Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 124

Thread: Greedy People (and the frivolous lawsuits that follow)

  1. #1
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default Greedy People (and the frivolous lawsuits that follow)

    I been meaning to start a thread like this for years.

    The threat of a lawsuit, whether frivolous or not, is a modern day trend that just keeps getting more threatening every year. There was a time, some decades ago, when average folk didn't have to worry about getting sued. Today, it's a version of the poor mans lottery - if there's someone or something (usually that something has money) to sue, they will be sued. Boils down to greed and the easy buck. Sometimes though I think that the only way the middle class will survive in the future is to sue the rich or corporations because IMO there's a class war being waged since the "Great Recession". But that's another discussion within itself...

    Anyhoo, here's todays stupid lawsuit that thankfully was dismissed. I remember when it was filed some months ago and thought "ahhh, here we go, hopefully its thrown out".

    +1 for a judge with some common sense.


    'Ski buddy' not liable for heli-ski death, court rules

    B.C. judge rules British tourist did not have a contractual obligation when his 'buddy' died

    CBC News Posted: Jan 28, 2014 12:47 PM PT Last Updated: Jan 28, 2014 1:49 PM PT

    A widow whose husband died while helicopter skiing in southeastern B.C. has lost her lawsuit against his “ski buddy” for not keeping an eye on him.

    Mark Kennedy of Colorado died when he fell into a tree well on a remote mountain north of Revelstoke, while on a heli-skiing trip with Mike Wiegele Helicopter Skiing in January 2009.

    Tree wells are deep narrow holes created next to the trunks of trees when heavy snow falls from the branches. People who fall in them can be trapped and suffocate in the deep snow.

    In her lawsuit, Kennedy's widow Elizabeth alleged her husband was paired with British skier, Adrian Coe, as “ski buddies.” She claimed Coe, who lives in England, was therefore contractually obligated to stay close to her husband, keep him in sight, and assist or alert guides and other skiers if he observed his buddy in need of assistance.

    The lawsuit alleged Coe failed to perform his duties as a “ski buddy” and therefore delayed the search and possibly a chance to rescue and revive Mark Kennedy.

    But Justice Fisher dismissed the lawsuit in her ruling issued on Monday.
    "It is indeed very sad that Mr. Kennedy met a tragic and untimely death, but he did so after a terrible accident while participating in a high-risk sport and responsibility for his death cannot be placed on Mr. Coe," wrote Fisher.

    "It is my view that the nature of any obligations assumed by Mr. Coe and Mr. Kennedy was not contractual. There is no basis on which to find the existence of a contract or any contractual intention."

    Coe's lawyers had argued he was paired with Kennedy without any consultation and that he alerted guides as soon as he noticed Kennedy was no longer with the group, shortly after Coe and the other skiers arrived at the bottom of the run.

    Kennedy had been on heli-skiing trips with the same operator at least four previous times and was well aware of the terrain and the risks involved with such an activity.

    Kennedy was a successful trial lawyer in Colorado before his death. His wife received half his assets, according to his will, amounting to more than $18 million. She was seeking compensation for the loss of her husband’s future earnings.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ules-1.2514422


    Could you imagine what kind of precedent that this would have set if this would have been allowed?

    As I've said many times in the past, you can't cap greed.

  2. #2
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    I won't really touch on the overall discussion on tort law, but as someone who has done a lot of mechanized skiing over the years, I was following this lawsuit. It was very, very worrisome for the entire industry. Glad to see that it was dismissed.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Glad to see that it was dismissed.
    Same.

    I couldn't imagine going cat skiing and seeing someone else on the trip kill themselves while doing something stupid, just to see their widow take me for everything I own afterwards.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think i understand what you are trying to say but i don't agree with the way you are saying it.

    If someone suffers a financial loss, which this lady has, it can be very prudent to seek for those damages.

    To say this is Greed based would be your interpretation and your words.

    if the same event happened under a different framework she may have gotten payment. Which, in all honesty, she would be entitled to under the law.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Wow, 18 million and she isn't happy.

    This is why I went off the other week on another high risk topic...base jumping. It more often than not leads to these lawsuits, or even discussions on an outright ban on some activities that can be really safe overall.

    I was also worried for search and rescue outfits, outfitters in general, and others that support and completely stress the safety of what you should be doing...and the risks therein. A decision would have lead to other activities such as spelunking, diving, mountaineering, aerobatics, etc...

    I am very glad at this outcome, and the decision handed down was explained very well by Justice Fisher.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  6. #6
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I think i understand what you are trying to say but i don't agree with the way you are saying it.

    If someone suffers a financial loss, which this lady has, it can be very prudent to seek for those damages.

    To say this is Greed based would be your interpretation and your words.

    if the same event happened under a different framework she may have gotten payment. Which, in all honesty, she would be entitled to under the law.
    The point is, her husband knowingly engaged in a high risk activity, and through no fault of his ski buddy, was killed. So sure, his wife suffered a financial loss in terms of her husband's lost future earnings, but that is 100% on her husband. No one else.

  7. #7
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Amen.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I think i understand what you are trying to say but i don't agree with the way you are saying it.

    If someone suffers a financial loss, which this lady has, it can be very prudent to seek for those damages.

    To say this is Greed based would be your interpretation and your words.

    if the same event happened under a different framework she may have gotten payment. Which, in all honesty, she would be entitled to under the law.
    The point is, her husband knowingly engaged in a high risk activity, and through no fault of his ski buddy, was killed. So sure, his wife suffered a financial loss in terms of her husband's lost future earnings, but that is 100% on her husband. No one else.
    That would be why I said the above which is now bolded.

    it's pretty simple if you are negligent under torte law for damage done to someone else that other person deserves an award.

    I could throw it back on the people who bawlk at this and say they are just jealous. I will also point out that the people who, I feel are often jealous, just take a callous look look at the money. I am sure that, had this lady been given a settlement, she would have traded it all to have her spouse back. Assuming they didn't hate each other and just stayed together because it was too expensive to divorce.

    If I am wronged i deserve compensation... if I feel wronged I deserve to have my day in court... and as proven here the court decided against her argument.

    So scream all ya want about greed.. I see due process... which is one of the few things that set us apart from dictatorships. Lets try celebrating a system that works instead of accusing people who lost a loved one of greed for exercising her rights under the law. Next some people will start saying that girls get raped because they dress like sluts.

    wow

    As for the high risk activity.... Window washing sky scrapers is (or was) a high risk activity as well... it doesn't mean that prudent steps shouldn't be taken in order to ensure the maximum amount of safety.

    long gone are the days of this... and for good reason.



    http://shemovesthefurniture.blogspot...1_archive.html
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 28-01-2014 at 04:40 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Next some people will start saying that girls get raped because they dress like sluts.
    No. Only you have said that. And you're trying much to hard to throw in all the "what if's". There is no what if's, the court case was exactly what it was and judged, and rightly so.

  10. #10

    Default

    One would think insurance companies would offer insurance for people who engage in extreme sports. I can see people who engage in these pass times having a buddy to 'look out' for them but people cannot envision all eventualities. If the sport holds a degree of danger I should imagine any 'buddy' would be too busy looking out for themselves rather than someone else. It's too bad that insurance is not offered to every day people who like to live life on the edge. By everyday people I don't mean Evil Knivel or circus acrobats etc. they are a whole other group who do extreme things for a living.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  11. #11
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    One would think insurance companies would offer insurance for people who engage in extreme sports. I can see people who engage in these pass times having a buddy to 'look out' for them but people cannot envision all eventualities. If the sport holds a degree of danger I should imagine any 'buddy' would be too busy looking out for themselves rather than someone else. It's too bad that insurance is not offered to every day people who like to live life on the edge. By everyday people I don't mean Evil Knivel or circus acrobats etc. they are a whole other group who do extreme things for a living.
    They do. It's expensive.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  12. #12
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Kitlope...a second AMEN!

    Due process.

    This would have gone through investigations, discoveries, conversations, meetings, more investigations, letters from "experts", and all other types of evidence prior to this ever reaching the Justice's desk. Odds are quite good that the plaintiff and council knew the low chances of a successful outcome prior to it going forward, and the defendant and council had very high expectations on a successful outcome. Otherwise, odds are this would be settled out of court, or if it hit court it was more than likely a result of the settlement offers being rejected by one side or another.

    From what I see...due process upheld!

    No one is jealous, at least as far as I can see.

    No one is gleefully or even slightly taunting or disrespecting the plaintiff on the death.

    No one is revoking rights.

    No one is trying to correlate someone pranging into a tree while happily and voluntarily recreational skiing....to rape - the willful, violent, invasive, violating, control seizing, and/or subversive/drugged forcing of someone else's desires onto the body of another.

    They are just looking at the case for what it is, and questioning why it went forward after a lot of due process. That in no way correlates to removing rights or likening the questions to separations from disctatorships...in fact...the very fact that we can question the case is ample evidence that this is not a dictatorship!

    From what I read, there is a question on the table if there wasn't an element of a desire for more income...or to lash out and hurt via compensation and punitive actions (whether posthumously at her hubby for going in the first place, or whatever the rationale)...I think that is what is being encapsulated by the word "greed"...

    ...in short, after all the arguments, what was the final motivation to move forward with litigation vs accepting the reality and starting to move on with living? To that end, that is up to the plaintiff to decide. From what I see, the folks here are only commenting on the judgment and actions based on the facts presented in the case as it stands.

    @Gemini...many companies do have provisions for high risk activities or professions, and you pay accordingly...some don't admit to these and thereby nullify some packages...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  13. #13

    Default

    I am surprised she did not sue the helicopter company. People should be able to sign a waiver stating they will be someone's buddy and look out for them providing they are not held responsible if things go wrong that are beyond their control. The onus should not be on the buddy if said buddy has no control over the actions of another. It would be the same if a person was skydiving. A buddy would not be much good if your parachute did not open or got tangled.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  14. #14
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...actually...many waivers do exactly that...

    Try booking time at a motorsports park, or learn to skydive, or dive...or learn to fly...

