Jury Rules in Favor of Vail in Avalanche Death

[fatbob]

Before anyone flames me: I have skied Prima Cornice hundreds of times. I have also done that same hike when the upper gate is closed a dozen or so of times. I've read every article and deposition I could find on this case. I believe Vail's actions are reprehensible.

All of this was documented extensively on the EpicSki forum by me and others. Vail bought that forum, shut it down and deleted the content. Coincidence?

I find it hard to believe that VR shutdown Epic because a few blowhards were talking about the case on tinterweb. I highly doubt anyone involved directly in the litigation even knew Epic existed or that MTN owned it.

Re your other point - genuine curiosity what was going through your mind when you chose to hike up from the lower gate? This is definitely open because otherwise they'd stop me hiking OR I know this is a bit wrong but technically they can't stop me OR something else? Did you ever ski in when there might be Avy risk? Did it not concern you as an experienced skier or did you say I'll make my own assessments just like in the BC?

Not trying to pick a fight - just genuinely interested in where your head was at? Me I'd probably be at the "I know this is a bit wrong " part and actively checking for hazard myself.

 

[fatbob]

Also which bit of Vail's actions were reprehensible

- That it was an open secret that closed upper gate was only to keep tourons out and it was fair game as long as lower gate open
- That ski patrol were lying when they said they didn't know people hiked up

(to be clear I've no idea whether these might be true but they are the sort of thing that people might find reprehensible)

 

[tball]

@fatbob you are probably right the shutdown of Epicski was unrelated. I do think it's likely that one or both sides of the litigation saw the thread. It was by far the most comprehensive public discussion and ranked highly in Google searches on the subject.

As to what I was thinking when doing the hike: I wanted to get to the untracked powder, primarily. A few steps up could get you a fresh line. The next lap through took a few more steps, and so it goes until you've hiked up to the upper gate.

It's been a long time, but I think everyone knew it was a gray area. I was thinking they probably couldn't pull our passes or call the sheriff since it wasn't clearly signed. Likewise, I think patrol also knew it was a gray area in terms of the ski area's liability, and they were right.

Turns out there is a lot of danger in that gray area. I know I'm being more careful as a result of Taft's tragic death. I'm hopeful ski patrols everywhere are as well.

 

[coskigirl]

All of this was documented extensively on the EpicSki forum by me and others. Vail bought that forum, shut it down and deleted the content. Coincidence?

I find it hard to believe that VR shutdown Epic because a few blowhards were talking about the case on tinterweb. I highly doubt anyone involved directly in the litigation even knew Epic existed or that MTN owned it.

While I doubt that the forum was shut down due to a thread regarding this issue (if it was they wouldn't have given members warning and a chance to download content prior to shutting it down), I absolutely do believe that their attorneys knew about it. It is their job to be prepared for any and all evidence that might be submitted by the plaintiff and have a response. A simple google search prior to shutdown would have led any paralegal or legal research team to the thread(s) and both sides would have done this long before Vail even attempted to get it thrown out.

 

[fatbob]

Fairynuff - I suspect paralegals do do as you say. Just I think forum paranoia about careful they are watching us and will shut us down is sometimes overblown and forum members because they are invested have an overinflated perception of the value of their words in the real world.

 

[chilehed]

I have skied Prima Cornice hundreds of times. I have also done that same hike when the upper gate is closed a dozen or so of times.

I don't see how admitting you've knowingly entered terrain you knew was closed shows that fault lies with Vail in this. The entrance to Upper Prima was closed, which informs everyone that that terrain is closed. If you hike into terrain that you know or should know is closed, you're at fault. End of story.

 

[Jully]

I don't see how admitting you've knowingly entered terrain you knew was closed shows that fault lies with Vail in this. The entrance to Upper Prima was closed, which informs everyone that that terrain is closed. If you hike into terrain that you know or should know is closed, you're at fault. End of story.

Agreed. I really don't see what is reprehensible about Vail's actions regarding skier safety in closing the terrain.

What about trail being open with the trail next to it closed. If the closed trail is clearly closed at the top of the run and you cut through the woods halfway down, ski onto the closed trail and get hurt, how is the ski area at fault? I don't see the difference to hiking up rather than across to closed terrain.

Entering closed terrain through roundabout measures is clearly stated as disallowed in every list of ski area rules/codes/laws that I've ever read, which everyone is responsible for knowing.

 

[scott43]

So that's the learning part..adults with knowledge may cut through the woods and poach. Ok, they're adults. What if kids do that? Should they be roping the woods? I understand it's a logistical nightmare but maybe that's something to consider. Better awareness of what's closed in an easy to see fashion. Or do we chalk it up to inherent danger?

 

[jmeb]

Anyone who suggests roping 100% around closed areas has never set a rope line on a ski hill.

 

[scott43]

Anyone who suggests roping 100% around closed areas has never set a rope line on a ski hill.

I hear ya. But they may look at a lesser version of that as a result of this. Roping the bottom entrance as an example. Let's hope a few unfortunate incidents won't derail access completely for everyone else.

 

[Ken_R]

The images explain a great deal. You can easily traverse into the avy location from the lower gate and dont really have to go uphill much at all. Its a somewhat gray area hence the case but yea, bottom line, dont poach. I guess in most areas you can get away with this but this particular slope is know to be one of the MOST avalanche prone on the entire mountain.

 

[SBrown]

You can ski/hike into AMF from Ptarmigan and into parts of Gowdys from AMF. You can also ski/hike into the hanging valley from possible. You can also ski directly into Saphire bowl from Spanky’s or hike in from Blackcomb glacier. At Copper, you can hike/ski into Union Peak or take the traverse and hike from buzzards alley.

Complex terrain often has multiple entrances and often involves hiking.

The point is that resort skiing is NOT only a downhill sport. Evidently the Supreme Court agreed otherwise the case would likely have been dismissed as there would’ve no controversy.

Just saying that we shouldn’t be so quick to judge the actions of the kids. Should they have known better? Probably. But Vail is not blameless either (IMHO).

Yes, not all of that is "only" hike-to ... I'm not familiar with every way to get into Gowdy's, but if it's closed and AMF is open, for example, do people ski down AMF and then hike up into Gowdy's? Or the Union Peak example: If the peak is closed but Kaboom is open, you could ski down the rope at Kaboom and hike up into Union Peak. I've wanted to do that before. But it's clearly not ok. Hell, a bunch of us (@dean_spirito, @Drahtguy Kevin, @SkiNurse, and probably more) early-season a few years back skied off the top of T-Rex and hiked up and through the woods to get to Golddigger, which was closed. It was spectacular skiing. But had there been an accident, I certainly wouldn't have sued Copper. We knew what we were doing, and that it was breaking the rules. If Golddigger (or Upper Prima) had been open, it would have been ok. But it wasn't.

I do think Vail should add signage, because hiking does happen. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's legal, though. And no, I don't believe that the patrollers didn't know that hiking happened in that specific spot. The thing is, they testified that the closure was for rock and stump danger, not avy danger. Clearly the lower gate should have been closed if the upper part could slide. I found that part, um, interesting.

 

[François Pugh]

I'm all in favour of a "call the tune - pay the piper" policy. Close the run, mark it close. Let folks ski it unless it would cause a danger to those below skiing on an open run. I know we will never see that though.

IMHO the run was properly closed, and folks hiking up from the lower gate knew what they were doing and should bear the responsibility.
In fact I think all skiers should take responsibility for their skiing (period).

 

[coskigirl]

Yes, not all of that is "only" hike-to ... I'm not familiar with every way to get into Gowdy's, but if it's closed and AMF is open, for example, do people ski down AMF and then hike up into Gowdy's? Or the Union Peak example: If the peak is closed but Kaboom is open, you could ski down the rope at Kaboom and hike up into Union Peak. I've wanted to do that before. But it's clearly not ok. Hell, a bunch of us (@dean_spirito, @Drahtguy Kevin, @SkiNurse, and probably more) early-season a few years back skied off the top of T-Rex and hiked up and through the woods to get to Golddigger, which was closed. It was spectacular skiing. But had there been an accident, I certainly wouldn't have sued Copper. We knew what we were doing, and that it was breaking the rules. If Golddigger (or Upper Prima) had been open, it would have been ok. But it wasn't.

I do think Vail should add signage, because hiking does happen. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's legal, though. And no, I don't believe that the patrollers didn't know that hiking happened in that specific spot. The thing is, they testified that the closure was for rock and stump danger, not avy danger. Clearly the lower gate should have been closed if the upper part could slide. I found that part, um, interesting.

I wonder if they didn't do an avy risk evaluation because they knew they were closing it for rocks and stumps? I mean, I don't agree with that thinking because as you said, the lower part could/would be hit by an avy in the upper part. Just trying to understand why they wouldn't have even evaluated for avy risk. I hope it's not that they did and they made a bad choice to leave the lower part open knowing there was risk and then perjure themselves during the case.

 

[DanoT]

Yes, not all of that is "only" hike-to ... I'm not familiar with every way to get into Gowdy's, but if it's closed and AMF is open, for example, do people ski down AMF and then hike up into Gowdy's? Or the Union Peak example: If the peak is closed but Kaboom is open, you could ski down the rope at Kaboom and hike up into Union Peak. I've wanted to do that before. But it's clearly not ok. Hell, a bunch of us (@dean_spirito, @Drahtguy Kevin, @SkiNurse, and probably more) early-season a few years back skied off the top of T-Rex and hiked up and through the woods to get to Golddigger, which was closed. It was spectacular skiing. But had there been an accident, I certainly wouldn't have sued Copper. We knew what we were doing, and that it was breaking the rules. If Golddigger (or Upper Prima) had been open, it would have been ok. But it wasn't.

I do think Vail should add signage, because hiking does happen. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's legal, though. And no, I don't believe that the patrollers didn't know that hiking happened in that specific spot. The thing is, they testified that the closure was for rock and stump danger, not avy danger. Clearly the lower gate should have been closed if the upper part could slide. I found that part, um, interesting.

