possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
CaptCO
Posts: 1769
Joined: 7/14/2019
14ers: 58 14
13ers: 45 1
Trip Reports (5)
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by CaptCO » Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:26 pm

jmanner wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:10 pm
I remember when this happened... the guys definitely made a pretty poor choice of aspect, choice of line and day to ski. I can see why CDOT would want their equipment repaired. Also, as I recall we all got banned from skiing Coon Hill area after that, which pissed me off.


In other thoughts, attacking Lodgling is poor form. He’s pretty reasonable on here.
"attacking" "poor form"

:-k

my bad, I didn't have my coffee yet
"It's a thing if you want it to be a thing. What others think of something is irrelevant." -OldSchool

Proof is in the progress, patience is essence; I’m crazy as a fox

"The future no longer belongs to my generation"

DM @Capt_Alec for nudes
User avatar
tjmartn1
Posts: 136
Joined: 4/22/2014
14ers: List not added

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by tjmartn1 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:39 pm

l
Last edited by tjmartn1 on Fri May 14, 2021 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CaptCO
Posts: 1769
Joined: 7/14/2019
14ers: 58 14
13ers: 45 1
Trip Reports (5)
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by CaptCO » Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:39 pm

tjmartn1 wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:39 pm
CaptCO wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:26 pm
jmanner wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:10 pm
I remember when this happened... the guys definitely made a pretty poor choice of aspect, choice of line and day to ski. I can see why CDOT would want their equipment repaired. Also, as I recall we all got banned from skiing Coon Hill area after that, which pissed me off.


In other thoughts, attacking Lodgling is poor form. He’s pretty reasonable on here.
"attacking" "poor form"

:-k

my bad, I didn't have my coffee yet
Just take a thread off occasionally, it will be okay.
Negative ghost rider; is it a mental f**k if everything’s intentional?
"It's a thing if you want it to be a thing. What others think of something is irrelevant." -OldSchool

Proof is in the progress, patience is essence; I’m crazy as a fox

"The future no longer belongs to my generation"

DM @Capt_Alec for nudes
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1062
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 53 5
13ers: 179 2 12
Trip Reports (13)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Trotter » Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:06 pm

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

And yes, its a shame them trying to help CAIC got them in trouble. But regardless, they caused a lot of damage by their voluntary choice to ski that area. So they should pay for damages they caused.
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
jmanner
Posts: 1388
Joined: 5/26/2009
14ers: 58 25 10
13ers: 44 10 3
Trip Reports (14)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by jmanner » Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:14 pm

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

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

'Life is too short to ski groomers'

"That man's only desire was to stand, once only, on the summit of that glorious wedge of rock...I think anyone who loves the mountains as much as that can claim to be a mountaineer, too."-Hermann Buhl, Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage
User avatar
Conor
Posts: 982
Joined: 9/2/2014
14ers: 41 6 6
13ers: 41 1 1
Trip Reports (7)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Conor » Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:29 pm

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

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

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

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

Trial is set for 3/25.
User avatar
434stonemill
Posts: 73
Joined: 9/6/2011
14ers: 31
13ers: 3
Trip Reports (1)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by 434stonemill » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:14 pm

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

As an aside, I really have a dis-respect for those who try to get out of jury duty. With rights come responsibilities...so if the right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution, then it is our responsibility to serve when summoned.
User avatar
ellenmseb
Posts: 81
Joined: 5/11/2020
14ers: 49 1
13ers: 19 2
Trip Reports (6)
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by ellenmseb » Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:43 pm

As an aside, I really have a dis-respect for those who try to get out of jury duty. With rights come responsibilities...so if the right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution, then it is our responsibility to serve when summoned.
It's partially because some people were dismissed because their COVID vaccine appointment was the next day.
tmud
Posts: 65
Joined: 7/19/2017
14ers: 17
13ers: 92
Trip Reports (5)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by tmud » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:08 am

Props to the citizens of summit county for not participating in this ridiculous prosecution. If you're a potential juror for this if it ever gets to trial, remember there is such a thing as 'jury nullification'.
User avatar
Jorts
Posts: 416
Joined: 4/12/2013
14ers: 21 3 1
13ers: 59 12 5
Trip Reports (6)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Jorts » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:46 am

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

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

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

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

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

It's a slippery slope; I've skied the SKY chutes many times. In March 2019 the Y slid to the road and hit vehicles on 91. If I had triggered that slide would I be prosecuted? I'd plead ignorance noting that I had never heard of it jumping the creek and hitting the road, and further there is no signage. How could I have known I was putting the public at risk?
Traveling light is the only way to fly.
IG: @summityinzer
Strava: Brent Herring
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 73
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58 2
13ers: 26 6 1

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by k_fergie » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:58 am

Jorts wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:46 am

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it...

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

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

It's a slippery slope; I've skied the SKY chutes many times. In March 2019 the Y slid to the road and hit vehicles on 91. If I had triggered that slide would I be prosecuted? I'd plead ignorance noting that I had never heard of it jumping the creek and hitting the road, and further there is no signage. How could I have known I was putting the public at risk?
For the freedom to reap the rewards, one must accept the potential consequences. And why do people get hung up on signage? Here's a slippery slope for ya. Why not just install boundary ropes to guide you and groomers to smooth out the snow while you're at it? For the SKY chutes, and really any potential slide, you can measure the alpha angle and come to the conclusion that 91 is easily in a risk zone. So yeah if you triggered a consequential slide across it, you should have to answer for it in some way, ignorance doesnt hold up in court
I thought, I taught, I wrought
User avatar
Tornadoman
Posts: 1277
Joined: 7/31/2007
14ers: 58 4
13ers: 197 29
Trip Reports (12)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by Tornadoman » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:14 am

tmud wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:08 am
Props to the citizens of summit county for not participating in this ridiculous prosecution. If you're a potential juror for this if it ever gets to trial, remember there is such a thing as 'jury nullification'.
Although I don't agree with the citizens for not showing up (I will admit I had a good laugh that they couldn't get enough people for a jury), I do feel this prosecution is a waste of time. Regardless of the merits of the case, I just don't feel a Summit County jury is going to convict. Seems like they are wasting a lot more money chasing after the $168k and trying to set an example. The county should seek to settle out of court for a fraction of the 168k and move on.
Post Reply