KillingtonZone.com

This winter our 5 y.o. son was hit by a college-aged snowboarder while night skiing at SR, severely damaging his skis. Thankfully, he is alright, but he now prefers to ski in woods, because it is safer. We asked the culprit to reimburse us for replacing his skis. Quotes from his attorney's response are both humorous and disturbing. As a note, our son skis all terrain except the steepest double daimond trails, but he could.

[i]"As I understand the facts of the incident, your son was traversing an intermediate trail, under a roller, at night, in a dark spot, and most troubling unattended by an adult. 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. ..... You, by allowing a 5 year old child to traverse an intermediate trail, in the path of oncoming traffic, at night, were negligent."[/i]

He admits that our son was in fact skiing, and not stopped in a hidden spot.
He admits the culprit was skiing at a high velocity at night on an intermediate trail with poor visibility.
He has a problem with the fact that someone may be traversing an intermediate trail.
He believes rollers on an intermediate trail are terrain park features, and must be avoided by other skiers.
He believes that parents must be closer than 25 yards to their kids, or they are fair game.
I never realized there was an age restriction for night skiing.

Oh well, what can you do?

I'm not sure what is more pathetic...

The hack job "attorney's" blatantly incorrect excuses, or the fact that the idiot got an "attorney" to write a letter to you over the cost of a pair of kids skis.

If you are not using a lawyer yet, politely explain to him that he is wrong and that it would be much cheaper to purchase the skis and leave it be than to go to court to sue for the skis and the agrivation. Skier code says HE IS RESPONSIBLE!

Of course the lawyer could be his DAD or something.

Hi Dr. No -

First of all, the attorney is not his dad.
Secondly, the skis were only $170. They have integrated bindings.
Not only does the "Skier Code" say that he is responsible, so does Maine state law.

His argument seems to be based on the fact that we were negligent by having a 5 y.o out skiing on an intermediate ski trail at night.
I hope he was not serious, and only trying to scare us.

Another interesting quote: "In fact, it is fortunate for you that (his client) was not hurt. If he was, he would be suing you."

I can't believe a competent attorney would send such a letter, essentially admitting to the facts of the case. His client has not been well served.

This is why small claims court exists.

Good luck with the outcome . . .



P.S. Good to ski with you guys this past weekend

We just sent him the legal notice that we will be filing in Small Claims court. We can't file until he responds. If he doesn't respond, it costs him more.

I looked up the attorney's bio. He graduated from Denver U. in 1987. I agree, he certainly should know better.

If anyone makes it over to SR, get our contact from Mrs. G, and don't forget to eat at Brian's Bistro in Rumford. The food is worth the drive.

does he expect you to contribute to the damages becasue you negligently allowed your son to ski? i think your negligence as a parent is minimal in comparison to his recklessness -- comming over a roller at high speed at night on an intermediate trail that was not designated as a terrain park ...

I would not say he was reckless. He avoided most of the impact. Do you have proof he caused the damage? Do you have witnesses, an incident report?

What shape were the skis in, were they new?

Does the mountain have any rules regarding children skiing by themselves?

I do not know if you have the proof to show the boarder was negligent. Collisions are an assumed risk on the mountain.

icedtea wrote:I would not say he was reckless. He avoided most of the impact. Do you have proof he caused the damage? Do you have witnesses, an incident report?

What shape were the skis in, were they new?

Does the mountain have any rules regarding children skiing by themselves?

I do not know if you have the proof to show the boarder was negligent. Collisions are an assumed risk on the mountain.

"the downhill skier/rider has the right of way"
nuff said!

skitard wrote:

icedtea wrote:I would not say he was reckless. He avoided most of the impact. Do you have proof he caused the damage? Do you have witnesses, an incident report?

What shape were the skis in, were they new?

Does the mountain have any rules regarding children skiing by themselves?

I do not know if you have the proof to show the boarder was negligent. Collisions are an assumed risk on the mountain.

"the downhill skier/rider has the right of way"
nuff said!

^ i believe vt courts do not enforce this. skier-skier collisions are an assumed risk in vt; but if you can show something beyond negligence, then you might be able to recover ...

Gald to hear T is OK. That attorney definitely has a lot to learn, admitting to a high rate of speed with low vis in writing. The attorneys, well no one likes them but it could just as easily been a skier (some of the boarders here are a little touchy on the subject). I am designing a tazer pole, CO2 projection, 10 C batteries in the pole... just for people like that.

rockon wrote:

skitard wrote:

icedtea wrote:I would not say he was reckless. He avoided most of the impact. Do you have proof he caused the damage? Do you have witnesses, an incident report?

What shape were the skis in, were they new?

Does the mountain have any rules regarding children skiing by themselves?

I do not know if you have the proof to show the boarder was negligent. Collisions are an assumed risk on the mountain.

"the downhill skier/rider has the right of way"
nuff said!

^ i believe vt courts do not enforce this. skier-skier collisions are an assumed risk in vt; but if you can show something beyond negligence, then you might be able to recover ...

the collisionbump twas et sunday River Me. right Vern?

Killington Koyote wrote:Gald to hear T is OK. That attorney definitely has a lot to learn, admitting to a high rate of speed with low vis in writing. The attorneys, well no one likes them but it could just as easily been a skier (some of the boarders here are a little touchy on the subject). I am designing a tazer pole, CO2 projection, 10 C batteries in the pole... just for people like that.

You mean a "Bang Stick"
(sometimes used by divers to ward off sharks...I mean attorney's!
no sharks Ah shoot one in the same