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

[BrandoComando]

https://www.sfgate.com/renotahoe/article/deadly-avalanche-bloom-comstock-alpine-meadows-15952248.php

Sorry for the dark subject. Alpine Meadows is being sued over an inbounds avalanche last year that killed one and injured another. The whole situation is tragic.

I got in an argument about this with someone about the legality of this. Does the customer have a right to sue Alpine over this?

 

[PimpChimpin]

Talk to me all you want about this “inherent risk of skiing” but for an inbounds avalanche IMO yes.

 

[hdubs]

I think it's kinda stupid. It's foolish to believe that any resort could ever make the avalanche risk 0% unless they bombed every inch of the mountain.

 

[BrandoComando]

Talk to me all you want about this “inherent risk of skiing” but for an inbounds avalanche IMO yes.

I agree. It sucks to blame ski patrol, but I think this was a mistake on their part. That zone shouldn’t have been opened until it was safe. Especially after a huge recent storm in this case.

 

[r00kie]

I think the bigger duscussion would be the culture of having a lawyer solve all of life problems with lawsuits. Life would be some much better and cheaper without all the ambulance chasing lawyers and their tacky billboards.

 

[BradFiAusNzCoCa]

I’ve been at Squaw when it started nuking and they had to close granite chief chair and then the whole resort due to avalanches. Sometimes it just picks up over the course of the day.

 

[SofaKingSick]

If avy management made some egregious or negligent decision, maybe

But if it's as simple as "we were inbounds, that means mom and dad have to guarantee our safety" then it's bullshit

 

[BrandoComando]

https://coloradosun.com/2019/01/18/ski-area-avalanches-inbounds-lawsuits-fail/

I did a little bit of digging. Jason Blevins did a good article about this issue. Looks like these lawsuits rarely go anywhere. Colorado has some state protections for the ski resorts already, which makes sense considering how tricky their snowpack can be sometimes. Even if patrollers do their best, shit can still happen.

In Jackson, one of these cases resulted in a private settlement between both parties. Either the lawsuit found proof of negligence, or Wyoming resorts don’t have the same level of legal protection in place as Colorado.

I’m curious what will happen in this California lawsuit. The state is more liberal than CO or WY, so the injured party will likely get more traction in court. I think Alpine needs to prove their avy control was thorough and invoke the inherent risk argument.

 

[johnblaze]

NO!

 

[Quaggy]

This is a tough one OP.

If you're skiing a groomer and hit a patch of ice causing you to lose control and hit a tree, is the resort at fault?

If you're skiing trees and a clump of ice falls on you, is the resort at fault?

You can hire expensive lawyers to argue who is at fault all day and all night for you... Maybe that run shouldn't have been open. but you take inherent risks sliding around on a mountain, It's terribly unfortunate what happened but you can't control nature, like If you're at a beach resort and get hit with a sneaker wave, is the resort at fault?

 

[mountaindewgirl]

NO

 

[EdogEdog]

https://coloradosun.com/2019/01/18/ski-area-avalanches-inbounds-lawsuits-fail/

I did a little bit of digging. Jason Blevins did a good article about this issue. Looks like these lawsuits rarely go anywhere. Colorado has some state protections for the ski resorts already, which makes sense considering how tricky their snowpack can be sometimes. Even if patrollers do their best, shit can still happen.

In Jackson, one of these cases resulted in a private settlement between both parties. Either the lawsuit found proof of negligence, or Wyoming resorts don’t have the same level of legal protection in place as Colorado.

I’m curious what will happen in this California lawsuit. The state is more liberal than CO or WY, so the injured party will likely get more traction in court. I think Alpine needs to prove their avy control was thorough and invoke the inherent risk argument.

I am pretty sure the private settlement was just the resort's most efficient way of making the lawsuit go away. Even if they did nothing wrong, these are the type of lawsuits that cost millions and go on for years. A lot of the time these big corps will just pay the people to go away.

