News, 60-Year Old Sues 8-Year Old For Ski Collision. (wife, children, beautiful)

[Honeycrisp]

A while back there was a case on Judge Judy about a young teen (I think in CT) who was being sued by an older man he skateboarded into - the man was injured and claimed the kid was careless etc, I wish I could remember the details but I dont think any limbs were broken, maybe soft-tissue injuries - if I recall correctly, the man didnt win - it was an interesting case though.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by springfieldva

Isn't this one of the *risks* that this man freely took on by skiing in an area where other, less worthy and experienced people were also skiing? If he didn't want to assume the risks involved in being around potential novices, he should have found himself his very own mountain to ski. Or he should have at least been keeping his eye out for the less skilled around him.

Sort of. However, it is an axiom of skiing that the person behind is supposed to avoid skiing into the person ahead of him/her. I don't know what happened in this particular case, but there you have it.

[markg91359]

There as so many cases where people don't seem to understand this. They immediately jump to assuming the people involved are just seeking money and being malicious. Often, you MUST sue if you have injuries and want your medical costs covered. Group or private insurance will fight paying for injury if they can force a different insurance company into paying.

Right now I have neck and shoulder pain from an unspecified injury...one day I woke up and had pain. Ive been undergoing treatment for several years. Periodically my insurance company calls to ask for more information...specifically, if the injury *actually* occurred while driving a car, at work, or on someone else's property. They're trying to identify a reason they don't have to pay.

My cousin once sued her husband. She was a passenger in the car when he got into an accident that he was ruled at fault for. She didn't sue him because she was malicious trying to bilk him...it was the only way to get her severe injuries covered.

This point can't be made strongly enough. The entire insurance industry in this country hides behind everyday, ordinary people who carelessly caused an accident. An injured person can't sue the insurance company directly. He/she must bring any legal action directly against the person who is alleged to have caused the injury. The rationale for this approach is that if jurors knew that someone was insured, they might be more inclined to award money damages against them. So, judges make a point of never telling (or allowing others to tell) a jury in a case that a defendant is insured.

If you go skiing, and you ski into someone, most homeowner's insurance policies provide liability coverage for your actions. They will pay damages up to a certain amount upon proof that you acted in a careless/negligent way and that your actions were the cause of injuries to another.

The cost of healthcare (not greed) drives many of these claims. People have to have a way to get medical bills paid and often the bills from an injury may be $75,000 to $100,000 if the injury is substantial. Most people probably have health insurance, but this doesn't take into account high deductibles and co-pays.

One person earlier suggested that such a claim might be considered simply an inherent risk of skiing and should be thrown out of court. Perhaps, but than the analogy would hold for all lawsuits involving motor vehicle or car accidents. After all, isn't being in an accident that produces an injury an "inherent risk of driving"? I would say no. In all but a few cases, accidents don't just happen. They are caused. Identifying causation and forcing the people who are responsible to be financially responsible benefits all of us in the long run.

I have a friend who was skiing one day, when he stopped at the intersection of a trail. A snowboarder came up and struck him in a manner that cut his right hand seriously. The hand became infected with staph bacteria and he required a hospitalization and surgery on the hand. He ultimately was forced to change his occupational duties because of the injury. The economic cost of this injury ultimately may be several hundred thousand dollars. I don't think careless skiers or boarders should be able to avoid all responsibility in such situations.

[Green Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by markg91359

One person earlier suggested that such a claim might be considered simply an inherent risk of skiing and should be thrown out of court. Perhaps, but than the analogy would hold for all lawsuits involving motor vehicle or car accidents. After all, isn't being in an accident that produces an injury an "inherent risk of driving"? I would say no. In all but a few cases, accidents don't just happen. They are caused. Identify causation and forcing the people who are responsible to be financially responsible benefits all of us in the long run.

Then perhaps all skiers (like all auto owners) should be required to carry, at a minimum, liability insurance in case of injuries to others, along with optional "comprehensive insurance" in case they, themselves, are injured?

[jasper12]

And as a parent who took four kids skiing, if my kids were not skiing in control, safely, for themselves and others, they went into babysitting at the Lodge. I threatened them with this, it really sunk home when my ten year old was skiing way too fast. I warned him.

The next day, he was dropped off, and spent a day with toddlers, in the lodgeday care.

My kids were much more careful, and responsible skiers after that.

[Katarina Witt]

Here is an article about the ski responsibility code and the "inherent risk" law in Colorado.

Ski Safety | Colorado Ski Country USA

[ParallelJJCat]

Originally Posted by jasper12

And as a parent who took four kids skiing, if my kids were not skiing in control, safely, for themselves and others, they went into babysitting at the Lodge. I threatened them with this, it really sunk home when my ten year old was skiing way too fast. I warned him.

The next day, he was dropped off, and spent a day with toddlers, in the lodgeday care.

My kids were much more careful, and responsible skiers after that.

I love this solution.

[flyonpa]

So the 60yo should have been in lodge day care? He's the one who stopped in the middle of the slope.

[markg91359]

Then perhaps all skiers (like all auto owners) should be required to carry, at a minimum, liability insurance in case of injuries to others, along with optional "comprehensive insurance" in case they, themselves, are injured?

I've heard worse ideas. Actually, ski accidents that are followed by lawsuits are rare. Here's the best way to handle it though. Charge everyone who purchases a lift ticket an extra $.50 when they buy the ticket. I suspect that the resulting pool of cash would be large enough to pay for liability insurance for all the skiers participating in the activity.

I can see arguments against it. If you do this and create an insurance system just for skiers that alone might result in more claims being brought. This might cause the $.50 to become a $1 and than become $5.

Ultimately, I think purchasing such insurance should be a choice. However, the idea that lawsuits shouldn't be allowed "because the activity is inherently dangerous" is hogwash. Juries can decide in each case whether the injured party has a legitimate claim or not.

[gouligann]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

So the 60yo should have been in lodge day care? He's the one who stopped in the middle of the slope.

Give the man the benefit of a doubt. Maybe you aren't supposed to stop in the middle, but he was 60 years old and may have had some sort of pain or cramp, shortness of breath, needed to adjust something, etc. I'll agree it wasn't the smartest move (pun), but he may have had good reason. Is it a ski patrol LAW on most hills that you can't stop in the middle of a slope? I don't ever remember hearing this when I used to ski.

I do know that the person above is supposed to watch for the person below and keep under control at all times.