Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
If you skiin Colorado.
What happened that day @stanton, ?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@stanton, Wrong.
Not from skiing fast. Nothing wrong with skiing fast.
This results from skiing out of control and recklessly.
There is a world of difference.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Legal beagles get involved in US skiing accident.... shock, horror, probe
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
shovel, tranny...
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Richard_Sideways, I dont let a tranny anywhere near my sack/body!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know you're in trouble when Yoda is on the prosecution team
|
|
|
|
|
|
dreadful things (and a lot more of them) happen on roads, too. But I'm not about to give them up - will just continue to be careful. And hope for the best.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
Legal beagles get involved in US skiing accident.... shock, horror, probe |
Legal beagles getting involved is free money for them as Colorado is one of the few places that codifies something like ( but not identical) the FIS code into law which can then be prosecuted on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
" I never thought of skiing being a life threatening sport".... REALLY?
Quite happy to accept that he was going too fast...but one day it might be me who is accused....
God, I hate ambulance chasing lawyers...
...
This is one reason to keep skiing in crazy Europe (even with no sodding snow)
Perty x (a lawyer...)
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Yeah I don't like the "typical beginner type" comment by her lawyer as it seems to indicate an attitude that the more experienced skier would always be at fault in an incident. One hopes that the judge wasn't swayed by this and that there were independent witnesses as to the incident.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It goes without saying ski in control. Many do not.
If an out of control skier is not corrected as it were through an imperfect check and balance system (patrol) keeping an eye here and there on the slopes for those who potentially pose a threat and as a result of striking another skier injures another individual, should or should not the reckless individual be held liable to whatever extent? Inasmuch as any lift ticket typically states that skiing is an inherently "dangerous" sport and therefore the skier is skiing at "their own risk", and barring any negligence on the part of the operater such as defective lifts or their restaurant serving bouillabaisse without aioli (oh, the horror............... and "I've been there", let me tell you..............) at what point does a skier who has been injured by another have legitimate legal recourse?
I know......, insert Henry the Sixth, Part 2, Dick the Butcher's quote.......................................
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Fri 12-12-14 23:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical usa what a lot of dangly bits
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Quote: |
Typical usa what a lot of dangley bits
|
But possibly not; we have no way of knowing the whole story here. But I don't see why a reckless/negligent/drunk skier who causes injury to others should be treated any differently from a reckless/negligent driver or a builder who drops a hod of bricks on the head of a passerby.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
No excuses. Anybody who hits and injures somebody else due to lack of control is a complete flog. Lucky not to be in the Big House.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I'm surprised with some of the posts on this thread. Did you read the article? Do you really think the punishment was unjustified? An uphill skier, travelling excessively fast on a blue run hits a downhill skier causing permanent injury and costs of more than $100k. Of course they should be subject to legal punishment just the same as a driver.
The judge clearly decided this wasn't an unavoidable accident but a crash that the uphill skier had made possible through reckless behaviour. Why should he have escaped punishment?
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I always find the "in control" bit a slightly odd description.
If there's no new snow over then next few days, I'm likely to spend most of my weeks holiday relatively "out of control" as I will be spending the week learning new skills and tricks. I can't do them now, or haven't attempted them, so when I do I certainly can't claim to know I'll be in control.
I will however practice in a suitable place with enough space around me not to be a hazard to anyone else. Part of what I will be learning will be control at higher speeds. That means pushing myself beyond my comfort limit. And it will be on reds or maybe blacks. I'll be learning other stuff at slower speed, on the blues. I fully intend to fall over. I will catch edges and crash. Will I be in control? On a scale measured in a few seconds or feet, then no, I won't. On a scale over 10 seconds or 10 yards, then yes, I will. I may be my own personal crash site, but it will be well out of the way of others.
Like 99% of people, I was out of control the first day I stepped on a board or skis, I was out of control the first time I went fast, or hit a steeper piste, or moguls, or powder. And like 99% of people, I am also fallible, and there will be occasions even when I am trying very hard to be perfectly in control, and boarding well within my limits, that I will hit a bit of ice, an unseen lump, or simply make a mistake. These accidents happen. I've bumped a couple of people over the years, and a few have bumped me. I'd like to think I have caused fewer than I have received. I usually go for the hug technique, and then make sure I fall at the bottom of the heap. Crashing is one thing, getting landed on by 6'5 bloke is worse!
