• 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!

Jay Peak Lawsuit

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,626
Points
63
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.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
19,183
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
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 :rolleyes:

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 :smash: And a small part of me, as a parent, can get why the parents are proceeding with this
 

tnt

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
133
Points
16
Location
nj
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.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
I think there is an interesting question posed.....should instructors or other ski professionals be held to a higher standard than the average skier?
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
19,183
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
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....
 

kingdom-tele

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
618
Points
0
Location
Newport Center, VT
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.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
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.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,337
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
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.
 

LONGBOARDR

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
136
Points
18
Location
rt 242 Jay
On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.
 

tnt

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
133
Points
16
Location
nj
On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.

Thank goodness.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,337
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
On a positive note, great job done by the JP ski patrol.
For those grave injuries, seconds count especially for kids where the stages of shock advance rapidly.
Thankfully weather was cooperative and they were able to get a medevac flight in and get her to a trauma center within the golden hour.
A silver lining to an otherwise terrible day.

Very true.

(Now why are they not being sued? :roll: :dunce: )
 

gladerider

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,124
Points
38
Location
NJ
some thoughts
1) looks like the plaintiff's case is based on JP's negligence
2) skier's code is irrevent here since it's designed to protect the resorts from being sued from its customers with either self injury or skier to skier injury. the basic premise of skier's code is that the resorts cannot excercise any discretionary control on skiers' (or its customers') behalf
3) some facts:
a) JP sold its ski school service to the plaintiff
b) JP has sole discretionary control over its service sold
c) JP has failed to provide safety to its customer, who was under their care

if i were the plaintiff's attorney, i would have:
1- put legal hold on the ski school employment records
2- during discovery process ask for instructor screening, training, onboarding & offboarding as well as general ski school standard operating processes documentation, governance, monitoring to show organizational control to ensure safety of the students (remember we are talking about safety of preschool kids) including operating risk management process
3- JP prove to me what they have done to ensure safety of kids (can they have courdoned off one section of the mountain or a few trails just for the purpose of ski school just like they do for races since part of the trail has a merging section or have an extra instructor ensuring clear traffic)

IMHO, JP has everything to lose and nothing to gain in this case. Best case scenario would be to settle this fast.
They are making all kinds of investments to attract the family oriented customers. Poor handling of cases like this could cause tremendous damage.
Here is why:
1) There are dozen other resorts happy to get the same target customer base (family oriented) in NE
2) All other resorts can say they have better ski schools including processes, better instructor screening and training, etc.
3) Losing a case like this is a double whammy (financially and brand impact not to mention goodwill)

in this country, if you want to make money in a business that involves kids safety, you better make sure you have done a good job.

just some of my thoughts after reading comments from y'all
 

fbrissette

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,672
Points
48
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
The reality is that group lessons for young beginners are mostly taught by teenagers with minimal training and supervision. This has been my experience in Quebec and in Jay Peak. The better qualified/experienced instructors get the better kids. The instructors with less experience (usually young) get the beginners. These instructors are usually enthusiastic, do their very best, and that is what you should expect.

At 200$ for a typical 8-week program, if parents expect their 5 year old beginner to be supervised by a level 4 skier with the maturity and experience of a forty year old, they are delusional. You send them out to have fun and the instructors usually do a good job at that.

Nobody is safe from idiots bombing downhill out of control. I'm sure we all had close calls before. Shit happens. Suing everyone won't make things better, especially suing the instructor who were trying their best for very little money (I'm obviously not talking about the idiot who hit the little girl). You just cannot expect a 16 year old in charge of 6 kids to fully control everyone going down a slope.

Every time someone sues a ski resort for no good reason is a sad day.
 

mister moose

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
1,086
Points
48
While the at fault ex employee was using an employee pass to access the lifts, he was not performing any work related duties. He was not 'on the clock'. How is this any different than any other collision injury on the mountain? The more I think about this, the more I think this falls within well established precedent.
 

Abubob

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
3,531
Points
63
Location
Alexandria, NH
Website
tee.pub
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.

If many areas block off terrain parks and race courses shouldn't areas where rank beginners especially children are learning be blocked off as well?
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
If by idiot you mean the 5 year old, then yes.


That is an f'd up statement - no, idiot is the the moron on the snowboard! Who would ever think to call the 5 year old an idiot!

Someone who worked there (the snowboarding idiot) should be fully aware of the dangers in that area! People cross over to Perry Merrill all the time and as you mention - its not like Lower River Quai is narrow. However, being that it was in April it is possible that there was only one way through due to snow melt.

Plus do we have to be in such a hurry to get a run over with - people need to take a chill pill on run outs!

BTW I never see people make way at that location for people coming off RQ. Coming off the lift it is pretty slow going there since it is so flat that may be the most giving way that I have ever seen there!

Technically - at any give trail merge, given time accidents will happen - resorts should ban trail merges. Ya, thats it ban trail merges!
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
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.

So with that logic if a police officer drives illegally in the town he works in and causes injury to others then the Police Department is at fault too?

He was skiing on his own time. Worst yet, he knew the area and should have had more sense!
 
Top