Utah Supreme Court: 9 year old not responsible for collision

[tromano]

Skiing collision wasn't 9-year-old's fault, Utah Supreme Court says

The Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a skiing collision in 2012 between a 9-year-old girl and a woman was not the fault of the child or her parents. Stephanie Donovan filed a lawsuit in 2016 against the girl and her parents asking for damages and medical expenses.

www.ksl.com

 

[scott43]

Well that's a pretty sensible ruling..

 

[dbostedo]

Skiing collision wasn't 9-year-old's fault, Utah Supreme Court says

The Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a skiing collision in 2012 between a 9-year-old girl and a woman was not the fault of the child or her parents. Stephanie Donovan filed a lawsuit in 2016 against the girl and her parents asking for damages and medical expenses.

www.ksl.com

Not much to say on that one other than I think it's correct.

 

[bbbradley]

Sucks for both parties, but seems the right decision.

 

[crgildart]

Read back of lift ticket.. case dismissed..

 

[Wade]

What a ridiculous law suit. Any other ruling would be absurd.

The implication of finding for the plaintiff would be that a beginner must be in control from the moment they first put on skis, or otherwise potentially be liable for less than perfectly controlled skiing.

 

[Bill Miles]

Don't disagree with this one, but it raises the question of where to draw the line.

 

[Rich McP]

Ms Donovan:
- is a PC resident: Probably "knows about the mountain."
- was standing stopped on First Time: a beginner, indeed, a never ever teaching run.
- was "right of center": AKA in the middle of the run.
- "was struck from behind": had her back to the danger.
- was using her camera: further focusing attention away from possible danger.

While we all know that everyone has a duty to avoid hitting someone else, common sense and reasonableness says you need to look out for yourself first. She failed and got hurt. It's a shame for her but, c'mon man.

 

[bbbradley]

Ms Donovan:
- is a PC resident: Probably "knows about the mountain."
- was standing stopped on First Time: a beginner, indeed, a never ever teaching run.
- was "right of center": AKA in the middle of the run.
- "was struck from behind": had her back to the danger.

While we all know that everyone has a duty to avoid hitting someone else, common sense and reasonableness says you need to look out for yourself first. She failed and got hurt. It's a shame for her but, c'mon man.

I agree with most of your logic, but to say her being struck from behind shows she wasn't paying attention is a very poor argument.

 

[crgildart]

I agree with most of your logic, but to say her being struck from behind shows she wasn't paying attention is a very poor argument.

IDK.. I never stand around in the hill, even properly off to the side, without periodically looking up and back to see if anyone's headed down that I need to be aware of. If it's busy my head's on a swivel. It depends on if she was also a total never ever noob or not..

 

[KingGrump]

Ms Donovan:
- is a PC resident: Probably "knows about the mountain."
- was standing stopped on First Time: a beginner, indeed, a never ever teaching run.
- was "right of center": AKA in the middle of the run.
- "was struck from behind": had her back to the danger.

While we all know that everyone has a duty to avoid hitting someone else, common sense and reasonableness says you need to look out for yourself first. She failed and got hurt. It's a shame for her but, c'mon man.

In NYC, we would've just said "Yo Mama told you to play in traffic?"

 

[coskigirl]

Read back of lift ticket.. case dismissed..

Not really. The back of the ticket releases only bar recovery from the ski area owner/operator. They don't release other parties from their own negligence.

That said, I fully agree with this decision and I've been hit and injured by a minor so I empathize with the plaintiff even if I don't agree.

 

[pchewn]

The wheels of justice turn slowly. That 9 year old in the collision is now 18 years old

 

[Rich McP]

I agree with most of your logic, but to say her being struck from behind shows she wasn't paying attention is a very poor argument.

No, as a PC resident my GUESS is that she "knows the mountain", and thus what is smart or not; she was on a never-ever run; she was in the middle of the run; she was hit from behind thus looking downhill rather than up; and she was taking pictures, further not paying attention to the hill. That is how I figure that she wasn't paying attention. The whole, not the one.

 

[slowrider]

Like most things you do in public, situation awareness.

 

[coskigirl]

The wheels of justice turn slowly. That 9 year old in the collision is now 18 years old

Putting that perspective on this makes the suit even sadder. This child has gone through all of high school with this case hanging over her. Depending on the details of the ruling and insurance availability, her parents may have had to spend any college fund they had defending the suit.

 

[bbbradley]

she was hit from behind thus looking downhill rather than up;

Isn't that how 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% if skiing is done? Are you suggesting she should ski backwards to prevent this?

In the driving world (yes, not the same) a rear end collision the person who strikes the other from behind is generally at fault.

 

[François Pugh]

I wonder, if this had been a 300 lb adult never-ever if the court would have ruled the same way.
I think if it had been an "expert" 9 year old skier on a black run the decision would have gone the other way.

 

[fatbob]

Can't read the article as KSL blocks itself but from what's been written sounds like good law that equally makes a nonsense of skier's code and "ahead skier" analysis.

Protect Yo'self! Heads Up! should be formerly incorporated in the code.

And what did it say about who was responsible for 9 year old's actions? Parent, instructor?

 

[dbostedo]

equally makes a nonsense of skier's code and "ahead skier" analysis.

It does not, IMO. This isn't about the skier's code, which is not law (generally), but is about whether or not someone was negligent in a legal sense. Two different things.

From a skier's code point of view, the 9-year old is potentially at fault for not being in control and not giving some ahead the right of way, and the woman is at potentially at fault for stopping in the middle of a run. But neither of those create the legal issue or the lawsuit, which centers around reasonable/responsible behavior and negligence. Here's the court opinion/ruling summary from the article:

"The court said it is reasonable that a 9-year-old beginning skier would lose control and fall. The opinion states that the girl had ski lessons the year before, they were on a beginning hill, and her father was there to help her.

"We hold that a person has a duty to exercise reasonable care while skiing. And a 9-year-old beginner skier on a beginner ski run is held to the standard of care commensurate with children of the same age, experience and intelligence under similar circumstances," the opinion said."