Serious Accident at Gore

I enjoy a good Texas tuck on occasion. That occasion is generally when drunk and skiing naked on at least two or three tabs of acid.

wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa

I still tuck at 73 especially when i am on lower cloud to the Saddle at Gore , if you dont , you pole , its that simple coach . And i disagree thatit is unsafe IN THAT situation, speeds are low because of thelengrhof the flats , so that fallingis pretty damn low risk . In over 5 decades i have yet to biff ina tuck whether on XC ' s or Alpine .

I do agree thatone should not tuck in most situations BUT i have had more than one guilty pleaure with top to bottom tuck runs mid week at some mid sized areas withlow to no density .... Did it strictly for shitz n giggles ...yeah i too can be an ASSHOLE  bwa hahahaha

But i so agree it should be limited and used with discretion in low density situation or on LONG FLAT STRETCHS  where poling or skating would be necessary .

Coach skis at Whiteface. Not a bunch of places you need to tuck there. Also, he says it hurts his neck and back. I can see why he doesn't tuck.

But yeah, I agree with warp. I'm going to be tucking until I'm at least his age, especially skiing at Gore. That spot going into Gore-e-Gully is a classic tucking spot, just like windy hill or wood-in. Some skiers I see know how to tuck, and some don't, but I think even a mediocre tuck provides an aero advantage over just putting your poles behind your back while your chest catches all that wind.

Coach has a point.  Depending on what you are wearing (like my baggy shell jacket with a hood), even a good tuck is no better then standing with your arms close and behind your back.  As I get older, I'm losing the flexibility to get to a good tuck position.
But I still tuck Echo to BRQ, and Cloud to the Saddle, and sometimes Tannery. Not so much at Whiteface.

mm

CONTENTS DELETED

Could be a landmark case , a serious game changer Jeff , rendering those back of the ticket CYA's questionable in these types of situations . To be sure the legal profession will be anxious to see the final outcome

At any rate more EFFECTIVE trail closing warnings and signage are in order . Those little lolipops or crossed  sticks usually placed  at the last minute too close to the obstacle are obviously not effective enough .

It's a case of the old axiom " nothing is written in stone " when it comes to law. Gross negligence rises to that occasion.

There's also the issue of what the law says vs how it is enforced/interpreted in the real world. This is a real " thing " in the legal realm and can be about different issues. People go on and on about the responsibility code but it is not a blanket coverage. There are rules, industry standards and common sense and when broken can affect the liability.

No waiver will protect the ski area from negligence. Putting a rope across a spot where you know everyone will go for maximum speed seems negligent enough to me, especially in this case where Twisted's Little Sister was open.  Ropes are just not that visible all the time.  How hard is it to put up something more visible, or less likely to cause a serious injury?
OTOH this will not have much affect beyond making the Gore patrol more careful.  There are just too many settled cases that are more or less consistent with this one.

mm

The State will probably appeal the decision.  Also, this was decided by a single Judge. There are no juries in the Court of Claims.

Adk Jeff wrote

Every time a skier purchases a lift ticket (or season pass), he signs off on the terms of those agreements and releases the ski area from liability.  Those waivers are generally considered pretty rock-solid, but obviously the court felt that Gore's negligence in opening / closing trails exceeded the skier's assumption of inherent risk.

No, I have yet to see a ski area that requires a waiver signed for a day ticket.  By purchasing a day ticket, you automatically agree to those terms.

One of the annoying things about living away from home as a minor in an overly litigious society is that I can't do many activities without worrying about getting snubbed because of my age.  Since my parents live 6 hours away, having them sign these things can't happen either.  My own campus bookstore refuses to rent me a textbook, I have to buy it outright.  Meanwhile, the local golf course will rent me a golf cart no questions asked.

CONTENTS DELETED

snoloco wrote

No, I have yet to see a ski area that requires a waiver signed for a day ticket.  By purchasing a day ticket, you automatically agree to those terms.

Same thing, duh...... Tomato tomotto.

snoloco wrote

 My own campus bookstore refuses to rent me a textbook, I have to buy it outright.  Meanwhile, the local golf course will rent me a golf cart no questions asked.