For the CA lawsuit, I would HOPE it would be on the person/family suing to prove the the Patrollers were negligent in their actions, which I can't imagine would be easy to do. BUT that being said it is CA so who knows...

 

[eheath]

Most resorts are able to wiggle out of any liability with the fine print, doesn't mean people won't try to sue them, but they'll likely settle outside of court.

 

[Drail]

In general, yes and no. Situational. If there was a lot of snow over night and it is supposed to keep accumulating as the day goes on I wear my beacon inbounds cause you never know what you might set off when skiing off piste. But if I was on a cat track heading over to the mid mountain lodge for some water and was taken out - well that is quite the different story.

 

[mdups]

From what I've heard about this avalanche, the lawsuit really shouldn't go anywhere. Alpine patrol is really top notch 99% of the time. That being said, I have had one sketchy experience with them while in open terrain during a big storm day where they started bombed the slope directly above me (skiing deer camp while they bombed our father/high yellow for those that know the mountain). Nothing slid so not a problem, but in situations like that if I had been seriously injured I feel a lawsuit to help pay medical bills would be a fair option

 

[GayWolf420]

could the possibility of just far too many people being at ski areas on powder days play a role too? like Ive been fearing similar things happening at other resorts with the amounts of crowds that are powder-hungry and need to get after it. Its pretty fucking terrifying seeing 150+ people wait around for a rope drop ya know.

 

[doubleblackjack]

Snow is so variable, and you really never know what it will do. Patrol bombing and stuff helps, but it never eliminates the issue. I think that the lawsuit is kinda unreasonable

 

[profa_212]

i was up there that day. What a bummer of a day.

I've had multiple days at alpine with beacons/shovel/probe on and partner. Had friends pop off slides as well. There's days that you need to either treat it like the BC or stay on groomed runs. They need to do a better job advertising the dangers rather than just saying it's deep come shred. Shit happens and a bomb in the morning can only do so much when it snows 15 inches throughout the day.

However, I do think that svam does do a great job of mitigating danger and closing shit when it should be. [tag=181571]@RimJobber[/tag] keep killing it.

I also don't think that resorts should be able to be sued for much in the way of anything except gross negligence

 

[BrandoComando]

i was up there that day. What a bummer of a day.

I've had multiple days at alpine with beacons/shovel/probe on and partner. Had friends pop off slides as well. There's days that you need to either treat it like the BC or stay on groomed runs. They need to do a better job advertising the dangers rather than just saying it's deep come shred. Shit happens and a bomb in the morning can only do so much when it snows 15 inches throughout the day.

However, I do think that svam does do a great job of mitigating danger and closing shit when it should be. [tag=181571]@RimJobber[/tag] keep killing it.

I also don't think that resorts should be able to be sued for much in the way of anything except gross negligence

I agree that resorts need to be more upfront about avy danger if it exists. There are signs and warnings everywhere for low tide conditions, cliff areas, trail merge areas, and everything in-between. Yet on a pow day, resort social media advertises how amazing the conditions are. Avalanches should have warnings on dangerous days. Regular tourists don't read avy reports or carry beacons when they're inbounds. A clear sign at the base of the lift reading "Avalanche conditions in effect. Here are some tips to stay safe: ..." would go a long way in preventing accidents like this imo.

 

[PeteMahn]

I think the bigger duscussion would be the culture of having a lawyer solve all of life problems with lawsuits. Life would be some much better and cheaper without all the ambulance chasing lawyers and their tacky billboards.

It's definitely destroying America as far as kids not being able to have fun since there's so much liability bullshit involved in everything now. Each generation it gets worse hearing stories of "remember when we used to to do that; and or, go there". Shit is mad annoying and in many cases cops don't want to harass kids for dirt biking somewhere or doing something regarding kids trying to have fun. In this case it's tough as I don't think the resort should be sued and or lose money but whoever is in charge of the avalanche mitigation should face some backlash if there was wrong doing. If ski patrol took all the precautions and did what they were supposed to do then nothing should happen to them. I would say this all comes down to the length the resort went to try and keep the customers safe. If they followed whatever the rules and regulations are then hopefully they win.

