Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[WoodCore]

Saw this in the local newspaper today....

http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/09/28/news/doc4ca2bb2a414de452355020.txt

Hope all ends well for Sundown and the Industry in general with this one.

 

[Highway Star]

Bummmerrrr.

 

[thetrailboss]

Generally suing a ski area is not successful. In Vermont there are laws that protect ski areas from such suits. I really don't see how this guy is going to get anything, especially considering:

Recounting the event, Malaguit said he was not wearing a helmet or goggles and hat visibility was limited because of the dark evening sky.

That said, the insurance company still had to pay the defense costs.

 

[severine]

Glad to see all the comments on the article are calling this guy out for being a dumbass.

CT is full of Blonskis this year.

 

[SkiDork]

its certainly a tough situation. Cases like this have the potential of eliminating jumps altogether. People should certainly not try the big jumps without ever having worked up to it. But how is the ski area supposed to determine whether each person who tries a jump is qualified? Tough call.

 

[skiadikt]

Recounting the event, Malaguit said he was not wearing a helmet or goggles and that visibility was limited because of the dark evening sky.

and so whose fault is that ... i certainly wouldn't wish that on anybody but there's no case here.

 

[thetrailboss]

and so whose fault is that ... i certainly wouldn't wish that on anybody but there's no case here.

Exactly. Not prepared, no experience, no helmet. I'm sure that they had the standard "look before you jump" signage warning skiers and riders not to try these park features unless they have experience/knowledge.

The guy was probably looking for a settlement and the insurance company said, "no way. See you in Court!"

 

[severine]

its certainly a tough situation. Cases like this have the potential of eliminating jumps altogether. People should certainly not try the big jumps without ever having worked up to it. But how is the ski area supposed to determine whether each person who tries a jump is qualified? Tough call.

IIRC, isn't the back of the lift ticket a release from liability for the ski area to begin with? I thought it said something like "by buying this ticket, you acknowledge that this is a dangerous sport and will not hold us liable." And the entrance to Stinger does have some sort of liability releasing statement about advanced abilities required as well. Signage (if we're going down that road) exists; this guy just cut over across Exhibition from a less-advanced trail to get there. That doesn't mean that the ski area should be liable; it just means he's an idiot with sad consequences for his actions.

In other words, it shouldn't be up to the ski area to determine who is qualified or not to ski the jumps.

 

[bvibert]

What a crock. I feel bad for the guy, but sometimes shit happens. I hope this doesn't drag on too long, costing Sundown even more money... resulting in my lift ticket price going up... :roll:

 

[SkiDork]

IIRC, isn't the back of the lift ticket a release from liability for the ski area to begin with? I thought it said something like "by buying this ticket, you acknowledge that this is a dangerous sport and will not hold us liable." And the entrance to Stinger does have some sort of liability releasing statement about advanced abilities required as well. Signage (if we're going down that road) exists; this guy just cut over across Exhibition from a less-advanced trail to get there. That doesn't mean that the ski area should be liable; it just means he's an idiot with sad consequences for his actions.

In other words, it shouldn't be up to the ski area to determine who is qualified or not to ski the jumps.

Agreed, but thats not the way it works in the legal system. You can still sue even with the liability statement on the ticket. Whether or not you'll win is a different story. But the consequence is ski areas will simply eliminate the jumps so as to not have to potentially defend suits such as this. it sux but its reality.

 

[mondeo]

Not that I'm backing him, but I'm not sure how wearing a helmet would prevent a spinal injury.

Except that they may claim it speaks to his overall willingess to assume risk.

 

[Warp Daddy]

Given the circumstances IMO its difficult to imagine how this case will be won by the plaintiff when reasonable minds examine It .

While it truly is an unfortunate occurance, he exercised poor judgement by attempting the jump obviously under less than ideal conditions and by not possessing the ABILITY to execute the manuver , poor preparation by his own admission by failing to wear helmet etc .. Moreover the organization, by virtue of the fact of the stated warning on the rear of the ticket and by his purchase of said ticket gave notification that skiing is a DANGEROUS sport etc etc etc .

Too bad looks like the real intent here is a out of court settlement.

 

[severine]

Given the circumstances IMO its difficult to imagine how this case will be won by the plaintiff when reasonable minds examine It .

The same was said about the Blonski mountain biking case at the West Hartford Reservoir and yet she won. Baffling.

 

[SkiDork]

Given the circumstances IMO its difficult to imagine how this case will be won by the plaintiff when reasonable minds examine It .

While it truly is an unfortunate occurance, he exercised poor judgement by attempting the jump obviously under less than ideal conditions and by not possessing the ABILITY to execute the manuver , poor preparation by his own admission by failing to wear helmet etc .. Moreover the organization, by virtue of the fact of the stated warning on the rear of the ticket and by his purchase of said ticket gave notification that skiing is a DANGEROUS sport etc etc etc .

Too bad looks like the real intent here is a out of court settlement.

Question: Is there any way for the ski area to recover the costs of their defense?

 

[Warp Daddy]

The same was said about the Blonski mountain biking case at the West Hartford Reservoir and yet she won. Baffling.

Not familiar with the case but strange events can occur in courtrooms , given the make up of juries ----------------OJ

 

[billski]

But the consequence is ski areas will simply eliminate the jumps so as to not have to potentially defend suits such as this. it sux but its reality.

On the flip side, some resorts were really late to the game in installing terrain parks, allowing skiing in the woods or even, get this, boarding because they feared it would open themselves up to more lawsuits by introducing more risk. In the end, these attractions are probably what, in part has sustained some of them.

It's all about managing risk. I saw a SIA statistic a few years ago that showed insurance costs were running about 15% of total expense at an average US resort, labor being the most expensive (nearly 50%), and energy costs being second place.

 

[bvibert]

Question: Is there any way for the ski area to recover the costs of their defense?

I don't know, but there should be, IMHO.

 

[marcski]

His lawsuit will be a loser. No way to win. He didn't hit any structures that were negligently left on the trail. It doesn't appear that he is alleging that the jump was too close to the side of the trail or a tree or other obstruction. It says he landed on his head! So, any of the other claims in the article regarding crowded slopes has no bearing since he didn't collide with another skier or object...he landed on his head.

This is why there is insurance. To pay for defense costs for claims such as this one...and to pay out legitimate losses. It is a farce, if people believe insurance companies are going to lower premiums if there are tort reform laws.

 

[bvibert]

It's a waste of money is what it is. The only ones who really benefit are the lawyers.

 

[dmc]

There's a special place in hell for those that sue ski areas...