 Poster: A snowHead
|
An American skier has failed in her attempt to sue a snowboarder for colliding with her and breaking her leg ...
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/couple-can-t-sue-teen-over-ski-crash-at-boston-mills-1.351804
| Quote: |
| Summit County Common Pleas Judge Brenda Burnham Unruh dismissed the suit. She found the collision was not reckless, but rather a result of the risk skiers take on the slopes. |
The FIS 'Rules for Conduct', which European courts often turn to in ski collision cases says:
| Quote: |
[Extracts]
1. A skier or snowboarder must behave in such a way that he does not endanger or prejudice others.
2. A skier or snowboarder must move in control. He must adapt his speed and manner of skiing or snowboarding to his personal ability and to the prevailing conditions of terrain, snow and weather as well as to the density of traffic.
3. A skier or snowboarder coming from behind must choose his route in such a way that he does not endanger skiers or snowboarders ahead.
4. A skier or snowboarder may overtake another skier or snowboarder above or below and to the right or to the left provided that he leaves enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement. |
http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/insidefis/fisgeneralrules/10fisrules.html
Is this judge an inherent risk of skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Nope, the Supreme Court of Ohio has merely interpreted the law as it applies in the State. I see the judgement had a 6-1 majority. I doubt whether FIS rules are applicable by statute, there, though I suppose the could be proffered as persuasive evidence. On the little we know of the case, it does seem a surprising result, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Interesting. But not surprising. One its Ohio, a state not known for its massive ski industry and secondly it was a teenager, so there's probably something about age of responsibility. If judges didn't occasionally kick cases like this out can you imagine the "whiplash" style claims industry that would result from any slight bumps e.g. I was unbalanced by the actions of another skier, fell over and it fundamentally ruined my $5000 vacation?
& without getting into a debate about the FIS "rules" there are inherent problems in using them to apportion blame given that there is clear opportunity for conflict in the absence of a clear order in which they should apply. Nevermind the thousands of skiers everyday who flagrantly breach the rules by seeing an "accident", perhaps from a chairlift etc and refuse to stop en masse until witness statements can be gathered from everyone.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 30-11-12 11:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Are collisions an inherent risk of hundreds of objects moving in thrall to a chaotic set of Newtonian forces, within a finite Cartesian space?
Yes.
Any questions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Mr Piehole wrote: |
Are collisions an inherent risk of hundreds of objects moving in thrall to a chaotic set of Newtonian forces, within a finite Cartesian space?
Yes.
Any questions? |
Give me a few million Euros and I'll invest in an intensive research project to categorically state the bleedin' obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
there is clear opportunity for conflict in the absence of a clear order in which they should apply
|
Isn't the highway code similar? I think it always suggests when you might cede right of way to others rather than explicitly giving it to you. I think the idea is a bit like removing all the road signs and markings at a junction to improve its safety. If nobody is that certain then they will all behave a bit better. That is of course assuming they have read the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this suprising? No. In the UK, wouldn't you have to show intent or negligence to successfully sue someone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr Piehole wrote: |
Are collisions an inherent risk of hundreds of objects moving in thrall to a chaotic set of Newtonian forces, within a finite Cartesian space?
Yes.
Any questions? |
Yes! What do the Bajorans have to say about this alleged "finite space"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It's surprising and highly controversial to me, which is why I posted it. Here's a judge saying you've got to accept someone colliding with you as a reasonable risk ... despite it being an unavoidable risk.
On the few facts available here, it's almost certain that the boy was out of control. If the lady was below him and hadn't skied into his path from stationary then, yes, the boy was responsible.
This trend in US law is very interesting, because a decade or two ago the lady would probably have won her case. I'd like to know what the judge or local lawmakers consider are NOT inherent risks of skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sod the Bajorans!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
If he lost control in a non negligent manner how is it his fault in the absence of a statute imposing strict liability. Unless you believe that one can become negligent after losing control, presumably by negligently not regaining control.
I have lost control of my skis on many occasions, sometimes I may be guilty of thinking I'm better than I actually am, but the nature of all sports is that one improves through practice and challenging oneself. If I only ever skied terrain that I was 100% sure I wouldn't fall on, I would still be in the "poo poo" class of ESF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Yes, it's everyone's responsibility to get enough instruction to avoid hitting people and breaking their legs. Unless we're regarding the slopes as testing grounds for human ballistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
despite it being an unavoidable risk.
|
It is avoidable - don't go skiing.
