Appeals Court Upholds $10.2 Million Award to Injured Snowmobiler

February 1, 2008

  • February 1, 2008 at 1:57 am
    swymmer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s a sad day when the government has to pay for the stupidity of intoxicated drivers. This accident should have never happened. I hope it get appealed to the Supreme Court. Those idiots in San Francisco make some of the dumbest decisions we see come out of the Federal Courthouses!

  • February 1, 2008 at 2:42 am
    Ricardo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If an idiot walks out on a snowmobile trail in the dead of night knowing other
    snowmobiles are on that trail and he gets
    hit and injured then both he and his attorney need psychiatric assistance that
    if not successful in teaching common sense will result in the castration of both parties so future generations will not have to endure abuse of our legal system by an idiot and his attorney

  • February 1, 2008 at 3:39 am
    Got that right!! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Drunk, Dark & Speeding. Blooming idiots would not have seen a sign if they ran over it!

  • February 1, 2008 at 5:00 am
    Assumed Risk says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What happened to assumed risk while pursuing a hazardous sport?

  • February 1, 2008 at 6:09 am
    It went over the hill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Assumed risk went over the hill & was hit by a drunk, speeding snowmobiler.

  • February 2, 2008 at 5:19 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so, let me get this straight, we charge the 2 idiots in the secondary with driving drunk yet, the walker is not? afterall, did he not drive his snowmobile there also? also, how much were the settlements from the other 2 parties that settled out of court? how much money does this guy need to live on? after all, if he gets awarded between these 2 folks 10.2 mil – does the snowmobile party have 50% or 5.1 mil? i don’t think so, even if it was on the road in a vehicle, he would not have had to pay that much for the settlement. now the forestry service having had 16 days earlier a problem at the same area, should have made a warning sign. but the main issue i have — all were drunk driving, and only 1 got hurt from a snowmobile when he crossed the trail – knowingly there were others behind him on the trail in their snowmobile. or did the alcohol in his brain forget about what might happen? could it not think straight? how badly hurt was the 4th snowmobiler from his fall? tooo many if’s! too many beers! so, sounds like we can only take 10% blame when in reality, all 4 are to blame 100% for DRIVING DRUNK!

  • February 4, 2008 at 8:59 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agree w/all of you. We all know our legal system has deteriorated and lost sight of the concept of liability. Assumption of risk, drinking, being out on a remote trail in the dark, then leaving the snowmobile and walking around in the dark all equal “no liability” to anyone. And what did the legal geniuses propose the park service do to make the area safer? The court lost objectivity for only one reaon; this moron sustained severe injuries. Notwithstanding that, you don’t reward him and his family with a multi-million dollar award. This clown should be awarded a permanent job with the park service to sit on the side of the trail and hold a sign that reads “Warning: Snowmobiling is dangerous. Do so at your own risk.”

    This country is in troube when it comes to the legal system. The message it sends is that nobody is ever held responsible for their own stupidity, ignorance, and negligence. (unless of course you’re an attorney, judge, or politician.)

  • February 4, 2008 at 2:10 am
    N. Judge says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a problem with our system where jurors want to award everyone who brings a claim – if they believe they’re injured. It’s almost impossible to get a zero verdict if you have a seriously injured and resonably sympathetic (i.e. not a child molester or animal abuser) plaintiff. The idea that the defendant needs to owe a duty to the plaintiff that they breached seems to have gone out the window!

  • February 11, 2008 at 11:31 am
    Not The First says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The forest service should have looked into prior accidents from those involved. Not the first time.



Add a Comment

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

*