tldr; Man paralysed at Bachelor on a 'badly designed' jump is trying to sue Mt Bachelor and it has reached the Supreme Court.
May 17 2014 10:11PM
It's very sad to hear that someone has been paralysed from the waist down. Although seriously how can you sue a resort for your own idiocy? The case is so flawed from the plaintiff won't ever hold up, unless there is serious evidence in way of the jump being poorly maintained by Mt Bachelor but I highly doubt even that would hold up in court due to the waver you have to sign to get a pass.
May 17 2014 10:18PM
May 17 2014 10:22PM
Idk why its not federal law but Maine State Law says you CANNOT sue ski resorts. Should be that way everywhere, obviously the resort should have an interest in making the mountain safe and taking precautions to ensure people don't hurt themselves, but I don't believe ski resorts should be held liable in cases like this which make up the vast majority of ski resort litigation. There's probably never a case where an advanced skier hurt himself on an exposed rock that was blind coming down the hill and not marked with signs or rope. It's always gapers who eat shit not knowing their limits and then feel the need to blame the resort for their own stupidity.
May 17 2014 10:25PM
skeazlaurenIt's very sad to hear that someone has been paralysed from the waist down. Although seriously how can you sue a resort for your own idiocy? The case is so flawed from the plaintiff won't ever hold up, unless there is serious evidence in way of the jump being poorly maintained by Mt Bachelor but I highly doubt even that would hold up in court due to the waver you have to sign to get a pass.
That's the problem though. This court case is trying to get them to nullify the waiver in regards to the park. Which would be seriously detrimental to parks all over the US and potentially the world.
May 17 2014 10:29PM
From the article, the justices sound like they know more about this stuff than him or his lawyers. Especially the lawyers... Also, I just want to add that this is Mt Bachelor we're talking about here. They know how to build stuff.
Here's another article with a bit more info on the previous court findings:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/home/1678883-151/oregon-supreme-court-allows-review-in-mt-bachelor#
May 18 2014 12:08AM
some reading for y'all who say he won't win, and lift ticket liability clauses:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003655847_skijumpaward07m.html
May 18 2014 12:14AM
May 18 2014 1:12AM
May 18 2014 1:12AM
cobra_commandersome reading for y'all who say he won't win, and lift ticket liability clauses:http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003655847_skijumpaward07m.html
Good, fuck them for leavin a piece of shit in charge of building jumps after a dude dies. Seriously, a guy dies on a jump and they dont look into the design of the jump. Fuck
May 18 2014 1:55AM
May 18 2014 2:56AM
Similar situation happened at loveland maybe two/three years back. A lady hit a jump and hurt/broke her back; loveland lost their park for the following year and possibly the year after that...For what it's worth, lovelands park is shit, but to sue a resort for an action you consciously made your self is fucking disgusting, take some god damn responsibility for your actions. What a pussy, this dude either wants to save face for sucking or to make money, or both. There is no legitimate reason behind that case.
May 18 2014 2:58AM
B.AussieThat's the problem though. This court case is trying to get them to nullify the waiver in regards to the park. Which would be seriously detrimental to parks all over the US and potentially the world.
lol
only Britain and the US have a history of constant suing for anything. No where in the world will follow the shit rules you might get afterwards, because it's almost impossible to sue in Europe and the rest of the world in non work related accidents. It's a joke, you can literally sue about anything in the US, ooh I burnt my mouth, give me a mil maccie ds.
May 18 2014 3:07AM
Turkeltonlolonly Britain and the US have a history of constant suing for anything. No where in the world will follow the shit rules you might get afterwards, because it's almost impossible to sue in Europe and the rest of the world in non work related accidents. It's a joke, you can literally sue about anything in the US, ooh I burnt my mouth, give me a mil maccie ds.
I'm from Australia so I was more versed in the laws here. It's not the norm to sue for everything here and our legal system is a lot different to that of the US. However, last year a women sued one of our resorts because she got hit by a chairlift and won. The incident was considered outside the constraints of the waiver, which could extrapolate to parks being outside of this too. Once the precedent is there regardless of which country it is coming for it needs to further looked at by the managements of resorts.
May 18 2014 3:25AM
cobra_commandersome reading for y'all who say he won't win, and lift ticket liability clauses:http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003655847_skijumpaward07m.html
"information came out ... that the man who built [the jump] eyeballed it with a Sno-Cat" rather than engineering a design, Connelly said.
From the article... that quote sounds perfectly normal coming from a lot of well known jump builders. Sure they might have guidelines worked out beforehand but more often than not aren't all jumps just 'eye-balled from a Sno-Cat'?
Hopefully there was real neglect here. Shitty, never maintained jumps should be enough for resorts to shell out to injured riders. But average and maintained jumps? Nope.
May 18 2014 5:12AM
May 18 2014 5:33AM
freestyler540I think the guy should thank patrol for getting his ass safely down the mountain and to the ambulance.
.
I wish people didn't only think about money these days, cause that's the only reason people get up to deuchebaggery like this. Fuck him, when people go skiing they accept that injuries WILL happen, and some can be pretty serious. Knees, back neck it all happens. It really pisses me off when something like this happens, I remember that australian case with the woman suing the resort, and it was just so stupid.
May 18 2014 5:55AM
B.AussieThat's the problem though. This court case is trying to get them to nullify the waiver in regards to the park. Which would be seriously detrimental to parks all over the US and potentially the world.
A case set in America doesn't have precedent over Australia or any other country. If the man does win then it could be harsh for America's parks.
