Jury Rules in Favor of Vail in Avalanche Death

[QueueCT]

Right, and that's why we let 13 yo's drive, drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, buy a gun, work, serve in the armed forces, and vote.

I think the age discussion is a red herring. Resorts would only have a couple of options 1) Require parents to ski with kids under age X at all times or 2) Close terrain that would be dangerous for anyone under Y years old (where Y is an assumption of the youngest age where someone would ski without parents). Neither is feasible. Parents make individual decisions to allow their kids to ski alone on big mountains. They know full well that kids will get into terrain that is over their heads. It's an inherent risk.

The above is completely separate and independent of discussion about avalanche control or anything else.

 

[fatbob]

I think what I desire is some assurance ski areas are performing avalanche mitigation to some reasonable standard. I'm happy to take the risk if it has been, but there currently is no way of knowing.

But isn't your assurance the number of inbounds avalanches at ski areas which are very very few. And you observation of Ski patrol running control routes or delaying openings while they run such routes (and the peanut gallery bitches about them being too slow, too conservative etc). Or just talking to patrol about the routes they run and where they think the biggest risks are and how they control them.

You seem to be wanting patrol to sign a cert every day at the top of every run or piece of terrain they have or haven't controlled. I guess they could do that if everyone was happy for terrain to only open in the afternoon or the day after a powder day.

 

[raisingarizona]

Mike King should stay at home in his safe space.

 

[raisingarizona]

I doubt that 300 feet of the slides 400 total very were in an open area. That doesn’t look possible with the gates being separated by a long double fall line in that area.

If an unsupervised kid (who knew what he was doing btw) climbs up into a closed area and releases a slide that takes out people in an open area it’s that persons fault, not the ski areas. Terrain is opened all the time with dangerous slopes above that during those periods and conditions wouldn’t release without a human trigger. This is a normal observation for industry experts.

Even if the Vail patrol knew that people hike above there they simply can’t police the area 24/7. They have real work to do and if you’re gonna do stupid sh$t that’s on you. Deal with the consequences or stay home watching trashy day time television.

If you can’t take the heat than stay the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[jmeb]

^^ What happens when maggots show up on PugSki.

 

[Jack skis]

So now we've come to this, raisingarizona is going after "trashy day time television." Where will it end?

 

[tball]

I think the age discussion is a red herring. Resorts would only have a couple of options 1) Require parents to ski with kids under age X at all times or 2) Close terrain that would be dangerous for anyone under Y years old (where Y is an assumption of the youngest age where someone would ski without parents). Neither is feasible. Parents make individual decisions to allow their kids to ski alone on big mountains. They know full well that kids will get into terrain that is over their heads. It's an inherent risk.

The above is completely separate and independent of discussion about avalanche control or anything else.

In this case, I agree the fact Taft was 13 years old is irrelevant. I'm middle aged and probably would have done the same thing Taft did that day.

It was 1:40 pm and lots of others had already done the hike that day. It was tracked up already. I've been doing that same hike for decades when the upper gate is closed. And, I have reasonable confidence Vail has done avalanche mitigation. Otherwise, they wouldn't open the lower terrain below. "Good to go."

If it were the first thing that morning, I'd like to think I'd have second thoughts. I'm not sure if that would have outweighed the powder. It probably depends if I was aware of the heightened macro avalanche forecast in spite of skiing inbounds. I'm much more aware of that now after that tragic day.

 

[tball]

But isn't your assurance the number of inbounds avalanches at ski areas which are very very few. And you observation of Ski patrol running control routes or delaying openings while they run such routes (and the peanut gallery bitches about them being too slow, too conservative etc). Or just talking to patrol about the routes they run and where they think the biggest risks are and how they control them.

You seem to be wanting patrol to sign a cert every day at the top of every run or piece of terrain they have or haven't controlled. I guess they could do that if everyone was happy for terrain to only open in the afternoon or the day after a powder day.

Yes, that has been my assurance. This case has me questioning those assumptions. That's why it's so troubling for me. It doesn't help that Vail Ski Patrol's testimony defies all logic and reason from my perspective.

If you dig through my posts I'm sure you'll find me whining about Copper being too conservative about opening terrain. They'll do bombing and directed skiing on moderate angle slopes that turn into typical bump runs. They also won't hesitate to close steeps for days. I'll stop complaining now.

I know avalanche mitigation isn't an exact science. It seems the practices vary greatly from resort to resort, and it's done with no transparency or accountability. Is anyone trying to improve the science?

 

[fatbob]

I know avalanche mitigation isn't an exact science. It seems the practices vary greatly from resort to resort, and it's done with no transparency or accountability. Is anyone trying to improve the science?

Talk to the guys n girls. Whenever I've ridden a lift with patrol they've always been very open about the control work they do, why things get opened in what order, how many more passes they have to do to get X opened. Plus the collateral benefit is that they'll often tip you off about rope drops.

They'd much rather have people understanding their work than waste time and resources chasing jackass poachers who think they know better.

 

[SBrown]

I know avalanche mitigation isn't an exact science. It seems the practices vary greatly from resort to resort, and it's done with no transparency or accountability. Is anyone trying to improve the science?

http://www.issw.net/
https://snowstudies.org/
http://arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/

 

[Wasatchman]

I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I think both sides here are bringing up great issues. Thank you @fatbob and @tball and some others for your passionate views without making it personal against each other.

I am for personal responsibility. What concerns me if I do understand the facts (I am not familiar with the terrain) is the question of avalanche mitigation. I find it scary if I understand correctly that avalanche mitigation was not done even though open portions of the trail below would be dangerous in a slide.

People do stupid things. It's one thing if I do something stupid and die in an avi that I triggered, but if someone else does something stupid then I don't want to be caught below in an avi they started.

Without corresponding avi work, we have to worry about positioning relative to closed areas that could be triggered by some jackass poacher. So even if a trail is closed, isn't it fair to say it should be good practice to do the avi mitigation work if it could trigger and hurt people below? Or keep the trail below closed. Again, I get the personal responsibility thing, but I would think the resort needs to think about people who could be possibly hurt if someone inevitably does the wrong thing.

 

[geepers]

It probably depends if I was aware of the heightened macro avalanche forecast in spite of skiing inbounds. I'm much more aware of that now after that tragic day.

tball, it does appear that other journalists are on the case.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/fixler-clearing-the-air-on-colorado-ski-deaths-column/
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/skier-deaths/

I couldn't find a break-down of causes of death but clicking on those pins on the map in the second article shows a great many died from blunt force trauma (trees, falls, collisions) and falling into tree wells. Trees seem to be about the most dangerous things on the mountain.



Awareness...
I see from your avatar that you are a helmet wearer. Do you know the speed of impact your helmet is designed to withstand? (I have asked many people this question and seldom do they know.) And, for when you do know, how often do you exceed that speed in the vicinity of trees, rocks, ice?

 

[Mike King]

Mike King should stay at home in his safe space.

I suspect I have more experience skiing terrain with consequences than most, including big mountain skiing in some pretty significant avalanche hazard areas with little possibility of rescue and with little medical infrastructure. So, yes, I'll stay in my safe space, but that's probably a bit different than most folk on this board.

 

[jmeb]

I suspect I have more experience skiing terrain with consequences than most, including big mountain skiing in some pretty significant avalanche hazard areas with little possibility of rescue and with little medical infrastructure. So, yes, I'll stay in my safe space, but that's probably a bit different than most folk on this board.

Fact. I would love to ski Aspen with you someday.

Just for reference, though Raising comes off as more brash than PugSki's "higher level" mentality -- dude has skiing chops. I've seen numerous TRs from gnar with a G from him.

 

[New2]

Colorado ski areas are pretty much immune from all liability. They can't be sued for inbounds avalanches on open or closed terrain. They can't be sued for failure to close an avalanche-prone run or one that is dangerous for any other reason. They can't be sued if they fail to perform avalanche mitigation on a ski run even if that run will obviously slide when the first skier hits it.

It'll be interesting if we ever hear whether Silverton ends up needing to pay out to the foot passenger that was injured, as discussed in this thread. But yeah, seems like Colorado has pretty solid protections for the resorts.

That's why I agree with Mike's statement here when it comes to avalanche mitigation:

How can our ski areas be held a bit more accountable to perform ANY avalanche mitigation, let alone perform it to a standard of reasonable care?

Is that accountability possible without the end result being much of the terrain many of us love to ski is shut down?