I avoid the risk of falling off a rock face by not going rock climbing. I choose not to avoid the risk of being totalled by a 64 tonne lorry by driving on the roads.
If you go skiing you open yourself to the risk of skiing specific things happening to you. It's not even as if someone running into you is an unknown risk or, as Ghost Dog says, necessarily an act of negligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, The ski area is somewhat more "sandbox" than a highway, but when driving I accept that there is a risk I will get hit by other road users. I trust in insurers more than the law to sort it out. Maybe the issue is why do US skiers not carry personal liability or accident insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
f you go skiing you open yourself to the risk of skiing specific things happening to you. It's not even as if someone running into you is an unknown risk or, as Ghost Dog says, necessarily an act of negligence.
|
^ This
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Of course collisions are an inherent risk. It's quite comforting that judges show commonsense.
Some collisions are the result of criminally negligent behaviour. Most aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
+ 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
It's surprising and highly controversial to me, which is why I posted it. Here's a judge saying you've got to accept someone colliding with you as a reasonable risk ... despite it being an unavoidable risk.
On the few facts available here, it's almost certain that the boy was out of control. If the lady was below him and hadn't skied into his path from stationary then, yes, the boy was responsible... |
You share a space with a potentially high number of other people. The nature of the terrain is virtually unpredictable. There are no such things as marked lanes to prevent everybody's paths to intersect, this being exacerbated by the fact that there are different types of equipments in use which promote different ways to use the terrain. Equipment readiness might also evolve in the course of the day, e.g a sharp edge might have been blunted by ice/stones and where it would grip well earlier it now isn't so efficient and might cause someoneto briefly loose control
Whichever way you look at it, a piste is organised chaos.
Skiers/snowboarders have to accept there is a risk of collisions for which no one can be blamed, and unless someone is proved to be utterly reckless then this is the way things should be, i.e. no fault.
The article offers no clue as to why said teenager was out of control, even less clues as to whether he was reckless, other than saying that the suing party accused the teenager to have been speeding which doesn't tell us anything objectively..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'm waiting for someone to explain how you distinguish a 'negligent ski collision' from a 'non-negligent ski collision'.
The beauty of the FIS rules is that they're very clear cut and make no allowance for lack of expertise, carelessness, error, experimentation, gamble, stupidity or downright recklessness. They lay the blame simply, squarely - and fairly - on the person who causes the collision (in this case with enough force to break the poor woman's leg).
They're a simple reminder that learning to control the equipment all day, every day, is the name of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I'm waiting for someone to explain how you distinguish a 'negligent ski collision' from a 'non-negligent ski collision'.
|
 a very large and expensive number of lawyers and judges could - and do - spend a lot of time debating that in any particular case. Absolutely no different from any other personal injury case, in a host of settings, in a host of sports.
So you might be waiting a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| a very large and expensive number of lawyers and judges could - and do - spend a lot of time debating that in any particular case. Absolutely no different from any other personal injury case, in a host of settings, in a host of sports. |
Well, no ... in sane jurisdictions that's exactly what doesn't happen ... as with the rules of the road. If you hit a vehicle from behind you're responsible. No one's interested if the person in front wilfully slammed on their brakes (as happened to me with a white van and my car was written off). You (or rather me, in that case) didn't allow enough braking distance.
Likewise with skiing in Europe, where the FIS rules are compelling evidence to courts of law. If you collide with someone ahead of you on the piste, you are responsible - unless they set off from stationary into your path without looking up. It is that simple.
You have been warned.*
* I was an expert witness in skiing for ten years and gave evidence in a number of these cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
They lay the blame simply, squarely - and fairly - on the person who causes the collision (in this case with enough force to break the poor woman's leg).
|
But who is to say the woman didn't set off from stationary while the boy was descending? Or some other failure to regard and act considerately 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
you are responsible - unless they set off from stationary into your path without looking up. It is that simple.
* I was an expert witness in skiing for ten years and gave evidence in a number of these cases. |
As a former expert witness you surely appreciate it isn't that simple.
You've said "without looking up", say I look up and then make the choice regardless to progress into someone's path or am a very bad judge of speed or trajectory?
What if I'm so incompetent I can't possibly "behave in such a way that I do not endanger or prejudice others" by falling over every 10 yards on a very busy piste?
How does "a skier or snowboarder must move in control" reconcile with the overtaking rule that allows for the downhill party to make involuntary movements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Lawd save us from experts ... I wonder what it takes to become an accredited "expert witness" on skiing? Bell and Alcott standard skiing? 3000 hrs plus indentures? FIS, FIA, DSC and time in the bar? Even more worrying how do you 'lose' that status ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably "expert witnesses" are paid for their "expertise"? I suppose one wouldn't want to shell out for that "expertise" if their opinion cast doubt on the paying client's case. So do "experts" have a dossier on their success to failure ratio?
A bit of a side bar I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Agenterre, I think pretty much anyone can call themselves an expert, but they can also be cross examined on their expert status so risk looking an idiot if their credentials don't stack up
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
"was"
"ex-pert"
says it all. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agenterre, I got out of ski litigation because of no-win-no-fee which makes the law more accessible to claimants ('plaintiffs' in old language), but this has adversely affected the independence of experts because the lawyers put pressure on the experts to bias their reports. There's so much of this crap that one can put up with!
I enjoyed doing the work, it paid well, and being cross-examined in a witness box is a fascinating experience.
Accreditation is certainly based on someone's CV, but ultimately the judges (since we're almost exclusively dealing with civil litigation here, rather than juries) will be able to spot a genuine expert from five miles away. It's someone who knows how to gather all the relevant facts concerning an accident and give a credible opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
DB, you must be something of an expert on social media, with a unique Austrian perspective. Check out how many people are suing because of nastiness on Twitter, abuse zones, ski club chat forums etc. This could be a serious money-making opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I'm struggling to think of a collision while skiing where at least 1 party isn't to blame. I know when I go skiing that I may get hit by a totally out of control skier but that doesn't absolve that person from responsibility. Push your limits by all means but accept the consequences of your actions! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If I made a mistake and took someone out on a slope and they weren't in any obvious peril, I seriously doubt if I would have the scruples to stick around. That may make me a VERY bad person but if I thought I could get away with it, then I think the temptation would be too much to leg it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
davidhammy, I skied over someone from behind last season. I then stopped and swore at them a fair bit. Does this make me a bad person?
Answer - No because they'd set off from standing not only without looking but also screened from my sight by their muppet girlfriend also doing the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| PsychoBabble wrote: |
| I'm struggling to think of a collision while skiing where at least 1 party isn't to blame. I know when I go skiing that I may get hit by a totally out of control skier but that doesn't absolve that person from responsibility. Push your limits by all means but accept the consequences of your actions! |
2 boarders, one fakie one regular, end up riding parallel to each other (back to back) both turn into the blindspot and colliide - who's in the wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| pam w wrote: |
Of course collisions are an inherent risk. It's quite comforting that judges show commonsense.
Some collisions are the result of criminally negligent behaviour. Most aren't. |
This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| I'm waiting for someone to explain how you distinguish a 'negligent ski collision' from a 'non-negligent ski collision'. |
Binding pre-release, causing some to fall/veer to the side on one ski into someone? Beginner skiing along carefully, but hitting a patch of ice (that was unseen) below a ridge, loosing control and colliding with someone?
Versus idiot straightening a black to try and beat their gps record, inevitably hitting a bump, loosing control and careering into someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Someone skiing well in control, but fast, down a red piste has a sudden heart attack, takes a dive, mows down a row of cherubic 4 year olds listening with rapt attention to their ski instructor.
8 year old in a tuck, and a big helmet, skis into woman standing on the edge of the piste wiping 3 year old's nose, shoves her knees sideways causing serious injury.
(The second example happened).
Beginner boarder, doing his best to get off a chairlift carefully, cannons into group of skiers failing to clear the area promptly, faffing with their poles and arguing about whether to go right or left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PsychoBabble, Two skiers could be skiing parallel to each other but their turns are 180 degrees out of phase, both make a turn slightly larger than the previous one and boom! they're going to collide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a collision in Courchevel once. Going down a fairly wide blue run, with a little hillock in the middle of it. I went to the left of it and turned towards the right after I'd passed it. Another skier on the other side of the piste (I didn't see him until the collision actually occurred) went to the right of the hillock and turned towards the left after he'd passed it. We were both probably going a bit too fast and met in the middle. I think we were both somewhat at fault, rather than neither of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Guy standing still having a natter at entrance to lift maze thinks rules no longer apply and he doesn't need to watch out for approaching traffic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
