In May of 2022, Singletracks published a story about Mt. Hood Skibowl shutting its bike park down indefinitely after being hit with an $11.4M judgement in a case that involved a rider who was catastrophically injured while riding down one of the trails at the park. The verdict was both noteworthy and controversial.
Coincidentally, Nat Lopes, the trail builder I interviewed for a recent article on trail edits, was an expert witness for Owens’ attorneys. Both he and Rick Klingbeil, Owens’ lead attorney, gave us some very interesting insights about the case that shed light on why and how the jury reached its verdict.
I also offered Skibowl the opportunity to tell its side of the story, but no one from the resort ever responded to repeated requests for an interview. I noticed on its website that Skibowl is currently asking people to sign a petition urging the state of Oregon to pass liability waiver reform because “recent court rulings have effectively nullified Oregon liability waivers.”
In a statement on Skibowl’s website posted after the case, the resort wrote “In light of a recent unprecedented plaintiff verdict in a mountain biking lawsuit against Mt. Hood Skibowl, we have made the difficult decision to suspend all mountain bike operations for the summer of 2022. After 32 years without a serious mountain bike claim of any kind, the winds have shifted. Our industry has focused heavily on user education and operational best practices, while working hard toward mitigating risk where possible. Eliminating all risks with recreational activities—especially in downhill mountain biking through forests at high speed—is something that is just not possible.”
The details on Owens’ crash at Skibowl
A computerized re-creation of the area where the crash occurred.
According to Owens’ complaint against Skibowl, he was riding down Cannonball, a double-black diamond mountain bike flow and jump trail when he crashed in July of 2016. The trail had an average downhill grade of 17%. A half-mile from its entrance, the trail crossed a hiking trail, known as the “wedding trail.” At the crossing, there were signs mounted on 4″x4″ posts right next to the trail.
The complaint stated that riders would usually reach speeds of at least 30mph on Cannonball just before it crossed the wedding trail. Owens crashed just above the wedding trail crossing and slid downhill, hitting one of the 4×4 signposts. He was paralyzed because of the crash.
Owens’ crash was not due to inexperience. As Klingbeil told us, “he was an excellent rider and had been on the racers’ award podium many times in the past.”
Arguing negligence in the design and maintenance of the Cannonball trail
Klingbeil took on the case after another law firm referred it to him. Klingbeil has been mountain biking since the 1990s and is familiar with many of the trails in and around Oregon. He understands the inherent risk of the sport, but he doesn’t believe that its dangers excuse landowners from their duty to properly design and maintain trails.
“Mountain biking certainly poses more risk than many other sports and activities, but that is not an excuse for avoiding steps to bring the park or facility in line with the standard of reasonable care and safety within the industry,” said Klingbeil.
“If my client’s injury had been caused solely by the inherently dangerous nature of the sport, such as losing control on a properly designed trail and running into a rock or tree beside the trail, or colliding with another rider, or something similar, I would not have filed the case and would have urged my client to not file a case.”
In reviewing the case, Klingbeil found that “Skibowl developed the Cannonball trail from a service road previously used for powered vehicles to get to the top of the hill. It was a high-speed trail, with an abnormally steep slope, and Skibowl admitted that good riders often achieve speeds up to 50mph in the area at issue. All of that would have been fine if the trail had been designed and maintained properly.”
Skibowl’s waiver did not absolve it of all liability
Klingbeil explained that “the Oregon ski statute, ORS 30.985 – Duties of Skiers, defines any person who rides a ski lift as a ‘skier.’ That includes mountain bike riders. Mountain bikers, as well as skiers and snowboarders are subject to that law.” According to Klingbeil, the law prevents lawsuits that result from the “inherent risks” of skiing or riding on the mountain. That would include risks and injuries solely from the “inherent dangers” of the sport.
However, Klingbeil told me that the law does not excuse the park operator from a lawsuit for injuries caused by its negligence. In Klingbeil’s opinion, Oregon legislators have worked out a careful balance between insulating park operators from nuisance suits and protecting park guests from a park owner’s negligence.
