Family of killed snowboarder sues Nev. ski resort

[gerard]

LAS VEGAS (AP) — The family of a 13-year-old boy killed in an avalanche at the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort has filed a civil lawsuit against the owners of the resort and others.

Brett Hutchison died after he was swept from a ski lift at the resort in Lee Canyon on Jan. 9, 2005.

Hutchison family attorneys Robert Murdock and Marty Keach filed the lawsuit Thursday in District Court, saying the resort ignored warnings of the danger of an avalanche at the time of the fatality.

Murdock called Hutchison's death a "preventable tragedy."

It was not immediately clear who would be representing the resort in court.

Authorities said Hutchison was snowboarding when he boarded the ski lift. Moments later, a wall of snow came rumbling down the mountain and swept him and three others off the lift.

An investigation conducted by the U.S Forest Service found the resort did not comply with its avalanche control plan.

The lawsuit names as defendants Powdr Corp., Lee Canyon Ski Lifts, Lee Canyon Ski Corp., and various employees of the resort.

The suit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $10,000.

[karen]

it's kind of sad they are suing...like they want money after their son died? it just seems weird to me....money isn't going to solve anything now.

[lubawyb612]

it's kind of sad they are suing...like they want money after their son died? it just seems weird to me....money isn't going to solve anything now.

Yes it does solve something. The family may not be after money but rather to see consequences to the resort and perhaps help in the prevention of other tragic losses like this one.

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

Yes it does solve something. The family may not be after money but rather to see consequences to the resort and perhaps help in the prevention of other tragic losses like this one.

Well stated. If your kid dies in an accident that was preventable... of course you're gonna be pissed and do something about it. Unfortunately, beating the crap out of the resort owners is illegal, leaving a law suit as the most effective option. If you ask me, ten grand is nothing compared to the life of your kid, indicating that money ISN'T what they really want.

[DPancoast]

Ten Grand? They're going to get more than that if they have the right lawyer. Would I sue them for every penny they have? Hard to say. I value life just as much as the next person...but if I was a local to that mountain, I don't think it would be effective.

[JesterBOOM]

they got swept OFF the LIFT??

How big was this wall of snow??

[kelly]

In the article I read about it, they aren't sure what happened - whether he was hit directly by the snow, or if the impact of the snow shook the lift and caused him to fall. I guess they had a huge snowstorm that caused unstable snow that they had never had to deal with before, and they didn't have any blasting procedures at that resort.

[FinalForce]

Wow thats really sad and I agree 10grand aint snap considering its a death, Ive heard of people suing millions for stupid ****.

[CustomRider13]

it's kind of sad they are suing...like they want money after their son died? it just seems weird to me....money isn't going to solve anything now.
Well you got to think, funeral cost is not cheap and besides, money is all they can get out of this. I think the family deserves something because this was the resorts fault that their son died. This was all preventable if the resort decided to listen to the warnings of the dangers of an avalanche but they didn't, which was a stupid decision on their part. A childs life to a parent is worth more then money, but they can't get anything more out of this then money.

[karen]

Yes it does solve something. The family may not be after money but rather to see consequences to the resort and perhaps help in the prevention of other tragic losses like this one.

that makes sense, making sure it doesn't happen again.

[Marissa]

tru its a sad story but avalanches arent planned and being on a mountain covered in snow you've got to know coming into the sport that theres a chance of avalanche or breaking their neck or hitting a tree along with many countless injuries... idk in some ways i call the kid lucky if i were to die now id want to die doing my favorite thing ever as a last memory

[andrewelam]

TOTALLY AGREE!! The best way i can think of killing over would be while snowboarding. Yes it is a tragic loss. If the ski resort didn't follow the correct procedures for preventing avalanches they have some fault. But the problem is, people don't realize how dangerous the sport can be. I ride a small bluff in the middle of Iowa. I don't have to worry about it. I also don't have to worry about riding SWEET trails. At big mountains you get awesome riding, but you still have to realize that anything can happen, it's a MOUNTAIN. Hate to sound insensitive but you have to know what's up.

