Big Boulder/Peak Resorts loose $2.5m lawsuit - Page 4

AlpineZone

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Edd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newmarket, NH
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by machski View Post
    From a skiing perspective, how one could sure for Tucks is beyond me. No lifts, no infrastructure and no grooming or maintenance (it's Backcountry!)[/URL]
    Also constant warnings on Instagram that you could die out there.


  2. #32
    ThinkSnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bad Liver Valley, VT
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by machski View Post
    From a skiing perspective, how one could sure for Tucks is beyond me. No lifts, no infrastructure and no grooming or maintenance (it's Backcountry!). Granted, there is volunteer patrol but they do not actively mitigate avalanche activity like an actual resort patrol would. But like has been mentioned, a good lawyer and more importantly the right Jury (everyone in US sees lawsuits as winning Powerball, right?) and anything can go.
    "Pursuant to RSA 206:26-bb I, Any person determined by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to have acted negligently and requiring a search and rescue response by the Department shall be liable to the Department for the reasonable cost of the Department's expenses for such search and rescue response."
    Sugarbush skier since 1985.........Think Snow!

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Edd View Post
    Also constant warnings on Instagram that you could die out there.
    In a court of law I usually bring up Instagram posts all the time. Nothing says good information and rule of law like Instagram.

  4. #34
    Edd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newmarket, NH
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by FBGM View Post
    In a court of law I usually bring up Instagram posts all the time. Nothing says good information and rule of law like Instagram.
    Find yourself in court often, do you?

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Siliconebobsquarepants View Post
    So maybe offer limited Tort tickets at a discount? Basically waive your right to sue just like auto insurance?
    Most likely a statute would have to pass thru legislation process to be effective in each state. Wisconsin has effective rulings on exactly this. Pay more to not waive rights. But, if going thru legislation, maybe just target " responsible if you participate. "

  6. #36
    What's wrong with our legal system is that people form opinions about it without knowing what it is they're talking about. Like this case. Fairly unusual situation. The jury found for the plaintiff because he crashed into a snow making machine that was on a trail that was supposed to be closed but hadnt been marked as such. Ski resorts have formidable immunity from lawsuits for incidents caused by terrain and any risk inherent in the sport. This case is an outlier where the risk was not assumed by the skier, because it was not inherent and there was no notification to be aware of it. Furthermore, the amount of the award by the jury is subject to the review of the trial judge and beyond that an appellate court. If it is too high, it's likely to be adjusted accordingly.

    Ashmen, who injured his leg in 2015 at the resort in Lake Harmony, Pennsylvania, said in his 2017 complaint that he was snowboarding with friends for the weekend and went down the resort's “Snowdrift” trail, which “appeared in every way to be open to patrons.”

    He claimed that while going down the hill, he suddenly came upon an idle snow-making machine and tried to swerve around it. He failed and struck the machine “severely” with his leg, according to the complaint. He fractured his lower leg, which required corrective surgery, bruised his hips and injured his head and back, according to the complaint, and as a result continues to suffer physically and emotionally.

    Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1168...njury?copied=1

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    mahopac, ny
    Posts
    1,698
    Good to have all the facts!

    Quote Originally Posted by HowieT2 View Post
    What's wrong with our legal system is that people form opinions about it without knowing what it is they're talking about. Like this case. Fairly unusual situation. The jury found for the plaintiff because he crashed into a snow making machine that was on a trail that was supposed to be closed but hadnt been marked as such. Ski resorts have formidable immunity from lawsuits for incidents caused by terrain and any risk inherent in the sport. This case is an outlier where the risk was not assumed by the skier, because it was not inherent and there was no notification to be aware of it. Furthermore, the amount of the award by the jury is subject to the review of the trial judge and beyond that an appellate court. If it is too high, it's likely to be adjusted accordingly.

    Ashmen, who injured his leg in 2015 at the resort in Lake Harmony, Pennsylvania, said in his 2017 complaint that he was snowboarding with friends for the weekend and went down the resort's “Snowdrift” trail, which “appeared in every way to be open to patrons.”

    He claimed that while going down the hill, he suddenly came upon an idle snow-making machine and tried to swerve around it. He failed and struck the machine “severely” with his leg, according to the complaint. He fractured his lower leg, which required corrective surgery, bruised his hips and injured his head and back, according to the complaint, and as a result continues to suffer physically and emotionally.

    Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1168...njury?copied=1

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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 2:07 PM.