Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[bvibert]

I know it to be true. If you get hurt, you will be limited to 250k in pain and suffering. Otherwise, you will only be able to recover for lost earnings....So, basically, tort reform only protects the rich. Since Joe Schmo, who earns minimum wage, will only be entitled to recoup that minimum wage. But, "the man" that makes big bucks in salary, is protected because he'll be able to get his lost earnings. So, yes, I will most definitely keep telling myself this.

And why should someone be able to sue for more than lost wages (assuming medical bills are covered)?

I don't recall supporting any caps anyway. The only aspect of tort reform that I recall supporting is making people pay the court costs if they lose a suit that they bring on someone.

Like I said, keep telling yourself that. I'm not buying it, especially from someone who's livelihood depends on the system as it is now. I'm sure you believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it reality.

[bvibert]

Tort reform I don't think will stop "frivolous" lawsuits as much as "looser pays" (either damages and/or legal costs) would

Isn't that a form of 'tort reform'?

[jaywbigred]

It's a waste of money is what it is. The only ones who really benefit are the lawyers.

Lawyers do not just
1. Show up
2. Profit

First, the plaintiffs lawyers aren't likely to benefit at all unless a recovery is made. They are taking an enormous risk in preparing for a full-blown trial for which they may never be paid. Depending on what stats you read, only 2-10% of all lawsuits filed in the U.S. make it to trial, so to actually carry out a trial is rare and expensive. With this case going to trial, and having survived CT's frivolous litigation statutes, and having, presumably, survived defendant motions for Summary Judgement or Motions to Dismiss, one would have to assume that the kid's lawyers really do believe they have a color-able claim, and that the court, to a certain degree, agrees.

On the flip side, insurance companies do not generally want to go to court. If it is in-house lawyers going, they do not benefit at all, and they don't make any extra money. I am sure they would rather stay in their office and go about their normal routine, which I think would generally NOT include trial preparation and the agony and stress involved with same. If they are not in-house lawyers, and are instead a firm hired by the insurance company, then yes, they benefit. But that being said, the type of lawyers who wind up specializing in Tort Defense are NOT the scummy kind out to make a quick buck. There is generally not big money on the defense side of cases like these, especially if you wind up in a full blown trial.

can't remember where i heard/read this but recall a similar discussion and the proposed solution (practiced in europe??) was that when a plaintiff loses a civil case he is responsible for the court costs (state's and defendant's) so it is no longer "free" to sue.

That is true, in England, I believe. But such a system here has been derided as patently unfair given our socio-economic make-up, because it effectively restricts access to justice for all but the very rich. In other words, the penalties of losing a case are so high that they result in what some argue would be a drastic chilling effect on the bringing of many, many valid suits, which, in the long run, hurts society a lot more than it helps. It might work in a smaller country with more homogeneity and different patterns in the distribution of wealth, but many posit that in the U.S., it would amount to a complete denial of access to the justice process for large swaths of our population based on socio-economic status, and, by extension, race.


If this case is as cut and dry as it is reported in this newspaper (and you have to remind yourself where you are getting your information from), then it seems obvious what the jury will do. But juries get to hear both sides of the story with a degree of detail that newspapers don't even come close to scratching. They get to hear both sides of the story, not just those what the beat writer thinks sound juicy.

Further, if some ridiculous award were to come back from the jury, you have to question who makes up that jury and what they were thinking. We live in a society where the prevalent attitude towards jury duty is "how can I get out of it" such that juries that do wind up sitting are often not true "juries of our peers." If rational, educated people weren't so good at skipping out on jury duty, then we might have more rational, educated jury awards. If the jury awards became more realistic and shrunk, you'd see lawyers taking less cases and insurance rates going down. Reform juries, and everything else falls into line, imo.

Lastly, our justice system has many, many flaws, but I still am of the belief that it is among the best and most sophisticated justice systems in the world. Our tort law is what it is, many people hate it, but it has forced us, over the years, to conduct business in a certain way that probably has provided us with a leg up on some of our competitors. We are global leaders in tourism because people know our amusement parks and resorts and national parks and malls and stadiums and theaters and restaurants are safe; we are a global leader in many product areas in part because consumers know our tort laws and product liability laws protect them and govern the products we produce.

In a Utopian society there would be no justice system because there would be no injustice or even perceived injustice. But we live in reality, and in that reality we need a justice system. I am glad ours is what it is, because I believe it aids, not hinders, the American way of life, which I believe in. We all pine for some golden age where everyone took responsibility for their actions and law suits were less prevalent. I would argue that such an age never existed. During such times, people solved their disputes outside of court, more frequently, often using violent means. That, or they suffered in silence even when they were certainly not at fault. In other words, during this perceived golden age, we were a much less evolved society and country. The evolution of our justice system is a result of our evolution and growth as a country and as a world leader.

Anyway, I am ranting now, this is nothing personal to anyone here. I just believe in our justice system and believe that if everything is as it appears in these newspaper articles, justice will be served.

[marcski]

And why should someone be able to sue for more than lost wages (assuming medical bills are covered)?

Because they got hurt and suffered as the result of someone else's fault. The law cannot make that person whole again...but it can force the wrongdoer ("like evildoer") to pay damages for pain and suffering. What if that person was a student, never worked a day in his life? Then how would you compensate him/her ?

