Paralyzed skier asks resort be held responsible

Confession time: I just read the article.

The guy suing is saying the specific jump was poorly designed, and the quoted the Shawn White thing.

To those who know, what makes a jump more unsafe than another? Angles of...? What?

Not an attorney, don't play one on TV.  

While suits against ski areas suck, ski areas are businesses and should be subject to the same laws as other businesses.

I agree in both assumption of risk defenses and contributory negligence.   Two different things.  

As Harvey wrote this case is asking the court for guidence or to change the law "permitting a cause of action"  about assuming some inherent risks of skiing, but not about assuming risks which one "may" not know about.   (though the resort can argue assumption of risk and contributory negligence in their defense.) Rather it is about a defective man-made object.     If this was a cliff, there would be no argument and the case would be tossed.   Would we feel the same way if the rider was sliding a rail and a very poor welding job allowed the rail to quickly separate, spring up and cause the accident?   I believe Bachelor is arguing riders assume every risk of injury, not just those associated with riding.   The plaintiff is arguing for the "right" to sue if Bachelor hired an non-certified welder to weld the joint...in my rail example.     Even if they win, they will still have to prove 1) the pipe joint failure was the direct cause of the accident, as opposed to rider error. 2) the operator failed to weld the joint according to industry standards.    

Assume for sake of the argument that Bachelor wanted to save money, they knew their park brought crowds and rather than pay a professional park designer, they gave some kid a season pass to build kickers becasue he was a pretty good park rider.   Wrong design on a major kicker can cause a significant injury.    I can see this suit being allowed to pursue.   Obviously the mountain will have defenses.   I would not want the mountain to be able to simply say...you stepped foot on our land, you are responsible for everyting that occurs.    


As for this suit, it could be as fribilous as ..."engineering the perfect jump would be 35 degree on ramp with 40 degree landing,  however our measurments found a 34 degree on ramp and a 42 degree landing....YOU ARE LIABLE"      Forgetting the fact that their client (plaintiff)  may have blew his approach, take off, manuver or landing.   Meaning it was not the inappropriate angle of the jump design, rather the 18 yr old kid and/or his skills. Sadly, if there were no witnesses to attest to crappy skills, improper design may win the day.      Many people on the comments board of the story aruge that "lots of people sucessfully did the jump" that day.    In the law (right or wrong) it does not matter if others survived ill fated or designed stuff.    Unprotected swimming pool.   For years kids (important here) have been sneaking in and swimming.   One day a 7 year old boy drowns.   It is not a proper defense to say "other 7 year olds survived, this one did not have the skills, so I am not liable"  

In this case, if the ONLY thing that caused this 18 yr old boy's injury was the improper design, then I feel he should be allowed to pursue his case in front of a jury.    However if anything else which he assumes causes or contributes to it, then it could be tossed.   Example.  He never cleared the gap, missing by 10 feet.....meaning his speed was not sufficient.   It does not matter that the ramp angle was 38 degrees instead of 35.    Had it been 35, he would have missed it by 9.5 feet.    



All of this aside:  

  1)  I feel expert terrain features should have a "guard" placed to keep non-experts out.     Otherwise, a gated system should be installed to do the same. Think AVY control gates.    At Stratton you must pass a test to get access to the park...granted it is easy, but that is the first step in the right direction.    I play and teach in the park and see customers who should not be there.    I have watched 14 year old wedge turners bomb a 15 foot gap and while some walk away, others get a sled ride.    There needs to be some accountability.   At Disney, I cannot ride the steepest roller coaster upside down unless I am 1) x feet tall, 2) wearing a safety bar.   This ride is man-made, as the T-park is.  


2) Most parks are attended by minors (under 21) who cannot "waive" liability themselves.    Their parents can waive suits by the parents for the parents, but not suits directly by the kids.    I will say in most States I am familiar with, parents cannot waive suits by their children.   The form may say so, but the courts can easily toss that.      Think of it this way...Dad tells neighbor, "beat my son as much as you want, I wont sue you and wont let my son sue you"   They reach an agreement and sign off.   Its not going to work.  Son can sue both dad and the neighbor.  

3) When a significant injury occurs at our mountain, patrol immediatlely closes that feature, photographs and diagrams the scene, they measure and diagram the feature, obtain statements from witness and park staff.     It is obvious that our mountain feels they can be sued for improper design, why else do it?      


I visited and skied at a "living on a shoestring" and back woods resort at the end of the season.    Think 1970s or ealier.     Patrol was well aware that people on the slopes were drinking heavily.   Nothing was done.   I agree breath tests should not be required but openly drinking is?    It was obvious the resort was condoning this by their in-action, they were also profiting on the drinking by selling the beer.  Do childern hit by drunk skiers assume this risk?      Same resort, while teaching a friend's daughter to ski, a rouge patroller was driving his snow mobile with a trailer attached, carrying chairs as opposed to an injured person, up a very, very busy slope on a tight turn.    My student was clearly visible, in a wedge maybe going 2 mph with me clearly visible and on her right.    50 or so other skiers were being funneled into a tight turn.    We all assumed many risks here, including colliding into each other, falling, etc.....   However "Johnny patrol" is going about 20 MPH and swings his machine tight, the trailer jets out and misses my student by 2 feet.      UFR!!!!?     Were she in Oregon, did she assume this risk?     I think not.         As an aside I advised mountain management, who I felt could care less, thus the problem.