To prove negligence, Klingbeil enlisted Lopes as an expert witness
Klingbeil chose Lopes to be the expert witness for his legal team because “we wanted someone with significant design experience, who would also challenge us on any parts of our case that were not in line with reasonable design criteria used in the industry. We also wanted someone who did not have a mindset of ‘hyper safety.’ By that, I mean someone whose philosophy was based in the real world of practical mountain bike park design, and the realization that no trail or park can be totally safe or of perfect design.”
Lopes had worked on a few prior cases when Klingbeil contacted him. According to Lopes, Klingbeil retained both Lopes and another trail builder whose job was to vet Lopes’ opinions in the case. It was a tough assignment for Lopes because the prevailing view of trail builders at that time was that they should not help plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Lopes agreed to work for Klingbeil because the risk factors in the case were so clear and could have been mitigated so easily. He said that he has always been an “advocate for rider safety” and that “I always think about what I would want as a rider myself and what I would want for my friends and family.” While the other cases he worked on were settled out of court, this was the first trial Lopes had been part of and the experience was super intense and dramatic.
“The defense attorneys had a dedicated staff person with a whole computer system set up to access all their files in real time.”
With Lopes’ help, Klingbeil had some incredible exhibits prepared, including 3D forensic reconstructions and human factors reports.
The three main problems with the Cannonball trail
In Klingbeil’s experience as both an attorney and an engineer, most injuries are the result of several concurring problems or hazards. In the Owens case, Klingbeil and Lopes argued there were three design defects in the Cannonball trail. Taken together, the defects combined to cause Owens’ crash and resulting injuries.
Signposts
The first design defect Klingbeil and Lopes focused on was the placement of the 4×4 wooden signposts immediately adjacent to the trail in the area where Owens crashed. The signposts were within 4-6 feet of the trail at some parts, well within an area where riders could easily strike them during an anticipated crash.
Klingbeil noted that “Ski Bowl did not use 4×4 posts anywhere else within its park adjacent to any trail that allowed riders to develop any speed. They instead used thin wooden or carsonite breakaway posts that would easily break away when hit.” Klingbeil noted that, at trial, Skibowl’s expert witness even admitted that he would not use 4×4 wooden signposts close to a high-speed portion of a trail.
Lopes said Skibowl could have set the trail crossing signs further off the trailway and used the same breakaway or bendable signposts that were used everywhere else on the mountain and that, if they had done so, Owens’ injuries certainly would not have been as severe. As Klingbeil told me, “Absent the 4×4 posts, he likely would have slid to a stop, got a few cuts and bruises, and continued riding.”
Drainage ditch
The second defect Klingbeil and Lopes found was the placement of a drainage ditch across the trail.
“While most parks incorporate a variety of water management features such as swales or underground pipes, we found none that used what was essentially a 24-inch wide, 6”-12”-deep ditch crossing the high-speed portion of a trail.” Additionally, at trial “Ski Bowl’s former maintenance employee testified that similar ditches on Cannonball uphill from this one (which were at lower speed portions of the trail) had been replaced with underground pipes a few years earlier and had functioned well and without issue.”
Lopes noted that Skibowl had installed all the other drainages on the trail using buried pipes. If they had done the same thing in the area of the accident, there would have been no issue with riders getting bucked at high speed. Lopes mentioned that it was revealed through the discovery process that the trail crew manager had procured a pipe, prepared a maintenance task plan, and asked Skibowl’s bike park manager for permission to fix the drainage several times prior to Owens’ crash, but the bike park manager didn’t approve it.
Klingbeil stated “there was no reason that a buried pipe or even a moderate swale could not have been used instead of the ditch. After my client’s injury, Ski Bowl apparently eliminated the ditch and presented photos at trial showing a moderate and far safer swale like that used by most parks within the US.”