You think an injured person should be limited to just recovering his lost wages and that's it? He shouldn't be compensated in any other way?? What about having to endure medical treatment, surgeries or whatever else might have happened to that person. What if that person was left in a wheelchair....or worse was a vegetable? What about his future medical bills?

I like hearing other people's arguments. It's cool to disagree. The one who listens and surrounds himself with only like thinkers is a fool.

[Anklebiter]

When I was 16, I suffered a compression facture of the T12 vertebrae. I was skiing down to the lodge (Devon Hill) for a bathroom break and saw a jump. Without scouting out the jump and landing first, I hit it pretty fast. The end result was I hit a patch of ice. I slide over dropoff and hit several trees on the way down. It's was all my own fault, nobody else was to blame for my stupidity. Luckly, I was only out of commission for 6 weeks.

I feel bad for this young man and the injuries that he incurred, but this was by his own doing.

[CollegeKid]

Ultimately, I think this is a frivolous lawsuit and this and those like it only have a detrimental impact on the resort industry. While I feel bad for the injured and his family, it is not the responsibility of the ski resort. It is important to separate between legal liability and paying out just because the jury feels the family should be able to recoup money. It hurts the resort industry to be faced with lawsuits like this due to the adverse financial impact they feel. Keep in mind, if Sundown has to payout in this lawsuit, they will very likely face a negative impact financially and could possibly lay employees off and other cost cutting. It would certainly negatively affect many people at the mountain if Sundown would have to pay out.

[HowieT2]

It is really a little frightening the amount of disinformation/propaganda put out by the tort deformers and that so many believe what they hear.
Loser pays-the only ones who could afford a lawsuit would be big business and the ultra rich. 99% of the population of this country would be shut out of court. GE pollutes your drinking water making your family sick and destroying the value of your home-tough shit. fedex truck ran over little johnny-so sorry.

Frivilous lawsuits- first of all, there are laws against frivilous lawsuits. They are forbidden and the lawyer and the client can be ordered to pay the other sides costs and sanctions. Why would a plaintiffs lawyer bring a case in which he must expend his own money and work on for years, if it has no merit? There are orders of magnitude more frivolous defenses than there are Frivilous claims. The whole issue is a myth made up by the media supported by a few anecdotes.

Insurance companies are investment vehicles. They collect premiums to invest them and reap the profits of their investments. Historically it is a very very profitable industry. Insurance rates go up to reflect inflation and when their investments arent performing well. The amount paid out in claims hasn't gone up significantly in 30 years. States that have caps on pain and suffering do not have lower insurance rates.

caps on pain and suffering- this is brilliant, 10 year old girl loses an arm, sorry nothing for you. grandma killed nada, Mom paralyzed-what good would money do for her anyway. ski bum will never ski again, too bad so sad. rich executive can't work-we have a winner

I dont think this particular lawsuit is a winner. In NY or VT I can't imagine it would have even made it to trial. But if there is a recovery, a good portion of any recovery will go to the health insurance company and/or medicare to pay back the astronomical medical expenses involved.

sorry for the rant

[bvibert]

Lawyers do not just
1. Show up
2. Profit

Never said they did, or implied it.

First, the plaintiffs lawyers aren't likely to benefit at all unless a recovery is made. They are taking an enormous risk in preparing for a full-blown trial for which they may never be paid. Depending on what stats you read, only 2-10% of all lawsuits filed in the U.S. make it to trial, so to actually carry out a trial is rare and expensive. With this case going to trial, and having survived CT's frivolous litigation statutes, and having, presumably, survived defendant motions for Summary Judgement or Motions to Dismiss, one would have to assume that the kid's lawyers really do believe they have a color-able claim, and that the court, to a certain degree, agrees.

On the flip side, insurance companies do not generally want to go to court. If it is in-house lawyers going, they do not benefit at all, and they don't make any extra money. I am sure they would rather stay in their office and go about their normal routine, which I think would generally NOT include trial preparation and the agony and stress involved with same. If they are not in-house lawyers, and are instead a firm hired by the insurance company, then yes, they benefit. But that being said, the type of lawyers who wind up specializing in Tort Defense are NOT the scummy kind out to make a quick buck. There is generally not big money on the defense side of cases like these, especially if you wind up in a full blown trial.

So, assuming the plaintiff loses (as any sensible person would assume), then who benefits from a frivolous lawsuit like this? In your analysis no one does. The plaintiff's lawyer isn't going to be looking to get paid for his time even if he loses?? I find that hard to believe...

I just believe in our justice system and believe that if everything is as it appears in these newspaper articles, justice will be served.

IMHO the only way that justice could possibly be served is if the defendants (and their legal council) are compensated for both their costs and lost time dealing with this. Assuming the plaintiff loses....

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just don't have nearly the confidence in our legal system as you do...

[bvibert]

The one who listens and surrounds himself with only like thinkers is a fool.

Exactly

ie; lawyers hanging around with each other tooting each others horns, all while knowing nothing about the Joe Schmoes who's interests they claim to protect.

[bvibert]

Frivilous lawsuits- first of all, there are laws against frivilous lawsuits. They are forbidden and the lawyer and the client can be ordered to pay the other sides costs and sanctions. Why would a plaintiffs lawyer bring a case in which he must expend his own money and work on for years, if it has no merit? There are orders of magnitude more frivolous defenses than there are Frivilous claims. The whole issue is a myth made up by the media supported by a few anecdotes.

I hate to break it to you, but the frivolous lawsuit detector is very very broken.