Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

[Bobby Little]

While I will not go into every detail, I will continue to stand my ground on what I believe is right. As a meteorologist and a storm chaser who was very close to the incident, in both time and location, I feel as if I have the right and arguably a moral obligation to share my opinions of what took place.

As I said from the start, I acknowledge and admit that I was too close to the initial tornado. Whether or not there was convincing evidence that the first tornado had been in progress for more than 10+ minutes prior to the incident, I will continue to argue that it is hard to defend a position that would have put anyone in the direct path of the initial tornado. Just because you cannot see a tornado does not mean that there is not one and if should be noted that tour drivers, after my analysis and well after the final storm surveys and public statements from the National Weather Service, made factually false, or at the very least, misleading, claims in order to justify decisions made on May 28, 2019.

Just now getting back to this thread (i had only read pg1 when it started) and without talking of the incident itself.
Quincy, your quote here IS exactly why i enjoy your input. You are one of several hardest working/chasing members here who post.. miles logging MF while storm chasing constantly in the last couple years...always with good video, insight, etc. As this incident broke here on ST, you answered quickly of the subject in question with insight. There should be no fault of anything.. be it talking here or with someone privately. I only see your honest opinion as a meteorologist and chaser ..Stay Strong.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Some people have been referring to a "law suit?" I am not aware of any such action being initiated?

The references are to Quincy’s posts about legal action being taken against him. Not sure what stage that is in, it could be in the “threatened” phase and not yet an actual lawsuit, but I believe that’s what’s being referred to.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The references are to Quincy’s posts about legal action being taken against him. Not sure what stage that is in, it could be in the “threatened” phase and not yet an actual lawsuit, but I believe that’s what’s being referred to.

Lawyers cannot threaten someone with legal action without justification. I'm told it's both unethical and could cause the issuing attorney some serious trouble. Having said that, if anyone posting here is involved (or could be involved) with any legal action, they would be best advised to stop posting.

 

[Shane Adams]

If the Hills were advised (or flat out told) by an attorney to not make contact with/check on the severely-injured tour guest because it would be an admission of guilt through some horsesh*t legal technicality, that's almost worse IMO. It's one thing to simply ignore, it's quite another to ignore based on advice designed to save your own ass after you screwed up and caused bodily harm/mental anguish to a customer.

IMO, any chase tour company that makes guests sign a waiver stating "I acknowledge I could be injured or killed on a chase" beyond the basic road hazards of driving several hundred miles, shouldn't be in business. I understand you can't guarantee a tour will see a tornado, but you can damn sure guarantee no one will be hurt or killed while trying (sans driving/traffic incident). By having customers sign any type of waiver with that literature is itself an admission of guilt regarding dangerous practices.

 

[Steve Holmes]

I'm not going to pile on here. Truth is, I don't know how I would have acted in the Hills' situation. I am sure they were scared. Their labor of love took decades to create. One minute, it was seemingly secure. The next minute, and for the minutes since, it looked at risk of complete collapse. I'd feel a powerful yearning to apologize for what the guests endured, but if I felt it could put my life's dream at further risk, well, I won't pretend I'd take the high road.

Apologies are an art form. "I am sorry you went through that" feels a lot different from "I am sorry we screwed up." But then, I am not a lawyer.

 

[James K]

IMO, any chase tour company that makes guests sign a waiver stating "I acknowledge I could be injured or killed on a chase" beyond the basic road hazards of driving several hundred miles, shouldn't be in business.

But I bet something along those lines is standard disclaimer/waiver stuff for basically every tour company out there. Whether or not it holds up in court could be a different thing.

 

[Thomas Mattek]

I look forward to your analysis @Skip Talbot
I highly appreciate and VALUE the contributions you have brought to the community immensely, most particularly since that fateful May Day in 2013. But I think it behooves is ALL to not forget our past prior to condemning the actions or inactions of the Hills.

This isn't a discussion of past actions, it's a discussion of the present. You relaying this story ignores two critical points and your overall argument is contradictory. Your main thrust in bringing up this story is that Skip Talbot encouraged a tour group to take dangerous positioning in HP Supercell.

Firstly, we are discussing the single action of a person that took place nearly a decade ago. People's perspectives can and do change with experience and time. Skip took the opportunity in his timelaspe commentary of the Bowdle, South Dakota event posted November 22nd, 2012 to emphasize that parts of his decisionmaking with regards to that storm were not safe and strongly implied that he would not repeat them. Whatever actions may have been taken in 2010, at least his public statements two years later imply a different attitude. It is, of course, a public statement looking back at a chase rather than decisions the moment. However, it speaks to an intent to educate the public on safety which took place after the story you're relaying. This shift isn't unique to one person, it's something that I've seen other veteran chasers emphasize, a backlash against the "extreme, up close" style and a greater emphasis on safety, which was particularly evident after May 31st, 2013. We should not forget the past, but we should take lessons from it. As a new chaser, the actions and words of veteran chasers influence how I will behave and target potentially tornadic, high precipitation supercells.

Secondly, your anecdote is one in which you personally took the decision to avoid an HP supercell because of the potential risks to your tour guests posed. The main consensus reached on this thread is that Roger Hill took an unsafe action with regard to an HP, tornadic supercell. You said yourself that the positioning within a surging RFD gust front would be wrongheaded and dangerous to tour guests and explicitly compared it to the situation now being discussed in this thread. Now just as other chaser's attitudes can change your own stance on how tours should position could have changed. But, from an outsider's perspective, it appears you are applying one standard of safety from the past to your own actions, contrasting it with another's actions and advice in the past, but do not believe that the actions of someone in the present deserve to be held to the same standard. Perhaps I misunderstand your general points and am totally open to that, but I am not seeing how these two statements match up.

Thus, the question begs an answer...what are “we” actually trying to say or what kind of dialog are we trying to have here regarding the Hills? Because if it’s truly safety related, then I would throw extreme caution when some of “us” are guilty of the very thing we are condemning. I’d also throw caution to this blame game that still seems to be a priority in this thread.

These two factors, safety and the actions of certain individuals, are inseparable, because members are discussing the actions of the tour group leaders as they relate to safety standards and rules of thumb. It is not hypocrisy for veterans who have in the past taken more risks to caution safety or question the decisionmaking of individuals who appear to have taken unsafe actions while carrying people who have little to no chasing experience. There is further discussion about legal actions taken against one member who has attempted to clarify with witnesses involved what exactly happened. None of this has yet reached the level of a lawsuit against Roger Hill or Silver Lining Tours, but if such a suit occurs then there will certainly be a situation where chasers, meteorologists, and tour-group leaders may be asked to testify on standard practice. It is thus vital that "we" come to a consensus on what the safest actions are, in the present, using the experience of the past.

EDIT: I want to say that I wrote this reply early in the morning while forecasting, and didn't fully catch up to all replies. This isn't intended as a personal attack and this thread has continued to be cordial. I wrote this response primarily because I believe some points haven't been addressed, and that these arguments of character will be very important if this matter comes to the courts.

 

[JF Massicotte]

IMO, any chase tour company that makes guests sign a waiver stating "I acknowledge I could be injured or killed on a chase" beyond the basic road hazards of driving several hundred miles, shouldn't be in business. I understand you can't guarantee a tour will see a tornado, but you can damn sure guarantee no one will be hurt or killed while trying (sans driving/traffic incident). By having customers sign any type of waiver with that literature is itself an admission of guilt regarding dangerous practices.

Bungee jump activities make you sign these as well, but if the operator forgets to tie the other end of the rope he's going to jail and losing his house. These waivers are worthless in case of negligence.

As you said it protects the company in case of uncontrollable accidents, but I would bet any good lawyer could demonstrate with the help of any meteorologist that driving with poor visibility instead of taking cover inside a tornado warned area is being negligent and certainly not an uncontrollable accident.

My father had to have a spinal surgery after an accident, even if he did not want to file a lawsuit, his insurance company did. Because insurers are in the business of making money and whenever they can find somebody else to pay the bill they will. It may take time but I would be damn surprised if there were no court action here. And I really think it will eventually affect all chase tours out there.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

Negligence is an important legal concept; it's usually defined as "the failure to use the care that a normally careful person would in a given situation."
Negligent | Definition of Negligent by Merriam-Webster

Key words being "normally careful person" as they relate to chasing with a high precipitation supercell, which spawned a tornado warning at 5:41 p.m. and the event in question happened shortly after 6:00 p.m., in Globe. Kansas, which was accurately pinpointed by the National Weather Service with approximately 20 minutes of lead time:

WFUS53 KTOP 282241
TORTOP
KSC045-059-282330-
/O.NEW.KTOP.TO.W.0023.190528T2241Z-190528T2330Z/

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
Tornado Warning
National Weather Service Topeka KS
541 PM CDT Tue May 28 2019

The National Weather Service in Topeka has issued a

* Tornado Warning for...
Northwestern Franklin County in east central Kansas...
Western Douglas County in east central Kansas...

* Until 630 PM CDT.

* At 541 PM CDT, a severe thunderstorm capable of producing a tornado
was located near Pomona Lake, moving northeast at 35 mph.

HAZARD...Tornado and half dollar size hail.

SOURCE...Radar indicated rotation.

IMPACT...Flying debris will be dangerous to those caught without
shelter. Mobile homes will be damaged or destroyed.
Damage to roofs, windows, and vehicles will occur. Tree
damage is likely.

* This dangerous storm will be near...
Centropolis and Globe around 600 PM CDT.
Lone Star and Clinton Lake around 610 PM CDT.
Clinton around 615 PM CDT.
Pleasant Grove around 620 PM CDT.
Southwestern Lawrence around 625 PM CDT.

