The Grey and white guy ran into the guy in red. How is that the red guy's problem?
Mr. Red is tootling about --in a straight line on the other side of the trail. Barely goes left and right. Speed controlled. Then the grey/white guy runs into him! We have no evidence at all that Mr. Grey was making consistent turns like that. I would say he was not at all, based on the early turns he makes at the beginning. In fact, if you watch the early skiing you can see of Mr. Grey, he's using about 1/4 -1/3 of the trail - right side. He suddenly decides to make a big turn and completely oblivious, hit the Mr. Red. Actually, if he had been aware of "lanes", he might have looked when he went over to someone else's alley.
Mr. Red was merely a bowling ball headed straight down the slope in his own side alley far from Mr. Grey. Mr. Grey decided to make a large turn and ran into the ball, Mr. Redl- from the side!
The "downhill skier shall have the right of way" does not apply here. No one was downhill of Mr. Red the whole time!! That is, there is no one at all downhill in Mr. Red's "lane". Even if you doubled the width of his lane there's no one in there. Why is he responsible for the wandering Mr. Grey who suddenly decides to use the whole trail?
If Mr. Grey doesn't do what he suddenly did, there's no collision. Their paths are not on a collision course till Mr. Grey acts and hits Mr. Red.
It's a very interesting case. I seriously doubt you could "convict" Mr. Red for being at fault if this was a trial. Baring evidence of something like he'd just had 4 shots of schnapps at lunch I think you can easily make a case for Mr. Grey being at fault, and at the worst, mutual fault if there is such a thing.
Now if Mr. Grey had 4 schnapps at lunch, I think it's a slam dunk guilty.
I couldn't believe I found this video, it's just what we're talking about here and you don't have to wade through 6 minutes of uselessness.