0
regulator

7 year old sued for ski accident

Recommended Posts

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.



Non-sequitur. Nobody has claimed the Ski Slope Operator has any liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Agreed. Point is, this was very likely pumped up by the lawyers because there was a fee to be earned.

One thing that struck me as odd when I did a google search for skiing accident lawsuits, is that most of the suits were for $75,000, the same amount as in this case. Seems unlikely that 70-80% of skiing accidents would cause precisely $75,000 worth of damage (or $50,000 + lawyers fees). Seems more like a number that makes the case worth taking for the lawyers.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Agreed. Point is, this was very likely pumped up by the lawyers because there was a fee to be earned.

One thing that struck me as odd when I did a google search for skiing accident lawsuits, is that most of the suits were for $75,000, the same amount as in this case. Seems unlikely that 70-80% of skiing accidents would cause precisely $75,000 worth of damage (or $50,000 + lawyers fees). Seems more like a number that makes the case worth taking for the lawyers. Don




Not an unreasonable guess for a layman, but that's not really the reason. $75,000 is the "amount in controversy" threshhold that determines whether a civil lawsuit can, or cannot, be pursued in federal court based on a procedural doctrine known as "diversity jurisdiction". (Depending on the type of case and which side you're on, there are tactical reasons to either want, or avoid, having your case in federal court, as opposed to state court.)

Here's a handy synopsis of diversity jurisdiction from Wikipedia. Scroll down to the section labeled "Amount in controversy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the explanation. I'd suspected something like that might be the case, but went with the guess that made lawyers look worse. My bad.

I hope you, and all the SC regulars and irregulars, have a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2013.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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



I retract the "dickhead" comment for now.

Happy New Year to all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That guy doing the suing is a massive dickhead. I would have shook it off and made sure the kid was okay and if I was hurt, called it a day. Shit happens, you just roll with it and put it behind you. But not this fucking donkey cunt motherfucker. I hope karma gets him one day. >:(

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I would have shook it off



- dislocated shoulder
- a massive rotator cuff tear

Yeap, Internet superhero much?



I did miss that detail. In that case, I would have just let my medical insurance take care of it rather than make a little kid's life a living hell. Besides, he's the one that made the sudden turn into the kid's path, so the guy fucked up, not the kid.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I would have shook it off



- dislocated shoulder
- a massive rotator cuff tear

Yeap, Internet superhero much?



I did miss that detail. In that case, I would have just let my medical insurance take care of it rather than make a little kid's life a living hell. Besides, he's the one that made the sudden turn into the kid's path, so the guy fucked up, not the kid.

Apparently reading/comprehension is not your strong suit. His insurance company refused to pay and told him he'd have to go after the kid's family (who was insured by the way). It is also the responsibility of the uphill skier to stay clear of the downhill person. If the person coming from uphill cannot avoid the collision, they were aiming to pass too close to the downhill person. From your comment, I assume you have little experience skiing. If you are going to ski in control you have to look where you are going, which is downhill. If you are always looking behind (uphill) you aren't looking where you are going, and then you are very likely to crash at best, or run into an obstacle such as another person at worst. When you are coming up on another skier you have to assume they may turn or even stop; few people have the skill or desire to bomb straight down the hill without turning to avoid obstacles, bumps, or just to maintain a comfortable speed. For that reason you always give the downhill person a wide berth.

Very much like the reason the low jumper has the right of way. If you get hit from above by someone pulling a 360 in traffic, would you say "oh my bad for being in the way"?

I don't know how severe this accident was, or if the person suing is exaggerating their damages. Maybe he's being a dick, I don't know. But, he did get an ambulance ride and surgery out of the deal, and his insurance put him in the position of paying out of pocket or going after the person who is responsible for the collision. Legally the age of the uphill skier is irrelevant. If there is a "dick" in this, I tend to think it's the guys medical insurance for telling him he needed to go after the kid. It would be better if Colorado had a law like the Ohio law I cited above, so the insurance company would not be able to tell him it's not their problem.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I did miss that detail. In that case, I would have just let my medical insurance take care of it rather than make a little kid's life a living hell. Besides, he's the one that made the sudden turn into the kid's path, so the guy fucked up, not the kid.

Apparently reading/comprehension is not your strong suit. His insurance company refused to pay and told him he'd have to go after the kid's family (who was insured by the way). It is also the responsibility of the uphill skier to stay clear of the downhill person. If the person coming from uphill cannot avoid the collision, they were aiming to pass too close to the downhill person. From your comment, I assume you have little experience skiing. If you are going to ski in control you have to look where you are going, which is downhill. If you are always looking behind (uphill) you aren't looking where you are going, and then you are very likely to crash at best, or run into an obstacle such as another person at worst. When you are coming up on another skier you have to assume they may turn or even stop; few people have the skill or desire to bomb straight down the hill without turning to avoid obstacles, bumps, or just to maintain a comfortable speed. For that reason you always give the downhill person a wide berth.

Very much like the reason the low jumper has the right of way. If you get hit from above by someone pulling a 360 in traffic, would you say "oh my bad for being in the way"?

