 Poster: A snowHead
|
Skied across to Chatel today so rode the chair today and there was a LOT of ski school action in the run down to the chair from the bowl above.
I ski Austria quite a lot and can't say the new chair's any different to any of the other chairs I've seen replaced in the last couple of years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I’m really not liking the sound of these automatic chairlifts. How common are they in Europe (I’ve not come across them in Scandinavia) and are they now the “next thing” do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Ozboy, thanks for sharing the update and good to get some further details - very good comments from the public prosecutor at the end
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Ozboy,now it becomes clear. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@extremerob, Yes, bit of an ominous (?) tone though :- "especially about the condition of the girl, which will determine the nature of the proceedings initiated"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skitow wrote: |
| @extremerob, Yes, bit of an ominous (?) tone though :- "especially about the condition of the girl, which will determine the nature of the proceedings initiated" |
I guess if the girl is permanent injured then someone needs to pay, either through fines or jail, and it may lead to better supervision of minors, or the removal of automatic bars, or at least their re-design, if they are found to be at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Ah I see! Thanks for the extra info. Poor girl though! Awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been clear until now how someone could be trapped and cause such effects. I had thought it was the head that had been caught, this makes more sense and I can see how someone might not be able to see a trapped arm, I still worry about automatic barriers but most I have been on you pull down manually and locks but automatically release. I was only asked once last week to take random kids in italy but had a couple others not asked; the asked one was great, the un-requested one I must admit thought he was going wriggle out, quite scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Sack the Juggler wrote: |
| skitow wrote: |
| @extremerob, Yes, bit of an ominous (?) tone though :- "especially about the condition of the girl, which will determine the nature of the proceedings initiated" |
I guess if the girl is permanent injured then someone needs to pay, either through fines or jail, and it may lead to better supervision of minors, or the removal of automatic bars, or at least their re-design, if they are found to be at fault. |
I wouldn't agree with what you said Juggler. Just because someone gets injured doesn't mean that anyone else is liable for that. You're only liable if you've been negligent and failed in your legal duties to provide aid to someone else in need. In almost all cases where you are not providing services for money, where you are held to a much higher standard, it would be almost impossible to prove negligence against a private individual.
So, no, you wouldn't just have to be 'at fault' ... you would have to be egregiously, knowingly and intentionally at fault for a case to be made against you.
I raise this because the last thing I would like to see is people suddenly getting scared about helping others or taking kids on lifts for fear they may be sued.
Based on what I've read, the only possible case for a claim would be against either the lift manufacturer if you could claim the design was inherently flawed or against the lift operator (as a company) for being negligent in operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| bambionskiis wrote: |
| I’m really not liking the sound of these automatic chairlifts. How common are they in Europe (I’ve not come across them in Scandinavia) and are they now the “next thing” do you think? |
I'm not in favour of them either.
The new ones in Zermatt, where I ski most regularly, are not so bad in that they don't close automatically but, once they are closed, cannot be opened manually. They then open automatically at the top thereby preventing people opening them too early.
However, it strikes me that in seeking to resolve the 'early opening' issue they then create other potential problems so, on balance, I'd rather stick with common sense and instinct for self preservation and let people do it.
Overall though the risk of getting injured on a chair lift is miniscule in comparison with other ski (or drinking) injuries whilst on holiday in a ski resort so I think we're discussing an incredibly rare occurrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is France and it's a different legal system for starters. However if in general I where to bring down the bar on a chairlift and fail to take due care and attention that I had not trapped anyone else on the lift I would be sufficiently negligent to be prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| This is France and it's a different legal system for starters. However if in general I where to bring down the bar on a chairlift and fail to take due care and attention that I had not trapped anyone else on the lift I would be sufficiently negligent to be prosecuted. |
Yes, it's a different legal system but the rules on negligence are similar. As a private individual, you would still have to be held to be negligent ... and not noticing would be highly unlikely to reach the standard of negligence. You are not required, for example, to proactively check that all others on the lift are OK. You just need to react if it's clear that they are not. In this instance, the fact that five people all failed to notice that the child was in trouble clearly indicates that she gave no clear sign of distress ... and in the absence of that I think it would be impossible to prove negligence against any individual.
'Due care and attention' is a UK, road specific standard of awareness. We are talking negligence here - and that's much much harder to prove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@jabuzzard, I guess another question is whether one has a duty of care as a passenger on the lift, or if it’s the lift company that has that duty. I think it would be unfair for a passenger to hold duty of care in the case of an automatic bar that they do not have control of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
| Sack the Juggler wrote: |
| skitow wrote: |
| @extremerob, Yes, bit of an ominous (?) tone though :- "especially about the condition of the girl, which will determine the nature of the proceedings initiated" |
I guess if the girl is permanent injured then someone needs to pay, either through fines or jail, and it may lead to better supervision of minors, or the removal of automatic bars, or at least their re-design, if they are found to be at fault. |
I wouldn't agree with what you said Juggler. Just because someone gets injured doesn't mean that anyone else is liable for that. You're only liable if you've been negligent and failed in your legal duties to provide aid to someone else in need. In almost all cases where you are not providing services for money, where you are held to a much higher standard, it would be almost impossible to prove negligence against a private individual.
So, no, you wouldn't just have to be 'at fault' ... you would have to be egregiously, knowingly and intentionally at fault for a case to be made against you.
I raise this because the last thing I would like to see is people suddenly getting scared about helping others or taking kids on lifts for fear they may be sued.
Based on what I've read, the only possible case for a claim would be against either the lift manufacturer if you could claim the design was inherently flawed or against the lift operator (as a company) for being negligent in operation. |
true, but if there is a design fault that allows people to be trapped, then the court could award against the lift designers... maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
, and personally I am in favour of it being locked down as some people open them stupidly early. Whether it should come down automatically / mechanically I not so sure. There does seem to be lot's of variation in how these things are designed. There is one fairly modern one in Alpe d'Huez that the bar actually springs up if you take your feet off it, and that serves a blue, probably a green too 
