Resort Firm Faces Second Lawsuit Over Ski Accidents

March 13, 2012

  • March 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm
    reality bites says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    “Officials for the resort company deny any responsibility. The young woman, Andrea Ramos, was on her day off skiing on personal time and did not actually work for Heavenly, they said.”

    Well, if she didn’t work for Heavenly, how the heck would they know if she was on her day off?? Or is this just a bad excerpted statement which should have finished “…and did not actually work for Heavenly as an instructor”.

    The mountain should have NO responsibility here – if she wasn’t acting in a capacity as a professional, then her activity was no different than any other skiier or rider that day. Personal time is still personal time.

    As for being “trained”, the mountain isn’t about to teach all the lifties and foodies how to ski or ride. At our place, while the Internationals are given free passes and food vouchers, they’re not taught how to ski or ride. Just like they’re not taught how to train a water buffalo to dance backwards. Which in some cases is much easier.

    I imagine it was much easier for the injured parties to grab the offenders and blame the hill. Had it been a guest from the Transylvanian Alps, would they have chased the offenders overseas?

    Totally ridiculous waste of defense dollars.

  • March 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 9

    Aren’t ALL skiers supposed to be aware of their surroundings? If both parties are moving at the time of the accident, aren’t they BOTH at fault? After all, Elly was moving, too. Also, perhaps Elly is too old to ski, or at least perform competently on the mountain? There is no way a 50+ year old can claim to have the physical capabilities to ski with a younger person, who obviously has better (or at least, less debilitated) coordination and reaction time. What will likely come of this is the resort cutting off access to old people, as this proves they cannot reaonably perform up to standards on a mountain. Perhaps there should be a performance test for each person over age 50? That way incompetent parties are kept off the mountain and out of harm’s way.

  • March 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    Patrick Pawlowski says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Mike. N. needs to grow up!

    I am 54 and an expert skier. Your argument is obnoxious.

    The arguments are generally; since the operator recognized a controllable hazard (they had patrol employees slowing skiers and boarders) did they perform adequately in attempting to manage that hazard, and, do they have any extra duty to manage the actions of off duty employees. The issue of not requiring liability insurance of expat employees is not supportable unles there is a specific law requiring it.

    From a claims liability evaluation point, having two parties moving at the same time does not establish liability on either party. Only specific actions proximate to cause establish liability unless there is an established legal requirement on one or the other than it not met. Saying she was sorry after the event also does not establish liability.

    I expect the employee issue will be irrelevant but the issue of the quality and duty of the patrol employee may be worth looking at.

  • March 14, 2012 at 8:32 am
    Brenan Hudgens says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    The statement of “in effect, Heavenly itself crashed into Elly” is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard! So if I work for McDonald’s and crash in to you, then McDonald’s is liable? People just want their money and will sue over anything these days. It’s sad when you can’t even ski without being worried about a lawsuit.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features