Obviously you would need to look into the laws and regulations regarding what the resort has to follow for avalanche's. When you buy a lift ticket it could cover the resort for any liability issue's including avalanche's, or not, that is the big question. This is an interesting topic and I wonder if it's by state or federal and how it all works? This would be a good thread for someone knowledgeable to start.

 

[f100prerunner]

I was also there that day and actually saw the guy getting chest compressions. Definitely the most sobering moment I've probably ever had in my life...especially because I was exposing myself to the same exact dangers which took his life. I will say that day permanently implanted the concept of being aware of potential terrain traps that I am skiing above.

With that said, its an inherent risk that we all take on higher avalanche danger days. While I definitely agree that resorts should make the public more aware of avalanche danger, it would be impossible for resorts like Squaw or Alpine to fully bomb even a quarter of the areas that are over 30* slopes. It would make it insanely difficult for western resorts to open on powder days with many resorts being 1000s of acres. Resorts may be safer than the backcountry, but the danger is definitely still present. There is a good reason my friends and I all ride with avy gear on the deep days.

I feel like if western resorts start opening less terrain on the bigger powder days, it would only lead to more deaths due to people choosing the BC over the resort.

 

[GayWolf420]

also partly I think we need to accept the fact that gone are the days of being able to comfortably commute and get to the ski areas/resorts on powder days like all the old timer locals rant and rave about, I think we're learning that avalanche danger can and will present itself in-bounds if conditions permit, and if the west keeps getting pounded like it is each season, then something has to be done in order to keep people away for a few days until its safe. It sucks, we all love to ski waist deep snow, but its just not as easy as we're all making it out to be. There is such thing as too deep and it puts patrollers and safety workers in a really tough spot risking their own safety so that recreational skiers can come up.

 

[wameron]

I agree that resorts need to be more upfront about avy danger if it exists. There are signs and warnings everywhere for low tide conditions, cliff areas, trail merge areas, and everything in-between. Yet on a pow day, resort social media advertises how amazing the conditions are. Avalanches should have warnings on dangerous days. Regular tourists don't read avy reports or carry beacons when they're inbounds. A clear sign at the base of the lift reading "Avalanche conditions in effect. Here are some tips to stay safe: ..." would go a long way in preventing accidents like this imo.

Even when they do they get ignored. Brighton Ski Patrol has been pretty direct in saying "Do not leave the resort" today and yesterday and yet I saw dozens over people going through the gates and 75% of them didnt even have backpacks.

 

[eheath]

I agree that resorts need to be more upfront about avy danger if it exists. There are signs and warnings everywhere for low tide conditions, cliff areas, trail merge areas, and everything in-between. Yet on a pow day, resort social media advertises how amazing the conditions are. Avalanches should have warnings on dangerous days. Regular tourists don't read avy reports or carry beacons when they're inbounds. A clear sign at the base of the lift reading "Avalanche conditions in effect. Here are some tips to stay safe: ..." would go a long way in preventing accidents like this imo.

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

 

[BrandoComando]

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

I get that it's very rare. There have only been a handful of inbounds avy fatalities in the last 10-20 years in North America. But more awareness doesn't hurt. The more awareness about avalanche danger in and out of the backcountry, the better imo

 

[eheath]

I get that it's very rare. There have only been a handful of inbounds avy fatalities in the last 10-20 years in North America. But more awareness doesn't hurt. The more awareness about avalanche danger in and out of the backcountry, the better imo

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.

 

[f100prerunner]

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.

To say you don’t need to worry about inbounds avalanches is kinda crazy...inbounds avalanches occur every season. When you factor in the people who are riding during/after pretty much every big storm (people who live near resorts, not your average tourist) and ride more advanced terrain, it should definitely be a concern.

