sexkitten Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Utah court: Ski resorts can be liable Tue Dec 18, 3:06 PM ET SALT LAKE CITY - The Utah Supreme Court says ski resorts are not off the hook for skier injuries if some accidents are preventable. The decision Tuesday comes in a lawsuit filed by a Snowbird skier who collided with a wall made of railroad ties that was hidden by snow. The man suffered broken ribs, a kidney injury, liver damage and a collapsed lung. Snowbird claimed William Rothstein waived his rights when he signed a release to ski at the resort. Utah law protects resorts from liability from the inherent risks of skiing, such as falling or hitting a tree. But the Supreme Court says that law doesn't cover everything. The decision reinstates Rothstein's lawsuit against Snowbird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast21602 Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBtech Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 This is America. Anything is possible with the right lawyer and connections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski911 Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Unless Snowbird threw the wall at him, it is insane that any judge, anywhere would entertain this suit. I know, it happens everywhere, but, SNOWBIRD DID NOT MAKE THAT PERSON SKI INTO THE WALL.! Responsibility code # 1. "Ski/ride under control and in such a manner that you can stop and avoid skiers and objects at all times" That seems pretty simple to me. If your one that complains about the cost of skiing being ridiculous, this is why. Lawsuits aimed at squeezing money out of ski areas because of someone elses stupidity or carelessness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHarrisburg Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Unless Snowbird threw the wall at him, it is insane that any judge, anywhere would entertain this suit. I know, it happens everywhere, but, SNOWBIRD DID NOT MAKE THAT PERSON SKI INTO THE WALL.! Responsibility code # 1. "Ski/ride under control and in such a manner that you can stop and avoid skiers and objects at all times" That seems pretty simple to me. If your one that complains about the cost of skiing being ridiculous, this is why. Lawsuits aimed at squeezing money out of ski areas because of someone elses stupidity or carelessness. It sounds to me like the wall was under a thin layer of snow and should have been marked by patrol :/ There's definitely a negligence angle that I'm sure was played up in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski911 Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Does it really matter? Unless it had some kind of cloaking device to make it invisible. Ski under control... should pretty much cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Pretty soon you guys will agree with me that all lawyers are scumbags (except when they are also PASR members)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHarrisburg Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Does it really matter? Unless it had some kind of cloaking device to make it invisible. Ski under control... should pretty much cover it. If the object isn't marked and isn't covered by enough snow to safely ride over it then yeah, it does matter. To quote the article; The man suffered broken ribs, a kidney injury, liver damage and a collapsed lung. That's going to result in possibly tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills. One of ski patrol's major jobs is to close any unsafe terrain and with what I read about the case it sounds like the resort was found at fault because the hazard wasn't marked. I think what makes this article a little strange is that that they're saying he "collided with a wall." Usually when you say something like that it means you run headfirst into a wall, whereas the rest of the article makes it seem like the wall was mostly buried except for a small section that was disguised by new snow. I could easily see how someone would be cruising down the mountain and hit an unmarked object like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Law Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 If the object isn't marked and isn't covered by enough snow to safely ride over it then yeah, it does matter. To quote the article; That's going to result in possibly tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills. One of ski patrol's major jobs is to close any unsafe terrain and with what I read about the case it sounds like the resort was found at fault because the hazard wasn't marked. I think what makes this article a little strange is that that they're saying he "collided with a wall." Usually when you say something like that it means you run headfirst into a wall, whereas the rest of the article makes it seem like the wall was mostly buried except for a small section that was disguised by new snow. I could easily see how someone would be cruising down the mountain and hit an unmarked object like that. Read the article again, the ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case, rather the legal question regarding the waiver of liability and other laws Utah has protecting resorts. My buddy knows this dude and he is a good skier. I don't like the idea of suing the resort, yet I can understand why he feels the need to try to get a payday, ten of thousands my ass, dude has had years of PT and very serious injuries. I agree with your reasoning except you don't know where the wall is. It will be difficult to describe where this is but it is on one of the birds infamous cat paths near Emma. The retaining wall was put there a long long time ago to prevent the complete erosion of the cat path. Additionally the retaining wall isn't on the actual cat path. To hit the retaining wall you would have to duck a rope and travel approximately 100 ft before you hit the wall. The current dispute revolves around the rope, he says there was a gap and he thought it was an entrance to trees, the bird says it was up and he went out of control under the rope and kept going into the wall. Ultimately, the bird will probably settle out of court. It would cost more to get this to trial than it would to settle and the dude isn't paralyzed and generally still likes skiing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Law Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 If your one that complains about the cost of skiing being ridiculous, this is why. Lawsuits aimed at squeezing money out of ski areas because of someone elses stupidity or carelessness. Ummm no, the Bird regardless of the outcome of this case will not be in any financial trouble. Additionally, the insurance premium dealio is massively exaggerated it can be rough for some resorts and alot better for others. Regardless some of the numbers you hear tossed around are straight BS, think about everything that goes into running a mountain like Snowbird and then think what that must cost. Even if you have never been there compare it to say a Bear Creek or Camelback and then multiply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.