N.H. Court: Injured Snow Tuber Can Sue Ski Area

July 21, 2004

  • July 21, 2004 at 8:21 am
    dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is just another example of how we as a nation are sliding down a slippery slope (no pun intended). I have snow skiied and tubed also, anytime you speed down a snow covered hill you should figure that something can happen. Did Sweeney have a helmet on? Someone is always to blame for your mistakes!

  • July 21, 2004 at 8:46 am
    Winston says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You all raise very interesting points, however, in this instance, neither the Judge nor Plaintiff’s attorney should be blamed for the statute(s) enacted by the Legislative branch.
    We must remember that the Judicial branch is responsible for strictly and logically applying the various statutes imposed by the Legislature.
    As a NY Adjuster I do agree that there are far too many frivolous lawsuits. However, I do believe in the system of checks and balances.
    Based upon the prior comments, the statue failed to include the type of activity which Plaintiff was involved in relative to the subject accident. The Judge may have been Legally correct in his decision (Although I do not feel comfortable with the decision). The matter should be heard at trial, and a jury decide on the matter.

  • July 21, 2004 at 9:18 am
    Hank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Not being at first familiar with the case, I read the opinion at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2004/sween091.htm and the plaintiff crossed out of the lane she was to be in which led to the collision. The interpretation by the Supreme Court appears valid in that light and it is being sent to a lower court to be heard. The point is, an omission or loophole appears to be the basis of the legal test rather than taking the case on the merit of negligence on the part of the operator, hence my earlier comment on what amounts to reckless operation of a motor vehicle on a gravel road where injury was pursuant to the vehicle leaving the road an sticking a tree. The question before the court was one of statutory interpretation, but we know the ultimate purpose here is not to sort out the intent of the law but rather to make the negligent whole. It is sad when that is result in an otherwise estimable decision.

  • July 21, 2004 at 9:35 am
    MarkT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seems the ski industry (or boarding or tubing or whatever on snow or similiarly derived substance)is a step behind the litigation process. The discalimers on the back of your ticket will need to come up with a new term to describe the universe of possbile snow or resonable facsimile of snow activites. Better yet maybe we need to sign a discalimer form (multipage) listing all sorts of possbile potential dangers including sunburn (or maybe that should be windburn or skin irritation or dermtalogical discomfort) to broken bones (ostio something) to ultimately death (we would probably need to be more specific here).

    It appears that we should never blame an individual for their action or inaction. At least not if there are deep pockets available somewhere down the line. I don’t know the specifics of the case nor do I want to know. I do know that every morning when I leave my house in my car that I take certain risks. If I get hit at the intersection after missing the stop sign I’m not going to sue the car maker but I guess I could. Not sure why but they must have something to do with a bad color mix or indistinguishable vehicle profile or the paint style of the stop sign. All things a “good” lawyer could work out.

    As the spouse of a long-time professional ski instructor and the parent of a multi-year snowboader instructor I hear first-hand the warnings they must say to studuents even if no on is listening. Then there are the paradoxes of what can and cannot be done if someone is maybe hurt, or hurt, or just faking and complaining. A funny thing about being a dedicated instructor at a winter sport (sometimes spring and sometimes fall) facility: you get paid very little, pay a signigicant fee to belong to the ski-related organization, require frequent training and updates, and in the end you are liable for everthing because the business that hired you, paid you, and in part trained you can simply disown you.

    As an employee I am ultimately responsible for my actions. As a provider of services I am responsible. As a user of goods and services I just need good legal representation!

  • July 21, 2004 at 10:09 am
    Policy Peddler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with Mark & Dave, there is nothing left that is suit proof. A baby is born with a defect, must be the doctor’s fault. Someone is hit by a foul ball at the ballpark, must be the stadium owner’s fault. The stupidity of lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits are only exceeded by the judges that allow them and the juries that award them. When will it stop?

  • July 21, 2004 at 12:44 pm
    Virginia says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I work in DC, where a statute exists prohibiting cops from chasing suspected car theives driving stolen cars. During an interview, someone, on the street, stated the reason for all the stolen car/racing deaths is because cops have ceased chasing theives and they’re free to run wild. That is NOT the reason. The reason is poor/non-existent parenting and the “it’s not my fault” syndrome. Teach kids it’s ok to blame others, and the syndrome perpetuates. It’s time for parents and kids to quit whining about consequences and think about things beforehand. Two words – TORT REFORM!!!!

  • July 21, 2004 at 1:58 am
    Gary W says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dave asked if the injured victim was wearing a helmet. Let’s hope so.

    That way, we can allocate the plaintiff’s award to more than just the ski area. We can include helmet manufacturer as well. (along with the retailer who sold it, the distributor who warehoused it, and the supplier(s) of the materials used in making the helmet) Did I leave out anyone?

    Sorry….I couldn’t resist.

  • July 21, 2004 at 2:07 am
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    as asnowboarder for ten years adn a skier for 20+, as well as being an adjuster for ten yrs, I am appalled at the court’s ruling, however, I am not suprised. Everyday the liberal hack judges who wish to be legistaers, hand down ludicrous rulings such as this one. Let’s all hope the plaintiff’s attorney takes up skiing and bashes his no good head into a judge who might be skiing the same slope that day. Remeber, can’t sue for actually doing the technical “skiing”.

  • July 21, 2004 at 2:11 am
    Martin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    AAAAAAAAAAAh, you all forget that statutes are to be strictly interpreted unlike insurance policies! Snowboarding or snow tubing or snow skating are not the same as snow skiing. I wonder what lawyer drafted the statute. This is just another case of the law not keeping current with technology.

  • July 21, 2004 at 2:23 am
    Art Vandelay says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Reagan hit the nail on the head – this unfathomable case is just another instance where liberal judges make someone else accountable for one’s own actions. This form of case law justice will only get worse if Kerry and the Boy get elected and put more liberal judges in power. It sickens me in this country of self starters to see how no one is accountable for their actions. If there was more accountability, many of the so called political “hot topics” would be moot. When will this maddness end????



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*