Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Victim of 'hit and run' ski collision awarded $76,000 damages

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
A teacher from Vancouver in Canada who was struck by another skier who never stopped - resulting in significant damage and lack of function to her knee - has been awarded $76,000 in court.

Patricia Milsom, a physical education teacher aged 50 at the time, was struck by Holger Verron while making her way to a ski lift at Sun Peaks resort. The ski patrol managed to stop Verron after the collision. He did not appear in court and Milsom believes that he may have left Canada.

This report from The Vancouver Sun.

Any comments on this case?
snow conditions
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I think it seems quite fair, the judge concerned has awarded damages primarily based on the costs incured by the injured teacher, the accident occured in a marked slow zone and the skier who caused the accident carried on skiing. As the teacher says, she'd have been less inclined to take legal action if the guy hadn't skied off
snow report
 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?
$76000 is not a big heap of money. Certainly not by the standards of damages awarded in North America.

How about an eye for an eye ?

Chain your man up and let the teacher or a proxy have one good swipe at him with a baseball bat.
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Latchigo wrote:
$76000 is not a big heap of money...



If you have some such a "small" sum and don't know what to do whith it, please send it over to me!!!!! snowHead
ski holidays
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
"Milsom says she might not have been inclined to sue if Verron had showed some remorse or concern for her."
What a stunning statement of ignorance about the purpose of PI law. The law doesn't care whether you personally are "inclined" to claim. If you have the basis for a personal injury claim (i.e. evidence of an injury) and on the available evidence you have a reasonable prospect of sucess in proving the defendant caused your injury, then you can make a claim. End of.

I also don't like the idea that PI claims are about punishing the defendant - they're not, they're about putting the plaintiff back into the position they would have been but for their injury.

The article's not exactly clear about the exact nature and extent of her injuries, and for how long they laid her up, which makes it difficult to evaluate whether the general damages she received were fair. But (taking into account currency exchanges), the special damages seem within reason bearing in mind she is a PE teacher and has a demonstrably active lifestyle.

But broadly speaking personal injury claims are a means of obtaining compensation for the loss resulting from the injury through the defendant's negligence. Where a defendant is proved liable, or willingly accepts liability, for your injury, then its reasonable to expect that defendant to put you back into the position you should have been but for the injury they were liable for causing. To that extent defendants should stump up for your reasonable medical fees and medical equipment you might need, for your reasonable rehab fees (e.g. housecleaner), and for your loss of earnings if the injury results in an inability to do your job while you're recouperating.

So I myself not happy about compo for "for pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life". Firstly, life is dangerous and involves pain and suffering, get over it. Secondly, it's very much up to the individual as to how much they allow an injury to interfere with their enjoyment of life. So how the hell do you fiscally quantify something like a feeling???

But the law allows it, so I'm outvoted by a plethora of judges and MPs. Sigh.

"He found that while the surgery had produced "some considerable measure of recovery," she lacks the confidence in the function of her knee to return to her previous level of exertion." So she's failing to rehab herself as quickly as she could do - which is a drain on the defendant's purse strings. Not fair.

Also "But after weeks of massage, Milsom grew impatient with what she regarded as a slow recovery, and got a second opinion from a private clinic, where surgery was recommended. She returned to her specialist, who agreed to perform an operation to repair the damage." So she added to the cost of her recovery despite medical opinion that the injury would heal, if a bit slowly. It's not clear, but it looks like the court made the defendant pay for it!!! Bluddy 'ell. Wish I had a tame judge willing to make so free with special damages....

What we don't know is whether Milsom contributed to her misfortune by being a particularly poor skiier (e.g. a learner who had refused lessons). Makes you wonder Shocked
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Manda wrote:
"Milsom says she might not have been inclined to sue if Verron had showed some remorse or concern for her."
What a stunning statement of ignorance about the purpose of PI law. The law doesn't care whether you personally are "inclined" to claim. If you have the basis for a personal injury claim (i.e. evidence of an injury) and on the available evidence you have a reasonable prospect of sucess in proving the defendant caused your injury, then you can make a claim. End of.


Surely this is her opinion, that she is entitled to?
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Manda,
With due respect I don't think that on the basis of the article many of your statements are valid.

She appears to have sought damages when the other skier was negligent which she was legally in the right to do . The fact that she may have chosen to bear the financial loss herself if an apology was forthcoming does not lessen her right or understanding of the law to do so when no apology is given.

She was entirely entitled to a second medical opinion if she thought it may improve her outcome and if the negligence lies with the other skier it is up to them to support the optimal means of recovery not the slowest possible that allows her to walk.

When you are proceding slowly in an area marked for slow skiing it is the duty of the presumably uphill skier to keep out of your way whatever your experience even if you are proceding to meet your instructor for your first ever lesson. Ther isa no description of the accident but she presumably did not leap straight infront of him. I have to say from the article my sympathies lie with the complainant.
snow report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
i would like to point out that the right of way for want of a better expression is with the down hill skiier regardless of the slop. you have just as much right to stand in the middle of a black as a blue. the only logical exceptions would be on a 'stade' or if the down hill skiier was moving off. also this being cannada surely her medical insurance company would have paid for the treatment and thus it is them that should have got back the value of the treatment. any other monies would logically have been for distress caused. also if the other skier had taken insurance a manditory part of most us ski tickets (or holiday insurance) it is they that would have had to fork out for the damages. which might explain why they did not bother to turn up to court.
ski holidays
 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.
Manda wrote:
"Milsom says she might not have been inclined to sue if Verron had showed some remorse or concern for her."
What a stunning statement of ignorance about the purpose of PI law. The law doesn't care whether you personally are "inclined" to claim. If you have the basis for a personal injury claim (i.e. evidence of an injury) and on the available evidence you have a reasonable prospect of sucess in proving the defendant caused your injury, then you can make a claim. End of.


Oh dear... the whole point of civil actions is that it is down to the "wronged" person to decide whether to bring an action or not.
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Arno, Oh really?
snow conditions
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
David@traxvax, yes - i am not aware of any law that says that if you have suffered a civil wrong you are obliged to sue the person responsible. nor will the state take up the action on your behalf as you might say it does in criminal cases
snow report



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy