7 year old sued for ski accident

[regulator 0]

When a man suddenly turned in front of seven-year-old Scott Swimm on the ski mountain, Scott reacted and prevented a collision. Instead, he passed over the man’s skis, and both Scott and the man lost their balance. As Scott stood up and tried to apologize, the man grabbed Scott and threatened to sue him and his whole family.

Months later, the local sheriff came to the Swimms’ house to personally serve Scott with papers. “Scott thought he was going to go to jail. He did not understand what was happening,” said Scott’s mother, Susan. Scott was later deposed by three plaintiffs’ lawyers. The night before, he cried himself to sleep. “Scott was intimidated by that,” his mother said. “That was a scary, scary thing.”

The Swimms’ legal ordeal lasted almost a year. Scott’s grades suffered, and his teachers called Susan to let her know how differently Scott was behaving at school. Seeing how dramatically the suit was affecting their son, the Swimms “wanted the whole thing to stop… and I wanted Scott to be able to get his little smile back,” Susan said.

Since the cost of fighting a lawsuit, no matter its merits, is often more than a settlement, the Swimms’ insurance company decided to settle the suit.

Not only did the lawsuit take an emotional toll, it put a dent in the Swimms’ income as well. The many hours Robb spent handling the lawsuit took him away from his jobs, which both paid by the hour. At the time, Robb was working as a hotel concierge and scanning tickets on the ski mountain. Susan was attempting to start her own small business.

“My son’s age was no concern,” Robb said of the lawsuit. “My family’s situation was no concern. And I do believe the lawyers used Scott and his age as a pawn to get across a certain fear that ‘we’re going to hurt your child more if you don’t pay us.’”


“What we learned is that it wasn’t about justice. And it wasn’t about what really happened in the accident… it was all about money.”

http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2009/04/7-year-old-boy-sued-over-minor-skiing-collision/

[Gravitymaster 0]

Another life disrupted by a scumbag lawyer who cared nothing except what the "value of the case" was.

[billvon 2,396]

Scumbag guy, I'd say. Lawsuits can't happen without a plaintiff, although they can happen without lawyers.

It would also be interesting to see what the actual suit is for. Any lawsuit has to show harm done to someone; the article does not detail any harm done.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think this says it all:

Quote

“My son’s age was no concern,” Robb said of the lawsuit. “My family’s situation was no concern. And I do believe the lawyers used Scott and his age as a pawn to get across a certain fear that ‘we’re going to hurt your child more if you don’t pay us.’”

Scumbags all the way from these type of lawsuits to self-serving politicians.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Scumbag guy, I'd say. Lawsuits can't happen without a plaintiff, although they can happen without lawyers.

It would also be interesting to see what the actual suit is for. Any lawsuit has to show harm done to someone; the article does not detail any harm done.

Skiing accident has snowballed into a public dispute

Quote

The elder skier sued the boy's family for more than $75,000 to cover his medical bills, saying he had dislocated his shoulder and suffered a massive rotator cuff tear in the accident.

Imagine a world where US would have a medical care system where you didn't need to sue other people to cover your exorbitant medical bills, where instead you could just walk into a hospital after an accident and get taken care of.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Andy9o8 0]

Good! The little bastard. Pay through the nose, fucker!!

Happy New Year.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Imagine a world where US would have a medical care system where you didn't need to sue other people to cover your exorbitant medical bills, where instead you could just walk into a hospital after an accident and get taken care of.

So yet another system of "let everybody else cover my ass?" Gee. Think stuff is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Imagine a world where US would have a medical care system where you didn't need to sue other people to cover your exorbitant medical bills, where instead you could just walk into a hospital after an accident and get taken care of.

So yet another system of "let everybody else cover my ass?" Gee. Think stuff is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

Yeah, Free isn't actually free of cost!! Not sure who said this but "There is no free lunch".

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

Imagine a world where US would have a medical care system where you didn't need to sue other people to cover your exorbitant medical bills, where instead you could just walk into a hospital after an accident and get taken care of.

So yet another system of "let everybody else cover my ass?" Gee. Think stuff is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

In the article Arvoitus linked, it says that the injured fellow was told by his insurance company to contact the family of the kid to arrange compensation for his medical costs. So the guy actually does have insurance, but it seems that insurance does not want to pay to cover the accident when they can pass the costs to some other party. Apparently no-one is disputing that the kid knocked the guy down.

One consequence of the way medical insurance is structured in the US is that insurance companies have a huge incentive to limit costs (and increase profits) by using every possible excuse to deny claims. In this case, the injured guy had insurance, but was told by his insurance company that he would have to get the other party in the accident to pay. Does anybody think it is reasonable to expect that you will not only have to pay for insurance, but also have (in this case) $75,000 lying around just in case someone injures you, in order to be able to spend a day skiing?

Arvoitus didn't say anything about "let everybody else cover my ass". Under single-payer systems, or systems where there are multiple insurers and everyone must carry insurance, everyone is insured and "can just walk into a hospital and get taken care of". People still have to pay for the insurance, through premiums or taxes depending on the system, and they know it. When my family in Canada speaks of "free health care" they simply mean "no out-of-pocket expenses that aren't already covered by what I pay in Provincial sales and income taxes". People often use shorthand phrases to cover more nuanced concepts, rather than spell out every detail, as a way to make conversation possible. All my family in Canada are well aware that health care is not free, as they are very aware of the taxes and OHIP premiums they have to pay and they know that medical costs are a very large fraction of the budget in every province.

"Let everyone else cover my ass" is an American phenomenon, where it is possible for someone to avoid paying for health insurance, knowing they will still be treated if they are injured. In Canada, it is impossible to avoid paying provincial sales taxes, which are the primary means of paying for the health care system, so no one gets a "free ride".

As far as the lawsuit is concerned, there seems to be agreement that the kid was uphill and ran into the downhill guy. There are conflicting claims about whether the downhill guy turned or stopped suddenly and the kid couldn't avoid knocking him down. I can see an argument that it's irrelevant if the guy turned or stopped, it's the responsibility of the one coming from uphill to stay clear. If I'm driving and the guy in front stops and I run into him, I'll be the one getting the ticket. There is also some dispute about whether or not the downhill guy got mad at the kid; the kid makes one claim, the guy who got run into another, and there are no neutral witnesses. Assuming that the medical costs are real and caused by the accident, this seems to me to be a legitimate case to bring before the court. It's irrelevant that the kid was 7 years old, if he caused the injury. I've seen very young kids with advanced skiing/snowboarding skills but little concern for other skiers on the slopes. The family of the kid has certainly launched an effective PR campaign to avoid dealing with their responsibility. It's a shame they didn't have a similar level of energy to motivate them to make sure they had some form of liability insurance.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Do you support skydivers suing each other?

Skiing, like skydiving comes with certain risks. If you are unwilling to accept those risks then don't participate. If you are injured when there is no gross negligence, then suck it up and don't whine like a freakin' baby.

[muff528 3]

Quote

When a man suddenly turned in front of seven-year-old Scott Swimm on the ski mountain, Scott reacted and prevented a collision.....

So, why isn't this kid's family suing the pants off of this dickhead for causing the accident and then terrorizing and threatening their child?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

I signed a waiver at every DZ I have jumped at, so I explicitly make a voluntary choice about whether or not to sign away my rights. I have never been asked to sign such a waiver when skiing. The lift ticket has some small print on the back that says that the lift operator isn't responsible if I run into a tree, or off a cliff, or into a pole; basically they are not responsible for my lack of skill or poor judgement. That's fine, if I tackle moguls beyond my skill or ski out of bounds that's on me and no-one else. That does not give me license to run over people, spear them with my pole, or run them into the fence as I wish.

Why are you opposed to having people take responsibility for their actions? Do you mean to suggest that as a general principle when people behave in a reckless manner and cause injury to people or damage to their property they should never be required to fix the mess they made? Somehow I guess I misunderstood that you were an advocate of "personal responsibility". I never would have guessed you were really a fan of "somebody else should pay for my personal irresponsibility". Live and learn I guess.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

So, why isn't this kid's family suing the pants off of this dickhead for causing the accident and then terrorizing and threatening their child?

Were you there and witnessed the accident? Perhaps you should contact the court so you can be called to testify?

Or perhaps, have you been sucked in by uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the one-sided self-serving propaganda dished out by this family?

I don't know what happened, but the uphill skier has a duty to see and avoid the downhill person. If the skier coming from above runs into the lower skier because that person stopped or turned, they were aiming too close to them and skiing beyond their ability to control their trajectory and avoid the collision.

As for the alleged altercation, no witnesses have been produced so it's one person's word against the other. On what basis do you assume the guy who was run into is a "dickhead"?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

So, why isn't this kid's family suing the pants off of this dickhead for causing the accident and then terrorizing and threatening their child?

Were you there and witnessed the accident? Perhaps you should contact the court so you can be called to testify?

Or perhaps, have you been sucked in by uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the one-sided self-serving propaganda dished out by this family?

I don't know what happened, but the uphill skier has a duty to see and avoid the downhill person. If the skier coming from above runs into the lower skier because that person stopped or turned, they were aiming too close to them and skiing beyond their ability to control their trajectory and avoid the collision.

As for the alleged altercation, no witnesses have been produced so it's one person's word against the other. On what basis do you assume the guy who was run into is a "dickhead"?

Don

By the first sentence of the original post. Also, I don't know what happened and you, admittedly, don't know what happened. Maybe you have "been sucked in by uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the one-sided self-serving propaganda dished out" by the plaintiff. He got his settlement with no one except the two who were involved really knowing what happened. You're right ...it's one person's word against the other. One scared 7-year-old kid who likely wasn't able to defend himself in an interrogation and one adult who might have seen an opportunity to gain an advantage. Why did he settle?

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think you should read the waiver you sign at the DZ again as I don't think you understand it very well. You are only relieving the DZ of responsibility, not your fellow jumpers.

I am for personal responsibility. I think when you choose to engage in a sport that carries certain risks, that you should have your own insurance policy in place and you should be prepared to cover your own expenses if you are injured, barring gross negligence.

As soon as skydivers begin suing each other for freefall collisions, bad landings because they were cut off, etc. We will see an end to a sport we all love so much.

If someone is not willing to accept the personal risks and responsibility, whether it is from skydiving, scuba diving, or downhill skiing, then don't participate. Find a better sport like bowling or tennis where the risks are lower.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Maybe you have "been sucked in by uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the one-sided self-serving propaganda dished out" by the plaintiff.

Except I never assumed anyone is a "dickhead", and certainly didn't call them that. All I said is that it's not unreasonable for this to go to arbitration, which seemed to be the plan (a hearing before a magistrate, not a jury trial) before the settlement was reached.

One side says the older guy picked up the kid, shook him and cursed at him. The other side says the older guy was taken away by ambulance and had to have surgery on his shoulder. I would assume there would be a record of the ambulance bill, and medical records of the repairs done in the surgery, so it might be possible to reach a reasonable idea of whose story is more credible. Perhaps that has something to do with why a settlement was reached?

In re-reading the first post I see the settlement was reached by the insurance company representing the kid's family, so they did have insurance. Good on them. So they are complaining about the time they had to spend on depositions, and lost work time. And the "moral outrage" they feel that little Johnny has to pay attention to people and not run over them.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Read it again. It says the man turned in front of the 7 year old and he turned to avoid a collision. The man lost his balance and fell down. Now he's terrorizing the kid. I have known idiots like this. I once had someone try and run me down on my motorcycle because I was forced to cut them off to avoid a collision with another vehicle. Then the idiot filed a complaint for reckless driving against me and made a citizens arrest. He never showed up in court.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I think you should read the waiver you sign at the DZ again as I don't think you understand it very well. You are only relieving the DZ of responsibility, not your fellow jumpers.

I am quite aware of that. I am also aware of the culture of not suing, and the reasons for it, and I would abide by that. I am also aware that the community, and DZs, almost always try to promote a culture of safety. Jumpers who make a habit of landing against the pattern, or who throw 360s in traffic, can expect a visit from the DZO and the S&TA. Anyone who decides to repack their pilot chute on the way to altitude with the door open can expect to have a loooong vacation from jumping. If I don't think safety is a priority at one DZ I can go to another where it is a priority. Also, when jumpers are injured the community often chips in to help. None of these things apply to the same extent on a ski hill.

Quote

I am for personal responsibility. I think when you choose to engage in a sport that carries certain risks, that you should have your own insurance policy in place and you should be prepared to cover your own expenses if you are injured, barring gross negligence.

While I agree with this, I also think that "personal responsibility" goes beyond covering my own ass, and extends to taking responsibility for harm I may have caused to others through recklessness or negligence. Do you disagree? If you did something really stupid, and as a result seriously injured another jumper, would you really just wash your hands of it and say "sucks to be you" to the other guy? How does that further "personal responsibility"?

Interesting that you write "barring gross negligence". What is gross negligence? Some would give the DZO a free pass if the plane crashed because they had failed to perform mandatory inspections, or had intentionally disabled a piece of equipment and so allowed the carburetor to freeze. Others would classify avoiding FAA mandated inspections as "gross negligence". Years ago I jumped with a fellow who was critically injured when several lines tore from his reserve; he lived but broke more bones than I knew we have, and will never jump again or even move without severe pain. When he learned that there had been other virtually identical incidents on that reserve, some fatal, and it was known for months that there was a problem with the stitching that caused lines to rip free from the canopy when it was deployed, yet the manufacturer failed to recall the reserves or even issue a service bulletin, he sued the manufacturer (not the DZ, not the plane manufacturer, only the reserve manufacturer). He was greatly criticized for violating the culture of "don't sue". Yet, doesn't "personal responsibility" in our sport include responsibility to meet basic safety or quality standards? If not, if people can do things like sell defective equipment and then when they find out there is a problem not bother to warn people their life is at risk, then the code of don't sue/personal responsibility can endanger our sport, by shielding people from their responsibility for extreme reckless behavior and encouraging them to do it again.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gravitymaster 0]

There is a lot of difference between gross negligence and "shit happens".

A 7 year old who runs over you skis, causing you to fall while trying to avoid you after you cut in front of him falls into the latter catagory.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Good! The little bastard. Pay through the nose, fucker!!

Happy New Year.

(to the music of Rawhide)

trollin trollin trollin

keep them post a trolling

trollin trollin troolin

.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Read it again. It says the man turned in front of the 7 year old and he turned to avoid a collision. The man lost his balance and fell down.

You read it again. The family of the kid says this, well what else would you expect? Must it be true because somebody put it on the internet? The family admits at least that the kid ran over the older guy's skis and they BOTH fell down. Sounds like a collision to me. If you're moving on skis and someone runs over them and stops them from moving your body will continue forward and you're going to fall. Why was the kid passing so close to the guy that they were unable to avoid a collision if the guy turned or stopped? You give a driving story as an analogy, though I don't see the similarity. How about this. You're driving on a road that is four lanes wide, with an empty lane on either side of you. The guy in front of you slows so you apply the brakes, and someone behind you runs into you. They didn't go around, though they had room on either side, and they were too close/going too fast to stop in time. Would your response be "that's OK, don't worry about repairing my car or my medical bills or the month I'll miss from work"? Do you think the police will ticket you for slowing down, or the other guy for following too close? If the guy refuses to pay for the damage he did, would it make you a dickhead if you were to sue him? How does that fit with your concept of "personal responsibility"? Doesn't everyone know that there is risk associated with driving?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Do you support skydivers suing each other?

Skiing, like skydiving comes with certain risks. If you are unwilling to accept those risks then don't participate. If you are injured when there is no gross negligence, then suck it up and don't whine like a freakin' baby.

Did the skiers sign a waiver? You know, like skydivers do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Do you support skydivers suing each other?

Skiing, like skydiving comes with certain risks. If you are unwilling to accept those risks then don't participate. If you are injured when there is no gross negligence, then suck it up and don't whine like a freakin' baby.

Did the skiers sign a waiver? You know, like skydivers do.

It seems to me that when I was learning to ski there was an implied waiver on the ticket

But that was many years ago

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Anyway, maybe Colorado should have a statute like this one from Ohio:
“Like most ski states, Ohio has a ski statute (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4169.01 et seq.) which mandates that all skiers expressly assume the inherent risks of the sport and cannot recover for injuries sustained from those inherent risks,” notes David B. Cronheim, chief legal correspondent for First Tracks!! Online. “The court in this case found that the defendant’s actions were not reckless or intentional and that a collision between two skiers was an inherent risk of skiing. As an inherent risk, the plaintiff was not entitled to recovery. "

With a law like this, the plaintiff's insurance company would have had to pay up as they wouldn't have been able to tell their client he needed to go after the kid's family to be compensated for his medical bills.

Indeed, it would be nice to have laws like this to indemnify all sorts of facilities that have some inherent element of risk, such as water parks and drop zones. Imagine, no need for 30 pages of waiver, just a simple law that says "if you choose to do risky stuff you're responsible". Actually, Georgia has such a law for equestrian activities, so they could do it for DZs.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jumpsalot-2 2]

Using the no witness knowledge, who's to say "this" didn't happen. Older guy up the hill from the younger guy. Older guy doing nice "S" turns basically downhill thinking, wow I could dust that kid just for fun ( cause I'm a dick head ). Gets closer and closer to the cut off point and chokes at the crossing not leave any space. Kid runs over his skis ( or small collision ) but he is now the downhill skier....must be the kids fault. No one there to say otherwise....

Life is short ... jump often.