Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[gmcunni]

my father inlaw was interviewing for jury duty a several years ago. a woman had gotten hurt in a accident and the husband filed suit for $$ compensation due to his wife not being able to have sex with him. my father in-law basically laughed at the allegation during his interview session and was quickly eliminated as a juror on the case.

 

[severine]

my father inlaw was interviewing for jury duty a several years ago. a woman had gotten hurt in a accident and the husband filed suit for $$ compensation due to his wife not being able to have sex with him. my father in-law basically laughed at the allegation during his interview session and was quickly eliminated as a juror on the case.

Did she counter sue for all the years of housework for which she wasn't compensated?

 

[gmcunni]

Did she counter sue for all the years of housework for which she wasn't compensated?

he wasn't able to compensate her any longer, that was probably why he filed suit ;-)

 

[marcski]

Hope the hell Stratton and Faxon aren't on it!


http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf

Interesting that the article states the MDC didn't offer any expert testimony. None regarding liability and none regarding damages? Undoubtedly, they are appealing the jury's verdict.

And as someone else said above, no one ever hears about those appeals when the appellate courts knock down jury awards. Like in the McD's coffee case. People also didn't hear that McDonald's own expert witness in that case said that the coffee they served this woman was so hot that it was unfit for human consumption and that the appellate Court drastically reduced the punitive damage award.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950

 

[drjeff]

Interesting that the article states the MDC didn't offer any expert testimony. None regarding liability and none regarding damages? ]

I'm not quite sure how they would have offered "expert" testimony on a yellow gate that's been there, without problems, for decades with quite literally hundreds, if not thousands of people per day during the non snowy months, safely and successfully negotiating their way by it.

In a sense, this specific case would be the equivalent of someone, while not paying attention riding their bike, crashing into a stop sign that's been at the same location for decades, and then blaming the town that the stop sign was in for their crash

 

[marcski]

I'm not quite sure how they would have offered "expert" testimony on a yellow gate that's been there, without problems, for decades with quite literally hundreds, if not thousands of people per day during the non snowy months, safely and successfully negotiating their way by it.

In a sense, this specific case would be the equivalent of someone, while not paying attention riding their bike, crashing into a stop sign that's been at the same location for decades, and then blaming the town that the stop sign was in for their crash

Exactly that. Have an expert...an engineer come in and testify how the gate was there...There was nothing blocking anyone's view of it. How it was not in a hazardous condition and how it contrasted sufficiently with the background environment so that any reasonable person who would approach the gate, would have and should have seen it and avoided crashing into it.

Also, why didn't they have their own medical expert testify? There was nothing to refute the plaintiff's experts version of her condition and future prognosis.

Listen, I never supported her case...and if you look back in this thread at my initial post, I said the sundown case is a big loser too. All I am saying is that there is heck of a lot of misinformation out there....

 

[HowieT2]

Interesting that the article states the MDC didn't offer any expert testimony. None regarding liability and none regarding damages? Undoubtedly, they are appealing the jury's verdict.

And as someone else said above, no one ever hears about those appeals when the appellate courts knock down jury awards. Like in the McD's coffee case. People also didn't hear that McDonald's own expert witness in that case said that the coffee they served this woman was so hot that it was unfit for human consumption and that the appellate Court drastically reduced the punitive damage award.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950

Precisely, the public perception of the issue does not reflect reality. The newspaper reports when a jury awards an outrageous sum but never about how the award was reduced by the trial court or on appeal. Why? because the insurance industry and big business through the US chamber of commerce want potential jurors and voters to think the system is out of control so that they can save some money.
Take this case we are talking about, none of us know the real facts, the evidence admitted into court. all we know is what is reported by someone in the newspaper. Same thing with the infamous Mcdonalds case. without getting to into it, the real evidence was that mcdonalds was superheating their coffee so that it would still be nice and hot 20 minutes after it was sold. The coffee was so hot it caused third degree burns in a matter of seconds as opposed to 20 seconds for normally hot coffee. So instead of being able brush off the spilled coffee before injury, the victim was instantly scalded. Mcdonalds knew this and so the jury punished it by awarding punitive damages of 6 million dollars, equal to one days profit from coffee sales. This was later thrown out by the court and grandma got the whopping sum of something like 285k which had to pay expenses and her attorneys fee, for the 7 surgeries she needed on her vagina. I'm sure she feels like she won the lottery for that.

 

[bvibert]

So, the proof that the system isn't broken is that once a verdict is reached it's appealed anyway? And then often someone with common sense comes up with a realistic ruling?

Sounds like a huge waste of time and money to me. If it worked right the first time there wouldn't be need for all the appeals. Keeps the lawyers busy though, so I guess there's that...

 

[legalskier]

Interesting that the article states the MDC didn't offer any expert testimony. None regarding liability and none regarding damages? Undoubtedly, they are appealing the jury's verdict.

It also states, "the jury took just an hour-and-a-half to deliberate." This speaks volumes. The seats in the jury room were barely warm before they came out and slam-dunked the MDC.

 

[Black Phantom]

So, the proof that the system isn't broken is that once a verdict is reached it's appealed anyway? And then often someone with common sense comes up with a realistic ruling?

Sounds like a huge waste of time and money to me. If it worked right the first time there wouldn't be need for all the appeals. Keeps the lawyers busy though, so I guess there's that...

I feel bad for this kid.

 

[legalskier]

Back on topic, here's a link to the court's website that summarizes the intense pre-trial activity that's been going on in the Sundown matter. As you can see, their lawyers have been hard at work.

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=LLICV085003453S

 

[tjf67]

It also states, "the jury took just an hour-and-a-half to deliberate." This speaks volumes. The seats in the jury room were barely warm before they came out and slam-dunked the MDC.

Are you saying Jurors are dumb again?

 

[tjf67]

Back on topic, here's a link to the court's website that summarizes the intense pre-trial activity that's been going on in the Sundown matter. As you can see, their lawyers have been hard at work.

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=LLICV085003453S

YUP creating billable hours.

 

[legalskier]

Here's a link to a synopsis of the law of ski liability in the State of Connecticut:

http://www.bpslawyers.com/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=9/ArticleID=143

 

[legalskier]

YUP creating billable hours.

...or trying to avoid another Blonski result.

 

[mister moose]

I'm not quite sure how they would have offered "expert" testimony on a yellow gate that's been there, without problems, for decades with quite literally hundreds, if not thousands of people per day during the non snowy months, safely and successfully negotiating their way by it.

In a sense, this specific case would be the equivalent of someone, while not paying attention riding their bike, crashing into a stop sign that's been at the same location for decades, and then blaming the town that the stop sign was in for their crash

It sounds funny, but I was asked by the State DOT to move a stone wall back 15 ft for that exact reason. They have lost cases where motorists have contacted man made objects in the road ROW and lost the case. Even the specter of a case is enough to change policy, even if the case is frivolous. This is part of the problem, it's not just the frivolous lawsuit, it's the threat of the frivolous lawsuit that will change policy. The stone wall was approximately 150 years old, by the way.

Precisely, the public perception of the issue does not reflect reality. The newspaper reports when a jury awards an outrageous sum but never about how the award was reduced by the trial court or on appeal. Why? because the insurance industry and big business through the US chamber of commerce want potential jurors and voters to think the system is out of control so that they can save some money.

I'm sorry, why should any defendant even have to go on appeal at all to nullify an outrageous decision? The case shouldn't have even made it to trial. It is the threat of these awards that affect insurance company's behavior, as I discuss later.

Take this case we are talking about, none of us know the real facts, the evidence admitted into court. all we know is what is reported by someone in the newspaper. Same thing with the infamous Mcdonalds case. without getting to into it, the real evidence was that mcdonalds was superheating their coffee so that it would still be nice and hot 20 minutes after it was sold. The coffee was so hot it caused third degree burns in a matter of seconds as opposed to 20 seconds for normally hot coffee. So instead of being able brush off the spilled coffee before injury, the victim was instantly scalded. Mcdonalds knew this and so the jury punished it by awarding punitive damages of 6 million dollars, equal to one days profit from coffee sales. This was later thrown out by the court and grandma got the whopping sum of something like 285k which had to pay expenses and her attorneys fee, for the 7 surgeries she needed on her vagina. I'm sure she feels like she won the lottery for that.

I'm curious, how much hotter than boiling water, you know, like the kind you make coffee with, was this "superheated" coffee?

The injuries were no doubt real, but the defendant's culpability was not.

This thread has really gone far afield, but please, tell me one insurance company that went under completely due to large jury payouts. They will cry wolf when they see trouble coming; that's to get the changes they want. But they never really go under. AIG doesn't count--it almost went under due to the unbridled greed of one of its units, which the taxpayers got fleeced for when we bailed them out.
I'm not sure what case(s) you're alluding to about "stupid awards," but perhaps if you gave something more than cryptic references an explanation can be found.

I don't know what, if any insurance company went under as a result of large jury awards, I was talking about the target of a frivolous lawsuit, the restaurant, manufacturer, state, or individual who gets sued.

The worst award I can think of actually isn't a jury verdict, it is the result of a string of poor jury awards. In 1979, famed baseball player Thurman Munson died during a botched landing at Akron OH. Munson died in the crash from smoke inhalation, his 2 passengers escaped with minor burns. The crash was primarily caused by flying the aircraft at flaps down speeds when the flaps were up. There were other contributing factors that related to poor judgement and insufficient experience. Munson was alive after the crash. His friends couldn't pull him free from his seat, as his harness was still buckled. There were 2 complicating factors on this: Munson had not buckled in all 4 points of the 4 point harness, he only had buckled the two lap portions. After the crash he was slumped forward, making it difficult for his friends to get to the harness release buckle under his torso. Also, a post crash investigation revealed that the buckle had deformed under the strain enough to jam. The buckle was designed to take loads with all 4 points attached, it deformed slightly with 2 main parts missing. This was the basis of Cessna's liability, and they settled out of court for a large amount.

So let's see.

An inexperienced pilot flies a complicated high performance aircraft well beyond his ability, operates it in a manner that is the sole cause for it to fall out of the sky, His harness that he failed to properly buckle kept him from being extricated even though he was fortunate enough to survive the crash. (There may have been a contributing factor from his legs being pinned as his side of the Citation hit a tree stump) And for all this stupidity and poor judgement from the pilot, Cessna and Cessna's insurance company feared it might be found liable, and settled.

Not only do we have to pay for these settlements through higher insurance premiums, the way we live and the way we conduct business is dictated by the new requirements added to our insurance policies. (Many of the rules at ski resorts are dictated by the insurance company, not the resort. Think about that. )

Cases like this one, and many before it contributed to the deepest, largest and longest drop in aircraft manufacturing in general aviation history. Over 90% reduction. It went on for years. Customers could no longer afford the premiums required to pay all the lawsuits.

Speaking of so-called runaway juries, in another thread we discussed the McDonalds Coffee Cup case, where the jury did make a large award. But that was promptly dismantled on appeal, something they don't mind you not knowing about. That way, when you sit on a panel you may keep the award low, not wanting to be branded the next out of control jury. Checks and balances are built into the system.

I'm not aware of any juror that was publicly castigated for a bad decision.
Are you?

I'll speak from my own experience. Years ago I was sitting in a traffic jam in my old Ford Escort when I was creamed from behind by a Lincoln Continental. Liability was clear, as were my injuries. But nearly three years later, after much rehab and pain management, I ended up with all of $5k. Maybe I should have taken it to trial; next time I will.

Sounds like a terrible experience, and I'm sorry it happened. I'm surprised you didn't seek legal advice. This is one area where I expect you and I agree; insurance companies frequently do not offer fair settlements (In their own best interest). To obtain a fair settlement in a large case, you need a lawyer. The insurance company will offer you some minimal amount, and you will need to fight to get that increased. In matters like this, the insurance company is your adversary, especially when you are not the insured, the person at fault is the insured, and the insurance company's desire is to minimize the loss, not to make you whole. That's just the way it works.

 

[legalskier]

The plaintiffs want to use an expert witness named Stan Gale. I found a site for a Stan Gale, probably the same dude based on the services offered:

The following is a partial list of Areas of Investigation, Litigation Support, Consultation,and Expert Witness Testimony available from Rocky Mountain Ski Consulting, LLC. for standards and accepted practices of ski area operations:
Ski trails safety issues
Ski trail marking
Ski trail obstacles including collisions with both natural and man-made features
Ski terrain analysis
Ski racing
Ski area boundary markings
Skier responsibility code issues and interpretation
Standards of medical care within ski areas including triage, transport, and evacuation
Standards and procedures of ski patrol performance
Ski accident investigation and analysis including collisions between guests and ski area employees
Ski accident scene survey and site analysis including freestyle terrain parks ***

Here's his link if you're interested: http://www.experts.com/showexpert.aspx?eid=4299

 

[gmcunni]

The plaintiffs want to use an expert witness named Stan Gale. I found a site for a Stan Gale, probably the same dude based on the services offered:

do you have any idea what kind of fees experts like this charge? is it fair to assume the plaintiff has to pay the expert regardless of verdict?

 

[Madroch]

Um... the problem with the legal system is the people-- it is our PEERS the JURORS..... end of story. While the legal system has numerous shortcomings, the primary one is the society of self proclaimed victims it serves. The majority of the other shortcomings are shortcomings in failing to protect the people from themselves-- from rendering verdicts which raise the cost of insurance and require the use of more lawyers (day to day, not for trial work) which raises the cost of doing business, etc.

In CT State Court the ability to weed out cases is complicated by the fact that unless you get into the complex lit docket, there is no one "judge" assigned to a case and the judges do not have thier own laywer "clerks". Thus, a judge is confronted with handling all types of cases, without anyone to do research, and is asked to learn each case anew and rule on complicated issues of law (or simply find that the case needs to go to trial due to issues of fact). If the Judge was assigned to the case throughout-- and would have to spend three weeks presiding over a trial in every case he/she failed to get rid of pre-trial-- you would see judges being much more aggressive pre-trial. This would become even more prevalanet if each judge had two lawyers as clerks- as with the federal system. Instead, you have judges assigned to hear numerous motions each week on cases they know nothing about (until they spend a lot of time reading the pleadings), many complicated, with no one to do the research and no "vested"-- read "docket management" interest in spending significant time addressing the motions. While many state judges do-- they are the exception, IMHO.

In the federal system-- judges get assigned cases upon filing and dump cases all the time-- they know the cases and have the clerks to do the research and realize that if they don't rule on it now, they will spend three weeks of thier life presiding over a trial on it later. The feds have the money--- and it shows in docket/case management.

 

[HowieT2]

It sounds funny, but I was asked by the State DOT to move a stone wall back 15 ft for that exact reason. They have lost cases where motorists have contacted man made objects in the road ROW and lost the case. Even the specter of a case is enough to change policy, even if the case is frivolous. This is part of the problem, it's not just the frivolous lawsuit, it's the threat of the frivolous lawsuit that will change policy. The stone wall was approximately 150 years old, by the way.




I'm sorry, why should any defendant even have to go on appeal at all to nullify an outrageous decision? The case shouldn't have even made it to trial. It is the threat of these awards that affect insurance company's behavior, as I discuss later.



I'm curious, how much hotter than boiling water, you know, like the kind you make coffee with, was this "superheated" coffee?

The injuries were no doubt real, but the defendant's culpability was not.



I don't know what, if any insurance company went under as a result of large jury awards, I was talking about the target of a frivolous lawsuit, the restaurant, manufacturer, state, or individual who gets sued.

The worst award I can think of actually isn't a jury verdict, it is the result of a string of poor jury awards. In 1979, famed baseball player Thurman Munson died during a botched landing at Akron OH. Munson died in the crash from smoke inhalation, his 2 passengers escaped with minor burns. The crash was primarily caused by flying the aircraft at flaps down speeds when the flaps were up. There were other contributing factors that related to poor judgement and insufficient experience. Munson was alive after the crash. His friends couldn't pull him free from his seat, as his harness was still buckled. There were 2 complicating factors on this: Munson had not buckled in all 4 points of the 4 point harness, he only had buckled the two lap portions. After the crash he was slumped forward, making it difficult for his friends to get to the harness release buckle under his torso. Also, a post crash investigation revealed that the buckle had deformed under the strain enough to jam. The buckle was designed to take loads with all 4 points attached, it deformed slightly with 2 main parts missing. This was the basis of Cessna's liability, and they settled out of court for a large amount.

So let's see.

An inexperienced pilot flies a complicated high performance aircraft well beyond his ability, operates it in a manner that is the sole cause for it to fall out of the sky, His harness that he failed to properly buckle kept him from being extricated even though he was fortunate enough to survive the crash. (There may have been a contributing factor from his legs being pinned as his side of the Citation hit a tree stump) And for all this stupidity and poor judgement from the pilot, Cessna and Cessna's insurance company feared it might be found liable, and settled.

Not only do we have to pay for these settlements through higher insurance premiums, the way we live and the way we conduct business is dictated by the new requirements added to our insurance policies. (Many of the rules at ski resorts are dictated by the insurance company, not the resort. Think about that. )

Cases like this one, and many before it contributed to the deepest, largest and longest drop in aircraft manufacturing in general aviation history. Over 90% reduction. It went on for years. Customers could no longer afford the premiums required to pay all the lawsuits.





I'm not aware of any juror that was publicly castigated for a bad decision.
Are you?




Sounds like a terrible experience, and I'm sorry it happened. I'm surprised you didn't seek legal advice. This is one area where I expect you and I agree; insurance companies frequently do not offer fair settlements (In their own best interest). To obtain a fair settlement in a large case, you need a lawyer. The insurance company will offer you some minimal amount, and you will need to fight to get that increased. In matters like this, the insurance company is your adversary, especially when you are not the insured, the person at fault is the insured, and the insurance company's desire is to minimize the loss, not to make you whole. That's just the way it works.

First of all, the Munson case was not a negligence case and therefore the reasonableness standard did not apply. It was a products liability case for which a much stricter standard applies. One may argue that that standard is too strict and the law should be changed, but it is not an example of outrageous jury awards.

Don't quote me the exact numbers but I think McDonalds was heating the water under pressure and it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 degrees hotter than normal coffee. But the point is, don't always believe what you read. Jurors generally make the right decision.
GVBvirt-you obviously are going to believe what you want to believe, the facts and reality be damned. You think that jurors only make mistakes in favor of plaintiffs? It is only defendants who have to appeal?
The reality is most cases are resolved amicably without need for a trial. Of cases that do go to trial, Defendants win more than half and in medical malpractice more than 2 of 3. Where jurors do render verdicts, they are overwhelmingly reasonable. Most appeals from jury verdicts are over issues like the judges rulings about evidence or the law. Appeals of outrageous jury verdicts are in reality, rare. However, if you get your information from the media, they appear to be the norm because thats all they report.

As for the comments about frivolous lawsuits and objects near a roadway, how can you lose a case that's frivolous? by definition a frivolous case has no merit and can't even arguably be won. I don't know what the law is in your jurisdiction, but in NY, roadway design/maintenance cases are guided by uniform rules. The party responsible for the roadway must have knowledge of a dangerous condition prior to the happening of the accident. If they have knowledge of it and study it and decide not to do anything about it, they are immune from liability. They can only be held responsible if they knew of a dangerous condition, that violates the safety standards of the uniform rules, and didn't do anything about. Does that seem unfair to anyone?

Don't get me wrong, the system is not perfect. Jurors, judges and lawyers are human. mistakes happen. Perhaps some of you would prefer a system like russia or china. In china where there is no functioning civil tort system, when the milk manufacturer added melamin, sickening thousands and killing hundreds, they simply executed some executives. In this country, we all benefit from safer products and conduct encouraged by the civil tort system at a lower cost than govt. regulations.