Lopes helped Owens’ attorneys create a life-sized cross section of the drainage dip that ran across the Cannonball trail for trial, along with a drainage pipe and cover to demonstrate how easily the risk could have been mitigated.
The wedding trail
Finally, according to Klingbeil and Lopes, Skibowl’s placement of a pedestrian trail (known as the “wedding trail”) near the Cannonball trail also increased the risk to riders. Klingbeil stated “there had been several close calls where riders were coming through this area at high speed and had near collisions with people attending weddings. Tall trees often cast dark shadows over that area of the trail, adding to the hazard created by the crossing.”
Klingbeil said that, after Owens’ crash, “Skibowl abandoned and blocked off the wedding trail, and re-routed traffic to a safer location for both pedestrians and mountain bikers. When the trail moved, they also removed the 4×4 posts, as they were no longer needed.” In Klingbeil’s opinion, “if that one simple task had been done timely instead of putting it off year after year, there would have been no 4×4 posts in place to break my client’s back, and this would not have happened.”
The design defects were symptoms of a bigger problem at Skibowl
For Klingbeil and Lopes, the presence of the three design defects on Cannonball stemmed from Skibowl’s failure to have an adaptive risk management policy. Lopes explained that “an adaptive risk management policy is where you gather data [on injuries], review the data periodically, and assess whether you need to make changes to reduce risk.”
Lopes said that during the discovery process, it was revealed that Skibowl had no system in place for tracking where accidents and injuries were occurring on their trails which meant they had no way of understanding, accessing, or mitigating risks to riders.
Skibowl’s attitude toward risk reminded Lopes of the infamous Action Park in New Jersey. To illustrate this point, Lopes told me that, when he did his site visit to Skibowl, he observed a medical tent set up at the base of the mountain with a constant stream of injured guests getting bandages and ice packs applied to all kinds of injuries. Lopes, who has visited more than 60 lift-accessed resorts across North America, had never seen anything like it.
As Klingbeil put it, “their method of tracking what type injuries of occurred and where was beyond appalling. We obtained several years and hundreds of pages of incident reports from their files. For all but a few, Ski Bowl’s personnel were unable to provide any details of where on the trail the injuries occurred, what caused the injury (other than a generic ‘crash’ or ‘hit rock’), or whether any investigation or changes were made in response to the reports.”
Klingbeil hopes the Owens verdict will benefit all riders
Klingbeil told us that, “as with most of my cases, the hope is to change behaviors and prevent future injuries from the same type of mechanisms or problems. We often see that when businesses believe they are protected from liability, they pay far less attention to safety. I believe that was the case here. At least two other riders had suffered serious injuries at the same area of Cannonball in the past, with one requiring a life flight and causing the end of his riding career, yet Skibowl didn’t make any changes in response to those injuries.”
Additionally, Klingbeil thinks other bike parks can learn three valuable lessons from the case. “First, having a release of liability does not insulate you from the responsibility to maintain a safe park. Second, that mountain bikes, equipment, and riders’ styles and abilities have changed significantly over the past few decades, and that it may be necessary to re-evaluate their parks periodically to determine if their trail system and safety measures are still sufficient considering these changes. Third, that a system of tracking the location and circumstances of injuries within their park is important and can help them discover unsafe features or areas that need to be addressed.”
Klingbeil told me that all bike parks can reduce their risk of liability by doing two simple things. First, “retain a qualified and experienced mountain bike park designer when creating a facility or adding trails, and periodically evaluate and address areas within the park that are the source of recurring injuries.”
Second, “don’t put profits over the safety of riders. It’s tempting to put off necessary maintenance and changes to save money, but when a park does that and a severe injury occurs, they should not be allowed to dodge liability or point their finger at the rider.”
The Owens verdict has affected both Klingbeil and Lopes personally, in addition to Skibowl’s operations
Winning the Owens case has not been a completely positive experience for Klingbeil and the other attorneys involved in the case. He told us that “our team has received death threats, as well as other threats from people upset about the verdict. I am not that concerned about the threats to me, but my client should not have to go through that in addition to being paralyzed for the remainder of his life.”
