or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Instructor being sued.

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Maybe I should post this with one of the tabloid rags by the check out stand in the Super Market. I just heard this on the local Park City Radio Station. This might be a first. Seems that a ski instrutor from Deer Valley was haveing an Affair with one of his clients. Her Husband found out. He not only Filed for divorce he also is sueing The Instrutor for over one million Dollars for haveing an Affair with his wife. The Husband says it was the Affair that ended his marriage. The hubby must think That Instrutors make a lot more in tips then they do. I sure don't know any Instrutor That has a million dollars.
The Good news is at least the Hubby did'nt pull out a gun and shot the guy. Maybe they should have stuck with " Skiing is the most fun you can have with your pants on."

[ January 14, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Utah49 ]
post #2 of 28
Ydnar!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!
Just kiddin! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
Oh LM you are BaD
post #4 of 28
Well...I think we've all agreed here before that instructors teach for reasons other than the money. I guess this just happens to be another one of those reasons.
post #5 of 28
aaarrrghh!!! what's with all the random capital Letters?!!!?!!
post #6 of 28
Maybe the guy knows how much his wife tipped the instr?

post #7 of 28
I am sure it's the ski schools insurance carrier that he's going after. It's always someone with DEEP POCKETS thats at fault.
post #8 of 28
Why doesn't he sue his ex? It wouldn't have happened without her and maybe he will get some of his money back.
post #9 of 28
Thread Starter 
Here is an Update The Husband is some game show host on TV. Chuck Woolsley or Worsley? Since I don't watch game shows or reality TV I have no idea who he is. Maybe This could bae an Idea for a new show. "Whos Binking Who!" guess who is who is fooling around with your Wife or Husband and win a Million Dollars!
post #10 of 28
No, no, no, Utah49 - NOT "Who's binking WHO". It's "Who's binking WHOM ." It's the objective, see? The object is the one receiveing the action, so the one getting binked is WHOM. The binker is who and the binkee is whom.

The guy obviously saw his wife as the binkEE.

This is very important. VERY important. Don't know why, it just is.
post #11 of 28
That's too funny. And quite ironic.

If you got the name right then it's Chuck Woolery (sp). He was the host of the late 80's early 90's show Love Connection. It was a dating show where Chuck interviewed the men and women before and after their dates and the audience voted on who went out with whom.

I guess Chuck's love connection didn't work out.

post #12 of 28
It's Chuck Woolery. He actually lives in PC. His wife must have been 'skiing' with the instructor for some time. As for the $1 million, maybe he want's to make a point to the guy and have his wages garnished in effect for life.

post #13 of 28
Originally posted by Utah49:
The Good news is at least the Hubby did'nt pull out a gun and shot the guy.
Good news? Personally, I think any jerk off who will mess around with a married woman pretty much deseves to be shot.
post #14 of 28
Thread Starter 
For that bit of advice we just might make Oboe an exsecutive Producer.
post #15 of 28
Thank you, thank you.

But all seriousness aside, what's the legal basis for the suit? There was a time when Vermont had a cause of action called "Alienation of Affections" - some called it a "heart balm statute" - that allowed lawsuits like the one we've been discussing in thsi thread. However, many years ago, that statute was repealed, and "alienation" suits disappeared.

You may or may not recall that about thirty-five years ago, Leo "The Lip" Desrochers was the subject of this kind of lawsuit in Middlebury, Vermont.

Who knows about the law upon which this current lawsuit against the ski instructor is based, and how does respondiat superior fit in here? Can the ski area have vicarious liability for this kind of thing?
post #16 of 28
for vicarious liability (in the UK anyway) the action should be done in the course of employment, in the sense of being something he was employed to do. Does binking (over here it would be bonking )fall within the usual scope of a ski instructors employment.The more jaundiced European might think that some ski instructors (over here anyway) tend to see it as a standard employee benefit, though not necessarily with married women!
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Alta don't hold back tell us how you really feel [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img] Oboe I think That The Alienation of Affections is what he is useing for his suit.

Colin my fingers don't work all that well on the keyboard I did mean to type bonking. I do remember that term used by a friend from Wales.
post #18 of 28
Oboe, as far as I know, Oregon also abolished its action for AA. Then again I never was very good at these historical (or is it hysterical) old legal theories.

I too was wondering what the cause of action could be. Perhaps Woolery thinks of his wife as property and is suing for diminution in value or loss of use. Sounds like Woolery is willing to spend a bit of dough to make this guy hire an attorney and defend himself against a frivolous law suit. Of course, there are no attorney’s out there, which would participate in that kind of action!

I look forward to the next installment of the soap opera.


[ January 15, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Maddog1959 ]
post #19 of 28
Alienation of Affections has been abolished in most states either by repeal of the law or by case law. I do not know the state of alienation of affections in Utah. The ski instructor's homeowner's insurance may provide a defense of this claim. With respect to the respondeat superior arguement, the resort would likely argue that the actions of the instructor were outside the course and scope of his employment and therefore, no liability for the resort.
post #20 of 28
Originally posted by AltaSkier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Utah49:
The Good news is at least the Hubby did'nt pull out a gun and shot the guy.
Good news? Personally, I think any jerk off who will mess around with a married woman pretty much deseves to be shot.</font>[/quote]Interesting outlook AltaSkier.

Personally I think a single person can mess around with anyone! It is up to the married people to say NO.
post #21 of 28
This whole incident out there is probably just a simple misunderstanding. The ski instructor probably didn't realize that "right tip right" and "left tip left" referred to his skies.
post #22 of 28
This would NOT HAVE HAPPENED back when I learned to ski.

Back then, we were taught to keep our skis parallel AND OUR LEGS TOGETHER.
post #23 of 28
post #24 of 28
This husband does not realize that skiers share.

And in Utah the lines are gray.
post #25 of 28
But seriously folks...

Nine states currently have Alienation of Affection statutes on the books:

New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Dakota

The law in MO is under attack, and may be eliminated soon.

To succeed on an alienation claim, the plaintiff often must show that (1) the marriage entailed love between the spouses in some degree; (2) the spousal love was alienated and destroyed; and (3) defendant’s malicious conduct contributed to or caused the loss of affection. It is often not necessary to show that the defendant set out to destroy the marital relationship, but only that he or she intentionally engaged in acts that likely would impact the marriage.
post #26 of 28
So what is the wife's responsibility in this?
post #27 of 28
Originally posted by Lucky:
So what is the wife's responsibility in this?
She failed the intermediate class, her legs were wide open.
post #28 of 28
I was looking at the ESA2 waiver and release.
Gee, do you think it covers the Woolery Effect?
(section Agrees not to Sue)
Is he registered?
Watch out for disguises!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion