Jump to content

Chair incident


Lift Blog

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, saltyant said:

Insurance will probably pay, but the hit on reputation might mean they wont be charging $100+ to ski and $10-$40 to park next season... this story is going to spread like wildfire very soon

People have short memories...when whistler had multiple lift accidents they continued to be busy. Johnny Law will likely talk about issues with the YAN lifts later. Salty I thought you had free parking at Cameltoe..maybe because you know the camel 

Edited by GrilledSteezeSandwich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RidgeRacer said:

Update.

And if there is a Go fund me I'm in. A sweet donation of behalf of PASR would be an amazing gesture.

Screenshot_20210322-114436.png

I’ve got five on it.  The only time I ever donated to a gofundme was for this girl who was raising money for breast implants and then when I said I better get to see them because I donated $5 she called be a creep. 

  • Boner City 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Benm said:

so is the liability release that people sign by purchasing a ticket enforceable even for negligence?

i always thought it was some sort of grey area.

There are cases of large payouts due to ski resort accidents. I found a case of a $25 million payout from a snowtubing incident. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

People have short memories...when whistler had multiple lift accidents they continued to be busy. Johnny Law will likely talk about issues with the YAN lifts later. Salty I thought you had free parking at Cameltoe..maybe because you know the camel 

Correct. I had free parking on a weeknight, I guess they charge depending on day of week and time 🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, saltyant said:

There are cases of large payouts due to ski resort accidents. I found a case of a $25 million payout from a snowtubing incident. 

Bear Creek paid huge for their tubing accident a few years ago. What I read said that the issue was that the injured parties were given the tickets by the original purchaser who decided not to use them, so the injured party never actually signed a waiver.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RidgeRacer said:

"We are aware of the incident that has occurred regarding the Sullivan lift are working with multiple parties on investing the matter. Please understand that the safety of our guests is and has always been paramount."

Pretty close

"Camelback Resort is working with the appropriate state authorities to investigate yesterday's incident involving the Sullivan Lift. The health and safety of our guests and associates is and remains our number one priority," the statement said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JFskiDan said:

There is a Blue fanboy posting over on Camelbacks FB site asking if the lifts are safe to ride.  

Douche move in my book.  People dont think this could happen anywhere?

Depends. If it's a maintenance issue than yeah, it's on CBK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, saltyant said:

Pretty close

"Camelback Resort is working with the appropriate state authorities to investigate yesterday's incident involving the Sullivan Lift. The health and safety of our guests and associates is and remains our number one priority," the statement said.

Despite my dumbassery on here I can be kinda smart sometimes

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Benm said:

so is the liability release that people sign by purchasing a ticket enforceable even for negligence?

i always thought it was some sort of grey area.

Varies state by state and based on specific facts. Most likely shields them from ordinary negligence but not gross negligence / reckless endangerment - but some ski states may have enacted statutes making them more broadly applicable than other contractual liability waivers.

In the end there is no certainty ever as to how a court would rule, parties are unlikely to push this all the way to a jury (aka coin flip) and really the presence of the waiver is a factor for attorney defending ski area to cite in arguing for a lower $ settlement.

Edited by Ski2Live Live2Ski
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EdBacon said:

Depends. If it's a maintenance issue than yeah, it's on CBK.

I know.  it just bugs me that people are quick to jump on FB, especially a Blue fanboy, that has no interest in ever skiing Camelback, but feels he likes to see his name on the internet or something.  No reason in the world for that guy to post there other than to stir shit up.  

#1 priority is the people affected by this.  Not making shithouse comments on FB.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JFskiDan said:

Wait, i mean i dont have any love for camelback, but why are they “assholes?”  Did we all of a sudden figure out what happened with the lift, from all of the assumptions on PASR?

you of all people would be in the front line defending Blue if it happened there. We really dont know anything other than it happened, and a bunch of comments from FB, and liftblogs site, that i wouldnt take to the bank just yet. 

I would assume that we would be just as critical if it happened at Blue.. It's a serious incident. It's not just complaining about grooming and parking lots. 

 

2 hours ago, trackbiker said:

It could be unforeseen equipment failure. Parts break sometimes regardless of how good the maintenance is.

Ski resorts are responsible for maintaining equipment, slopes, and ski lifts to prevent injuries. I get that parts break but it still seems like Camelback is at fault. The Camelback waiver (here) covers inherent risk. In short:

  • It's inherently dangerous so use caution.
  • Patrons have a duty to exercise good judgment and act in a responsible manner.
  • Other risks include, but are not limited to: slips and falls, risk of drowning, and other inherent risks associated with amusement rides, swimming and wading pools and other attractions, wet and dry, that present the risk of injury or death.

However, chairlifts coming off of a cable is not an inherent risk. There is a Skier’s Responsibility Act in 42 Pa. C.S. §7102. Check it out. 

In other cases, the courts seem to decide what is an inherent risk

Some sites say "If the skiing accident was caused by anything other than an “inherent risk” – such as a failure to provide safe equipment – the injured skier might be entitled to damages."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...