molsongolden
Active member
i just re read the thread and there have been a couple other rational people so props to you too but the majority of posters have been ridiculous
Kenny Salvini ruins skiing
- Thread starter coolhandluke
- Start date
Charley.
Active member
HE was probably paralysed because he was a fucking noob that didnt know how to ski, and just to impress his fucking noob friend he went hard on a kicker stomping a very nice semi backflip to then explode on the ground, 40 feet away from the landing. If he wasnt enough intelligent to analyse the situation, to calculate the risks and to maybe train before hiting a big table he wouldnt be in that situation. If he is like that it is because of HIS OWN stupid decision, and he paid for it. Now that fucker comes to ruin my hole season?? Did simon Dumont complain about the jump at park city because he overshot it of about 80 feet? No, because he knew the risks involved and even if he had been paralysed, he would have done nothing like that Kenny asshole because he knew that what he did involved risk.
Hitting a jump involves analysing the risk involved, just like when you drive, mountain bike or WAKEBOARD(his last favorite activity bfore being paralysed...bouhou)and if youre not enough intelligent to judge what to do or not in risky situations, its what you earn.
Hitting a jump involves analysing the risk involved, just like when you drive, mountain bike or WAKEBOARD(his last favorite activity bfore being paralysed...bouhou)and if youre not enough intelligent to judge what to do or not in risky situations, its what you earn.
I Regarding the break down, I am sure the people actually involved in the case got all that information and I highly doubt they just went in and determined a random number. They would have been told the cost of modifying his home, car, lifestyle, etc. Also the cost of buying and maintaining the equipment he will need to survive and cost of physical therapy, new treatments, etc.
They would have been told all that.
I do not think he wants to be an expert or consultant in jump design or safety, nor has he EVER said anything related to do. I think he honestly believes that this lawsuit is what he needed to do to help manage his condition and I honestly believe that he thinks this is good for the ski industry.
AGAIN, LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN IN CAPS SO PEOPLE GET IT. I AM NOT ON HIS SIDE VS. THAT OF THE SKI AREAS, I AM TRYING TO LOOK AT IT AS BALANCED AS I CAN. LEGALLY, THE COURTS FOUND THAT SOME FAULT WAS THE SKI AREAS. IS THE GUY A DOUCHE? SOUNDS LIKE HE IS AND WAS SKIING OUTSIDE OF HIS ABILITY. BUT THE SITUATION IS TOUGH FOR EVERYONE AND HE IS FIGHTING FOR HIMSELF, JUST LIKE ANYONE IN HIS SHOES WOULD DO. THE HATE DIRECTED AT HIM IS OVERZEALOUS. PLEASE TRY AND THINK THE WHOLE SITUATION THROUGH INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING HIS ACTIONS WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLOSING OF TERRAIN PARKS. THERE IS A LOT MORE TO THE SITUATION THAT JUST THIS SINGLE LAWSUIT.
I also think it is ridiculous to make claims about how he may want to use his new money to invest and become a billionaire or to become an industry expect in jump safety...where is that coming from? Everything he has done following the accident seems to indicated that he wants to be more of a role model for people who are dealing with the loss of their body function.
Is he right in this? Maybe, maybe not. But I am not going to come in here saying he is a bad person who is fucking over all of skiing while he wants to become the millionaire expert in jump safety. That to me is just complete out of the blue.
Now the last thing you pointed out is the huge issue here. The line is a complicated one. This case will likely be used as justification for future cases in the future. While I dislike the fact that it detracts from the complete responsibility of the skier/boarder, I do like that it does set precedent that ski areas can be somewhat responsible if they make dangerous park features.
The line here, again, is extremely complex. I think without question that skiers need to be responsible for their actions, as this guy was found to be (60%). But I think that ski areas often make dangerous park features and that this should push them to take the time to make safe features that are less of a risk to the skiing public.
If the park jump in question here was physically made correctly, the Summit would have not been found at fault at all in this situation. But they were found to be negligent when it came to the construction of the jump, which is why they are now having to pay.
The situation sucks for everyone. The ski areas, skiers everywhere, and the person injured in this case. I wish people on here wouldn't jump to anger so quickly and would attempt to give situations some more rational thought that just saying this guy wants to be a billionaire and that this could possibly be the reason he sued the ski area.
He is in a fucking wheelchair for the rest of his life. That costs a lot of money. He feels that some of the fault for his condition is due to the ski area, and the courts agreed.
Dragging this out more and more is pointless.
The discussion should be about how we can improve terrain parks so that the features there are safer and so that fewer people a year are hurt using them. That is the discussion that matters, not hate directed at a paraplegic who is trying to make sure he will be able to pay for his new life.
They would have been told all that.
I do not think he wants to be an expert or consultant in jump design or safety, nor has he EVER said anything related to do. I think he honestly believes that this lawsuit is what he needed to do to help manage his condition and I honestly believe that he thinks this is good for the ski industry.
AGAIN, LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN IN CAPS SO PEOPLE GET IT. I AM NOT ON HIS SIDE VS. THAT OF THE SKI AREAS, I AM TRYING TO LOOK AT IT AS BALANCED AS I CAN. LEGALLY, THE COURTS FOUND THAT SOME FAULT WAS THE SKI AREAS. IS THE GUY A DOUCHE? SOUNDS LIKE HE IS AND WAS SKIING OUTSIDE OF HIS ABILITY. BUT THE SITUATION IS TOUGH FOR EVERYONE AND HE IS FIGHTING FOR HIMSELF, JUST LIKE ANYONE IN HIS SHOES WOULD DO. THE HATE DIRECTED AT HIM IS OVERZEALOUS. PLEASE TRY AND THINK THE WHOLE SITUATION THROUGH INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING HIS ACTIONS WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLOSING OF TERRAIN PARKS. THERE IS A LOT MORE TO THE SITUATION THAT JUST THIS SINGLE LAWSUIT.
I also think it is ridiculous to make claims about how he may want to use his new money to invest and become a billionaire or to become an industry expect in jump safety...where is that coming from? Everything he has done following the accident seems to indicated that he wants to be more of a role model for people who are dealing with the loss of their body function.
Is he right in this? Maybe, maybe not. But I am not going to come in here saying he is a bad person who is fucking over all of skiing while he wants to become the millionaire expert in jump safety. That to me is just complete out of the blue.
Now the last thing you pointed out is the huge issue here. The line is a complicated one. This case will likely be used as justification for future cases in the future. While I dislike the fact that it detracts from the complete responsibility of the skier/boarder, I do like that it does set precedent that ski areas can be somewhat responsible if they make dangerous park features.
The line here, again, is extremely complex. I think without question that skiers need to be responsible for their actions, as this guy was found to be (60%). But I think that ski areas often make dangerous park features and that this should push them to take the time to make safe features that are less of a risk to the skiing public.
If the park jump in question here was physically made correctly, the Summit would have not been found at fault at all in this situation. But they were found to be negligent when it came to the construction of the jump, which is why they are now having to pay.
The situation sucks for everyone. The ski areas, skiers everywhere, and the person injured in this case. I wish people on here wouldn't jump to anger so quickly and would attempt to give situations some more rational thought that just saying this guy wants to be a billionaire and that this could possibly be the reason he sued the ski area.
He is in a fucking wheelchair for the rest of his life. That costs a lot of money. He feels that some of the fault for his condition is due to the ski area, and the courts agreed.
Dragging this out more and more is pointless.
The discussion should be about how we can improve terrain parks so that the features there are safer and so that fewer people a year are hurt using them. That is the discussion that matters, not hate directed at a paraplegic who is trying to make sure he will be able to pay for his new life.
and you know this how? Are you someone intimate with the details of his condition and the changes he will need to make in his lifestyle? Are you a doctor? His doctor?
I don't think so. Medical bills are extremely expensive in the US. That number doesn't surprise me at all.
I don't think so. Medical bills are extremely expensive in the US. That number doesn't surprise me at all.
Park Passes are a great solution to the problem. I also think, though, that resorts need to do a better jump ensuring the features they build are correctly made.
My understanding of this situation was the jump wasn't all that big. It was made somewhat incorrectly, and he hit is way way too fast. So it may have been similar to the jumps seen in the more public park instead of the more advanced park.