I don't know how severe this accident was, or if the person suing is exaggerating their damages. Maybe he's being a dick, I don't know. But, he did get an ambulance ride and surgery out of the deal, and his insurance put him in the position of paying out of pocket or going after the person who is responsible for the collision. Legally the age of the uphill skier is irrelevant. If there is a "dick" in this, I tend to think it's the guys medical insurance for telling him he needed to go after the kid. It would be better if Colorado had a law like the Ohio law I cited above, so the insurance company would not be able to tell him it's not their problem.

Don



I admit this is a little bit out of my depth of knowledge, but I've never had or heard of insurance companies being able to do this. I have heard of the insurance company surogating their losses but not refusing to pay outright. What is the contract language that allows them to do this? What would the insurance company due if the name of the kid who ran into him was not known?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the "dickhead" part:

"As Scott stood up and tried to apologize, the man grabbed Scott and threatened to sue him and his whole family"

Maybe the 7-year-old made that part up. I seriously doubt a 7 y.o. came up with that story. Maybe the parents made it up. I doubt that, too, since it really has no relevance to the lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I admit this is a little bit out of my depth of knowledge, but I've never had or heard of insurance companies being able to do this. I have heard of the insurance company surogating their losses but not refusing to pay outright. What is the contract language that allows them to do this? What would the insurance company due if the name of the kid who ran into him was not known?

I don't know what allows them to do this, maybe it varies by state? All I know is from only 2 sources, the highly biased piece in the first post, which is taken verbatim from the PR attack launched by the parents, and the more neutral news story linked by Arvoitus. In the latter, it says that after his surgery the plaintiff was told by his insurance that he would have to go to the kid's family for compensation. From this I infer that he had insurance, but they told him to go after the other party instead, which suggests that they denied his claim.

My only interest in this whole thing (which is about exhausted) is the ease with which supposedly intelligent people allow themselves to be led around like lemmings on a leash by unsubstantiated, obviously one-sided internet shit-stirring. It doesn't help that the story plays to two inherent biases that most people have: lawsuits are only filed by assholes who are looking to get rich, and kids are by default seen as "blameless". I really wonder about the ability of people on average to 1) read, 2) comprehend, and 3) to think critically. Are they this gullible in real life, or just on the internet? Have they no interest in finding out what the actual facts of the matter are before jumping to conclusions?

Unfortunately I guess the answer to those questions is all too apparent. No wonder politicians (of all stripes) are able to get away with the crap they pull off. Religious leaders too.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is the "dickhead" part:

"As Scott stood up and tried to apologize, the man grabbed Scott and threatened to sue him and his whole family"

Maybe the 7-year-old made that part up. I seriously doubt a 7 y.o. came up with that story. Maybe the parents made it up. I doubt that, too, since it really has no relevance to the lawsuit.

If true, the guy was a dickhead. Can anybody verify the story? If the part about the guy leaving the mountain in an ambulance and requiring surgery for a torn rotator cuff is true (and there certainly should be a paper trail to confirm or refute that), how do we reconcile the injury with the alleged behavior?

Maybe the guy was a dick. I don't know, I wasn't there. Neither was anybody who has responded to the story in this forum. I think it's sad that anyone would allow themselves to be led to a conclusion (the guy is a dick) based on a one-sided presentation of an obviously biased and self-serving uncorroborated story.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"As Scott stood up and tried to apologize, the man grabbed Scott and threatened to
>>sue him and his whole family"

>If true, the guy was a dickhead.

Also likely guilty of assault and battery. It is unlikely that the family's lawyer is so incompetent that he did not realize that an adult assaulting a 7 year old is a good case to make, especially when the same man is threatening a lawsuit against the 7 year old.

Something is very fishy about this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if i saw this whole thing, and saw some disgruntled old man shaking a 7 year old boy and screaming at him, id be going to jail for assault...............

some people just dont get the fact that life is too short for bullshit.............but then again, it seems that its always the evil fuckers that live long while the good die young
gravity brings me down.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

.......

If the part about the guy leaving the mountain in an ambulance and requiring surgery for a torn rotator cuff is true (and there certainly should be a paper trail to confirm or refute that), how do we reconcile the injury with the alleged behavior?....



Maybe he slipped and busted his ass as the scared kid was trying to escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe he slipped and busted his ass as the scared kid was trying to escape.

Maybe. Do you habitually "just know" that people are dickheads based on something they may or may not have done? Can you also read minds about other things too? That must be really cool. Hey, maybe you could be a "professional jury"; no need for testimony, evidence, all that time-and-money-wasting BS. Just ask Muff, he always knows exactly what happened. You could save the judicial system a fortune! Get rich too, just charge 10% of the cost of a full trial for your services. You get paid, the courts save money, everybody's happy, right? Well, except maybe the guy on trial, but who gives a shit about him. If somebody says he's guilty, maybe puts something on the internet, well then it's a foregone conclusion, right?

Any response to Bill's point that the family could have had the guy charged with assault, if their story is true?

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0