Lopes has continued to be an expert witness working on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants and feels it is an extension of his work and affiliation with the International Mountain Bicycling Association, the National Recreation and Park Association and the Professional Trail Builders Association to promote best practices in the industry. The Owens case made him “much more conscientious about things I design and recommend as a trail builder, as I better understand the tragic real-life consequences and legal liability at stake.”
Currently, there is nothing on Skibowl’s website indicating it will resume mountain biking at the resort after canceling it last year. It is also unknown if Skibowl has made any changes to the way it manages risk at the resort after the Owens verdict, including implementing an adaptive risk management policy like Lopes recommends.
This was well written
Thank you. I felt it was an important story that needed to be told.
Perhaps from this can come a code system and inspection process similar to building codes. Why 4×4 posts were used in places that flex posts could have been used is another issue. I get it that signage needs to be in view however, they need to be safely deployed. A predetermined setback from trailside and a fiberglass flex post similar to to those used in state and federal parks would be a start. Annual reinspection for license renewal?
Let’s call it the UBC (Uniform Bicycle Code)
Richard, I have to say, you did a good service in writing this article and putting the situation into perspective.
It does take two to tango… Park and rider
Can someone explain how a man made 6 to 12 inch ditch is different from a rock garden or any other hole in the trail? Or how a tree is different than a 4×4 post? I do realize it may be out of “character of the trail” you’re currently riding, but how can you not take responsibility for pre-riding the trail at a slower speed…see how this establishes a dangerous precedent? I also think it’s safe to assume that you don’t notice everything on that initial pre-ride, such that you should “pre-ride” and “re-ride” several (maybe many) times before bombing at Mach 10. I’m the first to admit, I do not pre-ride/re-ride all the time, but I also understand that I’m taking a HUGE risk by doing so…whether I’m paying for the experience or not. For example, I pay taxes for my city to maintain that stop-light but I don’t blindly trust that the oncoming driver is not looking down at his phone…I still look both ways before I cross, because this is the real world…and that, my friends, is never going to change. RISK = REWARD & REWARD = RISK. The long term issue is that we are teaching our youth that it’s safe to assume things when it’s not…i.e., if they pay for it or don’t see a warning sticker on it, then it must be safe. I don’t know about you but I’d rather still be alive or not paralyzed than win a court case for ANY amount of money. If we don’t start to take RESPONSIBILITY for our own decisions/actions (as a country), the longer term consequences will be the loss of many recreational opportunities…This has already actually happened, you might not notice it because it’s a huge hidden cost that is usually only visible to business or land owners. I know, as a club, our biggest annual expense is liability insurance to protect the board members from potential lawsuits…WTF??? Our annual memberships barely cover that bill…wouldn’t you rather it go directly to building and maintaining trails?
Amen, brother! You nailed it. I hate it that Mr. Owens got hurt, but the trail didn’t chase him down and attack him.
Great article highlighting another individual that can’t own his own misfortune. We live in a time where it’s someone else’s fault for anything that happens to you. I started riding in 1987. There were zero designed trails for MTB. I have ridden from Washington to California, utah, Colorado and Switzerland. I ride hard and fast but so I hope not to get hurt. I control my own destiny.
This kid should be suffering his own demise due to his own excessive speed and not knowing the trail. Did the park or trail system post a minimum speed?
How many times have I had to slip past a tree? Too many. Had some close calls. Who do I sue? Mother Nature?
It sucks he is hurt. I don’t wish it on anyone. But be a man and own it.
I feel for the rider as a personal tragedy -however I think this suit places all of Mt Biking sport at risk – rarely have I been on a trail that did not have a “risky” portion – I’ve ridden in California, Texas, Virginia, Colorado in casual rides, hard training, and racing – rode Leadville race in 22′ – many talk to PowerLine in the context of getting to the finish line but on the way out this downhill presents a tremendous risk if you exceed your capabilities- rain had created washes that were filled with rocks exceeding 20 inches in size – not sure if one can hit 50 mph but 35-40 mph is achievable- I had sern a recently crashed elite rider with a jersey and back that looked like he had an encounter with a circular saw – risk-reward is a real draw for the sport as well as many others, motorcycling, skiing, scuba diving, parachuting – all of which I have done present a satisfying experience – safety is not simply a personal decision, but judgment in the moment of a trail ride being dissected in a courtroom will make every trail owner whether public or privately owned to reconsider access.
I suspect defense counsel instructed Skibowl to be silent leaving the author with plaintiff’s perspective to report on. Pity.
Reportedly, Owens was an experienced rider who made the podium many times. That takes serious commitment to building stamina and skill; something like riding 3-5 times per week for 1-3 hours per ride and mixing in 100-mile road rides to enhance endurance. You have to ride crazy fast over obstacles that scare the f**g s**t out of ordinary riders. This accident took place toward the end of Cannonball Trail. On the way down Owens cleared a number of jumps and other obstacles but he lost control going over a recess where water crosses the trail. Since water runs downhill and bike trails go across hills, this is a common feature on many mountain trails and one that I suspect was well within Owens skill level. So, why did he crash? Why do any of us crash going over obstacles within our skill level, including ones we have successfully traversed many times before? That’s mountain biking. It’s dangerous. A split second of inattention at the wrong moment and crash!
Granted; the 4×4 sign post placement was dumb. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that hitting the post caused the injury while defense counsel argued Owens going over his bar and into the ground caused the injury. Which was the truth? What if that pole had been a tree? What if the pole wasn’t there and Owen just crashed into the rock bed next to the pole? Jurors can base their decisions on sympathy alone, if they choose. Who doesn’t have sympathy for Owens? It’s easier to favor a human being who is clearly suffering over some entity with no human face and very likely the entire jury pool felt terrible about Owens’ condition regardless of his own contributing negligence.
The Wedding Trail placement was also dumb but that has nothing to do with Owens crashing and everything to do with plaintiff attorney “reptile theory” jury manipulation to leverage a nuclear verdict.
The real problem. Participating in adrenalin sports (skiing, skydiving, scuba, MTB…) is gambling with safety and inevitably, some of us get bit. Plaintiff attorneys eagerly await the opportunity to spend a relatively minor amount of time to bankroll millions of dollars. All they need is a sympathetic client vs a non-human entity that has a big insurance policy. Plaintiff attorney’s typically pocket about 40% of the judgment (so, about $4M in this case). In the press these attorneys masquerade as champions of accountability yet remarkably few really try to improve anything before that 40% carrot comes into play. Do you think Skibowl is paying the judgement? Think again; you are. This is just one claim in a recent shift of entitlement perception that is plaguing our legal system. Insurance pays the nuclear verdicts. In turn, businesses pay much higher premiums, the cost of which they pass on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services. In some cases, employers are bankrupted or vacate the area thereby raising unemployment and poverty while reducing competition which leads to monopolistic price increases from the surviving entities, which widens the gap for the impoverished. We all pay the price. Freedom is not free. The freedom to enjoy adrenalin sports is paid for in injuries. Yes, I value my freedom to choose for myself that much. This really is nothing compared to the price of that freedom fight that began with “no taxation without representation.”
Another problem is the shift from self-responsibility to thinking that one’s own wellbeing is the responsibility of everyone else. Plaintiff attorneys have gotten rich off this idea. Cannonball is a double black diamond trail. Actually, it looks like one of the least technical, easy-rolling double black diamonds I have ever seen. Regardless, the designation is there to loudly communicate that a high level of skill and caution are warranted; if you take this trail, you are knowingly assuming this risk; the level of caution you apply is your choice. Respect the double black diamond.
