Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[mondeo]

As I say, I keep hearing about these mythical runaway juries, just as I've heard of unicorns. But in all my years hanging around the justice system, I've never actually seen one in person.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=76879

[Glenn]

This thread DELIVERS!

I think we do need tort reform. If all lawsuites were 100% with merit we wouldn't need it. If someone sues McDonald's for coffee being too hot, we need tort reform. I'm sure Mark E Salamon and John Haymond can get a second job to make up for the abulance chasing they'll no longer be doing.

I think there needs to be some type of disincentive added to the equation.

[skidmarks]

Hope the hell Stratton and Faxon aren't on it!


http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/20...neck5.2010.pdf

[severine]

Hope the hell Stratton and Faxon aren't on it!


http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/20...neck5.2010.pdf

Just love this quote in their own publication:

Stratton said that during the trial he had
to overcome comments Blonski had made
on her public access mountain biking show
regarding the accident.

Or in other words, she already implicated herself and kind of messed up the case.

And, of course:

Stratton said Blonski was a “great client”
and told him that establishing the MDC’s
liability was more important to her than
the money.

“I just don’t want them to tell me it was
all my fault,” Stratton said his client told
him. “I’d take zero right now for someone
to publicly announce it wasn’t all my
fault.”

But that $2.9million will sure help overcome any bad feelings about that...

[speden]

I think one of the main drivers of these type of lawsuits is the quirky, employer based, for profit health insurance we have. If everyone had something like medicare, then people wouldn't be wiped out financially by a stupid accident like this, and they'd be a lot less likely to sue.

Another big contributor is the jury based award system. Juries don't know the appropriate amount of money to award in these cases, since they are being asked to be experts on something they have never done before in their lives. It's not that hard to play on people's sympathies and get a fairly big award, since the juries can rationalize that this is the only way the person with the horrible injury can get the money they need, even if they don't think the party being sued is really that culpable. Juries should be allowed to get an unbiased recommendation from a professional court employed claims adjuster when making an award.

[mondeo]

I think one of the main drivers of these type of lawsuits is the quirky, employer based, for profit health insurance we have. If everyone had something like medicare, then people wouldn't be wiped out financially by a stupid accident like this, and they'd be a lot less likely to sue.

So legitamately at fault parties won't be responsible at all, and costs will fall to the taxpayers! Hooray!

Again, the problem with lawsuits aren't the ones looking to recoup costs. It's the egregious pain and suffering verdicts. The Blonski case is a perfect example, where pain & suffering constituted over 18x the economic damages. She wanted to sue for $150K to recover medical costs and lost wages? Eh, she's still wrong, but whatever. But $2.75 million, just because? I thought she just wanted to be recognized for not being at fault, what's the pain and suffering for?

[bvibert]

As I say, I keep hearing about these mythical runaway juries, just as I've heard of unicorns. But in all my years hanging around the justice system, I've never actually seen one in person.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=76879

Thank you Mondeo! Anyone who can look at that case and tell me that the system is not completely effed up is a damn fool.

[bvibert]

So legitamately at fault parties won't be responsible at all, and costs will fall to the taxpayers! Hooray!

Again, the problem with lawsuits aren't the ones looking to recoup costs. It's the egregious pain and suffering verdicts. The Blonski case is a perfect example, where pain & suffering constituted over 18x the economic damages. She wanted to sue for $150K to recover medical costs and lost wages? Eh, she's still wrong, but whatever. But $2.75 million, just because? I thought she just wanted to be recognized for not being at fault, what's the pain and suffering for?

Even suing to recover legitimate costs when you're the party at fault is screwed up.

[speden]

So legitamately at fault parties won't be responsible at all, and costs will fall to the taxpayers! Hooray!

Well the taxpayers end up paying one way or another anyway. Pick your poison, high insurance rates, coverage limits, co-pays, bankrupt ski areas, sky high lawyer fees, crazy jury awards, bans on out of bounds skiing, etc.

I already pay a lot in medicare taxes, but get no direct benefits unless I'm lucky enough to live to old age. Would make more sense to give everyone benefits and eliminate all the crap that comes with for profit insurance. Why not just acknowledge that freak accidents happen and have a medical system in place that can deal with it without all the overhead of greedy insurance companies, expensive trials, etc.

Legitimate at fault parties can still be sued, you'd just decrease the need to sue not at fault "deep pocket" defendants if our medical coverage in the U.S. wasn't so spotty.

[drjeff]

Even suing to recover legitimate costs when you're the party at fault is screwed up.

Welcome to modern day America where for many, even the notion of personal responsibility/accountability, is an unknown concept