tldr; Man paralysed at Bachelor on a 'badly designed' jump is trying to sue Mt Bachelor and it has reached the Supreme Court.
May 19 2014 2:17AM
May 19 2014 2:25AM
B.Aussiehttps://www.newschoolers.com/membernewsread/45251/Mt--Bachelor-responsible-for-defective-jump-that-paralyzed-snowboarder--state-Supreme-Court-toldtldr; Man paralysed at Bachelor on a 'badly designed' jump is trying to sue Mt Bachelor and it has reached the Supreme Court.
However, it was purely an accident. He has the choice to either use the jump rail or not anyway. I don't think Mt. Bachelor is 100% reliable for his actions. Still, I believe that they should give help for what has been done.
May 19 2014 8:28AM
nuno81291I 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.
I'm not trying to be insensitive whatsoever, but when you enter the terrain park or ski mountain, you are (or at least should be) entirely responsible for your own actions. It's a risky sport, period. Even the best in the world get injured or killed on a regular basis. Obviously it's a very unfortunate situation and the medical bills are staggering, but that is not the ski mountain's responsibility. It's the victim's.
Yes, the mountain should be designing jumps properly, but there is no definable industry standard. It's all "eye-balled" to some extent. These guys aren't engineers, they drive cats and you're going to have a hard time finding engineers willing to work on a groomer's salary.
A ski mountain should never be responsible for paying for a skier or boarder's mistake, hence the liability clause. It's just a product of America's sue-happy nature and a desperate family willing to do anything they can to help their son, which I completely understand. It's just a tough situation overall. I think the key is to raise safety awareness to park's in general. The question is, how?
Stratton used to have an "advanced" park and you had to watch a safety video and take a short quiz to get a season park-pass. I've heard of a few other mountains doing it as well but it has never been more widely adopted. I thought it was a good idea in theory but tough in execution. If a person is not going to use common sense and ski beyond their limits, bad things are bound to happen; a 30 minute video isn't going to stop them but perhaps deter a few.
May 19 2014 8:42AM
Ok I get it. No one said Bach is 100% responsible. In OR laws are about comparative negligence, that means each party has a certain responsibility in this. Just like a zillions other states. Bach had someone killed in that Park and by law was suppose to call the Sheriff to report it. So the sheriff finds out about it 2 days later - reading it in the paper. Talk about sketchy management! What if the jump had problems? No need to hire engineers to work TPs. How about consultants? How about CAD software? How about measuring stuff? How about checking it out before the mountain opens? I think these are questions people are asking. Nothing happened to terrain parks after a big lawsuit in WA. Other than resorts became more aware. You say no standards - they are studying them and have been for years. Not only the USTPC but the ASTM - looking at how they can be made safer. Answer this simple question - what incentive does a resort have to be safe? What do you mean scope it out?
May 19 2014 9:14AM
Perfect response to heartless comments. How about next time you go over a jump you are paralyzed? Would your comments be the same? If this forum is for "smart boarders" who care about their sport how about having a civil conversation about how things can improve? I don't buy the build and they will come mentality, no matter how crappy it is built, to allow resorts not to be more proactive in safety. They do not warrant special protection. OR has a ski statute that was written in 1979 and never amended, unlike CO which has been amended 3-4 times, further immunizing resorts. They need protection, it is dangerous, but protection only for inherent risks. Anything beyond that is called negligence. Statute allows for negligence lawsuits but resorts, scared little shits who only care about revenue and bottom line, decide - hey let's ALSO use waivers. Unchecked industries, particularly on public lands, need someone to keep an eye on them. Unfortunately in the USA lawsuits tend to keep things in check.
May 19 2014 12:34PM
May 19 2014 1:17PM
To everyone saying that there's no way he could win remember the Salvini case?
Kenny Salvini got $14 million from the 2004 crash.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003655847_skijumpaward07m.html
I understand the people wanting to sue. These aren't all people looking to get rich. Cases like Salvini's were due to massive medical expenses. What sucks is when people win though. I can't really blame them for suing when shit hits the fan like that, I can't imagine being in that position. The problem is that big lawsuits have a big impact on the industry.
What scares me is the thought that one day I'll no longer be able to build a good jump my way because it doesn't meet some useless standard. There are many ways to build a safe jump and many ways to build a shitty jump. It would suck to have engineer made standards in place where you have to set up a jump in this way, you can't have this kind of rail. My favorite thing about my job is the ability to be creative.
