Skiier sues Ski Sundown, claiming liability in accident that left him paralyzed

if you think about it, he prbly just wants help to pay for medical bills etc. it really sukcs that he's paralyzed tho. how long until a law on having safe parks gets made for him?
 
the doctrine of industry wide standard practice of care can only carry a resort so far. It does help but not if the court finds that the industry wide practice is at a level below that which should be considered reasonable.

an industry wide standard practice of care is really the equivalent of saying "everyone is doing it"... it sometimes works, sometimes does not.
 
that no sign of the difficulty is actually a big issue.

i ve worked in a snowpark in a big french resort (one of the biggest in the world) and i can tell you that these kind of things are a big deal.

to you the difficulty of the jump is something obvious, but it is not to everybody.

look at a jump, look at the kicker and the table lenght you ll know how to hit the jumps because you have experience.

i bring you in front of a climbing wall and ask you wich is the easy and the hard way, and you might have trouble saying which one is the hardest...

i m not sayin that he is right to sue the resort, that s just american bullshit culture to sue every one, just sayin that they might be in trouble because of that no sign.

people don t know how dangerous or hard it is. in france a dude killed himself in a snowpark off a 40ft kicker, and where i ride a 14y old girl overshot a 70ft stepdown and could have died. and the worst part is that girl was a freeskier, she knew how to hit jump and just came in crazy fast...

what is an evidence to you is not to other people.

and it s the same every where there is danger. some people do stupid shit not because they are dumb, but just because they dont know how dangerous it is....

 
This.

Me as a skier, if I get hurt the last thing I would want to do is hurt the ski industry. If he puts that place out of business he just costs ten of thousands of people their favorite ski spot!
 
i am pretty sure that is one of the most depressing fb profile pictures ever.... convenient that it happens to be his dp when an article about his lawsuit comes out isnt it?

on another note, rather than shitting on the case, and people sending emails to the plaintiff lawyer, we somehow try to support sundown?
 
unfortunate that people can't use common sense. Regardless of how experienced you are about something, you can tell when something is beyond your ability. You can look at jump, and know that it's going to launch you, and you won't be able to maintain control.

and what's worse is he's probably going to win, despite everything pointing to his own liability. No helmet, no goggles, minimal skill, and a clear and present lack of common sense.
 
not a year if everything goes according to plan and you are following all the rules and there are no disputes during discovery..etc.
 
http://www.skilaw.com/cases_salvini.html

That's the case review of the Kenny Salvini / Summit at Snoqualmie lawsuit. Salvini was awarded $14 million. They considered Snoqualmie to be negligent because other people had gotten hurt before on the jump and it was never changed.

I'm sure that in the new case against Sundown, the lawyers will certainly pull off the same tactics, and will likely be successful.

And let's just face the facts. The general public cannot fight their emotional response to blame the big-bad company when they see some kid paraded around in a wheelchair in court.
 
as much as it sucks that a ski resort got sued, the fact that that many people got hurt on a jump at snoqualmie in that short amount of time (not B.S. made up by lawyers, ski patrol keeps track), and the fact that riders told them that the jump needed to be fixed is a fairly convincing argument to a jury.
Contrast this, with, lets say Park City. When somebody gets hurt on any feature at Park City, ski patrol shuts it down for a few hours, takes photos of the feature, analyzes the safety of the feature, looks to see how many injuries have happened on the feature, and then decides whether changes to it need to be made.
Sure, resorts like Park City are probably only taking these safety measures to help protect them from liability after cases like Snoqualmie, but what PC does is smart.
If you really think about what ski resorts do from a public view, many of them are just asking for someone to get hurt. It is really important that ski resorts take any protective measures possible (save only making small/crappy parks), in order to keep themselves exposed from liability. It is important that features aren't just thrown on the mountain by any random 18 year old park crew member, but that features are actually analyzed from a physics standpoint to ensure that the jump has a proper amount of pop, gap, and landing for the level of park the jump is in.
 
as much as i hate to side against a ski resort, that is a clear case of contributory negligence."At the aid station the snowboarder expressly informed Ski Lifts Inc. that the jump was not built properly and needed a larger landing area...The terrain park manager testified that they never considered closing the jump and evaluating the landing"
That's what killed them in this case. once they become aware that a jump is unsafe and they don't do anything about it they are negligent. simply because a jump is large and somebody hurts themselves does not mean it is unsafe nor does it imply negligence.
hopefully nothing like that took place in this case.
 
if he bought a ticket - there is an exclusion of liability /assumption of risk on the back. skiing ain't safe. but the risk makes it worthwhile.
this douche is taken action completely against the spirit of the sport and the culture. he deserves to be paralyzed.
 
