EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Patrol Shack › Question about Liability for Collision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question about Liability for Collision - Page 2

post #31 of 158
1/26/09 at 6:27am
did anyone else notice the OP posted just once and has yet to even log in again?

I find that mildly curious
Reply
post #32 of 158
1/26/09 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by swisstrader View Post
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
Well put. Whether one can sue is a very different question from whether one should sue.
Reply
post #33 of 158
1/26/09 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
did anyone else notice the OP posted just once and has yet to even log in again?

I find that mildly curious
Yes - I think he came to his senses - either by himself; or after talking to 25 lawyers he told him there is nothing to be gained. In the remote possibility that some Bruiser or Deck ambulance chaser took the case on a lark, I am certain they would have told him to not discuss the case (of which there is none) - don't post anything on the internet - don't even look at the internet. Could you imagine what a lawyer would say if the first thing that leapt from a plaintiff's mouth was:

"hey....I asked on this skiing website and they said my dad could sue!!!, I want a pound of flesh...I want to make an example out of someone"

But one more thing ....the OP doesn't make the decision, the injured party does....the relative wasn't - he don't get to sue for his distress (and a good defense attorney would bring up the issue of YOUR motive - like $$$ - that you stand to gain on inheritance etc.)

I was pretty amused by that Lasker v. North 2006 case or whatever it was; haven't read the file but if that summary is correct - just goes to show that there are not only stupid juries but even dumber judges out there. In California, assumption of risk, and inherent risks, have absolutely nothing to do with the partys' specific knowledge; this assumption and acknowledgement of risk occurs by the mere voluntary participation in the sport. Ignorance of the risks is no excuse; and, similarly, knowledge of the risks is not a cause of action.

Every once in a while, the Court gets it wrong - but most of the time, under the bulk of cases - they are pretty much on the ball - and any potential future cases will be decided on the whole of the case law, not one or two outliers.

Hey - What do you call two lawyers that agree on a law? (two dead lawyers or partners)
Reply
post #34 of 158
1/26/09 at 3:07pm

Hey Oboe:

Aren't you glad you retired?
Reply
post #35 of 158
1/26/09 at 3:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean View Post
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.
Thanks for your perspective. As I noted, I'm not a litigous person by nature. And I also believe that accidents do happen. I certainly didn't suggest that the other skiier deliberately tried to hit my father. The question is whether the person who hit my dad was skiing responsibly when the accident occurred. Rule #1 in the skiiers code is to ski under control in such a manner thatn you can stop at any time and avoid other skiiers or objects. Clearly that didn't happen last week.

I wasn't there but from what I've heard from my father and, second hand, from eye-witnesses was that my father wasn't doing anything crazy. Heck, the guy's 79! He was skiing in a line with other skiiers doing linked turns on a nearly empty ski hill. It appears that the skiier who hit him was skiing very fast becuase he managed to hit my dad hart enough for him rip the bindings off of his skies and send him airborne. A reasonably person might conclude that the man was skiing recklessly. Skiing over your instructors skies is a bit different than hitting someone at high speed.

I started skiing when I was 5 years old...which means I've skiied for more than 40 years. In all of those years I don't recall causing a major collission with another skiier. Bumping someone? Sure. Skiing on someone's skies? Sure. Hitting them at 30 MPH? no.
Reply
post #36 of 158
1/26/09 at 3:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
did anyone else notice the OP posted just once and has yet to even log in again?

I find that mildly curious

Did someone note that the OP is a busy person who is overall more interseted in my father's health than visiting the forum? Actually, I did revisit the forum a number of times so not sure why it showed I only logged on once. Perhaps b/c the system kept me logged on?


Edited by masonfl - 2/26/2009 at 09:31 pm
Reply
post #37 of 158
1/26/09 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMogulMaster View Post
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.

I read up a bit on "inherent risk." Apparently most courts note that skiing has inherent risks collissions are not generally considered inherent risks because they can be avoided with reasonable care.

One's view on whether to look at this as an "accidents happen" situation or one where someone whowed reckless disregard for the well-being of others is clearly in the eye of the beholders.

As I mentioned on one other post, I've been skiing for more than 40 years myself including quite a few years of very aggressive skiing. Going fast. Racing. Jumping. All the things that most good skiiers do. But I also always made it a point to be responsible. Look ahead. Be aware of my surroundings. Watch our for the people down the hill. None of those things are above and beyond the call of duty; they're just no-brainers. Car accidents happen all the time too. Most are just bad luck. But when a driver hits another vehicle (or pedestrian) because he/she was driving too fast for the driver's skill or for the circumstances then it seems that the driver is responsible for the damage caused by the accident.
Reply
post #38 of 158
1/26/09 at 4:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevescho View Post
Go ahead and be boggled - my recommendation stands:

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.
By your logic, any accident that takes place on the slope is just "part of the game." So if I'm skiing 80 MPH in a "green" zone and kill 10 kids it's just an accident? I use this extreme example to prove a point. If you say that killing the 10 kids is just an accident and there's no legal recourse then the discussion is over; your'e deluded. If you agree that there was negligence involved then you're admitting that there are cases where the skiier causign the accident can have liability. You cant't have it both ways.

Rest assured, I'm not relying on responses to this post for legal advice. I'm just trying to get a sense of what "the community" knows about the topic.
Reply
post #39 of 158
1/26/09 at 4:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
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.
Hey, if the guy is embarassed when walking through the lodge because he pratcially killed my father...so what? Cry me a river. I could really care less. If one skiier reads in the paper that the guy practically killed a septegenerian skiier because he skiied irresponsibly and thinks twice before doing the same it'll be for the better. You're free to question my motives but I feel fine knowing that my heart is in the right place.
Reply
post #40 of 158
1/26/09 at 4:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevescho View Post
Yes - I think he came to his senses - either by himself; or after talking to 25 lawyers he told him there is nothing to be gained. In the remote possibility that some Bruiser or Deck ambulance chaser took the case on a lark, I am certain they would have told him to not discuss the case (of which there is none) - don't post anything on the internet - don't even look at the internet. Could you imagine what a lawyer would say if the first thing that leapt from a plaintiff's mouth was:

"hey....I asked on this skiing website and they said my dad could sue!!!, I want a pound of flesh...I want to make an example out of someone"
I don't think you realize what an idiot you sound like when you make comments like that. If your takeaway from my original post was glee about potentially being able to sue someone you're not good at reading people. I was/am upset about what happened to my father and wanted to learn a bit more about what others knew about similar situations. That's it. There's nothing in it for me beyond making sure my dad is ok and trying to help prevent this from happening to someone else.

Hey, at the least maybe the people reading this thread will think twice before skiing like idiots.
Reply
post #41 of 158
1/26/09 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonfl View Post
...he pratcially killed my father...

Is it wrong that I laughed at this?

By the way...is this all you going after this? What does your father think? Not once have you said you're acting on behalf of him. If he doesn't care to persue this than why are you so gung-ho about it? Just curious.

And since you're the one who sounds like a total idiot, I think i'll go out tomorrow to A-Basin and ski my ass off just in spite. Besides...skiing like an idiot is the only way to ski. I guess you ski like a pansy?

I sincerely hope your father is well and has many more years of skiing left.
Reply
post #42 of 158
1/26/09 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonfl View Post
Hey, if the guy is embarassed when walking through the lodge because he pratcially killed my father...so what?...
You said nothing earlier that suggests that your father was anywhere near killed. In my opinion you seem to exaggerate. Hmmm...
Reply
post #43 of 158
1/26/09 at 8:02pm
Masonfl---hope your dad is feeling better and is dreaming about another lesson.


Skied two years ago with a 90yo man who two years earlier tore his Achillies Tendon....yep a long recovery but he was out there.


In one of the posts....someone mentioned that Medicare may or would not pursue the party. Yes they will.....if the right person gets the file. I know cases that have been double paid by the insurance company.....they settled in full with the injured party, then medicare came by and said their rights were not protected...pay again. Trust me...that does not happen any more with our company. We either get a release from medicare or put it fully on the plaintiff attny.


Next---best advice and some REALLY REALLY bad advice from Stevescho who said to not call your insurance company if you hit someone.

Good advice----either immediately call your own insurance company if you were involved in hitting someone. Or, try to get to the insurance company of the person who hit you. Regardless of the hype or crap you read about insurance companies....they are in business to take care of their cusotmers needs. One of those needs is to make problems like this go away without you loosing sleep or work days going to court.

BAD advice----If you dont want your insurance company to pay your likely SIGNIFICANT defense costs or indemnify the person who just received a judgment against your butt, go ahead and dont tell them IMMEDIATELY that you just plowed into someone. Go ahead. When your company reserves it rights to deny your defense and indemnity---tell them to shove the WRITTEN CONDITIONS OF IMMEDIATE NOTICE up their fanny....and respond.."I got my advice from Stevescho on Epic to ignore anything but service" Have fun sleeping after that.....and get out your wallet.
Reply
post #44 of 158
1/27/09 at 7:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevescho View Post
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.
You are wrong.
Sorry, but you are, and the case law says so...
Of course, not all cases are won, but enough are that it is foolish to speak in absolutes.
In the end, it all comes down to facts, which we do not have.
I do not practice PI law, (so please don't contact me with questions), but I am a lawyer and I remember enough from torts class to say that you are mistaken.

I linked the colorado site because I had it handy and found it interesting, and I note that although the lawyer is from Colorado, the cases are in fact from all across the US.
List of collision cases:
http://www.skisafety.com/collision%20cases.php

Having said all of that, the prospect of litigation causing ski areas to close or limit access is a large concern for me.

The OP knows the facts and will do what is right.
Reply
post #45 of 158
1/27/09 at 11:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGnar View Post
Is it wrong that I laughed at this?

By the way...is this all you going after this? What does your father think? Not once have you said you're acting on behalf of him. If he doesn't care to persue this than why are you so gung-ho about it? Just curious.

And since you're the one who sounds like a total idiot, I think i'll go out tomorrow to A-Basin and ski my ass off just in spite. Besides...skiing like an idiot is the only way to ski. I guess you ski like a pansy?

I sincerely hope your father is well and has many more years of skiing left.
Since your mentality seems to be that of a teenager, I'll stoop a bit to try to connect with you. I'd be happy to ski my ass off any day and we'll see who the real pansy is. I'm confident that even at my age I could probably give you a run for you money if not dust you entirely.

But to answer your first question, if you see anything funny about a 79 year old man getting slammed by a (probably ) irresponsible skiier then you're the definition of an idiot.

With that said, back to being an adult. I'm just trying to get different perspectives on this issue. Yours is certainly one perspective. "Thanks."
Reply
post #46 of 158
1/27/09 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonfl View Post
Since your mentality seems to be that of a teenager, I'll stoop a bit to try to connect with you. I'd be happy to ski my ass off any day and we'll see who the real pansy is. I'm confident that even at my age I could probably give you a run for you money if not dust you entirely.

But to answer your first question, if you see anything funny about a 79 year old man getting slammed by a (probably ) irresponsible skiier then you're the definition of an idiot.

With that said, back to being an adult. I'm just trying to get different perspectives on this issue. Yours is certainly one perspective. "Thanks."

Wow, dude. I'm sure i'm not the only one that laughed when you said your father was "prctically killed". When someone breaks an arm and you go off and say he practically got killed, i'm sorry, that's funny. Do I think the physical act of slamming into an 80 year old funny? NO. Do I think it's funny when someone over exaggerates their fathers injury to make it sound worse than it was....hilarious.

You wanna have a ski-off? That's damn funny right there. Sorry, bro, I don't do ski offs. Don't need to. I guess you win by default.

By your defensiveness, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say your father doesn't want this persued and I struck quite a sour note with my previous post.

Thanks for stooping to my level though. I wouldn't have understood otherwise. FYI, i'm trying to hold onto my teenager mentality for as long as possible. Surely it beats going through life a bitter and vengeful person.

I can't believe i'm saying this but maybe you should just let the whole ordeal go away. It sounded like a sincere accident so maybe you should do the Christian thing and forgive the guy. Not try to "make it hurt" or try to "make an example" of him. Sounds like you need to get off you high horse and look at it from all of our perspectives.
Reply
post #47 of 158
1/27/09 at 12:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGnar View Post
Wow, dude. I'm sure i'm not the only one that laughed when you said your father was "prctically killed". When someone breaks an arm and you go off and say he practically got killed, i'm sorry, that's funny. Do I think the physical act of slamming into an 80 year old funny? NO. Do I think it's funny when someone over exaggerates their fathers injury to make it sound worse than it was....hilarious.


By your defensiveness, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say your father doesn't want this persued and I struck quite a sour note with my previous post.

Thanks for stooping to my level though. I wouldn't have understood otherwise. FYI, i'm trying to hold onto my teenager mentality for as long as possible. Surely it beats going through life a bitter and vengeful person.

I can't believe i'm saying this but maybe you should just let the whole ordeal go away. It sounded like a sincere accident so maybe you should do the Christian thing and forgive the guy. Not try to "make it hurt" or try to "make an example" of him. Sounds like you need to get off you high horse and look at it from all of our perspectives.
I don't have time to re-read all of my posts on this but I don't recall saying he was "practically killed" but if I did it was a mistake. My intention was to say he could have easily been killed. At the speed the other skiier was traveling it wouldn't have taken much more bad luck to have a serious neck injury. As it is, my dad's going under general anesthesia today to have a plate placed in his arm. General anaesthesia for someone that old is not what I'd call entirely safe.

In terms of letting the whole thing go...who knows. Maybe we/he will. It's not ultimately my decision. I'm not Christian so doing "the Christian thing" isnt' really relevant to me. Providing an incentive for skiiers to ski responsibly is my primary motivation...balanced with a desire to make sure that my parents (who live on a fixed income) don't suffer economically from this in addition to the physical suffering.

'Nuf said on this.
Reply
post #48 of 158
1/27/09 at 1:03pm
masonfl, the behavior you described in your first post reflects gross negligence and disregard for personal safety or the safety of others by the skier who hit your dad. I would want that skier removed from the slopes permanently, and think he should be fully accountable (financially and civilly) for his actions and damages. Making that happen is a matter of law and while i believe its actionable against the negligent individual, I don't think it could or should be able to enjoin third parties such as the ski resort or ski patrol. I have no idea if there are enough witnesses or evidence to pursue this to a trial or settlement, and really don't care. We are entitled not to have this kind of dangerous human missile imposed on us whether we are skiing in a class or just enjoying a recreational run.

On this website, we have witnessed or heard of fatalities and serious injuries from similar negligent acts. These have occurred in limited liability states, where the individual that cause a collision out of wanton negligence found no protection in the law, but unfortunately was protected by his minor age status.

This thread amazes me that so many have apparently sympathized with the skier who hit your dad while in a ski school class. Here are links to some threads that show how outrageous the negligence of some other skiers can be, and the kind of response and sympathy in favor of the VICTIM, I am accustomed to hearing from this forum. BTW, hope your dad feels better and is skiing soon.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=25078
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=34509
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=41972
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=32243

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?p=1008135
Reply
post #49 of 158
1/27/09 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
masonfl, the behavior you described in your first post reflects gross negligence and disregard for personal safety or the safety of others by the skier who hit your dad. I would want that skier removed from the slopes permanently, and think he should be fully accountable (financially and civilly) for his actions and damages. Making that happen is a matter of law and while i believe its actionable against the negligent individual, I don't think it could or should be able to enjoin third parties such as the ski resort or ski patrol. I have no idea if there are enough witnesses or evidence to pursue this to a trial or settlement, and really don't care. We are entitled not to have this kind of dangerous human missile imposed on us whether we are skiing in a class or just enjoying a recreational run.

On this website, we have witnessed or heard of fatalities and serious injuries from similar negligent acts. These have occurred in limited liability states, where the individual that cause a collision out of wanton negligence found no protection in the law, but unfortunately was protected by his minor age status.

This thread amazes me that so many have apparently sympathized with the skier who hit your dad while in a ski school class. Here are links to some threads that show how outrageous the negligence of some other skiers can be, and the kind of response and sympathy in favor of the VICTIM, I am accustomed to hearing from this forum. BTW, hope your dad feels better and is skiing soon.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=25078
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=34509
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=41972
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=32243

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?p=1008135
Thank you. I'm also a bit surprised by the number of people who seem to think this is just part of skiing.
Reply
post #50 of 158
1/27/09 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
masonfl, the behavior you described in your first post reflects gross negligence and disregard for personal safety or the safety of others by the skier who hit your dad.
Let me help a brother out here: the o.p. has said nothing quantifying any aspect of the behavior of the skier who he ALLEGES hit his dad. We don't know if two skiers zigged when they thought the other was zagging; what their respective speeds were; what the experience of the other skier was; we know, basically, NOTHING. The o.p. after initially describing some broken bones (still a serious injury) then says later that his dad was practically killed by the other skier (in contradiction to what he said earlier); then later yet says he can't recall having said that his dad was practically killed.

Giving the o.p. every benefit of the doubt, I still have to ask what else he can't quite recall in describing this incident. For all we know his dad turned suddenly uphill and collided with a complete beginner, and under the code is actually at fault for the whole incident. Maybe not, but if someone contradicts themselves and then can't remember even the contradiction...you have to wonder.

People who ski or ride know that beginner slopes intrinsically have their share of erratic skiing. Like the song says, I ain't a lawyer but I know a little bit, and that erratic skiing is certainly an inherent risk assumed when someone enters a beginner slope. While subjective awareness of risk may not be necessary legally, I do also note that my kids already know to avoid beginner slopes as well as very crowded "mousetrap" type choke-points where possible because of the risk of collision they present; and my kids are under 10. It is reasonable to assume that adults with decades of skiing experience also recognize the things that children do.

Not on my wave bro, not on my wave.
Reply
post #51 of 158
1/27/09 at 6:08pm
If the skier was so egregeous as to hit a man taking a class as hard as was described, its still hard for me to find any fault with the downhill skier. Getting witness accounts and corroborating testimony would be expected if this were indeed to be pursued. Doesn't matter to me whether we're on the same wave bro, or even how erratic any beginner is on a green run. In my book, the old guy taking the ski school class gets my benefit of the doubt. Still there is a ton of information I don't know about this case, and admittedly wasn't even picturing a beginner slope. My guess was an intermediate slope, with an over-terrained bomber (assumptions being as they are, we're both making them).
Reply
post #52 of 158
1/27/09 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
...Still there is a ton of information I don't know about this case, and admittedly wasn't even picturing a beginner slope. My guess was an intermediate slope, with an over-terrained bomber (assumptions being as they are, we're both making them).
With a ton of information you don't know, you're all fired up to remove the other skier from the slopes permanently and hold him financially and civilly liable? Excellent!
Reply
post #53 of 158
1/27/09 at 8:17pm
Mason

Here's the Washington State law:
R.C.W.79A.45 030(1)- “In addition to the specific requirements of this section, all skiers shall conduct themselves within the limits of their individual ability and shall not act in a manner that may contribute to the injury of themselves or any other person."

If you wish to pursue the matter, you or your lawyer needs to check the law in the state where the injury occurred. Gather the facts, cool the emotion, and decide if it will be worth proceeding.

79 year old bones break more easily and heal more slowly than younger bones. Mainly hope that your dad heals and gets back on the hill next year.
Reply
post #54 of 158
1/28/09 at 5:22am
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=65919

Since the hang-em high mentality seems to have surfaced in the current thread and may be ammo for lawyers who may be trolling this site, maybe even in this thread, I thought the link to this older thread might be helpful. Collisions do happen. Facts are generally quite foggy. If you know a person involved in the collision you tend to view things as being very understandable; if you view them as an abstraction, such as "some snowboarder," "some as[h]hole," it's much easier to demand they be put in stocks at the base of K-town or some such.

Everybody I know who goes out regularly has been hit at one point or the other. Most have hit other people at one point or the other. You have lots of people sliding around on a slippery surface. Create an easy path to liability after collisions and we can look forward to scams like people intentionally creating collisions and suffering "whiplash," which should make crowded areas in the NE in particular all the more fun. Kind of like driving in Brooklyn. What a plan!
Reply
post #55 of 158
1/28/09 at 6:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonfl View Post
Thank you. I'm also a bit surprised by the number of people who seem to think this is just part of skiing.
Not sure if it is a "just part of skiing mentality". Do I think some punk bombing a green run and using beginners as a human slalom is reckless? Yes. But I don't know anything really about your case, so it is hard to convict the guy who hit your dad. If I was skiing a harder run, came up on your dad, caught an edge lost control and fell, slid into him and hurt him, I would immediately apologize, make sure he is ok, contact patrol if needed, and maybe buy him a beer at the end of the day to try to make things up to him. I would expect some form of written warning from patrol, and for my insurance to pay what ever his insurance doesn't. I would hope that the victim would not try to make an example of me. Guess that is why some of us are not hoping on the bandwagon.
Reply
post #56 of 158
1/28/09 at 8:23am
I see a lot of parallels between this thread and the one in Fitness and Injury started by the sheep shearer with a knee issue.

Both of the OP's have been given very, very good advice,(essentially go see the appropriate professional) but insist on "pshawing" it all and continue to look for folks that support their individual preconcieved idea of "THE PROPER RESPONSE' whatever that is.

as is usually the case when that happens, chaos ensues

Just my inflation deflated $.02

carryon
Reply
post #57 of 158
1/28/09 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
Not sure if it is a "just part of skiing mentality". Do I think some punk bombing a green run and using beginners as a human slalom is reckless? Yes. But I don't know anything really about your case, so it is hard to convict the guy who hit your dad. If I was skiing a harder run, came up on your dad, caught an edge lost control and fell, slid into him and hurt him, I would immediately apologize, make sure he is ok, contact patrol if needed, and maybe buy him a beer at the end of the day to try to make things up to him. I would expect some form of written warning from patrol, and for my insurance to pay what ever his insurance doesn't. I would hope that the victim would not try to make an example of me. Guess that is why some of us are not hoping on the bandwagon.
Your insurance company - outside of Colorado - won't pay him a dime in that type of situation because he assumed the risk of your negligence (you failed to maintain control and fell down, that's part of skiing, duh). They will defend you against a served suit only, and after all of the information is properly collected (i.e., by Court-reporter-recorded deposed response to interrogatories; ad nauseum) they won't settle based on looking at some ski report, and will advise you against sending money directly, and you should listen to a professional (and you can't tell who that is on this chatroom). To settle such baseless suits would serve only to spawn a plethora of similar actions, increasing the cost of insurance and, contrary to law, chilling vigorous activity in the sport. One more thing, vengeance by relatives is not a valid cause of action; relatives don't get to "collect" in this manner.

And by the way, your opinion about what isn't and is a part of skiing isn't relevant; those are legal questions decided by judges and case law, not other people or juries.
Reply
post #58 of 158
1/28/09 at 3:01pm
Just my opinion. Not a lawyer. Never hit anyone, or been hit by anyone, so I really wouldn't know what to expect. Just saying, if I did hit someone, it would be an accident, and I'd want them to cut me some slack. Like to do the same if they hit me, the wife or kids.
Reply
post #59 of 158
1/28/09 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
...Just saying, if I did hit someone, it would be an accident, and I'd want them to cut me some slack. Like to do the same if they hit me, the wife or kids.
Well said.

Interestingly I've never met a serious skier or rider in real life who didn't feel pretty much the same.
Reply
post #60 of 158
1/28/09 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
Well said.

Interestingly I've never met a serious skier or rider in real life who didn't feel pretty much the same.
I have witnessed it, as have many patrollers at accident scenes - who, interestingly haven't posted anything about this, yet; just what an injured party on a stretcher being worked on with an array of broken bones, contusions, concussion, and/or open wounds needs - a bunch of relatives of the other poor person screaming about who's "at fault" and getting you in Court and so forth.

I realize, especially from this thread, that this results in part from the devastating nature of ski injuries associated with even normal speeds and inertia of the bodies and equipment (even moderate speeds of 25-30 mph, of unpadded human bodies produces alot of damage, especially if both are moving); and in part from not understanding the law, but it is uncalled for.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Patrol Shack
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Patrol Shack › Question about Liability for Collision