Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[Glenn]

I also wonder if it's the insurance company suing..

Good point. I think if it was the insurance company, they'd be named as the plaintiff. In this case, it seems it's actually the skier going after the ski area.

 

[bvibert]

Why does everyone always think the insurance money is free money? If the insurance company has to pay out they are going to cover their losses by raising rates, and not necessarily just for the one ski area being sued.

Who else benefits from a case like this? It's just a burden on the ski area to have to defend themselves. The plaintiff likely won't see any money. The consumers ultimately have to pay more as insurance costs go higher and higher. Who else other than the lawyers are making out??

BTW - No offense is intended to lawyers in general or specifically the ones on this board. I'm just sick of this sue happy society that we're living in. No good comes out of crap like this, IMHO.

The Blonski case that Carrie mentioned earlier in the thread really got me fired up a few months back, this is helping to refuel the smoldering ashes left behind...

 

[Beetlenut]

Really Sad. But in the end I feel he will not win because his actions were premeditated. He knew before hand that the conditions were, "bumpy,” “grainy” and “slightly icy". His actions were planned, "He saw the jump from the chair lift and had planned to go off of it". He said, "that he thought he would have enough time to try the jump before joining his family and friends at the chairlift". Probably took the jump with too much speed, because he was in a hurry, and over rotated. He went out of his way, "crossing Exhibition from Canyon Run", to get to it. This all but nullifies any negligence of the mountain.

 

[dmc]

Good point. I think if it was the insurance company, they'd be named as the plaintiff. In this case, it seems it's actually the skier going after the ski area.

OK... I wasn't sure..

I do remember a friend who got into a car accident.. A wheel fell of another car and smashed her roof - she almost ended up a paraplegic but is OK now..

the guy who was in the passenger seat was her best friend.. He was hurt - and his insurance company sued her... it was f'd up...

 

[legalskier]

Who else benefits from a case like this? It's just a burden on the ski area to have to defend themselves. The plaintiff likely won't see any money. The consumers ultimately have to pay more as insurance costs go higher and higher. Who else other than the lawyers are making out??

OK, quick- If he wins, the plaintiff will benefit (as well as his insurance company that's been covering his medicals thus far). His lawyer would get some slice of that; it's usually regulated by law. (The guy, like everyone, doesn't work for free.) If he loses neither gets nada, and Sundown (and its insurance co) wins.
Stay tuned....

 

[bvibert]

OK, quick- If he wins, the plaintiff will benefit (as well as his insurance company that's been covering his medicals thus far). His lawyer would get some slice of that; it's usually regulated by law. (The guy, like everyone, doesn't work for free.) If he loses neither gets nada, and Sundown (and its insurance co) wins.
Stay tuned....

That's where we disagree; no matter what the outcome Sundown (and its insurance co) lose. They may not lose as much, but they still lose.

 

[Glenn]

OK... I wasn't sure..

I do remember a friend who got into a car accident.. A wheel fell of another car and smashed her roof - she almost ended up a paraplegic but is OK now..

the guy who was in the passenger seat was her best friend.. He was hurt - and his insurance company sued her... it was f'd up...

Insurance can get "intersting" like that to say the least. I'd have to check documents, but I think there's something in most health insurance plans that covers sports injuries and whatnot. It gets dicey in situations like the one you mentioned...where it's out of the ordinary and someone may be "at fault".

 

[drjeff]

OK, quick- If he wins, the plaintiff will benefit (as well as his insurance company that's been covering his medicals thus far). His lawyer would get some slice of that; it's usually regulated by law. (The guy, like everyone, doesn't work for free.) If he loses neither gets nada, and Sundown (and its insurance co) wins.
Stay tuned....

If he looses, Sundown just gets to pay less, since the kid won't be paying Sundown's legal costs in their defense, since like as you said, their lawyer presumably doesn't work for free

 

[gmcunni]

That's where we disagree; no matter what the outcome Sundown (and its insurance co) lose. They may not lose as much, but they still lose.

i think it is really just a cost of doing business ( i'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits mind you). i've dealt with Legal teams a lot, they "budget" for litigation. if we identify a risk they often weigh the cost of mitigation vs. litigation when making the decision on what to do.

 

[bvibert]

i think it is really just a cost of doing business ( i'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits mind you). i've dealt with Legal teams a lot, they "budget" for litigation. if we identify a risk they often weigh the cost of mitigation vs. litigation when making the decision on what to do.

I understand that. IMHO just because it's the cost of doing business doesn't make it right.

 

[gmcunni]

I understand that. IMHO just because it's the cost of doing business doesn't make it right.

can't remember where i heard/read this but recall a similar discussion and the proposed solution (practiced in europe??) was that when a plaintiff loses a civil case he is responsible for the court costs (state's and defendant's) so it is no longer "free" to sue.

 

[marcski]

That's where we disagree; no matter what the outcome Sundown (and its insurance co) lose. They may not lose as much, but they still lose.

That's why you have and pay for insurance Brian. So the carrier pays the costs of defense and indemnification for any judgment that might be rendered against the insured.

Again, you guys have your heads in the sand if you think there will be any real decrease in insurance premiums if such cases were limited through some type of tort reform. Tort reform will only end up benefiting the insurance companies and, in turn, other big business. It will definitely hurt the individual and limit his ability to obtain legal redress.

(But the case against Sundown will still be a loser!)

 

[bvibert]

can't remember where i heard/read this but recall a similar discussion and the proposed solution (practiced in europe??) was that when a plaintiff loses a civil case he is responsible for the court costs (state's and defendant's) so it is no longer "free" to sue.

A step in the right direction for sure.

 

[bvibert]

That's why you have and pay for insurance Brian. So the carrier pays the costs of defense and indemnification for any judgment that might be rendered against the insured.

Exactly the problem, that it's needed for stupid shit like this case.

Again, you guys have your heads in the sand if you think there will be any real decrease in insurance premiums if such cases were limited through some type of tort reform. Tort reform will only end up benefiting the insurance companies and, in turn, other big business. It will definitely hurt the individual and limit his ability to obtain legal redress.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[vonski]

The only thing I think one could argue is that the mountain did not protect him as he was able to cross over from another trail. So, he could say he did not know it was rated expert. And that the jump is man made therefore should be better controlled by the mountain. Pretty weak argument but possible angle. I sure hope that he does not win.

 

[mondeo]

Again, you guys have your heads in the sand if you think there will be any real decrease in insurance premiums if such cases were limited through some type of tort reform. Tort reform will only end up benefiting the insurance companies and, in turn, other big business. It will definitely hurt the individual and limit his ability to obtain legal redress.

Economists disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

 

[dmc]

This sucks on a lot of levels...

Somebody got hurt - somebody needs to pay - lift tickets go up - jumps get knocked down - people over react and overgroom..

It just sucks...

I think most of the time Hunter Mtn tries to settle out of court.. Some sort of payoff and told never to step foot back in the area.. I knew a guy that sued - hurt his back when he fell on a whale and slide into the woods on Eisenhower - he got some $ before it went too far and was told never to come back. he's not my friend anymore. he fell - it was an accident.. no more.. no less... If I ever saw him - I'd turn him in..

 

[marcski]

Keep telling yourself that.

I know it to be true. If you get hurt, you will be limited to 250k in pain and suffering. Otherwise, you will only be able to recover for lost earnings....So, basically, tort reform only protects the rich. Since Joe Schmo, who earns minimum wage, will only be entitled to recoup that minimum wage. But, "the man" that makes big bucks in salary, is protected because he'll be able to get his lost earnings. So, yes, I will most definitely keep telling myself this.

 

[mondeo]

I know it to be true. If you get hurt, you will be limited to 250k in pain and suffering. Otherwise, you will only be able to recover for lost earnings....So, basically, tort reform only protects the rich. Since Joe Schmo, who earns minimum wage, will only be entitled to recoup that minimum wage. But, "the man" that makes big bucks in salary, is protected because he'll be able to get his lost earnings. So, yes, I will most definitely keep telling myself this.

Ah, redistribution of wealth through law suits! Hooray!

250K + earnings only preserves status quo, what that person would have had anyways. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

 

[drjeff]

I know it to be true. If you get hurt, you will be limited to 250k in pain and suffering. Otherwise, you will only be able to recover for lost earnings....So, basically, tort reform only protects the rich. Since Joe Schmo, who earns minimum wage, will only be entitled to recoup that minimum wage. But, "the man" that makes big bucks in salary, is protected because he'll be able to get his lost earnings. So, yes, I will most definitely keep telling myself this.

But why then should Joe Schmo be "rewarded" (financially atleast) for doing something stupid of his own choice, whereas "the man" gets punished (financially atleast) for having done nothing wrong other than being "the man"????

Tort reform I don't think will stop "frivolous" lawsuits as much as "looser pays" (either damages and/or legal costs) would