Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

Quote:

---

I agree. If you're dumb enough to publicly admit that you anticipated the possibility of burying a road with an avalanche, and went ahead and skied a line anyway, maybe you ought to deal with some consequences. That's a fucked up thing to do. It deserves to be condemned. Community service seems reasonable.

But I don't think paying for damages to the O'bellx system should be one of those consequence.

---

If someone shot a bottle rocket into dry grass and sparked a fire that burned down your house, how would you see that?

No big deal, I have insurance and they will pay for it so community service is all the punishment required?

Or maybe, they should pay my deductible and perform community service?

Just because these guys are snow sports enthusiasts doesn't give them an out for doing stupid shit.

165K is over the top, 25K split between them seems more reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

If someone shot a bottle rocket into dry grass and sparked a fire that burned down your house, how would you see that?

---

Is it not more like if I built a fire barrier to protect my house, then some dudes shot off a bottle rocket and it burned down my fire barrier?

Unless that zone was off limits to the public, charging these guys is ridiculous.

Way that wind was loading that zone it could have just slid naturally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

If someone shot a bottle rocket into dry grass and sparked a fire that burned down your house, how would you see that?

No big deal, I have insurance and they will pay for it so community service is all the punishment required?

Or maybe, they should pay my deductible and perform community service?

Just because these guys are snow sports enthusiasts doesn't give them an out for doing stupid shit.

165K is over the top, 25K split between them seems more reasonable.

---

The Gazex system starts @100k add in shipping and installation you could get to 165k fairly quickly

It's really interesting to me how people have vastly different opinions on this, with strong conviction that they're right.

In reading this thread, I’ve kinda come to the conclusion that CDOT shouldn’t put their expensive tools in avy paths if they can’t handle the stresses of an avalanche. It doesn’t matter what the triggering mechanism is. It could slide. You certainly couldn’t put a house in that area with the oversight we have in building today, because it would be destroyed, and people could die. Now if these two dipshits had killed someone on the road below, I could see there criminal or civil charges being valid. If public lands are legal to cross, then that should be the end of it. If that area was deemed hazardous, it should have been roped off and closed the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jethro

If public lands are legal to cross, then that should be the end of it. If that area was deemed hazardous, it should have been roped off and closed the public.

---

In many ways I agree, but the one problem with that is the impacts of that policy choice. If that is the outcome of this case, wouldn't it create an incentive for the government to close many spots that in some circumstances might cause damage to person or property?

Whereas, if these people are held responsible, one impact of that policy would be that people are hopefully more conservative with their choices in those spots?

This case is fascinating to me.

In South Lake Tahoe we have a zone off limits to the public above hwy 50, they have gasx installed. It gets poached occasionally and I imagine if someone got caught setting off a avalanche onto the hwy they would be prosecuted and I’d be fine with that. I can tell you though it would never endanger the gasx installation cause around here they put them at the top of the slide paths not below them.

If this was publicly open land IMHO these guys should not be held responsible, that slope would fail on its own at some point if not this day then it’s just a matter of time. Then who would pay for the poor placement of there equipment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

This case is fascinating to me.

---

Ditto. Currently I'm mulling over this:

Quote:

---

Casias said he did not think Greene would be testifying as an expert witness about whether or not veteran backcountry travelers Hannibal and DeWitt were breaking laws when they snowboarded on the slope above I-70 near the Eisenhower- Johnson Memorial Tunnels.

“He is testifying as to what his report determined,” Casias said. “That is education and that is education for the members of this community who will have to decide whether this behavior was criminal or not.”

---

And this:

Quote:

---

Prosecutors filed a motion objecting to the expert witness recruited by Hannibal and DeWitt, avalanche educator Jon Miller, who has promoted avalanche safety across the West for decades.

---

My take from the actual incident is that these instawannabe's caused property damage and should be forced to reimburse me, the taxpayer.

While I see being a fucking clued in moran as even more egregious than a clueless one, I don't think the behavior itself was criminal. Now, if they violated a closure and skied the fingers, that would be an easy case. Also, this would be much more complicated if there were human casualties.

There's a lot of in's and out's to this one.

Classic version of hard cases make bad law.

https://youtu.be/e5mzRi6r6hw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoqpass

The Gazex system starts @100k add in shipping and installation you could get to 165k fairly quickly

---

I am aware of the costs of the O'Bellx.

