Question about Liability for Collision

You may sue for injuries/damages caused by negligent or reckless skiing under general principles of civil liability ("torts"). Failing to obey the "Skier's Responsibility Code" adopted by many states may be enough to establish negligence.

Link to odd article about a skier-skier collision lawsuit...
"Skier's Suit Against Boy, 8, Settles for $25,000"
http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/skie...for-25000.html

http://www.skisafety.com/cases.php

tread carefully...
I am sure we are all trying to balance the need to enforce responsibility and care for the well being of others with the desire to keep our ski areas open and as free as possible...

One of the things about ski clothes. We can't tell how old the wearer is from behind.
We all try to avoid collisions. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that someone in their 40s to 50s would deliberately line up another skier on the slope, then try to take him out. From what I am reading, this is an accident, pure and simple. You have not mentioned what the conditions were, what the proficiency level of the other skier was, what the other skier was doing, or if your father was doing something that may have made his course more difficult to predict for the uphill skier. Before you go running off to court you better have firm answers to all of these questions.
In addition, what did the other person do after the collision? Did he render assistance, call the ski patrol, apologize, ski away, or stand there and laugh?
Personally, from the little information you have presented, and because I think that it was an accident, I believe that suing the other skier would be a knee jerk reaction to seeing your father with a severe injury. If your father has been skiing for as long as you said, then he knows as well as you do that skiing is a sport with inherent risks, and that it is very easy to be injured while skiing. In addition, what would happen to you if you hit someone else by accident? Should they sue you? And don't tell me that that will never happen, it can happen very easily. Hell, I am also a pretty good skier, and I skied over my instructor's skis (yes, I also take lessons) during my last course... last night! It can happen to all of us, it will happen to many of us, and if it does happen, the last thing we need is a lawyer's letter after it does happen.
So calm down and look at it objectively. From what you know, if the other skier had hit me rather than your father, would you still be asking the same question?

Dean.

True, but it's going to depend on the state in which the collision occurred, and that state's ski law. It will also depend on the "assumption of risk" agreed to by purchasing a lift ticket/season pass. It might not hold up, but you'd likely get an argument from the defense that "collisions" are an inherent risk of the sport. You'll need to prove that the offending skier had a duty, he breached that duty, the injury was proximately caused by that breach, and there were damages. Sounds to me like you meet those criteria for negligence, so ruling in your favor is not out of the question.

Let me share my opinion, for what it's worth. Making an example out of the reckless skier is unlikely to stop others from skiing out of control. Liken it to other crimes and punishments. Consider: a college student is in an unfortunate situation and ends up imprisoned for a DUI accident. Are all of his college peers going to stop drinking excessively? I think not. In fact, I know not! Likewise, causing hardship for this skier is not going to stop anyone else from skiing out of control. It is terrible that this occurred, and you have every right to be upset. But remember, we all make mistakes, some with unfortunate repercussions. Trying to make an example out of him by him harm (albeit financial) might not be the way to go. Just my .02, as someone who has seen both sides of these sorts of situations.

Tell the other skier to turn the accident in to his homeowners insurance company. Most homeowners policies provide personal liability insurance that should provide coverage for his exposure to a claim from your father. If the claim gets turned in, your or your father should hear from an adjuster who wants to investigate and settle the claim.

20ish

when i was a kid i seperated my shoulder when i went over a jump and had two snowboard kids on the back side of the jump sitting there . i had no time to stop since i was in the air and when i landed i had like 2 feet of ground to work with. i knocked the one kid out and the other one ran.

didnt have the money to get the shoulder fixed , and its still tweeked.

tell your old dad to get a gun and shoot those punks .

well i dont know where you live this was at mt creek in new jersey . everyone has a gun that skis there.

i kinda think it is ultimatly the resorts resposability as far as your dad is concerned . he was on their property and a student in their class. im surehis insurance will start the ball rolling. you may want to see a lawyer though to start your own proceedings against the resort and the ******* who probably should have been in that class with your pop.

then the resort would sue the dude that hit you guys, for neglagence.

the skiers code thing is not a civil matter and i am surprised the guy hasnt been arrested. you should press charges for criminal neglect and attempted manslaughter / battery.

man your dad broke his arm wtf? that ******* had to be flying. its not like he was in a race .

its like nascar compared to the interstate.

your dad wasnt on a closed race corse he was in a lesson in an environment that has unwritten rules as well as now legal rules .

where did this happen?

downhill skier allways has the right of way period

rather than opinion - here is the legal truth for 48 out of 50 states, this does not apply to Colorado or Florida:

No. you cannot sue. None of what you or others mention matters (age, speed, negligence, who's uphill, what the injury was, what is printed on the ski ticket).

