Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[HowieT2]

I am married to B. He is my husband. His family is my family. You assumed that if something happened to him or his family, he would run right to a lawyer.



Hence, you made assumptions about me and my family. Please don't pretend to know what others will do in a hypothetical circumstance; that's not predictable.

I apologize for asserting that your husband would consult a lawyer to determine what his rights are if confronted with such a situation. I didn't intend to offend you or him. I merely was stating my experience over the past 20 years of helping victims many of whom never thought they'd be in a position to need a lawyer to protect them.

 

[SkiDork]

I think you need to change your sig Dork. I'm assuming that was regarding Revis.

yeah, I have to get around to that.

 

[mondeo]

So far no one has proved to me otherwise, most lawyers in this thread agree that the plaintiff has no case, which only further proves my point.

I think most of the lawyers would say it would seem as if he has no case. Without knowing the details, it's hard to say for sure. I know they build good jumps now, but I wasn't skiing there when this accident occurred. I know they had difficulty with lighting a bit last year. With the right combination of flaky lighting, poor jump construction, lack of sinage, etc., you might be able to build a case. We don't know all the details.

Now, being an intermediate approaching a dimly lit jump you're not familiar with, you might reasonably just decide not to hit it, but, hey. This is the reason they don't allow straight inverts at Sundown - afraid some intermediate skier might think it looks easy and try to copy it, not because someone that knows what they're doing might get hurt.

 

[HowieT2]

Another aspect of this is that most of the people on this board who bring this case up have ridden at WH Rez, and know exactly what gate she ran into, and exactly how stupid you'd have to be to run into it. While the jury may have heard both sides of the story, what they heard from the plaintiff's side was that the gate was poorly marked. We who have ridden there know that it is very clearly marked, something that the jury most likely didn't have our knowledge of (and I'm guessing was taken care of in jury selection.)

If the jury was unaware how clearly marked the gate was, the defense attorneys didnt do a very good job, did they.

 

[bvibert]

I think most of the lawyers would say it would seem as if he has no case. Without knowing the details, it's hard to say for sure. I know they build good jumps now, but I wasn't skiing there when this accident occurred. I know they had difficulty with lighting a bit last year. With the right combination of flaky lighting, poor jump construction, lack of sinage, etc., you might be able to build a case. We don't know all the details.

True, we don't know all the details. I just have trouble envisioning how Sundown could possibly be at fault based on what we do already know (admitted lower level skier, purposely hit the jump, cut over three trails to get there, etc..).

 

[HowieT2]

Please don't pretend to know me or what I'll do. If some sort of misfortune happens to me that is my fault I most certainly will NOT be on a phone to a lawyer. And that's what we're talking about here; people using the legal system for personal gain when it's not due. You won't find anywhere that I say that the legal system has no value at all and doesn't work in some cases.

Maybe that is our basic area of disagreement. I haven't been talking about a situation where the victim is at fault. I am talking about a situation where we don't know who is at fault, because we don't know the facts or the law that is applicable. That is why we have a civil justice system to make such a determination. I am merely defending the existence of the system with all its imperfections.

 

[mondeo]

It's more P.R. than conspiracy. Any business tries to reduce costs and increase revenues. Insurance companies are no different- if they can get people to keep awards low, they net more, no? There’s nothing illegal about it, so it isn’t technically a ‘conspircy.’ It’s just what they do, and people who are aware of it won’t get manipulated.
E.g.- State Farm's internal manuals make clear that it uses employees and agents to influence politicians and media representatives. It places snippets of information, some truthful facts and quotes with the media, trying to influence what it wants to be read and heard. It uses lobbyists and politicians favorable towards it to influence other leaders. State Farm's business plan involves government action. It seeks regulations and laws favorable to it and which often support common interests with other insurers (Allstate and Nationwide) in the property and casualty business.

http://www.propertyinsurancecoverag...e/state-farms-power-play-and-propaganda-ploy/

Yeah, they do that. But at the same time, the American Bar Association is doing their own PR job, partially represented by that link you gave. Both perfectly reasonable things to do, neither side to be trusted entirely. Both sides have some basis in truth, and often don't even argue the same points. Both sides position the other as the bad guy. But if the PR campaign was as one sided as Howie was saying, then the tort reform would already be a done deal. I'm fully aware of the way the game works, my company's currently involved in a massive single contract with the government where the exact same type of stuff is going on.

