or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Older man sues boy over ski collision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Older man sues boy over ski collision - Page 5

post #121 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
This is certainly not true. Someone can be an unskilled skier and still be in control. Someone can be a skilled skier and be out of control.
WOW! You didn't get it , did you???????????????????
post #122 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
WOW! You didn't get it , did you???????????????????
It's not sarcasm unless there's a smiley!
post #123 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
This is certainly not true. Someone can be an unskilled skier and still be in control. Someone can be a skilled skier and be out of control.
We are talking on a "cat track" here.
post #124 of 309
This discussion keeps going in circles. Is there anyway we could get a guest appearance from either the 7 year old bully or the 60 year old "old man"? I'll call the old guy up and invite him to shed some lite on the parts of this story that don't seem to fit together. Maybe he could post some pix of the injury.

Can someone PM me his number?
post #125 of 309
We are getting personal again..Keep it on the subject.
post #126 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
It's not sarcasm unless there's a smiley!
I was more astonished then sarcastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
We are talking on a "cat track" here.
Thanks for elaborating on why Phil.
post #127 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
This discussion keeps going in circles. Is there anyway we could get a guest appearance from either the 7 year old bully or the 60 year old "old man"? I'll call the old guy up and invite him to shed some lite on the parts of this story that don't seem to fit together. Maybe he could post some pix of the injury.

Can someone PM me his number?
I callled him and asked. I'm now being sued for $10,000,000,000 for infliction of emotional distress.
post #128 of 309
Wow at_NYC! The news media is all a bunch of deceitful ignorants, and the insurance companies are all out to get you.

Life must look pretty tough in that bubble you've made for yourself.


My experience with insurance companies has been pretty good:

1- uninsured motorist hit me, totaling my car, my insurance paid to replace it, no questions asked "heres the check".

2- house fire, wife, kids and I lost everything we owned. Insurance agent was there within an hour, gave us check to get "comfortable as best we could", then a few weeks later paid us our policy coverage in full, again no questions asked. *** By the way, our oven was found to be at fault, our insurance company pursued litigation without involving us for even 2 seconds.

3- my health insurance usually pays out about 30k a year due to my wife and I having 1 son who is type 1 diabetic, and 1 son with Chronic Bowel Migraines. Never a word is heard about it.

I happen to know for a fact that if my son or any other member of my family hurt someone on the ski slopes, we would be covered. I know, I asked my American Family agent when we moved here as my first idea was to buy a family season pass at the nice local mountain in town.

As for the news, well yeah you have to read between the lines sometimes; but to say most of it is based on falsehoods is absolutely paranoid and ridiculous.
post #129 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DropCliffsNotBombs View Post
ANY adult that sues a 8 yr. old CHILD is a pansy scumbag!!! He should be ashamed of himself!!
FACT.

There are two questions here.
1. Was it done with malice?
If no then you get up dust yourself off, if you cant get up then you ask the kid or the day to go for help, then you smile and say damn that hurt.

If yes then you have a good talk with dad the old fashioned way.

2. Where is the beer?

The old man is a greedy pig, and I hope the judge tosses it cause it is frivolous, probably not, but its a hope.
This is one of the reasons that I despise lawyers, some lawyer said to either him or his insurance company "we can do this".
post #130 of 309
When you read the knee jerk responses in this thead it just leaves you scratching your head. I'm not sure why it does. Any country capable of electing GWB twice is obviously filled with some not terribly swift people.

Lawyers are not "scumbags". In fact lawyers and their ability to sue and collect damages from individuals and companies is responsible for a large measure of the safety we take fo granted in our, cars, homes, workplace etc. Are there abuses? Sure. But they are far outweighed by the benefits,

The knee jerks especially it seems where skiing is concerned. Prob because many of you can quote Scott Schmidt and believe the industries PR machine that ski areas are forced to charge higher prices because of liability costs. Wake up and don't believe everything you hear or read. The fact is insurance costs are a tiny tiny fraction of an areas operating expenses.

The facts in this case are simply not known. But a hypothetical can be discussed.

First of all whether you like or not parents are responsible for their children. I wonder how many of you would be getting upset if this kid was playing ball in the street and threw a baseball through the window of your car or home? I'm sure you would not go to the child but would go right to the parents to get the money. The fact is that if a parent let a child play baseball in an area where this damage could reasonably be expected to occur then they would be responsible for not supervising them properly. If your car was parked next to the little league field it would be a different story.

Same principle applies here. So now we have a 60yo on the cat track and an 8yo comes up behind him and due to his size hits him right in the left leg forcing the leg forward unexpectdly and tearing the ACL. Who is responsible for that injury? Let's say the man has no insurance and has a hospital bill of what one poster here estimated at "only $30k". How should the man pay the bill? Let's say you had an 8yo boy skiing a cat track and a 60 yo low level intermediate came up behind him and bumped the boy at a low rate of speed. How many of you would be screaming for the guys head? What if the 8yo had been 15?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cks View Post
Actually it appears that some of us do find it disturbing that a 60 year-old man would drag an 8 year-old into a lawsuit over a skiing accident. This boy can run into most of us full speed and not cause $75 worth of damage let alone $75K. I guess most of us parents would take it real personal if some idiot named my 8y/o in a lawsuit like this. To me, BAMABOY's post above is the "post that finally makes sense" to me.

Also, the boy's father was within close sight of the accident. That sounds like adequate supervision to me.What was he supposed to do- tether his boy to him all day? Are you truly suggesting that all minors now be under direct control of their parents at all times on the slopes or the parents are liable? That sounds like a good way to keep this sport going.
I think that the above post typifies the lack of being able to grasp some of the basic concepts here and to instead jerk the knee and make assumptions that we just do not know to be true in the case. The man isn't dragging the boy into it. The boy started the whole process by hitting the man! Most likely the parents exacerbated the situation by not stepping up and accepting responsibility for the child's actions and instead tried to excuse and justify them with the "he's only 8yo" excuse.

The control question is also a good one. You assume that because the father was "in close sight" that he was under his supervision. Another poster asks:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Festus View Post
Holding the parents liable makes more sense, but the circumstances of an incident greatly dictate parental liability, the question here being: 'Did the parents do everything in their power to ensure their child is a safe skier, and is the definition of a safe skier the same for an 8 yo learning the sport as that of a skilled adult skier?'.
From what I have seen on the hill, most people do not know the responsibility code and do not abide by it. In addition most skiers have NO IDEA what it means to ski in control. So how can they effectively communicate it to someone else? Supervising an 8yo on skis does not require a tether but it does require constant verbal supervision and supervision by example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pattongb View Post

I have a 7 year old, the idea, that he could be held responsible for accidently running into some old man or lady, and my wife and I could lose everything we own: well frankly it makes me want to NOT take my kid skiing ever again.
I say good riddance to you. The last thing we need in skiing is more people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their or their child's actions. Once again let's also be clear, the person being held legally responsible is the parent not the child

Quote:
Originally Posted by cks View Post
Gee it must be nice have a gene that imparts perfect skier's tools and knowledge from birth- it appears that there was absolutely no learning curve in someone's family.

I'm guilty as charged- I have never shown the skier's code to my 8 y/o and i'm not even sure if she even knows what it is after about 50 lessons she's had. In fact, after reading some of the posts here, I'm amazed that they even let her on the mountain. Even more amazing is that just today, I saw at least 20 kids who I'm sure can't even read come down on skis BEHIND their ski instructor- how could these instructors directly control these kids' actions when sking more that 5 feet from them? Does the ski school know what kind of liability risk this whole situation is? Even if I can't personally teach my kid the intricacies of the skier's code I do want her know one thing by the time she becomes an adult- that people who would drag an 8 y/o into a lawsuit to make a few bucks are SCUMBAGS.
.
Another excuse is made. Now the parent and child had a learning curve to over come. Let's say an 18yo teenage boy, first time on skis came bombing down the beginner area out of control and hit your child. Would you chalk it up to a "learning curve".

You also unwittingly make a great point. Of course you do not show the code to 8yo or those that can't read. You demonstrate it! I can guarantee you that in any lesson conducted by a decent ski school that kids are being taught the code all day. Don't stop in places like this, watch when you cross here etc. etc. Your point about the instructor leading the group down is also a good one. Most of us prob ski with our young kids following us most of the time. When we let them go fist we most likely pick the terrain and set the parameters and wait for a light traffic moment to start them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
The kid was 7 at the time, some posted this is the only way this kid will learn responsability, well, what kind of scar is this going to leave on him? Every time something happens he will get sued?

A 47lb kid hitting an adults boot, shows that the adult was not "in control" either if it made him fall. 60 is the new 40 when it comes to activities. I would gather this guy, if he traveled to Colorado to ski, was a fairly competent skier.
How do you know what type of damage is possible?

I would also suggest that the child is being far more scarred by learning that his father is unwilling to step up to his obligations and by learning to make excuses instead of accepting responsibility and realizing that actions can have consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Festus View Post
This is the point I was making. 7 & 8 year olds don't understand the consequences of their actions because they have little to no experience that provides a context for them to understand. The skier you and your kid watched provided context for him; how lucky that he can learn by observing someone else's mistake. No doubt the unlucky kid in this situation now understands the consequences far better than your 10 y.o.
Some may not understand but thats where the parent is supposed to step in and provide the context.
post #131 of 309
spud6414,

"1. Was it done with malice? ... "

FACT

If it was done with malice that in itself would constitute a criminal action and junior should have been tazed & hauled off in cuffs and leg irons. I'd start with the rabies shots just to be safe too.


There is a (mostly), wide gap .... between a civil tort .... and a criminal act.

:
post #132 of 309

Do we need common sense?

Volklskier1,

I agree with just about everything you said. I don't know all the facts, so I'm writing this assuming it was an unfortunate accident, not a parent shirking responsibility, nor a kid being reckless. That said, I agree that if the kid was at fault, then the right thing to do would be for the parents to take responsibility and offer to pay for the man's medical bills or two parties coming together (with a little compassion and common sense) to work out an unfortunate situation, like:

1. If the boy's father has insurance that will cover it and will pay, then do it.
2. If the boy's father doesn't have insurance, but can afford to do it without breaking his financial obligations to his family, then do it.
3. If neither of the two above, then see if the victims insurance will pay.
4. If none of the above, then the boy's father and victim should try to settle it the best way for both, which would probably call for a compromise of some sorts and both out some money.

I think what fires people up about this are reports about the lawyer involved, the man's reaction (cussing and threatening to sue) after the accident, and the fact its a small child, and the perceived attitude of some posters.

You listed the following illustration of "parental responsibility" that I don't see how it applies to skiing on a ski hill:

"First of all whether you like or not parents are responsible for their children. I wonder how many of you would be getting upset if this kid was playing ball in the street and threw a baseball through the window of your car or home? I'm sure you would not go to the child but would go right to the parents to get the money. The fact is that if a parent let a child play baseball in an area where this damage could reasonably be expected to occur then they would be responsible for not supervising them properly."

I agree with everything you said in your example above. However, I would like to think that when one goes to a ski hill and is participating in an activity in a confined area where others are participating also, that all participants should realize that there ARE other participants, and their ARE risks involved, and that the following illustration is more fitting:

"I've decided to participate in a softball game with adults and kids playing. I'm playing catcher and an 8 year old is at the plate. He swings and makes contact with the ball. In his excitement, he doesn't drop the bat like he should, but throws it back and it hits me in the head hurting me "however you want to define it - from a simple bump to being in a coma to killing me".

How would I handle it:

1. I wouldn't cuss out the kid (assuming I'm still conscious).
2. I wouldn't threaten to sue the kid.
3. I wouldn't question the Dad to see if he had taught his kid all the rules of softball (like not throwing the bat) to see if I can find out if the Dad was irresponsible, and if so, hold him accountible.
4. I would get my health insurance to pay for my bills.
5. If my insurance refused, I'd write some stern letters to them telling THEM to grow up and not put the burden on an 8 year old or his parents. After all, it was an accident.
6. Let's assume the worst. The accident rendered me a vegetable (well, some would say that's already the case with me ) or I'm dead. I would hope that my family would have enough compassion and common sense to just say "this was a very unfortunate accident", and not to sue the kid's father because he wasn't properly supervising his child.

All that said, my examples and responses above are not based on what's happened in this particular incident, as I said that I don't know all the facts. Nor is it to downplay parent's responsibilities in supervising their kids, as I agree with you that there seems to be a big disregard for that also nowadays. My response is to "scenarios" portrayed by other posters and the reponsibility of people and a victims rights if someone (an 8 year old) neglects their responsibility.

The problem with us is that most of the time, it all boils down MY rights, the almighty dollar, and what it costs ME. That is more important to most people than being a productive/servant member of society and using common sense, having compassion for others, working out situations when possible, etc. (For which lawyers aren't known to promote, hence why they get despised by some). Is that the case in this situation??? I don't now. But it seems (didn't say they do) like some posters have that kind of "my rights" attitude and it gives the impression (correctly or incorrectly) that they fall into the ME first camp, which bothers those who are sick of that type of attitude.
post #133 of 309
VS1 the members here should not be characterized as having a knee jerk reaction merely because you disagree with their conclusion. A liability lawsuit for the circumstances as described in the original article seems specious and is stereotypical of the abuses we frequently see by tort lawyers. Reacting adversely to this in the absence of full facts seems to me a normal and reaction, particularly when the suit is clearly not allowed under Colorado law, so the plaintiff has pursued the action in federal court.

Quote:
The suit claims Pfahler suffered a torn shoulder tendon and seeks compensation for physical therapy, vacation time, nursing and medical services provided by Pfahler's wife, and other expenses. It estimates the couple's losses at more than $75,000.
If the plaintiff's injuries are real, he should have full coverage in personal medical insurance. The idea of compensating his wife for vacation time nursing and medical services is a ploy to increase the value of the losses to qualify the suit for Federal Court. No one would deny the 60 year old the care and therapy he needs for his shoulder. He will get that care with or without the law suit; and if his insurance company feels the injuries were the fault of another party, they could subrogate the loss against the child's family. Instead this lawsuit has the appearance of greed to make a buck for the plaintiff and his lawyer.
post #134 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki View Post
spud6414,

"1. Was it done with malice? ... "

FACT

If it was done with malice that in itself would constitute a criminal action and junior should have been tazed & hauled off in cuffs and leg irons. I'd start with the rabies shots just to be safe too.


There is a (mostly), wide gap .... between a civil tort .... and a criminal act.

:
Really.

What kind of "malice" can an 7 year old show..let alone towards a 60 year old that he doesn't know from Adam.

The poor kid had to probably change his ski pants after this happened.
post #135 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
Prob because many of you can quote Scott Schmidt and believe the industries PR machine that ski areas are forced to charge higher prices because of liability costs. Wake up and don't believe everything you hear or read. The fact is insurance costs are a tiny tiny fraction of an areas operating expenses.
Do you really believe that?
post #136 of 309
I heard a quote yesterday on the radio that i think applies well to this situation (no, it wasn't from Scott Schmidt). To paraphrase:

"Sometimes what is ethical and what is legal are two separate things"

VSK1: i think that you i can just agree to disagree on this matter. Even if my simple mind "can't grasp some of the basic concepts here" i can grasp the message underlying of this quote. BTW i did mange to put a baseball through a neighbor's window when i was about 10y/o. the gentleman was upset but never approached my family for repayment. sometimes little acts of decency and kindness goes a long way in shaping young minds
post #137 of 309
I have a five year old that I take skiing often and she does some pretty tough runs. The only reason why I let her do some of these runs is her desire and the simple fact that she can control her speed and direction. Also, I don't let her go wandering about unless there is no one around. I can tell you for certain that if anyone goes near her I am in the way and I am making sure that are no "problems". That means I am right next to her on the greens when people come blazing up from behind and if on blues or blacks and I feel we are in the way I pull her off to the side and let people work there way past. Also, I make sure on these runs that there is no mistaking she is there. If someone is out of control and veering towards here- well then I am in the way and then the problem is mine to deal with and I would win. In the US, you can sue for anything. I would like to think the older man would just submit it in to his insurance and be done but people are *******s. If he doesn't have health insurance then he is an idiot and that is his own fault. If he can afford a ski pass, equip, etc he should maybe work on that insurance problem- there are no excuses on that one. If one insurance company where suing another we wouldn't be hearing about it which is really what should be happening.
post #138 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
Some may not understand but thats where the parent is supposed to step in and provide the context.
Are you suggesting that as a parent I should demonstate the consequences for my child, thus providing context?

Explaining the consequences to a child is not the same thing as providing a context. As parents we hope that our children will understand when we warn them of the perils, but even observing the consequences others suffer as a result of their mistakes is not as effective as suffering them yourself, that is human nature. I am curious how you propose stepping in to provide a context for your children.
post #139 of 309
Did someone mention...

We are talking on a "cat track" here.
post #140 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryfast View Post
Did someone mention...

We are talking on a "cat track" here.
yeah....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
We are talking on a "cat track" here.
post #141 of 309
Phil, you missed the :, and the leg iron and rabies comments. Someone else mentioned malice. I reponded for clarifiction and illustration.

FYI ..... I worked a few years in a juvie/kiddie correctional center. There are some kids (yeah 7 & 8), who are capable of malice, along with murder and arson. Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" ... I have seen kids capable of that. They were sick little sociopaths, and they walk among us. Chilling stuff and very depressing.

Not the case here certainly but, nothing shocks me anymore.
post #142 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
We are talking on a "cat track" here.
?? If it is supposed to be "easy" for the guy not to fall down, then it should have been easy for the kid to not hit him. The rules don't say "except for cat tracks".

Note that I am not saying the guy should have sued anybody. (There is still responsibility in a collision even in the case of no real consequence)
post #143 of 309
The world need not be black and white.

I agree with most everything VCA1 wrote. Parents--don't put your kids on a hill/slope unless they can 100% abide by the Resp Code. Period. If you do....you may be responsible for it.


60 yr old dude.....if you are screeming suit on the slopes.....there may be motive for greed.
post #144 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
VS1 the members here should not be characterized as having a knee jerk reaction merely because you disagree with their conclusion. A liability lawsuit for the circumstances as described in the original article seems specious and is stereotypical of the abuses we frequently see by tort lawyers. Reacting adversely to this in the absence of full facts seems to me a normal and reaction, particularly when the suit is clearly not allowed under Colorado law, so the plaintiff has pursued the action in federal court.


If the plaintiff's injuries are real, he should have full coverage in personal medical insurance. The idea of compensating his wife for vacation time nursing and medical services is a ploy to increase the value of the losses to qualify the suit for Federal Court. No one would deny the 60 year old the care and therapy he needs for his shoulder. He will get that care with or without the law suit; and if his insurance company feels the injuries were the fault of another party, they could subrogate the loss against the child's family. Instead this lawsuit has the appearance of greed to make a buck for the plaintiff and his lawyer.
When people refer to lawyers as scumbags and apparently have no understanding of the historical record regarding the history and benefit of the the tort system then it constitutes a knee jerk reaction. The record of people posting on the topic of skiing, liability and lawyers on this site is a long one and it is one based on rumor not fact. Statements such as "he abuses we frequently see by tort lawyers." also falls into this category. I suggest that all of you that think it is so easy to file a lawsuit and get an attorney go out and try. The rare headline grabbing story of a Mcdonald's cup of coffee is outweighed by the entire record of the system.

Your conclusions regarding the motivations and facts of the case are also not based on any reality. Have you read the complaint? Your uninformed conclusion that this has the appearance of anything let alone a money grab is irresponsible.
post #145 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by I:)Skiing View Post
The world need not be black and white.

I agree with most everything VCA1 wrote. Parents--don't put your kids on a hill/slope unless they can 100% abide by the Resp Code. Period. If you do....you may be responsible for it.


60 yr old dude.....if you are screeming suit on the slopes.....there may be motive for greed.
Especially when it is for $$ to pay your wife to take care of you. :
post #146 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaboy View Post
Volklskier1,

I

I think what fires people up about this are reports about the lawyer involved, the man's reaction (cussing and threatening to sue) after the accident, and the fact its a small child, and the perceived attitude of some posters.

The problem with us is that most of the time, it all boils down MY rights, the almighty dollar, and what it costs ME. That is more important to most people than being a productive/servant member of society and using common sense, having compassion for others, working out situations when possible, etc. (For which lawyers aren't known to promote, hence why they get despised by some). Is that the case in this situation??? I don't now. But it seems (didn't say they do) like some posters have that kind of "my rights" attitude and it gives the impression (correctly or incorrectly) that they fall into the ME first camp, which bothers those who are sick of that type of attitude.
I agree with much of what you have written as well and it points out the real problem. Situations are not necessarily easy to understand. So people take the easy way out, it's very easy to get indignant about a 60yo man and his "scumbag" lawyer suing AN 8YO BOY!!!! It's a sound bite that on the surface sounds absurd but when put into real life isn't so cut and dried.

When I read the post by Bingo, it reminds me of how I skied with little ones. It's common sense and I can tell you you that in all of that time there were many instances when they were in danger from others but not one time when they endangered others. It makes me very skeptical of the the parental supervision.
post #147 of 309
the only difference between a dead skunk lying in the road and a dead lawyer lying in the road is that there are skid marks going around the skunk
post #148 of 309
More so, the problem with lawyers is 95% of them give the rest a bad name.
post #149 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
More so, the problem with lawyers is 95% of them give the rest a bad name.
I think you got lawyers confused with ski instructors
post #150 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
I think you got lawyers confused with ski instructors

Wouldn't that be 97% then? :
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 › Older man sues boy over ski collision