Sky Pilot accident - Page 4 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 49Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #46 of (permalink) Old 10-28-2015, 07:09 PM
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1
Default

The very experienced group was never intending on summiting sky pilot or hike the glacier for that matter. One of the members who had brought crampons, ropes, ice axe, helmet and who had over 3yrs of experience with this sort of terrain decided on his own, that he would attempt it. All other members had else decided to wait below or go around on the rocks. Accidents can happen to the best of us, trying to point the finger or slandering does not do anyone any good. The family is at the injured hiker's side and our thoughts should be with them.
Laurent68 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of (permalink) Old 10-28-2015, 07:23 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Surrey, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurent68 View Post
The very experienced group was never intending on summiting sky pilot or hike the glacier for that matter. One of the members who had brought crampons, ropes, ice axe, helmet and who had over 3yrs of experience with this sort of terrain decided on his own, that he would attempt it. All other members had else decided to wait below or go around on the rocks. Accidents can happen to the best of us, tbyrying to point the finger or slandering does not do anyone any good. The family is at the injured hiker's side and our thoughts should be with them.
Wasn't there 2 people that fell ? If you are organizing hike that isn't supposed to travel on the glacier and some guy shows up with crampons an ice axe and a rope would you tell him to either not join because that isn't the intent of the groups hike or to leave them in the car ?

Last edited by Spectrum; 10-28-2015 at 07:26 PM.
Spectrum is online now  
post #48 of (permalink) Old 10-28-2015, 07:23 PM
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Climbing, hiking, SCUBA, kayaking
Posts: 41
Default

An ice axe is useless unless the person has practiced enough to be able to instantly use it without thinking - sort of like riding a bicycle - it takes practice to get to this level. I have seen a supposedly competent climber slip and go over a cliff because he did not instantly dig in his ice axe. Fortunately he survived, after being long-lined out by a SAR helicopter. His recall of this accident was that it just happened and he did not have time to figure out what to do! So please, when/if we get some snow get out there and practice. And yes, you can self-arrest on ice but you have to hammer the axe in immediately. If you wait to think, you will be going way too fast.
Spectrum and Youliana like this.
gesplin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #49 of (permalink) Old 10-28-2015, 07:23 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recurrence View Post
IIRC, the fatalities last year all used alternative access points.
That may be true (I don't know either way,) but it's kind of a moot point. The gondola has increased awareness as many people visit their website and learn about Sky Pilot. Also, the access trail to Sky Pilot was improved in conjunction with the installation of the gondola.

So long as the gondola website is pointing to this website as a source of information, there is no harm in this website taking a more proactive role to inform people of the risks associated with the route.
tylercranston and recurrence like this.
Steventy is offline  
post #50 of (permalink) Old 10-28-2015, 08:30 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Kid Charlemagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 1,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan.in.yaletown View Post
A person does not necessarily need to have any training for there to be a duty of care, although I would certainly agree in general that the more training that a person has, and the more of a mantle of 'leader' that that person has assumed (that they have the title of 'leader', or have taken on certain organizational responsibilities, could certainly be factors to consider), the better the odds are that a duty of care would be found.

I further certainly agree that the exact nature of how this 'group' was put together and what their expectations were of the trip would have an impact on this question too - was it a 'random' group of hikers who just happened to come together at the same time/location with the same objective in mind? How much leadership/organization did the 'leader' undertake? An attitude that can be summarized as "I'm organizing/leading this trip, but in the end you're all on your own and I'm not responsible for you" may or may not mean anything, depending on all of the circumstances. I also definitely agree that the actions on the trip of the injured people could have some bearing on this issue - were they 'off on a fancy' / on a 'frolic of their own'? This could serve to separate them from this 'trip' and any duties that attached to it, again depending on exactly what happened.

As I said, interesting questions for which there is no black or white answer (especially based on the little and 2nd hand info we're all grasping with at the moment). Ultimately, the only way to have these questions answered is for both sides to go before a judge or jury, present all of the facts and surrounding circumstances, and fully argue both sides of the case, and have the trier of fact decide (with subsequent appeals, if necessary). Nothing unscrupulous about that - that's actually the cornerstone of how our justice system works.

-Ryan
I didn't call our justice system unscrupulous, I was referring to agents acting in that theatre. From yesterday's headlines we see ICBC lawyers interjecting as an unscrupulous third party in the tragic death of the cyclists in Pemberton. We have always had unscrupulous agents bringing buffoonery to our courts, and you don't have to travel very far south to see what a circus it can become. To be so naive as to hold all such behaviour up high on a pedestal marked "infallible justice" is to abandon your duty of sober consideration as a constituent of the domain of the courts.

In my opinion, using our justice system to try to assign blame to a slipping accident in an endeavour as inherently fraught with risk such as mountaineering is absolutely asinine, and outrageous to my sensibilities as a taxpayer.
Kid Charlemagne is offline  
post #51 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 12:33 AM
Summit Master
 
Ryan.in.yaletown's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Van, BC, Canada.
Posts: 3,231
Default

Wow, ok lots to unpack here.