    They all have "hold harmless" clauses...look at an airline ticket...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  15. #15

    Default

    I don't know how lawyers work in the States but you would think they would have counselled her and told her she did not have a case that they thought was winnable. I don't understand why the actions of her husband all of a sudden became someone else's fault. It's not like he was tethered to his 'buddy' and the buddy caused the accident.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  16. #16
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I don't know how lawyers work in the States but you would think they would have counselled her and told her she did not have a case that they thought was winnable. I don't understand why the actions of her husband all of a sudden became someone else's fault. It's not like he was tethered to his 'buddy' and the buddy caused the accident.
    They don't care about winnable, they care about billable.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  17. #17
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...truer than many think...and can lead to council prodding a plaintiff into litigious actions...

    ...but in some states...it is a game of harassment. Put the pressure on enough, put a fear of losing into the defendant...and they settle. You get your percentage, and the plaintiff gets some too...and if they are on a deal with no retainer...well...the hounding is worse.

    ...it is this game that folks in the US are seriously rallying against...but that has proven unsuccessful in over 20 years...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I don't know how lawyers work in the States but you would think they would have counselled her and told her she did not have a case that they thought was winnable. I don't understand why the actions of her husband all of a sudden became someone else's fault. It's not like he was tethered to his 'buddy' and the buddy caused the accident.
    Because this is today's society. There's a chance at an easy buck and in the process you blame someone else. It's all around us - personal responsibility is a dying concept.

    There was a very recent court case of a man driving on Hwy 63 and witnesses watched him wander over the center line 6 times and drive erratically until he hit and killed a woman in an oncoming car. It was proven that he was falling asleep at the wheel and he got some jail time I believe.

    But what's truly shocking is his statements, that "it wasn't his fault" and that it was actually her fault. Not sure how, other than her being at the wrong place at the wrong time on a public road, why he could even possibly think it was her fault when he was the one falling asleep at the wheel and driving in the oncoming lane.

    Never ceases to amaze me.

    edit: Here's the article

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...649/story.html

  19. #19

    Default

    In the case of the heli skiing I doubt if the buddy would have been able to stop the accident anyway. If the guy was hurling down a hill at high speed I doubt that anyone would have been able to get to him to prevent him from having what seems like a freak accident. The 'buddy' should now sue for the mental anguish of being sued. I also agree some people want to blame other people for what is sometimes their own fault. Like people who get overweight and then want to sue McDonalds. Then there are the lawyers that take these cases hoping for a big pay day and their names on billboards. All it does is tie up the system for the genuine cases. It seems in the states some people's retirement funds are hoping to be able to win a law suite. Like Judge Judy likes to say 'not every thing is a law suit'.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #20
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    744

    Default

    A legally defined cap of maximum C$100K would be a good start to nip the problem in the bud. Some people are too greedy!

  21. #21

    Default

    I don't things caps would work. Some people need medical help for the rest of their lives after some accidents. What would work is more lawyers being honest with their clients and telling them if they have a case or not. They should be upfront and tell their clients that the accident was their own fault and no one else is liable. It seems too easy these days to blame everyone else for what is your own misfortune. If you ski, heli-ski, sky dive, base jump or do any dangerous activities you should realize you could be in danger. If you were speeding in your car and doing 150 on the highway and then got into an accident would it be the car manufacturers fault that the car could go that fast?. I don't think so.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I think an effective way to slow these silly lawsuits is to have the loser pay for all associated court costs. Might make one think twice...

  23. #23
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    I think an effective way to slow these silly lawsuits is to have the loser pay for all associated court costs. Might make one think twice...
    Have the loser's lawyers pay for all associated court costs, then you'd really see these cases thin out.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  24. #24
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    An even better idea

  25. #25

    Default

    ^^That's a of an idea. Another idea is to get a qualified person to look over these cases a.s.a.p. after they a filed and inform the lawyer that there is no chance of winning.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    New Zealand has an interesting solution to this problem: http://www.acc.co.nz/

  27. #27
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I am surprised she did not sue the helicopter company. People should be able to sign a waiver stating they will be someone's buddy and look out for them providing they are not held responsible if things go wrong that are beyond their control. The onus should not be on the buddy if said buddy has no control over the actions of another. It would be the same if a person was skydiving. A buddy would not be much good if your parachute did not open or got tangled.
    Again, when you go mechanized skiing (heli or cat), you sign and initial a very long waiver in half a dozen places that is explained to you in detail. Hence why they didn't go after the heli ski company, because especially in the dead lawyer's case, he damn well knew what he was signing. They wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Instead the widow's lawyer tried to show that there was an implied contract between the two ski buddies to look out for each other, which the judge disagreed with, hence why it was dismissed.

    Mechanized skiing is a risky activity, and anyone doing it has been informed of the risks and signed a waiver of liability. There is no way I would sign anything documented that indicated I was to be someone's buddy and to look out for them, because suddenly there's a contractual agreement in place that could expose me to liability. No thanks. The buddy system is primarily about helping each other out when someone falls and loses a ski, because moving around in deep snow without both skis is a nightmare. Yes, it's also about safety and trying to prevent tree well accidents or people getting lost, but it's not reasonable to expect people to take on liability for others whom they have no control over and whom they may have just met a couple hours before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    In the case of the heli skiing I doubt if the buddy would have been able to stop the accident anyway. If the guy was hurling down a hill at high speed I doubt that anyone would have been able to get to him to prevent him from having what seems like a freak accident.
    Actually, there's a good chance that had he seen his buddy fall in to the tree well, that he'd have been able to assist him. But that's the problem, is seeing him. You're supposed to keep your buddy in sight, but depending on how tight the trees are, how good/bad the visibility is, and the skill level of the skiers relative to each other, it can be fairly difficult to stay right beside each other. And once the guy goes in to the tree well and gets buried, he's pretty much impossible to see unless you're right on top of him.

    It's an unfortunate circumstance, but that kind of thing can happen when you're skiing in backcountry terrain in deep snow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    New Zealand has an interesting solution to this problem: http://www.acc.co.nz/
    Heh, yeah, I was kind of shocked when I was in NZ 6-7 years ago and didn't have to sign waivers to do a lot of risky activities like whitewater rafting, caving, and so on. That's why so many of the crazy new action sports originate out of NZ. They don't have nearly the legal worries that they would elsewhere.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 29-01-2014 at 08:09 AM.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal76 View Post
    A legally defined cap of maximum C$100K would be a good start to nip the problem in the bud. Some people are too greedy!
    If I am a surgeon and some one ends my career due to negligence and takes away millions from me...... I better be getting more than 100K.


    I see both side of the coin. The numbers people are awarded are not just picked out of a hat.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  29. #29

    Default

    Marcel signing a waiver does not allow the company to get away with gross negligence.

    Waivers fail before a judge all the time... as do many of the things your insurance company has you sign.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    As for the high risk activity.... Window washing sky scrapers is (or was) a high risk activity as well... it doesn't mean that prudent steps shouldn't be taken in order to ensure the maximum amount of safety.
    You cannot equate a recreational activity to a job. Window washers would be protected by OH&S legislation, and their employers are bound to follow it and and pay WCB premiums in case injuries or death (employees lose their right to sue employers if they are covered by WCB, and WCB has been around in some form or another for over a good century or so).

  31. #31

    Default

    Yes you can......Gross negligence, the theory, can be expressed many ways. Gross Negligence is gross negligence regardless of the vehicle it's delivered in. I am talking about negligence not jobs you are focusing on the wrong thing.

    Waivers do not excuse gross negligence. They often do not stand up in court. There should be no cap regardless of how jealous others maybe of a payout. If I was to kill a high net worth individual I would expect to be sued for millions. This is why Calgary has one of the highest percentages of people who carry multimillion dollar extended personal liability protections.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 29-01-2014 at 10:08 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  32. #32
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Marcel signing a waiver does not allow the company to get away with gross negligence.

    Waivers fail before a judge all the time... as do many of the things your insurance company has you sign.
    And no one has claimed that the company was negligent. So what does that have to do with this discussion?

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Yes you can.....
    You think you can equate someone's death during their recreational activity to a person's death on the job at work (especially where their employer pays WCB premiums, thereby automatically giving them "no fault" protection from lawsuits)?

  34. #34

    Default

    ^ You, are one, that started talking about waivers...

    So take a stab at your own questions.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  35. #35
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    EDP, do you seriously insist on thread-crapping in almost every thread here at C2E? I think you disagree and create bull.**** arguments just for the sake of creating a bull.**** argument.

    It's really really tiresome and truth be told if I was admin here you would have 2 warnings for trolling and be kicked off the site.

    edit: Actually, isn't there a "block" feature here? In my 14 years on the internet and on many forums, I've never had to use it. I'm thinking it might be time...
    Last edited by Kitlope; 29-01-2014 at 02:03 PM.

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    The waivers used in the industry explicitly waive negligence and I've been told it has held up in court. There may be a matter of degree of negligence involved. As for this suit itself, while legal, it does seem like she was reaching; And while she has lost income, it certainly isn't like a case where someone is left destitute by a death.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,097

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I think i understand what you are trying to say but i don't agree with the way you are saying it.

    If someone suffers a financial loss, which this lady has, it can be very prudent to seek for those damages.

    To say this is Greed based would be your interpretation and your words.

    if the same event happened under a different framework she may have gotten payment. Which, in all honesty, she would be entitled to under the law.
    The point is, her husband knowingly engaged in a high risk activity, and through no fault of his ski buddy, was killed. So sure, his wife suffered a financial loss in terms of her husband's lost future earnings, but that is 100% on her husband. No one else.
    That would be why I said the above which is now bolded.

    it's pretty simple if you are negligent under torte law for damage done to someone else that other person deserves an award.

    I could throw it back on the people who bawlk at this and say they are just jealous. I will also point out that the people who, I feel are often jealous, just take a callous look look at the money. I am sure that, had this lady been given a settlement, she would have traded it all to have her spouse back. Assuming they didn't hate each other and just stayed together because it was too expensive to divorce.

    If I am wronged i deserve compensation... if I feel wronged I deserve to have my day in court... and as proven here the court decided against her argument.

