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

Utah Supreme Court: 9 year old not responsible for collision

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
If you get taken out from behind you could still be devasting injuries especially if you have preexisting conditions; and kids who fall backseat into sit on your skis postion pick up speed.
It was undisputed that Donovon suffered injuries to her arm and shoulder paragraph4.
but if someone wants to dig up what they were suing for whether it was in this case; and how much were the direct medical costs for the injuries and if those were paid for that would be interesting side note.It might be a different settlement though.
This case was only about determining Negligence, but I think you still can be held Responsible for real damages, even though it didn't rise to the level of Negligence.
Right. Sounds like Siverback knows the landscape there. I was visualizing a super slo mo kid knocking the woman's legs out and she hurt her arm and shoulder reaching back to brace her fall. If I slipped off a curb at my age that could easily result in similar damage. Doesn't require getting blasted by someone going 30 mph unchecked..
 

scott43

So much better than a pro
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
13,552
Location
Great White North
Interestingly, I know someone hit a pedestrian who was jay-walking. He was not charged with any infraction, was not speeding, was not DUI, was paying attention. Pedestrian, grown man, ran out into the road, at night, from behind an obstacle. He still had to pay damages in excess of $1m for pain and suffering to the family. That...I don't get. Especially here..
 

slowrider

Trencher
Skier
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Posts
4,534
Interestingly, I know someone hit a pedestrian who was jay-walking. He was not charged with any infraction, was not speeding, was not DUI, was paying attention. Pedestrian, grown man, ran out into the road, at night, from behind an obstacle. He still had to pay damages in excess of $1m for pain and suffering to the family. That...I don't get. Especially here..
I'm stupid but it's your fault. :huh:
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
Interestingly, I know someone hit a pedestrian who was jay-walking. He was not charged with any infraction, was not speeding, was not DUI, was paying attention. Pedestrian, grown man, ran out into the road, at night, from behind an obstacle. He still had to pay damages in excess of $1m for pain and suffering to the family. That...I don't get. Especially here..

I'm stupid but it's your fault. :huh:
Filed under the driving school mantra.. "THE PEDESTRIAN ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY" ... even thought they really don't..
 

silverback

Talking a lot about less and less
Skier
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Posts
1,416
Location
Wasatch
No way of knowing without more info or a video but, even if the plaintiff was looking uphill and paying attention, if there were other people heading her way she may have been in worse shape jumping out of the kids way and into a larger faster rider’s path.
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,052
Location
'mericuh
This case was only about determining Negligence, but I think you still can be held Responsible for real damages, even though it didn't rise to the level of Negligence.
OK so I am confused now. I understand the justia link shared previously showed the courts affirming the Suttons were NOT negligent. But the title of the news article says they 'were not at fault.' Are these two things equivalent? What does "Responsible" vs "Negligent" vs "at fault" mean? Is the test for negligence simply to assess maximum allowable damages?

So are they still possibly 'Responsible' or you do have to be 'Negligent' to be 'Responsible' for something? And where does 'at fault' fall in to this?
 

Bill Miles

Old Man Groomer Zoomer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Posts
1,315
Location
Hailey, Idaho
OK so I am confused now. I understand the justia link shared previously showed the courts affirming the Suttons were NOT negligent. But the title of the news article says they 'were not at fault.' Are these two things equivalent? What does "Responsible" vs "Negligent" vs "at fault" mean? Is the test for negligence simply to assess maximum allowable damages?

So are they still possibly 'Responsible' or you do have to be 'Negligent' to be 'Responsible' for something? And where does 'at fault' fall in to this?
I got curious about this and did a little googling. Besides negligence, liability could attach due to contract, intentional conduct, or strict liability (mainly applicable to product liability but apparently also to such things as keeping wild animals.) None seem applicable to this case.
 

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,591
Location
Evergreen, CO
OK so I am confused now. I understand the justia link shared previously showed the courts affirming the Suttons were NOT negligent. But the title of the news article says they 'were not at fault.' Are these two things equivalent? What does "Responsible" vs "Negligent" vs "at fault" mean? Is the test for negligence simply to assess maximum allowable damages?

