Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[HowieT2]

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?

The expert probably charges in the neighborhood of 3-5k for his investigation and report. His testimony is likely 10-25k/day. These costs are borne by the plaintiff regardless of outcome.
Issues of this nature (outside the kin of an ordinary jurors knowledge), must be addressed by expert testimony.

 

[legalskier]

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?

Each expert charges his own fee, plus expenses (e.g. travel, hotel, food). The parties typically pay for their own expert (Sundown appears to have its own witnesses too), which they pay regardless of verdict/settlement.

 

[speden]

It seems unlikely the plaintiff would be paying the expert, at least not up front. I thought the ambulance chasing type of lawyers fronted all the costs, and had the plaintiff agree to pay them a percentage of any settlement or award amount. So the plaintiff probably has nothing to lose by bringing the lawsuit, and the lawyer representing them probably sees a good chance to get some kind of settlement or jury award if things go that far.

 

[HowieT2]

It seems unlikely the plaintiff would be paying the expert, at least not up front. I thought the ambulance chasing type of lawyers fronted all the costs, and had the plaintiff agree to pay them a percentage of any settlement or award amount. So the plaintiff probably has nothing to lose by bringing the lawsuit, and the lawyer representing them probably sees a good chance to get some kind of settlement or jury award if things go that far.

That is somewhat correct. Plaintiffs generally can't afford to pay such costs. Lawyers are permitted to pay litigation costs which include expert witness fees. However, since they are the ultimate responsibility of the client, the disbursements must be considered a loan to the client according to the IRS. These costs are deducted from any recovery before calculated the attorneys fee, so the lawyer does end up paying through a reduced fee.
In the last 10 years there has been an explosion of finance companies which will advance these litigation costs at outrageous interest rates because they are not governed by the laws against usury. This was what the lawyers representing the WTC workers did, in the case that settled recently. They "borrowed" some 35 million for litigation expenses.

 

[bvibert]

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.

I assume this particular bit was aimed at me... I believe what makes sense. What you all keep rambling on about is nonsense, spinning things as you see fit and adding lengthy diatribes to cloud the issue. Did I ever say that mistakes were only made on the side of plaintiffs? No, I didn't think so. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

The simple fact that cases like this one and the Blonski case can even make it to trial means the system is screwed up in my book. You can think otherwise, that's fine. I don't expect anyone who's tied into the legal system to be capable of seeing how screwed up it is.

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.

Exactly my point, the fact that these frivolous cases are going to trail and in some cases succeeding is evidence that the system doesn't work. Thanks for further proving my point.

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?

You forgot to add the bit where some genius finds a loop hole in the law that probably doesn't even really pertain to the case at hand, but bends it to fit. There's no such thing as uniform rules in the legal system.

 

[bobbutts]

Well the taxpayers end up paying one way or another anyway. Pick your poison, high insurance rates, coverage limits, co-pays, bankrupt ski areas, sky high lawyer fees, crazy jury awards, bans on out of bounds skiing, etc.

I already pay a lot in medicare taxes, but get no direct benefits unless I'm lucky enough to live to old age. Would make more sense to give everyone benefits and eliminate all the crap that comes with for profit insurance. Why not just acknowledge that freak accidents happen and have a medical system in place that can deal with it without all the overhead of greedy insurance companies, expensive trials, etc.

Legitimate at fault parties can still be sued, you'd just decrease the need to sue not at fault "deep pocket" defendants if our medical coverage in the U.S. wasn't so spotty.

this..

 

[HowieT2]

I assume this particular bit was aimed at me... I believe what makes sense. What you all keep rambling on about is nonsense, spinning things as you see fit and adding lengthy diatribes to cloud the issue. Did I ever say that mistakes were only made on the side of plaintiffs? No, I didn't think so. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

The simple fact that cases like this one and the Blonski case can even make it to trial means the system is screwed up in my book. You can think otherwise, that's fine. I don't expect anyone who's tied into the legal system to be capable of seeing how screwed up it is.



Exactly my point, the fact that these frivolous cases are going to trail and in some cases succeeding is evidence that the system doesn't work. Thanks for further proving my point.



You forgot to add the bit where some genius finds a loop hole in the law that probably doesn't even really pertain to the case at hand, but bends it to fit. There's no such thing as uniform rules in the legal system.

It would be great if you were open minded enough to admit when you don't know what you are talking about but you persist in spouting opinions based on your beliefs which are not grounded in reality.
As for your final observation about loopholes and uniform rules, the rules I was referring to are industry standards for how to design build and maintain safe roadways. like where guardrails are needed, how close to a roadway trees/objects should be, sign placement, etc. You do recognize that these are necessary to ensure safe travel? engineers dont just make this stuff up as they go along, they follow uniform rules. and the rules aren't made by lawyers or judges or anyone in the legal system. But I'm sure you will continue to blame lawyers and the legal system for everything you dont like and continue to make judgments about cases you know 'nothing about.

 

[mondeo]

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.

They were pretty heavily banking on being immune from litigation due to, in my understanding, laws limiting liabilty to municipalites for providing recreaional areas, and laws limiting liability to private entities providing recreational areas. Basically, because they were a corporation made up of municipalities they were open to a lawsuit that neither municipalities or non-municipal corporations, and because they had the gate there to protect access to public water supplies which they sold in the same way a for-profit company would. Essentially, they were arguing that the law loophole they were being sued through didn't actually exist. Yeah, probably should've run plan B and plan C just to be covered, but that was plan A.

And this one's been through the appeals process. No other developments, still $2.9 million. And I'm still asking one of the lawyers to explain the non-economic damages that are 18 times greater than the economic damages.

 

[mister moose]

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.

Exactly my point, the fact that these frivolous cases are going to trail and in some cases succeeding is evidence that the system doesn't work. Thanks for further proving my point.

Yes. The point HowieT2 missed earlier is not just what the rules are in the courtroom, but how the current legal environment affects decision making by service providers, manufacturers, governments, etc. Moving a 150 year old stone wall due to fear of liability lawsuits comes from somewhere, and it ain't made up by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[HowieT2]

They were pretty heavily banking on being immune from litigation due to, in my understanding, laws limiting liabilty to municipalites for providing recreaional areas, and laws limiting liability to private entities providing recreational areas. Basically, because they were a corporation made up of municipalities they were open to a lawsuit that neither municipalities or non-municipal corporations, and because they had the gate there to protect access to public water supplies which they sold in the same way a for-profit company would. Essentially, they were arguing that the law loophole they were being sued through didn't actually exist. Yeah, probably should've run plan B and plan C just to be covered, but that was plan A.

And this one's been through the appeals process. No other developments, still $2.9 million. And I'm still asking one of the lawyers to explain the non-economic damages that are 18 times greater than the economic damages.

Not familiar with the case but if the damage award is for a young person lets say 25, the life expectancy is another 50 years. So the jury must decide what is fair and reasonable compensation for loss of enjoyment of life over 50 years taking into account inflation and time value of money. Even if you assume a low inflation rate of 4-5% and you reduce the 2.9 million to present value, it is not as high as it appears.

 

[mondeo]

Legitimate at fault parties can still be sued, you'd just decrease the need to sue not at fault "deep pocket" defendants if our medical coverage in the U.S. wasn't so spotty.

But if you had no medical expenses, why would you sue in the first place? Such a system removes liability from at-fault parties, which isn't a good thing, when it comes down to it.

The reality is the law suits would continue, because the medical costs aren't often the primary drivers in these cases. It's the lost wages and non-economic awards that dominate the award amounts.

 

[HowieT2]

But if you had no medical expenses, why would you sue in the first place? Such a system removes liability from at-fault parties, which isn't a good thing, when it comes down to it.

The reality is the law suits would continue, because the medical costs aren't often the primary drivers in these cases. It's the lost wages and non-economic awards that dominate the award amounts.

I think that is correct in the majority of cases where the future medical costs are minimal. But the real big cases are the ones where there are continuing and future medical costs. With inflation of medical costs running around 15%/year its easy to see how these costs can dwarf the other elements in damages. For example, a young person who needs a lifetime of medical care (doctor, therapy, drugs etc.) may have projected future medical costs of 10-25 million dollars, easily.

 

[mondeo]

Not familiar with the case but if the damage award is for a young person lets say 25, the life expectancy is another 50 years. So the jury must decide what is fair and reasonable compensation for loss of enjoyment of life over 50 years taking into account inflation and time value of money. Even if you assume a low inflation rate of 4-5% and you reduce the 2.9 million to present value, it is not as high as it appears.

Net present value of $2.9 million awarded today is $2.9 million, investments should match inflation anyways.

The woman's basically fully functional now. Maybe some pain, slightly reduced capability, but she still road rides and plays soccer on a regular basis.

U.S. GDP per capita was $48K in 2008. Productive lifespan generously being around 45 years, the monetary value of a life is $2.16 million, net present value. This is a woman who will have to live with slight disabilites, beyond the couple years she was out of work (which was part of the $150K in economic awards, which for the sake of this discussion I'm not arguing.) Her entire life isn't worth what she was awarded in non-economic damages, and yet she gets that amount despite only minor disabilities, if any.

 

[bvibert]

It would be great if you were open minded enough to admit when you don't know what you are talking about but you persist in spouting opinions based on your beliefs which are not grounded in reality.
As for your final observation about loopholes and uniform rules, the rules I was referring to are industry standards for how to design build and maintain safe roadways. like where guardrails are needed, how close to a roadway trees/objects should be, sign placement, etc. You do recognize that these are necessary to ensure safe travel? engineers dont just make this stuff up as they go along, they follow uniform rules. and the rules aren't made by lawyers or judges or anyone in the legal system. But I'm sure you will continue to blame lawyers and the legal system for everything you dont like and continue to make judgments about cases you know 'nothing about.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings with my opinions of the legal system. Last time I checked I was free to express my opinions. I am plenty open minded and I form my opinions based on the information presented to me, and of course common sense. Despite that lawyers are supposed to be good at arguing their points none of your have presented anything to change my opinions on the legal system in this country. The legal system lacks common sense, IMHO (in case you haven't figured that one out it means In My Humble Opinion, you'll also notice that I use it extensively in this thread).

Perhaps it's the lawyers in this country who are too damn smug to admit that their precious system if whacked?? God forbid if some mere mortal expresses dissatisfaction with the legal system!! It's like the lawyer lynch squad comes out to defend their little playhouse. :lol:

I can assure you that any rules or standards in place regarding road construction and safety are heavily influenced by lawyers, but I'm still not sure what your point was. I don't think anyone is arguing that rules or standards are a bad thing, as long as they make sense. Standards are fine, however there's always some chump who just has to try to challenge them with some screwed up interpretation, just to make a buck.

I'm sure you'll carry on trying to defend your club by putting words in my mouth and twisting the facts. Good luck with that, it doesn't work as well outside of the rules of the courtroom. Thanks for playing though.

BTW - I couldn't be happier that my beliefs are not grounded in what you consider reality! :lol:

 

[speden]

But if you had no medical expenses, why would you sue in the first place? Such a system removes liability from at-fault parties, which isn't a good thing, when it comes down to it.

The reality is the law suits would continue, because the medical costs aren't often the primary drivers in these cases. It's the lost wages and non-economic awards that dominate the award amounts.

Law suits would certainly continue even with universal health care. This is America after all.

But if you take medical costs out of lawsuits, it would blunt a lot of claims and reduce the risk of big payouts for everyone. That may be one of the reasons Europe can be a lot more liberal about things like skiing out of bounds. If someone breaks their neck in the backcountry, the ski resort knows they won't be paying the medical bills, and the skier knows they are not going to become a financial burden on their family.

 

[mondeo]

I think that is correct in the majority of cases where the future medical costs are minimal. But the real big cases are the ones where there are continuing and future medical costs. With inflation of medical costs running around 15%/year its easy to see how these costs can dwarf the other elements in damages. For example, a young person who needs a lifetime of medical care (doctor, therapy, drugs etc.) may have projected future medical costs of 10-25 million dollars, easily.

Again, I'm not for limiting lawsuits for costs, past, present or future. That's reasonable to allow. Inflation of insurance costs is running 15%/year, but that's not medical costs - that has more to do with the aging population (increasing the amount of medical care, not cost/amount) and increase in uninsured care, which ultimately gets lumped into hospital bills for insured individuals. I don't know how you structure future medical cost reimbursement, but by all means do something for it. But there needs to be an actual cost associated with it.

Keeping liability for the at-fault party, despite the general hatred for lawyers and lawsuits, needs to be kept alive. It's what drives consideration of people's safety, and the only real way to assess how much cost should be put into products to account for safety risks. What needs to change is a system where financial incentive (real or perceived) for getting injured exists, and what is considered to be a reasonable level of personal responsibility. In the Sundown, MDC, and McD cases, that's where the failure (in my mind, at least) really occurs, in line with life outside the courtroom. The abdication of responsibility for peoples own actions. (Oh, the tantalizing tangents I could go on with that one. But I won't. This thread's suffered enough of a hijack.)

 

[bvibert]

despite the general hatred for lawyers and lawsuits,

I just wanted to add that I don't have a general hatred for lawyers (maybe most lawsuits, but that's another matter). I have friends and family who are lawyers. Their line of thinking doesn't make sense most of the time, but that doesn't make them bad people. There are bad lawyers who I do hate, at least what they do, I don't actually know them.

I don't pretend to know everything about the legal system. My opinion is that it's screwed up. I also don't pretend to know how to fix it, nor do I think it will ever change in any sort of major way. The people who could change it don't think there's anything wrong with it, so I don't see anything changing.

 

[legalskier]

Originally Posted by legalskier
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
Yes. The point Legalskier missed earlier is not just what the rules are in the courtroom, but how the current legal environment affects decision making by service providers, manufacturers, governments, etc. Moving a 150 year old stone wall due to fear of liability lawsuits comes from somewhere, and it ain't made up by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

How did my name get attached to words that I didn't write? I never made that statement, but someone put my name on them. Wtf is going on here???

 

[mister moose]

How did my name get attached to words that I didn't write? I never made that statement, but someone put my name on them. Wtf is going on here???

That's my mistake. I was quoting bvibert post 125, and mistakenly inserted your name for his unattributed quote, mixing you up with HowieT2. Appologies. Post has been edited to be correct now.

 

[JimG.]

I don't pretend to know everything about the legal system. My opinion is that it's screwed up. I also don't pretend to know how to fix it, nor do I think it will ever change in any sort of major way. The people who could change it don't think there's anything wrong with it, so I don't see anything changing.

Hmmmm....

I used to tihnk this way, but I have come to realize that the legal system and lawyers are really a reflection of society at large. Society and the way we go about things as a society are to blame, not the lawyers. They are just filling certain needs.

I'll use no fault auto insurance states as an example. If someone enters your home and destroys your property, they can be arrested and thrown into jail. Then they will be ordered to pay restitution as a part of their sentence. Not so with auto no fault insurance. Any moron can slam into your car and destroy it, but the consequences are nil. They won't be arrested unless they are drunk and even then they probably won't be arrested or thrown into jail. Your insurance company decides how much you will receive for your destroyed property, it is almost guaranteed this amount will be only a small fraction of what it will cost you to replace your car, and if you don't like it, tough.

If you aren't injured, you are really up a creek; if you are injured, you have to sue the other person to get restitution and that will take years.

Are the lawyers to blame? No. The system that says nobody is to blame is at fault and the system is more entrenched in society as time passes. Today, nobody takes responsibility for anything. That's the problem, not lawyers.