Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[4aprice]

ESPN commentary:

Resort liability laws: out of date?
By Matt Higgins, ESPN Action Sports
*** Although 27 states have ski safety statutes; skiers and snowboarders typically sign liability waivers; and the back of a lift pass features fine print releasing resorts from responsibility for the sports' inherent risks, legal challenges continue, raising the question as another winter season looms: who's ultimately liable for accidents or injury? With the rising popularity of terrain parks, the issue has become potentially even more muddled. ***
Full article: http://sports.espn.go.com/action/snowboarding/news/story?id=5677080

Camelback has for a while now restricted the entrance to its terrian park. While they sort of use it as a revenue stream ($5 if not a pass holder) all they make you do is make you watch a film and sign some sort of a release. It makes you wonder if they need to due more as in testing your ability before letting you go in. Its unfortunate, but I've also marveled at the size of some of these jumps and the amount of air that can be attained and wondered how the insurance company allowed it. Being a mogul fan I've wondered the same thing about mogul runs. My son is a quasi Park Rat but he seems to have a cautious streak in him and I don't really worry about him. I'm not a park person but I get the pass to ski the last stashes on powder days.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[gmcunni]

C It makes you wonder if they need to due more as in testing your ability before letting you go in.

this is the part i don't get.. where is personal accountability.. or parental accountability? negligence aside, if you give people a warning why do you have to give them an extra warning, or a different warning, or more warnings....

if a 10 YO kid doesn't have the presence of mind to make a good decision is it the mountain's responsibility or the parent's?


again, if there is a pitch fork buried in the snow and you get hurt as a result then screw the mountain, they F'd up. but skiing on a well marked trail with an obvious ramp/trick/bump/feature/flag/rope/whatever shouldn't mean the mgt of the mountain needs to babysit every skier/rider who goes by it.

 

[neil]

again, if there is a pitch fork buried in the snow and you get hurt as a result then screw the mountain, they F'd up. but skiing on a well marked trail with an obvious ramp/trick/bump/feature/flag/rope/whatever shouldn't mean the mgt of the mountain needs to babysit every skier/rider who goes by it.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it seems to be people's nature today that everything is a "rollercoaster" type ride. Scary, but ultimately in control of someone else. When you start applying that logic to things like snowsports, hiking, white water rafting etc then you start seeing these types of accidents and lawsuits.

 

[mondeo]

You need a driver's liscence to drive on a public road, most race tracks would have a similar requirement. Pretty much need to be certified to skydive. This type of thing isn't unheard of.

I think there's a difference between requiring some sort of knowledge to do something and just a pure restriction, especially when others' safety is on the line. I'm all for letting someone do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt me, but parks can be crowded and doing something stupid can result in someone doing all the right things being hurt. And if it ends up reducing insurance costs, all the better.

 

[4aprice]

this is the part i don't get.. where is personal accountability.. or parental accountability? negligence aside, if you give people a warning why do you have to give them an extra warning, or a different warning, or more warnings....

if a 10 YO kid doesn't have the presence of mind to make a good decision is it the mountain's responsibility or the parent's?


again, if there is a pitch fork buried in the snow and you get hurt as a result then screw the mountain, they F'd up. but skiing on a well marked trail with an obvious ramp/trick/bump/feature/flag/rope/whatever shouldn't mean the mgt of the mountain needs to babysit every skier/rider who goes by it.

I agree. Unfortunately it's not that way in today's society. I was thinking of ways that the ski areas could insulate themselves from lawsuits with the more testing comment, but I don't think its possible. Can you imagine people having to be tested to access certain terrain? We had an incident here in NJ last winter where a sledding hill in a county park had to be closed because a sledder collided with (drum roll) a bale of hay placed there (drum roll again) to prevent sledders from hurting themselves.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[x10003q]

I agree. Can you imagine people having to be tested to access certain terrain? .

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

During the 1970s, town bus trips I took to Hunter dropped us off at Hunter One.We had to make some turns and get graded in order to have our pass stamped to have access to the rest of Hunter. I do not remember if it was the ski patrol or the ski school who gave the 'test'. They also gave us a card if we passed so we would not have to test the next time we were at Hunter. Those of us who could ski loved Hunter keeping the crazy never evers off the main trails at Hunter.

 

[skidmarks]

Just to keep it real!
This gate has NO warning signs leading up to it. If it wasn't for the fact that it was Fu#*ing painted yellow and blocking my path I may have crashed into it and sued for 2.9 million clams like Blonski's Lawyer did.

Do we as a society realy need to protect people from the obvious?

 

[jaywbigred]

During the 1970s, town bus trips I took to Hunter dropped us off at Hunter One.We had to make some turns and get graded in order to have our pass stamped to have access to the rest of Hunter. I do not remember if it was the ski patrol or the ski school who gave the 'test'. They also gave us a card if we passed so we would not have to test the next time we were at Hunter. Those of us who could ski loved Hunter keeping the crazy never evers off the main trails at Hunter.

