Printable View
Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled against Chris Norris's widow in her claim that Winter Park was responsible for Norris's death-by-avalanche at WP.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts...3CA0517-PD.pdf
Be sure to read the whiny, weepy dissent by Jones -- especially if you're a Mountain Lifestyler who wants all risk removed from every fun thing left on Earth
Gotta believe Judge Jones is not involved with snow sports if s/he believes that avys do not result from changing temperatures, slope angle (convexities anyone?) and snowpack - plus a trigger (Mr. Norris)...Quote:
Teh Lawz - the inherent dangers and risks of skiing include:
those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine-made snow; [and] variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design[.]
Doesn't really matter I guess, since the other two apellate judges believe otherwise.
Shorter Judge Jones:
A tragedy! Someone died! We must find a deep pocket to plunder so the widow and now-dadless kids have a fat trust fund.
My prediction is that this case will be reversed. Whether the legislature amends the SSA afterwards depends on how deep into their pockets the resort lobby wants to go. The Montana legislative language is compelling.
This case is way more about classic statutory construction in immunity legislation than opening the door to closing down your favorite hill.
The hypocrisy lies in that I would guess 90% of the Scott Schmidt's of this country also are adamant proponents of strict construction.
Way to go out on a limb there. That was bold. Especially the reference to Montana in a Colorado lawsuit.
Who's gonna fund the next layer of appeal at the widow/kids' end of things?
It's too bad legalized weed can't be blamed for this. I'm sure all the pwoggies who have moved to CO in the past 25 years would like to see the intermediate appellate decision overturned, though.
"We didn't move to Colorado to assume risks! We moved here to CLEAN UP AND GENTRIFY THIS SCARY PLACE!"
Is a pwoggy like a wendy? I'm still trying to craft a definition.
Personally, I feel the SSA threads a nice equitable balance for both ski areas and customers. Now, lets just see it enforced as enacted, or write to your legislators to change it if you disagree with it.
I certainly do not believe it is reasonable for an average public customer to expect that in-bounds avalanches on open runs to be an inherent risk of their ski day experience. If that as a matter of law is the case, then there is a shitton of education that is going to have to happen.
Further, if that is the case, there really isn't much incentive for control work other than ski area accidents usually mean bad pr.
There are plenty of places on Colorado ski areas that are clearly deeply in-bounds, and clearly marked closed expressly for avalanche danger. The fact that the resorts themselves recognize this as a specific danger, and identify it as such on signage which is not required by the SSA, says something. All the act requires is that a closure area be roped. That is why the Conlin case is novel (is it foreseeable that a member of the public would enter a clearly marked closure using uphill means from an open area?).
Your missing a nuanced piece of logic I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by telebobski
You don't think that skiing has some inherent risk? Or that participants shouldn't have to decide for themselves whether they are comfortable with the inherent risk?
If the scenario was slightly different... the dude did a schumi (fell & hit head on rock) do you think that's the ski areas fault also?
Edit: my interpretation is that there is inherent risk involved with skiing, ski areas can't protect against all inherent risk, the act provides protection for ski areas in cases of accidents resulting from inherent risk. How is this not reasonable?
Of course skiing has inherent risks- many of them. Indeed, avalanches are one of the biggest inherent risks I assume, when skiing the backcountry, and I take broad and very specific steps to mitigate that risk. Do you think it's reasonable to bundle your 7 year old up in an ABS bag, avalung, b/s/p for a day on the slopes while paying mrskico $100/day?Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesp
I've never met Dave Thomas or his daughter Wendy. They may be pwogs, they may not. Either way, CO has seen a massive pwog infestation in the past 25 years. Most of these new mountain lifestylers would like most, if not all, risks removed from their waking moments. Because that's how things were back in the Major Metropolitan Area they moved from.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
OMIGOD, I'm supposed to drive on this 4" of new snow without plowing!?! THESE PEOPLE ARE SAVAGES! THEY MUST BE TEA PARTY IDIOTS!
Yes, writing one's legislator is definitely what you're taught during K-12.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
I don't know about you, but I tend to laugh at people who still believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Seriously? Man what kind of incubator did you grow up in? Were you the boy in the plastic bubble?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Avy control is done to minimize, not eliminate. Holy fuck, I think you need to go back to Chicago or wherever you moved from.
