Should a Resort Get Sued over a Death Caused by an Inbounds Avalanche?

[theabortionator]

Anyone who says inbounds avalanches are rare and not dangerous has never been a patroller is making shit up on anecdotal evidence. I remember in Mammoth setting off a sizeable slide from a ski cut mid day in an open area after it had been shot and cut twice earlier that day. If someone was underneath they could have easily been buried.

Most ski areas I've been to have signage stating something to the effect of even while avalanche mitigation is performed, the risk of avalanches cannot be eliminated. As well many places have signage when you enter avalanche terrain, so there would have to be proof of negligence in order to seek dates from a ski resort.

Honesty the only way to really lower it even furth is just to close everything that people want to ride. Even then when that shit opens even in better conditions it could happen.

Imo they do a pretty damn good job keeping things closed, bombing, cutting, opening areas when they're safe enough.

I wonder if more signage the way tree wells are would help.

Also some place use systems of gates for gnarlier terrain in the middle of the resort even fully surrounded fully by other trails. Trails.

Idk. I feel like mistakes can be made and maybe sometimes there too much rush to open terrain, but I feel like they do a pretty damn good job. At the end of the day it's impossible to keep it 100% safe some places.

 

[RIP_leos_shack]

Honesty the only way to really lower it even furth is just to close everything that people want to ride. Even then when that shit opens even in better conditions it could happen.

Imo they do a pretty damn good job keeping things closed, bombing, cutting, opening areas when they're safe enough.

I wonder if more signage the way tree wells are would help.

Also some place use systems of gates for gnarlier terrain in the middle of the resort even fully surrounded fully by other trails. Trails.

Idk. I feel like mistakes can be made and maybe sometimes there too much rush to open terrain, but I feel like they do a pretty damn good job. At the end of the day it's impossible to keep it 100% safe some places.

The paradox of closing the terrain is that skier compaction is one of the essential aspects of avalanche mitigation. If terrain can be deemed safe, it's better to have it skied as it collects more snow. So as you can see it's a very fine balance.

 

[f100prerunner]

Pretty insane picture which kinda relates...

 

[Casey]

There is no need for a judge to weigh in on the “law”, the law is fairly clear and well settled.

Did the ski area owe the rider a duty of care? Yes

Did the ski area breach the standard of care (which is how a reasonable ski area would have acted)

Did the ski areas breach cause the skiers death.

It is really just a factual issue regarding whether the ski area acted reasonably and whether the failure to act reasonably caused the death.

Which is why this thread is so stupid, there is literally no discussion of the actual specifics of the incident in this case.

My point about the judge was more to say that at the end of the day this is going to be about awarding damages, and the litigation is not likely to go to trial, therefore a judge and/or a jury wouldn’t see the issue because it would be settled out of court before it got to that point.

 

[WoFIowz]

Pretty insane picture which kinda relates...

View attachment 993913

Jesus look at all those tracks. Wonder how many people skied over this

 

[dolanslebensraum]

Pretty insane picture which kinda relates...

View attachment 993913

Holy shit imagine skiing this run in the morning and seeing this picture posted in the afternoon...

 

[BrandoComando]

Here's another story about a resort getting sued over poor conditions. Not an avalanche, but for ice.

https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/crimeandjustice/mt-bachelor-sued-for-49m-in-death-of-tacoma-boy/article_f9ac8e4e-173f-11ed-b4da-2f3b5121feea.html

Some poor kid was killed when he lost his edges on icy snow and slid into some rocks. Tragic situation all around. However, the resort shouldn't be liable for a guest's lack of skill. You ski at your own risk and take responsibility for your own abilities.

 

[TRVP_ANGEL]

Pretty insane picture which kinda relates...

View attachment 993913

"Skier compaction reduces the likelihood of avalanche" ???

 

[Young_patty]

Hasn’t the stance on this always been

“we do avalanche mitigation in bounds to lower the odds of an avalanche, but those odds are never zero”

??

 

[Christian_Bale]

I don't know what the deal is with other mountains, but at my local resort everyone has to sign an Exclusion of Liability document. It's printed on the backs of tickets and there are very large yellow signs of this document at the base and around the mountain itself. It basically says that the mountain is (obviously) not responsible if a typical accident happens (ex skiing off a cliff or into a tree). But it also says they're not responsible for negligence on the part of their employees, or anyone else for that matter. People do sometimes (maybe most times, idk ) ignore this and people have tried to sue regardless. Pretty sure they got settled out of court but I'm not sure. This is in Canada btw, but I'd be curious to know if other resorts have similar policies.

