What Snoqualmie will mean for parks and small areas

[Lando]

In case somehow you managed to miss all this here is the original story

 

http://www.saminfo.com/news/article.php?tid=1333

 

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the decision the dude made to pursue litigation, rather what effect it will have on the smaller resorts. I don't have any hard stats on this but it does seem like the influx of riders because of the parks has kept a lot of the smaller mountains going. Doe failed but Bear seems to be doing pretty well from what I heard though that has alot more to do with the hotel and stuff. Because of the career I happen to be in I have heard a ass load of talk about this, some mountains killed the bigger hits, others have talked about no park next year and still others have done nothing. The only thing that is certain is that insurance premiums have and will continue to rise. Youths tend to drive sports and if you take them out of the snow sports equation things are going to get amazingly boring. Any thoughts ?

 

P.S. About a billion people hit this jump before the tool bag above did, all had no problems.

[kragan]

We can be a little bit more respectful of the kid, who is now a quadriplegic, and not call him a tool bag. I am sure that his parents, who would have had to shoulder the financial burden, made all decisions on wether or not to persue the litigation.

 

If the ruling is based on the fact that him over-shooting the landing is do to poor design, this can set a pretty bad president. If you hit almost any feature hard and fast enough, you can over-shoot the landing.

[snorovr]

Any thoughts ?

 

 

Ya.

 

There is a thread on this topic already... I tried to dig it up and merge the two but I can't seem to find it real quick. Anyone remember what it was called? Had some good reactions on this topic.

 

Whats your career Lando???

 

When I have a little more time tonight I wanna dig around for a thread to link up from www.mtbr.com and find a similar case in downhill mountain biking where . That thread went on for soooo many pages. Guy ended up with a similar injury and sued because he had to pay his bills. He was an avid biker and hated to sue but there was really going to be no other way that he was going to be able to pay for the necessary medical bills and the needed upgrades to his house. When that case first became news there was a very similar reaction, "what a tool!! this guy is going to ruin it for everyone!!" etc...

Edited April 19, 2007 by youngstunta

[Lando]

Ya.

 

There is a thread on this topic already... I tried to dig it up and merge the two but I can't seem to find it real quick. Anyone remember what it was called? Had some good reactions on this topic.

 

Whats your career Lando???

 

When I have a little more time tonight I wanna dig around for a thread to link up from www.mtbr.com and find a similar case in downhill mountain biking where . That thread went on for soooo many pages. Guy ended up with a similar injury and sued because he had to pay his bills. He was an avid biker and hated to sue but there was really going to be no other way that he was going to be able to pay for the necessary medical bills and the needed upgrades to his house. When that case first became news there was a very similar reaction, "what a tool!! this guy is going to ruin it for everyone!!" etc...

 

I could be more respectful but I won't be. His decision is not what this thread was about.

 

Sorry, I didn't see there was a thread already on this. I'm a corporate attorney, generally I'm litigation but our firm has a long relationship with the insurance industry. Also my cousin is snow sports director of a midsize ski area. I didn't want to start a discussion over the moral question, rather what effect this will have on small areas. There is a crap load of talk in the industry about this right now and it would frankly suck to see a McPark approach to snow sports.

[Lando]

We can be a little bit more respectful of the kid, who is now a quadriplegic, and not call him a tool bag. I am sure that his parents, who would have had to shoulder the financial burden, made all decisions on wether or not to persue the litigation.

 

If the ruling is based on the fact that him over-shooting the landing is do to poor design, this can set a pretty bad president. If you hit almost any feature hard and fast enough, you can over-shoot the landing.

 

This shouldn't have happned, in Colorado, between the Skier Safety Act of 1979, and the Senate Bill 80 of 1989, it is extremely difficult to bring this type of case to court. It has been tried, and most have been summarily dismissed. Even appeals to the State Supreme Court have not been successful. These laws are NOT applicable when machinery has been involved (snowmobiles, lifts, snowcats, etc). In my opinon similar laws should be passed nationwide.

 

The ruling is based on about a billion things some of which have nothing to do with the design of the hit, thank god the judge stepped in and cut the award in half.

[Papasteeze]

Park passes........... I know, but seriously.... Another specific form that requires you to acknowledge the danger of parks is what should happen..

 

 

 

 

OH........ I thought it interesting to get grief about suggesting that salt.................. nevermind..

 

 

This is the guys myspace - don't check it out unless you like getting even more pissed off about this issue.

 

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendID=19738422

Edited April 19, 2007 by Papasteeze

[splooshie]

haha it says the guy flew 110 feet..... i wonder how big the jump was? either way he must have been going damn fast...

 

and anyway, big jumps will always be around due to park passes, waivers, etc.

i still dont get how he sued, on every lift ticket it says you cant sue the mountain....

Edited April 19, 2007 by splooshie

[Dan-]

I honestly think it's BS that he won the case. Regardless of his current state, and his financial problems. It was his choice to hit the jump, he decided not to play it safe, watch others, see how it was done. It was his own fault. Not snowqualimie's. I read something about this along time ago so i don't remember specifics, but he's blaming snowqualimie for having the jump not built properly, than why did he hit it in the first place.. It's common sense. It's people like this that are ruining the sport for everyone, because they don't think they before they leap.

