 Poster: A snowHead
|
Sorry, in French:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/01/05/01016-20120105ARTFIG00724-accident-de-ski-un-million-d-euros-pour-une-victime.php
The gist of it being: beginner skier looses control over icy patch, goes off piste, hits rock and ends up paralysed.
They then sue the resort, Font-Romeu in the French Pyrenees, for the "poor state" of the piste.
After many refusal from the french legal system, they do manage to get to trial and have just been awarded this big payout, €1M but likely to end costing the resort closer to 2 or 3M.
I obviously do not know the specifics, so hard to really form an opinion but at first glance, can we really expect pistes to be defect free all day every day? If so resorts could face lawsuits left right and center... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I would have thougth that it would have been because the resort hadn't made it impossible for a "Beginner to go off piste and hit a rock" when they lost control....... duty of care?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Someone skiing without adequate insurance-methinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Spinout wrote: |
| Someone skiing without adequate insurance-methinks. |
Or with adequate insurance and it's their insurers subrogating their losses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| marcellus wrote: |
| I would have thougth that it would have been because the resort hadn't made it impossible for a "Beginner to go off piste and hit a rock" when they lost control....... duty of care? |
mmh... That would involve some serious infra structure costs or you'd have to limit beginners to certain areas and allow them everywhere else only on completion of an aptitude test...
Not sure how any of it would work in the real world... litigation just ruins so many things..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Kruisler, I tend to agree. This sounds like a dangerous precedent.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 5-01-12 16:47; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that this is good news for our favourite activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear. Not good news, no. But it seems from the report, unless I have misunderstood, that it is the station's insurers who will foot the bill. A big battle between insurance companies, presumably. The accident wasn't necessarily anybody's fault, but somebody has to foot the bill for such a serious accident.
Whichever insurer pays, we all end up paying more. More girl though, what a terrible consequence to follow from such a trivial incident. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Totally the wrong way to go - this spells trouble and will only result in over cautious piste maintenance and closing etc. What next - off piste outlawed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nature of 'icy' makes all the difference here I think.
Frozen water patches should be marked at least but slick hardpack is caveat emptor
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Last season a lengthy slick of blue ice appeared on a piste near Belle Plagne. The pisteurs had actually put a fence around the whole section, rather than just the usual little sign, maybe cases like the above are begining to have an effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Where does it all end? Intermediate skier goes on black slope which is beyond their ability level, falls near top and stops at bottom. Sues resort for not preventing them going onto slope.
Europe follows America and not for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Imagine that one goes on holiday to learn skiing and ending up as a millionaire!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
If they can't ski down it, they shouldn't be up there!!!
Its they're own stupid fault for not being in control!
Same as always, one stupid idiot ruins it for the rest of us! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| saikee wrote: |
| Imagine that one goes on holiday to learn skiing and ending up as a millionaire! |
What's the point if you cannot ski anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
saikee, I think they would prefere the use of their limbs as opposed to £££££ 
We were in les gets last year and one of the lower green slopes was literally strewn with fallen skiers etc , who were definitely not expecting blue ice , with no warnings or closures . it was definitely a failure of "duty of care"
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Angry Squirrel, Have you honestly never skied a piste designated for your "ability" that has caused you a few unexpected problems 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Angry Squirrel, disgraceful outburst. It was a beginner run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
pam w, How often do you wonder, when someone calls others "idiots", what other's think of them
edit for spurious apostrophe - clearly, I am an idiot.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 5-01-12 19:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The very brief linked report tells us very little. The accident was 15 years ago, for a start so there's a lot of water under the bridge. I hope the victim's family have had some help before now, in coping with such extreme disability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance companies are very unlikely to get involved in the follow-up to snowsports accidents, rescue or medical care in Scotland but nevertheless, 10 years ago, a skier instructed lawyers to use a terrain dangers argument in an attempt to sue an operator ...
http://www.simpmar.com/news-knowledge/smib/2006/june-2006/skiing-dangers-arising-from-physical-ground-features
But the court decided that ...
"there was no duty upon an occupier to provide protection against obvious and natural features of the landscape. By the same logic, there was no duty to provide warning signs or notices drawing attention to the danger of such features."
... and ...
"The presence of the danger would be obvious to all using the area for any purpose, be it skiing, hill walking or mountaineering. The legislation did not impose a duty to provide protection against natural features and therefore it was illogical to suggest that a failure to place warning signs about a natural feature could constitute a danger arising out of an omission."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
moffatross, don't scottish ski instructors and lift operators carry public liability insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
pam w, I'm sure they do but most Scottish skiers themselves are uninsured as they have no need (medical care & rescue etc is free), so won't be claiming for personal injury and hardly anybody would consider pursuing a case directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst i have symapthy for the young lady involved i still grind my teeth at this sort of thing. The expression "Duty of care", used twice above, regularly makes me do this.
Let's trim this back to what it actually is.
An adult who is 23 years old decides to try an outdoors sport.
She attends a mountain and tries the sport in the middle of winter.
It turns out that on a mountain, in the middle of winter, some water has frozen and turned to ice. Not beyond the realms of possibilty you would think.
As a result of this the adult, who has not yet learned to deal with such conditions loses control and falls injuring herself.
All makes sense so far doesn't it........................ Then the lawyers get involved and it all starts to get a bit silly.
Apparently a whole town is now at fault because they have not intensively patrolled the sub-zero mountain above their village to ensure that icy patches are wrapped in five layers of cotton-wool. Yes the town is using the mountain for profit. Yes the town have been preparing area's of the mountain to make skiing on it easier. But does this make them responsible for the incident described above. Of course not!!! How patently ridiculous.
Going on to mountains is dangerous, wet wintery conditions are dangerous, sloped surfaces are dangerous. All three combined are more dangerous. As fully functioning adults we know this and we adapt our behaviour accordingly. This obsession with always having someone to blame is horrendously counter-productive to society. Had the lady been injured by a ski-lift or some piece of equipment operated by the town i could understand but as a result of her making an informed choice to try to learn a sport on a dangerous surface she was injured.
Whilst i symathise with the horrendous mis-fortune suffered here I cannot think of one cogent explanation for the pay-out that makes sense in these circumstances. I invite you to prove me wrong  's
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
fastandicy, The girl in question was not just "attending" a mountain as you suggest , and I am sure if she had hiked up on her own then searched out a BC route home , when her accident occured I don't think anyone would have much sympathy, but she was on a very easy piste, which by definition should be easy to navigate without hazards . And yes it is the responsibility of those preparing these pistes to keep users as safe as is practical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Neilski, Please don't mix up my argument against this kind of litigation with a lack of symapthy. On piste, off piste, whatever. I still have sympathy with anyone who is involved in an unforseeable acident which leads to them being paralysed.
What i don't agree with is the idea that the town are somehow responsible for a naturally occuring feature (Ice) I could see the point if they had driven over her in a piste-basher but this was a natural phenomenon which whilst foreseen cannot be avoided.
What next, skier is blown over by gust of wind and resort pays?
Skier is distracted by falling snow, has accident as result, resort pays?
Skier is momentarily caught out by glare from the sun, resort pays?
Of course not but these are the logical conclusions of the argument that all area's for beginners must be free from hazard. As i explained above, by going there to ski she was exposing herself to a level of hazard. Where do you draw the line?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
given that this case has been running for 15 years I don't think there's much chance of reaching any very clear understanding about it on the basis of a short newspaper article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I can see Verte into La Daille being closed - unless the pisteurs have found a way of making it non-hazardous since I was there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Angry Squirrel wrote: |
If they can't ski down it, they shouldn't be up there!!!
Its they're own stupid fault for not being in control!
Same as always, one stupid idiot ruins it for the rest of us! |
As crass goes, this is on the highest level of crass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| fastandicy wrote: |
Neilski, Please don't mix up my argument against this kind of litigation with a lack of symapthy. On piste, off piste, whatever. I still have sympathy with anyone who is involved in an unforseeable acident which leads to them being paralysed.
What i don't agree with is the idea that the town are somehow responsible for a naturally occuring feature (Ice) I could see the point if they had driven over her in a piste-basher but this was a natural phenomenon which whilst foreseen cannot be avoided.
|
It could have been avoided, by fencing off a line above the ice - which is done at times.
The resort prepare and mark the pistes. As such they do (and IMO should) have a responsibility to make sure that there are no hazards on any piste which you would expect skiers of the appropriate level to be unable to cope with.
On a green piste, you can expect complete beginners to be skiing it, and anything which is going to be significantly hazardous for absolute beginners should be fenced/roped off.
On blue pistes (where green exist), you can expect at least a basic level of competence, so should only need to rope/fence off hazards which a basically competent skier could not cope with.
By the time you get up to red and black pistes, you should only need to deal with things where a minor mistake would be likely to lead to serious injury or death.
| Quote: |
What next, skier is blown over by gust of wind and resort pays?
Skier is distracted by falling snow, has accident as result, resort pays?
Skier is momentarily caught out by glare from the sun, resort pays?
|
None of those are remotely similar to leaving a patch of ice unmarked on a green piste.
| Quote: |
Of course not but these are the logical conclusions of the argument that all area's for beginners must be free from hazard. As i explained above, by going there to ski she was exposing herself to a level of hazard. Where do you draw the line? |
You draw the line at the point where skiers of the lowest skill level appropriate to the piste grading should be able to cope.
Once you get into the business of preparing and marking pistes, you have to take some responsibility for those pistes being of a difficulty appropriate to the grading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
There's an implicit understanding when you go skiing, and it's this.
"I am on a mountain. Mountains eat people. Regardless of my level of skill, mountains eat people. This is not Butlins, this is a FRICKEN MOUNTAIN."
Encountering ice on a trillion tonne object whose surface is made predominately of snow and ice should not be considered surprising.
You want to sue someone for ice being on a mountain in Winter. Sue God. It's not even reasonable to sue a council for there being a pothole in some tarmac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I am thinking along the same line as fastandicy.
Preventing this sort of accident completely would mean that any dangerous feature such as an ice patch should be detected and isolated as soon as it appears. How can we reasonnably expect the pisteurs to cover each square meter of each piste constantly?
Maybe the judge decided that the piste patrols had not done even the minimum.. As pam w say, we have little to go on, but I still think it looks like a dangerous precedent to set....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| muddewater wrote: |
Where does it all end? Intermediate skier goes on black slope which is beyond their ability level, falls near top and stops at bottom. Sues resort for not preventing them going onto slope.
Europe follows America and not for the better. |
Not exactly you're case but .. the Snowbizz / Puy St. Vincent incident has similar overtones - more here if you haven't heard it before: - http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=43050
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Kruisler,
| Quote: |
How can we reasonnably expect the pisteurs to cover each square meter of each piste constantly?
Maybe the judge decided that the piste patrols had not done even the minimum.
|
Exactly. If the pisteurs had done all that could reasonably have been expected of them, a case for negligence would not have arisen. It is pointless, as usual, to speculate - this will have turned on very specific facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Kruisler wrote: |
Sorry, in French:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/01/05/01016-20120105ARTFIG00724-accident-de-ski-un-million-d-euros-pour-une-victime.php
The gist of it being: beginner skier looses control over icy patch, goes off piste, hits rock and ends up paralysed.
They then sue the resort, Font-Romeu in the French Pyrenees, for the "poor state" of the piste.
After many refusal from the french legal system, they do manage to get to trial and have just been awarded this big payout, €1M but likely to end costing the resort closer to 2 or 3M.
I obviously do not know the specifics, so hard to really form an opinion but at first glance, can we really expect pistes to be defect free all day every day? If so resorts could face lawsuits left right and center... |
There is a gulf between "hurt" and ending up in a wheelchair a paraplegic or even quadriplegic - I think your title is pejorative to the poor woman's condition.
A narrow section of a green piste with a rock garden at the end would be somewhere where dangers like ice patches should be marked. The ski resorts are quite happy to empty the pockets of skiers although Font Romeu is maybe not the worst example of this.
Still it dates from 1997, piste security has improved a great deal since then.
As you say, without knowing more details it is hard to give any sensible comment.
AFAIKS I don't think the victim had specific insurance cover as one of the parties was her health mutuel who want to recover 200,000 euros of medical bills. It would be typical for Euro skiers not to have specific ski insurance beyond, maybe, piste recovery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think I encountered sections of seriously icy runs in France, Austria, Sweden and Scotland. Those in Scotland were bad enough to make me believe the saying that if one manages to ski in Scotland then one has no problem to ski anywhere in the world.