Quote:
... From yesterday's headlines we see ICBC lawyers interjecting as an unscrupulous third party in the tragic death of the cyclists in Pemberton. ...
KC is of course referring to this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...suit-1.3292392

While we are getting far off topic, there is a lot of misunderstanding on display here and in the media that's worth clearing up so people don't get an incorrect view of what is happening. I don't have any personal knowledge of the situation here, but from I've read and my experience, I think I've got a pretty good idea of the context.

-The driver in this accident was allegedly drunk. As a result, ICBC (the driver's insurer) denied him coverage. In other words, they said 'because you were drunk you breached a term of your insurance and we are not going to cover you as a result'. (Of course, this is all 'allegedly' - the driver has not been convicted of drinking and driving or any other criminal offense, yet.)

-In ordinary circumstances, that would be bad news for the party suing ('Plaintiff'). If the person being sued ('Defendant') doesn't have insurance, the only thing the Defendant would have to satisfy any court judgement against them is their own personal assets. If the Defendant has lots of assets, then no problem for the Plaintiff. If they do not (and how many of us have cash/assets on hand to pay for a judgement that could exceed $1million?) then the Plaintiff would be tough out of luck. (They would have a 'dry judgement' - the Court would say they are entitled to $X in compensation, but what good is that if you can't collect on it because the Defendant has no money?)

-A somewhat unique feature of ICBC (specifically the legislation that creates it) is the Third Party proceeding that KC is speaking about. In circumstances like this where ICBC denies coverage to a Defendant, they Third Party themselves into the lawsuit (basically they bring themselves in as a party, even though they were not a party to or personally involved with the accident in question). When they Third Party themselves in, they kind of 'step into the shoes' of the Defendant. By this I mean that the lawyer hired by/representing ICBC is not the Defendant's lawyer, but they are taking essentially the same positions/making the same arguments that the Defendant's lawyer would be doing - they defend the case to ensure that if the Plaintiff is successful, the Plaintiff will receive appropriate/judicially fair compensation. That is the whole basis behind our ("adversarial") justice system: ensure that both sides of a point are fully explored and argued so that an impartial trier of fact can consider all issues and come to a just result (as best as humanly possible, at least).

-ICBC Third Parties themselves into the lawsuit because they will assume the responsibility of paying out any settlement/judgement to the Plaintiff. Think about it for a minute - if ICBC didn't do this, you risk suing a Defendant who has no money to pay out the judgement against them. That would suck, to say the least. With ICBC Third Partying themselves in to the case, they assume all this financial risk. In a breach case where ICBC has denied coverage to a Defendant and Third Partied themselves in, they will pay whatever the ultimate judgement/settlement is (and turn around and go after the Defendant themselves, thus bear the risk that the Defendant has no money to pay them back). In the end, isn't it far better for ICBC to risk/absorb the chance of a dry judgement than an innocently injured Plaintiff?

-ICBC is certainly not being "unscrupulous" in bringing the Third Party proceedings. Quite the opposite: their having done so ensures if there is a settlement/judgement, that settlement/judgement will be paid to the Plaintiff (vs the risk that the Plaintiff will not be able to get anything from an inpecunious Defendant, as would be the case if there was no insurance and ICBC did not Third Party themselves in).

-As for the details of what ICBC is alleging (claiming that the cyclist may have been impaired, wasn't paying attention, etc.), all I can say is that it is just that - an allegation. To be able to ask questions about it as the lawsuit unfolds, it has to be raised in the pleadings, which I assume is what has been done here and why.


Quote:
In my opinion, using our justice system to try to assign blame to a slipping accident in an endeavour as inherently fraught with risk such as mountaineering is absolutely asinine, and outrageous to my sensibilities as a taxpayer.
Again, in my opinion this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice situation on which our society is based. A person has been injured in a terrible accident and their life has (probably) been changed forever. Of course, we do not know if there will be a claim/lawsuit arising out of this. If there is, the injured person will be seeking damages (i.e. money) from someone who they say is the cause of their injuries. Now, it may be that someone else is entirely, or partially, responsible. It may be that the injured person themselves is solely responsible and, as KC says, something like mountaineering is so fraught with risk that only the individual can be to blame for their own misfortunes. The only way for this to be determined (barring a negotiated settlement) is for the legal system to decide it. The way that works in our society is the "adversarial" process as noted above - both sides to the question are vigorously defended and argued, all the facts are brought out and explored, and an impartial trier of fact decides based on the facts that are established in the case (and previous cases of precedence). Armchair quarterbacking (which we are all doing here, since none of us have an appreciation for the full facts of what happened, in the lead up to the trip, during the course of it, or at the critical time in question) is certainly not the way, nor is any one individual's "sensibilities".

-Ryan

Last edited by Ryan.in.yaletown; 10-29-2015 at 12:54 AM.
Ryan.in.yaletown is offline  
post #52 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 01:15 AM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: PNW
Posts: 8,494
Default

self started wilderness groups and internet meet up groups and advanced skill internet meets will always have a rather serious failure rate. Highly, not recommended.
Aqua Terra is offline  
post #53 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 10:08 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
dlofting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 258
Default

Here's a question for the legal minds on this board.