    So scream all ya want about greed.. I see due process... which is one of the few things that set us apart from dictatorships. Lets try celebrating a system that works instead of accusing people who lost a loved one of greed for exercising her rights under the law. Next some people will start saying that girls get raped because they dress like sluts.

    wow

    As for the high risk activity.... Window washing sky scrapers is (or was) a high risk activity as well... it doesn't mean that prudent steps shouldn't be taken in order to ensure the maximum amount of safety.

    long gone are the days of this... and for good reason.



    http://shemovesthefurniture.blogspot...1_archive.html
    Painters

  38. #38

    Default

    I wonder how the lady who sued would feel if the same scenario happened to her. If she was someone's buddy and they fell down a tree well. Would she feel it was O.K. for their relatives to sue her. I think if the onus was reversed on her she would be on the phone getting a lawyer to defend her.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    EDP, do you seriously insist on thread-crapping in almost every thread here at C2E? I think you disagree and create bull.**** arguments just for the sake of creating a bull.**** argument.

    It's really really tiresome and truth be told if I was admin here you would have 2 warnings for trolling and be kicked off the site.

    edit: Actually, isn't there a "block" feature here? In my 14 years on the internet and on many forums, I've never had to use it. I'm thinking it might be time...
    Like photographs some people are just underdeveloped and over exposed.
    You can block by going into your user profile, look to the list on the left and you will find the block feature. It's 'edit ignore list'.
    Last edited by Gemini; 29-01-2014 at 03:54 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Already done, thanks Gem.

    I hate to block someone but I just can't take it anymore, and I've been patient for many many months, even years. I believe in everyone having a valid opinion and like to read those opinions even if I don't agree but many of his postings are just pure nonsense. And then he twists words and phrases, derails and throws in "logic" that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    Just can't do it anymore.

  41. #41

    Default

    ^The only thing with doing this is that sometimes the course of the conversation can be disjointed. Or all of a sudden a thread has been closed and you don't know why. Usually it's because of what that blocked person has said. You could also be missing some good laughs when said person derails a thread.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Very true. I'll evaluate the blocking in the future

  43. #43

    Default

    I stand by this statement

    So scream all ya want about greed.. I see due process... which is one of the few things that set us apart from dictatorships. Lets try celebrating a system that works instead of accusing people who lost a loved one of greed for exercising her rights under the law. Next some people will start saying that girls get raped because they dress like sluts.

    Lets remember what you titled this thread.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  44. #44
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I stand by this statement

    So scream all ya want about greed.. I see due process... which is one of the few things that set us apart from dictatorships. Lets try celebrating a system that works instead of accusing people who lost a loved one of greed for exercising her rights under the law. Next some people will start saying that girls get raped because they dress like sluts.

    Lets remember what you titled this thread.
    No, just you as usual.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  45. #45
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    You can comply with the law and still be greedy.

    In this woman's case her actions were legal but smack of trying to destitute someone else when she was not in anyway in financial difficulty herself. It is worth celebrating that due process did it's job here and struck down a frivolous suit.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  46. #46
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,304

    Default

    How about that one silly fellow who's has spent the last 11 years fighting a $50 driving ticket because the ticket isn't bilingual. His legal costs must be 10X the amount of the fine, not to mention the costs of the court and legal resources he's been tying up.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  47. #47

    Default

    ^ it's not about the money.. the lawsuit is about to access esc gov't services in both offical languages of Canada....

    this is not a civil law suit... and a very poor addition to the discussion.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    How about that one silly fellow who's has spent the last 11 years fighting a $50 driving ticket because the ticket isn't bilingual.
    Jeez. 11 years! Where in Canada is this?

  49. #49
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,304

    Default

    ^ Here in Edmonton. Will post a link to the story once I can find one.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  50. #50
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Here's the perfect example of the thread title.


    Colorado Man Could Sue Divers Who Saved Him From Submerged Car


    A Colorado man, despite acknowledging that he's lucky to be alive after being trapped in a submerged car, has filed an intent to sue his rescuers for half a million dollars.

    Roy Ortiz filed his intent to sue the county of Boulder and his rescuers for a tentative $500,000 as a "preservative" measure, his attorney, Ed Ferszt, told ABCNews.com.

    Ferszt said the county should have closed the road during floods in September. He said the first responders were also included because they did not realize Ortiz was trapped in the car until they prepared to lift it out of the water.

    "He was not seen or it was assumed no one could have survived it," Ferszt said. "No one discerned he was there."

    The incident began Sept. 12 when Ortiz was driving to work. His vehicle hit part of a washed-out road and then plunged into a creek.

    "He tried to feel even above his head and all he felt was water everywhere. It was not much of an air pocket," Ferszt said.

    Ortiz was able to find a small air bubble in the back of his car where Ferszt said his client spent two hours waiting to be rescued.

    Since the accident, Ortiz has racked up $40,000 in medical bills and still has shoulder issues and trouble sleeping, including a recurring dream of shivering to death, Ferszt said.

    Whether a future lawsuit is filed will depend "on Roy's medical treatment and how that pans out," Ferszt said.

    David Hughes, Boulder Deputy County attorney, told ABCNews.com the county is following procedure with Ortiz's claim.

    "When we receive a notice of claim, we follow the same process," he said. "Right now the claim is under investigation."
    http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-man-co...opstories.html


    So lets sum this up. Your an id.iot and drive carelessly into a flood instead of turning around. Submerge your car with you trapped inside. First Responder's come by and save your life. Instead of being thankful, sue for profit "because they did not realize Ortiz was trapped in the car until they prepared to lift it out of the water."

    Unreal.

  51. #51

  52. #52
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Oh that's just priceless. Incredible.

  53. #53

    Default

    Never saw this thread before. Its interesting.

    As a volunteer and past worker for Victims Services I'd like to interject.

    Specifically with the notion that "buddy killing himself" is all on buddy and that a peer group that aids, abets, encourages this kind of thing, and that is often impervious to reason or pleas have any culpability.

    Spend several years talking to the widows, talking to parents that all have stories of pleading that said peer group didn't influence their loves ones into such high risk activity and anybody might develop a different interpretation of their activity, responsibility, both legally, morally, and objectively.

    Your best buddy just died on a *recreational* outing. Guess what, you're already sentenced. You'll never forget it, and it will haunt you for the rest of your life. Perhaps as it should.

    Maybe a rethink on activities and risks and social responsibility to all is in order.

    Rather than, "oh another bud hit the dust"
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    [
    The point is, her husband knowingly engaged in a high risk activity, and through no fault of his ski buddy, was killed. So sure, his wife suffered a financial loss in terms of her husband's lost future earnings, but that is 100% on her husband. No one else.
    Hypothetically not talking about this specific situation but just in general.

    What if the trip was the buddies idea. what if buddy made all arrangements, due diligence, what if he convinced him, told him that pushing his skill envelope into this terrain wasn't going to be a problem. what if he told him it was going to be OK and "the best freaking thing you've ever done in your life' etc as these things are often spoken of.

    Indeed its peer pressure that is the most common ingredient in people pushing their skillsets beyond sensible limits and casualties and deaths resulting.

    I wonder if in some future instances the circumstances will be different and a precedent set for friends being held at least partly responsible.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-03-2014 at 01:57 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  55. #55

    Default

    "Kennedy had been on 4 previous heli skiing trips and was well aware of the terrain, risks of the activity"

    That statement by the defence is mindblowing and encapsulates in one short sentence the whole myth making that goes into these pursuits.

    Sums up the false sense of security that people are experts of terrain they have spent a few short days of their lives in. The reality being that this makes them virtual bambi in natures cross sights in unpredictable, challenging, unforgiving, wild terrain and at the worst possible time of year.. Someone with 4 such experiences on this nature of terrain hasn't even scratched the surface of knowing every danger, risk as this situation so sadly portrays.

    I'm a bit perplexed that the heli ski company pair skiers together as a token sense of responsibility rather than taking care of the riders themselves. For the kind of prices you pay for this kind of thing one to one expert skiing support by skilled staff wouldn't be out of the question.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-03-2014 at 03:11 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  56. #56
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,526

    Default

    Those are a lot of what ifs. It's been a while since I read the story but I'm not sure his ski "buddy" even knew the guy.

    I think if you read the summary that is linked in swillv8's post it will tell you the court's view of personal responsibility. It was an interesting read.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Those are a lot of what ifs. It's been a while since I read the story but I'm not sure his ski "buddy" even knew the guy.

    I think if you read the summary that is linked in swillv8's post it will tell you the court's view of personal responsibility. It was an interesting read.
    My reference was a hypothetical. I know it doesn't apply in the OP instance, but it does apply in many similar circumstances. With many spouses, parents, etc, fearful of the influence of kamikaze peer groups that convince their loves ones to push envelopes.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  58. #58
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Rather than, "oh another bud hit the dust"
    Trust me, when that kind of thing happens, the people who were friends with the deceased stop and reconsider things. I speak from personal experience, as one of the people I have done the most downhill mountain biking and skiing/boarding over the past 5 years was killed in Golden just before Christmas this year in an avalanche. There's a large group of us that have stopped and re-evaluated the risks we take either when resort skiing, backcountry touring, or mechanized skiing. Many people purchased additional safety equipment (beacons, probes, Snowpulse bags, avalungs etc), some swore off ever going outside resort boundaries, and yes some decided that there are risks with any activity and accept that.

    No one just said "ah dang, Shane's dead. Oh well. Who wants to poach T2 again next weekend? Maybe we'll find the snowboard that was ripped off his feet when he impacted a rock or tree!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Hypothetically not talking about this specific situation but just in general.

    What if the trip was the buddies idea. what if buddy made all arrangements, due diligence, what if he convinced him, told him that pushing his skill envelope into this terrain wasn't going to be a problem. what if he told him it was going to be OK and "the best freaking thing you've ever done in your life' etc as these things are often spoken of.

    Indeed its peer pressure that is the most common ingredient in people pushing their skillsets beyond sensible limits and casualties and deaths resulting.

    I wonder if in some future instances the circumstances will be different and a precedent set for friends being held at least partly responsible.
    Well, in this particular case, the two "buddies" did not know each other prior to the trip. They were made buddies by the heli ski operation. From the sounds of it, they either were each there by themselves, or were there in an odd numbered group of friends and placed with someone they didn't previously know.

    But in a general hypothetical sense, I don't really see where you're going with this. Taken to the extreme, someone suggesting going to a bar across the street can be held responsible if their friend is killed while crossing it. Again, mechanized skiing/boarding is a dangerous activity, and the operations that do it are very, very clear on the risks inherent in them. Anyone doing it is doing so at their own risk. Hence the multiple pages of legal documents you are required to sign before participating. No one doing it should be naive about the risks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    That statement by the defence is mindblowing and encapsulates in one short sentence the whole myth making that goes into these pursuits.

    Sums up the false sense of security that people are experts of terrain they have spent a few short days of their lives in. The reality being that this makes them virtual bambi in natures cross sights in unpredictable, challenging, unforgiving, wild terrain and at the worst possible time of year.. Someone with 4 such experiences on this nature of terrain hasn't even scratched the surface of knowing every danger, risk as this situation so sadly portrays.
    That statement isn't claiming that he knows every knook and cranny of the specific terrain he was riding on. Agreed, that type of knowledge takes weeks, if not months of continual travel through it to develop. What that statement is saying is that he was aware of the general type of terrain he was to be skiing in. Same goes with the risks. He probably wasn't able to analyze specific terrain and know where avalanches could come from, or see which tree wells were dangerous (that's impossible for even a trained expert, actually), but he would know that the risk of an avalanche or tree well existed.

    You're jumping to an awful lot of conclusions there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    I'm a bit perplexed that the heli ski company pair skiers together as a token sense of responsibility rather than taking care of the riders themselves. For the kind of prices you pay for this kind of thing one to one expert skiing support by skilled staff wouldn't be out of the question.
    Again, you're speaking largely from a point of sheer ignorance of the activity. Different companies have different protocols. Mechanized skiing can range from small group heli skiing (generally 1 lead guide and 4 customers per group) to large cat groups (generally 1 lead guide, 8-12 customers, and 1-2 tail guides per group). This is dictated by the equipment they use, from small 5 person heli's to large 15-18 person heli's or cats. In any case, it is not really possible for even a group of 5 people to all keep each other in site when skiing through densely treed terrain and still have an enjoyable experience. Hence the buddy system. And even then, it can be very difficult to stay together, from personal experience.

    Depending on the skill level of the participants, the guides will select different terrain and either compress or stretch out the number of times the group will re-group while proceeding down the mountain. If the guide observes that everyone knows what they're doing and has a high level of skill and fitness, they might well only regroup once per run. If the group is new or not very skilled, they may re-group every 10-20 turns, literally. It all depends.

    The fact is, almost all of these operations (there are some poorly run ones, no question) are run by professionals with a huge amount of experience and certifications (http://www.acmg.ca/) that do their best to run safe operations based upon theirs and others' past experiences. There is an over-arching group (http://www.helicatcanada.com/) that sets standards for the industry, although it is voluntary. But at the end of the day, only so much can be done to mitigate the large risks inherent in this type of activity. Participants have these risks laid out for them repeatedly when booking their trips, long before they arrive at the lodge, and are nearly inundated with legal paper work laying said risks out.

    If anyone goes in to such an activity thinking that it is safe, they have no one to blame but themselves, because they are wilfully ignorant of the risks.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 29-03-2014 at 04:09 PM.

  59. #59

    Default

    ^As usual an informed reply. Thank you.

    Wasn't suggesting that people are not impacted. The statement was purposely flippant to demonstrate the converse of what I raised that people are impacted for life when a tragedy like this happens and particularly due to how avoidable it is.

    As far as awareness of terrain I broached that people often self overestimate their ability level. Clearly the person involved, regardless of info provided, regardless of expertise, coaching, some brief instruction was unaware of the calamity that occurred. Otherwise I think its safe to say he wasn't properly aware. Again the incident and death demonstrated this.

    As far as your own awareness I think its positive that you and others have engaged in rethinking on such activity. Why is a tragedy necessary BEFORE such tragedy/ You're an obviously intelligent individual, you've even argued some of my stance on this nature of thing before. Whatever happened to vicarious learning and paying attention to the ample tragic instances that have occurred.
    Indeed, your own awareness was altered, triggered, changed. So people being "aware" of the dangers is always easy to state but a very misleading assertion. People become more aware the more they are exposed to the often tragic sides of risk behaviors.
    Awareness, in the face of dangers and risk activities seems slower coming, no disrespect intended in that, I truly believe its a function of how much people enjoy the high risk activity that denial about possible calamity is built in. Rationale that "I can do this, it'll be OK" tends to be built in. Tragically even for the very experienced.

    As for the comparison going out to the bar c'mon. Is going to the bar that dangerous now that its risk compatible? Whens the last time 7 people were killed in one instance in a bar in Edmonton...

    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Se...239b6f33556b0a

    Lets pay attention to the statements and falsehood going on as well.

    I'm interested in this statement;

    Wiegele said area stability readings taken five days earlier gave no sign of any problem.

    ''In stable times we use the run, not during unstable times,'' said Wiegele, who has operated helicopter-skiing charters in the area since 1973. ''This is a stable time, not an unstable cycle.
    That was his response in the aftermath of a great tragedy due to a very large avalanche. The trouble is avalanche forecasting, by stating things like stable or unstable cycle or stable or unstable conditions can offer the false reassurance that an activity at these times is going to be OK. When no such statements, no such claims, can really be made. No basis for scientifically ruling out potential for avalanche and disaster. An argument can be made that avalanche forecasting may actually contribute to ill advised risk taking under false assurance.

    Heres an interesting thing to ponder. How many days a year could Heli-Skiing operators take people out and guarantee safe conditions? I have a feeling the Helicopters would be pretty much mothballed.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-03-2014 at 06:11 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    As long we're floating ideas to ponder consider that the heli-sking incident you cite was 27 years ago and the level of knowledge and care has gone up immensely since then. Since then continued research and experience has increased forecasters and guides abilities to avoid avalanches. This is evidenced by the fact that avalanche deaths on trips guided by professionals are now extremely rare. The majority of avalanche deaths in Canada are snowmobilers (the largest group), people going off piste from ski areas (such as the incident Marcel cites near Golden), or people without knowledge travelling in areas they thought were safe. There is no argument to be made that avalanche forecasting increases risks when the vast majority of deaths are among people paying no attention to the forecasters and professional guides. At best you could argue that deaths among the professional groups have dropped so much the backcountry appears safer than it is to untrained people.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    As long we're floating ideas to ponder consider that the heli-sking incident you cite was 27 years ago and the level of knowledge and care has gone up immensely since then. Since then continued research and experience has increased forecasters and guides abilities to avoid avalanches. This is evidenced by the fact that avalanche deaths on trips guided by professionals are now extremely rare. The majority of avalanche deaths in Canada are snowmobilers (the largest group), people going off piste from ski areas (such as the incident Marcel cites near Golden), or people without knowledge travelling in areas they thought were safe. There is no argument to be made that avalanche forecasting increases risks when the vast majority of deaths are among people paying no attention to the forecasters and professional guides. At best you could argue that deaths among the professional groups have dropped so much the backcountry appears safer than it is to untrained people.
    Although knowledge has gone up unpredicted massive avalanches continue to occur. The point I was raising is it isn't an exacting science. Its still nowhere close to being one.
    I'll dispute as well your claim that fatalities on guided heli skiing are now rare. There have been 29 BC heli skiing fatalities since 95. You are correct that there are more snowmobile fatalities.
    I would be interested in a citation that the vast majority of deaths are among people paying no attention to the forecasts. I've been aware of no precise statistical breakdown of that whatsoever.

    But heres something I ponder. Since 95 there have been 200 avalanche fatalities in BC. This is in excess of 10 deaths per year. Of those only 4 are occupational related. All the other deaths were recreational. People needlessly killing themselves through such misadventure.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #62
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    As far as your own awareness I think its positive that you and others have engaged in rethinking on such activity. Why is a tragedy necessary BEFORE such tragedy/ You're an obviously intelligent individual, you've even argued some of my stance on this nature of thing before. Whatever happened to vicarious learning and paying attention to the ample tragic instances that have occurred.
    Indeed, your own awareness was altered, triggered, changed. So people being "aware" of the dangers is always easy to state but a very misleading assertion. People become more aware the more they are exposed to the often tragic sides of risk behaviors.
    Awareness, in the face of dangers and risk activities seems slower coming, no disrespect intended in that, I truly believe its a function of how much people enjoy the high risk activity that denial about possible calamity is built in. Rationale that "I can do this, it'll be OK" tends to be built in. Tragically even for the very experienced.
    Actually, I fell in to the latter category of "some decided that there are risks with any activity and accept that". I've done somewhere around 75 days of mechanized skiing, and 15-20 days of ski-touring in the back country with no professional guide. I've taken AST1 and AST2 through Yamnuska. I'm about as educated and experienced as most "weekend warriors" can be, and what happened with Shane didn't really change my perspective to any significant extent. When I first heard about what happened, I was somewhat angry with Shane and Alex (another friend who was with him) that they were where they were, and only one of them had a beacon (I don't think either had shovels/probes).

    But as I learned more about the exact circumstances, that anger faded. Shane wearing a beacon would have just meant they found his body that much faster. He was killed by head trauma, and even had he been wearing a Snowpulse air bag, it's debatable if it would have saved him (they're design both for floatation and to protect you from trauma). They probably shouldn't have been where they were given the avalanche forecast that day, but on the other hand I've spoke with multiple ACMG guides and all of them have expressed their opinion that it truly was somewhat of a "freak" avalanche, as the terrain wasn't obvious avalanche terrain (it was reasonably heavily treed, not overly steep, and didn't have large exposure above) and the conditions weren't actually that bad at the time, although they weren't great either.

    Unfortunately the two of them had done that run dozens of times on previous trips, neither was overly educated/trained, and they obviously made a mistake with their terrain choice. But again, those are the risks you take venturing out of controlled resort boundaries, and neither of them was totally naive about that. Shane died doing what he loved, and there's something poetic about that.

    As far as the numbers of people getting killed in the backcountry, no question that it's significant. But I'd be really curious to see some actuarial numbers on that, and contrast it to the risks of driving on the highway in the winter. Shane would jump in his car just about every weekend to drive to Golden and Revelstoke, his Altima had close to 300,000 km when he passed, accumulated in only a few years. Maybe he was actually lucky to not have been killed in a car accident sooner? While 200 avalanche fatalities is certainly a lot, how many people have been killed in car accidents in Alberta and BC in that period? Probably an order of magnitude more.

    There's risk to everything, short of living in a plastic bubble.

    If you're curious, this is Shane and Alex opening day at Revy this past year. Shane being a goofball as always:

    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 30-03-2014 at 02:03 PM.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Actually, I fell in to the latter category of "some decided that there are risks with any activity and accept that". I've done somewhere around 75 days of mechanized skiing, and 15-20 days of ski-touring in the back country with no professional guide. I've taken AST1 and AST2 through Yamnuska. I'm about as educated and experienced as most "weekend warriors" can be, and what happened with Shane didn't really change my perspective to any significant extent. When I first heard about what happened, I was somewhat angry with Shane and Alex (another friend who was with him) that they were where they were, and only one of them had a beacon (I don't think either had shovels/probes).

    But as I learned more about the exact circumstances, that anger faded. Shane wearing a beacon would have just meant they found his body that much faster. He was killed by head trauma, and even had he been wearing a Snowpulse air bag, it's debatable if it would have saved him (they're design both for floatation and to protect you from trauma). They probably shouldn't have been where they were given the avalanche forecast that day, but on the other hand I've spoke with multiple ACMG guides and all of them have expressed their opinion that it truly was somewhat of a "freak" avalanche, as the terrain wasn't obvious avalanche terrain (it was reasonably heavily treed, not overly steep, and didn't have large exposure above) and the conditions weren't actually that bad at the time, although they weren't great either.

    Unfortunately the two of them had done that run dozens of times on previous trips, neither was overly educated/trained, and they obviously made a mistake with their terrain choice. But again, those are the risks you take venturing out of controlled resort boundaries, and neither of them was totally naive about that. Shane died doing what he loved, and there's something poetic about that.

    As far as the numbers of people getting killed in the backcountry, no question that it's significant. But I'd be really curious to see some actuarial numbers on that, and contrast it to the risks of driving on the highway in the winter. Shane would jump in his car just about every weekend to drive to Golden and Revelstoke, his Altima had close to 300,000 km when he passed, accumulated in only a few years. Maybe he was actually lucky to not have been killed in a car accident sooner? While 200 avalanche fatalities is certainly a lot, how many people have been killed in car accidents in Alberta and BC in that period? Probably an order of magnitude more.

    There's risk to everything, short of living in a plastic bubble.

    If you're curious, this is Shane and Alex opening day at Revy this past year. Shane being a goofball as always:
    Thanks for sharing that and it is appreciated. Given your disclosure of a personal nature I hope its OK to continue with the discussion. if it triggers anything at all just let me know.
    The bolded are interesting to me and I'm fascinated and partly because I always have been and as an adult due to working with survivors that have lost loved ones in this way. Like yourself I've lost a personal friend through such tragedy.

    I grew up absolutely fascinated with mountaineering and probably first book I ever finished was James Ramsey Ullman Banner in the Sky when I was 6 or 7, I've read books on mountaineering and Everest ever since which I find interesting in many ways. Not the least the activity itself, but the passion, dedication, and sacrifice and people being prepared for the ultimate sacrifice. While not being a mountaineer myself I'm what can be described as a Summit fan. But this being trail(0f sorts) based summiting. So I understand the passion, love of the outdoors, also been out in backcountry a lot. That said I do this activity in summer time. I have resort skied or cross country skied in mountain areas but not in avalanche type zones.

    Back to your bolded comments, I will raise that I keep my risks to acceptable and (lower) risks due to responsibilities, loved ones, dependents and whether or not I find risk acceptable I answer in my mind to others. Having worked bereavement with enough survivors I could never put my loved ones through that through any misadventure on part. So I dunno about the acceptance part. I encourage you and others to consider the implications further. As to the bubblewrap comment I can't really agree. Risks are relative and different. ftr let it be known I'll chose any option but highway driving in inclement winter conditions as well. I tend to agree with the risk involved and particularly in two lane or mountain highways.

    The part I disagree with most, and will never agree with is the romantic notion that a person died doing what they loved. This part almost angers me tbh (sorry) because I perceive it as rationalizing the tragic loss, explains it away, instead of fully factoring the full grief and tragedy of what was taken away from them, loved ones, friends, employers, subordinates, etc. With many such people being talented, intelligent, full of promise, and who truly do leave a lot in the wake with their tragic loss. Particularly in the case of heliskiing a lot of very successful and accomplished people that are lost forever. I've not heard on one instance where somebody died doing what the loved didn't want to keep on loving life. Most of these people being pretty adept at having joy in their life. Joy that would serve to a ripe old age.

    Whenever such tragedy takes place (and all too often) I'm reminded none of us are truly free agents in this life and all would leave pain and grief and suffering in our wake. So I can never buy the "accepted the risk" part. I don't really agree that the acceptance of death is an individual decision in this context. (although my opinion differs in the case of quality of life argument for the terminally ill) Philosophically its why this captures me so much. Kind of an issue that is at the crux of the individual vs societal inclusion debate. If we're abjectedly looking at out lives as free agents than nothing else matters, no one else matters. But I can't comprehend looking at life that way. I really challenge whether many people do.

    Sorry again as I've stretched parameters here for these purposes just that its rare to be able to have this nature of conversation with someone knowledgeable and willing.

    thanks again for the dialog on this.
    Last edited by Replacement; 30-03-2014 at 06:12 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  64. #64
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Ok guys here's a stupid lawsuit that will make your head spin.

    Calgary woman who put needles in food now wants grocery store to pay $8M for ‘shaming’ her

    CALGARY — A woman who put needles into food at a Calgary grocery store is now suing the store for defamation.

    After she was banned from a Calgary Co-op in 2010 for shoplifting, Tatyana Granada returned to the store and concealed pins, nails and needles into bakery and dairy products.

    Now, Granada is suing the company for $8 million, alleging that it is responsible for the shame and loss of family honour her husband incurred, which she says eventually led to his suicide, the Calgary Herald reported.

    The plaintiff, who is originally from Latvia, also alleges in her statement of claim that the company is responsible for her emotional distress and the fact she is unable to secure employment. According to the May 15 statement, Granada is willing to discuss an out of court settlement.

    Granada, who is representing herself, says she has no income and is a widow left to raise her two children on her own.

    A representative with Co-op said the company has not been served and is not aware of a pending lawsuit involving Tatyana Granada.

    In 2012, Granada was found guilty of mischief and trespassing after pins, needles and other objects were found in bakery and dairy products at the Oakridge Co-op.

    Granada was sentenced to three years in prison and was released on March 6.

    — With files from Postmedia News



    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05...r-shaming-her/

  65. #65

    Default

    ^Sounds like she could be a few beans short of a burrito.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,584

    Default

    So she's representing herself. Uh huh. Punt.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  67. #67
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Another winner.

    NJ woman sues employer over her anxious commute to work

    CHERRY HILL — A NJ woman with serious commuter anxiety is suing her former employer after her bosses wouldn't change her work schedule so she could avoid rush hour.

    According to a report in the Courier-Post Andrea DeGerolamo of Berlin “began to feel great anxiety and depression, which was especially aggravated by crowded roadways experienced during the heavy traffic of rush hour,” the suit says.

    Her medical condition qualified her as being disabled, according to the legal papers.
    She took a medical leave in August 2012, and when she returned in November 2012, she asked if she could come to work after the morning rush and leave before the evening rush. According to her suit, such a request was reasonable given her disability.

    The company obliged her request, but changed her job, making it more clerical. DeGerolamo objected. On May 17 she was fired, according to the news report.

    DeGerolamo's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Camden, claims that Fulton Financial’s actions violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination. She is seeking unspecified financial damages.

    Neither her attorney or Fulton Financial's was available for comment, according to the report.
    http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2...incart_m-rpt-1

  68. #68
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    I did read in the newspaper 20-30 yrs ago, a guy who lives in Pittsburgh won the lottery of $ 1 million dollars, his brother sue him for the share of the money , both went to court hoping to settle that but lottery winner spends on legal fees and others and both ended up getting nothing from the money.

    is it worth it for his brother to sue him ?? it is the worst mistake he have ever made . is it worth to sue someone then get sued by others in the future ?

    lawsuit should be thrown in the garbage because all things happen by accident or whatever .
    people are stupid to file lawsuit because because lawyers like lawsuit best because it is the fastest way to make money and by the time lawyers retired from the law , they became very rich.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  69. #69
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Here's one making the rounds the last few days.

    Baseball fan caught sleeping on TV sues ESPN announcers for mocking him

    A Yankees fan has filed a $10 million lawsuit against two ESPN announcers contending they mocked him when he was caught on national television sleeping in his seat during a game at Yankee Stadium.

    Andrew Robert Rector admits in court documents he "napped" during a game against the Boston Red Sox on April 13, but says commentators Dan Shulman and John Kruk unleashed an "avalanche of disparaging words" against him.

    The suit says they used words like "fatty" and "stupid."

    Rector says he suffered "substantial injury" to his "character and reputation" and "mental anguish, loss of future income and loss of earning capacity."

    The lawsuit filed in Bronx Supreme Court Thursday also names ESPN, Major League Baseball and the Yankees as defendants.

    They didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

    And here's why he doesn't have a case.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/why-and...espn-1.2700270

  70. #70
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Here's one from Kamloops. And it's a doozy.

    B.C. Woman Sues Ex-Boyfriend To Pay For Failed Class After Breakup

    KAMLOOPS, B.C. - A 22-year-old B.C. woman is suing her ex-boyfriend to pay tuition for a class she says she failed due to distress over the breakup.

    Roopam Plawn, a marketing student at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, says in her notice of claim that she is seeking $500 for the class, $600 for anxiety, depression, insomnia and loss of working time and performance and $250 for "severe distress."

    She also wants Jasmeet Ahluwalia to pay court costs.

    Plawn says in the court document that she met the international student in September 2013, they broke up in early 2014, got back together again and ended the relationship for good in May.

    Plawn also says she lent Ahluwalia $3,500 and she wants the money back, with interest.