My understanding of this situation was the jump wasn't all that big. It was made somewhat incorrectly, and he hit is way way too fast. So it may have been similar to the jumps seen in the more public park instead of the more advanced park.
ShreddingthaGnar
Member
I think the $14 million loss may have been the major factor in Booth Creek selling the Summit at Snoqualmie (where Kenny snapped his spine) and 3 other resorts to CNL and becoming partners under their wing.
I agree that this sucks, but sending him messages like "I hate you, you fucken loser" is not the best way of going about it. The guy fucked up, how many times do each of us go out ski and doing something fucked up. So, maybe we do get hurt or anything like that but still we prob should of not done it in the first place. This guy did just that, the jump was fucked to start with, but he had too much speed. It fucken happens, I agree that ski resorts are going about it in the wrong way. I do have a questions though, when getting apark pass do you have to sign a weaver sayin you will not sue if anything goes wrong in the park?
jack.whelan
Active member
hate to sound like a 'holier than thou' european, but this highlights two big problems in the states.
firstly, the bizzarre and much ridiculed lawsuit culture in america. just reading this entire thread has shed new light on it for me.
the mcdonalds case which was brought up eariler in the thread; now where i live in england, i have never met anyone who has, no matter how balanced a viewpoint they are trying to establish, been able to side with the woman who spilt her coffee, until i read this thread. someone actually vehemently defended the cretin who spilt her morning wake-up. everyone i know pictures a moronic fat woman trying to do her makeup, the crossword puzzle and drink her coffee whilst driving and she spills it. tough shit, leave mcdonalds alone.
the same is the case with this skiing suit; in america, you the feel blame has to be aportioned somewhere, and that an organisation must take responsability in one way or another, whereas in europe i think we do things differently. i am probably making many enemies by saying this, but i think there is an element of truth in it. i have seen countless people (both gapers and pros) come up short on big kickers or overshoot the smaller ones by miles where i ski in verbier, switzerland. but never have i seen a jump demolished or have i heard of anyone filing suit becuase of an injury, even though we had broken bones and a death in our park last year unfortunately. before you ask, 'what if it you just didnt hear about the lawsuiut?' i would have done, i work for the mountain and we are told everything like that. accidents like this just happens. instead of jumping an the lawsuit bandwagon, europeans go about it differently. and they are largely helped out by their health care.
which brings me to my second point. U.S. helthcare is ridiculous. just watching the new michael moore (yes i know he's an overweight self-opinionated over-exaggerating spindoctor at times) film sheds light on this. kenny will have received no help from the government/health service/taxpayer for his injuries, which i think is disgraceful. in england, yes he would have had huge massive medical bills, but nothing like $30. thats outrageous.
strange as it may seem, but if america tackled some of its bigger issues like health care and also some of its moral/social perceptions of what is acceptable, skiing in america would never have been affected in this way.
to end on a lighter note, has anyone made a southpark connection with our ill-fated Kenny? you bastards.
firstly, the bizzarre and much ridiculed lawsuit culture in america. just reading this entire thread has shed new light on it for me.
the mcdonalds case which was brought up eariler in the thread; now where i live in england, i have never met anyone who has, no matter how balanced a viewpoint they are trying to establish, been able to side with the woman who spilt her coffee, until i read this thread. someone actually vehemently defended the cretin who spilt her morning wake-up. everyone i know pictures a moronic fat woman trying to do her makeup, the crossword puzzle and drink her coffee whilst driving and she spills it. tough shit, leave mcdonalds alone.
the same is the case with this skiing suit; in america, you the feel blame has to be aportioned somewhere, and that an organisation must take responsability in one way or another, whereas in europe i think we do things differently. i am probably making many enemies by saying this, but i think there is an element of truth in it. i have seen countless people (both gapers and pros) come up short on big kickers or overshoot the smaller ones by miles where i ski in verbier, switzerland. but never have i seen a jump demolished or have i heard of anyone filing suit becuase of an injury, even though we had broken bones and a death in our park last year unfortunately. before you ask, 'what if it you just didnt hear about the lawsuiut?' i would have done, i work for the mountain and we are told everything like that. accidents like this just happens. instead of jumping an the lawsuit bandwagon, europeans go about it differently. and they are largely helped out by their health care.
which brings me to my second point. U.S. helthcare is ridiculous. just watching the new michael moore (yes i know he's an overweight self-opinionated over-exaggerating spindoctor at times) film sheds light on this. kenny will have received no help from the government/health service/taxpayer for his injuries, which i think is disgraceful. in england, yes he would have had huge massive medical bills, but nothing like $30. thats outrageous.
strange as it may seem, but if america tackled some of its bigger issues like health care and also some of its moral/social perceptions of what is acceptable, skiing in america would never have been affected in this way.
to end on a lighter note, has anyone made a southpark connection with our ill-fated Kenny? you bastards.
he didn't just break his back.
