Who sues an 8-year-old? And why not if he caused damages?
Robb Swimm holds his 8-year-old son, Scott, in their Eagle home on Monday.
Who sues an 8-year-old kid?
The controversy over a Pennsylvania couple's lawsuit against an 8-year-old and his parents for damages resulting from a skiing collision has blown up nationally.
The couple's lawyer says the couple has been subjected to an "electronic tar and feathering," reports Sara Burnett.
David Pfahler and his wife, Marlene Ambrogio, have had to leave their Allentown home for the holidays because people who got angry after reading the story tied up the family's phone lines using "robocalling" technology, or repeated, automated calls, attorney Jim Chalat said.Others have called Reader's Digest, where Pfahler works, and demanded he be fired.
"I've never seen anything like it," said Chalat, whose Denver law firm also has received angry e-mails and calls.
He said the couple are "brokenhearted" by the way they've been portrayed.
"The public's just got this couple all wrong," Chalat said.
Pfahler, a former teacher and basketball coach, and his wife sued 8-year-old Scott Swimm and his father, Robb Swimm, in federal court in September.
The lawsuit claims Scott Swimm ran into Pfahler at "a high rate of speed" while skiing at Beaver Creek in January.
Chalat said Monday it doesn't matter how old a skier is. Under the Colorado Ski Safety Act, children are just as responsible for their actions as adults, and they can be sued, according to case law cited by the lawyer.
"It doesn't matter if you're 8, 18 or 80," he said. "Skiing is not a contact sport."
Pfahler was downhill from Scott Swimm when the boy hit him, according to the lawsuit. The Ski Safety Act states that the uphill skier has the duty to avoid any person in front of him.
Robb Swimm, of Eagle, said his son "tapped" Pfahler's ski boots and added it was not a violent attack.
His wife, Susan Swimm, said Scott couldn't have been traveling faster than 10 mph.
But on Monday, Chalat said the impact was so strong that Pfahler was thrown and landed with his skis in the air.
He was taken to a local hospital, where his shoulder was immobilized. He returned to Pennsylvania, where he underwent surgery for a torn rotator cuff and a procedure to repair part of his clavicle, the lawsuit states. Since then, he has undergone "extensive" physical therapy, according to the lawsuit.
Chalat said Pfahler sent a letter to the Swimm family after he returned home, asking them to help pay his $35,000 of medical bills. He never heard back, Chalat said.
Who do you believe? If the 8-year-old was at fault shouldn't his family be responsible for the injuries? If the child was 18 instead of 8 would the reaction be different?
Jay, you have shown your true colors. Even your alter ego sympathy bloggers cannot rescue you now that folks see how you operate.
You tell me where and when little girl.
Posted by Captain Jack on January 1, 2008 1:56 PMAre you people nuts? This is an 8 year old. How fast does an 8 year old need to be going to "send a grown man flying". If this is the case what are the 8 year olds injury's? This is a case of a stuffy old man having a bad day and taking it out on an 8 year old. We spend as parents time and money to get the kids off video games and then crap like this.
Posted by Nosnivlers on January 1, 2008 11:57 AMLet me see, do I side with an adult public school teacher and former basketball coach who was probably injured on the court and was looking for accident to help pay the bills, or the eight year old skier?
Judgement for the defendant, plaintiff ordered to pay legal fees for the defendant and is permanently barred from entering Colorado ever again.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on December 31, 2007 1:06 PMCoincidentally, I happened upon this chat after I was badly injured by a child skier. That's it. I didn't expect to find sympathy but there are lots of hostile people. Sking is a sport; it should be as safe as possible for all participants. We are not skiing in Iraq. I wouldn't ski there.
I have tried to teach myself and my children to avoid injuries to others and themselves at all costs. I would have avoided getting hit at Steamboat if I could have done so. But, because I couldn't get out of the kid's way, it doesn't give the kid "carte blanche" to injure me as best he can. Should I have attempted instead to ensure that since injuries were going to occur, he would also suffer pain? Following my excruciating injuries, with the kid completely unhurt, how do the kids and his parents think it is okay not to say anything to me; to act uncivilized about the whole thing? If it was my kid who did it, I and my child would at least say I am sorry. My child would likely be crying for having caused another person so much pain. That is one way to display civilized manners.
Of course if you read this blog, you don't know what to think. You accuse people of creating aliases. I am a real person, truly injured, but without the heart or greediness to go after a child, even one whose parents have such poor manners.
Take this example, What if a speeding police car, responding to an 'emergency', hits someone and injures them. This actually happens and there are instances where the town or village or municipality who owns the police car can be held liable for the negligence of the police, even though the police are responding to an emergency situation. The police still need to be careful.
All I am talking about is having the ski resort better watch its skiers and impose a higher sense of responsibility upon the skiers to ski carefully, and to warn and possibly oust to the skiers who visibly ski out of control. Ski Patrol at Steamboat agreed with me on this point. Nothing replaces human intervention in places where skiers ski out of control. They need to know they can't do it. This may prevent some injuries and make the sport safer for everyone. We are talking about sports, not war. Any improvement in safety is an improvement. Take helmets, for example. I have worn mine faithfully since I started skiing again as an adult about 10 years ago. I would never ski without a helmet.
JD, i too am signing off on it b/c there is no way for me to prove i am not someone else - again, an argument for registration in my opinion
everyone, please have a safe and wonderful new year, and please DO NOT drive after drinking tonight or any other
Posted by 123 on December 31, 2007 10:39 AMToo weird. What Jack has summarized seems to be correct on its face. It explains everything that happened on this holiday weekend where you do not expect a lot of blog traffic. And whoever Jay is, you seem to know him very well. Very well.
I am signing off on this topic. I get a strong feeling I have been trading posts with the same person all weekend.
Posted by JD on December 31, 2007 9:09 AMwhat do you know? the Broncos pulled the bacon out of the fire. they actually beat a pretty good team - maybe hope for next year?
Captain, i was not attempting to defend anyone, only offering an opinion about seeing Jay on this blog before. if you cared to take some time and search the archives, say on issues related to illegal immigrants, which he most always participated heavily in (and also was of specific interest to me) you would probably see what i'm saying.
and to respond to you question about aliases, i suppose it does happen - maybe frequently. unless a blog has a registration system though, i don't see any way to stop it. this is the only one i've been on that doesn't have registered participants.
JD, you are right, my first post was very off-the-cuff, so i offer my apologies. my only point then, and now, was we should offer to help people understand instead of laying into them, where absolutely nothing is gained.
if we think for a moment about the intent of blogs, isn't it to discuss an issue with the intent of educating others who may not know what we do about the topic?
again, i assure you that my entry onto this blog was coincidental, and i am not Jay, who is probably getting a good laugh reading all of this.
Posted by 123 on December 31, 2007 6:33 AM123 - it doesn't matter if bloggers make up names and stories to steer discussions? And you offer apologetic praise for one who does? Sounds like you have a dog in this race bucko.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 30, 2007 8:17 PM123 - it doesn't matter if bloggers make up names and stories to steer discussions? And you offer apologetic praise for one who does? Sounds like you have a dog in this race bucko.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 30, 2007 8:15 PMSome of the conjecture is getting pretty wild. Again, the nuts and bolts of this legal case is that a man was injured by another person. It may have been an accident. He suffered pain and had to pay medical bills. Folks should stop getting so emotional about the age of the person purported to have caused the accident.
Size and speed means little for folks on long planks attached at their ankles with vise-like devices. It doesn't take much to cause someone to loose balance and fall.
Case in point: I know of a healthy adult who spaced out and fell sideways while standing still in skis, landing on his shoulder. He fractured it in two places. No one else bumped him - he just fell sideways due to the awkward contraptions we call skis and bindings.
And with reference to Carolyn and wtfk who sound very similar in their idea that the ski resort operator is somehow in the liability loop when two skiers collide, I would suggest you bark up another tree. Try making the argument that the police were somehow negligent by not having been present to stop a speeder just prior to a crash. See how far you get with that one.
Posted by JD on December 30, 2007 7:43 PMI was fairly new to this blog when I chimed in on the skier crash legalities. After letting the dust settle and reading the somewhat surprising post by Cap Jack about a blogger named Jay, I have to wonder about your defense of this person, if what Jack says is true.
I also have to wonder about the timing of your appearance during the meltdown of anonymous, also in light of what Jack has pointed out. You were quite insulting in your introduction, just as if you were the same person that I tangled with immediately prior. You have to admit, what Jack has mapped out is a pattern that seems to fit you - right up to the rehabilitating words you offer for this Jay character. Why would you feel compelled to do that as one of many bloggers in the internet universe?
Posted by JD on December 30, 2007 7:27 PMWhat if it was the old guy hitting the 8 year old kid and causing an "over the handle bars" shoulder injury? The old guy would be charged with reckless endangerment as were other folks here in same cases. I'm not convinced that the parents are responsible for acts of a child on a piece of land regulated lawfully by the US forest services. I think Vail only leases the land, (please correct me if I'm wrong here) and relinquish all responsibilities via the CO Skier's Safety Act. Where's the law enforcement here? So, it's a case to prove damages. Well, they can most likely prove damages if the injuries are consistent with the lawsuit.
This happens all the time folks. I have been hit and taken out, I have hit and taken out, all cases by accident. I am well aware of the skier's responsibility, I have been skiing here since I was 3, and I have been teaching my children the same rules. The problem I see is there are more people on the slopes than when I was a child in the 70s. Cat walks at Vail are small arteries to access lifts, where everyone in the back bowls must squeeze into. It's dangerous when you think a out it as well as complex that takes some critical thought a child would may not be capable of. I work with my kids for when approaching a catwalk to stop and look up the walk to wait for an open spot to yield onto. One case that is not mentioned on the skiers' safety act is stopping short. It's common sense not o slam your brakes on a crowded cat walk where you are literally arms reach from folks going by.
So, hell ya, sue the parents. See if you can get those medical charges covered, who wouldn't in your shoes. But I believe you will not succeed. If the parents can prove the old guy stopped short and caused an accident on a crowded catwalk, they may win. These are not cars and those rules do not apply, but the context of the principles may.
Want a simple answer to the number of accidents on the slopes. Go back to season passes of $1k and over each like they used to be in the 1980s. I hate to say it to my fellow Coloradans, but ever since the buddy pass was introduced, us day-trippers have crowded the runs.
Posted by wtfk on December 30, 2007 7:19 PMi guess i haven't really been on enough to notice that pattern
usually, when i see him arguing for something such as his belief in global warming, he presents verifiable evidence from scientists, as an example
and i've seen him pardon himself from discussions stating that he didn't know enough to comment
but it doesn't really matter - and i do see your point about Carolyn's post being so timely
what really amazes me is that the Broncos are playing like they want to win this game - too little, too late, but perhaps something to build on
Posted by 123 on December 30, 2007 4:35 PMLike I said before, jay uses aliases to rescue himself from a failed debate. does it all the time. Sloppily so like the amazing coincidences of an out of town skier who just happened to crash into a child under similar circumstances as the lead story, who also happened to be on the internet, who also happened to find a local newspaper blog on the very topic, who also happened to post within minutes of jay's alias' crash and burn. It aint rocket science.
This is the same pattern:
1. Lose debate
2. "Sign off" to open the door for the supporter on deck
3. invent a real life story with all the salient details and reach a supportive conclusion while trying to add credibility to the discussion from that viewpoint.
4. Create other aliases who just happen to appear to engage in a conversation in support of jays position
And so on....
Its old and predictable.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 30, 2007 3:51 PMCarolyn, i certainly hope that the boy wasn't intentionally aiming for you - but almost nothing would surprise me anymore
for many years colorado citizens who ski have complained mightily about visitors who are ill-trained on the slopes - i have been run over and slammed in to many times over the years by people of all ages from all over the country
unfortunately, everyone needs to be committed to skiing defensively, not unlike when driving our cars - this has taken a bit of the carefree enjoyment out of skiing a nice glide run, but it has helped keep me from being plowed over
it is only my opinion, but if you truly believe that the boy intentionally hit you, perhaps you should pursue charges - you might be vilified such as the PA man, however, and who wants to deal with that? you hopefully have insurance to cover the upcoming expenses?
Posted by 123 on December 30, 2007 9:01 AMI didn't bug out, I just signed off. It's best not to read into things when you don't know all of the facts. The child skier and I were both "tourists", bringing lots of income to the state of Colorado for the express purpose of enjoying the skiing. That's what Colorado thrives on, isn't it? If there was any way I could have avoided being plowed over by the child, I certainly would have stopped or skied away or done anything else to avoid being hit, but this kid seemed to "intentionally " ski into me. I even saw his eyes as he knocked me over, and it looked like there was a glint of enjoyment as he aimed at and smacked me. Again, I say if the mountain STEAMBOAT had employees, let's call them "Yellowjackets" as they are called at some mountains, stationed in the area, which was covered with slow signs, the kid might have been yanked off the mountain and put into a holding pen before he hit me. This is even an instance where criminal charges can be brought, but I don't want to go after a child. The sheriff's office did contact me regarding this matter and asked if I wanted to pursue it, but I have declined to do so.
Posted by Carolyn on December 30, 2007 8:28 AMi will say this once more JD; you are mistaken in thinking anon and I are the same - period
and, for the benefit of the captains, neither am I Jay. some people don't like to debate with him b/c he genuinely tries to educate others so they might see things the way he does - you know, understand his perspective
seldom have I seen him lose his cool and give up on a discussion, and further, he generally is very knowledgeable about the topic at hand, or he states he is not familiar enough to discuss it in depth
and as I mentioned before, I just felt you missed the opportunity to help another person understand what you were talking about and how his or her views were incorrect. the world is full of people who just lash out and call others names, instead of helping others comprehend
think about how much better the thread might have gone if, for example, you explained some of the ins-and-outs of how this case might be tried, and the impacts of it being a civil proceeding
instead of it being a urinary olympics event, anon might have gained understanding of aspects of our legal system - and you might have come to understand points he or she was trying to make that, frankly, didn't appear to be about law as much as simple personal opinion
oh well
i'm actually intrigued by the concept of skiers insurance - does anyone know if such a thing exists? it might be something to seriously look at - compulsory insurance for a buck or two a day, and then everyone is protected
Posted by 123 on December 30, 2007 8:17 AMA pox on all of you. Anyone idiotic enough to garner enjoyment out of sliding down a mountain on narrow slats of greased fiberglass in freezing temperatures deserves whatever grief they manage to reap. Masochists, the whole mob!
Posted by JR on December 29, 2007 10:22 PMSorry rick. Don't know what you mean by chip on my shoulder. My revealing of jay is well deserved and accurate. If you have been blogging along with me you would also agree. Give it time.
And if you have not come across the unhappy natives, you would misconstrue my lighthearted treatment of them as well.
No worries. Say hi to Carolyn.
go Pats.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 8:17 PMjack, I think it was my commentary that made her bug out. BTW, you should let that chip on your shoulder fall. This is world class skiing country. You aren't going to change it.
Have a nice night. Shreck is on TNT. It ends in about 10 minutes. Then I will get to watch the second half of Giants v. Patriots. Did you see it is on three networks? CBS, NBC and NFL! OMG.
Posted by captain rick on December 29, 2007 7:51 PMHey rick. Do you know that chick Carolyn? She bugged out pretty quick after I posed my question to her.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 7:28 PMI'm sure your kids dont go around calling themsleves natives while glaring at you in a ski resort bar. Those are the jugheads I am referring to.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 7:22 PMWell, Jack. JD doesn't have me convinced either. Seems to me it will depend on who is on the jury and how the parties tell their stories. It isn't always clear what happens on the slopes.
BTW, what do you have against native Coloradans? I talk to kids in high school and mostly I'm impressed. I think we are raising a fine crop of centenial state citizens here.
Posted by captain rick on December 29, 2007 7:20 PMCarolyn must have boarded her plane back to NY.
Oh well.
Actually, the likely reason the case was filed in federal court was the amount of monetary damages sought and differences in procedure. There will still be hard-core skiers on a Denver jury.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 7:13 PMHighly unlikely rick. The unlabled blogger was tripping over legal terms so badly he pulled the plug. In typical jay fashion, a "new" blogger jumps in to stick up for the battered loser. Ya gotta realize that jay is a wheezy dude who sits in front of an old Compaq in his tighty whities munching on cheetos while his parents have a knock down drag out upstairs on the first floor.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 7:08 PMThat's not exactly what I expected when I said I understood what you meant.
But thanks for the heads-up anyway (I think).
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 7:04 PMoh, captain, my captain.
The flatlander is sueing in Federal Court. It would be foolish to sue in Eagle County where he would face a jury of skiers who might apply the unwritten law of the slopes.
BTW, I think anon and 123 were separate people. I think anon might have been a lawyer. He seems to be talking about Colorado law, not flatlander law.
Posted by captain rick on December 29, 2007 6:52 PMIt's been going on for a long time. This misfit named jay uses aliases and makes up convenient true-life stories and characters to prop up his lame arguments. He'll try to make it look like there are like minded folks on the blog when it is him all along. You fell for it dude. Sorry.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 6:48 PMI think I see what you mean now.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 6:44 PMCarolyn? Carolyn, you still there sweetheart?
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 6:40 PMNo I meant jay. Your are new here jd.
It's probably the same mentality we hear from the so-called Colorado Natives who try to blame their lack of upward mobility on people who move here from other states. Too much inbreeding I'm sure.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 6:37 PMYou mean 123. If the injured man cannot prevail in civil court seeking damages for the injury, there's not much else he can really do. It is not any different than any other injury civil suit resulting from any number of possible scenarios.
For some reason, 123 and anonymous feel a special sense of outrage at the thought of a lesser skier being hurt on their slopes. Weird.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 6:34 PMOK, I'll bite since jay is too chicken to re-engage.
After suing for money damages, if the old man can't get a judge to agree the kid caused his injury, what's next.
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 6:29 PMcarolyn
One day at Vail a bunch of us just finished coming down the back bowls. A thick crowd of mostly well skilled skiers were moving rapidly along the catwalk, a rather steep and narrow traverse.
I was on the far right of the trail. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I noticed a young skier coming directly at me sideways across the traverse. It happened right at a turn from a generally northernly direction to a westernly direction. Because it was later in the afternoon, shadows from the trees jutting out at the corner of the turn concealed the young skier's actions until she was nearly crossing my path.
I hopped in the air and tightened my shoulder. If she hit me, she was going to get a lesson from it. Fortunately, I narrowly escaped hitting her. I don't know if the person behind me hit her because it would have been foolish to look back. I had to maintain my adrenalin rush so as to keep my place in the pack.
For clarification, your description makes it sound like you may be as much at fault as the young skier in front of you.
8dude, there has been so much snow, the global warming deniers said they would build beach houses without fear of losing them to the sea.
Hey Carolyn. The previous blogger peaked my interest. How did you just happen on this chat blog with such a timely (literally) topic?
Posted by Captain Jack on December 29, 2007 6:22 PMC'mon 123. You got beat at your own alias blogging game and you cannot admit it.
If you want to tangle, you need to be able to say "uncle". Isn't that the least we can expect from you?
Go ahead, ask me a question. Please?
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 6:18 PM"Perhaps signs should be posted at DIA and along the border that say SKIER BEWARE! BEWARE OF OTHER SKIERS"
The only sign that should be posted at Dia is in the mens room
Beware of wide stance Republicans
lol
To clarify for Captain Rick, I have risen through the ranks of ski school, ski all terrain, and was skiing with a ski instructor at the time I got knocked over. The child was in a Level 7 ski school class, clearly knew how to ski, but chose not to control his skis, perhaps for the thrill of going fast. Some places do not allow these types on their mountains. It is a safer way to ski; I did not say any person or place can guarantee safety.
Posted by Carolyn on December 29, 2007 5:53 PMSpeaking of Harry Palm...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/29/restaurant.shooting.ap/index.html?eref=ib_topstories
Posted by on December 29, 2007 5:49 PMReader's Digest?!?!
Can anyone else say "Bible of the Illiterate"...?
This is laughable. If an impact from an eight year old will "hurt" you, you belong in a home.
Next case.
BTW, weather here is great. 80 on Christmas day. How's that snow working out for y'all?
Posted by gr8fulasiandude on December 29, 2007 5:42 PMWhat I see here are two different cultures, the skier culture and the tourist culture.
The skier culture has a self reliant ethos. They have risen from ski school and the snow plow to skiing moguls, bowls and powder.
The tourist culture comes to Colorado for a short time during the season. They don't have time to spend in ski school, learning to turn and control speed on the bunny hill, and generally being able to navigate through a weekend crowd.
What skiers expect and what tourists expect from other people on the slopes seems to be at odds. Skiers accept that the slopes are a special place requiring special skills. Tourists don't want anyone to spoil their vacation. Skiers think the law of the slopes requires a greater acceptance of both risk and responsibility. Tourists think the law of the flatlands applies, where a slip and a fall at the market is the market's fault.
Perhaps signs should be posted at DIA and along the border that say SKIER BEWARE! BEWARE OF OTHER SKIERS!
(In a way, it kind of reminds me of the separation between church and state.)
lol, at least you are consistent
paranoid, avoid answering questions, offer no proof, do not take the opportunity to teach others if they are uneducated or misinformed, and expect others to trust your word as though we know your credentials
why would anyone want to talk to someone like that?
and my previous post was the first on this topic, and in fact, the first in many weeks
i actually don't really like posting blogs b/c too much cannot be properly related, and pissing contests like the one you and anon had going on result
i just think you could have discussed and explained things instead of being hostile
nothing more, or less
Posted by 123 on December 29, 2007 5:31 PMYou are one and the same. Nice try.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 5:16 PMwow JD, ignorant and a dick too
no wonder people avoid you on here
now maybe the anonymous poster will follow suit
Posted by 123 on December 29, 2007 5:03 PMCarolyn raises a collateral issue to the problem of skiers injuring other skiers. Perhaps an analogy to other common everyday scenarios might be helpful.
There is a stretch of road where people, especially young people have been known to speed in their cars. There is a traffic light at an intersection where there have been accidents in the past. Occasionally the police park nearby to personally view the intersection, but cannot be there at all times given their patrol duties.
A young driver comes along and cannot properly stop at the intersection because of slick conditions in the intersection where cars drip water while waiting for the light to change, and injures a pedestrian (or another driver traversing the intersection - you pick).
The injured party seeks to get their medical bills paid. Whom do they tap for the money? The police, for not being there when the accident happened? The town for not properly assigning the police to the intersection where accidents have happened historically? Or the driver of the car?
Now if the driver has liability insurance, he will not have to dig into his pockets directly. If he is uninsured, he will. His claim that it was not his intent to cause injury , or that he is too young to otherwise be culpable will not matter to the injured party - or the law.
Children who cause injury are a special case in tort law. Society and lawmakers recognize their status and have made concessions as to how things are made right after these types of events. Although the specifics may differ from state to state, the general intent is the same.
As in injured party involving a child, the most effective thing to do is not go after the ski resort since the skier responsibility act, if anything, is a liability shield for resort operators. If you as an injured party need relief you need to seek it from the responsible party, which by proxy is the parent or guardian. These laws have been around for awhile and seem to be working reasonably well for society.
Hope this helps Carolyn, who as a visiting skier from New York just happened to log into a local newspaper chat site at a very opportune moment - just as the anonymous blogger got hoisted by his own petard. What an amazing coincidence.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 3:04 PMYou should give up. I made no assumptions about your meaning. I read your posts and interpreted your words directly, nothing more.
You do not understand legal definitions or processes. When this is pointed out, you accuse me of "getting you wrong" when it is your own words that illustrate where you are wrong.
I suspect you are the same anonymous person who bristled initially when I criticized your lack of legal logic in the assertions you posted. You seem to like to shoot the messenger while ignoring the message.
Stick to things that you understand rather than playing these games.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 2:39 PMJD ... I give up. You are doing far too much work in assuming what I mean, and getting it all wrong. We've reached the point where it just isn't worth my time to try and discuss things with you. And worse, when I ask you for references to support claims you make, you simply ignore that and post attacks about your incorrect assumptions about what I've said. Let's just see how the case works itself out, as it seems there is nothing to gain from this discussion.
Posted by on December 29, 2007 2:13 PMTwo days ago at STEAMBOAT I got slammed into by a reckless, out of control child who came speeding down past me from my uphill right and hooked down to the left side in front of me where I was clearly the downhill skier. The child skier crashed into me with so much force that he knocked me down from the upper right, flipped me onto my left side and cracked my left leg. I could not stand, and felt unbearable pain, which was later diagnosed by the hospital as tears of my left ACL and medial meniscus of the left knee. Neither the child nor the parents have even taken a moment to apologize to me.
I was taken down the mountain by sled and by ambulance to the hospital, where the left knee ACL and Medial tears were diagnosed. Yesterday I flew home to NY. I am awaiting surgery, facing six months rehab, and dealing with excruciating pain. This accident happened near SLOW signs at the bottom of converging paths of the mountain. Ski patrol told me that the parents were worried about whether their child was injured. I was also concerned about the child, but fortunately he was not hurt, and he probably weighs not much less than me. He walked away without a scratch. I am glad that he did not get hurt, but an apology is the civil thing to do. What kind of people are these parents that they and their child do not even say, "We are sorry?"
Further, I think STEAMBOAT needs safety patrol actively working on their mountain, especially near SLOW signs, and also near areas where trails converge, to try to keep skiers from speeding across the mountain into other skiers. Active human patrol and intervention go a long way in the mountain's show of commitment to skier safety. I do not intend to commence a lawsuit against a child, even though he clearly caused the accident and easily could have avoided me. The fact that his parents do not even know to apologize is their problem and their child's problem in the long run. Yet, why don't we require the ski mountains to make more of an effort to enforce safe skiing? There are many mountains that do just that. STEAMBOAT, where I was injured, is not fully committed to skier safety. I have spoken with various STEAMBOAT officials, including the STEAMBOAT Ski Patrol Director, STEAMBOAT Director of Skier Safety, and STEAMBOAT Risk Manager concerning this issue. Unlike many other safer places I have skied, STEAMBOAT does not have visible, active skier control systems in place on the mountains. Maybe that's the secret to how they make their champagne powder. I will gladly trade champagne powder for regular powder, if it means safer skiing than STEAMBOAT offers at present.
Posted by Carolyn on December 29, 2007 1:55 PMWow, where to start. You really don't understand the process. This is not a criminal suit. Convictions, intent, malevolence don't apply at this stage. The issue is whether the child's actions, irrespective of intent, caused the injury to the man. As a child, intent is generally not a factor. Society generally recognizes a duty of parents to supervise children and for parents to accept liability on their behalf when they screw up.
You seem to be searching for mitigating factors regarding the man's injuries. Good and well but premature. Depositions and expert testimony will ferret out what portion of the cost of medical care following the collision will be discounted.
You are being confused by the skier responsibility act which is more of a guideline than a code. At its core, this is an instance of one person causing an injury to another. The setting and activity of this act does not exclude the basic legal examination of an injured person seeking relief from the costs of that injury.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 1:46 PMJD ... so we agree on the lack of clear and enforceable language in the CSSA. Good.
You reference 'well-established law' regarding minors and parents .. links please. Since you seem intent on delving into case study to uphold your contention, provide links in a reputable law library online such as at Harvard or Princeton, and we can debate the merits of the case and subsequent rulings.
Also, you say that I presume much regarding his injury .. in order to get surgery he needed anyway? You simply misread/misunderstood my point .. I was not making that assertion at all. What I was trying to say is that past a certain age, two doctors I saw regarding a similar injury told me to live with it .. that the surgery wasn't worth the time, money, and return to 100% functionality. It is quite possible that the man received traumatic, initial injuries from a fall on a ski slope .. but the burden of proof of this is his .. and it will cost him thousands to try and prove it. Additionally, eye-witness accounts claim he shook and threatened the 7-year-old and that he didn't 'seem injured' at the time. That may work against him pretty heavily in court. When all is said and done, it is unlikely that a jury will convict, and that is something we could also look at .. conviction percentage when a child is involved in an accidental personal injury suit. I certainly don't know this, but I would expect it to be fairly low if malevolence can't be proven.
Tell me, regarding the suggestion for skiers insurance, what did you think of it? If you consider it to be a good idea, would you support retracting the CSSA, or at least amending it in such a way that the insurance would be required in order to be on the mountain, and would you put it on the individual skier, or make it part of the ticket cost, and why?
Posted by on December 29, 2007 11:52 AMReader's Digest, the injured party's employer, not only doesn't provide health insurance. It gave each of its 3,000 employees a Christmas bonus of five bucks, telling them to spend it helping others.
Posted by on December 29, 2007 10:22 AMWhat's even worse is that Boulder land-grab issue.
Posted by on December 29, 2007 10:14 AM"So, let me ask, when your kid accidentally hits someone on the slopes and they demand you pay it, you ready to fork out $35K? Despite that the old guy was ok enough to grab, shake, and cuss out your kid, and threaten suit while still on the mountain? If so, I think we've seen enough to be done here."
You are no more immune from liability than if your kid hits an older man while riding his bike. The skier responsibility language does not provide for any such protection.
I was correct, it is a good thing you will not be on that jury.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 10:00 AMSo you have reviewed the CSSA which is effectively silent on the mechanics of personal responsibility in the event of injury. When last I referred to this statute, it was in the context of ski operator/owner liability, not the folks on the slopes injuring each other.
So now you realize why this statute will not guide the courts in deciding who to apportion responsibility for an act resulting in injury between skiers.
You presume much in theorizing that the man was faking his injuries in order to have that operation he needed anyway. If you were legally educated, you would not go there without reasonable proof (which you do not have). In any event, you are putting the cart before the horse.
Getting back to the primary issue, negligent acts by minors. Well established law exists on the topic. This is the heart of the case against the child and his parent. Review that instead.
Oh, BTW. If the dolt shoe fits....wear it.
Posted by JD on December 29, 2007 9:54 AMBy the way, here is a link to Chalat's law firm site where they explain their view of the CSSA:
http://www.chalatlaw.com/ski.php
and again, nothing requiring parental ownership of a juvenile collision, or what we would call in court, unenforceable attachment.
Also, notice under the 'Collision' heading, fourth paragraph, which begins 'Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier is at fault in an accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below him or her. ...' Anytime a law can be described using the words 'assumes' or 'presumes', it is generally a poorly written statute that tries to be 'all encompassing' .. well-written laws are clear, concise, and leave little to no doubt as to the letter and intent of the law. This is important because from personal experience I can tell you that it ISN'T always the uphill skiers fault in a near or full collision on the slopes. Sometimes, there are just too damned many people, and most any one of them is capable of not looking before they pull out or turn. If you ski, then you know that to be true.
Also, there is no verification of informed consent. I have never had to read the CSSA, and then sign an affidavit in front of a witness showing that I read and understand the law. The CSSA does not require that to be done, and it therefore, isn't. Perhaps in the future. I like the poster's comment who said that we may all need to purchase Skiers Insurance .. yes, it really makes sense and would provide proper protection for everyone. It could be done on a personal basis, or be included in the price of each lift ticket and then administered through the ski area. Something to think about.
Posted by on December 29, 2007 6:24 AMJD ... I was merely observing and pointing out that literally nobody on here for the past 2+ years has used the terms 'tool' and 'dolt' in their post .. except Harry Palm. Others can back that up as well. And Harry was (is still?) a narrow-minded, lesser-educated, extreme-right, my-country-right-or-wrong, Patriot-Act-is-awesome-who-cares-about-our-civil-liberties, global-warming-is-a-hoax, screw-everyone-else-I'm-in-it-for-myself, never-question-authority, mindless-drone, kind of guy that nobody should try to look even remotely like.
If that is not you, be very thankful .. and if it is you seek education and psychological help. Oh, and by the way, there is no required financial responsibility on an 8 year old, OR on their parents by proxy that is supported by law that I know of. The Colorado Ski Safety Act is vague in most areas at best, and this case may actually lead to a challenge of it in several points, parental responsibility being one. In the case of recent and past juvenile-caused malicious mischief such as damaged schools, etc., parents have agreed to pay because, a) they were generally 'affordable' amounts, b) it reinforced a message to the kids that when the law is broken, there is a price to pay, c) it kept the peace in the community. Just as a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract, such as buying a house or a car, there is no way I know of to assign financial responsibility to them either. Even if there is, the old guy is going to have to spend major money in court to prove his injuries are not pre-existing in nature, and that this 'collision' caused sufficient damage to warrant the surgery he received. I myself have a detached biceps tendon and torn rotator cuff, and have been told by two ortho-docs that if I was 20 - 25, in some kind of pro sport, etc., that it would be worth the operation and rehab .. but because I'm over 50, it isn't necessary, required, or recommended. Thus, I find his procedure highly suspect based on his own description of the 'damage'.
So, let me ask, when your kid accidentally hits someone on the slopes and they demand you pay it, you ready to fork out $35K? Despite that the old guy was ok enough to grab, shake, and cuss out your kid, and threaten suit while still on the mountain? If so, I think we've seen enough to be done here.
Posted by on December 29, 2007 5:58 AMTree H asks whether a pre-existing injury has an impact on his medical bills.
The answer will depend on expert testimony from doctors since the current presumption is that the prior shoulder injury was not active or symptomatic. The injured person is claiming that the collision brought about a new injury requiring surgical repair.
None of which speaks to the issue of legal responsibility, which is what my post was about.
Sheesh. The short bus folks are out in droves.
Posted by JD on December 28, 2007 9:54 PMhey 2:23. You sound like jay. Can you refute the points I made, or did I just hurt your feelings because you don't understand the law?
I think it is the latter.
Too funny. Congrats to your small self.
Posted by JD on December 28, 2007 9:48 PMKrashkopf said, "THAT IS WHY I HAVE HOME OWNERS INSURANCE"
Your comment and suggestion intrigued me, so I called my homeowners insurance agent and asked if I would be covered if I scraped someone off the ski slope and broke their leg. His reply, after laughing, was, "You must be joking, right?"
That's Farmers Insurance. Does yours cover that sort of thing? He said people are protected if they're on my property and are injured or killed, but not elsewhere.
Posted by DR on December 28, 2007 5:04 PMHey JD .... you sound a lot like our old friend Harry Palm, and just as ignorant. Congrats.
Posted by on December 28, 2007 2:23 PM"I'm wondering where personal responsibility comes in. Never once have I read or heard the parents apologize for the injuries sustained or have their son take some responsibility for the accident."
If you're the target of a lawsuit, admitting responsibility is not a good idea. Drivers are advised never to admit fault in a car crash.
Nobody can apologize in public anymore because the lawyers will exploit that.
Posted by Kevin Jones on December 28, 2007 11:35 AMPut Part of the Responsibility where it belongs - ON THE DAD
Why is everybody so willing to let the Dad, Robb Swimm, AND his Home Owners insurance carrier, "off the hook" here?
1) The Dad, Robb Swimm, was not properly supervising his child, allowing little Scott to ski out of control causing a serious injury to Mr. Pfahler, who was just minding his own business;
2) Before any lawsuit was ever contemplated, Mr. Pfahler contacted Mr. Swimm and said "Your son caused my injuries, please have your insurance carrier pay my medical bills," and instead of taking responsibility, and saying to his insurance carrier "My son caused these injuries, this innocent man was hurt, here are his medical bills . . . please pay them, THAT IS WHY I HAVE HOME OWNERS INSURANCE" Mr. Swimm, and his insurance carrier, ignored Mr. Pfhaler's very reasonable request;
3. If Scott Swimm is "afraid now", it is due, at least in part, that his father is allowing him to give interviews to the press. No caring parent would allow his 8 year old to be subjected to the media microscope.
I am all about "personal responsibility" and, to me, it looks like ROBB SWIMM is the one refusing to accept it.
JD,
What about the fact that old man Pfahler had a pre-existing shoulder injury?
Don't you think that has anything to do with his medical bills?
Jeesh, the tards on here.
Posted by Tree Hugger on December 28, 2007 9:02 AMDuh. On the one hand you tools argue that kids cannot make decisions, and on the other you claim that they should be culpable only when forming intent to harm. Can't have it both ways.
Good thing you dolts aren't on a jury with that kind of illogic.
This is why the law provides for parents to step up and accept responsibility for harm to others as a result of a child's actions - intentional or not.
Posted by JD on December 28, 2007 7:38 AMUnless they can prove that the kid intentionally ran into the old guy I rank this suit as stupid. As adults we know that when we engage in activities with children we have to look out for them because they are kids. We know that they don't have the skills, experience, and judgment as adults. So if you're going to ski on the same slopes as children then you must keep an eye out for them. That doesn't mean that they get a pass for intentional damage or bad behaviour, that's how we teach them of consequences and responsibility but we have in the past given them a pass for financial damages in accidents most of the time. Mr. Pfahler seems to subscribe to the trial lawyer mentality that believes there are no accidents. Everything is someone's (or groups of someones)fault and by god someone has to pay!
Posted by Dave D on December 28, 2007 7:24 AMI'm with you Tony, and remember that it happened last year when the boy was 7. And the understanding soul at 5:45pm and his kin MUST all be held accountable for EVERY possible infraction of law AND every jerk and creep that claims any injury at their hands. If I'm sitting on the jury for this one, unless the boy says, 'I saw the geezer and decided to buzz him, and figured knocking him down was even better.', there's no way in Hell I'm voting 'guilty', and I'm willing to be at least half the jury sees it the same way.
Posted by Slow Burn on December 28, 2007 6:24 AMIt's hard to believe that there would be anybody defending the old man. First he skis too slowly and impedes other skiers. Then he gets tapped by a little boy thanks to a situation he contributed to negligently. Then he grabs the little boy, uses profanity at him, and immediately threatens to sue the child. And once he does follow through, there are people insinuating that an 8-year-old should be sued for all the Magic: The Gathering cards an old man can walk away with, and that the child is getting what he deserves? Insane.
The old man is very clearly looking for a huge pay day. He is absolutely no better than the D.C. lunatic who sued for millions over a pair of pants in the summer. If the child was 12 or 13, I could understand wanting to hold him accountable for some of the blame. But the child is 8. Name me any 8-year-old who deserves to be treated so poorly for an accident that the old guy caused by his negligent skiing. An 8-year-old should be allowed to learn life lessons honestly, not have them shoved down his throat by an old man scamming the legal system.
And shame on anyone defending the geezer. Were any of them absolute perfect angels at age 8? And were they capable of understanding the difference between willful intent and contributory negligent? Open your hearts, dust them, and give the kid the benefit of a couple hundred doubts before you throw stones.
Posted by Tony on December 27, 2007 10:11 PMEveryone makes mistakes, including children. Everyone has to be responsible for those mistakes, including children's parents by proxy.
No brainer. Get over it.
Next!
Posted by on December 27, 2007 5:45 PMOk, oops, guess the bill was 35K and he was not in insured. Well, whatever, even if the kid were 18, I agree with most comments. And please flatlanders, abide to the rules of the slopes, and especially don't stop on catwalks. Keep in mind some of us like to bomb down the hill (very much in control), at missle-like speeds, this isn't Coney Island. On a recent day in Keystone, I wasn't able rip at desired speeds until after dark when the gapers went home for hot chocolate. Go kiddo, keep clearing the way, set that example for those who would really knock you out if we would hit you (though I AM very much in control, and include the risk of of such obstacles down the hill with machine-like precision and have never hit anyone, except when I was that age, which is part of learning the ropes). Sorry for the hurt though, old dude. ; )
Posted by MO on December 27, 2007 4:14 PMMary,
The way I heard it, the parents never had a chance to apologize because Pfahler grabbed their 7-year old son and was cussing and screaming at him following the accident.
In fact, the first words out of Pfahler's mouth were something about "suing his parents for everything they've got."
This started a 20-minute shouting match between Pfahler and the Swimms that was eventually broken up by the ski patrol.
Posted by Tree Hugger on December 27, 2007 4:08 PMPlease, this is outrageous! Sure, a $75K health bill is not fun to deal with, but hopefully this guy had health insurance, which brings up a whole nother issue about our health care system.. But how much rehab does a 60 year old man need for a shoulder injury caused by small kid that didn't even hit his shoulder directly? This smells like a hot cup of coffee @ burger world lawsuit to me. Having taught skiing for 10 years, I hope this guy won't get far as skiing is considered a high risk activity. Perhaps we can learn from the Europeans with their many more skiers on how to deal with such cases in either a health care or legal way, and give the judge the prerogative to throw such cases out before wasting anybody's time and money with it, including the taxpayers!
Posted by MO on December 27, 2007 3:54 PMit was an 8 year old. If he was fired out of a cannon he still couldn't hurt anyone that bad. If a minor collision with an 8 year old is gonna break you, you should not leave the house.
I'm wondering where personal responsibility comes in. Never once have I read or heard the parents apologize for the injuries sustained or have their son take some responsibility for the accident. All people using the slopes should abide by the rules and ski under control. Too many times I've been run into and brushed by out-of-control children and teens. The rules are for everyone to follow, not just a few!
Posted by mary on December 27, 2007 1:05 PMTo David Hakala - if we had socialized medicine in this country, that guy would still be waiting for surgery. I have friends in Canada and he's still waiting for a non-elective surgery and has been for nearly 3 years. People should be responsible for their own medical care, rather than relying on the government to give it to them. As for this man suing this 8-year old boy and his family, it's another sick example of frivolous lawsuits. He has the burden of proving this case in court, and as I see it, it's going to be rather hard for him to do - especially if he had an injury to the shoulder before.
Posted by Reb's Girlie on December 27, 2007 1:01 PMAnd don't forget "Uninsured Skier" :)
Posted by DR on December 27, 2007 12:31 PMIt is skiing protocol to move to one side or the other of the run before stopping to take a break. At the very least, we have possible contributory negligence on the part of the older gentleman. I can sense now the rise of an entire industry: ski insurance, which has a liability portion to pay in case you injure someone else, and a medical portion to cover yourself.
Posted by on December 27, 2007 11:29 AMWhy was Pfahler stopped in the middle of the slope and not watching what was going on around him?
Impeding other skiers on the slopes is hazardous. You can't just stop in the middle of a ski run and expect kids to ski around you.
It sounds to me like Pfahler is at fault here.
Also, if he doesn't have adequate health insurance, then he shouldn't be skiing.
In my book, if you can afford to fly out to Colorado from the Pennsylvania, rent skiing gear, buy lift tickets, and pay for food, hotel, rental cars, etc., then you should damn well be able to buy a little health insurance.
Furhtermore, skiing is a risky sport. If you aren't prepared to take the risk of getting hurt, then DON'T GO SKIING. And if you do decide to go, the STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S WAY.
I recall that signs are usually posted to ski at a safe speed. The plaintiffs did suffer real injury and losses. Sad to say the parents of this kid might be responsible.
In any other case, if someone hurts someone else and has to go to the hospital. Somebody is going to have to pay. Mark keep us posted on what happens.
Posted by on December 27, 2007 7:59 AMIt would be nice if we had some sort of video of the "collision", because we're really talking about nothing more than one version versus another. The hitter is going to claim it was a "tap", and the hittee is going to say it was a "crash".
But I learned a long time ago, as I'm sure most other folks here who ski did, that "defensive driving" isn't just for the roads - it applies to the slopes also. Unless someone is skiing nearly straight down the run, they need to check and see what's coming from behind them every so often, and keep their ears open, because skiers who are not experts don't always have the best control. And it's quite a stretch from beginning skier to intentional assault. Over the years I've seen plenty of downhill skiers contribute to, if not outright cause a collision. It happens.
When the legislature passed the Ski Safety Act, it opened the door to potential abuses, because it simply allowed for punitive actions without putting any responsibility upon the skier to become trained, or on the ski areas to provide and enforce capability-based runs, and it also provided no way to quantify the ability of each skier.
For example, when someone is new to skiing, we encourage them to go to "ski school" and take lessons - then they generally spend the rest of the day on the bunny slope, and using the plow to maintain control. But they don't have to and there is nothing I know of that controls who can ski on which runs - maybe there should be if we're going to allow liability lawsuits such as this.
Posted by DR on December 27, 2007 6:34 AMThis baby boomer shouldn't be on the slopes, he should be in a retirement home.
Posted by Mike on December 27, 2007 12:35 AMIf there was damage done by the 8 year old, his parents should be responsible for the damages. If it was an accident, which I suspect it was, it is deemed neglignce by the parents. Parents should watch thier children at ALL TIMES. Why should the victim pay twice for something he didn't do? It is the 8 year olds fault end of story. I gaurentee he (the 8yr old) will learn a valuable life lesson from this, and maybe the uncaring, negligent parents as well. The parents should take responsiblity over their child and pay his medical bills. That is the right thing to do.
Posted by sabrisaint on December 26, 2007 8:54 PMWhen I first saw this, I thought those land grabbers in Boulder must have hit the slopes for the day.
That said, isn't an eight year old considered a minor? What are they going to get, his Nintendo and some baseball cards? Yes, the argument can be made about parents being responsible, but let's get real: This was a day at the slopes. What's next, parents being sued over HS sports injuries?
This is laughable, and the reason why personal injury lawyers have the image they do.
Posted by AsianDude on December 26, 2007 6:59 PMscumbag greedhead baby boomers stike again
Posted by jack on December 26, 2007 6:28 PMLast I checked, parents are responsible for the negligent actions of their children. The injured party will probably have to re-file and sue the parents for damages. That way the 8 year old is not directly responsible, which is what the law intended.
Posted by JD on December 26, 2007 6:01 PMThis thing should be sorted out in court. What's remarkable is the Internet mob that has made the injured party's life hell. Same thing's happening to McLean and Stevens over the adverse possession case, and it happened to the family that allegedly drove a depressed girl to suicide. I think the lynch mob mentality is getting out of hand.
Posted by David Hakala on December 26, 2007 4:17 PMI think we should ban skiing, just like smoking. How dare those selfish boors endanger everyone else's health? Let 'em go ski out back in the alleys, and stay at least 15 feet from entrances.
Posted by David Hakala on December 26, 2007 4:07 PMI bet if we had national health care or even socialized medicine in this country this wouldn't even be an issue...something to think about.
Posted by Steve in Denver on December 26, 2007 2:42 PMWhy not it is never too early to learn manners or responsibility. What is the big deal, the folks will have to pay and maybe that will prompt them to teach the child some sking manners.
Posted by cib on December 26, 2007 2:11 PMHey Chalat... skiing isn't an intentional contact sport, sometimes people connect accidentally. Doesn't make it an assault... unless you've got an ambulance to chase and you've convinced Pfahler to believe that. However the Swimms probably should have turned over the letter to their homeowners insurance just to save emotional wear and tear on themselves and especially their kid. And ESPECIALLY to avoid helping put food on the tables of these vulture-attorneys that feed on this sort of thing.
I read a brief synopsis of the surgical report and it the procedure indicates there was a chronic issue with the shoulder, likely aggravated by the fall. So wouldn't it be better to figure a percentage of what damage already existed and what might have been acute and base financial responsibilty (i.e. what the insurance might actually be expected to pay due to this accident) and go from there?
To those posting contact information for the scumbag, that is just lame. NO matter how much you think he sucks.
Posted by SportsMed on December 26, 2007 12:07 PMHey Chalat... skiing isn't an intentional contact sport, sometimes people connect accidentally. Doesn't make it an assault... unless you've got an ambulance to chase and you've convinced the PA man to believe that. However the Swimms probably should have turned over the letter to their homeowners insurance just to save emotional wear and tear on themselves and especially their kid. And ESPECIALLY not help put food on the tables of these vulture-like attorneys that feed on this sort of thing.
I read a brief synopsis of the surgical report and it the procedure indicates there was a chronic issue with the shoulder, likely aggravated by the fall. Whose to say the man hadn't fallen earlier in the day? I also read that the man had turned to the right and stopped, when the little guy skied over his skis. How could that possibly have caused the old man to go flying, skis in the air?! Something stinks in the plaintiff's story and if it does make it to a trial, he's gonna be hard pressed to prove any of it, particularly to a skeptical jury.
Posted by SportsMed on December 26, 2007 11:54 AMWell, this couple wants to live a risk free life and they go to a ski run? What they do when they go to a grocery store and get bumped, sue? What a couple of cry babies.
Posted by John on December 26, 2007 11:39 AMIn fact, I'd love to sit on that jury because that would be my argument to the rest of the jurors. In fact, I'd love to see how the heck they are going to prove that this 8 year old was gunning for this joker to hurt him on purpose. Were they able to obtain video of the horrendous crime...heh...I would think not. However this couple has every right to take this to court...but, they'll look like complete fools when they lose though.
Nuff said.
Posted by Steve in Denver on December 26, 2007 11:13 AMMy wife once hurt her knee roller skating from a little kid falling into her and her knee has never been right. But did we sue the little girl? Hell no! Stuff happens. I think when you hit the slopes you assume some risk of accidents. Unless someone blatantly and maliciously was out to harm you on the slopes there should be no lawsuit here. Accidents can happen.
Posted by Steve in Denver on December 26, 2007 11:08 AMWho sues an 8-year-old kid?
A really bad skier.
Posted by history buff on December 26, 2007 10:47 AMReaders Digest doesn't provide health insurance for it's employees?
Posted by vudumom on December 26, 2007 10:13 AMLet the ambulance chasing attorney prove damage in court. This makes a good case for loser pays attorneys fees.
Just because someone can sue, doesn't mean they should.