So "in control" or "out of control" are ridiculous terms to define, particularly in a legal case. Responsible? Aware? Considerate? Deliberate? I am happy that I can be lying on my back bottom in a pile of snow after ragdolling a couple of times, and still tick "yes" to all of those terms, and be safe in relation to everyone else.
As for travelling fast on groomed pistes? Is that a surprise? As someone who only recently became properly comfortable on a red piste, the blues are where I have gone fastest. It's where I have felt most able to push my speed limits, whilst still being able to easily reign it in if it got busy or I came to a junction etc. Only by being confident on the fall line of a blue, can you become ready for travelling down a red relatively successfully.
American law is kinda scary...
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
equinoxranch wrote: |
at what point does a skier who has been injured by another have legitimate legal recourse? |
If the other skier has been reckless. AFAIK the law in the UK and USA are similar in defining reckless action as when possible adverse consequences to an action are foreseen but the actor goes ahead anyway.
It seems that some here are bothered by the idea that if they ski fast, hit a downhill skier and injure them, legal consequences may follow. Well, get used to it because that's the reality, wherever in the world you ski.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@dogwatch, And you should be worried about injuring that person and not the legal action. I change my skiing/speed depending on how busy the slope is - surely that comon sense isn't it?!
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I don't think it's scary at all. If you aren't being a dick you're highly unlikely to find yourself in the situation. The only worrying thing is if there aren't witnesses and it becomes a he said she said situation, and then that your insurance refuses to back you on personal liability cover. The rare successful prosecutions we hear about are usually young guys skiing way too fast for traffic, much like the worst car accidents.
I'd argue that you can fall and still be in control if you know what you are doing (and in some terrain this is essential). Most people can still lose an edge given the right combination of circumstances. This is why you're asking for trouble if you chose to stand immediately downslope of the icy patency that forms under snow cannons etc.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@BigSouthernJesse, of course we all do those things you describe, from time to time, but nearly always we get away with it. Yes, it's difficult to judge the degree of culpability, just as it is with drivers, but that's what has to be done.
I was aware of the "hug technique" in Crest Voland a few years ago. It's a very gentle area and I have scarcely ever seen any kind of collision but there was a big - really big - guy wobbling around all over the place. I saw him coming towards me with that "O 2h1t!" look on his face and his arms out wide. It was all very slow, I braced myself (Effie...) and caught him. He was very grateful and it was a laugh. However, I kept well out of his way for the rest of the day.
Someone moaned here a couple of years ago having been injured in a crash which he blamed on the other person. Turned out that the other person had just fallen, round a bend on a piste where he couldn't see. He couldn't see why we all told him it was his fault, either.
The fact that there are fraudulent injury claims and "ambulance chasing" lawyers doesn't negate the justice of pursuing somebody who has seriously injured a third party through negligence.
One of the few people I know who have been seriously hurt in a crash was at the edge of the piste attending to a 3 year old with a runny nose when a helmet-wearing lad of about 8 or 9, in what he fondly imagined was a racing tuck, smashed into her knee - from the side. In that case it should have been the parent, or whoever was in charge of the lad, who should have been pursued. Having said that one of my nephews, at about that age, cannoned into an ESF instructor who was standing in front of his class, pontificating. Nothing was hurt but his pride but my sister skied past pretending not to know the lad.
I hate crowded pistes and avoid them unless I have absolutely no option. Never do the "end of the day" death slide when there's a perfickly comfortable lift to ride down in. I did fracture my pelvis in a collision a couple of years ago but it was an unproblematic injury and the crash wasn't really anybody's fault - just one of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What they said.
Personally I'm 100% in favour of people being responsible for their actions. Without a legal system, nothing works. So yeah, I'll still ride fast, but I'm still not negligent. And I still won't read the Daily Mail, whose view of the US may be distorted because their readers only ever go to Disney Land.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 12-12-14 11:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BigSouthernJesse,
Because you fall over and hit someone does not mean you were being reckless and subject to legal sanction.
What would make you reckless is if, given the piste conditions (snow, steepness, crowdedness) and you chose to ski in a way that making a mistake would foreseeably (i.e., a reasonable person would know) have serious consequences for other skiers.
I don't see why this is scary - all it means is that you only go fast on pistes where you know a fall won't have you crashing in to other people at dangerous speed - generally this means when you can see the way is clear
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Couple of observations, and maybe I've just been lucky, but I've never bumped, collided or crashed into anyone at all, so in my experience, it's not been normal to accept it's part of learning. Absolute pish that it obviously is, the other crapism that you hear sometimes when you're learning is that if you don't fall, you're not trying hard enough, which is about as logical as saying if you don't bump, collide or crash into other people, you're not trying hard enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
I've never bumped, collided or crashed into anyone at all, so in my experience, it's not been normal to accept it's an acceptable part of learning.
|
I see very, very, few collisions, skiing many weeks a year for quite a few years now. I agree they should be regarded as exceptional.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@jedster
I think we mean the same things...
For the times I will knowingly be putting myself in a position when I am more likely to fall, or not have immediate control over my direction or speed, I will ensure that I have plenty of space around me, I'm out of the way, in an easily visible position, and don't have hordes of people about to catch up with me. That's where the "Responsible? Aware? Considerate? Deliberate?" part comes in.
Equally, in normal piste riding, around other slope users, I'll generally be within my limits as the conditions dictate. there's still a real chance I'll make a mistake, misjudge someone's actions, whatever, and an accident can happen. It's not reckless, it's just an accident. I don't think anyone who has used judgement to be travelling at the right speed and is aware of their surroundings who has an accident is reckless. If it was perfectly safe, there'd be no adrenalin!
None of that is scary.
What I find scary is the way american law can be pushed so far in some cases. Reading the article, beyond the "downhill skier has right of way", there is nothing to show Winship at fault. Was he doing 80mph? Was it a narrow piste? Or did some feckless beginner who had been stationary in the middle of the slope suddenly push off across the piste, possibly leaving him no where to go due to other people around? It may have been reckless, possibly, but Vitt was initially looking to prosecute for a felony assault. That's like a mugging.
So it's american law that I find scary. But then any accident in America can leave you with huge medical costs, and someone has to pay those. Perhaps the NHS allows the UK to more willingly accept an "accident"? Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@BigSouthernJesse,
Quote: |
there is nothing to show Winship at fault
|
Quote: |
the way american law can be pushed so far
|
From the article, "Ski collisions in Colorado fall under the Ski Safety Act. The act states that the person skiing downhill has a responsibility to avoid any skiers below them, and is at fault in the case of an accident or collision."
So, under the "ordinary" statute, the uphill skier is at fault (presumably unless can prove otherwise, maybe not even then) and the law hasn't been "pushed" in any way at all.
Which suggests strongly that you want to make sure your 3rd party liability insurance is well robust if skiing in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name wrote: |
@BigSouthernJesse,
|
From the article, "Ski collisions in Colorado fall under the Ski Safety Act. The act states that the person skiing downhill has a responsibility to avoid any skiers below them, and is at fault in the case of an accident or collision."
[/quote]
I know that is also the same as the FIS rule, and as the uphill skier/boarder, you should be anticipating the movements below you. Fair enough.
As you say though, definitely want good insurance if you are in a place where it would be the only thing taken into consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
moffatross wrote: |
Can't help thinking I'm responding to an out-and-out trolling but ... |
Not trolling at all, perfectly serious...
Quote: |
Quote: |
... there's still a real chance I'll make a mistake, misjudge someone's actions, whatever, and an accident can happen. It's not reckless, it's just an accident. I don't think anyone who has used judgement to be travelling at the right speed and is aware of their surroundings who has an accident is reckless. If it was perfectly safe, there'd be no adrenalin!
None of that is scary. |
Being out of control sounds scary to me. |
That first quote isn't me describing being out of control. It's a real world acceptance that accidents happen. People trip on pavements, stub their toes, crash cars... All whilst doing activities where they were in control. Sometimes stuff just happens.
Quote: |
Quote: |
... did some feckless beginner who had been stationary in the middle of the slope suddenly push off across the piste, possibly leaving him no where to go due to other people around? |
So out of control then. |
As for the second quote, exactly how could you ever be in control, if unpredictable events count as your lack of control, and not accidents or someone else's responsibility.
If I trip and fall out into the middle of a road a few feet ahead of a car and get hit when the car is doing 28 in a 30 zone, that driver isn't reckless. They haven't lost control. They are just in a position where it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to stop in time. They are not at fault. And if they were to drive in such as way as to ensure that an accident like that could never happen, then they would be crawling along at 3mph and driving would be pointless.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that there isn't always a culpable party, or that the responsibilty isn't always as clear cut as that Colorado law states. I probably wasn't making myself very clear... Just enjoying a discussion about getting on the slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
BigSouthernJesse wrote: |
As someone who only recently became properly comfortable on a red piste |
With respect I think it would be wise to recognise your own inexperience and defer to those better-qualified to pontificate on the matter. Otherwise, you'll just end up getting dog's abuse eventually
Edit: I see it's started already.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
under a new name wrote: |
@BigSouthernJesse,
Quote: |
there is nothing to show Winship at fault
|
Quote: |
the way american law can be pushed so far
|
From the article, "Ski collisions in Colorado fall under the Ski Safety Act. The act states that the person skiing downhill has a responsibility to avoid any skiers below them, and is at fault in the case of an accident or collision."
So, under the "ordinary" statute, the uphill skier is at fault (presumably unless can prove otherwise, maybe not even then) and the law hasn't been "pushed" in any way at all.
Which suggests strongly that you want to make sure your 3rd party liability insurance is well robust if skiing in the U.S. |
Nope Colorado ski safety act refers to the "ahead" skier rather than downhill and further had a clause that skiers starting out yield to traffic. I assume the yield clause must take precedence over the ahead clause if it is to have any meaning. Now anyone want to debate how "ahead" is different from "downhill"?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Now anyone want to debate how "ahead" is different from "downhill"? |
unless the piste goes straight downhill, "ahead" could be across the hill to some extent
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Maybe they should have a look at the sailing rules...?
Once everyone is on the piste and moving, then:
1) Overtaking skier/boarder has the responsibilty to keep clear.
2) Those on starboard tack (having the uphill to their right when facing their direction of travel / being on their righthand edge when looked at in the direction of travel) have right of way in a head to head scenario, and should hold course as long as reasonably practical. Those with the uphill to their left should take avoiding action. (This avoids the "we both dodged in the same direction" scenarios...)
3) When both on the same edge, then the (uphill/downhill person - someone else can decide who would usually have the most opportunity to maneouvre easily) holds course, and the other gives way.
Or would that confuse people?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Ahead also works on a traverse. To a point. As if you are traversing parallel tracks, you can be either/or ahead and either/or downhll.
@BigSouthernJesse, that doesn't always work as uphill to left has a an uphill limited range of action. And boats presumably have larger turning arcs and much longer stopping distances.
You should always, always be able to come to a dead stop within your field of view.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
under a new name wrote: |
You should always, always be able to come to a dead stop within your field of view. |
That I completely agree with!
The sailing thing wasn't entirely serious, more a theoretical suggestion. The downhill/ahead skier rule doesn't cover when two skiers are traversing a piste at 45 degrees from opposite sides, travelling about the same speed and meet in the middle. That's the most common close encounter or crash that I've seen. What tends to happen is that both make the same turn further across or up the slope to lose speed, and tend to come together in a very gentle collision. This is pretty harmless as it happens at slow speed due to the uphill turn.
A "right edge/left edge" type right of way rule might help eliminate it. Where one would turn uphill to bleed speed and avoid the course of the other who would maintain their course. You'd still be subject to the limited visibility issue, it just might mean that in the short response time people have once they did see someone, they take predictable avoiding action.
But you can't instigate a change like that now, so we just carry on looking out for those ahead of us if we are catching them, being aware of those catching us, and generally doing our best to have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="BigSouthernJesse"]
under a new name wrote: |
You should always, always be able to come to a dead stop within your field of view. |
Yep - it ain't rocket science. It would be interesting see if some of the views on this thread would change should they (or one of their loved ones) have been hit by an out of control skier.
If a driver loses control of his vehicle and injures a third party he would be liable in most (if not all) countries. Can see no difference in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
BigSouthernJesse wrote: |
Or would that confuse people? |
Boarders. And those who don't know left from right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
Boarders. And those who don't know left from right.
|
what's the opinion on boarders who also ski and ski better than yourself
|
|
|
|
|
|