Mt Bachelor being sued over death of 9yr old

[François Pugh]

You do know Slim is a dummy, right?

Yes, but he's still smarter than your average dummy on the ski hill. He's just never been on real ice. You will have trouble self-arresting by digging a pole into real ice. That's why it's best to have sharp edges on your skis and keep your skis on (and don't fall ).

 

[Andy Mink]

A self-arrest is performed using one of your ski poles. As you are sliding, roll onto your stomach. Continue to grip the handle on one pole and with your other hand grasp the pole near its basket. Gradually use that lower hand to dig the pole tip into the snow.

In theory...

 

[slowrider]

In theory...

I'm too busy falling.

 

[pchewn]

Can't see this ever going before a jury. They will settle for some larger-than-nominal amount that is much less than the $50mm claimed. Cheaper for the defense to settle for something that reasonably satisfies the plaintiff. Better for the plaintiff to get something rather than nothing. No one is happy, no one really wins. Tragic story all around.

OR it could go the way of Skibowl who were sued for a mountain bike accident, went to trial, had a judgement of $11M . Started the appeal process and then settled for $10M. AND THEN CLOSED MOUNTAIN BIKING AT THE AREA. https://www.skitalk.com/threads/mt-...bikes-after-losing-lawsuit.27329/#post-745825

Juries can be fickle. Lawyers can be clever and/or deceptive. The worst outcome could be closing the Summit chair forever AND losing tens of millions of dollars.

 

[Tricia]

Not sure how many of you read the claim filed that was linked in the article on page 4 (or was it page 5?)

https://ktvz.b-cdn.net/2022/08/Boice-lawsuit-against-Mt.-Bachelor.pdf

According to the suit, the accident happened on Healy Heights, which is designated as a blue run according to this trail map.
Has that designation changed? I'm not sure how current this map is.


Not that it matters but the parents who are sueing are both attourneys, so I'd bet they're pretty savvy.
It looks like the mom is representing the dad (her husband).

ATTORNEYS | Boicelaw

www.boicelawfirm.com

 

[Andy Mink]

Not sure how many of you read the claim filed that was linked in the article on page 4 (or was it page 5?)

https://ktvz.b-cdn.net/2022/08/Boice-lawsuit-against-Mt.-Bachelor.pdf

According to the suit, the accident happened on Healy Heights, which is designated as a blue run according to this trail map.
Has that designation changed? I'm not sure how current this map is.
View attachment 175083

Assuming that map is current, there are no green runs from the top of Summit. We all know conditions can make a green run into a black run. Same with a blue. My questions would be, had the boy ever been to the top before and what was his TRUE skill level, not "my mom says I'm a 7". I'm not trying to make light of this awful situation but, at some point, parents MUST take responsibility for their kids and themselves.

 

[Tricia]

Assuming that map is current, there are no green runs from the top of Summit. We all know conditions can make a green run into a black run. Same with a blue. My questions would be, had the boy ever been to the top before and what was his TRUE skill level, not "my mom says I'm a 7". I'm not trying to make light of this awful situation but, at some point, parents MUST take responsibility for their kids and themselves.

Knowing you, I know you're not trying to make light of it, but we are all trying to make sense of it.
Since we skied this run together, I'm sure you feel the same way I do. That run is a black and blue in the wrong conditions.

 

[Tricia]

This.

Tragic story all around.

 

[David Chaus]

Not sure how many of you read the claim filed that was linked in the article on page 4 (or was it page 5?)

https://ktvz.b-cdn.net/2022/08/Boice-lawsuit-against-Mt.-Bachelor.pdf

According to the suit, the accident happened on Healy Heights, which is designated as a blue run according to this trail map.
Has that designation changed? I'm not sure how current this map is.
View attachment 175083

Those runs from the Summit are steeper blues. Per FatMap, Healy Heights has a maximum steepness of 28 degrees, not much less steep than some of the black runs at Bachelor. And as I noted, Healy Heights is a blue run but does meander back and forth between some rock sections, so if conditions are sketchy it's more challenging than it would seem from a trail map.

The language in the claim stated the child fell while they were looking for the safest, easier way down. That doesn't quite make sense to me, as the easier way down would be Beverly Hills with a max steepness of 26 degrees, and it's the first thing you come to getting off the top of the Summit. They would have had to traverse a little bit to skier's right to get to Healy. I don't see getting off the Summit lift, which has a nice flat area after unloading, and then slip and fall down the slope while scoping out a route. They would have started their descent with a direction in mind to get anywhere, then maybe stopped to decide whether to take Healy or Wanoga.

There is no sign that says "easier way down" though, so I could see being a little disoriented and unsure if that was their first time there. I wonder whether the parents had previously skied at Bachelor or at the Summit.

That all said I wasn't there, so just conjecture on my part.

 

[slowrider]

Good assessment David. I don't think many riders are up to the challenge of Summit on an icy day,no less a 9 yr old.

On another note. Mom's representing Dad & deceased son. IDK to me that's tacky. Keeping it in the family I guess.

 

[BLiP]

Mom's representing Dad & deceased son.

Based on the filing, this does not seem accurate. Mom was appointed as the personal representative (not the attorney) of the deceased son’s estate. Mom (as representative) and Dad are the two plaintiffs. It does not look like Mom is representing Dad in any capacity. The plaintiffs' attorneys are two names on the last page, i.e., the electronic signatures.

Most, but not all, attorneys follow the adage: "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."

 

[LiquidFeet]

We need to take into account that many recreational skiers, these parents included, are not as savvy about evaluating changing snow conditions as are the members here. These parents could not figure out whether to go up the lift or not with their child, asked others for insight before loading, and trusted what they were told probably without questioning what they heard. Then they made poor decisions based on that advice or on general lack of knowledge and experience, once they unloaded up at the top, and there were serious consequences.

I worry that some here think that despite what they were told, the parents should have reasoned that significantly dangerous (to them) icy conditions might be present up there. This assumes the parents were experienced enough on snow, and on this mountain, to make that evaluation. Or that they were experienced enought to have figured it out as they rode up the lift. Many of us would have been. But many 1-2 weks-a-season skiers would not have had that ability.

Does the ski resort have a responsibility to close terrain if the average 1-2 week skier who is unfamiliar with the mountain might not be adequately prepared to make that decision for themselves while standing at the bottom of the lift? Does the mountain need to protect these folks from making fatal errors in judgment? We would not need this terrain, as it has been described, closed to protect us. But many would.

I wonder if the lawsuit will consider the situation with this question in mind.

 

[Bill Miles]

Did a little research and Oregon statutes clearly define snow conditions, specifically including ice, as an inherent risk of skiing, without resort liability.

Could not find any relevant Oregon cases, but then IANAL.

Tragic, but I don't think this will survive a motion for summary judgment.

 

[Seldomski]

Not sure how many of you read the claim filed that was linked in the article on page 4 (or was it page 5?)
https://ktvz.b-cdn.net/2022/08/Boice-lawsuit-against-Mt.-Bachelor.pdf

Just read it, and it is really sad :-(

I have skied on 'icy' slopes before without issue out west. Then I found myself on the injected training course at Heavenly on a light blue pitch "World Cup" run. Totally different experience. No hope of getting an edge on that stuff with my all-mountain skis and ability. Buddy I was skiing with fell pretty much immediately and went sliding until it flattened out again. It was much more difficult to ski than the run behind us, a double black. We were totally out of control.

Can't imagine seeing a child slide away...

 

[David Chaus]

We need to take into account that many recreational skiers, these parents included, are not as savvy about evaluating changing snow conditions as are the members here. These parents could not figure out whether to go up the lift or not with their child, asked others for insight before loading, and trusted what they were told probably without questioning what they heard. Then they made poor decisions based on that advice or on general lack of knowledge and experience, once they unloaded up at the top, and there were serious consequences.

I worry that some here think that despite what they were told, the parents should have reasoned that significantly dangerous (to them) icy conditions might be present up there. This assumes the parents were experienced enough on snow, and on this mountain, to make that evaluation. Or that they were experienced enought to have figured it out as they rode up the lift. Many of us would have been. But many 1-2 weks-a-season skiers would not have had that ability.

Does the ski resort have a responsibility to close terrain if the average 1-2 week skier who is unfamiliar with the mountain might not be adequately prepared to make that decision for themselves while standing at the bottom of the lift? Does the mountain need to protect these folks from making fatal errors in judgment? We would not need this terrain, as it has been described, closed to protect us. But many would.

I wonder if the lawsuit will consider the situation with this question in mind.

I followed the link from @Tricia ‘s post with the parent’s bios for their law practice. Both of them mention being skiers (the dad snowboards).

“Brian was raised in the South Puget Sound, and looks forward to winters filled with snowboarding while his wife, Angela, and his two sons ski. “

“Angela was born and raised in the PNW and has chosen to raise her two young sons here with her husband and partner, Brian. In the summer, you can find Angela on the water - paddle boarding or skiing. In the winter, she heads to the mountains to escape the gloom and go snow skiing. “

They are in Tacoma which is about an hour and a half from Crystal Mt, so very possible they ski/board as much as anyone on this forum. And as anyone who has been to Crystal knows, the terrain is pretty comparable to places like Snowbird. There’s way steeper stuff at Crystal than at Bachelor, particularly the blue runs are much more black-and-blue than at Bachelor.

That doesn’t mean they were prepared for the conditions from the Summit at Bachelor that day.

So let’s say they were indeed experienced skiers/boarders and not 7-10 days a year intermediate skiers. They may have a point that the conditions were too hazardous and should have been closed, or better signed to indicate danger. Or it could mean they are being disingenuous because they should have known better and are blaming Bachelor operations for their lack of sound judgement.

 

[slowrider]

Based on the filing, this does not seem accurate. Mom was appointed as the personal representative (not the attorney) of the deceased son’s estate. Mom (as representative) and Dad are the two plaintiffs. It does not look like Mom is representing Dad in any capacity. The plaintiffs' attorneys are two names on the last page, i.e., the electronic signatures.

Most, but not all, attorneys follow the adage: "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Thanks for the clarification. Just something I heard but didn't investigate.

 

[newfydog]

I used to patrol at Bachelor. We had our fair share of lawsuits, all were settled without any of us knowing the outcome. Negotiations between lawyers and insurers.

As far as the ice goes, I was not up there that day, but we do get some world class ice. Nothing is very steep, but we do get real ice with some regularity. I grew up skiing ice in the east. Sometime in the late Pleistocene I skied an extremely ice beer league race at Vail, told the Colorado skiers they were skiing for second place, and proceeded to win by several seconds. I like ice.

Often the top of Bachelor gets a nice shiny glaze. I pull out some slalom skis and enjoy having vast areas to myself. I would hate to see those conditions shut down to the ice aficionados because of the poor judgement of other skiers. The accident was indeed a tragedy, but no suit will remove the facts that it involved some poor judgement, and that the sport can be dangerous. No one forces you to go, and no one can remove the inherent dangers. I doubt there was any gross negligence on behalf of the mountain, they just opened the top to those who can enjoy it. I can't think of many nine year old kids I'd put in that category on an icy day on the summit..

 

[crgildart]

Sounds like it should be black instead of blue if it skis black that often. If more than say, 20% if the time a trail isn't easily managed by an intermediate skier it should probably be designated black or at least blue/black. Wouldn't that at least show a better effort to communicate to travelers that only truly advanced skiers belong there??

Might not be surprised to see those blue squares changed next season..

 

[newfydog]

They don't call it "Mt Flature" for nothing. If the criteria for Taos were applied to Bachelor there would not be a black run on the mountain.

 

[Tricia]

Based on the filing, this does not seem accurate. Mom was appointed as the personal representative (not the attorney) of the deceased son’s estate. Mom (as representative) and Dad are the two plaintiffs. It does not look like Mom is representing Dad in any capacity. The plaintiffs' attorneys are two names on the last page, i.e., the electronic signatures.

Most, but not all, attorneys follow the adage: "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Thanks for the clarification. I must have missed it

Thanks for the clarification. Just something I heard but didn't investigate.

I misunderstood that as well.