[CustomRider13]

I know it would be a good way to go but this kid was only 13. I know I didn't want to die when I was 13, because there was too many things I enjoyed in life and things I looked forward to. Who knows if he even had the chance to board often to really appreciate snowboarding. I think it sucks because the resort ignored the warnings and it ultimately costed this kids life.

[Marissa]

I know it would be a good way to go but this kid was only 13. I know I didn't want to die when I was 13, because there was too many things I enjoyed in life and things I looked forward to. Who knows if he even had the chance to board often to really appreciate snowboarding. I think it sucks because the resort ignored the warnings and it ultimately costed this kids life.

we dont know enough to say that its the resorts fault stuff like that doesnt always have warnings and im not saying i knew that that was his favrte lifestyle but on a personal level that would be great and im 15 only 2 years older than the kid, id suck but life isant planned i mean we dont sue a road because a kid runs in the middle of the street and dies. we dont sue a plant for some1 dying of an allergic reaction. sure maybe they could of avoided the incident but its not entirely true that they could notice... im not trying to be insensitive its a wicked sad thing that happened but life isnt all about walking around with a safety kit and suit of armor

[CustomRider13]

Well, when I read the first post, these two sentences got to me the most:

"the resort ignored warnings of the danger of an avalanche at the time of the fatality."
"An investigation conducted by the U.S Forest Service found the resort did not comply with its avalanche control plan."

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

we dont know enough to say that its the resorts fault stuff like that doesnt always have warnings and im not saying i knew that that was his favrte lifestyle but on a personal level that would be great and im 15 only 2 years older than the kid, id suck but life isant planned i mean we dont sue a road because a kid runs in the middle of the street and dies. we dont sue a plant for some1 dying of an allergic reaction. sure maybe they could of avoided the incident but its not entirely true that they could notice... im not trying to be insensitive its a wicked sad thing that happened but life isnt all about walking around with a safety kit and suit of armor

Ok, that's all nice, but we DO know that the resort had a warning, so they should be held accountable for some part of the accident. The parents are not suing the mountain itself (as in the examples you used), they're suing the people who ignored the warnings- I guess that wasn't clear to you.

[IRideASnowboard154]

they said just after boarding the lift, he could have been only a few feet from the ground.

[Marissa]

ok i knew they werent suing like the mountain mountain but i was jst using those as examples and i didnt see the part where it said they recieved warnings.. if that is so then they have reason for doing so but i still stand firm that if they didnt have arnings itwouldnt be fair

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

ok i knew they werent suing like the mountain mountain but i was jst using those as examples and i didnt see the part where it said they recieved warnings.. if that is so then they have reason for doing so but i still stand firm that if they didnt have arnings itwouldnt be fair

It's cool, I was just pointing out that what you said was irrelevant.

[Marissa]

it would of been better said if it was the person who owns the street or the owner of the plant but

[Devine151]

well i think they shouldnt be able to sue everyone says its the resorts fault for not closing down well its the kids fault to he should of known the conditions and known better then to go up there...

[rideforum]

Sucks for him...its hard to say what the right thing to do would be in that situation...he really got the raw end of the stick tho cuz the other kids on the lift survived. o well. at least he died boarding

[letsgoboardin]

well i think they shouldnt be able to sue everyone says its the resorts fault for not closing down well its the kids fault to he should of known the conditions and known better then to go up there...

how many 13 yr olds are familuar with avilanch danger? no way was this the kids fault!

i think in this situation if they werent on the lift you would have a good law suite (and a valid one) the fact that they were on the lift just makes it twice the tragity, could you imagine being on the lift with no where to go? Even if your not on the lift its the resorts responciblity. were not talking about a kid who went outa bounds, or who cut through some trees. that resort should have been shut down that day if there were warning and they have no avalanch team to take care of the danger, sounds like a big corprote machine mad a desicion based on Money and ignored saftey and the end result was that this poor young child was KILLED. sounds like a perfectly valid law suite and as a parent id be at the DA's office every day looking for criminal charges to be filled. this is a sad story.

[Shawnnn]

okay, marissa. you deffinately wouldn't sue the owner of a street if someone was hit by a car. especially since people don't own streets, the government does. and when a person gets hit by a car, the person driving the car would be sued unless it was proved that it was a suicide attempt.
2 weeks ago, a girl at my school was killed in a car accident. she was 18. her and her friends were on their way to our schools dance when they lost control, and she was killed on impact. stuff like this is a ****ing huge tragedy and its not something that can be taken lightly like you do. that kid was somebody's baby. how do you think your parents would feel if you died when you were snowboarding? or even just driving somewhere. your parents would be ****ing crushed, nobody wants to outlive their children! how would you feel if your baby died in a preventable accident like that? would you be like "i forgive you for not taking the proper precautions, ultimately leading to my 13 - year - old sons death." no, i didn't think so.
that would actually be one of my least wanted ways to die. i mean, i love snowboarding with a passion but i'd much rather die spending my last hours with the ones that i love.
i know you don't want to seem insensitive but honestly, how can you say the park should get off easy? if it were an open mountain without lifts or anything, then its understandable because there was absolutely no way of preventing the death of the boy. but there was a way, and now the family has to suffer the consequences, not the resort.

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

Well stated, Shawn.

[snowboardnguy90]

damn, sucks for the kid. sounds like the kid was sitting on the lift, when the avalanche came and killed him? in that case it's the resorts fault, because hte article also says that they knew about avalanche danger, but ignored any action towards it.

in that case, i think the famly should win the case, you can't keep a resort opened, risking people's lives from avalanches, just to make money.

[sweetlife]

i completely understand why the parents are suing the mountian... although money or policy changes won't bring their son back, they are really doing the right thing. Just think of it this way, by suing the mountain, hopefully changes will be made, and lives can be saved. (that would be my motivation to sue them, but hey, it might not be theirs.)

[dirtyjerz]

although i might sound like a dousche for saying this but isnt there a waiver that is signed saying u are responsoble for any risks taken adn anything that amy happen to mtn conditions. yes the parents have a very huge right to be upset and they are doing the right thinkg to make a point. just the legal battle might come down to it. idk i feel bad for the parents and everyone involved i wish the them best.

[Shawnnn]

exactly sweetlife. but you also have to remember about his friends. he's 13, and 13 year olds have like a bigillion friends in their neighborhood and all. now they're gonna be short a player when playing football. i don't know about you, but i'd be crushed if i love my best friend. and i'd want to get back at the resort as much as possible.

[kelly]

I read an article about this accident and the one at A-basin last year, and it said that these accidents have lead to a major forest service review of avalanche safety protocol, because inbounds avalanches are typically so uncommon that it was shocking for two to happen in one year. I don't think that suing the resort is going to cause it to do anything more - the resort already closed for 5 weeks after the accident to review their avalanche safety measures, and are instituting new safety measures at that resort and other resorts owned by the same company. I think that the accident itself was enough to get the resort (and the entire country) to look at its procedures, so I don't think that the lawsuit would do much more there.

[snowboardnguy90]

i agree with kelly, but nothing gets your attention like a bitch slap in the wallet.

[kelly]

yeah, I think the death of a kid did it, they don't need the wallet bitchslap.
However, with the small sum the parents are asking for, they could be looking to conver funeral expenses, hospital bills, etc, which would make sense.

[dirtyjerz]

to sweetlife the warnings and crap are on the back of the peel and stick on the lift ticket and on the back of season passes.

[thedude]

yeah, I think the death of a kid did it, they don't need the wallet bitchslap.
However, with the small sum the parents are asking for, they could be looking to conver funeral expenses, hospital bills, etc, which would make sense.

that's what i was thnking, and even thogh that is concidered a "small" fee compaired to what they could have asked for, it's defiantly enough to get the mountain to pay attention and come up wiht a solution so that somethig like this doesnt' happen again. the parents might have seen this as an opportunity, even thouhg one of heavy greivence to them, to make it safer for other kids.

