possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
jmanner
Posts: 1417
Joined: 5/26/2009
14ers: 58  28  10 
13ers: 55 14 3
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by jmanner »

Trotter wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:06 pm
CaptCO wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:53 am This is old news.. they’ve been counter suing
It was new to me.

And yes, its a shame them trying to help CAIC got them in trouble. But regardless, they caused a lot of damage by their voluntary choice to ski that area. So they should pay for damages they caused.
Once they gave it to a public entity it became public record. And let’s not pretend they wouldn’t have posted it all over Facebook and Instagram.
A man has got to know his limitations.-Dr. Jonathan Hemlock or Harry Callahan or something F' it: http://youtu.be/lpzqQst-Sg8

'Life is too short to ski groomers'

"That man's only desire was to stand, once only, on the summit of that glorious wedge of rock...I think anyone who loves the mountains as much as that can claim to be a mountaineer, too."-Hermann Buhl, Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage
User avatar
Conor
Posts: 1112
Joined: 9/2/2014
14ers: 41  6  6 
13ers: 51 1 1
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Conor »

jmanner wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:14 pm
Trotter wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:06 pm
CaptCO wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:53 am This is old news.. they’ve been counter suing
It was new to me.

And yes, its a shame them trying to help CAIC got them in trouble. But regardless, they caused a lot of damage by their voluntary choice to ski that area. So they should pay for damages they caused.
Once they gave it to a public entity it became public record. And let’s not pretend they wouldn’t have posted it all over Facebook and Instagram.
There are lots of people over the last 4 years who wished this logic applied to tax returns.

To me, the issue is the caic never posted the video with the report. But the Supreme court has long upheld that any thing voluntarily given to a 3rd party is not protected under the 4th amendment (aka the third-party doctrine).

But i do agree, if the caic didnt exist they would have most likely sprayed all over the gram.

Trial is set for 3/25.
User avatar
434stonemill
Posts: 92
Joined: 9/6/2011
14ers: 33 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by 434stonemill »

Well this saga will continue a bit longer, as Summit County Court did not have enough people show up to sit a jury. Thus, a mistrial and new trial date set for June 6. In the meantime, the defense plans to submit another motion to dismiss the case, whereas the DA is still planning on going ahead with the case on the new date.
https://coloradosun.com/2021/03/25/mist ... avalanche/

As an aside, I really have a dis-respect for those who try to get out of jury duty. With rights come responsibilities...so if the right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution, then it is our responsibility to serve when summoned.
User avatar
ellenmseb
Posts: 104
Joined: 5/11/2020
14ers: 58  3  1 
13ers: 40 2
Trip Reports (6)
 
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by ellenmseb »

As an aside, I really have a dis-respect for those who try to get out of jury duty. With rights come responsibilities...so if the right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution, then it is our responsibility to serve when summoned.
It's partially because some people were dismissed because their COVID vaccine appointment was the next day.
tmud
Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2017
14ers: 22  1 
13ers: 162 11 1
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by tmud »

Props to the citizens of summit county for not participating in this ridiculous prosecution. If you're a potential juror for this if it ever gets to trial, remember there is such a thing as 'jury nullification'.
User avatar
Jorts
Posts: 1111
Joined: 4/12/2013
14ers: 58  4  2 
13ers: 102 11 5
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Jorts »

bergsteigen wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:31 pm 2. CDOT has learned a lesson that maybe there should be signs prohibiting/warning against skiing above sensitive and critical areas of the tunnel. Maybe this is a new zone they didn’t know about yet. It’s west facing, and usually wind scoured.

3. WY Teton pass has very strict rules about triggering an avalanche onto the highway. Same with the 7 sisters above Loveland Pass. There are certain known spots that should not be skied during avy season because of highway use. Period.

4. Submitting video/photo evidence is at your own risk. Helped CAIC and future prevention. But screws the boarders. I wouldn’t have supplied any documentation (within the statute of limitations time period).
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it...

I do not think prosecuting these guys will discourage others from reporting avalanches - unless others are skiing somewhere they're not allowed to like Seven Sisters, Stanley, etc.

So I guess that's the crux question: was there clear signage near entry to this terrain warning skiers not to enter? And if there was not, are skiers required to innately know terrain that is go or no go from a public safety perspective?

It's a slippery slope; I've skied the SKY chutes many times. In March 2019 the Y slid to the road and hit vehicles on 91. If I had triggered that slide would I be prosecuted? I'd plead ignorance noting that I had never heard of it jumping the creek and hitting the road, and further there is no signage. How could I have known I was putting the public at risk?
Traveling light is the only way to fly.
IG: @colorado_invasive
Strava: Brent Herring
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 296
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 160 33 5
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by k_fergie »

Jorts wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:46 am
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it...

I do not think prosecuting these guys will discourage others from reporting avalanches - unless others are skiing somewhere they're not allowed to like Seven Sisters, Stanley, etc.

So I guess that's the crux question: was there clear signage near entry to this terrain warning skiers not to enter? And if there was not, are skiers required to innately know terrain that is go or no go from a public safety perspective?

It's a slippery slope; I've skied the SKY chutes many times. In March 2019 the Y slid to the road and hit vehicles on 91. If I had triggered that slide would I be prosecuted? I'd plead ignorance noting that I had never heard of it jumping the creek and hitting the road, and further there is no signage. How could I have known I was putting the public at risk?
For the freedom to reap the rewards, one must accept the potential consequences. And why do people get hung up on signage? Here's a slippery slope for ya. Why not just install boundary ropes to guide you and groomers to smooth out the snow while you're at it? For the SKY chutes, and really any potential slide, you can measure the alpha angle and come to the conclusion that 91 is easily in a risk zone. So yeah if you triggered a consequential slide across it, you should have to answer for it in some way, ignorance doesnt hold up in court
I thought, I taught, I wrought
User avatar
Tornadoman
Posts: 1438
Joined: 7/30/2007
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 266 35
Trip Reports (12)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Tornadoman »

tmud wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:08 am Props to the citizens of summit county for not participating in this ridiculous prosecution. If you're a potential juror for this if it ever gets to trial, remember there is such a thing as 'jury nullification'.
Although I don't agree with the citizens for not showing up (I will admit I had a good laugh that they couldn't get enough people for a jury), I do feel this prosecution is a waste of time. Regardless of the merits of the case, I just don't feel a Summit County jury is going to convict. Seems like they are wasting a lot more money chasing after the $168k and trying to set an example. The county should seek to settle out of court for a fraction of the 168k and move on.
Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you.
User avatar
Jorts
Posts: 1111
Joined: 4/12/2013
14ers: 58  4  2 
13ers: 102 11 5
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Jorts »

k_fergie wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:58 am For the freedom to reap the rewards, one must accept the potential consequences. And why do people get hung up on signage? Here's a slippery slope for ya. Why not just install boundary ropes to guide you and groomers to smooth out the snow while you're at it? For the SKY chutes, and really any potential slide, you can measure the alpha angle and come to the conclusion that 91 is easily in a risk zone. So yeah if you triggered a consequential slide across it, you should have to answer for it in some way, ignorance doesnt hold up in court
I was posting hypotheticals just to encourage critical thought about the whole situation instead of landing squarely on one side or the other. I would not ski the Y chute with high avy hazard where it could potentially hit the road.

Anyway, this fatal incident also comes to mind. A side country party left the resort boundary legally, presumably through a gate. Then they triggered a slide that buried a man a couple thousand feet below. Are the side country skiers responsible... should they be prosecuted for wrongful death? Or did the guy below, John Q Public, have personal responsibility? This incident was really tragic. It's not always cut and dried where responsibility lies.

https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ ... &accfm=inv
Traveling light is the only way to fly.
IG: @colorado_invasive
Strava: Brent Herring
User avatar
bergsteigen
Posts: 2391
Joined: 6/14/2008
14ers: 58  52  18 
13ers: 538 100 12
Trip Reports (237)
 
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by bergsteigen »

Jorts wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:46 am
bergsteigen wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:31 pm 2. CDOT has learned a lesson that maybe there should be signs prohibiting/warning against skiing above sensitive and critical areas of the tunnel. Maybe this is a new zone they didn’t know about yet. It’s west facing, and usually wind scoured.

3. WY Teton pass has very strict rules about triggering an avalanche onto the highway. Same with the 7 sisters above Loveland Pass. There are certain known spots that should not be skied during avy season because of highway use. Period.

4. Submitting video/photo evidence is at your own risk. Helped CAIC and future prevention. But screws the boarders. I wouldn’t have supplied any documentation (within the statute of limitations time period).
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it...

I do not think prosecuting these guys will discourage others from reporting avalanches - unless others are skiing somewhere they're not allowed to like Seven Sisters, Stanley, etc.

So I guess that's the crux question: was there clear signage near entry to this terrain warning skiers not to enter? And if there was not, are skiers required to innately know terrain that is go or no go from a public safety perspective?

It's a slippery slope; I've skied the SKY chutes many times. In March 2019 the Y slid to the road and hit vehicles on 91. If I had triggered that slide would I be prosecuted? I'd plead ignorance noting that I had never heard of it jumping the creek and hitting the road, and further there is no signage. How could I have known I was putting the public at risk?
I have never skied around Coon Hill so I don’t know about signage. I think signage should be in high traffic areas like this, where damage to interstate highways and CDOT equipment is located. Only because you can’t fix stupid.

As for other areas like Sky Chutes, that’s a lot trickier. You can’t and shouldn’t sign everything. As k_fergie mentions, alpha angle would tell you it *can* slide that far. This should be part of ones avy education. I’ve skied there too, but only on days where avy conditions were low - not on historic March 2019 conditions! I drove past that zone right before it slid, and was inbounds at Copper waiting for them the blast the front side. The front side.
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games." - Ernest Hemingway (or was it Barnaby Conrad?)
Your knees only get so many bumps in life, don't waste them on moguls!
“No athlete is truly tested until they’ve stared an injury in the face and come out on the other side stronger than ever” -anonymous

http://otinasadventures.com @otina
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 296
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 160 33 5
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by k_fergie »

Jorts wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:15 am
k_fergie wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:58 am For the freedom to reap the rewards, one must accept the potential consequences. And why do people get hung up on signage? Here's a slippery slope for ya. Why not just install boundary ropes to guide you and groomers to smooth out the snow while you're at it? For the SKY chutes, and really any potential slide, you can measure the alpha angle and come to the conclusion that 91 is easily in a risk zone. So yeah if you triggered a consequential slide across it, you should have to answer for it in some way, ignorance doesnt hold up in court
I was posting hypotheticals just to encourage critical thought about the whole situation instead of landing squarely on one side or the other. I would not ski the Y chute with high avy hazard where it could potentially hit the road.

Anyway, this fatal incident also comes to mind. A side country party left the resort boundary legally, presumably through a gate. Then they triggered a slide that buried a man a couple thousand feet below. Are the side country skiers responsible... should they be prosecuted for wrongful death? Or did the guy below, John Q Public, have personal responsibility? This incident was really tragic. It's not always cut and dried where responsibility lies.

https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ ... &accfm=inv
I guess I'm just triggered by this case, its been beaten to death on all of my channels. I tend to agree with tornadoman, why not settle out of court and save everyone time and money? You destroyed someone's property, work with them and make it right.

That telluride accident is a tragic and interesting case, but I think fundamentally different than this tunnel one or a hypothetical SKY chutes one. I believe that the skier implicitly accepted a level of risk by venturing out into the BC, overhead hazard is part of that risk calculation. Whereas drivers on roads and stationary infrastructure have not implicitly accepted this same risk, thats where I draw the line, but you're right that its definitely not cut and dry
I thought, I taught, I wrought
Post Reply