 

[Paul.]

The point is there is no avalanche danger in bounds when its been mitigated, I'm not really about fearmongering, you don't need to worry about in bounds avalanches. As for BC, there are tons of resources, these accidents in and out of bounds don't happen because of a lack of awareness.

This is an incredibly irresponsible idea to spread. Inbounds avalanches happen all the time. The thing is you only hear about them when several people are buried or if somebody dies.

Two seasons ago at Mt Hood Meadows there were two avalanches that resulted in full burials within two months of each other. The only reason I know about them is because I was sent screenshots by a friend of mine. There were no announcements by ski patrol or the resort, and the following days nobody that I talked to on the lifts knew anything about them.

Last season another person was killed in a slide, this one got a lot more news coverage and an official statement from the resort. https://snowbrains.com/avalanche-killed-snowboarder-inbounds-mount-hood-meadows/











It's nice to think that if ski patrol drops the rope then it's all good to go but this is simply not the case. Avalanche zones are still avalanche zones even if they've been bombed. Ski patrol can try their hardest to mitigate the danger of slides but at the end of the day they are just calculating the risk and hoping nothing goes wrong. Best bet is to get educated, ride with a buddy, and have the proper gear if you are skiing potential avy terrain. I don't think ski resorts should be held liable for making the wrong call or else theyll just stop opening the good zones. I do think that resorts could do a much better job educating their guests on avy danger, and communicating with the public when it's more likely to happen.

 

[Quaggy]

Here's another story about a resort getting sued over poor conditions. Not an avalanche, but for ice.

https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/crimeandjustice/mt-bachelor-sued-for-49m-in-death-of-tacoma-boy/article_f9ac8e4e-173f-11ed-b4da-2f3b5121feea.html

Some poor kid was killed when he lost his edges on icy snow and slid into some rocks. Tragic situation all around. However, the resort shouldn't be liable for a guest's lack of skill. You ski at your own risk and take responsibility for your own abilities.

I work in the operating rooms of the hospital he was flown to, I remember it very well. Everyone tried their best.

I also ski at the same hill, the ice was gnarly that week, but I'm under the impression you assume all risks of the mountain when buying a pass

 

[eheath]

This is an incredibly irresponsible idea to spread. Inbounds avalanches happen all the time. The thing is you only hear about them when several people are buried or if somebody dies.

Who do you think is at fault, the resort for opening unsafe terrain or the guest for not wearing a beacon in bounds? A resort should never open terrain that is even remotely susceptible to avys, like I said in previous post, I can't speak for areas outside of utah and montana, but wherever I've skied, if the avy terrain is sketch they don't open it. Utah has had like 1 in bounds slide that buried anyone in the last 15 years.

Maybe the ski patrollers at meadows made a mistake, but putting that burden on the guest is the wrong thing IMO you shouldn't have to wear BC gear at a resort, thats means the resort is taking risks they shouldn't take.

Its crazy that got buried tho and no news about it, Im guessing PR had a busy week.

 

[SFBv420.0]

Anyone who says inbounds avalanches are rare and not dangerous has never been a patroller is making shit up on anecdotal evidence. I remember in Mammoth setting off a sizeable slide from a ski cut mid day in an open area after it had been shot and cut twice earlier that day. If someone was underneath they could have easily been buried.

Most ski areas I've been to have signage stating something to the effect of even while avalanche mitigation is performed, the risk of avalanches cannot be eliminated. As well many places have signage when you enter avalanche terrain, so there would have to be proof of negligence in order to seek dates from a ski resort.

so your saying eheath doesnt know what the fuck hes talking about but still thinks he does

i concur

unless you work at a resort or know patrol or theres a death

the resorts tend not to share these incidents

its not good for business and they are not under any obligation to share these incidents

 

[Monsieur_Patate]

This is an incredibly irresponsible idea to spread. Inbounds avalanches happen all the time. The thing is you only hear about them when several people are buried or if somebody dies.

Afaik Heather is gate accessed, it's not inbounds, so that's not really relevant to his convo. Plenty of slides all the time in gate accessed terrain, but every resort I've been to does a decent job warning skiers that once you go through the gate, you're on your own.

 

[eheath]

Afaik Heather is gate accessed, it's not inbounds, so that's not really relevant to his convo. Plenty of slides all the time in gate accessed terrain, but every resort I've been to does a decent job warning skiers that once you go through the gate, you're on your own.

every gate at utah resorts

 

[ajbski]

i think if the person who got buried or injured is on a resort offered lesson or being guided by resort staff, its perfectly reasonable for the resort to get sued. even if not, they still can get sued. a release of liability waiver is more of a legel detterant than anything else. many contracts just dont hold up in court, obviously depending on the circumstances.

to sum up. should they? no. can they? absolutely

 

[Static]

so your saying eheath doesnt know what the fuck hes talking about but still thinks he does

i concur

unless you work at a resort or know patrol or theres a death

the resorts tend not to share these incidents

its not good for business and they are not under any obligation to share these incidents

Even the deaths get suppressed these days, I'm friends with a patroler and he tells me about people dying several times a year and none of the incidents make it to the news anymore.

 

[BrandoComando]

The lawsuit mentioned at the start of this thread was settled earlier this year. Perhaps Alpine Meadows didn't want to pay the legal fees to fight the case. Or, they wanted to get past this issue as quietly as possible. Avalanches are bad press for resorts. Although rare, they happen inbounds more often than most guests realize.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/Tahoe-ski-resort-settles-lawsuits-over-deadly-17075922.php

Alpine Meadows already has a history of deadly avalanches. In 1982, an avalanche ripped down through the parking lot, killing 7 people and destroying a number of buildings at the resort. The recent documentary "Buried! The 1982 Alpine Meadows Avalanche" goes into the history of this tragedy. It featured the first known living rescue by an avalanche dog, and set the stage for Alpine to become a national leader for avalanche mitigation.

 

[Paul.]

Afaik Heather is gate accessed, it's not inbounds, so that's not really relevant to his convo. Plenty of slides all the time in gate accessed terrain, but every resort I've been to does a decent job warning skiers that once you go through the gate, you're on your own.

Gate accessed =/= Out of bounds

Heather canyon is lift accessed terrain within the MHM boundaries. Every 10 year old kid and their family skis heather canyon when it’s open

 

[Monsieur_Patate]

Gate accessed =/= Out of bounds

Heather canyon is lift accessed terrain within the MHM boundaries. Every 10 year old kid and their family skis heather canyon when it’s open

The vast majority of gate accessed terrain in NA is lift accessed terrain, and full of jerrys without avy gear too, doesn't make a difference. Those people all exited the resort through a gate, and by doing so they acknowledged they were entering avalanche terrain at their own risk, period.

You can make all the mental gymnastic you want, fatalities in gate accessed terrain are not the resort's responsibility.

 

[Paul.]

The vast majority of gate accessed terrain in NA is lift accessed terrain, and full of jerrys without avy gear too, doesn't make a difference. Those people all exited the resort through a gate, and by doing so they acknowledged they were entering avalanche terrain at their own risk, period.

You can make all the mental gymnastic you want, fatalities in gate accessed terrain are not the resort's responsibility.

Its not mental gymnastics here tho. Look at the trail map, call meadows if you want, heather canyon is 100% inside the resort. By lift accessed terrain I dont mean you can ride a chair to get in, I mean there is literally a heather canyon chairlift at the bottom of the canyon

 

[Paul.]

Gate accessed =/= Out of bounds

Heather canyon is lift accessed terrain within the MHM boundaries. Every 10 year old kid and their family skis heather canyon when it’s open

Y'all can downvote this if you want but I'll just toss MHM's policy on the matter in here

"Mt. Hood Meadows has a Closed Boundary policy. This is a “Rule of Use” as specified in our operational agreement with the Forest Service. There is no lift-served access to terrain outside of the ski area boundary."

https://www.skihood.com/en/the-mountain/safety/terrain-management

 

[Monsieur_Patate]

Its not mental gymnastics here tho. Look at the trail map, call meadows if you want, heather canyon is 100% inside the resort. By lift accessed terrain I dont mean you can ride a chair to get in, I mean there is literally a heather canyon chairlift at the bottom of the canyon

"Heather Canyon is not patrolled on a regular basis and avalanche danger exists at all times."

You are entering the area through a gate with signs that say you're entering the backcountry, that avalanches may occur and you're on your own. I don't care if there's a spa at the bottom, if someone makes the conscious decision to disregard the warnings and they get injured, I don't think that's the resort's responsibility.

 

[thankagaper]

In bounds avys are extremely rare, you're acting like it happens in every storm...

after reading this thread , he is off his delusional meds again... but i would agree no avys in the baby park, lol .... taking advice from this dude is like learning to drive from someone who has never driven...

if you are skiing real terrain, its wise to use recco, and even carry a beacon on real deep days, especially resorts like arapahoe basin that offer hike to terrain, and heavenly gates.

i have experienced slides in bounds, on many occasions,

no patrol is perfect.

 

[Paul.]

Y'all can downvote this if you want but I'll just toss MHM's policy on the matter in here

"Mt. Hood Meadows has a Closed Boundary policy. This is a “Rule of Use” as specified in our operational agreement with the Forest Service. There is no lift-served access to terrain outside of the ski area boundary."

https://www.skihood.com/en/the-mountain/safety/terrain-management

"Heather Canyon is not patrolled on a regular basis and avalanche danger exists at all times."

You are entering the area through a gate with signs that say you're entering the backcountry, that avalanches may occur and you're on your own. I don't care if there's a spa at the bottom, if someone makes the conscious decision to disregard the warnings and they get injured, I don't think that's the resort's responsibility.

Damn youre thick dude. I gave you the link from Meadows own website stating that there is no backcountry access from the ski area but for some reason you keep insisting there is. Yes there is a small sign that says “avy danger” at each gate, but nowhere does it say you are entering the backcountry, because you arent.

And I never said it was the resorts responsibility, if you look at my first comment I actually said the exact opposite. But whatever, Im not here to debate meadows very clear policies. the only reason I commented on this thread was because [tag=38820]@eheath[/tag] was spreading some bs that could get somebody killed. I’ve said it once and Ill say it again; inbounds avalanches, while rare, do occur and skiers should be aware of the risks if they choose to ski potential avy terrain.

 

[eheath]

the only reason I commented on this thread was because [tag=38820]@eheath[/tag] was spreading some bs that could get somebody killed.

yeah dude im such an authority for back country/side country skiers, everyone listens to me because im an expert??? this is a pretty unnecessary comment my man, i even responded pretty respectful.

 

[Monsieur_Patate]

Damn youre thick dude. I gave you the link from Meadows own website stating that there is no backcountry access from the ski area but for some reason you keep insisting there is. Yes there is a small sign that says “avy danger” at each gate, but nowhere does it say you are entering the backcountry, because you arent.

And I never said it was the resorts responsibility, if you look at my first comment I actually said the exact opposite. But whatever, Im not here to debate meadows very clear policies. the only reason I commented on this thread was because [tag=38820]@eheath[/tag] was spreading some bs that could get somebody killed. I’ve said it once and Ill say it again; inbounds avalanches, while rare, do occur and skiers should be aware of the risks if they choose to ski potential avy terrain.

You're pretty thick yourself..The OP, the article linked, and every single post in this thread before you derailed it, was about resort responsibilities in the case of avy fatalities within what is commonly referred to as 'inbounds' which usually excludes 'backcountry gates' (commonly referred to as such because well.. they lead to the backcountry!)

I understand your point that Meadows technically considers their gate accessed terrain as 'inbounds' in their policy, so we have a semantics misunderstanding on what 'inbounds' mean, but it doesn't make a practical difference because even Meadows effectively treats that terrain the same as any other resorts: it's avy terrain, enter at your own risk.

The bottom line is that you're bringing up fatalities in gate-accessed terrain to make the point that 'inbounds avalanche happen all the time', which is misleading because most people actually do not consider gate-accessed terrain to be inbounds, and we all agree the resorts bear no responsibility over what happens in that terrain anyway, so who the fuck cares about gate-accessed fatalities, this isn't what we're talking about here.

I agree with you that avalanches in gate-accessed terrain happen regularly (nothing surprising there, it's fucking avy terrain!) But avalanches very rarely happen anywhere else inside the resort, and that's what this thread is about.

 

[Paul.]

yeah dude im such an authority for back country/side country skiers, everyone listens to me because im an expert??? this is a pretty unnecessary comment my man, i even responded pretty respectful.

You're pretty thick yourself..The OP, the article linked, and every single post in this thread before you derailed it

Yeah my bad guys. Got a little worked up there, sorry about that

 

[thankagaper]

You're pretty thick yourself..The OP, the article linked, and every single post in this thread before you derailed it, was about resort responsibilities in the case of avy fatalities within what is commonly referred to as 'inbounds' which usually excludes 'backcountry gates' (commonly referred to as such because well.. they lead to the backcountry!)

I understand your point that Meadows technically considers their gate accessed terrain as 'inbounds' in their policy, so we have a semantics misunderstanding on what 'inbounds' mean, but it doesn't make a practical difference because even Meadows effectively treats that terrain the same as any other resorts: it's avy terrain, enter at your own risk.

The bottom line is that you're bringing up fatalities in gate-accessed terrain to make the point that 'inbounds avalanche happen all the time', which is misleading because most people actually do not consider gate-accessed terrain to be inbounds, and we all agree the resorts bear no responsibility over what happens in that terrain anyway, so who the fuck cares about gate-accessed fatalities, this isn't what we're talking about here.

I agree with you that avalanches in gate-accessed terrain happen regularly (nothing surprising there, it's fucking avy terrain!) But avalanches very rarely happen anywhere else inside the resort, and that's what this thread is about.

there was no derailment, the answer is the assumption of risk you inherent when you buy a pass or sign a liability waiver.

but, at the end of the day, a good american lawyer can sue over mcds coffee being too hot...

go skydiving , they dont even carry insurance.... you sign your life away for real.

my business has a million-2 liability insurance, I invest into my own business to protect my clients and their properties, just saying, police carry guns around your community, with no insurance

 

[profa_212]

there was no derailment, the answer is the assumption of risk you inherent when you buy a pass or sign a liability waiver.

but, at the end of the day, a good american lawyer can sue over mcds coffee being too hot...

go skydiving , they dont even carry insurance.... you sign your life away for real.

my business has a million-2 liability insurance, I invest into my own business to protect my clients and their properties, just saying, police carry guns around your community, with no insurance

My guy the McDonald's coffee suit was some real shit. I hate when people use that as a scapegoat for frivolous lawsuits. McDonald's spent many times more money trying to make her look like a greedy poor person looking for a payout to save their brand reputation.

She only asked the court for 20k to cover her medical bills for her 8 day hospital stay. Her genitals literally melted. This was after she had been offered a whopping 800 dollars for her troubles. It was so bad the jury awarded her somewhere around 3 million.

 

[theabortionator]

i think if the person who got buried or injured is on a resort offered lesson or being guided by resort staff, its perfectly reasonable for the resort to get sued. even if not, they still can get sued. a release of liability waiver is more of a legel detterant than anything else. many contracts just dont hold up in court, obviously depending on the circumstances.

to sum up. should they? no. can they? absolutely

Yikes. The end doesn't fit the way the rest reads. Can they yes, because America is kind of a shitshow with that.

Even Canada has had it's issues. A boy broke his neck sidejumping a rail. I believe that was the main reason why Canada now has those stupid signs on every feature.

People getting hurt or dying sucks but that's life. Suing for that is kind of shitty. I hate anyone advocating it.

Unfortunately since our healthcare system is a dumpster fire in America(shoutout to asshole who vote against fixing it cause freedom) we absorb a lot of that through lawsuits. Whenever someone get's properly hurt especially spinal stuff they are suing almost 100% of the time. Not because they're mad and sue happy generally, but a lot of people have no other option to pay the medical costs for what they'll need. It's really sad.

The waivers etc don't go far enough for court for sure. But it def isn't the way this should play out.

The defense teams have done a good job for resorts. Salvini case almost toppled the industry.

People don't understand how close the industry was to nerfing or moving away from terrain parks completely.

At the end of the day if peoole start winning a bunch of these parks as we know them will die. That said now there seems to be an established precedent for all of this. Even with some high profile suits there are still mtns building huge shit. The industry has shifted to more consistent safer builds. Everything requires users to have the skills to be safe but things are much more consistent and safe. Parks have gotten a bit smaller but still have some progressive features.

I'm not sure on the orange markers in Canada but another problem with death and injury is crusade. People(i get it) can't accept that bad shit just happens sometimes and need ro crusade to grieve. It wasn't that they just fucked up and bad shit happens, it was that the rail didnt have an orange sign. It wasn't that sometimes people drive shitty, the road needed to have a lower speed limit and extra traffic light. Sometimes this is justified but i feel like it's generally parents working out grief through having a cause.

Idk lawsuits suck though. They're a big reason why everything is a little sketchy. Why people are scared to build parks on mtns, build skateparks in their towns, have mtn biking. I get it, but it sucks.

 

[WoFIowz]

Here's another story about a resort getting sued over poor conditions. Not an avalanche, but for ice.

https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/crimeandjustice/mt-bachelor-sued-for-49m-in-death-of-tacoma-boy/article_f9ac8e4e-173f-11ed-b4da-2f3b5121feea.html

Some poor kid was killed when he lost his edges on icy snow and slid into some rocks. Tragic situation all around. However, the resort shouldn't be liable for a guest's lack of skill. You ski at your own risk and take responsibility for your own abilities.

Agreed. That's fucked up. Fucked up a kid died. Fucked up patrollers and staff may feel responsible for something they couldn't control. Fucked up a family has to go through that.

But at the end of the day, waivers aren't shit. Just to prevent lawsuits by otherwise naive people who don't know you can sue. They'll probably settle out of court unless they're trying to make an example. Are they taking advantage of a tragedy to find someone to pay for it? Of course, even though the child and family took those risks; they just don't wanna take blame for ending up in a situation that killed their child. I was there in February and if it's the trail I'm thinking of, it was sketch af then with lots of exposure if you lost control, so January was probably equally as bad or worse. Navigation down would require control and knowledge of how to escape the situation should you find yourself in an uncontrolled slide. Not everything is perfect corduroy even if it is fine on portions of a trail. One must be ready for all conditions at all times so staying under control is key. Shitty conditions? Better have sharp edges or have the balance to slide 50 feet and not lose your footing. Good conditions? Don't assume they extend the entire length of the mountain.

Idc how treacherous conditions are, people need to know how to self arrest. It's literally one of the most valuable things you can learn and idk why they don't teach it to people when they start skiing, especially since jerries sliding Mach 3 down a blue is an everyday occurrence that people even laugh about. I'm shocked more people don't die like this, considering all the serious near misses I've seen.

Tldr: sure they're gonna sue. Waivers aren't shit. It's not the resort's fault but they're gonna pay nonetheless. Juries especially have sympathy when kids are involved. TEACH YOUR KIDS HOW TO SELF ARREST!

Also these types of lawsuits and events only further restrictions at ski resorts. How many times have you seen tons of skiers sprawled out in a massive yard sale because they hit variable conditions without being under control or knowing how to adjust? But then you easily navigate it? How many of you ski places that refuse to open runs until they have 100% coverage with at least 12" base? And then shut down the runs at first sight of grass or rocks in the spring. Threaten to pull your pass if you ski it, even if you're more than capable to navigate the terrain.

It's cool we wanna be so safety oriented but these frivolous lawsuits only serve to take blame off the individual and create more restrictions. It's pretty rare for a resort to truly be at fault. No one can predict conditions on every inch of 2000ac at every point in the day and avalanche risk will never be zero. You risk your safety/life every time you strap on those planks. It's a risk we all accept and must deal with the consequences when shit goes sideways. If this happened to someone in my family, I'd be devastated but also would know the blame rests solely with us. It would be hard to pass up a lucrative lawsuit though so I can't blame families who take those actions.

 

[theabortionator]

Agreed. That's fucked up. Fucked up a kid died. Fucked up patrollers and staff may feel responsible for something they couldn't control. Fucked up a family has to go through that.

