Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Whistler riding disclaimer and injury
  • mikewsmith
    Free Member

    https://m.pinkbike.com/news/injured-rider-unsuccessful-in-lawsuit-against-whistler-bike-park.html

    Blake Jamieson had signed the Whistler Bike Park waiver that all riders are required to sign before being allowed to ride the world-famous facilities but claimed that Whistler Blackcomb “failed to warn him of the risks involved” and was seeking compensation as a result.

    Jamieson is a graduate of the University of British Columbia and had been a volunteer Bike Park Patroller for three years prior to the devastating accident that resulted in him now being in a wheelchair.

    Despite being a volunteer patroller in the park prior to the accident, Jamieson claims that he “had no idea that a spinal-cord injury was possible and specifically that going over the handlebars was a common mechanism of injury”.

    In her ruling, Justice Neena Sharma found that the Whistler Bike Park’s warnings of risk were reasonable and that someone who signed the resort’s release would understand they were waiving their right to sue.

    ” … The Release is comprehensive, clear, and blunt. I do not see how any adult with basic reading skills could reasonably believe he or she retained the right to sue Whistler if they were injured using the park, even if Whistler was negligent,” Sharma wrote.

    Sounds like a tragic accident and trying to get the funds who carry on with very different life.
    For me the big takeaway is make sure you have decent insurance on holiday and at home.

    lucorave
    Free Member

    I’ve put myself in hospital here at home and in the Whistler Medical Centre a few times over the years and all I can say is that the outcome is correct. It wasn’t a collapsed feature or a dodgy rental bike that cause the injury, the guy tried a tricky move on a sizable feature and ate dirt.

    Yeah it’s tough on the guy but there is a ride around on the right, plenty of signage on all drops, flags on jump lips and he had worked for the park for 3 years. To me this says he is a mountain biker, hangs out with mountain bikers and therefore knows that serious injuries happen, sometimes catastrophic injuries. It even explains it on the waiver you have to sign.

    As you ride the lift there are huge signs telling you that accidents happen and ride to your abilities. The park has one of the best trail grading systems I have seen anywhere in the world.

    We partake in a very dangerous sport, get insurance, check what that insurance covers you for. I would also recommend that people look at insurance here at home as well. If you have a serious accident this weekend and had to give up work, would your financial situation cover you for the rest of your life?

    Also, if you are not prepared to accept the consequences, find a less dangerous sport.

    yacoby
    Free Member

    It’s claimed that Jamieson was attempting to pre-hop the drop—a move that takes considerable committment—but unfortunately, he caught his rear wheel on the end of the rock, causing the accident.

    For reference: https://youtu.be/Egl4Hp0ttNU?t=91

    I feel sorry for the guy, but don’t understand why he sued. If you are hitting that you should know what you are doing (or be following someone you know in).

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    thecaptain
    Free Member

    Have to say that waivers are bullshit. I don’t see how they could reasonably absolve themselves of any responsibility if they were negligent, as the judge indicates. But no sign of negligence in this case.

    spooky_b329
    Full Member

    As per the captain. We had to sign waivers for several activities, and it is strange signing away your life when you are relying on someone else doing their job properly to ensure your safety. By this model, the people (or families) who lost their legs in the roller coaster crash, the person who fell off the water ride, and the girl who fell off the bouncy castle that blew away would have not received any compensation. (and also, the solicitor who paralysed himself with the Surrey Hills MTB Guide would not have got his compensation)

    However, in this case, it appears he was competent, and there was no negligence…suspect even in the UK this wouldn’t have gone through.

    weeksy
    Full Member

    Phew… I’m glad about the result, not the result to the guy of course, but the system. It’s sad, i accept that.. But you do stuff like this and you KNOW the potential consequences without doubt.

    stevextc
    Free Member

    By this model, the people (or families) who lost their legs in the roller coaster crash, the person who fell off the water ride, and the girl who fell off the bouncy castle that blew away would have not received any compensation. (and also, the solicitor who paralysed himself with the Surrey Hills MTB Guide would not have got his compensation)

    There is in my mind a clear difference between negligence where something is faulty and just taking part in a dangerous sport. It’s perhaps the grey area in the middle that is more difficult but i think it comes down to a simple test as to if something was faulty or down to you.

    A crashed roller coaster is pretty pure and simple negligence.
    It’s a good example because like say a lift you put your life in their hands.

    Solicitor in Surrey Hills is I feel the opposite. He wasn’t handed a faulty bike… a prepared bit of Northshore didn’t collapse … etc. and he took part in an intrinsically dangerous sport.

    Why do I think this distinction is important?
    Two reasons, the first purely practical that no MTB activity is safe … it’s simply not possible even if you kill the fun… but if bike park owners have liability for accidents caused by negligence or bad luck they will end up killing the fun or just closing and insurance will push their costs sky high.

    Second reason is wider in that people have to realise that you can’t blame some-one else for your own stupidity or bad luck.

    Despite being a volunteer patroller in the park prior to the accident, Jamieson claims that he “had no idea that a spinal-cord injury was possible and specifically that going over the handlebars was a common mechanism of injury”.

    Either Whistler is negligent in not having an IQ test for it’s volunteers or he’s lying. I think we all know he’s lying… (this is unfortunate as it quite possibly led to the below)

    As per the captain. We had to sign waivers for several activities, and it is strange signing away your life when you are relying on someone else doing their job properly to ensure your safety.

    This is I think a different matter….

    ” … The Release is comprehensive, clear, and blunt. I do not see how any adult with basic reading skills could reasonably believe he or she retained the right to sue Whistler if they were injured using the park, even if Whistler was negligent,” Sharma wrote.