 

[eheath]

To say you don’t need to worry about inbounds avalanches is kinda crazy...inbounds avalanches occur every season. When you factor in the people who are riding during/after pretty much every big storm (people who live near resorts, not your average tourist) and ride more advanced terrain, it should definitely be a concern.

What do you mean by "inbounds avalanches occur every season"? Like yes they happen when ski patrol mitigates or overnight when the resort is closed, but its very rare to have an in bounds avalanche that buries anyone. The only way you put yourself in danger is leaving the resort boundaries, most if not all in bounds avys are an anomaly and many happen in closed areas of the resort.

 

[casual]

I agree. It sucks to blame ski patrol, but I think this was a mistake on their part. That zone shouldn’t have been opened until it was safe. Especially after a huge recent storm in this case.

I haven’t looked into the particulars of this incident but here’s my question to you:

How does ski patrol know when a zone should or shouldn’t be opened? Post control releases happen. I’ve personally seen slopes shot multiple times, ski cut, and then still run. So....how do you ask a ski area or a ski patrol to guarantee that a slope won’t avalanche? I’m asking a genuine question. Avalanche mitigation is a very imprecise, inexact science. If ski patrols and ski areas are going to be held liable for this sort of thing, will that mean that ski areas will greatly reduce what terrain they open, and in what conditions? Is that what the public actually wants?

When areas are grossly negligent, like knowing a slope is not safe, or knowing that a boundary is compromised and not doing anything to fix it, they should for sure be held liable. But, when they’re acting in good faith and are doing the industry accepted best practices and documenting them....I don’t know. This is a very tricky deal, and a slippery slope in my opinion.

In the snowpack I work in....I don’t see how you could ever guarantee a particular slope’s not going to avalanche. Unless it just did and now it’s bare ground. Otherwise, it’s all best guesses and past precedent.

Let me ask you this: why do you think so certainly that the slope was unsafe to open? Are you just saying that given what happened? Or were there actual signs of instability that patrol ignored? I’ll look into this specific incident more myself, but did patrol conduct mitigation?

What about Taos? They literally shot that exact path that day. And then, unfortunately it avalanched and killed guests. It sucks. But....what do you do? I think it’s reasonable to conduct an investigation into incidents like this to glean some knowledge and to determine if there was actually gross negligence, but I think deciding that any avalanche within bounds should lead to the area being liable seems...off.

 

[f100prerunner]

What do you mean by "inbounds avalanches occur every season"? Like yes they happen when ski patrol mitigates or overnight when the resort is closed, but its very rare to have an in bounds avalanche that buries anyone. The only way you put yourself in danger is leaving the resort boundaries, most if not all in bounds avys are an anomaly and many happen in closed areas of the resort.

People get caught in slides inbounds pretty much every year. Deaths occur inbounds every few years as well. I agree that inbounds it’s pretty rare, but for people who constantly ski in storms cycles at the more dangerous resorts, it should definitely be a thought. The guy that this post is about literally died inbounds. I’d argue that it would be extremely hard to open decent inbounds terrain at Alpine or squaw without there being a bit of avalanche risk on the big snow days. You would have to bomb everything to hell for there to be no risk. It’s also super easy to just throw a beacon and avy backpack on.

edit: and I only mention those two resorts cause those are what I know best. I’m pretty sure it’s often recommended at Bridger to wear avy gear in general

**This post was edited on Feb 17th 2021 at 3:15:23pm

 

[eheath]

People get caught in slides inbounds pretty much every year. Deaths occur inbounds every few years as well. I agree that inbounds it’s pretty rare, but for people who constantly ski in storms cycles at the more dangerous resorts, it should definitely be a thought. The guy that this post is about literally died inbounds. I’d argue that it would be extremely hard to open decent inbounds terrain at Alpine or squaw without there being a bit of avalanche risk on the big snow days. You would have to bomb everything to hell for there to be no risk. It’s also super easy to just throw a beacon and avy backpack on.

