres something alot of you are missing, a ton of other people got hurt on this jump, the park crew must have know about these accidents and they did nothing. In most cases I'd be all up in arms talking about how this is the problem with america and all that, but I think this kid actually had at least a bit of a case.
A certification for terrain park builders is a great idea.
vermontsteez
Member
ummmm did you not fuckign hear about the other people going of the jump... one kid fucking died another broke his back and know hes paralyzed for the rest of his life... i would say that your retarded in saying that it is his fault. you would think after SOMEONE DIEING ON THE FUCKING JUMP they would fix it... And it was obviously proven that the jump was built totally wrong and he shouldnt have to check the jump for ice etc.. the mtn managers should be doing that shit everyday.
i say good that htey got fined.
i say good that htey got fined.
Rez4frederick
Active member
Sorry, but I dont feel sorry at all for this guy who got paralyzed. He obviously had no fucking idea what he was getting himself into. He has fucking eyes that work right? Well then he can do the 'engineered' math inside of his fucking head and test out the jump with less speed before he hucks himself. That fucking "engineered" arguement is such fucking bullshit.
This honestly pisses me off.
Yea it sucks that hes going to have to pay alot of money for hospital bills etc, but thats life. What about people who are born with problems? I dont care if his mom would have had to work 60 hrs a week to pay for it, now none of them are going to have to lift a finger. If I was the judge I would have told this guys Mom that life is NOT fair. Her son fucked up and now hes paying for it by being disabled, maybe you should have gotten your son some fucking ski coaching so he knew what the fuck he was doing.
This honestly pisses me off.
Yea it sucks that hes going to have to pay alot of money for hospital bills etc, but thats life. What about people who are born with problems? I dont care if his mom would have had to work 60 hrs a week to pay for it, now none of them are going to have to lift a finger. If I was the judge I would have told this guys Mom that life is NOT fair. Her son fucked up and now hes paying for it by being disabled, maybe you should have gotten your son some fucking ski coaching so he knew what the fuck he was doing.
Rez4frederick
Active member
So basically Snoqualime is paying him out the ass because THE KID WOULD NOT TAKE ONE FUCKING WARMUP/TESTRUN ON THE JUMP AND FIND OUT FOR HIMSELF IF IT WAS SAFE? ONE FUCKING RUN?!!! FUCK THAT BS
tride
Active member
One VERY IMPORTANT thing that is getting missed here as well....
For all we know, the jump was not necessarily even that bad. It has simply been labled so by the plaintiffs lawyers, who could undoubtedly argue the same case for any number of jumps (good and bad) in parks all around North America.
Are we to assume that injury liability lawyers are a credible source when they make a case about a jump being "unsafe and poorly built"?
Yes, people were injured in that terrain park earlier, does that prove that the jump was super bad? No, people are always getting injured in Parks, even the best designed ones.
Since it was a jump in a terrain park, that was open, obviously this guy was not the only person to hit it. What about all the other people who used the jump and were not injured.
Maybe half the people on this site would have sessioned the jump all day for all we know. They say the landing was "too flat", well exactly how "too flat" was it? Maybe the lawyers used the "engineered" FIS aerial sites as their example of how steep a landing needs to be.
I can handle a flatter landing than some of my friends, so sometimes I'll be ok on a jump that they don't like, that is our own choice, and if I spank myself landing flat, well I knew what I was in for when I lined it up.
This is why it is so important that the responsibility lies with the skier and NOT the resort. One person's fun stunt is another person's deathtrap, so resorts can't be expected to make features that work for everybody.
Yes, it sucks when they build something really shitty and dangerous, however every feature could be considered shitty and dangerous for the wrong person.
If someone really builds shit that totally sucks, they will be penalized by the fact that the riders hate their park, bad word of mouth advertising, customers choosing to go elsewhere, loss of business, etc. But they should not be held liable when people CHOOSE to take the risk of hitting shitty featuers, by their own free will.
Engineering standards, and jump specifications, should they become forced on parks, will completely kill any chance of creativity and park progression.
For all we know, the jump was not necessarily even that bad. It has simply been labled so by the plaintiffs lawyers, who could undoubtedly argue the same case for any number of jumps (good and bad) in parks all around North America.
Are we to assume that injury liability lawyers are a credible source when they make a case about a jump being "unsafe and poorly built"?
Yes, people were injured in that terrain park earlier, does that prove that the jump was super bad? No, people are always getting injured in Parks, even the best designed ones.
Since it was a jump in a terrain park, that was open, obviously this guy was not the only person to hit it. What about all the other people who used the jump and were not injured.
Maybe half the people on this site would have sessioned the jump all day for all we know. They say the landing was "too flat", well exactly how "too flat" was it? Maybe the lawyers used the "engineered" FIS aerial sites as their example of how steep a landing needs to be.
I can handle a flatter landing than some of my friends, so sometimes I'll be ok on a jump that they don't like, that is our own choice, and if I spank myself landing flat, well I knew what I was in for when I lined it up.
This is why it is so important that the responsibility lies with the skier and NOT the resort. One person's fun stunt is another person's deathtrap, so resorts can't be expected to make features that work for everybody.
Yes, it sucks when they build something really shitty and dangerous, however every feature could be considered shitty and dangerous for the wrong person.
If someone really builds shit that totally sucks, they will be penalized by the fact that the riders hate their park, bad word of mouth advertising, customers choosing to go elsewhere, loss of business, etc. But they should not be held liable when people CHOOSE to take the risk of hitting shitty featuers, by their own free will.
Engineering standards, and jump specifications, should they become forced on parks, will completely kill any chance of creativity and park progression.
-justice-
Active member
I'm going to assume that the 15 accidents were predominately were caused by a lack of experience and knowledge about terrain parks. I was at Snoqualmie a while back and the jumps didn't seem any more dangerous than any other jump i've seen/hit. I've seen this type of thing too often. Folks hit a jump, thinking they,re the shit, and not considering important factors and not examining the jump first. I'm sure that he just eyeballed it from the lift and thought about the popular extreme sports mantra, "Go big or go home."
I really feel bad for the guy but I don't agree with the verdict. I can see how the jury came to their conclusion (probably all rec skiers w/ no park experience) though. In the end it's his fault for skiing outside of his own ability.
I really feel bad for the guy but I don't agree with the verdict. I can see how the jury came to their conclusion (probably all rec skiers w/ no park experience) though. In the end it's his fault for skiing outside of his own ability.
-justice-
Active member
I'm going to assume that the 15 accidents were predominately were caused by a lack of experience and knowledge about terrain parks. I was at Snoqualmie a while back and the jumps didn't seem any more dangerous than any other jump i've seen/hit. I've seen this type of thing too often. Folks hit a jump, thinking they,re the shit, and not considering important factors and not examining the jump first. I'm sure that he just eyeballed it from the lift and thought about the popular extreme sports mantra, "Go big or go home."
I really feel bad for the guy but I don't agree with the verdict. I can see how the jury came to their conclusion (probably all rec skiers w/ no park experience) though. In the end it's his fault for skiing outside of his own ability.
I really feel bad for the guy but I don't agree with the verdict. I can see how the jury came to their conclusion (probably all rec skiers w/ no park experience) though. In the end it's his fault for skiing outside of his own ability.
Nasty_Napes
Member
Just because people get hurt on a certain feature does not mean it is built wrong. Tons of people got seriously injured on pc's big jump this year, yet jon still thrived on it (learning new double corks and such). A smart and responsible skier looks carefully at a jump before he/she hits it, and steers clear if it appears unsafe. If a skier does not posses the knowledge to deem a jump as safe or unsafe, then they should not be in the park. The resort should not be held liable for this man's lack of responsibility.
nohajs
Member
^ And any jumps of real size or consequence. As a cat driver and park manager, I think this could end in a watered down "safe" park. We build stuff at Alpine that is big. If this makes the insurance companies look at my jumps with a more skeptical eye, we may lose our parks main draw.
Our biggest jump is also our safest jump, but in an insurance point of view it looks dangerous.
This jump is one of our smallest jumps in the main park, and it also takes out the most kids.
Now I built both jumps. The angles and trannys on both are good. Yet an insurance company would wan't to get rid of the 70'er before the 25'er.
Is this right?
Should we have an attorney and an insurance agent tell us what is dangerous?
Should all parks be built the same?
Would park certification prevent injuries?
No, the riders should be the ones deciding if that is too dangerous for them. If nobody uses a feature we build, we move it and try again.
Our biggest jump is also our safest jump, but in an insurance point of view it looks dangerous.
This jump is one of our smallest jumps in the main park, and it also takes out the most kids.
Now I built both jumps. The angles and trannys on both are good. Yet an insurance company would wan't to get rid of the 70'er before the 25'er.
Is this right?
Should we have an attorney and an insurance agent tell us what is dangerous?
Should all parks be built the same?
Would park certification prevent injuries?
No, the riders should be the ones deciding if that is too dangerous for them. If nobody uses a feature we build, we move it and try again.