Sporting injuries are nearly without exception (like use of alcohol, drugs, or some clearly intentional act outside the realm of the sport - like running after a person and stabbing them with a ski pole) are considered inherent risks. An inherent risk includes, as a matter of law, the potential for people to be negligent, to test their physical skills, break rules of the game, go too fast and many other such things. None of these rise to the level of intentional harm. Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery. Negligence is not a valid cause of action. There is no legal duty to avoid inherent risks and hence, negligence. I'm not recommending it (its dangerous), but it just doesn't allow you to recover.

What some may be reading about are a few nuisance/sympathy settlements that are made by insurance companies but would never be allowed to be heard by a jury. Everything else is dismissed on motion. But even before that, these sorts of cases just aren't filed because the legal basis is so well established that it isn't allowed. Legitimate lawyers won't touch it. And, the laws don't change for small claims court.

Being sued is another matter, that involves being served legal papers. If someone is served a legal notice, they must timely respond to it. Failure to respond can result in "summary judgement".

I recommend you do nothing, do not talk to the other person, do not threaten them, do not send them anything, do not respond to them verbally or in writing (unless served), do not conjure up schemes to milk them for money (as another implied - to ask them to turn it into their insurance carrier - no don't do that either -and no, you will not be hearing from their insurance adjuster to settle or investigate the claim, nor would it be advisable to talk to an adjuster directly - speak to counsel); if you are served papers for the other parties injury, be sure you seek legal counsel immediately (hopefully, you have coverage through home/rental insurance) and be aware of the timeframes for their response. Do not worry about it, they will be able to take care of it simply.

Hope the injuries heal soon. Good luck

3 year old information....read the code.

Although many of the legal principles you have written here are theoretically correct, they do not apply as neatly as you have suggested. It is impossible to know what the OP's rights are because we don't know enough about the facts or the laws of the state where the collision occurred. There are significant differences from state to state in terms of skier duties and obligations, and the OP's rights depend heavily on what state he is in. Among other things, your analysis excludes the following very important points:

1) Your analysis of what would happen in 48 out of 50 states is wrong. Forget about the rules that apply to general sporting injuries. Many states have statutes that define legal obligations with respect to skiers specifically. In fact, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Washington, among others, all have statutes that specifically impose a duty of care on skiers to avoid collisions with others on the ski hill.

2) Even in those states where primary AOR applies to skiers, reckless or wanton conduct is generally still actionable, and a plaintiff who can adduce evidence that the person who caused the accident was reckless (instead of simply negligent) can get to a jury.

3) Some states that follow the primary assumption of the risk rule limit the application of that rule in the specific case of skier-skier collisions. Primary AOR generally only bars liability in cases where the victim has actually assumed a risk inherent in the sport or activity. So, for instance, in football, a court is not going to hold a linebacker liable for breaking a quarterback's arm during a sack, because getting sacked is an inherent risk of football. But skiing is not a contact sport, and a skier collision is not necessarily and inherent risk of skiing. So, in many states, including Vermont, the issue of whether a particular collision falls within "the inherent risks of skiing" is a question of fact for the jury, and such cases will generally not be resolved as a matter of law by motion as you have suggested.

This is all a long winded way of saying that if you are injured by a collision with another skier, and you want to know what your rights are, you need to speak to lawyer who knows the laws of your state and the state where the accident occurred, and obtain specific legal advice about your case. General, non-expert discussion of the law on this forum (as we have been doing here) is no substitute for a proper legal consultation.

And, by the way, failing to respond to a properly served summons and complaint results in a default, not summary judgment.

Really doesn't matter - what anyone thinks is right/wrong, it's when the facts of the case(charges) are tested in a court of law that counts. If you feel you have been wronged then by all means hire an attorney and file a suit based on the facts as you believe they are. The court will decide the case on these facts as presented.
Irregardless of where you are, you have a right of personal safety from acts of other people. What you will have to prove is that the person that ran into you father out of malice or negligence, tough but not impossible.
If you feel that it's your responsibilty to "teach the other skier a lesson" dig deep in your pockets it will be expensive for you to do this.

Mike is right that it is impossible to know your father's rights if we don't know where the accident happened. But the laws that Steve is describing generally exist to protect ski area operators, not careless skiers. I'd agree that it is very improbable your father could sue the ski area.
But the other skier may not be similarly protected. For example, in Alaska (where I live) the statute says:
(a) A skier is responsible for knowing the range of the skier's own ability to negotiate a ski slope or trail and to ski within the limits of the skier's ability.... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the risk of a skier's collision with another skier is not an inherent danger or risk of skiing in an action by one skier against another.

(b) A skier has the duty to maintain control of the skier's speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, a person skiing downhill has the primary duty to avoid collision with a person or object below the skier.

I'm sure a good lawsuit will fix everything.

I believe no one (!!) when they tell me a lawsuit is 'not about the money' or it's only a small part of the incentive

Look, if you need specifics on how to sue and the likely success of your case-obviously, consulting an on-line skiing forum is not a very effective place to start..just contact a civil lawyer in the area in question, they'll have the answers.

But, I think more is to be gained by tending to your father than seeking out litigious vengeance.

If you really want some sort of reckoning-consult the guy who hit your father face to face (and I mean, really, to discuss the situations, impress upon him your grievances, etc, not to kick his ass). Believe it or not, actually dealing with people directly, rather than through an aggressive lawyer, can yield some great results....That is, if it's really "not about the money".

If it's money you want-lawyer is the way to go.

Liam

Well I'm not wrong, but you really are; just about the only thing I agree with you on is that a chatroom is not the place to believe or disbelieve (a real lawyer is) - and your point about failing to respond to a complaint. And maybe we both agree on the necessity of responding to a complaint - I sure hope so on that. Perhaps we might agree that legal-sounding stuff that comes up on Google is not an adequate substitute for advice from a PI lawyer, with expertise, and experience in sports law. Nor is anything emanating from the state of Colorado, or written by anyone from Colorado. A quick gander at your prospective lawyers credentials might be in order - like if they argued cases before the state appellate and supreme court, published decisions, and such.

First, I'm not theoretically correct; there are 100's of published, and 1000's of unpublished cases in all skiing states that establish AOR as the controlling doctrine.

Skiing is a contact sport because there is more than one player on the field of play and contact is possible; it does not have to be intended or an objective. Since it is possible, however unintended or against rules, it is an inherent risk. Iceskating is also a contact sport; so is fishing on a party boat; and so is spectating at a NASCAR event.

You are just plainwrong about the duty of care being defined by statute; and without going too much into it - - - "inherency" of risk is just that - inherent - it cannot be modified by statute. Those statutes are not sufficient to establish a cause of action (and again, this is not the place to review the case law, but you are plainly mistaken). Colorado law is so far off the charts of constitutionality it really doesn't deserve discussion as an example; I know where the law came from - and it has been upheld at the District level, but it shouldn't have. Fact is - things are different there and there alone.

I won't get into recklessness, but it is confused as "going fast" or doing some quantity of something more that is a natural part of an activity such that it increases the risk. It has to be an element that is not a necessary part of skiing, completely outside the bounds of the sport. Maybe skiing blindfolded, for example, as a blindfold is not within the bounds of skiing. But just about everything else is including, for example, jumping 110 feet off a cliff, as several on this website have done without injury. But what if one of them jumped on top of the other? Well - a mess indeed - and probably the result of somebody jumping too early or another not getting out of the way....Whatever....that's negligence. And skiing 80 mph? That's not recklessness either.

So you can't suggest something that is negligent, and call it reckless, and thereby get it to a jury. Recklessness is a very extreme, very limited in scope, action - almost nothing qualifies within the total bounds of the sport - including breaking the rules. It isn't worth trying; you'll just go quickly into the heap of motions that the judge goes thru every time; a jury will not see it. Insurance companies know that. So do (most) lawyers. That's why they don't take these cases.

