Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[jack97]

You could not be more wrong. The plaintiffs lawyer not only doesnt get paid unless they win, but also pays for the litigation expenses. So putting aside the value of the lawyers time, he probably laid out of his pocket somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k-100k just to get to this point. Maybe more.

On the other hand, the defendant ski sundown, is being represented by their insurance carriers attorneys who are either employees of the carrier or on retainer. Either way, it is highly unlikely this is costing sundown much if anything.

Lawyers get a bad rap because the general public is misinformed due to the propaganda campaign being waged for the last 30 years by insurance industry, big business etc.

If the insurance company did and continues to pay for Sundowns defense.... this means in the future, I and fellow skiers / riders will eventually pay for the higher insurance policy due to lawsuits taken to this level.

For those who have not followed this case, the technically nuance that is costing the poor plaintiff attorney this much money is whether jumping is consider part of skiing. Taken further the appellate process was whether the judge presiding gave jurors the proper instructions. IMO, a high price to pay for arguing over a legal technicality.

http://www.registercitizen.com/arti...oc4cb8d791cd407268913236.txt?viewmode=default

 

[jack97]

Everyone hates a lawyer....except those standing next to one at counsel table.
;-)

I had a lawyer where it cost me about 2k just to read some emails and thousands just to sit/stand next to me in court. My last lawyer said that one of his clients had to take a second mortgage just to hear the case at the state supreme court.... its the parasitic nature of the process that troubles me.

 

[HowieT2]

If the insurance company did and continues to pay for Sundowns defense.... this means in the future, I and fellow skiers / riders will eventually pay for the higher insurance policy due to lawsuits taken to this level.

For those who have not followed this case, the technically nuance that is costing the poor plaintiff attorney this much money is whether jumping is consider part of skiing. Taken further the appellate process was whether the judge presiding gave jurors the proper instructions. IMO, a high price to pay for arguing over a legal technicality.

http://www.registercitizen.com/arti...oc4cb8d791cd407268913236.txt?viewmode=default

logically you are correct, but the claims defense costs are generally not the most significant factor in insurance rate increases. It is what the carrier is earning on its investments which is why rates go up when the stock market goes down. of course, higher defense costs do figure into future rates. my firm pays several thousand dollars a year for workers compensation insurance required by law, yet we've never had and likely never will have a claim. insurance is a great business, hence warren buffets ownership of geico and the reinsurance companies. they dont spend billions on advertising for nothing.

whether the judge's instructions were proper is no "technicality" but the essence of whether the jury's decision is just. the instructions are how the judge explains what the law is to the jury, which then must apply the facts as they find them to be to the law. As previously discussed, the law with respect to the liability of ski resort operators is generally (I dont know about CT in particular) pretty favorable to them and most people would consider a reasonable balancing of interests.

 

[HowieT2]

Bump.

curious as to azoners opinion of the following:

10 year old child of unknown ability falls on a beginner slope into the concrete base of a lift tower. Helmet cracks, suffers severe brain injury. Concrete was not padded nor guarded in any manner.
is striking the concrete base a risk inherent in the sport? Or does the lack of the usual and customary padding render it outside what is ordinarily encountered?

 

[marcski]

Howie...you can't sue a ski area. If you must, refer it out and take a referral fee.
.

 

[HowieT2]

Howie...you can't sue a ski area. If you must, refer it out and take a referral fee.
.

Dont even know the jurisdiction yet. But seriously, do you recall seeing an unpadded lift tower on a trail?

 

[legalskier]

Someone somewhere sometime (I think it was a ski patroller on a lift) told me the purpose of the pads is for warning people, not protecting them.
Which would explain the bright colors, but not the "padding" part.
Whatever it is, it does raise the question whether a standard pad would have prevented this injury if one had been in place. Also, does the absence of a pad constitute a failure to warn?

 

[marcski]

The fact that it is a beginner trail bodes in your favor. The injured's skill and ski experience levels would come into play.

 

[HowieT2]

Someone somewhere sometime (I think it was a ski patroller on a lift) told me the purpose of the pads is for warning people, not protecting them.
Which would explain the bright colors, but not the "padding" part.
Whatever it is, it does raise the question whether a standard pad would have prevented this injury if one had been in place. Also, does the absence of a pad constitute a failure to warn?

Thats a proximate cause issue. I'd take my chances with a jury on that. The threshold issue is assumption of risk. I think this is a close call. if the tower was appropriately padded, hitting it, is a risk inherent and the case gets dismissed. But I'm not sure an unpadded tower is an inherent risk.

 

[jaytrem]

Dont even know the jurisdiction yet. But seriously, do you recall seeing an unpadded lift tower on a trail?

A few of the smaller places I skied in WY/ID this year didn't have padding on the towers. I was surprised the first time I noticed it.

 

[HowieT2]

A few of the smaller places I skied in WY/ID this year didn't have padding on the towers. I was surprised the first time I noticed it.

Did some research. In ny, padding on lift towers is required by statute.