That's just it. And is it really worth everyone's time and money to try to take a snowboarder to the cleaners? I won't feel any safer with him off the streets. I highly doubt he'll be criminally and violently snowboarding in the future. lol
Avalanche survivor may be charged
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
Its not nonsensical.
To go to my bridge example, which is the same thing.
2 people did something stupid of their own free will. They hurt themselves doing it. It is exactly like the avalance area.
Don't forget, as stated, this was a marked avalanche area. They knew skiing there had a good chance at causing an avalanche as sure as the two hypothetical men knew jumping from the bridge could result in them hitting the shallow bottom.
This isn't like Jim and Bob go skiing at the local bunny hill and Jim sets off a fog horn to cause an avalanche.
To use the drunk driving example, this is as much like charging the passenger in a drunk driver accident for choosing to get in the car with a drunk behind the wheel, as it is charging the driver for killing his passenger.
To go to my bridge example, which is the same thing.
2 people did something stupid of their own free will. They hurt themselves doing it. It is exactly like the avalance area.
Don't forget, as stated, this was a marked avalanche area. They knew skiing there had a good chance at causing an avalanche as sure as the two hypothetical men knew jumping from the bridge could result in them hitting the shallow bottom.
This isn't like Jim and Bob go skiing at the local bunny hill and Jim sets off a fog horn to cause an avalanche.
To use the drunk driving example, this is as much like charging the passenger in a drunk driver accident for choosing to get in the car with a drunk behind the wheel, as it is charging the driver for killing his passenger.
No, skiing in that area caused that avalanche.
Pangloss
(I used to avalanche ski - they're easy to trigger)
Pangloss
(I used to avalanche ski - they're easy to trigger)
I'm dissapointed to see a thread reach page 3 without bush or halliburton being blamed....
CC is losing its touch
:smile:
CC is losing its touch
:smile:
I was just getting to that. The avalanche was caused by global warming and can be traced directly back to Crawford Texas. ;-)
In negligence cases you have to prove the negligence of party A caused the loss of party B.
In this case, even if party A had not been skiing, the party B would still have been killed as he too was skiing (and would have caused his own avalanche)
The dead was killed because of his own negligence.
Side note: Another defence against injury to another is that they willingly entered into risk. Ie, you can charge someone with assault for punching you, unless you agreed to fight them in a boxing ring. In this case, the dead chose to enter into risk. This is only really ever negated in cases where the willingess to enter risk was to save someone else (ie, you can still charge someone if you willingly jump in front of a driver to push a child out of the way), or you still breached the standard and duty of care you owed. ie, you agreed to box me, but I hit you with a wrench instead, in this case the deceased knew what was going on, and what happened was exactly what he wanted to happen (an avalanche) which he himself caused. The only difference was the outcome from his planned outcome (or maybe he was suicidal)
Last edited:
Isn't that kind of like charging someone for speeding in the Indianapolis 500. They both agreed upon the level of risk and thus nether skier failed any implied duty of care from the other skier.
If speeding in the Indianapolis 500 was criminally negligent, and not perfectly legal, I might see your point.
Let's take a more representative example.... two vehicles collide on public roads, where speeding is NOT legal, both drivers are speeding. One driver dies, the other lives. Both speeding, both in the wrong.... the surviving driver would likely be charged with criminal negligence, even though the other driver was obviously posing a danger as well, and engaging in risky behavior.
But, that doesn't exactly fit the avalanche scenario either does it?
Hmmm.... you've presented your view very clearly and concisely. It's a great view Zzarchov. I just don't agree. I think we're going round and round. lol.
The only people criminally negligent in this situation was Whistler Resort. Where was their avalanche control. If this was a
known avalanche area and espescially knowing that it exits out onto an open run, avalanche control "should" have been a
priority in that area.
You are charged because of the impairment causing harm or death, If the citizens of this country could be charged in such a manner, it will take precedence in all other cases. In which case would mean that if your little boy timmy and his friend are on their bikes and they dedide to take a jump and little Johnny dies as a result, unfortunetly little Timmy will be charge with negligent death, and the courts will run wild
with it.
And as it stand right now, the skier already does pick up any bill in regards to the rescue. There are NO tax dollars involved.
Last edited:
They already get charged with the same thing, criminal negligence, don't they? But, they don't cause the ground to smack their buddy and kill him. Whereas the skiers DO cause the avalanche that killed.
I was poking around the internet looking for criminal negligence information. There appears to be multiple elements required to hold someone criminally negligent. Causation is one of many. Did the defendants actions directly cause the harm? An element within causation is known as the "but for" test. The "but for" test includes looking at whether the harm would have happened regardless of the defendants actions. Cause and "but for" aren't clear in this case.
Also, they trespassed. That was the law broken. After the trespassing breach an unintentional accident occured. The law will often not connect the two. The example I saw was where person A hurt person B, and during the transition from point of damage to the ambulance person B was struck by lightening and killed. In that instance person A is not held responsible for the subsequent death.
Nevertheless this would be a fun case to see argued in court.
Also, they trespassed. That was the law broken. After the trespassing breach an unintentional accident occured. The law will often not connect the two. The example I saw was where person A hurt person B, and during the transition from point of damage to the ambulance person B was struck by lightening and killed. In that instance person A is not held responsible for the subsequent death.
Nevertheless this would be a fun case to see argued in court.
Yeah one thing I noticed people kinda missing here is this wasn't some random mountain in the middle of nowhere... it was private property owned by the resort.
Hypothetically let's say there was a tour of a local nuclear power plant.... now we know there are some places we're not allow to go, and somethings we're obviously not supposed to touch.... but let's say Stoner friend A and Shroom for Brains Friend B think it's a good idea to sneak into a restricted zone and play with some of those fancy glowing rods.
Now one of them is dead and the other is lying on a bed in a hospital with his hair and teeth falling out.... oh but they were adventurers and seeking excitment. Ok.... granted they were morons sure.... but they still put lives at risk by going where they wern't supposed to.
What if they decided to get smart like Homer and start pushing buttons?
If you want to go and try swallowing flaming swords in your backyard with your friend and your brilliant responsible decision making, knock yourself out. Go on private property and do exactly what their signs tell you not to and put others, not just your equally bright friend, at risk.... then that's a whole other story.
Hypothetically let's say there was a tour of a local nuclear power plant.... now we know there are some places we're not allow to go, and somethings we're obviously not supposed to touch.... but let's say Stoner friend A and Shroom for Brains Friend B think it's a good idea to sneak into a restricted zone and play with some of those fancy glowing rods.
Now one of them is dead and the other is lying on a bed in a hospital with his hair and teeth falling out.... oh but they were adventurers and seeking excitment. Ok.... granted they were morons sure.... but they still put lives at risk by going where they wern't supposed to.
What if they decided to get smart like Homer and start pushing buttons?
If you want to go and try swallowing flaming swords in your backyard with your friend and your brilliant responsible decision making, knock yourself out. Go on private property and do exactly what their signs tell you not to and put others, not just your equally bright friend, at risk.... then that's a whole other story.