That's most likely because the rental textbooks sometimes to get stolen or trashed. Parents " signing off " provides accountability.

Adk Jeff wrote

 

Coach Z wrote

I don't not tuck unless I am running gates.

That's a lot of tucking.

He don't give a tuck.

Marcski wrote

The State will probably appeal the decision.  Also, this was decided by a single Judge. There are no juries in the Court of Claims.

Do you think it will be overturned? Like others I'm somewhat surprised that Gore was found to be liable given the fact we all sign off on the skiers responsibility code.  

Adk Jeff wrote

I was also somewhat surprised at the verdict, but more from the standpoint of the Warning to Skiers, Assumption of Risk Agreement and Skier's Responsibility Code, which require a skier to ski in control and avoid natural and manmade obstacles which may or may not be marked.  Every time a skier purchases a lift ticket (or season pass), he signs off on the terms of those agreements and releases the ski area from liability.  Those waivers are generally considered pretty rock-solid, but obviously the court felt that Gore's negligence in opening / closing trails exceeded the skier's assumption of inherent risk.

This wasn't an assumption of risk case. Here's what the court ruled:

In addition to the foregoing, it is well-settled that "[a] person who participates in downhill skiing assumes the usual risks inherent in that activity (i.e., those that are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable)" (Clauss v Bush, 79 AD3d 1397, 1398 [3d Dept 2010]; see Finn v Barbone, 83 AD3d 1365, 1365 [3d Dept 2011]). However, "[a] participant in a sporting or recreational activity will not be 'deemed to have assumed concealed or unreasonably increased risks' " (Sharrow v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 307 AD2d 605, 607 [3d Dept 2003], quoting Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 485 [1997]).

       . . .

Finally, to the extent that defendants argue that claimant assumed the risk of injury by participating in the sport of skiing,(14) the Court finds that the doctrine of assumption of the risk does not operate to absolve the State of liability in this case. The testimony of Anderson and Roberts was that skiers could have the expectation that Gully would be open if Twister's Little Sister was open. Further, Jones, Daniel Gold, Brett Gold, and Roberts all testified that a skier would likely expect that Gully was open if Twister's Little Sister was open, and that they had never seen Gully closed when Twister, Twister's Little Sister, and Echo were open. Such testimony was also corroborated by the skiers themselves. Moreover, the Court concludes that the placement of a rope closing a trail shortly after a decline, which was obscured from the vision of a skier on the left side of a trail, is not an appreciated risk inherent in the sport of skiing (compare Simoneau v State of New York, 248 AD2d 865, 866 [3d Dept 1998]). Rather, the precarious placement of the rope, the lack of a warning sign, and the lack of communication among staff, created a concealed risk not assumed by claimant in this case.


The court held Gore 100% liable because "Claimant did not assume the risk of the unreasonable danger created by defendants."

I would add that the little skinny ropes they tend to use ( and just a single strand at that ) can be hard to see in and of themselves.

Well if we are going to ban the tuck can we please also ban the double pole planting some of those tele skiers do? What about driving with the upper body? You know like the quarter pivots led by the hooking arms? What about Mexicans?

Well whatever, I really enjoy a good tuck on a steep..... slippery slope.

snoloco wrote

Adk Jeff wrote

Every time a skier purchases a lift ticket (or season pass), he signs off on the terms of those agreements and releases the ski area from liability.  Those waivers are generally considered pretty rock-solid, but obviously the court felt that Gore's negligence in opening / closing trails exceeded the skier's assumption of inherent risk.

No, I have yet to see a ski area that requires a waiver signed for a day ticket.  By purchasing a day ticket, you automatically agree to those terms.

One of the annoying things about living away from home as a minor in an overly litigious society is that I can't do many activities without worrying about getting snubbed because of my age.  Since my parents live 6 hours away, having them sign these things can't happen either.  My own campus bookstore refuses to rent me a textbook, I have to buy it outright.  Meanwhile, the local golf course will rent me a golf cart no questions asked.

 
If I were near ya bud I would totally go buy your cigarettes and whiskey for ya.

I have to think that the court put a lot of weight on the rope's placement, out of view.