I think you're being a bit exorbitant with your estimation here, I'm pretty sure in bounds avalanche deaths don't happen every year, there has been 1 in bounds avy fatality (in a closed area of the resort) in utah in the last 15 years that I've lived here. Maybe I'm missing something from an area I don't know a lot about but I've been pretty in touch with skiing for a long time now and I think I would hear of these avalanche deaths.

Not sure how they do it around you, but in utah they bomb the shit out of everything and there is a ton of science, research, hard work and time put into avalanche forecasting within the state and all of the resorts in a combined effort to mitigate danger.

Skiing in bounds is safe, wearing a beacon/avy gear in bounds is a bit much IMO but if it makes you feel better than go for it, its basically worthless unless everyone you're skiing with/around you has all of the gear too, by the time ski patrol reaches an in bound avalanche it would likely be to late.

I can't speak to Tahoe specifically, Utah has different snow and terrain, but the most gnarly terrain in utah isn't open on a storm day, most of the mitigated terrain isn't safe for at least a day or two.

 

[eheath]

edit: and I only mention those two resorts cause those are what I know best. I’m pretty sure it’s often recommended at Bridger to wear avy gear in general

**This post was edited on Feb 17th 2021 at 3:15:23pm

This is absolutely untrue, although people do wear their beacons at bridger because there is a lift you have to have a beacon to ride. There are also multiple hikes up to the ridge line that are very popular, so people have all of their gear because of this, not because its dangerous to ski in bounds.

**This post was edited on Feb 17th 2021 at 3:27:06pm

 

[mdups]

Alpine Meadows is similar to Utah with the gnarliest terrain closed on the storm days and until patrol feels the slopes are safe. But this thread by itself proves that shit happens. This avalanche happened not far from a lift, not on some of the big hike to lines. I agree with f100prerunner that beacons, an avy pack, and a buddy make sense inbounds at Alpine after getting a bunch of snow. Alpine has popular hikes to ridge lines. It takes over a half hour to hike/traverse out to some runs like grouse or the buttress. If something were to happen there, patrol can't get to you quickly. If something can slide right by a lift, it can slide in the more isolated parts of the resort too. Why not just take the basic precautions?

 

[BrandoComando]

Let me ask you this: why do you think so certainly that the slope was unsafe to open? Are you just saying that given what happened? Or were there actual signs of instability that patrol ignored? I’ll look into this specific incident more myself, but did patrol conduct mitigation?

What about Taos? They literally shot that exact path that day. And then, unfortunately it avalanched and killed guests. It sucks. But....what do you do? I think it’s reasonable to conduct an investigation into incidents like this to glean some knowledge and to determine if there was actually gross negligence, but I think deciding that any avalanche within bounds should lead to the area being liable seems...off.

I'm no expert. I just stated that it was unsafe because of what happened. I don't know the details of the case or conditions so I can't speak to the stability. Alpine probably checked their Ts and dotted their Is and this was just a freak accident.

In my line of work, we do RCAs, or Root Cause Analysis. The idea is to get to the bottom of an issue or problem to prevent it from happening again. The best we can do is document everything and learn from what we know. Sorta like how the FAA learns from black boxes in aviation disasters to prevent future accidents. Avalanche safety is still a new science and there is much to learn.

There's an inherent risk to skiing, but I strongly believe that people should go home in the same healthy condition as they arrived. One accidental death is one too many. I don't know the solution, and I don't know if I even have a point in this comment. It's just a shame what happened and I hope the industry can learn from it and do better in the future.

 

[profa_212]

I think you're being a bit exorbitant with your estimation here, I'm pretty sure in bounds avalanche deaths don't happen every year, there has been 1 in bounds avy fatality (in a closed area of the resort) in utah in the last 15 years that I've lived here. Maybe I'm missing something from an area I don't know a lot about but I've been pretty in touch with skiing for a long time now and I think I would hear of these avalanche deaths.

Not sure how they do it around you, but in utah they bomb the shit out of everything and there is a ton of science, research, hard work and time put into avalanche forecasting within the state and all of the resorts in a combined effort to mitigate danger.

Skiing in bounds is safe, wearing a beacon/avy gear in bounds is a bit much IMO but if it makes you feel better than go for it, its basically worthless unless everyone you're skiing with/around you has all of the gear too, by the time ski patrol reaches an in bound avalanche it would likely be to late.

I can't speak to Tahoe specifically, Utah has different snow and terrain, but the most gnarly terrain in utah isn't open on a storm day, most of the mitigated terrain isn't safe for at least a day or two.

Ive had multiple friends set off slides inbounds at alpine. None have been caught, and we always informed patrol and the areas were always shut down asap. There have been multiple slides in the last five years that have been human caused at squaw/alpine with at least partial burials. Last year or year before(?) there was a slide on Olympic lady that partially buried 5-10 skiers. Mammoth has had multiple inbounds slides over the years I've lived here with individuals caught in them. It happens more than you think around here. Like almost every season that I remember.

Shit I think 70-80 percent of kirkwood is in avy terrain. Thats the reason they bomb more than any resort in the US.

Im just going off of what I've experienced and heard about around here.

 

[BrandoComando]

Ive had multiple friends set off slides inbounds at alpine. None have been caught, and we always informed patrol and the areas were always shut down asap. There have been multiple slides in the last five years that have been human caused at squaw/alpine with at least partial burials. Last year or year before(?) there was a slide on Olympic lady that partially buried 5-10 skiers. Mammoth has had multiple inbounds slides over the years I've lived here with individuals caught in them. It happens more than you think around here. Like almost every season that I remember.

Shit I think 70-80 percent of kirkwood is in avy terrain. Thats the reason they bomb more than any resort in the US.

Im just going off of what I've experienced and heard about around here.

Interesting fact about kirkwood. They're always bombing and it makes sense. The area below the wave is always in a perpetual state of bomb debris.

In the Colorado Sun article that I linked way above, it mentioned that resorts only report avalanche fatalities, rather than all avalanches. Tons of slides are hard to document thoroughly, but if all of that info was reported, experts could learn a lot from it.

 

[Julius_Steezer]

Should the resort get sued - I don’t know enough about the legal technicalities to really be able to say for sure

Does the resort have a responsibility to lift pass holders to stop this shit from happening - yes 100%.

Even if it’s not explicitly stated, when you go ski at a resort there is an unspoken understanding that 99% of people do not have the knowledge / experience to recognise avy hazards and therefore their safety is entirely in the resorts hands with this. If some terrain is looking a bit sketch then it is definitely the resorts responsibility to recognise it and take appropriate action even if that means closing off sections of the mountain. Unfortunate as it is, most people skiing don’t have the faintest clue that avalanche danger may be present, partially because resorts will never ever mention it other than for designated free ride zones (contrast this to popular surfing beaches for example where there will be frequent warnings of strong currents / dangerous factors like rocks or sharks etc). So yeah, even if it’s not a resorts legal responsibility to prevent inbound avy deaths, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to take steps as if it was (which tbf most do with avy bombs, early morning slope checks etc)

 

[cool_name]

What a stupid thread. Obviously a resort should be able to get sued over a death caused by an avalanche.

If the resort fucks up and someone dies, that’s on them.

Now just because there is an avalanche does mean they fucked up, but at the same time just because avalanche happen naturally doesn’t mean they didn’t fuck up.

The real question should be if the resort fucked up in this specific situation. Was the avalanche dangerous through the roof, with huge winds and the ski patrol was too hungover to bother bombing, so they just dropped the rope? In this case ya they should be liable.

Was the snowpack perfectly steady with no new snow for weeks and then a freak earthquake caused an avalanche? If so, sorry dead guy, sucks to suck.

