Cute 7-year old sued by grumpy old skier

[bvibert]

For the record I haven't even read any of the articles on this...

[snoseek]

Only at Vail.......

[hiroto]

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/200...NEWS/541382740

“It wasn’t a violent collision or anything, Scott just kind of tapped his ski boots,” said Robb Swimm,

Scott was skiing ahead of his father on the catwalk Golden Bear when he tried to pass Pfahler on the right, Robb Swimm said.

Pfahler was skiing ahead of Scott and turned into him. Scott, the uphill skier, did not have time to react, Robb Swimm said.

I don't understand why they can claim innocence while admitting to those facts.

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Originally Posted by bvibert

My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather at the thread title...

Sorry if the sarcasm didn't come through.

The title was meant to poke fun at all the "outraged" people harassing the injured skier when they (and we) don't know the whole story....

[uphillklimber]

Originally Posted by hiroto

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/200...NEWS/541382740


Scott was skiing ahead of his father on the catwalk Golden Bear when he tried to pass Pfahler on the right, Robb Swimm said.

Pfahler was skiing ahead of Scott and turned into him. Scott, the uphill skier, did not have time to react, Robb Swimm said.



I don't understand why they can claim innocence while admitting to those facts.

You know, being the downhill skiier does not give you Carte Blanche on the slopes. For example, the coed states that when starting, look over your shoulder first. Also, it kinda goes without saying that when you turn right, you look right first...... How many times have we seen folks in front of us, skiing predominately on one side or the other, and then suddenly just make a hard turn without looking and head all the way across the trail? Cutting folks off in the process? But they were the downhill skiier so that makes it okay??????

[MichaelJ]

This is all conjecture based on hearsay, but I noticed a few interesting things sprinkled throughout the articles:

The Post article begins with the kid making the statement that they were only his spread arms' length away from each other. Does he mean that's how close when he went to pass the guy? That's way too close for an unannounced pass.

The mother says that "her 48-pound son could not have been skiing more than 10 mph on the gentle slope" but I've seen kids *fly* on mellow terrain. Regardless, 48 lbs x 10 mph is still a fairly decent impact, even if only "tapping boots".

I don't think there's anything wrong with a skier injured by another skier wanted *rational* compensation for their injuries.

He was down with a busted clavicle and torn rotator cuff, and the kid tried to ski off.

The claim is that he grabbed the kid by the ankles and threatened to sue right there on the ski slope. That's lame.

The comments about the law firm are the most interesting, though. They're taking what should have been something serious and believable and turning it into an outrage. By going to the extreme with this lawsuit (and apparently others) it's hard to take any of it seriously anymore.

That's my $0.02. This could have been handled nicely but isn't being, and it's sad what it's turned into.

(btw, the reader who commented that a 60-year-old was to frail to be skiing should be confined to a wheelchair at age 60 "for their own good" for the rest of their life)

[hiroto]

Originally Posted by uphillklimber

You know, being the downhill skiier does not give you Carte Blanche on the slopes. For example, the coed states that when starting, look over your shoulder first. Also, it kinda goes without saying that when you turn right, you look right first...... How many times have we seen folks in front of us, skiing predominately on one side or the other, and then suddenly just make a hard turn without looking and head all the way across the trail? Cutting folks off in the process? But they were the downhill skiier so that makes it okay??????

If I may quote a code, I think most of them say something like, "People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them". It is simplistic rule and most (all?) code does not spell out how to behave as downhill skiier to be more compatible on the slope , but it does reflect the fact the uphill skiier has siginificant control over the relationship between him and the skiier ahead of him.

The guy may have made sudden move making it harder to avoid, but that would never reduce the responsibility of the boy down to 0.

[wa-loaf]

Originally Posted by tree_skier

Chalat said that after the crash, Pfahler asked the Swimm family to help pay his $35,000 of medical bills but never heard back. The lawsuit seeks compensation for physical therapy, vacation time, nursing and medical services provided by Pfahler's wife, and other expenses.


Ok so he doesn't have insurance to help pay the $35,000? and what were the injuries that resulted in $35,000 in bills and how much did his wife charge him for "nursing and medical services"? Sounds a little like he is trying for a money grab.

I don't know what his insurance situation is, but if his wife had to take time off to take care of him that's a fair expense. Maybe his medical bills were much higher and his insurance only cover 50 - 80% or something?

[hiroto]

Originally Posted by MichaelJ

The comments about the law firm are the most interesting, though. They're taking what should have been something serious and believable and turning it into an outrage. By going to the extreme with this lawsuit (and apparently others) it's hard to take any of it seriously anymore.

Couldn't agree more. If the boy's family had some rationality and not go to the extreme of "our boy is 100% innocent" and approached the guy with reasonable compensation, they wouldn't have put themselves into this mess. The guy and the lawyer may be making this into something rediculous but the boy's family asked for it.

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Originally Posted by hiroto

Couldn't agree more. If the boy's family had some rationality and not go to the extreme of "our boy is 100% innocent" and approached the guy with reasonable compensation, they wouldn't have put themselves into this mess. The guy and the lawyer may be making this into something rediculous but the boy's family asked for it.

Also, I wonder if the family's insurance wouldn't have pitched in. I guess it depends on the type of coverage, but it seems like something one would be insured for.