In the end there are many things both sides could have done that would have yielded no injury. Holding the park wholly responsible is wrong and we all pay with higher prices, loss of freedom to do activities of our choosing, and life spiral toward a dumbed-down, ultra-safe litigious world where plaintiff attorneys make fortunes staging and exploiting victims. Barf!
Excellent counterpoints. One thing I wonder is how many of these types of lawsuits are unsuccessful, compared to the number that are successful.
Cases like this one are very rare. Usually, one of two things happens. The insurance company agrees to quietly settle for the policy limits and the case is never reported, or the injured party can’t find an attorney who is willing to take the case and front all the costs with no guaranty of winning, so there never is a case. That’s what caught my interest. It’s really hard to prove negligence in a case involving an activity that is inherently risky. Klingbeil did so in a 2-week jury trial against a team of defense lawyers with their own professional experts.
Thank you for your comments. They are well-reasoned and thoughtful, and I agree with them to a point. In this particular case, I believe Skibowl’s poor management practices were the deciding factor in the case. Yes, we as riders should understand and accept the risks associated with our sport. However, we should also be able to have confidence that the trails we ride are designed and maintained properly. There has to be a balance between the two. I will gladly tell Skibowl’s side of the story if Skibowl ever gets back to me and wants me to, and I have some questions for them as well. Please don’t place all the blame on lawyers for cases like this one. What would the auto industry be like today if Ralph Nader hadn’t gone after Ford for deciding to let people die instead of spending money to fix a simple problem on its Pintos? Like it or not, lawyers play a valuable role in our society, and they should not all be condemned for the actions of a small minority who solely seek their own interests. Yes, it is true that we are sometimes forced to pay for lawsuits like this one, but we are also sometimes forced to pay for the decisions of companies that put our health and even our lives at unnecessary risk.
Ralph Nader made his fame long before the Ford Pinto existed. Unsafe at any Speed was the Nader book that killed the Chevy Corvair, a perfectly nice little sports car with a known handling quirk which was easily managed by just about all Corvair owners. And, frankly, Pintos weren’t exploding on anything like a daily basis. Yes, they had a design flaw, but it wasn’t lawyers who really got it fixed. It was the IIHS and NHTSA. Personal injury attorneys do serve a purpose. So do buzzards.
The attorneys find the odds here are more favorable than Lotto…
Meanwhile, Skibowl calls Lloyd’s of London and files a claim.
Wow. Kinda makes you feel bad about having a knee-jerk reaction and saying it’s the rider’s fault and mtb is inherently risk.
If you haven’t seen the documentary on Action Park you should. It’s amazing.
Not. At. All. The writer can spin it into a heart rending tear jerker all day long but at the end of the day the trail didn’t ride Mr. Owens. And I have no real interest in turning mountain biking into a Disney ride.
I personally like the little drainage ditches on high speed runs as features. If you get bucked by one, it’s because you didn’t sight your trail before bombing down. Or you just screwed up. But I understand why they found the resort negligent even if I haven’t yet decided if I agree with it. Anyone making a profit should be held to a standard. You can’t deny there is some bad judgement on the part of the resort with respect to the sign post. And it is unbelievable that a business like this wasn’t tracking injuries.
The cases that really bother me are when free access is provided. The Air Force allows free public access to a trail where I live. They had a large judgment imposed against them a few years ago when a mountain biker got hurt on a section of trail that had washed out. They still allow access thankfully, but a lot of other private landowners in the state closed access to trails after the ruling.
I like the ditches too, but 24″ wide by 12″ deep is a bit extreme for being in the middle of a trail. So unless you can hop it, a trench that’s almost as big as an MTB wheel (as big as a kid’s wheel, not that a child on a 24″ bike likely has the skills needed for a double black) would easily throw a rider of if they don’t hit ot right.
And thus easily seen… Unless there was a big sign that said Do Not Use Brakes at that part of the trail, nobody is being coerced to hit the ditch at 30 mph.
