A serious LEGAL question about ski collisions

[joesixpack]

I am looking for a legal fact or rights that would apply if you are involved in a skiing/boarding collision with another skier.

If I am skiing down a trail and and i am hit from behind by another rider/skier, what are my legal rights to compensation for injuries and/or damages to my euqipment (skis, poles, glasses or goggles)? While the ski area is probably not responsible for anything, when and where does the victim have the right to make a claim against an offender?

If I am the person for running into someone, what are my responsibilites if the skier/boarder i hit is injured and or suffers damages as a result of my casuing the collision? Is there anything legal that i am resopnsible for in a skiing accident?

Personally, I am a witness to an ugly collision/crash that occurred on a trail that is wide enough that people should never be in this type of an incident. A lady was struck from behind by someone reckless traveling down this trail with other friends, barrelassing to be truthful, and a middle age woman was plowed through. The ski patrol and several ski ambassadors were called to the scene where my name and phone number again as a witness.

It however raised the discussion amongst my friends that if this were to happen to one of us, what recourse or responsibility
would we have. And, where many times, the offender simply "screws" away, we are left hurt, battered, and our equipment damaged, are we in fact "screwed"?

JoeSixpack

[da Pimp]

Gotta look at the basics here - "know the code" is a posted skier's responsibility. But that is a snowsports phrase, not an expressly written acceptance and promise of compliance by a ticket hlder that can be used more as a legally binding document. When that starts at the ticket window, we're all screwed. My season pass sez in essence that I accept responsibility for my actions, and the Code is somewhere in the fine print. Day tickets? Not sure.

So it falls upon witnesses and statements of the involved to determine if someone acted recklessly and with disregard for the safety & well-being of others. Knowingly reckless, perhaps with a history of skiing like that? Now you're even deeper in trouble with a jury. It will all be opinion-based, hard to get clear hard facts.

I say: Her lawyer presents all the facts to the defendant, with some med bills plus a pain & suffering value around $5K, and clear it up privately. If the victim is one of those who gets emotionally strong reactions based on personal fears, then it sounds like a court case for "big" bucks, whatever that means to you. Now you're into the local state statutes and torts.

da Pimp

[Geoff]

Chances are pretty high that the person responsible for the collision has few assets. It's like getting hit by somebody driving a stolen car.

[skiersleft]

The print on the lift ticket or season pass amounts to what in legal terminology we would call an "express assumption of risk". Pursuant to the express assumption of risk doctrine, by displaying the lift ticket or the season pass we are expressly agreeing to waive our right to sue the RESORT for injuries caused as a result of the inherent dangers of engaging in the activity. In other words, lift ticket provides KILLINGTON with an "express assumption of risk" defense that will likely bar the skier who suffered the collision from recovering damages from the resort. Take note, however, that express assumption of risk is generally not a defense for grossly reckless or intentional conduct. Therefore, Killington might still be held liable in spite of the assumption of risk if it acted in a grossly reckless or intentional manner. Nevertheless, this is not usually relevant in cases of collisions with other skiers, as it is difficult to claim that the resort recklessly or intentionally contributed to the collision with the other skier.

Things change dramatically when the issue is whether the injured skier may sue ANOTHER SKIER (rather than the resort) seeking compensation for injuries (to person and property) suffered as a result of the collision. Given that the skiers "express assumption of risk" only relieves the RESORT of liability, the legal rights and obligations between the skier and other skiers remain unchanged by the lift ticket/season pass assumption of risk. Therefore, in the absence of an express assumption of risk claim, the default rules of the law of torts kick in: injured skier will be able to recover damages form the skier who caused the collision if he can prove that:

(1) Other skier was engaging in negligent conduct, and
(2) the other skier's negligent conduct was the cause of the skiers injuries.

At that point, the skier who caused the injuries MAY put forth several defenses:

(1) the injured skier was also skiing negligently and such negligence was the cause of some or all of her injuries (contributory negligence), or
(2) the injured skier was aware of the negligent skier's conduct and voluntarily decided to assumed the risk of injury by, for example, not attempting to avoid being hit (implicit assumption of risk).

Of course, there are pragmatic considerations to take into account. If no one saw what happened or if those who saw what happened are unwilling or unable to testify, then it might turn in to a he said - she said battle. This, however, is a probative issue that has nothing to do with the rights of the parties. Furthermore, if the tortfeasor doesn't have any money, the plaintiff might be unable to recover damages soon. This, again, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties, but does matter from a practical point of view.

Nutshell: if you witnessed the event and you're sure that the skier who collided with the lady was behaving negligently and/or recklessly, you witnessed the commission of a tort. The lady ought to be able to recover from the other skier if she can prove that he was acting unreasonably and you seem to be a key witness to help her prove that.

Hope this helps

[Dr. NO]

Not sure what the "law" is in Vermont but if this were to occur in Colorado or some other states, the person causing the accident would be legally responsible and could be arrested, just like someone causing injury in a car or other accident. Also, that person could be held liable in a civil suit, even if they do not have the assets which GEOFF suggested. A youth with no assets can be held liable for future assets should a reward be given.

Only way to know for sure is to contact the AG office in VT, unless you know a lawyer yourself.

[Stache]

http://www.skilaw.com/cases.html

http://www.skilaw.com/jimcases-hall.html

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/200404 ... 9393717046


Jim Chalat is on my speed dial.
And I am on his list of potential "Expert Witnesses" (47 years skiing experience, 24 yrs ski teaching, PSIA Certified 1987).

[KnuckleDragger]

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out response.



Seriously though, good response.

The print on the lift ticket or season pass amounts to what in legal terminology we would call an "express assumption of risk". Pursuant to the express assumption of risk doctrine, by displaying the lift ticket or the season pass we are expressly agreeing to waive our right to sue the RESORT for injuries caused as a result of the inherent dangers of engaging in the activity. In other words, lift ticket provides KILLINGTON with an "express assumption of risk" defense that will likely bar the skier who suffered the collision from recovering damages from the resort. Take note, however, that express assumption of risk is generally not a defense for grossly reckless or intentional conduct. Therefore, Killington might still be held liable in spite of the assumption of risk if it acted in a grossly reckless or intentional manner. Nevertheless, this is not usually relevant in cases of collisions with other skiers, as it is difficult to claim that the resort recklessly or intentionally contributed to the collision with the other skier.

Things change dramatically when the issue is whether the injured skier may sue ANOTHER SKIER (rather than the resort) seeking compensation for injuries (to person and property) suffered as a result of the collision. Given that the skiers "express assumption of risk" only relieves the RESORT of liability, the legal rights and obligations between the skier and other skiers remain unchanged by the lift ticket/season pass assumption of risk. Therefore, in the absence of an express assumption of risk claim, the default rules of the law of torts kick in: injured skier will be able to recover damages form the skier who caused the collision if he can prove that:

(1) Other skier was engaging in negligent conduct, and
(2) the other skier's negligent conduct was the cause of the skiers injuries.

At that point, the skier who caused the injuries MAY put forth several defenses:

(1) the injured skier was also skiing negligently and such negligence was the cause of some or all of her injuries (contributory negligence), or
(2) the injured skier was aware of the negligent skier's conduct and voluntarily decided to assumed the risk of injury by, for example, not attempting to avoid being hit (implicit assumption of risk).

Of course, there are pragmatic considerations to take into account. If no one saw what happened or if those who saw what happened are unwilling or unable to testify, then it might turn in to a he said - she said battle. This, however, is a probative issue that has nothing to do with the rights of the parties. Furthermore, if the tortfeasor doesn't have any money, the plaintiff might be unable to recover damages soon. This, again, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties, but does matter from a practical point of view.

Nutshell: if you witnessed the event and you're sure that the skier who collided with the lady was behaving negligently and/or recklessly, you witnessed the commission of a tort. The lady ought to be able to recover from the other skier if she can prove that he was acting unreasonably and you seem to be a key witness to help her prove that.

Hope this helps

[SkiDork]

DENIED!

[Crock540]

Now that I've got a helmet cam, I carry business cards with me incase I happen to catch such a collision on video. Video evidence beats the hell out of witness' testimony. I'd hand them out to both parties. If the offender wants to pony up the dough, the footage could disappear

[Dr. NO]

Now that I've got a helmet cam, I carry business cards with me incase I happen to catch such a collision on video. Video evidence beats the hell out of witness' testimony. I'd hand them out to both parties. If the offender wants to pony up the dough, the footage could disappear

I think this is a TV program, but you are "On the Record" as accepting bribes.

[Stache]

What's a "yewt"?

[trainlazz]

Litigious people of the world unite!! While I see your point, accidents do happen out there and this would take the fun out of the sport.