But at the end of the day, waivers aren't shit. Just to prevent lawsuits by otherwise naive people who don't know you can sue. They'll probably settle out of court unless they're trying to make an example. Are they taking advantage of a tragedy to find someone to pay for it? Of course, even though the child and family took those risks; they just don't wanna take blame for ending up in a situation that killed their child. I was there in February and if it's the trail I'm thinking of, it was sketch af then with lots of exposure if you lost control, so January was probably equally as bad or worse. Navigation down would require control and knowledge of how to escape the situation should you find yourself in an uncontrolled slide. Not everything is perfect corduroy even if it is fine on portions of a trail. One must be ready for all conditions at all times so staying under control is key. Shitty conditions? Better have sharp edges or have the balance to slide 50 feet and not lose your footing. Good conditions? Don't assume they extend the entire length of the mountain.

Idc how treacherous conditions are, people need to know how to self arrest. It's literally one of the most valuable things you can learn and idk why they don't teach it to people when they start skiing, especially since jerries sliding Mach 3 down a blue is an everyday occurrence that people even laugh about. I'm shocked more people don't die like this, considering all the serious near misses I've seen.

Tldr: sure they're gonna sue. Waivers aren't shit. It's not the resort's fault but they're gonna pay nonetheless. Juries especially have sympathy when kids are involved. TEACH YOUR KIDS HOW TO SELF ARREST!

Also these types of lawsuits and events only further restrictions at ski resorts. How many times have you seen tons of skiers sprawled out in a massive yard sale because they hit variable conditions without being under control or knowing how to adjust? But then you easily navigate it? How many of you ski places that refuse to open runs until they have 100% coverage with at least 12" base? And then shut down the runs at first sight of grass or rocks in the spring. Threaten to pull your pass if you ski it, even if you're more than capable to navigate the terrain.

It's cool we wanna be so safety oriented but these frivolous lawsuits only serve to take blame off the individual and create more restrictions. It's pretty rare for a resort to truly be at fault. No one can predict conditions on every inch of 2000ac at every point in the day and avalanche risk will never be zero. You risk your safety/life every time you strap on those planks. It's a risk we all accept and must deal with the consequences when shit goes sideways. If this happened to someone in my family, I'd be devastated but also would know the blame rests solely with us. It would be hard to pass up a lucrative lawsuit though so I can't blame families who take those actions.

Yeah it's unfortunate but honestly a wrong turn hooking an edge on a groomer with speed could put you into a tree. Anything goes really wrong at a bad time and things can get bad.

Of course the parents are lawyers. Idk them in anyway but people with some $ that vacation to ski areas are the ones that will freak out on the mtn and employees of runs/lifts aren't open.

I don't think that means the ski areas open unsafe terrain, but things are going to be open if it skis. That's what people wants and people have to navigate those conditions. At the end of the day bad shit happens. 50 mil wont brong back their kid, and it doesn't sound like it was the resorts fault at all.

The shitty thing is there's really nothing they can do. They could add more signs etc but if people are going to sue they're going to sue.

You can skate down the sidewalk and hit a crack. Could say it's not your fault but should it be the cities? Idk. These things suck and it was obviously a horrible day on the mtn for that family. I hope they lose outright but I wouldn't be surprised if it settles.

 

[PeppermillReno]

Of course not.

Sue culture in our sport is horrible. These people should be counter sued and spat on for being opportunists. If you don't want to take 'some' avalanche risk then you should not want to ski fucking powder you absolute cunts stay home.

 

[BrandoComando]

Here's another story about a resort getting sued over poor conditions. Not an avalanche, but for ice.

https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/crimeandjustice/mt-bachelor-sued-for-49m-in-death-of-tacoma-boy/article_f9ac8e4e-173f-11ed-b4da-2f3b5121feea.html

Some poor kid was killed when he lost his edges on icy snow and slid into some rocks. Tragic situation all around. However, the resort shouldn't be liable for a guest's lack of skill. You ski at your own risk and take responsibility for your own abilities.

Update on the Bachelor Story: "Mt. Bachelor to Offer Cheaper Lift Tickets For Signing Liability Waiver"

https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/09/13/mt-bachelor-tickets-waiver/

Mt. Bachelor GM and President says “This change is a result of the current legal landscape in Oregon,” “In recent years large lawsuits against outdoor recreation providers in Oregon, including many related to the inherent risks of skiing, snowboarding, and mountain biking, have started to significantly threaten the outdoor recreation industry.”

 

[GayWolf420]

Uhhhhh some of these comments have aged like moldy cheese.