So are they still possibly 'Responsible' or you do have to be 'Negligent' to be 'Responsible' for something? And where does 'at fault' fall in to this?

Remember that the news article is just some reporter translating what the court said. The court never even used the words "fault" or "responsible." Those are all words that the media or us (including me) used in this thread. The tort test for negligence involves determining what the duty of care is and whether that duty was breached. If the court had found either child or father negligent then they would have had to assess whether that negligence caused the injury but they never had to get that far. If they had, I suspect they would have found some sort of comparative negligence where they would have assessed a percent of cause to each party, including the plaintiff, and held each partially liable.

I'm not sure whether to thank you for the torts quiz or not. :huh::roflmao:
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Resurrecting the Oxford comma
Admin
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
Santa Fe, New Mexico
You've seen people fail.. A properly done wedge on a well maintained green trail is bulletproof. Even a mediocre wedge on a beginner trail is completely safe and a quicker solution than a parallel turn on that flat ground..

The problems happen when you get to steeper terrain. Gotta go french fries to parallel ACROSS a steeper pitch. Hart to traverse in a wedge.. So you get that straight down bomb n the wedge problem.
Oh, come on. Some 9 year-olds so have difficulty maintaining that wedge turn. It really depends on the kid. I taught a 10-year-old who couldn’t hold a wedge to turn, to save her life. I had to get a much more experienced instructor to help diagnose the problem, and he had difficulty, too. But there are kids who have difficulty with this, even at the age of 9, on teaching slopes. Could’ve been an equipment issue, too. You just don’t know, and we don’t have enough information to know.

Wedges to stop are a terrible habit but that‘s beyond the scope of this thread.

Also, kids who are fairly new to skiing can just crap out. Get tired. They may be skiing just fine and then all of a sudden, their movements just disintegrate as fatigue sets in. That’s why they are on the bunny slope and why somebody standing on said slope shouldn’t assign blame to the beginner skier.
 

g-force

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Posts
20
Supreme court ?? Only in America would this have gotten past the first judge who in any adult country would have tossed it. Novice slope... with children: that there was a child involved should not go beyond 'hit by a kid'. Negligent kid ? How about That Negligent, Oblivious adult hit while parking in the middle of the run... is this surprising ? ps: This goes for ski-school too. I I would have said " Park UNDER the slow sign."
 
Last edited:

Turoa Kiwi

JH
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
May 27, 2016
Posts
2,496
Location
Wellington . New Zealand
Jeez.....Really ? 9 years to resolve it ? Great law system......
I wonder what emotional issues the 9yr old girl has had to deal with
or will she decide to be a lawyer ?
 

chilehed

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Sep 13, 2017
Posts
878
Location
Michigan
I don't understand why you guys are blaming the victim.
She was stopped in the middle of a beginners run where any reasonable person knows there are folks still learning how to ski in control, and paying absolutely no attention to uphill traffic. I think it unreasonable to hold that she wasn't partially at fault.
 

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,591
Location
Evergreen, CO
Supreme court ?? Only in America would this have gotten past the first judge who in any adult country would have tossed it. Novice slope... with children: that there was a child involved should not go beyond 'hit by a kid'. Negligent kid ? How about That Negligent, Oblivious adult hit while parking in the middle of the run... is this surprising ? ps: This goes for ski-school too. I I would have said " Park UNDER the slow sign."

The first court did issue summary judgment for the defendant so the first judge tried to stop the craziness. It was the plaintiff who kept appealing but at least that eventually ended the case.

Jeez.....Really ? 9 years to resolve it ? Great law system......
I wonder what emotional issues the 9yr old girl has had to deal with
or will she decide to be a lawyer ?

Well, the suit wasn’t filed until 4 years after the incident. Which just so happens to be the statute of limitations to file this kind of claim in Utah. I really wish I knew how the plaintiff came to decide to file the suit and whether there was an ambulance chaser style attorney involved that pushed her.
 

chilehed

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Sep 13, 2017
Posts
878
Location
Michigan
Beginners who have the tendency to lose control and fly down straight should not be on the beginner slope.
Beginners who have a tendency to do what beginners do shouldn't be on the beginner's slope? Where do you think they should be?
 

Sponsor

Top