Utah Supreme Court: 9 year old not responsible for collision

[James]

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?

Well if they’re that out of control, a very low pitch learning slope. But not every place has one with a lift.
And people wonder why the wedge is taught. Inadvertent edge locked parallel really gets them moving.

 

[chilehed]

Well if they’re that out of control, a very low pitch learning slope.

That's where they were. It's called "First Time" for a reason.

 

[LiquidFeet]

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?

Well if they’re that out of control, a very low pitch learning slope. But not every place has one with a lift.
And people wonder why the wedge is taught. Inadvertent edge locked parallel really gets them moving.

Here's why I said what I said.

When I read the posted story, it did not sound to me like the daughter had been skiing all day and doing just fine before this event. Others have read the material and come to this understanding but not me. From what I read before writing that post, it sounded like the dad brought his daughter to that slope for her first run of the day. The dad said she took a lesson the year before, which led me to think that it was on this basis that he decided she would do fine on this beginner slope. I did not then nor do I now think that he thought she'd be OK on the beginner slope on the basis of having skied higher on the mountain with her all that day before this event happened. I still think this was her first run after a summer off. I could be wrong.

I thought the dad was making a major mistake to take her up a chair to ski above a crowd without having seen her ski since last year just because she took a lesson last year. Had he been skiing with her all day before this, he would have said it clearly and made a big point of it, right? But he didn't, or if he did I missed it. If someone can find where he said she'd been doing fine all day then fell apart on this last run, I'll change my mind.

He skied backwards in front of her for some reason. As they started down, me must have realized she was having serious difficulties. When good skiers (like this dad) who are teaching someone to ski choose to ski backwards in front of them, that's because the learner is having major difficulties controlling their turns. They don't usually ski backwards for skiers who can do turns both left and right and stop.

So with this information in mind, I figured he realized the problem almost immediately after getting off the chair. Evidently she could not hold the wedge even with him in front of her, so she took off out of control downhill and slid into a mom taking pictures, causing serious injuries.

So I posted what I thought of this dad's decision. Relying on a lesson the year before to evaluate his daughter as good to go on this trail was irresponsible. He should have tested her ability by walking her up a short distance from the bottom and letting her ski down, or by taking her up a carpet lift then skiing down in front of her. If he'd done either of these, there would have been few people below, or better, none below her. He would have realized she needed work before going up to ski down through a crowd of beginners.

So that's what I meant when I posted was that beginners who cannot hold a wedge should not be on the beginner slope.

This is not an ideal world. Most or all of you in this thread disagree with me. I wonder if those of you who disagree with me spend any time on beginner terrain. I also wonder if any of the judges in the courts that made decisions in these cases, or if they were jury trials if any of the jurers, spend any time on beginner terrain. Or the lawyers.

Oh. And about that woman, the victim, being at fault. People in this thread have jumped at the opportunity to blame the victim. But peolpe stop on a beginner slope all the time. People fall. Groups stop and restart. Suppose the person who got slammed into had been a child who had fallen, and then this child had suffered the same injuries as the woman. Would the folks on this forum have been as quick and eager to blame the fallen kid for being stopped in the middle of the slope?

Anyway, I concede, sort of. A dad deciding to take a kid up a lift to ski down through a crowd based on his daughter having taken a lesson the year before is not that unbelievable. He wasn't an instructor and that familiar with teaching kids to ski. There are no signs saying only ski this chair if you can turn and stop, or if you are with an instructor. Ski patrol isn't on the beginner slope enforcing any rules. It's chaotic there, always. This dad knew how to ski backwards, so he judged he was skillful enough to keep her and others safe. He was wrong. People make mistakes. I think he made one that ended in the mom's injuries.

 

[dbostedo]

I thought the dad was making a major mistake to take her up a chair to ski above a crowd without having seen her ski since last year just because she took a lesson last year. Had he been skiing with her all day before this, he would have said it clearly and made a big point of it, right? But he didn't, or if he did I missed it. If someone can find where he said she'd been doing fine all day then fell apart on this last run, I'll change my mind.

He skied backwards in front of her for some reason. As they started down, me must have realized she was having serious difficulties. When good skiers (like this dad) who are teaching someone to ski choose to ski backwards in front of them, that's because the learner is having major difficulties controlling their turns. They don't usually ski backwards for skiers who can do turns both left and right and stop.

I think you're making more assumptions here about a possible scenario, that aren't necessarily supported in the brief. There's no mention of only "a lesson" - if by that you mean a single lesson. They mentions "lessons" plural the year before. There's also no mention that he hadn't seen her ski since last year (not sure where you're getting that). They do mention that she'd had "informal lessons" on the current trip and that day they warmed up on the magic carpet run before going to the "First Time" run. There's no mention at all of "...she was having major difficulties..." - that's pure assumption. Here are the quotes:

"Mr. Sutton skiing backwards so he could monitor S.S. They were moving slowly because S.S. was “fearful” and skiing cautiously, despite having had ski lessons the year before and “informal lessons” on the current trip."

"...because S.S. had professional lessons the year before, her parents “took [S.S.] to the ‘magic carpet’ area of the mountain to warm up”..."

It reads to me more like the dad saw her skiing, thought she was ready for the First Time slope, and and took her there. Was it a mistake? Maybe. But it sounds like reasonable behavior/progression to me, just from the facts in the brief.

And about that woman, the victim, being at fault. People in this thread have jumped at the opportunity to blame the victim. But peolpe stop on a beginner slope all the time. People fall. Groups stop and restart.

That's a good point... I think the only counter there is that apparently she chose to stop in the middle of the hill to take pictures. That's what people are reacting to. Not just that someone was stopped in general. But I don't know, and the brief doesn't discuss, the particulars. I'd guess that in the trial they would have gone through the locations of everyone in detail.

Inadvertent edge locked parallel really gets them moving.

It sounds like this actually happened here.... here's a snip from the brief:

"She was traveling at approximately five miles per hour when she suddenly lost control and came out of the wedge. Although S.S. tried to “get back into” the wedge to slow down, she could not regain control and instead “just kind of straightened out.” This caused her to accelerate past her father..."

 

[tromano]

Having skied with my kids on green runs many times, this scenario sounds pretty commonplace. Both the kids learning and people stopped on the run. I don't think based on the reports anyone made a mistake in judgement or did anything wrong.

 

[scott43]

Whole lotta chatter over a nine year old..

 

[Tricia]

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 ?

I was thinking something similar.
Heck, she's 18 now.

 

[RobSN]

Oh. And about that woman, the victim, being at fault. People in this thread have jumped at the opportunity to blame the victim. But peolpe stop on a beginner slope all the time. People fall. Groups stop and restart.

I think the issue is that Mrs. Donovan is presumed to be considerably more expert than a beginner and that as a result it may have been better for her to have stopped more to the side where at least one can monitor uphill and potentially out of control beginners better - but frankly this may be over-analyzing as her decision to stop and take photos wasn't that terrible. What was unfortunate was that it resulted in a crash which, as the court said and I agree with (the justices will no doubt be relieved to hear that!), was not due to negligence from a legal standpoint. Sh!t happens. It happened in this case.

 

[crgildart]

To me the issue isn't so much that a TYPICAL collision happened on the beginner hill... It's that an adult chose to blame a 9 year old doing exactly what millions of 9 year olds do on thousands of beginner slopes every season. I'm still really curious about how bad the collision was versus the age and physical condition of the victim. The injury really sounds like what would happen to the current older version of me if I slipped and reached back with my arm to try to break my fall. If some little neighborhood kid or a dog kinda cut me off accidentally causing the slip I'd not be blaming them because I hurt myself. Was it a super slow motion bump or was the kid moving pretty fast and blasted her? To me that matters.

 

[LiquidFeet]

.... S.S. was “fearful” and skiing cautiously, despite having had ski lessons the year before and “informal lessons” on the current trip."
"...because S.S. had professional lessons the year before, her parents “took [S.S.] to the ‘magic carpet’ area of the mountain to warm up”...

Thanks, @dbostedo. That is exactly what I missed.
I recant.

 

[François Pugh]

Here's why I said what I said.
.....

He skied backwards in front of her for some reason. As they started down, me must have realized she was having serious difficulties. When good skiers (like this dad) who are teaching someone to ski choose to ski backwards in front of them, that's because the learner is having major difficulties controlling their turns. They don't usually ski backwards for skiers who can do turns both left and right and stop.......

So I posted what I thought of this dad's decision. Relying on a lesson the year before to evaluate his daughter as good to go on this trail was irresponsible. He should have tested her ability by walking her up a short distance from the bottom and letting her ski down, or by taking her up a carpet lift then skiing down in front of her. If he'd done either of these, there would have been few people below, or better, none below her. He would have realized she needed work before going up to ski down through a crowd of beginners.

So that's what I meant when I posted was that beginners who cannot hold a wedge should not be on the beginner slope.

This is not an ideal world. Most or all of you in this thread disagree with me. I wonder if those of you who disagree with me spend any time on beginner terrain. I also wonder if any of the judges in the courts that made decisions in these cases, or if they were jury trials if any of the jurers, spend any time on beginner terrain. Or the lawyers.

Oh. And about that woman, the victim, being at fault. People in this thread have jumped at the opportunity to blame the victim. But peolpe stop on a beginner slope all the time. People fall. Groups stop and restart. Suppose the person who got slammed into had been a child who had fallen, and then this child had suffered the same injuries as the woman. Would the folks on this forum have been as quick and eager to blame the fallen kid for being stopped in the middle of the slope?

