Jay Peak Lawsuit - Page 5

AlpineZone

Page 5 of 32 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 312
  1. #41
    I believe the vermont ski area statute specifically immunizes the resort for skier on skier collisions. That obviously doesnt apply if the skier at fault is an employee of the resort.
    Am I the only one cynical enough to question whether the skier in this case had actually been "terminated" before the incident. I mean, as previously mentioned, if the guy really was fired prior thereto, wouldn't they have cancelled his pass on the rfid system. and it happened in April, so it was the end of the season when many resort employees are let go.



    The negligent hiring cause of action is included often so that the employees personnel file becomes discoverable. Usually doesnt amount to a hill of beans, but if there are records indicating the resort had notice of reckless/dangerous behavior, its whole different ballgame.

  2. #42
    So Kingdom and Skiberg, what do you think is fair compensation for the girl and her family?

    While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run. I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run. The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by skiberg View Post
    That is one of the reasons tha case has value. It's a good case. Not a great one, but it has significant value. It's going to take a lot if work but, ultimately the case will probably resolve favorably for the family. The mountain has a good defense but there is just to much risk in trying this case for the mountain and ins. Co.
    In light of last years case involving Ski Sundown where the it was awarded in Sundown's favor when a skier crashed in the terrain and ended up paralyzed (I believe from the waist down) I'm not so sure. In that case, it was determined that the liability statement on the back of the lift ticket (and in this case if I recall correctly) on the warning sign at the top of the terrain park was clear enough in that it released the mountain of liability and that the user by purchasing the lift ticket inherently understood and accepted the risk reasonable risk that is a part of negotiating one's way down a maintained trail. I'm sure that the majority of on hill injury cases have a wealth of case law to fall back on, and that as I seem to recall, more often than not these cases end up finding the ski area not at fault

    In this case, it seems like the condition of the trail really isn't in question (okay the plaintiff's attorney cite's a blindspot as a contributory factor, but i'm quite sure that JPR will have plenty of video evidence to contradict that if this case gets before a judge), but what is at issue is the speed, and lack of "control" (stopping ability) of the boarder. Again, I'm guessing that at least in JPR's defense, they'll have an expert showing that the 50mph speed cited isn't very realistic

    Frankly I'm a bit surprised that the plaintiff's attorney didn't cite the operator of the snowcat who worked that trail the night before in this shotgun approach lawsuit And a small part of me, as a parent, can get why the parents are proceeding with this
    '07--08 season: 51 Days, '08-'09 season: 55 Days, '09-'10 season: 41 Days, '10-'11 season: 49 days, '11-'12 season: 40 Days '12-'13 season: 57 days, '13-'14 season, 60 days '14-'15 season 60 days, '15-'16 season 52 days, '16-'17 season: 50 days, '17-'18 season 52 days, '07-'18 seasons: 567 Days

    '18 - '19 season
    November: 17.18,23,25 (Mount Snow)
    December: 1,15,16,22,23,26,29,20 (Mount Snow) 31 (Berkshire East)
    January: 5 (Bromley) 6,12,19,20,21,26 (Mount Snow) 13 (Stratton) 27 (Wachusett)
    February: 2 (Bromley) 3 (Jiminy Peak) 9,10,16,17,23,24 (Mount Snow) 18 (Magic)
    March: 1,2 (Sugarbush) 3 (Pico) 9 (Bromley) 10 (Magic) 16,18,23,30,31 (Mount Snow) 17 (Stratton) 24 (Pats Peak)
    April: 6.7 (Mount Snow)

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    So Kingdom and Skiberg, what do you think is fair compensation for the girl and her family?

    While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run. I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run. The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.

    I agree.

    Where exactly should lessons be given to young kids if not on a wide green slope serviced by one of the lower mountain lift? I don't think it matters one tiny bit wether or not it's a 'mixing bowl'. All the more reason to ski in control.

  5. #45
    I think there is an interesting question posed.....should instructors or other ski professionals be held to a higher standard than the average skier?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMadWorld View Post
    I think there is an interesting question posed.....should instructors or other ski professionals be held to a higher standard than the average skier?
    How does that even apply in this case, unless you're talking about the instructor teaching the class that the injured kid was in?

    Just about every resort out there won't allow their employees to wear their "work issued" jackets when they're skiing/riding "off the clock" for potential liability reasons....
    '07--08 season: 51 Days, '08-'09 season: 55 Days, '09-'10 season: 41 Days, '10-'11 season: 49 days, '11-'12 season: 40 Days '12-'13 season: 57 days, '13-'14 season, 60 days '14-'15 season 60 days, '15-'16 season 52 days, '16-'17 season: 50 days, '17-'18 season 52 days, '07-'18 seasons: 567 Days

    '18 - '19 season
    November: 17.18,23,25 (Mount Snow)
    December: 1,15,16,22,23,26,29,20 (Mount Snow) 31 (Berkshire East)
    January: 5 (Bromley) 6,12,19,20,21,26 (Mount Snow) 13 (Stratton) 27 (Wachusett)
    February: 2 (Bromley) 3 (Jiminy Peak) 9,10,16,17,23,24 (Mount Snow) 18 (Magic)
    March: 1,2 (Sugarbush) 3 (Pico) 9 (Bromley) 10 (Magic) 16,18,23,30,31 (Mount Snow) 17 (Stratton) 24 (Pats Peak)
    April: 6.7 (Mount Snow)

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    So Kingdom and Skiberg, what do you think is fair compensation for the girl and her family?

    While it is a "mixing bowl", the accident did occur on a green run. I really don't see how you can fault a ski area's ski school for taking a child down a green run. The fault lies completely with the out of control snowboarder in my eyes.

    I never have faulted the ski area. i am sure they are within all the legal grounds, many of which you guys have stated. Unfortunately, what is fair for that little girl is a little late and no amount of money is going to make that any easier. I am merely stating I think there are some considerations resorts could look at, maybe those beyond what is "legal" and "appropriate".

    The learning center will likely eradicate a lot of this, but the situation on this part of the interstate isn't a new one, only the severity of the young girl's injuries and the vocalness of the parents.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by drjeff View Post
    How does that even apply in this case, unless you're talking about the instructor teaching the class that the injured kid was in?

    Just about every resort out there won't allow their employees to wear their "work issued" jackets when they're skiing/riding "off the clock" for potential liability reasons....
    Well most definitely applies to the instructor in the lesson. That is scary stuff in my mind. Thankfully, nothing like this ever happened to me when I was an instructor but I had close calls.

    As a second point, I dont think the lawyer would have gone after Jay Peak if this moron had been say a liftie instead of a snowboard instructor.

  9. #49
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,266
    Quote Originally Posted by skiberg View Post
    That is one of the reasons tha case has value. It's a good case. Not a great one, but it has significant value. It's going to take a lot if work but, ultimately the case will probably resolve favorably for the family. The mountain has a good defense but there is just to much risk in trying this case for the mountain and ins. Co.
    From someone that does this work everyday, I don't think it's a good case at all. There's no clear liability on the part of the resort. The family probably signed a standard release for the lesson. Absent gross negligence ("OK Jimmy, let it rip! Right into the group here!") they don't have a case against the instructor. Nor the resort.

    Sure there are some things that are alleged, but nothing clear cut here and, if anything, more going against the plaintiffs in their case against JPR.

    What I, and others, keep coming back to is that the guy who is liable and culpable apparently does not have any dough. You can't blame anyone for that. Shit happens.

    The family's damages are (potentially) significant. That would push the settlement value up. But at this point I just don't see it. It will likely settle, but generally speaking nobody gets rich off of lawsuits.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  10. #50

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Marlborough, Massachusetts
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    The family's damages are (potentially) significant. That would push the settlement value up. But at this point I just don't see it. It will likely settle, but generally speaking nobody gets rich off of lawsuits.
    Except the lawyers...
    Arc \'em or park \'em

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:40 AM.