Windham Mountain sued over skier's death

[Nick]

Via First Tracks

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...kier-death-prompts-lawsuit/?utm_source=feedly

Lawsuit claims negligence on trail maintenance. Click the link for more info.

 

[WoodCore]

Really?????

 

[dmc]

there's a special place in hell for people that sue ski areas...

 

[thetrailboss]

There's not enough information to say that he has a case or that he does not.

 

[Nick]

What kind of trail conditions would make the operator negligent? I mean what would it take to really be considered negligent. Because I've skied across things I didn't see coming but always just assumed it came with the territory (like small streams running under the snow or snow whales)

 

[dmc]

I WAS friends with a guy that sued Hunter...
He was coming down Ike - hit a whale to catch air(early season) - fell and slide into a snow gun and broke some bones...
Now the week before we were in Jackson jumping into Corbetts.. guy was no slouch of a skier... he just made a mistake..

He's no longer my friend... And was banned from Hunter... I saw him last year and notified security...
F that BS....

 

[Smellytele]

There's not enough information to say that he has a case or that he does not.

I agree with this. There may or may not be grounds to sue. I do not like the blanket statement that "there's a special place in hell for people that sue ski areas". If there is faulty maintenance on a lift and an issue occurs and people are hurt or if they place faulty features in a terrain park (rusted falling apart features etc.)

 

[tnt]

What kind of trail conditions would make the operator negligent? I mean what would it take to really be considered negligent. Because I've skied across things I didn't see coming but always just assumed it came with the territory (like small streams running under the snow or snow whales)

I would think it would have to be something like leaving a snow gun hose laying across a green trail, obscured by snowfall, or say parking a snow cat around a blind corner on a steep trail, or something just obviously idiotic.

Maybe if a tree falls in a wind storm across a high traffic trail and they don't close it....

I would think any advanced trail, particularly with danger signage, where obstacles are to be expected couldn't lead to a suit, but groomed trails where you expect high traffic and on which low to mid level skiers can reasonably expect to have an obstacle-free trail to ski you might have an issue if you don't police it.

Honestly, the people I think that should get sued now and then are the reckless skiers.

I was standing in the middle of an intermediate trail about ten years ago, just standing there. Here a scream, look uphill. A kid going dead straight, right at me, nailed me chest to chest, his arms wide open, kind of bear hugging me. Knocked me clean out of my skis - skis literally didn't move! - and we tumbled down about 30 feet.

Crazy.

But I suppose that is part of the risk too, right?

 

[tnt]

I WAS friends with a guy that sued Hunter...
He was coming down Ike - hit a whale to catch air(early season) - fell and slide into a snow gun and broke some bones...
Now the week before we were in Jackson jumping into Corbetts.. guy was no slouch of a skier... he just made a mistake..

He's no longer my friend... And was banned from Hunter... I saw him last year and notified security...
F that BS....

That's just crazy - I mean, the guy was looking for air... I don't understand that mentality at all.

 

[dmc]

That's just crazy - I mean, the guy was looking for air... I don't understand that mentality at all.

It's all about making $$$.... F that...

 

[dlague]

Well I do not like the fact that the guys wife points out that he was a good skier - like good skiers never make mistakes! I ski with plenty of good skiers who take more chances than most skiers. They generally have the skills to pull it off but get hurt once in a while and could have died!

Does that warrant suing a ski area? No! People like to blame their poor judgement on others if something goes wrong! Saying someone is a good skier does not mean shit!

We certainly do not know the details in this case from the tiny article but I bet we would all be surprised if we knew all the lawsuits resorts face each year - much of it stupid stuff!

 

[wintersyndrome]

I stopped reading at Staten Island.

 

[ss20]

Suing a ski area because your husband died their? If I died on the slopes I'd be perfectly happy.

 

[dmc]

Suing a ski area because your husband died their? If I died on the slopes I'd be perfectly happy.

A friend of mine dropped dead on Eisenhower at Hunter...
heart attack... Dude was in great shape.... but yeah... why not die skiing...

 

[ScottySkis]

Not a good situation.

 

[skiNEwhere]

I do not agree with the blanket statement of "there is a special place in hell....." either for suing a ski area. That basically means you are saying the skier is always 100% at fault. In Colorado, ski areas lobbied successfully to have the "Colorado Ski and Safety Act" created in the late 70's to protect them lawsuits. You can read the whole thing here if you're bored, but in a nutshell it says that skiing is an inherently dangerous sport, and that no matter in what manner you get hurt or killed while skiing, the ski area isn't liable.

This article here shows how a kid was killed in an inbound avalanche last year at Vail because while the upper gate was closed, the lower gate was NOT. Does that make the ski area liable?

Vail Resorts has an indemnification clause in there season pass agreement that says if you sue them and lose, you have to recoup their legal fees. A woman at Vail was hurt a couple years ago when she was skiing over a bridge and there was a piece of metal skiing out that gouged deep into her leg. When she sued Vail, they charged $102,000 against her for legal fees. Vail tried to do the same to the mother who lost her son. Talk about rubbing salt into the wound, especially considering that Vail was at least SOMEWHAT liable for having the lower gate open. If there is a special place in hell, it is for Vail Resorts.

 

[dlague]

Personally our country is lawsuit happy! I love the class action law suits that get the claimants $4.50 each and the legal firm scored huge to the tune of $100 million.

 

[jack97]

Personally our country is lawsuit happy! I love the class action law suits that get the claimants $4.50 each and the legal firm scored huge to the tune of $100 million.

Lawyers have to add their value..... that's why I think most are like parasites in this society.

 

[First Tracks]

In Colorado, ski areas lobbied successfully to have the "Colorado Ski and Safety Act" created in the late 70's to protect them lawsuits.

Many states have skier safety acts, not just Colorado, but just to clarify: those laws don't protect ski areas from lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. What the skier safety acts provide is a viable defense to a resort for risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Whether or not the act protects the ski area in a particular case is for a trier of fact to decide, either the judge (in the case of a summary judgment motion) or a jury if the case goes to verdict. Even if the resort wins, indemnification clauses not withstanding, the resort (or more accurately, its insurer) faces legal expenses to defend a case.

This kind of stuff is actually what I do for a living when I'm not editing FTO.

Vail Resorts has an indemnification clause in there season pass agreement that says if you sue them and lose, you have to recoup their legal fees.

And good luck collecting those fees. You can't get blood from a stone, and in most cases the defendant will agree to waive collecting fees/costs in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing not to appeal.

 

[HowieT2]

Lawyers have to add their value..... that's why I think most are like parasites in this society.

Thanks. Appreciate the endorsement. Of course, god forbid something should happen to you or a loved one, and you'll be running to consult said parasites. Who else does the widow turn to when she suddenly loses her husband and is left destitute. I'm sure she's more concerned with putting food on her table and keeping a roof over her head, than whether someone who doesn't even know her, thinks she shouldn't protect her rights. And there is no amount of money that can make up for the loss of a spouse or a father. I'm pretty sure the widow isn't jumping for joy at her good fortune.

what needs to be understood is there is something called a statute of limitations, which in New York is 2 years for wrongful death causes of action. But you can't start an action until a representative is appointed by the surrogates as part of the estate proceedings. the lawyer has to file the lawsuit before the statute runs or be forever barred. And you can't do any real investigation until the representative is appointed. even if there is some doubt whether the claim will ultimately be successful, the suit has to be filed.

that being said, the law is highly favorable to the ski resort. The skier assumes the risk of any hazard inherent in the sport, and the resort is immune from liability. From the little we know, this case has little chance of success. If you take the time to read the statute which is very similar to those in most states, you'll see that the law is pretty generous to the resorts.