He is now a quadriplegic. He has to have nurses there everyday to help him to everything from eat to wipe his ass.
every single day.
that shit costs money, and at 27 he still has lots of time to live.
I am going to go with the doctors and people actually involved with the case who know what is up instead of someone saying that it just can't be possible.
this is the US. our medical system is fucked. It is very very possible. Being injured or dying in America is a very expensive proposition.
He is now a quadriplegic. He has to have nurses there everyday to help him to everything from eat to wipe his ass.
every single day.
that shit costs money, and at 27 he still has lots of time to live.
I am going to go with the doctors and people actually involved with the case who know what is up instead of someone saying that it just can't be possible.
this is the US. our medical system is fucked. It is very very possible. Being injured or dying in America is a very expensive proposition.
coolhandluke
Active member
i think its amazing/crazy that kenny's actions at snoqualmie and then in court are threatening to undo the progress that skiing has made in the past 10-15 years.
P.J.S.
Active member
Me either actually. I have hit poorly constructed jumps in parks before and resulted in a broken wrist, a broken tailbone, being knocked unconscious and several extremely hard slams. I look before I leap, and I take full responsibilty for my own actions. Anyone that can read the back of a llft ticket should know this.
i dont think you guys get it, park passes dont change shit we had a fucking park pass at mont-sainte-anne (RCR RESORT) last year and apparently if you have a park pass you can still sue the mountain.
And could someone tell me in what way quarter pipes, halfpipes, wallrides and rails are safer than hitting jumps. Oh and which fucking expert analysed the situation and figured it out?
I mean this just shows how the people taking these decisions are clueless and dont know how to solve the problem.
And could someone tell me in what way quarter pipes, halfpipes, wallrides and rails are safer than hitting jumps. Oh and which fucking expert analysed the situation and figured it out?
I mean this just shows how the people taking these decisions are clueless and dont know how to solve the problem.
Two things:
The first is about McDonalds. Stop bringing it up. You all obviously know nothing about the case. They were serving the coffee at 180-190 degrees F, the health department had a temp requirement of no more then 150, at home coffee is usually around 135. They had already been cited before for hot coffee. But the didn't care and kept it hot for maximum taste. They were grossly negligent and entirely at fault for her 3rd degree burns. A temp of 150 would have amounted to at worse 2nd degree burns. It was a good case. Take a law class sometime.
The second is the statements on the back of your pass or park waiver usually don't hold up in court. It just tricks most people into thinking they cannot sue. It is very easy to get around the waiver. Most people do not realize it.
He did what was right for him. It is unfortunate what he has bestowed upon people who enjoy the park. He wanted to make park jumps safer which was noble, but he did not think what he was trying to do through very well. A consulting engineer hour is about $250 or adding an engineer to staff with snow and structures expertise and a P.E. would be around $75,000 maybe more (I will take the job by the way...). Hating him does nothing, finding alternatives for the industry to keep jumps is a better route.
The first is about McDonalds. Stop bringing it up. You all obviously know nothing about the case. They were serving the coffee at 180-190 degrees F, the health department had a temp requirement of no more then 150, at home coffee is usually around 135. They had already been cited before for hot coffee. But the didn't care and kept it hot for maximum taste. They were grossly negligent and entirely at fault for her 3rd degree burns. A temp of 150 would have amounted to at worse 2nd degree burns. It was a good case. Take a law class sometime.
The second is the statements on the back of your pass or park waiver usually don't hold up in court. It just tricks most people into thinking they cannot sue. It is very easy to get around the waiver. Most people do not realize it.
He did what was right for him. It is unfortunate what he has bestowed upon people who enjoy the park. He wanted to make park jumps safer which was noble, but he did not think what he was trying to do through very well. A consulting engineer hour is about $250 or adding an engineer to staff with snow and structures expertise and a P.E. would be around $75,000 maybe more (I will take the job by the way...). Hating him does nothing, finding alternatives for the industry to keep jumps is a better route.
*monsterskier*
Active member
really? his myspace says he's 27... o well
Park pass doesn't prevent the mountain from getting sued.
It helps prevent people who should be in the terrain park from doing so.
I don't know why you are asking in what way halfpipes, wallrides, etc are safer.....but if we are mostly talking about jumps here it is because the accident happened on a jump.
And lastly, I am assuming you are asking which expert was called in to figure out if the jump was correctly made or not. Multiple engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis all testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area.
Are you an engineer with specific knowledge of the specs of the jump in question? Or an aeronautics professor? If so, please tell us your insight.
If not, please stop talking shit about the conclusions made by people who do this type of calculations for a living.
It helps prevent people who should be in the terrain park from doing so.
I don't know why you are asking in what way halfpipes, wallrides, etc are safer.....but if we are mostly talking about jumps here it is because the accident happened on a jump.
And lastly, I am assuming you are asking which expert was called in to figure out if the jump was correctly made or not. Multiple engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis all testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area.
Are you an engineer with specific knowledge of the specs of the jump in question? Or an aeronautics professor? If so, please tell us your insight.
If not, please stop talking shit about the conclusions made by people who do this type of calculations for a living.
KLovelace
Active member
YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. It is pretty sickening the way Americans file lawsuits against eachother for the most ridiculous things. This is not that outrageous for American standards.. as far as lawsuits goes. It just sucks for us skiers and snowboarders who like to ski terrain park. Anyway.. I used to live in Switzerland and this guy makes a great point.. people don't sue eachother there like we do.. its strange. and obviously horrible since it could ruin terrain parks forever.
coolhandluke
Active member
given all that terrain parks have done for the sport.....how much of it will go away if they disappear?
hahaah are you kidding me?Â
I know exactly what I would do.Â
I would TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for MY OWN POOR DESCISION.Â
He is 100 percent responsible for what happened. I don't care how poorly the jump was built. He made the choice to hit it.Â
What's next? fence off/bulldoze all the cliffs because they are dangerous to the customer? I don't know about other people but i PAY to be able to hit cliffs/jumps.Â
I know exactly what I would do.Â
I would TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for MY OWN POOR DESCISION.Â
He is 100 percent responsible for what happened. I don't care how poorly the jump was built. He made the choice to hit it.Â
What's next? fence off/bulldoze all the cliffs because they are dangerous to the customer? I don't know about other people but i PAY to be able to hit cliffs/jumps.Â
they won't though.
On the grand scale, they will not. Resorts KNOW how much money terrain parks bring in. They are a huge source of money in places like Breckenridge, Park City, etc, where tons of kids come just because of the parks.
Terrain Parks are not going anywhere. Things may change a bit regarding the legality and responsibility around them, but terrain parks are here to stay.
This court case will not alter the course of skiing so much that we will loose them.
Not a chance.
On the grand scale, they will not. Resorts KNOW how much money terrain parks bring in. They are a huge source of money in places like Breckenridge, Park City, etc, where tons of kids come just because of the parks.
Terrain Parks are not going anywhere. Things may change a bit regarding the legality and responsibility around them, but terrain parks are here to stay.
This court case will not alter the course of skiing so much that we will loose them.
Not a chance.
Inbred_Redneck
Active member
well said man, well said
five4ty
Member
This has been brought up by a couple of people, thinking that it declares the ski resort free of liability.
The simple legal reality is that one cannot contract out of liability. Certainly the use of these waivers is useful, but it does not, nor legally should, free the resort from any liability. Take for instance a crevase is unmarked and you ski into it and are badly injured. Obviously one may want to sue civilly for medical costs and lost earnings etc. The resort in this case could be held liable for negligence - in this case the ski ticket waiver of liability is by passed
The waivers exist simply as a legal precaution, but they are not an escape clause from legal action. Especially since the "contract" involved in purchasing a ticket is an iffy legal defense on the ski hills part.
On the topic of park passes. Park passes are an unclear legal area, since from my knowledge they have not been tried in court. I think they definitely shelter the hill from liability, since they involve an explicit signed contract acknowledging the dangers. It may fail, and in such cases it may predominantly due to negligence on the part of the resort and its park maintenance and construction.
While park passes are safe, I think the real answer may be legislative.
Take Colorado's 1979 Ski Safety Act. Colorado's law defines
resort requirements for reasonable care and safety like signage but
essentially places the responsibility for safety on the skier, noting
the sport's "inherent dangers and risks."
A KEY ASPECT IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILING TO SKI WITHIN THEIR OWN ABILITIES. IN 2004 IT WAS UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE CONTEXT OF TERRAIN PARKS
The Colorado act also imposes
limitations on damages that can be collected from a ski-area operator.
While those limitations can be lifted in the case of resort negligence,
several Colorado resorts increased their protection from lawsuits by
requiring skiers to sign waivers promising never to sue, even in the
case of negligence.
It appears that legislation may be the proper answer; washington's legislation is not as comprehensive as an example. Thus, to ensure that that your local park is shutdown due to a lawsuit, look into your states own laws and the idea of discussing the problem with your congressional representative.
For us Canadians, I am unfamilar with our own legislation; I'll try to look into it.
The simple legal reality is that one cannot contract out of liability. Certainly the use of these waivers is useful, but it does not, nor legally should, free the resort from any liability. Take for instance a crevase is unmarked and you ski into it and are badly injured. Obviously one may want to sue civilly for medical costs and lost earnings etc. The resort in this case could be held liable for negligence - in this case the ski ticket waiver of liability is by passed
The waivers exist simply as a legal precaution, but they are not an escape clause from legal action. Especially since the "contract" involved in purchasing a ticket is an iffy legal defense on the ski hills part.
On the topic of park passes. Park passes are an unclear legal area, since from my knowledge they have not been tried in court. I think they definitely shelter the hill from liability, since they involve an explicit signed contract acknowledging the dangers. It may fail, and in such cases it may predominantly due to negligence on the part of the resort and its park maintenance and construction.
While park passes are safe, I think the real answer may be legislative.
Take Colorado's 1979 Ski Safety Act. Colorado's law defines
resort requirements for reasonable care and safety like signage but
essentially places the responsibility for safety on the skier, noting
the sport's "inherent dangers and risks."
A KEY ASPECT IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILING TO SKI WITHIN THEIR OWN ABILITIES. IN 2004 IT WAS UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE CONTEXT OF TERRAIN PARKS
The Colorado act also imposes
limitations on damages that can be collected from a ski-area operator.
While those limitations can be lifted in the case of resort negligence,
several Colorado resorts increased their protection from lawsuits by
requiring skiers to sign waivers promising never to sue, even in the
case of negligence.
It appears that legislation may be the proper answer; washington's legislation is not as comprehensive as an example. Thus, to ensure that that your local park is shutdown due to a lawsuit, look into your states own laws and the idea of discussing the problem with your congressional representative.
For us Canadians, I am unfamilar with our own legislation; I'll try to look into it.
skogenjake
Active member
anyone remeber in european vacation where eric idle gets injured like a million times by chevy chase and does even complain at all? thats in the movie for a reason, its true. americas really really different. we dont know what an accident is anymore...everythings so malicious. haha thats a funny scene in the movie though where he hits him on his bike
molsongolden
Active member
Twoods,
you don't know what you would do man.
you arent fucking paralyzed
yeah you pay to be able to hit jumps and when people pay to go to ski
resorts they expect that the ski resort knows what it is doing to some
extent. people who cant handle working out angles and building kickers
and riding backcountry pay money to resorts to groom and build for
them. yeah everyone should be responsible for their own actions but ski
resorts should realize that people expect them to know what they are
doing. they cant just be winging shit up in terrain parks and expect
kids to sit out there and analyze the angles of the jumps before they
hit them. most of the time if a jump is open most people assume that
the jump is ok to hit and might ride through the park and hit a jump
without sitting down and analyzing the situation. the ski resort should
do the analyzing because you pay them to.
nobody even knows the exact situation of what happened. and you never know what you would do until you are in the situation.
