Everyone hates lawsuits against ski areas...

[jaywbigred]

...so my question to those AZers who are so quick to bash lawyers, lawsuits, the legal system, plaintiffs, juries, jury awards, and so on, is what should be used in the place of a lawsuit?

I mean, should skiers that are injured at a ski resort have 0 recourse against anyone? Should ski resorts have absolute immunity against law suits? If you buy a lift ticket, should you be agreeing that whatever happens to you is part of the risk of skiing?

Because otherwise I am unclear as to why the lawsuit is such a bad word in the ski community. Unless resorts are going to have absolute immunity, it would seem that discovering whether an injury's cause resulted from an accident covered by the assumed risk of the skier (e.g. slipping on a patch of ice) vs. from ski area negligence (perhaps a broken chair lift?) would require an inquiry into the incident, and this is carried out via a lawsuit.

And Yes I am a lawyer.

And No, I have never practiced any type of litigation whatsoever.

And yes I am from New Jersey.

 

[dmc]

Lawsuits against ski areas should be the exception.. So I say - case by case...

Many times when someone goes after Hunter the case just goes away.. **poof** And you never see the person ski Hunter again.. ever...

Understanding and accepting the inherent risk of the sport should be foremost in everyones mind... And dealing directly with the ski area management after some sort of issue is probably a good thing too..

 

[billski]

Arbitration.
Because the attorney always wins (read: cash) and law firms usually pocket a very large chunk of the settlement. It's a system that is biased toward protracted cases, racking up large numbers of billable hours, regardless of the seriousness of the claim.

Only in the case of gross negligence should a lawsuit be allowed.
I'm not a lawyer, but I am the victim of frivolous lawsuits.

 

[tcharron]

...so my question to those AZers who are so quick to bash lawyers, lawsuits, the legal system, plaintiffs, juries, jury awards, and so on, is what should be used in the place of a lawsuit?

I mean, should skiers that are injured at a ski resort have 0 recourse against anyone? Should ski resorts have absolute immunity against law suits? If you buy a lift ticket, should you be agreeing that whatever happens to you is part of the risk of skiing?

Because otherwise I am unclear as to why the lawsuit is such a bad word in the ski community. Unless resorts are going to have absolute immunity, it would seem that discovering whether an injury's cause resulted from an accident covered by the assumed risk of the skier (e.g. slipping on a patch of ice) vs. from ski area negligence (perhaps a broken chair lift?) would require an inquiry into the incident, and this is carried out via a lawsuit.

And Yes I am a lawyer.

And No, I have never practiced any type of litigation whatsoever.

And yes I am from New Jersey.

I also hate bozos who drive 45 miles per hour on the highway on a clear day. What's my recourse? Nothin, it's legal, they can. What's our recourse? Nothing. What we hate are lawsuits that are ridiculous. 'Two skiers collide, ski area brought to court'. 'Space Cadet Child gets personal lessons, ski area gets sued'. Personally, I'm all for a new law that allows a judge to FIND a case to be ludicrous and immediately impose a 'wasted the time of the court' fine on the plaintiff.

 

[tree_skier]

It's not the case of the lawsuit against a ski area that is the big issue but what the lawsuit is for that is the problem. For example the latest bunch of bull with the guy who ski through a small gap in a roped off area that wasn't even a ski trail and skied into a railroad tie retaining wall. Now if it's something thats obvious like chair falls of rope then the ski area should take care of it. But most of the lawsuits are just garbage.

 

[jaywbigred]

Arbitration.
Because the attorney always wins (read: cash) and law firms usually pocket a very large chunk of the settlement. It's a system that is biased toward protracted cases, racking up large numbers of billable hours, regardless of the seriousness of the claim.

I don't think there are many plaintiffs that could afford to begin a tort lawsuit against a ski area on an hourly fee arrangement. Thus, I do not see how the attorney always wins.

It is possible I am mistaken, but I would think that these cases are handled under contingency fee arrangements. This would mean that the lawyer recovers nothing unless a jury finds the Ski Area liable.

A Ski Area might settle a case before this point, but only because they are scared of what the Jury might find.

Thus, is the fault not then in the hands of juries that routinely award rediculous sums of money?

Isn't this just supply and demand? If the rediculous jury awards dried up, so to would the lawyers willing to take the case, no?

Only in the case of gross negligence should a lawsuit be allowed.

So forget recovering any compensation, a victim of simple negligence resulting in great bodily harm or death should not even be allowed to file suit?

I'm not a lawyer, but I am the victim of frivolous lawsuits.

I think most states have pretty rigorous penalties against frivolous lawsuits. At least, that is what they taught us in law school. I have no experience with them.

 

[tcharron]

So forget recovering any compensation, a victim of simple negligence resulting in great bodily harm or death should not even be allowed to file suit?
I think most states have pretty rigorous penalties against frivolous lawsuits. At least, that is what they taught us in law school. I have no experience with them.

If something resulted in a persons death, I don't believe 'Oh, I forgot to do that!' could cause it. 'Whaaaaaa? No one told me bearings need grease!' or, 'OMFG, Whatcha mean the lift aint SUPPOSED to be run backwards!' won't cut it.

As far as laws protecting the people being sued. Sha.. Right.. While we're talking abo.. OMG, there's a FINGER in my COKE!, BRB!

 

[jaywbigred]

Personally, I'm all for a new law that allows a judge to FIND a case to be ludicrous and immediately impose a 'wasted the time of the court' fine on the plaintiff.

I think these laws already exist in the form of Frivolous Lawsuit statutes. I know there are Federal Laws against it, and I believe most states have them too. I also know Congress was kicking around various bills to make the penalties more substantial. Don't know what happened to those bills.

 

[jaywbigred]

If there is negligence on the part of the ski resort management or employee which causes injury to another party and the ski resort refuses to provide a remedy to the injuried party than litigation is appropriate in this kind of situation.

That is sort of what I am getting at...

and I think substantial injury can result from simple negligence, not just gross negligence.

 

[jaywbigred]

If something resulted in a persons death, I don't believe 'Oh, I forgot to do that!' could cause it. 'Whaaaaaa? No one told me bearings need grease!' or, 'OMFG, Whatcha mean the lift aint SUPPOSED to be run backwards!' won't cut it.

Well, not 100% sure what you are saying, but I think some definitions might help:

gross negligence
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=838

negligence
n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances... http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1314&bold=||||

I would think that someone, without borderline evil intent, could make a mistake that could kill someone at a ski resort, e.g. a lifty not hitting the kill button quickly enough:

 

[tcharron]

Well, not 100% sure what you are saying, but I think some definitions might help:

gross negligence
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=838

negligence
n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances... http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1314&bold=||||

I would think that someone, without borderline evil intent, could make a mistake that could kill someone at a ski resort, e.g. a lifty not hitting the kill button quickly enough.

Tough example. If the lifty was watching what was happening, and didn't hit the kill botton, then I'd classify that as gross negligence, personally. But IANAL. If he didn't see it happening until it was too late for him to hit the kill button and make much difference, i.e., they'd already fallen, I wouldn't call that negligence. Negligence would be, IMHO, not inspecting the functionality of the lift before putting people on it. And that would be gross.

 

[billski]

I don't think there are many plaintiffs that could afford to begin a tort lawsuit against a ski area on an hourly fee arrangement. Thus, I do not see how the attorney always wins.

It is possible I am mistaken, but I would think that these cases are handled under contingency fee arrangements. This would mean that the lawyer recovers nothing unless a jury finds the Ski Area liable.

A Ski Area might settle a case before this point, but only because they are scared of what the Jury might find.

Thus, is the fault not then in the hands of juries that routinely award rediculous sums of money?

Isn't this just supply and demand? If the rediculous jury awards dried up, so to would the lawyers willing to take the case, no?

So forget recovering any compensation, a victim of simple negligence resulting in great bodily harm or death should not even be allowed to file suit?



I think most states have pretty rigorous penalties against frivolous lawsuits. At least, that is what they taught us in law school. I have no experience with them.

1. In most awards I've seen the law office walks away with a very large part of the settlement, defended by the substantial number of hour required. Even for the petty suits.

2. Frivolous, as defined by who? Most frivolous legislation does not protect against every possible party, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker from being named, then spending their own money to prove their innocence.

3. If I fall off a cliff on Mt. Madison while hiking, I should have no right to sue the State of NH because they failed to warn me? Of course not. Do I have to put up "cliff" signs everywhere now? (I noticed that Black and Steamboat are the only ones doing this.) For crying out loud, it's a mountain! As for lifts, everyone wants them to be safe, If someone forgets to grease one out of 1000 wheels during regular maintenance and that's the one that fails, I argue that the resort is not culpable because they demonstrated best efforts. If they only greased every other wheel, that is intentional.

No system is perfect. Everything (mechanical) manmade eventually fails. We assume risks every day. I am willing to assume the risks inherent to skiing,which extend way beyond my ability to crash into trees without help from anyone else I am also willing to assume the risk that the lift might fail. I draw the line only at gross negligence.

 

[drjeff]

Pretty safe assumption that this is a picture that Deer Valley DIDN'T use in their brochure for this season.

 

[dmc]

Being a maintenance worker in a nuclear plant I am very happy to see you will be willing to cut me some lack if something was to happen ... :lol:

DOH!!!

 

[billski]

Being a maintenance worker in a nuclear plant I am very happy to see you will be willing to cut me some lack if something was to happen ... :lol:

NO DOH

Absolutely. If your nuke was 100% failsafe there would be no need for sirens or evac plans, right?
Remember your Prob and Stats class? Remember 4 nines? 5 nines? 6 nines? Always a nine...
:flag:

 

[billski]

And to think I am a snowboarder too ... can I sit down in the middle of the trail now? You wouldn't want me to be unhappy would you?

Jerry, you're too funny! :lol:

 

[dmc]

NO DOH

Absolutely. If your nuke was 100% failsafe there would be no need for sirens or evac plans, right?
Remember your Prob and Stats class? Remember 4 nines? 5 nines? 6 nines? Always a nine...
:flag:

DOH!! as in Homer Simpson who works in a Nuke plant...

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Ski areas should absolutely be held accountable for gross negligence if someone gets hurt. When you lower the bar to just "negligence", then it's in the eye of the beholder. You end up in a situation where there is no downside to the plaintiff for pursuing the suite - their lawyers are working on a contingency basis - and the ski area loses either way by having to incur substantial costs to defend itself. Jury trials are not the end all be all of remedies here, b/c you are likely explaining a complex issue to a group of non-skiers who don't have nearly the necessary context. For example, should a ski area be sued if there is an open, unmarked patch of ground in the middle of a trail after a rain storm and some shmoe skis right into it? Lawsuits have been launched for episodes just like this and it makes me ripshit b/c if you skied into that, then by definition you were out of control (for you). What's missing is personal accountability for ones actions. The mountain environment doesn't allow for every obstacle to be marked and/or roped off - ski areas aren't Disney World. Unfortunately, stupid subruban skiers, their atorneys, and sympathetic yet clueless jurors don't understand that difference.

Irresponsible and substantially groundless suits should be deterred by making it mandatory that the the losing plaintiff pays the legal fees of the defense. Only when there is a downside to bringing a suit will a proper balance be reached between allowing for legitimate cases to be heard while dissuading those who are simply looking to get paid for their own shortcomings (as skiers, parents, human beings, evolved creatures - what have you).

 

[OppositeGeorge]

As for lifts, everyone wants them to be safe, If someone forgets to grease one out of 1000 wheels during regular maintenance and that's the one that fails, I argue that the resort is not culpable because they demonstrated best efforts.

I don't know. To me, having things set up so you can miss a wheel isn't really "best efforts."

When lives are on the line it's easy to adopt systems to make sure every critical component gets required maintenance. For example, a checklist like pilots use. You'd better believe if there's a fatality or injury because the crew failed to follow established procedure the airline is liable.

 

[billski]

I wish I was outside skiing and creating hazards and potential liabilities rather than sitting on my duff, watching it rain and talking about it.