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

word Frenchy, If it's a season pass I'm pretty sure you have to sign a waiver but if it was just a day pass they could lose.
 
this shit sucks. Glad to see every comment on the actual article seems to respectfully say that he needs to take responsibility for his own actions.
 
wow this really does piss me off.

this kid just sounds really ignorant and all this this does is give a bad name for ski parks in general.

i mean ya a charity with donations that go towards paralyzed people or his medical bills may be ok

but seriously suing a ski mountain for something you are at fault for is retarded. what is he going to do with the money without movement. buy an off road wheel chair
 
This occurred in 2006 and only now is being brought to trial. This is purely about money, four years of medical bills can add up, to a very substantial amount. The problem is that, in the american legal system, this kid does have a case, and will most likely, in some way, be compensated.
 
The guy is a physics major and needs a sign to tell him the difficulty of the jump? How does this stuff even get into court?
 
NS, ENGAGE.

I just sent an email to the kid's attourney. You should all do the same. Or, you know, we can all bitch about it while lawyers close our mountains.

This is what I wrote. If you want to send something, don't copy verbatim, but feel free to use it as a template.

Mr. Monaco,

I am sickened by your participation in the case of James Malaguit vs. Ski Sundown. I feel terrible sympathy for the unfortunate accident of your client and its repercussions, but this is a frivolous lawsuit by anyone's judgment and you are hurting honest businessmen and their customers. You are what is wrong with the legal system in this country. If I ever have legal needs, I will be sure to avoid your firm.

Seriously people, do something instead of talking about it.
 
Maybe a law major can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the decision to accept or reject a case should be made by the lawyer. It is a problem with the system, not with the individual lawyer. The only reason the lawyer and the kid are doing this is because there is some potential to win big money. You can't blame them for trying (well you can, but you know what I mean). You should be blaming the court system for even allowing cases like this to go through.

It is like spam emails from the prince of South Africa asking for money. Yeah the people who send them are trash but the reality is the only reason you keep getting them is because people actually send the money! Cut the problem off at the source.
 
He doesn't have to represent the kid. If his firm is forcing him to take on bad cases, he can leave the firm. Half my friends are lawyers, and one of them left her high-paying job because she was working bad cases. It's pure ethics.

I do agree with what you're saying, but this method is more grass-roots than trying to revamp the American legal system.
 
There are no extra precautions that can be taken to prevent these incidents from occurring... That is the whole point. Skiing is an inherently dangerous sport. All the resort should have to do is take REASONABLE steps to prevent these types of incidents and from what I have read and heard from people who ski there is that they do. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the concept of lawsuits should never occur. I think there are times when resorts are negligent and should be held accountable for accidents (for example, if a lack of mandatory chairlift maintenance causes injury/death), but you have to draw the line somewhere. I can't really form an absolute opinion on whether or not the resort should be held responsible without seeing photos of the jump, maintenance records, witness statements, etc. but from what I have seen so far it seems like a money grab trying to take advantage of a weak system.
 
No matter how many precautions you put up some gaper is gonna get around them and go for it. And by putting up more obstacles, or signs or pass programs they are just placing themselves in a more liable position. If the resorts are forced to take dramatic action only baby parks will remain. The courts need to rule the right way, siding with the ski area and set a precedent.
 
ireally hope this doesnt happen, i really wish i could go to the trial and say something, but i won't be able to, however i have a feeling the attorneys for sundown are pretty damn good and will be able to show that he crossed trails/fence, and theres a sign at the top of the trail, what do they want that huge sign in front of every rail and jump.. people like this infuriate me
 
Waivers that are signed by a parent/guardian don't hold up in court. It isn't legal for a parent to sign away a child's rights. The reason businesses do that is so that parents understand the risk and it discourages them from filing lawsuits and encourages them to pay more attention to their child's safety. But yeah, even if the parents had signed a waiver it would be totally irrelevant.
 
Realism appreciated, so I'll respond similarly.

Ski resorts don't do the bare minimum. They do everything they can to minimize their liability, including putting signs on top of trails saying, "YOU COULD DIE." We've all seen them.

But doing so risks scaring off or inconveniencing their customers, which cut into their bottom line and could potentially put them in debt. Intrawest resorts charge extra for a park pass, which pisses me off and makes me not want to go to Intrawest resorts. Business lost.

Stationing a guy on top of the TP will cost a resort at least $15,000 a year, which is also a big deal.

So what do you propose the mountains do to further minimize their risk? More signs? More fence? How do you not inconvenience the capable skiers while keeping the unqualified on safe trails? It's not an easy question.

And as for my "this is America" response, I was kidding, but I was also pretty serious. Don't take my rights away.
 
As a student of law, I completely agree with almost everything Woozy has said. Just because the ski resort takes precautions does not mean that it has taken what the jury will determine to be "reasonable precautions". The fact is that jury's don't want to side with a company when a child is hurt. If the business has taken precautions above and beyond what the jury might perceive as "reasonable," then they are in a better situation to defend these types of cases.
As far as the back of the ticket goes....you don't always need a signature to constitute the forming of the contract. In may cases, and in most states, the paying for a lift ticket in exchange for access to chairlifts would be sufficient consideration to form a contract. The problem is that the injured is a minor, and it is difficult to hold a minor liable for a contract that they have formed with an adult or a corporation.
The fact that the kid hit the jump without a helmet and without goggles might help the ski resort to prevail in this case, but that does not mean that ski resorts should not take the utmost care in ensuring that all reasonable care has been taken to avoid injuries.
It will be interesting to see how and on what grounds this case is decided.
 
Seems like the rule change that needs to happen is that if someone brings a case and loses, they have to pick up the cost of legal defense. Law students, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that this is how European countries deal with this.

Even if Sundown wins the case, they stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars on defense, and that's not fair.
 
I DO feel bad for the victim but at the same time I feel worse for sundown.What has happened is not fair one bit, Sundown builds great parks and would NEVER leave anything up that could cause serious injury.The jury was obviously biased in the case, being crippled doesn't give you the right to sue for personal enjoyment and profit.Sundown didn't do anything wrong ,the skier made the wrong choice and hes going to have to live with it.

but hey kids got cash but look at his disadvantages.....his only punishment is his physical health...unfortunate for both parties ,shit happens
 
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.

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

In order to reach the jump, Malaguit crossed Exhibition from Canyon Run, which is located on the opposite side of the slope from where the jump is located. Exhibition is a wide trail toward the bottom of the mountain, an emptying point for three trails including Canyon Run, Stinger and Tempter. There is a lot of traffic on the trail as a result, he said. Stinger and Tempter, which are the closest trails to the jump where Malaguit was injured, are marked as advanced-level trails.

you serious? the conditions were shitty. how was that he mountain's fault?

he was a dumbass. how was that the mountain's fault?

he entered the trail from the side even though it was blocked off. how was that the mountain's fault?

seriously, I don't see him having any chance of winning this lawsuit. for a kid with a 90.06 gpa, he's quite a dumbass.
 
As my home mountain this is an outrage. It is a small place that does good buisness but in no way is it wealthy enough to cover this big of a lawsuit. No helmet, nothing for that matter. THis is seriously fucked
 
it doesnt help the defendants case either that he has such a high GPA, is in phsyics and mathematics, and is using the angle of an implied decrease in future wage due to his physical impairment.
from the kids point, its a good angle presented from his lawyer but it all comes down to the liability, and i think the helmet and goggles will be a main point in the defendants claims.
regardless its a terrible accident, but i dont beleive the resort showed any negligence. (at this point anyways)
 
Sounds to me that cases like this shouldn't be tried before a jury, but before a judge or judges. With a jury's it just seems to easy to illicit an emotional response from the jury when faced with a paralysed kid, thus making the jury incapable of making an objective decision on the matter. Again im not an expert in the ways of the american legal system, what do you law guys think? The whole constitutional thing about the right to be tried in front of a jury of one's peers hopefully doesn't apply to lawsuits?
 
i feel like there is at least 2 of these a year at brighton, im so tired of people like this i dont care if he is paralyzes i want to give him a good punch for being a douche.
 
Exactly - everyone has always wondered why over the past few years the jumps have been hindered unless there's event...now you know why. This is why the event step-ups are roped off once the event is over then instantly plowed down or transformed. I know it annoys everyone a lot, especially the park crew because they put so much time and work into building those jumps and they're only used for a few hours. For the kids who are "new" to Sundown and have really only hit the step-ups, they weren't always like that - in fact, they used to have very, very nice jumps up all year long, but unfortunately this is one of the main reasons they're not there anymore.
 
while reading this i just had an image of this kid as a complete gaper. and the image grew with each passing line of his ignorance despite being a fluid dynamics physics major who's physical disabilities will somehow hinder his career in life as the article states? ugh so aggravating.
 
medical bills and college education probably.

I agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't be able to sue, but that is not the case and he probably will win. The writing on the back of your lift ticket doesn't hold up to shit.

People saying stuff about Park Passes, I have heard that these actually make it easier to sue if you are injured because the mountain is saying that you a capable of doing it even if you arn't.
 
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's already been compensated by ski sundown's insurance and now he's looking for more money.
 
even if his family has decent medical coverage i suspect they would need the money. they've already had 6 years of supporting a paralyzed kid with no end in sight. the money'll pay for the nurse once the state decides she is no longer necessary for his day-to-day needs and stops paying for her. it'll pay for experimental treatments that may help him regain control over his body.
as much as i agree that this case in an ideal world would have no chance of going through, i can see why the family is suing the mountain. it's not like they would be spending their winnings on a trip to Hawaii. and i'm sure they've managed to convince themselves that they're also doing it to protect other innocent children.
 
Im not sure what to do in this situation, sad situation for that kid. This is why inexperienced people should not be in the park.
 
If anything he should sue his friends and family. They were the ones who never told him it was a bad idea to hit the jump with no experience. Obviously I'm sorry for what happened to this kid and i send him and his family vibes, but taking out your anger out on the mountain over your poor decision is no way to deal with it. I hope the jury and judge make the reasonable decision.
 
How come nobody cares about the fact that he is cheating in school? There is no way that somebody as stupid as him was mantaining an A average in school. The fact that he is trying to major in physics in just flat out ironic.
 
i disagree....the issue is that there has been no negligence on sundown's behalf. somebody mentioned the waiver on the back of the pass not holding up - that is probably true, but only if it is the first time using that pass. after you buy a pass once and have had access to the waiver, it is valid in any subsequent times. That is trivial anyway.
Negligence is leaving a shovel in the landing area - negligence is not immediately implied if somebody gets hurt on your property.This is an accident created by his actions and he is trying to create negligence by shifting the blame. sadly this often works in the american legal system, we can only hope he doesnt get a cent and Sundown counter-sues for legal fees.

he is an enema douche and may i add bag.
 
Resorts have to be VERY careful about differentiating themselves in terms of safety standards. Improve upon what has been done in the past yes, but resorts aren't free to just do what they please in terms of standards. Resort associations encourage all resorts to follow the same processes/procedures in terms of safety so that there is a very clear industry wide standard. If you go "above and beyond" what is the industry standard then you are screwing over your fellow resorts. That is why when individual resorts make a drastic safety change, the entire industry often gets upset (for example when RCR took away jumps).
 
I just don't see why he thinks he would win. Clearly all the legal bs that goes on plays a factor. But all I see is, like most others who cause injury to themselves, somebody looking to get money from the court system. He's certainly in a bad spot though. Also, most would argue that the money he would get if he won is not even a fraction of what would truly be necessary to compensate for his suffering and loss. Even is putting a value on suffering is clearly a subjective practice.

And this part: "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." he says it to have some sort of negative connotation. It's in CT. Ski the east says frozen granular is a good day, right? Was he expecting japan style powder or a large bag of marshmallows to land in? There probably is a sign at the top of the park, most signs today say like small, medium or large features right? And what jump on the east coast isn't solid ice when it's night and like 7 degrees and windy. If Ct is anything like NJ skiing-wise then very few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top