Lamest news I've read all day : (
This makes me sad.

Is it just me or does that guy look like Benjamin Linus from Lost?

Here is some footage of Duthie Hill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYwYFMtrQ3Q

It's a great place!

Groening invented the show while at Evergreen State College so I always assumed that the Satsop nuclear plants were the inspiration.

I want one!

The statement that this will become a $2.1 million dollar lawsuit is ridicules.

Mauren, the bikers would have a real hard time winning any lawsuit against the state due to the
"volenti non fit injuria" doctrine also now as the Assumption of Risk doctrine.

Downhill/Slope-style mountain biking is a dangerous sport and therefore the people who partake in it have to assume risk and liability.

In English tort law, volenti is a full defence, i.e. it fully exonerates the defendant who succeeds in proving it. The defence has two main elements:
The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved, including both the nature and the extent of the risk; and
The claimant expressly (by his statement) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. His knowledge of the risk is sufficient: sciens non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering"). His consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress. If the relationship between the claimant and defendant is such that there is doubt as to whether the consent was truly voluntary, such as the relationship between workers and employers, the courts are unlikely to find volenti.

Basically the only way a mountain biker could successfully win a case against the state for hucking him or herself off a jump they built in the middle of the woods would be is their boss is a state employee they were on the clock and the boss forced them to launch themselves and there Huffy off the jump against their own better judgement : )

The statement that this will become a $2.1 million dollar lawsuit is ridicules.

Mauren, the bikers would have a real hard time winning any lawsuit against the state due to the
"volenti non fit injuria" doctrine also now as the Assumption of Risk doctrine.

Downhill/Slope-style mountain biking is a dangerous sport and therefore the people who partake in it have to assume risk and liability.

In English tort law, volenti is a full defence, i.e. it fully exonerates the defendant who succeeds in proving it. The defence has two main elements:
The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved, including both the nature and the extent of the risk; and
The claimant expressly (by his statement) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. His knowledge of the risk is sufficient: sciens non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering"). His consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress. If the relationship between the claimant and defendant is such that there is doubt as to whether the consent was truly voluntary, such as the relationship between workers and employers, the courts are unlikely to find volenti.

Basically the only way a mountain biker could successfully win a case against the state for hucking him or herself off a jump they built in the middle of the woods would be is their boss is a state employee they were on the clock and the boss forced them to launch themselves and there Huffy off the jump against their own better judgement : )

The statement that this will become a $2.1 million dollar lawsuit is ridicules.

Mauren, the bikers would have a real hard time winning any lawsuit against the state due to the
"volenti non fit injuria" doctrine also now as the Assumption of Risk doctrine.

Downhill/Slope-style mountain biking is a dangerous sport and therefore the people who partake in it have to assume risk and liability.

In English tort law, volenti is a full defence, i.e. it fully exonerates the defendant who succeeds in proving it. The defence has two main elements:
The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved, including both the nature and the extent of the risk; and
The claimant expressly (by his statement) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. His knowledge of the risk is sufficient: sciens non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering"). His consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress. If the relationship between the claimant and defendant is such that there is doubt as to whether the consent was truly voluntary, such as the relationship between workers and employers, the courts are unlikely to find volenti.

Basically the only way a mountain biker could successfully win a case against the state for hucking him or herself off a jump they built in the middle of the woods would be is their boss is a state employee they were on the clock and the boss forced them to launch there them self off the jump against their own better judgement : )

The statement that this will become a $2.1 million dollar lawsuit is ridicules.

Mauren, the bikers would have a real hard time winning any lawsuit against the state due to the
"volenti non fit injuria" doctrine also now as the Assumption of Risk doctrine.

Downhill/Slope-style mountain biking is a dangerous sport and therefore the people who partake in it have to assume risk and liability.

In English tort law, volenti is a full defence, i.e. it fully exonerates the defendant who succeeds in proving it. The defence has two main elements:
The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved, including both the nature and the extent of the risk; and
The claimant expressly (by his statement) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. His knowledge of the risk is sufficient: sciens non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering"). His consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress. If the relationship between the claimant and defendant is such that there is doubt as to whether the consent was truly voluntary, such as the relationship between workers and employers, the courts are unlikely to find volenti.

Basically the only way a mountain biker could successfully win a case against the state for hucking him or herself off a jump they built in the middle of the woods would be is their boss is a state employee they were on the clock and the boss forced them to launch there them self off the jump against their own better judgement : )

There is a little function on your computer called google, but with a name like komokissmybutt I have to assume that you are nothing more than an internet troll.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill...
http://www.washingtonfilmworks.org/
http://www.thestand.org/2012/03/wslc-urges-house-...

Let me know if you need more.