I'm not trying to attack the lawyers, I'm trying to defend the insurance companies from the lawyers' attacks. I've even thrown in a defense of the lawyers here and there - to me, in this issue they're on opposing sides, both having their points. What's right, as often is in the case, is somewhere in the middle.

 

[mondeo]

If the jury was unaware how clearly marked the gate was, the defense attorneys didnt do a very good job, did they.

Yeah, on that side they might have OJ'd the case, as I mentioned before. But they did clearly get sued through a loophole that will hopefully be closed next year.

 

[bvibert]

Maybe that is our basic area of disagreement. I haven't been talking about a situation where the victim is at fault. I am talking about a situation where we don't know who is at fault, because we don't know the facts or the law that is applicable. That is why we have a civil justice system to make such a determination. I am merely defending the existence of the system with all its imperfections.

I'm talking about situations where it's clear to sensible people that the plaintiff is at fault. I'm not necessarily interested about what law may or may not determine if the plaintiff is indeed not at fault because I don't hold as much faith in the laws as you do.

That's the basis of my argument that most of you just aren't seeing. I don't have faith in the justice system to do the right thing in many cases. Arguing that a case is fair just because the legal system says it is doesn't work for me when it's the legal system itself that I'm calling into question. Apparently not an easy proposition to grasp for those who's livelihoods depend on the legal system...

There's fundamentally different ideals in play here, one is not necessarily more right or wrong than the other. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

 

[gmcunni]

(admitted lower level skier, purposely hit the jump, cut over three trails to get there, etc..).

i believe they had one of those soft orange fences up all last season to prevent (deter at least) people cutting over to the big jump from the other trails, probably on advice from council ;-)

 

[HowieT2]

Yeah, they do that. But at the same time, the American Bar Association is doing their own PR job, partially represented by that link you gave. Both perfectly reasonable things to do, neither side to be trusted entirely. Both sides have some basis in truth, and often don't even argue the same points. Both sides position the other as the bad guy. But if the PR campaign was as one sided as Howie was saying, then the tort reform would already be a done deal. I'm fully aware of the way the game works, my company's currently involved in a massive single contract with the government where the exact same type of stuff is going on.

I'm not trying to attack the lawyers, I'm trying to defend the insurance companies from the lawyers' attacks. I've even thrown in a defense of the lawyers here and there - to me, in this issue they're on opposing sides, both having their points. What's right, as often is in the case, is somewhere in the middle.

I purposefully didnt single out the insurance industry, because it is not them alone. It is big business in general through the US chamber of commerce and various "grass roots" entities they fund, and the republican party. All are pursuing their legitimate interests. The republican party because of it's ties to big business, because trial lawyers overwhelmingly support democrats, and it plays well to the masses to blame the lawyers. If you think lawyers have the anything compared to the means of these three, you are mistaken. and they don't need "tort deform" to win. As I stated earlier, total claims paid out have been steady for 20 years. no growth, even for inflation, not to mention health care inflation. They have already won.

 

[gmcunni]

I'm talking about situations where it's clear to sensible people that the plaintiff is at fault.

so how do "we" determine which cases have merit and deserve to go to trial?

 

[HowieT2]

I'm talking about situations where it's clear to sensible people that the plaintiff is at fault. I'm not necessarily interested about what law may or may not determine if the plaintiff is indeed not at fault because I don't hold as much faith in the laws as you do.

That's the basis of my argument that most of you just aren't seeing. I don't have faith in the justice system to do the right thing in many cases. Arguing that a case is fair just because the legal system says it is doesn't work for me when it's the legal system itself that I'm calling into question. Apparently not an easy proposition to grasp for those who's livelihoods depend on the legal system...

There's fundamentally different ideals in play here, one is not necessarily more right or wrong than the other. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Yes I disagree. I prefer a system governed by laws enacted by a democratically elected legislative body as opposed to Bvibert, the all knowing. and you are correct, there are many places like Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. where they have systems just the way you like it.

 

[campgottagopee]

Best thread ever---pissed off, mean mods, and cool headed lawyers going at it. I dig it, please keep up the good work, very entertaining.

 

[HowieT2]

Hmmmm....

I used to tihnk this way, but I have come to realize that the legal system and lawyers are really a reflection of society at large. Society and the way we go about things as a society are to blame, not the lawyers. They are just filling certain needs.