[kelly]

yeah, but my point is that the mountain is already working to make sure this doesn't happen again, without the lawsuit....

[snowboardnguy90]

that's true. also making the mountain pay too much might make them cut back on other **** that might make it less safe... which would counterbalance the whole thing.

unless it's a giant company chain, then they could pbbly pay like 15 mill and not even feel it.

[Marissa]

okay, marissa. you deffinately wouldn't sue the owner of a street if someone was hit by a car. especially since people don't own streets, the government does. and when a person gets hit by a car, the person driving the car would be sued unless it was proved that it was a suicide attempt.
2 weeks ago, a girl at my school was killed in a car accident. she was 18. her and her friends were on their way to our schools dance when they lost control, and she was killed on impact. stuff like this is a ****ing huge tragedy and its not something that can be taken lightly like you do. that kid was somebody's baby. how do you think your parents would feel if you died when you were snowboarding? or even just driving somewhere. your parents would be ****ing crushed, nobody wants to outlive their children! how would you feel if your baby died in a preventable accident like that? would you be like "i forgive you for not taking the proper precautions, ultimately leading to my 13 - year - old sons death." no, i didn't think so.
that would actually be one of my least wanted ways to die. i mean, i love snowboarding with a passion but i'd much rather die spending my last hours with the ones that i love.
i know you don't want to seem insensitive but honestly, how can you say the park should get off easy? if it were an open mountain without lifts or anything, then its understandable because there was absolutely no way of preventing the death of the boy. but there was a way, and now the family has to suffer the consequences, not the resort.


and where did i bring in parents?? maybe thats not a way ud want to go but to each his own and screw what i know about government or streets or whatever this is for stating our opinions not bashing ppl to make ourselves feel smarter

[Shawnnn]

and where did i bring in parents?? maybe thats not a way ud want to go but to each his own and screw what i know about government or streets or whatever this is for stating our opinions not bashing ppl to make ourselves feel smarter

i'm not trying to make myself feel smarter. but things totally change once you actually expierence a tragedy like this. and the way you put it, was very offensive to me. and if i were to die snowboarding, i wouldn't want to be riding the lift. i would rather die doing something nobody has ever had the balls to attempt. there was a guy that went on an expedition with a bunch of people to get to the top of mount everest. he was a snowboarder and would hike up to a certain point and snowboard down. then one time he went on a trail and never came out of it. i'd want to die trying something nobody else has ever tried.

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

Marissa- Nobody's bashing you, we're just trying to have an educated conversation about how the law relates to our sport, especially in the light of tradgedy. Such a complicated and emotionally charged situation shouldn't be oversimplified- you're bound to offend someone.
P.S.- I'm sure nobody would respect your opinion if they saw the vulgar private message full of insults and profanity that you sent me.

[Marissa]

Marissa- Nobody's bashing you, we're just trying to have an educated conversation about how the law relates to our sport, especially in the light of tradgedy. Such a complicated and emotionally charged situation shouldn't be oversimplified- you're bound to offend someone.
P.S.- I'm sure nobody would respect your opinion if they saw the vulgar private message full of insults and profanity that you sent me.

plain and simple girls like you are why im friends with all guys so y am i wasting my time on you

[SnoChica]

Okay ladies... I think it's time to chill... :)

Back to topic.

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

I agree :peace:

[Death_from_above702]

OMG.. It's not like we get alot of snow out here in vegas. were in a freakin' desert! so that time when we did get snow and the kid died, it was so random. **** like that never happens here. Its not Lee Canyons fault, and the parents suing is stupid also. All they'll probably do with the money is just gamble it away anyway. God i hate stupid people

[kelly]

hahahaha, gamble the money away?
Anyway, you're right that it was an unprecedented amount of snow for that resort...

[snowboardnguy90]

wow, i think we almost had the first ever SBA catfight... !!!! too bad there wasn't a camera =P. j/k.

increase the peace.

