This is just another example of how we as a nation are sliding down a slippery slope (no pun intended). I have snow skiied and tubed also, anytime you speed down a snow covered hill you should figure that something can happen. Did Sweeney have a helmet on? Someone is always to blame for your mistakes!
You all raise very interesting points, however, in this instance, neither the Judge nor Plaintiff’s attorney should be blamed for the statute(s) enacted by the Legislative branch.
We must remember that the Judicial branch is responsible for strictly and logically applying the various statutes imposed by the Legislature.
As a NY Adjuster I do agree that there are far too many frivolous lawsuits. However, I do believe in the system of checks and balances.
Based upon the prior comments, the statue failed to include the type of activity which Plaintiff was involved in relative to the subject accident. The Judge may have been Legally correct in his decision (Although I do not feel comfortable with the decision). The matter should be heard at trial, and a jury decide on the matter.
Not being at first familiar with the case, I read the opinion at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2004/sween091.htm and the plaintiff crossed out of the lane she was to be in which led to the collision. The interpretation by the Supreme Court appears valid in that light and it is being sent to a lower court to be heard. The point is, an omission or loophole appears to be the basis of the legal test rather than taking the case on the merit of negligence on the part of the operator, hence my earlier comment on what amounts to reckless operation of a motor vehicle on a gravel road where injury was pursuant to the vehicle leaving the road an sticking a tree. The question before the court was one of statutory interpretation, but we know the ultimate purpose here is not to sort out the intent of the law but rather to make the negligent whole. It is sad when that is result in an otherwise estimable decision.
Seems the ski industry (or boarding or tubing or whatever on snow or similiarly derived substance)is a step behind the litigation process. The discalimers on the back of your ticket will need to come up with a new term to describe the universe of possbile snow or resonable facsimile of snow activites. Better yet maybe we need to sign a discalimer form (multipage) listing all sorts of possbile potential dangers including sunburn (or maybe that should be windburn or skin irritation or dermtalogical discomfort) to broken bones (ostio something) to ultimately death (we would probably need to be more specific here).
It appears that we should never blame an individual for their action or inaction. At least not if there are deep pockets available somewhere down the line. I don’t know the specifics of the case nor do I want to know. I do know that every morning when I leave my house in my car that I take certain risks. If I get hit at the intersection after missing the stop sign I’m not going to sue the car maker but I guess I could. Not sure why but they must have something to do with a bad color mix or indistinguishable vehicle profile or the paint style of the stop sign. All things a “good” lawyer could work out.
As the spouse of a long-time professional ski instructor and the parent of a multi-year snowboader instructor I hear first-hand the warnings they must say to studuents even if no on is listening. Then there are the paradoxes of what can and cannot be done if someone is maybe hurt, or hurt, or just faking and complaining. A funny thing about being a dedicated instructor at a winter sport (sometimes spring and sometimes fall) facility: you get paid very little, pay a signigicant fee to belong to the ski-related organization, require frequent training and updates, and in the end you are liable for everthing because the business that hired you, paid you, and in part trained you can simply disown you.
As an employee I am ultimately responsible for my actions. As a provider of services I am responsible. As a user of goods and services I just need good legal representation!
I agree with Mark & Dave, there is nothing left that is suit proof. A baby is born with a defect, must be the doctor’s fault. Someone is hit by a foul ball at the ballpark, must be the stadium owner’s fault. The stupidity of lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits are only exceeded by the judges that allow them and the juries that award them. When will it stop?
I work in DC, where a statute exists prohibiting cops from chasing suspected car theives driving stolen cars. During an interview, someone, on the street, stated the reason for all the stolen car/racing deaths is because cops have ceased chasing theives and they’re free to run wild. That is NOT the reason. The reason is poor/non-existent parenting and the “it’s not my fault” syndrome. Teach kids it’s ok to blame others, and the syndrome perpetuates. It’s time for parents and kids to quit whining about consequences and think about things beforehand. Two words – TORT REFORM!!!!
Dave asked if the injured victim was wearing a helmet. Let’s hope so.
That way, we can allocate the plaintiff’s award to more than just the ski area. We can include helmet manufacturer as well. (along with the retailer who sold it, the distributor who warehoused it, and the supplier(s) of the materials used in making the helmet) Did I leave out anyone?
as asnowboarder for ten years adn a skier for 20+, as well as being an adjuster for ten yrs, I am appalled at the court’s ruling, however, I am not suprised. Everyday the liberal hack judges who wish to be legistaers, hand down ludicrous rulings such as this one. Let’s all hope the plaintiff’s attorney takes up skiing and bashes his no good head into a judge who might be skiing the same slope that day. Remeber, can’t sue for actually doing the technical “skiing”.
AAAAAAAAAAAh, you all forget that statutes are to be strictly interpreted unlike insurance policies! Snowboarding or snow tubing or snow skating are not the same as snow skiing. I wonder what lawyer drafted the statute. This is just another case of the law not keeping current with technology.
Reagan hit the nail on the head – this unfathomable case is just another instance where liberal judges make someone else accountable for one’s own actions. This form of case law justice will only get worse if Kerry and the Boy get elected and put more liberal judges in power. It sickens me in this country of self starters to see how no one is accountable for their actions. If there was more accountability, many of the so called political “hot topics” would be moot. When will this maddness end????
Granted I feel sorry for the person who is hurt; however, there will be a time when we won’t have anything available to us for recreation or otherwise because of the actions of others who don’t take responsibility for themselves. Everyone is so quick to sue and lay blame with everyone else but him or herself. I wonder when it will end too.
Pardon the jibe here, but we are heading down a slippery slope. Think about what a combination of lawsuits and malfeasance premiums have brought about in the medical profession and it shouldn’t stretch the imagination too much to envision when a village might require a release and indemnification to use a picnic table at the park.
this plt atty has another case pending on a snowboarder that jumped 90 ft and landed on his helmet and died — he is making the arguement that terrain parks and snowboarding are not included in the NH ski law — stay tuned
One can arguably see the point the attorney is making – in theory. However, there must be some degree of judgment that enters into the equation – some personal accountability as stated in an earlier comment. Say I take my car which is designed for city and highway driving (it implied that on the mileage declaration) and I put that car on a gravel road and drive like a winged rodent out of the infernal regions and wipe out. Does that give me the right to take the custodian of the road or the owner of the tree I hit into court? The end here is idiots’ rights and we will all pay for the indiscretion of a few and the greed of those that litigate for them!
A day 2 follow-up comment to Hank & Winston. You are correct-the judicial system interprets the laws that the Legislative & Executive branches create.
That is why the plaintiff’s bar has vested interested in running for public office. Once in power in the legislative and executive branches, they are free to create laws that are friendly to their interests. Then these laws are strictly interpreted by their brethren in the judicial branch. It happens in all levels of local, state, and federal office. They then use the dollars won in these suits to keep electing their own. It’s a great lesson in how our political system has been corrupted.
The madness will stop once you learn to spell…And as for Kerry and the “boy” I hope they do get voted in. It might be nice to have someone at the helm other than the crazy guy with no platform other than WMD which they never found.
Those of us sitting outside the US often shake our heads in despair at what the US is doing to the excellent legal system it inherited form the British. In the present case, it seems to me that the Supreme Court is missing the point. It is a long established principle of common law that people who knowingly and voluntarily participate in dangerous activities have to take upon themselves (within reason)the consequences of so doing. A boxer cannot successfully recover from his opponent for a broken nose. He would, however, be able to recover for an injury caused by the ropes giving way, causing him to fall out of the ring and crack his skull, since he may reasonably expect the equipment to be safe. The purpose of RSA 225-A:24 is not, in essence to create new law, but rather to arrest the deplorable erosion of existing law. To try and ring fence the application of this statute as has been done in this case by the Supreme Court merely emphasises how far that erosion has in fact gone. A more enlighten approach would have been to rule that snow tubing is eiusdem generis with “the sport of skiing” and thus to apply the principle clearly intended by the legislature.
Those criticizing the Sweeney decision really ought to take the time to review the facts of the case. Plaintiff and 10 co-workers go to ski area for a snow tubing company outing. Mountain sells them tickets. Sends them out to slope alone. No lift attendant, no spacer at the top, no employee in the landing area. Two side by side tracks. Plaintiff goes down hill as designed. Co-worker goes down in adjacent lane a few seconds later. Plaintiff lands in the “common” landing area, slides up the berm intended to stop riders, slides back down where she is hit, head to head, by the co-worker coming down the other track. Severe head injury.
