EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski area found to be liable for skier's injury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski area found to be liable for skier's injury - Page 3

post #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
Read the instructions most resorts post regarding night skiing. They instruct you to stop and wait for ski patrol or other assistance if the lights go out.

L
Show me just one of those signs. I'm not being sarcastic---I have never seen anything like that posted anywhere.
post #62 of 80
The problem here, and I suspect this occurs frequently, is that we're all preaching to the choir. Unless you're talking about gross negligence on the part of a resort, I can't see any of us filing suit because of our own irresponsibility. Unfortunately, there is a (large) segment of the population who doesn't see the problem with suing whenever and whomever possible.
post #63 of 80
Until Judges and juries come to their senses, get used to it!

WE used to call these things ACCIDENTS!!!
post #64 of 80
The trouble with judges is they are picked from a pool of lawyers
Or is that the way it works down south? Do you elect your judges (that could explain a lot)? What qualifications do they need?
post #65 of 80

NJ judges

A big problem in NJ, is that judges are political appointees.

A big problem in NJ, is that judges are political appointees.

A big problem in NJ, is that judges are political appointees.

Another problem that we have her in New Jersey is that judges are appointed by politicians.

Did I mention that politicians in New Jersey appoint judges?
post #66 of 80
yes you did
post #67 of 80
You know, it's also insurance companies that bring this on themselves. I was skiing with a friend at CB in PA a few years back. I hadn't actually been watching HIM ski, as I was concentrating on the wife. She had to go in for a minute and I asked him where he wanted to go. He told me he'd been going down Asp. Anyway, I say great, I head off down the Asp (a Pocono "diamond") and turn around about half way down to see how he is doing. He's down and trying to get up. He gets up, skis about 3 feet in a snow plow and down again. I suddenly realize there is NO WAY this guy should be on this slope. Anyway, he doesn't get up, ends up coming down on a sled with a broken leg.

A few weeks later, he is contacted by HIS health insurance and they want to know if the ski area is at fault! He calls me. I tell him that the ski area is NOT at fault, he had no business being on that slope and if he sues the ski area I will testify for CB. He didn't go thru with it, but he was being pressured by the insurance company to do so. So, the moral is, the insurance companies are busy trying to move the cost to the OTHER insurance company just as much as the lawyers are at fault for encouraging skiers to sue.
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by iskitoofast4u
The problem here, and I suspect this occurs frequently, is that we're all preaching to the choir. Unless you're talking about gross negligence on the part of a resort, I can't see any of us filing suit because of our own irresponsibility. Unfortunately, there is a (large) segment of the population who doesn't see the problem with suing whenever and whomever possible.
It's like the wise words from Beyond Rangoon (from memory; I know they are wrong): "That is the difference between you and us. We believe that life is difficult, and any happiness is a joyous surprise. You expect life to be perfect, and any difficulty is a curse."

The point is, it doesn't have to be someone's fault when something untoward occurs. Stuff happens. That's the way it goes. Get over it and move on!
post #69 of 80

ssh

Good un'.
post #70 of 80
Posted by Garyskr "2) When you buy your lift ticket, you know that there may be rocks, etc that are a potential hazard. It's hardly a secret. Why then should the resort be held liable?"

This couldn't be anymore true in the case of Hidden Valley or any other Pocono area ski area. When you buy a ticket for these places, you should expect hazards! Typically, I ski the runs the first time looking for hazards.
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog
Posted by Garyskr "2) When you buy your lift ticket, you know that there may be rocks, etc that are a potential hazard. It's hardly a secret. Why then should the resort be held liable?"

This couldn't be anymore true in the case of Hidden Valley or any other Pocono area ski area. When you buy a ticket for these places, you should expect hazards! Typically, I ski the runs the first time looking for hazards.
Look before you leap.
post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider
Look before you leap.

... or make sure you land on a good lawyer...
post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
It couldn't happen in most "ski states" due to the structure of skiing-related law. In Colorado, no lawyer would take this case.
in New Jersey, where I used to practice litigation defending entities against greedy amoral dipsticks who would sue ANYone for ANYthing if it had the scent of filthy lucre attached, such lawsuits not only are common, but just about EXPECTED.

the depraved greed of the plaintiff's lawyers practicing in northern NJ drove me right out of the practice of law. this opinion and the legal chicanery behind it are embarrassing. I'm sure the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer(s) think they did a real service to everyone by winning.

:
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
It's like the wise words from Beyond Rangoon (from memory; I know they are wrong): "That is the difference between you and us. We believe that life is difficult, and any happiness is a joyous surprise. You expect life to be perfect, and any difficulty is a curse."

The point is, it doesn't have to be someone's fault when something untoward occurs. Stuff happens. That's the way it goes. Get over it and move on!
well said, ssh! bravo!

life IS DIFFICULT, and adversity builds character.

Friedrich Nietzsche knew the deal... that which does not kill me, makes me stronger.
post #75 of 80
In all fariness, NJ doesn't hold the patent on this kind of lawsuit. It's a nationwide plague. Remember the finger in the chili?
post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog
In all fariness, NJ doesn't hold the patent on this kind of lawsuit. It's a nationwide plague. Remember the finger in the chili?
it's a lot worse in NJ than other states.

CA, TX, MS and NJ are the worst venues to defend personal injury litigation. it used to be my job to do national assessments of liability exposures for HUGE insurance companies. companies make choices on the states in which they will write policies based on the exposures to ridiculous verdicts, awards and settlements. I helped them make those choices.

and with that thorough background, I can say,

NJ might not hold an exclusive patent, but it's one of the elite few that share the patent.
post #77 of 80
It's definitely not on the side of the ski areas, anyway, probably due to the fact that so little state revenue is based on ski areas. I don't think it's any accident that the pro-ski area states also happen to be the ones that collect a lot of tax money from skiing. The only way you're going to reduce the number of ski area lawsuits in places like PA and NJ is if the state makes laws that protect the ski areas. After all, New Jerseyans travel to Colorado, etc. But state law in Colorado pretty much says that everything is "tough luck" on the skier's side.
post #78 of 80
Thread Starter 
Gentlemen: I can assure you that tort reform in NJ is alive and well. While, I think that tort reform, for the most part, is not a good thing (either for the plaintiff's or defense bar), when confronted with this limited issue (the liability of the ski area), I tend to side with the property owner.
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyons
Gentlemen: I can assure you that tort reform in NJ is alive and well. While, I think that tort reform, for the most part, is not a good thing (either for the plaintiff's or defense bar), when confronted with this limited issue (the liability of the ski area), I tend to side with the property owner.
Canyons, I have worked both sides of the tort reform fence... as a citizen who has occasional bouts of socialist leanings I tend to oppose it, but as a lawyer who spent way too many nights earning cluster headaches trying to understand the greed motivating someone to LIE about personal responsibility, I have some empathy for the desire to see tort reform.

the problem runs much deeper and broader than the scope of standard tort reform bills, which tend to be drafted by expensive and influential big firm attorneys on behalf of various trade associations as economic measures, rather than as measures to repair a broken civil justice system.

the fact that you can empathize with the landowner of a ski area itells me that you probably have empathy for other persons who have been saddled with wrongheaded decisions on liability... the same reasoning applies to every wrongly affected person.

our culture is a curious one, in which even the lowliest on the socioeconomic ladder seems to believe that our culture offers broad enough opportunity that anyone can be a millionaire or president, while in practice these optimists about our culture take the lazy approach to power and riches (i.e. lawsuits that have as their basis an utter evasion of personal responsibility). of course these are quite general and broad remarks indicting a general cultural trend, and not an indictment of a particular person within our culture.

but if you want, I can offer up some information leading toward such an indictment!
post #80 of 80

gonzo

clean out your message box ... filled to da' brim!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski area found to be liable for skier's injury