Of course, the fact that you DO NOT have legal recourse and DO assume ALL inherent risks, does not make going fast or close to people in crowded slopes a good idea. It just means you can't get money for it.

Last, you might want to think about why courts treat sports injuries and other assumed risks the way they do. It's because to impose civil liability would have a chilling effect on how the sport is exercised and alter its nature, public policy factors such as cost of insurance and ability to purchase insurance for such activities. All of these considerations are covered, in varying amounts of detail, in each of the States' case law, and other documents governing civil practice.

Oh, and one more thing you are wrong about:

An inherent risk IS NOT a question of fact; juries are never permitted to determine what is inherent and what is not.

In all due respect (and unlike me usually, I'm not trying to start an arguement), you sound like you have a good grasp on the Lawyer part. I would think you might consider hiring an expert witness in the ski buisness to discuss the rest with you.

In your example above it may or not be a mess if one person jumped on another off that cliff. I would think if our most airborn moderator did it (given his knowledge) when he KNEW there was a strong possibility of an injury to another it would be a whole different deal than jumping off and hurting himself. BTW it is never the responsibilty of someone to "get out of the way". It is their responsibility to not stop where they can't be seen, or enter a trail w/o looking and being sure it is safe to do so. Proably wouldn't apply here anyway as this type terrain in most instances would be out of bounds. Out of bounds adds a whole new element to this arguement doesn't it? We no longer have that "inherent risk" thing on the ticket at this point do we?

Blindfolded skier......Blind skier? Do you see a difference here?

80 mph isn't reckless, you are right. That is just going fast. 80mph through a clearly marked and crowded beginner area where there is no path available to ski at that speed? Sorry, my opinion differs here.

Here is another BIG factor. The OP's father was in a lesson. He was under the guidance of an Instructor. To blindly say the Area has no liability while supervised by an employee of the area is .......well.....to use a better word than what I'm thinking....unusual.

I am of the opinion that if there really is NO legal recourse as you suggest, then I need to return a bunch of money I made as an expert witness, to a bunch of people.

Ok, I think we're both in agreement that this isn't he best place to have a detailed fight over the legal analysis that applies to skier-skier collisions. So, rather than respond point-by-point, I'll simply give you a few, real-world examples of cases where skier vs. skier collisions have gotten to juries, notwithstanding the "assumption of the risk" defense that you seem to think makes the OP's case a non-starter.

Consider the following examples from New York, which is a state that both absolves skiers from liability for simple collisions, but imposes liability for reckless conduct. I have copied from publicly available sources on Google so that anyone on this forum can find them:

First, a case which explains and applies that AOR defense to a simple collision:

Zielinski v. Farace- Two skiers collided, injuring Zielinski. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that "he did not engage in any 'reckless, intentional or other risk-enhancing conduct not inherent in the activity' of downhill skiing that caused or contributed to the accident." The court held that summary judgment was appropriate because participants that engage in a sport or recreational activity consent to commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally, and flow from participation. The court held that the "risk of injury caused by another skier is an inherent risk of downhill skiing."

But that's not the end of it... New York still imposes liability for reckless conduct, and recklessness DOES include things like skiing too fast and out of control. It's actually pretty easy to get to a jury on a recklessness standard, for example:

Eberle v. Pierce - Joseph Eberle was hit by Chandler Pierce, at a trail intersection. According to eyewitness testimony, Pierce, the uphill snowboarder, attempted to cross the trail, moving uphill and perpendicular to Eberle. Eberle asserted that the collision resulted from Pierce performing a reckless merge and that skier's owe a duty to fellow skiers not act recklessly or to engage in other risk-enhancing conduct not inherent in the sport of skiing. Additionally, Eberle asserted that New York law mandates that skiers remain in control of speed and course while skiing, and that skiers "not overtake another skier in such a manner as to cause contact with the skier being overtaken and to yield the right-of-way to the skier being overtaken." Eberle also asserted that the Skier Safety Code mandates that uphill skiers yield to downhill skiers. Pierce filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that by choosing to participate in skiing, Eberle voluntarily assumed risk of injury in the form of collision because collision is an inherent part of the sport. The Court denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that a triable issue of fact existed because Pierce's on-hill trajectory was disputed. Pierce's conduct of traveling in the wrong direction may be considered reckless behavior and precludes summary judgment.