"Malaguit described the slope conditions that day as “bumpy,” “grainy” and “slightly icy.” He said there was no sign alerting him to the difficulty of the jump."

It's Connecticut, no jumps are difficult. And you should know your limits. I'm pretty sure it also says when you buy your ticket that the mountain is not responsible for shit like this, because it is due to the dumbass's negligence to realize his ability.

"Malaguit also confirmed that there were no Ski Sundown workers directing traffic onto the jump at the time of his accident."

Well no fucking shit, no mountain does that. If you want a spotter, then you tell someone to go down. The mountain is not going to put an employee at each feature telling people when to go. It's not a comp. Plus, he was the only one in the accident right? He didn't hit anyone, so what does that matter.

We have had worse shit happen at Southington. Two or three years ago the stupid lifty up top fell asleep and some old guy got his arm stuck inbetween the bar and the frame of the chair and got swung off around the safety pole and was dangling at a height of about 30 just by his arm that was twisted in the wrong direction. That was some scary shit to see in person.
 
It is screwing over your fellow resorts because if your competition does something safety wise that you aren't doing then when you are in a lawsuit the lawyers can always say "your competition did this to make it safer, why didn't you?". Yes it is good if the entire industry raises safety standards (assuming they are reasonable and affordable for all) but those decisions should be made collectively as a whole by the entire industry, not by individual resort managers (for example, there are standards in place for terrain park signage that didn't used to exist a few years ago). I don't think you understand how the ski industry really functions. Resort managers work closely with one another on this kind of stuff. There are only a couple of insurance companies who ensure ski resorts so the entire industry works with them closely as well. Yes RCR is Canadian but we have a similar (although not quite as bad) problem with liability and lawsuits.

My criticism is of the legal system that is allowing plaintiffs to win these cases. Other parts of the world simply laugh at us when they hear these kinds of cases even being brought before a jury.

You make it sound like resorts aren't doing as much as they reasonably can to prevent these cases. Trust me, they are. Because their insurance companies are pressuring them to.
 
ski areas outside of CO and CA in some cases are just asking for it. Both of the above mentioned states have a large legal binding contract that goes w/ each ticket. Its called the Ski Area Safety Act.

The NSAA (National Ski Areas Association) has been trying to get other states to adopt the same sort of legal contract. But no. Most the people running/owning ski resorts/areas in other states are too fucking stupid to do anything about it. Meanwhile lawsuits like this one and the guy who became a quadriplegic will keep on happening.

So yes it sucks for the ski area in a hurting industry right now. But the reality is:

1. They should have covered their asses.

2. This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

3. Smaller ski areas are making bank these days compared to large resorts. So really if Sundown is managed correctly (i have no idea), they should be taking advantage of the larger resorts decline in business.
 
Dude this has nothing to do with MY attitude. I am telling you what the situation is in the actual industry from an observers perspective. What is your experience working in the industry or working with resort management, risk managers, or insurance companies? I would love to hear it because you seem to have the whole system figured out. You sound like a law student who thinks he knows everything because he has taken a few law classes.

I don't even understand your argument. It sounds to me like what you are saying is that Resort manager's aren't doing everything they reasonably can to prevent these types of accidents. Why do you think that is the case? Not enough time? money? Trust me, insurance companies put tremendous pressure on resorts to do everything possible to cover their ass (most mid-large resorts have a staff member whose entire job is dedicated to this, usually with the job title risk manager). If there were any reasonable steps that could be taken to ensure they would win these lawsuits then trust me, they would be doing it.
 
"Malaguit described the slope conditions that day as “bumpy,” “grainy” and “slightly icy.”

Welcome to the fucking East Coast.
 
Some good points. It is mindboggling to see how many people wreck themselves on jumps, in France for example. I did a season in Val T, and i would say that in an average day in the park at least two gapers would hit a 60 foot kicker going about 10 m/h, resulting in some serious faceplanting. Hilarious, but luckily not that dangerous, just illustrates that the amount of people not able to "read" obstacles are very high, even with signs around. We can then establish that there are as many oblivious people in Europe as in the US. (im not sure there isn't more actually). So why don't we see these lawsuits in Europe?. I say that it is a difference in culture. There seems to be a whole culture formed around these lawsuits, involving not only the people suing and being sued, but for example also the media. The classical "david vs Goliath" mood is whisked up, and by the time is hits the court, the resorts have no chance of winning, even though they are not at fault. The importance put in the legal system from a cultural view is so big in the US, and so is the notion that it is there to protect the "everyday" person against big bad companies. This leads to these cases being tried and won by "everyday" people that have been injured through no others fault than their own. I believe that this along with the legal system needs to change if we are to avoid these lawsuits.
The more i think about it, the more i realise that this is very complex, and involves more than just questions about law. One could argue that it also reflects the the health care system in the US. In Denmark, where i am from, you would be taken care of from the moment you we're injured till literally the day you die. Medical bills, handicap support (cars, wheelchairs, etc) workplace support, pay subsidies if you are unable to work fulltime, and the list goes on. This would all be supplied by the state, and not be linked to how good your insurance is. This means that no one really needs to sue for money, because they have what they need. This seems to not be the case in the US, and this is perhaps another reason why people like Malaguit choose to file lawsuits. Im not saying that the US has to turn socialist (i know you're really scared of that) it's just a little food for thought.
Wow, that's long, sorry about that, im procrastinating in relation to a history essay that i dont wanna do.
 
I don't understand why sundown is blamed for a " dangerous feature"?

skiing IS dangerous there are always risks,its dangerous to drive a car but that doesn't stop anyone sometimes your unlucky...safety is obsolete in this situation
 
haha if I (or anyone in the industry) knew the quick answer to that then we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.

I just want to address the quote " If it is indeed true that "everything possible is being done" then were shit out of luck. But I seriously doubt that resorts have exhausted all options. Are you ready to throw in the towel? Sure seems that you think nothing more can be done. Resorts have an uphill battle to fight regardless of whether they deserve it or not. "

I think it is important to note the difference between "everything possible is being done" and "everything that is reasonable is being done". I am saying that everything (at least everything we are aware of right now, and there will probably be some new great ideas in the future) that is reasonable is being done by the majority of resorts (for a variety of reasons, maybe the resort feels it is ethically correct to prevent accidents, maybe they want to reduce their legal risk, maybe their insurance company is pressuring them, whatever the reason).

Has everything possible been done to prevent these accidents? Absolutely not. That is because most of them are not reasonable. Maybe we should not build any jumps (RCR thought that was reasonable, most do not). Maybe we should not build any terrain parks. Maybe we should close the entire resort during times of low visibility or poor conditions. Maybe we should require that all visitors take a lesson and they are not able to ski until they can prove that they have done so (like a belay-test at a climbing gym). Maybe we should cushion all trees, and objects of any kind with foam. Maybe we should just stick to cross country skiing since downhill skiing is inherently dangerous.

You see my point. There is still lots that can be done but most of it isn't reasonable and would hurt skiing as a sport. The problem is balance. The sport is inherently dangerous period. You are flying down a hill on wooden planks, shit is going to happen But where do you draw the line.
 
You know what I can't stand? Law students who finish their first year and think they're real lawyers. You people are notorious for doing this.

You haven't contributed anything to this discussion except to tell us how unreasonable we are, and to quote from your Torts textbook. Go study or something.
 
At sundown the fence in the beginning of the park is to the ground, and also at the end, the sign is also bright colors with pictures I believe, I think the most important thing is he hopped the fence, where it must have been movable and where there was no sign, the kid did things he shouldn't have and is demanding signs at every feature?? And an attendant at every feature to tell you how hard something is? Come on
 
i laughed at this line

The jumps in these terrain parks, which are now found in 80% of the ski resorts across the country, are not engineered and are constructed by snowboarders based on what appears to be "fun."
 
943168019d1240763972-sourcebans-facepalm21.jpg
 
I think that the problem is that you are speaking strictly from a legal point of view. It is a fact that the judges could familiarise themselves with what the reality of what a snowpark is in these cases, and what is actually reasonable to expect from resorts, seen from a realistic and financial point of view. What i am trying to say is, that the fact that the legal system works in this extremely biased way, doesn't make it right. You state a bunch of facts, without even questioning whether or not these facts are reasonable from a common sense, realistic point of view. This is a case where you cannot only view things in a legal context. I actually think that you agree with me that people winning these ludicrous cases is not fair, but that it is legal. This is a case where the law is so obviously wrong, and has to be changed. How do we do that, i don't know, but i think alot of it lies in the culture of lawsuits, as i have mentioned in my earlier replies.
It is a quite interesting discussion between seeing things from a legal point of view and from a more socio-cultural point of view. (fancy word right there!)
 
How is this a problem. That is how judges will look at it. So his legal point of view is all that really matters.

I know that you think judges should look at what is the "norm" or "custom" for ski resorts. That has worked a few times, but really indicative of liability or negligence as the law views it.
 