I don't know the area but looking at the 2 gate locations on the map and with them being quite close in both distance and elevation, I would think that it would be SOP to close both gates in high avy conditions so the fact that only one gate was closed does support the idea of a rock and stump closure only for just one gate....unless someone screwed up and didn't close a gate that should have been closed.

 

[tball]

Also which bit of Vail's actions were reprehensible

- That it was an open secret that closed upper gate was only to keep tourons out and it was fair game as long as lower gate open
- That ski patrol were lying when they said they didn't know people hiked up

(to be clear I've no idea whether these might be true but they are the sort of thing that people might find reprehensible)

Here are some examples off the top of my head.

Prior to Taft's death Vail:

• Failed to perform mitigation work in the area in spite of a forecast for high avalanche danger and the location being a well-known honeypot.
• Didn't put up a simple sign saying "No hiking above this point" as is standard practice elsewhere.
• Alternatively, didn't always open or close both gates, as it is now the practice after the accident.

After the tragedy:

• Vail mislead the press into reporting Taft cut a rope when they knew that wasn't true.
• The head of Vail Ski Patrol lied to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center investigators saying they did avalanche mitigation when they hadn't.
• At the trial, Vail Ski Patrol claimed they did not know about skiers hiking up the ridge in spite of skiers doing it for 26 years before Taft's death.

I haven't been following the case closely for the last few years, so not sure what else has come out or changed about what's above. I'm reasonably confident I recall all those details correctly. Much of that is disturbing enough to be etched in my brain. Anyone, please correct me if I've misstated or missed anything. All this was well documented and sourced on Epicski before Vail shut it down.

No doubt folks will have different feelings about what's reprehensible. In my view, a number of Vail's individual actions and inactions by themself are reprehensible. In total, I think it's very difficult to argue Vail's actions are not reprehensible. I'm happy to listen if anyone wants to make a case for Vail.

 

[tball]

I don't see how admitting you've knowingly entered terrain you knew was closed shows that fault lies with Vail in this. The entrance to Upper Prima was closed, which informs everyone that that terrain is closed. If you hike into terrain that you know or should know is closed, you're at fault. End of story.

The primary question of the six-year trial was if the trail was properly signed as closed or not, so it's not so simple.

And there is no Upper Prima Cornice or Lower Prima Cornice, just Prima Cornice which was open that day.

 

[Jully]

Vail mislead the press into reporting Taft cut a rope when they knew that wasn't true.

Had not heard about this. If that is the case I completely withdraw my comment about reprehensible actions. That is very reprehensible.

 

[geepers]

Vail mislead the press into reporting Taft cut a rope when they knew that wasn't true.

Had not heard about this. If that is the case I completely withdraw my comment about reprehensible actions. That is very reprehensible.

Tball, do you have anything to support that statement re Vail misleading on the rope?

We were in Vail in Jan 2012 at the time of that terrible tragedy. We were skiing with our son (15 y/o at the time) so we paid close attention to the reports. What I remember being reported immediately after was this:

Vail Resorts issued the following statement Monday: “On behalf of Vail Resorts and Vail Mountain, we extend our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of the young man in the tragic incident that occurred on a closed area of the Prima Cornice trail yesterday. It is our understanding that the boys entered through a lower gate and hiked to the closed terrain.”

Two gates provide access to Prima Cornice. Those gates are named Upper Prima Cornice and Lower Prima Cornice.

The Upper Prima Cornice access gate was closed. The lower access gate was open, said Don Dressler, with the U.S. Forest Service.

“They did not duck a rope,” Dressler said.

Dressler spent all day Monday helping with the investigation, working with the Colorado Avalanche Information Center, Eagle County Sheriff’s investigators, and the Vail Ski Patrol.

Dressler went over the Vail Ski Patrol’s protocol and what happened before, during and after the accident. He said they did everything as they should.

“I had to see it for myself,” Dressler said. “This case is a little different because it’s inside the ski area. This one is the hardest one I’ve ever worked on. It’s never easy to have a fatality and it’s even harder when it’s a child.”​

Re comments by others about going into closed areas....
I am somewhat surprised that the primary concern is losing a ski pass. Maybe we've been unlucky but another of our ski trips was to Whistler in Jan 2009 (year before Olympics) just when a huge snow dump came down on poor early season coverage. The avalanche danger went off the scale - Whistler Peak was closed for our 2 week visit - and yet people still went under the ropes. And died. One was a British tourist who skied under the ropes with his young son. Apparently his last comments were something like: "Nonsense. I've skied this many times." The young son survived.

Then again maybe you've done av training, you carry a shovel and you always take the time for a snow-pack assessment. But I'm guessing that in most cases that's unlikely - how often do we see shovels? - and folk should perhaps think about more than just having their pass pulled.

 

[scott43]

Have to say, looking at the photo, it's not as clear-cut as I had in mind. That is a little tricky.