    None of the allegations have been proven in court, and Ahluwalia has 14 days to respond to the notice after he's been served. (Kamloops This Week).
    Just wow.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08...itish-columbia

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Here's a winner from right here in Edmonton.

    Man on trial for street-racing death sued victim’s family

    EDMONTON - A man who sued the family of a deceased teenager he is accused of killing during a street race is fighting to have the $200,000 lawsuit ruled inadmissible at his criminal trial.

    Jayant Soni, 35, faces charges for an April 2010 crash that killed 16-year-old Jeremie LeBlanc as he drove to the Grey Nuns Hospital where his sister was giving birth.

    Witnesses said LeBlanc was making a left turn in his Oldsmobile Alero at the intersection of 66th Street and 31st Avenue. His car was struck by a Lexus and a Mercedes that were speeding alongside each other on 66th Street.

    Soni, the alleged driver of the Mercedes, is accused of dangerous driving causing death, street racing causing death and refusing to provide a breath sample.

    Two years after LeBlanc’s death, Soni sued the LeBlanc family for $200,000 and claimed the accident was LeBlanc’s fault. That statement of claim states that Soni was driving when the crash occurred.

    On Wednesday, defence lawyer Brian Beresh argued the claim should not be admissible at Soni’s trial.

    “It is proof of nothing,” Beresh said. “It is not the equivalent of a court order or judgment. A statement of claim is nothing but a series of allegations.”
    Beresh said there is no proof Soni even knew what was in the claim when his lawyers filed the document.

    Crown prosecutor J.P. Quenneville pointed out there is no evidence the claim was filed without Soni’s knowledge.

    “A barrister and solicitor would not file an action without instruction,” he said. “The accused is the one who elected to file a statement of claim. The accused has made a judicial statement that is a confession on his part.”
    Soni discontinued his lawsuit in August 2013.

    Court heard Soni first admitted he was the driver to police at the scene. After the crash, Const. Michael Durec found Soni standing near the Mercedes.

    “I asked him if he was the driver and he said he was,” Durec testified.

    As emergency responders extricated LeBlanc and tried to resuscitate him, Soni became “excited” and repeatedly said the crash wasn’t his fault and blamed the fatally injured teen, the officer recalled.

    Paramedic Bill Huget testified that Soni had a “strong” smell of alcohol on his breath after the crash and admitted he’d consumed beer earlier that night.

    “I recall the patient was unco-operative with the breathalyzer,” Huget said. “In my witness statement, I said that he refused samples.”
    Soni’s trial continues.

    Rena Noi Onevathana, who was inside the Lexus, pleaded guilty earlier this year to fleeing the scene of an accident and was given a 90-day jail sentence.
    If I was the kid's family I would be countersuing for 10X the amount. Talk about a complete lack of personal responsibility.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...593/story.html

  72. #72

    Default

    I know this guy. This article about sums him up.

  73. #73
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Families Of Newtown Victims Sue Rifle Manufacturer

    Family members of some of the victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used by the gunman to kill 26 people.

    The lawsuit filed on behalf of 10 victims claims that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle never should have been sold to the public because it is a military weapon. Nine of the families suing lost members in the shooting. Natalie Hammond, another plaintiff, was a teacher at the school who survived the rampage.

    The Associated Press reports:
    "In addition to Bushmaster, the families have named Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the store where the Bushmaster rifle was purchased in 2010. Messages seeking comment from the defendants were not immediately returned.

    "The 40-page complaint was filed in superior court in Bridgeport."
    It was two years ago yesterday that 20-year-old Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire, fatally shooting 20 children — some as young as 5 years old — and six adults.

    The Wall Street Journal adds:
    "'There is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons, that it is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [them] for that purpose,' Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the families, said in an interview. 'How many massacres do there have to be before that is realized?'

    "In an article published in the Washington Times on June 14, 2013, George Kollitides, the chief executive of Remington Outdoor Company, was quoted as saying that Mr. Lanza alone, and not the rifle, was to blame for the killings.

    " 'It's very easy to blame an inanimate object,' Mr. Kollitides said. 'Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent — criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility.' "
    Well, we all knew this was coming. Using the tragedy for monetary gain is nothing new, especially in 'Merica.


    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...e-manufacturer

  74. #74
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Another goody.

    Federal government sued after tree falls on family camping in Jasper

    EDMONTON - A Calgary couple is suing the federal government for $116,000 after a tree fell on their tent during a camping trip in Jasper National Park.

    In July 2012, Sara Collier, Sylvain Riopel and their nine-month-old son pitched their tent in an assigned lot at the Whistlers Campground inside the national park. Shortly after 1 a.m., while the family was inside, the lawsuit says tree “owned” by the federal government fell on their tent.

    Collier suffered cracked ribs and a broken arm in the incident. Riopel had a concussion, cuts and bruises.

    Those injuries, the statement of claim says, “arose entirely from the failure of the defendants to properly maintain the campground in such a manner as would provide a reasonably safe location for the plaintiffs to enjoy the camping experience for which they had paid.”

    The lawsuit names the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant.

    In December, the federal government issued a statement of defence that denied any responsibility for Collier’s and Riopel’s injuries.

    “High winds and stormy weather caused a tree to fall,” the government’s defence says. Park employees “took all prudent and reasonable steps to ensure that visitors to the park, and to Whistlers campground in particular, would be reasonably safe from the falling of hazardous trees.”

    Parks employees “specially trained in hazardous tree assessment” monitored hazardous trees and removed those that posed a danger, according to the defence.

    If anything, the government states, Collier and Riopel caused their own injuries by failing to take reasonable steps to “protect themselves from the tree” and failing to use due diligence in pitching their tent too close to the tree.

    The campers also failed to heed Environment Canada thunderstorm warnings in the area, the government says.

    This week, Collier filed an amended claim that again stated that federal employees failed to inspect the campsite trees or mitigate the risk to campers.

    Collier and Riopel are suing for $75,000 and $40,000, respectively, as well as $1,000 in medical costs and $105 for their tent.

    The federal government has requested the lawsuit, first launched in May, be dismissed.

    With 781 campsites, Whistlers Campground is the largest in Jasper National Park.
    Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...284/story.html

  75. #75
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That's why I always camp with a couple of school-age boys to test all the nearby trees by hitting, shaking and attempting to climb them.

    It seems to me that There are more standing dead trees in the campgrounds than there used to be I guess people taking the rules about gathering firewood seriously has had some negative effects.

  76. #76
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I'm really quite impressed that their 9-month old was able to help pitch their tent. So far my kids haven't been useful help setting up camp until they're 6 or 7 yyears, but I'll try with another one year old this summer.

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Another goody.

    Federal government sued after tree falls on family camping in Jasper

    EDMONTON - A Calgary couple is suing the federal government for $116,000 after a tree fell on their tent during a camping trip in Jasper National Park.

    In July 2012, Sara Collier, Sylvain Riopel and their nine-month-old son pitched their tent in an assigned lot at the Whistlers Campground inside the national park. Shortly after 1 a.m., while the family was inside, the lawsuit says tree “owned” by the federal government fell on their tent.

    Collier suffered cracked ribs and a broken arm in the incident. Riopel had a concussion, cuts and bruises.

    Those injuries, the statement of claim says, “arose entirely from the failure of the defendants to properly maintain the campground in such a manner as would provide a reasonably safe location for the plaintiffs to enjoy the camping experience for which they had paid.”

    The lawsuit names the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant.

    In December, the federal government issued a statement of defence that denied any responsibility for Collier’s and Riopel’s injuries.

    “High winds and stormy weather caused a tree to fall,” the government’s defence says. Park employees “took all prudent and reasonable steps to ensure that visitors to the park, and to Whistlers campground in particular, would be reasonably safe from the falling of hazardous trees.”

    Parks employees “specially trained in hazardous tree assessment” monitored hazardous trees and removed those that posed a danger, according to the defence.

    If anything, the government states, Collier and Riopel caused their own injuries by failing to take reasonable steps to “protect themselves from the tree” and failing to use due diligence in pitching their tent too close to the tree.

    The campers also failed to heed Environment Canada thunderstorm warnings in the area, the government says.

    This week, Collier filed an amended claim that again stated that federal employees failed to inspect the campsite trees or mitigate the risk to campers.

    Collier and Riopel are suing for $75,000 and $40,000, respectively, as well as $1,000 in medical costs and $105 for their tent.

    The federal government has requested the lawsuit, first launched in May, be dismissed.

    With 781 campsites, Whistlers Campground is the largest in Jasper National Park.
    Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...284/story.html
    I wouldn't consider that lawsuit frivolous at all. Whats a person supposed to do. Get killed by a falling tree in JNP campground and just say oh well?

    The JNP defense that the family failed to set up tent far enough from trees is laughable It would be mathematically impossible to setup a tent ANYWHERE in Whistlers campground without being in range of the many very tall Douglas firs there. Frankly I'm shocked at the wording of the defense. Its suggesting the family didn't adequately protect themselves through location of the tent. Lets keep in mind as well that if this is the tent section theres very limited spaces or wood platform where you can put the tent. I'd be outraged at JNP taking that obstinate and patently ridiculous defence. One would think they ought to have gone with natural hazard, act of god or some such thing.

    Also the wording "the family failed to protect themselves adequately from the tree" lol, I've camped all my life what exactly are they supposed to do? Also failing to heed the thunderstorm advisory in the area is abject nonsense. This is a campground. They basically want you to go bed early, around 11pm, which many people do in a campground, and the treefall and storm occurred at 1am. Weather is severely unpredictable in the mountains as we all know. REally it seems like some bureaucrat retained lawyer that has never been within 1000miles of JNP made up this stupid defense.

    Damages from a falling tree would be considerable if you aren't killed. Campers are at the mercy of the proper management of trees in the park.

    I don't see this at all as being a ridiculous lawsuit. Injuries were probably severe and involving considerable pain and hardship.

    Whistlers campground has also had a really bad record with managing risks. For around 10 yrs in that campground the bear situation was right out of control and with several bear incidents every summer. Had 2 personally and while taking every precaution its possible to take.

    If somebody is hitting them up with a lawsuit its proabably high time. The most mismanaged large campground possibly in the whole park system.

    The stories I could tell.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-01-2015 at 10:19 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  78. #78
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Well then it's just a matter of time until camping is banned too.