[Papasteeze]

The park builders cult has a lot of really good responses.. This is an article from the Seattle Times.

 

After a five-week trial, a King County jury on Friday awarded $14 million to a 27-year-old skier who was paralyzed after dropping 37 feet from a ski jump at the Summit at Snoqualmie.

 

Kenny Salvini, of Lake Tapps, was 23 years old when he went off the jump at the Central Terrain Park at Snoqualmie Central and landed on compact snow and ice in February 2004, said his attorney, Jack Connelly.

 

During the trial at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, "information came out ... that the man who built [the jump] eyeballed it with a Sno-Cat" rather than engineering a design, Connelly said.

 

Engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis, testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area, Connelly said, adding that ski jumps are supposed to be sloped so that energy from a vertical jump is transferred into a skier's forward motion on landing.

 

"Going off this jump was the equivalent of jumping off a three-story building," Connelly said. "If you're going to be throwing kids 37 feet in the air, these jumps need to be engineered, designed and constructed properly."

 

Officials from the Summit at Snoqualmie on Friday afternoon wouldn't answer questions about the incident but released a statement. It said risk is inherent in snow sports, but, "that said, any time there is an incident, our genuine thoughts and prayers are with our guests and their families."

 

The statement said Summit officials "are disappointed but respectful of the [trial] process."

 

According to Connelly, other people were injured on the same jump in the weeks before Salvini's accident, including a snowboarder who broke his back. A week after Salvini was injured, 19-year-old Peter Melrose of Bellevue died going off a different jump at the same terrain park, he said.

 

"There were 10 accidents with eight people taken off the slope in a toboggan" in the weeks before Salvini was hurt, landing on what Connelly said was a flat surface. In all, he said, evidence of 15 earlier accidents was admitted into evidence but "nothing was done" by ski operators to fix or close the faulty jumps.

 

The full jury award was for about $31 million, Connelly said, explaining that the amount was decreased to $14 million after calculating "the comparative fault" of his client and "the inherent risk of the sport."

 

Before he was injured, Salvini, now a quadriplegic, was captain of the wrestling team at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, where he graduated in engineering technology, Connelly said. His mother is now his full-time caregiver.

 

Over the course of his life, Salvini's medical needs are estimated to cost between $23 million and $26 million, Connelly said.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Papasteeze

[ski911]

At what point are we responsible for our own actions? I feel extremely bad that this happened to the gentleman, but, I have a hard time believeing that someone from the area forced him to hurl himself 110' in the air. It really is pretty simple. If you over shoot the landing, you went too fast.

My understanding is that the area did have waivers and the appropriate signage. I may be wrong on that though.

 

I am curious to see what comes out of this.

[Dan-]

At what point are we responsible for our own actions? I feel extremely bad that this happened to the gentleman, but, I have a hard time believeing that someone from the area forced him to hurl himself 110' in the air. It really is pretty simple. If you over shoot the landing, you went too fast.

My understanding is that the area did have waivers and the appropriate signage. I may be wrong on that though.

 

I am curious to see what comes out of this.

 

 

As in what? the trail is already over, the man won, and was rewarded 14 million.

 

The only thing i see coming out of it, is now everyone will think they can win a lawsuit, and every jackass getting hurt skiing or snowboarding is going to try and sue...

[snorovr]

The park builders cult

 

I've requested to get into this cult like twice! Am I being given a hint that I am not welcome there since I haven't received an invite??? I'd love to go over some of the info there...

[Papasteeze]

I've requested to get into this cult like twice! Am I being given a hint that I am not welcome there since I haven't received an invite??? I'd love to go over some of the info there...

 

whats your screen name?

[Lando]

i still dont get how he sued, on every lift ticket it says you cant sue the mountain....

 

legally you can't sign away you right to sue regarding negligence. Basically all waivers at the end of day are BS if you got enough money and time there worth jack.

[rgrwilco]

I could be more respectful but I won't be. His decision is not what this thread was about.

 

Sorry, I didn't see there was a thread already on this. I'm a corporate attorney, generally I'm litigation but our firm has a long relationship with the insurance industry. Also my cousin is snow sports director of a midsize ski area. I didn't want to start a discussion over the moral question, rather what effect this will have on small areas. There is a crap load of talk in the industry about this right now and it would frankly suck to see a McPark approach to snow sports.

 

 

totally agree. i see people overshoot landings all the time, especially this season in bears black bear park. im gonna go into a beginner park somewhere and overshoot a 10 foot table so i break my arm and sue. america pisses me off. in canada judges through out stupid shit like this.

 

dont get me wrong, i completely feel for the dude, and im not trying to be insensitive, im just speaking my opinion on the situation. what happens sucks big floppy donkey parts, but terrain parks are not safe. there are signs that say injury or death can occur. if his death was the cause of another skier or boarder in some way, then a lawsuit agains the person is reasonable.

 

papasteeze, i did look at his myspace. i felt bad and still do, but as i looked further not as much. especially when i saw the "make sure this doesnt happen to someone else tidbit". christopher reeve didnt call for certain horses to be deemed unridable or anything like that.

Edited April 20, 2007 by collective addiction

[DHarrisburg]

christopher reeve didnt call for certain horses to be deemed unridable or anything like that.

 

No, but some people think he was a jerk for not caring about spinal cord injuries until his accident.