They used to do this at Vernon Valley when I was in HS for our Ski Club trips.

I am going to think out loud here for a second, and I know that I may catch hell for it, but bear with me...going back a few years, most of us can recall a time when most resorts either greatly restricted or outright banned jumps, jumping, and jump building. I assume this was as a precautionary measure, because jumping is more dangerous than just skiing, and more likely to cause injuries, and injuries lead to law suits. At some point, a confluence of sources (snowboarding, halfpipes, ski videos/movies, mogul's being included in the Winter Olympics and Jonny Moseley's pseudo-inverted trick) combined to create greater demand for jumps, pipes, and, eventually, boxes, jobs and rails.

When you have demand for something like that, certain resorts saw it as an opportunity to make money, increase skier traffic, and sell more tickets. I am not sure who was the first, but I know Mt. Snow was early in the game (1992) with Un Blanco Gulch. In any event, at the same time, many resorts continued to resist. For some, the risk (injuries and lawsuits) was not worth the reward (increased traffic and revenue).

Fast forward to today, when virtually every resort offers some sort of terrain park. What happened? I can't say for sure, but I have to assume that the standardization of terrain parks and their acceptance by the industry made the risk worth it. Insurance policies must have evolved, and it likely became a business necessity to add some sort of park in order to keep pace with competitors.

So, I guess what I am saying is, ski resorts are in the business of inviting people onto their property to make money. They build terrain parks, with jumps and rails and other features, the sizes of which are ever-increasing, in order to make more money. They do so with the full understanding that doing so will undoubtedly lead to more injuries and therefore lawsuits, and the lawsuits will run the gamut from frivolous to borderline to valid. So, to a certain extent, I have trouble feeling sorry for the resorts. If you build it, they will come.

None of this exculpates skiers from the basic charge that all humans should use common sense in everything they do. And it doesn't change my opinion about the case that gave rise to this thread. I am just saying that ski resorts knew what they were getting into and chose to do it anyway, in the never-ending quest to make money.

 

[legalskier]

Now it's Sundown's opportunity to present its case:

Defense shows ski video in Ski Sundown paralysis trial
Lawyers use video to show how harmless ski jump can be
LITCHFIELD -- Jurors in Litchfield Superior Court on Wednesday watched a video of children skiing over the same jump that left James Malaguit, 20, paralyzed after a 2006 accident.
On the first day the lawyers for Ski Sundown in New Hartford have been able to present evidence in their defense, they used the video to show how harmless the jump can be. The video was filmed on Feb. 18, 2006, the day after Malaguit, then 15, flew over the jump in the dark and landed on his head. It showed children, all younger than 12 and participating in the Little Big Air competition, slowly ski and snowboard over the jump in front of cheering parents.
Malaguit is suing the ski resort for unspecified monetary damages claiming that the jump was "unreasonably dangerous, creating an obstacle course, and was inadequately lit and had no warning signs." The defense will continue to present evidence throughout the week.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/10/14/news/local/doc4cb6eef3e8e34458192232.txt

 

[gmcunni]

The video was filmed on Feb. 18, 2006, the day after Malaguit, then 15, flew over the jump in the dark and landed on his head. It showed children, all younger than 12 and participating in the Little Big Air competition, slowly ski and snowboard over the jump in front of cheering parents

if anyone finds this video online please share, i'd be interested to see what the jump looked like in 2006 compared to last year.

 

[Grassi21]

Just to keep it real!
This gate has NO warning signs leading up to it. If it wasn't for the fact that it was Fu#*ing painted yellow and blocking my path I may have crashed into it and sued for 2.9 million clams like Blonski's Lawyer did.

Do we as a society realy need to protect people from the obvious?

Wow! That is the gate she hit? How can you not see that? There is ample room on either side to bypass the gate in case of emergency.

 

[mondeo]

Wow! That is the gate she hit? How can you not see that? There is ample room on either side to bypass the gate in case of emergency.

That isn't THE gate, but it's damn close in set up.

 

[gmcunni]

Sundown's expert - “The element of choice is at work here,” Shealy testified.

The terrain feature that Malaguit was injured on was a very small feature, according to Shealy. Generally, the smaller the feature, the slower the jumper goes, Shealy noted.




http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/10/14/news/doc4cb649a6424c4694350799.txt

 

[severine]

That isn't THE gate, but it's damn close in set up.

Isn't this the one?

 

[o3jeff]

[/IMG]
Courtesy of the BSS

 

[severine]

Yup, same gate.

 

[4aprice]

They used to do this at Vernon Valley when I was in HS for our Ski Club trips.

I am going to think out loud here for a second, and I know that I may catch hell for it, but bear with me...going back a few years, most of us can recall a time when most resorts either greatly restricted or outright banned jumps, jumping, and jump building. I assume this was as a precautionary measure, because jumping is more dangerous than just skiing, and more likely to cause injuries, and injuries lead to law suits. At some point, a confluence of sources (snowboarding, halfpipes, ski videos/movies, mogul's being included in the Winter Olympics and Jonny Moseley's pseudo-inverted trick) combined to create greater demand for jumps, pipes, and, eventually, boxes, jobs and rails.

When you have demand for something like that, certain resorts saw it as an opportunity to make money, increase skier traffic, and sell more tickets. I am not sure who was the first, but I know Mt. Snow was early in the game (1992) with Un Blanco Gulch. In any event, at the same time, many resorts continued to resist. For some, the risk (injuries and lawsuits) was not worth the reward (increased traffic and revenue).

Fast forward to today, when virtually every resort offers some sort of terrain park. What happened? I can't say for sure, but I have to assume that the standardization of terrain parks and their acceptance by the industry made the risk worth it. Insurance policies must have evolved, and it likely became a business necessity to add some sort of park in order to keep pace with competitors.

So, I guess what I am saying is, ski resorts are in the business of inviting people onto their property to make money. They build terrain parks, with jumps and rails and other features, the sizes of which are ever-increasing, in order to make more money. They do so with the full understanding that doing so will undoubtedly lead to more injuries and therefore lawsuits, and the lawsuits will run the gamut from frivolous to borderline to valid. So, to a certain extent, I have trouble feeling sorry for the resorts. If you build it, they will come.

None of this exculpates skiers from the basic charge that all humans should use common sense in everything they do. And it doesn't change my opinion about the case that gave rise to this thread. I am just saying that ski resorts knew what they were getting into and chose to do it anyway, in the never-ending quest to make money.

Jay:

Could you see this affecting our beloved mogul skiing as well? (not this particular case but other law suits against the industry) I've always worried about this. I would hate to see the ski areas (particularly the smaller hills down here) forced to roll everything flat but I could see it happening if the wrong decision came down. Like I said I sit there and look at some of the features in the terrain parks and wonder how thier insurance companies allow it. Liability Laws are tricky things.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[gmcunni]

looks like it is wrapping up.

Petrozzi was the last witness for the defense, concluding their presentation for the jury. A charge conference will be held tomorrow, a matter that the jury is not involved in. The jury will be present Tuesday morning for closing arguments, hear the law on the case, and be asked to render a decision

.


http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/10/15/news/doc4cb7d56aaffeb324690574.txt

 

[tjf67]

Jay:

Could you see this affecting our beloved mogul skiing as well? (not this particular case but other law suits against the industry) I've always worried about this. I would hate to see the ski areas (particularly the smaller hills down here) forced to roll everything flat but I could see it happening if the wrong decision came down. Like I said I sit there and look at some of the features in the terrain parks and wonder how thier insurance companies allow it. Liability Laws are tricky things.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

I think it would absolutely change there stance on how the parks are set up if a negative ruling comes down, probably not just at Sundown. They will appeal and I would think they would win but in the mean time depending on how much input the companies attorneys have on the owners their certainly is a high likely hood of changes.

 

[legalskier]

looks like it is wrapping up.
.http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/10/15/news/doc4cb7d56aaffeb324690574.txt

He also testified to this:

“Ski Sundown was consistent in all aspects (of ski industry terrain park safety standards), with the design of the feature, the location of the feature, the ability to be seen from above,” Petrozzi testified.
The feature was in an obvious location. The construction of the feature and the maintenance of the feature were consistent with ski industry terrain park safety standards.
“The dimensions of the feature, the height, the location; not only were they consistent with what the industry did, but on the leading edge,” Petrozzi stated.
Petrozzi went on to testify that there is not an industry standard for terrain park fencing or barriers.
“A fence is necessary when the feature or the park is not visible, open and obvious, where it would be a surprise to someone,” Petrozzi testified.
The other reason a fence would be necessary around a terrain park would be because of excessive cross traffic. A fence was not necessary during the time of Malaguit’s incident for two reasons, according to Petrozzi.
“The feature was open and obvious, it was never going to be a surprise. There was somewhere around 100 people or so that were skiing on the night of James’ accident ... the potential for confliction with cross traffic was basically absent, so (terrain park fences or barriers) was not necessary on the evening of James’ accident,” Petrozzi testified.
James said he knew that the terrain feature was there and that he was going to take that feature on that evening, Petrozzi noted in his testimony.
“There is no surprise,” Petrozzi testified. “James knew it (terrain feature) was there, he made a conscious decision to traverse across the trail to get to the feature.”

This undermines the plaintiff's expert's testimony that Sundown failed to warn skiers of the risk; i.e. no warning is needed where the risk is obvious.