Anyway, I concede, sort of. A dad deciding to take a kid up a lift to ski down through a crowd based on his daughter having taken a lesson the year before is not that unbelievable. He wasn't an instructor and that familiar with teaching kids to ski. There are no signs saying only ski this chair if you can turn and stop, or if you are with an instructor. Ski patrol isn't on the beginner slope enforcing any rules. It's chaotic there, always. This dad knew how to ski backwards, so he judged he was skillful enough to keep her and others safe. He was wrong. People make mistakes. I think he made one that ended in the mom's injuries.

Except, speaking from experience, Dads do ski backwards in front of their children who can turn left and right, even when they have no doubt as to their children's ability. I did it quite often.

 

[crgildart]

Except, speaking from experience, Dads do ski backwards in front of their children who can turn left and right, even when they have no doubt as to their children's ability. I did it quite often.

I thought it said somewhere here that dad said he was doing it to ensure the kid stayed safe, act as a stop gap fail safe mechanism.. not just to look cool while watching. stopped for a second to take a photo or whatever and kid lost control

 

[Tricia]

From the court filing:
Shortly before the resort closed for the day, the family took a final run on “First Time,” “a green bunny hill for new skiers.”

This leads me to believe that the dad didn't over terrain his daughter.

I think you're making more assumptions here about a possible scenario, that aren't necessarily supported in the brief. There's no mention of only "a lesson" - if by that you mean a single lesson. They mentions "lessons" plural the year before. There's also no mention that he hadn't seen her ski since last year (not sure where you're getting that). They do mention that she'd had "informal lessons" on the current trip and that day they warmed up on the magic carpet run before going to the "First Time" run. There's no mention at all of "...she was having major difficulties..." - that's pure assumption. Here are the quotes:

"Mr. Sutton skiing backwards so he could monitor S.S. They were moving slowly because S.S. was “fearful” and skiing cautiously, despite having had ski lessons the year before and “informal lessons” on the current trip."

"...because S.S. had professional lessons the year before, her parents “took [S.S.] to the ‘magic carpet’ area of the mountain to warm up”..."

It reads to me more like the dad saw her skiing, thought she was ready for the First Time slope, and and took her there. Was it a mistake? Maybe. But it sounds like reasonable behavior/progression to me, just from the facts in the brief.

Thanks @dbostedo. You explained this more thouroughly than I did and are far more articulate.

 

[dbostedo]

I thought it said somewhere here that dad said he was doing it to ensure the kid stayed safe, act as a stop gap fail safe mechanism.. not just to look cool while watching. stopped for a second to take a photo or whatever and kid lost control

Go back and read the brief. I think you're conflating a couple of different things, or remembering things the reporters/articles had, versus what's in the court brief.

 

[crgildart]

Go back and read the brief. I think you're conflating a couple of different things, or remembering things the reporters/articles had, versus what's in the court brief.

It's not in question that dad wasn't skiing backwards when the collision happened. Not even sure that why he was skiing backwards matters that much.. Just pointing out that what I though was given is different than what FP suggested. Again this all boils down to what actually CAUSED the injury documented and if that's beyond the level of risk assumed by all in that situation.. Court said no and I don't think anyone here is disputing or claiming the court made the wrong decision. It may be debatable whether the court made the right decision for the wrong reasons though. If so, appeal might get some traction..

 

[dbostedo]

It may be debatable whether the court made the right decision for the wrong reasons though. If so, appeal might get some traction..

I don't see anything or anyone suggesting there were wrong or incorrect reasons for the decision. And the appeals are over - this was actually the last one I believe.

 

[coskigirl]

It's not in question that dad wasn't skiing backwards when the collision happened. Not even sure that why he was skiing backwards matters that much.. Just pointing out that what I though was given is different than what FP suggested. Again this all boils down to what actually CAUSED the injury documented and if that's beyond the level of risk assumed by all in that situation.. Court said no and I don't think anyone here is disputing or claiming the court made the wrong decision. It may be debatable whether the court made the right decision for the wrong reasons though. If so, appeal might get some traction..

I don't see anything or anyone suggesting there were wrong or incorrect reasons for the decision. And the appeals are over - this was actually the last one I believe.

Three courts said no and I'll note that this decision was unanimous which is somewhat of a rarity. That means not one justice thought that the original summary judgment of the court was an error. There have already been 2 appeals and the Utah supreme court is the highest court for this type of action so there will be no more.

 

[crgildart]

Three courts said no and I'll note that this decision was unanimous which is somewhat of a rarity. That means not one justice thought that the original summary judgment of the court was an error. There have already been 2 appeals and the Utah supreme court is the highest court for this type of action so there will be no more.

Then why 7 pages of discussion here? Again I haven't seen anyone saying it was the wrong decision. What else is there to talk about?

 

[dbostedo]

Then why 7 pages of discussion here? Again I haven't seen anyone saying it was the wrong decision. What else is there to talk about?

I think it's evident if you read the 7 pages.

 

[François Pugh]

Then why 7 pages of discussion here? Again I haven't seen anyone saying it was the wrong decision. What else is there to talk about?

I can't speak for others, but for me I like analysing these unfortunate events to learn from them. Learn what we can do or not do to avoid it happening again.