The fact that they are riding a clearly wind slabbed slope and one of them Yell's "That's what I was worried about" when his partner remote triggers the slide is not real defensible. But, it is easy to Monday morning QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
“good call, good call!”
wtf does that even mean?
CDOT does not prosecute crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by simple
neither does CAICQuote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada1
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?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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
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
The Gazex system starts @100k add in shipping and installation you could get to 165k fairly quicklyQuote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
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?
Ditto. Currently I'm mulling over this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
And 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.”
My take from the actual incident is that these instawannabe's caused property damage and should be forced to reimburse me, the taxpayer.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.
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.
I am aware of the costs of the O'Bellx.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoqpass
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
Ha. Id. Supra.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
Tell the truth have you skiied past the no skiing signs on the Seven Sisters...:FIREdevilQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno
[emoji12]Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Actually, NO.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
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 Bunion 2020
Hey hey hey, don't go complicating things with nuance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Love me a good case of the torts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Yeah, like some sort of fucking lawyer or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
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.
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 Summit
well maybe it "could have" .. but it hadn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeBC
And I disagree. Just because something isn't closed, doesn't give people a free pass to non-accountability of their actions.
and a lotta what have you's.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
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.'
Stop it with the fire analogies. Fires can run much further than avalanches. And a piece of $168k equipment installed directly under a starting zone is a world away from a forest that could burn naturally from a random lightening strike. Crappy analogy.
I am no mitigation expert but if the equipment was taken out by a skier triggered slide, I’d be inclined to say that it was likely to be taken out by a natural slide at some point. They may have gotten lucky that these skiers set it off so the installers didnt have to shoulder the blame.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Should they reasonably have know that their actions would damage the O'Bellx? I'm not sure sure about that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleOfNight
well, perhaps not specifically that one piece of hardware .. but they reasonably know that avalanches cause damage, and they said 'that's what i was afraid of' or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!
They're not being charged with the intent to damage anything, rather careless or reckless actions - which I think is a relevant distinction.
Far as I know, the issue of potential restitution upon conviction is a separate issue.
edit: I think that video (and that one quote) is really damaging to their case.
sort of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
Years ago, someone with a firework started a fire in a dry field near my house. Only burned a handful of acres, but some of those acres were on my property and it almost burned our / the neighbors houses down. Firefighters got pinned down up here, but they saved all the structures. That fire could have been caused by lighting, sure. But it wasn't - it was some moran with a book of matches and a firework.
My house is built 'directly in a fire zone' (evidently), every single house up here is. but that didn't excuse the person from acting carelessly.
I think these guys could easily get convicted of reckless endangerment but not be on the hook for the value of damage to the thingy for the reasons you and others mention. I understand that if they are convicted, the judge can make whatever determination they want about restitution, all or none or anywhere in between.
If you lose at trial you are 100% on the hook for restitution.
But that doesn't matter in this case, because they don't have it.
The only way to get a dime is to strike a plea that includes a payment plan, that is why the D.A. offered a reduced amount to try to get some reimbursement. Now that that is likely off the table, both sides are pot committed. I don't see this going well for the prosecution. They are so backed up right now (as is the entire 5th) and are basically bleeding more money than the oblix settlement offer.
The media, and the involvement of the A.G. has basically just added fuel and focus to this shitshow.
Let's go ahead and post these images here because this is TGR and I'm sure nobody is going to be bothered to search for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by simple
Here's the overview of the accident area with the O'Bellx locations and rider locations annotated.
And then here is an image looking up the path. If you zoom in and look closely; you can see an intact O'Bellx unit in the upper right, and the damaged unit on the middle right. From what I can see, it looks like the main unit was knocked off it's stand,Quote:
Originally Posted by CAIC
Now with that out of the way, this is kinda of where I stand:Quote:
Originally Posted by CAIC
I think I understand the general placement of the units. The primary infrastructure hazards are large slabs releasing on the lower slopes. So the units are placed at the top of the lower slopes, near margins of the typical snow coverage and in rocky areas, where those type of large slabs would be easier to trigger. So I think I understand the general placement and why they were relatively low on the slope. The slopes above this (where the snowboarders triggered the thin wind slab) rarely hold very much snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I don't fully understand how the O'Bellx got knocked off it's stand. I doubt just the hard slab releasing around it would have done that. My best guess is the smaller slab the snowboarders released spilled over the cliff above it and directly impacted the O'Bellx unit. I'm also guessing they aren't designed for that type of impact. Does that mean it was installed in a bad spot? Would a natural wind slab have eventually released in that area and come over the cliffs and damaged the unit? I don't know, I'm not a forecaster so I don't know how to accurately predict natural avalanches, but like I said those slopes don't hold very much snow very often. Does the fact that a small wind slab avalanche triggered a large persistent slab mean that CDOT did inadequate control work on that slope? Again I don't know, and it probably comes down to a forecaster's interpretation of how likely a natural avalanche doing the same thing actually was. It will be interesting to see the actual experts explain the placement of the unit.
Like makers and danno said, it's a really fascinating case, lot of ins and outs and what have yous, lotta threads in the old duder's head. Add in the spectacle of a jury trial and I have no clue how this is going to turn out. These guys are definitely getting the book thrown at them, and they definitely shouldn't have been skiing that line, but not a clue how that's going to all shake out in the end. I mostly hope that a precedent for closing terrain is not the result.
Thanks for posting those.
One way or another that will probably be a result.Quote:
I mostly hope that a precedent for closing terrain is not the result.
But the rub is that J. Casias stated that it would be unlikely that the prosecution would have any CAIC EE's as experts, so none of that is going to come in.
FIFY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
Since the AG's involvement has already been misrepresented in some of the articles, just want to point out that the AG's involvement here is not voluntary. They represent the CAIC and have been forced into it because of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark