Skiier sues Ski Sundown, claiming liability in accident that left him paralyzed
- Thread starter SkierX
- Start date
hawaiiansteeze
Active member
c'mon son just let it go. i grew up skiing sundown and they won. everyone should just be happy with the desicion because it could have gona the other way and really hurt the mountain.
yea it sucks this all happened. but finnally the courts ruled correctly in its case involving a ski mountain. im sure if sundown took a hit like snoqualmine they may not be having a season this year
yea it sucks this all happened. but finnally the courts ruled correctly in its case involving a ski mountain. im sure if sundown took a hit like snoqualmine they may not be having a season this year
Mr.Huck
Active member
That happened at Snoqualmie, and that decision had a huge impact on the industry. Even though it happened in Washington State, most Canadian resorts did not build parks for a period of time while they assessed the impact.
Urban legend is that park builders, couldn't convince the jury that the jumps were "safe". Because I was doing research for my business concept, I called and spoke to a guy who was in the court room for that whole trial. He told me that it actually had nothing to do with jump safety. Even so, it significantly changes procedures for park builders around the country.
If the trial isn't already over, I suggest that all of you that ski Sundown should call up Sundown's attorneys and volunteer to testify. You never know what might be the tipping point. It is in every NSer's best interest that this case go in favor of Sunlight. Insurance costs are already going up for businesses. All it takes is for a few of the big areas to decide that the cost to benefit for terrain parks is too high and they will be history. Don't believe that can happen? Skate parks disappeared for almost 20 years for exactly the same reason.
Urban legend is that park builders, couldn't convince the jury that the jumps were "safe". Because I was doing research for my business concept, I called and spoke to a guy who was in the court room for that whole trial. He told me that it actually had nothing to do with jump safety. Even so, it significantly changes procedures for park builders around the country.
If the trial isn't already over, I suggest that all of you that ski Sundown should call up Sundown's attorneys and volunteer to testify. You never know what might be the tipping point. It is in every NSer's best interest that this case go in favor of Sunlight. Insurance costs are already going up for businesses. All it takes is for a few of the big areas to decide that the cost to benefit for terrain parks is too high and they will be history. Don't believe that can happen? Skate parks disappeared for almost 20 years for exactly the same reason.
DrZoidberg
Active member
I never read these statements or any official court documents, but I meant the fact that they needed to state he wasn't accidentally in the park and was aware of what he was doing, if that's whats stated in the documents. If he was trying to make it out as "I was skiing along on a normal slope and suddenly found myself twenty feet in the air and falling towards my doom" than that's stupid.
Well that's all well and fine, but seeing that he isn't actually the source of the problem, only a part of it, i fail to see your point?
And it doesn't change the fact that your intention with the message was to make him feel bad, which is shitty and disrespectful, no matter how corteous you were. I have also yet to understand how making him aware of the "errors" of his ways would stop anyone else from doing the same thing? Do you think that these people all know each other, and that he could somehow effect others "planning" to do the same thing?Come on, leave the kid alone, you basically come off as a vengeful douche, give it up.
And why would you go through all of this effort to bother him, only to apologise afterwards, that makes no sense?
And it doesn't change the fact that your intention with the message was to make him feel bad, which is shitty and disrespectful, no matter how corteous you were. I have also yet to understand how making him aware of the "errors" of his ways would stop anyone else from doing the same thing? Do you think that these people all know each other, and that he could somehow effect others "planning" to do the same thing?Come on, leave the kid alone, you basically come off as a vengeful douche, give it up.
And why would you go through all of this effort to bother him, only to apologise afterwards, that makes no sense?
howlongcanausern
Active member
yeah stalking him on facebook, then sending a message to him is pretty fuckin rude at best.
PaleCelery
Active member
So glad he lost
ContaminatedBeef
Member
It's troubling that every frivolous lawsuit that some dumbass who hurts himself brings against legitimate companies who are not at fault winds up in court in front of a jury and costs the company thousands of dollars in legal fees
123ski
Active member
It sounds like your real complaint is with the exorbitant amount of punitive damages juries are awarding when the actual negligence wasn't very reprehensible or gross.
It is actually a beautiful thing that people in this country have the right to a trial for any matter they feel is unjust. The reason this is is because of the United States common law tradition where rules are not only made by the legislative body but also by the judicial system.
What you are all forgetting is that this case, where it was decided that Ski Sundown was not liable even though it didn't have a a fence around the terrain park now sets some sort of precedent for the next time somebody sues a ski resort for not having a fence around the terrain park. There were likely other issues that the court thought were dispositive, but that is one that I noticed in my brief reading of the closing arguments of the case. Obviously any future case will likely be slightly different than this one, but the fact that this lawsuit was even brought and made it to a courtroom just helps define the law more clearly surrounding ski resorts and their terrain parks.
It is very sad that this kid got hurt. It is also sad that the resort had to spend time and money defending itself when it seemed somewhat obvious to most of us that the kid was more at fault than the resort. It is not sad, however, that he had the opportunity to find out who was really at fault. Nor is it sad that the area of law concerning ski resort liability has now been defined, and is even more helpful for resorts to know in the future what type of precautions they need to take.
It is actually a beautiful thing that people in this country have the right to a trial for any matter they feel is unjust. The reason this is is because of the United States common law tradition where rules are not only made by the legislative body but also by the judicial system.
What you are all forgetting is that this case, where it was decided that Ski Sundown was not liable even though it didn't have a a fence around the terrain park now sets some sort of precedent for the next time somebody sues a ski resort for not having a fence around the terrain park. There were likely other issues that the court thought were dispositive, but that is one that I noticed in my brief reading of the closing arguments of the case. Obviously any future case will likely be slightly different than this one, but the fact that this lawsuit was even brought and made it to a courtroom just helps define the law more clearly surrounding ski resorts and their terrain parks.
It is very sad that this kid got hurt. It is also sad that the resort had to spend time and money defending itself when it seemed somewhat obvious to most of us that the kid was more at fault than the resort. It is not sad, however, that he had the opportunity to find out who was really at fault. Nor is it sad that the area of law concerning ski resort liability has now been defined, and is even more helpful for resorts to know in the future what type of precautions they need to take.