    This is probably not the best bit of juridical writing!
    I don’t really know the exact context though… I can see how it might be an answer to what everyone must have known was an outright lie of “but I didn’t realise” ….

    I guess strictly speaking the bloke should be tried for perjury. Though I personally feel he has a rough time … on the other side, Whistlers insurers are going to dictate the total absolution line.. and the judicial system shouldn’t be absolving them of liability for lack of maintenance … had he been paralysed because a lift cable broke that’s completely different.

    P-Jay
    Free Member

    I agree with the judge here, even if he hadn’t been a ranger.

    WBP is like no other place I’ve visited in terms of making really hard things as easy as possible, flow trails are super wide, visibility is perfect and they’re usually very smooth too – it’s very easy to go very fast and also easy to get carried away, in our digs everyone crashed at one point, a 3rd big enough to walk away with decent injuries and we ended the week with a broken arm and a broken back between the 15 or so of us.

    It’s bloody brilliant, but they’re very clear about the dangers at every opportunity and all the big trails have qualifiers.

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    ” … The Release is comprehensive, clear, and blunt. I do not see how any adult with basic reading skills could reasonably believe he or she retained the right to sue Whistler if they were injured using the park, even if Whistler was negligent,” Sharma wrote.

    Can’t disagree with the overall outcome, but the highlighted part of this ruling is slightly concerning, particularly in precedent terms.

    Even if there was a clear defect with a track which the bike park knew about and had failed to remedy, this ruling suggests the waiver would have released them from liability. Odd.

    Most people can appreciate the difference between a knowledgeable user who chooses to accept a degree of risk, a novice who perhaps does not fully appreciate that risk, and a bike park operator who does not take reasonable steps to mitigate risks over and above those you’d expect at a bike park. A catch-all waiver is only really appropriate in the first of those scenarios.

    stevextc
    Free Member

    Can’t disagree with the overall outcome, but the highlighted part of this ruling is slightly concerning, particularly in precedent terms.

    That’s my take as well…

    As I say it’s regrettable the judge chose to write that but then the plaintiff was clearly lying through his teeth.

    On one hand she’s trying to discourage fraudulent claims and a US style sue culture … however its also quite possible that quote is taken out of context.

    Hob-Nob
    Free Member

    Sounds like a bad case.

    5lab
    Full Member

    whilst UK law doesn’t allow for a waiver of liability for negligence, it looks like canadian law does, as long as its reasonably presented and accepted by the user. First link from google :

    Waivers & Releases of Liability in Sports & Recreational Activities

    stevextc
    Free Member

    whilst UK law doesn’t allow for a waiver of liability for negligence, it looks like canadian law does, as long as its reasonably presented and accepted by the user.

    Interestingly …..

    Waivers of liability in sports and recreational activities are usually designed to protect the organizers of such activities from accepting responsibility when their negligence causes someone else to suffer injury. Often times, such waivers are not enforceable. Our Ontario courts have not recognized or enforced such waivers where the sports/recreational facility failed to take reasonable care for the safety of participants.

    I guess this might also highlight a difference in how case law is used ???
    Just reading the wording makes it look more “case by case” than the UK where precedent is often more important than common sense ???

    Of course, that’s from a company of lawyers touting for business… but it does seem that way…

    ebygomm
    Free Member

    Having recently returned from Canada and from earlier trips it’s always surprised me how much the legal disclaimers you sign for various activities, e.g. whale watching & gondola trips waive responsibility for. I know they wouldn’t be valid in the UK but never been sure of the legal position over there.

    ampthill
    Full Member

    For me the big takeaway is make sure you have decent insurance on holiday and at home.

    Can you insure yourself in such away that if you have a life changing injury it will pay out enough for a life of care. My understanding is that what most of pay for is immediate medical care, repatriation costs and third part liability

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I suspect its an insurance company that forced the lawsuit.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Can you insure yourself in such away that if you have a life changing injury it will pay out enough for a life of care

    Yes, life insurance etc. Though you need to check the exclusions. Hence the comments about home too, it’s not a holiday specific injury.

    tomhoward
    Full Member

    Sounds like a bad case.

    ampthill
    Full Member

    Surely life insurance wouldn’t pay out for a spinal injury?

    Maybe critical injury would

    £1,000,000 critical injury for me is £800 a month and doesn’t cover dangerous pursuits. That’t 10 years of cover and I’m 51

    oikeith
    Full Member

    Even if there was a clear defect with a track which the bike park knew about and had failed to remedy, this ruling suggests the waiver would have released them from liability. Odd.

    How would a mountain bike track have a defect? The only example I can think of for this is if some northshore was broken? maybe a drop landing gets worn and the height is then considered a red instead of blue for example? to sound big headed, I like when trails develop other time and get gnarlier, you have to remember MTB is a dangerous sport, even on local trails I always coast down them if no one else is around to confirm the trails havent changed, a tree isnt down etc before looking to go down as quick as my abilities allow.

    crashtestmonkey
    Free Member

    How would a mountain bike track have a defect?

    Features can be poorly designed/built. One of the first MTB litigation cases in the US was a bridge where the constituent logs/planks ran longitudinally – the front wheel stuck in between them and the rider suffered spinal injury IIRC (it was big news in the MTB world when I lived out there in the 90’s).

    weeksy
    Full Member

    £1,000,000 critical injury for me is £800 a month and doesn’t cover dangerous pursuits. That’t 10 years of cover and I’m 51

    That’s not right surely ?

    ampthill
    Full Member

    That was from a price comparison website

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)

The topic ‘Whistler riding disclaimer and injury’ is closed to new replies.