Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[legalskier]

Ski Sundown's legal counsel, plaintiff discuss injury case
LITCHFIELD — Attorneys representing Ski Sundown and James Malaguit discussed specific terminology within the juror instructions as well as the chronological order of the instructions that will be given to the jury as a basis for their deliberation in a charge hearing in Litchfield Superior Court Friday. ***
The defense wants Conn. General Statute 29-212 to be present in front of the jury while they deliberate. Conn. General Statute 29-212 states, “Skiing” means sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice using skis, a snowboard, snow blades, a snowbike, a sit-ski or any other device that is controllable by its edges on snow or ice or is for the purpose of utilizing any skiable terrain,” according to Conn. Public Act No. 05-78.
“What the jury doesn’t see is that jumping is a part of skiing under the definition. If that is not put in front of jury, the jury may see skiing and jumping as two different things,” defense attorney Charles F. Gfeller of West Hartford stated.
http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/10/16/news/doc4cb8d791cd407268913236.txt

 

[Highway Star]

Jay:

Could you see this affecting our beloved mogul skiing as well? (not this particular case but other law suits against the industry) I've always worried about this. I would hate to see the ski areas (particularly the smaller hills down here) forced to roll everything flat but I could see it happening if the wrong decision came down. Like I said I sit there and look at some of the features in the terrain parks and wonder how thier insurance companies allow it. Liability Laws are tricky things.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

Funny stuff. You do realize that moguls have got MUCH smaller and easier at most areas all throughout the 1990's, to where they are usually pretty small now. Whereas in the 90's, jumps went from being banned to being built in parks everywhere.

 

[Highway Star]

They build terrain parks, with jumps and rails and other features, the sizes of which are ever-increasing, in order to make more money.

BS. Maybe the sizes of the rails and various jibs are a bit bigger, but jumps have definitely gotten gradually smaller since the 90's. Tell me where in the east has a 45-60 foot table top with a 30-35+ degree jump......?

 

[mondeo]

Funny stuff. You do realize that moguls have got MUCH smaller and easier at most areas all throughout the 1990's, to where they are usually pretty small now. Whereas in the 90's, jumps went from being banned to being built in parks everywhere.

Also, "Moguls are a product of our sport. It's not something you've got to go spend a million dollars on building a little... little playing field. It just happens naturally."

I'd think it would be harder to sue over a normally occuring result of skiing that's been around since the invention of ski resorts compared to a manmade obstacle.

 

[4aprice]

Funny stuff. You do realize that moguls have got MUCH smaller and easier at most areas all throughout the 1990's, to where they are usually pretty small now. Whereas in the 90's, jumps went from being banned to being built in parks everywhere.

Smaller moguls?:-o I've been skiing for 40 + years and don't see a difference in size, maybe the coverage but not size. I'm hoping this not a Killington thing as I may be skiing there more in the future depending on my daughters college choice. Asp at Camelback PA had some true monsters on it last year.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[Highway Star]

Smaller moguls?:-o I've been skiing for 40 + years and don't see a difference in size, maybe the coverage but not size. I'm hoping this not a Killington thing as I may be skiing there more in the future depending on my daughters college choice. Asp at Camelback PA had some true monsters on it last year.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

There are typically 3 causes cited regarding reduced mogul size:

- Skis are much shorter than 20 years ago, and snowboards are much more common. Moguls are shaped smaller and choppier.

- Winch cats. It is much easier to groom steeps with a winch cat than without, thus they get buffed out after a thaw or before they get too big.

- People just don't like moguls.

 

[campgottagopee]

There are typically 3 causes cited regarding reduced mogul size:

- Skis are much shorter than 20 years ago, and snowboards are much more common. Moguls are shaped smaller and choppier.

- Winch cats. It is much easier to groom steeps with a winch cat than without, thus they get buffed out after a thaw or before they get too big.

- People just don't like moguls.

:-o:-o:-o

 

[legalskier]

Smaller moguls?:-o I've been skiing for 40 + years and don't see a difference in size, maybe the coverage but not size. I'm hoping this not a Killington thing as I may be skiing there more in the future depending on my daughters college choice. Asp at Camelback PA had some true monsters on it last year.

+1
Same in the Catskills, especially Hunter West.

 

[KingM]

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.

The kid is 15. I was a dumbass at 15 and you probably were, too.

I'm not saying the ski resort should give a big payout. If they did, the industry as we know it would quickly die. But still, it sucks for that kid and I don't really blame him for what happened. 99% bad luck.

 

[severine]

The kid is 15. I was a dumbass at 15 and you probably were, too.

I'm not saying the ski resort should give a big payout. If they did, the industry as we know it would quickly die. But still, it sucks for that kid and I don't really blame him for what happened. 99% bad luck.

I didn't say that it doesn't suck for the kid. But it was still a dumbass move to take the risk then blame the ski area, IMHO.

But what the hell do I know.

 

[Highway Star]

At 15, I had been building and hitting jumps for several years and typically knew how to do it without getting hurt.

 

[neil]

The defense calls Highway Star to the stand.

 

[KingM]

I didn't say that it doesn't suck for the kid. But it was still a dumbass move to take the risk then blame the ski area, IMHO.

But what the hell do I know.

I agree and I don't think the ski resort should pay the cost. But I've got a 15 year old. 90% of the time he's perfectly reasonable, but 10% of the time he still acts like a preschooler.

 

[bvibert]

You can only do so much to protect someone from themselves. Yes, he was a 15 year old doing what a 15 year old does; often stupid stuff. Either through lack of skill or bad luck, or maybe both, he got badly injured. It happens. It's not the ski area's fault that he was acting like a 15 year old.

 

[legalskier]

The attorneys made their closing arguments yesterday, echoing some of the thoughts expressed in this thread. Now it's in the jury's hands....

Closing arguments heard in Ski Sundown case
By CHRIS RUELI
LITCHFIELD — Closing arguments in the James Malaguit v. Ski Sundown case took place in Litchfield Superior Court Tuesday, followed by the Judge charging the jury on what laws to follow in order for them to deliberate. *** In the plaintiff’s closing arguments, attorney Ralph Monaco of New London claimed that one reason for Ski Sundown’s negligence was the fact that there was no terrain park fence. The defendants argued that Malaguit made his own decision to go over the terrain feature, and that fences do not keep people out of the terrain park, they keep traffic from crossing through and disrupting the park.
“They failed to take simple inexpensive measures such as this $180 fence to keep inexperienced people out of this park. Not having a fence was a major mistake on their part,” Monaco stated.
This was more than an accident waiting to happen, it was a tragedy waiting to happen, according to Monaco. Fencing is erected for crowd control, not to keep people out of a terrain park, he said.
Fencing was not something that was going to prevent James from going in the terrain park, according to defense attorney Mark Seiger of West Hartford.
“You heard (in testimony) that it wasn’t a crowded evening — fencing was not necessary. That fence wouldn’t have prevented him from going in that terrain park,” Seiger stated.
The defendant’s argued that Malaguit made his own conscious choice to go off the “little big air” feature on the night of his incident.
“James accident was the result of a series of decisions he made on Feb. 17, 2006.
“They (skiers) have to choose the type of terrain they ski; they have to choose the level of trail they go on. Those are choices that skiers need to make, and they need to take responsibility,” Seiger stated.
If a skier does not have the proper judgment, then that is what parents are for, according to Seiger. Ski areas cannot test how good at skiing someone is, Seiger noted.
According to Monaco, Ski Sundown’s unrestricted access to the terrain park is one more reason the facility was negligent. There is no proof of qualification or requirement of competence needed in order to enter the terrain park.
“They let kids make an adult decision, something we as a society try to avoid. A decision driven by profit, not by safety,” Monaco stated. “These (terrain parks) really are very dangerous and they market these things to young people who like being launched in the air. They made a personal choice, as a result we have a young boy who is condemned to living his life as a quadriplegic.”
“This jump is the product of a deliberate decision; there is nothing natural about this. This isn’t inherent in the sport of skiing. Inherent is a quality that you totally can’t take away because it takes away the characteristic of that,” Monaco said.
“There are certain days you don’t forget, and one of those days is the day you stop walking. In a split second his life was changed,” Monaco said.
Malaguit must be moved every two hours throughout the night in order to avoid blood clots. He will lose about $2.3 million in earnings over the course of his life, Monaco noted, in reference to previous testimony. Malaguit’s injuries are nothing short of horrific, according to Monaco.
“That $180 fence could have prevented this. These measures, such as fences and signage, would have prevented this. Ski Sundown was just not that careful, they made a very poor choice by building a very large man-made jump available to everyone,” Monaco stated.
In the defenses’ closing arguments, Seiger stated, “They (plaintiffs) want you to believe that terrain parks are the most dangerous place on the mountain. (John) Fry believes ski areas took control of the (unsafe) situation starting around 1990. When they realized jumping was taking place all over the mountain,” Seiger stated. Fry, a former editor of Ski Magazine, authored the book, “The Story of Modern Skiing.” The ski industry built terrain parks for a safe and reasonable place for skiers to take jumps, according to Fry’s testimony, Seiger noted. “Skiing is safe today because of terrain parks,” Fry said in his testimony, according to Seiger.
After the conclusion of the closing arguments, Judge John A. Danaher III charged the jury. The jurors must first determine whether Ski Sundown is liable for the incident before deciding on damages, Danaher noted.
The plaintiff is claiming that Ski Sundown was negligent in causing Malaguit’s injuries. The defendant is denying this, claiming that the skier assumes the risk after skiing off the jump at Ski Sundown, Danaher noted.
““Negligence is the violation of legal duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances,” Danaher stated.
Reasonable care is what a reasonable person would use in normal circumstances, according to Danaher.
“You must decide whether the defendant or plaintiff was negligent,” Danaher stated.
The plaintiffs must prove that being injured while skiing over a terrain feature is not a hazard inherent in the sport of skiing, according to Danaher.
“If the defendant is found negligent, you must attempt to put the plaintiff in the same position, as far as money can do it, as they were before suffering injuries,” Danaher stated to the jury.
The marshal delivered the charge to the jury and then proceeded to bring all of the evidence from the case into the juror room in order for them to deliberate.
The case will continue on Wednesday with further juror deliberation.
http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/10/20/news/doc4cbe6f66c35e8047334266.txt

 

[jaywbigred]

BS. Maybe the sizes of the rails and various jibs are a bit bigger, but jumps have definitely gotten gradually smaller since the 90's. Tell me where in the east has a 45-60 foot table top with a 30-35+ degree jump......?

You really believe that the overall trend in the ski industry between 1990 and 2010 has been the shrinking of park features/jumps? The jumps in the XL parks where I've skied over the last few years such as Mt Snow, PCMR, Breckenridge, Snowbasin, and Stratton have absolutely no comparison, in my memory, to the parks of the 90s and early 2000s.

 

[AdironRider]

Didnt Snoqualmie have to pay out millions on a very similar case?

Plantiff argued that the jump wasnt built properly, and had to short/steep of a landing zone so a local ripper sent it to far on a jump with no room for error.

Not sure if this even applies, but I actually agreed with that lawsuit. If you're going to build a terrain park, you better do it right.

 

[Chris Sullivan]

The jury deliberated for 1 hour and 24 minutes and came back with a decision in favor of Ski Sundown.

 

[4aprice]

The jury deliberated for 1 hour and 24 minutes and came back with a decision in favor of Ski Sundown.

Hooray

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[2knees]

The jury deliberated for 1 hour and 24 minutes and came back with a decision in favor of Ski Sundown.

Glad the jury saw it objectively. It must be tough when you're considering the fate of someone so young who will spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair but it sure seems like 100% the correct decision.