One way of increasing accountability a bit that comes to mind is having knowledgeable folks here on pugski weigh in on different operators' or patrols' mitigation (bonus that it doesn't require regulations or lawsuits). This thread gives me the impression that, 7 years ago, Vail mountain wasn't really doing all it should've to protect their customers. If folks recognized that and publicized it 7+ years ago, and even a small fraction of ski community loudmouths heard about, maybe different decisions would've been made.

I'm part of the broad swath of the skiing public who know next to nothing about avalanches... they're not as fun as they look; I don't want to be in one; and I expect not to be in one when skiing in-bounds on open terrain that doesn't specifically require a beacon. If I hear from the more knowledgeable folks on here that ABC Mountain does consistently solid mitigation work, whereas XYZ Mountain keeps cutting corners, I'm more likely to skip XYZ, visit ABC, and tell others about their respective reputations. So what about it? The after-the-fact quarterbacking from Vail 7 years ago is of limited value... but who's mitigating avalanche risk well right now? Who's doing it poorly?

 

[tball]

Talk to the guys n girls. Whenever I've ridden a lift with patrol they've always been very open about the control work they do, why things get opened in what order, how many more passes they have to do to get X opened. Plus the collateral benefit is that they'll often tip you off about rope drops.

They'd much rather have people understanding their work than waste time and resources chasing jackass poachers who think they know better.

I agree. I love chatting with patrol and do every chance I get. I also know they tend to be busy and understaffed, particularly on powder days when they are both flooded with calls and trying to complete mitigation.

I don't think it's scalable for everyone skiing avalanche prone terrain to talk to patrol. Ski Patrol would be overwhelmed just by me asking about the 15 or 20 different runs I'm going to ski that day, and there are a hundred of us for every one of them.

I have to add Vail Ski Patrol's actions before and after the tragedy give me zero confidence that they would tell me the truth if I asked. I'm pretty sure there's a story out there about someone asking VSP about the avalanche danger following Taft's death and being given some corporate BS. I'll try to dig that up.

I should also say I have strong confidence in patrol at the areas where I ski steeps most often, Copper and A-basin. Because of my frequency at those areas, I both am fortunate to speak to patrol regularly and to observe their mitigation efforts over time, both the preceding days, weeks and months that season, and how that compares to prior years. That's one of many reasons I think we are much safer in hazardous terrain where we are most familiar, to state the obvious.

What I'm more concerned about is when I step out of that comfort zone on my occasional trips to Crested Butte, Highlands, Telluride, Alta or Snowbird. I know my way around enough to go straight to the gnarly stuff, and I will have done my damndest to get there on a powder day. Here's an example when I showed up at CB for my first time that season with a foot new, and my ensuing powder precipitated poor judgment.


Given Vail's behavior, at least in this case, it frightens me they now own Crested Butte.

Again, ski areas in Colorado have zero liability if someone is injured or killed in an avalanche. There is also zero transparency or accountability for their avalanche mitigation procedures.

We will never know if Vail decides to change avalanche mitigation budget, staffing or procedures at Crested Butte.

 

[Wilhelmson]

I don't recall the specifics but about 12 years ago the skiers' left side of Alta was subject to a major inbounds avalance. They had the whole area closed when it happened, but when they reopened the terrain there were still 2 foot diameter evergreen trees shrewn along the side of the trails. I don't remember if they intentionally set it off with the howitzer.

 

[KingGrump]

Given Vail's behavior, at least in this case, it frightens me they now own Crested Butte.

I think you are giving Vail way too much credit for screwing things up. They have owned W/B for couple seasons and no one has died in an avalanche there. At least no as far as I know. Perhaps give them some time.

Anyway, CB does a pretty good job on mitigation but even the patrol there know Mother Nature may have other plans. I have to give them credit for letting us in on it.

CB signage, Feb 2016

 

[tball]

I think you are giving Vail way too much credit for screwing things up. They have owned W/B for couple seasons and no one has died in an avalanche there. At least no as far as I know. Perhaps give them some time.

Anyway, CB does a pretty good job on mitigation but even the patrol there know Mother Nature may have other plans. I have to give them credit for letting us in on it.

CB signage, Feb 2016

View attachment 48650

Nice, love that sign!

Anyone know what the laws are in Canada regarding inbounds avalanche mitigation? It could be a completely different deal than Colorado.

I believe there are a couple states here in the US that have slightly different laws as well.

 

[jmeb]

CBSP has always been known for their very direct signage.