K sued

[pcgrantham]

http://www.app.com/article/20120625/NJN ... rontpage|s

KILLINGTON, VT. — A skier says a Vermont ski resort is at fault for his injuries.

Alfred Rocks of Egg Harbor, N.J., sued Killington Ski Area, saying it failed to maintain a trail in a “reasonably safe condition” when Rocks suffered leg fractures during a fall in 2009. The 53-year-old Rocks said he suffered additional injuries when a ski patrol toboggan he was strapped into flipped over.
A trial on Rocks’ lawsuit started Friday and is expected to continue through this week.
The Burlington Free Press reports Killington doesn’t dispute the details of the toboggan accident. It says there’s no proof Rocks suffered an “independent injury” when the sled flipped over.
As for the trail injuries, Killington said Rocks understood the risks involved and was “solely responsible” for his injuries.

[Highway Star]

OOPS.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... CFRONTPAGE

It was a few minutes after 2 p.m. March 6, 2009, when Alfred Rocks of Egg Harbor, N.J., and some friends set off on a run down Ovation, a double-black-diamond trail at Killington Ski Area.

Everyone understood that the skiing conditions were less than perfect that day. The temperature was above freezing. There had been occasional r*in. The resort had rated the snow on the Ovation run as “wet corn.”

Rocks, a skilled skier and a regular Killington customer, would tell resort officials later that at some point in the lower section of the trail he “skied over the lip, saw that it was bare, hit a rock and tumbled, hitting more rocks.”

Rocks, now 53, suffered multiple fractures to his right leg in the fall. He never quite recovered from the accident and, along with his wife, Eileen, sued the resort in U.S. District Court in 2010, alleging Killington failed to maintain Ovation in a “reasonably safe condition.”

The trial on Rocks’ claims began Friday and is expected to continue through this week.

In many ways, the Rocks case sounds like a typical ski liability lawsuit, but there’s a twist.

According to the Rocks’ court filings, he suffered additional injuries when the ski patrol toboggan he was strapped into for the ride to the bottom of the hill flipped over, along with the snowmobile that was pulling it.

“I yelled to him to slow down,” Rocks said in a portion of a pretrial deposition filed with the court. “He’s going too fast. My left side of my body is killing me, and the jarring was making it worse.”

When the toboggan began to flip, Rocks said, “it threw me this way onto the mountain. I hit, and then I bounced back up onto my side.” He later described what happened as a “face plant in the snow,” and an injury to his left knee.

Killington, in court documents, does not dispute the details of the toboggan accident but argues there is no proof that Rocks suffered an “independent injury” when the sled flipped over. The resort, in a pretrial motion, sought to prevent Rocks from bringing up the toboggan incident entirely, but that request was denied by Judge Christina Reiss.

As for the circumstances that led to Rocks’ fall on the trail, Killington contends that Rocks, an experienced skier, understood the risks inherent in the sport and was “solely responsible” for his injuries.

“With the prevailing weather conditions of above freezing temperatures, occasional r*in and the clear existence of numerous areas of thin cover, the plaintiff should have proceeded with greater caution and at a slower speed,” Killington liability expert Mark Petrozzi stated in a 2011 report he provided the resort.

Rocks and his wife did not respond to a telephone message seeking an interview last week, and their attorney, Thomas Bixby of Rutland, declined comment.
Killington’s chief spokeswoman, Sarah Thorson, and its attorney, John J. Zawistoski or Rutland, likewise chose not to respond to requests for comment.

Evan P. Banker, a Denver attorney whose law firm specializes in ski liability litigation, said every ski state has different rules when it comes to deciding between a resort’s obligation to provide safe trails and a skier’s responsibility to enjoy the sport safely.

“That’s what juries are for,” said Banker, who is not connected to the Killington case.

The toboggan incident, however, could pose a more serious problem for Killington, Banker said, assuming Rocks can prove he was injured when the toboggan flipped over.

“You’ve assumed the duty of reasonable care with regard to the rescue,” he said. “Once you’ve put him in the toboggan, you’ve taken on a responsibility.”

[Highway Star]

At first I thought they might have been talking about this, but this was in march '08:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22014

Anybody enjoy the grooming on lower-O this weekend?

They groomed HALF the trail!!!!

This would be fine except that the ungroomed half was super slick shiny glaze ice. Deadly.

We took one run down it. The groomed half was fine, with a couple spots of real bad ice. No big deal. Real nice on the far left from what I hear.

I was scoping out the ungroomed side, hoping for some spots with blown in pow.....no dice...80%+ blown off to glaze ice. I spotted a woman about 1/3rd down the pitch, out on the ungroomed ice....she had taken her skis off and was perched on a tiny spot of soft snow. I stopped and asked if I could help - she said she had been standing there for 15 minutes....had accidently skied over there when she missed her turn.

I was trying to help figure out how to get her off of there, when a guy about 100 feet above us veered into the ungroomed at about 30-35 mph.....he promply fell and lost his skis, and slid all the way to the bottom bouncing off ice bumps, head first. Probably a good 500+ ft, at least 30-40 mph. One of the scariest crashes/slides I've ever seen. The guy looked banged up, but he got up by himself after a minute. Standard advanced level skier.

At some point the woman dropped one of her skis. She then started working her way over very carefully. After about 5 minutes, death slider #2 shows up, and we get a repeat. His slide looked even more brutal, but he got right up and seemed to be fine. Again, 500+ ft at 30+ mph. He managed to shower us with spray and made the women drop the rest of her gear.

Two near misses....

Finally, after a few more minutes, she managed to work her way over.....and then what? I told her her best bet was to just slide down on the groomed, and try to stay in control. She went down facing the snow (not what I was thinking...duh) and was generally ok but got pulled over to the ungroomed at the end. Seemed to be alright. Not much else I could have done....?

Man, I wish I had video.....

Anyway, we get down to the bottom, and finally a ski patroller shows up on a snowmobile. We told him what just happened, and he said he had witnessed it from the base and came up. We suggested they close the trail until they can get it groomed. He said he would go talk to his boss.....trail stayed open the rest of the day, from what I could tell.

Seriously.....what the HECK are they thinking????

We have dual failures here - mountain ops for not grooming that half of the trail, and ski patrol not using proper judgement in opening the trail.

They are extremely lucky someone didn't get badly hurt or die.....

[Geoff]

In many ways, the Rocks case sounds like a typical ski liability lawsuit, but there’s a twist.

According to the Rocks’ court filings, he suffered additional injuries when the ski patrol toboggan he was strapped into for the ride to the bottom of the hill flipped over, along with the snowmobile that was pulling it.

I think that will end up costing Killington's insurance company some money.

[LINYbob]

Are the names for real? Rocks hit the rocks? Come on...

[Humpty Dumpty]

Are the names for real? Rocks hit the rocks? Come on...

LINYbob, you cannot say rocks. It may be construed as a homophobic reference by a couple of uber-sensitive individuals. Saying "nuts" is also off limits.

[DavesKillington]

The case just settled this morning according to an article in the Burlington Free Press. I took some time to analyze the case on Ski, Esq. for those interested: http://www.skiesq.com/2012/06/breaking-news-killington-settles-case.html

[Highway Star]

Pretty amazing, but if there ever was a case of being negligent in maintaining trail conditions, Killington would have been it over the last few years.

[Bubba]

Interesting, but Dave's comments here can also show a reasonable chance that the plaintiff might prevail on both counts:

First, the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of success on the merits. While Ski, Esq. believes it is likely that the resort would have prevailed on the first count of the complaint, the negligent rescue cause of action might have been decided in Rocks' favor. Assuming Rocks could demonstrate that he suffered an injury when the sled flipped, a jury could well have found Killington acted with negligence in its rescue. Though it must be noted that under Vermont law, ski resorts and rescuers are exempted from liability except when they act with gross negligence, a higher standard than simple negligence. Vt. St. Ann. 12 § 1038. The resort had a viable defense in that the bad conditions on the trail that day made the rescue far more difficult than normal. The patroller might have been exercising reasonable care and yet still had the snowmobile flip over. Either way, there was a reasonable chance that a jury might have found in Rocks' favor.

If the resort had a viable defense that the bad conditions made the rescue far more difficult than normal, then that also leads one to conclude that the resort should not have allowed the trail to be open in the first place. Regardless of Vermont law shielding the resort, the jury may have found in the plaintiff's favor thus setting up at least one round of appeals, another expense and risk for the resort.

[GSKI]

Both sides know if there was any evidence of secondary injury to the guys knee when the snowmobile pulling the rescue sled tipped over but it would have had to have been "gross negligence" to really pay out. It was a nuisance value settlement to avoid the litigation cost. The guy probably got a couple of hundred K. The guy is a still a big loser though.

[Guy in Shorts]

The moral of the story is treat Lower O with respect. The trail has some real teeth and can bite you if you are not careful.

[Dr. NO]

It states he was a regular at Killington and a good skier. What regular here, that skis everything, doesn't realize lower Ovation can be steep, bumped, thin and rocky? Now the toboggan ride is another story and a BIG problem for K.

[GSKI]

If ever there was a trail at Killington that gives you the feeling you are standing on the top of a 15 story building looking down lower Ovation is it. Even as an advanced skier I have memories of a crazy nervous adrenaline rush when one day I came over the top of the trail and realized it was a total glare ice skating rink. At least there is a little run out at the bottom so that when lower O chews you up there is a place to slow down when it spits you out.

[IronMan WannaB]

Stated a K regular. Every time I hit lower o my asshole puckers. You just
never know if any snow holds anywhere. Enter always at your own risk. It is a right of passage to anyone that wants to advance their skills. I say Drop the ropes every where. I wanna always try something tough. Sometimes it is not pretty. I understand the inherent risks. Will keep on pushing the limits. It what makes us all better skiers and boarders.

[icedtea]

Stated a K regular. Every time I hit lower o my asshole puckers. You just
never know if any snow holds anywhere. Enter always at your own risk. It is a right of passage to anyone that wants to advance their skills. I say Drop the ropes every where. I wanna always try something tough. Sometimes it is not pretty. I understand the inherent risks. Will keep on pushing the limits. It what makes us all better skiers and boarders.

I remember cutting out through the woods onto to Lower O, skiers rights; straight hockey rink, death slid for a little but was able to flip around and get back up.

Can't beat the adrenaline rush though; in any event the average pitch of Tux is probably similar to Lower O. Good practice.