• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

wyowindrunner

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Posts
430
It seems to me that a ski instructor or mountain guide would know the skier's alpine responsibility code and would not have been berating the alleged victim if the alleged victim wasn't totally at fault in this collision. Then again many skiers don't understand the code as shown in the Epic red vs grey thread
Was skiing with son and daughter-in-law today. She has been taking a series of weekly lessons. While riding the chair up I commented on on a group of kids, many of whom were stopped under the lift, with an area ski instructor. Talked about the dangers and when I was working as an instructor at another area years back, this was prohibited in the strongest manner due to the obvious dropped object hazards. ( The safety of your students being the instructors first responsibility). Anyhow, I asked if they had mentioned this hazard, or any others including granting the downhill skier the right of way, or always looking uphill before proceeding onto the run. Sadly she replied that they had not been covered in the lessons. Addressing these items at the commencement of the lesson was required by the instructors at the area I worked.
 

Lorenzzo

Be The Snow
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,984
Location
UT
In Utah, it would be painfully easy to obtain representation with a valid PI claim against a rich and famous person, an average person or even a dog. I'd go so far as to say UT PI attorneys would injure each other scurrying after that kind of client, leading to even more personal injury, thus creating its own industry.
 

HardDaysNight

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
1,342
Location
Park City, UT
In Utah, it would be painfully easy to obtain representation with a valid PI claim against a rich and famous person, an average person or even a dog. I'd go so far as to say UT PI attorneys would injure each other scurrying after that kind of client, leading to even more personal injury, thus creating its own industry.

:roflmao:QFT. Call Siegfried and Jensen or any of the other dozens of sharks. Chumming unnecessary!
 

Doug Briggs

"Douche Bag Local"
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
7,483
Location
Breckenridge, CO
Suit, counter-suit. This is going to be interesting especially as there seems to be little or no convergence of each parties stories.

Making popcorn right now....
 

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
It happened 3 years ago, and he only just realized he was hurt now? That's a bit after the fact to me.

A friend was injured early last season. The advice of lawyers was to attend to injuries first. She is still recovering and only now looking to engage a lawyer. Also, now, the full extent of injury and costs are clear. Brain injury - no doubt that would delay legal action even further.
 

SkiSchoolPros

Impact Ecosystem- ie.Money with Meaning
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
207
Location
Colorado

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Runkle of the Baily is reviewing the daily court streaming on YouTube. It is painful to watch how terrible the lawyers are for both sides. I can't believe they are getting paid for their performance. I could not watch much of it.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Why did this case go to trial when he's suing her for just $300,000? That seems like a low enough amount that it would make more sense to settle.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,202
Location
NYC
Why did this case go to trial when he's suing her for just $300,000? That seems like a low enough amount that it would make more sense to settle.

Matter of principle.
IIRC, she is countersuing for $1.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Matter of principle.
IIRC, she is countersuing for $1.
I can see that, but isn't it her insurance company's decision to settle or not since they are paying the legal fees?

Maybe she has special celebrity insurance that doesn't settle on principle to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,202
Location
NYC
I can see that, but isn't it her insurance company's decision to settle or not since they are paying the legal fees?

Maybe she has special celebrity insurance that doesn't settle on principle to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

She is a life style celebrity. Image is money. Future earnings.
A settlement is a admission of guilt in the eyes of her fans. Regardless what the legal documents specified.
 

Jwrags

Aka pwdrhnd
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
2,001
Location
Portlandia
I can see that, but isn't it her insurance company's decision to settle or not since they are paying the legal fees?

Maybe she has special celebrity insurance that doesn't settle on principle to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
My malpractice carrier would defend any suit that was deemed defensible, even if it was cheaper to settle. They figured in the long run it discouraged frivolous suits that were only looking for a quick settlement.
 

Nancy Hummel

Ski more, talk less.
Instructor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Posts
1,036
Location
Snowmass
I wonder if there was Go Pro footage. That would have been interesting to see.

He has to prove she was negligent by a preponderance of the evidence. Not sure that he will be able to do that.

The cross exam of Paltrow was terrible. Seems like everyone is enthralled to be involved with Paltrow. Reminiscent of the prosecutors in the OJ trial.
 

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
I wonder if there was Go Pro footage. That would have been interesting to see.

He has to prove she was negligent by a preponderance of the evidence. Not sure that he will be able to do that.

The cross exam of Paltrow was terrible. Seems like everyone is enthralled to be involved with Paltrow. Reminiscent of the prosecutors in the OJ trial.
I have read that the guy's daughter has GoPro footage but he won't turn it over. I'm not sure of the validity of this--seems to me if there is footage, the judge would demand it be seen as evidence? If there IS footage and the plaintiff won't turn it over, well, I'll make my own assumptions of his motives.
 

BLiP

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 12, 2020
Posts
907
Location
New York
I have read that the guy's daughter has GoPro footage but he won't turn it over.
I believe I read that there were emails in which the plaintiff and/or his daughter stated that the event was all captured on his GoPro. Now, either mysteriously, or conveniently, they claim that either: (1) video never existed; or (2) it doesn't exist now. Either way looks very bad for them and I would expect the defense to harp on it in summation.
 

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Wasn't he originally suing for $3mil? And reduced it to $300k?
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top