I don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. There is something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the system when cases like this are allowed to even appear in a court of law, let alone win. You keep saying "this is the way it is, you have to accept it". Im saying no, we dont have to accept. It is a fact that that is how most judges handle these cases, but that doesn't make it wright. We need to look at the big picture here, and figure out a way to change this, from changing the law all the way through to changing the mindset of people operating within the law, such as lawyers, judges and jurys. The fact that you can win a lawsuit doesn't change the fact that you're argument and case is absolutely ridicolous, and pushes all common sense aside. I realise it's a big thing im asking, but i don't think that should stop me asking for it. This is what i mean by it being a problem only looking at it from a legal point of view. There is a bigger picture than the legal one, whether you like it or not.
 
+1

The problem with the suggestion to "change the mind of lawyers and judges" is somewhat ridiculous for multiple reasons.

As Woozy already stated, stare decisis is almost impossible to get around. To expound a little more on this subject, the United States (as well as the UK) follow a common law system where a large portion of the laws that we follow are not codified (written down as a statute). This means that in order to "change" the law, a person needs to convince a court that either all past precedent is wrong (how can you do that without a codified law showing that it is wrong), or the person needs to show the court that their case is "different" from all previous cases, these different issues will turn into a dispositive issue that the court can look at.

So, how can a ski resort differentiate itself from all previous court cases. It needs to convince the court that it was not acting negligently and that a reasonable level of care was maintained in its terrain park. If the resort can prove that it did use a reasonable level of care to a point that it is different from all previous cases, then it might be able to win. It could also win if the court decided that not wearing a helmet or goggles would cause the skier to be 100% negligent, not finding the resort at all contributorily negligent (not likely to happen in my opinion).

So, once the resort distinguishes itself from all other precedent, and then happens to win, that is the new precedent that a court can look at as well as the rule that all resorts will look to in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. This is exactly why what Woozy was saying is on point. Ski resorts should do everything possible to distinguish themselves from resorts that have been sued for terrain park accidents in the past. (unfortunatley for some resorts this distinguishing act is done by eliminating their terrain parks). By showing that the terrain park in question is safe and that the resort showed no negligence, resorts can potentially, in essence, craft the new law that will be used in future cases (although if the lawsuit occurred on a state level, which it likely would, the case would only become law in that state).

Now, you will likely try to argue that it would be more effective to craft a new law and have congress pass it. You would actually need to have this law passed at a state level, and only a few, if any states would ever pass it. If you have ever tried to get a law passed, you know how hard of a process it is. The best thing, in my opinion, that can be done, is have resorts take all measures of care possible in order to show that they have not acted negligently.

And please don't say that the legal system needs to change and lawyers need to change. Remember, not all people go to law school in order to represent personal injury claims (although most in that profession are noble attorneys), and some of us might aspire to represent the ski industry if possible.

The real problem that I perceive, and most justices on the Supreme Court would likely agree, is that the dollar amounts given in pure punitive damages are way too high. These punitive damages are burdens placed on losing corporations and are separate from the compensatory damages given to the injured party. These punitive damages are imposed in order to deter companies from acting negligently in the future. For example, imposing $18,000,000 in punitive damages to deter an insurance company from not paying those it insures). These punitive damages are usually given to the losing side in a lawsuit, which is what causes people to want to sue when possible. If the punitive damages were instead given to the government or to some sort of charitable fund, it is likely (in my opinion) that many people would settle or not bring a lawsuit in the first place.

Sorry if this turned into a little rant and if any of it doesn't make sense..I am going to dinner
 
That is where the problem lies in my opinion. That is expecting the resort to change a feature every time any injury occurs.

In my opinion, the second you make the decision to attempt any sort of feature in a terrain park, you should be accepting the potential risks involved.

Unfortunately, courts are not ruling in this manner.
 
Hmmm, just because something is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it, does it? I think the problem here is the difference in perceiving "common sense". Where i come from, i would expect anyone with just a shred of common sense to be able to establish that 1. Skiing is dangerous, accidents happen. 2. Accidents are mostly people's own fault, since they have decided to participate in an inherently dangerous sport. 3. Judges to be able to ascertain that when people overshoot a 30 foot jump by 30 feet, they were not using common sense, and therefore are completely at fault.
Im gonna stop posting in this thread, i think this is a case of immense cultural differences. I simply CANNOT understand how normal intelligent human beings can act in this way, regardless of law, precedent or whatever. It is simply inconceivable to me, so i doubt we will ever come to a common conclusion, even though we on many points in principle agree.
But thank you for an inside view of the american legal system, i find it intriguing, but also highly frustrating!
Keep shreddin, if lawsuits close down all US resorts, i'll be happy to share the Alps with you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top