I'll use no fault auto insurance states as an example. If someone enters your home and destroys your property, they can be arrested and thrown into jail. Then they will be ordered to pay restitution as a part of their sentence. Not so with auto no fault insurance. Any moron can slam into your car and destroy it, but the consequences are nil. They won't be arrested unless they are drunk and even then they probably won't be arrested or thrown into jail. Your insurance company decides how much you will receive for your destroyed property, it is almost guaranteed this amount will be only a small fraction of what it will cost you to replace your car, and if you don't like it, tough.

If you aren't injured, you are really up a creek; if you are injured, you have to sue the other person to get restitution and that will take years.

Are the lawyers to blame? No. The system that says nobody is to blame is at fault and the system is more entrenched in society as time passes. Today, nobody takes responsibility for anything. That's the problem, not lawyers.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just want to correct some of how you describe the "no-fault" system.
First of all, "No-Fault" automobile insurance systems were promoted by the insurance industry back in the 1970's as that eras tort reform. They were vehemently opposed by the bar as the "end of the world." It is a basic bargain, in exchange for payment of medical expenses and lost earnings regardless of fault, there is no right to sue for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, unless those injuries are deemed "serious" as defined in the statute. The idea was to eliminate smaller cases from court and deal with them administratively.
"No-fault" only applies to medical expenses and lost earnings. It does not apply to property damage. If you have coverage under your policy, your property damages are paid for by your carrier. If you don't agree that they are paying the full amount you have lost, you can bring an action for breach of contract. Whatever, your carrier pays you, is then recouped from the other party's carrier depending on who is at fault. If you don't have collision coverage on your policy, you must seek compensation from the other party based on who is at fault.
The criminal analogy is not really appropriate. If you commit a crime such as intentionally or recklessly hitting someone/something with your vehicle, you can go to jail, just as you would for breaking into a house. Driving a car while intoxicated is another example. The law is based on the fact that we deem merely operating a vehicle under the influence as "reckless" conduct. But if you merely cause a car accident because you were negligent, in other words, you didn't intend to cause the accident, but merely acted carelessly and the accident resulted, then you haven't violated the law and are merely responsible for the damages you have caused.

and also, while a criminal may be ordered to pay restitution, you are not likely to actually get restitution, since criminals generally don't have assets (or at least not those you could find).

 

[mondeo]

I purposefully didnt single out the insurance industry, because it is not them alone. It is big business in general through the US chamber of commerce and various "grass roots" entities they fund, and the republican party. All are pursuing their legitimate interests. The republican party because of it's ties to big business, because trial lawyers overwhelmingly support democrats, and it plays well to the masses to blame the lawyers. If you think lawyers have the anything compared to the means of these three, you are mistaken. and they don't need "tort deform" to win. As I stated earlier, total claims paid out have been steady for 20 years. no growth, even for inflation, not to mention health care inflation. They have already won.

Blaming big business is the single most profitable thing the media can do. There is nothing that sells better. Toyota, ExxonMobil, BP, AIG, GM, Big Pharma, whatever. All of our problems are because of them. Democrats play this fear of big business hard, and it offsets any of their funding deficiencies.

I'm willing to respect the rules of the board and drop the politics if you are, but I'm not just going to let backhanded slaps at the party you love to hate slide.

 

[mondeo]

Best thread ever---pissed off, mean mods, and cool headed lawyers going at it. I dig it, please keep up the good work, very entertaining.

Only one mod, last I checked.

And I think the engineers have been pretty level headed.

 

[hammer]

Agreed, but thats not the way it works in the legal system. You can still sue even with the liability statement on the ticket. Whether or not you'll win is a different story. But the consequence is ski areas will simply eliminate the jumps so as to not have to potentially defend suits such as this. it sux but its reality.

And while I don't like frivolous suits, I'm glad that signing liability statements doesn't prohibit lawsuits...and I'll explain why.

The local school district requires that we sign a liability release statement for our kids to participate in any after school activity, including field trips, sports games, etc. Sure, we could refuse to sign, but it would significantly curtail what our kids could do at/with the school.

I don't care what is in the release statement, if my kids were to get hurt on a school activity and the school were negligent, I'd still take legal action if I felt the need to do so...and my guess is that the release would not be worth the paper it was printed on.

 

[marcski]

! It is interesting that you cannot add any smiley's (from the smiley thingy) while in the edit post mode....I wrote something...and then deleted it and wanted to just make a smiley face..but couldn't

 

[mondeo]

/.