[ride jersey]

10 grand is pocket chang for big resorts

[sunsh1nedaydr3am]

The fact that it was an unprecedented amount of snow is a reason to be a little extra careful, not just some lame excuse for why someone DIED.

[CustomRider13]

It's the resort's responsibility to warn their customers of these types of dangers. The kids don't need to be blamed for it. I think the family deserves more then a measly 10 grand.

[Uncle Sam]

i think that since its only 10,000 thats their not after money. but to pervent this from happening to someone else. Also i think the ten grand is to pay for the funeral

[CustomRider13]

Nothing justifies the cost of a life but something more has to be given to the family then funeral costs. If I was the owner of the resort, I would've given the family enough money for the funeral and something extra to show my apologies. It was a life taken away from a family for a stupid (or greedy) mistake that they should own up to. If memory serves me correctly, I do recollect funeral costs to exceed 10 grand unless you're burying the deceased in your backyard with a cardboard box. The family is not suing for just ten grand. In the article, it states, "The suit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $10,000". They are suing to compensate and punish for the death in excess of 10 g's. They are definately going to win and it would probably be smart for the resort to just settle out of court to avoid court fees and time.

[kelly]

The resort, as a business, can't just give the family money. That would be an admission of liability and possible invitation to sue for more.

I don't think the mistake the resort made was stupid or greedy. I think that they weren't prepared for that kind of situation because they never had avalanche conditions in the past. It would be like an east coast resort having an avalanche.

And I don't understand why you say they are definitely going to win?

[Monument 33]

Its snowboarding everybody knows how dangerous it is when you strap in. And how snow is unpredictable. Yes it could have maybe been prevented but you dont know that for sure. I mean it does suck that he died but even if the resort still took the precautions avalanches can still go no matter how safe people try to make it.

[CustomRider13]

by giving the family money, I mean settling out of court with lawyers.

well, if they have never had avalanche conditions in the past, I would assume the resort would be extra careful because of their inexperience. Lets not forget, they were warned and I'm sure those warnings were not supposed to be taken lightly. It's one thing to not have any warnings and have this happen and another to have warnings and ignore it. Nobody is to blame but the resort and they need to take responsibility for it. The reason they decided to ignore these warnings, I couldn't say, but I could think of reasons why a resort wouldn't want to close down for a day. I'm sure their daily gross revenue is pretty high.

The parents have a very good chance of winning because everything points to the resort as being responsible for this accident.

[kelly]

I don't know what liability laws are in Nevada, but in Colorado it's illegal to sue a resort for an accident that happens there.. so there may be other factors than that.
And the articles I have read about it weren't nearly as harsh about the resort's role in the accident as you are being. Sometimes a resort staff doesn't have the skill to anticipate this kind of an accident. This has already lead to a major finanancial loss for this resort, so I'm pretty sure that if they were aware of the potential, they would have done something.

[CustomRider13]

Its snowboarding everybody knows how dangerous it is when you strap in. And how snow is unpredictable. Yes it could have maybe been prevented but you dont know that for sure. I mean it does suck that he died but even if the resort still took the precautions avalanches can still go no matter how safe people try to make it.
At the least, they should have notified everybody on the mountain of this danger. What is the point of an avalanche warning? The resort as a business is responsible for taking measures in providing safety for their customers. Wouldn't you want to know if there was an avalanche warning? Would you be mad if the resort kept this information from you and you got seriously hurt or someone you knew died from it? Also, I might not share the same thought as some of you guys, but I would rather not die snowboarding and live. I love boarding but there are more important things in my life then snowboarding. Like spending time with my family and friends. Ignoring warnings, for the company (resort), was a gamble and they lost.

[CustomRider13]

I don't know what liability laws are in Nevada, but in Colorado it's illegal to sue a resort for an accident that happens there.. so there may be other factors than that.
And the articles I have read about it weren't nearly as harsh about the resort's role in the accident as you are being. Sometimes a resort staff doesn't have the skill to anticipate this kind of an accident. This has already lead to a major finanancial loss for this resort, so I'm pretty sure that if they were aware of the potential, they would have done something.
They didn't need to anticipate anything from what I read in that article because they were warned. I don't think I'm being harsh when I put the blame on the resort. They had a choice after the warning to shut it down or ignore it. To ignore the warning was a gamble and they took it.

[kelly]

Ok, I did a little more looking into it, and I still disagree with you. Perhaps it is a california litigiousness thing? The ski patrol had been releasing charges earlier in the day at the resort, in areas that had slid in the past. This area hadn't ever slid during the 40+ year operation of this resort. Additionally, the blasting they did do only resulted in minor sluffing, usually a sign of pretty stable snowpack. The specific conditions of this storm were unusual, dumping more snow than the resort usually gets in entire year, and blasting snow at the side of this peak in a way that it did not normally collect. I just don't know how they could have anticipated a slide in an area that never slid before. This is natural terrain and it is not possible to always predict what will happen.

[kelly]

They didn't need to anticipate anything from what I read in that article because they were warned. I don't think I'm being harsh when I put the blame on the resort. They had a choice after the warning to shut it down or ignore it. To ignore the warning was a gamble and they took it.
As I said earlier, they were blasting before the resort opened to attempt to control the avalanches. Do you know how many resorts stay open when there is an avalanche warning in effect for the area? Pretty much all of them - they blast areas known to slide and close them off if necessary, but they keep the resorts open. This area was not considered a potential slide area because it had not slid in recent history.

[CustomRider13]

I didn't know those details, but I still believe it was the resort's fault. Resorts should be more cautious when dealing with the safety of their customers. Especially since most of them are young. If the resort would've atleast shared the information they received or knew about, it would give the people an oppurtunity to either stay or split and if that happened, it would've lead me to think differently about this whole matter. I just don't think it was fair for the kid who died.

[YourAllScrewed]

This is gonna start another chain of lawsuits against resorts for injuries and fatalities. This is why they clearly state the risks that you take on most lift tickets, although this isn't because of terrain, as most warnings state. May he rest in peace, but avalanches can be unpredicatable at times, most of the time its just bad visibility. There is always a 50-50 chance something like this will happen. I don't mean to piss off anyone but I don't want to see resorts and favorite lifts and powder spots to get torn down because of a lawsuit. Sometimes they gotta go bankrupt, get a new owner, then all the good days are gone, or they become a sell-out to pay the bills. This sport is a risk, and I've accepted mine, having been an avalanch victim before.

[CustomRider13]

I just read an article on this incident and I definately think this was the resort's fault. Here is some stuff that was on there:

"failing to tell the public about numerous avalanche warnings, deeming the ski area safe despite those warnings, and dismissing a specific warning about possible avalanche in the ski resort in order to save money."

"Had they accurately measured the snowpack, this wouldn't have happened. Had they had the equipment to accurately measure the snowpack, this wouldn't have happened. Had they heeded all of the warning signs out there from the weather, this wouldn't have happened. As a result of all this, we have a death of a young child, for no reason except negligence,"

The kid was swept away by the avalanche while he was on the lift which might have been preventable if they had safety bars. It has been over a year now and they still don't have safety bars on their lift.

[unykron]

I've always been against suing someone for anything. I think the whole idea of it is bull**** and just a way to make money. There are however certain conditions where it's appropriate. And this may be one of them. I'm on the fence though. I wouldn't sue for something like that. ****, I didn't even consider suing when my mom died of cancer because she was misdiagnosed. (Either did my father, after all, I was still a kid.) **** happens, accidents, by the nature of the word are all preventible. Seeking money isn't going to bring anyone back and will only postpone the healing process. If it were my world, the lawsuit could only legally cover the cost of what goes into a funeral. Because that's ridiculously expensive for a box and a hole in the ground. It's a tragic accident. But, maybe the resort should be forced to close to do mandatory upgrades to their lifts and avalanche prevention capabilities along with a hefty fine of some sort? But, then again, where would that fine go? The state/govenment certainly shouldn't get it. So maybe the family would. In which case, I guess my whole argument is moot.