Martin v. Fiutko - Plaintiff Brandon Martin was struck from behind by Defendant Jessie Fiutko while snowboarding. According to Martin, he was struck while standing with a group of friends at the intersection of two trails, waiting for a crowd to disperse below. Martin alleged that Fiutko, snowboarding from above, caused the collision by skiing fast and out of control. Further, Martin asserted that Fiutko failed to maintain a proper lookout while skiing because the large group was plainly visible. Martin sought damages for his injuries asserting that Fiutko acted recklessly. Fiutko filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that skier collisions are an inherent risk of skiing under New York's Ski Safety Code. Following Morgan, the court denied summary judgment stating that Fiutko's conduct raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he acted recklessly.

Demasi v. Rogers - Defendant Scott Rogers collided with Plaintiff Kevin Demasi, throwing Demasi a substantial distance down the hill. Demasi alleged that Rogers engaged in intentional and reckless conduct that was outside of the conduct that skiers assume when skiing. Rogers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that he did not engage in any risk-enhancing conduct that was not inherent in the activity of skiing. The court held that summary judgment was not proper because "the distance that the plaintiff was thrown as a result of the impact, and the nature and extent of injuries incurred, raise at least a question of fact as to whether the defendant's speed in the vicinity and overall conduct was reckless."

Some examples from other states:

Rusnack v. Walker - While skiing at Boyne Mountain Ski Resort, Matt Walker, the uphill skier, collided with Toni Rusnak, the downhill skier. Defendant Walker contended that under Michigan's Ski Area Safety Act (""SASA"), MCL 408.321 et seq., he could not be held liable because skiers assume the risk of a skier-skier collision. Plaintiff Rusnak claimed that Walker should be liable because the SASA also imposes on each skier a duty "not to act or ski in a manner that may contribute to his or her injury or the injury of any other person."

The Court resolved this contradictory language by striking a balance. It recognized that while skiing, "sometimes accidents happen." However, "if it can be shown that the collision resulted from a violation of the Act [by breaching a prescribed duty], than the violator is to be held liable." Thus, a skier in Michigan assumes the risk of being hit by an uphill skier, but if the uphill skier was negligent, he or she may still be liable.

Lackner v. North (CA) - Lackner was injured when high school racer and expert snowboarder, North collided with her at the bottom of an expert ski trail, Cornice Bowl. North, skiing at Mammoth for a high school championship ski race, struck Lackner after descending Cornice Bowl in a “tucked” position and at high speed. Lackner was standing still at a flat area used by Mammoth skiers as a meeting place. Lackner’s injuries were extensive, including a shattered ankle, tibia and pelvis fractures, and torn thigh tendons.

Lackner, an expert skier and long time patron of Mammoth Mountain, alleged that North acted recklessly by skiing in a tucked position. North filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Lackner assumed the risk of collision by participating in skiing and that he did not ski recklessly while descending Cornice Bowl. North asserted that an expert skier, skiing on expert terrain and at a high rate of speed is part of the sport of skiing. The court held that a triable issue of fact existed because North was an expert snowboarder, aware of the fact that skiing fast into a flat area where people congregate is likely to create a dangerous condition.

Here's the point: In spite of any of the legal theories or doctrines you can find relating to primary assumption of the risk, cases involving skier-skier collisions CAN and DO get to juries all the time. Those cases are either tried to verdict, or settle. But if anyone thinks for one second that good lawyers don't take these cases, or that they won't be sued or held liable for colliding with another skier, they're in for a big surprise.

What matters is whether the plaintiff's injuries were the result of an inherent risk of skiing, and that is OFTEN a question for the jury:

Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain (1997 ME 180) - "Whether Merrill's injuries were caused by risks inherent in the
sport of skiing is a question of fact that must be submitted to the jury. Section 488 does not specify what risks, as a matter of law, are inherent in skiing. In the absence of such statutory specification, whether a skier's injury results from an inherent risk depends on the factual circumstances of each case."

