Serious Accident at Gore

Harvey wrote

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

No doubt about that.

The question is would the rope have been visible if he was standing up and not tucking.  Also a 72 yr olds vision and reaction time has got to much less than average and tucking only reduced that. I'll be shocked it this doesn't get overturned on appeal.  To me there clearly was contributing negligence.  As Orda is a state agency and they don't have to pay a law firm they almost never lose these cases.  We the tax payers end up paying for all this.  

You can pretty much be assured that tucking will be officially banned at all Orda venues when not on a controlled  and closed competition trail.  You Gore guys better got pumped up as you will be doing more skating.  I'd be shocked if the Patrol there doesn't get a mandate from Teddy to pull tickets on echo and the connector to BRQ as soon as it opens to lay down the law.

This also will likely result in less likelyhood that trails will get reopened after being closed.

I've been involved in and was disposed in a suit that I am not at liberty to discuss.  I can tell you that lawyers that sue ski areas deserve a special place in hell.  They raise costs and hurt all skiers aside from being total A holes.

Coach Z wrote

You can pretty much be assured that tucking will be officially banned at all Orda venues when not on a controlled  and closed competition trail.  You Gore guys better got pumped up as you will be doing more skating.  I'd be shocked if the Patrol there doesn't get a mandate from Teddy to pull tickets on echo and the connector to BRQ as soon as it opens to lay down the law.

Great.  Just what I need.  One of the only two Burnt Ridge trails ruined because you can't get back to the lift without getting stuck in the runout and are banned from getting enough speed to make it through.

Either way, I'm sure the race kids will be exempt from this even on open trails.  I've had many close calls with racers going way too fast for the conditions on open trails.

Anybody think it was odd that defense (Gore) only called one fact witness--Carbone? All other testimony was called for by claimant.

Not into this stuff enough to know if that's normal or not....but I thought it seemed strange Gore didn't have more folks supporting their defense. And it's not clear to what extent Gore lawyer cross-examined their own ski patrollers.

When tucking is outlawed....only outlaws will tuck.

SIAWOL wrote

Anybody think it was odd that defense (Gore) only called one fact witness--Carbone? All other testimony was called for by claimant.

Not into this stuff enough to know if that's normal or not....but I thought it seemed strange Gore didn't have more folks supporting their defense. And it's not clear to what extent Gore lawyer cross-examined their own ski patrollers.

The State is notoriously bad when it comes to defending itself. Not because they don't have good lawyers, just because their number one goal seems to be settle quickly and downplay everything.

I don't think they could ban tucking (or backwards skiing, or switch snowboarding) or any specific technique-related movements. Can you imagine what an enforcement nightmare that would be? And how many people would hate patrollers? No way.

Agreed, a ban of any specific skiing/riding technique seems unrealistic.  Of course you could effectively ban certain things with the use of more slow skiing zones in areas that are perceived to be dangerous.....

If it were to happen don't see it being enforced, just a way to defend cases.

I assume tucking is banned in the yellow zones already.

When I taught at a major ski area, instructors and patrol could warn or pull tickets.  You carried a marker and, for a very dangerous incident, you put an 'X' on the ticket, invalidating it.  A warning was noted with an 'A.'  It stood for 'Asshole.'

mattchuck2 wrote

SIAWOL wrote

Anybody think it was odd that defense (Gore) only called one fact witness--Carbone? All other testimony was called for by claimant.

Not into this stuff enough to know if that's normal or not....but I thought it seemed strange Gore didn't have more folks supporting their defense. And it's not clear to what extent Gore lawyer cross-examined their own ski patrollers.

The State is notoriously bad when it comes to defending itself. Not because they don't have good lawyers, just because their number one goal seems to be settle quickly and downplay everything.

I don't think they could ban tucking (or backwards skiing, or switch snowboarding) or any specific technique-related movements. Can you imagine what an enforcement nightmare that would be? And how many people would hate patrollers? No way.

You must have a different set of lawyers for Gore.  I think ours come from Plattsburgh.  The policy as I understand it having been involved in a case up here is to never settle so they don't set a precedent of doing so.  The longer you can drag out proceedings the more costly it is for the plaintiffs lawyers who work on contingency the less likely you will get sued.  The deepest pockets usually will win and costs to defend the state don't matter to the state as they use in house legal staff.

They can certainly ban tucking or anything else they deem unsafe.  Alternatively they could put a chicane at the entrance to the run out to BRQ to stop it altogether.

Or, level the swale (dynamite), or move the rope location.

Harvey wrote

Or, level the swale (dynamite), or move the rope location.

That's the answer.  You make the closure safe by making it more visible from a greater distance, and by using low-strength orange tape instead of a nylon rope.
If you slow down traffic on Cedars, you might as well take down BRQ (and maybe the Snowbowl too).  The lift is too hard to get to as it is.  
This decision will stand.  Placing a concealed hazard is negligent, and the fact that someone hit in a tuck doesn't change that.  If an adult in a tuck can't see it, neither can a small child or a guy in a monoski.  The rule isn't "make the closure visible to cautious adults," you need to make it visible to everyone.  

mm

CONTENTS DELETED

Adk Jeff wrote

  All that confusion, contradiction and inconsistency in Gore's testimony undoubtedly contributed to the judge's decision.

Actually, that may be (and most likely) more of a reflection of the negligence that caused the accident vs bad lawyering.

SIAWOL wrote

Anybody think it was odd that defense (Gore) only called one fact witness--Carbone? All other testimony was called for by claimant.

Not into this stuff enough to know if that's normal or not....but I thought it seemed strange Gore didn't have more folks supporting their defense. And it's not clear to what extent Gore lawyer cross-examined their own ski patrollers.

Actually, the state defends itself pretty aggressively. There was no good defense for this horrific accident. The probably opted to defend in hopes of mitigating the damages.

Adk Jeff wrote

There are 2 issues:  1) Was the skier skiing under control? versus 2) was Gore negligent in their trail opening/closure procedures?  

Obviously the judge decided that Gore was negligent, but I would think a good lawyer could make a pretty strong case that the skier was not skiing under control if he was unable to avoid the obstacle.

One thing that came through in reading through the court decision was the inconsistency among Gore's personnel.  One of the first things a good lawyer does before depositions is to get everyone on the same page with respect to policies, procedures and who told whom what and when.  All that confusion, contradiction and inconsistency in Gore's testimony undoubtedly contributed to the judge's decision.

I wonder why ski areas are not required to use break-away closure ropes?  I wonder if it is considered a best practice, even if it's not mandated?

A break away closure might have prevented the accident. however the break way closures currently available won't handle the weight of a "rope" (that's a very long trail closure rope) as long as the type ropes Gore uses. So there are consequences of a closed trail appearing open. Imagine what happens when the break away opens under the weight of the rope and a skier, unfamiliar with the mountain, skis out to closed, unpatrolled, terrain or, worse yet, into a groomer or excavator working in a closed area. I'm not saying the issue of clearly visible and safe trail closures is impossible to solve. I'm just noting that this is a more complex issue than many skiers may realize.

SIAWOL wrote

Anybody think it was odd that defense (Gore) only called one fact witness--Carbone? All other testimony was called for by claimant.

Not into this stuff enough to know if that's normal or not....but I thought it seemed strange Gore didn't have more folks supporting their defense. And it's not clear to what extent Gore lawyer cross-examined their own ski patrollers.

I can answer that. It's simple really. They didn't call the other witnesses, their own ski patrollers, because they were damaging to their defense. Furthermore, too much cross examination of these witnesses by the defense could reveal more cracks and/or open more doors for the plaintiff. If more " cross " is going to yield more support for the plaintiff then it's better for the defense to simply hunker down and get the witness off the stand asap.

In laymen's terms, " we need to shut them the hell up ".

It all adds up to " no leg to stand on ".

CONTENTS DELETED

You can bet there'll be some different set up this year. That's a good thing.

Hi Harvey, this is quite a late reply, I know, but thanks very much for the good wishes.