OK, man, why don't you just come out and say it. You're referring to the time at Boston Mills that I traversed above you while you were OB above North Bowl. I told you I was sorry and it wouldn't happen again. Now can you let it go?
Printable View
OK, man, why don't you just come out and say it. You're referring to the time at Boston Mills that I traversed above you while you were OB above North Bowl. I told you I was sorry and it wouldn't happen again. Now can you let it go?
Not sure about the legality of responding to anything outside of resort boundries. And that is not exactly what I was talking about.Quote:
Originally posted by Cornholio
Wow.
The patrol is mandated to provide inbonds safety, but is legally obligated to respond to an emergency close to, but outside of, the area. Presumably, any slide triggered by a skier who used an area gate would qualify.
What I meant was that within boundries that are required to respond. This may differ state to state but I am pretty sure that is who it works, other wise what are they there for?
Outside of a resort boundry I think it would be different. They are not compensated to provide rescue outside the line and therefore would not have to respond. I guess that would be kind of a sticky point if the skiers let through a gate the resort set up though??? I don't know I am a confused JONG. Thinking about stuff like this and all the situations makes my head hurt.
This may be way silly and perhaps not comparable...but can't a lifeguard get into serious shit if they don't respond to someone drowning, regardless of whether they are on duty or even anywhere near their place of work? I.e. if they are the closest, qualified person to perform a resuce, they have to do it.
I doubt the same thing applies to patrol (and I doubt I worded any of that very clearly).
Sick and ashamed and happy (and should stick to just lurking in this thread),
d.
I find this thread VERY bizarre from a mag collective mind point of view and what's going on in people's heads.
I am also REALLYsurprised (a bit sadly in fact) at the number of respondants who think that ski patrols do (or should) have some responsibilty for what goes on outside their permit area.
I dunno, just pretty surprised, not at all how I thought it would turn out.
Double post sorry
For the record, I don't think patrol have (or should have) any legal responsibility for what happens outside their boundaries (provided said boundaries are clearly marked).Quote:
Originally posted by lemon boy
I find this thread VERY bizarre from a mag collective mind point of view and what's going on in people's heads.
I am also REALLYsurprised (a bit sadly in fact) at the number of respondants who think that ski patrols do (or should) have some responsibilty for what goes on outside their permit area.
I dunno, just pretty surprised, not at all how I thought it would turn out.
Morally, I think it's a different story (and the cause of some confusion). Personally, if I'm in a position to help - be it save someone who's fucked themselves or offer some sound advice - I'm going to do what I can to ensure everyones safety (mine most certainly included).
Sick and ashamed and happy (and a bc gaper (at best)),
d.
Something about that sounds fishy. I know if patrol/doctor/ENT responds to an accident, they are required to perform up to the standards they would be held professionally (negligence), but I fail to see how someone could be legally compelled to say, risk life and limb to save someone they don't know.Quote:
Originally posted by gincognito
This may be way silly and perhaps not comparable...but can't a lifeguard get into serious shit if they don't respond to someone drowning, regardless of whether they are on duty or even anywhere near their place of work? I.e. if they are the closest, qualified person to perform a resuce, they have to do it.
Interesting discussion.
Like it or not, ski areas are often (if not usually) run by big corporations. Even some of the familly-owned areas have become fairly corporate over the years. The fact is that corporations are really concerned about only one thing - money.
For these corporations, everything possible is done to minimize liability because that directly affects the bottom line. Corporations hire expensive lawyers to protect themselves from liability, and these lawyers set guidelines for the corporation and its employees to minimize liability.
I would wager that Kweed has some sort of policy, written or otherwise, that limits patrollers from volunteering advice on conditions that are outside their purview. The last thing the resort wants is to get sued after a patroller gives advice and someone gets munched in a slide.
That's America folks. Things generally work differently in Canada and Europe because people there take responsibility for their decisions. Its a societal thing.
Get knowledgable. Be safe boys and girls.
Yeah, Keno's. Very good, except the top 30 ft were pretty boney and you had to tip toe through the rock areas. The rest was pure cream. I just drove up CC this morning to scope it with the binocs cause I heard a rumor it slid after the big dump. Turned out it hasnt and I saw two tracks down its gut and two other sets in the connecting gut skiers right where the paragliders take off. Saturday and Sunday were friggin great. Six more expected tonight!Quote:
[i]Originally posted by Shredhead
Knockneed: What did you guys ski? Keno? Was Saturday sick or what.
[/B]
What happens if the same situation occurs miles from a ski area?Quote:
Originally posted by Cornholio
Here's one more thing I just thought of:
Let's say my buddies and I carefully check our gear, do practice searches, wear peepers and carry our diggers and pokers. We go through a marked area gate. We dig a pit. We discuss the weather, layers, and wind loading. We arrive at a careful, rational decision to ski. We find our line, and work down it one at a time to a safe spot halfway down.
Right about now, a crew of 3 non-peeping, non-digging, non-poking, non-smart gapers start traversing across and above the line we're skiing because they don't know any better.
Those fuckers are endangering my life FAR beyond the considered danger in to which I've already placed it.
I'd rather have the patrol turn them back, because they're not just risking thier lives, they're risking mine. That's unnaceptable.
That's when the BC Du Hui comes in.
10 feet or 10 miles from the boundry rope is the backcountry. If you feel otherwise, you are part of the problem. If you can't accept the responsibility that what occurs If a function of your actions, stay at the ski area.
If ski patrol offers up some info/advise that's just a bonus data point. Don't expect it.
Trial lawyers dool over this thread. Don't support their existence with your ignorance.
[/lunch time rant]
I don't know why the Americans keep getting picked on (not that I'm picking on you in particular, Flash). People in Canada sue just like in the USofA. The difference is risk -- in the USofA the monetary risk is open ended. No one how much a jury will award someone. In Canada a jury determines responsibility and a judge determines the settlement. Throw in our national (broken) health care and state pays for future health care, not the defendant. In a recent case a novice boarder broke his neck at WB on a school field trip. The jury found the student 30% responsible, the school 10%, and WB 60%. WB had already settled and it's a secret (the jury was never told, either). In the end the kid may get $100-200K.Quote:
Originally posted by Flash
Interesting discussion.
Like it or not, ski areas are often (if not usually) run by big corporations. Even some of the familly-owned areas have become fairly corporate over the years. The fact is that corporations are really concerned about only one thing - money.
For these corporations, everything possible is done to minimize liability because that directly affects the bottom line. Corporations hire expensive lawyers to protect themselves from liability, and these lawyers set guidelines for the corporation and its employees to minimize liability.
I would wager that Kweed has some sort of policy, written or otherwise, that limits patrollers from volunteering advice on conditions that are outside their purview. The last thing the resort wants is to get sued after a patroller gives advice and someone gets munched in a slide.
That's America folks. Things generally work differently in Canada and Europe because people there take responsibility for their decisions. Its a societal thing.
Get knowledgable. Be safe boys and girls.
Anyway, a company should try to reduce it's financial risks and that will mean telling employees to keep their lips zipped. I think a lot of companies take the easy way out in that respect. They could, for example, post the daily avalanche bulletin at gates. They could train employees how to present OB information (never say "you should check out..." or "there's no risk OB").
Something left out here is insurance. Companies carry insurance and some of the rules are dictated by the insurance carrier (you will not have backcountry gates; employees will not admit there is a backcountry, ...).
That's when you nicely tell the asshole that skied in above you that you really like his ski and ask if you can look down the base at the sidecut. When he hands it to you, you fling it over a cliff, tell him what a fuck he is and why, then ski out.Quote:
Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
What happens if the same situation occurs miles from a ski area?
That's when the BC Du Hui comes in.
Good point, Snow Dog. Yes, people do sue in other societies. It just doesn't seem to me to be as pervasive....
when I royally fakked myself OB @ snowmass the patrol hauled me out of the couloir got me to Aspen Valley Hospital & sent me a bill from the Wildcat fire protection service for a good chunk of change.Quote:
Outside of a resort boundry I think it would be different. They are not compensated to provide rescue outside the line and therefore would not have to respond. I guess that would be kind of a sticky point if the skiers let through a gate the resort set up though???
What I meant by compensated was they are not paid by the resort to provide those services OB. Beacuse of the cost of such OB rescues it is becoming pretty common to get charged for such services. BUT they are not REQUIED to come get you in the BC, etically and professionally I doubt they would just leave someone out there but they do not HAVE to come get you.Quote:
Originally posted by Woodsy
when I royally fakked myself OB @ snowmass the patrol hauled me out of the couloir got me to Aspen Valley Hospital & sent me a bill from the Wildcat fire protection service for a good chunk of change.
Not trying to stir the pot or bring up bad memories but...did you have a hunting/fishing license or a hikers card?Quote:
Originally posted by Woodsy
when I royally fakked myself OB @ snowmass the patrol hauled me out of the couloir got me to Aspen Valley Hospital & sent me a bill from the Wildcat fire protection service for a good chunk of change.
Oh, do you have any ski time next Sat/Sun/or Mon? I'll be in Zion.
OK, so I knew some people would get all fussy about what I said. I totally agree that 10 feet or 10 miles out of bounds you have to assume you're on your own.
The problem I was trying to get at somehow with my little story is that by having lift accessed gates, I think that the ski area changes something somewhere. It's SO MUCH easier to get in to trouble when the gates are open, and people do just follow tracks all the time. So, maybe that's just an additional risk we take by accessing BC through an area gate, rather than by hiking.
In addition, there may or may not be some legal responsibility to the patrol (ergo, to the ski area, ergo to the big corporation) to assist if they can, EVEN if it's OB.
Now, it's possible that I'm TOTALLY WRONG. But, that said, I can't imagine that a patrol sitting in their shack would hear about a slide near their ropes and do nothing about it. I really don't know if they do or not, though. Foggy mentioned some things about A-Basin, and I do vaguely remember that they didn't respond to such an event, but I don't remember what happened.
These two opinions of mine lead me to believe that it could be in a patrol's interest to monitor gates. That's what the thread is about, so that's what I'm trying to focus on.
At any rate, I don't want any of you thinking that I ever go OB expecting help from anyone but myself and my buddies.
I've heard about that license thing in CO. Also heard scuba group has a worldwide evac you get with their membership/dues paid.Quote:
Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
Not trying to stir the pot or bring up bad memories but...did you have a hunting/fishing license or a hikers card?
Oh, do you have any ski time next Sat/Sun/or Mon? I'll be in Zion.
Worthy of a whole thread.
And, Dex, that 22 vertical feet of 19 degree hardpack could have killed us both, and you know it.
Exactly if they don't want you out there don't put a gate there. As soon as there is a gate some gaper is going to think it is ok to go out there no matter what warnings are posted or if the gate is closed someone will poach it trying to get freshies. I guess the same could happen with a rope but the entire idea of a gate is to allow access.Quote:
Originally posted by Cornholio
The problem I was trying to get at somehow with my little story is that by having lift accessed gates, I think that the ski area changes something somewhere.
I did not have one in 97, but bought one in 98, 99, &00 after the fact ( kinda like the helmet AFTER the head injury, dumb me).
actually was a wilderness card that sereved the same purpose they sold @ the avie workshops.
like this one?Quote:
Originally posted by splat
I've heard about that license thing in CO. Also heard scuba group has a worldwide evac you get with their membership/dues paid.
Worthy of a whole thread.
I may have some insight into this discussion. I patrolled for seven years and was involved in two ob rescues while patrolling. As a patroller, I always told someone who asked that the avie conditions were pretty bad. Not becasue I was told to do so by the resort, or that the resort had apolicy on it, I did it because after seeing a frozen body get dug out of the snow, I didn't want to do it again. Purely shelfish. Luckily, the second time all three people caught in an avie were pulled out alive. I would imagine that most patrollers would tell someone who asked the same thing. It is dangerous and you are going on your own. I worked at amajor resort in UT, and never once were we told what to tell someone. Of course, the resort is almost entirely on private property (which changes everything), but it did border some Forest Service Land. There were no access gates, but the Forest Service boundary was never posted closed, only marked as an "Area Boundary".
As a frequent BC skier, I believe that anyone in the bc has the moral responsibilty to look out for other bc travellers. I get told off all the time for offering advice, I just shrug and offer the same advice to the next person who is w/o proper gear or appears to be uneducated on bc traveller. Bottom line, however, is if you go, no matter where you leave from, it is your responsibility. Too bad many people can't hold their loved ones responsibile for the self initiated actions that kill them.
I might remind everyone that patrol does have one responsibility with regards to lift-accessed b/c and that is the state of the gate.
The responsibilities (as dictated by the legal liability) of a mountain resort is surely bound to the state of the gate.
If the gate is closed, then ALL bets are off. The fact that you rode a lift to get to the line you ducked is probably irrelevant if you attempted to sue.
If the gate is open, then stickiness insues, and I'm not sure if the liability issues have been tested in court.
I know at Crystal, even the B/C has boundaries, and the patrol will come and get you if you are within B/C boundaries and the gates were open.
Now, there is no gate to the "real" B/C and if the resort helps you out there, you should count your lucky stars and happily pay the hefty bill for your rescue.
My 2c.