Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[mondeo]

:smash:.

 

[HowieT2]

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.

Sorry. I don't disagree with what you are saying about the democrats. I am no fan of them either. I was merely trying to explain why it is that there is a generally accepted view of the civil justice system, that is for the most part, an "urban myth". If you'd like to continue this discussion offline, PM me and I would be glad to respond. I'm not getting anything done today anyway and there is no snow to track.

 

[campgottagopee]

Only one mod, last I checked.

And I think the engineers have been pretty level headed.

Yes, you are correct---have 2 threads blending into one in my head...carry on.

 

[HowieT2]

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.

Good example. last year a NYC public school took little kids, like 5 year old kindergartners, to the beach and left them there completely unsupervised. one of the kids drowned.

 

[mondeo]

Yes, you are correct---have 2 threads blending into one in my head...carry on.

Ah, found it.

Pass the popcorn?

 

[campgottagopee]

Ah, found it.

Pass the popcorn?

Yes please....I prefer Kettle Corn if I have a choice.

 

[SkiDork]

Good example. last year a NYC public school took little kids, like 5 year old kindergartners, to the beach and left them there completely unsupervised. one of the kids drowned.

ummmm - those were middle schoolers. And they weren't unsupervised. But there were no lifeguards

 

[bvibert]

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.

Who's pissed off?

 

[bvibert]

Who's pissed off?

If I was pissed off I surely would have started editing and deleting post or locking threads, since that's what I always do, right?

 

[bvibert]

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

Clearly as long as I think its alright is all that matters. :lol:

 

[HowieT2]

ummmm - those were middle schoolers. And they weren't unsupervised. But there were no lifeguards

Who knows what the truth is. Exactly why we have a court system and laws to resolve disputes. Two sides to every story.

 

[JimG.]

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).

Thanks for the clarification...part of my very simplistic post was to point out the somewhat random application of the term "fault" which your post clarifies and also clouds even further.

Also, the use of the home invasion example was more directed at the vandalism angle and less at the breaking and entering (criminal) angle. I was referring more to teenagers who invade and vandalize homes for fun. In those cases there are certainly assets that can be gone after even if those assets belong to the parents.

In addition, my own way of looking at these things kind of shines through...to me, driving and texting is just as bad as driving while intoxicated. While the law defines this behaviour as reckless when damage or injury occurs, to me it is all the same thing...criminal.

I'd better stop now.

 

[bvibert]

Who knows what the truth is. Exactly why we have a court system and laws to resolve disputes. Two sides to every story.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't have a court system or laws, some just think we need a better system. Way to continually miss the point, or is it that you're purposely misstating the other side in an attempt to make your argument stronger???

 

[Black Phantom]

No one is arguing that we shouldn't have a court system or laws, some just think we need a better system. Way to continually miss the point, or is it that you're purposely misstating the other side in an attempt to make your argument stronger???

He hits the nail on the head repeatedly. I appreciate the insight he and the others have brought to light on the inner workings of the legal system.

Perhaps if you are called to jury service you will seize the opportunity to experience a part of the system that you apparently disdain.

 

[legalskier]

Ct. Comparative and Contributory Negligence

If Malaguit can get his case past a motion for directed verdict when he rests (which is a big if), he won't receive any award if the jury finds he was at least 51% negligent when he took that jump, according to this:

Comparative negligence allows an injury victim to seek compensation for any part of his or her injury that wasn't their fault. For example, if you are involved in a car accident and you are partially at fault for that accident, you can still seek damages from the other parties who were also at fault for your injuries based on their percentage of fault.
Contributory negligence is a defense that can prevent victims from collecting any compensation for an accident for which they are in any way to blame. "Pure contributory negligence" does still exist in some states - meaning that if a victim is found in any way at fault for his or her personal injury, the victim cannot collect any compensation from other parties for the injury. This defense has been modified in many states so that a victim who is less than 50% at fault for his or her accident can still seek compensation for injuries. "Pure comparative negligence" is kind of the opposite of pure contributory negligence - it allows a victim of injury who may have been mostly responsible for the accident to collect damages from the parties that were less at fault for the injury. "Modified comparative negligence," however, allows a victim to recover only if their fault level is below a certain percentage. Laws about comparative and contributory negligence vary widely state by state. It's important to know how these laws can affect your injury lawsuit.
Connecticut Negligence Laws
Connecticut is a "pure comparative negligence" state. According to Connecticut state law, a party who is up to 50% at fault for an accident can still seek compensation for any personal injury incurred. If you are 51% or more at fault, you cannot seek compensation in the state of Connecticut. Certain additional statutes may apply to pure comparative negligence in the state of Connecticut - so the way it affects your case may vary.
http://www.totalinjury.com/connecticut-negligence.aspx

For example, in the Blonski case the jury found she was 30% negligent, so she was awarded 70% of the overall damages number the jury had calculated. If they had found she was > 50% negligent, she would have received nothing, i.e. the defendant was 21% away from a total win.

 

[mister moose]

Snarky, yes, and possibly poorly worded. In essence, it seems to me like a few of the lawyers involved with this thread are blasting insurance companies because, from their point of view, insurance companies are faceless entities that are pushing tort reform to squash personal rights in pursuit of even more massive profits. People typically have a disdain for lawyers because they're percieved as faceless entities bent on distorting the laws governing liability in pursuit of even more wealth. Neither is a realistic point of view, insurance companies work the same way as any other while providing a valuable good. Just like lawyers work - if there wasn't demand for their services, there wouldn't be money to be made their.

Reality check here. The Travellers Companies (essentially pure insurance) made $3.6 billion (operating income) last year on revenue of $25 billion. Other Dow components, operating income where available: Intel, $5.7 billion on $35.1 billion. Boeing $3.9 on $60.9. Home Depot $4.4 on $71.3 Merck $4.8 on $27.4 Walt Disney $5.8 on $36.1. UTC $4.7 on $59.8. Yeah, insurance gives margins on the higher end of the range, but it's not out of whack with the rest of the economy. The whole "just want to increase profits by reducing costs, no benefit to anyone but themselves" theory is completely out of whack with reality anywhere there's competition. As long as there's competition, a reduction in cost will have some impact to what the consumer pays through increasing supply of the good or service.

And if you have a mutual fund of any type, YOU are the insurance company. All that work to increase revenues is going towards your retirement. So thank them for that.

Please stop using facts to throw water on the fire here. We all know how greedy and profit mongering big corporations are, especially insurance companies. Your numbers show that Travelers made 14.4% (before taxes, wut, these evil corporations pay taxes?) and Intel made 16.2% and compared to loveable, sensible Disney who made only 16.0%... and.... and.... wait, how come Mickey made more than Travelers? Clearly something is wrong with your numbers, I mean Disney is a good company, right? How could they possibly make more on every dollar of sales than a bad company that rapes and pillages defenseless consumers?

[/sarcasm]

So possibly, just possibly, insurance companies do operate in a competitive environment, and do make market returns on their business when viewed over the entire spectrum of their business?

Our legal system is based on an adversarial process that over its course when viewed by a (supposedly) unbiased judge or jury, will arrive at a well reasoned and fair decision. Not surprisingly, each side, insurance companies and personal injury lawyers, over the years has developed rhetoric to buttress their position. Each side has become an outspoken, strong advocate of their employers position. Each side also has legitimate examples of excess, or unfair, or prejudiced decisions. As someone once said, it isn't perfect, but it's the best justice system out there so far.

My over riding complaint on the Sundown case, and we have heard many voice the same opinion, is that the pendulum has swung too far away from personal responsibility. We are tired of cases such as this resulting in sympathy verdicts that end up soothing the injured party (OK, not a bad thing) but penalizing the rest of us financially (through higher cost lift tickets) as well as restrict our fun in the future (no more tree skiing, jumps, terrain parks, etc) I know I am tired of being unable to order a medium rare hamburger lest I get poisoned, and unable to go sledding at the local farmer's hill lest I injure myself, and apparently soon unable to go hiking on MDC land.

Yes, the press is flawed and more often than not gets some facts wrong and leaves others out. It would obviously be better if we had the complete story on this case.

I don't work for a law firm or an insurance company, but I did get injured at Ski Sundown bad enough for a sled ride. It was partially Sundown's fault as a rocky bare spot wasn't marked. But unmarked bare spots are part of the known risk of the sport, a risk I assumed. I didn't even talk with a lawyer, and certainly didn't sue.

 

[Geoff]

My over riding complaint on the Sundown case, and we have heard many voice the same opinion, is that the pendulum has swung too far away from personal responsibility. We are tired of cases such as this resulting in sympathy verdicts that end up soothing the injured party (OK, not a bad thing) but penalizing the rest of us financially (through higher cost lift tickets) as well as restrict our fun in the future (no more tree skiing, jumps, terrain parks, etc) I know I am tired of being unable to order a medium rare hamburger lest I get poisoned, and unable to go sledding at the local farmer's hill lest I injure myself, and apparently soon unable to go hiking on MDC land.

While I agree with all of this....