Unfortunately even on the most perfectly built booter there is the ability to get very seriously injured. Also even a jump was built to a certain size specification, things change throughout the season with grooming and weather.
I feel like having competent people that test features is still the best thing.
I'm hoping that the terrain park industry is big enough, mainstream enough, and ingrained enough to hold on even if shit hits the fan. Some of the most wildly creative and straight up huge shit is being built these days. At the same time everything's getting safer for the most part.
I guess we'll see.
May 19 2014 3:53PM
There is an art to this all as you say, but there is also a science. Blending the 2 is the safest way to build jumps. It is 2014 and the comments here are the same as they were in 2007 when Salvini was hurt. Improvements have been made due to his lawsuit. I am not convinced the ski industry would make those improvements without being pushed from outside factors. They too didn't believe that safer jumps were possible, but they decided the best thing to do is be part of the discussion and are on the Board of the ASTM Terrain Park Committee for Making Safer Jumps. That is telling to me
May 19 2014 4:26PM
theabortionatorUnfortunately even on the most perfectly built booter there is the ability to get very seriously injured. Also even a jump was built to a certain size specification, things change throughout the season with grooming and weather.
You get it.
A jump can be made relatively safe, there is no way a jump can be designed so that 100% of the liability is assigned to the rider. I'd much rather have an experienced park crew than just some engineer from a consulting firm (even though I am an engineer myself).
For example, say an engineer is meticulously designing a jump line so the rider is able to maintain the speed required to hit every jump and land safely. The problem is that in making these calculations, there are assumptions that have to be made. You have average rider height, weight, snow temperature/wax selection, stomped vs. ok landing, how high on the jump the rider lands, does he tuck in between jumps or stand up, tall-t or racing suit, etc. At the end of the day, despite the money spent, it may be only marginally more accurate than what an experienced crew could design.
The rider has to assume risk for participating in a dangerous niche of a risky sport. It should be 100% the responsibility of the rider to evaluate a feature and judge whether or not they are capable of hitting it safely.
May 19 2014 4:47PM
Just to point out to you guys...this is why mountains with big parks (or with parks at all) tend to have additional insurance versus smaller places or places that refuse to build parks for that very reason, they don't want to fork out the extra dough for insurance.
For my construction company which is a small crew, I have 10 million liability. God forbid something went wrong, and not due to our negligence, my insurance would help cover the costs involved.
So for you guys saying sue happy etc, I say you don't quite know the whole picture. I don't either and that is why I cannot speak to their builds, the conditions, the skill level or what not of the parties involved. I doubt if this kid gets a portion of his medical costs covered it would actually come from Bachelor's own pocket...
And when one of your noob friends or godforbid family members puts you in a similar situation to mine maybe you guys will ask more questions about the scenario before simply calling the guy a money hungry jack ass. The guy will most likely never walk again. You guys have no idea what his quality of life has most likely become. And you guys are worried about your terrain parks? How about you be more worried that the rails and jumps you hit are as safe as they reasonably can be, and that your insurance, your mountains insurance would cover you god forbid your life was forever changed like this poor guy.
gloomy times here
May 19 2014 9:04PM
"Agreed, too bad this "flawed" jump didn't make him full vegetable. " from Blingbrotha2
You my friend are a fucking idiot. It is snowboarders like you who give this sport a bad rap. Why don't you crawl back into your mama's womb and try being born again. What a senseless, heartless, inhumane comment. You are sickening.
May 19 2014 9:14PM
IF this jump was lame, call it defective whatever, there is a responsibility resorts have to patrons. It is called premise liability under common law. Pretty simple. If you read the case is at the Supreme Court ONLY because of a waiver challenge. This kid is trying to get through the waiver so he can have a trial and present his facts. Bach doesn't have a good track record for safety, especially in the early to mid 2000's. 3 Presidents in less than 8 years - fired Direction of Operations, fired Director of Maintenance, fired Director of Communications and fired someone else. Been through how many TP manager's in the last 10 years - 4 or 5 maybe? It wouldn't surprise me at all if this jump was fucked up. Why would they close the Air Chamber terrain park after hailing it the best in the PNW? If things are so great you don't shut it all down? Haven't seen Hood to that... There are 2 sides to this and it is stupid for your sport to only look at it from one.
May 19 2014 9:43PM
You my friend are a fucking idiot. It is snowboarders like you who give this sport a bad rap. Why don't you crawl back into your mama's womb and try being born again. What a senseless, heartless, inhumane comment. You are sickening.[/QUOTE
It's obvious you made your account strictly so you can add to this discussion, I've noticed your handle on numerous other sites while I was researching this case. I have no problem with you doing this and actually encourage you to express your opinions. However, you need to get two things straight before you continue posting here.1. This site is primarily (99%) skiers, not snowboarders. If you take 5 sec to look at the front page you would see that.
2. This site has by far the easiest quote function on the internet, just click the box at the top of a user's post and voila, a quote. It's cleaner, faster, and allows the rest of us to follow your discussion.
Thank you.
May 19 2014 9:50PM
ANDR01DIt's obvious you made your account strictly so you can add to this discussion, I've noticed your handle on numerous other sites while I was researching this case. I have no problem with you doing this and actually encourage you to express your opinions. However, you need to get two things straight before you continue posting here.1. This site is primarily (99%) skiers, not snowboarders. If you take 5 sec to look at the front page you would see that.
2. This site has by far the easiest quote function on the internet, just click the box at the top of a user's post and voila, a quote. It's cleaner, faster, and allows the rest of us to follow your discussion.
Thank you.
Oh the irony. I tell you it's the easiest quote function and I Fuck it up. I give up.
May 19 2014 9:53PM
My bad. I follow ANY suit that goes after resorts. All in the name of education and safety. Also following the drunk snowboarder who injured a patron at Ski Bowl. Mountain claimed inherent risk protection as their defense. I find it interesting to try and find out why, as on forums such as this, that is acceptable. Just can't wrap myself around it. Time for tort reform I guess. If someone can post the person should be a vegetable, I have no problem calling that commenter a douche.
May 19 2014 10:03PM
BeyondInherentMy bad. I follow ANY suit that goes after resorts. All in the name of education and safety. Also following the drunk snowboarder who injured a patron at Ski Bowl. Mountain claimed inherent risk protection as their defense. I find it interesting to try and find out why, as on forums such as this, that is acceptable. Just can't wrap myself around it. Time for tort reform I guess. If someone can post the person should be a vegetable, I have no problem calling that commenter a douche.
Are you a member of one of USTPC or whatever the other one is or do you just enjoy ski resort lawsuits?
May 19 2014 10:11PM
TOAST.Are you a member of one of USTPC or whatever the other one is or do you just enjoy ski resort lawsuits?
I am watching the changes in the ski industry due to lack of safety all around US/Canada. How much they (1)do on their own and (2)how much is forced on them from outside sources such as lawsuits and legislation. It is an interest of mine from many perspectives - keep resorts open to the public but more importantly keep safe resorts open. If my comments appear direct - they are intended to be direct to those who wish harm on people for exercising what I believe is what you call an American right. It is just the way it works south of the border
May 19 2014 10:19PM
BeyondInherentI am watching the changes in the ski industry due to lack of safety all around US/Canada. How much they (1)do on their own and (2)how much is forced on them from outside sources such as lawsuits and legislation. It is an interest of mine from many perspectives - keep resorts open to the public but more importantly keep safe resorts open. If my comments appear direct - they are intended to be direct to those who wish harm on people for exercising what I believe is what you call an American right. It is just the way it works south of the border
Ok I was just wondering. The vegetable comment guy is a moron. What would you propose to make terrain parks safer that wouldn't put the small guys out of a park. To me given enough snow, it does not seem like it would be hard to make a safe jump, the hardest part would be knowing the slope so people can't get too much speed which is why almost every injury I see is on a tiny jump. W
May 19 2014 10:21PM
I've hit the occasional jump where you barely clear the knuckle and then just keep on going into flat.
Some angles just don't work, and places that want to attract kids with a big park need to invest the money to do it properly. Fucking nobody is giving deets on what was actually 'wrong' with the jump though,great journalism. Maybe he just tried to double it first hit, who knows.
That being said, I have no idea about when it's appropriate to sue, our healthcare here looks after us so suing isn't exactly a thing.
May 20 2014 2:24AM
BeyondInherentI am watching the changes in the ski industry due to lack of safety all around US/Canada. How much they (1)do on their own and (2)how much is forced on them from outside sources such as lawsuits and legislation. It is an interest of mine from many perspectives - keep resorts open to the public but more importantly keep safe resorts open. If my comments appear direct - they are intended to be direct to those who wish harm on people for exercising what I believe is what you call an American right. It is just the way it works south of the border
You're like the cchr Westboro Baptist Church and a creationist wrapped into one.
May 20 2014 2:53AM
BeyondInherentThere is an art to this all as you say, but there is also a science. Blending the 2 is the safest way to build jumps. It is 2014 and the comments here are the same as they were in 2007 when Salvini was hurt. Improvements have been made due to his lawsuit. I am not convinced the ski industry would make those improvements without being pushed from outside factors. They too didn't believe that safer jumps were possible, but they decided the best thing to do is be part of the discussion and are on the Board of the ASTM Terrain Park Committee for Making Safer Jumps. That is telling to me
Terrain parks have been getting safer for years. Even without high profile terrain park lawsuits there was a liability concern, and plenty of lawsuits outside of ski areas to keep the concerns up.
As terrain parks have grown mountains have found the need to make better parks and get guests out. At the same time people were learning what works and what doesn't work. People were never intentionally building shitty parks. As the level of riding has progressed so has the building side of things.
If you watched the old contests, even the biggest ones like X you can see a huge difference in the amount of effort being put into the design and construction of features and courses. That is something that was happening to keep up with the sport, not for fear of being sued as much.
IMO the ASTM is more of a reaction to what might happen anyway. People are working with them to make sure that if standards to get in place they aren't total shit.
There never will be a 100% safe jump. Yes there can be a lot of improvements, but to me most of those improvements can be seen right now. I know what a good jump looks and feels like and the same for a shitty one. I don't think the lack of competent building some places is due to not having standards. The mountain that has a huge gap with a landing that has barely any pitch didn't build it like that because there aren't standards, it's because they don't know what they're doing.
ANDR01DYou get it.A jump can be made relatively safe, there is no way a jump can be designed so that 100% of the liability is assigned to the rider. I'd much rather have an experienced park crew than just some engineer from a consulting firm (even though I am an engineer myself).
For example, say an engineer is meticulously designing a jump line so the rider is able to maintain the speed required to hit every jump and land safely. The problem is that in making these calculations, there are assumptions that have to be made. You have average rider height, weight, snow temperature/wax selection, stomped vs. ok landing, how high on the jump the rider lands, does he tuck in between jumps or stand up, tall-t or racing suit, etc. At the end of the day, despite the money spent, it may be only marginally more accurate than what an experienced crew could design.
The rider has to assume risk for participating in a dangerous niche of a risky sport. It should be 100% the responsibility of the rider to evaluate a feature and judge whether or not they are capable of hitting it safely.
Exactly. What are we going to do, make people ski across a scale, put it into a computer and then tell them they need to hit the jump at 22.8 and have a radar gun with the speed on a scoreboard for them to see?
When I ride some mountains I see features and I won't hit them because they're too sketchy. It happens all the time when I ride gore. Maybe I'm being picky but if I really feel that somethings THAT sketchy I won't hit it.
Somebody could argue "What if they aren't good enough to determine that something isn't safe?" They probably aren't good enough to be hitting it.
Terrain parks have come a long way, and things keep improving every year. I would just hate to see anything bad happen with either major lawsuits or standards that might cripple the ability of the builder to be creative.
If it ever get's to the point where I have to talk with engineers, use a radar gun, make a model and spend time running simulations to build reasonably sized features it just doesn't sound like fun anymore.
/lots of words
May 21 2014 1:59PM
May 21 2014 4:03PM
b-kuldoes anyone know if this guy was doing a straight air or some type of invert? because i think all (?) resorts prohibit inverts. seems like a big piece of the equation to me.
Not sure what he was doing but the no invert rule has been dying for a long time. A lot of resorts don't have a no invert policy and many that do don't enforce it. Lucky it seems to be dying out with the leash laws for knuckledraggers.
I feel like a lot of people that get broke in these cases are just straight airing and have no clue what they're doing. If a jump has a steep takeoff and you hit it stupidly fast, don't know where to put your weight on the takeoff, how to pop properly, you can get chucked inverted pretty easily.
A lot of people that don't know what they're doing get sent in the backseat and come down on their back.
May 21 2014 10:31PM
El_Barto.you guys are dicks. hes paraplegic and youre calling him a piece of shit. This could happen to any of us, any time we hit a jump. get a little wonky in the air and break your neck/back.nobody deserves this shit
Were not calling him a piece of shit, because he's paralyzed. Were calling him a piece of shit because he's suing a ski resort, because he fell.
May 21 2014 10:43PM
zzzskizzzWere not calling him a piece of shit, because he's paralyzed. Were calling him a piece of shit because he's suing a ski resort, because he fell.
Maybe bachelor deserves to get sued. Its my home mountaim and its run by twats. For as long as i can remember the jumps have been fine but i normally stay outta the park.
None of us know whos at fault. If it really was a poorly designed jump then he deserves compensation. That would be negligence on bachelors part no different than if they improperly installed one of the summit chairs and it fell of with riders on it.
None of us know who is to blame but we do know we got another Lt. Dan rollin around.
I would sue for medical bills and a sit ski and call it a day if I were him. $20 million is a little much
May 21 2014 10:51PM
zzzskizzzWere not calling him a piece of shit, because he's paralyzed. Were calling him a piece of shit because he's suing a ski resort, because he fell.
I don't think it's fair to label him piece of shit for exercising what is probably his last and only option when faced with the insane medical bills he will be burdened with for the rest of his life.
It's not like he just broke his leg, his "normal" life is over. He has every right to try to get some compensation if it is found there was real negligence on the resorts part.
Do we even know it's him personally suing? Or is it his insurance suing on his behalf.
May 21 2014 10:58PM
~~~~~~~~I don't think it's fair to label him piece of shit for exercising what is probably his last and only option when faced with the insane medical bills he will be burdened with for the rest of his life.It's not like he just broke his leg, his "normal" life is over. He has every right to try to get some compensation if it is found there was real negligence on the resorts part.
Do we even know it's him personally suing? Or is it his insurance suing on his behalf.
Had to get surgery on my shoulder, and cracked my head open at Mount Snow, was put into a coma needed brain surgery. I did not sue, he is a little bitch and is opening the door for many other people to do the same thing, hopefully he loses his case And the mountain makes him pay their legal fees.
May 21 2014 11:09PM
zzzskizzzHad to get surgery on my shoulder, and cracked my head open at Mount Snow, was put into a coma needed brain surgery. I did not sue, he is a little bitch and is opening the door for many other people to do the same thing, hopefully he loses his case And the mountain makes him pay their legal fees.
That's nice and all, but surgery on your shoulder and a crack in your head does not equal paralyzed for the rest of your life. This dudes life is over and you should try showing some sympathy.
Let the courts sort it out, if he really doesn't have a case then no harm no foul.
May 21 2014 11:11PM
~~~~~~~~That's nice and all, but surgery on your shoulder and a crack in your head does not equal paralyzed for the rest of your life. This dudes life is over and you should try showing some sympathy.Let the courts sort it out, if he really doesn't have a case then no harm no foul.
Actually he's putting himself into a bigger hole, and he loses which he will. (unless the mountain somehow really messed up) Where you think the money to pay for the lawyers is coming from?
May 21 2014 11:22PM
zzzskizzzActually he's putting himself into a bigger hole, and he loses which he will. (unless the mountain somehow really messed up) Where you think the money to pay for the lawyers is coming from?
What does he have to loose? He's going to be buried in debt either way.
Say you landed just a little bit differently at mount snow and broke your neck, paralyzing YOU for the rest of your life. Would you really just except it as solely your fault and not seek any possible legal actions you could so as to try to ensure some semblance of comfort for yourself looking forward?
I know that is a real big hypothetical but seriously, empathy, try it.
May 21 2014 11:40PM
~~~~~~~~What does he have to loose? He's going to be buried in debt either way.Say you landed just a little bit differently at mount snow and broke your neck, paralyzing YOU for the rest of your life. Would you really just except it as solely your fault and not seek any possible legal actions you could so as to try to ensure some semblance of comfort for yourself looking forward?
I know that is a real big hypothetical but seriously, empathy, try it.
You lost this argument for two reasons, A you completely downplayed a brain surgery and coma by saying a tiny crack in my head. You think I'm still not affected by that to this day, you think that was free for me. Also I'm last time I read this I could've changed I believe he's suing the mountain for $21.2 million. Yeah that seems like a reasonable amount of money that will cover his expenses, he is obviously suing to get as much money as he can, and never work another day in his life, not to cover his expenses.
May 23 2014 3:34PM
zzzskizzzYou lost this argument for two reasons, A you completely downplayed a brain surgery and coma by saying a tiny crack in my head. You think I'm still not affected by that to this day, you think that was free for me. Also I'm last time I read this I could've changed I believe he's suing the mountain for $21.2 million. Yeah that seems like a reasonable amount of money that will cover his expenses, he is obviously suing to get as much money as he can, and never work another day in his life, not to cover his expenses.
Actually you did because you seem to think you somehow know what a NOW PARALYZED man is going through.
How exactly is he supposed to work another day if he is PARALYZED?
And lastly you should google compensatory and punitive damages.
May 23 2014 4:06PM
People need to stop seeing ski resorts as anything other than businesses with anything other than profits on their minds. Don't blindly defend them just because they offer a product that you really like. This kid is doing what he can to make his life a little less miserable. Why are people acting surprised that someone is doing whatever it takes to have a better life after a horrible accident. If this guy was any of you, or anyone you knew, you would want their medical bills paid.
May 23 2014 5:18PM
TeafastThis thread is disgusting
Sure bro
TeafastPeople need to stop seeing ski resorts as anything other than businesses with anything other than profits on their minds. Don't blindly defend them just because they offer a product that you really like. This kid is doing what he can to make his life a little less miserable. Why are people acting surprised that someone is doing whatever it takes to have a better life after a horrible accident. If this guy was any of you, or anyone you knew, you would want their medical bills paid.
Nothing will ever be perfect. Even if it somehow is the user error can come into play.
I'm all about corporate accountability but I'm also a big fan of people taking responsibility for their actions.
I understand the guy suing, but that doesn't mean he should win.
It's a dangerous sport. Terrain parks add another element of risk. The user has to take responsibility by entering the park or else it's really not sustainable.
May 23 2014 5:52PM
~~~~~~~~Actually you did because you seem to think you somehow know what a NOW PARALYZED man is going through.How exactly is he supposed to work another day if he is PARALYZED?
And lastly you should google compensatory and punitive damages.
Yeah man I totally don't get it, I have a friends mom with muscular dystrophy and is also in a wheelchair I know exactly what the guy is going through. and I know if you're in a wheelchair you can still work, you really think people who can't walk don't have jobs? they can still drive a car (it has levers in it instead of petals) You are clearly the one who doesn't get it.
Eric Posner and Cass Sunstein compared the money awarded to victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks with national data on wrongful-death awards and the VSL figures used by federal agencies. The mean values were in the same ballpark: $2 million for Sept. 11 victims, $3.8 million in tort cases and $5.4 million for the VSLs. But the extremes were wildly divergent: $0 to $50 million in court, $250,000 to $7.1 million for Sept. 11 victims, and $3 million to $6.5 million for the VSL. In other words, it’s complicated.
So if he was killed and the mountain was actually at fault his family would be looking at about 1-10 million. Again He's suing for OVER 20MILL. If the mountain was some how actually at fault should they pay him some money, yes but not 20mill so he can stay at home for the rest of his life and live lavishly because he fell. But being that he is the only one suing I really doubt they did anything wrong.
May 23 2014 5:55PM
May 23 2014 9:00PM
Dec 4 2014 3:30AM
If the design of the jump was flawed then this person should deserve a settlement. That being said, if the conditions were shitty or the jump was ungroomed then its ridiculous to sue the mountain. This one time I was doing a first run warm-up lap, and I was just hitting the features without checking them first, I went to three a jump and the lip was really icy. I lost balance on the take off and broke my wrist when I landed on it. That was nobodies fault but my own. If the jump was some death trap with zero landing that took you straight to flat, then I seem it reasonable to come to a settlement because the resort designed something that was unsafe. When I'm hitting a feature I find comfort in the fact that somebody who knew what they were doing designed it in a way that makes the feature hittable. Some kicker to flat is not a well-designed jump. I believe that resorts should implement a separate waiver for park, because the terrain park contains MAN MADE terrain which is designed. Unlike the terrain commonly found in the back country.
Dec 4 2014 11:19AM
Gaper_DestroyerIf the design of the jump was flawed then this person should deserve a settlement. That being said, if the conditions were shitty or the jump was ungroomed then its ridiculous to sue the mountain. This one time I was doing a first run warm-up lap, and I was just hitting the features without checking them first, I went to three a jump and the lip was really icy. I lost balance on the take off and broke my wrist when I landed on it. That was nobodies fault but my own. If the jump was some death trap with zero landing that took you straight to flat, then I seem it reasonable to come to a settlement because the resort designed something that was unsafe. When I'm hitting a feature I find comfort in the fact that somebody who knew what they were doing designed it in a way that makes the feature hittable. Some kicker to flat is not a well-designed jump. I believe that resorts should implement a separate waiver for park, because the terrain park contains MAN MADE terrain which is designed. Unlike the terrain commonly found in the back country.
Great bump m8