and V.. you are just ridiculous. you just pop in and make random accusations and assumptions without basing them on anything. one kid getting hurt is not going ot undo the last 10-15 years of skiing progression what in the fuck are you talking about. even if your resort doesnt have a park thats not going to stop people from going and building their own kickers and shit. you are way ahead of yourself and need to chill with all this crap
you don't know what you would do man.
you arent fucking paralyzed
yeah you pay to be able to hit jumps and when people pay to go to ski
resorts they expect that the ski resort knows what it is doing to some
extent. people who cant handle working out angles and building kickers
and riding backcountry pay money to resorts to groom and build for
them. yeah everyone should be responsible for their own actions but ski
resorts should realize that people expect them to know what they are
doing. they cant just be winging shit up in terrain parks and expect
kids to sit out there and analyze the angles of the jumps before they
hit them. most of the time if a jump is open most people assume that
the jump is ok to hit and might ride through the park and hit a jump
without sitting down and analyzing the situation. the ski resort should
do the analyzing because you pay them to.
nobody even knows the exact situation of what happened. and you never know what you would do until you are in the situation.
and V.. you are just ridiculous. you just pop in and make random accusations and assumptions without basing them on anything. one kid getting hurt is not going ot undo the last 10-15 years of skiing progression what in the fuck are you talking about. even if your resort doesnt have a park thats not going to stop people from going and building their own kickers and shit. you are way ahead of yourself and need to chill with all this crap
SirFryanator
Active member
You think he was REWARDED???
I doubt that he's going to use much of that money for more than healthcare. As iggyskier said, it's about 1/2 the approximated amount of cash needed for his medical bills for his lifetime. It was a shitty jump, and even if he did make a mistake are you so cruel as to say that being paralyzed and get cash for some of the medical bills are rewards?
People fuck up. He's still got a long life, it's not as if he's just paying for a couple days in the hospital.
I doubt that he's going to use much of that money for more than healthcare. As iggyskier said, it's about 1/2 the approximated amount of cash needed for his medical bills for his lifetime. It was a shitty jump, and even if he did make a mistake are you so cruel as to say that being paralyzed and get cash for some of the medical bills are rewards?
People fuck up. He's still got a long life, it's not as if he's just paying for a couple days in the hospital.
SHastatahoe
Active member
Was he trying a trick or just straightairing?
cobra_commander
Active member
you have never had to deal with the american medical system.
cobra_commander
Active member
summit at snoqualmie.
What most people, especially lawyers don't realise about the park pass is that the legal protection it gives you is SQUAT compared to the crowd control it performs.
Kenny is obviously a shitty skier. He over-jumped a 30' table by 80'... no matter if the jump is designed bad or not thats just a really fucking bad decision.
I've seen the same thing happen when I used to work at a resort, and it was some gaper at the end of the night who had probably been drinking with his buddies and said "Hold my beer and watch this"
The park pass does one very key thing - it makes it horribly annoying to get in there. Blue mountain you have to watch a 10 minute safety video and fill out like a 5 page legal form. Your average douchebag who has no idea how to jump just won't go through that, so they go to the park with 5' tables and break their legs - not their necks. Anyone who wants in the big park has to REALLY want it, its extra time, extra money, and a lot of extra hassle.
That is what the park pass does... it makes it so that gapers can't just all of a sudden decide they want to try the big jump. Does wonders for prevention, if nothing for legal protection.
Kenny is obviously a shitty skier. He over-jumped a 30' table by 80'... no matter if the jump is designed bad or not thats just a really fucking bad decision.
I've seen the same thing happen when I used to work at a resort, and it was some gaper at the end of the night who had probably been drinking with his buddies and said "Hold my beer and watch this"
The park pass does one very key thing - it makes it horribly annoying to get in there. Blue mountain you have to watch a 10 minute safety video and fill out like a 5 page legal form. Your average douchebag who has no idea how to jump just won't go through that, so they go to the park with 5' tables and break their legs - not their necks. Anyone who wants in the big park has to REALLY want it, its extra time, extra money, and a lot of extra hassle.
That is what the park pass does... it makes it so that gapers can't just all of a sudden decide they want to try the big jump. Does wonders for prevention, if nothing for legal protection.