She did everything the tubing park was designed for her to do. Gross negligence of area by having NO attendants. Gross negligence of area by designing silly “common” landing area rather than keeping riders separated (as they do down the whole mountain).
Those in the ski industry have one thing in mind – making money. That is why these terrain parks featuring extreme winter sports are catastrophic. Jam in as many attractions as possible, take the money of young inexperienced immature kids for the most part, put a waiver or release in their face as they are running out the door, let them kill themselves, and then rely on the ski industry lobby’s success in passing “immunity” statutes which, in and of themselves, do nothing more than absolve entities from their own negligence and recklessness.
That’s the point, and those are the facts.
In my opinion, your industry can’t pay enough in judgments, verdicts and settlements.
When a tubing facility invites participants to snow tube at its facility and builds it in such a negligent manner that the specifications of the facility itself create serious accidents and then the facility attempts to hides behind liability waivers… please consider who is really shirking their responsibility.
People go to these facilities thinking that they are designed safely. You cannot steer or control the speed of a tube once you start down a run. The facilities should have a responsibility to design the run so that a reasonable person, being reasonably prudent, would not face a life-time of disability or worse because of the facility’s desire to make more money at the expense of safety and then turn around and attempt to hide behind skier laws and liability waivers.
Skier laws were created to hold skiers accountable for how they control themselves on the slopes. Skiers CAN control themselves on the slopes and generally should be held accountable for their decisions regarding speed and direction. However, tubers have NO control over their speed OR direction once the tube is in motion. They are at the mercy of the facility design.
The design of the facility in the NH case was apparently very faulty in that it did not providing spacing between run-off areas to prevent tubers from rebounding backwards and crashing into another tuber going in the opposite direction.
If a county designed a road that suddenly pitted drivers in the opposite direction against each other competing for a single lane, who is negligent? The first time users of that road who suddenly faces unexpected peril or the county that was negligent in the design of the road?
If you nearly died in front of your children, spent almost two weeks in the hospital, and suffered a life-long injury because (on the first ride down, btw) the tubing facility was grossly negligent in the design and operation of its facility, perhaps you would feel differently about who is being irresponsible.
I will never tube again. I am hoping to someday ski again, because I can control my direction and speed and know my own abilities regarding what ski runs to take. However, I now know that is far different from tubing, where you are at the mercy of the facility’s design and are lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the tubing facility is a responsible business that was designed with safety and common sense in mind… until you hit a man-made wall at the bottom at 30+ miles per hour, because the facility chose to stay open when the runs were too slick for the amount of run-off area available. They took a risk, unbeknownst to the users… until someone got hurt.
Comparing the construction of a winter snow tubing hill to that of a roadway is ridiculous. Snow is a variable medium that exposes recreationists, skier or tuber alike, to the same inherent risks. Yes, skis are a controlled device that can turn and stop more easily than a tube, but to say that one can not drag their feet or use common sense to avoid injury at a tubing park is rather obtuse. I have over 15 years of experience with winter tubing parks (and no they aren’t all in it for the money) and while facility upkeep is a crucial part of the operation, staff awareness and involvement is the best resolve to managing the risks. Sweeney was let down by that tubing park because she was not properly attended to for the activity she was doing. To condemn snow tubing parks altogether is as much a folly as saying it is o.k. for a backcountry skier to file suit because a ski area didn’t groom the slope. Snow conditions change rapidly in a mountain setting and while a park is constructed it is ignorant to believe that each and every trip down the hill will be the same. Spend any amount of time on a tubing hill watching people and you begin to understand that many come to experience bumps, collisions, and the crashes…management of those people is the key. Tubing is a fun family activity that is as much the users responsiblity to make safe as the facilities who provide the space for it to happen. I agree with the Supreme Court of N.H. on this one based on the negligence of the area, but don’t condemn the sport of snow tubing (N.Y. Sup says its a sport) because you’re an uptight skier who couldn’t figure out how to put your feet down to slow your tube. Adequate staffing to remind people to use good judgement is the only recourse against the close minded approach that a hill of snow should be as meticulously contructed and flawlessly safe as a roadway….uh huh and there are never auto accidents. good grief.
This is just another example of how we as a nation are sliding down a slippery slope (no pun intended). I have snow skiied and tubed also, anytime you speed down a snow covered hill you should figure that something can happen. Did Sweeney have a helmet on? Someone is always to blame for your mistakes!
You all raise very interesting points, however, in this instance, neither the Judge nor Plaintiff’s attorney should be blamed for the statute(s) enacted by the Legislative branch.
We must remember that the Judicial branch is responsible for strictly and logically applying the various statutes imposed by the Legislature.
As a NY Adjuster I do agree that there are far too many frivolous lawsuits. However, I do believe in the system of checks and balances.
Based upon the prior comments, the statue failed to include the type of activity which Plaintiff was involved in relative to the subject accident. The Judge may have been Legally correct in his decision (Although I do not feel comfortable with the decision). The matter should be heard at trial, and a jury decide on the matter.
Not being at first familiar with the case, I read the opinion at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2004/sween091.htm and the plaintiff crossed out of the lane she was to be in which led to the collision. The interpretation by the Supreme Court appears valid in that light and it is being sent to a lower court to be heard. The point is, an omission or loophole appears to be the basis of the legal test rather than taking the case on the merit of negligence on the part of the operator, hence my earlier comment on what amounts to reckless operation of a motor vehicle on a gravel road where injury was pursuant to the vehicle leaving the road an sticking a tree. The question before the court was one of statutory interpretation, but we know the ultimate purpose here is not to sort out the intent of the law but rather to make the negligent whole. It is sad when that is result in an otherwise estimable decision.
Seems the ski industry (or boarding or tubing or whatever on snow or similiarly derived substance)is a step behind the litigation process. The discalimers on the back of your ticket will need to come up with a new term to describe the universe of possbile snow or resonable facsimile of snow activites. Better yet maybe we need to sign a discalimer form (multipage) listing all sorts of possbile potential dangers including sunburn (or maybe that should be windburn or skin irritation or dermtalogical discomfort) to broken bones (ostio something) to ultimately death (we would probably need to be more specific here).
It appears that we should never blame an individual for their action or inaction. At least not if there are deep pockets available somewhere down the line. I don’t know the specifics of the case nor do I want to know. I do know that every morning when I leave my house in my car that I take certain risks. If I get hit at the intersection after missing the stop sign I’m not going to sue the car maker but I guess I could. Not sure why but they must have something to do with a bad color mix or indistinguishable vehicle profile or the paint style of the stop sign. All things a “good” lawyer could work out.
As the spouse of a long-time professional ski instructor and the parent of a multi-year snowboader instructor I hear first-hand the warnings they must say to studuents even if no on is listening. Then there are the paradoxes of what can and cannot be done if someone is maybe hurt, or hurt, or just faking and complaining. A funny thing about being a dedicated instructor at a winter sport (sometimes spring and sometimes fall) facility: you get paid very little, pay a signigicant fee to belong to the ski-related organization, require frequent training and updates, and in the end you are liable for everthing because the business that hired you, paid you, and in part trained you can simply disown you.
As an employee I am ultimately responsible for my actions. As a provider of services I am responsible. As a user of goods and services I just need good legal representation!
I agree with Mark & Dave, there is nothing left that is suit proof. A baby is born with a defect, must be the doctor’s fault. Someone is hit by a foul ball at the ballpark, must be the stadium owner’s fault. The stupidity of lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits are only exceeded by the judges that allow them and the juries that award them. When will it stop?
I work in DC, where a statute exists prohibiting cops from chasing suspected car theives driving stolen cars. During an interview, someone, on the street, stated the reason for all the stolen car/racing deaths is because cops have ceased chasing theives and they’re free to run wild. That is NOT the reason. The reason is poor/non-existent parenting and the “it’s not my fault” syndrome. Teach kids it’s ok to blame others, and the syndrome perpetuates. It’s time for parents and kids to quit whining about consequences and think about things beforehand. Two words – TORT REFORM!!!!
Dave asked if the injured victim was wearing a helmet. Let’s hope so.
That way, we can allocate the plaintiff’s award to more than just the ski area. We can include helmet manufacturer as well. (along with the retailer who sold it, the distributor who warehoused it, and the supplier(s) of the materials used in making the helmet) Did I leave out anyone?