Basalt Mountain has bar ditches that are 3′ in height, many, many of them going down the mountain. Nicely ramped! They are a hoot cause you can send from here to eternity off each one. Get to the bottom of the mountain and you’re spent! Screw up and at the kind of speeds that are easily attained, you’re gonna be kissing boulders of basalt that range from 3′ to the size of a one ton pickup. The majority of the mountain is littered with those massive boulders. A fella could easily end up dead with that caliber of collision.
The good news, there’s nobody to sue, the rider is on his/her honor.
Without the bar ditches, the trail erodes to an unusable state every spring with snowmelt and late summer’s monsoon season to add to that erosion.
The sign posts… that is a problem. Own it and settle. The “drainage ditch”… give me a break. And let’s get real here… the only ones making out are Klingbeil and Lopes. For a fair and equal article, you should list the payout those 2 received. Here’s a hint… a LOT more than the poor guy who hit the post that shouldn’t have been there.
I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of the readers here have never seen a hotel pool with a diving board or ever seen lawn darts. Care to guess why? Lawsuits. Unfounded. But enough to end some really cool stuff.
One of two things were true with regard to Mr. Owens. Either he had never ridden this trail before and had no idea what the trail was like. Or, he had ridden the trail. Now, I’m not a prize winning MTB racer like Mr. Owens, but one reason I’m still around and able to ride my bike is because I would never ride down a mountain at full speed having never ridden the trail before. And, if I knew there was a big ditch across the trail right where a bunch of walkers are likely to be meandering aimlessly across the bike trail with their heads up their behinds, I’d be prepared to not just slow down but be fully prepared to come to a full stop when I got to that spot. Just in case.
Like someone else mentioned, it’s a bit of a reach to complain about 4×4 posts being on a mountain trail when the trail is largely defined by 6″ – 24″ trees. Again, if I had ridden the trail before I’d probably have slowed down if the odds of smacking one of those posts were a bit high.
But, I grew up in a different world. We didn’t have designer trails. We just rode wherever we could. Self-preservation was usually a very adequate replacement for waivers, trail designers, and breakaway signposts.
Foolishness and hubris, however, will defeat just about any safety measure ever devised.
I prefer having the option to do dangerous and risky things my way, assuming the risk myself and not attempting to put the blame for my errors in judgement on a corporation with deep pockets.
He knew the risks. While the resort could have done better we know when we are riding that we could get hurt. So are they know supposed to remove every tree that is within ten feet of the trail. . . every boulder, etc. Another BS lawsuit.
This is very much in line with the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. The headlines sound awful and feed the tropes of overzealous lawsuits. However when you actually look at the facts it’s clear that the defendants made very poor choices that put them below the reasonable standard of care.
Did you even read the article? Go watch the documentary on Action Park and see if it doesn’t change your mind a bit. It’s quite hilarious.
When you take peoples money for profit, you need to attempt to protect your customers, not purposefully/negligently endanger them.
Except that in cases like this people are paying money for access to the risks – not Disneyland.
Incorrect again, if you want to access risks, you could just ride down a mountain for free. Do you not understand how parks work? You cant make trails where riders can get up to 60 mph, and not mitigate risk. How many times have you ever been able to achieve 50+ mph on a bike? They designed it that way and did not accept any risk for danger. Check out how a successful bike park runs and you will see the difference.
Go ride in Disneyland, then.
Well written and apparently well researched. Thanks for this. I commend you on your investigative reporting.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
My sympathy goes out to the injured biker, of course. However, these latest strings of lawsuits across the United States, are a real disaster. Every bad thing that happens must be somebody else’s fault. Liability lawsuits are not going to just affect mountain biking but all outdoor sports. They’re making all products cost more and people becoming afraid to allow anybody to even walk on their property. The premises of this lawsuit are ridiculous. The idea that you can’t have a drainage ditch on a forest road or that you can’t put a post up in the proximity of the road is out of control. What about gates that are on these roads all over the country we supposed to make all gates break away.