Texas couple sue Jackson Hole Mountain resort…

[dovski]

I am quite surprised this thread has not shifted to talking about the court case involving Gwyneth Paltrow and her ski accident in Deer Valley. That case pivots on the skiers code and who was actually downhill. Personally I think that would be a more interesting discussion as it speaks to both individual responsibility and potentially liability while skiing. I also think collisions are more common than gear failures. At some point if you want to ski you may need a package similar to auto insurance just in case. Just saying that with the litigious nature of US society this is not an outrageous prediction.

 

[BLiP]

At some point if you want to ski you may need a package similar to auto insurance just in case.

Like personal liability insurance? Many people already have this. Most have at least some personal liability coverage through their homeowners policy.

 

[dovski]

Like personal liability insurance? Many people already have this. Most have at least some personal liability coverage through their homeowners policy.

True but there are limits to where and how much that will cover. Also if you read the find print on some policies there are lots of gotchas ... which is why we have car insurance for our cars and not one umbrella personal liability policy. The other challenge is that unless to you specifically add more the personal liability limits on a standard home owners policy are not that high. Just saying that skiing at 40-50 mph carries similar collision risks and ergo liability to driving a car that fast, so policies geared towards skiers and skiing may actually make sense at some point. Pretty sure that my homeowners policy has some language around coverage of riskier activities just like many health insurance policies do not cover for specific activities like SCUBA Diving, Base jumping .... and oh yeah skiing lol.

 

[scott43]

I am quite surprised this thread has not shifted to talking about the court case involving Gwyneth Paltrow and her ski accident in Deer Valley. That case pivots on the skiers code and who was actually downhill. Personally I think that would be a more interesting discussion as it speaks to both individual responsibility and potentially liability while skiing. I also think collisions are more common than gear failures. At some point if you want to ski you may need a package similar to auto insurance just in case. Just saying that with the litigious nature of US society this is not an outrageous prediction.

Yeah I see that story in the media and just don't care frankly. This happens all the time and nobody pays attention. I just can't get into the celebrity cult thing..

 

[dbostedo]

I am quite surprised this thread has not shifted to talking about the court case involving Gwyneth Paltrow and her ski accident in Deer Valley.

Yeah I see that story in the media and just don't care frankly. This happens all the time and nobody pays attention. I just can't get into the celebrity cult thing..

There's already a thread on that... no need to discuss it here too.

Gwyneth Paltrow Deer Valley Collision and Trial

This time with Gwyneth Paltrow. There was a recent thread on the hit and run in Breck that generated a lot of interest/debate. I am not taking sides in the current dispute, as there is not nearly enough public information to make an informed opinion, and I have no idea if she is at fault or...

www.skitalk.com

 

[Mister Tea]

There's already a thread on that... no need to discuss it here too.

Yep.

Also, I don't find it all that interesting. From a legal standpoint it's straightforward once the factual dispute over which skier was ahead/downhill is decided. And since that appears to be a "he said/she said" situation I have nothing to add.

The binding popping off the ski seems to be dispositive*, it's then a matter of how much the plaintiff gets and from whom. It appears that settlement negotiations have broken down and I have no idea how far apart they may be or whether the parties are being unreasonable.

*if that's what actually happened, but that's a factual matter that should be easily established or refuted based on physical evidence

 

[fatbob]

The Paltrow case is totally weird. The lawyers appear amateurish. There is no reliable narrative. In a way it's proof positive that the code doesn't provide legally because if you are a vic the perp can easily turn it the other way round without a solid roster of witnesses.

 

[dbostedo]

Seriously people... go comment on the Paltrow case in that thread. Not here.

 

[Bolder]

I had a system binding fail many years ago, while skiing at a slow to moderate speed on a blue run at Killington. The binding just shattered; blew apart (on a 2-year-old ski). I came out of the ski, landed head first, and ended up with a nasty concussion that kept me out of work for a few days. The binding was in shards all over the hill. When I took the skis and pieces of broken binding into the shop when I got home, no one could ascertain what happened to make it blow apart like that. Ski was a K2 One Luv with Marker system binding.

Did you sue?

Actually, if it went down as described, the above incident and the OP are just the sort of cases that personal injury lawsuits were designed for. I would certainly have expected a rental binding (or a 2 year old one) to "not fail" under reasonable skiing conditions. Of course if you're pretending to be Candide Thonex, that's one thing. But even an advanced skier should be able to rip a blue run without binding failure. I'd be curious to know if the reason was human error or mechanical failure.

People like to bag on the US tort law system, but here in Europe you have almost no recourse in those situations. Even something like mass failure of breast implants took more than a decade to work through the French legal system. In the end, consumers benefit from better products and certifications, even if we like to grumble about added costs. If the courts do their part, frivolous lawsuits don't get very far.

In this case, yes, someone is likely to offer a settlement, mostly because it's a more efficient use of time and money. But on the face of it, this doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable. ...although leading the headline with "Texas couple" ...

 

[Wendy]

@Bolder
No, I did not sue. That was not on my radar at that time, and if it was, I probably would not have wanted to devote the time and money to it.

I'd counter that, with products that turn out to be dangerous to consumers, it still often takes years here to get things off the market. Here in the US, we still use some products in our foods that have been banned in Europe. ;-)

The problem I have with comments on this article is that we don't really know what transpired. There's been a lot of conjecture and judgment, posturing that we know better, blaming the victim.

 

[fatbob]

@Bolder

I'd counter that, with products that turn out to be dangerous to consumers, it still often takes years here to get things off the market. Here in the US, we still use some products in our foods that have been banned in Europe. ;-)

For sure and it often takes the most progressive state to achieve it. Fortunately Clifornia is a sufficienly big market they can probably force a change in the SKittles formula etc.

I'd add another flaw in the US system if standards are largely progressed via lawsuit does that not mean a laissez faire and insure to the hilt attitude from suppliers/manufacturers as in "we'll get sued anyway probably so let's wait until then rather than proactively fix things"? Plus the issue of a proactive fix looking like an acknowledgement of guilt in any pending legal actions.

 

[jmeb]

The problem I have with comments on this article is that we don't really know what transpired. There's been a lot of conjecture and judgment, posturing that we know better, blaming the victim.

100%.

I put a patient on a scoop this weekend. When we collected his (demo rental) skis, we realized the likely cause of the accident was a toe piece track that had shattered.

 

[fatbob]

100%.

I put a patient on a scoop this weekend. When we collected his (demo rental) skis, we realized the likely cause of the accident was a toe piece track that had shattered.

I've thrown a ski due to a metal heel track sheering* and that was definitely a ski not responding rather than it happening during the fall moment so I don't doubt it happens. But how do you distinguish between damage which caused the fall vs damage sustained in the fall?

*Did ski the ski back to the car after finding it in a treewell. Very conservatively on groomers only.

 

[Pat AKA mustski]

When I changed out my Griffon 2022 demo bindings for Griffons demos with TCX heels, I found a piece broken off inside the heel piece. It’s not the likely culprit in a newly stiffened heel, but it was in the heel piece that I had trouble with. I consider it a fortuitous find, and I’m glad I didn’t discover it while skiing.

 

[GB_Ski]

Here is a video of binding failure. Watch til the end. I was expecting boot out, but the toe piece clearly pop off.

 

[crosscountry]

But how do you distinguish between damage which caused the fall vs damage sustained in the fall?

Why would a binding sustain damage "in the fall"?

If the ski flew into the trees or hit a lift tower, it could potentially cause damage. But otherwise, the ski brakes will deploy and the ski stop sliding before it hits anything (or anyone).

 

[jmeb]

But how do you distinguish between damage which caused the fall vs damage sustained in the fall?

I don't determine that as I'm not a forensic investigator. Why I said likely.

Blue groomer, empty, advanced skier, middle of the run. And a blown up binding broken in a spot that has nothing to do with typical release characteristics.

 

[Novaloafah]

I'm right here..I can hear you, you know...

I've been offline for a few days...really was it you....that was Epic Ski....did you travel?

 

[scott43]

I've been offline for a few days...really was it you....that was Epic Ski....did you travel?

It was not me..

 

[Sibhusky]

A whole discussion of that thread and who it was has been removed.