Injured Rider Unsuccessful in Lawsuit Against Whistler Bike Park
The B.C Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Whistler Blackcomb when a rider sued after being critically injured while riding the park in 2009, The Provence reports.
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.
![Loic Bruni on the rock drop on A-Line.]()
The accident took place on Whistler's world-famous A-Line rock drop—a feature that has a ride around and a number of options for dropping straight off it. 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.
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.
![New rock drop launch pad.]()
Jamieson's lead counsel, Scott Stanley, said the releases remove the legal incentive for companies to protect customers.
“Essentially anyone who has signed a waiver for any activity in B.C. should operate on the assumptions that they have no legal recourse against the provider even if their conduct is egregious,” he said in a written statement.
However, Robert Kennedy, counsel for the resort, noted that releases are unenforceable for minors, which he claims acts as “a huge incentive” to keep the premises safe. Kennedy said the case underscored why a release defense is important.
“If anyone had full knowledge and understanding of the risk of the sport it was the plaintiff in this case. And yet his theory of liability is: ‘Oh, I didn’t know I could get seriously hurt.’"
This is a big deal for anyone who recreates throughout B.C. drumming home that you are responsible for your actions, and that knowing the rights you're waiving is important to consider.
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.
Loic Bruni, during the Crankworx Whistler Air DH, drops off the drop that caused the injury.
The accident took place on Whistler's world-famous A-Line rock drop—a feature that has a ride around and a number of options for dropping straight off it. 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.
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.
The A-Line rock drop in question.
Jamieson's lead counsel, Scott Stanley, said the releases remove the legal incentive for companies to protect customers.
“Essentially anyone who has signed a waiver for any activity in B.C. should operate on the assumptions that they have no legal recourse against the provider even if their conduct is egregious,” he said in a written statement.
However, Robert Kennedy, counsel for the resort, noted that releases are unenforceable for minors, which he claims acts as “a huge incentive” to keep the premises safe. Kennedy said the case underscored why a release defense is important.
“If anyone had full knowledge and understanding of the risk of the sport it was the plaintiff in this case. And yet his theory of liability is: ‘Oh, I didn’t know I could get seriously hurt.’"
This is a big deal for anyone who recreates throughout B.C. drumming home that you are responsible for your actions, and that knowing the rights you're waiving is important to consider.
Author Info:
Member since Jul 22, 2013
Must Read This Week
If whistler has a trail crew out, or major modifications without proper signage etc and something happens its on them. Or if there's a big storm and major trial damage that doesn't get inspected and closed etc that's also on them.
So I assume if something fell apart and directly resulted in injury, it would probably be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.
But I don't believe at all that a waiver gives them 100% exemption from negligence.
The key aspect being there would need to be a documented case of negligence against the bike park, word of mouth or hearsay would have no standing in court, especially when a waiver is concerned. A legal case would also only stand ground if the persons insurance company was chasing up their claim payout costs; a person claiming directly would be very likely have their case kicked out even based on good grounds, as they should have taken due care to get the appropriate insurance to cover such costs beforehand.
The fact that this guy tried to sue in his circumstance shows outright stupidity and desperation really, he worked at the place so would have been well aware of the skill levels required for the trail, the risks involved and what the feature he crashed on was like - not a chance!
Your surgeon did their best for you with the disaster you brought in. They'd rather fix easy straight breaks, but they have to deal with what they get and do the best for it. There are always risks associated with surgery, these aren't necessarily the fault of the surgeon. Heal up quick, and more importantly well, and I hope your situation can end well without court.
This Whistler case should not have even gone to the supreme court. Sorry about the life altering crash, its incredibly sad and unfortunate but its not anyone's fault other than your own. Don't ruin things for others. Maybe you have an argument if your bike spontaneously burst into flames due to a manufacturing defect causing the crash, but again that has nothing to do with Whistler......
I'm glad they upheld this though, because this makes this case law. No more arguments.
If it was in California he would have won or the resort would have had to suspend mtb because of the expenses to defend the suit....Oh wait didn't that happen at Snow Summit a while back? #f*ckambulancechasinglawyersnotdentists.
How do these cases even make it to court? Shouldn't admitting to trespassing while filing your lawsuit be grounds enough for immediate dismissal?
Interestingly though, my dad told me, when he was chatting to the lawyer way back when... the lawyer said that negligence clauses in these situations don't usually hold much water in court. Especially for something as large as this where so much of the public is using the facility. He said the courts (in Canada) don't really treat these waivers as true contracts, but rather more like guidelines to help them make their decisions in conjunction with the circumstances of the incident.
I think in this case it was pretty obvious this guy knew exactly what could happen and was just trying to get some cash out of Whistler. But, had the accident been caused by actual negligence... like hitting a shovel left on the trail or something similar... I think the decision may have gone the other way... or at least not been as cut and dry.
As a "local" (lived in town for the summer), I knew the trails reasonably well. So, when you're coming into a trail you've ridden multiple times - in the woods and they have a piece of rope with a tiny sign on to state its closed - its super dangerous. It took me entirely off my bike and over the bars.
Now, that's just a small example - in Europe, they use signs the same as those when a ski run is closed - Fluro orange and a net, which is less likely to cause damage.
I'm a Euro, so I wouldn't sue - but if I'd had a serious injury from that, you can be damn sure I'd be frustrated - and that's my fault?
I was riding at a certain lift accessed bike park in BC several years ago that had a few trails with old, wobbly wooden features. You had to know which ones to avoid or risk having a nasty accident. There were no signs or warnings to keep you from riding up on to stunts with missing boards and gaping holes in the middle of them. I haven't been back since. From what I hear they have made some improvements since then.
Guy got clotheslined and was fortunately fine, but I'd be pissed if I got hurt on something like that. I accept injury if it's my fault, but I expect a bike park to keep the trails in a safe condition.
FYI - I generally think the trail crews do a great job, and in 78 days or riding last season - that was the only real issue I encountered.
brap.
Nah... it's been 8 years.
I have had friends who ended up suing their best friends technically, (suing the driver of the boat in a water skiing accident) because the insurance company always wants someone to pay, rather than to pay our a portion of their profits.
I would strongly consider that this is a possibility in this case as well, at least until it can be ruled out for sure.
In that situation, if you're looking at relying on family for the rest of your life, I can't say I wouldn't make the same choice.
It's definitely possible that this wasn't a factor - I don't know the details well enough to know either way.
All I can find is this www.torontosun.com/2014/05/29/bike-crash-victim-settles-with-blue-mountain
Did the push to sue come from others parties? I'm guessing so.
In that situation, f*ck, what choice do you have but to find a lawyer willing to sue on contingency? I mean, I don't think it's right, but damn do I feel for the guy. I'm sure he didn't want to do it.
The ruling is the correct one though, and I am glad to see it.
www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/whistler-waiver-withstands-test-by-severely-injured-mountain-biker-1.20663242
Regardless, the injury blows and I feel for the guy. The suit was filed in 2011, I think he graduated in 2012, so I can definitely see student debt and injury expenses compounding on him around that time. Med school isn't cheap or easy for anyone, let alone someone who's also dealing with a life altering spinal injury.
I feel for the guy, but he did a really risky move and screwed up, that was his choice (I ride A-line all the time and won't do that). I am glad to see a judge with common sense in this case.
its unfortunate that the rider got injured, but i'm glad he didn't win this case. he doesn't deserve to win anything, and its pretty "me first "thinking to take such a case to court, especially considering how the hill gave him such joy, and volunteer work, over the three years previous. if that case was lost, whistler would have had to likely make a lot of rebuilds across the entire hill to avoid further penalties of the like. and the result would have been Ontario level watered down Shite.
the dude needs to get a job like the rest of us and move on.
big red flag though for any company who makes and sells adaptive sports equipment.
don't sell anything to this guy!
he sued once for his own stupidity, he will sue again if he gets hurt in an adaptive piece of sports gear.
the guy is a finger pointer. beware.
I feel for the guy - while not the end of the world, being wheelchair bound is pretty rough - but I feel like the whole "golly, I had no idea I could hurt myself" argument only ended up hurting him in court.
On the flip side, sounds like the guy's a radiologist now, so he's probably not hurting for cash [well.. after he pays of his loans].
I too, feel bad for the guy, given his injuries. But otherwise, F that guy! Suing Whistler on those grounds? When he was a patroller for 3 years? Oh c'mon man! I would hope that somebody that was a bike patroller and active rider wouldn't sue, that it would be a suit brought on by insurance or somebody else. I have already told my family that if I get hurt or killed doing the action sports that I do, that they better not ever sue or I'd come back to haunt them. I know what I'm getting myself in to, and it isn't always "somebody else's fault".
Injury rate: 43 per 1,000 hours
Fatality rate: 11.2 per 1 million mountain bikers
Source: www.outsideonline.com/2127176/ranking-worlds-toughest-outdoor-sports
I remember reading/hearing somewhere else that apparently mtbing has the 2nd highest rates of spinal injuries behind surfing for non-flight sports (i.e. excludes base jumping etc).
Poor guy, but that is a laughably bad legal case. It actually pains me.
I have never signed a waiver in Europe, but in US and Canada I have signed them for things that are so obviously on my own risk.
If you play chess it is less likely to happen.
You're set
Also, in personal injury cases it is common to let a lot of time pass after starting the claim during which the parties can obtain more information about what the injured person's life is going to look like on an ongoing basis. Basically, no one is rushing things. If both parties wanted the case to go to court earlier, they certainly could have found a much earlier court date than years down the road. They may have waited a year or a year and a half for a court date, but usually not more than that.
www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/10/2017BCSC1001.htm
Not sure how other parks in the SW read, but I'm gonna try to find a form/old lift ticket from sunrise.
I AGREE it is my sole responsibility not to participate if the area of the activity or adjacent areas or conditions are not to my satisfaction and within my ability. I further hereby RELEASE FROM LIABILITY AND AGREE TO
IDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS the owner of this property and its family members for any damage, injury, or death to myself or to any person or property, whether caused by their NEGLIGENCE or for any other reason, in any way connected with the physical condition of the area of the activity and adjacent areas, my preparation or practice for or my participation in these activities.
>> Number of concussions today: 3
>> Number of broken bones today: 12
Etc? Umm...seems like that'd be silly..
Whistler barely acknowledges this when faced with it, let alone proactively warns user. They could choose to identify, in their waiver or elsewhere, that riding their bike park might be 10X more likely to result in injury than snowboarding and 100X more than skiing. Perhaps that would influence some of the riders to be more cautious?
What is the rationale for withholding such information?
Knowing those stat's probably wouldn't have changed the choices of the rider who brought this case. That's not my point. My point is that Whistler is less than forthcoming about the risks of riding their park. I think as riders we should all expect more.
1) apparently they already have data, they just aren't sharing it. So costs, if any, are insignificant.
2) it would be the ethical thing to do
3) it would provide additional support for their case in legal suits
I agree its not just Whistler. I'm only "singling them out" because the case highlighted in this article is about their liability waiver and actions.
If they expect us to waive ALL our rights, even in cases of their gross negligence, is it not reasonable to expect them to be forthcoming with their own data about risk?
1) Just because they have a number for ticket sales plus have a bunch of patient care records in a file somewhere, does not mean they "have" data. Assuming they will take the next step and put the two together, absent a clear benefit to the organization, is to ignore basic corporate behavior.
2) Ethical? How so? Everywhere you look they are telling their customers that downhill mountain biking is a dangerous activity. Is the Town of Whistler being unethical because they don't publish the number of human-bear interactions, or comparing human-bear versus human-raccoon interactions?
3) In your opinion yes, but I am willing to bet my DH bike that quite a few personal injury attorneys could twist that additional support to illustrate to a jury "look, Whistler KNEW how dangerous this activity is...100x more dangerous than skiing...and they STILL let their customers do it!"
It's all about perspective. Yours is quite noble. The rest of the world...not so much.
"1) apparently they already have data, they just aren't sharing it. So costs, if any, are insignificant."
- You already mentioned it's the local doc/clinic that provided this data. There's no indication WC has collected any on this front.
"2) it would be the ethical thing to do"
- How so? I'm not sure how knowing there were X number of concussions suffered in the park on a Tuesday is the knowledge that will make me think WC is ethical.
"3) it would provide additional support for their case in legal suits"
- How so? I'm a legal noob but publishing injury stats will, in the hands of defence, paint any bike park as a minefield for cyclists where trees and other assorted pieces of wood reach out and kill you. You'd also have to publish the boring offset stats about total ridership, injuries/thousand riders and other such blah blah yada yada that most riders are going to pay as much attention to as the waiver they sign.
I speak as an older/average rider having ridden WC park and trails several times on vacation. The signs that advise riding/re-riding/free-riding are on point. Knowing that 20 other people got hurt in the park the day I was riding wouldn't stop me from riding the park or make me think I'd have a slam dunk lawsuit if I mess up. I do my best to assess my skill/sleep/sober level and apply it to an appropriate trail selection. If something goes wrong then I'll have to sort out the specific problem if it ever comes up (lawsuit or not or otherwise).
In the end, I don't think your assertion that knowing injury data equates to knowing the risk of riding the park. For me, it indicates an error rate. And no one goes to the park looking to make errors...it just happens sometimes. And then you start problem-solving.
get this though....they did put slat work back up on the face of the drop, so from the chair it gives the illusion that the roll is still there.
brutal.
so someone that rolled it last week will try to roll it next week because it appears nothin has changed.
idk sometimes man, i really don't know if all peeps are on the same page as far as risk management goes.
specifically a back protector?
With that said, I'm sorry for the dude and I couldn't even conceive what life would be in such conditions, but people should take responsibility for their own actions and are liable to inform themselves for the risks involved in any activity they do.
wouldn't you ?