News, 60-Year Old Sues 8-Year Old For Ski Collision. (woman, home, money)

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by gouligann

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.

It's a shame that the guy got hurt, it really is. But you can't stop in the middle of a snowy, icy, slick slope like that and expect everyone behind you to instantly do the same. Not sure what this guy was thinking .

It seems to me that this gentleman was *at least* half responsible for the accident.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Dark of the Moon

Who says they didn't? "Robb Swimm (the father) claims 7 year old Scott was skiing slowly and in control. "

Furthermore, an experienced *60 year old skier* should have had enough common sense to stay out of the way of younger, inexperienced skiers -- right?

From the link in post #24: The Swimms are working with Faces of Lawsuit Abuse which is sponsored by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. The organization is committed to exposing and fighting frivolous and abusive lawsuits.


Whatever -- the thread's been revived. Go forth and discuss.

Well, you don't have any control over who else is skiing on the slopes when you're there. The person behind is supposed to yield to the person in front. That's in the code of skiing that I posted earlier.

Originally Posted by springfieldva

It's a shame that the guy got hurt, it really is. But you can't stop in the middle of a snowy, icy, slick slope like that and expect everyone behind you to instantly do the same. Not sure what this guy was thinking .

It seems to me that this gentleman was *at least* half responsible for the accident.

Have you ever gone skiing at these big Colorado resorts? Some of these trails are quite long. You (or I rather) sometimes have to stop just for a rest. Now when I was skiing I always tried to stop at the side of a run, rather than right in the middle. Also, skiers fall. You're not supposed to just ski over them, you're supposed to go around them. I don't know what this guy did, and that's part of the problem. None of us were there, or have enough knowledge of the accident to know what really happened.

http://www.beavercreek.com/~/media/b..._enlarged.ashx

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, you don't have any control over who else is skiing on the slopes when you're there. The person behind is supposed to yield to the person in front. That's in the code of skiing that I posted earlier.



Have you ever gone skiing at these big Colorado resorts? Some of these trails are quite long. You (or I rather) sometimes have to stop just for a rest. Now when I was skiing I always tried to stop at the side of a run, rather than right in the middle. Also, skiers fall. You're not supposed to just ski over them, you're supposed to go around them. I don't know what this guy did, and that's part of the problem. None of us were there, or have enough knowledge of the accident to know what really happened.

http://www.beavercreek.com/~/media/b..._enlarged.ashx

If you get tired when you're driving your car, you pull over because you know that you'll get hit if you stop in the middle of the road. Just sayin'...

Whether the guy fell, stopped suddenly or thought that nobody was behind him -he was stopped in the middle of the slope, for whatever reason. Maybe the kid tried to avoid him but couldn't. Maybe the guy was covered in snow and the kid didn't even see him. I really doubt that the kid just skied over him for the heck of it.

I agree it's hard to know what happened since none of us were there. Yet, this kid was somehow found to be at fault (at least per the insurance co) which just seems odd to me.

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by John1960

Vail, CO (AHN) - A 60-year old man is suing an 8-year old boy and his father, after the boy crashed into him, resulting in an injury to the man's shoulder.

David Pfahler, who was skiing at Beaver Creek last winter, claimed he and his wife filed a lawsuit against Scott Swim for crashing into him. The couple is seeking $75,000 in damages, and will be used to pay for several expenses such as physical therapy and vacation time.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009515631 (broken link)

Negligence + Damages = lawsuit.

It's tort law, and every citizen has the right to his day in court.

Looks like next time, maybe the parents will be more careful who their son runs into.

20yrsinBranson

[Seekingcreativity]

Originally Posted by John1960

Vail, CO (AHN) - A 60-year old man is suing an 8-year old boy and his father, after the boy crashed into him, resulting in an injury to the man's shoulder.

David Pfahler, who was skiing at Beaver Creek last winter, claimed he and his wife filed a lawsuit against Scott Swim for crashing into him. The couple is seeking $75,000 in damages, and will be used to pay for several expenses such as physical therapy and vacation time.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009515631 (broken link)

He know his old ass shouldn't have been out there in the first place, and to sue an 8 year old because you have brittle bones, understand there are risks when participating in a dangerous sport, and have an accident? Sorry hun, sking is an assumed risk, where you fully understand that you most likely will obtain some sort of injury. Thank goodness he didn't hit a tree, lord knows what kind of lawsuit would take place.

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by Seekingcreativity

He know his old ass shouldn't have been out there in the first place, and to sue an 8 year old because you have brittle bones, understand there are risks when participating in a dangerous sport, and have an accident? Sorry hun, sking is an assumed risk, where you fully understand that you most likely will obtain some sort of injury. Thank goodness he didn't hit a tree, lord knows what kind of lawsuit would take place.

Kind of makes you wonder if he had a bum shoulder going into that slope .

[markg91359]

He know his old ass shouldn't have been out there in the first place, and to sue an 8 year old because you have brittle bones, understand there are risks when participating in a dangerous sport, and have an accident? Sorry hun, sking is an assumed risk, where you fully understand that you most likely will obtain some sort of injury. Thank goodness he didn't hit a tree, lord knows what kind of lawsuit would take place.

Its just not that simple. I've skied most of my 53 year old life and there are just certain rules you expect people to follow. I expect when I'm standing at a fork in a trail or picking myself up from a fall in the middle of a slope that all the skiers can ski around me. I've never once been injured.

No, it isn't just a question of "assuming risk". Skiing really isn't that dangerous if you ski conservatively and watch what's in front of you. I look at "watching what's in front of you" as being analogous to not running into the rear end of a car in front of you on a road. I do resent skiers who simply point their skis down a steep hill and take off with no regard for who or what is below them. Such skiers do exist. The good resorts force them to either conform to rules or leave.

Comparing this to hitting a tree shows a great deal of ignorance on your part. A tree is part of the natural condition of a ski slope. People go skiing because of trees and other objects that we find naturally beautiful. Plus, the tree is completely stationary.

You also apparently are ignoring what others have tried to point out to you. The claim is really with the boy's homeowner's insurance company. Eight year old children don't have the resources to pay judgments in the thousands of dollars.

I hope you'll do us all a favor if your asked to sit on a jury. Tell the judge that you're too biased in favor of the defense to be an objective juror and let them excuse you. That way, win or lose there can at least be a fair trial.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by springfieldva

If you get tired when you're driving your car, you pull over because you know that you'll get hit if you stop in the middle of the road. Just sayin'...

Whether the guy fell, stopped suddenly or thought that nobody was behind him -he was stopped in the middle of the slope, for whatever reason. Maybe the kid tried to avoid him but couldn't. Maybe the guy was covered in snow and the kid didn't even see him. I really doubt that the kid just skied over him for the heck of it.

I agree it's hard to know what happened since none of us were there. Yet, this kid was somehow found to be at fault (at least per the insurance co) which just seems odd to me.

Skiing is not driving a car. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Seekingcreativity

He know his old ass shouldn't have been out there in the first place, and to sue an 8 year old because you have brittle bones, understand there are risks when participating in a dangerous sport, and have an accident? Sorry hun, sking is an assumed risk, where you fully understand that you most likely will obtain some sort of injury. Thank goodness he didn't hit a tree, lord knows what kind of lawsuit would take place.

60 isn't old, you whippersnapper! There are plenty of 60+ people skiing.

I'm not defending the guy for suing, but some of you obviously don't know the rules of skiing.

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Skiing is not driving a car. Just sayin'.

Well no, it's not. But in situations where a skier needs a rest or needs to adjust equipment, I would think that it would be better to ski off to the side of the slope instead of coming to a dead stop and expecting people to ski around you.

There isn't any indication that the guy fell down, was getting up and was then run into, otherwise I would imagine that it would be very unclear as to when the injury was sustained (before or after he was run into).

For whatever reason it seems he made the decision to stop in the middle of the slope. Had he not done so, there would have been no accident.

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Its just not that simple. I've skied most of my 53 year old life and there are just certain rules you expect people to follow. I expect when I'm standing at a fork in a trail or picking myself up from a fall in the middle of a slope that all the skiers can ski around me. I've never once been injured.

No, it isn't just a question of "assuming risk". Skiing really isn't that dangerous if you ski conservatively and watch what's in front of you. I look at "watching what's in front of you" as being analogous to not running into the rear end of a car in front of you on a road. I do resent skiers who simply point their skis down a steep hill and take off with no regard for who or what is below them. Such skiers do exist. The good resorts force them to either conform to rules or leave.

Comparing this to hitting a tree shows a great deal of ignorance on your part. A tree is part of the natural condition of a ski slope. People go skiing because of trees and other objects that we find naturally beautiful. Plus, the tree is completely stationary.

You also apparently are ignoring what others have tried to point out to you. The claim is really with the boy's homeowner's insurance company. Eight year old children don't have the resources to pay judgments in the thousands of dollars.

I hope you'll do us all a favor if your asked to sit on a jury. Tell the judge that you're too biased in favor of the defense to be an objective juror and let them excuse you. That way, win or lose there can at least be a fair trial.

For the record, I'm not sticking up for parents who would allow their child to ski in a dangerous and haphazard manner. But it sounds like this particular kid was an experienced skier who knew the rules.

As for the homeowners insurance paying for it - well, who do you think will wind up paying higher premiums from here on out and/or possibly having their insurance cancelled because this claim was filed? Answer - the boy's parents.