Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[HowieT2]

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.

In NY jury awards above 250k for future pain and suffering are reduced to present value by the court outside of the presence and knowledge of the jury. So a 2.9 million verdict does not result in the plaintiff actually receiving 2.9 million.
furthermore the costs and attorneys fee are deducted such that, the plaintiff would take home about 60-65% of whatever the final number is assuming there is sufficient insurance coverage to pay the award.

As I stated previously, I am not familiar with the case, but the jury was the one who heard the evidence from both sides, remember this is an adversarial proceeding, and was in a much better position to make a judgment as to what was fair and reasonable compensation, than monday morning quarterbacks based on 3rd hand accounts of one side of the story. That's not to say, that if you were on that jury you wouldnt have awarded a different number. just that in my experience, there must have been some pretty compelling evidence to warrant a jury award of that magnitude and it being upheld by both the trial judge and an appellate court. I have studied every appellate decision concerning the value of injuries in NY for 20 years, and believe me, it is not easy to uphold an award.
If you are really interested in the subject check out this blog. http://www.newyorkinjurycasesblog.com/

 

[HowieT2]

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:

I think your last quote says at all. I was just trying to inform you and other readers of what the facts are because your opinion and that of many others in this country is understandable based on the information presented to you. You could have no way of knowing the truth, because you are and have been for 30 years, the subject of a concerted propaganda campaign by the insurance industry, big business and the republican party, to destroy the rights of individuals so they can increase they're bottom line. I wish you and your family the best of luck. I hope you all lead a happy, healthy life devoid of any significant misfortune. But I know, that should anything happen, you will be the first one on the phone to call a lawyer like me to protect your rights and once you experience the system firsthand, you will realize that what I'm telling you is the truth.

 

[severine]

I think your last quote says at all. I was just trying to inform you and other readers of what the facts are because your opinion and that of many others in this country is understandable based on the information presented to you. You could have no way of knowing the truth, because you are and have been for 30 years, the subject of a concerted propaganda campaign by the insurance industry, big business and the republican party, to destroy the rights of individuals so they can increase they're bottom line. I wish you and your family the best of luck. I hope you all lead a happy, healthy life devoid of any significant misfortune. But I know, that should anything happen, you will be the first one on the phone to call a lawyer like me to protect your rights and once you experience the system firsthand, you will realize that what I'm telling you is the truth.

While I don't share all of b's views, he has every right to express them. Please don't make assumptions about my family. You don't know us. You don't know what we would do or how we would react. And while I realize you're trying to make a point, I find it distasteful that you would try to use my family as an example for your agenda.

 

[mondeo]

... but the jury was the one who heard the evidence from both sides, remember this is an adversarial proceeding, and was in a much better position to make a judgment as to what was fair and reasonable compensation, than monday morning quarterbacks based on 3rd hand accounts of one side of the story.

Another aspect of this is that most of the people on this board who bring this case up have ridden at WH Rez, and know exactly what gate she ran into, and exactly how stupid you'd have to be to run into it. While the jury may have heard both sides of the story, what they heard from the plaintiff's side was that the gate was poorly marked. We who have ridden there know that it is very clearly marked, something that the jury most likely didn't have our knowledge of (and I'm guessing was taken care of in jury selection.)

 

[mondeo]

You could have no way of knowing the truth, because you are and have been for 30 years, the subject of a concerted propaganda campaign by the insurance industry, big business and the republican party, to destroy the rights of individuals so they can increase they're bottom line.

While we're at it, the only reason they haven't been successful is because the Democrats, American Bar Association, unions, and other special interest groups have been better at suppressing the understanding of economics in this country.

Seriously, dude, WTF. Let's keep the conspiracy theories out of it.

 

[HowieT2]

While I don't share all of b's views, he has every right to express them. Please don't make assumptions about my family. You don't know us. You don't know what we would do or how we would react. And while I realize you're trying to make a point, I find it distasteful that you would try to use my family as an example for your agenda.

Excuse me? I don't see how I made any assumptions about your or any other family. If I did, I profoundly apologize. But I'm stumped as to how you interpreted what I said in a negative way. All I said was that if, god forbid, something were to happen such that B would gain personal knowledge of the system he is deriding, he would feel very differently about it.

 

[severine]

Excuse me? I don't see how I made any assumptions about your or any other family. If I did, I profoundly apologize. But I'm stumped as to how you interpreted what I said in a negative way. All I said was that if, god forbid, something were to happen such that B would gain personal knowledge of the system he is deriding, he would feel very differently about it.

I am married to B. He is my husband. His family is my family. You assumed that if something happened to him or his family, he would run right to a lawyer.

I wish you and your family the best of luck. I hope you all lead a happy, healthy life devoid of any significant misfortune. But I know, that should anything happen, you will be the first one on the phone to call a lawyer like me to protect your rights and once you experience the system firsthand, you will realize that what I'm telling you is the truth.

Hence, you made assumptions about me and my family. Please don't pretend to know what others will do in a hypothetical circumstance; that's not predictable.

 

[Black Phantom]

I am married to B. He is my husband. His family is my family. You assumed that if something happened to him or his family, he would run right to a lawyer.



Hence, you made assumptions about me and my family. Please don't pretend to know what others will do in a hypothetical circumstance; that's not predictable.

Sue him!

 

[bvibert]

But I know, that should anything happen, you will be the first one on the phone to call a lawyer like me to protect your rights and once you experience the system firsthand, you will realize that what I'm telling you is the truth.

Please don't pretend to know me or what I'll do. If some sort of misfortune happens to me that is my fault I most certainly will NOT be on a phone to a lawyer. And that's what we're talking about here; people using the legal system for personal gain when it's not due. You won't find anywhere that I say that the legal system has no value at all and doesn't work in some cases.

 

[jaywbigred]

Problem is the definition of frivolous lawsuit. Lawyers will be better than I am at this, obviously, but stupid != frivolous. Ski resorts do have some responsibility for providing reasonably safe conditions. If Sundown made a massive booter onto a flat landing, they'd be responsible for the injuries because of an improperly made jump. Some reasonable level of marking is rational - unmarked, unexpected cliffs in the middle of a beginner trail would be another case of a winning lawsuit waiting to happen. Just because a lawsuit seems like a born loser to us does not make it frivolous. Guilt is not for the judge to decide before a trial.

Frivolous lawsuits aren't the issue. Lawsuits as a means of wealth generation are. I think it's wrong if you're disavowing personal responsibility, but lawsuits to cover costs I don't have much of a problem with. It's the $500 to cover doctors visits and $3 million to cover pain and suffering from a sprained ankle that's the issue.

Mondeo, this is a well reasoned opinion. I agree with a lot of what you said.

Funny. Lawyers telling us not to feel bad for insurance companies because they have to pay lawyers.

This is less well reasoned. :???:

How about using common sense?? You're so entrenched in the system that you can't see just how absurd it is. I understand the basics of the situation as it's 'supposed' to work, my point all along is that the system doesn't 'work'. Using the system to prove that the system works when it defies common sense does not hold any weight for me. I'm sorry you guys just can't see that.

I don't think you understand even the basics, unfortunately.

This thread DELIVERS!

If someone sues McDonald's for coffee being too hot, we need tort reform.

But what if the coffee really IS too hot?

Another big contributor is the jury based award system. Juries don't know the appropriate amount of money to award in these cases, since they are being asked to be experts on something they have never done before in their lives. It's not that hard to play on people's sympathies and get a fairly big award, since the juries can rationalize that this is the only way the person with the horrible injury can get the money they need, even if they don't think the party being sued is really that culpable. Juries should be allowed to get an unbiased recommendation from a professional court employed claims adjuster when making an award.

I think the simple answer is to do whatever is necessary to create juries of actual peers, i.e. not just retirees, the unemployed, and people whose excuses weren't good enough to get out of it.

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.

You marry someone and want to spend the rest of your life committed to them. Some drunk driver runs her over, and she can no longer be sexually active. Can you not envision how that is as debilitating to a committed marriage as someone losing a leg or their hearing or something like that? Obviously, money isn't going to enable her to become sexually active again, but our legal system is based on the concept that if you can't repair someone to the exact state they were before they were injured, the only thing you CAN do is try to compensate them with money. Until we have other solutions (bring on the cyborgs!!!), this is the best we can do.

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...

What kind of human-created system works right the first time, every time? Are you kidding?

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.

Ding ding ding. Juries are not of our peers!

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.

Exactly; seek out information that doesn't come from a newspaper, and you'll be surprised what actual, tabulated statistics show in regards to settlement rates, settlement amounts, appeals, and so on.

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:

To me this post borders on trolling. Certainly it is incendiary. Rather than name call in response, I want to try to address a couple of your comments each in its own turn. Keep in mind that though I am a lawyer, I do not participate in the trial system or really the justice system in any way in my practice. I write Wills and complete tax returns. That's basically it. Therefore, my view of the justice system is simply that of having been a student of it for a few years. It is nothing personal to my existence.

"I form my opinions based on the information presented to me" - I wonder what information that is. I worry that it is overly-influenced by what is reported in the media. I think anyone who takes the time to study the long, centuries old history of our justice system (and the ones it is based upon) would arrive at a different conclusion to the one you have. It might provide some perspective as to just how difficult it is to address the problems that the justice system attempts to solve. It would also provide a better basis from which to point out the many flaws in that system.

"The legal system lacks common sense, IMHO" - This is a valid opinion to have, but you have to first admit that there is no such thing as iron clad, 100% right-all-the-time common sense. So the legal system might based on society's general, communal common sense, but not necessarily what you consider common sense. For example, you find a person on a subway platform, bleeding from some sort of wound. He is acting crazy, swearing at you, stumbling around, but obviously his life is in danger. Common sense to a lot of people is to steer clear of this person and dial 911. Common sense to an equal number of people is to do whatever you can to help the bleeding person. There is an element of common sense to both. Neither position lacks logic. Same goes for the legal system. Maybe you believe the legal system lacks common sense that aligns with your, but that doesn't mean it lacks it altogether. I guarantee you, were you to study it in depth, you would see it adheres to some pretty strict rules of logic.That doesn't mean it succeeds all the time, just that the basis of the system, imo, is fundamentally sound.

"Perhaps it's the lawyers in this country who are too damn smug to admit that their precious system if whacked??" - If you asked 100 lawyers in this country "Do you think the legal justice system is good the way it is? Or does it need extensive reform" you'd get 100 answers that "it needs reform." I have never met a lawyer who doesn't have qualms with the system. I am not sure where you get this belief from. And its not "the lawyers' system", it is everyone's system. The basis is the Constitution and the laws that spring therefrom. Those laws, and even the Constitution itself, can be changed. We all have the same right to vote.

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.

YOU can change it! Laws change ALL THE TIME! So do the structures of the court system! Some states have amended their constitution thousands of times! Other states have ELECTED judges at every level!

BV, you are 100% right that the system needs fixing. But that doesn't mean it is beyond repair. If you ever have the time, audit a course on comparative legal justice systems. We have our Constitution, our law making process, and our court system, and, after studying those around the world, I would take them every day of the week, flaws an all. If you hate them that much, you are lucky enough to live in an era where you can vote with your feet and move.

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....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.

I don't know that I agree that "nobody takes responsibility for anything", but I do agree with the rest of this statement. Very well said.

 

[bvibert]

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.

Not blaming the lawyers per se, though there are those who take advantage of the broken system and screwed up society to make a dishonest buck. I agree that society is largely to blame, but to me it's kinda of a chicken or the egg deal... if the legal system wasn't such that it is then people wouldn't be able to pull off what they have been pulling off. On the other side; if society wasn't so screwed up then the legal system wouldn't have gotten to the state that it's in now. Neither one will likely change any time too soon, so I'll just continue rant like I have been.

 

[marcski]

Was it last week or earlier this week when someone said that this place is boring this autumn??

:flame::flame::flame:

 

[bvibert]

What kind of human-created system works right the first time, every time? Are you kidding?

Granted nothing is perfect, but it can do a far better job than it's doing now.

"I form my opinions based on the information presented to me" - I wonder what information that is. I worry that it is overly-influenced by what is reported in the media. I think anyone who takes the time to study the long, centuries old history of our justice system (and the ones it is based upon) would arrive at a different conclusion to the one you have. It might provide some perspective as to just how difficult it is to address the problems that the justice system attempts to solve. It would also provide a better basis from which to point out the many flaws in that system.

I have little to no interest in reading centuries worth of history about how the legal system doesn't work. I can see with my own eyes that many times it doesn't make any sense. You are correct that my information unfortunately comes from the equally screwed up media. Like most other non-lawyers that's the only place to get my information from.

"The legal system lacks common sense, IMHO" - This is a valid opinion to have, but you have to first admit that there is no such thing as iron clad, 100% right-all-the-time common sense. So the legal system might based on society's general, communal common sense, but not necessarily what you consider common sense. For example, you find a person on a subway platform, bleeding from some sort of wound. He is acting crazy, swearing at you, stumbling around, but obviously his life is in danger. Common sense to a lot of people is to steer clear of this person and dial 911. Common sense to an equal number of people is to do whatever you can to help the bleeding person. There is an element of common sense to both. Neither position lacks logic. Same goes for the legal system. Maybe you believe the legal system lacks common sense that aligns with your, but that doesn't mean it lacks it altogether. I guarantee you, were you to study it in depth, you would see it adheres to some pretty strict rules of logic.That doesn't mean it succeeds all the time, just that the basis of the system, imo, is fundamentally sound.

I'll give you that some people have different ideas of common sense, or lack it all together. They can't all be as perfect as me.

"Perhaps it's the lawyers in this country who are too damn smug to admit that their precious system if whacked??" - If you asked 100 lawyers in this country "Do you think the legal justice system is good the way it is? Or does it need extensive reform" you'd get 100 answers that "it needs reform." I have never met a lawyer who doesn't have qualms with the system. I am not sure where you get this belief from. And its not "the lawyers' system", it is everyone's system. The basis is the Constitution and the laws that spring therefrom. Those laws, and even the Constitution itself, can be changed. We all have the same right to vote.

I'm basing my belief on lawyers vehemently defending how great the system works every time I express an opinion that it does not work in many cases. This thread in particular is a great example of that. I don't see one in this thread admitting that the system has flaws and needs work, except for Madroch and now you.

My point was to try to get those within the system to look outside of it, and see how it looks from the outside, which is the way most of the country sees it.

YOU can change it! Laws change ALL THE TIME! So do the structures of the court system! Some states have amended their constitution thousands of times! Other states have ELECTED judges at every level!

I'm not going to get into politics here, but we both know that getting ANYTHING to change is near impossible, and very costly both in time and money.

BV, you are 100% right that the system needs fixing. But that doesn't mean it is beyond repair. If you ever have the time, audit a course on comparative legal justice systems. We have our Constitution, our law making process, and our court system, and, after studying those around the world, I would take them every day of the week, flaws an all. If you hate them that much, you are lucky enough to live in an era where you can vote with your feet and move.

Once again, I have much more interesting (to me) things to do with my limited time then to spend my time in a law class. I'll continue to base my opinions on what makes sense to me. And when I see something that doesn't make sense to me I'll continue to speak out about it. This started with me calling out this case as a waste of time and money and an example of a flaw in the legal system. So far no one has proved to me otherwise, most lawyers in this thread agree that the plaintiff has no case, which only further proves my point.

 

[mondeo]

This is less well reasoned. :???:

Snarky, yes, and possibly poorly worded. In essence, it seems to me like a few of the lawyers involved with this thread are blasting insurance companies because, from their point of view, insurance companies are faceless entities that are pushing tort reform to squash personal rights in pursuit of even more massive profits. People typically have a disdain for lawyers because they're percieved as faceless entities bent on distorting the laws governing liability in pursuit of even more wealth. Neither is a realistic point of view, insurance companies work the same way as any other while providing a valuable good. Just like lawyers work - if there wasn't demand for their services, there wouldn't be money to be made their.

Reality check here. The Travellers Companies (essentially pure insurance) made $3.6 billion (operating income) last year on revenue of $25 billion. Other Dow components, operating income where available: Intel, $5.7 billion on $35.1 billion. Boeing $3.9 on $60.9. Home Depot $4.4 on $71.3 Merck $4.8 on $27.4 Walt Disney $5.8 on $36.1. UTC $4.7 on $59.8. Yeah, insurance gives margins on the higher end of the range, but it's not out of whack with the rest of the economy. The whole "just want to increase profits by reducing costs, no benefit to anyone but themselves" theory is completely out of whack with reality anywhere there's competition. As long as there's competition, a reduction in cost will have some impact to what the consumer pays through increasing supply of the good or service.

And if you have a mutual fund of any type, YOU are the insurance company. All that work to increase revenues is going towards your retirement. So thank them for that.

 

[bvibert]

To me this post borders on trolling. Certainly it is incendiary.

Perhaps I went a little overboard, I apologize if I personally offended anyone.

 

[mondeo]

I'm not going to get into politics here, but we both know that getting ANYTHING to change is near impossible, and very costly both in time and money.

Incidentally, be thankful for that. That part of the system still works as intended, 223 years later.

 

[legalskier]

Seriously, dude, WTF. Let's keep the conspiracy theories out of it.

It's more P.R. than conspiracy. Any business tries to reduce costs and increase revenues. Insurance companies are no different- if they can get people to keep awards low, they net more, no? There’s nothing illegal about it, so it isn’t technically a ‘conspircy.’ It’s just what they do, and people who are aware of it won’t get manipulated.
E.g.- State Farm's internal manuals make clear that it uses employees and agents to influence politicians and media representatives. It places snippets of information, some truthful facts and quotes with the media, trying to influence what it wants to be read and heard. It uses lobbyists and politicians favorable towards it to influence other leaders. State Farm's business plan involves government action. It seeks regulations and laws favorable to it and which often support common interests with other insurers (Allstate and Nationwide) in the property and casualty business.

http://www.propertyinsurancecoverag...e/state-farms-power-play-and-propaganda-ploy/

 

[SkiDork]

reminds me of the movie "The Rainmaker"

 

[legalskier]

To me this post borders on trolling.

Some of us have put effort into helping other members understand the predicament SS finds itself in, yet it feels like we are coming under attack. I would simply ask that the messenger not be killed.

 

[2knees]

reminds me of the movie "The Rainmaker"

I think you need to change your sig Dork. I'm assuming that was regarding Revis.