Sorry….I couldn’t resist.
as asnowboarder for ten years adn a skier for 20+, as well as being an adjuster for ten yrs, I am appalled at the court’s ruling, however, I am not suprised. Everyday the liberal hack judges who wish to be legistaers, hand down ludicrous rulings such as this one. Let’s all hope the plaintiff’s attorney takes up skiing and bashes his no good head into a judge who might be skiing the same slope that day. Remeber, can’t sue for actually doing the technical “skiing”.
AAAAAAAAAAAh, you all forget that statutes are to be strictly interpreted unlike insurance policies! Snowboarding or snow tubing or snow skating are not the same as snow skiing. I wonder what lawyer drafted the statute. This is just another case of the law not keeping current with technology.
Reagan hit the nail on the head – this unfathomable case is just another instance where liberal judges make someone else accountable for one’s own actions. This form of case law justice will only get worse if Kerry and the Boy get elected and put more liberal judges in power. It sickens me in this country of self starters to see how no one is accountable for their actions. If there was more accountability, many of the so called political “hot topics” would be moot. When will this maddness end????
Granted I feel sorry for the person who is hurt; however, there will be a time when we won’t have anything available to us for recreation or otherwise because of the actions of others who don’t take responsibility for themselves. Everyone is so quick to sue and lay blame with everyone else but him or herself. I wonder when it will end too.
Pardon the jibe here, but we are heading down a slippery slope. Think about what a combination of lawsuits and malfeasance premiums have brought about in the medical profession and it shouldn’t stretch the imagination too much to envision when a village might require a release and indemnification to use a picnic table at the park.
this plt atty has another case pending on a snowboarder that jumped 90 ft and landed on his helmet and died — he is making the arguement that terrain parks and snowboarding are not included in the NH ski law — stay tuned
One can arguably see the point the attorney is making – in theory. However, there must be some degree of judgment that enters into the equation – some personal accountability as stated in an earlier comment. Say I take my car which is designed for city and highway driving (it implied that on the mileage declaration) and I put that car on a gravel road and drive like a winged rodent out of the infernal regions and wipe out. Does that give me the right to take the custodian of the road or the owner of the tree I hit into court? The end here is idiots’ rights and we will all pay for the indiscretion of a few and the greed of those that litigate for them!
“… idiots’ rights…. ” I couldn’t have said it better! Problem is a huge Idiot market…
A day 2 follow-up comment to Hank & Winston. You are correct-the judicial system interprets the laws that the Legislative & Executive branches create.
That is why the plaintiff’s bar has vested interested in running for public office. Once in power in the legislative and executive branches, they are free to create laws that are friendly to their interests. Then these laws are strictly interpreted by their brethren in the judicial branch. It happens in all levels of local, state, and federal office. They then use the dollars won in these suits to keep electing their own. It’s a great lesson in how our political system has been corrupted.
to: Art Vandelay
The madness will stop once you learn to spell…And as for Kerry and the “boy” I hope they do get voted in. It might be nice to have someone at the helm other than the crazy guy with no platform other than WMD which they never found.
Let the Liberals reign!!
Those of us sitting outside the US often shake our heads in despair at what the US is doing to the excellent legal system it inherited form the British. In the present case, it seems to me that the Supreme Court is missing the point. It is a long established principle of common law that people who knowingly and voluntarily participate in dangerous activities have to take upon themselves (within reason)the consequences of so doing. A boxer cannot successfully recover from his opponent for a broken nose. He would, however, be able to recover for an injury caused by the ropes giving way, causing him to fall out of the ring and crack his skull, since he may reasonably expect the equipment to be safe. The purpose of RSA 225-A:24 is not, in essence to create new law, but rather to arrest the deplorable erosion of existing law. To try and ring fence the application of this statute as has been done in this case by the Supreme Court merely emphasises how far that erosion has in fact gone. A more enlighten approach would have been to rule that snow tubing is eiusdem generis with “the sport of skiing” and thus to apply the principle clearly intended by the legislature.
Those criticizing the Sweeney decision really ought to take the time to review the facts of the case. Plaintiff and 10 co-workers go to ski area for a snow tubing company outing. Mountain sells them tickets. Sends them out to slope alone. No lift attendant, no spacer at the top, no employee in the landing area. Two side by side tracks. Plaintiff goes down hill as designed. Co-worker goes down in adjacent lane a few seconds later. Plaintiff lands in the “common” landing area, slides up the berm intended to stop riders, slides back down where she is hit, head to head, by the co-worker coming down the other track. Severe head injury.
She did everything the tubing park was designed for her to do. Gross negligence of area by having NO attendants. Gross negligence of area by designing silly “common” landing area rather than keeping riders separated (as they do down the whole mountain).
Those in the ski industry have one thing in mind – making money. That is why these terrain parks featuring extreme winter sports are catastrophic. Jam in as many attractions as possible, take the money of young inexperienced immature kids for the most part, put a waiver or release in their face as they are running out the door, let them kill themselves, and then rely on the ski industry lobby’s success in passing “immunity” statutes which, in and of themselves, do nothing more than absolve entities from their own negligence and recklessness.
That’s the point, and those are the facts.
In my opinion, your industry can’t pay enough in judgments, verdicts and settlements.
When a tubing facility invites participants to snow tube at its facility and builds it in such a negligent manner that the specifications of the facility itself create serious accidents and then the facility attempts to hides behind liability waivers… please consider who is really shirking their responsibility.
People go to these facilities thinking that they are designed safely. You cannot steer or control the speed of a tube once you start down a run. The facilities should have a responsibility to design the run so that a reasonable person, being reasonably prudent, would not face a life-time of disability or worse because of the facility’s desire to make more money at the expense of safety and then turn around and attempt to hide behind skier laws and liability waivers.
Skier laws were created to hold skiers accountable for how they control themselves on the slopes. Skiers CAN control themselves on the slopes and generally should be held accountable for their decisions regarding speed and direction. However, tubers have NO control over their speed OR direction once the tube is in motion. They are at the mercy of the facility design.
The design of the facility in the NH case was apparently very faulty in that it did not providing spacing between run-off areas to prevent tubers from rebounding backwards and crashing into another tuber going in the opposite direction.
If a county designed a road that suddenly pitted drivers in the opposite direction against each other competing for a single lane, who is negligent? The first time users of that road who suddenly faces unexpected peril or the county that was negligent in the design of the road?
If you nearly died in front of your children, spent almost two weeks in the hospital, and suffered a life-long injury because (on the first ride down, btw) the tubing facility was grossly negligent in the design and operation of its facility, perhaps you would feel differently about who is being irresponsible.
I will never tube again. I am hoping to someday ski again, because I can control my direction and speed and know my own abilities regarding what ski runs to take. However, I now know that is far different from tubing, where you are at the mercy of the facility’s design and are lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the tubing facility is a responsible business that was designed with safety and common sense in mind… until you hit a man-made wall at the bottom at 30+ miles per hour, because the facility chose to stay open when the runs were too slick for the amount of run-off area available. They took a risk, unbeknownst to the users… until someone got hurt.
You know, I think I’m gonna sue Hustler Magazine for giving my wrist carpal tunnel syndrome. They ought not have such pictures in there.
Comparing the construction of a winter snow tubing hill to that of a roadway is ridiculous. Snow is a variable medium that exposes recreationists, skier or tuber alike, to the same inherent risks. Yes, skis are a controlled device that can turn and stop more easily than a tube, but to say that one can not drag their feet or use common sense to avoid injury at a tubing park is rather obtuse. I have over 15 years of experience with winter tubing parks (and no they aren’t all in it for the money) and while facility upkeep is a crucial part of the operation, staff awareness and involvement is the best resolve to managing the risks. Sweeney was let down by that tubing park because she was not properly attended to for the activity she was doing. To condemn snow tubing parks altogether is as much a folly as saying it is o.k. for a backcountry skier to file suit because a ski area didn’t groom the slope. Snow conditions change rapidly in a mountain setting and while a park is constructed it is ignorant to believe that each and every trip down the hill will be the same. Spend any amount of time on a tubing hill watching people and you begin to understand that many come to experience bumps, collisions, and the crashes…management of those people is the key. Tubing is a fun family activity that is as much the users responsiblity to make safe as the facilities who provide the space for it to happen. I agree with the Supreme Court of N.H. on this one based on the negligence of the area, but don’t condemn the sport of snow tubing (N.Y. Sup says its a sport) because you’re an uptight skier who couldn’t figure out how to put your feet down to slow your tube. Adequate staffing to remind people to use good judgement is the only recourse against the close minded approach that a hill of snow should be as meticulously contructed and flawlessly safe as a roadway….uh huh and there are never auto accidents. good grief.