As a certified Wilderness First Responder I have a duty to provide assistance to any injured/sick person with whom I have a prior relationship (i.e. relatives, friends). I can choose whether I help people I meet on the trail.

If I've interacted with a number of people during the "setup" of a hike through an online meeting group, does that constitute a "prior relationship" and therefore a duty to provide assistance if someone is injured or becomes ill ?
dlofting is offline  
post #54 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 11:33 AM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlofting View Post
Here's a question for the legal minds on this board.

As a certified Wilderness First Responder I have a duty to provide assistance to any injured/sick person with whom I have a prior relationship (i.e. relatives, friends). I can choose whether I help people I meet on the trail.

If I've interacted with a number of people during the "setup" of a hike through an online meeting group, does that constitute a "prior relationship" and therefore a duty to provide assistance if someone is injured or becomes ill ?
This is how it was explained to me when I did my training. Unless you have a duty of care to the individual (group leader etc), you are not required to render aide (unless you're in Quebec where you must render aid in all cases) . However, once you start, you cannot stop. You are also protected from liability as long as you stay within the bounds of your training.


I guess the big question, which is still fuzzy, is does joining a meet up group, or "leading" an event, constitute a duty of care. I suspect we'll the courts to weigh in on this
dlofting likes this.
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #55 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 11:34 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Kid Charlemagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 1,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlofting View Post
Here's a question for the legal minds on this board.

As a certified Wilderness First Responder I have a duty to provide assistance to any injured/sick person with whom I have a prior relationship (i.e. relatives, friends). I can choose whether I help people I meet on the trail.

If I've interacted with a number of people during the "setup" of a hike through an online meeting group, does that constitute a "prior relationship" and therefore a duty to provide assistance if someone is injured or becomes ill ?
Duty of care doesn't necessarily require a previous relationship, but that's a larger conversation.

For your own situation, you're talking about first aid, and there is no legal obligation for someone trained in first aid to provide first aid in a public context. If you're a teacher or a guide, the duty might exist. And if you start giving first aid, you establish a duty of care that you must see through.

Short of identifying yourself during the "setup" as a trained guide or leader that will assume a duty of care, there's no chance someone is going to successfully pin such a duty on you.
dlofting likes this.
Kid Charlemagne is offline  
post #56 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 01:59 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: , BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,463
Default

The opposite question is: If you see someone who needs help and who is not a part of your group - are you putting yourself at legal risk by stepping in to help them.

Fortunately, we have a Good Samaritan Law in BC.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_96172_01
Steventy is offline  
post #57 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 03:11 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
kellymcdonald78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Backpacking, Skiing, Space History
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steventy View Post
The opposite question is: If you see someone who needs help and who is not a part of your group - are you putting yourself at legal risk by stepping in to help them.

Fortunately, we have a Good Samaritan Law in BC.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_96172_01

There is a caveat is however. If you have first aid training, these laws only protect you provided you are operating within the bounds of your training. So trying to perform a tracheotomy if you only have wilderness first aid, or trying a field set a broken bone if you only have CPR can put you at legal risk. Stick with what you've been trained to do, and you'll be ok
kellymcdonald78 is offline  
post #58 of (permalink) Old 10-29-2015, 04:19 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
timv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: cycling
Posts: 442
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan.in.yaletown View Post
details of what ICBC is alleging (claiming that the cyclist may have been impaired, wasn't paying attention, etc.), .

-Ryan
Thanks for the explanation--very clear. If they don't raise these possibilities now, they can't ever explore that as a possibility.
Media sensationalism aside: it can be seen as unscrupulous to make those allegations in the first place. Hey, why stop at those allegations? Why not throw out a few more? Cyclist deliberately hit car!
timv is offline  
post #59 of (permalink) Old 10-30-2015, 09:42 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: , B.C., Canada.
Posts: 307
Default

"Consideration" is one test of defining whether a contract exists.

However, liability can be determined regardless of whether a conventional contract exists.

The real question here is "duty of care", which can override clauses and disclaimers.

Many activities, such a back-country hiking/climbing, are inherently risky.

But did negligent actions of some party (say, the trip organiser) contribute to the incident?

As expedition leader, other participants would look to the organiser to provide expertise in preparation and safe route-finding.

If the organiser suggests running shoes are fine, with "micro spikes" optional, and then leads them up a dangerously-steep glacier when a prudent person might avoid the glacier, or approach with crampons and ice axe, then there is a case to be made.

The standard test for negligence is comparison to "actions of a reasonable person". Whatever "reasonable" is a matter for lawyers - the beauty of our Jury system is it can be bend every which way.
Dru likes this.
Bushmaster is offline  
post #60 of (permalink) Old 10-30-2015, 11:21 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: north van, bc, Canada.
Interest: hiking / camping
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recurrence View Post
I believe this is the first time a serious accident has happened with someone who accessed Sky Pilot via S2S. IIRC, the fatalities last year all used alternative access points.

I'm pretty sure one used the road and one used the tram last year. but the fact is the S2S opened the road back up that had been closed for ~10 years. so ether way S2S has opened the access.
recurrence likes this.
smac is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1