This includes Kansas Turnpike between mile markers 198 and 199.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

TAKE COVER NOW! Move to a basement or an interior room on the lowest
floor of a sturdy building. Avoid windows. If you are outdoors, in a
mobile home, or in a vehicle, move to the closest substantial shelter
and protect yourself from flying debris.

&&

LAT...LON 3868 9551 3869 9551 3870 9550 3889 9550
3901 9531 3873 9512
TIME...MOT...LOC 2241Z 234DEG 29KT 3871 9560

TORNADO...RADAR INDICATED
HAIL...1.25IN

$$

Baerg

*The only edit was made to remove the tornado warning from a quote block, as it was too large to automatically display in full.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Negligence is an important legal concept; it's usually defined as "the failure to use the care that a normally careful person would in a given situation."
Negligent | Definition of Negligent by Merriam-Webster

Key words being "normally careful person" as they relate to chasing with a high precipitation supercell...

I’m not an attorney so I am only wondering, but it would be interesting to know whether the legal view would be:

“A normally careful person should have taken cover while in an area under tornado warning as instructed by the warning, therefore they are already viewed as negligent regardless of specific actions or routes taken under the HP”,

OR

“A normally careful person IN A GIVEN SITUATION is in this case a storm chasing tour operator with guests that wanted to see a tornado and therefore it is completely understandable that they were in the area and should not be expected to have taken cover; in other words, they were NOT negligent just by being in the vicinity, only their actions while under the HP are subject to evaluation for negligence”

 

[James Wilson]

What a "normally careful person" would do to me in this case is what a seasoned chaser would/should do. There was a tornado warning on a large HP cell with a report of a tornado already on the ground. Even if they did not see my report yet it is a warned cell that showed strong rotation coming right towards you.

No one drives through that cell getting in the path of the tornado especially with multiple lives on the line. Just a very bad decision and they were lucky no one was killed.

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

Did SLT exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect us from harm? For more than half an hour before we were hit by the tornado, local news stations were warning of a “dangerous situation” with “intense circulation" cloaked by rain – including the “strong possibility of a tornado” hidden in the rain – moving NE towards and into SW Douglas County. One example on KCTV Kansas City at 5:52 p.m. (about 10 minutes before we were hit in the area covered by the warning): “What makes this storm so incredibly dangerous right now is that you just can’t see it. It’s completely camouflaged [by rain].” Residents were urged to take shelter.

I look forward to further analysis by chasers, but shouldn’t a highly-experienced storm chasing tour operator responsible for the lives and safety of tour guests (and who boasts of state-of-the-art weather data technology) know – or be expected to know – at least as much as anyone with a TV, radio or news app? If so, it’s hard to see how driving into that mess can be regarded as “reasonable.”

 

[JF Massicotte]

I’m not an attorney so I am only wondering, but it would be interesting to know whether the legal view would be:

“A normally careful person should have taken cover while in an area under tornado warning as instructed by the warning, therefore they are already viewed as negligent regardless of specific actions or routes taken under the HP”,

OR

“A normally careful person IN A GIVEN SITUATION is in this case a storm chasing tour operator with guests that wanted to see a tornado and therefore it is completely understandable that they were in the area and should not be expected to have taken cover; in other words, they were NOT negligent just by being in the vicinity, only their actions while under the HP are subject to evaluation for negligence”

This can depend on personal preference of whoever is judging the case I guess but I find the point interesting as taking storm chasing completely apart from meteorology would set precedents on what is recognized as a safe behavior from fellow storm chasers. There is some part of me that would be curious about how this would be debated in the legal system with people having authority but no experience on the matter.

 

[Spencer Dant]

I look forward to further analysis by chasers, but shouldn’t a highly-experienced storm chasing tour operator responsible for the lives and safety of tour guests (and who boasts of state-of-the-art weather data technology) know – or be expected to know – at least as much as anyone with a TV, radio or news app? If so, it’s hard to see how driving into that mess can be regarded as “reasonable.”

To answer your completely rhetorical question, they did. They were more than aware that they were not going to see that deeply rain-wrapped tornado, just as any veteran or even remotely seasoned chaser is, without making a dangerously close approach in conditions where they would not be in full control. It’s a risk many of us run when we’re chasing. Good luck finding any saints in here who have actually seen tornadoes and haven’t tried to get a buried and heavily HP tornado. But knowing how dangerous such maneuvers are and choosing to do so anyway with tour guests boggles my mind.

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

It’s a risk many of us run when we’re chasing....But knowing how dangerous such maneuvers are and choosing to do so anyway with tour guests boggles my mind.

Yup. There’s a huge difference between chasing alone and being responsible for the safety of tour guests. Although a liability waiver may provide some protection, it's not unlimited. Enforcement of a waiver can be dependent on the gravity of the conduct that caused the guest's injuries.