I'd point out that ski resorts have gone out of their way to create attractive nuisances. That terrain park is screaming "come play with me" to testerosterone-ladden low skill 15-year-olds. If you look at what they've done with teen driving laws recently, it's pretty clear that society believes that teens have lousy judgement. The barrier to entry in a terrain park is a lift ticket. Anybody can click into twin tips, put on a tall tee, dangle their suspenders, and claim to be a park rat. I watch the body bags and medivac helicopters coming out of "The Stash" at Killington and shake my head. I think that terrain should be limited to people who can pass a competence test. To get into a novice park, you at least need to watch the safety video so you're not stopping below features or launching off things without a spotter. To get into a more difficult park, you at least need to demonstrate that you can handle the green circle park. That would prevent the Sundown-style injuries. People will still get injured but it should cut down on the worst of it.

 

[campgottagopee]

If I was pissed off I surely would have started editing and deleting post or locking threads, since that's what I always do, right?

lol...glad you haven't lost your sense of humor.

 

[mondeo]

While I agree with all of this....

I'd point out that ski resorts have gone out of their way to create attractive nuisances. That terrain park is screaming "come play with me" to testerosterone-ladden low skill 15-year-olds. If you look at what they've done with teen driving laws recently, it's pretty clear that society believes that teens have lousy judgement. The barrier to entry in a terrain park is a lift ticket. Anybody can click into twin tips, put on a tall tee, dangle their suspenders, and claim to be a park rat. I watch the body bags and medivac helicopters coming out of "The Stash" at Killington and shake my head. I think that terrain should be limited to people who can pass a competence test. To get into a novice park, you at least need to watch the safety video so you're not stopping below features or launching off things without a spotter. To get into a more difficult park, you at least need to demonstrate that you can handle the green circle park. That would prevent the Sundown-style injuries. People will still get injured but it should cut down on the worst of it.

They do that at Southington, I think. I think theirs is too nannying, but not an idea entirely without merit. Also a good place to teach some ettiquite, and a way to keep people who have no clue how a park works from skiing through and screwing things up. There was one point last year where I was a split second away from the point of no return on one of the Dreamaker jumps when some non-park skier decided to ski through the landing area. Just forced me to skip the jump, but that could have been bad.

 

[legalskier]

The plaintiff's expert witness whose site I linked to last week testified on Friday. Here's an account of it, not including all the reader posts:

Testimony continues in suit against Ski Sundown
Published: Saturday, October 02, 2010
LITCHFIELD — Testimony on a lawsuit against Ski Sundown continued Friday with an expert witness speaking on behalf of James Malaguit, who was paralyzed after falling from a jump four years ago at the facility.
Ski safety expert Stan Gale of Golden Col., testified that the terrain park where the accident occurred is the most dangerous part of a ski area and that there was no evidence that Ski Sundown had adequate markings, supervision or warning signs in the terrain park at the time of the incident.
James Malaguit, 19, was a high school sophomore while visiting Ski Sundown with his family on Feb. 17, 2006, when he lost his balance coming off a man-made jump in the terrain park on the ski area’s Exhibition run. He landed on his head. His injuries have left him paralyzed from the chest down. He was not wearing a helmet or goggles at the time of the incident.
During Friday’s proceedings, the plaintiff’s attorney, Ralph Monaco of New London, further questioned Gale on his claims.
“Mr. Gale, did you see any evidence that there was any perimeter security, poles, flags, supervision, or signage where James entered the terrain park?”
Gale said he determined, after conducting an investigation at Ski Sundown, that there was inadequate safety for the terrain park.
“Did you see any evidence that trail was groomed when James went in the terrain park?” Monaco asked.
Gale noted that he skied the same run and at the same time Malaguit’s incident occurred and that the trail was un-groomed.
“Have you seen any evidence that ski sundown had any fence separating the terrain feature from Exhibition to the left side of that trail?” Monaco asked.
Gale denied seeing any evidence of a fence in his ventures to Ski Sundown.
Gale, an employee of Rock Mountain Consultation LLC, has visited approximately 135 ski areas, investigated nearly 100 ski areas and has never in his life witnessed a ski area that treated terrain features the way Ski Sundown did, according to his testimony.
“I have never seen it in magazines, photographs, anywhere in the industry,” Gale testified, referring to Ski Sundown’s lack of safety and proper equipment in the terrain park.
“I never heard of it (lack of warning signs and safety) in the modern age of risk management,” Gale stated. “In the early 2000s ski areas had to do something to change the safety of the sport.”
Ski Sundown did not meet industry standards with regards to terrain park maintenance, according to Gale.
“He was allowed to be there, that is what caused it,” Gale stated when questioned about the cause of Malaguit’s injury. “It was Russian roulette with a smoking gun, it was bound to happen.”
This case is scheduled to continue next week. Jeffrey Perry with Comprehensive Rehabilitation Consultants will testify about Malaguit’s spinal cord injury.
http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/10/02/news/doc4ca66d63e90da745694722.txt