• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

DanoT

RVer-Skier
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,805
Location
Sun Peaks B.C. in winter, Victoria B.C. in summer
Hey, but why let little expertise stand in the way of strong and powerful opinion? :roflmao:

Hey, I have some very strongly help opinions that allow me to question experts and their expertise on a variety of subjects but because they are my opinions, and even if they are correct, I know they are not very powerful.;)
 

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,628
Location
Evergreen, CO
I can see why she's doing it and if WC laws means she can't directly sue what has she got to lose? The lack of safety protocols that allow a lift op to nto know or wilfully ignore the fact that there may be a maintenance operator working on the equipment must be concerning to anyone and if what she said about the "show must go on" with a worker's corpse still on the scene is even remotely true then it doesn't speak highly of LL mgt decision making.

Because what she says could cause her to lose benefits from WC or weaken a case against equipment manufacturers or other entities that may have been involved in servicing etc. Most attorneys would tell her to shut up and delete the page. At least until after all legal routes have been exhausted. I read some of the page and while I feel for her I couldn't help but cringe as a soon to be law student with enough legal experience to know that one needs to just shut up when there is pending litigation.
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,330
I understand that but the fact she has the blog out there as a way of venting and grief processing suggests to me she isn't lawyered up.
 

DanoT

RVer-Skier
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,805
Location
Sun Peaks B.C. in winter, Victoria B.C. in summer
I understand that but the fact she has the blog out there as a way of venting and grief processing suggests to me she isn't lawyered up.

She probably should get a lawyer.

My time as a former insurance claim adjuster with experience in settling claims with lawyers tells me that the most expensive and prestigious lawyer almost always nets you the most money.
 

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,628
Location
Evergreen, CO
I understand that but the fact she has the blog out there as a way of venting and grief processing suggests to me she isn't lawyered up.

Or that she just isn't listening. Lawyers give advice (there is a reason they are called counselors) but can't make a client do something.
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
She probably should get a lawyer.

My time as a former insurance claim adjuster with experience in settling claims with lawyers tells me that the most expensive and prestigious lawyer almost always nets you the most money.

Because that's justice!

(sorry, couldn't help myself ... well, yes, I could, but I didn't want to)
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,612
Location
Reno
I just read through all of those links and am not quite sure what to say.
It seems like there was a breakdown in protocol and communication. The claims by each side are so different, we may never know what really happened in its entirety.
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,330
I just read through all of those links and am not quite sure what to say.
It seems like there was a breakdown in protocol and communication. The claims by each side are so different, we may never know what really happened in its entirety.
Well yes and no. IF there was no evidence that he was sent to work on the equipment then it remains a bit of a mystery but there is still a question to be answered re safety protocols if the lift op did see him but didn't stop the equipment.

If a single person testifies that he was sent to investigate the equipment in the course of his work again the onus would appear to shift onto Loveland to explain what protocols should have been followed.

The most bemusing "fact" seems to be that a lift op saw him go down the hatch yet it doesn't seem to have factored into anyone's actions subsequently.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,496
Location
Colorado
If a single person testifies that he was sent to investigate the equipment in the course of his work again the onus would appear to shift onto Loveland to explain what protocols should have been followed.

Reading the OSHA findings against Loveland caused by this incident doesn't give me much hope that rigorous safety protocols were in place to be followed even if he had been sent there in the course of his work.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,612
Location
Reno
The most bemusing "fact" seems to be that a lift op saw him go down the hatch yet it doesn't seem to have factored into anyone's actions subsequently.
That is one of the many things that perplexed me. The story says that the lift op saw him go down the hatch, but later didn't tell the other guy that he was down there. :huh:
I'm betting that lives have changed forever for the guy who kept restarting the magic carpet, as well as the lift op, and probably anyone else on the scene.

All of the dates on these articles are from January, February. The story about the impact that marijuana played in the decrease of WC benefits only came out in July. I would assume this was after a lengthy investigation.
Loveland ski worker's widow penalized for man's legal use of marijuana

Sadly, the disconnect between legal MJ use and other laws isn't something that people think about when they're in the moment.
 
Last edited:

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,330
On the MJ point it seems to me that something must break soon in the system. You can't have substance which is legal to consume yet no reliable tests to prove recent consumption and hope to use that to show contributory negligence or de facto fault. Sooner or later a court must kick something like that out.
 

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,628
Location
Evergreen, CO
On the MJ point it seems to me that something must break soon in the system. You can't have substance which is legal to consume yet no reliable tests to prove recent consumption and hope to use that to show contributory negligence or de facto fault. Sooner or later a court must kick something like that out.

I suspect this is a hot topic in law schools, especially those in states that have legalized mj. My school has an upper level class on marijuana regulatory drafting and policy and a professorship specifically for marijuana law.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,496
Location
Colorado
Law + MJ is a good biz to be in.

A friend of mine was the first in-house general council for a large MJ company in CO. He's pretty set for life at a crazy young age.
 

Nancy Hummel

Ski more, talk less.
Instructor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Posts
1,044
Location
Snowmass
On the MJ point it seems to me that something must break soon in the system. You can't have substance which is legal to consume yet no reliable tests to prove recent consumption and hope to use that to show contributory negligence or de facto fault. Sooner or later a court must kick something like that out.

Marijuana is still illegal from the federal perspective.

Alcohol is legal but there are all kinds of laws related to alcohol.

I have no current knowledge of the marijuana testing parameters, but I would bet advances are being made in the determination of impairment.

In the WC setting, it is the EMPLOYER's burden to prove the marijuana caused the injury which is a DIFFICULT burden. As I said earlier, I think the wife will prevail at hearing.
 

wyowindrunner

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Posts
430
Did not follow this story after the first of the year. The seriousness of the OSHA violations committed by the Clear Creek Skiing Corp. is suprising. Can't believe that Loveland's WC carrier is fighting this. Looked up the OSHA claim number and read the findings; ( file is still technically open- 1285724.015) and under the name above. Seven initial and seven current ( the initial) serious findings with the fines for each and one minor finding if memory serves. Permit Required Confined Space violations, LO/TO violations, General Requirement for all Machines, The Hazardous Communication standard and the old 1910 General Duty requirements-the one that OSHA hits you with when they can't find a specific item violation. First question to my mind is: When was there last insurance inspection / audit? Don't know how big the Clear creek outfit is, how many other areas if any do they own? Can't beleive they have no EHS or similar dept. to develope and oversee safety related items and policies and implement them. If they do not they are in serious violation and this will happen again. All of the rules and regulations regarding energy isolation ,confined space entry, and the other violations are written in blood and here is some more. Don't know how Colorado works but in Wyoming, at one time, you could not sue your employer, but you could sue individual supervisors. Nancy,or anyone else, is that a possibility?
 

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,387
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
Did not follow this story after the first of the year. The seriousness of the OSHA violations committed by the Clear Creek Skiing Corp. is suprising. Can't believe that Loveland's WC carrier is fighting this. Looked up the OSHA claim number and read the findings; ( file is still technically open- 1285724.015) and under the name above. Seven initial and seven current ( the initial) serious findings with the fines for each and one minor finding if memory serves. Permit Required Confined Space violations, LO/TO violations, General Requirement for all Machines, The Hazardous Communication standard and the old 1910 General Duty requirements-the one that OSHA hits you with when they can't find a specific item violation. First question to my mind is: When was there last insurance inspection / audit? Don't know how big the Clear creek outfit is, how many other areas if any do they own? Can't beleive they have no EHS or similar dept. to develope and oversee safety related items and policies and implement them. If they do not they are in serious violation and this will happen again. All of the rules and regulations regarding energy isolation ,confined space entry, and the other violations are written in blood and here is some more. Don't know how Colorado works but in Wyoming, at one time, you could not sue your employer, but you could sue individual supervisors. Nancy,or anyone else, is that a possibility?
Don't know, but doubt they have any money. Lawsuits look to folk who have money.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top