May 18 2014 6:16AM
May 18 2014 6:20AM
May 18 2014 7:17AM
May 18 2014 10:02AM
May 18 2014 10:18AM
DingoSeanGranted, this did happen in 2006..
yeah this definitely changes things
but even then there were still signs outside every terrain park that stated you must read the conditions upon entering. I can't imagine there was nothing along the lines of "man made features change over time and are never perfect"
sucks for him but suing the mountain for your own stupidity/bad luck isn't going to get him much sympathy.
May 18 2014 1:07PM
fucking idiot... he hit something that was out of his league and now he wants money for the rest of his life from his mistake. if he wins parks are going to be fucked in the US cause everyone will be terrified of our "sue happiness" that is taking over, he is screwing everyone else
guess what, i ate shit this year from coming too short on a jump and broke my wrist, was it the resorts fault for making the jump to big to clear? no it was my dumbass who kept trying to hit it even though the speed sucked, my actions caused my injury, not some poorly made jump
hope the judge laughs in his face and throws the case out
May 18 2014 1:13PM
May 18 2014 2:08PM
I can see how he might want to sue after an accident like that, especially in the us where he'l be paying for medical care for the rest of his life. It seems to me that americans sue in situations like this because they have no choice. No one could afford those expenses without some kind of a settlement.
Hopefully the sport can survive the scrutiny that comes with cases like this. There are already enough doctors and IOC officials worried about the "high risks". I think the problem here is that anyone on the mountain is allowed to hit the big jumps. The solution is the extra park pass to keep the gapers in the small terrain park where they won't break their backs. After all you would never let random people try to hit a top level bobsled course without signing that they had experience and knew the risks.
It sucks to have to regulate park skiing, but it has to happen to keep the beginners safe. Sad to say that gapers are just people, and we really can't expect people not to sue resorts if they die or become handicapped skiing park. I would rather pay the extra money for the park pass knowing that Im not going to kill some random kid chilling in the landing or have to watch someone break their back trying to copy me.
May 18 2014 2:17PM
The problem is the jump could've actually been flawed. About 4 years ago at mount snow they had a very badly made jump in nitro. When I'm not on my phone I'll have to draw a very shitty picture of how it was laid out. But it was a 15 foot jump on a very steep slope and I took the thing to the bottom of the slope so I took it about 35ft to flat on a 15 ft jump. Dub ejected and a Level 3 separation of my ac in my shoulder, and I know I was like, one of 15 people to fuck myself up on that jump. Should I have sued, no but I know it was unsafe and they kept that jump open anyway.any way that being said should he get 1,000,000's no probably not. But i'd like to see the jump in question.
May 18 2014 4:16PM
May 18 2014 7:01PM
May 18 2014 9:03PM
zzzskizzzThe problem is the jump could've actually been flawed. About 4 years ago at mount snow they had a very badly made jump in nitro. When I'm not on my phone I'll have to draw a very shitty picture of how it was laid out. But it was a 15 foot jump on a very steep slope and I took the thing to the bottom of the slope so I took it about 35ft to flat on a 15 ft jump. Dub ejected and a Level 3 separation of my ac in my shoulder, and I know I was like, one of 15 people to fuck myself up on that jump. Should I have sued, no but I know it was unsafe and they kept that jump open anyway.any way that being said should he get 1,000,000's no probably not. But i'd like to see the jump in question.
this is why you check out jumps before hitting them
May 18 2014 9:33PM
May 18 2014 9:41PM
cabdriverthis is why you check out jumps before hitting them
agreed. Ive done the same thing, but that was my fault. You should always speed check a jump or check out how other people are hitting it before sending. Clearly if you went 35 instead of 15 feet you were going WAY too fast.
Eff this dude trying to get money out of his tragic, but stupid accident.
May 18 2014 10:08PM
May 18 2014 10:18PM
May 18 2014 10:20PM
207Idk why its not federal law but Maine State Law says you CANNOT sue ski resorts. Should be that way everywhere, obviously the resort should have an interest in making the mountain safe and taking precautions to ensure people don't hurt themselves, but I don't believe ski resorts should be held liable in cases like this which make up the vast majority of ski resort litigation. There's probably never a case where an advanced skier hurt himself on an exposed rock that was blind coming down the hill and not marked with signs or rope. It's always gapers who eat shit not knowing their limits and then feel the need to blame the resort for their own stupidity.
I have to disagree a resort should be held liable given neglagence was involved
May 18 2014 11:55PM
using the word fuck and idiot in the same sentence about the guy is about as lame as it gets. what a bunch of ass wipes on this forum. Someone claims a jump was shit in 2006, they torn down the entire Air Chamber Terrain Park (best in the PNW) so great they ripped the "permanent" structures down. Word is the jump sucked - lips too big, flat landing. That is how Bach rolled back in those years. Non existent maintenance and pot heads pushing snow "dude looks good" mentality. This is all possible. Use your imaginations is that is possible.
May 19 2014 1:26AM
I cant speak to the design of the jumps. But having a quadriplegic member in my family I can attest that in most cases like this it is so the family can even attempt to cover medical costs. Do any of you have a clue what the costs involved are? Do you guys have any concept of what it costs to take care of a mid 20 something year old that got paralayzed from the neck down for the rest of their lives?
Again, I have hit some shitty jumps and it sucks. Guy shouldn't of fucked up but I haven't seen the jump in question or the plaintiffs argument for why exactly it was improperly shaped. (beyond the eyeball comment).
Tough to try to judge this one from my POV. Atleast my cousin's injury didn't affect terrain parks I guess.