    Whatever happened to "An act of god"? What next, get struck by lightning and sue?

    It's all about cashing in.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Well then it's just a matter of time until camping is banned too.

    Whatever happened to "An act of god"? What next, get struck by lightning and sue?

    It's all about cashing in.
    Not at all.

    Lightning obviously isn't preventable and isn't the same thing. Proper tree management is possible, and JNP is bs about this. They don't even manage trees growing right in the middle of a campsite entrance through the gravel.


    The campground is not properly managed and rarely has been. Its one of the worst examples of under management and cost cutting anywhere in the park system. Its one of the highest use campgrounds in the province and has bare bones staffing due to budget cuts. Most of the staff they do have are summer staff students that are less familiar with the park then the visitors are.

    Last stay in Whisters observed potholes that could swallow smaller vehicles, trees growing right in the middle of camping sites or through camp tables. Camp tables that are basically deteriorating and falling apart. Electrical problem in a washroom and picnic shelter that was intermittently shorting out.
    I bike around a lot. There are very very few fresh treecuts to be seen anywhere in the campground. Tending dead trees my ***. In one circle you could push 20 trees down. Except as highlander stated you're not allowed to. If you did you'd get kicked out of the park, fined, and have your pass revoked. I'm still interested to know what precautions JNP alledge the family should have taken.


    Oh look, the same year and month that the treefell on the family;

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4409268/

    Heres another article. The same bs govt that wants to open different parks in out of the way locations nobody ever sees has no money for the main parks which it continually cost cuts. The Govt opens up new parks to counter the notion that they herald untold environmental decline during their stewardship while doing little to maintain environmental conditions in the most visited parks.

    http://www.jasperenvironmental.org/m...e-over-nature/



    A tree falling on people in a tent would undeniably cause significant injury if not deaths.

    Treefalls that hit people are often FATAL incidents.

    I have no idea how you find this frivolous.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-01-2015 at 11:35 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  80. #80
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Well then it's just a matter of time until camping is banned too.

    Whatever happened to "An act of god"? What next, get struck by lightning and sue?

    It's all about cashing in.
    Another unfortunate outcome of this type of lawsuit might be to ban tents (and only allow RVs) in heavily treed public campgrounds. This is already the case in most private campgrounds (or more accurately RV resorts).

    A general lack of upkeep is no doubt a problem in the national parks. But the risks of falling trees (or large branches) during severe thunderstorms cannot be fully mitigated in a campground like Whistler where every campsite is surrounded by tall trees, which 99.9% of the time is one of its attractions.

  81. #81
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Well Replacement we agree to disagree. There are inherent risks when camping, or tobogganing or just about everything we do as people. Tree's falling on people can and do happen, I don't care if you're at Whistler, Cypress Hills or some back country informal campground by the river 45 minutes north of Nordegg. For what it's worth, I haven't been to Whistler in 15 years and I don't remember it being some decrepit uncared for campground. But it's been a long time.

    All it takes is one lawsuit to ruin it for everybody. Just ask the people of Hamilton that can't toboggan because of a $900 000 lawsuit 15 years ago.

    There are no guarantee's in life and people in the last 25 years are trying to take advantage of that.

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Another goody.

    Federal government sued after tree falls on family camping in Jasper

    EDMONTON - A Calgary couple is suing the federal government for $116,000 after a tree fell on their tent during a camping trip in Jasper National Park.

    In July 2012, Sara Collier, Sylvain Riopel and their nine-month-old son pitched their tent in an assigned lot at the Whistlers Campground inside the national park. Shortly after 1 a.m., while the family was inside, the lawsuit says tree “owned” by the federal government fell on their tent.

    Collier suffered cracked ribs and a broken arm in the incident. Riopel had a concussion, cuts and bruises.

    Those injuries, the statement of claim says, “arose entirely from the failure of the defendants to properly maintain the campground in such a manner as would provide a reasonably safe location for the plaintiffs to enjoy the camping experience for which they had paid.”

    The lawsuit names the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant.

    In December, the federal government issued a statement of defence that denied any responsibility for Collier’s and Riopel’s injuries.

    “High winds and stormy weather caused a tree to fall,” the government’s defence says. Park employees “took all prudent and reasonable steps to ensure that visitors to the park, and to Whistlers campground in particular, would be reasonably safe from the falling of hazardous trees.”

    Parks employees “specially trained in hazardous tree assessment” monitored hazardous trees and removed those that posed a danger, according to the defence.

    If anything, the government states, Collier and Riopel caused their own injuries by failing to take reasonable steps to “protect themselves from the tree” and failing to use due diligence in pitching their tent too close to the tree.

    The campers also failed to heed Environment Canada thunderstorm warnings in the area, the government says.

    This week, Collier filed an amended claim that again stated that federal employees failed to inspect the campsite trees or mitigate the risk to campers.

    Collier and Riopel are suing for $75,000 and $40,000, respectively, as well as $1,000 in medical costs and $105 for their tent.

    The federal government has requested the lawsuit, first launched in May, be dismissed.

    With 781 campsites, Whistlers Campground is the largest in Jasper National Park.
    Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...284/story.html
    I wouldn't consider that lawsuit frivolous at all. Whats a person supposed to do. Get killed by a falling tree in JNP campground and just say oh well?

    The JNP defense that the family failed to set up tent far enough from trees is laughable It would be mathematically impossible to setup a tent ANYWHERE in Whistlers campground without being in range of the many very tall Douglas firs there. Frankly I'm shocked at the wording of the defense. Its suggesting the family didn't adequately protect themselves through location of the tent. Lets keep in mind as well that if this is the tent section theres very limited spaces or wood platform where you can put the tent. I'd be outraged at JNP taking that obstinate and patently ridiculous defence. One would think they ought to have gone with natural hazard, act of god or some such thing.

    Also the wording "the family failed to protect themselves adequately from the tree" lol, I've camped all my life what exactly are they supposed to do? Also failing to heed the thunderstorm advisory in the area is abject nonsense. This is a campground. They basically want you to go bed early, around 11pm, which many people do in a campground, and the treefall and storm occurred at 1am. Weather is severely unpredictable in the mountains as we all know. REally it seems like some bureaucrat retained lawyer that has never been within 1000miles of JNP made up this stupid defense.

    Damages from a falling tree would be considerable if you aren't killed. Campers are at the mercy of the proper management of trees in the park.

    I don't see this at all as being a ridiculous lawsuit. Injuries were probably severe and involving considerable pain and hardship.

    Whistlers campground has also had a really bad record with managing risks. For around 10 yrs in that campground the bear situation was right out of control and with several bear incidents every summer. Had 2 personally and while taking every precaution its possible to take.

    If somebody is hitting them up with a lawsuit its proabably high time. The most mismanaged large campground possibly in the whole park system.

    The stories I could tell.



    I saw this news from facebook as saying that there is lots of people thinks that this lawsuit should be throw out of court.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Well Replacement we agree to disagree. There are inherent risks when camping, or tobogganing or just about everything we do as people. Tree's falling on people can and do happen, I don't care if you're at Whistler, Cypress Hills or some back country informal campground by the river 45 minutes north of Nordegg. For what it's worth, I haven't been to Whistler in 15 years and I don't remember it being some decrepit uncared for campground. But it's been a long time.

    All it takes is one lawsuit to ruin it for everybody. Just ask the people of Hamilton that can't toboggan because of a $900 000 lawsuit 15 years ago.

    There are no guarantee's in life and people in the last 25 years are trying to take advantage of that.
    What you didn't follow from my argument is that in a National Park Campground even if you see a tree that looks like its ready to fall theres nothing you can do about it. You can't effectively report it either to have it dealt with either because the parks and campgrounds are so underfunded. In a provincial park or private campground this stuff gets dealt with. In a National Park it doesn't.
    Funding in National Parks has been chronically undercut while funds that are lower than ever are diverted to the creation of new park areas when we don't have the funds to properly maintain key facilities in the ones we have.

    Heres some things people maybe don't recognize. Risks of all types in Mountain National Parks has increased due to lack of seasoned staffing. Nearly all jobs are outsourced now rather than being parks staff. With maintenance being among those and standards going down. Again anybody that's been to Whisters campground in recent yrs it would be virtually impossible not to note the curious things I mentioned earlier. When you see a Douglas Fir seedling that's been growing to a height that its peaking through the top of a rotting wood picnic table you know something is wrong with upkeep. (It takes 2-3 yrs or longer for a typical seedling to grow to this height even in JNP typical soil conditions.) That's like a telltale sign of extremely limited upkeep occurring. Also this continuing AFTER the lawsuit and in 2014.

    Some info JNP now runs with 25% of the Wardens they used to have. Meaning that risks in backcountry, with animals, trail conditions etc would be much more probable now. Also JNP is the size of some European Nations and the 25% amounts to 6 fulltime Wardens patrolling the entire park. If you have any nature of problem in the park it won't be a trained Warden responding. For information there was 17000 incidents in JNP in a recent year. Campground staff are now also supposed to deal with situations that would typically have been reported to Police or Wardens except now there basically aren't any. So you have some summer student responding to a serious disturbance involving a bear attacking a tent at 3am. Or a group of campers drunk all day having a bonfire at 4am in a dry as tinder campground when no fires are allowed.

    I've known some Parks staff for years. I know whats been going on. Without this serious underfunding and serious lack of care an maintenance going on I wouldn't be making the comments I'm making. Also note that only Douglas Firs are abundant in the Campground. These trees are very resilient. Only dead or diseased Douglas Firs come down. You need something like a sheer wind event of over 100K force winds to bring down healthy well rooted douglas firs.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2015 at 01:10 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Well then it's just a matter of time until camping is banned too.

    Whatever happened to "An act of god"? What next, get struck by lightning and sue?

    It's all about cashing in.
    Another unfortunate outcome of this type of lawsuit might be to ban tents (and only allow RVs) in heavily treed public campgrounds. This is already the case in most private campgrounds (or more accurately RV resorts).

    A general lack of upkeep is no doubt a problem in the national parks. But the risks of falling trees (or large branches) during severe thunderstorms cannot be fully mitigated in a campground like Whistler where every campsite is surrounded by tall trees, which 99.9% of the time is one of its attractions.
    In Lake Louise campground banning tents was already done for awhile due to a serious situation with Grizzly Bears habituating to the campground. They then came up with an electrified fence for the tenting area meant to stop Grizzlys from getting in. Theres still been some problems though with bears getting through gates etc. It may still be that the area doesn't safely allow tents.

    Next, Whistlers campground is contained of Douglas Fir and related conifers. These trees are amazingly resilient and can withstand any wind conditions short of say sheer localized wind events that are +100K/hr. In my lifetime in Edmonton I've seen maybe 3 wind events that were severe enough to bring down healthy Douglas Firs in this area. That's in over 50yrs.
    if this wind event was of such a magnitude then sirens should have been going off in the park warning people to evacuate. If a once in 20yr weather event is occurring then that would be the more prudent route. Pa attention to the National Park defense statement that the family had not been monitoring the weather reports. What was the suggestion with that? That they should vacate? Go in a vehicle? Its 1am, the weather event being mountain weather probably took hold quickly while they were sleeping.
    Also people should know that 2012 was the most inclement weather resulting in severe events that has ever been recorded in Jasper. Several bridges flooded out, Countless trails flooded out. Monumental catastrophe in Edith Cavell area due to the Ghost Glacier collapse.

    Absolutely if Parks is maintaining that this was a very dangerous wind event the sirens should have been on. They have sirens in Whistlers park. They had not used them. Its now known if the campground was event staffed that night. There are reported nights where there is no staff and they sometimes even let campers know that there will be no staff past midnight. (which is ridiculous in a campground containing 1000's of people.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I saw this news from facebook as saying that there is lots of people thinks that this lawsuit should be throw out of court.
    A lot of people are not aware of the lack of mitigating circumstances and that such increase in hazardous events were foretold years earlier when severe underfunding and cutbacks to parks and staffing took place.

    With a severe lack of experienced properly trained staff. You'll find much more evidence of trail upkeep in Edmonton than you will in a JNP campground. Any time I walk a river valley trail I see more susceptible trees that were taken down. (sometimes by beavers haha, but mostly chainsaws.) You could walk around Whistlers Campground for an hour and not see a fresh treecut. One of the times we went there a large tree was down across one of the loop roadways and was down the entire weekend and not moved. They had no staff available. People had to detour using only one way to get out of the circle. If you had a long unit in a narrow stall it was hard getting out. One camper on the Sunday basically had to push down a tree with his rig to even be able to make the severe cut going the wrong way on a one way loop road. There was no other way to get out and on the Monday of the long weekend they were just then at work bucking the tree into sections to remove it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  86. #86

    Default

    A few other notes. As mentioned in 2012 Jasper National Park experienced the most severe weather on record. Several bridges went out that year due to cresting rivers that had been cresting for weeks not days. Despite these extremely dangerous conditions none of the bridges afaik were shutdown due to perceived danger. Indeed due to only 6 wardens patrolling the parks the hazards were not entirely assessed. The barebones warden staff were over run responding to numerous crisis in the park. What resulted was hundreds of visitors getting stranded in areas like Maligne Lake, Medicine Lake etc because bridges were out and they couldn't get back.

    This occurred in several regions of the park that year when the Park sustained unprecedented damage to facilities. Imagine if some of these bridges went out and caused serious harm when people were using them.

    I post this to indicate that in recent years the staffing is not sufficient to monitor conditions and issue precautions, closures for safety. With the river heights there is no way some of these bridges should have been left open to traffic. The areas should have been cleared. JNP doesn't presently have enough staffing to even execute an evacuation of an area. To evacuate people from a dangerous area they had to recruit any parks staff they could find, road workers, contractors, RCMP, and any volunteers willing to do it. To evacuate an area, rebuild a temp bridge in a day etc. Fortunately enough people care about the JNP to do longhour tasks like this for free.

    We don't hear much about this because heroic people manage to get very difficult jobs done in a wild terrain. Without which we would be hearing about tourists stranded for several days in areas.

    Finally, next time you're in JNP I encourage people to take a closer look at bridges they are crossing. See evidence where footings are partially washed out, not repacked etc. See evidence of deteriorating bridge conditions, trail conditions, road conditions which is just starting to be more noticeable in JNP as cutbacks take effect. In 5-10 years without mitigation were going to be hearing about more events that will have people asking such questions as "why wasn't anybody properly monitoring this". The evidence of repairs that need to take place are found all over the park. There just isn't the manpower or money to do it. So we have such things as inadequate bridges over used in wild terrain all over the park and not properly maintained. With a lot of apparent finger crossing involved.

    The Ghost Glacier Collapse and the monumental damage that occurred to the valley, parking lot, road is an event parks staff don't even want to think about as this is one of the Parks popular daytime areas. Had that collapse occurred in daytime we would still be hearing about the lack of parks resources to deal with the massive event. Thankfully few people had to be evacuated. If that happened in daytime we would easily be talking a hundred casualties and a thousand stranded in only one way out terrain. With a raging torrent and tsunami type event caused by the collapsed Ghost Glacier.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2015 at 01:48 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  87. #87
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Regardless, it will most likely get thrown out of court. Whether that's the right move or not is a matter of opinion as it's a real nasty precedent setter.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Regardless, it will most likely get thrown out of court. Whether that's the right move or not is a matter of opinion as it's a real nasty precedent setter.
    Yeah, don't get me wrong and I understand your concern. Just that I know a lot about the JNP situation and poor management that led to things like this. If this isn't a National Park we're talking about I'm probably not saying the same things. Its absolutely deplorable how the National Park Service takes JNP particularly for granted. Jasper and Banff parks contribute 1/3 of revenue of all National Parks combined and only get around 1/10th back in funding. The disparity between most visited parks and parks funding would make anybody angry.

    Anyway I encourage people to look closer into the the National Park defense in this lawsuit and my comments. What could the family have done any differently except pack up. Heres another thing. Lets say the father was killed by the falling tree. What recourse does the surviving family have then?
    Tree falls are very serious and like I say often result in fatalities. The campground is poorly maintained. The Parks saying it employs experts maintaining the trees and cutting dead trees is a crock of ****. I guarantee you this was not occurring in 2012 as JNP was swamped dealing with calamity after calamity within the park.

    Due to the flimsy NP defense I would be surprised if it gets thrown out of court. They should have settled out of court given the circumstance. This is bad publicity and that could also make people rethink camping there.

    ps When I was young and camping in 83 in Whistler I had my tent destroyed by a hungry black bear that attacked at 4am. Ripped 3 holes in the tent trying to get in. We had no foodstuffs in the tent, nothing at all. We were the food apparently. The bear was starving and desperate. Managed to fend him off with the longhandle axe I always keep in my tent. Whacked him in the head and snout flat side multiple times before he took off. The bear was very habituated and had no fear. Scary experience. I never ever thought of seeking damages or any such thing. Just reported the attack. Did the duct tape repairs to the tent. Trouble is NP policy at the time was very softline on bear relocation. The bureacrats view at the time was bears belong here more than people so..bear attacks were regular in Jasper and campgrounds in the 80's.
    Last edited by Replacement; 18-01-2015 at 01:11 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  89. #89

    Default

    At first I thought this was frivolous but as a very occasional camper, I've never thought about trees falling on me. I'm not camping in the woods - I'm camping in a maintained campground, and I expect that hazards like these are being dealt with.

    Something to consider next time I go.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  90. #90

    Default

    I wonder if there is finer print of a disclaimer on the back of the entry ticket to the park. Something in the lines of ................Parks Canada is not responsible etc. ?
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    At first I thought this was frivolous but as a very occasional camper, I've never thought about trees falling on me. I'm not camping in the woods - I'm camping in a maintained campground, and I expect that hazards like these are being dealt with.

    Something to consider next time I go.
    Exactly the reason this should have been settled out of court. Negotiate the claim, pay it out, and stop it from being news. NP is dealing with this in the stupidest possible manner by citing flimsy defense that is indefensible.

    It basically connotes that we don't care about campers, we'll dispute even reasonable claims, and camp at your own risk. At the exact time that Parks are concerned about declining camper numbers.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I wonder if there is finer print of a disclaimer on the back of the entry ticket to the park. Something in the lines of ................Parks Canada is not responsible etc. ?
    Disclaimers like this are generally not worth the paper they're printed on.

    In this case I would fully expect that the family took pictures of the tree that fell, that probably reveal that the tree was dead and decaying, and further to the argument that it should've been cutdown.

    I can go to any circle in Whistlers campground tomorrow and point out several trees that are standing dead. That are dried up and with little sign of green or live branches.

    Hell anytime I do go theres no shortage of trees with entirely dead branches that make great kindling for fire. Really entire trees that would.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  93. #93
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Replacement, I appreciate your long winded but well thought out discussion and argument. I really do. And believe it or not, I get your aspect.

    But you know it's gonna get thrown outta court.

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Replacement, I appreciate your long winded but well thought out discussion and argument. I really do. And believe it or not, I get your aspect.

    But you know it's gonna get thrown outta court.
    heh, sorry for inundating your thread. I just find this stuff interesting. Anything JNP related is interesting to me.

    It'll be interesting to see what unfolds. If this story kind of disappears its probably because NP came to their senses and settled on some payout.

    50K probably gets it done. Less if NP hadn't gone adversarial. Again its not worth the bad press for what is one of the Jewels in the crown of NP's that brings huge revenue every year.

    Trouble is that now that this is in the news there will be copycat claims coming out of the woodwork. Which leads more to your fear about the "we can't have good things without people wrecking them"
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-01-2015 at 08:47 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,567

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  96. #96
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    The lottery for the stupid just gets better and better, huh?

  97. #97

    Default


    Now that's frivolous. Actually words escape me. I can't imagine what all of the extended family think about this action.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  98. #98
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    Sounds like a jury thought so too. She didn't win.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  99. #99
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,304

    Default

    Here's the article on the jury dismissal
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/connect...-boy-1.3270107
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    From the CBC article:
    The woman's law firm said the case was really about getting the homeowner's insurance company to pay her client's medical bills.
    This is what happens when the US justice system meets the US healthcare system. Canada is somewhat better, but New Zealand has the right idea: http://www.acc.co.nz/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •