Posted by: LoamtoHome
Posted by: blackfly
Posted by: LoamtoHome
Metro just cares about the watershed, and not the trails. The liability angle is hogwash as parties are covered by the BC Liabilities Act.
I wouldn't go to court on that assumption. If you are right, then explain why ALL man made features on Neds, as aforementioned even the smallest ones, were removed. Natural features carry no implied liability since there is no way to show negligence, incompetence of construction or design etc...One thing to remember about liability: it assumes a REASONABLY likely risk of injury, so on popular trails, Seventh say, if a feature is ridden ad infinitum and only one person is hurt, you could reasonably argue that it is indeed an accident, not from any other factor. Have many accidents on a hard trail that is stunt laden such a defence would not hold up. Lastly, I don't think DWV was going to use the Liabilities Act as a pillow in 1999 when all features were axed on Cypress due to one incident, albeit serious. Since the injured party had a father that was a lawyer.....action/reaction. In fact, the biggest reason for the "new flow" mantra is exactly litigious. Very little reasonable risk is involved with smooth, flow trails (Upper Dales, Expresso) although encouraging high speeds as a factor would be an interesting angle.
I wonder how it all works with surfing?
the wood work on Neds got taken down because it was old and rotten. Stunts are still up on Salvation, Corkscrew, Boogieman, etc.
Old and rotten fair enough. Why not rebuilt then if not the intention of minimizing risk? And salvation may not be far behind.