[tmltml417]

Well, i dont really post that much here, but this article kind of got to me

In America, we have whats called "Assumption of the Risk" which is known as a viable defense in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits. Its basically saying that the plantiff, in this case the boy who died, knew that a particular activity, snowboarding, was dangerous and bears all responsibility for any injury that resulted.

Most sport or extreme sport related lawsuits usually end with this.
In fact, if u look on the back of your pass, it will usually allude to this, saying that they, the resort, aren't liable for your injuries.

I really do agree that the kid's family should get more than 10 grand, especially due to the circumstances, but i doubt they will if the resort is properly represented,

[kelly]

I just read an article on this incident and I definately think this was the resort's fault. Here is some stuff that was on there:

"failing to tell the public about numerous avalanche warnings, deeming the ski area safe despite those warnings, and dismissing a specific warning about possible avalanche in the ski resort in order to save money."

"Had they accurately measured the snowpack, this wouldn't have happened. Had they had the equipment to accurately measure the snowpack, this wouldn't have happened. Had they heeded all of the warning signs out there from the weather, this wouldn't have happened. As a result of all this, we have a death of a young child, for no reason except negligence,"

The kid was swept away by the avalanche while he was on the lift which might have been preventable if they had safety bars. It has been over a year now and they still don't have safety bars on their lift.

I think that there are clearly articles written on both sides of this issue, because most of the ones I have read did not fault the resort for the accident. I also don't think that avalanche warnings ever stop people from skiing inbounds terrain at a resort - they are generally ignored by everyone but backcountry skiiers and riders who go into this terrain regularly. I don't think that the resort was trying to save money, they were actively blasting in the area and attempting to prevent avalanches, which is standard protocol.

[snowboardnguy90]

i don't think anyone can truly know the truth on this topic anyway... unless we go back in time and see everything for yourself.

[CustomRider13]

Well, i dont really post that much here, but this article kind of got to me

In America, we have whats called "Assumption of the Risk" which is known as a viable defense in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits. Its basically saying that the plantiff, in this case the boy who died, knew that a particular activity, snowboarding, was dangerous and bears all responsibility for any injury that resulted.

Most sport or extreme sport related lawsuits usually end with this.
In fact, if u look on the back of your pass, it will usually allude to this, saying that they, the resort, aren't liable for your injuries.

I really do agree that the kid's family should get more than 10 grand, especially due to the circumstances, but i doubt they will if the resort is properly represented,
When the resort owner/owners started this business, he/they became responsible for providing safety and other services. This is what came with the business. Customers should only be liable for following rules and hazards that happen while boarding or skiing. It's so sad to think that, all they had to do was inform everyone that there was a possible avalanche and let them decide whether they want to leave or stay. That would've tooken alot of the blame off them but they couldn't even do that. Were they scared that alot of the people were gonna leave and ask for a refund? haha. The resort owners are probably old deuche bags who thought they could take a chance instead of losing a day's revenue. To them, it's just some unfortunate accident and they will never see it the same way the parent's do.

[snowboardnguy90]

i say we settle this debate with a mustache contest lol.

[CustomRider13]

I think that there are clearly articles written on both sides of this issue, because most of the ones I have read did not fault the resort for the accident. I also don't think that avalanche warnings ever stop people from skiing inbounds terrain at a resort - they are generally ignored by everyone but backcountry skiiers and riders who go into this terrain regularly. I don't think that the resort was trying to save money, they were actively blasting in the area and attempting to prevent avalanches, which is standard protocol.
I read a couple of articles last night and there's just things that kept repeating in all of them. Negligence. I cannot say it was caused by greed, stupidity, bad assumption.....etc., but it is negligence. They have responsibilities and safety should be first. Especially because of young people and children that are present in these places.

[CustomRider13]

i say we settle this debate with a mustache contest lol.
MUSTACHE CONTEST!!