In some high altitude French and Austrian glaciers the strong and constant wind can blow away the loose snow and skiers have to put up with skidding on blue ice from time to time. It is also quite common to have runs over used/trafficed during the peak season when the previous skiers scraping the loose layer of the snow locally on a piste. My point isthe piste users have to learn to cope with the icy run whether it is formed naturally or man-made. It may not be fair to a beginner to start with an icy run but then if he/she takes lesson then at least some guidance will be given by the instructor.
It is probably unrealistic to expect a resort to erect warning signs for every dodgy part of a run as holes, water, rock, grass etc can be dangerous too. Over the years the resort owners have definitely put up more warning signs though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line, something in law needs changed to stop this happening again. If the lift company hits a guy with a piste basher, then the lift company should be liable (everything else being equal - could be various ifs or buts), if someone falls with no intervention from anyone else then it is their fault and their fault only and it should be reflected in law.
It hasn't been tested in court yet, but in Scotland the Land Reform Act expressly places responsibility for their own safety on people partaking in mountain/outdoor sports, and offers landowners, leaseholders and land managers protection from attempts to sue arising from the inherent risks of outdoor mountain recreation. As the Scottish Snowsport areas are not designated as set aside for a specific purpose to the exclusion of others, the Land Reform Act applies to them, it ensures right of responsible access to the Ski Area Land for recreation whether downhill skiing or not.
I think we are exceptionally fortunate to have what is amongst the most enlightened land access laws in the world, but with those rights come clearly expressed responsibilities. We can access open land for mountain recreation, at our own risk. IMO that is the way it should be. Snowsport Areas are high mountain environments with the inherent risks that entails, they are not nor should they be seen as man made or man tamed themeparks, they are not, nor should they be.
The last attempt that I am aware off to sue a Scottish Snowsports Area prior to the Land Reform Act was a lawsuit against Nevis Range from an individual of self proclaimed intermediate ability, who having attempted to use the Lemming Ridge trail (Black) to access Warrens (Red) from the Summit Tow (Blue), inadvertently found the quick way into Back Corries after falling off the cornice above Chancer (Black). The case was dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I don’t normally comment on insurance threads; quite simply as the whole insurance thing confuses the hell out of me, but.....
A few things to remember. As far as I can see (albeit not having any details other than posted on an internet forum  ) everyone involved in the case, except to the injured person is using their involvement to generate substantial profits – the lift co, a few insurance co’s, lawyers for the injured person, etc. So the fact that this goes to court is not really that surprising, is it ?
Just as an aside.
I have been on the receiving end of a writ – that used the above (mis)quoted judgement from the Scottish courts to go after me and others. I won’t go into the specifics, but it involved a person I was guiding on Ben Nevis – actually we were on the way down from the climb, on the tourist path, near the YHA junction. One of the girls in the group tripped and went over the edge, fell a bit, hit the top branches of a tree and continued down through the tree, etc, and eventually rolled down over another lip and fell into a small gully (if you know the area it was just - 10m - above the 2nd Alu. bridge). I called out helicopter and off she went to the local hospital. After a while she was transferred to Inverness and then had various bit of her insides removed. But she was alive.
OK, stuff happen up mountains, it was no-one’s fault, she tripped on a stone on the path. The trip turned into a stumble, the stumble into a fall and this sent her over the edge and the incident happened.
I thought that was the end of it, until a month or so later I got a letter from her solicitors – and so did Fort William Council. Standard stuff from not very clever lawyer, duty of care, lack of supervision, un-kept highway, blah blah blah etc, etc. Now I know sod all about the law except one section of it. I know everything there is to know about public rights of way in relation to the various types of linier routes. As soon as I read the letter I knew for a fact she had employed the wrong lawyers, as they obviously didn't understand the law (in relation to highways and byways in both England and Scotland). To cut a long story short, both me and the chap from Fort William council, agreed to play their game and just keep answering the letters and let it go to court. When it did, it was chucked out within 10 minutes; the judge didn’t even hear any evidence, as he just looked at the papers and spotted the errors I has spotted in the very first letter - oh and costs were awarded against the girl's law firm, due to, in the judge's words "their wasting of the court's time". Oh, in case you’re wondering, all I’ll say to any trip-and-slip lawyer is that up a mountain the entity responsible for the upkeep of any paths isn’t normally the local council. If you're going to make a claim, make it against the right person/entity, or it will be kicked out of court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
