• 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!

judge-dismisses-mass-familys-lawsuit-against-loon-mountain

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
No case against the resort here but I would think they could definitely go after the instructor and what little money he probably has.
 

Domeskier

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,058
Points
36
Location
New York
Does the statute expressly override an employer's vicarious liability for the torts of its employees? I wonder if the family could go after the resort for any judgment its might be awarded against the instructor.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
28,571
Points
48
Location
NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
Then Jay Peak will probably be in the clear!

Lots of similarity with the Jay Peak case.

Not really. Here it sounds like the ski instructor was the danger himself--he collided with the kid. In the Jay case, they argued that (1) the instructor put their kid in danger because she was not supervising the class, and (2) the off-duty employee was out of control. It's a little different.

And as to if Loon is off the hook it depends--was the instructor in the scope of employment at the time or was he, like with Jay, out freeskiing on his day off?

I'm not sure if the Judge interpreted the NH law to bar ALL claims regarding the inherent risk of skiing, or to end the liability for the resort altogether.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Not really. Here it sounds like the ski instructor was the danger himself--he collided with the kid. In the Jay case, they argued that (1) the instructor put their kid in danger because she was not supervising the class, and (2) the off-duty employee was out of control. It's a little different.

And as to if Loon is off the hook it depends--was the instructor in the scope of employment at the time or was he, like with Jay, out freeskiing on his day off?

I'm not sure if the Judge interpreted the NH law to bar ALL claims regarding the inherent risk of skiing, or to end the liability for the resort altogether.

I think they would have a hard time proving that he was performing job responsibilities as a ski instructor when he was skiing recklessly on a closed trail.
 

fbrissette

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,587
Points
38
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Not really. Here it sounds like the ski instructor was the danger himself--he collided with the kid. In the Jay case, they argued that (1) the instructor put their kid in danger because she was not supervising the class, and (2) the off-duty employee was out of control. It's a little different.

A little different may be, but in both cases you have an off-duty ski instructor being reckless and hitting a kid.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,789
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
From my own experience, unless you are in a lesson you are not clocked with a few exceptions. Instructors aren't supposed to free ski in their jackets but it happens from time to time.


Most ski instructors are paid by the lesson. There generally more instructors then there are lessons. You may have one lesson and then the next hour not then an hour later have a lesson again. Generally not a scheduled shift for them. If you show up you let them know you are there and potential lessons come your way at meeting time. Meanwhile you keep your instructor jacket on.

Also many instructors use their jackets as lift tickets even though they re not checked in! Out west this may be different but for many instructors I know in the east - this is common practice.
 

legalskier

New member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
3,052
Points
0
"The couple's suit against the ski instructor is pending, as is the ski resort's countersuit against the couple."

I wonder what that's about.


 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
7,809
Points
48
Location
Right where I want to be
Originally Posted by MadMadWorld
From my own experience, unless you are in a lesson you are not clocked with a few exceptions. Instructors aren't supposed to free ski in their jackets but it happens from time to time.
Originally Posted by thetrailboss Dlague

Exactly.





Most ski instructors are paid by the lesson. There generally more instructors then there are lessons. You may have one lesson and then the next hour not then an hour later have a lesson again. Generally not a scheduled shift for them. If you show up you let them know you are there and potential lessons come your way at meeting time. Meanwhile you keep your instructor jacket on.

Also many instructors use their jackets as lift tickets even though they re not checked in! Out west this may be different but for many instructors I know in the east - this is common practice.

Yes what dLague said "many instructors use their jackets as lift tickets even though they re not checked in!"
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
Originally Posted by MadMadWorld
From my own experience, unless you are in a lesson you are not clocked with a few exceptions. Instructors aren't supposed to free ski in their jackets but it happens from time to time.
Originally Posted by thetrailboss Dlague

Exactly.







Yes what dLague said "many instructors use their jackets as lift tickets even though they re not checked in!"

I was very guilty of this. When I was an instructor I had to go to a customer service desk to get a comp lift ticket. You would have to put the lift ticket on in front of the lady. If I wanted to ski with a buddy I would just wear his jacket into the office and then when I made it around the corner I would give him back his coat and then throw the instructor jacket back on!
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,316
Points
48
Getting legal fees back? Although i though it you brought suit against someone and lost you automatically had to pay their attorneys fees!

Not automatically, but if the judge finds that the suit was frivolous he can award sanctions.

could be the counterclaim asserted that the plaintiff was the cause of the collision. Whether that is true or not, the claim would have to be asserted to preserve the right to make that argument. It doesn't really tell you anything about the case.
 
Top