TR 12/22 Edgar goes soft on the newbies

[NJSkiFamily]

Got to CB around 11:30am. Parked in lot 7 which told us there were more people there already than last weekend.

 

The snow was softer than last weekend but not by much. Definitely not hero snow. Good carving snow and still packed powder in most places....just a bit softer than last weekend.

 

Some trails on the east side were open - Nile Mile and Pharaoh. Big Pocono and Rocket were also open.

 

So even though there was more people, everyone was spread out so there was minimal lines at all the lifts, including both quads.

 

We had been warned about this last weekend and it turned out to be true. The novice skiers/riders were out in force. And tons of little kids....made you wonder if CB was giving people a discount if they brought a preschooler.

 

And they all headed for Nile Mile. Holy cow. The trail itself was in great shape but it was a garage sale of newbies sprawled on the ground all over the place. Like some invisible sniper taking shots at people.

 

After two runs on Nile Mile we just couldn't stand having to go around so many people on the ground.

 

Pharaoh was a complete sheet of ice at the top. Not worth a second run because the bottom of trail is no different than any others at CB.

 

The big surprise was how well Big Pocono held up. Usually I avoid that trail because it ices up and too many novices think they can ski it and end up getting into trouble making it dangerous for everyone else.

 

But it was packed powder the whole day and fairly empty.

 

Most people headed over to the Rocket instead. It was in great shape. Got a wee bit bumpy at the top but otherwise smooth sailing all the way down.

 

Margies bumped up nicely at the top by late afternoon. And that scared off everyone. Which was shame because the bumps were extremely soft and really no ice inbetween. But people avoided it like the plague.

 

Sadly, there was a bad accident at the bottom of Margies. I don't know if it was a collision or just somebody out of control but the person was taken off unconscious on the stretcher.

 

And yet again we picked the trail where the Rangers stopped everyone to get their opinion on the snow conditions. Yup, right at the bottom of Margies the Rangers were whistling everyone to stop and talk.

 

Around 4pm the fog started to build up at the top. We quit around 5pm.

 

Cameltop was not open. Don't know why as it was open last weekend and there were less people.

 

So we ate at the base lodge and the food was pretty good. Fries were hot and crunchy. Decent chicken noodle soup. I had two slices of pizza that wasn't bad.

 

My new ski boots that had me in agony last weekend performed beautifully this time. I spent most of my ski time playing around with my stance and technique to get used to the feel.

 

Kudos to the snow makers and groomers at CB. Conditions were great.

 

I'll mention that I love hearing the Christmas music played on the outdoor loudspeakers. I love all things Christmas and I'm a sentimental sap about it so I get a real kick out of skiing and hearing Christmas music......its great being on the slopes before Christmas and hearing "Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let It Snow" or "Winter Wonderland".

[ski911]

They only stop people when there has been an accident. It's part of an investigation to help in case of litigation. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for the help.

[Schif]

They only stop people when there has been an accident. It's part of an investigation to help in case of litigation. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for the help.

Why do you have to stop people? Couldn't the patrolers just ski the trail and see what kind of conditions are there?

[NJSkiFamily]

They only stop people when there has been an accident. It's part of an investigation to help in case of litigation. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for the help.

 

Come to think of it.....both times we got stopped right where there had been an accident.

[Papasteeze]

Why do you have to stop people? Couldn't the patrolers just ski the trail and see what kind of conditions are there?

 

Apparently they aren't qualified as experts to testify. They have to ask thier paying patrons, really that is a pretty lame way of covering yourself at least IMO and what do I know? hahhahaa.

 

yeah, I can hear it now. your honor, we have reports from 20 patrons on that same slope who said it was the best conditions they had skied all season.

 

They would have to pay me to give my comment other than f' off!

[Shadows]

They only stop people when there has been an accident. It's part of an investigation to help in case of litigation. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for the help.

 

is that a new thing? or has it always been like that.

[ski911]

It is not a new thing and it is viewed as a non-biased statement.

[Ski]

It is not a new thing and it is viewed as a non-biased statement.

To your knowledge, has a non-biased witness to snow conditions ever been subpoenaed? I just can't imagine it and I know you guys have been taking the info for years.

[Melissa]

To your knowledge, has a non-biased witness to snow conditions ever been subpoenaed? I just can't imagine it and I know you guys have been taking the info for years.

 

I would imagine it would be unnecessary to subpoena a snow condition witness... Those statements made to the investigator would come in as admissible hearsay as a present sense impression. Because the statements are most likely admissible hearsay, the investigator (patroller, whomever) could testify to the conditions of the snow as reported by the wintesses, thus rendering their actual presence in court unnecessary.

[Ski]

I would imagine it would be unnecessary to subpoena a snow condition witness... Those statements made to the investigator would come in as admissible hearsay as a present sense impression. Because the statements are most likely admissible hearsay, the investigator (patroller, whomever) could testify to the conditions of the snow as reported by the wintesses, thus rendering their actual presence in court unnecessary.

I'm trying to draw a parallel with a car accident scene on private property. A mall owner commissions a security guard to take statements from various non-witnesses as to the weather conditions during a fender bender in the parking lot.

 

There's a judge out there who would consider an unsworn letter from some random passerby gathered by a private investigator? I just don't see the value in it. How would you go about cross examining the letter?

 

I know it's a big part of an accident investigators job to gather eye witness statements and they are used by insurance companies all the time. But unsworn expert testimony by novice skiers regarding surface conditions? And these people didn't witness the actual accident...

 

[Melissa]

I'm trying to draw a parallel with a car accident scene on private property. A mall owner commissions a security guard to take statements from various non-witnesses as to the weather conditions during a fender bender in the parking lot.

 

There's a judge out there who would consider an unsworn letter from some random passerby gathered by a private investigator? I just don't see the value in it. How would you go about cross examining the letter?

 

I know it's a big part of an accident investigators job to gather eye witness statements and they are used by insurance companies all the time. But unsworn expert testimony by novice skiers regarding surface conditions? And these people didn't witness the actual accident...

 

 

The crux of the issue is how the witness is categorized... I do not think you have to be an expert to testify as to the conditions of the snow on which you are skiing. An expert under the Federal Rules of Evidence is someone who has specialized knowledge and is thus able to give opinions on subjects that a lay person does not have knowledge of (like the standard of care used in a medical procedure or something). Lay persons are able to give opinions on things that they know about. For example, ski, if you were involved in a car accident, and were asked on direct to please describe the weather that day, you could say "well, the temp was about xx degrees, it was rainy, and visibiltity low." You don't have a degree in meterology, but you are certainly qualified to offer your opinion as to the weather conditions because you were, in fact, driving in the rain that day. Likewise, a skier is qualified to testify as to the conditions of the slope on which s/he was skiing that day. To take it a step further, an expert could be called to offer opinion testimony, such as, would the slope conditions have created a hazard to a person like the plaintiff. I hope this explains my point.

 

Also, in rereading your post, I think I need to address a few things. First, obviously such a witness would only be able to testify as to the conditions of the ski slope (and thus actually witnessing the accident would be immaterial to the veracity of the statement given). Second, hearsay exceptions are not subject to cross-examination, obviously, so that is an issue. However, the hearsay exceptions codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence are considered to be especially truthful, which is why they are admissible despite the inability to cross-examine them. (the only time the inability to cross ex a hearsay statement becomes a problem is when such a statement violates a defendent's constitution right to confront their accuser). Third, I'd like to point out that I do not actually know whether such statements would be admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception, this is just my best, unresearched guess as to why they collect those statements.

[Ski]

The crux of the issue is how the witness is categorized... I do not think you have to be an expert to testify as to the conditions of the snow on which you are skiing. An expert under the Federal Rules of Evidence is someone who has specialized knowledge and is thus able to give opinions on subjects that a lay person does not have knowledge of (like the standard of care used in a medical procedure or something). Lay persons are able to give opinions on things that they know about. For example, ski, if you were involved in a car accident, and were asked on direct to please describe the weather that day, you could say "well, the temp was about xx degrees, it was rainy, and visibiltity low." You don't have a degree in meterology, but you are certainly qualified to offer your opinion as to the weather conditions because you were, in fact, driving in the rain that day. Likewise, a skier is qualified to testify as to the conditions of the slope on which s/he was skiing that day. To take it a step further, an expert could be called to offer opinion testimony, such as, would the slope conditions have created a hazard to a person like the plaintiff. I hope this explains my point.

 

Also, in rereading your post, I think I need to address a few things. First, obviously such a witness would only be able to testify as to the conditions of the ski slope (and thus actually witnessing the accident would be immaterial to the veracity of the statement given). Second, hearsay exceptions are not subject to cross-examination, obviously, so that is an issue. However, the hearsay exceptions codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence are considered to be especially truthful, which is why they are admissible despite the inability to cross-examine them. (the only time the inability to cross ex a hearsay statement becomes a problem is when such a statement violates a defendent's constitution right to confront their accuser). Third, I'd like to point out that I do not actually know whether such statements would be admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception, this is just my best, unresearched guess as to why they collect those statements.

 

I don't take issue with any of that, but right off the bat is the problem: a private investigator (CB Ranger) is asking for statements from people skiing the same trail, but not the same exact part of the trail in which the accident occurred. Further, the court has no idea of the actual expertise of the snow condition witness. Also in the mix is the high probability that the resort has listed conditions for that trail as machine-groomed packed powder when there's a high probability that it's wrong.

 

Okay, so a CB Ranger takes the stand and is allowed under direct to read a snow condition witness (not accident witness) statement that says "it was machine-groomed packed powder just like it said on the conditions page."

 

Well, there you go. The slope was safe and should not have had any special warnings or have been closed. Any culpability is quickly dismissed.

 

How is that scenario not completely prejudicial? I'd need to know if there was bias because he/she had read the conditions page. What route down the slope the witness had taken. How many times they'd taken that route and if they could have been mistaken on exactly which route was the one taken just prior to being questioned. And then I'd have to get into questions regarding snow and ice quality and their experience with varying conditions. Further, I'd need to know if they felt intimidated by the resort employee and exactly how each question was posed.

 

My feeling is that it's nothing more than a self-serving, "feel good" practice. I just can't see any probative value. And if the Ranger discards even one statement, there begins another set of problems.

 

I'm not bashing Rangers about this...I'm honestly curious. I think it's pretty cool and unique to have a patroller and lawyer to shed a little light on something that effects a lot of us. Just what's the real use of being whistled over to give those statements.

[Shadows]

i think you guys are taking this too seriously?

i kind of assumed it had nothing to do with the snow, it was just a way of making contact with people on the trail to see if they had anything to say about the incident that occurred. that would be useful info in the "investigation"

[Ski]

i think you guys are taking this too seriously?

i kind of assumed it had nothing to do with the snow, it was just a way of making contact with people on the trail to see if they had anything to say about the incident that occurred. that would be useful info in the "investigation"

Maybe. And that's fine. I'm just curious, though. I was stopped a couple of times at CB.

[Papasteeze]

i think you guys are taking this too seriously?

i kind of assumed it had nothing to do with the snow, it was just a way of making contact with people on the trail to see if they had anything to say about the incident that occurred. that would be useful info in the "investigation"

 

naaaaa.. it's good stuff... interesting to know and think more about.

[Papasteeze]

I just can't see any probative value. And if the Ranger discards even one statement, there begins another set of problems.

 

 

On any given "packed powder" day at CB - I would think the majority of the people would call the conditions icy.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Papasteeze

[ski911]

Not only are they looking for "general" opinions on the overall conditions of the trail in question, they are also looking for possible witnessess to the incident. Alot of times, they will go back to the scene to see what is going on.