icedtea wrote:I wonder what it would take to get punitive damages in a ski collision claim.
My guess would be significant bodily harm where medical expenses above and beoynd a band aid and an ice pack would be necessary
"She sustained a fracture of the greater tuberosity of the right shoulder, a Hill-sach lesion, hematomas to her right thigh and arm, a blow to the head, and severe facial trauma."
^ Punitive damages were denied. I think you have the wrong metric, i.e. injury, you need to concentrate on the conduct of the skier who caused the collision.
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, you've never been on acid."
icedtea wrote:I wonder what it would take to get punitive damages in a ski collision claim.
My guess would be significant bodily harm where medical expenses above and beoynd a band aid and an ice pack would be necessary
"She sustained a fracture of the greater tuberosity of the right shoulder, a Hill-sach lesion, hematomas to her right thigh and arm, a blow to the head, and severe facial trauma."
^ Punitive damages were denied. I think you have the wrong metric, i.e. injury, you need to concentrate on the conduct of the skier who caused the collision.
Read the conclusion again:
"IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's common law and statutory negligence claims be, and it is hereby, DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages be, and it is hereby, GRANTED."
Well put. The cost of litigating these things is tens of thousands of doallrs if not hundreds. People get to the point where they will get back less than they spend trying to prove they are right.
Well put. The cost of litigating these things is tens of thousands of doallrs if not hundreds. People get to the point where they will get back less than they spend trying to prove they are right.
Only about 2% of cases go to trial.
I was talking about the punitive damages claim though with Dr. Jeff. The judge ruled in favor of the defendant for summary judgment on the punitive damages claim. That means there was not an issue of material fact in dispute regarding that claim and it will not be presented to the fact finder to render a decision.
"To have the truth in your possession you can be found guilty, sentenced to death."
Peter Tosh
Look, we all know that snowboarders are the root of EVERYTHING that is wrong with the ski industry. They are ALL just a bunch of punks that have no regard for anyone elses safety. I know for a fact that they actually will aim directly at skiers to purposely try to hurt them and knock them out of thier skis. Most of them never graduated from high school and probably snuck onto the lifts. If you see a snowboarder on the trails you should immediately stop them and alert ski patrol. Just be careful because they are probably carrying a gun and will not hesitate to shoot you because that proves just how hard they really are. Total Gangsta YO.......
By the way, my worst injury, L1 vertebrae, (see injury list post) was caused by an out of control skier on a blue trail. After being struck and knocked clean off the trail, this person didnt even stop. Just got up and skied away.....just remember, there are assholes on both sides of the fence
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's common law and statutory negligence claims be, and it is hereby, DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages be, and it is hereby, GRANTED."
Punitive's were awarded in this case
^ icedtea beat me to it. defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages was granted; the plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages.
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, you've never been on acid."
BoozeTan wrote:Look, we all know that snowboarders are the root of EVERYTHING that is wrong with the ski industry. They are ALL just a bunch of punks that have no regard for anyone elses safety. I know for a fact that they actually will aim directly at skiers to purposely try to hurt them and knock them out of thier skis. Most of them never graduated from high school and probably snuck onto the lifts. If you see a snowboarder on the trails you should immediately stop them and alert ski patrol. Just be careful because they are probably carrying a gun and will not hesitate to shoot you because that proves just how hard they really are. Total Gangsta YO.......
By the way, my worst injury, L1 vertebrae, (see injury list post) was caused by an out of control skier on a blue trail. After being struck and knocked clean off the trail, this person didnt even stop. Just got up and skied away.....just remember, there are assholes on both sides of the fence
^ ladies and gentleman: al sharpton!
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, you've never been on acid."
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's common law and statutory negligence claims be, and it is hereby, DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages be, and it is hereby, GRANTED."
Punitive's were awarded in this case
^ icedtea beat me to it. defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages was granted; the plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages.
Yes, but the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to essentially dismiss the case (summary judgement that the Plaintiff accepted the risk of collision) based on the "ski pass waiver" argument failed. So it appears the court agrees the Plaintiff has a case.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's common law and statutory negligence claims be, and it is hereby, DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages be, and it is hereby, GRANTED."
Punitive's were awarded in this case
^ icedtea beat me to it. defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages was granted; the plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages.
Yes, but the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to essentially dismiss the case (summary judgement that the Plaintiff accepted the risk of collision) based on the "ski pass waiver" argument failed. So it appears the court agrees the Plaintiff has a case.
"FN2. In Plaintiff's Complaint, she also asserted a claim for punitive damages. However, there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim, and Plaintiff has not argued this claim on summary judgment. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's punitive damages claim."
^ there is no ambiguity in this court's statement: the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was denied. moreover, it would be foolish for plaintiff to try to appeal on the issue given this court's explcit statement that there "is no evidence in the record to support such a claim."
that is not to say punitive damages can never be awarded in this type of skier-skier collision case; it means only that in this particular instance the evidence was lacking and the plaintiff's claim was procedurally flawed.
it would have been nice if the court expounded on the issue of punitive damages -- rather than stuffing its resolution of the issue into a single sentence and a footnote -- and provided guidance in regards to what a future plaintiff must show in order to recover punitive damages.
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, you've never been on acid."
Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision. Defendant asserts that there is no dispute of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendant's motion.
Not to belabor the point, but unless I'm missing something, although the Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages, the Plaintiff could still recover damages for injuries caused by the collision - similar to the incident that started this thread, though no bodily injuries were claimed.
Plaintiff asserts claims for common-law negligence and violation of 32 M.R.S.A. § 15217 and seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of this collision. Defendant asserts that there is no dispute of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendant's motion.
Not to belabor the point, but unless I'm missing something, although the Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages, the Plaintiff could still recover damages for injuries caused by the collision - similar to the incident that started this thread, though no bodily injuries were claimed.
yes, and that will be up to the fact finder (jury or judge depending on if they opted for a jury trial.)
"To have the truth in your possession you can be found guilty, sentenced to death."
Peter Tosh
TwinsWillSki wrote:Okay, I'll bite.... why are you skeptical?????
Do you have incident reports, witness statements, pictures??
What is your proof of negligence / recklessness?
"As _____ came over the roller, he struck your son, although he was able to avoid, due to the fact that he is an expert snowboarder, direct, high velocity impact. ....."
Hey, wow another "Expert Rider"
Note "came over the roller.." was he in the air? if so his goose is cooked, because while in the air one is out of control Ie: negligence & recklessness.
Full disclosure works for ya and it works agin ya. and that's a bitch!
Ha you are such a prophet. But it makes the world go around.
Is Shawn White out of control in the air??
************************************************
"Is Shawn White out of control in the air??"
YUP, Cuz he Dun got bitch..I mean Pelosi slapped by a Jersey Boy (Shayne Pospisil of Jersey Shore/Okemo fame)last night on the East Side of NYC!
If he(SW) was in control that never would have happened!
GEEZ, Icedtea when any one is in the "Air" they have No Control... until after they have landed.