IMO there is some shared blame for the siting and subsequent damage to that piece of equipment as well as the fact that the area was not closed to access. I would venture to guess that trying to recover 100% will never happen.

so when a snow plow or heavy machinery owned and operated by the state or local gov't hits your car they claim government immunity and walk away without having to pay a dime
they leave all the messy shit for you to pick up and figure out and pay for the damages with your insurance company
they turn the tables now and want someone to pay for their stupidity give it up

as I said these snowboarders are guilty of being idiots but that's it

driving by the tunnel twice this week I looked over and saw a number of cars parked and people skiing, suprised cdot hasn't tried to shut that access down I'm sure it's coming once the case is over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~mikey b

https://youtu.be/e5mzRi6r6hw

---

Ha. Id. Supra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

In many ways I agree, but the one problem with that is the impacts of that policy choice. If that is the outcome of this case, wouldn't it create an incentive for the government to close many spots that in some circumstances might cause damage to person or property?

Whereas, if these people are held responsible, one impact of that policy would be that people are hopefully more conservative with their choices in those spots?

This case is fascinating to me.

---

Tell the truth have you skiied past the no skiing signs on the Seven Sisters...:FIREdevil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

Ha. Id. Supra.

---

[emoji12]

Quote:

---

so when a snow plow or heavy machinery owned and operated by the state or local gov't hits your car they claim government immunity and walk away without having to pay a dime

---

Actually, NO.

More years ago than I would like to admit I was parked by the side of 191 at the Bacon Rind trail head and oddly enough I was skiing with a very young Ethan Greene, around 93/94. It had been a great day and when we got back to my truck the back window of the camper shell was blown in and the bed was full of plow debris.

I contacted MDT, submitted a claim and they cut me a check in about 3 weeks time.

Nice try.:tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Actually, NO.

More years ago than I would like to admit I was parked by the side of 191 at the Bacon Rind trail head and oddly enough I was skiing with a very young Ethan Greene, around 93/94. It had been a great day and when we got back to my truck the back window of the camper shell was blown in and the bed was full of plow debris.

I contacted MDT, submitted a claim and they cut me a check in about 3 weeks time.

Nice try.:tongue:

---

There IS governmental immunity, that is the "general" rule so fred isn't entirely wrong. That said, every jurisdiction I know of has passed laws subjecting the government to tort claims under prescribed conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

There IS governmental immunity, that is the "general" rule so fred isn't entirely wrong. That said, every jurisdiction I know of has passed laws subjecting the government to tort claims under prescribed conditions.

---

Hey hey hey, don't go complicating things with nuance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

There IS governmental immunity, that is the "general" rule so fred isn't entirely wrong. That said, every jurisdiction I know of has passed laws subjecting the government to tort claims under prescribed conditions.

---

Love me a good case of the torts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cravenmorhead

Hey hey hey, don't go complicating things with nuance.

---

Yeah, like some sort of fucking lawyer or something.

What do you Avy pro’s think that the odds that that equipment would have been taken out at some point naturally?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

When was it installed?

We humans think in terms of return periods of 10-20 years as being a long time.

So yeah, probably. Not sure how that matters though.

I think it's a fairly recent installation.

Because it got damaged from the avy, everyone seems to assume that it was poorly/improperly placed. And I get the logic. But it also seems like a bunch of TGR dentists may not be as knowledgeable and skilled with that equipment as cdot and the caic. It seems weird that they would simply install it in the wrong place. Anyone have any real insight?

We had a separate discussion on this. The CAIC report has a photo that shows the Obeelx if you zoom in. You can see one undamaged unit and one damaged. They were installed in 2018.

It can easily be argued that they were not installed in a suitable location for potential overhead risks. Those risks were likely estimated was extremely low....until someone decided to ski the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

But that is blood from a rock. Why not chop off a zero and add some volunteer hours and save everyone this wasteful drama...

---

offering lesser charges and to go 168k --> 25k split 2 ways is kinda doing just that, yeah? Seems like a screaming deal to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeBC

Unless that zone was off limits to the public, charging these guys is ridiculous.

Way that wind was loading that zone it could have just slid naturally

---

well maybe it "could have" .. but it hadn't.

And I disagree. Just because something isn't closed, doesn't give people a free pass to non-accountability of their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

My take from the actual incident is that these instawannabe's caused property damage and should be forced to reimburse me, the taxpayer.

...

There's a lot of in's and out's to this one.

---

and a lotta what have you's.

And yes, we shouldn't have to pay for their actions.


I'm leaning this way: Were people put at risk, and was property damaged by their actions? Yes.
Did they know, or should they reasonably have known, that their actions could have had consequences? Yes, and the one bro actually says so in his video.

Blaming CDOT/CAIC for the placement or their chingass or not closing the slope (from a 'proximate cause' standpoint) probably doesn't get much legal traction - but it'll be used to try to deflect blame in front of the jury.

Fire ban or no, I can't be reckless with a campfire and burn the forest and some buildings and put people at risk. Even though the USFS could say 'one day that could maybe burn naturally anyway' and 'they shouldnta put their buildings there.'