McHerron v. Jiminy Peak, Inc., 38 Mass. App. Ct 593 - Skier was injured after after going over bare spot on trail and falling. District court granted summary judgment. The appellate court reversed and stated that it was a question of fact whether the ski area operator knew or should have known that the bare spot on the trail was a risk that could have been avoided through the exercise of reasonable care.

Dunbar v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort - "Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred when it found that the risk of falling twelve feet into a snowboard half-pipe was an inherent risk of Dunbar's alpine skiing when she had stopped and observed double diamond terrain features and had chosen not to "take" those features. When, as is here, genuine issues of material fact exist, it is properly a question for the jury to determine whether dangers that are "characteristic of" or "intrinsic to" or "an integral part" of the sport of alpine skiing evaluated under the specific factual circumstances of this case include those encountered by Dunbar in skiing from the main intermediate run to the tram car and from the tram car along the catwalk. Sapone, 308 F.3d at 1102 ("whether something is or is not an inherent risk is a factual question that must be sent to the jury for determination"); see also, Dillworth v. Gambardella, 970 F.2d 1113, 1123 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding under a Vermont statute similar to Wyoming's, that determination of inherent danger "is a question of fact properly submitted to the jury")."

Stevescho, are you a lawyer? I doubt it. Not only is your "legal" analysis simply wrong in many respects, no sensible lawyer would opine, definitively, as you have, that the OP has NO
legal recourse whatsoever -- without at least first getting all of the pertinent facts (e.g. what state the accident occurred in). Your advice to the OP that he should do absolutely nothing is even more mind boggling.

The OP needs to speak with an attorney familiar with the laws of the state in which the accident occurred to find out what his legal rights are. He should do so as soon as possible, as most states have statutes of limitation which limit the time within which legal action may be taken. If he has legal recourse, at least he'll then be in a position to make an informed decision about whether or not to pursue it. If it turns out there is no recourse, at least he'll know for sure. Whatever you do, please don't rely solely on the advice of anonymous internet "lawyers".

You are 100% spot on.

Masonfl,

To some extent it may be out of you father's hands. His medical insurer will want to know the circumstances that caused his injury and may want to try to recover its costs.

Unlikely as he is 79 and his main medical insurer is most likely Medicare.

Go ahead and be boggled - my recommendation stands:

LET IT GO, DO NOT CONTACT THAT OTHER PERSON, AND DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY CONTACT OTHER THAN A LEGAL NOTICE. NOT ON PAPER, NOT IN WORDS, NOT IN MAIL. NO THREATS, NO ADMISSIONS. NO INFORMATION AT ALL. NOTHING. IF YOU ARE SERVED LEGAL NOTICE, OBTAIN COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY.

Absent a legal notice, you don't have to do anything - including - as someone opined, providing your insurance information (or any other form of monetary recourse - insurance is akin to a monetary asset - that could encourage an attempt at settlement).

And that's it. As far as getting what we are talking about here - the legal scoop from a lawyer - I'm just trying to save the OP some dough. The OP can speak to whoever he wants; provided he gets them to accept the case on retainer or contingency. Otherwise - the OP (or the other party) will get a couple minutes on the phone and a click thereafter. The legal profession is based on guess what? (hint: $). So go ahead - call a bunch of PI's and find out for yourself - pony up $150/hour and they'll do a full investigation. If you can find someone to accept it on contingency - even better - but when you call the first 30 lawyers and they all want a retainer or have nothing to do with you, that may be telling you something.

"getting all the facts" = lots of $$$$, depositions, interogatories, legal research. Getting someone's story on a skiing chatroom is not "all the facts."

There are a couple posts here with legal cases - all mentioned, and possibly gathered from, a Colorado website; remember what I said in my original response - Colorado is different - any anything that comes from Colorado, whether it be their law, or an interpretation of law, or their selection of caselaw; it came from Colorado - whose laws and treatment are different.

And - just because someone can come with a few cases, such as those picked from other states (and probably lifted from a Colorado website) - does not mean they are controlling or establish the law as it applies to you or anyone at the present time. Do not believe this is law, represents the law, or you have a case, based on those summaries.

