now thats funny . .Yet here you are.....
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
now thats funny . .Yet here you are.....
Sure, it turns out he's okay, but I'm sure the "mental trauma" is unbearable.
Are you suggesting that damages should only be awarded commensurate with physical injury?
also depends on how it affects his future quality of life.....No, but the degree of physical injury is highly deterministic in terms of the level of real-world payouts. So the fact this guy appears to be 100% okay (AFAWK), will most likely hurt the sum of money the ensuing lawsuit (which we all assume's coming) will extract from Vail.
That is not the case when the defendants conduct is merely negligent. Negligence, or a failure of ordinary care, entitles the victim to compensatory damages which are limited to their loss. If the conduct is reckless then the defendant can be liable for punitive damages.Are you suggesting that damages should only be awarded commensurate with physical injury?
I certainly think degree of injury should play the biggest factor, but if negligence is proven, that should be worth a fuck ton too. Not only to benefit the plaintiff, but to discourage Vail from cutting corners in the future.
The other factor to consider is you never know how the damage to his body from this event might result in unknown physical quality of life issues in the future. I say this from experience. I dislocated my shoulder in a skiing accident when I was 18. After the original recovery, I was fine until about aged 40. Now that shoulder is destined for surgery and I have to constantly do PT (lately self administered as I've done it enough with a therapist to know what I'm doing) and occasionally get cortisone shots. Two orthos have both said it is because of the dislocation when I was young. Hopefully this guy doesn't have similar problems.
You are right in that its an easy liability case but I think you're overestimating the value. If the victim isnt really hurt, the case isnt worth that much.also depends on how it affects his future quality of life.....
Any personnel injury aka Ambulance Chaser would drool over this one....
I'm not estimating any $$$$$You are right in that its an easy liability case but I think you're overestimating the value. If the victim isnt really hurt, the case isnt worth that much.
Yup, the lift is still there.........“Daily lift inspections” LOL
Well, the nice thing about New Hampshire is at least you don't have to see this crap.
View attachment 64792
Further, New Hampshire does not recognize gross negligence which is intermediate between negligence and recklessness. Given the waiver you agree to and the difficulty of proving recklessness plus the background of support for the ski industry I am starting to see that despite the drama, this case might not have a lot of value.That is not the case when the defendants conduct is merely negligent. Negligence, or a failure of ordinary care, entitles the victim to compensatory damages which are limited to their loss. If the conduct is reckless then the defendant can be liable for punitive damages.
This is more the exception than the rule. Plaintiff and their lawyer are usually dealing with a penurious insurance company and not the actual culpritdeep pocketed ski corp may pay a decent penny to just settle it on the relative quiet, which is plenty valuable to a plaintiff and their lawyer