Now obviously those are extremes and real situations will be more grey, but they show it is absolutely just a case by case assessment.

oh and anyone wearing a beacon inbounds (and doesn’t plan on leaving inbounds) is just someone who is excited about their new toy. The idea you should wear a beacon inbounds is stupid.

 

[Casey]

A couple of things-

In civil court I could walk down to the court house tomorrow and sue the OP for damages because I don’t like his hat. Regardless of whether he has ever owned a hat or whether we have ever interacted in any way whatsoever a lawsuit is just a piece of paper that costs 100 dollars to file and can be for any nonsensical magic the heart desires.

Secondly, the resort cannot control what happens on their mountain, but they can control what they open or don’t open, and if they didn’t know there was going to be a slide they, should have hired people that go out every day to assess the risks and could have reasonably concluded that there was that risk, and taken action to keep people safe, and if they didn’t then there is liability.

The thing about lawsuits of this nature is that it’s rare that a judge would ever actually weigh in on what the law is because it will likely settle any way

**This post was edited on Feb 18th 2021 at 12:31:40am

 

[stefan_mahl]

Dude. Here in Italy the resorts are the last ones who get sued in such cases. In fact, if an avalanche gets triggered by someone you should be the first one to immediately leave the mountain (even if you didnt trigger it yourself). Because often the first freerider to be seen gets sued in such cases. But the resort? Hell no ?

**This post was edited on Feb 18th 2021 at 12:50:19am

 

[theabortionator]

It depends. This may be unpopular given some of the posts in here but people want to ski gnarly terrain. Sometimes shit happens. Patrol these days is pretty fucking on point at the big mtns. Bombing the fuck out of stuff, keeping things closed against any public backlash. Just because something slid in bounds doesn't mean they did sonething negligent imo. I'm not sure all the deetz on this one even though I remember it happening and was living in Kings Beach. But alot of times when somebody died we look for the reason why. Sometimes the unfortunate answer isn't that patrol fucked up, that there wasn't an extra traffic light or slower speed zone, but sometimes shit happens.

It fucking sucks, if that's youre friend, your dad, your husband that sucks but shit happens. If you were going to bring the risks to 0 the big mountain resorts woukd be opening lower mtn green slope groomers on pow days.

 

[dolanslebensraum]

Its different than suing a resort bc ur idiot kid hit a kicker going 60 mph but i still think its a shit happens type thing. But if they sue they sue, what can you do, its up to the jew

 

[ReturnToMonkey]

edit: and I only mention those two resorts cause those are what I know best. I’m pretty sure it’s often recommended at Bridger to wear avy gear in general

I've never heard it recommended by Bridger or anyone who works there, but I have had locals recommend the idea several times. I usually do wear my gear if I'm even considering hitting Slaushman's or the ridge and keep it on throughout the whole mountain, but if the snow isn't good enough I consider doing those areas, I don't bring the extra weight and things to worry about. There have been plenty of slides at Bridger, but most of them are either in those areas where you need to have the right gear to access anyway, or they're outside of the mountain's open-close dates. Lots of wet slides in the spring and it's a really popular mountain for uphill access when closed. Thinking about it can be scary but I've never had a close call or felt in serious danger.

 

[ReturnToMonkey]

. Avalanche mitigation is a very imprecise, inexact science. If ski patrols and ski areas are going to be held liable for this sort of thing, will that mean that ski areas will greatly reduce what terrain they open, and in what conditions? Is that what the public actually wants?

I think this is the key takeaway. Maybe there are decades of incidents we can study, better simulation software and theories about how things work coming out all the time, and thousands of people who put their hard work and effort into researching and figuring out snow science. We understand it pretty well but not perfectly. We could set everything up a certain way, and likely successfully predict exactly what will happen. But the real world isn't set up the way we want. We don't even know the exact way it is set up. The snowfall is never the same. The winds, spatial temperatures, humidity, etc all are slightly different throughout the mountain and throughout the storm. Each storm varies a ton. Each year varies a ton. Meteorologists are never 100% right and if they are, it's lucky. Every summer, rocks shift and the terrain holding snow is different each year. Probably even different throughout the same year. This means different parts of the snowpack, even if it somehow was exactly the same, are undergoing different amounts of concentrated stress. Over a several acre area, for example what Casual was talking about at Taos, they could bomb and cut all they want, but they can only be pretty sure it won't slide. Hell, a few of the bombs might have even loosened things up and maybe it wouldn't have slid if just the right bomb was a dud. So many things in life are so random like that, I think boiling it down to a single decision in court about who is at fault is nearly impossible.

Edit: for those of you who might be interested, check out MSU's snow science lab/major. It's so cool https://www.montana.edu/snowscience/

**This post was edited on Feb 18th 2021 at 2:42:15am

 

[elcheapo]

That's the nice part if skiing inbounds is you know it's all taken care of and then the mountain decides ti shoot it's wad, is it the grieving family's fault? I don't think so, they could have delayed the opening or closed the run or something unless they missed a spot wich isn't the grieving families fault either.

 

[WoFIowz]

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.

There's plenty of inbounds slides reported every year and yeah most aren't fatal. A quick Google search shows that while fatal inbounds slides don't happen every year, there have been 16 since 2010. Some are patrollers but some are just regular every day skiers. https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/acc/acc_us.php

To say there is "no avalanche danger" is naive. They obviously can't prevent everything and that's really all he was saying- be aware that even though mitigation has been performed, there is still a risk when skiing higher risk terrain especially after a storm cycle.

 

[WoFIowz]

But op yeah that's stupid. I mean I guess people will sue and settle out of court but we know what we are getting into. Most resorts have signs letting you know you're entering avalanche terrain. There's only so much they can do.

 

[skierman]

Most resorts are able to wiggle out of any liability with the fine print, doesn't mean people won't try to sue them, but they'll likely settle outside of court.

LOL That's like saying if someone gets impaled by unmarked rebar while skiing down a blue run, they cannot sue the resort because the pass included the fine print, "may get impaled by rebar while skiing". Contracts don't mean shit if there's gross negligence.

At the end of the day, who gives a shit. Some idiot got caught in an avalanche and the resort's insurance company may need to pay up. Wow, what implications. SO important.

 

[cool_name]

A couple of things-

In civil court I could walk down to the court house tomorrow and sue the OP for damages because I don’t like his hat. Regardless of whether he has ever owned a hat or whether we have ever interacted in any way whatsoever a lawsuit is just a piece of paper that costs 100 dollars to file and can be for any nonsensical magic the heart desires.

Secondly, the resort cannot control what happens on their mountain, but they can control what they open or don’t open, and if they didn’t know there was going to be a slide they, should have hired people that go out every day to assess the risks and could have reasonably concluded that there was that risk, and taken action to keep people safe, and if they didn’t then there is liability.

The thing about lawsuits of this nature is that it’s rare that a judge would ever actually weigh in on what the law is because it will likely settle any way

**This post was edited on Feb 18th 2021 at 12:31:40am

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.

 

[NoSkillsCrew]

What do you mean by "inbounds avalanches occur every season"? Like yes they happen when ski patrol mitigates or overnight when the resort is closed, but its very rare to have an in bounds avalanche that buries anyone. The only way you put yourself in danger is leaving the resort boundaries, most if not all in bounds avys are an anomaly and many happen in closed areas of the resort.

At Solitude I have seen and been involved in inbounds "sluffouts" that have resulted in partial burials. It happens most years in honeycomb and on evergreen. These situations aren't life threatening only because I ride inbounds with my out of bounds partners and we wear beacons on spooky days and never ride alone. But yeah inbounds conditions can get sus real quick on bad days.

I can also think of three seasons growing up at Hood were there were catastrophic inbounds avalanches while terrain was open. Always in Heather Canyon. Only reason no one died or got buried in those was luck.

 

[RIP_leos_shack]

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.