Bottom line - skiing is a sport, it has inherent risks - you can no more sue for a collision injury, behind - above - below, anymore than you could for blindsided tackle in football. The appropriate recourse in such cases is 15 yards. Not money. Dogs bite veterinarians; you think they get to sue? Skiers ski down a hill with other skiers skiing at different levels and speeds with all sorts of nuances on frozen water particles with fixed and moving obstacles (i.e., people). What do you expect? That's right....occasional collisions. It's part of the game. Get over it.

I thought of that, but 1: he probably has private supplemental hospitalization, which may run into some real dough, and 2: does Medicare ever subro?

aHH!! a good lawyer blood bath, let the jury decide which one is believable, then the defeated one will say he was so "correct" but the jury was wrong!!

Zielinski v. Farace, Eberle v. Pierce, Martin v Fiutko, and Demasi v. Rogers are all New York Appellate Division cases applying New York law.

Rusnack v. Walker is a Michigan Court of Appeals case applying Michigan law.

Lackner v. North is a California Court of Appeal case, which I believe (though am not 100% certain) is applying California law.

And, as I'm sure you know, where I got these cases is of no consequence. They are what they are, regardless of whether I found them on LexisNexis, Westlaw, Google, a Colorado website, or the side of a cereal box.

You're right that no one should assume that any of these cases will apply to them, but that's not why I cited them. I cited them because you have suggested, in every single one of your posts, that sikers have no legal recourse in skier-skier collisions because primary assumption of the risk bars liability. When I pointed out that your reasoning was incomplete, that the law was not as clear cut as you made it seem, and that people can and do sue for skier collisions (and on facts that don't involve drunk or blindfolded skiers), you told me I was wrong. So that's why I cited some actual examples of such lawsuits. Obviously I'm not wrong, or the examples I cited would not exist. I could provide examples from other states too, such as the Illinois case of Novak v. Virene. But I think I've made my point, and I don't think anyone here is interested in reading a 50-state survey on skier collision law.

Part of what concerns me is that someone reading your analysis could get the impression that they can do whatever they want on the slopes, short of skiing drunk or blindfolded, without fear of liability. That's not a very good impression to leave open unless you're darned sure it's true, particularly on a ski patrol forum that is frequented by people who dedicate their time and energy to keeping the slopes safe. The bottom line is that people do sue for skier-skier collisions, they do get to juries, and defendants do pay significant sums of money as a result of these cases -- and not just in Colorado or Florida. So, ski safely. And, if you're involved in a collision and want to know what your rights are, talk to someone who knows.

Interesting thread...in the words of my lawyer responding to some ludicrous legal suit someone was trying to bring against me, "if anyone wants to sue you for any reason, they can"!

Not that this was a newsflash for me, but pretty much so sums up the litigous society we live in...skiing is an exciting sport partly because of the dangers of the sport...you ski, you stand a better chance of getting hurt in a variety of ways than if you stayed in bed that day.

Sorry for the old man getting hit, but to sue goes against the understanding that there are certain inherent risks you take on when skiing. I also hate the "I'm not doing this for the money, its just the principle of the matter" crap. EVERYONE who sues sues for a fistful of George Washingtons, pure and simple!

My suggestion...drop it...helping the old man to heal physically, rather than going through some protracted, 3-5 year legal action that will tear him apart mentally is hardly worth the effort...celebrate the fact that he is still on this good Earth and the two of you will have a story to tell your grandkids 10 or 20 yrs from now.

Peace

+1! Actually, since I said the same sort of thing in an earlier Post make that+2

I love all the Junior Perry masons on this thread by the way.

Actually, it sounds like you do want to ruin his life. Being sued can be similar to a divorce or a bankruptcy in terms of the emotional stress and disruption involved. Since you want him to be publicly shamed so that other skiers "think about" him while skiing, it seems like you want to make the impact even more disruptive than your average lawsuit. Imagine going into the lodge and having people who know you and also read a ski mag point and whisper behind your back after you walk by. "There's that guy..." Not pretty, and your desire to add that shame component should make you question all your motives at least twice.

Sorry about your Dad. Hope he gets better, but I recognize that at his age his injuries probably are going to be felt for life one way or the other. That's hugely unfortunate. In skiing for roughly 69 years he probably somewhere along the way came to understand that sometimes skiers flail unpredictably on beginner slopes.