Or maybe just limit yourself to skiing the WROD at some entirely madmade snow operation. You know, because it's so well-controlled, 'n' shit.
risk of avalanche is just 1 of the many risks inherent to skiing. My view is that people should take responsibility for their own actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
If you're that worried about your precious 7yr old then don't let the little buttercup participate in in sports & certainly don't let them outside ever.
I guess the fact that the collective people of all mountain states believe that there is a good public policy reason to hold very profitable business operations who offer a product to the public up to some level of safety standards and have enacted very detailed legislation enumerating what those standards are for a trade off in that if those businesses comply with those standards they will be immune from suit simply escapes you.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaky fossil
The only question at bar is whether, given the specific language of the statue, is the risk of an in-bounds avalanche on an open run an inherent risk under the SSA? Not whether skiing is or should be made a completely safe endeavor under even the most perfect conditions.
I guess we should get rid of all food labeling as well.
And I feel 100 more times safe in terrain in marked closures than I do on any WROD.
maybe they should go back to selling an inherent risk experience, instead of a sanitized groomed shitshow trickpark for tards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesp
Why aren't you protesting the mandatory use of helmets in school contact sports then? Hell, football is fucking dangerous too, but who is big bad government telling my Johnny he has to wear pads.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesp
Those products do exist for those who want them. See cat skiing, heli skiing, Silverton, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
MTM is here playing the Friedman-Krugman Maneuver -- pretend it's "economics" and everything else is irrelevant.
Maybe you should go sit at the kids' table, where they discuss things like who farted loudest and whose burp smelled worst?
I guess being a pretentious pseudo-economist and faux-sociologist is what turns your crank, and your Bazar School of e-Psychiatry diploma is what entitles you to predict that a concept "escapes me."Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Correct me if I'm wrong, here, Sandy.
Seriously? What is this, 1st semester of night school at the Stamm Mail Order Law Academy?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
blah de blah blah, I read some legal-ese somewhere and now I'm an e-lawyer, blah blah blah de blahQuote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Would that terrify you, to have to assume responsibility for your own well-being?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Apparently, the answer is yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
football in Nth America is fking lame, the rest of the world manages to play different versions of contact football without helmets or pads. But those people take responsibility for their actions & don't sue someone just because they get hurt. Novel concept I know...Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Why don't you think that people should take responsibility for their own choices & actions?
is that a feature or a bug to their clientele?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
well, corporations are persons and they sure don't. why should the little people, other than we are little people?
If you don't think that statutes granting immunity from suit aren't mostly an economics issue, than I certainly won't be able to convince you. Go ask Vail. If you don't think there is a huge public safety component as well, then go ask the Conlin's.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaky fossil
FYI, "Heckbert said if the family is awarded any money, they won’t keep a nickel of it. All the money will go to nonprofits of their choosing, he said.
“They’ve always said it’s not about the money. They don’t want this to happen to any other families. They want to make an impression on Vail and the ski industry that they never want this to happen again.”
Krugman! Friedman! Economics! Smugness!
don't forget to entertain the chance you're mistaken. it will help mitigate feelings of failure when you ultimately realize how wrong you are.
pretty sure you're not the professor of jurisprudence at the rideit online law school or the kidwoo online LLM academy, so I don't really feel compelled to believe your booly scheisse regarding what is "economics"
principles of liability arose independent of principles of what we now call "economics," but these real historical truths probably do not apply in your little fantasy bubble you're writing from
you're backpedaling with grace, Moonwalking MTM, but you're still backpedaling
You mean like ski area operators having failed to properly control/prevent inbounds avalanches?Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesp
Unless you're suggesting that woudn't/couldn't or shouldn't matter if it happens?
MTM is eating you guys for breakfast.
Hey breakfast is for progressive flatlanders who like to eat bagelsQuote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
so I'm gonna get really high in alittle bit and read the opinion of the court should be some bitchin reading, but thats how shit is done in colorado
now my real question is "there is inherent danger in skiing" you can get hurt, tough shit if you get hurt or die
but was their negligence on the part of the ski area, why are they not arguing negligence, seems an easier way to get the money, maybe there was nothing to prove? I'll see what my lawyer buddy has to say tomorrow about all this
Facepalm. Enjoy your toke.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred