Boarder/skier collision case heading to trial

[legalskier]

Claim by estate of deceased skier against Mountaincreek was dismissed, but claim against boarder who collided with him can proceed, state Supreme Court rules.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supre...(FindLaw+Case+Law+Updates+-+NJ+Supreme+Court)

 

[dmc]

I feel bad for the guy that died..
But going after this kid is ridiculous..

A ski Area Third Party complaint? Really? Pushing it off on the very people they cater to???

I'd never ride that place knowing they are more than willing to toss a patron under the buss like that...

 

[thetrailboss]

Not to self: never ski in NJ.

 

[AdironRider]

Not to self: never ski in NJ.

For sure, Im not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear that this was a pretty run of the mill scenario (especially for beginner terrain) that by sheer bad luck resulted in the deceased hitting a bridge (which has already been determined was the cause of death).

This whole thing just reeks of sour grapes and a money grab by the deceased's family.

 

[ScottySkis]

Not to self: never ski in NJ.

It is not to crowded Monday to Friday. Yes weekends their can be ways to many on a small hill.

 

[dmc]

For sure, Im not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear that this was a pretty run of the mill scenario (especially for beginner terrain) that by sheer bad luck resulted in the deceased hitting a bridge (which has already been determined was the cause of death).

This whole thing just reeks of sour grapes and a money grab by the deceased's family.

Sure does... And a f'd up ski area that goes after it's own clients..
The case isn't even supposed to be clear.. Why counter sue the kid?

 

[dmc]

It is not to crowded Monday to Friday. Yes weekends their can be ways to many on a small hill.

it's not about crowds Scotty - it's about being sued by a ski area for being an intermediate..

Would you want to ski there if you knew you could get sued?

 

[ScottySkis]

it's not about crowds Scotty - it's about being sued by a ski area for being an intermediate..

Would you want to ski there if you knew you could get sued?

I didn't realize that, and it is ridiculous. No I wouldn't.

 

[deadheadskier]

Hopefully a judge with common sense throws the case out.

Tragic event, but why this? Shame on the family bringing suit. I'm sorry they lost a loved one, but this is ridiculous.

 

[thetrailboss]

Hopefully a judge with common sense throws the case out.

Tragic event, but why this? Shame on the family bringing suit. I'm sorry they lost a loved one, but this is ridiculous.

Well.......

Take a look at when he died and where we are now. It has already seen a tortured existence...trial, appeals, and it has bounced up to the Supreme Court and has been sent back down for further deliberations. This will probably go to a trial or settle. The boarder won the battle by forcing the estate to have to pass a higher bar to succeed (reckless v negligence) but he lost the war since the courts feel that a jury has to weigh the facts.

And as to the ski area filing a cross-claim/third-party action: it does suck but they did it to try to shift the liability to the snowboarder because that was what they "thought" the statute meant (i.e. that the statute applied to all skier lawsuits, even those between skiers and that if the boarder caused the accident he was to blame. Their theory that he indemnified the resort is a bit far fetched based on what little I've seen.....

 

[octopus]

ok, i'm trying to understand this. boarder collides with skier, but nobody can confirm exactly what happened other than the boarder.
skier falls and dies due to freak accident. skiers family sues mountain because of improperly placed bridge?, and then mtn sues boarder for an accident? wtf? is this correct?

 

[dmc]

ok, i'm trying to understand this. boarder collides with skier, but nobody can confirm exactly what happened other than the boarder.
skier falls and dies due to freak accident. skiers family sues mountain because of improperly placed bridge?, and then mtn sues boarder for an accident? wtf? is this correct?

Yup...
F Mountain Creek

 

[HowieT2]

I dont know this to be true in this particular instance, but the 3rd party action against the boarder, was likely initiated by mtn creek's insurance carrier and their lawyer, with little or no input from the resort itself.

proving recklessness is exceedingly difficult because it entails proof of intent. Not specific intent to cause injury, but an act that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause an injury to another. the next step down is negligence which is simply a lack of ordinary care. For example, coming out of the woods onto a trail without looking and/or yielding to oncoming skiers, would be negligence but probably not rise, IMHO, to recklessness.

as for comments about the families decision to sue the mtn, please dont be so quick to criticize without knowing any of the facts. They may be facing a ruinous mountain of medical bills from the incident, the loss of the family breadwinner, not to mention the emotional loss of a father and spouse. I recently consulted with a family whose 13 year old son was injured in a ski accident. They had no interest in suing and there is likely no case, but their health insurance advised them that their coverage for the treatment was nearing exhaustion and the therapy he is receiving so he can maybe walk again costs almost a $1,000 a shot. these are not pretty situations.

 

[bigbog]

Claim by estate of deceased skier against Mountaincreek was dismissed, but claim against boarder who collided with him can proceed, state Supreme Court rules........

That's the way it should be....anyplace​...y/n?

 

[Abubob]

Insurance Companies Suck

I recently consulted with a family whose 13 year old son was injured in a ski accident. They had no interest in suing and there is likely no case, but their health insurance advised them that their coverage for the treatment was nearing exhaustion and the therapy he is receiving so he can maybe walk again costs almost a $1,000 a shot. these are not pretty situations.

If this is the case then what does that mean for the rest of us? Do we need to carry liability insurance incase we collide with another skier?

My wife and I have discussed having additional accident coverage for myself but not for a second or third party. Add to that the possibility of SAR insurance incase I inadvertently ski off the trail and get lost - this could quickly add up. Isn't insurance one of the reasons we have so many closed ski areas? Are we going to have "lost skiers" because they can't afford the insurance?

 

[legalskier]

Not to self: never ski in NJ.

....or Colorado
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/18/us/colorado-skier-is-convicted-in-fatal-collision-on-slopes.html

....or Austria
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/05/skiing-manslaughter-althaus-germany

....or.......
http://www.skilaw.com/wrongful_death_list.html

They had no interest in suing and there is likely no case, but their health insurance advised them that their coverage for the treatment was nearing exhaustion and the therapy he is receiving so he can maybe walk again costs almost a $1,000 a shot. these are not pretty situations.

They might consider crowdfunding, like kickstarter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickstarter

 

[thetrailboss]

I dont know this to be true in this particular instance, but the 3rd party action against the boarder, was likely initiated by mtn creek's insurance carrier and their lawyer, with little or no input from the resort itself.

Most likely what happened. They, again, were trying to shift liability away from them to the individuals.

 

[dlague]

It is hard to say what the real situation is! Yes there was a man made structure that was hit - How long was it there and were there any other incidents like this? Was this structure ever an issue before? Is the resort liable if the same scenario happened and a tree was hit? Or a lift tower? Etc.

My wife was run into by an out of control beginner on a trail that was rated intermediate and she broke her Humorous with seven fractures - I don't blame the ski area! The loser took off and left my wife alone in the side of the trail. I hiked back up to see where she was and found her off the trail with her good arm in the air! I never found the guy - but clearly he was a danger to others!

Was the boarder out of control? Was there really a third party involved? Did the skier cut him off? BTW nothing against snowboarders - it could have been a skier!

The fact is - most of these cases never stick to the ski area - if they did - we would not be skiing or snowboarding. The day a ski area is held responsible for collisions will be a bad day for all resorts!

None of us were there so it is hard to get the whole story!

 

[HowieT2]

If this is the case then what does that mean for the rest of us? Do we need to carry liability insurance incase we collide with another skier?

My wife and I have discussed having additional accident coverage for myself but not for a second or third party. Add to that the possibility of SAR insurance incase I inadvertently ski off the trail and get lost - this could quickly add up. Isn't insurance one of the reasons we have so many closed ski areas? Are we going to have "lost skiers" because they can't afford the insurance?

if you have homeowners or an umbrella policy, you may already be covered. If not, I think the likelihood of being sued is exceedingly small.

 

[HowieT2]

It is hard to say what the real situation is! Yes there was a man made structure that was hit - How long was it there and were there any other incidents like this? Was this structure ever an issue before? Is the resort liable if the same scenario happened and a tree was hit? Or a lift tower? Etc.

My wife was run into by an out of control beginner on a trail that was rated intermediate and she broke her Humorous with seven fractures - I don't blame the ski area! The loser took off and left my wife alone in the side of the trail. I hiked back up to see where she was and found her off the trail with her good arm in the air! I never found the guy - but clearly he was a danger to others!

Was the boarder out of control? Was there really a third party involved? Did the skier cut him off? BTW nothing against snowboarders - it could have been a skier!

The fact is - most of these cases never stick to the ski area - if they did - we would not be skiing or snowboarding. The day a ski area is held responsible for collisions will be a bad day for all resorts!

None of us were there so it is hard to get the whole story!

certain states including ny require that lift towers be padded. Others dont but imho its unreasonable not to have padding.

as for your wife's situation, it is well settled that the ski resort has no liability for collisions between skiers.