 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I guess this might belong in 'off-piste'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Some common sense shown by the court!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I agree, 'misadventure' surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I don't do back country skiing, but surely everyone who does takes responsibility for their own actions.
I'm equally sure that the poor woman felt deeply distressed at the loss of her husband, but to bring what IMHO was a frivolous law suit against another skier is taking the michael isn't it?
I'm not conversant with Canadian law, but presumably this guy has had to fund his own defence, which again presumably could have been £000's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| mozwold wrote: |
| I'm not conversant with Canadian law, but presumably this guy has had to fund his own defence, which again presumably could have been £000's? |
he did, but the judge instructed the widow to pay his legal costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoubleBombardino, I'm relieved to hear that, though it must still have been quiet a stressful ordeal for the bloke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice done. Greedy cow had apparently only inherited a $18m estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
American victim, so probably an instinctive reaction for his nearest and dearest to try and sue someone given there had been a tragic accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly the poor sucker who was gone for was probably only gone for because dead hubby had signed a watertight waiver acknowledging inherent risks etc with Wiegele. Different if he was a guide but as a fellow customer - What a bitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Thanks for pointing that out. Here's one of the earlier reports on this.
The dead guy was a "Colorado trial lawyer", so that perhaps explains what seemed to me like a crazy bit of litigation. I don't know Canadian law, but it sounds like the Judge was very sensible. You may be right that the standard waiver (which I think they just modified because of this) makes it harder to go after Wiegele directly.
I know that run and both guides well. The run's easy (they'll take untested groups there on day 1) and the guides are who I pick by choice when I'm there.
The whole thing was nonsense in my view. If the judgement had gone the other way, the buddy system would be over, everyone's risk would be slightly higher, and the widow would be marginally richer. And some poor guest who happened to be "buddied" with a guy who rode badly/ had a heart attack would be a second victim. Lawyers probably don't get rich by being nice people.
It's not really a big tree-skiing run in any case, and the guy died in the clear cut at the bottom, where you'd not be riding as buddies anyway. In a clear cut there aren't proper big tree wells, and you can see people from a distance. You're more likely to cream yourself on a stump than anything else. They would generally stop to regroup at the top of the clear cut (to ensure everyone found their way out of the trees) before riding down to the pickup.
Even if it'd been deep in a forest, the chances of the buddy system working correctly with casual riders isn't high; less skilled riders particularly tend to wander and get out of step. I've helped a few people out of tree wells, but my advice would be not to ride as if someone else is going to save you.
So that's all good news: I don't have to either make people sign waivers, or refuse to ride with them.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 30-01-14 10:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
philwig, thanks for the local knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Lawyers probably don't get rich by being nice people. |
Lawyers are hired guns. The widow did the hiring. Despicable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| Lawyers are hired guns. The widow did the hiring. Despicable. |
The deceased was a lawyer was kind of my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| Lawyers are hired guns. The widow did the hiring. Despicable. |
If someone hired me to break your legs, would it be a reasonable defence for me to say 'but it was the other guy who wanted it done! I'm just a neutral third party here'? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Serriadh, We don't know know the specifics here - the lawyer might have been saying to her "we advise you not to pursue this" and she might have said "I'm rich and grieving - do it anyway". However litigation lawyers I guess don't get rich by not taking cases or playing up chances of success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
fatbob,
| Quote: |
the lawyer might have been saying to her "we advise you not to pursue this" and she might have said "I'm rich and grieving - do it anyway".
|
Wouldn't it be refreshing if the lawyers were to say 'no'. Your actions are morally reprehensible and I refuse to act for you. In a criminal trial I accept things are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
If someone hired me to break your legs, would it be a reasonable defence for me to say 'but it was the other guy who wanted it done! I'm just a neutral third party here'?
|
Of course - assuming that "On-demand breaking of people's legs" is a socially and legally acceptable skill to be advertising yourself for.
Some lawyers are very unpleasant people but no greater proportion of them than you'll find in the rest of the general population and they don't usually have much interest in pursuing lost causes - winning cases and enhancing their reputation is generally far more valuable to them.
(I'm not a lawyer, btw)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
jma, I agree that, individually, lawyers are no more or less unpleasant/immoral than the rest of us. However, there seems to be sort of legal code of ethics that suggests a lawyer should suspend his own view of right/wrong and simply act as his client tells him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
foxtrotzulu, I'd fear a world where there was public pressure for lawyers not to act for people felt to be following an immoral course. I read an article earlier today about civil cases in Pakistan where accusations of blasphemy are thrown in; whereupon lawyers drop cases like hot potatoes. I think we should just be thankful that in this case, so far as we can tell third hand, the court came to a correct judgement; and one which conforms to the ethics that most of us apply to our pastime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
However, there seems to be sort of legal code of ethics that suggests a lawyer should suspend his own view of right/wrong and simply act as his client tells him.
|
This is absolutely the case although their first and foremost duty is to the law and then their client's interests. Rather than a rather nebulous code of ethics, it is in fact essential that a lawyer suspends their own view of right/wrong in order to ensure that a case is judged purely on its own merits and the facts. Otherwise our justice system - which is generally fairer and more transparent than a lot in the world - would be fatally undermined.
Remember, for every headline about avaricious or corrupt lawyers, or barking mad judges there would be hundreds of others which would read, "Judge and jury reach reasonable and accurate conclusion" or "Lawyers acted with probity" - but those wouldn't sell many Daily Mails!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the waivers in Canada specifically mention that if any action is brought it must be brought in the province of the ski area.
Generally the canadians don't have anywhere near the sue culture of the US, I would put it on a par with UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gryphea, the waiver I signed recently in Whistler seemed to cover everything … apart from attack by wild animal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
She should sue the tree. Three years supply of acorns, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, I'm sure that was in there covered by unforeseen.
I used to get twitchy about the waivers and then I was told there's a difference between gross negligance and negligance and you are only waiving your right to negligance.
Even accepting your lift pass effectively means you agree to the conditions, one of which is to bring action in the province of the resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
laundryman, jma, I suspect you are both right and that we do have the best system even if it seems daft at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| jma wrote: |
| Quote: |
However, there seems to be sort of legal code of ethics that suggests a lawyer should suspend his own view of right/wrong and simply act as his client tells him.
|
This is absolutely the case although their first and foremost duty is to the law and then their client's interests. Rather than a rather nebulous code of ethics, it is in fact essential that a lawyer suspends their own view of right/wrong in order to ensure that a case is judged purely on its own merits and the facts. Otherwise our justice system - which is generally fairer and more transparent than a lot in the world - would be fatally undermined.
Remember, for every headline about avaricious or corrupt lawyers, or barking mad judges there would be hundreds of others which would read, "Judge and jury reach reasonable and accurate conclusion" or "Lawyers acted with probity" - but those wouldn't sell many Daily Mails! |
Plus one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
