Paralyzed Skier Awarded $14 Million

There was a serious injury at Alpental yesterday [April 14th]. We saw a snowboarder get airlifted. Word was he dropped into rocks and standing water in the trashcan. Serious face injury, lots of blood on the sled. I just searched for some news but didn't find anything. I had this thread in mind as we watched the helicopter fly off. Anybody know more about what happened?

I think the jury probably made a bad call here and don't agree w/ the verdict.

But regardless of what it says on the back of your ticket the ski area is, and should be, liable for actual gross negligence. What would constitute this is failure to act to recitify (or the purposeful creation of) known condition that make things more dangerous than the usually are on average across the industry.

This is why the article points out that there were records of many injured people being dragged away from that same jump for the same reason for a week before this incident.

I think in this case the this plaintiff's argument is bullshit; people are regularly injured all over the park and ski area for the same reasons in the same places. If you don't hop over a jump at low speed to check it out before hitting it full bore you are a dummy and it is your fault. If you do check it and then over-shoot the landing later on that's your fault too.

And personally I liked the jumps that year -- you needed a lot less speed on the big ones to hit the landing, so I could do my usual wussy speed-checking and not bounce off the knuckle. Probably saved me some pretty hard falls ...

But like I said ski areas can and do act grossly negligent. When they do they should be accountable like any other large business, otherwise the bottom-line ends up trumping reasonable effort towards public safety. Auto manufacturers didn't first install seatbelts out of the goodness of their hearts ...

ash_j,
I agree that BC access is a selling point, however, how many people are actually heading out of bounds compared to those staying in bounds. I would compare it to the selling of almost all outdoor gear and services, take skis for example, the manufacturer promotes a ski showing some pro skier ripping some BC peak and yet how many of those skis actually will be used in that type of terrain, not many. Consumers covet the identity the product provides them and I would say that in bounds skiers covet the image of BC skiers and they're able to buy that image by skiing at certain areas.

Having said all that, if the costs of BC access raise to the point of exceeding the benefits, that's simple math, and the ski areas will shut it down. And, I don't think it would really impact their bottom line. People will still go to those ski areas, there will just be more pressure on the ski areas to offer alternate benefits to skiing at their particular area. And most of us will just have to make the decision whether we're going to stay in or go out, for me it will mean less decision making in the morning of what I need to bring. I realize this is a little off topic from most of the post.

Scot Schmidt said it best in the Blizzard of Ahhhs: "People that sue ski areas should be shot"
If you get run over by a snowmobile or by a snowcat or suffer injury due to a malfunctioning chairlift then by all means you're entitled to some compensation. Skiing is inherently dangerous. If you ski (or jump) something and get hurt, tough luck, it goes with the territory. If you're not smart enough to scope out the line or jump to see if it's doable (or within your abilities), then you deserve what you get.
Sorry he got hurt but to sue because of your stupidity or lack of ability is criminal in it's own right. Sorry to offend any of you but people need to take responsibility for their actions. Nobody forced him to hit the jump.

Having said all that, if the costs of BC access raise to the point of exceeding the benefits, that's simple math, and the ski areas will shut it down.

Again, there is little liability involved in simply not stopping someone from going into the wilderness. The ski area does not create that which is outside of its boundaries. Now, if you have a ski area that purposefully puts a 'backcountry' gate right next to a death slope, well then we're talking about some liability...

That said, I'm still having a hard time shedding a :'( for lift-accessed backcountry. And I don't think I'm alone on this board--nobody here equates ski areas with backcountry access. All ski areas could completely shut down period, and the impact it's going to have on my backcountry activities is basically nil.

The climax slides you see below Elevator Gate, right now, sure look like "Death Slopes".

The sticky point with the Alpental "BC" is that is is not really backcountry, it is controlled terrain within the ski area's leasehold. Ski patrol controls access, does some degree of avalanche control, and maintains a presence there. IMO the ski area would be in a much safer position if they could delete the area beyond Forever Rope from the leasehold and put in a legitimate "you are on your own" gate to the federal land beyond. As is, by controlling access and conditions to the degree that they do, they are (at least to this non-lawyering observer) exposing themselves to another lawsuit. Now, they may be comfortable with that, and the BC Pass/access control is their way of mitigating that risk, but the current situation seems to be a few notches riskier than it is at most other ski areas on public land.